Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on creating regulatory frameworks for a fit-for-future digital world, examining how policy can balance investment, competition, and innovation while ensuring digital inclusion and trust. The panel featured telecommunications regulators from Greece, Portugal, Nigeria, South Africa, Georgia, Canada, and Costa Rica, each sharing their national perspectives on digital transformation challenges.

Dr. Konstantinos Masselos from Greece emphasized that digital infrastructure deployment requires capital-intensive investments, necessitating regulatory frameworks that incentivize investment while maintaining competition to ensure affordable, accessible services. He stressed the need for simplified, predictable regulatory approaches that accommodate rapid technological advances like network slicing and software-defined networks. Professor Sandra Maximiano from Portugal highlighted the regulator’s evolving role in protecting fundamental rights and consumer welfare, particularly through behavioral economics insights and coordination under the EU Digital Services Act.

Dr. Aminu Maida from Nigeria described their shift from traditional command-and-control regulation to data-driven approaches, leveraging transparency and public information disclosure to empower consumers and enhance market accountability. Mr. Mothibi Ramusi from South Africa emphasized constitutional mandates for digital inclusion, stressing that regulatory frameworks must ensure underserved communities aren’t left behind in digital transformation. Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze from Georgia outlined their evolution from oversight to enablement, focusing on transparency, data analytics, and partnerships to build resilient regulatory frameworks.

Charles Noir from Canada discussed technical operators’ crucial role in maintaining internet security and trust through infrastructure management and multi-stakeholder governance participation. Federico Chacon Loaiza from Costa Rica shared their balanced approach using the National Telecommunications Fund to promote both competition and universal access, successfully reducing digital divides through targeted connectivity programs. The discussion concluded that effective digital regulation requires bold, balanced leadership anchored in trust, inclusion, and long-term resilience.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Balancing Investment Incentives with Competition**: The need to create regulatory frameworks that encourage capital-intensive digital infrastructure investments while maintaining competitive markets that benefit consumers through better prices, quality, and choices.

– **Data-Driven and Transparent Regulatory Approaches**: Moving from traditional “command and control” regulation toward empowering markets and consumers with transparent data, real-time insights, and public reporting mechanisms to foster accountability and informed decision-making.

– **Digital Inclusion and Universal Access**: Ensuring that digital transformation benefits all citizens, particularly those in underserved and rural areas, through universal service funds, affordable connectivity programs, and targeted initiatives to close the digital divide.

– **Trust, Security, and Consumer Protection in Digital Spaces**: The evolving role of regulators in protecting fundamental rights online, addressing algorithmic discrimination, cybersecurity threats, and ensuring that technical operators maintain secure, resilient digital infrastructure.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and International Cooperation**: The importance of partnerships between regulators, governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations to address global digital challenges and maintain open, interoperable internet governance.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how policy and regulatory frameworks can evolve to support digital transformation while addressing complex trade-offs between investment, competition, innovation, and inclusion. The panel sought to share best practices from different regions on creating “fit-for-future” digital governance that serves both economic growth and social equity.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional, collaborative, and forward-looking tone throughout. Panelists demonstrated mutual respect and shared commitment to inclusive digital development. The tone was optimistic about technological possibilities while acknowledging serious challenges, and emphasized practical solutions based on real-world regulatory experience. There was no significant shift in tone during the conversation – it remained constructive and solution-oriented from beginning to end.

Speakers

– **Lidia Stepinska Ustasiak** – Co-founder and President of the Foundation Polistratos Institute, Session Facilitator

– **Charles Noir** – Canadian Internet Registration Authority

– **Sandra Maximiano** – President of the Board of Directors, ANACOM (Portugal’s national regulator), Digital Services Coordinator under the EU Digital Services Act

– **Konstantinos Masselos** – President of Hellenic Telecommunication and Post Commission

– **Ekaterine Imedadze** – Commissioner and Outgoing Chairperson, Georgian National Communications Commission and EAPEREC-EU Eastern Partnership

– **Aminu Maida** – Executive Vice Chairman, Nigerian Communications Commission

– **Mothibi Ramusi** – Chairperson, Independent Communications Authority of South Africa

– **Federico Chacon Loaiza** – President, Superintendent of Telecommunications (SUTEL, Costa Rica), participated online

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Regulatory Frameworks for a Fit-for-Future Digital World: A Comprehensive Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, titled “When policy meets progress, paving the way for a fit-for-future digital world,” was facilitated by Lidia Stepinska-Ustasiak, Co-founder and President of the Foundation Polistratos Institute. The session brought together telecommunications regulators and digital governance experts from across the globe to examine how policy frameworks can evolve to support digital transformation while addressing complex trade-offs between investment, competition, innovation, and inclusion.

The discussion featured representatives from Greece, Portugal, Nigeria, South Africa, Georgia, Canada, and Costa Rica, with Federico Chacon Loaiza from Costa Rica participating online while other panelists were on stage. Each speaker offered unique regional perspectives on creating regulatory frameworks fit for the digital future, maintaining a consistently professional, collaborative, and forward-looking tone throughout.

## Speaker Presentations and Key Perspectives

### Dr. Konstantinos Masselos – Greece’s Hellenic Telecommunication and Post Commission

Dr. Masselos established the foundational challenge of the discussion, emphasizing that digital infrastructure deployment requires capital-intensive investments necessitating regulatory frameworks that incentivize investment while maintaining competition. He stressed the need for simplified, predictable regulatory approaches that accommodate rapid technological advances like network slicing and software-defined networks.

Masselos argued: “we need to have a balance to strike the right balance between pro-investment and pro-competition frameworks… This combination of technology advances and difficult trade-offs, regulatory trade-offs, is a call for re-evaluation of our traditional electronic communications framework.” He emphasized the importance of sustainability across three dimensions: environmental, financial, and socio-economic.

### Dr. Aminu Maida – Nigeria’s Communications Commission

Dr. Maida described Nigeria’s shift from traditional command-and-control regulation to data-driven approaches. He explained: “We’ve had to take a shift in our approach to regulation from prescribing behaviour to empowering the market, consumers, and civil society with transparent data… So we’re now trying to leverage these data to come up with a smarter way to provide oversight and also incentivise responsible competition.”

This paradigm shift was driven by practical considerations of scale – maintaining traditional regulatory approaches would be prohibitively expensive for Nigeria’s large population. Maida’s approach leverages transparency and public information disclosure to empower consumers and enhance market accountability through quality of experience indices, consumer satisfaction metrics, and compliance indices made publicly accessible.

### Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze – Georgian National Communications Commission and EAPEREC-EU Eastern Partnership

Ms. Imedadze, serving as Commissioner and Outgoing Chairperson, described Georgia’s evolution from oversight to enablement. She emphasized: “COMCOM shapes and understands the future readiness. It’s not about predicting big technology but shaping the future and being resilient to the change… we’ve shaped ourselves from being the oversight player to the enabler of the transformation.”

She highlighted Georgia’s approach focusing on transparency, data analytics, and partnerships to build resilient regulatory frameworks. Imedadze mentioned their Innovation Lab working with the startup ecosystem and emphasized how strong partnerships enable smaller nations to participate in larger projects and become anchors in the digital ecosystem.

### Mr. Mothibi Ramusi – South Africa’s Independent Communications Authority

Mr. Ramusi emphasized South Africa’s constitutional mandates for digital inclusion, stressing that regulatory frameworks must ensure underserved communities aren’t left behind in digital transformation. He highlighted the importance of South Africa’s constitutional framework and Bill of Rights in guiding their approach to digital governance.

Ramusi stressed the need for robust, protected infrastructure with universal coverage and affordable access to enable rural communities to access world-class services like e-learning. He emphasized multi-stakeholder collaboration frameworks extending beyond local actors to include global partners committed to development, openness, and transparency.

### Professor Sandra Maximiano – Portugal’s ANACOM

Professor Maximiano, serving as Digital Services Coordinator under the EU Digital Services Act, added the dimension of consumer protection, emphasizing that regulators must address behavioral biases exploited online and use behavioral economics tools to protect consumers while ensuring competition and inclusion.

She argued: “regulators must ensure that digital inclusion is a strategic priority… We must require that platforms, operators, and service providers be accountable, not just for the infrastructure they provide, but for the online environment they help shape.” Maximiano mentioned ANACOM’s collaboration with the Lusophone community to advance the behavioral economics agenda in digital policy.

### Charles Noir – Canadian Internet Registration Authority

Charles Noir provided the technical infrastructure perspective, discussing how technical operators play a crucial role in maintaining internet security and trust through infrastructure management and multi-stakeholder governance participation. He emphasized that technical operators are responsible for technologies like DNSSEC, DDoS mitigation, and national DNS firewalls that block malicious traffic.

Noir stressed the responsibility of technical operators to participate in governance spaces, ensuring internet security decisions are grounded in operational realities and technical expertise through multi-stakeholder bottom-up governance models.

### Federico Chacon Loaiza – Costa Rica’s SUTEL (participating online)

Federico Chacon Loaiza described Costa Rica’s balanced approach using the National Telecommunications Fund (FONATEL) to promote both competition and universal access. He stated: “For us digital inclusion is not an afterthought but a central objective. We are convinced that digital public policy should serve as a tool for equity, social cohesion and sustainable development.”

Costa Rica’s model demonstrates practical implementation of investment-competition balance through targeted connectivity programs, showing how regulation with a long-term perspective can use digital public policy as a tool for equity and sustainable development.

## Key Themes and Areas of Consensus

### Balancing Investment and Competition

Multiple speakers agreed on the fundamental challenge of creating regulatory frameworks that simultaneously encourage investment in digital infrastructure while maintaining competitive markets. This consensus emerged from speakers representing different regions and regulatory contexts, suggesting universal recognition of this core tension in digital governance.

### Transparency and Data-Driven Approaches

Several speakers, particularly Maida and Imedadze, advocated for moving away from traditional regulatory approaches toward more transparent, data-driven methods that empower stakeholders and enable innovation. This transformation involves shifting from traditional oversight to enabling innovation through transparency, data analytics, and public accessibility of regulatory information.

### Digital Inclusion as Central Priority

Speakers consistently emphasized that digital inclusion must be a fundamental goal of regulatory frameworks, not an afterthought. This consensus spanned different continents and regulatory contexts, with speakers like Ramusi, Chacon Loaiza, and Maximiano all highlighting the importance of proactive measures to ensure equitable access.

### Multi-stakeholder Collaboration

All speakers demonstrated agreement on the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration and partnerships. This consensus extended across different types of organizations, from national regulators to technical operators, emphasizing collaborative approaches involving various stakeholders at local, national, and international levels.

## Concrete Initiatives and Actions

Several speakers outlined specific actions their organizations are undertaking:

– Nigeria’s Communications Commission has implemented data-driven regulatory approaches with public accessibility of quality metrics

– Georgia’s COMCOM established an Innovation Lab working with the startup ecosystem on telecommunications and cybersecurity

– South Africa has developed constitutional framework-based approaches to digital inclusion

– Costa Rica’s SUTEL continues administering the FONATEL fund with connectivity programs

– Portugal’s ANACOM is working on behavioral economics approaches and collaborating with the Lusophone community

– Technical operators are implementing security technologies and participating in multi-stakeholder governance

## Future Challenges and Considerations

The discussion identified several ongoing challenges requiring continued attention:

– Scaling regulatory approaches effectively in large, diverse markets

– Balancing regulatory simplification with comprehensive consumer protection in rapidly evolving digital environments

– Ensuring smaller nations can meaningfully participate in global digital governance

– Managing the relationship between national sovereignty and international cooperation

– Addressing compliance and enforcement costs while maintaining effective oversight

– Adapting to emerging technologies and their regulatory implications

## Key Takeaways

The discussion revealed several critical insights for future digital governance:

1. **Regulatory Evolution**: Digital transformation requires adaptive regulatory frameworks that can balance multiple objectives while remaining responsive to technological change.

2. **Transparency and Empowerment**: Moving toward data-driven, transparent governance approaches that empower consumers and markets through information disclosure.

3. **Inclusion as Foundation**: Digital inclusion must be embedded as a central objective in regulatory policy, supported by appropriate mechanisms and funding.

4. **Collaborative Governance**: Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance, requiring participation from various actors at multiple levels.

5. **Technical-Regulatory Integration**: Technical operators play a crucial role in building digital trust and must be integrated into governance frameworks.

6. **Sustainability Focus**: Regulatory approaches must consider environmental, financial, and socio-economic sustainability in their design and implementation.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated significant consensus among global digital governance leaders on fundamental principles while acknowledging the diverse approaches needed for different national contexts. The convergence around transparency, inclusion, collaboration, and adaptive governance suggests a maturing field where best practices are emerging across diverse contexts.

The conversation reinforced that effective digital regulation requires balanced leadership anchored in trust, inclusion, and long-term resilience, with regulators evolving to become enablers of digital transformation that serves both economic growth and social equity. The session concluded with an invitation for a group photo, symbolizing the collaborative spirit that characterized the entire discussion.

Lidia Stepinska Ustasiak: Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. My name is Lidia Stepinska-Ustasiak, I am co-founder and president of the Foundation Polistratos Institute and I will have the pleasure and honor to facilitate the discussion when policy meets progress, paving the way for a fit-for-future digital world. Now, I would like to invite to the stage our panelists, Dr. Konstantinos Masselos, President of Hellenic Telecommunication and Post Commission. Welcome to the stage. Professor Sandra Massimiano, President of the Board of Directors, ANACOM. Dr. Aminu Maida, Executive Vice Chairman, Nigerian Communications Commission. Welcome to the stage. Mr. Mokibi Ramozi, Chairperson, Independent Communications Authority of South Africa. Ms. Ekaterina Gnadadze, Commissioner and Outgoing Chairperson, Georgian National Communications Commission and EAPEREC-EU Eastern Partnership. And Mr. Charles Noir, Canadian Internet Registration Authority. And we will also have one participant online, Mr. Federico Jaconte Loiza, President, Superintendent of Telecommunications. He will join us online. Let me start with the first question of our today’s session. I would like to direct this question to Dr. Masselos. The deployment of digital and connectivity infrastructure is essential for the digital transformation and the progress in digital space. However, complex trade-offs among investments, competition and innovation do exist in this context. What kind of policy and regulatory frameworks we need to address these challenges?

