Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion featured four International Labour Organization (ILO) representatives presenting their work on artificial intelligence and skills development in the context of the world of work. Juan Ivan Martin Lataix opened by highlighting the persistent global digital divide, with 2.6 billion people still lacking internet access, which creates fundamental challenges for digital skills training. He emphasized that while technology adoption happens rapidly—citing ChatGPT’s quick reach of 100 million users—the speed of technological change far outpaces the ability to retrain workers, with UNESCO estimating that 9 out of 10 jobs will need reskilling by 2030.

The ILO’s research suggests that rather than causing mass job displacement, AI will primarily augment workers, particularly in managerial roles, while automation will mainly affect clerical positions, disproportionately impacting women. Manal Azzi discussed occupational safety and health implications, noting that while AI technologies like robotics and smart monitoring systems can remove workers from hazardous situations and predict workplace risks, they also introduce new concerns around human-robot interaction, privacy, and over-reliance on automated systems. She stressed the importance of considering the entire AI supply chain, including data annotators, content moderators, and electronic waste workers who face their own safety challenges.

Sher Verick presented findings from the ILO’s AI Observatory, indicating that while one in four jobs globally may be exposed to AI, only 3.3% face automation risk, with the impact concentrated in high-income countries and knowledge work sectors. Tom Wambeke from the ITC-ILO emphasized the need to move beyond simply digitizing existing processes to fundamentally transforming learning and training approaches. The discussion concluded with audience questions about AI’s role in diplomacy, universal basic income, regulation challenges, and youth unemployment in developing countries, with presenters advocating for human-centered approaches to AI adoption and comprehensive social protection systems.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Skills and the Global Digital Divide**: The discussion highlighted that 2.6 billion people still lack internet access, creating a massive challenge for digital skills development. The ILO advocates for three levels of digital skills: basic literacy for all, intermediate skills for specific industries, and advanced STEM skills for specialized roles.

– **AI’s Impact on Jobs – Augmentation vs. Automation**: Research shows that while AI will affect many jobs, most impacts will involve augmentation (workers using AI to do jobs better) rather than complete automation. Only 3.3% of global employment faces automation risk, though this still represents 130 million jobs worldwide, with women and clerical workers disproportionately affected.

– **Workplace Safety and Health in the AI Era**: AI and automation technologies offer significant benefits for worker safety by removing humans from hazardous environments and enabling predictive risk management. However, they also introduce new risks including human-robot interaction dangers, privacy concerns from monitoring systems, and the dehumanization of work through algorithmic management.

– **Institutional Capacity Building and AI Literacy**: Beyond individual training, there’s a critical need for institutional transformation in how organizations adopt AI. This includes debunking AI myths, asking better questions about implementation, and viewing AI as part of a broader technological ecosystem rather than an isolated solution.

– **Regulatory Challenges and the Future of Work**: The ILO is working on new international standards for platform economy work and addressing concerns about algorithmic management, bias in AI systems, and the need for human-centered approaches to technology adoption in the workplace.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present the International Labour Organization’s comprehensive approach to AI and skills development, covering research findings, policy recommendations, and practical implementation strategies for managing AI’s impact on the world of work while promoting decent work standards globally.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional and informative, with speakers presenting evidence-based research while acknowledging both opportunities and challenges. The discussion maintained a balanced, cautiously optimistic perspective throughout – neither dismissing AI’s transformative potential nor succumbing to apocalyptic predictions about job displacement. The interactive Q&A session at the end introduced more practical concerns from the audience, but the overall tone remained constructive and solution-oriented.

Speakers

– **Juan Ivan Martin Lataix**: Works on digital skills at the International Labor Organization (ILO)

– **Manal Azzi**: Works at the International Labor Organization (ILO) in the occupational safety and health branch, focusing on protection of workers from exposure to hazards

– **Sher Verick**: Advisor to the Deputy Director General of the ILO, speaks about the ILO’s AI Observatory that conducts research on AI in the world of work

– **Tom Wambeke**: Chief Innovation Officer at the ITC-ILO (International Training Centre of the ILO), leads the learning innovation lab in Turin

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members who asked questions during the session, including:

– Melissa from CDBTO in Vienna (part of UN system)

– Representative from One Goal initiative for governance

– Someone asking about youth unemployment in developing countries

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

# Comprehensive Discussion Report: AI and the Future of Work – International Labour Organization Perspectives

## Executive Summary

This discussion featured four representatives from the International Labour Organization (ILO) presenting comprehensive research and policy perspectives on artificial intelligence’s impact on the world of work. The session addressed critical challenges including the persistent global digital divide, AI’s transformative rather than replacement effects on employment, workplace safety implications, and the need for fundamental transformation in learning and training approaches. The speakers presented complementary perspectives while acknowledging the massive scale of workforce transformation required, with UNESCO estimating that 9 out of 10 jobs will need reskilling by 2030.

## Opening Context: The Scale of the Digital Challenge

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix, working on digital skills at the ILO, opened the discussion by establishing the fundamental context of global digital inequality. He highlighted that 2.6 billion people worldwide still lack internet access, with India alone having 900 million people in rural areas without Internet access. This digital divide represents a critical challenge as technology adoption accelerates rapidly—ChatGPT reached 100 million users in just a couple of months—whilst the capacity for retraining workers lags significantly behind.

Lataix noted the complexity of measuring digital access, pointing out challenges with double-counting in phone and SIM card statistics due to multiple devices per person. He also referenced discussions with colleagues from Microsoft and Google about the intense competition for AI talent, illustrating the uneven distribution of AI expertise.

The magnitude of the skills challenge is substantial. According to UNESCO research cited by Lataix, 9 out of 10 jobs will require reskilling by 2030, affecting billions of people globally. This statistic reframes the AI discussion from a technical implementation issue to a massive human development challenge requiring coordinated response.

## AI’s Impact on Employment: Augmentation Over Automation

Sher Verick, advisor to the ILO’s Deputy Director General and representative of the AI Observatory, presented research findings published in late 2023 and May that challenge common narratives about AI-driven job displacement. The ILO’s analysis indicates that whilst one in four jobs globally may be exposed to AI, only 3.3% face genuine automation risk. This represents approximately 130 million jobs worldwide—a significant number, but far from the “job apocalypse” often predicted.

The research reveals that AI’s primary impact will be augmentation rather than replacement, particularly affecting managerial roles where AI can enhance decision-making capabilities. However, the impact is not evenly distributed. Clerical positions face higher automation risk, and there is a correlation between these roles and women workers, creating particular challenges for female employment. Additionally, the effects are concentrated in high-income countries and knowledge work sectors, creating uneven global impacts.

Verick emphasised that the benefits of AI adoption are similarly unequal, with the global north positioned to capture more advantages whilst the global south faces different challenges. This geographical disparity in both risks and benefits represents a critical policy consideration for international organisations.

## Workplace Safety and Health: Opportunities and New Risks

Manal Azzi, representing the ILO’s occupational safety and health branch, provided a nuanced analysis of AI’s implications for worker protection. She highlighted significant opportunities for improving workplace safety through AI and robotics technologies, which can remove workers from hazardous environments and enable predictive risk management. Smart monitoring systems can anticipate workplace dangers before they materialise, potentially preventing injuries and fatalities.

However, Azzi also identified emerging risks that require careful consideration. Human-robot interaction introduces new safety challenges, whilst algorithmic management systems raise concerns about worker autonomy and the dehumanisation of work processes. She provided a stark example of algorithmic management’s potential for dehumanisation: an Uber driver being fired while in an ambulance, illustrating how automated systems can lack human judgement and compassion.

Privacy concerns arise as AI systems collect extensive personal and professional data, and there are risks of over-reliance on automated systems that may fail or make errors. Azzi referenced the ILO’s Violence Harassment Convention as part of the broader framework for worker protection in the digital age.

Crucially, Azzi expanded the discussion beyond end-users to consider the entire AI supply chain. She noted that workers throughout this chain face their own safety and health challenges, including miners extracting critical minerals, factory workers assembling technology, data annotators processing content, content moderators exposed to harmful material, and electronic waste workers handling toxic substances. This comprehensive view reveals the human costs throughout the AI production process.

## Transforming Learning and Training Approaches

Tom Wambeke, Chief Innovation Officer at the International Training Centre of the ILO in Turin, brought a critical perspective to current AI adoption in educational settings. Having attended an “AI Skills Coalition” session earlier, he argued that much of what passes for AI innovation in training represents “old stuff in new jackets”—superficial digitisation of existing processes rather than genuine transformation. He specifically criticised current applications like “automated grading” and “AI chatbots” as examples of this superficial approach.

Wambeke noted that colleagues often immediately ask for chatbots without proper reflection on whether this represents meaningful innovation. He referenced Stephen Hawking’s definition and proposed redefining intelligence as “the ability to adapt to change,” suggesting this should also define effective learning. He warned using an organizational change management principle that when the rate of change outside an organisation exceeds the rate of change inside, “the end is near.”

Rather than using AI to provide ready answers, Wambeke advocated for using AI to ask better questions. He emphasised that effective teaching involves “the art of assisting discovery” rather than information transmission, highlighting irreplaceable human skills in educational processes. He used a specific example from Belgium/Antwerp with a building sign to illustrate his points about learning and discovery.

Wambeke warned that the biggest risk of AI is automating ineffective practices, noting that “feeding an AI the entire internet does not make you a teacher.” He also referenced “Sophia,” the humanoid robot from Saudi Arabia, as part of his discussion about the limitations of current AI applications.

## Skills Development Framework and Implementation Challenges

Lataix outlined a three-tier framework for digital skills development that addresses different levels of need across the workforce. The first tier involves basic digital literacy for all workers, enabling fundamental interaction with digital systems. The second tier focuses on intermediate skills tailored to specific industries and roles. The third tier encompasses advanced STEM skills for specialised positions requiring deep technical expertise.

However, implementing this framework faces significant challenges. Training institutions struggle with the speed of curriculum development, which typically takes years whilst technology evolves in months. The gap between technological advancement and educational adaptation creates ongoing difficulties in maintaining relevant skills training programmes. Lataix emphasised that training institutions themselves need digital transformation to effectively deliver these programmes.

Furthermore, Lataix highlighted that AI models contain inherent bias due to training data predominantly sourced from the global north and historical records dating back centuries. This bias affects AI system outputs and recommendations, potentially perpetuating existing inequalities and limiting effectiveness in diverse global contexts.

## Regulatory and Governance Responses

The ILO is actively developing new international standards to address AI-related workplace challenges. Azzi reported that the organisation is working on labour standards for the platform economy, with constituent discussions ongoing and a final draft scheduled for discussion in June 2026. These standards will address algorithmic management, worker classification, and protection measures for platform workers.

The AI Observatory, part of the ILO’s research department, continues research on critical areas including algorithmic management practices, digital labour platforms, data governance frameworks, and AI-enabled skills matching systems. This research informs policy development and provides evidence-based guidance for member states and social partners.

However, significant regulatory challenges remain unresolved. Balancing innovation with worker protection, addressing AI model bias, managing privacy concerns, and ensuring quality in partially automated systems all require ongoing attention and international cooperation.

## Audience Engagement and Practical Applications

The discussion, which included both in-person and online participants, concluded with extensive audience participation revealing practical concerns about AI implementation across various sectors. Melissa from the CDBTO (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization) in Vienna inquired about AI’s role in diplomacy, particularly its potential for pattern recognition in speeches and anticipating delegate questions. The speakers acknowledged AI’s capabilities in these areas whilst emphasising the continued importance of human judgement in diplomatic processes.

Questions about Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a response to AI-driven job displacement, including specific questions about UBI management, prompted discussion of alternative approaches. Verick advocated for universal social protection systems rather than UBI, arguing for comprehensive safety nets that address various forms of economic insecurity rather than focusing solely on income replacement.

A particularly significant question addressed youth unemployment in developing countries, where rates can reach around 40%. The speakers acknowledged that AI alone cannot solve these structural economic challenges, emphasising the need for broader economic policies and development strategies that create employment opportunities for young people.

## Different Perspectives and Approaches

The speakers presented complementary but distinct perspectives reflecting their different areas of expertise. Wambeke’s critique of current AI adoption as superficial contrasted with Lataix’s more structured, tiered approach to digital skills development. While both recognised the need for transformation, they differed on implementation strategies and the pace of change.

Azzi’s focus on practical safety applications and comprehensive supply chain considerations provided a different lens from Wambeke’s emphasis on AI’s potential for transformative learning and questioning. These differences reflect the complexity of AI implementation across different domains while maintaining shared commitment to worker-centred approaches.

Verick’s research-based perspective on employment impacts offered empirical grounding to complement the more operational and policy-focused presentations from his colleagues.

## Unresolved Challenges and Future Directions

Several critical issues remain unresolved and require ongoing attention. The fundamental challenge of AI model bias persists, particularly when training data from diverse regions remains limited or non-digitised. Balancing the speed of technological change with the time needed for quality skills development and institutional adaptation continues to challenge policymakers and practitioners.

Questions about maintaining human agency in increasingly automated workplaces, ensuring quality in AI-enhanced educational systems, and addressing the global inequality in AI benefits and risks all require sustained international cooperation and innovative policy solutions.

## Implications for International Labour Policy

This discussion reveals the ILO’s comprehensive approach to AI governance, combining research, standard-setting, and capacity-building activities. The organisation’s focus on human-centred AI development, attention to supply chain impacts, and commitment to addressing global inequalities positions it as a crucial actor in shaping the future of work in the AI era.

The speakers’ emphasis on transformation over replacement, augmentation over automation, and adaptation over resistance provides a balanced framework for approaching AI adoption in workplace contexts. Their recognition of both opportunities and risks, combined with practical policy recommendations, offers valuable guidance for member states and social partners navigating AI implementation.

The discussion demonstrates that whilst AI presents significant challenges for the world of work, thoughtful policy responses, comprehensive skills development, and sustained commitment to human dignity can help ensure that technological advancement serves human flourishing. The ILO’s multifaceted approach, including resources available at their conference stand, provides a model for international cooperation in addressing one of the defining challenges of the 21st century.

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: There are people online too. It’s open. We are conducting this session among the many others that are concurring at the same time. Can I ask how many of you were in the sessions this morning with ITU and ILO? Okay, some of you. Okay, right, right. Okay, so this session is about the ILO, so the International Labor Organization, and what are we doing surrounding AI and skills, right? So we have four colleagues here today. Myself, Juan Martín, I will talk about digital skills. We have Manal Azzi that will talk about OSH and the latest report they just have published. Then we’ll have Sher Verick, he’s an advisor to our DDG, and he will be talking about the AI Observatory that is doing research in the world of work around AI. And last but not least, we’ll have Tom Wambeke, that is the Chief Innovation Officer at the ITC-ILO. We would like to make it as dynamic as we can. This is a small gathering, so I think it’s good. So we’ll start with the presentations. We have like 15 minutes per presentation, but at the end of each one of them, you can shoot some questions. At the end, if you want to add questions to any of us, we’ll be happy to take them. All right, so first of all, in this event, you’ve probably heard a lot of data and a lot of numbers. So I took some from ITU from end of last year. There is still a very big digital divide in the world, right? And this is a very important starting point for us because when it comes to skilling people and skilling them digitally, they need to have access, right? So I think this number is enhancing. There is more and more people having a global Internet, but still there is 2.6 billion people without access. In the previous session, we had a speaker from India saying that in India, there is 900 million in the rural areas of people without Internet access. And he said this is more than all the population of Europe and the U.S. together. So, you know, we always kind of forget about the dimensions of this. Similarly, with phone numbers of phone devices, this is enhancing, but still it’s far. And also there is a lot of double counting because, you know, in many parts of the world, people don’t have one phone, but they have two or a connected watch or whatever. So the SIM cards are sometimes more than one per person in some countries. Therefore, this number is very slow. And last but not least, the speed. The speed dimension is also a big challenge for us in skills because it takes time to train people, to upskill them or re-skill them. But technology goes so fast that it’s very difficult to catch up. So one of the examples is chat GPT adoption that in just a couple of months reached 100 million users and now many more, right? So this is something that we try to keep in mind when it goes about upskilling people around the world. The UNESCO did a report end of 2023 saying that out of 10 jobs, 9 will need to be re-skilled by 2030. This is billions of people. So the size of these challenges is enormous. We work with governments and we work with training institutions around the world and they’re trying to see how they can cope with this very fast speed of change and how they can have their populations. And also in all those presentations, should we have digital literacy for all? Or should we do more the STEM? Should we take care of minorities? What happens with elderly people, with women, with people? So it is very difficult to really tackle this challenge. This is from a report the ILO published also last year, well, end of 2023. That was very interesting because it was looking at what is the impact of AI in jobs. And they really looked into all the ranges of jobs during ISCO, right? So it’s really the taxonomy that ranges all the jobs that there are. And the finding was pretty positive that a lot of people will be impacted by AI but most of the impacts will be people being augmented. Augmented meaning that we will upskill to use AI to do our jobs better or differently. And this is mostly managerial jobs. But on the other hand, there will be a lot of people that will see their jobs disappearing. And you have a full list of jobs here but mostly it’s clerical jobs. So people doing data entry, people doing things that are prone to automation of sorts. And that raised a number of concerns because typically there is a correlation between these type of jobs and women. So therefore AI will come as an imbalance, having even more women, let’s say, losing jobs or not having a proper job due to the adoption of this technology. The other finding is that AI alone is impacting mostly the global north. And it’s impacting mostly knowledge works. People that are kind of more in the white collar kind of jobs. Whereas the global south and blue collar are not that impacted. At least with AI in isolation. If you combine it with robotics and other things then maybe the picture is different. So areas of concern that we looked from the world of work. First, bias and discrimination. So there is a big concern that a lot of the models that are being used today have been trained with the data available. The data available is mostly emanating from the global north, from the white man pen. And it’s emanating since the 600s when Gutenberg invented the press. So this is the data that is being used to train the models. It’s very difficult to have a model that is being trained with the data of specific regions or countries. The data is not there or it’s not digitalized. So it is a big challenge and it will take a lot of time and a lot of millions of years to build models that are not biased. So today most of the models that are used around the world are fairly biased and they are dominated by a few companies from the global north. There is a risk of unfair treatment based on these characteristics, of course. And then this could have systemic problems in the world of work. So we are working on the platform economy. There is an ongoing exercise with our constituents to create a standard. And there is a lot of concern about using algorithmic management so that the computers are making decisions on behalf of companies or people and that this could also lead to biases and problems. So we believe this needs to be regulated to a certain extent. Secondly, privacy and data. So these things are consuming data. And all of us, we use it daily. A lot of people say, no, I use ChatGPT daily. Great. But at the same time, at some point, ChatGPT knows much more about you than your family. Because not only do you use it for private things, but for personal and corporate things. So you start thinking, oh, I have a daughter that has this age, that has this problem, what do you think I should do? People use it for all kinds of things. And sometimes maybe not very consciously knowing that they are exposing to private companies a lot of personal information. So it’s great. Maybe the answer is very accurate. Maybe it kind of connects the dots that you asked me something similar six months ago. But at the end of the day, we’re exposing a lot of private data. And we believe, again, this will require some regulation. And then, yes, lack of human touch. So we all have seen all the issues, again, with the platform economy, the Uber driver that had an accident, and while he was going to the hospital in the ambulance, he was fired because he didn’t deliver the pizza on time. So how dehumanizing is this? We’re going towards models that are just driven by algorithms, driven by productivity, and driven by numbers, and not driven by what makes us human. And I think this is another area of big concern for us. So very quickly, for us, we are advocating towards having digital skills at different levels across the world. The more basic ones, anyone should have them. So this is agnostic of what type of job you do and what type of industry you’re in. Everybody should have this basic literacy, know how to browse the Internet, to send an email, etc. So we believe that this should happen. A lot of governments around the world are doing big campaigns so that this happens. Then there is a second level, more intermediate digital skills. And this, we’re seeing that more and more industries are asking for this. So not only do they want you to send emails, but they would like you to be able to use it to do some digital marketing, or to use some more social media. So this is something that we’re seeing in certain industries is being asked more and more. And then the third part, which is more the advanced digital skills. So this is the STEM part of things. We’re here. There is a lot of competition. We had a conversation with our colleagues from Microsoft and Google, etc., that are here. They are paying more and more to data scientists, to experts in artificial intelligence. So the tip of the pyramid is just incredible how this is going. But there is a big lack of sufficient persons that are trained to that level. So it is a very big issue at the three levels today to tackle. And just for you to know, when we work with training institutions and when we work with governments, what are the biggest challenges? So for training institutions, the speed, right? So every time we talk to them, say, yeah, it took us three years to put together this new program, and now that it’s in the market, it’s too late because it’s already old. So speed is of the essence, and it’s a big challenge. Secondly, the demand. So it’s both sides. So they work with the private sector, and the private sector is the one demanding and giving feedback. Say, we received your last cohort of students that are great in this, but they are not great on that. So you should have. So that also is adding to the complexity and having the things in the market on time. Then themselves, they are undergoing digital transformation. So not only they are skilling people in digital skills, but themselves, they need to go through the digital transformation. So how do they invest in AI, VR, 3D printing, whatever it is, so that they can train more people? And this is very important, because if you continue training people on a face-to-face instructor-led kind of fashion offline, there is so much you can do. You will never be able to upskill and reskill the millions of people that we saw before. The only way is through technology, where people with their mobile, while they are commuting, they can do bite-sized training in five minutes, get something. And that will require a digital transformation. And then, well, apprenticeships is an area very interesting for the ILO, where we are pushing for changes also in regulations. And then for governments. So governments need to make sure that they regulate in an equanimous manner, so that people have a fair chance at all levels of the society. They need to promote lifelong learning. So this is not about creating people that have a certain skill, and then they have it for life. You need to continue maintaining and re-educating yourself as you go. Developing the relevant digital skills. So sometimes the governments don’t necessarily have a long-term strategy. So that is linked to their skill strategy. So it is important to know, how do you see your country in 20 years’ time? How many doctors, lawyers, et cetera, data scientists do you need? So that then you can go for that. And that often we see it is a challenge to really foresee what is coming. Again, the speed. And then the last one, ensuring the quality of learning. This is a big area of concern. Typically, governments don’t have sufficient capacity. So they do RFPs, RFQs, et cetera, and they hire companies. But it’s very difficult for them to kind of make sure that the quality is there. So this is in a nutshell what we’ll do from the ILO skills. With that, I’m going to hand over to my colleague, Manon. Thank you very much.

Manal Azzi: Thank you. Unless there are any pressing questions later. Thank you. Good morning, again. Good afternoon, everyone. So I also work in the International Labor Organization based here in Geneva. We have a branch on occupational safety and health, protection of workers from exposure to hazards. And we work on a variety of issues, of course, at work. Biological risks, chemical risks, psychosocial risks at work, ergonomics, and physical risks. And recently this year, we published our new report on robotics, automation, digitalization, and AI, and how it’s had an impact on the discipline of safety and health. How it’s helped improve some of the very hazardous situations that workers find themselves in. But of course, it doesn’t come with other risks that we can be prone to once we start introducing some of these technologies. What we looked at were five different major areas, if we were to group them. The first one is automation and advanced robotics, which is used a lot in many sectors. What we’ve seen is, and these are not new, of course, I mean, automation has been around for more than decades, the move towards more automated work, the introduction of different machines to do certain tasks. And the use of robotics, it could be robotic arms, complete robotics, half robots. So they’ve been used in a lot of industries. And the positive impact has been that workers have been removed from highly hazardous jobs. And so where we work, for example, in high temperatures, where we’re melting metal, it’s robotic arms that’s doing that. It’s no longer a human exposed to such high temperatures. Even using drones to enter into confined spaces where we need to be, or drones that actually spray pesticide in big agricultural fields instead of exposing workers to these hazardous substances. Also, a lot of the repetitive movements that cause a lot of strain on humans are now being done in operation processes with robots. So we do need to acknowledge that some of these robots and the automation of some of our tasks is allowing workers to move on to more meaningful tasks, to do things that challenge them more, rather than doing monotonous or repetitive tasks. Recently, and if we’re talking from a psychosocial health perspective, it’s been seen that a mix of sort of more mundane tasks and challenging tasks is ideal for people, for their growth and identity at work, and for them to feel that they’re meeting a certain higher objective by going to work rather than just doing something very basic. So we see that for the safety and health of workers. If we look at smart tools and monitoring systems, before we used to know about some hazards in construction, in agriculture, but now we’re able to predict and take quick action when it comes to certain hazards. And that’s by, for example, workers that are able to wear smart wearables. They could be arm wristbands, they could be ear muffles. So many different detectors that actually help detect hazards. For example, in construction, you’ve got workers wearing certain sensor material that can detect the risk to fall from height, which is one of the biggest causes of death globally across many sectors. And so when it detects the fall from height, it could give a sign to the worker to prevent it. And not only that, it’s linked to medical teams that can come on site very quickly, as opposed to previously, phone calls. So it’s connected immediately, and this improves the outcome for survival for a lot of these workers as they’re doing these jobs.

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: And so this idea that it can predict risk based on all of the algorithm systems and all the big data that we can now manage can increase the prospects of living and quality of life for a number of workers across many sectors. And virtual reality, for safety and health mostly, it’s been used to create environments that are very similar to the hazardous environments that they may face. The first thing that comes to mind would be firefighters. Instead of them training in real fires, being exposed to fumes and foams and heat, you can do that through virtual reality. And they can even wear the exact dress code that they need to wear to protect themselves while they’re doing the virtual reality practice. Without being exposed to the dangers that that would mean if they were to be practicing and training in the real environment. So it has helped a lot for the safety and health perspective. The increase used in algorithmic management of work, managing work through algorithms, if we look at the positive side, it has allowed us to make schedules more adapted to the needs of workers and also distribute different workloads evenly or in a more equal manner based on the data that we can get. And this improves, obviously, efficiency and it could also help identify where there’s a gap in certain skills. So it has worked positively in that sense. The last thing we looked at in the report is that thanks to a lot of these introduction of technology and digitalization, we’re able to have different forms of work and different forms of working away from the offices and design and designated workspaces. This has allowed, for example, people with disabilities or people with caregiving responsibilities, whether for elderly or younger, to be able to access the labor market. Otherwise they would not have been able to be part of the labor market. And of course, it reduces a lot of some of the risks from commuting and the time wasted and promotes this kind of inclusion. So there’s a lot of positives to expanding the labor market to include different kinds of work that have been allowed and possible due to the technologies that we’re talking about. But of course, all this does not come without new risks that could be introduced with these technologies that we need to manage, prevent, and also regulate. For automation, of course, when you’re working with robots, the human-robot interaction can be very risky. These are not necessarily reliable all the time. It really depends how we manage them. Also, for example, in the use of exoskeletons, when we’re designing them to protect workers from musculoskeletal disorders and other strains, they have to be designed according to the needs and shape of the worker. So they have to be tailored and personalized. We are having to shift, and when we see a lot of these technologies taking over some of the tasks we’ve done, we do sense that we are losing control of our workspace and our jobs and what we’re actually meant to be doing. So those are some of the risks, and these are physical risks, they’re organizational risks, and they’re psychosocial risks for workers. So it’s not just about the physical risks. And when we rely a lot on these smart tools and devices to detect hazards and sensors and monitor and give us different signs, we also are relying on malfunctions that could occur with these systems. And so we need to be careful of that. We need to make sure that the human being remains at the center of decision-making and not to rely on these short-term aids that we can have, but we still have to use our own sense of judgment when it comes to safety and health and not completely rely on them.

Manal Azzi: And to get all the information we need in these monitoring systems, we obviously may step on various privacy and ethical concerns, and we get access to data maybe that’s more than we need for safety and health concerns. And that’s one of the biggest problems, that the confidentiality and workers that feel that they don’t know what data are being gathered about them, and sometimes it starts off by being to protect your safety and health and ends up being just too much data that is not necessary to be shared. For virtual reality, of course, it’s not the most comfortable. I don’t know if you’ve tried wearing the – Tom’s not going to like it because our Turin Center, a lot of our trainings now are happening through these virtual systems and goggles that you wear where you’re really not really aware of the space you’re in, and it could create more physical hazards and dangers and loss of balance, et cetera. So it’s something you need to get used to. You need to only use for a certain point of time. But, yeah, so it has its own challenges to work with virtual reality and rely on that. For algorithmic management, obviously, like the example, Ivan, you know, you just mentioned, is that we’re dealing with systems and we’re no longer dealing with people, and so there isn’t that flexibility to understand what’s behind the number or the digit that you’re receiving that can advise you on scheduling preferences, et cetera, but it may not take into account other nuances that we would only understand if we know the person and the human being. But, of course, another positive part, like I said earlier, is we are relieving workers from some tedious tasks, like even when we’re talking about the healthcare sector, and if we are able – robots are able to take vital signs and do some of the basic diagnostic testing for COVID or other, then the healthcare workers can give more time to understand and talk more meaningfully to the patient or understand other issues. So they just need to be used smartly, obviously, and they can be used to our advantage. The last one about changing work arrangements, of course, it brings the positives that we discussed, but it also blurs the line between what is work and what is our life and personal and private life. When do we start work? When do we stop work? Do we have the safety and health organization and set up and the ergonomic and environmental set up wherever we decide to work in different workspaces? There’s less control from, let’s say, an employer or the safety and health experts on where we are working and what we are doing, what we’re exposed to, not to mention cyberbullying, the increased reliance on Internet and access and pushing everyone to be fully connected. We are increasing and exposing ourselves to even more different types of harassment and cyberbullying online. These are just a few key points. Of course, the report goes through a lot of details of what that means. Another thing I always like to mention, and sometimes it’s forgotten. So when we’re talking about this whole chain, the digitalization chain, of course, there are persons that are powering, the people powering AI have their own safety and health concerns. So we’re talking about data annotators, those people that actually prepare the data for the AI models that we rely on. They perform very repetitive tasks. They’re sometimes exposed to toxic material, invasive material over long periods of time, and they’re not protected or provided with psychosocial support that is necessary. Same with content moderators that actually analyze huge amounts of data, machine learning engineers that actually develop the AI systems using these large databases that are very complex and require the management of complex volumes of data, not to mention the big data analysts that actually use AI and machine learning to actually extract summaries and insights to advise our policymaking and other areas. So these are the people powering AI that have their own safety and health concerns. The other workers along the chain are those miners excavating critical minerals to allow us to use some of our computers and other tools. So you have miners, what you need is cobalt, lithium, and copper. And some of these workers are working in very dangerous conditions, sometimes not having the right protections in their countries. And factory workers that actually assemble all this technology, and in the end you’ve got the electronic waste, the business of electronic waste, where most of the time it’s in the informal economy, it is not regulated in any sense, and people are exposed to all the chemical substances that are oozing out of these electronics that are thrown in huge, not even landfills, like huge areas, and they’re exposed to mercury and so many different other substances as they’re dealing with what’s left from these digital equipment and technologies. So it’s important to consider the whole supply chain. Here are just the final parts. I just want to emphasize some of the responses that already exist, including international standards, where we do recognize the necessity of employers to ensure that all equipment is safe for use of workers. We also need to make sure that when something’s introduced in our workplace, workers are involved in understanding why is it introduced. We shouldn’t be introducing technologies because it exists. It needs to be fit for purpose, it needs to be explained as to why it will help or support a worker, and then you get more compliance and more collaboration in using and implementing these different equipment. We have other instruments, of course, our Violence Harassment Convention that aims to protect from violence and harassment in different workplaces, including those that occur in a digital mode, like cyberbullying. We are currently at the ILO. We just started this international labor conference in June, and there’s a second discussion next June, working on potentially a new instrument to promote decent work in the platform economy. It’s been quite an exciting discussion these couple of years that hopefully will end in the development or adoption of binding, hopefully, instruments around managing and promoting decent work in the platform economy. And we have the ILO Observatory at the ILO that Sher Verick, my colleague, will be speaking to in a minute. And of course, a lot of countries, in the report you will see there are so many examples, and from our constituents, worker, employer, organizations and governments, mainly ministries of labor, they’re very interested in the list that we’ve been able to compile on what are countries doing, what examples can we learn from, what is applicable in my country, in my sector, what priorities we can learn from. Here are some examples, I won’t go through them. Also, some that clearly regulate automation, advanced robotics, some that regulate the right to disconnect. What does it mean today for workers? Is a job 9 to 5? Is it better to just give flexibility when, for example, parents need to step out two, three hours during the day to take care of different needs, but may be able to connect again in the evening to finish their jobs? What kind of, what does a job look like when there is connection and disconnection to the Internet and when that is involved and our job relies on it? In addition to regulating the remote work, telework, and the digital platforms, because, you know, they’re quite different things with different needs as well. And here are some collective bargaining agreements where regulation is not up to speed or where you really need some specific agreements. Here are some examples in some countries where they’ve been able to ensure more rights to workers through these collective agreements. They’ve negotiated these agreements. And, of course, for example, if you think of the arm of compliance and enforcement in ministries of labor, labor inspectors have been using some of this technology to their advantage in trying to predict, you know, where accidents can happen, which sectors are going to be more prone by using existing data to make such predictions and make more proactive investigations. Everybody used to looking in more detail about technology and the risks that come with it. And this is, I think, my last slide, at the workplace level, so we talked a lot about the national and the national framework and the regulation but even at the workplace level, if you have any safety and health background, you know that we work by hierarchy. If you are exposed to something that’s dangerous, we try to eliminate it, if not we substitute it, if not we do engineering controls, admin controls or we provide people with personal protective equipment and this is how this is translated for the area of AI and technology, what it means to eliminate a hazard, what does that mean, so you actually replace physical entry with drones or robotic crawlers if it’s really hazardous, so it’s how do you use the technology to eliminate, how do you substitute so you don’t expose them to unnecessary dangers, you use virtual reality for training when you can, etc. Engineering controls, some examples, and today it’s normally we say that there’s a hierarchy of importance, right, and the last thing you should do is give people personal protective equipment, you have to do the others, but now with technology, personal protective equipment have a dual role, they are also sensors, they’re also detectors, so they are preventative and not just protective in a sense, so it’s just evolution of the science of safety and health that’s become interesting with the support and help of these technologies, this is just some key takeaways, what we need at the end is we need a little bit more research, it was very difficult to find data on how many people or injuries or accidents that have been prevented or saved or decreased because of the introduction of technology or the other way around, so we don’t have a lot of inputs globally on this and we need to make sure we personalize, adapt everything we’re using to the workers needs and specific characteristics, those are sort of the two key takeaways on our end.

Sher Verick: Well, good afternoon, you’ve been hearing a lot from the ILO so far and I’m going to continue, and my name is Sher Verek, I’m advisor to the Deputy Director General of the ILO and I’ve been asked to speak about the ILO’s observatory on AI in the world and work in the digital economy, but I will just cover a few of those issues that have already been highlighted before coming to what we’re doing on the observatory. I think what is happening with AI doesn’t need any introduction in this room, everyone here gets it, is looking at it, is part of this whole process of developing new tools and how that’s impacting the world of work is the issues that we are looking at, as you’ve already heard from Juan Ivan and Manal, and so you know when we look at these tools like this is mid-journey generating an image of Harry Potter, what does that mean for the labour market? Is this taking a job? So let me ask this question, in fact I wanted to ask you a question instead of just us talking to you, I want to ask you a question, how many of you think your job can be automated through AI? Completely. How many think some of your tasks can be automated? I think we all can think that and we are already using AI for certain tasks, right? Meeting notes even, simple things like that or creating images. My brother works in the design area, he has also an AI start-up and I was saying what does this mean for jobs in your industry? And he was saying, okay you know you used to employ an illustrator to produce an image, take a few days, now of course you expect that to be done in a couple of hours, still there’s an illustrator who’s using such a tool as mid-journey but is working with AI to develop that image, right? So that’s a real key issue and for those who know that whole approach of looking at what does technology mean for jobs, it’s about tasks. Tasks, we are bundles of tasks, right? Occupations are made up of tasks and so this looks suddenly very scientific, I’m not going to go into the details, it’s on the Observatory website, I’ll come back to that but the bottom line is and Juan Ivan talked about some of that research that we’ve been doing from our research department that’s on the Observatory, this is even more recent data and it’s in a study by our colleagues Pavel Gimerick and others and don’t worry you’ll get to see the link as well at the end, have done is looked at occupations in terms of their tasks and there’s a complex way of looking at their exposure of all those tasks to AI, how easy is it to automate those tasks, it’s been a very thorough process to identify that and then looking at how variable those tasks are within occupation. So the bottom line is without going into all those details, you have occupations up here which have the highest exposure and the lowest task variability. These are as Juan Ivan talked about administrative jobs, clerical roles, where you have a lot of tasks that can be automated and the same way we have other occupations where you have some tasks like we just discussed, some of our tasks can be automated but not all of them, so the heterogeneity of our tasks are still much greater for some of these other occupations that further down here and that has a fundamental issue for skilling, right? So if you’re here, you’re in an administrative role, increasingly some of other roles like web development etc which now is being done with AI, you’re going to need to think about other occupations shifting your job. If you’re in some of these other occupations, well then it’s about the opportunity to be augmented by AI, right? To be transformed by AI and then of course an issue from the skilling perspective is how to ensure that we have those skills in order to be transformed by AI. So there’s going to be both transformation and some automation but this translates into bigger figures for us at the ILO, the research that we’ve done, it’s on the observatory and that bottom line is that we, based on our own estimates that have come out including this year in May, a jobs apocalypse is unlikely, right? So just based on that story of automation versus augmentation that I just explained. If you look, it’s a bit hard for everyone to see I know, at the top is the figures for the world that we have which basically tell us that one in four jobs are potentially exposed to AI but that includes those that are not only going to be at risk of automation but also augmentation because in fact the transformation part, that augmentation part is far greater than those who are at risk of automation that I’ve been explaining and that share is just 3.3% of global employment according to our latest estimates that came out in May. However of course 3.3% of global employment still means around 130 million jobs around the world so it’s not, we can’t just dismiss that and say it’s nothing but it is in compared, a smaller share compared to that part, the darker blue parts that are up there and of course this is much higher in high-income countries as already mentioned as opposed to low-income countries that reflects the structures of economies of course. If you’re in agriculture, you’re not going to be automated, right? I mean you may use AI tools as a farmer but the basic functions of farming or cutting wood, there are certain tasks that are not going to be automated, right? Through AI, it can be other technologies in agriculture of course and as already mentioned, it also leaves women more vulnerable to this process particularly because they are more over-represented in admin roles. Now I won’t go into any more details, don’t have time and we’re running out of time as I can see already but I think really important message from the ILO is first is that we don’t expect a job apocalypse, we think the transformation part is going to be greater but second, we need to look at the implications for job quality. This has really come up in both what Manal and Juan Ivan talked about and this is about issues around wages and really that’s where you see the action about what happens on the demand and supply side. The ones with the stronger demand, top-end jobs, you talked about Google, Microsoft, wages are going up. Those who are in less demand or those are being automated or at least a number of their tasks have been automated, they don’t necessarily lose their jobs but their wages will be maybe flatlining or falling in real terms but a really important part as Manal said is about the algorithmic management. It’s ready in the workplace, what are those implications? I won’t repeat those and of course we have this issue of new jobs and again it’s been mentioned, you have the machine learning specialists but you have the content moderation and the supply chains that was also highlighted. So as you would have heard of course throughout this week, it’s about the digital divide as well. At the ILO, yes obviously these are driven by big forces in the world in terms of technological change but they are posing both opportunities and challenges and ultimately it also will depend on how tech is adopted and what it is used for and this will also be influenced by policy choices including on skills. Obviously it’s not all about policy or all about regulation but of course there is an opportunity here to promote those opportunities and respond to those challenges. So I’m going to keep this very short because we’ve still got one more presentation. So that is just a snapshot of the really key part of the research we’re doing in the ILO observatory on AI and work in the digital economy. website, you’ll see a lot of our material there. And what we are focusing on in the ILO is the following. Thematically, a lot of work has gone with the AI side, as you’ve heard. We’re also on algorithmic management. It’s a critical area when it comes to its impact in the workplace, and there’s a lot of country-level work as well that’s going on in that area. Digital labor platforms, you heard about the platform standard-setting process that is there, trying to look at how we can have a new labor standard that responds to those new challenges. Data is an area that we’re increasingly getting back into a focus on that as something that is an emerging area, and skills. Now, of course, this whole thing today and this session is about skills, and really Juan Iván has given you really a good overview of that. But for the ILO, we look at all of this and how this fits together, not only from a supply side but a demand side, how that matches the implications not only for job quantity but job quality. So let me stop there. It’s not just about a job apocalypse. It’s about transformation. But we need to keep an eye on job quality, not just the quantity side, and think about different entry points, which are not always obvious. It’s not just about jobs being lost, et cetera. It’s about what’s happening in the workplace. It’s what’s happening in the supply chains, as mentioned. And this is what we hope to do with the observatory as well. Thank you.

Tom Wambeke: Good afternoon. This is the last input before we can go a little bit more interactive. As you see from the title, one of my hobbies is finding new abbreviations for AI, becoming moving beyond artificial ignorance. So I’m Tom Wambeck, the chief of the learning innovation lab in Turin, which is the international training center of the ILO, which is the capacity building arm. And that’s where my reflections will come from today. What I’m doing there is leading a lab, an innovation lab. It might be important to mention it, because we are creating in Turin, in the north of Italy, a kind of a safe experimentation zone. It’s a zone of learning. I was in a session before on the AI skills coalition, and they were showing some survey results. And for example, for needs that were detected by leaders, policy makers, they said one of these major needs there from leaders was having a kind of a safe space where they can learn about AI without immediately being perceived as asking a dumb question. So what I’m saying is from the safe experimentation zone out there. A second element that I wanted to mention here is there are a lot of different things that I would like to mention in this presentation. I’m going to focus on three specific ideas in the area of AI upscaling. One element is in a training center, you would think that we are training individuals. We are training ILO constituents, employers, governments, and workers, also beyond that. But it’s not just about, let’s say, individual upscaling. Also, I want to make the link with the previous session that we were in. They said, well, we are now in an area where everybody’s doing, let’s say, pilots, but having issues to basically come up at scaling up, let’s say, these levels. And that’s why I would like to jump from, let’s say, the individual training level towards the more institutional training level. So what the center is trying to do also in the area of AI is providing institutional capacity development opportunities. And when we look at that curriculum, it’s much more than just, you know, individual upskilling from some specific target audiences. It has to do with a much broader angle than just, let’s say, technological change. It’s almost organizational change management. And that’s an important reflection also if we are going to look into our AI curriculum. So a little bit the overview of what we do at individual capacity towards institutional capacity, also with the hope that we can give a contribution to more system capacity development. But that’s just the background. Let me come back to the topic of today, because one of the big things that is mentioned, as I said, we have a mandate. If I look at our organization in terms of AI adoption, I think we have really a mandate to innovate. There’s really an active mandate. And also if I would look at the culture in a training center, it’s rather an agile, let’s say, culture where innovation is absent. And so what we’re trying to do is basically jump from, let’s say, casual experiments towards more systemic innovation out there by launching a whole bunch of different AI projects. One of the things that we have seen, everybody is talking about AI, but nobody’s doing it, so that we really started to start with projects. So what can we learn from these AI projects within institutions? And that’s also a little bit the entry point. By the way, at the ILO stand, you will find different courses and programs that we are organizing. And one of them is called the AI Forum, where we also help organizations on how to deploy AI at a systemic level. The first thing that we have to do in a training center is basically, I would say, upskilling in terms of AI literacy. Actually, I took this picture from many years ago here at the AI for Good seminar. You remember this, how would I say, this humanoid lady? You remember her, Sophia? When I walk now at the AI for Good, it’s still full of robots. But almost 10 years ago, there was already a pledge. In training, there will be some space for these kind of humanoid robots. So in a way, I’m trying to, much of our work is actually to do on debunking myths, where I would say that Sophie, who’s actually also an official resident from Saudi Arabia, is not yet ready in the classroom. If you look at the whole skills portfolio that we are having, actually, I took a picture in Belgium, this one. It’s kind of an interesting one. It’s in Antwerp. Hey, Chachoupi, finish this building. Your skills are irreplaceable. But it’s a lot of different, let’s say, narratives that we’re trying to build in. Okay, what do you want to achieve with this kind of AI upskilling or retraining? And these are, let’s say, the five myths that we are actually encountering all the time when we actually are talking about AI adoption. It’s a little bit similar with what Sher Verick was saying. It’s not the kind of replacement for it’s going to replace shop. It’s no. There’s also AI is not going to replace face-to-face training. It’s a bit more of a kind of a nuanced view that we need to have. So our initial, let’s say, initiatives are all about debunking AI myths. But then once you have done that, once you have a bit more of a realistic view on what can AI mean for capacity building, then there’s a whole field of, let’s say, learning opportunities coming out. And there are many of them. As I said, I only have 10 minutes. I’m not going to go through all the different sections here. That’s why I’m going to focus on three specific ideas. And they can be linked to any of the different topics out here. I will share these slides also afterwards. So my first idea is actually also inspired by maybe a different notion on what it means to be intelligent. I always like to refer to Stephen Hawking’s, let’s say, non-readable language, but you can understand it. He defines intelligence as the ability to adapt to change. For me, that’s also actually an excellent definition what learning should be. Learning is also adapting to change. And what happens if this kind of inspiration at the individual level, if you would take that also up to the organizational level, you come at another old quote, which is basically when the rate of change outside an organization is greater than the rate of change inside, the end is near. And that’s where I want to focus my three ideas on. It’s rather in function of a larger view on how AI can be deployed at an organizational setting rather than introducing some technologies. And specifically in capacity development. Here’s my first idea. It’s also at a foresight angle. And it’s also related to change management. This is a famous foresight person. If we always do what we have always done, we will get what we have always got. And if I look in how AI is being deployed in training, then I would expect new things. I would expect all kinds of new innovations. I would expect new curricula, new organizations, new architecture, new methods, new whatever, new connections, new administrative procedures, many other elements. But that’s not what I currently see when I look a little bit at the current AI initiatives. What I currently see is basically new stuff or old stuff in new jackets in one way or another. That’s how I actually could call it. And maybe to give you a few examples to look at some of these things in training. I see AI power things. I see automated grading. I see AI chatbots all over the place. They have, of course, a value. They are digitized. They create some practical add-ons in my curriculum. But do they really change something in my whole educational setup? That’s a bigger question that I would like to ask to you. So my question is, how can we really transform learning and training that we are creating an added value? And not just, let’s say, substituted by a new technology or augmented a little bit. But where can we do new stuff in new ways? And that requires a little bit more of a radical approach, which is not always obvious in education and training, which also, let’s say, changes very slowly. That’s the first idea of adding value. Second idea that I would like to share is the following, is like, again, with a foresight angle. Foresight is also one of Any useful statement about the future should at first seem ridiculous. What do I mean with that? If I rewind with 60 years ago, then I could show you this picture. This is from Sir William Preece, he’s Chief Engineer of the British Post Office. And he says, the Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys. If you surf the internet, it’s full of these kind of statements. And I would like to ask you the question, the same. We’re now confronted with AI, we all want to use it. What would be your intelligent what-if question for the next 50 years? Anyone wants to give it a try? What if? I’ll leave it silent, just think about it. But I think that’s a fundamental question to ask. Because with AI, it actually allows us to ask a whole bunch of new questions that maybe previously we did not ask ourselves. Some of these questions might sound a little bit more, let’s say, existential or philosophical. What can we learn from AI about human learning is one question. Or with machine-human interaction, who are the new actors and partners in AI learning and training? These are a few that you say, yes, very nice, you have time for philosophical questions. But if I would put it back on curriculum development, there’s a whole bunch of very concrete questions that we need to ask ourselves these days when AI gets infused into a training institute. Maybe I read one or two, how do we quality-assure partially automated teaching and assessment, just as one single question, or give me another one, on how do we curate and share knowledge to build the right and responsible AI. So there’s a whole bunch of new questions that we need to ask ourselves in order to innovate. And that’s actually my favorite what-if questions. What if we would use AI to ask better questions? It’s a question that I always share with my colleagues before we start a discussion. And then I have the last idea. And that idea is a bit of a criticism that we treat AI always a little bit, how would I say, isolated. While if you would use it or you would see it in daily practice, it’s completely embedded into a larger system. What do I mean with that when we’re going to look at the future of AI? That it will be a kind of any Cambrian explosion of AI offspring will occur, according to me, at the intersection with other technologies and systems. When we use AI in training, for example, it’s a combination of AI and VR in the rollout of, for example, soft skills training. It’s not just AI on itself. It’s really at the intersection of many other things. And therefore, we need the kind of a more, let’s say, ecological approach, an intersectional approach to assess not only the opportunities, but also to mitigate the many risks that are connected with it. And when I say other technologies, I think it was already mentioned, not only immersive technologies, but we have to go much broader. If I would look into the upcoming wave, it’s not only about immersive technologies, it’s about artificial intelligence, it’s about quantum computing, it’s about neurotechnology. There are many other angles out there that we also should bring into our reflections out there. So when I talk about AI, it’s part of a broader network, where I can ask them actually a lot of different questions than before. I think I’m almost at the time where it needs to be. Maybe one final reflection before we basically stop. Often when my colleagues said, okay, we need to start with AI and learning, the first initial reason that they said we’re going to do it faster, stronger, and better. It’s like a popular song of Daft Punk. But it reminds me that a lot of these questions are always linked to efficiencies, productivity in one way or another. And I think that, and also I’ve seen in the many conversations already this morning, that we need to go beyond that. More is not always better, I would mention it. And then maybe also with a second critical reflection is, progress is not about size or speed as much as it is about direction. And specifically within educational technology, I see too many projects starting not from a vision or from a reflection. I had a discussion with Juan, I remember. Everybody comes immediately, I need a chat bot. That’s the first thing that they said without having to ask, what do you really need? Have you had a more broader reflection about that? And that’s dangerous, because if you don’t have that right question, if you don’t have that vision, we go into the wrong direction. And what happens if you go into the wrong direction? Technology will get you there faster. So if that would lead to, for example, one of my favorite quotes, I know I use it a lot, but the biggest risk of AI is that it would automate ineffective practice out there. A quote from Professor Dan Schwartz. Because I think learning and training is much more than just integrating a few chat bots here and there. I think it’s about, yeah, if you have to come up with a definition, maybe according to your tasks of a teacher, well, feeding an AI the entire internet does not make you a teacher. And I can maybe also say that of a lot of other professions. Teaching or training is something much more complex and that won’t be replaced as such. For me, teaching or training is almost the art of, teaching is the art of assisting discovery. And that’s very difficult to capture into one task definition out there. But having said that, these were three ideas to reflect upon and maybe to feed in also in the three conversations that we have had already. So I’ll give it back to you, Juan.

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: Thank you very much, Tom. So we are almost at time, but there is no another session right after, so we might spend another 10 minutes for those of you that so wish to take your questions. Thank you very much.

Audience: Yes. Hello, my name is Melissa. I work in Vienna with the CDBTO, which is part of the UN system. And thank you so much for this very, very interesting and thought-provoking presentation. I actually have two questions. And I find it very interesting. I’m taking notes of what I’m always doing as an observer and where things are heading and they are moving fast. But how do you see that AI can influence the UN in the area of diplomacy? Because as I was thinking, we are talking about some of the clerk tasks that maybe can be automated, of course, in the UN as well. But when you have been in the UN for many years, and you listen to some of the speeches, and you start realizing there’s kind of a pattern of repetition, and you can go into chat GPT and say, you know, this is the question that these delegates, this is the topic. What do you think are the questions that are going to be answered? And what do you suggest that should be in my presentation? And you can anticipate when you’re ahead based on the projects that you are doing, what could be asked. So this is one of my questions, is AI and diplomacy. And the other is, how do you see the needs to, and I think it links also to this, we don’t need to do more. We have to be working on the right things. But how do you see the needs of, because I feel there is a lot of pressure to catching up with AI, and there is maybe a bit of imposter syndrome that we are, you know, there is so much to learn, and we don’t have enough hours in the day to learn all of that. But where do you see the other stream of, let’s focus on being better humans, rather than just being very good with AI and maybe coding or not. So how do you see the role of ILO and the UN in general in supporting like a human approach to the AI investments? Thank you.

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: Thank you. Thank you very much. We’re going to take two or three questions, and then we’ll try to answer them. I love mine of the One Goal initiative for governance.

Audience: This is a question to all of the presenters. How do you see the role of AI in UBI management? Yes. And maybe if the job market is not supposed to be a market anymore, about the management of who does what then, you know.

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: Thank you. Good question. Anyone? Here.

Audience: Thank you. My question is about the role of the ILO in all that. Ms. Atzi mentioned that there will be soon a conference in which you will try to address how to regulate this. Do you expect that you can do something? Because the problem is not anymore a problem that can be regulated between negotiation, between labor organization and counterparts, but there is a third actor in the process, government and global governance. So it’s more complex adventure that you have done until now.

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: Thank you. Thank you very much. Another one here. Thank you.

Audience: For me, it’s just the challenge that we face lately of high unemployment, especially in the developing countries. Where I come from, youth unemployment, it’s somewhere around 40% right now. And now the question is how then do we embrace AI in also combating unemployment in the midst of AI era? How do we ensure that we bridge the gap between unemployment if we do acknowledge that within this era there will be a bit of job losses, there will be a bit of some repetitive things that we need to get rid of?

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: Thank you. Thank you. Let’s take these four questions already because we need to remember them and then we’ll take three or four more. And we will check also online. Yes, thank you for breaking the digital divide. The first one was more about diplomacy and AI. Maybe, Sher Verick, since you have this diplomatic role. and Dr. Sher Verick, Ms. Manal Azzi, Dr. Sher Verick, Ms. Manal Azzi, Dr. Sher Verick, Ms.

Sher Verick: But there is some interesting issues that have been discussed. I’ve heard from ITU on the use of AI in diplomacy. I would refer to our ITU colleagues there. But I think, indeed, we are not racing to embrace AI to replace a human-centered approach. I think it wouldn’t make any sense. We wouldn’t have a clear justification for that as well. Do you want me to stop at that question? There are others there. The second one was about universal basic income. Do you want me to answer that one as well? The ILO advocates for universal social protection. We don’t advocate for universal basic income specifically, but we advocate for universal social protection from childhood up to old-age pension. Of course, this is an ongoing debate. This has happened for a couple of decades, particularly during that robotic period, discussions back 10, 15 years. Do we need UBI because people are going to lose jobs and they don’t have anything else to do? Well, the fact is we’re not seeing that happen, right? So we still very much focus on what’s happening in the labor market, how social protection can then support workers and their families around that. It’s a long story behind that, but in short, that’s our focus, social protection, how do you get workers into decent work, how do you support them and their families?

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: If I can build on this one. No, no, no, thank you. Very good question. I mean, for me, the ILO started more than 100 years ago, and one of the first regulations that emanated was to reduce the labor from seven days a week to six days, and then we went down to five. So maybe, yeah, AI for good, if we do it properly and the quality side, as we said before, maybe we end up as humans, as an entire planet, needing to work less to survive. Maybe the machines and the algorithms will do a lot of the things, and if that is true, then maybe this is conducive to working four days a week. So we don’t know. There is a lot of people and movies talking about dystopian futures, but maybe there is also a positive outcome, so maybe that will go in this direction. Then we have the question about the role of the ILO, and then the question about developing countries and the impact on people unemployed.

Manal Azzi: Yeah, I could talk about the role of the ILO, but maybe also just back to question one, because it’s focused on diplomacy, your question, but it also goes to a lot of public administration and public organizations and the way they’re working, and it’s important not to confuse also or blame AI for a lot of the changes, because we are facing a lot of restructuring and depletion of resources across a lot of these organizations, and tasks have been changing, and we can see internally in the ILO that the need for admin roles and tasks and staff has decreased as people are doing their own admin management. So there’s been that shift, and it’s happening, and it will reflect and be reflected on a lot of the work we do, but also in, again, as we said, while we can assume what the discussions, the questions and answers will be a year from now from some of our delegates, that we can’t forget the role of the humans and the ability to change and be agile and to change their perspectives and changes as we see the world, even politically. The world, as we know, can change overnight in a number of countries globally, so we need to keep up to date, and our trust and self-sense of responsibility needs to apply, even in the diplomatic world. The second point, can the ILO achieve, you asked, this dream of decent work in the platform economy? At least we know we have the mechanism for it. So it is a process, and it’s a process where we give the floor to worker organizations, their representatives, to the employers, but as you said, governments play an important role, mainly ministries of labor. These are the people that come around the table, and we give them the time to do so, and the research and evidence to inform the decisions that they’re making. So over the course of at least two years, even more, for preparation, we provide that platform and the necessary information to at least come up with something that could be a compromise, not the best standard sometimes, but it’s a compromise of what could work and could appeal to the implementation process and policy changes that we want to see at the workplace level and national level. I think the ILO is the right mechanism to do it. Can it achieve its ultimate goal? It’s something that we are observing as we go. Yes, the draft is already there, and so it was discussed in June, and now there’s more questionnaires that will go out to our constituency, and then a final draft will be discussed in June 2026.

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: Thank you. Tom, do you want to take the last one?

Tom Wambeke: There are a few questions on there, and I’ll combine it also with I feel empathy for the imposter syndrome, because even being a specialist, there are too many tools, too many information. I’m also being overwhelmed with it, and that brings me to the question, maybe we have to focus on some of the essentials. I get a lot of critique of colleagues that say that chat GPT and other generative AI tools are basically easing up the whole learning process, and people, you know, copy-paste ready-made answers and whatever they need to do. But if we bring back to learn, what is learning? Learning is friction, learning is suffering, learning is basically having different viewpoints, and if you look into the field of AI, there are some super interesting tools that can help you to reach that. I’m thinking about the whole emerging field of antagonistic AI, where basically the AI does not give you the answer, but the AI basically questions yourself, and thinking about the kind of a digital queen that basically critically questions everything what you said, that’s actually a perfect learning tool. And that’s why I said go back to the essentials of learning, which could be also teaching, which could be asking questions and see what kind of AI-related tools could help you to augment, accelerate the objectives that you’re trying to achieve, and then bit by bit the imposter syndrome will fade away. Excellent, thank you. Let me try to take a couple of the questions online, and for those of you that need to go, please feel free. I’m sorry. Okay, okay. So, what has been some success stories in capacity building, particularly around AI literacy, any lessons and challenges from member states? Okay, I don’t know if from the experience with the governments, any capacity building around AI literacy and lessons learned? Yeah, but translate theory and practice, what I see now that people, and there’s a whole field of growing use cases in there, I think that’s where we basically need to go through, because as I mentioned already in my presentation, everybody talks about AI, but nobody’s doing it. So, in a way, what are the things that have been tested out? And what you see there is, I’m going to give you one specific example. We were working with the colleagues at the ILO of norms. We had a kind of an idea to use a kind of an AI tool on some very complicated legislative type of issues. And people were immediately thinking, oh, that’s just, let’s say you do the requirements and then you translate it into a chatbot that functions. But bit by bit, we started to see what are the complexities, what are the difficulties out there. And that was a whole dialogue which led to increased, let’s say, AI literacy, but not necessarily led to a kind of an AI solution. But the fact that a whole group of people from different angles, from legal experts to IT experts, started to address in a joint language of what they wanted to achieve. That, according to me, is successful AI, let’s say, improvements rather than, you know, showcasing the newest chatbot that is out there or any other elements. It’s a kind of, you know, gradual process. And definitely with the whole exponential change of the technologies that are out there that we need to continue that kind of more interdisciplinary dialogue among, let’s say, the different stakeholders that are out there. That would be for me, let’s say, a very modest definition of success.

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: Okay. Thank you. Would you like to take a – we have to go. So thank you very much, everybody. We will be happy to take more questions in the coffee break. Thank you.

Sher Verick: Yeah, sorry, because this is a very important question. And I think bottom line is AI is neither, you know, the biggest challenge or the biggest solution for youth unemployment in the African region, right? I mean, there are other critical factors in terms of investment, trade. They’re going to drive job creation. Then the question is about the quality of jobs, et cetera. But really, you know, so I wouldn’t want to say that AI is going to change that. I mean, the solutions will need to come from a broader macro industrial sectoral perspective. But what is true is that we need to look at how the development of AI can benefit the region, not just from the global north. And where, for example, in Kenya, one of the countries that have been very active, Rwanda, others who have been very active trying to develop their own digital industry. So, yes, look at how the region can benefit from it. But it’s not going to be either the biggest challenge or the solution to those, you know, youth unemployment rates that you see in the region. That requires investment, requires job creation and broader set of policies would be my response. Thank you.

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Human-centered approach to AI adoption

Speakers

– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix
– Sher Verick
– Manal Azzi
– Tom Wambeke

Arguments

Algorithmic management risks dehumanizing work and removing human flexibility in decision-making

Need to maintain human-centered approach rather than racing to embrace AI for efficiency alone

Workers throughout the AI supply chain face safety and health challenges, from data annotators to electronic waste handlers

Individual upskilling must be complemented by institutional capacity development and organizational change management

Summary

All speakers emphasized the importance of keeping humans at the center of AI development and implementation, warning against purely efficiency-driven approaches that could dehumanize work or ignore worker welfare

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Development

Need for comprehensive regulatory frameworks

Speakers

– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix
– Manal Azzi

Arguments

AI models are biased due to training data predominantly from global north and historical sources

Privacy concerns arise as AI systems collect extensive personal and professional data

ILO is developing new labor standards for platform economy and algorithmic management

Summary

Both speakers agreed that current AI systems require regulation to address bias, privacy concerns, and workplace management issues, with the ILO actively working on new standards

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Transformation over replacement in AI impact

Speakers

– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix
– Sher Verick
– Tom Wambeke

Arguments

Most jobs will require reskilling by 2030, affecting billions of people worldwide

AI will primarily augment jobs rather than replace them, with only 3.3% of global employment at risk of automation

Current AI adoption in training often represents ‘old stuff in new jackets’ rather than true transformation

Summary

Speakers agreed that AI’s primary impact will be transformative rather than replacement-based, requiring massive reskilling efforts but not leading to widespread job displacement

Topics

Economic | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the challenge of educational institutions keeping pace with rapid technological change, with curriculum development taking years while technology evolves in months

Speakers

– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix
– Tom Wambeke

Arguments

Technology adoption speed outpaces training capacity, making it difficult for skills development to keep up

Training institutions struggle with speed of curriculum development and digital transformation requirements

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognized that AI and automation create disproportionate impacts on vulnerable groups, particularly women, and introduce new forms of workplace risks

Speakers

– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix
– Manal Azzi

Arguments

Women face disproportionate risk as they are overrepresented in clerical jobs prone to automation

New risks emerge from human-robot interaction, algorithmic management, and privacy concerns

Topics

Human rights | Economic

Both speakers emphasized that AI adoption should focus on enhancing human capabilities and learning rather than simply pursuing efficiency or automation

Speakers

– Sher Verick
– Tom Wambeke

Arguments

Need to maintain human-centered approach rather than racing to embrace AI for efficiency alone

AI should be used to ask better questions and enable new forms of learning rather than just automate existing processes

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Unexpected consensus

Positive potential of AI for workplace safety

Speakers

– Manal Azzi
– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix

Arguments

AI and robotics remove workers from hazardous environments and enable predictive safety measures

Three-tier digital skills approach needed: basic literacy for all, intermediate skills for specific industries, and advanced STEM skills

Explanation

Despite focusing on risks and challenges, there was unexpected consensus on AI’s positive potential for improving workplace safety and the structured approach needed for skills development, showing balanced perspective rather than purely cautionary stance

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Global inequality in AI impact and benefits

Speakers

– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix
– Sher Verick
– Manal Azzi

Arguments

Global north benefits more from AI while global south faces different challenges

AI alone won’t solve youth unemployment in developing countries – broader economic policies are needed

Workers throughout the AI supply chain face safety and health challenges, from data annotators to electronic waste handlers

Explanation

All speakers unexpectedly converged on recognizing that AI’s benefits and risks are unevenly distributed globally, with developing countries facing different challenges and often bearing hidden costs in the AI supply chain

Topics

Development | Human rights | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on maintaining human-centered approaches to AI, the need for comprehensive regulation, and the transformative rather than replacement nature of AI’s impact on work. They agreed on the challenges of keeping skills development pace with technological change and the unequal global distribution of AI’s benefits and risks.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among ILO speakers on core principles and challenges, with complementary expertise areas reinforcing shared institutional perspective. This strong alignment suggests coordinated organizational approach to AI governance and indicates potential for effective policy development and implementation in the international labor context.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI adoption in training and education

Speakers

– Tom Wambeke
– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix

Arguments

Current AI adoption in training often represents ‘old stuff in new jackets’ rather than true transformation

Three-tier digital skills approach needed: basic literacy for all, intermediate skills for specific industries, and advanced STEM skills

Summary

Tom Wambeke criticizes current AI implementations as superficial automation of existing processes, advocating for genuine transformation, while Juan Ivan Martin Lataix presents a structured, tiered approach to digital skills development that could be seen as more conventional

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Primary focus of AI implementation

Speakers

– Tom Wambeke
– Manal Azzi

Arguments

AI should be used to ask better questions and enable new forms of learning rather than just automate existing processes

AI and robotics remove workers from hazardous environments and enable predictive safety measures

Summary

Tom emphasizes AI’s potential for transformative learning and questioning, while Manal focuses on practical safety applications and risk mitigation in workplace settings

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Role of efficiency in AI adoption

Speakers

– Tom Wambeke
– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix

Arguments

AI should be used to ask better questions and enable new forms of learning rather than just automate existing processes

Technology adoption speed outpaces training capacity, making it difficult for skills development to keep up

Explanation

While both work for ILO training institutions, Tom explicitly criticizes efficiency-focused AI adoption (‘faster, stronger, better’ approach) while Juan’s presentation implicitly accepts the need to keep up with technological speed, creating an unexpected philosophical divide within the same organization

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show broad consensus on AI’s transformative impact on work and the need for comprehensive responses, but differ on implementation approaches and priorities

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers are largely aligned on fundamental issues but show nuanced differences in emphasis and methodology. The disagreements are more about approach and priorities rather than fundamental opposition, which is typical for colleagues from the same organization working on related but distinct aspects of AI and work policy.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the challenge of educational institutions keeping pace with rapid technological change, with curriculum development taking years while technology evolves in months

Speakers

– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix
– Tom Wambeke

Arguments

Technology adoption speed outpaces training capacity, making it difficult for skills development to keep up

Training institutions struggle with speed of curriculum development and digital transformation requirements

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognized that AI and automation create disproportionate impacts on vulnerable groups, particularly women, and introduce new forms of workplace risks

Speakers

– Juan Ivan Martin Lataix
– Manal Azzi

Arguments

Women face disproportionate risk as they are overrepresented in clerical jobs prone to automation

New risks emerge from human-robot interaction, algorithmic management, and privacy concerns

Topics

Human rights | Economic

Both speakers emphasized that AI adoption should focus on enhancing human capabilities and learning rather than simply pursuing efficiency or automation

Speakers

– Sher Verick
– Tom Wambeke

Arguments

Need to maintain human-centered approach rather than racing to embrace AI for efficiency alone

AI should be used to ask better questions and enable new forms of learning rather than just automate existing processes

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Key takeaways

AI will primarily augment jobs rather than replace them, with only 3.3% of global employment at risk of automation, contradicting fears of a ‘job apocalypse’

A three-tier digital skills framework is needed: basic digital literacy for all, intermediate skills for specific industries, and advanced STEM skills for specialized roles

The digital divide remains a fundamental barrier, with 2.6 billion people lacking internet access, creating inequitable access to AI benefits

Women face disproportionate risk from AI automation as they are overrepresented in clerical jobs prone to automation

AI models contain inherent bias due to training data predominantly from the global north and historical sources dating back centuries

Current AI adoption in training often represents incremental improvements rather than transformational change

Workplace safety can be enhanced through AI and robotics removing workers from hazardous environments, but new risks emerge from human-robot interaction and algorithmic management

The entire AI supply chain involves workers facing safety and health challenges, from data annotators to electronic waste handlers

Speed of technological change outpaces institutional capacity for curriculum development and skills training

AI should be integrated with other technologies in an ecological approach rather than implemented in isolation

Resolutions and action items

ILO is developing new labor standards for platform economy through ongoing constituent discussions, with final draft to be discussed in June 2026

ILO Observatory on AI and Work will continue research on algorithmic management, digital labor platforms, data governance, and skills matching

Training institutions need to undergo digital transformation to scale up reskilling efforts for millions of workers

Governments should develop long-term strategies linking skills development to economic planning and promote lifelong learning

Organizations should create safe experimentation zones for AI learning without fear of asking ‘dumb questions’

Focus on using AI to ask better questions and enable new forms of learning rather than just automating existing processes

Unresolved issues

How to effectively regulate algorithmic management while maintaining workplace flexibility and human decision-making

How to address the fundamental challenge of AI model bias when training data from diverse regions is limited or non-digitized

How to balance the speed of technological change with the time needed for quality skills development and institutional adaptation

How to ensure quality assurance in partially automated teaching and assessment systems

How to manage privacy concerns as AI systems collect extensive personal and professional data

How to prevent AI from automating ineffective practices rather than transforming them

How to address youth unemployment in developing countries where AI impact may be limited compared to broader economic factors

How to maintain human-centered approaches in diplomacy and public administration while leveraging AI capabilities

How to scale individual AI literacy training to institutional and systemic capacity development

Suggested compromises

Universal social protection rather than universal basic income as a response to AI-driven job displacement

Gradual implementation of AI in workplace safety with humans remaining at the center of decision-making rather than complete automation

Balanced approach between efficiency gains and maintaining human touch in work processes

Interdisciplinary dialogue among different stakeholders (legal experts, IT experts, workers, employers) to develop AI solutions rather than top-down implementation

Focus on augmentation and transformation of existing roles rather than wholesale job replacement

Combination of face-to-face and AI-enhanced training methods rather than complete digitalization

Regulation that allows innovation while protecting worker rights and privacy

Emphasis on asking better questions with AI assistance rather than seeking ready-made answers that bypass learning friction

The UNESCO did a report end of 2023 saying that out of 10 jobs, 9 will need to be re-skilled by 2030. This is billions of people. So the size of these challenges is enormous.

Speaker

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix

Reason

This statistic reframes the AI skills challenge from a technical problem to a massive human development crisis, highlighting the unprecedented scale of transformation needed across the global workforce.

Impact

This comment established the foundational urgency for the entire discussion, setting the tone that this isn’t just about technology adoption but about a fundamental restructuring of human capabilities on a global scale. It influenced subsequent speakers to address systemic rather than incremental solutions.

At some point, ChatGPT knows much more about you than your family. Because not only do you use it for private things, but for personal and corporate things… People use it for all kinds of things. And sometimes maybe not very consciously knowing that they are exposing to private companies a lot of personal information.

Speaker

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix

Reason

This observation cuts through technical discussions to reveal the intimate and unconscious nature of AI integration into personal lives, highlighting how users may be unknowingly surrendering unprecedented levels of personal data.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from viewing AI as an external tool to recognizing it as an entity that develops intimate knowledge of users, leading to deeper considerations about privacy, regulation, and the human-AI relationship throughout the session.

We are having to shift, and when we see a lot of these technologies taking over some of the tasks we’ve done, we do sense that we are losing control of our workspace and our jobs and what we’re actually meant to be doing.

Speaker

Manal Azzi

Reason

This comment captures the psychological and existential dimension of AI adoption – the loss of agency and identity that workers experience, moving beyond technical capabilities to human meaning and purpose.

Impact

This insight introduced the critical theme of human agency and workplace identity, influencing the discussion to consider not just what AI can do, but what it means for human dignity and self-determination in work environments.

It’s important to consider the whole supply chain. Here are just the final parts… those miners excavating critical minerals… factory workers that actually assemble all this technology… the electronic waste, the business of electronic waste… people are exposed to mercury and so many different other substances.

Speaker

Manal Azzi

Reason

This comment dramatically expanded the scope of AI’s impact by revealing the hidden human costs in the supply chain, challenging the clean, digital narrative of AI with the reality of environmental and labor exploitation.

Impact

This observation fundamentally broadened the discussion from AI’s impact on knowledge workers to include global supply chains and environmental justice, forcing participants to consider AI’s full lifecycle impact on human welfare.

Intelligence as the ability to adapt to change. For me, that’s also actually an excellent definition what learning should be. Learning is also adapting to change… when the rate of change outside an organization is greater than the rate of change inside, the end is near.

Speaker

Tom Wambeke

Reason

This redefinition of intelligence and learning reframes the entire AI skills challenge from acquiring specific technical skills to developing adaptive capacity, offering a more fundamental approach to preparing for technological change.

Impact

This philosophical reframing influenced the discussion to move beyond specific AI tools toward developing organizational and individual adaptability, shifting focus from ‘what to learn’ to ‘how to keep learning.’

What I currently see is basically new stuff or old stuff in new jackets… But do they really change something in my whole educational setup? How can we really transform learning and training that we are creating an added value? And not just, let’s say, substituted by a new technology or augmented a little bit.

Speaker

Tom Wambeke

Reason

This critique challenges the assumption that technological adoption equals innovation, demanding deeper transformation rather than superficial digitization of existing practices.

Impact

This comment prompted critical reflection on whether current AI initiatives represent genuine transformation or merely technological substitution, elevating the discussion from implementation tactics to fundamental questions about educational innovation.

What if we would use AI to ask better questions? It’s a question that I always share with my colleagues before we start a discussion.

Speaker

Tom Wambeke

Reason

This reframes AI’s role from providing answers to enhancing human inquiry, suggesting a more collaborative and intellectually stimulating relationship between humans and AI systems.

Impact

This insight shifted the conversation from AI as a replacement tool to AI as an intellectual partner, influencing how participants considered the future of human-AI collaboration in learning and problem-solving.

The biggest risk of AI is that it would automate ineffective practice… feeding an AI the entire internet does not make you a teacher. Teaching or training is almost the art of assisting discovery.

Speaker

Tom Wambeke

Reason

This comment distinguishes between information processing and genuine human expertise, highlighting that effective teaching involves complex human skills that cannot be replicated through data processing alone.

Impact

This observation grounded the discussion in the irreplaceable value of human expertise and relationship-building, countering technological determinism and emphasizing the continued centrality of human skills in education and development.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about AI implementation into a profound examination of human adaptation, dignity, and purpose in the age of artificial intelligence. The speakers moved the conversation through multiple levels – from individual skills to systemic transformation, from technical capabilities to human meaning, and from local implementation to global supply chains. The most impactful comments challenged participants to think beyond immediate technological solutions toward fundamental questions about human agency, organizational transformation, and the kind of future we want to create with AI. The discussion evolved from ‘How do we use AI?’ to ‘How do we remain human while working with AI?’ – a much more sophisticated and necessary conversation for policymakers and practitioners.

How do you see that AI can influence the UN in the area of diplomacy?

Speaker

Melissa (CDBTO Vienna)

Explanation

This explores the potential impact of AI on diplomatic processes, including pattern recognition in speeches and anticipating delegate questions, which could transform how diplomatic work is conducted.

How do you see the role of AI in UBI management?

Speaker

Audience member from One Goal initiative

Explanation

This addresses the intersection of AI automation and universal basic income policies, particularly relevant as job markets may be transformed by AI technologies.

How do we embrace AI in combating unemployment in developing countries with high youth unemployment rates?

Speaker

Audience member from developing country context

Explanation

This is critical for understanding how AI can be leveraged positively in regions with 40% youth unemployment rather than exacerbating job losses.

How do we quality-assure partially automated teaching and assessment?

Speaker

Tom Wambeke

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge in educational technology as AI becomes integrated into learning systems, requiring new frameworks for maintaining educational standards.

How do we curate and share knowledge to build the right and responsible AI?

Speaker

Tom Wambeke

Explanation

This focuses on the ethical development and deployment of AI systems, particularly important for training institutions and capacity building organizations.

What would be your intelligent what-if question for the next 50 years regarding AI?

Speaker

Tom Wambeke

Explanation

This encourages long-term strategic thinking about AI’s future impact, moving beyond current applications to anticipate transformational changes.

What can we learn from AI about human learning?

Speaker

Tom Wambeke

Explanation

This explores the philosophical and practical implications of AI for understanding and improving human learning processes.

With machine-human interaction, who are the new actors and partners in AI learning and training?

Speaker

Tom Wambeke

Explanation

This addresses the changing ecosystem of educational stakeholders as AI becomes integrated into learning environments.

Need for more research on quantifying injuries/accidents prevented or caused by technology introduction

Speaker

Manal Azzi

Explanation

There is insufficient global data on the safety impact of AI and automation technologies, making it difficult to assess their true occupational health effects.

How to develop AI models that are not biased, particularly for regions outside the global north

Speaker

Juan Ivan Martin Lataix

Explanation

Current AI models are trained primarily on data from the global north, creating bias issues that will take significant time and resources to address.

How to balance human-centered approaches with AI adoption pressures

Speaker

Melissa (CDBTO Vienna)

Explanation

This addresses the tension between rapid AI adoption and maintaining human-focused approaches in work and learning environments.

Success stories in capacity building around AI literacy and lessons learned from member states

Speaker

Online participant

Explanation

This seeks practical examples and best practices for implementing AI literacy programs at national and organizational levels.

Summary

The discussion focused on “Partnership Pivot: Rethinking Cooperation in the Digital Era” as part of the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) framework, featuring government officials and industry representatives from multiple countries. The panel explored how nations and organizations are adapting their digital cooperation strategies to address emerging challenges and opportunities in an increasingly connected world.

Representatives from developing nations emphasized infrastructure development as a critical priority. Burkina Faso highlighted projects to strengthen connectivity through fiber optic networks and national data centers, while focusing on digital literacy and AI implementation despite security challenges. Senegal presented its ambitious “New Technology Deal” strategy aimed at becoming a digital society by 2050, emphasizing the need for strategic partnerships and universal connectivity access across Africa. Albania shared its success story of achieving 95% online public services through sustained political commitment and both internal and external cooperation since 2003.

Technical experts discussed the evolution of artificial intelligence, with Hungary’s representative noting the progression from current agentic AI toward future general AI and autonomous systems. Malaysia emphasized ecosystem-based collaborations that unite government, industry, academia, and civil society, citing their Jendela network rollout as a successful multi-stakeholder initiative. Bahrain’s telecommunications authority stressed the importance of flexible regulatory frameworks that can adapt to rapidly evolving technology while ensuring seamless international connectivity.

Denmark’s tech ambassador addressed the paradox of increased geopolitical fragmentation occurring alongside unprecedented need for collaboration, advocating for business-focused partnerships rather than aid-based approaches. The US Council for International Business concluded by highlighting how multi-stakeholder cooperation has strengthened private sector partnerships and emphasized the continued importance of trust-building and inclusive dialogue. The session ultimately called for recommitment to existing partnership frameworks like WSIS and IGF to advance digital cooperation globally.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Infrastructure Development and Connectivity**: Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need for robust digital infrastructure, including fiber optic networks, 5G coverage, data centers, and universal connectivity. Countries like Burkina Faso discussed extending national backbone infrastructure, while Malaysia highlighted ecosystem-based collaborations for network rollout, and Bahrain noted achieving 100% 5G coverage.

– **Artificial Intelligence Development and Future Trends**: Hungary’s representative provided insights into AI evolution, discussing the progression from current agentic AI toward general AI and superintelligence, with practical applications like autonomous vehicles already being implemented at various levels.

– **International Cooperation and Strategic Partnerships**: A central theme throughout the discussion was the necessity of strengthening international partnerships for digital transformation. Senegal specifically called for strategic partnerships with countries having advanced technologies, while Albania emphasized both internal and external cooperation for successful digitalization.

– **Regulatory Frameworks and Multi-stakeholder Approaches**: Several speakers addressed the need for adaptive, flexible regulatory frameworks that can accommodate rapid technological change. The discussion emphasized multi-stakeholder cooperation involving government, private sector, academia, and civil society to ensure inclusive and sustainable digital development.

– **Bridging the Digital Divide and Ensuring Inclusivity**: Speakers consistently highlighted the importance of making digital technologies accessible to all populations, particularly focusing on rural areas, women, and youth. The discussion addressed the 2.6 billion people still offline and the need for meaningful technology solutions that address local problems.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how cooperation models need to evolve in the digital era, specifically focusing on rethinking partnerships between governments, private sector, and international organizations to achieve inclusive, sustainable digital transformation that serves all populations while addressing emerging challenges and opportunities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and forward-looking tone throughout. Despite the moderator’s acknowledgment of it being the final session of a long day, participants remained engaged and optimistic about digital cooperation possibilities. The tone was pragmatic yet aspirational, with speakers sharing both challenges and successes while emphasizing the urgent need for enhanced collaboration. The moderator’s closing remarks shifted toward a more inspirational tone, calling for recommitment to existing frameworks and continued dialogue.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Introduction**: Role/Title: Not specified, Area of expertise: Not specified

– **Lori Schulman**: Role/Title: High-level track facilitator for the session, Area of expertise: Session moderation and facilitation

– **Aminata Zerbo Sabane**: Role/Title: Her Excellency Dr., representing Burkina Faso, Area of expertise: Digital development and Information Society projects

– **Laszlo Palkovics**: Role/Title: His Excellency Prof., Government Commissioner for the AI Ministry of Energy, Hungary, Area of expertise: Artificial intelligence, engineering, autonomous vehicles

– **Alioune Sall**: Role/Title: His Excellency, Minister of Communication and Digital, Senegal, Area of expertise: Digital strategy and international cooperation

– **Enkelejda Mucaj**: Role/Title: Her Excellency Ms., representing Albania, Area of expertise: Digital transformation and public service digitalization

– **Eneng Faridah**: Role/Title: Chief Enforcement Officer, Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, Malaysia, Area of expertise: Telecommunications regulation and digital cooperation

– **Philip Marnick**: Role/Title: General Director, Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, Bahrain, Area of expertise: Digital infrastructure and telecommunications regulation

– **Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard**: Role/Title: Technical Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, Area of expertise: Technology diplomacy and digital divide solutions

– **Whitney Baird**: Role/Title: President and CEO, United States Council of International Business, Area of expertise: Private sector digital cooperation and multi-stakeholder approaches

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Partnership Pivot: Rethinking Cooperation in the Digital Era – Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Session Context

The discussion on “Partnership Pivot: Rethinking Cooperation in the Digital Era” took place as part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework. Facilitated by Lori Schulman, the session brought together government officials, regulatory authorities, and industry representatives from multiple countries to explore digital cooperation strategies. The session maintained an informal, collaborative atmosphere, with Schulman noting it was the final session before cocktails and dinner, and referencing the AI for Good exhibition featuring a robot named Euclid.

## Country Presentations and National Strategies

### Burkina Faso – Infrastructure and Digital Services

Her Excellency Dr. Aminata Zerbo Sabane outlined Burkina Faso’s comprehensive digital development strategy focused on achieving zero white areas (areas without connectivity) by 2027. The country is extending its fiber optic backbone network to reach neighboring country borders to increase system resilience and regional integration.

Key initiatives include establishing national data centers, implementing paperless public policies through digital platforms, and creating citizenship houses in rural areas to provide digital service access points. Dr. Zerbo Sabane emphasized data valorization as a foundation for AI implementation, including language translation tools for multilingual communication and health smart centers utilizing AI for improved medical services.

The country has also established centers of excellence in Internet of Things (IoT) technologies within academic institutions and implemented digital literacy programs targeting youth and women in rural areas.

### Hungary – Artificial Intelligence Development

His Excellency Prof. László Palkovics, Government Commissioner for the AI Ministry of Energy, provided insights into AI evolution, emphasizing that current development remains in early stages. He identified agentic AI as the current highlight, while general AI and superintelligence remain future aspirations that “even engineers struggle to define precisely.”

Palkovics highlighted autonomous machines and vehicles as the next logical step, noting that Hungary has already implemented level 4 autonomous vehicles on public roads “without any time and any limitation.” He emphasized that practical AI implementation focuses on specific, measurable applications rather than abstract concepts of general intelligence.

### Senegal – Digital Society Transformation

His Excellency Alioune Sall presented Senegal’s “New Technology Deal” strategy, designed to transform the country into a digital society by 2050. With a population of 18 million, half of whom are 19 years old, Sall emphasized that the fourth industrial revolution should provide equal starting points for all nations, particularly regarding 5G infrastructure.

The strategy requires strategic partnerships with countries possessing advanced technological capabilities and substantial financial resources. Sall stressed the need for international collaboration to mobilize resources for populations currently unable to access basic digital services.

### Albania – Digital Government Success

Her Excellency Ms. Enkelejda Mucaj presented Albania’s achievement of offering 95% of public services exclusively online, resulting from sustained political commitment and systematic digitization approaches implemented consistently since 2003. She emphasized that successful digitization requires both internal cooperation between institutions, academia, and private sector partners, as well as strategic international cooperation.

Mucaj noted that comprehensive digital transformation is “not an easy task for a country without significant means,” highlighting the importance of sustained commitment and strategic resource allocation. She specifically referenced WSIS+20 objectives and 2030 Sustainable Development Goals in discussing Albania’s progress.

### Malaysia – Ecosystem-Based Collaboration

Eneng Faridah from Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Commission highlighted ecosystem-based collaborations uniting government, industry, academia, and civil society. The Malaysian Jendela network rollout exemplifies this approach, requiring coordination with local councils, state governments, industry partners, and environmental authorities.

Faridah noted that Malaysia recently amended telecommunications legislation after “probably 26 years” to ensure future-proofing, while acknowledging ongoing challenges in determining optimal stakeholder engagement scope and keeping rural internet centers operational and serving community needs.

### Bahrain – Advanced Digital Infrastructure

Philip Marnick, General Director of Bahrain’s Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, reported that Bahrain has achieved 100% 5G coverage from all networks and ubiquitous fiber systems. He emphasized that infrastructure investments must be inclusive and future-proof, requiring sustained collaboration between private sector partners and international stakeholders.

Marnick advocated for regulatory approaches that avoid predicting specific technological outcomes while maintaining frameworks that enable innovation. He noted challenges with digital services changing functionality and cost when users travel internationally, suggesting current frameworks inadequately address cross-border digital service delivery.

### Denmark – Local Solutions and Structural Challenges

Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard, Technical Ambassador from Denmark’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, advocated for meaningful technology solutions that address local problems rather than universal approaches. She emphasized harmonizing public interest with private innovation, noting this alignment “seems almost impossible” but remains essential.

Meldgaard highlighted structural barriers including a 50% decline in African venture capital funding from 2022 to 2024 and 30-40% higher cloud access costs in Africa compared to Europe. She advocated for business-focused partnerships rather than traditional aid-based approaches.

### United States – Private Sector Perspective

Whitney Baird, President and CEO of the United States Council of International Business, emphasized how multi-stakeholder approaches strengthen business ability to partner with governments while enhancing private sector understanding of local concerns through civil society input. She referenced the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as a framework for business engagement.

Baird highlighted the persistent challenge of 2.6 billion people remaining offline, alongside increasing access gaps from growing electricity demands for AI technologies and rising cyber security threats. She noted the challenge of ensuring larger firms effectively represent small business voices in policy consultations.

## Key Themes and Discussions

### Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation

Throughout the discussion, speakers consistently emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation involving government, private sector, academia, and civil society. This approach was highlighted as essential for successful digital infrastructure deployment, regulatory development, and service delivery.

### Infrastructure Development Priorities

Representatives from developing nations emphasized infrastructure development as their most critical priority, with particular focus on achieving universal connectivity and regional integration. The discussion revealed different national circumstances requiring diverse approaches to international cooperation.

### Regulatory Adaptation

Regulatory authorities from Malaysia and Bahrain emphasized the necessity of flexible, adaptive frameworks that can accommodate technological uncertainty while enabling innovation. Both stressed the importance of wide stakeholder engagement in policy development.

### Digital Inclusion Challenges

Speakers identified ongoing challenges in digital inclusion, particularly regarding sustainability of rural access points and addressing structural economic barriers that affect developing countries disproportionately.

## Moderator’s Concluding Remarks

Facilitator Lori Schulman reframed the discussion by suggesting that effective digital cooperation requires recommitment to existing frameworks rather than fundamental rethinking of partnership approaches. She emphasized that WSIS and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) multi-stakeholder systems provide proven mechanisms for international digital cooperation.

Schulman used a tennis analogy to illustrate the importance of continued engagement, noting that “you have to keep hitting the ball back” to maintain effective dialogue. She emphasized the UN Declaration of Human Rights as a foundational framework for digital cooperation efforts.

## Key Takeaways

The session demonstrated broad agreement on the fundamental importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation for digital development across diverse geographical and institutional perspectives. While countries face different challenges and have varying capabilities, there was consensus on the need for:

– Sustained commitment to collaborative governance models

– Flexible regulatory frameworks that can adapt to technological change

– Strategic partnerships that balance national autonomy with international cooperation

– Continued dialogue and trust-building across stakeholder groups

– Integration of technical capabilities with social objectives

The discussion ultimately reinforced the importance of existing international frameworks while acknowledging the need for enhanced commitment and implementation rather than wholesale rethinking of cooperation approaches.

Introduction: For today, Partnership Pivot, Rethinking Cooperation in the Digital Era. I would like to invite to the stage Ms. Lori Schulman, who is our high-level track facilitator for this session.

Lori Schulman: ♪ ♪ Welcome, everybody. Hello. Thank you for toughing it out until the last session. I really appreciate you. We really appreciate your diligence. I’m going to call the speakers to the stage. Burkina Faso, Her Excellency Dr. Aminata Zerbo Sabane, will you kindly take the stage? And from Hungary, His Excellency Prof. László Palkovics, the Government Commissioner for the AI Ministry of Energy. Our speaker from Senegal, I believe, is not here, but when he comes, it is His Excellency Alouine Sall, the Minister. Oh, he is here. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Okay. From Albania, Her Excellency Ms. Nkulyayda Mukache, kindly take the stage. We have a really large panel today. It’s great. From Malaysia, we became good friends at lunch today, Ms. Enig Farida. She is the Chief Enforcement Officer for the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. And from Bahrain, Mr. Philip Marnik, the General Director of the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority. And from Denmark, Ms. Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard. She’s the Technical Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And finally, last but not least, Ms. Whitney Baird. She is from the United States Council of International Business. I want to welcome you all. We know we’re last, so I’m going to get started so we all can get to cocktails and dinner and a little bit of sunshine that’s left. So I’m going to go straight into the questions and start with Burkina Faso. And you had asked for the question to be read in French, and I apologize, but my French is not fluent. Okay, so I will read the question translated into English. What are the main projects that your agency is undertaking to harness the benefits of the Information Society? Thanks.