Konstantinos Masselos: Thank you. Great to be in WSIS 2025. And I would like to thank ITU for having me here. Digital infrastructure is a key driver for economic growth and competitiveness. And digital infrastructure, including connectivity infrastructure, cloud infrastructure, computing, storage, software as a service, is the platform for digital transformation, increases productivity, fosters innovation. So very important. Technology advances very fast. And considering connectivity as an example, we see that in the future, we will see networks shifting from having focus speed to having focus on the services they will offer. Complex, socio-economically transformative services that will require different qualities of service. They will require software-defined type of networks, network slicing, implementation, and qualities of service like reliability, resilience, predictability, continuity, low latency, etc. So we see technology running very fast. On the other hand, the deployment of digital infrastructure and connectivity infrastructure requires investments, is capital intensive. So we need regulatory and policy frameworks to incentivize investments, but at the same time address the demand side so that this infrastructure, the networks are accessible by end users and this means competitively priced. So we need to have a balance to strike the right balance between pro-investment and pro-competition frameworks. Competition still needs to be there to achieve better prices, better quality of service, more choices for the end users. So this combination of technology advances and difficult trade-offs, regulatory trade-offs, is a call for re-evaluation of our traditional electronic communications framework. We need to look more to prioritizing simplification of regulatory frameworks to unnecessary burdens. We need to increase predictability for investments. We need to prioritize deployment-friendly measures, creating level playing field for all the different stakeholders in the ecosystem, harmonization to address economies of scale, and also update our frameworks to reflect to technology advances. And sustainability should be there, not only in the form of environmental sustainability, but also from a financial point of view to make the digital infrastructure sustainable in the long run and also socio-economically sustainable to the benefit of the economy and the society. Thank you.

Lidia Stepinska Ustasiak: Thank you very much, Dr. Marcelos. You clearly articulated how policy frameworks will have to evolve to support innovation on the one hand and to keep investments at the relevant level. Now, I’d like to turn to Professor Massimiano and I’d like to ask, as a chairwoman of ANACOM and also a national regulator of Portugal and also a coordinator of digital services in the scope of the EU Digital Services Act, what would you tell us about the role of regulation in these fields and what is your experience here?

Sandra Maximiano: Thanks a lot for the invitation. I think in this actual context of this digital transformation, regulation plays a very central role and we need to keep ensuring competition, inclusion, resilience and, crucially, the protection of fundamental rights. Competition has been advanced through supply-side measures, such as regulatory obligations to address specific market failures, but as well as through effective management of essential resources like spectrum and numbering. However, we also need to tackle and focus on the demand side, which are equally important for us, especially to empower and protect the consumers. This digital context is essential for regulators on a digital space to understand and respond to how behavioral biases are exploited online. Also, regulators need to use tools from behavioral economics and put them to work for the good. For instance, applying match techniques to protect users. ANACOM has been actively promoting these behavioral insights in international discussions, aiming to integrate these tools into global digital policy. For instance, currently we are working with CEPT. to contribute to European Common Proposal for the upcoming World Telecommunication Development Conference in Baku. And these proposals seek to strengthen the ITU’s mandate on consumer protection grounded in these behavioral economics and behavioral insights. We are also collaborating with the Lusophone community to move forward this agenda. But of course, the rapid development of emerging technology, such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, presents undeniable benefits, and some of them we can experience in this meeting, but also complex challenges. And regulators must ensure that digital inclusion is a strategic priority. The goal is to prevent technological advancements from deepening the country’s digital divide. Also, we need a forward-looking regulatory approach that embeds ethical principles into the design of technology ensuring that serves human well-being. Regulators, and in this case, we are also very much embracing this cause, we should act as guardians of digital space and digital safety and dignity. The rise in online violence, surveillance threats, and algorithmic discrimination demands firm and coordinated action. We must require that platforms, operators, and service providers be accountable, not just for the infrastructure they provide, but for the online environment they help shape. And I come as digital service coordinator as a key mission under the European Digital Service Act, so to protect consumers online and safeguards their fundamental rights. This role involves not just for enforcing the rules at the national level and an effective approach, but also working closely with all relevant national authorities to ensure a coordinated approach. Just as important is the cooperation with other coordinators across the EU, with the European Commission, and looking ahead with the new players like trusted flaggers, vetted researchers, and dispute resolution bodies. This networked approach is essential. It allows the regulation to be applied consistently across the union, creating a safer, more predictable, and trustworthy online environment. And I think it also teaches a great lesson, which is basically cooperation and collaboration is the key in this context that a large number of entities should work together to build a stronger regulation.

Lidia Stepinska Ustasiak: Thank you very much for highlighting the role of regulators in creating regulatory landscape, particularly in the context of new roles connected with digital services coordinator role. And it was European Perspective presented by Group Portugal. And now I would like to move to Nigeria and turn to Dr. Edoardo. I mean, Maida, Executive Chairman of Nigerian Communication Commission, and ask how can governments leverage digital transformation to adopt data-driven regulatory approach that fosters market competition among operators and enhances consumer protection to close the digital divide?

Aminu Maida: Thank you very much. I think at the NCC, we’ve understood that connectivity is not just a service, it’s the backbone of progress. Digital services now underpin virtually everything, businesses, healthcare, education, and even governance. But we need to not just focus, when we speak about connectivity, we need to not just focus on the infrastructure, but we also need to focus on building trust and strengthening it, of course. Now, over the years, we’ve come to realize, like I’m sure the regulators around the world from my interaction with them, that the traditional approach of command and control has its place, but it also has its limitations, especially when you consider the kind of dynamic digital world we live in, which is innovation-driven and fast-paced. It can stifle innovation, of course. Flexibility is questionable. There’s typically a high cost of compliance and enforcement. And quite often, we’re seeing increasing these generating resistance from the entities we regulate. Now, if you take a moment and just look at the scale of the problem, Nigeria, most populous black nation in the world, 220 million people. It’s over 20 times the size of Switzerland. To maintain that approach effectively will cost a lot of money. And so far, if I could find some of the best examples, the crystal ball, I can find the answer of how to maintain that approach at scale. But I think, I assume you’re a very rich man. So considering the scale of this problem, we’ve had to take a shift in our approach to regulation from prescribing behavior to empowering the market, consumers, and civil society with transparent data. And if you think about it, like most of the markets, the regulator collects a lot of data. So already we’re collecting data on whether it’s on quality of service, pricing structures, consumer complaints trend, and a whole load of other data points. So we’re now trying to leverage these data to come up with a smarter way to provide oversight and also incentivize responsible competition. And enhance accountability without too much overreach. But crucially to do this digital transformation, this is the enabler, we must adopt digital tools and platform. So very quickly, let’s see, I’m running out of time. The question is, how are we going about this in the NCC? So at the heart of our regulatory transformation, we’re embedding information disclosure, leveraging digital tools. So for example, we recently launched a major incident reporting portal for the public. And we saw a shift in the discourse from people questioning the operators, why are you not offering the right level of service to or why are these construction companies damaging telecommunications infrastructure? So it started a process whereby the media and citizens through a discourse were engaged in questioning and effectively protecting the infrastructure. We’ve also moved away from quality of service, more to quality of experience. We’re leveraging crowdsourced data from real user, from real usage. And this real time data is providing us actual insight into people’s experience. But we’re also making this information publicly accessible so that people can make the decisions of what’s the best network, where I need to use it and when I need to use it. And this actually is going to, we believe is going to elevate competition by putting power in the hands of the users. And lastly, we’re also developing a number of indices which we hope to make, which we intend to make public. So there’s an index on quality of experience, an index on consumer satisfaction and a compliance index. Now, by digitizing our oversight and mandating this transparent reporting, we’re fostering a competitive. and Mr. Aminu Maida, Dr. Konstantinos Masselos, Prof. Sandra Maximiano, Dr. Aminu Maida, Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze, Mr. Federico Chacon Loaiza, Dr. Charles Noir

Lidia Stepinska Ustasiak: Thank you very much. And because time of our session is running very quickly, I will also quickly move to our next panelist, who is Mr. Mothibi Ramusi. And I would like to ask the question, how do we ensure that a future digital world is not just defined by technology, but also its ability to transform the daily lives of ordinary citizens, and especially those in underserved areas?

Mothibi Ramusi: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I think from our side, I’m just going to use the South African context here. You know, living in a democratic country, we have a constitution, which has got Bill of Rights, which serves as a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. And what it calls for, it calls that everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and the benefit of the law. Now, within the context of WSIS, I think the question that we then need to ask is, from a regulatory point of view, how best are we then supposed to make sure that everyone that is going to be consuming services is included in the agenda? So, I think from my analysis is then, in terms of policy, if it defines the main problem within your environment, then from a regulatory point of view, our job then is to make sure that we come up with a regulatory program that is going to be inclusive, and most importantly, taking into consideration citizens’ requirements. Now, as South Africa, we have shown its commitment for the future world. Recently, we’ve just launched a digital transformation roadmap in 2025. This is amongst others, just to show the commitment that we have actually listened to a citizen, and with the intention that that citizen, we should not leave everyone behind. Now, in the main, we know that when we talk about inclusivity, the issue of universal access, literacy for all, accessible technology, and ensuring that you close the digital divide, it’s how you can bring a child from an underserved community into the mainstream of the future. Because from a policy, even if you’re talking about advancing your political agenda, as a regulator, then it will be to make sure that, how do we then support those that are building infrastructure? We need robust infrastructure that are protected, issues of cybersecurity to be taken care of. Then, in practice, a child in a rural village should be able to access world-class education through e-learning, because it’s all about visibility and knowledge. And that to happen, we need universal coverage, affordable access to services that are provided by those that are building networks. So, in my conclusion, we must be mindful of emerging trends and technologies, such as the intelligence and adaptive services. The working model of the future requires enhanced performance, prediction, and offered by services. Notably, it is going to be important to implement automated systems that are geared to detect and respond to unscheduled events, because issues of emergency and disaster, we need to be mindful of those. These interventions are meant to drive and promote citizen-centric and user-friendly environment. And in South Africa context, linking all these futuristic initiatives to our constitutional mandate, it’s how we have learned. Finally, the journey cannot be undertaken in isolation. It requires a well-developed multi-stakeholder collaboration framework, one that extends beyond local actors and includes global partners, particularly those committed to development, openness, transparency, shared vision, and progress. Thank you.

Lidia Stepinska Ustasiak: Thank you very much. Thank you very much particularly for highlighting the importance of inclusion and affordability. And now, reflecting on the challenges in the creation of regulatory frameworks, we will leave Africa. I would like to turn to Georgia and ask the next question to Mr. Ekaterin Madadze. Based on the Georgia example, how can national regulators champion future regulatory frameworks that successfully balance the drive for investment and competitive digital growth with the imperative to place people’s trust and resilience at the heart of digital progress?

Ekaterine Imedadze: Thank you very much for the question. Good afternoon. It’s an honor to be part of the leaders’ talk and speak about the Georgian experience particularly. If we speak, Georgian regulatory authority COMCOM shapes and understands the future readiness. It’s not about predicting big technology but shaping the future and being resilient to the change. So, what is our identity being resilient to changes? It’s first our mindset. It’s about people and culture. So, it’s about organizational pillar. Another pillar is the mechanisms. This is the data analytics and knowledge. And third, very important for us is partnership, collaborative partnerships with different sectors and different geographies. So, COMCOM is 25 years young and we’ve shaped ourselves from being the oversight player to the enabler of the transformation. And this is our major role now to enable innovation and embed inclusivity and trust in our decisions. So, if we speak about how operationally we come to those targets, there are three also directions. This is first, when we make any decision, we try to be exceptionally transparent and inclusive. So, opening our doors to any stakeholders. This is our mandate to be public but also providing facility place where we can really debate in person on the changes and debates we have. Also, if we speak about equipping ourselves with proper mechanisms, we know that we live in the era of data. So, having strong analytical portal where we put all the sector-related data is very important. So, this also brings trust and transparency for our citizens and for market and for peers. And third and very important is our partnerships. And through our strong partnerships with different regulatory authorities also present here, different donor organizations, it is possible for the smaller nations, smaller countries to really become part of larger projects. This is, for example, in case of Georgia Rural Development Project, which has the pillar of bringing digital literacy in the rural areas of Georgia. And this is also extending the mandate of the COMCOM. So, this is why we’re trying to be quite adaptive to challenges. We also have Made in a Lab at COMCOM. It means that we are working with startup ecosystem and trying, but in specific pillar of that. Digital and we are trying to build the ecosystem of startupers who understand what is telecom, how important is resilient and trustworthy telecom and cyber security. So those are the main areas where we work and we really believe that with strong partnerships and collaboration even small nations can become the changing anchors in the digital ecosystem. Thank you.

Lidia Stepinska Ustasiak: Thank you very much and because our session is approaching its end very quickly I would like to move to Dr. Charles Noir and ask in your view what is the role of technical operators in supporting the broader goal in cultivating trust and security in the digital environment?

Charles Noir: Thank you very much for the question. It’s a pleasure to be with you and with these panelists today. So technical operators and when I’m talking about that I’m thinking about domain registrars, domain name registrars, registries for internet numbers. These are the folks that play a critical if not often taken for granted role in cultivating trust and security in the digital environment. The integrity and the resilience of the global internet depends on the infrastructures that they manage, the standards they uphold and the values they embed in their day-to-day operations. At CIRA we see this as a responsibility which is core to who we are and our mandate. Of course we operate the .ca domain space but we see our broader role for ourselves in stewarding Canada’s digital infrastructure particularly internet infrastructure. We invest in a number of tools some of them you may know you may not know DNSSEC also known as domain name system security extensions. I won’t get into it. DDoS mitigation and we also provision a national DNS firewall. These are technologies that block malicious traffic before it reaches users and they’re not just technical functions they’re trust building. The role of technical operators doesn’t just stop at the technical layer. We also have a responsibility to show up in governance spaces to ensure decisions about internet security and trust are grounded in operational realities and that they’re informed by technical expertise and that’s a key message of a technical community coalition for multi stakeholderism or TCCM if you have not heard of them which is a global coalition of technical operators including CIRA that works to uphold the multi-stakeholder bottom-up internet governance model. We’re focused on ensuring processes shaping the internet’s future remain open, accessible and rooted in a shared responsibility. Critically CIRA believes that technical operators should lead by example through transparent security practices respect for open standards and a demonstrated commitment to privacy and accountability. These principles are essential not only for maintaining user trust but also for reinforcing the legitimacy of the multi-stakeholder model in a moment where digital trust is under strain from state-led internet fragmentation to rising cybersecurity threats. We as technical operators have both the tools and the credibility to help safeguard the open and resilient internet we all depend on and that requires stepping up not just technically but meaningfully in key conversations about the future of internet governance like the one we’re having here at the WSIS. It’s great to be part of it. Thank you.