Aminata Zerbo Sabane: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody. I’m very happy to share this panel with the other panelists. In spite of the specific security context in Burkina Faso, there is a strong willingness from the authorities to develop actions in all sectors to meet those challenges. We believe it is the best answer to the security challenge that we face. The digital sector is also being dealt with. There are many projects in order to consolidate the different results and to take on all the challenges that are very complex with the emergence of artificial intelligence. Our projects are mostly related to strengthening connectivity infrastructure with the extension of the national backbone in fiber optic in order to reach out the borders with neighboring countries and increase the country’s resilience. Strengthening as well of the hosting infrastructures with the implementation of national data centers in order to facilitate a policy on data. Speeding up the paper-free public policies with the implementation of platforms. Strengthening of skills with two aspects. First of all, the creation of local expertise with IT people with the diversification of different sectors, implementation of centers of excellence in IOTs, in our academies, and also digital illiteracy amongst the population to reach out to all types of populations, placing emphasis on young people and women in rural areas. Also, tapping on the potential of artificial intelligence with a clear national vision and valuing data with the creation of tools, notably in order to translate our languages and implementation of a health smart center and implementation of initiatives in order to reinforce inclusivity. There are three main initiatives here. The first one is related to the coverage of white areas. We have zero white areas in 2027. Number two, implementation of citizenship houses to help people to access paper-free actions and also implementation of terminals to ease access in rural areas. Thank you for your attention.

Lori Schulman: Now I turn to His Excellency from Hungary and ask you what technological trends do you see in the development of artificial intelligence in the coming years, particularly after agentic AI?

Laszlo Palkovics: Thank you very much. Thank you for the invitation. It’s a very interesting question. I’m an engineer, so I’m sort of a scientist in that field. We are still at the beginning of artificial intelligence. Whatever it means, it’s a very much loaded expression. I wrote the first article in 1993 already, artificial neural networks for sort of a vehicle. So many things. Currently, you’re right, the agentic AI is one of the highlights because we have reached this level so far. But if you look at the future, what is going to come in the far future, we started to talk about the general AI. General AI means some superintelligence, which is going to make decisions and operate many things. It started to build up what that exactly means, and we engineers are not really able to answer that question. Mostly we talk to mathematicians. We talk to other scientists who are able to talk about it. But there is some interim step that I would see as the next logical step. We really see that artificial intelligence is just in the vicinity. We talk about mostly autonomous machines, machines who are perceiving the environment or acting like we can act in that given environment. One very much typical example is the autonomous vehicle. We are very close to that technology for autonomous cars. It’s already there. There are countries in Europe and other parts of the world as well. There is legislation that allows to use level 4, mostly level 3 and level 4 vehicles. Level 5 is still a bit young. Hungary was quite early with level 16. We made it possible that on the Hungarian roads without any time and any limitation we can put a level 4 vehicle.

Lori Schulman: Thank you for stopping exactly when you were supposed to because this is a conversation that could go over for three hours, at least, I know. But I want to do a pitch for AI for Good. If you go over to the AI for Good exhibition, you can see those robots. There’s one elderly robot over there named Euclid, who I have fallen in love with. My husband’s in the audience. I’m sorry, honey, but Euclid has stolen my heart. So please, if you’re interested in where we are with robotics, please go and check out AI for Good. And with that, I’m going to turn to Senegal. And I’m going to ask you, how does Senegal plan to reposition its digital cooperation with international partners through your new digital strategy, new deal technology, or new technology deal? And I have to say, I kind of love that you’ve taken it from the new deal of 80 years ago. And perhaps there’s a new deal, a new new

Alioune Sall: deal now. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Alun Sol. I am the Ministry of Communication and Digital in Senegal. For those of you who are not familiar with where Senegal is, it is the most advanced tip of Western Africa. So we are a natural technological hub. We’ve launched a digital action. So we want to be a digital society in 2050. It’s an ambitious strategy, but we need to make partnerships. We need to make strategic partnerships. That new deal will require a strengthened cooperation and some strategic partnerships with some expertise and strong financial capabilities. In Africa, in Senegal, which has a population of 18 million people, half of them are 19 years old, they have a great appetite for ICTs. We have many talents, but we need to make strategic partnerships in the field of infrastructure first. I was pleading previously saying that funds that are being mobilized by organizations like YCIS should enable populations that cannot have access to universal connectivity. I think this should be the case for Africa. That’s my plea. So that fourth revolution that we believe should be the starting point for everybody. We think everybody should be on the same level, on the same starting point for 5G. We talk about technologies related to artificial intelligence. We need computing power. And so I’m here in order to make strategic partnerships. And this is going to help us to acquire the technologies that we don’t have today, and to see with countries that have those technologies to share this experience, that exchange of soft skills, so we can be on the same starting point. So we’re talking about a technological reinforcement, a financial reinforcement. We want to put in place development funds. So it’s going to help the Senegalese ecosystem to have start-uppers that have competencies to be able to assist them to give them that technology to help them to thrive and to conquer Africa and the rest of the world. Thank you very much. So easy. Thank you.

Lori Schulman: Now we turn to Her Excellency from Albania. And your question is, what do you consider behind your success so far, and how it is linked with cooperation in national and international levels? How do you view the role of cooperation? In advancing WSIS plus 20 objectives and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, as we affectionately call them. An excellent question.

Enkelejda Mucaj: Very much, really, dear moderator, your excellencies and colleagues, and especially your esteemed participants in this meeting for Albania. We would like to share a narrative, which may be complicated, but it’s simple too. But what we have envisaged, especially in terms of being a small country, coming from a very complicated past and dealing with democracy, with all the opportunities that democracy is giving, but also challenges it is bringing home. And also very firm and determined solution in trying to bring home a value which is coming from digitalization. We have already made this decision very soon, since year 2003, exactly from the first days the WSIS has been set into the market and started this journey. Albania approved its digital strategy, the first one. So from that date until today, we may share with you that, let’s say, the journey has not been simple. But we have been very clear in setting the pace, especially for what the government, in my case, should have been proven to the people. So doing the first and being the first party to make that transformation in its own administration and innovation perspective, but also deploying digital means for the provision of electronic services. And today Albania is offering 95 percent of its public services exclusively online. And what it has shown to, let’s say, and trust us, it is not an easy task for a country without our means. Let’s say, what it shows in terms of what you can do is, first of all, that you set the base because you have a vision and you have a clear objective. And under that perspective, the political wealth, in order to gain momentum, acquire that, let’s say, that sort of objective that we had in mind to bring to the Albanian people the possibility to gain from the digital, let’s say, digitalization of its sectors, of which is already there. And on the other side, we have learned it, not always in good terms, the fact that without the cooperation with all the friends, with all those partners that you foresee your future, you cannot build a system which is secure, which is sustainable, and which is resilient towards a lot of concerns which are surrounding us. And geopolitically speaking, our region also has its own, let’s say, difficulties. So, in terms of deploying digitalization in our systems, but especially digitalizing our sectors, we may assure you that not only even international cooperation, for which we are very proud and work very intensively, but especially internal cooperation in institutions, academia and private sector, is already becoming a reality. And I’m not going further because I’m not able to break that wonderful achievement of this work.

Lori Schulman: Thank you. And I think you make some really excellent points about internal cooperation as well as external cooperation. It flows in and out. So, I think that’s a very good takeaway from the session. I’m going to turn to this slide now. And we became good friends at lunch, I have to say. So, Ms. Faridah from Malaysia, in this era where digital technologies are rapidly transforming societies and economies, how should we pivot our partnership models to ensure that cooperation remains impactful, inclusive and future ready? Specifically, what new approaches or frameworks, are you ready? Yeah, okay. Do you envision for rethinking cooperation to address emerging challenges and opportunities in the digital era?

Eneng Faridah: Thanks, Lorrie, for that question. Generally, MCMC, or the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, recognizes that rethinking cooperation in the digital era requires purposeful, inclusive and future-oriented partnerships. Increasingly, we are pivoting towards ecosystem-based collaborations. That’s what we’re seeing. That basically unites government, industry, academia, civil society and communities, even alongside cross-sectoral cooperation to integrate digital solutions and adoption. Jendela, for example, exemplifies this ecosystem-based cooperation. Because obviously, when you roll out networks, you know, the collaboration with local councils, state, government, even infrastructure for sharing with industry, as well as environmental authorities for compliance, you know, that’s really important. But what’s more important is to engage them at the outset. And I think, you know, Jendela itself was conceptualized and developed through multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral labs. So we had a lab and we locked everybody up in a room and sort of, you know, give them an assignment and develop our own true north, if you like. So basically, all of us are aligned towards achieving specific objectives. And more or less, most of our other engagement has followed the same format. And we are looking at venturing even into, you know, working with the healthcare communities in order to integrate next generation health technologies with telecommunications. So this is very important as our agenda in increasing medical tourism, for example. So, you know, and even in smart city developments, you know, we’ve inked several agreements with state governments to facilitate. And perhaps as technical advisors or even, you know, bringing people from other industries to create solutions together. So the challenge is sometimes, especially as a regulator, when you’re trying to draft laws, is how wide do you want to cast your net? You know, because there’s always going to be people who say, you know, you didn’t engage me enough. So, you know, that’s one of the challenges if I can share in terms of how we are approaching perhaps law reforms and things like that. And another thing is about sustainability of initiatives, particularly in our Internet centers or NADI, we call it. And to keep it alive means engaging with you to find out what their needs are and how are we serving those needs. So it’s very important also that regulatory frameworks itself are agile and adaptive. And we have just amended the law after probably 26 years to precisely to ensure that it’s future proof. And one last point about regional and global engagement. You know, we’ve been very visible this year and I think we intend to continue to be so in the future. So we are organizing the GSMA, the Digital Nation Summit in Kuala Lumpur in September. And I’d like to welcome everybody to it. Thank you very much, Lauren.

Lori Schulman: Thank you so much. Kuala Lumpur is beautiful, hot, yet beautiful. And we look forward to that. Thank you. Now, I’m going to turn this way, folks. This is this is kind of like tennis in a way. From Bajran, Mr. Philip Marnik, he’s the general director of Telecommunications Regulatory Authority. And I want to ask you, in your view, what role should regulators play in ensuring that digital infrastructure investments are inclusive and future proof, especially in collaboration with the private sector and international partners?

Philip Marnick: Thank you. I won’t give a tennis score, but thank you very much. And thank you for inviting me to talk. We live in a world where technology is evolving at probably one of the fastest rates ever. We live in a digital world. Digital is everywhere. It’s no longer something that says, should I be online or should I not be online? It just is. For us, therefore, the technology needs to be something that not just supports today, but supports tomorrow in a world where we’ve no idea what tomorrow will bring. And I saw the forecast of robots and everything else. And someone will say it will turn up in some places. It won’t turn up, but they’ll need to be able to communicate and people need to do it. I live in a regime where luckily through our regulatory regime, we try to be immensely flexible. We don’t pretend we know tomorrow. We don’t pretend that we say that this is where the regulation is. We’ve got a framework in that enables people to deploy technology, but makes sure that the technology can be the technology, not just today, but tomorrow. I’m quite lucky. We live in the warm parts of the world. We already have 100% 5G coverage from all our networks. We have fibre ubiquitous and we have the fibre systems which actually give us bedrock will go there. But we also, to make this work, need the digital infrastructure that has the data centres and we need data centres close. We also need international connectivity because the world needs to be able to communicate with everybody else to make sure the data can come from everywhere to enable us to get there. All of this requires not just regulators engaging with each other to understand what others are doing, but actually making sure that the frameworks we have in place, both nationally and internationally, enable data to flow, enable the international networks to connect. And one of the things I often say to people is, when I travel with my mobile device, somehow the digital services I use in one country certainly change, not because the service changes, but the cost model of how people roam from different parts of the world causes it to change. And I think as regulators, we need to start thinking about not just how we get the technology to make sure everyone’s connected in our own territory, but how we make sure that when our people are moving and changing through the world, they still have access to all the digital services they want in a way they want to use it because you shouldn’t have to think about how you do things, you should just be able to do it. So for us, collaboration means talking to everybody, understanding what you need to do, making sure you think about the future but don’t believe it necessarily, but don’t close it off, making sure your regulation is open to enable new things, and making sure that the investment comes from the people who actually make the investment and are prepared to take the risk as their business case works. Thank you very much.

Lori Schulman: Thank you so much. And yes, I think this concept of seamless communication, borderless communication, is what we aim for in terms of inclusivity, access, and all of the principles that GLSIS stands for. So thank you so much. I’m going to turn the other way now. We’re going to hit the ball the other way. And here we are with Denmark, with Anne-Marie Enkhoff-Melgaard. I hope I pronounced that correctly. And your question is, from your perspective as a tech ambassador, how can governments and tech companies collaborate better towards closing the digital divide? Thank you so much, Laurie.

Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard: Good afternoon, everyone. It is a pleasure to be here. collaborate better let me just a little bit of background to where we are now I think it’s gonna be a challenge of collaborating better in a world that is looking more difficult I think there’s a paradox geopolitically it’s a charged world it’s harder to find common ground you hear it in the hallways here there’s sort of an increased fragmentation the trust deficit I hear a lot of trust mistrust between governments between the private sector and the public sector too that’s on the one hand it’s not looking really optimistic and then on the other hand and that’s a paradox in it there’s never been a bigger moment for this collaboration all of the SDGs we are terribly behind on most of them and so the need for technology to deliver tangible results for people and planet advancing better health care better opportunity for our youth around the world thinking about meaningful opportunities just for a growing of young people around the world that’s really the paradox and so that is where even though as hard as it might seem to do these public-private collaborations really is now the time to do it and so I want to offer three ways that I think we can think about this from a business and government private collaboration one do business don’t just do handouts right now if you want to have access to cloud across the African continent because 30 40 percent more than it does in Europe why is that shouldn’t it be the other way around why is it that taking the African content again has a tiny tiny tiny percentage of overall venture capital funding it even fell 50% from 2022 to 2024 let’s do business and not just handouts and that means also engaging you think with the tech industry and saying we need to make infrastructure available we do business understand the incredible innovative capabilities we see in the global South do business with them trade with them have them part of your software updates of the incredible stack of companies that you’re working with that goes from my own continent as well in the new international strategy from European Union there’s what we call the EU tech business offer an unsexy name but for a really sexy idea which is to say we want to be trading more between tech companies opportunity the second one is to meaningful technology to really solve local problems maybe it’s not I used to live in California as you can probably hear in my accent and not everything in the world looks like California what might be some of the challenges locally that we with technology companies from the global arena can help solve some meaningful technology to really address relevant problems and then finally harmonize public interest with private innovation it seems that it’s almost impossible but I do not foresee a future that is relevant or necessarily very welcoming for my children if we do not start thinking about how to align public interest with private innovation so that we solve the big challenges of our time.

Lori Schulman: Thank you thank you so much and last but certainly not least the United States Chamber of International Business with Miss Whitney Baird she is their president and CEO and you get the final word today which is great of the whole day I believe so what role does business play in digital cooperation and how has the multi-stakeholder approach advanced businesses ability to build an open safe and secure people-centered information

Whitney Baird: society for all thank you Laurie really appreciate it the US Council for International Business represents the US private sector and a number of multilateral and international organizations and thus we represent companies that have a global presence and really do care about how this dialogue goes forward I would say the WSIS through its action lines aims to create a people-centered information society that is inclusive and provides positive opportunities for all no one can do this alone and business plays a key role in working alongside governments the technical community and civil society to ensure digital products and services enhance lives and that risks of harm are mitigated in order to achieve the digital future we want we need to work together to address to address underlying issues such as the 2.6 billion people who are still offline the increase in negative cyber activities that cause security breaches and victimized governments companies and individuals the increased need for dependable electricity to power AI and the resulting growth in the access gap us CIB firmly supports the multi-stakeholder approach to cooperation on digital issues because it is strengthened businesses ability to partner on key projects with governments it’s enhanced the private sectors understanding of local concerns through the inputs of civil society and enabled firms of all sizes and across all industries to collaborate directly with the technical community resulting in safer and more efficient products and services there are many examples of how multi-stakeholder collaboration has strengthened the private sectors ability to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts in the developments of new technologies on a global scale one area where this is evident is the way multi-stakeholder initiatives have helped organizations to collaborate for example on human rights issues a growing number of tech companies are publishing human rights policy commitments that specifically reference the UN guiding principles on business and human rights what we would consider to be absolutely bedrock principles additionally we’re seeing increased cooperation around sustainability efforts in the digital space as well as an entire new track focused on technology and sustainability at the IGF on multi-stakeholder cooperation we have to focus on how business can build trust I’ve heard the word trust a number of times over these last couple of days it’s absolutely essential how larger firms can bring the voice of small businesses and entrepreneurs into these policy consultations and how the private sector continued to provide governments with research and findings in the development of advanced technology for example the OECD’s work through the global partnership on AI or GPI and the AI observatory has facilitated a channel by which business can share best practices and new research in addition the IGF has served as a knowledge laboratory where governments from across the globe can have frank discussions with businesses on topics of concern and turn dialogue into action the private sector as a whole remains a committed partner to improve cooperation in order to build the information society that we want we need and we deserve USC IB in particular will continue to be a resource to all stakeholder groups as we navigate the digital transformation together.

Lori Schulman: Thank you Whitney I think that’s a fabulous end to the day because we’re going back to UN principles and I do want to pitch here when you talk about United Nations principles with its action lines multi-stakeholder systems that this can really all lead back and I’m going to pitch here for the UN Declaration of Human Rights that many believe and have written extensively on saying if we use the UD UN HDR I mean you in HRD I’m sorry it’s late that’s the answer you know sticking to their principles that the UN community has signed on to to ensure healthy productive respectful living and I’m gonna close with one final thought as I’ve listened to everybody here today and then I wonder to myself maybe the question is not how are we rethinking public-private partnerships but how are we recommitting to public-private partnerships and this is where multi-stakeholder systems through WSIS and other fora can really move us forward and the cost to act call to action is to recommit we commit to WSIS we commit to IGF let’s keep the conversation going and I want to wish you all a very good evening and thank you for sticking it out to the very bitter end

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential for digital development

Speakers

– Enkelejda Mucaj
– Eneng Faridah
– Whitney Baird
– Philip Marnick

Arguments

Not only even international cooperation, for which we are very proud and work very intensively, but especially internal cooperation in institutions, academia and private sector, is already becoming a reality

Jendela, for example, exemplifies this ecosystem-based cooperation. Because obviously, when you roll out networks, you know, the collaboration with local councils, state, government, even infrastructure for sharing with industry, as well as environmental authorities for compliance

Multi-stakeholder approach to cooperation on digital issues because it is strengthened businesses ability to partner on key projects with governments it’s enhanced the private sectors understanding of local concerns through the inputs of civil society

Collaboration means talking to everybody, understanding what you need to do, making sure you think about the future but don’t believe it necessarily, but don’t close it off, making sure your regulation is open to enable new things

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized that successful digital development requires collaboration between government, private sector, academia, civil society, and technical communities. This multi-stakeholder approach strengthens partnerships, enhances understanding of local concerns, and enables more effective policy development.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Strategic partnerships are crucial for digital infrastructure development

Speakers

– Aminata Zerbo Sabane
– Alioune Sall
– Eneng Faridah

Arguments

Extension of the national backbone in fiber optic in order to reach out the borders with neighboring countries

That new deal will require a strengthened cooperation and some strategic partnerships with some expertise and strong financial capabilities. Funds that are being mobilized by organizations like YCIS should enable populations that cannot have access to universal connectivity

Jendela, for example, exemplifies this ecosystem-based cooperation. Because obviously, when you roll out networks, you know, the collaboration with local councils, state, government, even infrastructure for sharing with industry, as well as environmental authorities for compliance

Summary

Speakers from developing countries particularly emphasized the need for strategic partnerships to build digital infrastructure, extend connectivity, and ensure universal access. These partnerships require both technical expertise and financial capabilities.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Regulatory frameworks must be flexible and future-oriented

Speakers

– Philip Marnick
– Eneng Faridah

Arguments

We try to be immensely flexible. We don’t pretend we know tomorrow. We don’t pretend that we say that this is where the regulation is. We’ve got a framework in that enables people to deploy technology

Regulatory frameworks itself are agile and adaptive. And we have just amended the law after probably 26 years to precisely to ensure that it’s future proof. The challenge is sometimes, especially as a regulator, when you’re trying to draft laws, is how wide do you want to cast your net

Summary

Both speakers agreed that regulatory frameworks need to be flexible and adaptive to accommodate unknown future technological developments while enabling current innovation and deployment.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Digital inclusion requires special focus on underserved populations

Speakers

– Aminata Zerbo Sabane
– Whitney Baird

Arguments

Creation of local expertise with IT people with the diversification of different sectors, implementation of centers of excellence in IOTs, in our academies, and also digital illiteracy amongst the population to reach out to all types of populations, placing emphasis on young people and women in rural areas

2.6 billion people who are still offline the increase in negative cyber activities that cause security breaches and victimized governments companies and individuals the increased need for dependable electricity to power AI and the resulting growth in the access gap

Summary

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing digital divides and ensuring that underserved populations, including rural communities and those currently offline, have access to digital technologies and services.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both African representatives emphasized the critical need for infrastructure development and strategic partnerships to achieve universal connectivity, particularly focusing on extending fiber optic networks and ensuring equal access to digital technologies.

Speakers

– Aminata Zerbo Sabane
– Alioune Sall

Arguments

Strengthening connectivity infrastructure through fiber optic backbone extension to reach borders and increase resilience

Strategic partnerships needed for infrastructure development, particularly for populations lacking universal connectivity access

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers acknowledged that AI development is still in early stages but emphasized the importance of having clear national strategies and practical applications for AI technologies in their respective countries.

Speakers

– Laszlo Palkovics
– Aminata Zerbo Sabane

Arguments

Current AI development is still at the beginning, with agentic AI as current highlight and general AI as future superintelligence

Tapping AI potential requires clear national vision and data valorization, including tools for language translation and health smart centers

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both regulatory officials emphasized the need for flexible, adaptive regulatory approaches that can accommodate technological uncertainty while enabling innovation and ensuring broad stakeholder participation in policy development.

Speakers

– Philip Marnick
– Eneng Faridah

Arguments

Flexible regulatory regimes that don’t pretend to know tomorrow but enable technology deployment for current and future needs

Regulatory frameworks must be agile and adaptive, with wide stakeholder engagement in law reforms and policy development

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Business partnerships over traditional aid models

Speakers

– Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard
– Alioune Sall

Arguments

Public-private collaboration is essential despite geopolitical challenges, focusing on doing business rather than just handouts

Young population with great ICT appetite requires talent development and strategic partnerships for technological reinforcement

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both a developed country representative (Denmark) and a developing country representative (Senegal) agreed on moving away from traditional aid models toward genuine business partnerships and trade relationships in the digital space.

Topics

Development | Economic

Local solutions over universal approaches

Speakers

– Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard
– Aminata Zerbo Sabane

Arguments

Meaningful technology should solve local problems rather than applying universal solutions, with harmonized public interest and private innovation

Tapping AI potential requires clear national vision and data valorization, including tools for language translation and health smart centers

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus between a European tech ambassador and an African minister on the importance of developing locally relevant technological solutions rather than applying one-size-fits-all approaches, particularly in AI applications.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the fundamental importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation, the need for flexible regulatory frameworks, strategic partnerships for infrastructure development, and digital inclusion. There was particular alignment between developing country representatives on infrastructure needs and between regulatory officials on adaptive governance approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for digital cooperation policy. The agreement across diverse geographical and institutional perspectives suggests these principles could form the foundation for effective international digital cooperation frameworks. The consensus on moving beyond traditional aid models toward business partnerships and locally relevant solutions indicates a maturing approach to global digital development.

Different viewpoints

Approach to international cooperation – partnership vs. self-reliance

Speakers

– Alioune Sall
– Philip Marnick

Arguments

Strategic partnerships needed for infrastructure development, particularly for populations lacking universal connectivity access

Achieving 100% 5G coverage and ubiquitous fiber systems as foundation for future technologies

Summary

Senegal emphasizes the need for strategic partnerships and external support to achieve digital goals, while Bahrain demonstrates a more self-reliant approach having already achieved comprehensive digital infrastructure independently

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Regulatory approach – prescriptive vs. flexible frameworks

Speakers

– Eneng Faridah
– Philip Marnick

Arguments

Regulatory frameworks must be agile and adaptive, with wide stakeholder engagement in law reforms and policy development

Flexible regulatory regimes that don’t pretend to know tomorrow but enable technology deployment for current and future needs

Summary

Malaysia focuses on comprehensive stakeholder engagement and formal law amendments for future-proofing, while Bahrain emphasizes maintaining flexible frameworks that avoid predicting specific outcomes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Technology universality vs. localization

Speakers

– Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard
– Laszlo Palkovics

Arguments

Meaningful technology should solve local problems rather than applying universal solutions, with harmonized public interest and private innovation

Autonomous machines and vehicles represent the next logical step in AI development, with Hungary allowing level 4 vehicles on roads

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement on whether technology solutions should be universally applicable or locally tailored – Denmark advocates for context-specific solutions while Hungary promotes universal technological advancement

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed minimal direct disagreements, with most speakers focusing on complementary aspects of digital cooperation. Main areas of difference centered on regulatory approaches (comprehensive vs. flexible) and cooperation strategies (partnership-dependent vs. self-reliant)

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high consensus on core objectives. The speakers generally aligned on the importance of digital inclusion, infrastructure development, and multi-stakeholder cooperation, differing mainly in implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. This suggests strong international consensus on digital cooperation principles with room for diverse national strategies

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both African representatives emphasized the critical need for infrastructure development and strategic partnerships to achieve universal connectivity, particularly focusing on extending fiber optic networks and ensuring equal access to digital technologies.

Speakers

– Aminata Zerbo Sabane
– Alioune Sall

Arguments

Strengthening connectivity infrastructure through fiber optic backbone extension to reach borders and increase resilience

Strategic partnerships needed for infrastructure development, particularly for populations lacking universal connectivity access

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers acknowledged that AI development is still in early stages but emphasized the importance of having clear national strategies and practical applications for AI technologies in their respective countries.

Speakers

– Laszlo Palkovics
– Aminata Zerbo Sabane

Arguments

Current AI development is still at the beginning, with agentic AI as current highlight and general AI as future superintelligence

Tapping AI potential requires clear national vision and data valorization, including tools for language translation and health smart centers

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both regulatory officials emphasized the need for flexible, adaptive regulatory approaches that can accommodate technological uncertainty while enabling innovation and ensuring broad stakeholder participation in policy development.

Speakers

– Philip Marnick
– Eneng Faridah

Arguments

Flexible regulatory regimes that don’t pretend to know tomorrow but enable technology deployment for current and future needs

Regulatory frameworks must be agile and adaptive, with wide stakeholder engagement in law reforms and policy development

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Digital cooperation requires recommitment to public-private partnerships rather than complete rethinking, with multi-stakeholder systems through WSIS and IGF as key mechanisms

Infrastructure development must be inclusive and future-proof, requiring ecosystem-based collaborations between government, industry, academia, and civil society

AI development is still in early stages with agentic AI as current highlight, but autonomous machines represent the next logical step toward future general AI

Digital transformation success requires clear vision, political will, and both internal cooperation (institutions, academia, private sector) and international partnerships

Regulatory frameworks must be agile and adaptive to enable innovation while ensuring investment viability and seamless cross-border digital services

Digital inclusion efforts must address 2.6 billion people still offline through meaningful technology that solves local problems rather than universal solutions

Multi-stakeholder cooperation strengthens business ability to partner with governments while building trust and bringing diverse voices into policy consultations

Strategic partnerships are essential for developing countries to access computing power, AI technologies, and reach the same technological starting point as developed nations

Resolutions and action items

Invitation to GSMA Digital Nation Summit in Kuala Lumpur in September 2024 (Malaysia)

Burkina Faso’s commitment to achieve zero white areas by 2027 through coverage expansion

Senegal’s digital action plan to become a digital society by 2050 requiring strategic partnerships

Albania’s continuation of offering 95% of public services exclusively online

Hungary’s ongoing implementation of level 4 autonomous vehicles on roads

Call to action for recommitment to WSIS and IGF multi-stakeholder systems to keep conversations going

Unresolved issues

How to effectively harmonize public interest with private innovation in practice

Addressing the challenge of determining optimal stakeholder engagement scope in regulatory law reforms

Resolving the paradox of increased need for collaboration amid growing geopolitical fragmentation and trust deficits

Ensuring sustainability of digital inclusion initiatives, particularly in rural internet centers

Bridging the gap between developed and developing countries in venture capital funding and cloud access costs

Managing the increased need for dependable electricity to power AI and resulting access gaps

Addressing growing negative cyber activities and security breaches affecting all stakeholders

Suggested compromises

Focus on ‘doing business’ rather than just providing handouts in international digital cooperation

Balance wide stakeholder engagement with practical implementation in regulatory frameworks

Combine local expertise development with international knowledge sharing and technology transfer

Integrate next-generation technologies with existing sectors (healthcare, smart cities) through cross-sectoral cooperation

Align business innovation with public interest through collaborative frameworks rather than opposing approaches

Use UN Declaration of Human Rights as foundational principles for digital cooperation to ensure respectful and productive outcomes

We are still at the beginning of artificial intelligence. Whatever it means, it’s a very much loaded expression… But there is some interim step that I would see as the next logical step. We really see that artificial intelligence is just in the vicinity. We talk about mostly autonomous machines, machines who are perceiving the environment or acting like we can act in that given environment.

Speaker

László Palkovics (Hungary)

Reason

This comment is insightful because it challenges the hype around AI by emphasizing we’re still in early stages, while providing a grounded technical perspective on the progression from current AI to autonomous systems. His acknowledgment that engineers ‘are not really able to answer’ questions about general AI shows intellectual humility and highlights the complexity of the field.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from abstract AI concepts to concrete, near-term applications like autonomous vehicles. It grounded the conversation in practical reality and influenced the moderator to immediately reference the AI for Good exhibition, connecting theory to tangible demonstrations.

That fourth revolution that we believe should be the starting point for everybody. We think everybody should be on the same level, on the same starting point for 5G… So that’s my plea. So we’re talking about a technological reinforcement, a financial reinforcement.

Speaker

Alioune Sall (Senegal)

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reframes digital cooperation from a development aid perspective to one of technological equity and equal starting points. His plea for universal connectivity as a foundation for the fourth industrial revolution challenges traditional North-South cooperation models.

Impact

This comment introduced the critical theme of technological equity that resonated throughout subsequent speakers. It shifted the conversation from individual country strategies to global digital justice and influenced later discussions about inclusive partnerships and closing digital divides.

Without the cooperation with all the friends, with all those partners that you foresee your future, you cannot build a system which is secure, which is sustainable, and which is resilient… not only even international cooperation… but especially internal cooperation in institutions, academia and private sector, is already becoming a reality.

Speaker

Enkelejda Mucaj (Albania)

Reason

This insight is valuable because it introduces the often-overlooked dimension of internal cooperation as equally important to international partnerships. Her emphasis on the interconnection between internal and external cooperation provides a more holistic view of digital transformation challenges.

Impact

The moderator immediately highlighted this as ‘a very good takeaway from the session,’ showing its impact. This comment influenced the conversation to consider cooperation as multi-dimensional, flowing both internally and externally, which shaped subsequent discussions about ecosystem-based approaches.

There’s a paradox geopolitically it’s a charged world it’s harder to find common ground… there’s sort of an increased fragmentation the trust deficit… and then on the other hand… there’s never been a bigger moment for this collaboration… that’s really the paradox.

Speaker

Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard (Denmark)

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it articulates the central tension of our time – the simultaneous need for and difficulty of international cooperation. Her framing of this as a paradox provides a sophisticated analysis of current geopolitical realities while maintaining urgency for collaborative action.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion by acknowledging the elephant in the room – geopolitical tensions – while reframing challenges as opportunities. It influenced the final speaker to emphasize trust-building and led to the moderator’s concluding call for ‘recommitment’ rather than just ‘rethinking’ partnerships.

Maybe the question is not how are we rethinking public-private partnerships but how are we recommitting to public-private partnerships… the call to action is to recommit we commit to WSIS we commit to IGF let’s keep the conversation going.

Speaker

Lori Schulman (Moderator)

Reason

This closing insight reframes the entire session’s premise, suggesting that the issue isn’t conceptual innovation but renewed dedication to existing frameworks. It’s thought-provoking because it challenges the assumption that we need new approaches, instead arguing for deeper commitment to proven multi-stakeholder models.

Impact

As the final comment, this provided a unifying conclusion that synthesized the discussion’s themes. It shifted the conversation from problem identification to action orientation, giving participants a clear takeaway and call to action that transcended individual country perspectives.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and reframings that elevated the conversation beyond routine policy presentations. Palkovics grounded AI discussions in technical reality, Sall introduced equity as a central concern, Mucaj highlighted the internal-external cooperation nexus, Meldgaard articulated the central paradox of our times, and Schulman reframed the entire premise from innovation to recommitment. Together, these comments created a progression from technical grounding to equity concerns to cooperation complexity to geopolitical realism, culminating in a call for renewed dedication. The discussion evolved from individual country reports to a sophisticated analysis of global digital cooperation challenges, with each key insight building upon previous ones to create a more nuanced understanding of partnership dynamics in the digital era.

How can we achieve zero white areas (areas without connectivity) by 2027?

Speaker

Aminata Zerbo Sabane (Burkina Faso)

Explanation

This is a specific target mentioned as part of Burkina Faso’s digital inclusion initiatives, but the detailed implementation strategy and challenges were not fully explored

What does general AI and superintelligence actually mean, and how do we prepare for it?

Speaker

László Palkovics (Hungary)

Explanation

He explicitly stated that engineers are not able to answer what general AI exactly means and that they need to consult with mathematicians and other scientists, indicating a need for further interdisciplinary research

How can international funding organizations better mobilize resources to enable universal connectivity for populations that cannot access it?

Speaker

Alioune Sall (Senegal)

Explanation

He made a specific plea for funds to be mobilized by organizations to help African populations access universal connectivity, suggesting this needs further policy and funding research

How can small countries without significant resources successfully implement comprehensive digital transformation?

Speaker

Enkelejda Mucaj (Albania)

Explanation

She mentioned it’s ‘not an easy task for a country without our means’ but didn’t elaborate on the specific strategies and challenges, indicating need for further study on resource-constrained digital transformation

How wide should regulators cast their net when engaging stakeholders in law-making processes?

Speaker

Eneng Faridah (Malaysia)

Explanation

She identified this as an ongoing challenge for regulators, noting that there will always be people who feel they weren’t engaged enough, suggesting need for research on optimal stakeholder engagement frameworks

How can we ensure sustainability of digital inclusion initiatives like Internet centers?

Speaker

Eneng Faridah (Malaysia)

Explanation

She mentioned the challenge of keeping Internet centers alive and serving community needs, indicating a need for research on sustainable models for digital inclusion infrastructure

How can we create seamless, borderless digital communication that doesn’t change based on location or roaming costs?

Speaker

Philip Marnick (Bahrain)

Explanation

He highlighted the problem of digital services changing when people travel due to cost models, suggesting need for research on international regulatory frameworks for seamless connectivity

Why does cloud access cost 30-40% more in Africa than in Europe, and how can this be addressed?

Speaker

Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard (Denmark)

Explanation

She questioned this disparity as part of discussing barriers to digital inclusion, indicating need for research on infrastructure costs and pricing models in different regions

Why did African venture capital funding fall 50% from 2022 to 2024, and how can this trend be reversed?

Speaker

Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard (Denmark)

Explanation

She cited this statistic as evidence of the need for better business partnerships rather than just handouts, suggesting need for research on investment patterns and barriers in African tech markets

How can we align public interest with private innovation to solve major global challenges?

Speaker

Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard (Denmark)

Explanation

She stated this seems ‘almost impossible’ but is essential for creating a relevant future, indicating need for research on frameworks that can harmonize these often competing interests

How can larger firms effectively bring the voice of small businesses and entrepreneurs into policy consultations?

Speaker

Whitney Baird (United States)

Explanation

She identified this as an area where multi-stakeholder cooperation needs to focus, suggesting need for research on inclusive representation mechanisms in policy processes

Summary

This high-level dialogue, moderated by Jacek Okrop from Poland’s telecommunications regulator, focused on bridging the digital skills gap through strategies for reskilling and upskilling in our rapidly changing technological landscape. Dr. Cosmas Zavazava from the ITU opened by highlighting three critical concerns: the digital skills gap preventing effective participation in the information society, infrastructure divides, and the need for universal meaningful connectivity. He emphasized that workers risk losing jobs not to AI itself, but to others with better digital skills to operate AI-based tools.

Costa Rica’s Vice Minister Hubert Vargas Picado shared his country’s transformation from a fruit and coffee producer to a Central American tech hub, crediting strategic investments in connectivity and cross-sectoral workforce development. The ILO’s Celeste Drake presented research showing that 3.3% of jobs face full automation risk, primarily administrative roles held by women, while 25% of jobs will be transformed by AI, requiring new skills training. She stressed the importance of creating decent work opportunities alongside skills development.

The EU’s Michele Cervone d’Urso acknowledged Europe’s struggle to meet its target of 20 million ICT specialists by 2030, currently having only 10.4 million, and outlined comprehensive approaches including digital academies and international partnerships. Representatives from Germany’s GIZ and Georgia’s communications commission shared initiatives supporting local innovation and embedding digital literacy in formal education systems.

EY’s Gillian Hinde emphasized collaboration and human-centered learning beyond technical skills, while India’s Professor Himanshu Rai highlighted the country’s success in digital transactions through simplified platforms and affordable data access. The discussion concluded with calls for inclusive policies, continuous monitoring, and compassionate approaches to ensure digital transformation benefits all segments of society, particularly vulnerable populations in rural areas and developing countries.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Skills Gap as a Critical Global Challenge**: Multiple speakers emphasized that the digital skills gap is preventing citizens from participating effectively in the information society, with particular concerns about developing countries, rural populations, women, and older workers being left behind in digital transformation.

– **Need for Comprehensive, Multi-Stakeholder Approaches**: Speakers consistently highlighted the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration involving governments, private sector, educational institutions, and international organizations to address digital skills development, rather than relying on any single entity.

– **Infrastructure and Skills Must Go Hand-in-Hand**: Several contributors stressed that providing digital infrastructure alone is insufficient – it must be coupled with robust digital skills training and education programs to prevent widening the digital divide.

– **Focus on Inclusive and Decent Work Creation**: The discussion emphasized that digital transformation should create quality employment opportunities for all, not just technical jobs, and should address issues of fair wages, working conditions, and social protections in the digital economy.

– **Practical Implementation Strategies**: Speakers shared concrete examples of successful programs, including Costa Rica’s transformation to a tech hub, India’s digital literacy missions reaching rural areas, Georgia’s integration of media literacy into formal education, and various public-private partnerships for skills development.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore strategies, policies, and best practices for bridging the digital skills gap through reskilling and upskilling initiatives, with a focus on ensuring inclusive participation in the digital economy and creating decent work opportunities in an era of rapid technological change.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout. Speakers were optimistic about the potential of digital technologies while being realistic about current challenges. The tone was professional yet passionate, with participants sharing both successes and ongoing struggles. There was a strong emphasis on partnership, inclusion, and the urgency of action, with speakers building upon each other’s contributions rather than presenting conflicting viewpoints.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jacek Oko** – President of Office of Electronic Communication, Polish Postal Telecommunication and Digital Service Area Regulator and Coordinator; Session moderator

– **Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava** – Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

– **Hubert Vargas Picado** – Vice Minister of Telecommunications at Costa Rica, Minister of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications

– **Celeste Drake** – Deputy Director General of the International Labour Organization (ILO)

– **Michele Cervone d’Urso** – Acting Ambassador of the EU to the UN

– **Anna Sophie Herken** – Member of the board of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

– **Ekaterine Imedadze** – Commissioner of the Georgian National Communication Commission

– **Gillian Hinde** – Head of EY, Director of the Indian Institute of Management

– **Himanshu Rai** – Professor at Indian Institute of Management

**Additional speakers:**

None identified – all speakers mentioned in the transcript are included in the provided speakers names list.

# Bridging the Digital Skills Gap: Strategies for Reskilling and Upskilling in the Digital Age

## Executive Summary

This high-level dialogue, moderated by Jacek Oko, President of Office of Electronic Communication, Polish Postal Telecommunication and Digital Service Area Regulator and Coordinator, brought together international leaders to address one of the most pressing challenges of our time: bridging the digital skills gap through comprehensive reskilling and upskilling strategies. The discussion featured representatives from major international organisations, government ministries, regulatory bodies, and private sector entities, all united in their recognition that digital transformation requires urgent, coordinated action to ensure inclusive participation in the digital economy.

The conversation revealed a sophisticated understanding of digital inclusion challenges, moving beyond simple connectivity metrics to examine the quality of digital participation, the creation of decent work opportunities, and the structural inequalities that risk leaving the Global South at the bottom of the digital value chain. Speakers consistently emphasised that the challenge is not technology replacing humans, but rather skilled humans potentially displacing those without adequate digital capabilities.

## Opening Framework: The Global Digital Challenge

Dr Cosmas Zavazava from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) established the foundational framework by highlighting that 2.6 billion people remain offline whilst 5.8 billion are connected. However, he emphasised that connectivity alone is insufficient—the focus must shift to meaningful connectivity and what people do with their digital access.

Zavazava’s most significant contribution was reframing the artificial intelligence displacement narrative: “many workers are at risk of losing their jobs, not because they are being replaced by AI, but because they could be replaced by another person with the right knowledge and skill set to operate AI-based tools, quantum computing, big data, et cetera.” This perspective shifted the discussion from defensive resistance to technology towards proactive skills development.

The ITU Director also challenged conventional thinking by emphasising the need to address “the digital skills gaps within our informal sector as well. The likes of street vendors, market traders, artisans, small-scale farmers, and ride-hailing drivers. They too can improve and expand their businesses with the help of AI.”

Zavazava highlighted the ITU’s practical initiatives, including the Digital Skills Toolkit developed with the ILO and launched in Bahrain, and the Digital Transformation Centers initiative that has reached over 500,000 participants in rural and underserved communities across 23 countries, training 20,000 multipliers in digital skills.

## National Transformation Models: Costa Rica’s Strategic Approach

Vice Minister Hubert Vargas Picado presented Costa Rica’s transformation from a fruit and coffee-producing nation to a Central American technology hub. The country achieved internet coverage reaching plus 85% of households through strategic public investment, with a national 5G infrastructure plan to close the remaining coverage gap.

However, Vargas Picado emphasised that “connectivity alone, as you know, is insufficient. We must match the digital infrastructure efforts and investment with equally robust digital talent development strategies.” Costa Rica’s approach involves comprehensive multi-stakeholder collaboration between universities, private sector partners, and government institutions.

Their training programmes are both modular and responsive, offering courses in Python programming, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence, with scholarships specifically targeted at youth. Training extends to rural areas, indigenous communities, women, and youth through community innovation centres. Particularly noteworthy is their women-focused cybersecurity scholarship programme targeting small and medium enterprise employees.

Vargas Picado mentioned learning from Germany’s dual education system, adapting it to Costa Rica’s context to create pathways between education and employment in the digital economy.

## Labour Market Transformation and Decent Work

Celeste Drake from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) provided research-based insights showing that 3.3% of jobs face full automation risk, with administrative roles held by women being particularly vulnerable. More significantly, 25% of jobs will be transformed by AI, requiring new skills for AI interaction and programming adaptation.

Drake challenged techno-optimistic assumptions: “There have to be the right policies, whether tax, investment, development, or otherwise, to shrink the digital divide, including, in particular, between the Global North and the Global South… we have to create, as we create jobs, there must be social dialogue, and there must be labour market policies to create decent work.”

The ILO perspective highlighted the risk that AI-enhanced productivity jobs might concentrate in the Global North, potentially leaving other regions further behind. Drake emphasised the importance of anticipating future skills needs rather than training for obsolete positions, calling for better foresight systems to ensure training prepares people for next jobs rather than last jobs.

## European Union’s Comprehensive Policy Response

Michele Cervone d’Urso, representing the European Union at the United Nations, acknowledged Europe’s significant challenges in meeting digital skills targets. The EU is substantially behind its 2030 target of 20 million ICT specialists, currently having only 10.4 million.

The EU’s digital decade policy programme incorporates cross-cutting skills components across all programmes, ensuring digital literacy is embedded rather than treated as standalone. The Digital Europe Programme focuses on digital academies in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and semiconductors.

International cooperation forms a cornerstone through the Global Gateway initiative, specifically addressing the digital divide for women and girls in developing countries. The EU’s approach demonstrates the complexity required for effective digital skills policy, requiring multi-year, multi-programme approaches rather than short-term interventions.

## Regulatory Innovation: Georgia’s Educational Integration

Ekaterine Imedadze from the Georgian National Communication Commission presented an innovative example of regulatory agencies expanding their mandates to address digital skills. Georgia has integrated media literacy as a mandatory subject in over 220 public schools, with plans for university expansion.

Georgia’s rural broadband project includes skills training with local digital ambassadors providing ongoing community support. Imedadze emphasised that “bringing infrastructure without providing necessary skills will maybe even increase the digital gap.”

The country’s partnership approach involves collaboration with the World Bank, European Union, and European Council, demonstrating how smaller countries can leverage international support. Georgia is also starting mobile laboratories and integrating AI tools into training programmes.

## Private Sector Innovation and Human-Centred Learning

Gillian Hinde from EY emphasised human-centred learning approaches beyond technical skills, highlighting “human transformation including creativity, resilient mindsets, and AI discernment abilities.” EY’s approach includes scaling to 16 countries in partnership with technology companies like Microsoft and Technovation.