Lidia Stepinska Ustasiak: Thank you very much and last but not least I would like to ask the question to our panelist who is with us online, Mr. Mr. Federico Chacon Loaiza. Based on your experience promoting access and universal service through the National Telecommunication Fund which plays a key role in reducing Costa Rica’s digital divide, how do you manage the balance between a regulatory framework that fosters competition and the need to ensure connectivity in rural areas

Federico Chacon Loaiza: and vulnerable populations? Thank you for your question. Good afternoon and best regards to all from Costa Rica. First I would like to thank the International Telecommunications Union for giving us the opportunity to share our experience in this important forum. For us effective regulation should promote competition, protect user rights and guarantee service quality. However it should also align with a more equitable and inclusive national vision. At SUTEL we seek this balance through a comprehensive approach. On one hand we promote competition through clear rules, transparent public vendors and efficient spectrum management. On the other hand we administer the National Telecommunications Fund, FONATEL, to expand connectivity to areas the market doesn’t reach on its own, including rural areas, indigenous territories and vulnerable communities. Thanks to technical and transparent management FONATEL has financed key projects to close the digital divide. The Connect Community Program, for instance, has deployed more than 700 connectivity sites in rural districts, benefiting over 1 million people. Through the Connected Homes Program more than 287,000 subsidies have been guaranteed to low-income families, reducing the digital divide by 22 percentage points with a total investment of 220 million U.S. dollars. Additionally over 123,000 devices have been delivered to schools, health centers and daycare facilities. These projects are executed through public tenders involving national and regional operators, which also foster competition in the use of funds resources. However, our goal is not only to connect but to connect with purpose. This is why we collaborate with institutions such as the Ministry of Education, the Costa Rican Social Security Administration and the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Technology and Telecommunications to ensure that this connectivity supports the development of distance learning, telemedicine, financial inclusion and digital government. A recent example of this approach is the public tender for 5G networks, which aim not a revenue collection but a widened frequency to providers, offering the broadest network deployment and committing to cover all districts with low connectivity. In this way we ensure that fifth generation telecommunications also reach the areas of greatest need. In summary at SUTEL we regulate with a long-term perspective. For us digital inclusion is not an afterthought but a central objective. We are convinced that digital public policy should serve as a tool for equity, social cohesion and sustainable development. Thank you very much for your

Lidia Stepinska Ustasiak: attention. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to all panelists and as today’s discussion to the sequence of interventions clearly shown, shaping fit for future digital world required bold but also balanced regulatory leadership. The leadership which should be anchored in trust, inclusion and long-term resilience. Thank you very much. Now I would like to invite all of you to the group photo. Recording

Agreement points

Need for balanced regulatory frameworks that promote both investment and competition

Speakers

– Konstantinos Masselos
– Federico Chacon Loaiza

Arguments

Need for regulatory frameworks that balance pro-investment incentives with pro-competition measures to ensure accessible, competitively priced networks while encouraging capital-intensive infrastructure deployment

Administration of National Telecommunications Fund to expand connectivity to underserved areas through programs like Connect Community and Connected Homes, reducing digital divide by 22 percentage points

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the need for regulatory approaches that simultaneously encourage investment in digital infrastructure while maintaining competitive markets to ensure affordable access for consumers

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Importance of transparency and data-driven approaches in regulation

Speakers

– Aminu Maida
– Ekaterine Imedadze

Arguments

Shift from traditional command-and-control regulation to data-driven approaches that empower markets and consumers through transparent information disclosure and digital oversight tools

Transformation from oversight player to enabler of innovation, embedding inclusivity and trust through exceptional transparency, strong analytical capabilities, and collaborative partnerships

Summary

Both speakers advocate for moving away from traditional regulatory approaches toward more transparent, data-driven methods that empower stakeholders and enable innovation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Digital inclusion as a central regulatory objective

Speakers

– Mothibi Ramusi
– Federico Chacon Loaiza
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Constitutional mandate requires equal protection and benefit of law for all citizens, necessitating inclusive regulatory programs that consider citizens’ requirements

Regulation with long-term perspective where digital inclusion is central objective, using digital public policy as tool for equity, social cohesion, and sustainable development

Regulators must address behavioral biases exploited online and use behavioral economics tools to protect consumers while ensuring competition and inclusion

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that digital inclusion must be a fundamental goal of regulatory frameworks, not an afterthought, requiring proactive measures to ensure equitable access

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration and partnerships

Speakers

– Mothibi Ramusi
– Ekaterine Imedadze
– Sandra Maximiano
– Charles Noir

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration framework extending beyond local actors to include global partners committed to development, openness, and transparency

Strong partnerships with regulatory authorities and donor organizations enable smaller nations to participate in larger projects and become changing anchors in digital ecosystem

Networked approach with cooperation between national coordinators, European Commission, and new players like trusted flaggers creates safer, more predictable online environment

Responsibility to participate in governance spaces ensuring internet security decisions are grounded in operational realities and technical expertise through multi-stakeholder bottom-up governance model

Summary

Multiple speakers agree that effective digital governance requires collaborative approaches involving various stakeholders at local, national, and international levels

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of accountability, transparency, and trust-building in digital environments, with regulators and technical operators having responsibility for maintaining safe and secure online spaces

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Charles Noir

Arguments

Need for regulators to act as guardians of digital safety and dignity, requiring platforms and service providers to be accountable for the online environments they help shape

Need for transparent security practices, respect for open standards, and demonstrated commitment to privacy and accountability to maintain user trust

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for regulatory transformation that moves from traditional oversight to enabling innovation through transparency, data analytics, and public accessibility of regulatory information

Speakers

– Aminu Maida
– Ekaterine Imedadze

Arguments

Development of quality of experience indices, consumer satisfaction metrics, and compliance indices made publicly accessible to elevate competition

Transformation from oversight player to enabler of innovation, embedding inclusivity and trust through exceptional transparency, strong analytical capabilities, and collaborative partnerships

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize that digital infrastructure must serve practical purposes in improving citizens’ lives, particularly in education and essential services, with special focus on reaching underserved communities

Speakers

– Mothibi Ramusi
– Federico Chacon Loaiza

Arguments

Importance of robust, protected infrastructure with universal coverage and affordable access to enable rural communities to access world-class services like e-learning

Collaboration with institutions across education, health, and government sectors to ensure connectivity supports distance learning, telemedicine, and digital government services

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Shift away from traditional command-and-control regulation

Speakers

– Aminu Maida
– Ekaterine Imedadze
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Shift from traditional command-and-control regulation to data-driven approaches that empower markets and consumers through transparent information disclosure and digital oversight tools

Transformation from oversight player to enabler of innovation, embedding inclusivity and trust through exceptional transparency, strong analytical capabilities, and collaborative partnerships

Regulators must address behavioral biases exploited online and use behavioral economics tools to protect consumers while ensuring competition and inclusion

Explanation

It’s unexpected to see such strong consensus among regulators from different continents (Africa, Europe, and Asia) about moving away from traditional regulatory approaches. This suggests a global shift in regulatory thinking toward more adaptive, innovation-enabling frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Technical operators’ role in governance and policy-making

Speakers

– Charles Noir
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Responsibility to participate in governance spaces ensuring internet security decisions are grounded in operational realities and technical expertise through multi-stakeholder bottom-up governance model

Networked approach with cooperation between national coordinators, European Commission, and new players like trusted flaggers creates safer, more predictable online environment

Explanation

The consensus between a technical operator and a regulatory authority about the importance of technical expertise in governance spaces represents an unexpected alignment between traditionally separate domains, suggesting growing recognition of the need for technical-regulatory integration

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on key principles including the need for balanced investment-competition frameworks, transparency and data-driven regulation, digital inclusion as a central objective, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. There was also unexpected agreement on moving away from traditional command-and-control regulation toward more adaptive approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for global digital governance. The agreement across diverse geographical regions (Europe, Africa, North America, Latin America, and Asia) and different types of organizations (national regulators, technical operators, international bodies) suggests emerging global standards for digital regulation. This consensus indicates a maturing field where best practices are converging around principles of transparency, inclusion, collaboration, and adaptive governance. The implications are positive for international cooperation and harmonization of digital policies, potentially leading to more effective and coordinated global digital governance frameworks.

Different viewpoints

Regulatory approach: Traditional oversight vs. data-driven empowerment

Speakers

– Konstantinos Masselos
– Aminu Maida

Arguments

Need for regulatory frameworks that balance pro-investment incentives with pro-competition measures to ensure accessible, competitively priced networks while encouraging capital-intensive infrastructure deployment

Shift from traditional command-and-control regulation to data-driven approaches that empower markets and consumers through transparent information disclosure and digital oversight tools

Summary

Masselos advocates for traditional regulatory frameworks that balance investment incentives with competition measures, while Maida argues for moving away from command-and-control regulation toward data-driven approaches that empower markets and consumers.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Focus on technical infrastructure vs. behavioral protection

Speakers

– Charles Noir
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Technical operators play critical role in cultivating trust through technologies like DNSSEC, DDoS mitigation, and national DNS firewalls that block malicious traffic before reaching users

Regulators must address behavioral biases exploited online and use behavioral economics tools to protect consumers while ensuring competition and inclusion

Summary

Noir emphasizes the technical infrastructure layer and security technologies as the foundation for trust, while Maximiano focuses on addressing behavioral biases and using behavioral economics to protect consumers.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Scale and approach to regulatory transformation

Speakers

– Aminu Maida
– Konstantinos Masselos

Arguments

Shift from traditional command-and-control regulation to data-driven approaches that empower markets and consumers through transparent information disclosure and digital oversight tools

Need for regulatory frameworks that balance pro-investment incentives with pro-competition measures to ensure accessible, competitively priced networks while encouraging capital-intensive infrastructure deployment

Explanation

Unexpected because both are telecommunications regulators from developing regions, yet they propose fundamentally different approaches – Maida advocates for abandoning traditional regulation due to scale challenges, while Masselos supports evolving traditional frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on regulatory philosophy (traditional vs. data-driven approaches), the primary focus for building digital trust (technical infrastructure vs. behavioral protection), and the role of partnerships in achieving digital inclusion goals.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications – while speakers share common goals of digital inclusion, trust, and infrastructure development, their different approaches could lead to divergent regulatory policies and outcomes. The disagreements reflect different national contexts, regulatory maturity levels, and philosophical approaches to governance, suggesting that one-size-fits-all solutions may not be appropriate for global digital governance.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of accountability, transparency, and trust-building in digital environments, with regulators and technical operators having responsibility for maintaining safe and secure online spaces

Speakers

– Sandra Maximiano
– Charles Noir

Arguments

Need for regulators to act as guardians of digital safety and dignity, requiring platforms and service providers to be accountable for the online environments they help shape

Need for transparent security practices, respect for open standards, and demonstrated commitment to privacy and accountability to maintain user trust

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for regulatory transformation that moves from traditional oversight to enabling innovation through transparency, data analytics, and public accessibility of regulatory information

Speakers

– Aminu Maida
– Ekaterine Imedadze

Arguments

Development of quality of experience indices, consumer satisfaction metrics, and compliance indices made publicly accessible to elevate competition

Transformation from oversight player to enabler of innovation, embedding inclusivity and trust through exceptional transparency, strong analytical capabilities, and collaborative partnerships

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize that digital infrastructure must serve practical purposes in improving citizens’ lives, particularly in education and essential services, with special focus on reaching underserved communities

Speakers

– Mothibi Ramusi
– Federico Chacon Loaiza

Arguments

Importance of robust, protected infrastructure with universal coverage and affordable access to enable rural communities to access world-class services like e-learning

Collaboration with institutions across education, health, and government sectors to ensure connectivity supports distance learning, telemedicine, and digital government services

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Digital transformation requires regulatory frameworks that balance pro-investment incentives with pro-competition measures to ensure accessible, affordable connectivity while encouraging infrastructure development

Regulators must evolve from traditional command-and-control approaches to data-driven, transparent governance that empowers consumers and markets through information disclosure

Consumer protection in the digital age requires addressing behavioral biases exploited online and holding platforms accountable for the online environments they create

Digital inclusion and universal access must be central objectives of regulatory policy, not afterthoughts, with dedicated funding mechanisms like national telecommunications funds

Technical operators play a critical role in building digital trust through security technologies and participation in multi-stakeholder internet governance

Regulatory innovation requires transparency, strong analytical capabilities, collaborative partnerships, and adaptive governance structures that can respond to rapid technological change

Multi-stakeholder collaboration frameworks extending beyond national borders are essential for effective digital governance and closing the digital divide

Future regulatory approaches must embed ethical principles, sustainability considerations, and citizen-centric design into technology deployment

Resolutions and action items

ANACOM working with CEPT to contribute to European Common Proposal for upcoming World Telecommunication Development Conference in Baku

ANACOM collaborating with Lusophone community to advance behavioral economics agenda in digital policy

Nigerian Communications Commission launched major incident reporting portal for public engagement

South Africa launched digital transformation roadmap in 2025 showing commitment to inclusive digital future

Georgia’s COMCOM established Innovation Lab working with startup ecosystem on telecom and cybersecurity

Costa Rica’s SUTEL continuing administration of FONATEL fund with specific programs like Connect Community and Connected Homes

Technical Community Coalition for Multi-stakeholderism (TCCM) working to uphold multi-stakeholder internet governance model

Unresolved issues

How to effectively scale traditional regulatory approaches in large, diverse markets like Nigeria’s 220 million population

Balancing the need for regulatory simplification with comprehensive consumer protection in rapidly evolving digital environments

Ensuring smaller nations can meaningfully participate in global digital governance and infrastructure development

Managing the tension between national sovereignty and international cooperation in internet governance

Addressing the high costs of compliance and enforcement while maintaining effective regulatory oversight

Determining optimal regulatory responses to emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing

Establishing consistent application of digital rights and protections across different jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks

Suggested compromises

Striking balance between pro-investment and pro-competition frameworks through regulatory predictability and deployment-friendly measures

Combining supply-side regulatory obligations with demand-side consumer empowerment through behavioral economics tools

Using transparent data disclosure and public indices to foster competition while reducing direct regulatory intervention

Implementing networked regulatory approaches that coordinate between national authorities and international bodies

Leveraging public-private partnerships and multi-stakeholder frameworks to share responsibility for digital infrastructure development

Adopting adaptive governance models that can evolve with technology while maintaining core principles of inclusion and trust

Balancing market-driven connectivity expansion with targeted public funding for underserved areas through national telecommunications funds

We need to have a balance to strike the right balance between pro-investment and pro-competition frameworks… This combination of technology advances and difficult trade-offs, regulatory trade-offs, is a call for re-evaluation of our traditional electronic communications framework.

Speaker

Dr. Konstantinos Masselos

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies the fundamental tension at the heart of digital regulation – the need to simultaneously encourage investment while maintaining competition. It goes beyond surface-level solutions to call for a complete re-evaluation of traditional frameworks, recognizing that technological advances have fundamentally changed the regulatory landscape.

Impact

This comment established the central theme for the entire discussion. It framed the conversation around the core challenge of balancing competing interests and set the stage for other panelists to explore different aspects of this balance from their regional perspectives.

We’ve had to take a shift in our approach to regulation from prescribing behavior to empowering the market, consumers, and civil society with transparent data… So we’re now trying to leverage these data to come up with a smarter way to provide oversight and also incentivize responsible competition.