Hinde addressed the gender divide, noting that only 22% of women pursue AI literacy courses. EY’s model incorporates continuous learning with experimental mindsets, inclusive practices for neurodiverse students, and community-first collaboration starting with grassroots communities rather than top-down implementation.

## India’s Massive-Scale Digital Transformation

Professor Himanshu Rai from the Indian Institute of Management provided insights into India’s remarkable digital infrastructure success: 185.8 billion digital transactions last year, with 16.73 billion monthly transactions through simplified platforms using one bank account, one smartphone number, and one identification document.

India reduced data costs to 26 cents through private sector empowerment and competition. The country’s national digital literacy missions target women, people with disabilities, rural populations, and older workers, aiming to train 60 million people in rural areas covering 40% of rural households.

Rai emphasised user interface simplification and local language accessibility. During COVID, when students couldn’t access Zoom classes, they created WhatsApp modules to maintain educational continuity. His call for “compassionate” approaches moved beyond empathy to concrete action.

Rai created urgency with his observation: “AI is not the future. It’s not. It’s a present. It’s actually passing us by,” emphasising that delays in digital skills development result in permanent disadvantage.

## International Development and Structural Challenges

Anna Sophie Herken from Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) highlighted Germany’s Fair Forward AI project supporting local talent in six countries to develop AI models as digital public goods. However, she provided sobering statistics: in Nigeria, four out of five young people lack basic digital skills, whilst in India, only one out of three young people are ready for the digital job market.

Herken addressed structural inequalities: “big tech only lets the global South participate in the very bottom of the digital value chain. And the benefits accrue to the global North.” She noted that data workers in India and Kenya—90% and 45% respectively having university degrees—represent “massive talent waste.”

This highlighted that the problem extends beyond skills gaps to include the structure of digital work opportunities and the need for “fair and ethical standards for digital platforms and better-paying opportunities for freelancers.”

## Gender Gaps and Inclusive Approaches

Throughout the discussion, speakers consistently identified gender gaps as a critical challenge requiring targeted interventions. From Costa Rica’s women-focused cybersecurity programmes to EY’s partnership with Technovation addressing the gender divide in AI literacy, multiple speakers emphasised the need for programmes specifically designed for women and girls.

The statistics presented—only 22% of women pursuing AI literacy courses and administrative roles held by women being particularly vulnerable to automation—underscore the persistent gender dimensions in digital transformation that require systematic attention.

## Areas of Consensus and Implementation Approaches

Despite diverse backgrounds, speakers achieved remarkable consensus on key principles. All agreed that infrastructure alone is insufficient without accompanying digital skills development. The importance of inclusive approaches targeting underserved populations received universal support, as did the necessity of multi-stakeholder partnerships involving government, private sector, international organisations, and educational institutions.

However, implementation approaches varied, reflecting different national contexts. The debate between public sector versus private sector leadership emerged through Costa Rica’s strategic public investment compared to India’s private sector empowerment approach. Similarly, the scope of digital skills training revealed different philosophies, with some emphasising specific technical skills whilst others advocated broader human-centred learning.

## Monitoring and Continuous Adaptation

The discussion highlighted sophisticated monitoring approaches, with Rai emphasising disaggregated data by gender, age, disability, and region to identify gaps and track progress. Zavazava’s call for measuring meaningful connectivity beyond basic connection numbers reflects the need for nuanced metrics of digital inclusion success.

The emphasis on continuous learning and adaptation recognises that digital skills requirements evolve rapidly, requiring training programmes that can respond quickly to technological changes and labour market demands.

## Conclusion: Urgent Action Required

This dialogue demonstrated sophisticated understanding of digital skills challenges and broad consensus on the need for urgent, coordinated action. The discussion evolved from technical training considerations to encompass structural inequalities, power dynamics, and moral imperatives for inclusive digital transformation.

The moderator’s closing suggestion to “let AI teach us about AI” captured the innovative thinking required to address these challenges at scale. The speakers’ collective wisdom suggests that effective digital skills development requires simultaneous attention to infrastructure, skills training, decent work creation, and structural inequalities in the global digital economy.

The urgency conveyed throughout—particularly Rai’s observation that AI is already passing us by—indicates that delays in implementing comprehensive digital skills strategies result in permanent disadvantage. Success depends on combining the various approaches presented: strategic public investment, massive-scale targeted interventions, regulatory innovation, comprehensive policy frameworks, and private sector innovation in human-centred learning.

Most importantly, it requires moving beyond empathy to concrete action, ensuring that digital transformation benefits all segments of society rather than exacerbating existing inequalities. The path forward demands immediate implementation of inclusive, coordinated strategies that address both technical skills and structural barriers to meaningful digital participation.

Jacek Oko: Good morning everyone here physically and warm greetings to our audience online. It’s my pleasure to welcome you all this high level dialogue on digital skills. My name is Jacek Okrop, President of Office of Electronic Communication, Polish Postal Telecommunication and Digital Service Area Regulator and Coordinator, and I will be the moderator for today’s session, which will address the topic of bridging the digital skills gap strategies for reskilling and upskilling in a changing world. I’m very honored to facilitate this important and timely discussion. As we all know, digital technologies are transforming and reshaping every phase of our lives, including the way we learn and the way we work. While educators and policy makers are increasingly relying on these enabling technologies, they often encounter challenges and limitations in the deployment and utilization of these services, especially in developing countries. In a fast-paced digital world where technology is constantly adopted and adapted, still adapted, in a fast-paced, updated and upgraded, these very same tools can become potential disruptions to our job position and the world of work in general. As a policy and decision makers, we must take concrete actions to invest in reskilling and upskilling our country’s current and future workforce and equipping them with the necessary digital skills to cope with the fast-paced digital transformation of the job market. This is why we dialogue. in both timely and crucial to explore various strategies, policies and best practices, especially best practices because it is our experience, to ensure that our citizens understand and emerging technologies take active part in the rape and the benefits of digital economy Today, we will hear from representatives from government, the private sector, international organizations and academic institutions, discuss strategies on developing digital skills policies and frameworks that can effectively respond to emerging digital needs and gaps in the labour market. Given the number of distinguished speakers, I am going to ask one question and two speakers will respond. Only five minutes for each speaker. I will introduce speakers when it is their turn to speak. Without further ado, let me start by welcoming Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava, Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau of the International Telecommunication Unit to provide his opening remarks.

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. I know that we have colleagues who are participating online, so good morning, good afternoon, good evening for Asia and the Pacific. Thank you very much for this opportunity for me to address you this morning. There are three things that keep us awake at night in the Development Bureau of the ITU. We are concerned about the digital skills gap, which makes it almost impossible for the citizens to participate effectively in the information society. We are also concerned about the digital divide itself in terms of infrastructure, which has got gaps that we have got to work to Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava, Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze, Ms. Anna Sophie Herken in executive positions, the CIS region. Europe is doing very well, but we still have a slow pace when it comes to Africa. Asia and the Pacific is making also significant progress, and we are there to hold the arms of those who are making an effort to bridge these gaps. This morning, I would like to talk about skilling, re-skilling, and re-imagining in order for us to adopt to the fast-changing technological revolution and evolution. So, ambassadors, ministers present, esteemed participants, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to have me join you today to discuss this very important, compelling topic. As you look at the exhibits and listen to speakers here at the WSIS plus 20, I know you will marvel at the huge potential of the digital revolution and evolution. It is exciting to see what technology can do, but it is important that we do not leave it in the hands of small minorities or technical experts or enthusiasts, because its full potential cannot be realized if we equip all citizens with the skills they need to use it. You may be aware that ITU has got two strategic goals, one is to make sure that there is universal connectivity, which is affordable and meaningful. And the second one has to do with sustainable data transformation. And to that, we commit. And I think this meeting is exactly on point. Today, many workers are at risk of losing their jobs, not because they are being replaced by AI, but because they could be replaced by another person with the right knowledge and skill set. To operate AI-based tools, quantum computing, big data, et cetera. Unless we upskill such workers, they will not only lose out as individuals in the job market, but the potential of AI to transform world economies for the better will be realized. Moreover, the potential of digital technologies goes beyond the formal sectors. We need to take bold steps in addressing the digital skills gaps within our informal sector as well. The likes of street vendors, market traders, artisans, small-scale farmers, and ride-hailing drivers. They too can improve and expand their businesses with the help of AI. And that’s why we are a very strong believer in measuring the universal meaning of connectivity. Not just the figures, 5.8 billion people are connected. What are they doing with their connectivity? 2.6 billion people are offline. Who are those? And what are they losing? It’s important for us to measure and look at the facts. But only if we can make sure that every living human being has equality of opportunity for them to be able to participate meaningfully in the knowledge society. As policymakers and regulators, our task is to design inclusive digital strategy. and Ms. Bess. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m pleased to welcome you to the Congress of the United States. Today, we are joined by a panel of experts, who will be sharing with us the latest and greatest technologies and strategies so we can empower everyone to benefit from the huge potentials of digital technologies. This dialogue is a unique opportunity to share concrete strategies that we need as policymakers, regulators, educators and researchers, in order to upskill and re-skill citizens to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by artificial intelligence and other technologies. Ladies and gentlemen, together with our partner Cisco, BDT has launched the Digital Transformation Centers initiative, which equips citizens with basic and intermediate digital skills, especially those in rural and underserved communities. And also, so far benefited over half a million participants. It’s not a sin that someone grew up in a family which is disadvantaged. It doesn’t mean that we are condemning the whole generation. We have to give each living human being an opportunity. And that’s why we’ve been rolling out and impacting a lot of people in rural, remote areas and equipping them with the right skills for them to participate effectively in the modern world. This initiative has tremendous potential to unlock socioeconomic opportunities for millions more people around the world. And I know we can’t do this alone, but together we will be able to achieve meaningful results. Meanwhile, the ITU Academy offers training to professionals in the city sector and other economic sectors. More than 150 courses can be accessed each year through the platform, which has a user base of over 70,000 people. Furthermore, during our Digital Skills Forum held in September and I want to thank the government of Bahrain for hosting us. We launched the ITU Digital Skills and Ms. Anna Sophie Herken. I want to thank the International Labour Organization with whom we have been working closely together. This toolkit serves as a step-by-step guide designed to help stakeholders develop effective national digital skills, strategies and policies. Packed with practical examples and actionable insights, it is a valuable resource for policymakers across countries. And I’m about to conclude. I hope today’s session will build on the recommendations of the toolkit. I should be mentioning also that we have got the ITU Academy Training Centers represented in all the regions and doing fantastic work, particularly for government officials at the middle and the upper management, because we want to have a holistic approach. Together, I think we will be able to build something special and to equip all the peoples of the world. And I want to thank industry partners, member states and also other UN agencies who have been working with us. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish you all the best.

Jacek Oko: Thank you, Mr. Director. Thank you for very inspiring remarks for our discussion. I’m optimistic that, unfortunately, Mr. Director has to leave our meeting to go to other responsibilities for him. Thank you very much. OK, we can start with our discussion. My first question goes to His Excellency Mr. Hubert Vargas Picado, Vice Minister of Telecommunications at Costa Rica, Minister of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications, and to Mrs. Celeste Drake, Deputy Director General of the International Labour Organization. What key strategies? are required to address the emerging digital needs and gaps in the labor market. Mr. Ministry, the floor is yours. Well, good morning to everyone.

Hubert Vargas Picado: Thank you, ITU and ILO, for this opportunity to share Costa Rica’s experience in addressing emerging digital needs and closing labor market gaps during rapid technological transformation. It’s an honor for me to share this session with you all. Digitization and education allowed Costa Rica, a quite small country, as you know, to be transformed from a fruit and coffee production company just 30 years ago to be basically the tech hub in Central America and the Caribbean, where software is developed and more than 500 multinationals, mainly from United States and European countries, have trusted us to base their operations in the region. We are not celebrating, we are just always challenged to be better. We firmly believe that bridging the digital skills gap transcends inclusion and it is fundamental to economic resilience, social equity and sustainable development. Our country has achieved some important progress in closing the digital divide. Internet coverage now reaches plus 85% of our households, including rural and remote areas, through strategic public investment. That has allowed us that foreign direct investment has become a cornerstone in Costa Rica’s digital economy. In last year, 2024, we achieved a record-breaking 40% increase in FDI and crucially over 40% of that new investment are located outside our capital, our metro area, driving inclusive territorial growth. These investments are concentrated in knowledge-intensive sectors like advanced manufacturing, semiconductors and digital devices. Each demands a skilled, adaptive workforce ready for tomorrow’s challenge. In sum, connectivity and skills development allowed Costa Rica to be transformed by design, by policy, and to achieve just 10 days ago the degree of high-income country according to the World Bank. I want to highlight some key elements of our approach and how we’ll navigate our persistent challenges. Connectivity alone, as you know, is insufficient. We must match the digital infrastructure efforts and investment with equally robust digital talent development strategies. And prospectively, we will. First, we believe in a cross-sectoral workforce development ecosystem, understanding that only one institution or even one just government with these election cycles can solve and plan ahead alone. So we involve public universities, private education, our ministry, which involves science, innovation, tech and telecom, also involve the private sector, and also we involve the Technical Education Institute, which provides specialized training to design a comprehensive education pathway aligned with the strategic industry needs. Some skills require college degrees, other ones just certifications to upskill or reskill labor, and others a quick immersion training via dual education, which we basically copy from Germany. Second, we believe on a modular and responsive training model. We’re currently offering digital skills courses in Python, cybersecurity and AI, providing scholarships for youth age from 16 to 35 years old. through community innovation centers. That’s a project that we champion from the ministry. And also through online platforms. We have launched a specialized women-focused cybersecurity scholarship program targeting SMEs, employees, and technical training and mentorship. Our third effort is basically to provide corporate investment incentives. We provide fiscal benefits to companies that invest in workforce reskilling and upskilling, particularly in high-demand sectors. This has allowed us to reskill thousands of employees. Fourth, we believe in inclusive access. Training programs extend to rural areas, indigenous communities, to women and youth through community innovation centers, laboratories basically of innovation, and mobile ones. We’re just starting this year with mobile laboratories to allow some communities that currently we can’t afford to have a physical one. And it has allowed us to basically ensure that there is no one left behind in the digital transition. And five, our national 5G infrastructure plan for development is basically focused to provide and to close this 15% of internet coverage in digital urban areas, but also in rural areas, but also to provide ultra-fast connectivity to create the use cases that the industry, not only the future needs, but also in the present. Allowing more telework, allowing more digital transformation through health, education, manufacturing, and agriculture, because we believe 5G should transform agriculture. This transition not only fosters great inclusion but generates demand for new digital professions and technical roles, positions we are actively preparing our workforce to fill through targeted training and reskill programs. These efforts are intended to deliver an increased development of employment outside the metro area, reducing skills meet matches in key sectors. We’re always battling with this as technology evolves and to consolidate a proper innovation ecosystem powered by talent. Eusterica believes and will support any global effort to develop and scale digital-ready workforce through the convergence of public policy, strategic investment, and inclusive practices. As we advance into the future we can build digital economies that are not only global, competitive, but fundamentally fair and human-centered. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here.

Celeste Drake: Thank you very much, Chair. And I want to begin by thanking the ITU for organizing the session. ITU has been a great partner of the ILO on the skills issue, as you heard, and we are happy to recently join the Digital Skills Coalition with ITU. And I also appreciate the Minister’s remarks and thank you for describing it so thoroughly and the focus on inclusion of all kinds, whether geographical, gender, what have you. So the short answer to the question, I would say it’s important to address digital skills gaps, but also to remind us that that’s not enough. There have to be the right policies, whether tax, investment, development, or otherwise, to shrink the digital divide, including, in particular, between the Global North and the Global South. And finally, we have to create, as we create jobs, there must be social dialogue, and there must be labor market policies to create decent work. AI and the world of digital work really present an opportunity to shrink the gaps, whether it’s between men and women, whether it’s between high-income and low-income countries, whether it’s between just a job and decent work. And we really need to harness this opportunity. So let me say a little bit more. At the ILO, to accomplish this, we’re using really a focus of three action items in AI and the world of digital work. One is research, and that research is on what skills are needed, what’s likely to happen in the job market, how can we be prepared for the changes in the job market. Two, providing technical assistance to our constituents, which includes not only the member states, but workers’ organizations and employers’ organizations, so that they can be ready for the change. And finally, developing those use cases, because there are a lot of our constituents who are very interested in using AI to enhance efficiency, productivity, but they’re not quite sure how to go about it and how to make the most of it with what they have available to invest. So looking at the research, I think it’s important to start with what we know now. And our most recent update in terms of the likely impact on the job market of AI tells us that in the very near term, about 3.3% of jobs are at risk of full automation. Those jobs are largely administrative. They are largely held by women. And that number of 3.3% is about doubled in the global north, because there are much more of these types of administrative jobs. So that risk of full automation is much less in the global south. We also have about 25% of jobs which will be transformed, because they will use AI. And the people in those jobs will need to develop the new skills, whether that’s posing the query correctly to AI, or whether that’s programmers who really need to learn to work completely differently, because AI is doing a lot of the work and they need to learn the right skills to check and see that the program is doing what they want. The other jobs will either be impacted in a small way, or maybe not yet. And that’s where it comes to the question of job quality. Workers around the world, many of them are in the informal sector. They’re in informal jobs. There might be technology, but not a lot, or there might be none at all. And those jobs, AI will impact eventually, but we need to also think, how do we get everyone ready, no matter what sector they’re in, rural or urban, men and women. And so we do need to do skilling, reskilling, looking at our technical vocational education and training policies. And everyone has a role to play. Workers need to be ready for the training. Employers and governments need to invest in the training. And we need to do a better job than we have in the past in terms of foresight and skills anticipation, so that we’re not training people for the last job, but for the next job. And that’s where we can work really closely with looking at. not only the skills breakdown of various job categories, but where AI seems ready and poised to be in that job and in that skill and somebody needs the training so they can augment and enhance their productivity and efficiency. And that’s really important. But once people are ready, they’ve taken the training, they’re ready for something, there has to be a job there. And that’s where these policies to create an enabling environment for sustainable businesses are quite important. And it’s important to focus on the digital divide between global north and south. Because if the jobs that really take advantage of AI and its enhanced productivity are concentrated, again, in the global north, then we’re just leaving folks further and further behind. So that’s really important. Looking at development, investment, taxation, how are we creating that environment to lift up micro, small and medium enterprises in countries across the world. And then finally, once we’ve done training, we know it’s the right training, it’s advanced. We’ve looked at making sure that we are addressing the digital divide and we are promoting businesses from the tiniest to the largest to take advantage of AI. We have to look at the job quality. We’ve set up an opportunity for jobs to be created, but we want to make sure they’re not just any job. Are they formalized? Do people have social protections? So they have some protection against periods of unemployment, periods of ill health. Are there livable wages? Can workers exercise the fundamental principles and rights at work? They have a safe working environment. They have an opportunity to engage in social dialogue with their employer, all of those things, making sure that there are the other elements of decent work. And the support for small and medium enterprises. That is how we will get there, so its skill policies, rights, knowing what skills are needed. That’s what gets us where we want to go.

Jacek Oko: Thank you for a very interesting and inspiring remarks or contribution, really. But cross-sexual cooperation and social dialogue. I think it’s the most important element from your contributions. Okay, thank you very much. I should go to the second question. Unfortunately, as I know His Excellency Minister Mutua isn’t connected, my question is directly to His Excellency Misha Cervone, Acting Ambassador of the EU to the UN. What policies can governments put in place to address digital skills needs?

Michele Cervone d’Urso: First of all, I wanted to thank the Chair for organising such a session. Let me just zoom out a second, because here we have the presence also of Celeste Drake, of Dr. Zavazava, because this partnership between ILO and ITU is really important for the EU. And I don’t mention this just here rhetorically, but you know, the top priority at the moment in terms of our engagement in multilateralism with the UN is UNAT. We have, we value a lot the role particularly of Doreen Bogdan, ITU Secretary General, and Gilbert Huangbo, they’re the leads in the specialised agency cluster. And the partnership between these two agencies are critical for us. And we see it now, we see it in the session now. So I would not underestimate the conversation that we are having. I know that ITU particularly is taking a lead across all UN agencies, but I would say the skills development component with the ILO is important. So I just want to mention quickly that, I mean, in terms of, I mean, why is this important for the European Union? First of all, we are discussing in the coming days, our future medium term financing framework, where I’m not going to anticipate it too much now, but I’m sure digital will be quite high in pretty, very high, I must say, not quite high in the agenda. This is important in terms of European competitiveness, innovation capacity and security. I mean, when we talk about, I mean, you just mentioned AI, quantum data, chips and virtual worlds. I mean, digital skills are an enabler for all this, and it will be, I think, a top EU interest at the moment for the coming years. Now, we need, concretely, we need the skills to operate and maintain our infrastructure capacities, you know, be it computing power through AI factories and gigafactories, as well as data centres to the cloud and AI Development Act. So these are really essential issues for us. That being said, there’s this huge need, but I think we have to be frank amongst us. We’re not there yet. We are not there yet in terms of EU. I mean, I just read this digital decade report this year, and it shows that we are far from our 20 million ICT specialist target within the EU. I mean, employed by 2030, we’re around, the figures of last year were 10.4 million. So we’re not, you know, we were still quite far off. And even though there’s an increase of of around 5% from 2023. We have to really step up. So this is the challenge. What are we doing about it? We talk a lot about a comprehensive approach. So in terms of skills development, a lot hangs also with our member states, not only the EU. We have this, and it’s long-term perspectives that we’re looking at. So we have a digital decade policy program. We are, I mean, we are considering skills development, let’s say, has a cross-cutting issues in all of our programs. In AI, we have the AI continent action plan. We are also working on a new set of strategies on AI apply, on quantum, data union. All of them have a critical skills component. This is why I mentioned the cross-cutting element. Okay, this is a lot with the member states, but in terms of EU, the commission particularly, we are also fully mobilized. We have the digital Europe program of around 416 million. And then we’re now discussing potential successor program. This is very, very much focused on education and training on digital technologies. And it focuses on digital, what we call digital academies in crucial areas. So AI, quantum, virtual worlds, semiconductors, together with cybersecurity in these academies, I think for us will be also key enablers to attract more girls and women also there. I think we have to really move forward in tech studies and in careers, but we’re not closed amongst ourselves. We’re looking at international partnerships, just mentioned one. I mean, we have to attract top ICT skills with India, for instance, we have our first multi-purpose legal gateway office. Now that we’ve set up in India, but comprehensive doesn’t mean only skills development and attraction. We need to look at the mobility of digital talent that’s. quite key for us. We have to look also at ways how we simplify and harmonise. Also, ILO here has a key role of qualifications, validation of skills, micro-credentials in the digital field. All this will contribute to reskilling activities tailored to our European industries. Finally, let me just finish off because I see people from all over the world. Our main geopolitical response to this is what we call Global Gateway, a big focus on digital divide, particularly women and girls, amongst other things. Global Gateway will really, I hope, ramp up in the coming years. Our support in partner countries throughout the world, particularly the developing countries. Let me flag also our main flagships in terms of capacity building specifically to the digital sector. We have the EU Digital Initiative. This is really aimed at our eastern partnership countries. Many of you, of course, will have heard of the Erasmus Programme. Also there, we will have a specific focus on digital education and innovation. Horizon Europe is more focused on research and innovation with your top universities. Here, it’s very much digital skill training through innovation initiatives. The Digital Europe Programme aims to build strategic digital capacities and focuses on AI, cybersecurity and digital skills development. Finally, we have Connecting Europe Facility, which aims to enhance connectivity infrastructure. It supports cross-border digital infrastructures and other initiatives. We have a broad toolbox and we really hope we can make a difference. I hope in the coming years, we’ll be able to report in such sessions back to you. Thank you very much.

Jacek Oko: Thank you, His Excellency. As a member of the same EU, I could agree that the huge work is before us, really, because we are at the beginning this way, and the main signal for the rest of the world should be cooperation and fluent initiative and experiences, because we have different people, different schools, different universities, but we are, our wisdom is really together for our work, not only for Europe, not only for America, not only for Africa, for us all. Thank you very much. The third question is to the Mrs. Anna Sophie Herken, member of the board of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit and Mrs. Ekaterine Imedadze, Commissioner of the Georgian National Communication Commission. Why do we need the talk about digital skills for digital transformation? How can emerging technologies can help create decent employment opportunity? Mrs. Herken, the floor is yours.

Anna Sophie Herken: Thank you very much, and thank you for organizing this session, and there was already so much foot for thought in the talks of the panelists. So by 2050, almost half of the world’s youth will live on the African continent, and it’s also estimated that by then, potentially, the African digital economy could quadruple up to 700 million revenues per year, and yet the risk is that we will not be ready. If you look at Nigeria, one of the youngest and fastest-growing countries, only four out of five young people do not have the basic digital skills. But that’s not only relevant to the African continent. If you look to India… only one out of three young people are ready for the digital job market. So this is not only about economy and jobs. It’s also about inclusion, given that pretty much all services now will be digital quite soon. And so this, I think one part of the coin is that we look at sort of what are digital skills. And then the other part is what also the ILO referred to is how do we create decent jobs in the growing digital economy? And you know, like when you’re in Germany and I live in Berlin, you know, digital economy jobs are always in these fancy new offices. You have lots of perks, but that’s not true for the hundred millions of data workers in the global South. They label the data behind JTBT and for other AI applications, sometimes they have to look at a thousand pictures, violent pictures per day, or they have to describe objects meticulously and very painfully. So this is really could be even harmful or it’s repetitive at least. And it’s also a massive waste of talent because thanks to the ILO, we know that in India, 90% of these data workers have university degrees. In Kenya, it’s 45%. So what a waste of talent. So the question is how do we unlock decent jobs? And I think we have to face the reality, which is very often big tech only lets the global South participate in the very bottom of the digital value chain. And the benefits accrue to the global North. So the solution must be to move more of the work in the global South to the more value creation where it belongs. And the global South needs to be enabled to develop, deploy and benefit from technology locally. So let me give you a few examples of what we do at GIZ to contribute to that. So one of our projects, it’s called Fair Forward, artificial intelligence for all. And we have teams in six countries, five of them on the African continent, where we support local talent and produce. Publishing Local Data Sets and AI Models And these are published as digital public goods. They are free and open for everyone to use, adapt and build on. Second, we have Digital Transformation Centres in 23 countries worldwide where we have trained so far 20,000 multipliers in digital skills. The idea is to use them to then multiply the skills needed to our partner countries. And third, let me give you an example from the gig economy. We have a dedicated project where we improve the working conditions of platform workers by supporting fair and ethical standards for digital platforms, helping freelancers to connect to better paying opportunities and strengthening the right of workers. So local innovation, support to innovators and robust workers’ rights. This is our recipe for a tech world that values and fosters the enormous talent of the people in our partner countries. Thank you very much.

Jacek Oko: Thank you very much. Mrs. Imanaze, the floor is yours.

Ekaterine Imedadze: Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Good morning. It’s a great pleasure and honour to speak about my country’s journey towards the inclusive world of digital skills and how this can support empowering people with new capacities to be part of the world, the digital world in the future. In Georgia, and specifically at ComCom Communications Commission of Georgia, from the very beginning, we were strong believers that digital skills, this is the strategic pillar for the country. So from the year 2018, we have the legal mandate as and the Commission to expand the digital skills and to bring the digital literacy in the country, which in that time maybe was not very popular path by the regulators to be digital skills enablers. But thanks to the donor organizations who played a very vital role in this journey, we were supported by World Bank, by EU, by European Commission projects, by the European Council projects to make this journey really possible. So, what does the Georgia’s media literacy hub, as we call it, as a pillar? So, COMCOM has a mandate of telco regulator as a media regulator, but and also capacity of bringing the digital literacy to the country. So, we have a dedicated hub platform, which is called Mediatik Derby, which is media literacy, and it has a very specific aims and milestones. And one bright milestone, I want to share with you that we made the media literacy part of formal education in Georgia. So, in Georgian public schools, the media literacy is taught as a subject. And we are very proud that we took part in this great journey and we’ve helped to develop the specific teaching, the path with our experience and with our very important counterparties. Also, this hub incorporates, of course, very important partnerships. And we partner with most advanced European countries who have media literacy developed in their countries like Finland. And we wrote this very, maybe you all know the book. Hello, Ruby. We brought this book to Georgian schools and Georgian Comcom was quite active into supporting this book to be brought to the Georgian children school pupils to know what exactly they need to know, what kind of skills they need to have for the digital future going ahead. This is One Direction and this is ongoing process. So now we have around 200 and more than 220 schools who have embedded this media literacy as a part of the mandatory program in their school education. And we are expanding our partnerships also with universities as we’re trying to expand our own skills in media literacy and then bring this capacity to the older generation. Another important mandate we have been given, we have World Bank supported rural broadband project Logging Georgia. And other than this project, we have taken responsibility of very important component of media literacy. So we believe that bringing infrastructure without providing necessary skills will maybe even will increase the digital gap. So it’s very important to bring infrastructure together with the skills and we are providing training. So with our supports there are provided trainings for the teachers for the local communities. We have a digital ambassadors there in the small villages because we believe that it’s very important that local community in local community to find the ambassadors who will really bring the importance of having this digital skills and how can they monetize. on those digital skills, how they will be economically stronger after having this understanding, how to use internet, maybe how to bring their small business on the worldwide, put on the worldwide web or have apps. So this is very important pillar. It’s around 8,000 trainings we have already provided and our team is very proud and very engaged in this journey. And in the beginning, there might be some hesitations about who wants to participate in those trainings, but with ambassadors, it’s really, and I believe this is a very good finding how to approach this population. Another important, I believe, direction I wanted to, I want to mention by ComCom under the same media literacy pillar, we have Media Lab at ComCom. And this Media Lab is concerned with the young entrepreneurs who want to bring some innovative digital ideas. And we provide good co-working space and we provide good trainers who understand how the startups work and they go through the very extensive trainings and they are, this is kind of a startup incubator. But of course, we focus on the digital projects and also the digital safety projects. This is our priority due to our legal mandate. So those are, I believe, important areas where we are trying to develop ourselves, but we want to go further and cover more partnerships. And as I mentioned, it would be our goal to go further to and work with universities and to bring this digital education, not as a standard pillar, like somebody decides to be the ICT professional and they are really taking these subjects, but in the preparation to the future works to understand what exactly the digital is about. And also our team is very eager to also bring the AI to our tools, but this is for the future work. Thank you.

Jacek Oko: Thank you. Thank you for those contributions. We discussed about the young talents, about the youth. Maybe we shouldn’t, not maybe, we have to, we shouldn’t forget about the seniors. My last question is created to the Mrs. Gillian Hindle, Head of EY, Director of the Indian Institute of Management. Ms. Hindle, the floor is yours.

Gillian Hinde: Thanks very much. And I’ve just found the conversation fascinating. So it’s lovely to be surrounded by individuals that are sharing such interesting initiatives and perspectives. And thank you to all of you for, for showing up today to engage in this very important topic. I think from a, from an EY perspective, I’ll probably, I mean, we’ve heard a lot of stats today and I’ll probably start with a big premise for us is around collaboration. And I know that’s stating the obvious, we all collaborate on these initiatives, but we, we really are about forming very deliberate ecosystems where we can harness the best of institutes and organizations to, to bring the best of what they can to the party. For example, when we look at the digital divide, we team with a number of our tech partners, for example, Microsoft, who’s got quite a strong presence at this summit as well, around an AI skills passport, where we’re looking to bring the expertise of EY and the technical capability of Microsoft and scale these learning passports to young students. We’ve scaled it to 16 countries. We plan to go much broader than that. But an important principle is then to work with the local teams as well. So it’s bringing in the tech, bringing in the expertise from the likes of EY, but then actually co-creating with the communities and getting down to grassroots levels. So looking at solutions where you are offering both online and offline support. And then an important point, I think just staying with the community co-creation piece, if I think of the work that we’re doing with ITU and an amazing, vibrant startup or scale-up called Technovation, which some of you may have heard of, where they actually go into schools, they’ve got a digital platform, but they actually work with the teachers, they work with the scholars, and they do a lot of offline accelerator workshops to really look at how they can actually embed the digital upskilling with young students. There’s also a very big focus on addressing the gender divide, where we know that about only 22% of women are actually pursuing AI literacy courses and skills and in the workforce. And then EY recently did a survey, I’ll take the European slant for one, in terms of the European cut, where it was showing that 70% of a lot of industries are battling to fulfil the necessary AI capability, but of that, a big majority were also saying that they don’t believe that that capability will be fulfilled through the education system alone. And for us, that’s where partnering again with industry is so important in terms of how we look at upskilling. So, for example, at EY, we run a very big digital badges program so we can actually validate the involuntary learning that many organizations are doing on the ground so that we are equipping young kids, students with learning badges that actually can get them through the front door when they’re looking for jobs, et cetera. So, those are some of the, I think, important initiatives. But beyond just the digital skills, another important aspect, I think, is around the human-centered learning. So, beyond just equipping young children with digital skills, it’s also about the human transformation. So, how are we equipping them with creativity, resilient mindsets, adaptable learning, the ability to actually discern what’s good AI, what’s bad AI, and to apply logic. So, that’s been a very important part in the curricula that we’re developing. So, we’re running a number of training programs to support young students in that regard. And then I think I’ll just leave three further points. For us, in terms of just the spirit of educating AI in our organization, it’s very much about being continuous learning because we know it’s changing so fast. And that’s where we’ve developed this EY AI Academy, which is just a platform that we are continually putting on new tools, new skills, et cetera. And that’s open externally. It’s about being experimental. So, allowing learning to fail and giving people courage to actually learn and test and trial. And then it’s about being inclusive. And we speak about the gender divide, disabilities. We’ve launched a number of… of the Center of Excellence around Neurodiversity in terms of how do neurodiverse students operate in this world and in the collective world of corporations. So there’s a lot of work around that. And then, I guess the lasting thought is I think we cannot impress upon the importance of when we do collaborate that it starts with the community first, so the local community first, so the grassroots community first. Thank you.

Jacek Oko: Thank you very much. Mr. Professor, the floor is yours.

Himanshu Rai: Thank you very much. It’s always useful to be the last speaker because I can claim that I had the last word. First of all, I would like to thank ITU and ILO for giving us this great opportunity and to my fellow speakers who spoke so eloquently on a topic which is so relevant. So today, if I have to foreground my conversation, digital transformation, it’s no longer optional. It’s a new literacy. And one of the things I always keep saying is for the last two years, I’ve been hearing that AI is the future. I’m sorry, it’s not. It’s a present. It’s actually passing us by. So we don’t have to look at it as something which is about to come, but it is already here. When India hosted the G20, we created a theme, Prime Minister Modi talked about a theme, and he drew from an Indian scripture which said Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. And the short meaning of that is one earth, one family, one future. And that is how I would like to foreground this particular conversation as to what do we do to be more inclusive? I think there are six prominent pillars, and I’m also going to give a lot of data here. The first pillar is that of policy and institutional framework. We need to have national digital literacy missions, which should have some kind of a ring fence budget and outcome tracking. particularly for women, people with disabilities, rural populations and older workers. And I’ll tell you why this is important. For example, in India, what we tried was that there was something called the Pradhan Mantri, which is the Prime Minister Grameen Digital Sakshartha Abhiyan, which was actually to provide digital literacy to people in the rural areas. Why rural areas? Let me give you a staggering figure. 900 million people in India live in rural areas. By the way, that’s more than the population of Europe and US combined. Clearly, the challenges are very, very different. Clearly, the digital literacy is low. So what we have decided is that almost according to this, 60 million people in rural areas and 40% of the rural households will be trained digitally in the next couple of years. Now, how did we manage to do that? There was one important thing, which is where the institutions like ours also came in. And that was a new education policy. India came up with a new education policy, which had a very strong focus on digital skills, number one. Second, it also mandated the institutions of higher education, such as us, the Indian Institute of Management in Indore, to make sure that we are contributing to nation building. And therefore, institutions like us, for example, we were the first institution to have something called the Institutional Social Responsibility. We adopted five villages, and we said we are going to provide them with digital equipment as well as digital training. Now, this has a multiplier effect when a lot of other educational institutions pick it up. So this is the first pillar. The second pillar is infrastructure and accessibility. If you look at the cost of data today, it’s about $6 in the United States. It’s about $12, sorry, it’s $6 in the UK, it’s $12 in the United States. And in Africa, it ranges from $3 to $50. In India, we have managed to bring it down to 26 cents. And how did we achieve that? That was by empowering private sector. So we empowered the private sector, which then came up with low-cost smartphones and low-cost data, as a result of which the kind of digital transactions that we see today in India is mind-boggling. Just to give you a figure, in June, which is last month itself, we had 16.73 billion digital transactions. And in the last year, we have had 185.8 billion digital transactions. Now, that’s a great story. How did we manage that? And that’s where I think there are lessons for all of us. What we did was we created a platform using one bank account, one smartphone number, and one ID. All that was needed was this. Now, you must be wondering as to why is it so special? Because there were many people in India who did not have a bank account. It was a cash-based society. And it’s the same story in many other parts of the world, the remote parts of the world, where not everyone has a bank account. But the moment you give them a bank account connected to a phone number and connect it thereafter to one ID, you can create this platform, which can be really magical in terms of digital transactions. Now, what is the key here? That brings me to the third one, and that is the curriculum and the delivery modes, partnership and community engagement. And what I mean by that is you have to increase the connectivity. For example, even today, we have 55% connectivity. Now, we might pat ourselves on our back saying that’s great, but we’re still 45% people who are not connected. And that’s a large number given my country’s population of 1.4 billion people. It’s the same when we look at Africa. It’s the same when we look at other parts of Asia. And therefore, this connectivity and the penetration has to go in. Where are the challenges? The challenges, I can talk from my own experience. My parents, they don’t use digital. and Ms. Natalia Zagitova, Director, Global Media. Why? Because they say that the user interface is very complicated. And I think here, I would like to make a call to the tech companies. Make the user interface simpler for older people to understand, for it to be comfortable for them. Number two, make the user interface also accessible in the local languages. Because people, not everybody understands the dominant languages. Predominantly, we use English. In India, we speak English, but that’s not the language that people from the disadvantaged sections of the society speak. And therefore, we have to actually invest a lot in the tech to make sure that we are addressing those kind of challenges and going deeper. Women have a different set of challenges, so far as my country is concerned. And therefore, what we started doing was we looked at women from disadvantaged sections of the society. We gave them a laptop. So most of the states in India are giving free laptops to women and then providing them with digital literacy. So I think these are some of the things that we need to do to be able to actually bridge this particular divide. Finally, the last thing that I would like to talk about is monitoring and course correction. All of these ideas are going to fail unless we monitor, unless we ask who’s missing from the room. We have to use disaggregated data, which means by gender, age, disability, and the region, to make sure that we are identifying the right kind of gaps. And most importantly, ladies and men, we all need to be compassionate. You know, we are empathetic, most of us, that is, which means that when we see some kind of an inequality around us, we tut-tut and we say, not a good thing, but we don’t do anything about it. Being compassionate means not only do we get moved by the plight of others, but we also do something to mitigate it. I’ll give you my example, Mayor Kalpa. When COVID came and our country was shut down, we were the first institution which sent our students home. We were the first institution which went online within a week. And we patted ourselves on the back saying, wow, what a great job done. Within a month, I realized that it was not a great job because there were many students who did not have the required bandwidth to attend classes. There were many students who were living in crammed houses and had to share a room. And therefore, while I could do Zoom classes, they did not have a room to sit in. Many of the students were actually, their families were sharing the digital equipment, including the laptop. And therefore, we needed to think out of the box. We started creating modules on WhatsApp. We created module on WhatsApp and we started sending them to students so that they could actually look at it in an asynchronous mode as and when they possibly could. So the moral of the story is that we need to think out of the box. I would like to close it with another quote from one of the Indian scriptures which says, true wisdom is seeing equality in all. Our digital mission must reflect this spirit of inclusion because the future must belong to all of us or it will serve none of us. Thank you very much.

Jacek Oko: Thank you very much for all contributions because we don’t have more time. Maybe one sentence at the end. Next step should be maybe for AI. Maybe the revolutionary sentence could be, let us, AI teach us about AI. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Infrastructure alone is insufficient without accompanying digital skills development

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Ekaterine Imedadze

Arguments

Connectivity alone, as you know, is insufficient. We must match the digital infrastructure efforts and investment with equally robust digital talent development strategies

We believe that bringing infrastructure without providing necessary skills will maybe even will increase the digital gap

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that digital infrastructure deployment must be coupled with comprehensive skills training programs to avoid widening the digital divide

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Need for inclusive approaches targeting underserved populations

Speakers

– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Celeste Drake
– Anna Sophie Herken
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Digital Transformation Centers initiative, which equips citizens with basic and intermediate digital skills, especially those in rural and underserved communities

Training programs extend to rural areas, indigenous communities, to women and youth through community innovation centers

We need to have national digital literacy missions, which should have some kind of a ring fence budget and outcome tracking. particularly for women, people with disabilities, rural populations and older workers

Global South often limited to bottom of digital value chain while benefits accrue to Global North

We need to have national digital literacy missions, which should have some kind of a ring fence budget and outcome tracking. particularly for women, people with disabilities, rural populations and older workers

Summary

Multiple speakers agree on the critical importance of designing digital skills programs that specifically target and include marginalized groups including rural populations, women, people with disabilities, and underserved communities

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaboration

Speakers

– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Michele Cervone d’Urso
– Ekaterine Imedadze
– Gillian Hinde

Arguments

I want to thank industry partners, member states and also other UN agencies who have been working with us

Cross-sectoral workforce development ecosystem involving universities, private sector, and government institutions

Comprehensive approach with digital decade policy program and cross-cutting skills components in all EU programs

Partnership with World Bank, EU, and European Council supporting Georgia’s digital literacy journey

Deliberate ecosystem formation with tech partners to scale AI skills passports across 16 countries

Summary

All speakers emphasize the necessity of collaborative approaches involving government, private sector, international organizations, and educational institutions to effectively address digital skills challenges

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Recognition of gender gaps in digital skills and technology participation

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Celeste Drake
– Michele Cervone d’Urso
– Gillian Hinde

Arguments

Women-focused cybersecurity scholarship program targeting SME employees with technical training and mentorship

3.3% of jobs at risk of full automation, mainly administrative roles held by women, with higher risk in Global North

Global Gateway initiative focusing on digital divide, particularly for women and girls in developing countries

Focus on addressing gender divide where only 22% of women pursue AI literacy courses

Summary

Speakers consistently acknowledge significant gender disparities in digital skills participation and emphasize the need for targeted interventions to support women’s inclusion in digital technologies

Topics

Human rights | Development | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the human capital challenges in the digital economy, emphasizing that the issue is not technology replacing humans but rather the need for appropriate skills and the current underutilization of existing talent

Speakers

– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Anna Sophie Herken

Arguments

Workers risk losing jobs not to AI but to people with better digital skills to operate AI-based tools

90% of data workers in India and 45% in Kenya have university degrees, representing massive talent waste

Topics

Economic | Development | Human rights

Both speakers advocate for structured, government-supported digital skills programs with dedicated funding and specific targeting of underserved populations

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Modular and responsive training model offering courses in Python, cybersecurity, and AI with scholarships for youth

National digital literacy missions with ring-fenced budgets targeting women, people with disabilities, rural populations, and older workers

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of human-centered approaches to digital education that go beyond technical skills to include emotional intelligence, adaptability, and responsive problem-solving

Speakers

– Gillian Hinde
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Beyond digital skills, focus on human transformation including creativity, resilient mindsets, and AI discernment abilities

Compassionate approach requiring action beyond empathy, adapting solutions like WhatsApp modules during COVID

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Regulatory agencies taking active role in digital skills development

Speakers

– Ekaterine Imedadze
– Jacek Oko

Arguments

Media literacy integrated into formal education as mandatory subject in Georgian public schools

Cross-sectoral cooperation and social dialogue are essential elements for digital skills development

Explanation

It is somewhat unexpected that telecommunications regulators are taking such active roles in digital skills education, traditionally outside their core mandate. This represents an evolution of regulatory responsibilities in the digital age

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Private sector empowerment as solution to digital access challenges

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Internet coverage now reaches plus 85% of our households, including rural and remote areas, through strategic public investment

Data cost reduction to 26 cents in India through private sector empowerment, compared to $6-50 globally

Explanation

Despite different approaches (public investment vs private sector empowerment), both speakers achieved similar outcomes in digital access, suggesting multiple viable pathways to digital inclusion

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

AI as both challenge and solution for digital education

Speakers

– Celeste Drake
– Jacek Oko

Arguments

25% of jobs will be transformed requiring new skills for AI interaction and programming adaptation

AI should be used to teach about AI as a revolutionary approach to digital education

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus that AI simultaneously creates educational challenges while offering solutions for digital skills development, representing a nuanced understanding of technology’s dual role

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists around the need for inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches to digital skills development, with particular emphasis on addressing gender gaps and supporting underserved populations. Speakers agree that infrastructure alone is insufficient and must be coupled with comprehensive skills training.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting viewpoints. The agreement suggests a mature understanding of digital inclusion challenges and points toward coordinated global action. The consensus spans different sectors (government, private, international organizations) and regions, indicating broad-based support for inclusive digital transformation approaches.

Different viewpoints

Role of private sector vs. public sector in digital infrastructure development

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Internet coverage now reaches plus 85% of our households, including rural and remote areas, through strategic public investment

Data cost reduction to 26 cents in India through private sector empowerment, compared to $6-50 globally

Summary

Costa Rica emphasizes strategic public investment as key to achieving widespread internet coverage, while India highlights private sector empowerment as the solution for affordable connectivity

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Scope of digital skills training – technical vs. human-centered approach

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Gillian Hinde

Arguments

Modular and responsive training model offering courses in Python, cybersecurity, and AI with scholarships for youth

Beyond digital skills, focus on human transformation including creativity, resilient mindsets, and AI discernment abilities

Summary

Costa Rica focuses on specific technical skills training in programming and cybersecurity, while EY emphasizes broader human-centered learning including creativity and critical thinking

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Approach to addressing digital divide – infrastructure-first vs. skills-first

Speakers

– Himanshu Rai
– Ekaterine Imedadze

Arguments

55% connectivity still leaves 45% of people unconnected, representing a large population gap

Rural broadband project providing infrastructure alongside skills training with local digital ambassadors

Summary

India emphasizes the need to first address connectivity gaps before skills development, while Georgia advocates for simultaneous infrastructure and skills development

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Integration of digital skills into formal education systems

Speakers

– Ekaterine Imedadze
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Media literacy integrated into formal education as mandatory subject in Georgian public schools

User interfaces need simplification for older people and local language accessibility for disadvantaged sections

Explanation

Unexpectedly, while both countries emphasize inclusive digital education, Georgia focuses on formal curriculum integration for young people, while India emphasizes accessibility improvements for older adults and non-English speakers, suggesting different generational priorities

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Human rights

Measurement and monitoring approaches for digital inclusion

Speakers

– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Not just the figures, 5.8 billion people are connected. What are they doing with their connectivity? 2.6 billion people are offline. Who are those? And what are they losing?

Monitoring and course correction using disaggregated data by gender, age, disability, and region

Explanation

Both emphasize the importance of meaningful measurement beyond basic connectivity statistics, but ITU focuses on qualitative assessment of connectivity usage while India emphasizes quantitative disaggregated demographic analysis

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most differences centered on implementation approaches rather than core objectives. Key areas of disagreement included the balance between public and private sector roles, technical versus human-centered skills training, and sequencing of infrastructure versus skills development.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on goals but varied approaches. This suggests strong potential for collaborative solutions that combine different methodologies, though coordination challenges may arise from different implementation philosophies and resource allocation strategies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the human capital challenges in the digital economy, emphasizing that the issue is not technology replacing humans but rather the need for appropriate skills and the current underutilization of existing talent

Speakers

– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Anna Sophie Herken

Arguments

Workers risk losing jobs not to AI but to people with better digital skills to operate AI-based tools

90% of data workers in India and 45% in Kenya have university degrees, representing massive talent waste

Topics

Economic | Development | Human rights

Both speakers advocate for structured, government-supported digital skills programs with dedicated funding and specific targeting of underserved populations

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Modular and responsive training model offering courses in Python, cybersecurity, and AI with scholarships for youth

National digital literacy missions with ring-fenced budgets targeting women, people with disabilities, rural populations, and older workers

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of human-centered approaches to digital education that go beyond technical skills to include emotional intelligence, adaptability, and responsive problem-solving

Speakers

– Gillian Hinde
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Beyond digital skills, focus on human transformation including creativity, resilient mindsets, and AI discernment abilities

Compassionate approach requiring action beyond empathy, adapting solutions like WhatsApp modules during COVID

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Human rights

Key takeaways

Digital skills development requires comprehensive, cross-sectoral collaboration between governments, private sector, educational institutions, and international organizations

The digital divide affects both infrastructure access and skills capacity, with particular challenges in developing countries and among vulnerable populations (women, elderly, rural communities)

Workers face displacement not directly from AI but from other workers who possess better digital skills to operate AI-based tools

Successful digital transformation requires combining infrastructure investment with targeted skills training and inclusive policies

Community-first approaches with local ambassadors and grassroots engagement are essential for effective digital literacy programs

Digital skills training must be continuous, adaptive, and include both technical capabilities and human-centered learning (creativity, critical thinking, AI discernment)

The Global South risks being limited to the bottom of the digital value chain unless deliberate efforts are made to enable local technology development and deployment

Resolutions and action items

ITU and ILO partnership strengthened through Digital Skills Coalition membership and joint toolkit development

ITU Digital Transformation Centers initiative to continue expanding beyond current 500,000+ participants in rural and underserved communities

EU to pursue successor program to Digital Europe Program (currently 416 million euros) focusing on digital academies in AI, quantum, and semiconductors

Georgia to expand media literacy program beyond current 220+ schools to universities and broader population coverage

EY to scale AI skills passport initiative beyond current 16 countries in partnership with Microsoft and local communities

India’s rural digital literacy mission to train 60 million people in rural areas covering 40% of rural households

Continued development of user interfaces in local languages and simplified designs for elderly and disadvantaged populations

Unresolved issues

How to prevent the Global South from being relegated to low-value digital work while benefits accrue to the Global North

Addressing the significant gap between current ICT specialist numbers and 2030 targets (EU currently at 10.4 million vs 20 million target)

Ensuring decent work conditions and fair wages in the growing gig economy and platform work

Bridging the gender gap where only 22% of women pursue AI literacy courses

Managing the transition for the 3.3% of jobs at risk of full automation, particularly administrative roles held by women

Scaling successful local initiatives to national and international levels while maintaining community-centered approaches

Developing effective monitoring systems using disaggregated data to track progress across different demographics and regions

Suggested compromises

Balancing formal education integration with flexible, modular training approaches to accommodate different learning needs and schedules

Combining online and offline training delivery methods to address connectivity limitations and diverse learning preferences

Integrating both basic digital literacy and advanced AI skills training within the same programs to serve different skill levels

Partnering public sector policy frameworks with private sector innovation and investment to leverage both regulatory support and market efficiency

Addressing immediate workforce needs while building long-term educational capacity through dual education models and corporate investment incentives

Focusing on both infrastructure development and skills training simultaneously rather than sequential implementation

Adapting global best practices to local contexts while maintaining international cooperation and knowledge sharing

Today, many workers are at risk of losing their jobs, not because they are being replaced by AI, but because they could be replaced by another person with the right knowledge and skill set. To operate AI-based tools, quantum computing, big data, et cetera.

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Reason

This reframes the AI displacement narrative from ‘humans vs machines’ to ‘skilled humans vs unskilled humans,’ which is more nuanced and actionable. It shifts focus from fear of technology to the urgency of skills development.

Impact

This comment set the foundational tone for the entire discussion, establishing that the real challenge isn’t AI itself but the skills gap. Subsequent speakers consistently returned to this theme of human agency and the need for proactive upskilling rather than defensive resistance to technology.

We need to take bold steps in addressing the digital skills gaps within our informal sector as well. The likes of street vendors, market traders, artisans, small-scale farmers, and ride-hailing drivers. They too can improve and expand their businesses with the help of AI.

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Reason

This challenges the common assumption that digital transformation is only relevant for formal, white-collar jobs. It democratizes the conversation by including often-overlooked segments of the economy.

Impact

This broadened the scope of discussion beyond traditional tech jobs and influenced later speakers to address rural communities, women in informal sectors, and grassroots-level interventions. It shifted the conversation from elite-focused to inclusive development.

There have to be the right policies, whether tax, investment, development, or otherwise, to shrink the digital divide, including, in particular, between the Global North and the Global South… we have to create, as we create jobs, there must be social dialogue, and there must be labor market policies to create decent work.

Speaker

Celeste Drake

Reason

This introduces crucial complexity by arguing that skills training alone is insufficient without addressing structural inequalities and job quality. It challenges the techno-optimistic view that skills training automatically leads to better outcomes.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from a narrow focus on training programs to broader systemic issues. It influenced subsequent speakers to address infrastructure, policy frameworks, and the quality of digital jobs, not just their quantity.

But that’s not only relevant to the African continent. If you look to India… only one out of three young people are ready for the digital job market… But the risk is that we will not be ready… the risk is that we will not be ready.

Speaker

Anna Sophie Herken

Reason

This creates urgency by highlighting that even in rapidly growing economies like India, digital readiness is critically low. The repetition of ‘we will not be ready’ emphasizes the time-sensitive nature of the challenge.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from celebrating progress to acknowledging the scale of unpreparedness globally. It influenced the tone to become more urgent and action-oriented in subsequent contributions.

So this is not only about economy and jobs. It’s also about inclusion, given that pretty much all services now will be digital quite soon… And so this, I think one part of the coin is that we look at sort of what are digital skills. And then the other part is what also the ILO referred to is how do we create decent jobs in the growing digital economy?

Speaker

Anna Sophie Herken

Reason

This reframes digital skills from an economic issue to a fundamental inclusion and citizenship issue, while also distinguishing between skills development and job creation as separate but related challenges.

Impact

This two-part framework (skills + decent jobs) became a recurring theme, with later speakers addressing both components. It helped structure the remaining discussion around these dual imperatives.

I think we have to face the reality, which is very often big tech only lets the global South participate in the very bottom of the digital value chain. And the benefits accrue to the global North. So the solution must be to move more of the work in the global South to the more value creation where it belongs.

Speaker

Anna Sophie Herken

Reason

This is a bold critique of existing power structures in the digital economy, challenging the assumption that any digital participation is inherently beneficial. It calls for structural change rather than just skills adaptation.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical perspective on digital colonialism that hadn’t been explicitly addressed before. It influenced the discussion to consider not just how to participate in the digital economy, but how to participate meaningfully and equitably.

AI is not the future. It’s not. It’s a present. It’s actually passing us by. So we don’t have to look at it as something which is about to come, but it is already here.

Speaker

Himanshu Rai

Reason

This challenges the common framing of AI as a future concern, creating immediate urgency. The phrase ‘passing us by’ suggests that delay equals being left behind permanently.

Impact

This comment created a sense of immediacy that influenced the closing tone of the discussion. It reinforced the urgency established earlier and pushed against any complacency about having time to prepare.

Being compassionate means not only do we get moved by the plight of others, but we also do something to mitigate it… We are empathetic, most of us, that is, which means that when we see some kind of an inequality around us, we tut-tut and we say, not a good thing, but we don’t do anything about it.

Speaker

Himanshu Rai

Reason

This distinguishes between passive empathy and active compassion, challenging participants to move beyond acknowledgment of problems to concrete action. It’s a moral call to action that transcends technical solutions.

Impact

This comment provided a powerful emotional and ethical conclusion to the technical discussion, challenging all participants to examine their own level of commitment to addressing digital inequality. It elevated the conversation from policy discussion to moral imperative.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by progressively deepening and broadening its scope. The conversation evolved from a basic premise about skills gaps to a sophisticated analysis of structural inequalities, power dynamics, and moral imperatives. Zavazava’s opening reframing set a constructive tone that influenced all subsequent contributions. Drake’s emphasis on systemic issues and decent work elevated the discussion beyond simple training solutions. Herken’s critique of digital colonialism introduced critical perspectives on power structures, while Rai’s urgency about AI being present (not future) and his call for compassion provided both temporal urgency and moral grounding. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a nuanced examination of digital transformation’s challenges, moving from technical solutions to questions of equity, inclusion, and global justice. The discussion became increasingly sophisticated and morally grounded as it progressed, largely due to these pivotal interventions.

How can we better measure meaningful connectivity beyond just connection numbers?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

He emphasized the need to understand what the 5.8 billion connected people are actually doing with their connectivity and who the 2.6 billion offline people are and what they’re losing, suggesting deeper research into connectivity quality and impact is needed.

How can we ensure AI development and deployment benefits are more equitably distributed between Global North and South?

Speaker

Celeste Drake

Explanation

She highlighted the risk that jobs taking advantage of AI’s enhanced productivity might be concentrated in the Global North, leaving others further behind, requiring research into policies that address this digital divide.

How can we move Global South participation from the bottom to higher value creation in the digital value chain?

Speaker

Anna Sophie Herken

Explanation

She pointed out that big tech often only lets the Global South participate in the very bottom of the digital value chain while benefits accrue to the Global North, indicating need for research on strategies to enable higher value participation.

How can we make user interfaces simpler and more accessible for older people and local languages?

Speaker

Himanshu Rai

Explanation

He called for tech companies to address the complexity of user interfaces that prevent older people from using digital services and to make interfaces available in local languages, suggesting research into inclusive design principles.

How can we better anticipate future skills needs rather than training for past jobs?

Speaker

Celeste Drake

Explanation

She emphasized the need for better foresight and skills anticipation to ensure training prepares people for next jobs rather than last jobs, indicating research needed in predictive skills modeling.

How can we create decent work conditions in the growing digital gig economy?

Speaker

Anna Sophie Herken

Explanation

She highlighted poor working conditions for data workers in the Global South who label data for AI applications, suggesting research needed on improving platform worker conditions and rights.

How can we effectively integrate AI tools into digital skills training programs?

Speaker

Ekaterine Imedadze

Explanation

She mentioned that bringing AI to their training tools is part of future work, indicating need for research on effective AI integration in skills development programs.

How can we address the gender divide in AI literacy and careers?

Speaker

Gillian Hinde

Explanation

She noted that only 22% of women are pursuing AI literacy courses and skills in the workforce, suggesting research needed on strategies to increase women’s participation in AI fields.

How can we use disaggregated data to better identify and address digital skills gaps?

Speaker

Himanshu Rai

Explanation

He emphasized the need to use data broken down by gender, age, disability, and region to identify who’s missing and what gaps exist, indicating research needed in data collection and analysis methodologies.

Summary

This discussion was a Knowledge Café session focused on evaluating the multi-stakeholder model pioneered by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) over the past 20 years and planning for its future beyond 2025. The session was organized by Gitanjali Sah, who coordinates the WSIS Forum, and Chengetai Masango, who leads the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in preparation for a UN General Assembly review in December that will decide on renewing WSIS frameworks.

Participants were divided into tables with designated moderators to discuss three key questions about multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance. The first question examined achievements of the multi-stakeholder model, with tables highlighting the creation of National and Regional IGFs (NRIs), increased youth participation, successful bridging of digital divides, and the establishment of a “safe space” for testing new policy ideas. Participants noted that bringing together governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and technical communities around the same table was an extraordinary achievement that wasn’t expected to survive initially.

The second question focused on better engaging stakeholders in digital development implementation. Key suggestions included increasing funding, particularly for Global South participation, raising awareness among private sectors about their role, strengthening existing IGF structures, and creating clearer value propositions for different stakeholder groups. Tables emphasized the need for meaningful participation rather than tokenism, better onboarding processes for newcomers, and addressing practical barriers like visa access and travel funding.

The final question addressed strengthening the multi-stakeholder model for WSIS beyond 2025. Participants called for permanent mandates for the IGF and formal recognition of NRIs, better coordination between overlapping UN processes, more actionable outcomes that can influence national policies, and improved accessibility through multilingual support and simplified communication. The discussion concluded with strong support for continuing and strengthening the multi-stakeholder approach while addressing current limitations in participation and implementation.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This was a Knowledge Cafe session at the WSIS Forum designed to gather stakeholder input on multi-stakeholderism in digital governance. The session aimed to collect feedback from diverse participants to inform the UN General Assembly’s WSIS+20 review process in December, which will decide on renewing WSIS Action Lines, the WSIS Forum, and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The organizers sought concrete recommendations and a call for action to include in the chair’s summary.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Achievements of the Multi-stakeholder Model**: Participants highlighted significant accomplishments including the establishment of National and Regional IGFs (NRIs), increased youth engagement, successful policy coordination (like the IANA transition), bridging the digital divide by connecting billions of people, and creating a “safe space” for testing new policy ideas before they become mainstream issues.

– **Barriers to Stakeholder Engagement**: Multiple tables identified key obstacles including insufficient funding (especially for Global South participation), lack of private sector engagement, language barriers with English-dominated discussions, unclear value propositions for different stakeholder groups, and complex processes that are difficult for newcomers to understand and navigate.

– **Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Participation**: Recommendations included making the IGF permanent rather than requiring periodic renewal, providing better onboarding tools and toolkits for new participants, ensuring meaningful (not tokenistic) participation especially for youth and marginalized communities, and creating more accessible formats like roundtable discussions rather than traditional panel formats.

– **Coordination and Process Improvements**: Participants emphasized the need for better coordination between multiple overlapping processes (Summit of the Future, Global Digital Compact, AI governance streams), more streamlined and less time-consuming procedures, clearer communication of outcomes and their implementation pathways, and stronger connections between global discussions and national/local action.

– **Vision for WSIS Beyond 2025**: Key suggestions included maintaining the people-centric and human rights-oriented approach of WSIS, ensuring formal recognition of NRIs, improving virtual participation capabilities, providing more linguistic diversity in discussions, and creating clearer pathways for translating global discussions into concrete national and local policy implementation.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating genuine engagement and expertise. While there was honest acknowledgment of challenges and limitations in current multi-stakeholder processes, the atmosphere remained solution-oriented and optimistic. The facilitators successfully maintained energy and focus across the three discussion rounds, and participants showed appreciation for the interactive roundtable format, contrasting it favorably with traditional panel discussions. The session concluded on a positive note with participants expressing value in the process and commitment to continued engagement.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Coordinates the WSIS Forum, UN agency representative responsible for WSIS process coordination

– **Chengetai Masango** – Leads the IGF (Internet Governance Forum)

– **Anita Gurumurthy** –

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** –

– **Tracy Hackshaw** – Universal Postal Union, heads the Fab Resilience Team

– **Isabelle Lois** – Federal Office of Communications for Switzerland, director of WSIS and AIG

– **Meni Anastasiadou** – Table moderator/lead

– **Renata Figueiredo Santoyo** – Table moderator/lead

– **Participant** – Various unidentified participants with different roles and organizations

– **Audience** – Various audience members

**Additional speakers:**

– **May** – CEO of Innovation Network Canada and Innovation Network Global

– **Claudia** – From Romania, volunteered as table moderator

– **Peter Grutter** – Chairs the WSIS co-administration

– **Soya Ketia** – Member of the board for Interactive Scientist Union/Internet Society

– **Adrian** – From Singapore, part of Lysol Global

– **Dana Kramer** – From Canada, served as table moderator

– **Tim** – Works at the Office of the High Commissioner of International Relations

– **Pratik** – Technical support for presentations

# Knowledge Café on Multi-Stakeholder Engagement in Digital Governance: WSIS+20 Preparations

## Session Overview

This Knowledge Café session was held as part of the WSIS Forum to gather stakeholder input for the UN General Assembly’s WSIS+20 review in December. Organised by Gitanjali Sah, who coordinates the WSIS Forum, and Chengetai Masango, who leads the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the session brought together diverse stakeholders to evaluate the multi-stakeholder model and discuss its future beyond 2025.

The session used an interactive roundtable format with participants divided into tables, each with designated moderators including Meni Anastasiadou, Renata Figueiredo Santoyo, May (CEO of Innovation Network Canada), Claudia from Romania, and Dana Kramer. Each table addressed three sequential questions with 11 minutes per question and 9 minutes for table summaries. About half the participants were new to the WSIS Forum.

## Question One: Achievements of the Multi-Stakeholder Model

### Institutional Innovations

Participants highlighted several key achievements of the multi-stakeholder approach over the past 20 years. Meni Anastasiadou noted that the model “was an extraordinary achievement that wasn’t expected to survive but has stood the test of time.” A significant innovation was formally recognizing the technical community as a distinct stakeholder group, giving infrastructure operators and technical experts representation in policy discussions for the first time.

### National and Regional IGF Development

Multiple tables identified the establishment and growth of National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) as a major success. These initiatives have enabled policy co-creation at the national level and demonstrated the adaptability of the multi-stakeholder model across different contexts. Participants noted that NRIs have created tangible outcomes and helped bridge global discussions with local implementation.

### Youth Engagement and Connectivity

Youth participation has significantly expanded, with participants noting that youth engagement has grown substantially in recent years with concrete impact at global and national levels. The multi-stakeholder approach was also credited with helping to bridge the digital divide and connect billions of people to the internet through coordinated efforts across stakeholder groups.

### Policy Innovation Space

The IGF has evolved into what participants described as a “safe space” or “sandbox” for testing new policy ideas on emerging topics like AI and data governance. This function enables anticipation of policy impacts on different constituencies and creates more trusted regulations by providing diverse perspectives that wouldn’t emerge from single stakeholder groups.

## Question Two: Better Stakeholder Engagement in Digital for Development

### Participation Gaps

Despite achievements, participants identified significant challenges. A key concern was that “the private sector is not as implicated as it should be. And also the governments. It’s hard. It’s not that easy. It exists on paper, but the communication is not so present.” This highlighted the gap between formal multi-stakeholder structures and meaningful participation.

### Global South Representation and Barriers

Multiple tables emphasized that the Global South is underrepresented in multi-stakeholder discussions. Funding constraints, visa challenges, and travel costs create systematic barriers that limit equitable participation, particularly for Global South participants. These practical obstacles undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder processes.

### Communication and Accessibility

Language barriers emerged as a significant obstacle, with participants noting that discussions should be accessible in multiple languages, not just English. Beyond language, there were broader communication challenges. As one participant observed about accessibility: “You go on the WSIS website, you read for one hour. An average Joe needs to read for five minutes and say, oh, OK, I get this. So he can participate.”

### Representation and Power Dynamics

Participants raised concerns about who is actually represented in these processes. One speaker asked: “How do real people come here? I mean, we’re all real people, but genuine organisations in some sense, which may not meet the criteria that may be, which may even be informal, invisible barriers in the process.” There were warnings about discussions becoming echo chambers rather than engaging diverse voices, with power asymmetries needing to be addressed through better moderation.

### Development Paradigm Questions

A critical intervention referenced the special rapporteur on development, asking: “Which model of development are we talking about? Whose interests? Who’s gonna benefit? Who’s gonna lose out?” This challenged underlying assumptions about digital for development initiatives and highlighted the need to examine whose interests are served by current approaches.

## Question Three: Strengthening Multi-Stakeholder Model for WSIS Beyond 2025

### Funding and Resource Solutions

Participants consistently identified funding as essential for meaningful engagement. Recommendations included more funding and awareness-raising campaigns to show the business case for participation, systematic approaches to address visa and travel funding challenges, and long-term financial commitments beyond ad hoc support.

### Institutional Strengthening

Key recommendations included strengthening existing IGFs and giving them more power and resources, establishing permanent mandates for IGF rather than periodic renewals, and providing formal recognition for National and Regional IGFs. Participants argued that current periodic renewals create uncertainty that undermines long-term planning.

### Capacity Building and Onboarding

Multiple tables recommended better streamlined onboarding processes for new members and creating toolkits that show clear value propositions for different stakeholder groups. There was emphasis on providing capacity building and clear communication about why stakeholders need to participate.

### Meaningful Participation

Participants called for ensuring meaningful access by addressing time, resources, skills, and capacity barriers. There was emphasis on implementing fair and effective moderation that treats participants as empowered partners rather than token representatives. For youth engagement specifically, participants stressed the need for “actual voice and power in decisions, not just token representation.”

### Grassroots Engagement

Recommendations included working with grassroots organisations that understand ground-level problems and engaging consumers, community leaders, and older generations. Participants recognized that current processes may not adequately represent broader public interests.

### Process Improvements

Participants called for better coordination between multiple processes to avoid duplication and reduce costs, recognizing that stakeholders face increasing demands from overlapping UN processes. Recommendations included more consistency in formats across different UN institutions while maintaining the unique value of different processes.

## Key Themes and Recommendations

### Rights-Based Approach

Participants emphasized that processes must remain people-centric and human rights oriented as envisioned in WSIS, reaffirming the Geneva and Tunis declarations regarding rights, duties, and obligations of stakeholders.

### Technology and Accessibility

Recommendations included implementing virtual-first environments to increase accessibility while maintaining opportunities for in-person engagement, and ensuring linguistic diversity and location context in communications.

### Actionable Outcomes

Participants called for actionable outcomes that can influence national policy approaches and strengthened intersessional work and local-level engagement to address the persistent gap between global discussions and practical implementation.

### Critical Perspectives

Some participants warned against reaching the lowest common denominator in discussions, cautioning that “discussions may be pushed by very powerful interests in the room without taking a step back and evaluating the negative implications and impacts of digital for development.”

## Next Steps and Follow-up Actions

Table moderators committed to providing digital summaries of their discussions for inclusion in the chair’s summary that will feed into the UN General Assembly review process. Participants were encouraged to:

– Contribute to WSIS Forum planning through the open consultative process

– Subscribe to the WSIS Flash newsletter and engage with the WSIS website

– Make their voices heard to the UN General Assembly regarding the usefulness of WSIS frameworks ahead of the December review

– Continue engagement through National and Regional IGF processes

The session demonstrated both appreciation for the multi-stakeholder model’s achievements and recognition of significant challenges that need addressing. The interactive format proved effective in generating concrete recommendations and highlighted the importance of format choices in enabling genuine multi-stakeholder engagement. The discussions will contribute to the broader WSIS+20 review process as stakeholders prepare for decisions about the future of these frameworks beyond 2025.

Gitanjali Sah: So, we would like this table to nominate a lead, if anyone could volunteer, please, on this table. We don’t see a table moderator here. Would you like to, please? Ma’am, what’s your name? May. May. May. Which organization? I’m CEO of Innovation Network Canada and Innovation Network Global. Okay, great. Thank you very much. And you’re May, you say? May. May. May. Okay. So, thank you very much. The way we’ve designed this Knowledge Cafe is all of you have table leads. Who will be leading? Could you please stand up so that everyone can see you? We have Anita. We have Henriette. We have Renata. We have Manny. And please, can someone volunteer on that table as well? Excellent. What’s your name? Claudia from? Romania. Okay. Right. Okay. So, Claudia, thank you very much. Shengentai and I, and we are going to do the timekeeping. We have three questions. Pratik, if you could please put the questions up. And you will have 11 minutes to discuss all the three questions and nine minutes for all the table chairs to provide a summary of what was discussed on your table. 11 minutes each question. Yes. Yeah. And we request the moderators to also please give us the summary in the digital format so that we can quickly put it into an overall summary. All of this will be also adding to the chair’s summary. So please be mindful, be ambitious, be passionate in your discussions. We really need a call for action coming out of this group. Yes.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Oh, by the way, we forgot to introduce ourselves. Who does not know who we are? Oh, okay. Wow. All right. Come on. Okay. Wow. All right.

Gitanjali Sah: Okay, so this is Shengentai, he leads the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum. Shengentai, is that correct? Is that your designation?

Chengetai Masango: That is correct. Okay, you can introduce me. This is Gitanjale, and she is in charge and coordinates the WSIS Forum. So she is responsible for all this great work that’s happening right now, right here.

Gitanjali Sah: Yes. So, just to give you all a bit of a context, multi-stakeholderism, involving all stakeholders, giving all stakeholders a voice in a UN process, has been our main job as UN agencies. We ensure that governments, private sectors, civil society, academia, technical community, international organizations, all have a voice in what is being discussed to shape the WSIS process. And this Knowledge Cafe is about that, because now we have completed 20 years of WSIS, multi-stakeholderism is still in its momentum, but what is the vision that you would like to see? The UN General Assembly, Shengentai, if you could talk a bit more about it, what’s happening in December?

Chengetai Masango: Okay, so in December, so this year we are having, of course, the WSIS plus 20 review process, which is reviewing the mandate of WSIS, which includes the IGF, IGF is part of the WSIS outcomes. So in December, there’s going to be a General Assembly meeting, which is going to decide upon the renewal of the WSIS Action Lines, WSIS Forum, and the IGF. And going forth, they’re also going to decide the length and also other modalities, we’re not too sure, the rest of the stuff, but that’s the main thrust. But in order for them to do this, they also need feedback from the community, and we do want to show them. that the community, if you do, of course, find us useful. Do you find the WSIS framework, the WSIS action lines, the IGF useful? If you do, you must make your voices heard. And this is one of the activities that we have arranged to do that.

Gitanjali Sah: Exactly. So the first question we would like you to discuss in your tables is WSIS pioneered the multi-stakeholder model through its summit, the annual WSIS forum where you are here right now. The IGF, what has been the achievements of this multi-stakeholder model? So I’d like to invite the chairs of each table, the leaders of each table to get this discussion going. You have 11 minutes, please. I’m going to start with one of my section. Yes. I know each other a little bit, so.

Tracy Hackshaw: Hi, I’m Tracy, so I’m from the Universal Postal Union. And I head as the Fab Resilience Team here.

Isabelle Lois: I’m Dr. Luz. Excuse me, ma’am. There’s one seat in the front. I’m Isabelle Luz, I work for the Federal Office of Communications for Switzerland, and I am the director of WSIS, mainly, also AIG.

Participant: Peter Grutter, I chair the WSIS co-administration.

Gitanjali Sah: Yes, I think it is. Can I, if you want me, I’ll put it here. I think it is. Sorry. So we’re just about to start our first session. So we started with a round of introductions, so maybe if I can turn this into a self, and just rename, title, and role, and we’ll see.

Participant: Oh, hey, hello, I’m Soya Ketia. I’m a member of the board for Interactive Scientist Union. If you ask me, that’s sort of, it’s a bit difficult to call it International Interactive Scientist Union. Yes. So, it’s funny, because I am with the Internet Society.

Gitanjali Sah: Okay.

Participant: We have not met each other before. So my name’s Adrian, I live in Singapore, and I’m part of Lysol Global, so I’ve been with Lysol for six years now, and it’s such a good thing, yeah, yeah. And all of you, yeah, yeah.

Gitanjali Sah: That’s great. Well, our first question is right there, on the multistakeholder model, and how it was pioneered through WSIS, and what are the main developments? So we’ve just been able to do it, and we would love to have any of you share it.

Audience: Yes, yes, yes. You may have to split yourself into two, if you want to, yeah. Yes, yes, and that’s also good, because that might be part of anything, so I can relax a bit. Very nice, and welcome to Ritchie, yeah? Oh, thank you very much. Well done, yes. Thank you. Yes, yeah. Yeah. Well done. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, well done. Thank you. Thank you. Great to see you. Yeah, yeah. Fabulous, yes. Fabulous. Well, thank you very much. Nice to meet you. Oh, we’ve started interacting. We started 20 years ago. Oh, 20 years ago. I think it’s not last week. Yes. It’s been a year and a half since we’ve met. Just one of the sources, it’s been two. In Bowling, now, that’s cool. That’s awesome. That’s great to be able to see all those people. That’s a very good point, and I think that’s one of the national regional ideas we’ve been showing throughout the last 20 years. Definitely one of the two events I’ll throw up for you, so. Any other points you want to make? I think we’ll go even further on your point of all of the different NRIs and the regional project that we’ve been doing with all of us, and a great example of that. I mean, just last year, there was a situation in what it is now. It has messages, all of the professional work, the policy, the best practice for dynamic coalition. I think everything that it has created to show that there is a community that is present, they want to get involved, they are getting involved, and they’re actually showing results and bringing something. And we don’t see it now with the beginning of the implementation of the GPC, and a great interest from what as far as the NRI of this connecting of the stakeholders to be able to implement parts of the GPC in a way that shows that there’s a strength. Sorry, I don’t know if this was mentioned already, but also, like Alex said, in the context of the youth dimension, like in the last 10 years, youth engagement has exploded in the GNI, there’s post-pandemic initiatives, and we’re in the sort of 5G apps that have influenced, at the global level, they have a really concrete impact on the global compact. At the national level, I know a few things like the 5G network growing at the national level as well. So, if we can frame the stakeholder model as a possible enabling force of the last 10, 15 years. You know what? When the first RISC was founded, I was then also a full-time GNI finalist. I must tell you, I would never have thought that this survives, never. Because even the attempt to create those kinds of multi-stakeholder models where every society, private sector, have the right to work together to find common ground, is not something ordinary in the international, not only in politics, but also in the economy. I think that’s one of the biggest or the only… And another thing would be the sort of definition of a technical community, because that’s wasn’t really a thing before, so now you’re having the, and it’s still, I think it was the experience, but it’s there, so you have the infrastructure, the people who are involved in the actual internet itself, they can have a voice, and they can be identified as a stakeholder, and they can, you know, work together, so it’s something that brings them together, whether good or bad, because of being left out of certain discussions, but they work together and are now somewhat harmonised, and that’s a real achievement that didn’t happen in the 20 years. I have one. To me, I feel, even though there’s a lot of room for improvement now, it’s a huge achievement to shine the light on the importance of bridging the digital divide throughout the period, because of the constant focus on the issue, we have connected, I’d say, billions of people in the period to the internet, and also benefiting everyone’s livelihoods, expanding everyone’s economic opportunities, so I consider that a great achievement, but still, of course, a lot more work to be done. Thank you so much, Sarah, for mentioning there, which is the fact that stakeholders got together, trying to find a way to emphasise their main focus, and that’s here, what does multi-stakeholder mean, what are the processes, what do you think about the guidelines, I think that’s also a huge advancement, and not just what we want to do as multi-stakeholder, but actually maybe I could point to that in the IGF itself, it seems that it’s a safe space to bring in new thinking, so I remember the AI discussion started way back at the IGF, before it became a mainstream topic, even data governance was brought in very early, cybersecurity brought in very early, so it seems that that’s the idea, in particular, the vehicle to bring in somewhat controversial new emerging topics, and now test the waters on policy, and see what can happen there, and even as it grows, this is what ethics and regulation, I mean, I tested at the IGF in that model without any, you know, decision-making, test the waters, it’s a very good, cheap one, and you can have an area, or a model, or an event, or whatever, an event within the NRI, so that can be tested without any consequences, so to speak. In the IGF, also a couple of minutes ago, I heard a colleague talking about how the IGF was to be a sandbox, so we can use that space to test, share responses, and test new ideas, thinking, a small stakeholder group on the ground, and we can collaborate on the ground, and I think we will find, yeah, that’s a good one, that’s a good one, that’s a good discussion, so, right, so, I’ve been taking some notes on this, I mean, it gave me a lot of thought, and then, perhaps, additional questions, if you need to. A few minutes. One thing about the NRI is that we have the well-studded data, also, it’s over national, regional, and military, but it also has, kind of, themes, situations, with examples, you’ve had a civil engineering, bringing a, sort of, a different spin on It’s multiple countries, multiple groups coming together. And I think there’s a model. So the Arab IGF, CIDS IGF is not limited to national region. Now it is sort of, I think that’s also something that would not have been the case but they’re seeing that in the practice in which they’re using the same vehicle that the national regional, the youth service. I think for the first one, the youth is the practice really. So I’m not going to comment.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Do we have the table moderators recorded the comments and the input?

Gitanjali Sah: Yes, they’re ready, Shankar Tai. Should we start with Mani? Mani, over to you.

Meni Anastasiadou: Thank you, Gitanjali. I hope this is on. So we had a great conversation with our colleagues today. It’s a table that represents all stakeholder groups from youth to business, government, technical community. So the main themes that came out of the conversation is the importance of the achievement of achieving, the achievement of making sure that we brought in national regional IGFs into the conversation. We made sure that throughout the past 20 years, outcomes, tangible outcomes come out of the conversations that are happening at national level that can really inform and enable a co-creation of policies, keeping in mind the national priorities at the NRIs. Then also the youth dimension came up. Obviously we have over 50 youth initiatives that have been active over the years. And again, with concrete impact, both at national and international level. And another point that was also brought out is that the multi-stakeholder model was really an extraordinary achievement. It was not something that was expected to stand the test of time, but it really happened. And it really points to the fact that it’s really a model that works and can really support. It’s supported by the vibrant community behind it and can really be an important tool for digital policy and governance on that front. Obviously the baseline of the multi-stakeholder model enabling an equal footing conversation. So all stakeholders around the table being able to share their ideas and best practices. That was not here 20 years ago, and that was able to happen. Since then, obviously more on the technical side of things, also through the multi-stakeholder model, we were able to enable a meaningful connectivity with over 94% of the world’s population who are currently connected. Obviously there’s still work to be done, but that’s also again pointing to the fact of how important this multi-stakeholder model is working and the achievements that it can reach. The Netmundial. stakeholder, multi-stakeholder guidelines that were adopted, that stakeholders supported last year, also are a critical tool that was achieved because it really explains why the multi-stakeholder model is important, how it works and how it should be implemented. So, and how the IGF and overall has been a safe space of thinking and testing, let’s say, best practices and policy approaches.

Gitanjali Sah: So, I’ll stop it here. Thank you. Thank you, Manny. We’ll go to the end. Back here, Renata, are you ready? Yeah, we are kind of discussing that

Renata Figueiredo Santoyo: how easy this was very important and we can see the difference from the beginning when we didn’t have so many people talking to each other or all this network created and this made a huge difference nowadays. And also, other communities can come and present their own initiatives. That’s very, very valued. And also about the multi-stakeholder, the inclusivity, transparency and the possibility about building solutions. And it’s easier to manage some problems sometimes. And about the internet architecture, it’s also something that can benefit from it, especially for the global South. And I think we’re always talking about the created strong links between achieve SDGs and facilitate the most facilitated with the multi-stakeholder process. I think that’s it. And who do I give this one to? Hi. So, we share a lot of the insights from the other colleagues. So, I will just reiterate that we believe that it’s a strong voice for bringing multi-stakeholders together. And I will, and there has been a lot of achievement. Obviously, there needs to be, we believe that there needs to be more participation in terms of youth and industry, so private sector. And another thing that would be really impactful is if these dynamic coalitions and the different voices within, for example, the IGF work together. So there is, for example, a group within the IGF that can actually organize and coordinate between the different dynamic coalitions to provide more integration so that they can work together as opposed to in silos, because I know there is duplication, and then to highlight the achievements of the different coalitions. Did I cover everything?

Gitanjali Sah: Okay, thank you. That was good. Any? Thanks, Jungita.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Our group has people from regulators, from the tech community, from civil society, members of parliament, government, international organizations, big tech, and smaller civil society organizations as well. We talked about the value of the multi-stakeholder approach in three areas, policy and regulation, problems and solutions, understanding them and responding to them, and inclusion and diversity. And then we also had one sort of caution that I will say at the end. In terms of policy and regulatory processes, the example of the ANA transition was also mentioned here, because it’s a very specific problem that different people had different concerns with. But through the multi-stakeholder approach, a solution was developed which has worked quite well, and we hope it will continue to work in the current context. But it was a multi-stakeholder approach that helped that very political problem find a solution. We talked about policy and regulation more generally as well. If you’re a regulator or a policymaker, using the multi-stakeholder approach enables you to anticipate how will this policy and regulation affect different operators, constituencies, constituencies. consumers, communities, and you can probably, if you use it well, come up with a policy or regulatory instrument that’s more likely to be trusted and complied with. And where there’s not going to be compliance, you’ll also have a better understanding about how to anticipate that and deal with that. We talked about solutions and problems, that the multi-stakeholder approach, this sometimes gives you unexpected views of what those problems are and how to come up with solutions to them that you’re not going to come up with if you just approach that in your own sort of stakeholder group. And then inclusion and diversity, that it’s a constant thing, you have to invest in it continuously. And we looked at, for example, how governments and international organizations discovered that people that are neurodiverse have very specific issues and needs and contributions that they can make to the space. And if they were not identified as a particular stakeholder group that has relevant voices, that would not have happened. And then the caution was really, we should use these processes, but not as echo chambers, not just home in and listen to the people that agree with you already. Use these processes actually to get different voices and unexpected and sometimes opposing views.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you, Adriette. Thank you. That’s me. Yes. Okay. Thanks. You’re welcome. Okay.

Gitanjali Sah: So we had a table with a lot of diverse standpoints and participants from diverse locations. I think the most important framing comment was really about how multistakeholderism is work in progress. It’s a question that continues to be discussed in bodies like ICANN, which basically means that you have really the vision and the practice of multistakeholderism continues. And the second is that it’s extremely useful, particularly for instance, the example of governments who really should listen to the people, since technology might have impacts that might not necessarily be always positive. So in that sense to be able to have your eyes and ears open. The second is that the success of multi-stakeholderism in the particular context of the WSIS and even outside of the context of internet policy, both were discussed. So in the context of information society and internet related issues, an example was brought forth, which is about the way in which the treaty negotiation on cyber crimes last year is really, was able to follow the model and incorporated the precedent that was set through the WSIS. Similarly, also experiences in sustainable development policies. So there is a migration from internet policies to other issues. Of course, multilateral negotiations cannot always be treated as completely transparent and multi-stakeholder, and that’s another issue that’s work in progress. It was also discussed that the wonderful ripple effects of multi-stakeholderism perhaps is in the fact that there is a benchmark at the national level. And it was pointed out that these ripple effects are bringing more voices at the national and regional IGFs. A special contribution that came from our table was with respect to the sharing of best practices, the sharing of opportunities, best practices in the context of gender equality and women’s rights. And so we heard from people at the table, which was also about the specific example of Girls ICT Day, which is celebrated with a lot of enthusiasm at the grassroots. And that kind of setting a benchmark on that has really helped galvanize participation from governments to civil society to other actors to celebrate the same. finished the points, yes, finally. It was pointed out that perhaps, and this is, I would say, a point for contemplation from, you know, well, that’s my addition to this, but it is indeed interesting that when you actually have stakeholders outside and a particular type of stakeholder sitting inside the room and negotiating, there’s a risk that protests and dissent may be weaponized, and maybe it’s therefore nice for, rather than have demonstrations outside the room, for all stakeholders to be inside the room so you avoid violence. But well, that is food for thought. I’ll leave that with you.

Participant: Thank you very much. And our last moderator. Can you hear me? Yeah, okay. I would like first to say that when I came here, I was not ready to be a table moderator. I don’t know how I ended up here, but saying that, I should start, all of us convened on the fact that the simple existence of multi-stakeholderism itself is a big achievement, you know? It helps you with the agenda setting. It helps you identify the problem and then get to it. And it allies different parts of the society for a greater cause. But, and there’s a big but, I know the question is about achievements, but I would like to, if I’d said that, during the time that 11 minutes, I think nine minutes were for the downsides, the first thing that came up is that the private sector is not as implicated as it should be. And also the governments. Me, myself, I come from an NGO from Romania. That’s my personal background. And it’s hard. It’s not that easy. It exists on paper, but the communication is not so present. The last downside is that you look around, the global south is not mentioned enough in this multi-stakeholderism thing. OK. Not to say that it shouldn’t exist, as I already mentioned, but there’s a lot of work remaining to do. That’s it.

Chengetai Masango: OK, thank you very much. Now we’re going to go to the next question. How can stakeholders be better engaged in the implementation of digital for development? So feel free to swap moderators, if you want, along the table. But you have 11 minutes, and if you have any questions, please just approach us.

Gitanjali Sah: These ideas will really help us, also in the planning of the IGF and the WSIS Forum. How can we better engage? That table mentioned that they did not see too much private sector here. What could we do to do that? Is it awareness? Is it a targeted approach, like inviting them to the high-level track, which we always do? But what do we do? So please help us. Yes, I think, unfortunately, there were people already in this room, and they ate and left. So I don’t know how to control that. Bad behavior. Yeah, I know. Yes.

Chengetai Masango: Does somebody want a vegetarian? And there’s a chicken. Is that the chicken? Thank you guys. Sharing of scarce resources.

Audience: Sharing is caring. Sharing of scarce resources. Thank you for the session. Guys, can you please include the people? Yes. Widen the circle. Great. That’s what I thought. Yes. My head is on my head. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Also, for which one is very close? Is there a possibility of a video room? Or GPS? Yeah, yeah, of course. Yes, of course, but the information is not very clear. … … … … … … … … … … … Two minutes left, two minutes. … … … … … … … … … … Oh, my God, he’s backstage. Thirty seconds. We’re getting ready.

Gitanjali Sah: So, Shengen Tai is done. And time’s up, colleagues. We have one more question to tackle. So we’d like you to stop now and hand over the mic to the table moderators. So let’s start with you, the first this time. No pressure. And those of you who are wondering, yes, we are having fun with the bell.

Participant: The first thing that came up on our table, and I think it’s an obvious thing, but not so easy to do as it sounds, is have more funds. But we’re having more funds and with the global situation right now. So it is not as easy as it seems. Another thing that came up on our table is that the private sector oftentimes does not know that they have this power about multistakeholderism. You could have awareness-raising campaigns, but not making more of the business case. Because it’s a well-known thing that if you have more representation of everyone in the society, you also make more money. Another thing would be strengthening the already existing IGFs, because we had an example here at our table. In some parts, yes, there are functioning and well-organized IGFs. And you could make those up. You could give them more power, more strength. OK. Another thing is that maybe the ideas, the work, is being done from a level that is way too high. Oftentimes, you cannot know about every problem from a little village somewhere. You have to work with organizations that know how the ground level works in order to have more driven problems and solutions. And the last thing would be that although this process is very important and it has high importance, it maybe should not take so long. Of course, it does need to be well-verified. But we could maybe have more pathways to shorten that process for a bit. That would be our ideas.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much. Very good ideas coming out from this table. Funds. Also cross-sectoral collaboration, those of you. you who are participating in other UN processes should bring back what you heard there into these conversations as well. Anita, over to you.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thanks. So suggestions at the international level, as well as national to local. So I will start with the international, where the need for funding, especially for the Global South, was iterated. Also, a question was raised by more than one of my colleagues here about the incentive to participate. And for each constituency or each stakeholder, how do those incentives really become evident? So for instance, we could ask the question, how do big players, for instance, ministerial-level delegates or representatives from big tech, how do these representatives come, and with capital letters, listen? Because to get them to listen is a very, very important part of multistakeholderism, just like it was mentioned earlier, that we should really not operate in echo chambers, but be able to listen. So the third one, the third point at the international level was that opportunities going forward, because we’re really crystallizing gains in international public policy, could we think about human rights impact assessments in these venues? What is the possibility for having actual feedback, like I would say, like a town hall, feedback from the public? And that would really mean that we are getting outside of the echo chambers and looking at issues collectively. In respect of incentives to participate, it was also mentioned that very often it’s not even clear to political representatives and delegates why they need to participate. So, and why is it in their interest to participate? And this is really where the rubber hits the road. At the level of the, maybe the nation or at the sub-national levels, I think there were a few suggestions. One is that it’s really important to engage with consumers, empower community leaders, so that they can champion digital policy issues and that can have cascading impact. A very concrete idea, and I think this is very important for the future, is the engagement of the older generation. Because it’s not only the digital divide that they are being confronted with, because they’re on the wrong side of the divide, but also the development divide. And the weak representation of the digital with consumer associations is another thing. And a cross-cutting issue was also that the new generation should be involved. I know at some occasions you will be thrown into the deep end, but with due sympathies. But the final thing I think is something that we really need to pay attention to. Which is that in all of these discussions, we shouldn’t reach the lowest common denominator. Because discussions may be pushed by very powerful interests in the room without taking a step back and evaluating the negative implications and impacts of digital for development. And we might all be endorsing hyper-optimistic readings of technology without looking at the inequality, and the policy discourse could slip into the lowest common denominator if we really don’t take stock.