Speaker

Dr. Aminu Maida

Reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it presents a paradigm shift from traditional command-and-control regulation to data-driven, transparency-based governance. It acknowledges the limitations of traditional approaches at scale and proposes a more collaborative model that empowers stakeholders rather than merely controlling them.

Impact

This comment introduced a concrete alternative regulatory model that moved the discussion from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation. It demonstrated how regulators can adapt to digital transformation challenges and influenced subsequent speakers to discuss their own innovative approaches to regulation.

Regulators need to use tools from behavioral economics and put them to work for the good. For instance, applying match techniques to protect users… regulators must ensure that digital inclusion is a strategic priority… We must require that platforms, operators, and service providers be accountable, not just for the infrastructure they provide, but for the online environment they help shape.

Speaker

Professor Sandra Massimiano

Reason

This comment is insightful because it expands the regulatory scope beyond traditional telecommunications to include behavioral economics and platform accountability. It recognizes that digital regulation must address how human psychology is exploited online and calls for a more holistic approach to digital governance that includes ethical considerations.

Impact

This comment broadened the discussion from infrastructure and competition to include consumer protection, behavioral insights, and platform responsibility. It introduced the concept of regulators as ‘guardians of digital space’ and shifted the conversation toward more comprehensive digital governance approaches.

COMCOM shapes and understands the future readiness. It’s not about predicting big technology but shaping the future and being resilient to the change… we’ve shaped ourselves from being the oversight player to the enabler of the transformation.

Speaker

Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it redefines the role of regulators from reactive overseers to proactive enablers of transformation. The distinction between ‘predicting’ and ‘shaping’ technology represents a fundamental shift in regulatory philosophy, emphasizing adaptability and resilience over rigid control.

Impact

This comment introduced the concept of regulatory transformation and the evolution of regulatory identity. It demonstrated how smaller nations can be change agents and influenced the discussion toward collaborative, partnership-based approaches to regulation.

For us digital inclusion is not an afterthought but a central objective. We are convinced that digital public policy should serve as a tool for equity, social cohesion and sustainable development.

Speaker

Mr. Federico Chacon Loaiza

Reason

This comment is insightful because it positions digital inclusion not as a secondary consideration but as the primary objective of regulatory policy. It reframes the entire regulatory mission around equity and social cohesion, suggesting that technical and competitive considerations should serve broader social goals.

Impact

This comment provided a strong conclusion to the discussion by emphasizing the ultimate purpose of digital regulation. It reinforced themes of inclusion and equity that had been building throughout the conversation and demonstrated how regulatory frameworks can be designed with social objectives at their core.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively shaped the discussion by establishing a progression from identifying core regulatory challenges to presenting innovative solutions and ultimately defining the social purpose of digital regulation. The conversation evolved from Dr. Masselos’s foundational challenge of balancing investment and competition, through practical examples of regulatory innovation from Nigeria and Portugal, to broader concepts of regulatory transformation from Georgia, and finally to the social mission articulated by Costa Rica. Each comment built upon previous insights while introducing new dimensions – from technical and economic considerations to behavioral economics, from national approaches to international collaboration, and from regulatory efficiency to social equity. The discussion demonstrated a global consensus on the need for regulatory evolution while showcasing diverse approaches to achieving similar goals of inclusive, competitive, and sustainable digital transformation.

How to maintain traditional command and control regulatory approaches effectively at scale in large populations

Speaker

Dr. Aminu Maida

Explanation

Dr. Maida mentioned that maintaining the traditional approach effectively would cost a lot of money for Nigeria’s 220 million people, and he couldn’t find examples of how to maintain that approach at scale, suggesting this needs further research

How to integrate behavioral economics tools into global digital policy frameworks

Speaker

Professor Sandra Massimiano

Explanation

She mentioned ANACOM is working with CEPT to contribute to European Common Proposal for the upcoming World Telecommunication Development Conference in Baku, seeking to strengthen ITU’s mandate on consumer protection grounded in behavioral economics

How to ensure consistent application of digital services regulation across the EU

Speaker

Professor Sandra Massimiano

Explanation

She emphasized the importance of cooperation with other coordinators across the EU and the European Commission to ensure coordinated approach and consistent regulation application

How to develop effective automated systems for detecting and responding to unscheduled events and emergencies

Speaker

Mr. Mothibi Ramusi

Explanation

He mentioned the importance of implementing automated systems for emergency and disaster response as part of future-ready digital infrastructure

How smaller nations can become changing anchors in the digital ecosystem through partnerships

Speaker

Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze

Explanation

She emphasized that through strong partnerships and collaboration, even small nations can become significant players in digital transformation, suggesting this model needs further exploration

How to ensure internet governance decisions remain grounded in operational realities and technical expertise

Speaker

Dr. Charles Noir

Explanation

He highlighted the need for technical operators to participate in governance spaces to ensure decisions about internet security and trust are informed by technical expertise

How to scale successful digital inclusion models like Costa Rica’s FONATEL to other contexts

Speaker

Mr. Federico Chacon Loaiza

Explanation

His presentation of Costa Rica’s successful approach to digital inclusion through the National Telecommunications Fund suggests this model could be studied for replication in other countries

Summary

This Leaders’ Talk focused on preserving cultural and linguistic diversity in the digital era, particularly as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly dominant in how people access information and services. The discussion highlighted that while this challenge began over 20 years ago with the rise of the internet, it has become more critical today with AI-driven technologies that are predominantly trained on English-language content, representing over 90% of large language models.

Gatis Ozols from Latvia described his country’s proactive approach to digitalizing the Latvian language, emphasizing that multilinguality must be viewed as a core principle rather than just a feature of AI systems. He outlined Latvia’s strategy of developing national language resources, supporting machine translation, and ensuring citizens can access government services in their native language. Pierre Bonis from AFNIC stressed that cultural diversity extends beyond language to include legal frameworks, news, and local content, noting that locally hosted content with local domain names remains crucial for cultural preservation.

Elisabeth Stewart Bradley from the International Trademark Association highlighted the particular challenges facing indigenous communities, whose traditional knowledge and cultural expressions are increasingly at risk of exploitation through AI systems without proper recognition or compensation. Peter Bruck from the World Summit Award provided a sobering perspective, arguing that social media and algorithmic content have actually worked against cultural preservation, with young people worldwide aspiring to become social media influencers rather than preserving their cultural heritage.

The panelists agreed that preserving linguistic and cultural diversity requires political will, adequate funding, and keeping this issue high on policy agendas, as access to information in one’s native language is a fundamental human right essential to respecting humanity’s full diversity.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Government and policy initiatives for language preservation**: Latvia’s proactive approach to digitalizing smaller languages, including subsidizing language resources, developing machine translation tools, and creating AI-powered public services in Latvian to ensure citizens can access government services in their native language.

– **Technical infrastructure and domain name systems**: The role of local internet registries and domain names in preserving cultural diversity, including locally hosted content, search engine optimization challenges, and the need to rebuild discoverability systems as AI-powered prompts potentially replace traditional search engines.

– **Indigenous rights and intellectual property protection**: The challenges of protecting traditional knowledge and cultural expressions from exploitation, particularly as AI compounds existing issues around cultural appropriation, and the need for balanced frameworks that respect indigenous communities while allowing respectful innovation.

– **The dark side of digital transformation**: A critical examination of how social media algorithms and big tech monopolization are actually eliminating cultural diversity rather than preserving it, with concerns about young people aspiring to become social media influencers rather than connecting with their cultural heritage.

– **AI as both threat and opportunity**: The dual nature of artificial intelligence in cultural preservation – while AI can help digitize endangered languages and provide translation services, there’s a risk that AI systems trained primarily on Western content will further marginalize minority cultures and languages.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to examine strategies for preserving cultural and linguistic diversity in the digital age, particularly with the rise of AI technologies, and to assess progress made since the original World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20 years ago.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion began with a measured, optimistic tone as speakers shared successful initiatives and technical solutions. However, the tone shifted notably toward concern and urgency, particularly with Professor Bruck’s “wake-up call” about the dark side of digital transformation. The conversation concluded on a sobering but determined note, emphasizing that cultural and linguistic diversity is a fundamental human right that requires continued vigilance and action to protect.

Speakers

– **Caroline Vuillemin**: Session moderator/chair

– **Gatis Ozols**: Deputy State Secretary for Digital Transformation of the Government of Latvia

– **Pierre Bonis**: Chief Executive Officer of AFNIC (French Internet Registry)

– **Elisabeth Stewart Bradley**: Representative from the International Trademark Association (INTA)

– **Peter A. Bruck**: Professor, World Summit Award founder/representative

– **Narendra Kumar Goyal**: Representative of an association with 74 partners and 48,500 members (specific organization not clearly mentioned)

– **Alfredo Ronchi**: Secretary General of EC Medici Framework, cooperates with UNESCO-IFAP initiative

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Leaders’ Talk: Preserving Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in the Digital Era

## Executive Summary

This Leaders’ Talk, moderated by Caroline Vuillemin as part of the WSIS+20 review focusing on Action Line C8 (cultural diversity, linguistic diversity and local content), brought together six distinguished speakers to examine the challenge of preserving cultural and linguistic diversity in an AI-dominated digital landscape. The discussion highlighted that while this challenge began with the rise of the internet, it has intensified with artificial intelligence systems predominantly trained on English-language content, representing over 90% of large language models.

Speakers presented diverse perspectives ranging from successful national digitization initiatives to critical assessments of technology’s impact on cultural preservation. The conversation emphasized that access to information in one’s native language constitutes a fundamental human right essential to respecting humanity’s full diversity.

## Opening Context and Framework

Caroline Vuillemin established that languages and culture encompass ways of seeing the world, representing ourselves, and understanding each other beyond mere words. She emphasized that preserving cultural diversity requires anticipation, political will, adequate funding, and keeping this issue high on policy agendas. The session was positioned within the broader WSIS+20 review context, examining progress made since the original summit and identifying emerging challenges in the digital transformation era.

## National Strategies and Initiatives

### Latvia’s Digital Language Development

Gatis Ozols, Deputy State Secretary for Digital Transformation of the Government of Latvia, presented Latvia’s comprehensive approach to digitalizing the Latvian language. Latvia began developing national policies 15-20 years ago to subsidize and develop language resources for digital tools, starting with machine translation initiatives. This early preparation has enabled Latvia to create AI-powered public services in Latvian, ensuring citizens can access government services in their native language.

Ozols emphasized a key principle: “Multilinguality and cultural diversity has to be viewed as core principle, not as a feature of gen AI.” He identified two paths being pursued – multinational companies training central global large language models, and the European Union approach supporting national and regional initiatives. He advocated for a dual approach, working with multinational companies while developing national resources.

### India’s Bhasani Programme

Narendra Kumar Goyal presented India’s Bhasani programme supporting 22 regional languages with 3 billion users, enabling speech translation across 21 languages. He outlined a comprehensive four-point framework:

1. **Use AI as a cultural ally**: Digitize languages through speech recognition and enable AI-powered translation tools

2. **Empower local voices**: Support content creators and promote intergenerational cultural exchange

3. **Tackle key challenges**: Address data gaps for lesser-known languages, ensure cultural sensitivity in AI design, and bridge the digital divide with adequate infrastructure and education

4. **Create an inclusive ecosystem**: Champion multi-language content creation and push for language equity in digital platforms

Goyal emphasized that “we cannot describe our culture and our land if we do not have a language,” highlighting that preserving culture means nurturing the spirit and identity of communities from within.

## Infrastructure and Technical Perspectives

### Internet Infrastructure and Cultural Frameworks

Pierre Bonis, Chief Executive Officer of AFNIC (French Internet Registry), expanded the discussion beyond language to broader cultural frameworks. He stressed that cultural diversity extends beyond language to include legal frameworks, news, and regulatory proximity that international companies may not respect. Local domain names and locally hosted content (.fr, .de, .sn) play a crucial role in cultural and linguistic diversity preservation.

Bonis raised a critical concern about AI’s impact on content discoverability: “If PROMPT replace search engines, in a way we are going to have to rebuild all the efforts that we did for 20 years in terms of search engine optimization, in terms of where are the sources, where can I check that this content is actually coming from a place.” He also mentioned ISOC France’s scrutiny of Facebook’s terms of use as an example of protecting local cultural and legal frameworks.

### Indigenous Rights and Intellectual Property

Elisabeth Stewart Bradley, representing the International Trademark Association (INTA), highlighted vulnerabilities facing indigenous communities in the digital age. She explained that traditional knowledge and cultural expressions face increased exploitation risks without proper recognition or compensation, with AI compounding existing issues around cultural appropriation.

Bradley outlined INTA’s five foundational principles for AI implementation in intellectual property protection, emphasizing the need for human oversight, transparency, and lawful access to data for rights enforcement. She argued for harmonized national frameworks to balance cultural preservation with innovation while respecting indigenous communities.

## Critical Assessment and Challenges

### Technology’s Impact on Cultural Preservation

Professor Peter A. Bruck from the World Summit Award provided a critical assessment of technology’s role in cultural preservation. He argued that current discussions focus too heavily on technical solutions while ignoring fundamental problems: “today we need to not just talk about the bright side, we need to talk about the dark side… if you are not willing to address that in terms of preserving culture and language in the digital era, you are just wrong.”

Bruck identified several key challenges:

– Young people worldwide aspire to become Instagram influencers rather than preserving cultural heritage

– Social media algorithms favor extremist emotional content and push misinformation

– The monopolization of user data by five big tech companies requires taxation to fund cultural preservation resources

– Without addressing hyperscale company monopolization, there will be insufficient resources for cultural preservation

### AI Systems and Cultural Representation

Alfredo Ronchi, Secretary General of EC Medici Framework, emphasized that different AI systems should be trained on different cultural documentation to avoid minoritizing creativities worldwide. He referenced the UNESCO-IFAP initiative and the atlas of living languages, stressing the importance of keeping humans at the center of technology to avoid losing cultural identity.

Ronchi argued that current AI systems predominantly reflect Western cultural perspectives, risking the marginalization of non-Western creativities and intelligences.

## Key Themes and Challenges

### AI as Both Threat and Opportunity

The discussion revealed AI’s dual nature in cultural preservation:

**Threats identified:**

– Large language models over 90% trained in one language create representation gaps

– AI systems predominantly reflect Western cultural perspectives

– Replacement of search engines with AI prompts threatens content discoverability

– Current AI training data lacks adequate representation of diverse cultures

**Opportunities recognized:**

– AI can digitize endangered languages and build living dictionaries

– Machine translation tools can provide native language access to services

– AI-powered systems can enable universal translation for international communication

– Technology can support intergenerational cultural exchange

### Unresolved Technical and Policy Challenges

Several critical challenges require further attention:

– Rebuilding search optimization efforts as AI prompts replace traditional search

– Addressing data gaps for lesser-known languages in AI training

– Developing harmonized frameworks balancing cultural preservation with innovation

– Creating funding mechanisms for cultural preservation initiatives

– Protecting indigenous rights and traditional knowledge from exploitation

## Conclusion

The Leaders’ Talk demonstrated that preserving cultural and linguistic diversity in the digital era requires coordinated efforts combining technical innovation, policy reform, and cultural awareness. While speakers presented different approaches – from collaborative engagement with multinational companies to critical confrontation of existing systems – they shared recognition that cultural and linguistic diversity represents a fundamental human right.