Participant: Hello, my name is Dana Kramer from Canada, new moderator. Our table had a very diverse discussion, but it really started with that we actually found a question to be a bit confusing, because it started with an assumption that stakeholders are already engaged. And so our table discussion really focused on. some of the drawbacks, and I know you probably wanted more optimistic answers, but we did also find solutions too, so we are a solutions-oriented group. We did identify that there is a need for better streamlined ways for onboarding new members, and a solution for that could be a toolkit, but also relatedly, needing to show that there’s value proposition for diverse stakeholders to participate. For example, in the private sector, as well as to maybe smaller civil society organizations who are working on digital for development. One solution that one member provided was creating an environment where one’s reputation for not attending suddenly becomes unacceptable, as well that attendance in any capacity, either online, virtually, or in person, of having the financial means is very important. Regarding that financial means, however, there were lots of comments about funding, and the need for equitable participation processes do have a dollar sign in front of them. And so we need to provide meaningful funding, and that the NRI specifically for their intersessional work also need such aid. Finally, our table noted a need to make sure that work is multi-stakeholder, and does not become siloed, or for some, like youth, for instance, become tokenized representatives and actually have meaningful participation as stakeholders in this space. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: We do have remote participation as well, so if the production colleague could let us know in case there are any hands out there, do let us know, or comments, we’ll continue, but do let us know if there are any remote participants who want to speak. Thanks. Shanketa, am I next? Yes. Was it Manny going first?

Meni Anastasiadou: So I think echoing what the colleagues at the previous table have identified, we also see that it’s important to have a clear value proposition into the engagements of, well, what do stakeholders get out of their, for example, participation at discussions that are covering digital for development. At the Internet Governance Forum, we need to make sure that we communicate what stakeholders are getting out of their participation effectively, and also, at the same time, making sure that we communicate the outcomes in a way that reach where the decisions are being made, so at national level. We identified the disconnect of discussions happening at a global level, at a national level, and again, pointing to the role of the NRIs and supporting this to reach the audience it needs to reach, and perhaps also seeing the IGF as a canary in a coal mine type of framework that can identify, you know, some critical issues that are happening and before they reach the kind of global layers of engagement, they can actually be addressed locally and effectively. And then we also saw, you know, identified again tools like the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines as an important means to show how stakeholders can be engaged with such processes and how can they really bring their best into the discussions. And really making sure that we stop sometimes the discussions becoming a bit of an echo chamber and rather making sure that we onboard more stakeholders, more participants into the conversation. So I’ll stop at that and echoing the discussions from the previous table as well.

Anriette Esterhuysen: And thanks very much and congrats to that table. So this table came up with six headings at this time around. First, access to information and good communication. If you don’t know about a process, you’re never going to participate in it. You need to understand what it’s about, where it’s taking place, who’s running it, etc. So access to information is essential and it has to take linguistic diversity into account, location, context, etc. Secondly, meaningful access to the process. Do people have the time to actually participate in it? Have they the resources to travel? Or if they’re participating virtually, can they afford the data? Do they have the physical space from which they can participate? Do they have the skills and maybe the confidence to participate effectively in a process like that? Time is a big thing. Access to electricity for some people might be a real, if you have to be in a meeting for a long time, and generally the capacity and skills. Thirdly, planning, goal-setting and expectation-making. management, how do you structure the process, what can people expect to get out of it or not get out of it, what are the roles and responsibilities of the different participants in the process, are there milestones or are they not? And fourthly, fair and effective moderation of the process. That starts with identifying the participants, are affected voices in the room, what power asymmetries are there in that process and how does the moderation process actually try and address that? And very important, the table said, see participants in the process as partners, they’re not there as an audience, design the process in such a way that they feel they’re not just there to validate something or listen to something and then other people make the decision, they should be treated as empowered partners. And then the fifth element, feedback, follow-up and assessment, monitoring, learning, evaluation. If you do a process, go back, tell people why you didn’t like what they proposed or tell them what actually came out of it. And then finally, food. And that’s partly because we had a lunch shortage at our food, make sure that people in the process are comfortable, physically comfortable, well fed and hydrated and you’ll get better results out of it.

Participant: Stable, high five. That’s true. You’re doing, you’re doing fine, yeah. We vote, we vote. Just the last one. Just to add the ideas for the other groups, we talked a lot about capacity building, that’s very important to make people more engaged and always the need to explain to all the different stakeholders why they need to come to the table. And also about the inclusive policies that needs to speak better with the digital development and other stakeholders needs, even if they are on the table, they need to speak the same language. So that’s important. And pushing big organizations to people know what is, who is this. because sometimes we have a group that know what it is, but a lot of things doesn’t know yet what WSIS is exactly. Engagement and different levels. Sometimes delegations are 90% of government, and numbers don’t really speak the reality that it’s been showing here. Connect to people, very important. Timeline is also important. About the IJF outcomes, we are talking about not only the outcomes for high level, but all different levels. Also, practical approaches in national and regional levels also. The more industry involved, we also are talking about that. Sometimes we have some concerns about that, but we think the trade-off is positive in the end. So we need to, of course, have all the actors on the table. And I think in the process should bring more concrete decisions also. I think summarizing just is it.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you. Thank you very much. We’ll move on to our third question. Pratik, if you can. So we’ve completed 20 years of WSIS. The UNGA will have an outcome of what the WSIS should look like beyond 2025. So what are your concrete suggestions on how the multi-stakeholder model can be strengthened in the vision of WSIS beyond 2025? What should the UNGA overall review document have regarding multi-stakeholderism? You have 11 minutes. Shengentai, are you timing?

Chengetai Masango: Yes, I am.

Audience: I think we’re going to need better coordination, because I think from our point of view, there are too many processes. Now you’ve got the Summit of the Future, the Global Compact. Then you’ve got the AI stream. You’ve got the non-technical. They did already, but maybe we increase it. And so there needs to be a coherent path forward where you’re bringing together all these different groups. Because it’s time-consuming and it’s costly. Yeah, there needs to be a lot of communication. So there needs to be a more coherent path and easier to work with. Yes, I think it’s necessary. Everyday grassroots people need to be brought in. I think we’re in a more difficult position, because the city is the next. I would say so. It’s not the city, it’s the land. I’m just… I have a few things to say. First of all, I think it’s good that we’ve got a university that’s standing here, funding. I’ve got one. It’s good for the city. It’s good for all. But there are times when you’re paying a lot of money. So it’s good for everybody. And so I’m not giving you a hand up. I think it’s good for everybody. I think it’s good for the city. I think it’s good for everybody. If I can just add one thing, sorry to interrupt. I heard the special rapporteur on development speak on financing for development. And he made some very powerful statements about, we’re all accepting development. Which model of development are we talking about? Whose interests? Who’s gonna benefit? Who’s gonna lose out? So we’re using terms that we’re assuming we all understand. But no, there’s a lot of work to unpack. What do we mean by development? What type of development are we looking for? People-centered, human-centric, all those things. Sorry. I’ve been talking about how can multi-stakeholder model be strengthened. One of the outcomes of the Nethundia Club’s 10 sessions was about the guidelines. It has principles or a checklist which helps to see not only how multi-stakeholder processes can be more inclusive. For example, capacity building and others were saying, not everyone is in line because every day something is happening. How you can build processes, how each stakeholder can be made more accountable, et cetera. Similarly for multilateral processes like visits, et cetera, or any of them, there are checklists how multilateral processes also can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder. Having said that, yes. Now that you are fed, you can have a lot of ideas. He’s fed. But now he wants to sleep. Yeah. Now the hunger is gone. I’m half the participant I was. From the UK side, we would like to see the IGF be permanent. Basically every time the renegotiation comes up, it’s about extending it. Yeah, every five. So we would like that to be the case. We would also like more formal recognition of the international IGF as well. That’s not specifically mentioned in the text. So those are the two concrete things that we’re saying. But I think that’s a more structural point rather than a thematic. In terms of these processes, we are focused a lot more on the people’s interests. What does it mean? So when we’re talking about informal, like we’re talking about- Not yet. Not yet. Maybe he has to introduce himself. Hi, I’m Tim. I’m working at the Office of the High Commissioner of International Relations. We are the OTHR, the High Commissioner of Asia. I know that they don’t have all those lines to the different development sectors. So if you look at the WSIS, the WSIS has always been people-centric. So I add to the WSIS concept with the action. Thanks for the kind words. You did well also. I know, I’m like, ah. To have so much confidence, yes. But I didn’t want to cheat this time. But to ensure that it remains people-centric. We did it. The implementation of the monitors. I remember a better name when I see one. Yeah, yeah. I was going to say, all that kind of stuff, I’m okay. I’ve got a meeting tomorrow with the East Office. And maybe to add to that. I mean, yeah, that’s right. That’s right. Yeah, I don’t quite know. Because the development response maybe is post private reputation. But I think people need to know that the sector is still overwhelmed and might have several other challenges. For instance, don’t know if it will be key to what the next level. But if I understand your first question, these models are so much better for users in terms of pre-hosting and trusting. So basically to show that it’s actually something that a really good solution is to generate the development response. I can explain the narrative of what do you want to do and where do you think it works. So basically highlighting those and how it works for you. I think it’s actually a good concept, you see? Because all these things are actually in the same line of thought. People are interested and there are other things that they have to do every single day. Exactly, so people want to make it for themselves and what is the value of that? And what’s the capability of that? So why not? We have such a small envelope. We love this, no, oh. $1,300, he said to me, we have $3,000 of trust because we’re going to count on and paint cell. So one of my motors. I already have, we already have three. Do we have two courses? It had already happened, my partner with my brother’s, just remodels it in my laboratory. So that raises $1,300 start as a train station chart and we are planning it to how they pay and the others, as it has always fabricated start on parent-teacher governance. I think the problem is that because the previous start might be a way forward solution that so thick funding is a target goal to do. The decisions are made not the manager. A decision by the financial doesn’t look at yet anmelding the process and this is why I was, I mean, some of us will have to already pay for the to be monitored if the private sector for the region is going to pay and so on and so on and so on but the other part of the monitoring of the question is having that that that as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a certain as a as a as a as a certain as a as a as a as a as a as a as an as as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an the as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an three minutes. Thank you very much. Not only about different kind of stakeholders, because of course you have the private, the government, the organization, and they have different views, of course, and we have to work on the common views, and to also analyze the different views, and to get them to, you know, to have a communication, at least a communication about that. But we have also to deal with all the fighting against digitalization, because we are working on the positive digitalization, but it’s something which is also for the population can be real, right? Yes. Yes, together on the table also, because otherwise you go and you push everybody, but if you don’t analyze their fears, or their lack of information also, or fake information, it’s important also.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. The time is up. I hope you had good discussions and I hope you’re gonna tell us things that can go into the document, right?

Gitanjali Sah: Yes, and a call for action at the end. Yes. Over to you, Mani.

Meni Anastasiadou: Thank you, Tanjali. So for us, the main ideas that came through was the importance again of the local national network that is supporting the discussions, that is also engaged in the multi-stakeholder discussions. They need to understand, they need to make, to be a part of the, they need to be positioned in a way that they can engage with the outcomes and so we have to make sure that those are focused and action-oriented. There’s a lot of talk that is happening, obviously at global levels, but we should make sure that we actually walk the talk. Walk the talk, that’s the way, I think. Sorry, my brain. So the way we can do it is through actionable outcomes. The existing WSIS architecture is a very important tool to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model, but at the same time, we need to be agile, we need to be focused, we need to be coordinated and to do that, we should not only implement it as we are looking into the WSIS Post-Brand New Review, but also we should make sure to implement this as part of the WSIS Plus 20 outcomes. We have seen the role of the UN, a group of the Information Society, support is already taking an important role in supporting this coordination, but we should see how the entire, let’s say architecture can evolve to stay agile, to stay coordinated. Obviously, the colleagues also mentioned the importance of strengthening the IGF, ensuring that it can support the participation of more global South and underrepresented communities. And again, going back to the need to just be actionable and give a clear direction on how the discussions that are happening at a global level can really trickle down and influence. national policy approaches and how then local stakeholders can be a part of implementing those. We are talking a lot about the need of better coordination between the different process because I think it’s a common ground that’s very time consuming, a lot of duplication, which model of development we are talking about exactly, it’s something very important to define and which one we are looking for. We also talked about the outcomes for 9th Mundial plus 10 and also the principles that can be very useful for this process and to strengthen the process of the WSIS beyond 2025. And all this process needs also to be simplified, maybe summarized and each one needs to have their own utilities and also the needs to be, which one is the government duty or the mood stakeholder duty and which one is exactly the box that they belong to, to make them better. And also what mood stakeholder means and about people, development, we need to focus on what we want, sometimes more education, focus on people, people-centric as WSIS is a fundamental. About resources, attraction is also essential, we’re also talking about that. Also the process should be inclusive in terms of reporting, WSIS is reporting, but in terms of language, maybe sometimes need to be more articulated to achieve the right publics because we have a different process here, it’s kind of a standalone and something different from other kinds of process that we are used and we were doing. So the need of coordination, fulfill the specificities, the set excellence from each group, it’s impossible to bring everybody or the whole world to the table, so we need to really identify who can bring the voice and the best. And I know that sometimes it’s a, maybe it seems a soundless discussion place, but we kind of, we believe that if we kind of can arrange and simplify the process, avoiding duplication can be better and can achieve better results.

Participant: Thank you. So our table had a very dynamic conversation that built on such a wonderful group throughout the entire session. And one of the key things that has been a common thread for us, and especially for this question was that funding is key for strengthening multi-stakeholder model. It is vital for limiting and eliminating power asymmetries that do exist and can also form and be reinforced in different contexts. This can be strengthened, in terms of funding, it can be strengthened by greater communications, collaborations and partnerships. Secondly, our group discussed that multi-stakeholderism is only as accessible as expanding its stakeholder access in that base. There are solutions that we had identified, which are for greater onboarding, virtual participation and recognizing that not everyone has access to the ability to come to global events. And so therefore we need to make a virtual first environment. And also to just really reinforcing the value proposition of multi-stakeholder collaboration and ensuring that stakeholders recognize it as a strength for their own organizations and how they conduct their own work in their individual stakeholder identity. We also discussed strengthening intersessional work that will strengthen multi-stakeholderism and that working at local levels will allow for greater global discussions in hitting specific outcomes and objectives. Finally, we noted that when thinking of governance of digital broadly, such as through the elements paper, there is a need to have strengths of the last 20 years in multi-stakeholderism also applied to all new digital governance, and really reinforcing what the successes have been. And that also includes as well, sorry, let me go back to my notes, that different environments will have different multi-stakeholder models. It’s not a singular, but a plurality. And that by constantly looking at the environment which multi-stakeholderism is part of, we can then look at how to strengthen each one of these spaces and each one of these governance environments. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Okay. So we started with reaffirming the Geneva and Tunis declarations in terms of the rights, duties, obligations. I thought, you said okay? Yeah, okay. Yes, the rights, duties, obligations of all stakeholders. And therefore, I think to understand this as something that’s already been enshrined in these two documents, which led us also to reflect upon how do we strengthen it if we really don’t know what it stands for? Is it amorphous? Should it be defined? Because if it is, then we need to look at what’s being achieved, where have stakeholders actually worked together to find a positive solution? Where has it not worked? So even to understand the goalpost, we will really need to look at perhaps as the previous group said, what is the stakeholder model or multi-stakeholder model for a specific public policy issue? And then in relation to that, to take stock. This led us to contemplate upon meaningful participation. And we said that oftentimes it’s unclear. You’re meeting so many people here, maybe from your own government, from your own country, but it’s not clear how you can identify them, how you can approach them, how you can follow up at the national level. So what this actually means is you may have government reps in the same room with civil society and the tech community, but we’re really not necessarily focused on the same goal with respect to action and implementation. And to impute a question on top of this, I would like to ask, for instance, are we guilty of a birds of a feather approach, even in the multi-stakeholderism? We are not meeting the kinds of people that ought to be listening to us. Then we went on to discuss that it might be useful to ask what stakeholders could do to accelerate action. So surfacing clearly how different forums, because the space is growing by the day and public policy issues in relation to digital are multiplying. So what is the work that remains to be done and can we really surface that clearly so we can accelerate action? A very important caveat and a point of caution that came from the table is it’s not only interests that count, we have to have a rights orientation. So we really, and perhaps need to use the vision that is the essence of the Geneva Antionist documents and really not only focus on interests, but focus on rights and that vision. And finally, how do stakeholders know they are stakeholders? So the question of the need for capacity, but also transparency. And transparency in relation to a range of things, travel opportunities, the criteria, so that, and some of us struggled at the table to say. you know, how do real people come here? I mean, we’re all real people, but genuine organizations in some sense, which may not meet the criteria that may be, which may even be informal, invisible barriers, you know, in the process. So what is really important to answer this question is to have feedback from those who are often not heard, but deeply impacted by the way the digital world affects their destinies. Thanks.

Participant: Thank you. Reoccurring theme, if you want to strengthen the multi-stakeholderism we already have, is to strengthen the means that do it already. You have the IGFs, we have to not let go of them, support them, give them more funding, facilitate their collaboration with NRIs and their expansion. Maybe they collaborate with people, they go to new regions. Another thing, as you can see, we have some youth at our table. Oftentimes, when we talk about youth collaboration, it’s just that you put the youth at the table, you say, ah, here we have youth. Youth actually needs to have a voice, to have a power, a say in the decision that is taking place. Another thing with multi-stakeholderism, if you want everyone to be able to participate, everyone needs to be able to understand. You go on the WSIS website, you read for one hour. An average Joe needs to read for five minutes and say, oh, OK, I get this. So he can participate. He can be a multi-stakeholder. Another thing that came up, all the discussions that are taking place are taking place in English. Not everyone speaks English. You need to have the discussions. in the languages of the people, so they understand. The last thing, and an example that I really loved, we are at WSDIS, right? This is the only room with roundtables where everyone can speak. For the rest of the rooms, you have panels, 40 minutes, someone speaks to three people, and three questions at the end. And we talk about multistakeholderism. We need more roundtables. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: I think we should stop there. That was such a good ending.

Anriette Esterhuysen: As this table felt that actually some of our previous comments also contributed, you know, the codifying of the process. But what we started off with, we need to, the processes need to be framed. They really do need to be public interest oriented and human rights. And the benefit that we want to get out of digital has to be at the forefront, the WSIS vision. We also, again, emphasize expectation management, make it clear what the process is about. Then formats, principles, methodology, and guidelines. I think to make these processes, to strengthen them, we have to invest in that and learn from how we apply them. We feel there’s a need for more consistency in formats for multistakeholder participation in different contexts, different multilateral institutions. The ITU has a different way from UNESCO, from UNDP, from the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, or the Human Rights Council. But still recognize that these processes are different. The participation can’t be uniform, but more consistency would make it easier for us. Look at, again, how to structure inclusion of youth voices, of the voices of marginalized communities. Not by creating parallel tracks, but, for example, a day before the main event. And then they participate in the main event, but also give them some space, as long as it’s not at the expense of their participation in the main event. We thought the Net Montreal Guidelines, the Sao Paulo Guidelines are very useful in this process of principles and codification. IGF, we felt there has to be a permanent mandate for the IGF. It’s hard for a process to evolve if it’s insecure, if it doesn’t have predictability. And formal recognition of the NRIs, the same thing. They need to be strengthened, but if they don’t have that formal recognition, it’s much harder to invest in that strengthening. We felt there’s also a need for collaboration between UN agencies and. and different UN forums and also that this idea of the multilateral and the multistakeholder process and how they reinforce one another and relate to one another has to be built into future multistakeholder participation. How can we use the multistakeholder model to strengthen multilateral processes, but how can multistakeholder processes use multilateral decision-making process of governments to make decisions that they feel are more representative of multistakeholder input? Participation and power, we thought that’s very important. Bring more private sector into the process. There are not many private sector speakers here, but also avoid capture and frame and design the processes so that divergent views and difficult conversations can be accommodated. Practical stuff also affects participation and power in how you participate. Visas, access to funding for travel and global self-participation remains a challenge when most of the events are held in the global north. I think I’ve got consistency, I’ve got already, and again I think always clarify is this decision shaping or decision making. Sorry I’m repeating myself a little bit. And then finally we also emphasize celebrating and enjoying these processes. Look at them actually as a way of being energized and being together even if we don’t agree about everything. And to quote the technical community next to me, they provide food for thought and food for action. And food if you’re lucky, for eating.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Andrietta. I think we’ve covered all the tables, have we? Yes, we have. Thank you very much for this discussion. It was great. We’ll invite the table moderators to send us the summaries. I will create an overall summary and put it in the chairs summary. So I just had a question, how many of you have been to the WSIS forum before? How many haven’t been to the WSIS forum before? So this is amazing. This is also a great victory for us because we have so many, the room is half and half and this is what I observed when I entered the room that we have so many new people who have joined the process. So this is, I think, a great achievement. Just for all of you to know, the agenda and the program of the WSIS forum is built through an open consultative process. So there is an online form for the newcomers. You must put in all your suggestions there. And the program and the agenda is built through this process. So it’s quite a long process of around four to five months. So you must log on to our website, WSIS.org slash forum, and keep track of what’s going on. Shengetai, do you want to add a bit about the IGF’s process for contribution? How can stakeholders contribute?

Chengetai Masango: Just keep track of the IGF website and some of you, and I do encourage all of you, I know some of you are on it, but we do have a distribution list which you can sign on to and you’ll be informed about all the IGF activities and also for the call for input. And yes.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Shengetai. We also have a WSIS Flash. It’s a monthly newsletter. So those of you who haven’t subscribed to it, just Google WSIS Flash and put in your email addresses so that you get this monthly update from our side as well. So thank you very much. A big round of applause for the table moderators. Thank you so much for helping us today. And let’s continue. We are just on Wednesday. Half day of Wednesday, we have Thursday and Friday. Yes, exactly. Thank you very much. Thank you, Shankar. Thank you all. Thank you. My bag. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder model has achieved significant success and should be strengthened

Speakers

– Meni Anastasiadou
– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model was an extraordinary achievement that wasn’t expected to survive but has stood the test of time

Simple existence of multi-stakeholderism helps with agenda setting and problem identification

Multi-stakeholder approach enables anticipation of policy impacts on different constituencies and creates more trusted regulations

Summary

All speakers agree that the multi-stakeholder model has proven its value over 20 years and represents a significant achievement in governance, despite initial skepticism about its viability

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Need for permanent IGF mandate and formal recognition of NRIs

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

IGF should have permanent mandate rather than periodic renewals

Formal recognition needed for National and Regional IGFs (NRIs)

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of providing institutional stability through permanent mandates and formal recognition to enable effective long-term development

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Funding is crucial for meaningful participation

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Need for more funding and awareness-raising campaigns to show business case for participation

Address visa and travel funding challenges that limit global participation

Summary

Multiple speakers identify funding as a fundamental barrier to inclusive participation, particularly affecting Global South representation

Topics

Development | Human rights

Youth engagement needs to be meaningful, not tokenistic

Speakers

– Meni Anastasiadou
– Participant

Arguments

Youth engagement has exploded in the last 10 years with concrete impact at global and national levels

Youth needs actual voice and power in decisions, not just token representation

Summary

Speakers agree that while youth participation has increased significantly, it must involve real decision-making power rather than symbolic inclusion

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Processes need better coordination and simplification

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Need for better coordination between multiple processes to avoid duplication and reduce costs

Need for more consistency in formats across different UN institutions while recognizing context differences

Summary

Both speakers recognize that current governance processes are fragmented and overly complex, requiring better coordination and standardization

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the need for better support systems to help new participants understand and engage effectively in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Renata Figueiredo Santoyo

Arguments

Need for better streamlined onboarding processes for new members

Ensure meaningful access through addressing time, resources, skills, and capacity barriers

Provide capacity building and clear communication about why stakeholders need to participate

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers are concerned about inclusivity and the risk of processes becoming insular, emphasizing the need for genuine diversity in participation

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Risk of discussions becoming echo chambers rather than engaging diverse voices

Discussions should be accessible in multiple languages, not just English

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of maintaining the human-centered and rights-based foundation established in the original WSIS documents

Speakers

– Participant
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Processes must remain people-centric and human rights oriented as envisioned in WSIS

Reaffirm Geneva and Tunis declarations regarding rights, duties, and obligations of stakeholders

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technical community recognition as distinct stakeholder group

Speakers

– Participant

Arguments

Technical community was defined and given a voice as a stakeholder group for the first time

Explanation

The creation and formal recognition of the technical community as a distinct stakeholder category represents an unexpected institutional innovation that wasn’t anticipated before WSIS, giving infrastructure operators a formal voice in policy discussions

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

IGF as policy sandbox for emerging issues

Speakers

– Participant

Arguments

IGF serves as a safe space and sandbox for testing new ideas on emerging topics like AI and data governance

Explanation

The evolution of IGF into a testing ground for controversial policy topics before they become mainstream represents an unexpected but valuable function that wasn’t originally envisioned

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Migration of multi-stakeholder model to other policy areas

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach has migrated from internet policies to other issues like sustainable development

Explanation

The successful application of the multi-stakeholder model beyond internet governance to areas like sustainable development and cybercrime treaties represents an unexpected expansion of its influence

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among speakers that the multi-stakeholder model has been successful and should be strengthened, with particular agreement on the need for permanent institutional status, better funding, meaningful youth participation, and process simplification. Speakers also agree on practical improvements like better onboarding, capacity building, and addressing barriers to participation.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles and many practical improvements, with implications that the WSIS+20 review should focus on strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones. The consensus suggests broad stakeholder support for continuing and enhancing the multi-stakeholder approach beyond 2025.

Different viewpoints

Level of private sector and government engagement

Speakers

– Participant
– Meni Anastasiadou

Arguments

The private sector is not as implicated as it should be. And also the governments. It’s hard. It’s not that easy. It exists on paper, but the communication is not so present

Multi-stakeholder model was an extraordinary achievement that wasn’t expected to survive but has stood the test of time

Summary

One participant emphasized significant gaps in private sector and government participation, while another celebrated the model’s success and achievements over 20 years

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Approach to technology assessment in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Participant

Arguments

Avoid reaching lowest common denominator by evaluating negative implications of technology

Multi-stakeholder approach helped bridge the digital divide and connected billions of people to the internet

Summary

Gurumurthy warned against overly optimistic technology assessments that ignore inequality, while others emphasized positive achievements like connecting billions to the internet

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

Assessment of multi-stakeholder model success

Speakers

– Participant
– Meni Anastasiadou

Arguments

Global South is not mentioned enough in multi-stakeholder discussions

National and regional IGFs have created tangible outcomes and enabled co-creation of policies at national level

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement on the inclusivity and effectiveness of the model – one speaker highlighted exclusion of Global South while another celebrated achievements of national/regional processes that should theoretically address this gap

Topics

Development | Human rights

Youth participation effectiveness

Speakers

– Participant
– Meni Anastasiadou

Arguments

Youth needs actual voice and power in decisions, not just token representation

Youth engagement has exploded in the last 10 years with concrete impact at global and national levels

Explanation

Surprising disagreement on youth engagement quality – one celebrated dramatic increases and concrete impacts, while another criticized tokenism and lack of real decision-making power

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed moderate disagreements primarily around the effectiveness and inclusivity of current multi-stakeholder processes, with some speakers emphasizing achievements while others highlighted significant gaps in participation and representation

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with constructive tension – speakers generally supported the multi-stakeholder model but had different assessments of its current effectiveness and different priorities for improvement. The disagreements were more about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental opposition to the model itself.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the need for better support systems to help new participants understand and engage effectively in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Renata Figueiredo Santoyo

Arguments

Need for better streamlined onboarding processes for new members

Ensure meaningful access through addressing time, resources, skills, and capacity barriers

Provide capacity building and clear communication about why stakeholders need to participate

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers are concerned about inclusivity and the risk of processes becoming insular, emphasizing the need for genuine diversity in participation

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Risk of discussions becoming echo chambers rather than engaging diverse voices

Discussions should be accessible in multiple languages, not just English

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of maintaining the human-centered and rights-based foundation established in the original WSIS documents

Speakers

– Participant
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Processes must remain people-centric and human rights oriented as envisioned in WSIS

Reaffirm Geneva and Tunis declarations regarding rights, duties, and obligations of stakeholders

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The multi-stakeholder model pioneered by WSIS has been an extraordinary achievement that has stood the test of time over 20 years, creating a framework where governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and technical community can collaborate

National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) have been particularly successful in creating tangible outcomes and enabling policy co-creation at the national level

The IGF serves as a valuable ‘sandbox’ or safe space for testing new ideas on emerging topics like AI, data governance, and cybersecurity before they become mainstream

Youth engagement has significantly expanded in the last 10 years with concrete impact at both global and national levels

The multi-stakeholder approach has successfully migrated from internet governance to other policy areas including sustainable development

Major challenges include insufficient private sector and government participation, underrepresentation of the Global South, funding constraints, and communication gaps between stakeholders

There is a disconnect between global discussions and national-level decision making that needs to be addressed

The process requires better coordination to avoid duplication across multiple UN processes and forums

Resolutions and action items

Table moderators to provide digital summaries of discussions to be included in the chair’s summary

Participants encouraged to contribute to WSIS Forum planning through the open consultative process on WSIS.org/forum

Stakeholders urged to subscribe to WSIS Flash monthly newsletter and IGF distribution list for updates

Community members encouraged to make their voices heard to the UN General Assembly regarding the usefulness of WSIS framework and IGF ahead of December 2024 review

Need to create toolkits for better onboarding of new stakeholders

Implement capacity building programs to help stakeholders understand their roles and value proposition

Develop clearer communication strategies to show business case for private sector participation

Unresolved issues

How to achieve meaningful private sector engagement beyond current levels

How to ensure adequate funding for Global South participation and NRI strengthening

How to balance the need for coordination across multiple UN processes while maintaining the unique value of each forum

How to define and measure ‘meaningful participation’ versus tokenistic representation, particularly for youth and marginalized communities

How to address power asymmetries in multi-stakeholder processes effectively

What specific model of development should be pursued – whose interests will be served and who might lose out

How to make processes accessible in multiple languages beyond English

How to ensure that multi-stakeholder discussions don’t become echo chambers

How to bridge the gap between global discussions and national-level implementation

Suggested compromises

Implement virtual-first environments to increase accessibility while maintaining in-person engagement opportunities

Create more consistency in multi-stakeholder formats across UN institutions while recognizing that different contexts require different approaches

Provide formal recognition for NRIs while allowing flexibility in their implementation at national levels

Establish permanent mandate for IGF while maintaining periodic review mechanisms

Balance the need for inclusive participation with practical constraints by creating tiered engagement opportunities

Combine traditional panel formats with more interactive roundtable discussions to accommodate different participation styles

Address linguistic barriers by providing translation services while recognizing resource constraints

Create separate capacity building sessions for marginalized groups while ensuring their full participation in main events

We should use these processes, but not as echo chambers, not just home in and listen to the people that agree with you already. Use these processes actually to get different voices and unexpected and sometimes opposing views.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of a fundamental challenge in multi-stakeholder processes – the tendency to create insular discussions among like-minded participants. It challenges the assumption that bringing stakeholders together automatically leads to meaningful dialogue and introduces the critical concept of actively seeking dissenting voices.

Impact

This observation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple tables later echoing concerns about echo chambers and the need for genuine diversity of perspectives. It shifted the conversation from celebrating multi-stakeholderism to critically examining its limitations and effectiveness.

Which model of development are we talking about? Whose interests? Who’s gonna benefit? Who’s gonna lose out? So we’re using terms that we’re assuming we all understand. But no, there’s a lot of work to unpack. What do we mean by development? What type of development are we looking for?

Speaker

Participant (referencing special rapporteur on development)

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the underlying assumptions of the entire discussion by questioning the very definition of ‘development.’ It introduces critical thinking about power dynamics and beneficiaries, moving beyond technical discussions to examine whose interests are being served.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from procedural questions about how to engage stakeholders to more fundamental questions about the purpose and direction of digital development initiatives. It introduced a more critical lens that influenced subsequent discussions about rights-based approaches versus interest-based approaches.

In all of these discussions, we shouldn’t reach the lowest common denominator. Because discussions may be pushed by very powerful interests in the room without taking a step back and evaluating the negative implications and impacts of digital for development. And we might all be endorsing hyper-optimistic readings of technology without looking at the inequality.

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This comment introduces a sophisticated critique of consensus-building processes, warning against the tendency to water down discussions to achieve agreement. It highlights how power imbalances can skew outcomes and challenges the often uncritical embrace of technology as inherently beneficial.

Impact

This observation added a layer of critical analysis to the discussion, encouraging participants to consider not just how to include more voices, but how to ensure that inclusion doesn’t lead to diluted or co-opted outcomes. It influenced later discussions about the need for rights-based rather than purely interest-based approaches.

How do real people come here? I mean, we’re all real people, but genuine organizations in some sense, which may not meet the criteria that may be, which may even be informal, invisible barriers, you know, in the process. So what is really important to answer this question is to have feedback from those who are often not heard, but deeply impacted by the way the digital world affects their destinies.

Speaker

May (table moderator)

Reason

This comment exposes the paradox of discussing inclusion while potentially excluding those most affected by digital policies. It challenges participants to confront the gap between their representative claims and actual representation, introducing the concept of ‘invisible barriers’ that may systematically exclude certain voices.

Impact

This observation prompted deeper reflection on the legitimacy and representativeness of multi-stakeholder processes. It influenced discussions about the need for more accessible participation mechanisms and challenged the assumption that current participants adequately represent broader constituencies.

You go on the WSIS website, you read for one hour. An average Joe needs to read for five minutes and say, oh, OK, I get this. So he can participate. He can be a multi-stakeholder.

Speaker

Claudia (from Romania)

Reason

This comment highlights a practical but fundamental barrier to participation – the complexity and inaccessibility of information about these processes. It connects abstract discussions about inclusion to concrete, actionable issues of communication and accessibility.

Impact

This observation grounded the discussion in practical realities and influenced subsequent conversations about the need for clearer communication, linguistic diversity, and more accessible formats. It helped shift focus from high-level principles to concrete implementation challenges.

This is the only room with roundtables where everyone can speak. For the rest of the rooms, you have panels, 40 minutes, someone speaks to three people, and three questions at the end. And we talk about multistakeholderism. We need more roundtables.

Speaker

Claudia (from Romania)

Reason

This comment provides a powerful critique by contrasting the format of this session with the broader conference structure. It exposes the contradiction between advocating for multi-stakeholder participation while maintaining traditional, hierarchical formats that limit actual participation.

Impact

This observation served as a concrete example of how structural choices can undermine stated commitments to inclusivity. It influenced the discussion’s conclusion and provided a clear, actionable recommendation that other participants could immediately understand and relate to their own experiences.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a celebratory review of multi-stakeholder achievements to a critical examination of its limitations and contradictions. The interventions introduced several important analytical frameworks: the distinction between procedural inclusion and substantive representation, the risk of consensus-building leading to lowest-common-denominator outcomes, and the gap between stated principles and actual practice. The comments created a more sophisticated dialogue that moved beyond technical questions of ‘how to include more stakeholders’ to deeper questions about power, representation, and the purpose of these processes. This critical lens influenced the entire trajectory of the discussion, leading to more nuanced recommendations and a more honest assessment of both achievements and shortcomings in multi-stakeholder governance.

How can we better engage private sector participation in multi-stakeholder processes?

Speaker

Multiple participants across tables

Explanation

Several tables noted the lack of private sector participation and suggested this needs to be addressed through awareness campaigns, making the business case, and showing value propositions for their engagement.

What specific funding mechanisms can be established to support Global South participation?

Speaker

Multiple participants across tables

Explanation

Funding was repeatedly identified as a barrier to meaningful participation, particularly for Global South stakeholders, but specific funding solutions need to be developed.

How can we create better coordination between different UN processes and forums to avoid duplication?

Speaker

Multiple participants

Explanation

Participants noted too many overlapping processes (Summit of the Future, Global Compact, AI streams) that are time-consuming and costly, requiring better coordination.

What does ‘development’ actually mean in the context of digital for development?

Speaker

Participant referencing special rapporteur on development

Explanation

A participant noted that terms like ‘development’ are used assuming common understanding, but there’s need to unpack whose interests are served and what type of development is being pursued.

How can we make multi-stakeholder processes more accessible through language diversity?

Speaker

Youth participant at table

Explanation

Participant noted that discussions primarily happen in English, excluding non-English speakers from meaningful participation.

How can we ensure youth have actual voice and power, not just tokenistic representation?

Speaker

Youth participants

Explanation

Multiple references were made to youth needing meaningful participation rather than just being placed at tables without real decision-making power.

What are the criteria and processes for travel funding and how can they be made more transparent?

Speaker

Participants discussing transparency

Explanation

Participants struggled to understand how ‘real people’ and genuine organizations can access these forums, suggesting invisible barriers in the process.

How can we better connect global discussions to national-level implementation?

Speaker

Multiple participants

Explanation

Several tables identified a disconnect between global discussions and national-level policy implementation, requiring better mechanisms to bridge this gap.

What specific mechanisms can ensure permanent mandate for IGF and formal recognition of NRIs?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen and other participants

Explanation

Participants emphasized the need for IGF to have permanent status rather than periodic renewals, and for National and Regional IGF Initiatives to have formal recognition.

How can we create more consistent formats for multi-stakeholder participation across different UN agencies?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen’s table

Explanation

Different UN agencies (ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, OHCHR) have different approaches to multi-stakeholder participation, making it difficult for stakeholders to navigate.

Summary

This discussion focused on submarine cable resilience, examining the critical infrastructure that carries 99% of international communications traffic through approximately 500 cables spanning 1.7 million kilometers worldwide. The panel was moderated by Tomas Lamanauskas, Deputy Secretary General of ITU, and featured representatives from Portugal’s telecom regulator ANACOM, Estonia’s Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, Singapore’s IMDA, and China Telecom Europe. The conversation centered around the International Advisory Body of Submarine Cable Resilience, established by ITU in partnership with the International Cable Protection Committee, which now includes 40 members working to develop global best practices.

Key challenges identified included both intentional and unintentional cable disruptions, with human activities such as anchoring and fishing accounting for over 85% of cable cuts according to industry data. Estonia’s minister highlighted the particular threat of intentional cable cuts by hostile actors, while Singapore’s representative emphasized the economic importance of submarine cables, noting they account for 18% of Singapore’s GDP. The discussion revealed that natural disasters and human interference remain the primary causes of cable damage, necessitating comprehensive protection strategies.

Solutions proposed included building redundancy through diverse routing, implementing predictive maintenance systems, establishing protection zones, and developing rapid repair capabilities. Participants stressed the importance of international cooperation, particularly in supporting small island states and developing countries that lack repair resources. The advisory body has established three working groups focusing on resilience by design, timely deployment and repair, and risk identification and mitigation. The panel concluded with plans for a second National Submarine Cable Resilience Summit, emphasizing the need for continued multilateral cooperation to protect this critical global infrastructure.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Submarine Cable Vulnerability and Protection**: The discussion emphasized that submarine cables carry 99% of international communications but are surprisingly fragile (demonstrated with a physical cable sample). The main causes of disruption are human activities like anchoring and fishing (85%+ of incidents), with some intentional damage from hostile actors, particularly in regions like the Baltic Sea.

– **International Cooperation and Governance**: Panelists highlighted the need for multilateral approaches through organizations like ITU and IMO, drawing parallels to the original 1865 telegraph cable protection challenges. The International Advisory Body on Submarine Cable Resilience was established with 40+ members to develop best practices and coordinate global responses.

– **Resilience Through Design and Redundancy**: Key strategies discussed included building redundancy into cable systems, route diversity, predictive maintenance, protection zones, and rapid repair capacity. Singapore’s approach of scaling from 10 to 50+ cables by 2035 was cited as an example of creating resilience through quantity and diversity.

– **Economic and Capacity Building Challenges**: The discussion addressed the economic realities of cable deployment and repair, particularly for small island states and developing countries. Issues included limited repair ship availability (only one for all of Africa), the need for simplified licensing procedures, and the importance of making digital infrastructure economically viable.

– **Stakeholder Engagement and Education**: Panelists emphasized the need to involve diverse stakeholders including maritime authorities, fishing communities, consumers, and academia. There was discussion about the lack of submarine cable expertise in younger generations and the need for better public awareness about this critical infrastructure.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to address submarine cable resilience as critical global infrastructure, sharing best practices among government officials, regulators, and industry representatives while promoting the work of the International Advisory Body on Submarine Cable Resilience and building momentum for continued international cooperation.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional and collaborative throughout, with a sense of urgency about protecting critical infrastructure. Panelists demonstrated mutual respect and shared commitment to the cause. The atmosphere became more interactive and engaged during the Q&A session, with audience members from various countries and organizations contributing diverse perspectives. There was an underlying current of concern about intentional cable damage, but the overall approach remained constructive and solution-focused.

Speakers

– **Tomas Lamanauskas** – Deputy Secretary General of RTU, moderator of the panel on submarine cable resilience

– **Sandra Maximiano** – Professor, Chairperson of ANACOM (telecom regulator in Portugal), Co-chair of the International Advisory Body of Submarine Cable Resilience

– **Liisa Ly Pakosta** – Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs of Estonia

– **Lew Chuen Hong** – CEO of IMDA Singapore (Infocomm and Media Development Authority)

– **Athena Jun Xian** – Managing Director from China Telecom Europe, Executive General Manager of China Telecom on the Promenade-Folokom Global

– **Audience** – Various audience members including:

– Sabine Jones – European government representative and international expert

– Nisa Purcell – Regulator from Samoa

– Katrin Stuber – Works for GEANT, represents science innovation research organizations in Europe

– Abdi Jilir – Civil society representative from Chad

– Isaac Boateng – Head of standardization for the African Telecommunication Union

– Volodymyr Matyushko – EU digital and green transition expert

**Additional speakers:**

– **Bosun Tijani** – Mentioned as an announced panelist who was unable to attend (was on a plane)

# Comprehensive Report: Panel Discussion on Submarine Cable Resilience

## Introduction and Context

This comprehensive panel discussion on submarine cable resilience was moderated by Tomas Lamanauskas, Deputy Secretary General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and formed part of broader discussions surrounding the ITU’s 159th anniversary celebrations. The timing proved particularly significant, as Lamanauskas noted that the original 1865 ITU founding addressed precisely the same challenge: protecting undersea telegraphic cables from intentional damage by hostile actors.

Lamanauskas opened the discussion with a compelling physical demonstration, showing participants an actual submarine cable sample to illustrate the surprising thinness and vulnerability of infrastructure carrying 99% of global communications. This tangible demonstration effectively conveyed the paradox of critical global infrastructure that appears deceptively fragile.

The panel brought together distinguished representatives from regulatory bodies, government ministries, and industry leaders to examine the critical infrastructure that underpins global digital communications. With around 500 submarine cables spanning 1.7 million kilometres worldwide and carrying 99% of international communications traffic, the discussion addressed both the fundamental importance and surprising vulnerability of this infrastructure.

## Panel Composition and Expertise

The discussion featured Sandra Maximiano, Professor and Chairperson of ANACOM (Portugal’s telecommunications regulator) and Co-chair of the International Advisory Body of Submarine Cable Resilience; Liisa Ly Pakosta, Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs of Estonia; Lew Chuen Hong, CEO of Singapore’s Infocomm and Media Development Authority (IMDA); and Athena Jun Xian, Managing Director from China Telecom Europe. The panel was notably missing Bosun Tijani, who was unable to attend due to travel commitments.

The audience participation proved equally valuable, with contributions from diverse stakeholders including representatives from European governments, regulators from Samoa, GEANT representatives, civil society representatives from Chad, the African Telecommunication Union, and EU digital transition experts.

## The Critical Infrastructure Challenge

### Physical Vulnerability and Global Dependence

The economic significance became clear through regional examples. Lew Chuen Hong emphasised that Singapore’s digital economy accounts for about 18% of the nation’s GDP, making submarine cables foundational infrastructure rather than merely technical equipment. Similarly, Liisa Ly Pakosta highlighted Estonia’s complete digitalisation, with all government services dependent on internet connectivity, making cable resilience a matter of national functionality.

Sandra Maximiano provided the broader context, explaining that whilst there are around 500 cables globally, this relatively small number supports the entire international digital economy. The concentration of such critical functionality in limited physical infrastructure creates systemic vulnerabilities that require coordinated international response.