As Caroline Vuillemin concluded, preserving linguistic diversity and cultural heritage requires sustained political will, adequate funding, and continued vigilance to ensure technological advancement serves humanity’s full diversity. The session’s emphasis on diversity and inclusion as “basic human rights” and the need to respect “humanity in its globality” provides a foundation for future collaboration. A follow-up session was scheduled for Friday, with participants invited to join the World Summit Award global community for continued engagement on these critical challenges.

Caroline Vuillemin: Welcome everybody to this Leaders’ Talk on Local to Global, Preserving Culture and Language in a Digital Era. This session will be about inclusion and representation of all human diversity in today’s digital world. This is not a new question. It started more than 20 years ago with the rise of the Internet, but today in a truly digital world and with the rise of artificial intelligence, the question is more important than ever. So we will hear from various perspectives this afternoon on how to preserve that diversity if it is indeed important and a shared ambition and vision. I’d like to start with Mr. Ossorz, the Deputy State Secretary for Digital Transformation of the Government of Latvia. I have a question for you, sir. While Latvian is one of the smaller languages facing unique challenges in the digital age, the country of Latvia has emerged as a front-runner in advancing research and development for other underrepresented languages across the EU. Could you please describe your country’s strategy and the key initiatives aimed at digitalizing the Latvian language to ensure its comprehensive inclusion in AI-driven technologies?

Gatis Ozols: Hello. Thank you, madam, and it’s a pleasure to be here and share our international experience regarding this. When we speak now about AI and multilinguality and different cultures in the AI session, we already speak about that currently the large language models that are largely used by the community, by consumer products, largely are more than 90% trained by one language. Actually, we recognize this important aspect as being a small and compact country, so we have to take care of our language and digital environment early on. It was already, I suppose, some 15, 20 years ago when it started with machine translation and such tools, so we put in a high position in our national policy, and we started to subsidize and we started to pay special attention to develop those national language resources to train digital tools for the Latvian language. Now we see it as an important aspect not only for the Latvian language, but actually for most of the languages in the world which are underrepresented on digital environment, also on AI tools. So how we approach it, initially we developed and facilitated programs nationally to develop language resources on Latvian language. It was like initial to build the base, so to train initially the machine translation to ensure that our Latvian citizens can use internet, which is mostly English-driven, and our own natural language for e-commerce, it was also very essential. Then of course it was also essential to access public services, so initially for European countries, it’s like more than 27 countries, you have to access in different languages, but then when we developed this language technologies, we saw it also helps for accessibility of public services not only, but also in internet, like text-to-speech, speech-to-text, it’s ensure accessibility. Also for public services, the national platform for AI assistance for the citizens, so they can approach the government digitally, they’ve been answered in the Latvian language. So this has allowed us to ensure this multilinguality and accessibility of public services and public resources, and also to ensure that those resources are available for the citizens. Further now with AI, I think it becomes even more critical to ensure this multi-language and multicultural representation, as AI becomes the first of the main way how we interact with different services and consumer products, and I would like to focus briefly on three aspects to ensure this. First one, multilinguality as a core principle, access to language resources and access to compute and expertise. Multilinguality and cultural diversity has to be viewed as core principle, not as a feature of gen AI. It’s our position and our view nationally. We see that there are different paths that have been taken, industry part, it’s taken by companies, multinationals that train central global LLMs, and there’s another part, or the way how to approach this, is European Union approach, that we have this national regional initiatives to incentivise and support development of large language models, in our case for EU countries, and provide access to compute. So we have to work on both of those dimensions together with those multinational companies and also to develop our national resources to ensure that all the languages and cultures are represented nationally.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. So we see that it is about setting priorities, anticipating and having political will to preserve this diversity and languages. I’d like to see now another perspective from Pierre Bonis, the Chief Executive Officer of AFNIC. How do you perceive the importance of preserving cultural and linguistic diversity through the lens of the French Internet Registry?

Pierre Bonis: Thank you very much, first of all. Thank you for the invitation. I’m sorry to have to speak English, and I’m hoping that my English or British counterparts will not end this week with a very big loss of cultural diversity, which is speaking globish. So we started, of course, 20 years ago, because this is WSIS plus 20, with this Action Line C8, cultural diversity, linguistic diversity and local content. I think it was very wise to mix these different aspects, and especially the local content. And if you look at the challenges that we have, and we still have, in the discoverability of the different contents in different languages and different cultures, the role of the locally host and made content is still very relevant. In that regard, from the French Registry and from other registries, .fr, .de, .sn, etc., the fact that the contents may be hosted locally and may be addressed with local domain names makes sense also. More broadly, we really think that the problem is not only the language, of course it’s very important, access to your own language online, and sometimes the domain name can help, sometimes the search engine can help, but this is also culture, this is news, this is legal framework. I’ll give you an example. In France, ISOC France scrutinized the Facebook terms of use in France. And just so that this is another part of cultural approach, I mean, the legal framework that can be imposed by an international company may not be exactly the one that we are used to in our various countries. So this cultural diversity goes far beyond the pure language approach. It’s really a question of legal, regulatory, and proximity framework. I would end with just quoting, and Mr. Minister, you said that very well, that we have new challenges and opportunity with AI. But one of the challenges we face is that if PROMPT replace search engines, in a way we are going to have to rebuild all the efforts that we did for 20 years in terms of search engine optimization, in terms of where are the sources, where can I check that this content is actually coming from a place. So I think, I mean, this is not, this is just being aware of it. But being aware of it is making sure that the AI is not going to… Once again, having all the work to do to make sure that our cultures, our diversity is seen on the Internet. Thank you.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you very much. As you said, languages and culture are not only words. There are also ways of seeing the world, ways of representing ourselves, ways of understanding each other. So it’s very important to take this into account with the technology. I’d like now to turn to Elisabeth Stewart Bradley from the International Trademark Association. So another point of view still. Your association is dedicated to the protection of intellectual property to foster consumer trust, economic growth and innovation. And it is also committed to building a better society through brands. How does the protection of linguistic identity and local content fit into your organization’s mission?

Elisabeth Stewart Bradley: Thank you for this question. I’m sorry for the glasses, but I really am having trouble here. So first, I would like to thank ITU Secretary General Doreen Bogdan-Martin, the WSIS sponsors and organizers, and my fellow high-level panelists. It’s an honor to be here with you today. INTA’s mission seeks sustainable answers to global challenges. This is complementary to the SDGs as our work focuses primarily on SDG 9, industry, innovation and infrastructure. Last year, our intervention emphasized the importance of enhancing the availability of domain names in local languages. While domain names remain top of mind, there is now an even greater focus on how AI affects the preservation of culture and language. For example, the protection of indigenous rights has long presented challenges to both brand owners and indigenous communities. And AI is now compounding that. Traditional knowledge and cultural expressions have been passed down through generations. But in many cases, they have been exploited and appropriated without proper recognition or compensation. This leads to the loss of control of indigenous people over their cultural heritage. For brand owners, this presents challenges in terms of respecting the rights of indigenous communities while also wanting to adopt elements of their culture into products, services, and marketing strategies in reasonable and respectful ways. INTA has a dedicated indigenous rights committee that includes a globally diverse membership. And we actively participate in discussions at WIPO. Our goal within the global community is to harmonize and balance how indigenous culture and language may be protected and incorporated in the development of new products and services. Notably, there have been positive advancements in recognition and safeguarding of indigenous rights, including legal reforms and greater awareness of indigenous issues. However, challenges persist, like the lack of harmonized national frameworks to ensure the proper balance between cultural preservation and innovation. Rapid advancements in technology have raised concerns about indigenous heritage use by AI, lack of representation, and lack of consultation. In terms of the implementation of AI to help protect IP, including indigenous rights, INTA supports policies based on five foundational principles that include recognizing human versus machine contributions, final decisions on the granting or revocation of rights should be subject to human oversight, rights holders should be able to obtain lawful access to data for the purpose of enforcing IP rights, customers should know the source of information received by AI, and transparency should be balanced with the need to protect proprietary information. INTA fosters the exchange of global perspectives by its thousands of members from around the world. INTA recently adopted AI-based technology to provide universal translation services for participants at our meetings. Our most recent annual meeting hosted more than 10,000 participants. Until the implementation of AI-based translation programs, organizations such as INTA could not afford translation services. Providing greater access through translation allows participants to return to their countries with powerful information to help preserve their valuable inventions. In closing, I’d just like to say that WSIS enables the spirit of multi-stakeholder engagement. Thank you so much.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. And thank you for highlighting the challenge of the national frameworks versus the global approach. At the current era of crisis in multilateralism, I think national frameworks still have to exist, but to be comprehensive and coordinated among various nations. We will now listen to Professor Brook from the World Summit Award, and maybe look back 20 years ago when you initiated at the first WSIS conference in Geneva the World Summit Award. How has the challenge of preserving culture and language in the digital era changed since then?

Peter A. Bruck: Thank you very much, Caroline. That’s a wonderful question, which leads me to say that in 2003 we looked at the information and communication technologies with optimism. And today we need to not just talk about the bright side, we need to talk about the dark side. And only those who are addressing the dark side and the issues are actually credible interlocutors for where we should go in the future, because we cannot parrot again what we have talked about and the way we have talked about in 2003 about the WSIS Action Plan. I had lunch today with three people, one person from Jordan, another one from Malaysia, and the other one from Cyprus. And they all know that their children and their grandchildren, female, 14 years old, have as an idea for where they want to go in their lives to be an Instagram influencer. And I say to you, everybody in this room, if you are not willing to address that in terms of preserving culture and language in the digital era, you are just wrong in terms of this place. You have to address it, we have to address it. The huge achievement of social media has in fact turned against preserving cultural heritage. And cultural diversity is not just reduced, but it is eliminated around the world in many different ways. And I think that if we are not looking at what algorithmic media do in terms of favoring not just this kind of fantasies of young women, but also in terms of democracy by favoring extremist emotional, cultural, and political content, and push nonsense to people, lies, hate speech, and fake news, we are just missing the opportunity of looking at business plus 20. User data are collected from every corner of the world, and they are monopolized by five big tech companies. And if we are not addressing the monopolization of that, which is hyperscaling, by taxing those hyperscale companies, we are just not having the resources for cultural preservation and diversity. The World Summit Award was created actually in 2003, ironically, to identify the richness and the plurality, the diversity of high quality contents around the world. And we were looking at that time at ICT as being a means to do it. Today, I have to acknowledge the needs for the World Summit Award, and its global community of creative people who look for a positive social impact is not lesser, but greater. Because we are losing diversity, we are losing our cultural heritage, and we are not preserving it. So, from my point of view, I invite each and everyone in this room to join us in terms of this global community, and also to act in terms of making WSA also a follow-on activity to WSIS 2030. Thank you. I hope I am in time.

Caroline Vuillemin: Yes, perfect.

Peter A. Bruck: I can see that there are some people who are on Instagram and who clap still. Thank you very much.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you, and thank you for that wake-up call, which should not be a wake-up call, because I think we all have the same reality in front of us in terms of losing diversity in the last 20 years, which is not what the spirit of WSA is.

Narendra Kumar Goyal: Thank you very much. And I’m happy that before me our panelists said two important things. Social media influencing and changing our life. The new generation is forgetting the old culture, our language, our heritage. And five tech companies trying to do everything for all of us. Led by these things, my association has 74 partners with a large base of 48,500 members. So we discussed this ourselves, what is the way out to preserve the cultural heritage. We came out with two statements and four points in brief. The statement says we cannot describe our culture and our land if we do not have a language. And preserving culture means nurturing the spirit and identity of communities from within. Now there are four things. One is use AI as a cultural ally. Digitize intense languages via speech recognition and transcription. Enable access with AI powered translation and language learning tools. Build curriculum and living dictionaries to preserve oral traditions. Second point was empower local voices. Support the creators of native languages with the digitalized tools, storytelling, and next promote intergenerational exchange through technical enabled mentorship. Celebrate culture online, customs, folk fare, musics. Third point is tackle the challenges. Address data gaps for developing lesser known languages. Ensure cultural sensibility via AI design. Bridge the digital divide with infrastructure and education. And the last topic is create inclusive ecosystem. In this champion multi-language content across media platforms. Push for language equity in the technical tools, transforms, fund preservation projects at the government and grassroot level. Within the next 30 minutes I want to share the Indian experience. India has 22 regional languages. Our government made a program called Bhasani, Indian languages. And we have, as a man there is a speech by our leader. It is transferred into 21 languages across the country. There are 3 billion users as of now. Thank you very much.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you very much. Impressive figures from a Swiss citizen with only four languages in our country. Thank you for your contribution. Last but not least I want to turn now to Prof. Alfredo Ronchi. You’re the Secretary General of EC Medici Firmwork. So maybe a last question to give us hope and perspective. Can the digital age jeopardize cultural and linguistic diversity?

Alfredo Ronchi: Okay, thank you Madam Chair. Yes, so good afternoon first of all. So yes, this is a question that was posed a long time ago. As you introduced the session before, it’s something that basically coupled with the explosion of the use of the internet that boosted the idea of globalization with the risk to jeopardize cultural models, cultural identities, and of course languages. I used to cooperate with UNESCO-IFAP initiative and this was one of the key topics to be discussed in the meeting. So the fact that the atlas of living languages was diminishing the size every year due to the disappearance of a number of languages, minoritized so-called languages, because they were not able to be both spoken and then represented on the internet. And of course this idea to get toward uniformity to provide to young generation a standard model that is almost equal all over the world may probably pose the risk to lose our identities in terms of languages that is tightly connected with culture. I am very, let’s say, fond of studying different languages because it’s the best way to understand better some culture, some population, because there’s this tight relation even in the way in which it’s structured, the language. And so it’s for sure the risk to lose some relevant values. And this is really a pity in the set of the culture and languages. But nowadays there’s another technology that comes back after 30 years more or less. In the 80s it was considered one of the monster artificial intelligence, but there was no chance to keep in touch with it at that time because it was too abstract. Let’s say expert system and fuzzy logic. Nowadays thanks to some products like GPT and similar things, people can experience this so they lower in order to enter this technology is very low. Anyone can try it. And the risk again, because we fit such kind of system mainly with some specific set of documents, let’s say some Western culture basically, there’s the risk to lose some other intelligences. So last year we spoke and within some of the sessions at the WISIS, mainly managed by UNESCO, to the idea to create different AI systems fed with different culture, different documentation, in order to do not risk to have minoritized creativities around the world. And this of course is tightly connected with the road to extend, let’s say, the ability to create content in such kind of specific culture and so on. So it is very complicated things. But the point is to try to keep humans in the center and do not become slave of technology, losing our identity. Thank you very much.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. Well, thank you all for your contributions and for keeping with the time. I know it’s very difficult to go into deep thoughts in only three minutes in this topic that is so important and where we would all have hoped to speak in our own language and be very diversified. But maybe next time. As a conclusion, just to wrap up, diversity and inclusion of course are not only values. It is a basic human right. Each individual on earth should have access to content, to information regarding its government, regarding news, regarding economic activities in his or her own maternal language. And it’s not only for commercial incentives and human rights, but it’s really to respect humanity in its globality. So we heard it’s about anticipation, political will, funding, and keeping this high on the agenda. I hope the conclusions of this summit will drive policymakers in that direction. A final summary of the session will be provided and it will take place on Friday, this Friday the 11th at 3 p.m. So please join us to listen to the final conclusion then. Thank you.

Agreement points

AI systems predominantly trained in one language create representation gaps for smaller languages

Speakers

– Gatis Ozols
– Alfredo Ronchi

Arguments

Large language models are over 90% trained in one language, creating representation gaps for smaller languages

Different AI systems should be fed with different cultural documentation to avoid minoritizing creativities worldwide

Summary

Both speakers recognize that current AI systems are biased toward dominant languages/cultures, with Ozols providing specific statistics about 90% single-language training and Ronchi emphasizing the Western cultural bias in AI training data

Topics

Cultural diversity | Digital standards | Multilingualism

Government-led national strategies are essential for language preservation

Speakers

– Gatis Ozols
– Narendra Kumar Goyal

Arguments

Latvia developed early national policies to subsidize and develop language resources for digital tools, starting with machine translation 15-20 years ago

India implemented the Bhasani program supporting 22 regional languages with 3 billion users, enabling speech translation across 21 languages

Summary

Both speakers present successful examples of government-initiated programs for language digitization, with Latvia’s early machine translation efforts and India’s massive Bhasani program demonstrating the effectiveness of national strategies

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Development

Cultural preservation extends beyond language to encompass broader frameworks

Speakers

– Pierre Bonis
– Caroline Vuillemin

Arguments

Cultural diversity extends beyond language to include legal frameworks, news, and regulatory proximity that international companies may not respect

Languages and culture encompass ways of seeing the world, representing ourselves, and understanding each other beyond just words

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that cultural preservation involves comprehensive worldviews, legal systems, and ways of understanding reality, not just linguistic translation

Topics

Cultural diversity | Legal and regulatory | Digital identities

Technology threatens cultural diversity and requires human-centered approaches

Speakers

– Peter A. Bruck
– Alfredo Ronchi

Arguments

Social media algorithms favor extremist emotional content and push misinformation, working against cultural heritage preservation

Technology should keep humans at the center to avoid becoming slaves to technology and losing cultural identity

Summary

Both speakers warn about technology’s potential to undermine cultural diversity and emphasize the need to maintain human agency and control over technological systems

Topics

Cultural diversity | Content policy | Digital identities

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for proactive, positive approaches to AI implementation in cultural preservation, viewing AI as a tool that can support rather than threaten linguistic diversity when properly implemented with strong national strategies

Speakers

– Gatis Ozols
– Narendra Kumar Goyal

Arguments

Multilinguality and cultural diversity must be viewed as core principles, not features, requiring both multinational company cooperation and national resource development

AI should be used as a cultural ally through digitizing languages, enabling translation tools, and building living dictionaries

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Digital standards

Both speakers emphasize the need for systematic approaches to ensure diverse cultural perspectives are properly represented and protected in technological and legal frameworks, rather than being marginalized by dominant systems

Speakers

– Elisabeth Stewart Bradley
– Alfredo Ronchi

Arguments

Brand owners need harmonized national frameworks to balance cultural preservation with innovation while respecting indigenous communities

Different AI systems should be fed with different cultural documentation to avoid minoritizing creativities worldwide

Topics

Cultural diversity | Legal and regulatory | Intellectual property rights

Both speakers express concern about how algorithmic systems and AI are undermining decades of work in making diverse content discoverable and accessible, potentially erasing cultural diversity achievements

Speakers

– Pierre Bonis
– Peter A. Bruck

Arguments

AI replacing search engines with prompts threatens 20 years of work in search engine optimization and content discoverability

Social media algorithms favor extremist emotional content and push misinformation, working against cultural heritage preservation

Topics

Cultural diversity | Content policy | Digital standards

Unexpected consensus

Need for taxation of big tech companies to fund cultural preservation

Speakers

– Peter A. Bruck

Arguments

User data monopolization by five big tech companies requires taxation to fund cultural preservation resources

Explanation

While only Bruck explicitly mentioned this, his argument about taxing hyperscale companies to fund cultural preservation represents a concrete policy solution that aligns with other speakers’ concerns about tech company dominance, though no other speaker directly addressed this economic approach

Topics

Cultural diversity | Taxation | Digital business models

AI can serve as both threat and ally to cultural preservation

Speakers

– Gatis Ozols
– Narendra Kumar Goyal
– Alfredo Ronchi

Arguments

Multilinguality and cultural diversity must be viewed as core principles, not features, requiring both multinational company cooperation and national resource development

AI should be used as a cultural ally through digitizing languages, enabling translation tools, and building living dictionaries

Different AI systems should be fed with different cultural documentation to avoid minoritizing creativities worldwide

Explanation

Despite concerns about AI’s threats to cultural diversity, multiple speakers converged on the idea that AI can be harnessed positively for cultural preservation when properly designed and implemented with diverse training data and multilingual principles

Topics

Cultural diversity | Digital standards | Multilingualism

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the fundamental importance of cultural and linguistic diversity preservation, the inadequacy of current AI systems in representing diverse cultures, the need for government-led national strategies, and the recognition that cultural preservation extends beyond language to encompass worldviews and legal frameworks

Consensus level

High level of consensus on problem identification and general principles, with speakers agreeing that current technological systems threaten cultural diversity and that proactive, multi-stakeholder approaches are needed. The consensus suggests a mature understanding of the challenges and points toward coordinated policy responses combining national strategies, international cooperation, and human-centered technology design.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI development for cultural preservation

Speakers

– Gatis Ozols
– Alfredo Ronchi

Arguments

Multilinguality and cultural diversity must be viewed as core principles, not features, requiring both multinational company cooperation and national resource development

Different AI systems should be fed with different cultural documentation to avoid minoritizing creativities worldwide

Summary

Ozols advocates for a dual approach working with multinational companies while developing national resources, viewing multilinguality as a core principle. Ronchi argues for creating separate AI systems trained on different cultural documentation to avoid Western cultural dominance, suggesting a more fragmented approach to AI development.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Digital standards | Multilingualism

Assessment of technology’s impact on cultural diversity

Speakers

– Peter A. Bruck
– Narendra Kumar Goyal

Arguments

Social media algorithms favor extremist emotional content and push misinformation, working against cultural heritage preservation

AI should be used as a cultural ally through digitizing languages, enabling translation tools, and building living dictionaries

Summary

Bruck presents a pessimistic view of technology, arguing that social media algorithms actively work against cultural preservation by promoting extremist content. Goyal takes an optimistic stance, viewing AI as a potential ally that can be harnessed for cultural preservation through practical applications.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Content policy | Multilingualism

Role of big tech companies in cultural preservation

Speakers

– Peter A. Bruck
– Gatis Ozols

Arguments

User data monopolization by five big tech companies requires taxation to fund cultural preservation resources

Multilinguality and cultural diversity must be viewed as core principles, not features, requiring both multinational company cooperation and national resource development

Summary

Bruck advocates for a confrontational approach toward big tech companies, calling for taxation to fund cultural preservation. Ozols suggests a collaborative approach, emphasizing the need to work with multinational companies alongside national resource development.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Digital business models | Taxation

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs. pessimism about digital technology’s role

Speakers

– Peter A. Bruck
– Narendra Kumar Goyal

Arguments

Young people worldwide aspire to become Instagram influencers, representing a threat to cultural diversity that must be addressed

India implemented the Bhasani program supporting 22 regional languages with 3 billion users, enabling speech translation across 21 languages

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are addressing the same fundamental challenge of cultural preservation, yet they have dramatically different assessments of technology’s potential. Bruck’s pessimistic view contrasts sharply with Goyal’s success story, suggesting different regional experiences or philosophical approaches to technology adoption.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Digital identities | Multilingualism

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on approaches to AI development, assessment of technology’s impact on culture, and strategies for dealing with big tech companies. While all speakers agree on the importance of cultural preservation, they differ significantly on whether to work with or against existing tech infrastructure.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements reflect fundamental philosophical differences about technology’s role in society and appropriate policy responses. These differences could lead to fragmented approaches to cultural preservation, potentially undermining coordinated global efforts. However, the shared commitment to cultural diversity provides a foundation for potential compromise and collaboration.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for proactive, positive approaches to AI implementation in cultural preservation, viewing AI as a tool that can support rather than threaten linguistic diversity when properly implemented with strong national strategies

Speakers

– Gatis Ozols
– Narendra Kumar Goyal

Arguments

Multilinguality and cultural diversity must be viewed as core principles, not features, requiring both multinational company cooperation and national resource development

AI should be used as a cultural ally through digitizing languages, enabling translation tools, and building living dictionaries

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Digital standards

Both speakers emphasize the need for systematic approaches to ensure diverse cultural perspectives are properly represented and protected in technological and legal frameworks, rather than being marginalized by dominant systems

Speakers

– Elisabeth Stewart Bradley
– Alfredo Ronchi

Arguments

Brand owners need harmonized national frameworks to balance cultural preservation with innovation while respecting indigenous communities

Different AI systems should be fed with different cultural documentation to avoid minoritizing creativities worldwide

Topics

Cultural diversity | Legal and regulatory | Intellectual property rights

Both speakers express concern about how algorithmic systems and AI are undermining decades of work in making diverse content discoverable and accessible, potentially erasing cultural diversity achievements

Speakers

– Pierre Bonis
– Peter A. Bruck

Arguments

AI replacing search engines with prompts threatens 20 years of work in search engine optimization and content discoverability

Social media algorithms favor extremist emotional content and push misinformation, working against cultural heritage preservation

Topics

Cultural diversity | Content policy | Digital standards

Key takeaways

Cultural and linguistic diversity preservation is a fundamental human right, not just a commercial or technological feature

Multilinguality must be treated as a core principle in AI development, requiring both cooperation with multinational companies and development of national resources

Early anticipation and political will are crucial – countries like Latvia started developing language resources 15-20 years ago with machine translation

AI poses both opportunities and threats: it can serve as a cultural ally through digitization tools, but current large language models are over 90% trained in one language

Social media and algorithmic content are actively working against cultural diversity by promoting homogenization and extremist content

Local internet infrastructure (domain names, hosting) plays a vital role in preserving cultural diversity beyond just language translation

The digital divide and data monopolization by five big tech companies requires systemic solutions including taxation to fund cultural preservation

Indigenous rights and traditional knowledge face increased exploitation risks with AI development, requiring harmonized national frameworks

Resolutions and action items

A final summary session scheduled for Friday the 11th at 3 p.m. to provide conclusions

Invitation to join the World Summit Award global community as a follow-on activity to WSIS 2030

Need for policymakers to keep cultural and linguistic diversity high on the agenda based on summit conclusions

Development of different AI systems fed with different cultural documentation to avoid minoritizing creativities

Implementation of AI-based technology for universal translation services in international meetings and organizations

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address the influence of social media on young people’s cultural aspirations (Instagram influencer phenomenon)

Lack of harmonized national frameworks to balance cultural preservation with innovation

How to rebuild content discoverability efforts if AI prompts replace search engines

Addressing data gaps for lesser-known languages in AI training

How to ensure cultural sensitivity in AI design and implementation

Bridging the digital divide with adequate infrastructure and education

How to effectively tax hyperscale tech companies to fund cultural preservation resources

Suggested compromises

Working on both dimensions: cooperating with multinational companies while developing national language resources

Balancing transparency in AI systems with the need to protect proprietary information

Finding ways for brand owners to respectfully incorporate indigenous cultural elements while protecting indigenous rights

Using technology as a tool while keeping humans at the center to avoid losing cultural identity

Developing both global AI solutions and region-specific cultural AI systems simultaneously

Multilinguality and cultural diversity has to be viewed as core principle, not as a feature of gen AI… there are different paths that have been taken, industry part, it’s taken by companies, multinationals that train central global LLMs, and there’s another part… European Union approach, that we have this national regional initiatives

Speaker

Gatis Ozols

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between treating linguistic diversity as an optional feature versus a fundamental principle. It also introduces the critical tension between centralized global AI models versus decentralized national/regional approaches, highlighting a key strategic choice facing policymakers.

Impact

This established the foundational framework for the entire discussion, setting up the core tension between global tech companies’ approaches and national preservation efforts. Subsequent speakers built upon this dichotomy, with Pierre Bonis discussing local content hosting and Elisabeth Stewart Bradley addressing the need for harmonized national frameworks.

If PROMPT replace search engines, in a way we are going to have to rebuild all the efforts that we did for 20 years in terms of search engine optimization, in terms of where are the sources, where can I check that this content is actually coming from a place

Speaker

Pierre Bonis

Reason

This insight reveals a profound but often overlooked consequence of AI advancement – that the shift from search engines to AI prompts could undo decades of work in making diverse content discoverable. It highlights how technological progress can inadvertently create new barriers to cultural preservation.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from celebrating AI’s potential to acknowledging its disruptive risks. It introduced urgency to the conversation and influenced later speakers to address the ‘dark side’ of technology, particularly Peter Bruck’s more critical assessment.

Today we need to not just talk about the bright side, we need to talk about the dark side… if you are not willing to address that in terms of preserving culture and language in the digital era, you are just wrong… The huge achievement of social media has in fact turned against preserving cultural heritage

Speaker

Peter A. Bruck

Reason

This was a powerful wake-up call that challenged the panel’s relatively optimistic tone. Bruck directly confronted the reality that social media and algorithmic content have actively undermined cultural diversity, using the concrete example of young girls aspiring to be Instagram influencers as evidence of cultural homogenization.

Impact

This comment created a dramatic tonal shift in the discussion, moving from technical solutions and policy frameworks to a more critical examination of technology’s actual impact. It forced subsequent speakers to acknowledge the severity of the challenges and influenced Caroline Vuillemin’s acknowledgment that this ‘should not be a wake-up call’ because the reality is already evident.

User data are collected from every corner of the world, and they are monopolized by five big tech companies. And if we are not addressing the monopolization of that, which is hyperscaling, by taxing those hyperscale companies, we are just not having the resources for cultural preservation and diversity

Speaker

Peter A. Bruck

Reason

This comment connects cultural preservation directly to economic power structures, arguing that without addressing tech monopolization and creating funding mechanisms through taxation, cultural preservation efforts will remain under-resourced. It’s a systemic analysis that goes beyond technical solutions.