### Threat Landscape and Causation Analysis

The discussion revealed a complex threat environment with both traditional and emerging challenges. Athena Jun Xian presented industry data showing that human activities, particularly anchoring and fishing operations, account for the vast majority of cable cuts. These incidents range from purely accidental damage during legitimate maritime activities to intentional cuts by fishing vessels.

Natural disasters, including earthquakes and undersea landslides, represent another significant category of threats. However, the most concerning development emerged through Minister Pakosta’s revelation of intentional cable cuts by hostile state actors. She specifically described incidents involving Russian shuttle fleet vessels deliberately targeting cables in designated protection zones.

This intelligence fundamentally shifted the discussion’s scope from technical infrastructure management to hybrid warfare considerations. The moderator acknowledged that such state-level threats were “above his pay grade,” highlighting how submarine cable protection intersects with broader geopolitical security concerns.

## International Cooperation Framework

### The International Advisory Body on Submarine Cable Resilience

Sandra Maximiano detailed the establishment and operation of the International Advisory Body on Submarine Cable Resilience, created through ITU partnership with the International Cable Protection Committee. The body now includes over 40 members from both public and private sectors, representing a significant achievement in multi-stakeholder coordination.

The advisory body has established three working groups addressing distinct aspects of resilience: “resilience by design,” “timely deployment and repair,” and “risk identification, monitoring and mitigation.” This structure reflects a comprehensive approach moving beyond reactive crisis management to proactive system design and threat assessment.

The body’s work builds upon historical precedent, with Minister Pakosta noting that the 1865 ITU founding addressed identical challenges of protecting undersea telegraphic cables from hostile actors. This historical continuity validates the ITU’s role whilst demonstrating that submarine cable protection represents an enduring challenge requiring institutional responses.

### Regional Cooperation Mechanisms

Lew Chuen Hong described Singapore’s leadership of an ASEAN working group developing regional guidelines and best practices for submarine cable resilience. This regional approach complements global ITU efforts whilst addressing specific geographical and political contexts within Southeast Asia.

The regional framework allows for more detailed coordination on practical matters such as repair ship positioning, emergency response protocols, and information sharing arrangements. Singapore’s experience scaling from 10 to about 28 or 29 cables today, with plans to double that to about 50 by about 2035, provides a model for other regions seeking to build resilience through redundancy and diversity.

Portugal’s approach, as described by Sandra Maximiano, involves developing national best practices that replicate the international advisory body’s multi-stakeholder approach at the domestic level. This creates nested coordination mechanisms from local to regional to global levels.

## Resilience Strategies and Technical Solutions

### Design-Based Resilience Principles

Sandra Maximiano articulated a fundamental principle that became a recurring theme: “Resilience must be designed into cable systems, so must be built into design and not improvised in crisis.” This philosophy of “resilience by design” represents a shift from reactive crisis management to proactive system architecture.

The design-based approach encompasses multiple elements: redundancy through multiple cable connections, route diversity to avoid single points of failure, predictive maintenance systems for early problem detection, protection zones around critical infrastructure, and rapid repair capacity for quick restoration. These elements must be integrated from the initial planning stages rather than added retrospectively.

Singapore’s strategy exemplifies this approach, with Lew Chuen Hong explaining how the country uses quantity to create quality and diversity. By scaling to 50+ cables by 2035, Singapore creates mesh network architecture that can withstand multiple simultaneous failures whilst avoiding strategic choke points.

### Technical Implementation Measures

The discussion revealed various technical measures for enhancing cable resilience. Sandra Maximiano described deploying armoured cables and burying them deeper in high-risk areas, whilst Athena Jun Xian detailed China Telecom’s operation of submarine repair ships and management of submarine cable landings in China.

Predictive maintenance emerged as a critical capability, with audience members asking specifically about AI-powered infrastructure for real-time monitoring and early detection. This represents a shift from reactive repair to proactive maintenance that could prevent many disruptions.

The concept of hybrid power-telecom cable systems was introduced by audience members, suggesting that combining power and telecommunications cables could provide mutual resilience benefits through guard zones and optical monitoring capabilities.

## Economic and Development Challenges

### Investment Drivers and Economic Realities

Lew Chuen Hong emphasised that economics fundamentally drives cable deployment decisions, requiring growth in digital economy to attract private sector investment in cable infrastructure. This economic reality creates particular challenges for regions with limited digital economic activity, as cable operators require sufficient traffic and revenue to justify new deployments.

The economic dimension extends to repair capabilities, with Sandra Maximiano noting that collective mechanisms are needed to support repair capacity for regions lacking resources. Small island states face particular vulnerabilities due to limited cable connections and repair capabilities.

### Capacity Building and Skills Development

The discussion highlighted significant capacity building challenges, particularly regarding workforce development. Athena Jun Xian noted the lack of submarine cable expertise among younger generations and called for industry programmes to train youth for sustainability of the sector.

Sandra Maximiano advocated for expanded academic research programmes focused on submarine cable issues, noting the current lack of dedicated research in this critical area. This academic gap limits innovation and understanding of emerging challenges.

The skills challenge extends beyond technical expertise to regulatory and policy capabilities. Audience members from smaller countries highlighted the difficulty regulators face in collecting and verifying accurate data from submarine cable companies when they lack independent monitoring capabilities.

## Regional Vulnerabilities and Specific Challenges

### Small Island States and Landlocked Countries

The discussion revealed particular vulnerabilities facing small island states and landlocked countries. Audience members from Chad highlighted how landlocked countries depend entirely on cable connections through neighbouring countries, creating dependencies that extend beyond technical infrastructure to diplomatic and economic relationships.

Route diversity challenges became apparent through observations that African traffic must be rerouted through other continents during cable cuts, creating inefficient routing patterns that affect entire regions. This geographical reality demonstrates how cable cuts in one location can have cascading effects across continents.

Questions from regulators in smaller countries highlighted how these nations often lack the resources and expertise to develop comprehensive cable cut response policies. This creates a two-tier system where larger countries with multiple cables and repair capabilities maintain connectivity whilst smaller countries face extended outages.

### Sovereignty Versus Resilience Tensions

Audience members posed fundamental questions about balancing increased resilience requirements with sovereignty concerns and affordability constraints. This tension reflects broader geopolitical trends towards digital sovereignty whilst recognising that resilience often requires international cooperation and shared infrastructure.

The sovereignty challenge extends to data transparency, with regulators needing access to cable performance data for oversight whilst companies maintaining commercial confidentiality. This creates information asymmetries that complicate effective governance and emergency response.

## Stakeholder Engagement and Multi-Stakeholder Coordination

The discussion emphasised the need for comprehensive stakeholder engagement extending beyond traditional telecommunications actors. Athena Jun Xian described education programmes targeting fishermen, shipping companies, and local communities about cable protection and legal consequences of damage.

Sandra Maximiano advocated for digital literacy programmes that include education about submarine cable importance, helping consumers understand the costs and importance of building redundancy and resilience. This public awareness component addresses the disconnect between visible internet services and invisible submarine infrastructure.

The multi-stakeholder approach requires coordination between telecommunications regulators, maritime authorities, environmental agencies, and international organisations. This complexity necessitates clear coordination mechanisms and shared understanding of roles and responsibilities.

## Emerging Threats and Security Considerations

### State-Level Threats and Hybrid Warfare

Minister Pakosta’s revelation of intentional cable cuts by Russian shuttle fleet vessels represented the most significant security development discussed. These incidents involve deliberate targeting of cables in protected zones, representing a new category of hybrid warfare that traditional industry protection measures cannot address.

The intentional threat category requires different response mechanisms compared to accidental damage. Whilst industry can address fishing and anchoring accidents through education and technical measures, state-level sabotage requires diplomatic, legal, and potentially military responses that exceed industry capabilities.

The discussion revealed the challenge of distinguishing between accidental and intentional damage, particularly when hostile actors use methods that mimic accidental incidents. This ambiguity complicates both response and deterrence strategies.

### Environmental and Regulatory Challenges

The discussion touched on environmental considerations, with audience members noting potential impacts from environmental regulations on submarine cable resilience. This highlights the intersection between environmental protection and critical infrastructure that requires careful balance.

Regulatory challenges include the need for simplified repair permitting procedures whilst maintaining environmental and security oversight. Sandra Maximiano emphasised that emergency repair situations require flexible regulatory responses that balance speed with appropriate controls.

## Solutions and Best Practices

### Redundancy and Route Diversity

The discussion consistently emphasised redundancy as the fundamental resilience strategy. Singapore’s approach of scaling to 50+ cables by 2035 exemplifies using quantity to create quality and diversity. This strategy recognises that individual cables will inevitably fail, making system-level redundancy essential.

Route diversity emerged as equally important, with speakers advocating for geographically diverse cable routes that avoid strategic choke points. This requires international coordination to ensure that multiple cables don’t follow identical paths that could be simultaneously disrupted.

### Rapid Response and Repair Capabilities

The discussion highlighted the critical importance of rapid repair capabilities, with particular attention to regions lacking adequate repair ship coverage. The need for collective mechanisms for supporting repair capacity emerged as a key solution, recognising that cable cuts anywhere affect global connectivity.

Collective mechanisms for supporting repair capacity require burden-sharing arrangements and pre-positioned resources for rapid response. This approach recognises that cable cuts affect international traffic requiring coordinated response.

### Predictive Maintenance and Monitoring

The discussion emphasised the potential for AI-powered monitoring systems to enable predictive maintenance and real-time threat detection. This represents a shift from reactive repair to proactive prevention that could significantly reduce disruption frequency and duration.

Real-time monitoring systems could provide early warning of potential failures, allowing preventive maintenance before complete cable failure. Lew Chuen Hong emphasised that “what gets seen then gets acted on,” suggesting that improved data collection and transparency could drive more effective responses.

## Key Outcomes and Future Directions

### Institutional Developments

The discussion resulted in several concrete outcomes, including Sandra Maximiano’s announcement of plans for a second summit in Lisbon. This event will build upon the momentum generated by the current discussion and provide opportunities for deeper technical and policy coordination.

The three working groups under the International Advisory Body will continue their focused work on resilience by design, timely deployment and repair, and risk identification and monitoring. These groups provide structured mechanisms for translating discussion outcomes into practical recommendations.

ASEAN guidelines for submarine cable best practices are being developed under Singapore’s leadership, providing a regional model that could be replicated in other geographical areas.

### Policy and Regulatory Developments

Sandra Maximiano mentioned that the Abuja Declaration was approved at a recent summit in Nigeria, representing a key milestone for submarine cable resilience and international cooperation.

The discussion of classifying submarine cables as critical infrastructure with specific regulatory frameworks represents an important policy development that could influence national approaches to cable protection.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion on submarine cable resilience revealed both the critical importance of this infrastructure and the complex challenges involved in protecting it. The remarkable consensus among participants from diverse backgrounds and regions provides a strong foundation for continued international cooperation through the ITU’s International Advisory Body and related mechanisms.

The historical context provided by the reference to the 1865 ITU founding demonstrates that submarine cable protection represents an enduring challenge requiring institutional responses rather than ad hoc solutions. This continuity validates the ITU’s role whilst highlighting the persistent nature of threats to undersea communications infrastructure.

The emergence of intentional sabotage as a threat category represents a significant escalation that requires responses extending beyond traditional industry capabilities. The intersection between technical infrastructure protection and broader security policy creates new challenges for international cooperation and governance.

The discussion’s emphasis on “resilience by design” rather than crisis improvisation provides a constructive framework for moving forward. This philosophy, combined with the multi-stakeholder approach embodied in the International Advisory Body, offers a pathway for addressing the complex technical, economic, and political challenges involved in protecting critical submarine cable infrastructure.

The planned follow-up activities, including the second summit in Lisbon and continued working group activities, provide mechanisms for translating discussion outcomes into practical improvements in submarine cable protection. The success of these initiatives will depend on sustained commitment from all stakeholders and continued recognition of submarine cables as critical global infrastructure requiring coordinated international protection.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Hello. So it’s still sharp and bright and able to digest all this information. It’s only third day, by the way. It’s two more to go. So thank you very much for being here with us today and for my recently probably favorite topic, submarine cables. So I’m Tomas Lamanauskas. I’m Deputy Secretary General of RTU. And today I’ll be moderating a panel on submarine cable resilience. And we shall in a minute talk that where is a lot of activities in RTU about. But first, let me introduce me who I have here, this table, you know, as well. So we have Prof. Sandra Maximiano, who’s a chairperson ANACOM, so a regulator, a telecom regulator in Portugal. But it’s important for us is also she’s also co-chair of the International Advisory Body of Submarine Cable Resilience. And this is the body that we established November last year to really progress the work on the submarine cables. And I’ll speak to that in a little bit of a minute. So we have also Minister Lisa Lipakosta from Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs of Estonia. So again, Estonia has a strong interest in submarine cables, you know, and definitely has shown leadership in RTU in this regard. So then we have going further, you know, and geographically east, we have Luchuan Kong, CEO of IMDA Singapore. So thank you very much for joining us. And of course, Singapore is a major submarine cable hub, you know, so of course, you know, it will be very great to hear your experience, you know, how do you manage that very dense network of cables coming sometimes in a very narrow straits, you know, so indeed will be interesting to hear. And of course, we need to complete that with the private sector participation, you know, so that we have really, not only government speaking, but in the spirit of WSIS, in the spirit of this room, so that we have all the stakeholders. So Mr. Lew Chuen Hong, Managing Director from China Telecom Europe, and an Executive General Manager of China Telecom. on the Promenade-Folokom Global, which will bring to us the private sector perspective on that. And, of course, we have one more panelist, I think announced, Mr. Bosun Tijani, regrettably he is, I think, on a plane right now. So I don’t think even with all the communications in the plane’s connectivity these days, I think it’s still challenging to connect, so I apologize for that. Before we start, I think it’s always useful to show what you’re talking about, so I thank my colleague Andres for always delivering us the props. So this is a submarine cable, no? And because people sometimes when they speak about that, about the infrastructure, that basically makes sure that 99% of traffic around the world is carried, and 1.7 million kilometers, if I recall correctly. And we think, okay, this should be something thick and difficult to cut and kind of… But this is it, you know? This is actual submarine cable. This is not like a part of it. It’s not like additional casing around that. This is a submarine cable that lies under the sea, you know? And that, you know, this is the whole casing here. So think of this, and it’s only, you know, it’s a lot of kilometers, but in terms of submarine cable, this is around 500 of them around the world that ensure that our digital economy breathes, that our digital economy can function, that the blood of digital economy can flow, you know? So in every… It’s like with the human body, you know? Like every time you something cut yourself, you know, that’s not great. So today we’ll be discussing how we make sure that indeed this infrastructure remains resilient. And we’re building that in the great work that I’m pretty sure Sandra will talk to us about from International Advisory Body on Submarine Cable Resilience, where we now have 40 members plus two co-chairs leading us to the great work on delivering recommendations. So without further ado, maybe I’ll ask Sandra to kick us off exactly for your opening remarks, especially as a co-chair of our Submarine Cable Advisory Body. Thank you.

Sandra Maximiano: Thanks a lot, Thomas, and thanks a lot for… boasting this initiative and putting so much effort into it and bringing all us here together today. So as a co-host of High-Level Dialogue, Strengthening the Resilience of Telecommunication Submarine Cables, and as president of HANA.com and co-chair of the advisory body of the International Telecommunications Union, it is truly an honor to welcome you all to this session, which is part of this remarkable UISES Plus 20 High-Level event. The topic we address today aligns both with numerous WISES Action Lines and UN Sustainable Development Goals. It is crucial to discuss the resilience of submarine cables within the scope of this event. The unseen arteries carry about 99% of all international communications, including intercontinental internet traffic, enabling global communication and the development of markets, science, education, and diplomacy. These systems are also vital for underpinning critical functions related to peace, development, and emergency response. Without them, the world would fall silent with tragic consequences for social and economic development. As digital and technological innovation accelerates, it is imperative that the international community deepens its understanding of the technology security nexus, contributing meaningfully to the discussions, sharing best practices, and promoting the protection and resilience of the underwater digital infrastructure as a key element of global security. A multilateral and cooperative approach in this regard is particularly relevant. That is why Portugal is strongly committed to this agenda and stands ready to engage constructively in relevant and key multilateral fora. including as a candidate for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for the 2027-2028 term. This commitment also extends to capacity-building efforts which are essential to ensuring that all countries can benefit from the digital transition. Promoting universal and meaningful connectivity is central to enabling access to digital markets and the opportunities brought by emerging technologies. As part of our 2030 Development Cooperation Strategy which prioritized digital transformation for inclusive and sustainable development, Portugal proudly hosted the second edition of the UN Portugal Digital Fellowship in May 2025. This initiative supported least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing states in hearsening digital innovation for inclusive growth. Last but not least, I’m proud to co-chair the International Advisory Group for Submarine Cable Resilience launched by the International Telecommunication Union in partnership with the International Cable Protection Committee. In addition, 40 outstanding personalities from both the public and private sectors across the world are part of the advisory body. This ensures a diversity of knowledge and experience, including contributions from countries ranging from large economies to small island states. The advisory body provides a unique global platform of collaboration, promotes open conversations and builds trust for the benefit of global community. And I will give you some further more details of our work later on during our discussion.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Great, great, great. Thank you very much, Sandra. Thank you very much, your great leadership for this work. You know, we have an amazing international, we have an amazing first summit international.

Liisa Ly Pakosta: Thank you so much, and thank you for organizing this discussion here. So I see from the audience also that this is really a burning topic for many. This is interesting to think that 1865, the anniversary we are celebrating now, the topic was exactly the same, how to protect the undersea telegraphic cables. Because when you have connections between the countries and when you connect countries with a cable, which is undersea, there always comes somebody who is a bad guy and wants to cut down this cable. So the international cooperation that we are now having here is mentally going back to the birth of ITU and to the year 1865 when absolutely the same questions were addressed. And where it was decided that this is an organization to protect the member countries and the undersea cables in the way that is needed for the economy, for the safety of people and for the safe exchange of information. So Estonia very strongly believes in a rule-based world. We believe that a multi-stakeholder approach that is generally here, very importantly here, should lead us all together. to rules that we all obey for the good of our people. And we really see that ITU and also the IMO should very much now turn attention to the actual plan, maybe also regulations, maybe exchanging best practices, maybe there is some standards that need to be updated, maybe there is something that, for example, IMO should do with shadow fleet flags, etc. So there is a bunch of problems that we have to solve now, 160 years later, again, because we see that this is really an issue that is emerging throughout the world, that there are some countries that actually work actively to cut down the cables that are connecting other countries. And this is a real global issue, meaningful to gather and find good solutions for. So we very much believe that there is a lot of opportunities that ITU, together with IMO, should implement. We should study these opportunities together and find good solutions. This is the reason why we have gathered here. Thank you so much.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And a great call for action, you know, so like that, you know, so it’s something definitely to take away from this. And indeed, you are talking about submarine cables. So actually, they were telegraph cables were deployed just before ITU was established, you know, so 1850, the first cable, you know, like, and then, you know, and actually the first transatlantic 58. So we’ve just a few years before ITU was established, and we’re still working on 65 plus plus, you know, years later, you know, seem to be really talking about it. So now turning to Singapore, you know, and indeed, you know, wanted to hear from Singapore, an example, you know, as, you know, Singapore is really a hub of submarine cables. I think the homework that colleagues did says around 30 submarine cables are coming to Singapore. Indeed, in this context, how do you keep Singapore both resilient and available in terms of submarine cable resilience? How do you keep deploying the cables? What are the challenges you are facing in that? And what are the challenging opportunities you see in attracting further investments in submarine cable economy?

Lew Chuen Hong: Thank you so much, Tomas, and again, great to see everybody here. Maybe I’ll just share thoughts along two big buckets. The first, taking a step back, Singapore. Singapore, we are a very small and open economy in the physical world. We’re highly dependent on external trade. And similarly, we’re a very small and open economy. Sandra just now talked about small island states. Singapore is a small island state. Those of you who have been to Singapore, we’re about 40 kilometres breadth and 30 kilometres width, and that’s about as small as it gets. And therefore, we’re also a very small digital economy. So I think at the very core of it, digital economy today accounts for about 18% of our GDP. So if you look in your wallet, about one in every $5, give or take, has some component as far as digital. So for us, from that perspective, having a hub of submarine cables is a no-brainer. It’s at the core foundation of that openness to the rest of the world. And as Sandra just now said, the reason why it’s submarine cables is because there is no real alternative. It’s a law of physics. The ability for optics and fibre to carry that sheer volume cannot be duplicated through radio frequencies and satellites. It’s just fundamentally not possible. And therefore, because of both of these two pillars, the fact that it is critical for the economy, and at the same time that there’s no real alternative, I think that’s why it’s extremely important. And I’m very glad that the ITU has convened this IAB to place some attention on subcables. I always like to say, what is often unseen then it’s often not paid attention to. And some re-cables do suffer a little bit about that, just because it’s buried. Most people think when you enter the internet, it’s from your mobile phone and it’s sort of through some airwaves, but really the core backbone is that little fibre that happens. So I think as far as we’re concerned, that is the reason. And just to give you a sense of magnitude, over the past 15 years, we’ve grown from about 10 to about 28 or 29 today. And we intend to continue to double that to about 50 by about 2035. So if the world has about 500, about 10% will actually come through Singapore directly. And I think within here, and something to consider is that in quantity, there is quality in and of itself, not just because of the sheer capacity, but also the diversity and that resilience and forts should any one of these be cut for any reason. But maybe then very quickly on the second half, how do you think about resilience? First, it starts at home. And the way we think about it is that you need to design it well, because it’s not just about the cable, it’s about the armouring, it’s about the channels, the burying. And for us, I think we pay a lot of attention to operational cooperation for maritime port authority, to just make sure that there is surveillance and just to make sure that if there are any cuts, the repairs happen very quickly. But we also think about it as concentric rings, because it’s multi layers of defence. So by nature, submarine cables are transboundary. So therefore working very closely with ASEAN, we lead the ASEAN or Association of Southeast Asian Nations working group as far as submarine cables are concerned. We actually have guidelines that aim to set out best practices and we’re upgrading these guidelines as we speak, in Singapore’s position as chair of the ASEAN working group. And then again, very happy to be part of the IAB, where we hope to also bring that from a cross-regional perspective, so that these are enhanced and consistent across many different parts of the world. Then maybe the last bit is, I think, working with the industry is extremely key. The ICPC held their plenary in Singapore last year. And having big tech companies, as well as cable-laying companies, as well as telecoms be part of this, because very often they have a huge weight as far as convincing other governments are concerned that this is actually a critical investment to be made. And actually working very closely with our tech, as well as telecom partners, we also do a lot of capacity building as far as regional countries are concerned. So I think through sort of these different layers, I think these are worth thinking about if we’re really after overall resilience as a submarine cable. And I guess to the extent that a small country like Singapore can help shape those global rules and norms, I think it’s very, very important for the broader common good.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you. Thank you very much. You make it sound very easy, you know, but like you’re going from 10 to 30 to 50, you know, and still finding place in the seabed, you know, and the port is probably not that easy indeed, you know, but great to hear about collaboration, you know, great to hear about industry engagement and indeed regional approaches. And I think these are important takeaways. And thank you very much for your strong input into the submarine cable resilience advisory body. Indeed. And, you know, as you talk to industry, you know, you spoke about industry. Indeed, you know, International Cable Protection Committee is also, you know, a very strong partner there. And I think the whole idea to kick, to set out on submarine cable resilience was with this understanding, we need everyone around the table who knows what they’re talking about, you know, so we need industry, we need those people in the companies that actually deploy and repair every day. And we, of course, need the governments who can enable, could allow things to happen as well. And I think this is really so far proving a very successful model, you know, we’ll see, of course, in the result. But now also talking about industry, now I’ll turn to Athena, you know, so indeed, you know, in China Telecom also, we have a representative from China Telecom in the advisory body as well. So, but from your perspective now, like to understand better from industry, so what do you see as the biggest causes of submarine cable disruptions? and then how do you do as a company to make sure that there are fewer of them or they repair faster? All right.

Athena Jun Xian: Thank you, Tomas. Thank you for your questions. Actually, China Telecom has been committed to the submarine cable accessibility and resilience for a long time. As a pioneer, we already have six submarine repair ships and two spare parts deports, and also we already laid more than 70,000 kilometers submarine cables as well. And also our submarine cable company has been active in the rotational duty in Yokohama maintenance zone for a long time, and we actually just work very hard to, how to say, to ensure the submarine cable resilience. According to China Telecom’s data, the most common cause of submarine cable damage is anchoring or fishing activities, which can accidentally or intentionally damage the cables. I think this aligns with the findings of ICPC as well. Natural disasters like earthquakes or undersea landslides are also key causes, but human activities remain the main cause of the damage. As a major submarine cable landing operator in China, we are managing more than 70 percent of submarine cable landing, and also the protections in China maritime areas. So we just tried – just dedicated to preventing such activities from damaging submarine cables, and has seen some success with the number of submarine cable force along Circuit breaker violation prevention and interpersonal viewpoints collection. Thank you so much. Improves the ability to detect and address the risks. And also we run a lot of programs to educate the fishermen, shipping companies, and also local communities about protecting submarine cables and also the legal consequences of the damage. And we also collaborate very closely with the maritime and port authorities to regulate vessel activity, ensure proper anchoring zones, and we check the fishing patterns around cable routes. Of course, when cable faults happened, we just deployed some very detailed, quick response plans to make sure everybody, every role, every team to coordinate together. I think that’s what we did a lot to make sure the resilience of the submarine cables.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you very much. It’s super comprehensive. So I think we definitely need to make sure this lands in our best practice guidelines when the submarine cable advisory body is developing them in all these different areas that could be covered. But I think one thing is really stands out, this coordination between the different communities. I think Minister spoke about that, we spoke about RMO, about the fishing, about the port authority, about others. So we really need to bring those stakeholders together. They’re not always our traditional stakeholders. So that’s why we sometimes think in the beginning struggle, but we really now seeing the very good response also from other parts of the United Nations and other parts of the industry that when we see when we’re trying to engage that as well, because that’s the only way it can happen if we coordinate well. So now with this, I’ll come back to Sandra now. So, and indeed, from our perspective now, from ANACOM perspective and your personal perspective, which measures and best practices have you seen the most useful ones, the most effective ones? I know Portugal has a very strong coordination mechanisms, long-standing practices, you know, you know, also the, a lot of cables coming in, so plenty of experience to draw upon. So what, what we should do?

Sandra Maximiano: So as we actually just listen here, many accidents happen by human cause and some natural causes as well. And as we know, these incidents are inevitable. So what really matters is preparation and rapid response. So resilience must be designed into cable systems, so must be built into design and not improvised in crisis. And this is our lemma, and I think we should always have that in mind. So I would say that, I’ll point out really five main ways. So building redundancy, route diversity, predictive maintenance, protection zones, and rapid repair capacity. We should always be aware of these points. And I would say, first, the planning and implementation of undersea cable networks should promote this redundancy as a crucial strategy for enhancing security and resilience to ensure continuity of service in case of disruptions. And this will probably involve establishing multiple geographically diverse cable routes and mesh network architecture, deploying alternative routes, including satellite backups and terrestrial connections whenever possible, which we know that is not always possible, but avoiding also strategic choke points to minimize congestion and high risk areas, which are more susceptible to sabotage or accidents, and deploying armored cables and burying cables deeper, as it was mentioned here, in high-risk areas. So these are all, I would say, good, very important measures to build these. as well. Another point that is very relevant, is that we need collective mechanisms to support repair capacity, especially for regions and countries that lack the resources to respond on their own. This is particularly important for island states and remote regions. I would say that it’s in all our interests, even if we are a big country, it is not the case of Portugal, by the way. But it’s in all our interests that we all, as different countries, have the means to respond to incidents. Because we all suffer from any cuts in the submarine cables. So I think in that sense, if we think, incentives are more aligned than we actually think that sometimes they are. So we should be aware of that. And so this cooperation with small island states and small countries is really needed. And it’s not only needed for these countries, but it’s for the benefit of all. It’s also particularly important, the licensing and permitting procedures for repairs that must be simplified and more flexible, which is something that we are also working in our country as well, and I think discussions in that direction. Implementing repair vessels and joint capacity must be promoted as well, and we cannot postpone these priorities. Equally important is having clear plans for incident response, settings to And by being more aware of that, that this implies a cost, we are more able to also support that cost. So I think it’s really important to extend this sort of partnership to consumers’ organizations as well. Over the past year, ENACOM has deepened our partnerships, recognizing that the challenge is ensuring these diverse players speak the same language and align their efforts to heart our common goals. Firstly, as mentioned in my initial remarks, I am very, very proud to co-chair the International Advisory Group for Submarine Cable Resilience, which provides a unique global platform for collaboration. I think the work of this international advisory body must give special attention to regions, countries and remote islands, as I said, where economic incentives for prompt response are lower. And the advisory body has been making decisive progress. In particular, as Tomas mentioned before, our summit in 2025, so this year held in Abuja, Nigeria, the body approved the Abuja Declaration, marking a key milestone for submarine cable resilience and paving the way for greater international cooperation. Secondly, the body established clear priorities for 2025-2026 and decided to form three thematic working groups responsible for delivering concrete outcomes. So let me say that these groups will address submarine cable resilience from multiple complementary perspectives. By combining this approach, we aim to develop a comprehensive strategy to enhance resilience. One of the working groups will focus on resilience by design. As I mentioned, it’s extremely important to have this resilience by design, examining the importance of ensuring service continuity through redundant and diverse communication routes. The second working group will focus on timely deployment and repair of submarine cable systems, exploring how regulatory measures can expedite this process. And the third working group will be dedicated to risk identification, monitoring and mitigation. Within this framework, we’ll assess the application of new technologies and monitoring systems. And like the advisory body itself, the supporting working groups are composed of experts from different regions and stakeholders, so extremely diverse. The Advisory Board is really committed with the work of the three Working Groups. We are represented in all the three Working Groups, putting our effort and also putting our compromise into this mission. So given the progress made so far, I’m really confident that the Advisory Body will remain committed to ensuring that submarine cables are safe and resilient, and it will continue to support global connectivity and deliver high-quality outputs, grounding technical merit and best practices. So basically, this is about our commitment with the Advisory Body, but at the European level, through BEREC, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, and in collaboration with the European Commission, we are also taking this mission as well. We are also active on European Union Agents for Cybersecurity. So for us, international cooperation is of crucial importance, and we are delighted to know that industry also sees Portugal as a reliable and relevant partner as well. So preparing the future is very important, it’s not a task that should be done alone, and it’s a shared responsibility among regulators, as I said, industry, academia, and international communities. So I’m very pleased that all of these stakeholders are here today, and keep working together. Thanks.

Tomas Lamanauskas: So thank you very much, Sandra, it was a very comprehensive review, and I think for me what is super important, your highlight about this global solidarity and global issue, looking at the submarine cable infrastructure as a global infrastructure, because I think for a while, at least from the government’s perspective, and myself being in the regulator’s seat quite a bit, we looked at that from our own national perspective, how we protect it for ourselves. With actually submarine cable going through your territorial waters, and when it’s cut, a lot of other people can be impacted, you know, we’ve seen that when it happens in the Red Sea, or Mediterranean, and on. how you know 30% sometimes of the global traffic between Europe and Asia gets really impacted. And so it’s not only our own issue. You know, it’s an issue that everyone needs to deal with. And the same with the repair capabilities, you know, both the remote islands, but even though need to look to remote islands. I think the summit showed us that even for Africa, you know, I think there was number like, scary number like one ship that services the whole Africa, you know, so one cable repair ship. And that of course, that needs to be summoned, you know, that it really takes time just for the ship to come to the place and deliver. And of course, every day that ship goes there is always the cost that increases repair capability as well. So indeed, so now in a minute, I’ll actually open the floor. So start thinking of questions and being active on this. But before I do that, just offering ability for my panelists to react and we’ll start first with the minister.

Liisa Ly Pakosta: Thank you so much. I was thrilled to hear the fantastic work that has already been done. There is one aspect I would like to add. We have very much talked here about unintentional cable cuts. But at the same time, the issue that we are facing in Estonia, Estonia is a fully digital state. All the hospital services, the lives of the people depend on the internet service availability. All the government databases are interconnected and all the government services are based on internet. And now we have seen throughout two last years, which didn’t happen throughout the 30 years we have had our digital society. But now throughout the two last years, we have seen very many intentional cable cuts by the Russian shuttle fleet. So dropping an anchor and then pulling it through the cables in the zones that are marked as a protected zones. And we have fulfilled all the other recommendations that are here. So one of the issues we have to have the protection regulations and good.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you very much, broadening our perspective to, I mean, even more deeper things, you know, not, of course, the challenges that those things might need, like even, you know, it could even be above what we call a 2-pay grade, you know, like in terms of, to use a very colloquial term, but indeed this is a very complicated matter indeed. So any other panelists would like to react to anything you’ve heard, you know, so far, so, no? If not, please.

Lew Chuen Hong: Well I think maybe one perspective that I’ll add, I think building off Sandra’s comments is transparency around the data around submarine cables is probably going to be key. What gets seen then gets acted on, and this would cover both intentional as well as unintentional. Some data that should worry us is that the number of submarine cables are going to go up, and by definition, perito, it means the number of absolute cable cuts is going to go up. And based on current design, the ICPC data is that in excess of 85% it’s actually human cost, and therefore I think the ambition to watch the data must be that, despite the increasing number, we should actually aim to reduce the absolute number of cable cuts. And actually we can put a number on it, and we can actually get transparency around it. And you know, one of ITU’s greatest strengths, historically, has been to get data transparency around everything from connectivity to coverage, and so on and so forth. So I think this is one of those key elements that I thought is worth considering, and I think is worth thinking about as we put that sort of into work group one, because that provides a basis for how do you drive towards…

Athena Jun Xian: Actually, as a member in the institute, we all see that submarine cable is a very small circle. And you can see in the submarine events always the familiar faces and also the old faces. So I think from the government point of view, we should establish more programs to train the youth to jump into the submarine cable area to make it all sustainability. I think that’s all my point. Thank you.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Yes, please.

Sandra Maximiano: Sorry, just a quick point to that. I think this is extremely important when I mention like more consumers organizations and so much. But in academia, as I’ve been realizing that if you look about research programs that are really focused on submarine cable research and into these problems are really, really few. So I think we should bring more.

Audience: The previous universal exhibition in 98 it was organised in Portugal and the topic it was about oceans and there are many publications, many films, many documentaries on that, Oceanograph Museum, there is a museum? Yes, there is and it may be the only one in that planet. It’s located in Monaco, yes, and last June the conference on oceans in this city. and here also they have important data. But what I want to share, yes, I want to raise a question. Maybe I have my own answer to my question, Tomas. But my answer could be elaborated. Because we are in dialogue and it is high-level dialogue. And shrinking the resilience. Yes, how we can shrink the resilience? By plastic. Because international negotiation on plastic, we are at the end of the step. We negotiate since a while. I think, yes, since the beginning, also in the same time more like with this process started. And the international legal treaty on plastic will be adopted soon. And last meeting it was also in Asia. But we can also shrink resilience on submarine and carbon by plastic. Because negotiation, the current international negotiation on plastic trading, various type, we can, yes, improve on that. And this is a kind of reflection. Great.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you very much. Different areas, indeed. So I’ll take a few questions. Then we’ll reflect everything at the end just to give time. So first lady here. I think, Andres, you have a microphone here? Does it work?

Audience: Yeah, OK. Yes. Three things. First, I was in this conference on the ocean. And I was in the rooms of all the ministers of the planet and the first minister. And regarding plastic, there are a lot still to be done. And I would say industrial should be more invited in. Thank you for all the panelists. It was very interesting. I wanted just to add for you a comment about the consumer organization who should react. They can’t do themselves something. So, react means that they have the information from the government, from the medias, and then they have a floor to express themselves, which means by petitions or by organization, and there are different means of expressing. But they can’t do otherwise than putting a pressure, let’s put it like that. I have also a question, very fast question. I was in Estonia one month ago, invited by your government because I’m part of the Intergovernmental Baltic Sea Organization. And thank you very much to be here and to speak to the stakeholders. It’s very important that ministers are doing also this exchange. Just one question. You’ve seen the Russian minister. Did you have a word about that? You don’t have to answer, but it’s a question.

Tomas Lamanauskas: All the responses will be at the end, okay? So, because we want to give, because otherwise we’ll have a bit of a… Okay, so thank you. Could you introduce yourself just very quickly because of the time? Could you introduce yourself?

Audience: Yes, I’m Sabine Jones, part of the European government and also international expert. Thank you, thank you Sabine. First, I think Nisa was here from Samoa, and then I think… Thank you very much, Tomas, and your panel. Very exciting panel, excellent, lots to learn. My name is Nisa Purcell. I’m the regulator from Samoa. We do have a submarine cable, and I’ve learned myself. I’ve taught myself about submarine cable, and these are the main issues, and I just need to know what can the regulator do to ensure that we have a policy or something like that to prepare the country and the submarine cable on issues like the cable is cut, what will be the next. I have something in mind, but I just need an example of the best practice. And then, secondly, is about data and also the tariff. So how can I collect the data? How can I make sure that the data, the submarine cable company that’s giving me is correct? I don’t have anything to monitor. Thank you very much.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you very much. I think someone was there and probably will take – I’ll disappoint some people, I’m sure, because I’ll take one and then two more questions, so it’ll be a lottery.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Katrin Stuber. I work for GEANT. We represent the science innovation research organizations in Europe. GEANT interconnects 43 national research and education networks in Europe. FCCN is our partner in Portugal, and we connect 110 research and education networks worldwide. We are implementing partner of the European Union’s Global Gateway Project, such as BELA, the MEDUSA program, and the Blue Raman program, which goes to India. We are a not-for-profit in this environment and therefore one more element here that we can bring to the table. We protect our submarine cable systems through backup with our partners globally because we are in a not-for-profit environment, we are not competing. We have around the world global protection. But what we also see in the Baltic Sea specifically is that we used to have just two redundant resilience links between our Baltic countries and now we need to have three. So rather than looking for other measures, we’re just increasing the amount of cable systems that we’re actually having in the regions. Across the transatlantic, we have now eight cable systems running because one of the things we’re running experiments for CERN, all science globally runs on our network. We cannot afford any cuts and therefore the need for resilience is absolutely necessary. But it makes running backbones much more expensive, it makes science and cooperation more expensive. And here’s my question. How do we deal with the need for increased resilience across the globe in our cable systems in a world where everybody keeps talking sovereignty? And cable systems need to be sovereign. How do I increase resilience, ensuring that the internet remains affordable? Thank you.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you. One more here, and then after that I’ll take one more question here, and then I’ll take after that one more question, and then I’ll give you a solution if you want to have more discussion later on.

Audience: Okay, thank you so much. My name is Abdi Jilir. I’m coming from Chad. I represent civil society here, so I need to thank the professor here for putting in place also the issues of consumer is very important to have access to data. And as I’m coming from Chad, it’s land countries, we don’t have access to the sea. So the only cable that we have is from China. Cameroon, but always since that is one week, we don’t have internet one day in Chad. So what is the other alternative? We know that people have a lot of cable, but we don’t have only one. When it’s cut, the country is down. So what’s your advice about users, how we can process going to the cable submarine to have the data, is it real data, or going to the regulatory? Thank you so much.

Tomas Lamanauskas: I’ll give you the choice of the last 20 minutes. OK. Sorry, we’ll move. OK, like I said, I think someone was there. Yeah, please. All right. So good evening.

Audience: My name is Isaac Boateng. I’m the head of standardization for the African Telecommunication Union. Interesting discussions here, but I’m just thinking out loud, because from where we sit, what we have also seen is the issues that is actually related to the fiber or submarine cable disruption as a result of lack of strategies, just as has been alluded by a lot of people. And also, clearly, some real-time detection control mechanisms that are actually deployed on the links or even from the design stage. We are discussing about the issue of AI, so I’m trying to think aloud. What can we maybe at the design stage or even at the implementation stage, can there be a situation where we can deploy an AI-powered infrastructure to monitor these links, I mean, for prediction ahead of time? And also, the issue about the route diversity. I think it’s something that we have to look at it very well, because where we sit, again, if you look at the route from Africa, some part of Africa, traffic will have to be re-routed all the way to Portugal, to US, before it’s come back. When there’s a cut somewhere, the whole place is actually affected. So I’m thinking that Lady Anacom, you talked about the route diversity and the fact that we have to do something about it. What is your working group, what are you doing about this from the perspective of the African challenges that we do have? Thank you.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you. I’ll give one gentleman, sorry, 30 seconds, but before that, for the panelists to know what is waiting for them.

Audience: Dear high-level panelists for your insightful speech, my name Volodymyr Matyushko. I am EU digital and green transition expert. What high-level panelists’ opinion about built submarine hybrid power telecom cable system regarding resilience. As a rule, a power cable have guard zones that increase the resilience of data transition. The mutual resilience benefit is digital technology allows status monitoring of hybrid cable via optical cable. Thank you for your answer.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you very much. And now, actually, the solution is the plug here. So, actually, we’ll have a second National Submarine Cable Resilience Summit early next year. I mean, I’m not sure. I’m looking at Sandra, I’m not sure I can disclose the location yet, you know, like location, I can’t know. So, probably, yeah. So, we’re working to have that in one place that the gentleman mentioned in Lisbon. So, I think, and everyone who wants to be on our mailing list, you know, to get all the news, this gentleman here called Andres, you know, who is now standing, is the one to talk to, give you a business card, he’ll put you on the mailing list, and they’ll be engaged in that. And then, hopefully, we’ll have the not one-hour conversation, but we’ll have at least two-day conversation on submarine cables then later on. So, now, with that, and I warned you, it’s like one minute, you know. So, now, to simplify that, we’ll start with the minister, and we’ll go like that. Okay, so, minister first.

Liisa Ly Pakosta: Thank you. The answer about negotiations with Russia, we have had a lot, starting from asking them to draw back their aggression forces from Ukraine up to the massive GPS interferences that we have in Estonia. Estonia has eight cables, so the answer is to support the private sector to, I think we have here the general view, so private sector is able to, when there is low bureaucracy, when there is openness for investments, then there is a lot of interest to build submarine cables, because this is the future, as our Singapore colleague very many times has pointed out, it is a growing business.

Athena Jun Xian: From my point of view, actually I think the regulators should do more. From the industry point of view, I think during the last maybe 30 years, industries make more efforts than the regulators or than the government. But I’m really happy to see more governments set up or establish some agencies or special funds or coordinations for the submarine cable resilience. So I think this is very important. And also I think there’s a lot of collaboration between the systems or between carriers. I think now this is really, really good to make everything.

Lew Chuen Hong: I thought these are really wonderful questions, and it’s probably not possible to cover every single one. But I’m maybe going to just cover one area, and it is one work called economics. And it covers everything from whether it is going to be deployed in countries that have less cables, and therefore may have only one or two, all the way to the issue of what is it about sovereign cables. The majority of cables actually are run by consortias, and a lot of these consortias are actually private sector companies. And therefore that continues and that is the vast majority. And therefore when you think about how to both build your resilience, your capacity, as well as how do you have a boardwalk as far as sovereignty is concerned, it boils down fundamentally to economics. In Singapore, we’re a little bit unique in that I’m not actually just a regulator. As the Infocomm and Media Development Authority, I actually have a huge role, everything from the front end, as far as driving AI adoption is concerned, building out data centres, bringing in GPUs, digitalisation of companies, bringing in big tech, growing start-ups. So my encouragement would actually be that. How do you grow that part of the house? For us, we’re unique in that sort of both the regulatory and the economic promotion is under one hat. But I think in your own jurisdictions, how do you bring that up? Because then that ultimately is the driver for why somebody or some company will want to invest. And that brings you both the diversity as well as capacity that’s required. And I think that ultimately is at the core. Why do you want a cable in the first place? It is to drive that digital economy and to drive that digital society. Thank you.

Sandra Maximiano: There’s lots of interesting questions, but let me just talk in the perspective of a regulator. and thinking about what’s happening in Portugal. So I think we should all, and we are all, let’s say, different countries and different organizations, regulators with different competencies as well. But we should try to replicate what this advisory body does at the national level. And this is a big challenge, because then it means that we have to bring to the same table different stakeholders, different organizations. And in Portugal, we do that. We try to work with security entities or the Navy, of course. And so we are trying to replicate these practices and write a booklet of the best practices and what we should do to Portugal. So that should be done for each country. And also, I must say, when I was talking about these consumer organizations, I was more thinking about, when we talk about digital literacy, we should also include in this digital literacy the importance of submarine cables. Because then we are all aware of the costs of building this redundancy and resilience. And that, I think, is an important point. And at last, just not forgetting, I think it’s extremely, extremely important to classify submarine cables as critical infrastructure. And that is also one of our main goals in Portugal as well. And as I said, defining clear priorities within each cable, but defining submarine cables as critical infrastructure. And then for this critical infrastructure, have a specific regulatory framework. And that’s what we should work. But the definition of a critical infrastructure is very important.