Impact

This introduced an economic dimension to the discussion that hadn’t been explicitly addressed before, suggesting that cultural preservation requires not just technical solutions but fundamental changes to how tech companies are regulated and taxed. It influenced Narendra Kumar Goyal’s subsequent emphasis on government funding and grassroots support.

We cannot describe our culture and our land if we do not have a language. And preserving culture means nurturing the spirit and identity of communities from within

Speaker

Narendra Kumar Goyal

Reason

This philosophical insight captures the fundamental relationship between language and cultural identity, emphasizing that preservation must come from within communities rather than being imposed externally. It provides a humanistic counterpoint to the technical discussions.

Impact

This comment grounded the discussion in fundamental human values and shifted focus toward community-driven solutions. It influenced the moderator’s final emphasis on diversity and inclusion as ‘basic human rights’ and helped frame the conclusion around respecting ‘humanity in its globality.’

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a purely technical discussion about AI and language tools into a nuanced examination of power structures, cultural values, and systemic challenges. The progression from Ozols’ strategic framework, through Bonis’ technical concerns, to Bruck’s critical wake-up call, and finally to Goyal’s humanistic grounding created a comprehensive dialogue that acknowledged both opportunities and threats. The comments collectively shifted the discussion from optimistic problem-solving to realistic assessment of the scale of challenges, ultimately leading to Caroline Vuillemin’s conclusion that framed linguistic diversity as a fundamental human right requiring political will and sustained funding.

How to rebuild search engine optimization efforts and source verification systems when AI prompts replace traditional search engines

Speaker

Pierre Bonis

Explanation

This addresses a critical challenge where 20 years of work on search engine optimization and content discoverability may need to be rebuilt as AI systems change how people access information

How to develop harmonized national frameworks that balance cultural preservation with innovation, particularly for indigenous rights protection

Speaker

Elisabeth Stewart Bradley

Explanation

The lack of consistent international frameworks creates challenges in protecting indigenous cultural heritage while allowing respectful innovation and commercial use

How to address the monopolization of user data by five big tech companies and implement taxation of hyperscale companies to fund cultural preservation

Speaker

Peter A. Bruck

Explanation

This tackles the fundamental issue of resource concentration and funding mechanisms needed to support cultural diversity initiatives globally

How to address data gaps for developing AI systems that support lesser-known and minoritized languages

Speaker

Narendra Kumar Goyal

Explanation

Many languages lack sufficient digital data to train AI systems, creating barriers to their preservation and digital inclusion

How to create different AI systems fed with diverse cultural documentation to avoid minoritizing non-Western creativities and intelligences

Speaker

Alfredo Ronchi

Explanation

Current AI systems are predominantly trained on Western content, risking the loss of diverse cultural perspectives and ways of thinking

How to counter the homogenizing effects of social media algorithms that favor extremist content and eliminate cultural diversity

Speaker

Peter A. Bruck

Explanation

Social media platforms are actively reducing cultural diversity through algorithmic promotion of uniform content and extremist material

How to ensure cultural sensitivity in AI design and development processes

Speaker

Narendra Kumar Goyal

Explanation

AI systems need to be designed with cultural awareness to avoid perpetuating biases or misrepresenting cultural content

How to scale successful national language digitization programs like Latvia’s and India’s Bhasani to other countries and languages

Speaker

Gatis Ozols and Narendra Kumar Goyal

Explanation

Understanding how to replicate successful models could help preserve more languages globally in the digital age

Summary

This discussion was an interactive stakeholder consultation session for the WSIS+20 review process, featuring co-facilitators Ambassador Suela Janina and Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale, along with ECOSOC President Robert Ray. The session aimed to gather input from various stakeholders including government representatives, civil society, private sector, and technical community members on the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society review.

The co-facilitators emphasized their commitment to maintaining an open, transparent, and inclusive process throughout the WSIS+20 review. They outlined their roadmap, which includes extending the deadline for input submissions to July 25th, preparing a zero draft in August, and conducting both virtual and hybrid consultations to accommodate global participation challenges. Ambassador Janina stressed the importance of building on what has worked well over the past 20 years while addressing areas needing improvement.

Participants raised several key concerns and suggestions during the consultation. Multiple stakeholders emphasized the need for genuine multi-stakeholder participation throughout the process, particularly during intergovernmental negotiations. There were significant concerns about accessibility, with many noting that visa restrictions and travel costs create barriers for Global South participation in New York-based meetings. Several speakers called for the process to be forward-looking rather than revisiting settled debates, while others argued that some issues may need reopening due to technological and societal changes over the past two decades.

The discussion highlighted the importance of coordination between WSIS+20 and other ongoing UN processes, particularly the Global Digital Compact and Internet Governance Forum. Participants suggested strengthening regional and national IGFs to enable broader participation and better implementation monitoring. The co-facilitators acknowledged these challenges and committed to using technology creatively to enhance inclusion, while maintaining transparency through detailed summaries and documentation of all consultations on the dedicated UNDESA webpage.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS+20 Review Process and Timeline**: Extensive discussion about the roadmap for the World Summit on the Information Society 20-year review, including key dates, consultation phases, and the preparation of zero drafts. Participants sought clarification on specific timelines, particularly regarding consultations scheduled for August through December 2024.

– **Multi-stakeholder Participation and Inclusivity Challenges**: Significant focus on ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholder groups, with particular concern about barriers to participation in New York-based consultations due to visa restrictions, funding constraints, and geographic accessibility. Discussions included proposals for hybrid formats and virtual participation options.

– **Integration and Coordination with Other UN Processes**: Participants raised questions about how the WSIS+20 review would align with other ongoing UN initiatives, particularly the Global Digital Compact (GDC), IGF (Internet Governance Forum), and various AI governance processes to avoid duplication and fragmentation.

– **Future-focused vs. Historical Approach**: Debate about whether to focus on forward-looking solutions rather than revisiting settled language from previous agreements, while acknowledging that some issues may need updating to reflect technological and societal changes over the past 20 years.

– **Strengthening Implementation and Monitoring Mechanisms**: Discussion about improving the effectiveness of WSIS action lines, enhancing the role of IGF in monitoring progress, and creating better coordination between national, regional, and global levels of implementation.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion was an interactive consultation session between WSIS+20 co-facilitators (Ambassadors Janina and Lokaale) and multi-stakeholder participants to gather input on the review process of the World Summit on the Information Society after 20 years. The goal was to collect perspectives, expectations, and recommendations to inform the preparation of the review documents and ensure an inclusive, transparent process.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout. It began formally with introductory remarks but quickly became more interactive and engaging as participants raised practical concerns and suggestions. The co-facilitators demonstrated openness to feedback and flexibility in addressing stakeholder concerns, particularly around participation barriers. While some tensions emerged around procedural challenges and resource constraints, the overall atmosphere remained positive and solution-oriented, with all parties expressing commitment to making the process as inclusive and effective as possible.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Anita Gurumurthy** – Session moderator/facilitator

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Ambassador, WSIS+20 co-facilitator

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Session organizer/moderator

– **Online participant** – Dr. Lab Singh, Vice reporter on study group about digital skill framework, 35 years experience in IT and telecom sector in India

– **Panelist 1** – Kusaya Al-Shati from Kuwait, Private sector

– **Bruna Santos** – Works at Witness, a human rights organization based in New York that works on AI

– **Suela Janina** – Ambassador, WSIS+20 co-facilitator

– **Paloma Lara Castro** – Representing Derechos Digitales, part of the Global Digital Justice Forum in the WSIS Coalition

– **Panelist 3** – Chris Buckridge, Member of the IGF MAG for the technical community, member of the sounding board

– **Konstantinos Komaitis** – Session moderator/facilitator

– **Participant 1** – Canadian Ambassador, President of ECOSOC (Mr. Robert Ray)

– **Panelist 9** – (Role/expertise not specified)

– **Panelist 7** – Titi Casa, Works for Italian government

– **Panelist 8** – Ellie McDonald, Speaking on behalf of Global Partners Digital, member of the Global Digital Rights Coalition

– **Panelist 2** – Chris Adamson, UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology

– **Panelist 4** – Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Retired professor, MUG member, member of the sounding board

– **Panelist 5** – Sébastien Bachelet, Internet Society France, chair of EURALO (end user within ICANN from Europe)

– **Panelist 10** – William Lee, Australian Government

– **Panelist 6** – Anna Osterling, Works for Article 19, a local-to-global freedom of expression organization

– **Panelist 11** – Wearing Asia-Pacific regional IGF hat, from Nepal (LDC)

**Additional speakers:**

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

# WSIS+20 Interactive Stakeholder Consultation: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This interactive stakeholder consultation session for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-year review process brought together diverse participants including government representatives, civil society organizations, private sector entities, and technical community members. The session was facilitated by WSIS+20 co-facilitators Ambassador Suela Janina and Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale, alongside ECOSOC President, and included 40 remote participants joining virtually.

Gitanjali Sah opened the session emphasizing that WSIS has an “open format” and the interactive nature of the consultation. The discussion focused on procedural matters, participation challenges, and coordination with other UN processes, with co-facilitators demonstrating openness to stakeholder feedback throughout the consultation.

## Process Framework and Timeline

### Roadmap and Key Dates

Ambassador Janina announced the extension of the deadline for elements paper submissions to July 25th to accommodate stakeholder feedback and ensure broader participation. The zero draft preparation is scheduled for August, with co-facilitators committing to provide updated roadmap details by the end of July.

Ambassador Lokaale emphasized that the co-facilitators operate under delegated authority from the President of the General Assembly, with periodic meetings scheduled to update on progress and maintain alignment with UN priorities.

### Consultation Methodology

The co-facilitators outlined plans for hybrid consultation formats to address participation challenges, including accommodation of different time zones and virtual participation options. Ambassador Janina mentioned the potential use of artificial intelligence for discussion summaries.

The sounding board, comprising expert representatives from various stakeholder groups, was positioned as an important communication channel, though co-facilitators clarified that regional and thematic consultations through existing coalitions would be equally encouraged.

## Participation and Inclusivity Challenges

### Geographical and Structural Barriers

Multiple participants raised concerns about barriers to meaningful participation, particularly affecting Global South stakeholders. Anna Osterling from Article 19 highlighted how visa restrictions and travel costs create structural exclusions, noting these challenges extend beyond New York to other international meeting venues.

Ambassador Lokaale acknowledged these systemic barriers, stating: “It’s not just New York. I know New York now is much more difficult. We met groups in Norway who said many more people could not travel to the IGF because of the visa restrictions… So what does this mean? I think it’s a challenge for us to make these processes truly inclusive by finding ways of getting those who cannot travel to these capitals, to these venues, and I’m talking about people from Africa, people from most of the global south who are excluded by structural things that have nothing to do with WSIS or IGF or bad policies of governments.”

### Power Imbalances in Multi-stakeholderism

An Iranian representative highlighted how large technology companies possess significantly more resources and influence compared to small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries, questioning the effectiveness of multi-stakeholderism at the international level. The representative also raised concerns about unilateral coercive measures (UCM) affecting digital development.

Ambassador Lokaale acknowledged these concerns, recognizing that “big tech, big private sector companies hold certain leverage because of resources and the capacities that are available to them compared to the smaller ones.”

### Proposed Solutions

Ellie McDonald from Global Partners Digital proposed leveraging existing coalitions and regional forums rather than creating new consultation mechanisms. The co-facilitators responded positively, with Ambassador Janina expressing openness to regional consultations and utilizing established networks.

## Methodological Approach and Scope

### Forward-Looking Versus Historical Perspectives

Chris Adamson from the UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology emphasized the need for a “future-focused, action-oriented” approach, arguing that limited time should not be spent on historic issues or previously agreed language.

Sébastien Bachelet from Internet Society France provided a counterpoint, noting that “life changed within these 20 years, and maybe there are some issues that need to be reopened… because, for example, the work done by NetMundial need to be taken into account.”

Ambassador Lokaale responded that “if, in the opinion of stakeholders, we need to revisit some of the discussions in order to bring them up to speed with the current or recent developments, as a matter of necessity, then we’ll have to do that,” while maintaining the principle of using agreed language from the Global Digital Compact and other consensual documents as starting points.

### Integration with Other UN Processes

Participants expressed concerns about fragmentation across different UN digital governance initiatives. Bruna Santos from Witness highlighted concerns about “mirroring debates across UNESCO, global panels, and GDC processes,” while Titi Casa from the Italian government suggested upgrading the Internet Governance Forum to monitor progress of WSIS Action Lines and Global Digital Compact objectives.

## Transparency and Accountability

### Documentation and Public Access

Multiple participants emphasized the importance of comprehensive transparency measures. Bruna Santos requested summaries of stakeholder consultations for accountability purposes, while Anna Osterling called for live streaming and detailed summaries of negotiations when full stakeholder participation is not possible.

Ambassador Janina committed to maintaining transparent documentation on the dedicated UNDESA webpage, including summaries of consultations and clear identification of areas of agreement and disagreement.

### Stakeholder Engagement During Negotiations

Wolfgang Kleinwächter raised questions about “how co-facilitators will cooperate with the President of the General Assembly to ensure stakeholder input impacts intergovernmental negotiations.” A suggestion was made to use the Cyber Crime Convention as a precedent for inclusive participation modalities.

## Substantive Issues and Priorities

### Vulnerable Groups and Corporate Accountability

Anna Osterling stressed the importance of including vulnerable groups and underserved communities, while Paloma Lara Castro from Derechos Digitales highlighted the need for corporate accountability mechanisms and application of UN guiding principles on business and human rights.

### Digital Literacy and Education

Dr. Lab Singh, participating online, contributed specific suggestions about “student-centric strategies for sustainable, resilient media literacy,” demonstrating the breadth of issues stakeholders consider relevant to the review process.

## Regional Engagement

### Asia-Pacific Perspectives

Representatives from the Asia-Pacific region expressed appreciation for efforts to accommodate regional participation. A representative from Nepal extended an invitation to participate in the Asia-Pacific regional IGF scheduled for October 11-14.

William Lee from the Australian Government and other regional representatives highlighted the importance of regional engagement and leveraging existing networks.

### Global Digital Rights Coalition

References were made to the Global Digital Rights Coalition and their letters containing process recommendations, indicating organized civil society input into the consultation process.

## Key Commitments and Next Steps

The co-facilitators committed to:

– Providing updated roadmap details by the end of July

– Beginning intensive work with the sounding board

– Preparing the zero draft during August following the extended deadline

– Maintaining transparency through comprehensive documentation on the UNDESA webpage

– Supporting hybrid consultation formats and regional consultations

– Periodic updates to the General Assembly President

## Conclusion

This consultation demonstrated both the opportunities and challenges of inclusive global digital governance. While participants showed agreement on the importance of transparent, inclusive processes, significant challenges remain around addressing structural barriers to participation and power imbalances within multi-stakeholder frameworks.