Tomas Lamanauskas: So thank you very much, Sandra. So indeed, a great discussion here, amazing. Thank you very much, it just shows that it’s really an amazing topic for all of us to engage in, on which we all depend. So again, a reminder is, you know, give your card to undress, sorry, you know, so, and then if you need to be connected, you know, be ready for the next year’s summit and be engaged in our activities in the meantime, and let’s build this digital resilient infrastructure together. So a big hand of applause to the panelists, and to all of you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Submarine cables are critical infrastructure carrying 99% of global communications

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Lew Chuen Hong
– Liisa Ly Pakosta

Arguments

Submarine cables carry 99% of international communications and are critical digital infrastructure

Physical cables are surprisingly thin and vulnerable, with only 500 cables globally supporting the digital economy

Digital economy accounts for 18% of Singapore’s GDP, making submarine cables foundational infrastructure

Estonia is fully digital with all government services dependent on internet connectivity

Summary

All speakers agreed that submarine cables are absolutely critical infrastructure that underpins the global digital economy and national digital services, with 99% of international communications flowing through these vulnerable physical systems.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Human activities are the primary cause of submarine cable disruptions

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Athena Jun Xian
– Lew Chuen Hong

Arguments

Most common cause is anchoring or fishing activities, both accidental and intentional, with human activities being the main cause

Need for transparency in submarine cable data to drive action and reduce absolute number of cable cuts despite increasing cable numbers

Building multiple geographically diverse cable routes and mesh network architecture while avoiding strategic choke points

Summary

Speakers consistently identified human activities, particularly anchoring and fishing, as the predominant cause of cable damage, with ICPC data showing 85% of cuts are human-caused.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Multi-stakeholder international cooperation is essential for submarine cable resilience

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Liisa Ly Pakosta
– Lew Chuen Hong

Arguments

ITU’s International Advisory Body on Submarine Cable Resilience provides a global platform with 40 members from public and private sectors

Multi-stakeholder approach involving ITU and IMO is needed to develop rules and regulations for cable protection

ASEAN working group led by Singapore develops guidelines and best practices for regional submarine cable resilience

Summary

All speakers emphasized the critical need for coordinated international cooperation involving multiple stakeholders including governments, industry, and international organizations to address submarine cable resilience challenges.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Resilience requires redundancy and diverse routing strategies

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Lew Chuen Hong

Arguments

Resilience must be designed into cable systems through redundancy, route diversity, predictive maintenance, protection zones, and rapid repair capacity

Singapore has grown from 10 to 29 cables and plans to reach 50 by 2035, using quantity to create quality and diversity

Building multiple geographically diverse cable routes and mesh network architecture while avoiding strategic choke points

Summary

Speakers agreed that resilience cannot be improvised during crises but must be built into system design through redundant connections, diverse routing, and strategic planning.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of education and awareness programs targeting different stakeholder groups to prevent cable damage and build public understanding of submarine cable importance.

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Athena Jun Xian

Arguments

Education programs for fishermen, shipping companies, and local communities about cable protection and legal consequences

Digital literacy programs should include education about submarine cable importance to build public awareness of costs and resilience needs

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers advocated for formal recognition of submarine cables as critical infrastructure requiring specific regulatory frameworks and coordinated international governance mechanisms.

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Liisa Ly Pakosta

Arguments

Submarine cables should be classified as critical infrastructure with specific regulatory frameworks

Multi-stakeholder approach involving ITU and IMO is needed to develop rules and regulations for cable protection

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers from the industry/government implementation side emphasized the practical aspects of cable deployment, including economic drivers and the need for substantial infrastructure investment and maintenance capabilities.

Speakers

– Lew Chuen Hong
– Athena Jun Xian

Arguments

Economics fundamentally drives cable deployment decisions, requiring growth in digital economy to attract investment

China Telecom operates six submarine repair ships and manages 70% of submarine cable landings in China

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Small countries and regions require collective support mechanisms

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Lew Chuen Hong
– Audience

Arguments

Collective mechanisms needed to support repair capacity, especially for regions lacking resources like small island states

Economics fundamentally drives cable deployment decisions, requiring growth in digital economy to attract investment

Small island states and landlocked countries face particular vulnerabilities with limited cable connections

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both large hub countries (Singapore) and regulatory bodies agreed that supporting smaller, less economically viable regions is in everyone’s interest, recognizing that cable cuts anywhere affect global connectivity.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Industry should take more responsibility for training and capacity building

Speakers

– Athena Jun Xian
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Industry should establish more programs to train youth in submarine cable expertise for sustainability

Three working groups focus on resilience by design, timely deployment/repair, and risk identification/monitoring

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that the traditionally technical industry should expand its role into education and capacity building, with both industry and regulatory representatives agreeing on this broader responsibility.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkably high consensus across all speakers on fundamental issues: the critical importance of submarine cables, human activities as primary threat, need for international cooperation, and resilience through redundancy. Even speakers from different sectors (government, industry, regulatory) and regions (Europe, Asia, Africa) shared similar perspectives on solutions.

Consensus level

Very high consensus with strong implications for effective policy coordination. The alignment suggests that the ITU’s International Advisory Body approach is working well to build shared understanding across diverse stakeholders. The consensus provides a solid foundation for developing unified global standards and best practices, though implementation challenges remain for resource-constrained regions.

Different viewpoints

Role and responsibility balance between government and industry in submarine cable protection

Speakers

– Athena Jun Xian
– Sandra Maximiano
– Liisa Ly Pakosta

Arguments

Industry should establish more programs to train youth in submarine cable expertise for sustainability

Licensing and permitting procedures for repairs must be simplified and more flexible

Multi-stakeholder approach involving ITU and IMO is needed to develop rules and regulations for cable protection

Summary

Athena argues that regulators should do more since industry has made more efforts over 30 years, while Sandra focuses on regulatory framework improvements, and Minister Pakosta emphasizes government-led international coordination through ITU and IMO

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected differences

Scope of threats to submarine cables

Speakers

– Liisa Ly Pakosta
– Athena Jun Xian

Arguments

Intentional cable cuts by Russian shadow fleet using anchors in protected zones represent new security threats

Most common cause is anchoring or fishing activities, both accidental and intentional, with human activities being the main cause

Explanation

While both acknowledge human activities as causes, Minister Pakosta specifically highlights intentional state-level threats that represent a new category of security challenge, whereas Athena focuses on traditional accidental/fishing-related causes. This reveals different threat perceptions between countries

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on the importance of submarine cable resilience and the need for international cooperation. The main disagreements were subtle and centered on emphasis and approach rather than fundamental principles – specifically the balance of responsibility between government and industry, and different threat perceptions based on geographic and geopolitical contexts.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications – while speakers largely agreed on goals and strategies, the subtle differences in approach (regulatory vs. economic, collective vs. market-driven solutions) and threat perception (traditional vs. state-level threats) reflect deeper questions about governance models and security frameworks that could significantly impact policy implementation and international cooperation effectiveness.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of education and awareness programs targeting different stakeholder groups to prevent cable damage and build public understanding of submarine cable importance.

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Athena Jun Xian

Arguments

Education programs for fishermen, shipping companies, and local communities about cable protection and legal consequences

Digital literacy programs should include education about submarine cable importance to build public awareness of costs and resilience needs

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers advocated for formal recognition of submarine cables as critical infrastructure requiring specific regulatory frameworks and coordinated international governance mechanisms.

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Liisa Ly Pakosta

Arguments

Submarine cables should be classified as critical infrastructure with specific regulatory frameworks

Multi-stakeholder approach involving ITU and IMO is needed to develop rules and regulations for cable protection

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers from the industry/government implementation side emphasized the practical aspects of cable deployment, including economic drivers and the need for substantial infrastructure investment and maintenance capabilities.

Speakers

– Lew Chuen Hong
– Athena Jun Xian

Arguments

Economics fundamentally drives cable deployment decisions, requiring growth in digital economy to attract investment

China Telecom operates six submarine repair ships and manages 70% of submarine cable landings in China

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Submarine cables are critical infrastructure carrying 99% of international communications but are surprisingly vulnerable, with only 500 cables globally supporting the digital economy

Human activities (anchoring, fishing) are the primary cause of cable disruptions, with intentional cuts by hostile actors representing an emerging security threat

Resilience must be designed into cable systems from the start through redundancy, route diversity, predictive maintenance, protection zones, and rapid repair capacity

International cooperation through multi-stakeholder approaches is essential, with the ITU’s International Advisory Body providing a global platform for collaboration

Small island states and landlocked countries face particular vulnerabilities due to limited cable connections and repair capabilities

Economics fundamentally drives cable deployment decisions – growing the digital economy is necessary to attract investment in cable infrastructure

Submarine cables should be classified as critical infrastructure with specific regulatory frameworks and simplified repair permitting procedures

Resolutions and action items

Three working groups established under the International Advisory Body focusing on: resilience by design, timely deployment/repair, and risk identification/monitoring

Second National Submarine Cable Resilience Summit planned for early next year in Lisbon

ASEAN guidelines for submarine cable best practices being upgraded under Singapore’s leadership

Portugal developing national best practices booklet replicating international advisory body approach

Mailing list established for ongoing engagement (contact Andres for inclusion)

Abuja Declaration approved as key milestone for submarine cable resilience and international cooperation

Unresolved issues

How to address intentional cable cuts by hostile state actors using shadow fleets

Insufficient repair capacity globally, particularly for Africa (only one repair ship for entire continent)

Route diversity challenges where traffic must be rerouted through distant locations during cuts

Balancing sovereignty concerns with need for international cooperation and shared infrastructure

Making internet connectivity affordable while increasing resilience requirements

Lack of real-time detection and AI-powered monitoring systems for predictive maintenance

Limited youth training programs and academic research focused on submarine cable expertise

Data transparency and verification challenges for regulators monitoring cable performance

Suggested compromises

Collective mechanisms to support repair capacity for regions lacking resources, recognizing that cable cuts affect everyone globally

Hybrid power-telecom cable systems that provide mutual resilience benefits through guard zones and optical monitoring

Consortium-based cable ownership models that balance private sector efficiency with public interest needs

Regional cooperation frameworks (like ASEAN working group) that respect sovereignty while enabling coordinated responses

Multi-layered defense approach with concentric rings of protection from national to regional to global levels

Industry-government partnerships for capacity building and technology transfer to developing regions

It’s interesting to think that 1865, the anniversary we are celebrating now, the topic was exactly the same, how to protect the undersea telegraphic cables. Because when you have connections between the countries and when you connect countries with a cable, which is undersea, there always comes somebody who is a bad guy and wants to cut down this cable.

Speaker

Liisa Ly Pakosta (Minister from Estonia)

Reason

This comment provided crucial historical context that reframed the entire discussion, showing that submarine cable protection isn’t a new challenge but one that has persisted since the birth of the ITU. It elevated the conversation from a technical discussion to one about enduring geopolitical realities.

Impact

This historical perspective shifted the discussion tone from treating cable cuts as modern anomalies to understanding them as persistent challenges requiring institutional responses. It validated the ITU’s role and provided gravitas to the discussion by connecting current challenges to the organization’s founding purpose.

We have seen throughout two last years, which didn’t happen throughout the 30 years we have had our digital society. But now throughout the two last years, we have seen very many intentional cable cuts by the Russian shuttle fleet. So dropping an anchor and then pulling it through the cables in the zones that are marked as a protected zones.

Speaker

Liisa Ly Pakosta (Minister from Estonia)

Reason

This comment dramatically shifted the discussion from accidental damage to intentional sabotage, introducing the reality of state-level threats to critical infrastructure. It brought geopolitical tensions directly into what had been a largely technical discussion.

Impact

This revelation fundamentally changed the conversation’s scope and urgency. It moved beyond technical solutions to acknowledge that some cable cuts may be acts of hybrid warfare, requiring different types of responses and international cooperation. The moderator even acknowledged this was ‘above their pay grade,’ showing how it elevated the discussion’s complexity.

What gets seen then gets acted on, and this would cover both intentional as well as unintentional… the ambition to watch the data must be that, despite the increasing number, we should actually aim to reduce the absolute number of cable cuts. And actually we can put a number on it, and we can actually get transparency around it.

Speaker

Lew Chuen Hong (CEO of IMDA Singapore)

Reason

This comment introduced the critical concept that transparency and data visibility are prerequisites for effective action. It provided a concrete, measurable approach to what had been discussed in more abstract terms.

Impact

This shifted the discussion toward practical, measurable solutions and accountability mechanisms. It connected the ITU’s historical strength in data transparency to this new challenge, providing a concrete pathway forward that other participants could build upon.

Resilience must be designed into cable systems, so must be built into design and not improvised in crisis. And this is our lemma, and I think we should always have that in mind.

Speaker

Sandra Maximiano (ANACOM Chairperson)

Reason

This comment crystallized a fundamental principle that shifted thinking from reactive to proactive approaches. It established ‘resilience by design’ as a core philosophy rather than treating resilience as an afterthought.

Impact

This principle became a organizing framework for the discussion, influencing how other participants discussed solutions. It elevated the conversation from crisis management to systematic prevention and preparation, and was later reflected in the working group structure she described.

It’s in all our interests, even if we are a big country… that we all, as different countries, have the means to respond to incidents. Because we all suffer from any cuts in the submarine cables… this cooperation with small island states and small countries is really needed. And it’s not only needed for these countries, but it’s for the benefit of all.

Speaker

Sandra Maximiano (ANACOM Chairperson)

Reason

This comment reframed submarine cable resilience from a national security issue to a global solidarity issue, emphasizing interdependence rather than individual national interests.

Impact

This perspective shift was crucial in moving the discussion toward collaborative solutions rather than competitive approaches. It provided moral and practical justification for international cooperation and resource sharing, influencing how other participants discussed regional and global responses.

How do we deal with the need for increased resilience across the globe in our cable systems in a world where everybody keeps talking sovereignty? And cable systems need to be sovereign. How do I increase resilience, ensuring that the internet remains affordable?

Speaker

Katrin Stuber (GEANT representative)

Reason

This question exposed a fundamental tension between the push for sovereign infrastructure and the economic and technical realities of building resilient global networks. It highlighted the cost implications of geopolitical fragmentation.

Impact

This question crystallized one of the core dilemmas facing the international community and forced participants to grapple with the practical implications of political rhetoric about sovereignty. It added economic considerations to what had been primarily a technical and security discussion.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by expanding its scope from a technical infrastructure conversation to a multifaceted examination of geopolitical, economic, and governance challenges. The historical framing established continuity with ITU’s founding mission, while the revelation of intentional sabotage introduced urgent security dimensions. The emphasis on ‘resilience by design’ and global solidarity provided constructive frameworks for moving forward, while the sovereignty-versus-resilience tension highlighted the complex trade-offs involved. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from operational concerns to strategic policy considerations, demonstrating why submarine cable resilience requires coordinated international response rather than purely technical solutions.

How can AI-powered infrastructure be deployed at the design and implementation stages to monitor submarine cable links for predictive maintenance and real-time detection?

Speaker

Isaac Boateng (African Telecommunication Union)

Explanation

This addresses the need for proactive monitoring systems that could prevent cable disruptions through early detection and prediction, potentially reducing the high percentage of human-caused cable cuts.

What specific actions are the working groups taking to address route diversity challenges, particularly for African traffic routing through distant locations like Portugal and the US?

Speaker

Isaac Boateng (African Telecommunication Union)

Explanation

This highlights the inefficient routing patterns that create vulnerabilities when cables are cut, requiring traffic to take extremely long detours, and seeks concrete solutions from the advisory body’s working groups.

What are the panelists’ opinions on building submarine hybrid power-telecom cable systems for enhanced resilience?

Speaker

Volodymyr Matyushko (EU digital and green transition expert)

Explanation

This explores whether combining power and telecom cables could improve resilience through guard zones and mutual monitoring capabilities via optical technology.

What can regulators do to ensure proper policies are in place for cable cut preparedness, and what are best practices for this?

Speaker

Nisa Purcell (regulator from Samoa)

Explanation

This addresses the need for regulatory frameworks and emergency response policies, particularly important for small island states with limited cable infrastructure.

How can regulators collect and verify accurate data from submarine cable companies when they lack monitoring capabilities?

Speaker

Nisa Purcell (regulator from Samoa)

Explanation

This highlights the challenge regulators face in obtaining reliable data for oversight and decision-making when they don’t have independent monitoring systems.

What alternatives exist for landlocked countries dependent on single cable connections, and how can they access reliable data about cable performance?

Speaker

Abdi Jilir (civil society representative from Chad)

Explanation

This addresses the vulnerability of landlocked countries that depend entirely on single cable connections through neighboring countries, seeking solutions for redundancy and data transparency.

How can the need for increased resilience be balanced with affordability in a world focused on cable sovereignty?

Speaker

Katrin Stuber (GEANT)

Explanation

This addresses the economic challenge of maintaining affordable internet services while increasing the number of cable systems needed for resilience, particularly in the context of sovereignty requirements.

How can more youth be trained and attracted to enter the submarine cable industry for sustainability?

Speaker

Athena Jun Xian (China Telecom)

Explanation

This addresses the aging workforce in the submarine cable industry and the need for succession planning and skills development for future sustainability.

How can more academic research programs focused on submarine cable research and related problems be established?

Speaker

Sandra Maximiano

Explanation

This highlights the lack of dedicated research programs in academia focusing on submarine cable issues, which could contribute to better solutions and understanding.

How can transparency around submarine cable data be improved to better track and reduce cable cuts despite increasing cable numbers?

Speaker

Lew Chuen Hong (IMDA Singapore)

Explanation

This addresses the need for better data collection and transparency to monitor trends and effectiveness of resilience measures, building on ITU’s historical strength in data transparency.

How can digital literacy programs be expanded to include education about the importance of submarine cables?

Speaker

Sandra Maximiano

Explanation

This would help consumers understand the costs and importance of building redundancy and resilience in submarine cable infrastructure.

How can submarine cables be classified as critical infrastructure with specific regulatory frameworks?

Speaker

Sandra Maximiano

Explanation

This addresses the need for formal recognition of submarine cables’ critical importance and the development of appropriate regulatory frameworks to protect them.

Summary

The discussion centered on ethical considerations and human rights in the digital age, particularly focusing on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies as part of the WSIS Action Line framework. The session featured ministers and experts from Belgium, Libya, Cuba, Kenya, Poland, and other countries sharing their national approaches to digital ethics and AI governance. Belgium’s Minister Vanessa Matz emphasized the importance of digital inclusion and accessibility, highlighting their AI ecosystem that brings together public and private actors to ensure ethical AI deployment with transparent governance. Libya’s Minister Abdul Baset Albaour cautioned against delegating ethical decision-making to machines, noting that while humans make decisions based on emotion, experience, and wisdom, AI relies solely on algorithms and data, making it unreliable for ethical choices.

Cuba’s representative outlined their comprehensive approach to digital citizenship education through 642 technology centers that have trained over 5 million people, emphasizing ethical, safe, and innovative use of digital technologies. Kenya’s Stephen Isaboke discussed the balance between protecting freedom of expression and access to information while preventing hate speech and misinformation, particularly among youth using platforms like TikTok and X. Poland’s Jacek Oko proposed using AI as an educational tool to teach people about AI risks, advocating for AI-powered personalized learning assistants to help vulnerable populations understand digital literacy and identify manipulated content.

Professor Salma Abbasi identified six key ethical concerns including misinformation proliferation, algorithmic bias, privacy surveillance, behavioral manipulation, declining critical thinking, and loss of cultural nuances in AI systems. She recommended transparency in AI design, robust human oversight, and accountability frameworks with consequences for failures. The panelists collectively emphasized that addressing AI ethics requires international cooperation, investment in education, transparent governance frameworks, and ensuring that technology serves humanity while respecting cultural values and human dignity.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Balancing AI ethics with innovation and rights**: Multiple speakers addressed the challenge of ensuring ethical AI development while maintaining freedom of expression, access to information, and innovation capacity. Kenya’s representative specifically discussed the “creative tension” between media freedom and ethical regulation.

– **Human-centered AI development and decision-making**: Libya’s minister emphasized that humans and machines make decisions differently – humans use emotion, experience, and wisdom while AI relies on algorithms and data. The consensus was that ethical decision-making should not be fully delegated to machines.

– **Education and digital literacy as fundamental safeguards**: Several speakers highlighted education as crucial for ethical AI use. Cuba outlined their extensive technology training programs, while Poland advocated for using AI itself as a tool to educate people about AI risks and benefits.

– **Misinformation, disinformation, and algorithmic bias**: Professor Abbasi provided a comprehensive analysis of six key risks including the proliferation of deepfakes, persistent discrimination through algorithmic bias, privacy concerns, behavioral manipulation, and the decline of critical thinking skills.

– **Need for transparency, accountability, and regulatory frameworks**: All speakers emphasized the importance of transparent AI systems, human oversight, and robust regulatory frameworks. There was particular concern for protecting vulnerable populations including children, elderly, and those with disabilities.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to explore how to apply ethics and human rights principles to emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, within the context of building an inclusive information society. This was part of a WSIS Action Line session focused on painting an “ethical landscape” for the digital age.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was professional and collaborative throughout, with speakers sharing practical experiences and solutions rather than engaging in debate. While there was underlying concern about AI risks and challenges, the discussion maintained a constructive and forward-looking approach. The tone remained consistently diplomatic and solution-oriented, with speakers building upon each other’s points and emphasizing the need for international cooperation and shared responsibility in addressing these challenges.

Speakers

– **Participant**: Role/Title: Not specified, Area of expertise: Not specified

– **Anriette Esterhuysen**: Role/Title: High-level track facilitator/Moderator, Area of expertise: Digital rights and governance (described as “veteran of this space”), From: South Africa

– **Vanessa Matz**: Role/Title: Minister of Digital Transformation, Area of expertise: Digital transformation and ethics in information society, From: Belgium

– **Abdulbaset Albaour**: Role/Title: Minister for General Authority for Communication and Information Technology, Area of expertise: AI and machine decision-making, From: Libya

– **Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez**: Role/Title: First Vice Minister, Ministry of Communications, Area of expertise: Digital transformation and AI ethics education, From: Republic of Cuba

– **Stephen Isaboke**: Role/Title: Principal Secretary from the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Digital Economy, State Department for Broadcasting and Telecommunications, Area of expertise: Information access rights and media freedom balance, From: Kenya

– **Jacek Oko**: Role/Title: President of the Office of Electronic Communications, Area of expertise: AI regulation and digital education, From: Poland

– **Salma Abbasi**: Role/Title: Founder, Chairperson and CEO of the EU Worldwide Group, Area of expertise: AI ethics, digital rights, and child protection (described as “veteran of this space”), From: Not specified

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Discussion Report: Ethics and Human Rights in the Digital Age

## Executive Summary

This discussion, part of the “Leaders’ Talks, Moral Pixels – Painting an Ethical Landscape in the Information Society” session on day three of the WSIS framework meetings, was facilitated by Anriette Esterhuysen. The session brought together ministers and digital governance experts from Belgium, Libya, Cuba, Kenya, and Poland to examine ethical considerations and human rights implications in the digital age, with particular focus on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies.

The conversation revealed shared priorities around education, human oversight, and transparency in AI governance, while highlighting different national approaches to implementation and regulation.

## Key Participants and Their Contributions

### Belgium – Minister Vanessa Maerts

Minister Maerts outlined Belgium’s systematic approach to digital transformation, emphasizing that digital services must be accessible to all without exception. Belgium has established requirements that for each digital service, non-digital alternatives must be provided for vulnerable groups. The country has created an AI ecosystem bringing together public and private actors to provide ethical and legal advice on AI deployment, alongside launching an observatory for AI and digital technologies to reinforce transparency and facilitate citizen dialogue. Maerts stressed that digital technology must be at the service of humans by being safe, ethical, and inclusive.

### Libya – Minister Abdul Baset Abul

Minister Abul provided a cautionary perspective on AI decision-making, drawing a distinction between human and machine processes. He argued that humans make decisions based on emotion, experience, and wisdom, while AI relies on algorithms and data. He emphasized that AI decisions are irreversible unlike human decisions, stating: “That’s in my opinion, we cannot trust the machine to take decision.”

### Cuba – First Vice Minister Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez

Speaking in Spanish with translation, Minister Rodriguez Hernandez presented Cuba’s comprehensive digital education infrastructure through 642 technology centers that have trained over 5 million people, mostly young people. Cuba has graduated 17,000 engineers and created a university in 2022. The country has approved a digital transformation policy, digital agenda, and AI development strategy under an ethical framework, with digital technology topics taught with an ethical, safe, and innovative approach in universities.

### Kenya – Principal Secretary Stephen Mortari Saboke

Principal Secretary Saboke discussed the balance between rights and regulation, introducing the concept of “creative tension” between competing rights. He emphasized that governments must balance freedom of expression and access to information with ethical regulation, noting concerns about platforms like TikTok and X, as well as cybercrime issues. He argued that “we don’t have to abandon rights in order to respect rights.”

### Poland – President Jacek Oko, Office of Electronic Communications

President Oko advocated for using AI as an educational tool to teach people about AI risks and benefits. He proposed that AI could serve as a personalized learning assistant, particularly for people with special needs and intellectual disabilities. He referenced the EU Digital Services Act and its oversight capabilities, stating: “Let us not be afraid of AI. On the contrary, let us use it as a powerful tool in this educational mission.” He emphasized cooperation with non-governmental organizations and educators.

### Professor Salma Abbasi

Professor Abbasi provided a detailed analysis of AI-related risks, identifying six key ethical concerns in her framework: misinformation proliferation through deepfakes, algorithmic bias reinforcing discrimination, privacy and surveillance concerns, behavioral manipulation particularly affecting children, declining critical thinking abilities, and loss of cultural nuances in AI systems. She called for robust regulatory frameworks and highlighted the need for inclusive approaches, particularly for Global South countries rapidly adopting AI.

## Areas of Consensus

### Education and Capacity Building

All speakers emphasized education as fundamental for ethical AI governance. Cuba’s extensive technology center network, Poland’s advocacy for AI-powered educational tools, and other participants’ focus on human capacity building demonstrated broad agreement on educational approaches.

### Human Oversight

Multiple speakers, particularly Libya’s minister and Professor Abbasi, stressed the importance of maintaining human control and oversight in AI systems, emphasizing that machines should not make decisions independently.

### Transparency Requirements

Belgium’s observatory approach, Poland’s reference to EU oversight capabilities, and Professor Abbasi’s call for auditable algorithms reflected shared views on the need for transparent AI systems and public dialogue.

## Different Approaches

### Trust in AI Systems

A notable difference emerged between Libya’s skepticism about trusting machines for decision-making and Poland’s more optimistic stance about embracing AI as a tool, particularly for education.

### Regulatory Frameworks

Speakers presented different approaches to oversight, with some emphasizing governmental frameworks while others, like Poland’s representative, advocated for greater cooperation with non-governmental organizations and educational institutions.

## Key Challenges Identified

The discussion highlighted several ongoing challenges:

– Ensuring AI systems respect cultural contexts and local values

– Developing appropriate regulatory frameworks for rapidly evolving technology

– Balancing innovation with protection, particularly for vulnerable populations

– Addressing the digital divide and ensuring Global South participation in AI governance

– Protecting children from potential negative effects while leveraging educational benefits

## Technical Context

The session experienced some technical difficulties with computer and microphone issues, as noted by the moderator. Presentations from Belgium and Cuba included translation from French and Spanish respectively. A speaker from the Philippines was expected but did not appear.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated broad international agreement on fundamental principles of AI ethics, particularly around education, human oversight, and transparency. While implementation approaches varied based on national contexts and priorities, participants showed commitment to ensuring that digital technologies serve human needs while respecting rights and cultural values. The conversation reflected growing international dialogue on AI governance, with emphasis on inclusive development and the need for continued cooperation between nations at different stages of digital transformation.

Participant: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to start our session very soon. Dear participants, we would like to welcome you to our next Leaders’ Talks, Moral Pixels – Painting an Ethical Landscape in the Information Society. We would like to invite to the stage Ms. Anriette Estenhauer, who is going to be our high-level track facilitator.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Good afternoon, everyone who is with us. virtually and in the room. I know things are a little bit, it’s day three and things are becoming a little bit chaotic. We have ministerial meetings, but we want to start on time as close as possible because there’s another session after us. So, I’ll introduce myself. I think, have I been introduced? My name is Anriette Esterhuysen, I’m from South Africa and I’ll be moderating this session. So, we have a very distinguished panel. This session is going to look at the WSIS Action Line that deals with ethics and human rights and particularly in how we apply ethics and human rights to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. So, I’m going to invite the panellists to come. I think next to me I have, well, let me introduce them in order of speaking. Our first speaker, and they can all come if they are here, is Her Excellency Minister Maats from Belgium. Is she with us yet? Not yet. She’ll be joining us, so let’s move on to who’s next. We also have, sorry, this is difficult to manipulate the mic and the keyboard at the same time. From Libya, next to me, we have His Excellency Mr. Abdul Baset Abul, Minister for General Authority for Communication and Information Technology, and he’ll be our second speaker. And after him, we’ll have from Cuba, His Excellency Mr. Ernesto Rodríguez Hernández, First Vice Minister, Ministry of Communications from the Republic of Cuba. He’ll be our third speaker. Thanks very much to all of you ministers for rushing downstairs. After Cuba, we’re going to have already here, and thanks for being the first one to walk to the stage, Stephen Mortari Saboke, Principal Secretary from the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Digital Economy, State Department for Broadcasting and Telecommunications. From the Philippines, is Miss Ella Blanca López with us? Not yet. Thanks for that, Levi. From Poland, I know he’s here, I’ve just spoken to him, Mr. Jacek Orko, President of the Office of Electronic Communications from Poland. And after that, we have, last but definitely not least, Professor Selma Abassi. She’s the founder and chairperson and CEO of the EU Worldwide Group, and like me, she’s a veteran of this space. So, we will probably be joint, so don’t feel that there’s disruption. If you see other dignitaries going to the top of the stage. I’m trying to get to the top of my screen. Escaped, thank you. Just, do we have, oh, has she arrived? Perfect. Is that Miss López or Miss Lanz? Thanks very much. I’ll introduce you when I give you the floor. So, to start us, I’m going to go to our first speaker, which is Her Excellency, the Minister from Belgium. I need to get rid of this. I’m so sorry about this. Could you hold this for me, please? Thanks, Minister. So, from Belgium, Her Excellency is Vanessa Maerts. She’s the Minister from the Ministry of Digital Transformation. And the question that we have for her is, how is Belgium dealing with this challenge of applying ethics, dealing with digital transformation and building an inclusive information society, particularly with the challenges related to artificial intelligence? And you’ll be responding in French, is that right? So, please, everyone, keep your headphones on or look at the transcript. And Minister, you have three minutes and the time is in front of you. Please, go ahead.

Vanessa Matz: Merci. Thank you very much. So, ladies and gentlemen, the question of ethics in the information society is a fundamental priority that I have carried. It’s one of the mandates I have within the Belgium federal government. It’s a topic we’re all dealing with at national and international level. Ethics is not just principle. It incarnates also the accessibility and the inclusion. It is absolutely imperative that the digital services be accessible to all men and women without exception. This includes vulnerable groups for whom in Belgium we will always want to ensure alternatives, non-digital alternatives at each digital online service. This is our way to guarantee a true equality of access. I also give a strong importance to the improvement of digital public services. Initiatives like training of public agents in first line and the accompanying of the citizens and promotion of digital inclusion are one of the concrete examples. Ethics to guide the development of our technology. Let’s take the artificial intelligence. In Belgium, we have created an ecosystem AI for Belgium that brings together public and private actors of the sector. These ecosystems offer advice on ethical aspects and legal aspects of AI, ensuring that the deployment respects the norms and regulations, all the while ensuring a transparent governance. Transparency is fundamental, particularly regarding algorithms used in the public services, which is why we have launched an observatory of artificial intelligence and of the new digital technologies in order to reinforce this transparency and facilitate the dialogue between citizens and the users. We also need to take particular attention for youth who are particularly vulnerable to the ethical issues linked to digitization. Digital technology needs to be at the service of humans by being safe, ethical and inclusive for all. Digital technology cannot just be blown back from the sky, it needs to be the fruit of a constant dialogue and active cooperation between all competent authorities and at all levels. facilitate cooperation. The summit is a unique opportunity to reinforce this international cooperation and to ensure that digitization benefits everyone in the respect of ethical principles that guide our actions. Thank you very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: You came to time absolutely perfectly. I was nervous for no reason. And Mr. Albaour, Your Excellency, the question we are asking you is could we or should we be delegating our ethical decision-making to machines? Are we doing it? And if that is happening, who should determine the framework, the rights and moral framework that guides

Abdulbaset Albaour: these systems? Good afternoon. Thank you for this question. As you know, now in these days, the most topics have been taken in AI. Before answering your question, I want to explain how the machine or how the AI take decision and what’s different between the human how to take decision and machine take the decision. Human make decision dependent on the emotion, experience, also the wisdom. But AI and machine take decision dependent on the algorithms and data. When we talk algorithms and data, we talk about the accuracy of data, also the design of algorithms, how to design these algorithms. Sometime when take the decision by human, we can maybe go back before the take decision and take another decision. But AI and machine, when take the decision, we cannot go back before the decision. That’s in my opinion, we cannot trust the machine to take decision.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much and a very legitimate caution. Next, we have from Cuba and he’ll be responding to us in Spanish. So again, have your headphones on. Mr. Hernandez, Your Excellency, your question, I am sorry, I’m having terrible problems with my computer here. I apologize. I’m usually very well prepared. And you come from Cuba, a country that’s facing so many challenges and climate change not being least of them. And how are you facing this challenge of preparing new generations to make ethical and safe use of digital technologies?

Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez: Before I answer your question, I would like to thank the organizers of the session for giving me the honor of participating in this session. The government of Cuba and the state of Cuba have always attached great importance to the development of information and telecommunication technologies. An example of this was ratified in the 2019 Cuban constitution, which establishes the social development plan for 2030. Additionally, we have declared that digital transformation is one of the pillars of the government, along with science and innovation and social well-being. In order to make this clear and make this a reality in 2024, the policy for digital transformation was approved. The digital agenda that implements it was also approved. And the strategy for the development and use of artificial intelligence were approved. And we believe that that should be done cautiously and under an ethical framework. Precisely, we do have what we need and we call the digital citizenship, which is related to respect to privacy, verification of sources before you disseminate information to avoid discriminatory and offensive and hate speech, and to foster the ability to denounce said practices, to have robust digital accreditation, avoiding and making sure that you carry out updates to digital platforms and their security patches. To this end, we have a network of 642 technology centers in Cuba called the Youth Computer and Electronics Club, and we have been able to train over 5 million Cuban, most of them young people. Additionally, we have specialties, specialism courses in all the universities in the country. In 2022, we created a university specialized in computer sciences, which has seen the graduation of over 17,000 engineers. As part of the general curricular strategy, digital technology topics are taught under an ethical, safe and innovative approach. These actions, together with the implementation of pedagogical modalities and the mediation of technology, ensure quality learning that contributes to coherent integration of educational centers, families and the community in general, under an ethical, safe and responsible use of

Anriette Esterhuysen: digital technologies. Thank you so much, ma’am. Thank you very much for that. If we do want human centric AI, we need to invest in human capacity, and I think you’ve outlined that so clearly. Next, we’re moving to Kenya. So, Mr. Isaboki, how do governments and how do you feel they can and should they balance, on the one hand, ensuring rights to access to information, freedom of expression and the ability to innovate, while also ensuring that there is consideration of

Stephen Isaboke: ethics and values? Thank you, thank you. I think in Kenya, including the current scenario, that there’s an ongoing kind of, I’ll call it, creative tension between the right to access information and media freedom, and obviously innovation, on the other hand, and I think the whole area of ethical regulation, to actually then ensure that there’s a balance between the access to information and also respect for the law. So, the Kenyan constitution actually provides for freedom of the media, access to information, and indeed freedom to expression, but that freedom is actually not unlimited. There are safeguards around, for example, incitement to violence, you know, anything that actually is hate speech or anything that actually causes civil disorder, and all that, and I think that’s really the balance that the authorities must balance between that and allowing for, especially the youth, who are actually very, very much sort of into the AI space, into the information space, where they apply a lot of the latest sort of technology and platforms, TikTok, X, and the rest of the platforms to communicate, and in some instances they might end up communicating or miscommunicating and misinforming, and in the process also sometimes infringe on the rule of law, and sometimes that can catch up with cybercrime and all that. But as a government, we are obviously committed to ensuring that we enable and encourage innovation, encourage free expression, but again, ensuring that there’s a balanced approach to protect rights and also build trust and resilience, you know, in that democratic and digital space. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much for that, and also, you know, for keeping to time, and I think, and that makes the point that we don’t have to abandon rights in order to respect rights, and in fact, as you said, there are ways of balancing rights when some rights impede on other rights. We have rights frameworks that can help us deal with that, so thanks very much for mentioning that. We’ve heard about the importance of education for AI and capability in AI in order to be able to use it ethically and well in a rights-respecting way, but Mr. Jacek Oko, you’ve got a really interesting topic, which is to talk about how can we use AI? Can we use AI to educate people about the risks of AI? Thank you for the invitation to this important forum.

Jacek Oko: The AI revolution was experienced as two sides of a coin. One, on the hand, there is a tremendous potential, and on the other hand, real risks. Therefore, as regulators and policemakers, we must first protect universal ethical values from the flood of false content. Today, generating a deepfake or disinformation that looks confusingly real is not only possible, but it’s also alarmingly easy. This is a fundamental challenge for the cohesion of our Of course, we are not totally inactive. In the European Union, we already have specific regulations. Such as the Digital Services Act. This is an important tool which gives us, the regulators, the ability to oversee the moderation of illegal content, ensure transparency of online advertisement and allows us to fight against disinformation. But regulations alone are not enough. Therefore, I want to emphasize that education is the most important. Education is crucial in building social resilience. Education that allows each and every citizen, from children to seniors, to distinguish manipulated content from the true one and to understand the intentions behind them, whether they were generated in a good or bad way. However, and this is the key part of the answer to the post-question, let us not be afraid of AI. On the contrary, let us use it as a powerful tool in this educational mission. Let us treat it as a personalized learning assistant aimed at people with special needs, with intellectual disabilities, on the different autism spectrum of the seniors for whom traditional methods can be a barrier. AI can adapt content, explain complex issues in a simple way and create interactive safe environments for learning about the digital world. Who would do that? This is the question. I think we should let’s trust not governmental organizations, let’s trust educators and let’s cooperate with them as an administration. So far, we have measured our strength against our intentions. No, our intentions remain strong, but we can fully respond to them with the power of AI. Our primary goal is to create a safe Internet. But safe Internet in the age of AI means much more than just fast and It means the Internet free from manipulation, which once again becomes what we meant to be from the beginning, a reliable and verified source of knowledge. I have at the end a call. So let’s use AI to teach about AI. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much and for that challenge. And I think that reminder that if we approach emerging technologies just from a place of fear, we will fail to effectively utilize the positive potential. So thanks for outlining that. And do we have, we don’t have a virtual speaker and I think our speaker from the Philippines is not here. So we have a little bit more time. But our last speaker is Professor Salma Abbasi. Salman, in an era where AI and digital technologies shape our perceptions and decisions, you know, we’ve heard from Kenya as well how that happens in terms of the media and content, online content. How do we ensure ethical accountability? And especially when it’s so much of this, when algorithms actually operate beyond human oversight or even if there’s some human oversight, it’s often not visible or transparent.

Salma Abbasi: Thank you very much. First of all, I really appreciate the opportunity to be on this stage with these distinguished panelists. And I think this is a very important question for us to discuss. As we adopt AI rapidly, we have many, many ethical considerations to have. And I believe that my colleagues have said that the biggest challenge we have is the risk of trusting misinformation, disinformation, and the deep fake. I believe that there are six components to this, and I’ll go through them very quickly. The perforation of misinformation, disinformation, every minister has mentioned. The dramatic acceleration of people believing the false narrative, especially young children, is a problem. The manipulation and the distortion of facts have been seen on the streets of the United Kingdom last year when our societies were polarized and now remains in that situation. The geopolitical dynamics and those who have the power of AI are distorting the facts and there’s no recourse at the moment. The second is the persistent discrimination of the algorithmic bias that reinforces the systemic biases that we have and the programmers that remain in that bias world. The stereotype, the inequity, particularly impacting children and women and the elderly, as my colleague has said from Poland. We need to identify and understand the inequities because they are shaping the digital environment of our kids. The third concern is the privacy and continuous surveillance, which is articulated beautifully by Meredith yesterday, the president of Signal. We have vast amounts of data that people are grasping and analyzing our behavior, our patterns, our vulnerabilities, our fears, and then manipulating that. I’m more concerned about the young and the people with intellectual disabilities. The advancement of commercial exploitation is vast. 700 billion dollars commercial industry for cosmetics frightens me. The individuals do not give consent and are being manipulated. The fourth risk of manipulation is the influence of behavior. The radical increase of gender-based violence, technology-facilitated violence, the narrative of misogyny in society, which is measured, is because our young boys are being exposed to bad social media influences. The ethics, the morals are missing. Young girls are being exploited by technology-facilitated tools hidden in games, which we are not aware of. What we have to do is understand this shift in what is being commercially exploiting as fun because it’s not. It’s penetrating private spaces. Our fears, our perceptions are being shaped. The behaviors of aggression and hate, all the ministers mentioned hate. This is an unrealistic portrayal of the decline of the well-being of children. When I look at the fifth, it’s the critical thinking. Children’s attention span is very short. I’m looking at the time I’m going to erase. It’s very important for us to understand that we’re misleading the children in showing them that this is the way and the only way, the AI way. We need to balance the offline and offline critical thinking ability. The sixth most important, which I think our minister from Libya mentioned, is the nuances of the social cultural norm. All the things that we learn from our grandparents, our culture that is not digital, AI is missing all of that in its analysis. It’s priceless because it’s our cultural knowledge and heritage that is not easily documented. There are three things that I would like to recommend very quickly. The transparency in the design and development, auditable algorithms. We need to know what data they used, what were the parameters they set, and most importantly, how do we check that it’s gender-neutral in its definitions. The second is the oversight and governance, which we will discuss tomorrow. But the human oversight is a must. Human intervention blindly following algorithms is a big mistake. It does make mistakes. The data has errors. The programmer could make a mistake. The regulatory framework needs to be robust and reinforced. My colleague from Cuba, I met your regulators and we discussed this very issue. And the third and final one is robust accountability with consequences. There needs to be a consequence if a duty of care is derelict and a child commits suicide. And finally, many countries from the global south that are rapidly embracing AI without the adequate regulatory frameworks in place and safeguards, we need to collaborate closely to work to build an inclusive framework that is localized and contextualized so that we can incorporate the voices of the global south to ensure that it is shaped by them, for them. The future of AI must be grounded in our shared values with empathy, humanity, and accountability for human dignity for everyone. This is the only way we can ensure that artificial intelligence is not just artificial, but it’s there to ensure a just, secure, and sustainable future for the next generation that we are responsible for. Thank you so much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Salma. Thanks to this wonderful panel. We’ve heard about the support for ecosystems, the integration of digital public infrastructure from Belgium, the importance of human centeredness, human rights, balancing rights, but also respecting those rights, incredible value of education and investing in future generations from Cuba. The innovative approach, let’s not be overwhelmed by fear from Poland. And then, Salma, your reminder that we do need frameworks and standards. And I think everyone mentioned the importance of transparency. Thank you very much. Thanks for joining. And thanks to our leaders for inspiring us. Thank you. Recording stopped. Thank you. Dear participants, we would like to welcome you to our final

Agreement points

Education is fundamental for ethical AI and digital literacy

Speakers

– Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez
– Jacek Oko
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Created 642 technology centers training over 5 million Cubans, mostly young people, in digital citizenship

Digital technology topics are taught under an ethical, safe and innovative approach in universities

Education is crucial for building social resilience and helping citizens distinguish manipulated content from true content

Human-centric AI requires investment in human capacity and capability building

Summary

All speakers emphasized that education and capacity building are essential for ensuring ethical use of AI and digital technologies, with particular focus on training citizens to navigate digital challenges responsibly

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Human oversight is essential in AI decision-making

Speakers

– Abdulbaset Albaour
– Salma Abbasi

Arguments

AI decisions are irreversible unlike human decisions, making machines untrustworthy for decision-making

Humans make decisions based on emotion, experience, and wisdom, while AI relies on algorithms and data

Human oversight is essential as algorithms can make mistakes due to data errors or programmer errors

Blindly following algorithms without human intervention is a significant mistake

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocate for maintaining human control and oversight in AI systems, emphasizing that machines cannot be trusted to make decisions independently due to their limitations and potential for errors

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Transparency in AI systems and governance is crucial

Speakers

– Vanessa Matz
– Jacek Oko
– Salma Abbasi
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Launched observatory for AI and digital technologies to reinforce transparency and facilitate citizen dialogue

Digital Services Act provides regulators ability to oversee content moderation and fight disinformation

Need for transparency in AI design, auditable algorithms, and robust accountability with consequences

Transparency is a common theme across all approaches to ethical AI governance

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized transparency as a fundamental requirement for ethical AI governance, including transparent algorithms, oversight mechanisms, and public dialogue about AI systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Balancing rights and freedoms with ethical considerations

Speakers

– Stephen Isaboke
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Governments must balance freedom of expression and access to information with ethical regulation and respect for law

Constitutional freedoms have safeguards against incitement to violence, hate speech, and civil disorder

Rights frameworks can help balance competing rights without abandoning fundamental rights

Summary

Both speakers agreed that it’s possible and necessary to balance fundamental rights like freedom of expression with ethical considerations and legal safeguards, without abandoning core rights principles

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both ministers emphasized inclusive approaches to digital transformation that specifically consider vulnerable populations and ensure no one is left behind in the digital transition

Speakers

– Vanessa Matz
– Ernesto Rodriguez Hernandez

Arguments

Digital services must be accessible to all without exception, including vulnerable groups who need non-digital alternatives

Created 642 technology centers training over 5 million Cubans, mostly young people, in digital citizenship