The co-facilitators’ openness to feedback and flexibility in addressing stakeholder concerns provides a foundation for the review process. The success of the WSIS+20 review will depend on translating these procedural commitments into meaningful participation opportunities and substantive outcomes that address both historical digital divide issues and emerging challenges in global digital governance.

Gitanjali Sah: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us for this session. And as you know that WSIS has always had a very open format, we had an interactive session with the GDC co-facilitators, and our WSIS plus 20 co-facilitators, Ambassadors Janina and Ambassador Lokaale were, of course, very open to this idea, and they were excited to be able to interact with all the stakeholder community present here. So this will really literally be an interaction between all stakeholders present in the room, so you can just raise your hand, and you can take the floor. We are helped by Konstantinos and Anita today, who will help us basically moderate this session. We are also joined by the President of ECOSOC, Mr. Robert Ray, so we are really privileged to have him here, because it is a UN process, and it will feed into the ECOSOC and the UNGA. So very, very quickly, those of you who are familiar or not familiar with the WSIS process, it’s a serious process. We have designed a preparatory process for the overall review. Everybody knows the Ambassadors by now, so they are here in front of us, in case those of you who haven’t met them. They have put together a roadmap, which you all have also seen, which they want to make sure leads to a very consultative process. So maybe I can first invite Ambassadors to say hello to everybody in the room. Ambassador Janina, over to you.

Suela Janina: Good afternoon to everyone. It’s a pleasure to be in this session of consultations, following the previous consultations we had in Paris a few weeks ago, and also at IGF in Oslo. It’s also a privilege to be together with our President of ECOSOC, dear Bob, and to share a common objective of this process of review of WSIS plus 20, which comes to a crucial moment for the Internet society would like to have for the next 20 years. It will be very important to emphasize that we are both together with my colleague, Ambassador Leo Kalle, very committed to have an open, transparent, and inclusive process. So for the time being, we’re very happy to hear from you. What are your perspectives, expectations from the overview process? We have also had some very useful inputs from Lillestrom. I’m not at this point trying to come over each of them, but they are really very important points on which we would like to build also today. So we encourage you to be active, participating in this process, which will continue for the next weeks. We have a roadmap, as you already mentioned, Gitanjali. We had also a call for inputs for the element paper that has been published a few days ago. We have also extended the deadline in order to accommodate many stakeholders and to really respect and uphold this multi-stakeholder model that WSIS inherits from its very start days of the beginning, and we hope to also enrich with this review process. So thank you very much for the discussions.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Janina. Ambassador Lokaale, please. Thank you very much, Gitanjali, and good afternoon, colleagues. First, I would like to thank you for having us. I’m very happy to have a colleague, Ambassador Ray, clearly seeing the three of us coming out of New York here for consultations, including the president of the ECOSOC, it’s clear testament that Geneva and New York are not that far, as sometimes we think to say, and particularly on an important agenda such as the one that we’re discussing. Second thing, we’ve benefited immensely from talking to many of you with whom we met at the IGF, and over the last couple of days, you know, the useful points which have come out of those interactions, for example, the future of the IGF, relationship between the WSIS Outcome Review and other related processes such as the GDC, you know, WSIS Outcome Review within the context of SDGs, place of emerging technologies, issues such as capacity building, particularly for countries of the Global South, financing mechanisms, whether or not we need to have targets for follow-up and measurement of progress, and so on. So these are some of the issues on which we’d like to hear, you know, your feedback this afternoon. So our role this afternoon is to listen to you, and we very much look forward to that, and yeah, to continue this conversation. Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Lokaale, we really appreciate your patience and your kindness. Thank you, Ambassadors. So could we please also invite the Canadian Ambassador, who is the president of the ECOSOC, to say a few words, and then we will start our interaction.

Participant 1: Very few words indeed. I’m delighted to be here with my colleagues. I think they were surprised to see me as probably as you all are. I am a regular participant in events as president of ECOSOC in New York, but also in Geneva and in other capitals where the UN is active because of so many critical issues. I just wanted to say that although we have a lot of processes going on at the UN all the time, this question around the digital economy, digital society, the digital divide, are really critically important to all of us, and this, I think, is one more opportunity to see what more we can do and engage with all of you as member states and also as members of civil society. And I’m just very glad to be able to sit here and listen and not have to say anything more. So that’s an advantage. It’s important to listen.

Ekitela Lokaale:

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much. I’m going to take your notes and take the vision of this room to the ECOSOC in New York. Thank you very much. I’d like to hand over to our colleagues Konstantinos and Anita to continue the moderation with all the stakeholders present in the room. Over to you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Gitanjali. Hi, everyone. Thank you very much. Gitanjali, I don’t need to say anything. I believe that the ambassadors put a very good context of what this conversation is about. I’m very glad to see a full room, and we can start with questions, I mean, this is a – or comments about the process. So, please, over to you. This is – Yes. Thank you very much. I’m going to take your notes and take the vision of this room to the ECOSOC in New York. Thank you very much. I’d like to hand over to our colleagues Konstantinos and Anita to continue the moderation with all the stakeholders present in the room. Over to you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So, please, over to you.

Panelist 1: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet with the co-facilitators of the World System Plus 20. This is Kusaya Al-Shati from Kuwait. Obviously, in the roadmap, I’m seeing many steps coming, and I just have some clarification – I would like to have some clarification about some of the steps. After August, obviously, there is an open consultation – there’s a consultation with the stakeholders that will be held virtually, and there is another consultation in November with the stakeholders and member states at the UN headquarter. And yet, in mid-October, there is a second preparatory meeting and stock-taking session at the UN headquarter. That’s in New York, if I am not mistaken. So talking about the process after the zero draft, which is in mid-October, and after the draft outcome in November, are these multi-stakeholder, or will it be purely governmental? Are we – and there will be a process to submit our input – that’s one. According to the high-level meeting and the General Assembly in December 16 to 17, will be the – as there will be, like what happened, the future summit, a side event for multi-stakeholder organizations. So we just wonder if we can – and there are some people who can be there at present in New York when it is the stock-taking sessions, whether mid-October or November, and 16th and 17th of December.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Can you also please tell us which organization you’re working for or you’re a fan?

Panelist 1: I’m a private sector.

Konstantinos Komaitis: That’s it. Okay. Do we have any other question or comment? Please, go ahead.

Panelist 2: Thank you very much. My name is Chris Adamson. I’m from the UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology. I’d first just like to say a huge thank you to the co-facilitators for being so open and transparent and available throughout this process so far. It’s really appreciated, it’s recognized by all as well. So, I’d like to start with that. Thank you. I do have one point I want to stress before I have a question. Time is quite short, of course. We all recognize that the window for these discussions is shorter than probably we would normally like to have. I would just like to say that this WSIS review does need to be as future-focused, action-oriented as possible to address the opportunities and challenges around digital development that we all face. I’d just like to stress the point that we should avoid as much as possible spending time discussing issues that are historic, language that’s been agreed in other texts and things like that. So, I just want the co-facilitators to take note of that and really emphasize that discussions that we have should be on future-focused agenda, rather than looking backwards. The question I do have is, when will the co-facilitators be releasing specific details on the dates and timings of the informal discussions and negotiations during the autumn? I think the key point here is this is essential for planning purposes, particularly for stakeholders in getting to New York as well as the global majority and making sure that they can be fully inclusive in this world. Early planning is usually something that is something that we would obviously like to prefer to have. So, thank you very much.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thanks, Greg. We have another question and then we can go back to you, Chris, please.

Panelist 3: There we go. My name is Chris Buckridge. I’m a member of the IGF MAG for the technical community. And I’m very pleased also to be part of the sounding board that was announced this week. So, this is pre-empting a bit some of the discussions that I’m sure we will have, but I think in a sort of more public venue, I was just wanting to ask maybe a bit about your vision for that sounding board and how you see it contributing to developing the resolution and moving towards the WSIS review.

Suela Janina: Thank you very much for this very useful and direct questions. When it comes to the process, this is true that we need also to reflect with flexibility, but also with concrete dates that all stakeholders are prepared for their engagement, for future engagement. So, because we have heard some requests, we have extended the deadline for the WSIS review the deadline for inputs for the elements paper. It has been initially 15 of July. Now it’s 25 of July. And by the end of July, we’ll update also the next steps. We foresee that after we receive all inputs by the end of July to prepare the zero draft during the month of August. By the end of August, you’ll be possible that you have this zero draft and you’ll have a period of time that you can reflect on concrete language on what we are going to propose as the zero draft. Then we understand a little bit also the difficulties of traveling to New York. So, our aim is to put on this consultation also the hybrid element or to get use of the technology. We are speaking of technology. So, how we can make it more useful in terms of inclusion and participation. So, by the end of July, we’ll have very clear and more focused roadmap on exact dates that everyone that will be able to join us in New York can plan for the trip. Those that have not possibilities to come to New York to have this opportunity to connect online. So, the multistakeholder approach will be respected very rigorously throughout the process. The other question was about the sounding board. Congratulations for being a member and congratulations to everyone that has been selected by us as co-facilitators on some… We try to respect the criteria that we have put for fair representation based on regional representation, experience, but also gender. I mean, for us, it’s also important because if we speak also about digital divide, this is an element that we also have to reflect in the representation of the sounding board. But the sounding board, we have repeated that several times. It’s not the only channel of communication with us as co-facilitators because if we are committed to very open process, that is the invitation for everyone throughout this roadmap that we have presented, but in a very informal way to approach us, to send us your inputs, or just if you would like to have some more regional consultation, we are really very eager to follow and to participate in all the discussions that you may have asked us or just put to our attention that something has happened regionally, a kind of discussion on which the process can benefit. So, in that regard, we are very much open and would like to start working very closely and intensified way with the sounding board. So, bear with us. If we are not going to have summer vacations, sounding board, prepare not to have yourself some vacations during this period. We’ll start tomorrow. Let’s be transparent. We’ll have a meeting with all of you tomorrow and we’ll build jointly a plan of how to tackle all these upcoming weeks with just as someone mentioned, that seems to be some weeks, but needs to be intensive because really we are not the luxury of losing time and also reflecting the importance of the process and the high expectations that we are very much aware everyone is putting on this process.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. Well, you didn’t forget much. Yeah, thank you, Chris, from the UK. I think there’s general agreement that we need to conduct the current review in a forward-looking manner and not to revisit some of the debates that we’ve had in the past, where those have been settled or where there is consensus or general agreement that they are not extremely useful anymore to have. So we’ll try as much as possible not to unnecessarily resurrect those debates. Second is, yeah, our understanding is that we will use the agreed language, including in the GDC and other consensual documents as a starting point and that we’ll not try to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. So unless concepts or ideas have not been agreed in a language, then we’ll not have a reason to give new meaning or come up with a new language, unless absolutely necessary. Thank you.

Anita Gurumurthy: Apologies for that, and thank you so much. We just wanted to suggest that if you would like to sit behind, maybe you could use those, but I mean, that’s not a guarantee of comfortable seating, but this is an overwhelming response. So we can take another set of questions, maybe a couple more, yeah. Yeah, Professor Wolfgang.

Panelist 4: Thank you very much. My name is Wolfgang Kleinwächter. I’m a retired professor, MUG member, and also now a member of the sounding board. You know, the modalities resolution gives the president of the General Assembly a special role in convening the stakeholder consultations in New York, and the president should collect input from these consultations. So my question is, how do, as co-facilitators, want to cooperate with the president of the General Assembly to guarantee that the input which is collected by the president has an impact into the intergovernmental negotiations? Thank you very much.

Anita Gurumurthy: Any other? Yeah.

Panelist 5: Thank you very much, Sébastien Bachelet, Internet Society France, and chair of EURALO, the end user within ICANN from Europe. I heard the discussion about not changing something who are already been agree upon, but life changed within these 20 years, and maybe there are some issues that need to be reopened, because, or open, I will say, because, for example, the work done by NetMundial need to be taken into account, and I am not sure that the wording made 20 years ago will be or could be the same. That’s what we need today. My second point, it’s… Please, please, don’t multiply the place where we need to discuss something or where the topic we need to discuss, because we can’t do that. We can’t afford to be everywhere in New York, in Geneva, and some other places in this world. And we spend a lot of time already just trying to find a way to allow the multistakeholder and particularly end-user and civil society to be present and not ask us to be split into ten or twenty places different. Thank you very much.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Ekitela Lokaale: Professor, indeed, the Modalities Resolution says that the President of the General Assembly will facilitate consultations. Actually, the two of us are acting under delegated authority from the President of the General Assembly. So what we are doing here is on behalf of and with the authority of the President. There are no parallel consultations that the PGA is conducting. These are the consultations, okay? And if it will give you comfort, we periodically have meetings with the PGA to update the President of the General Assembly on the progress of the process. So we do this every couple of weeks, and it’s something that we’ve built into our own program of work. Sorry, I missed your name, because we are consulting here a little bit. Like we said, where there is no need to reopen, then we will not reopen the language. But if, in the opinion of stakeholders, we need to revisit some of the discussions in order to bring them up to speed with the current or recent developments, as a matter of necessity, then we’ll have to do that. We’re not saying no to everything, including, for example, to just give an example, and I don’t want to open the debate at this stage on the action lines. That’s one of the things people are saying. There are those who say action lines are good enough. There are others who say let’s update them. So that’s a discussion we’re going to have and then come to some form of agreement. On the forums, the reason why we’ve placed them openly is for colleagues to know, those who are able to plan to be in New York can then have time and space to plan to be there. But for stakeholders, we are trying to make them virtual, because then in that way, many people are able to participate remotely. And then we’ve also tried to, in putting the time slots, take cognizance of the different time zones. And this is something we did, for example, during the informal consultations on the 9th and 10th of June. We had one consultation late into the night for us in New York in order to make time, I think, for the Pacific or one of the regions. And then the other day, we had it quite early to take care of the other side of the globe. So that’s how we are trying to accommodate. Thank you.

Suela Janina: Thank you, but there is not much to be added on both points that my colleague already explained very well. But just to add the point of the full support that we have also from the Office of the President of the General Assembly. We have met with him and we have had really meaningful discussion on the topic and also continuously coordinating on the process. So there is full alignment in everything we are doing. And we are also fortunate to have the support of the Secretariat of UNDESA and other agencies. If I may just recall something that Gitanjali said to me from the start, that there is a WSIS community. And this is really very much helpful, because we see everyone very much engaged to give ideas, proposals. This leads me to the second point of the request not to multiply also initiatives, also forums. And here we come to a very specific part of our consultation and negotiations that we really need concrete ideas and what really works for you. What is effective? What is something that during these 20 years has functioned well and we need to preserve, to protect and to enrich? And what is something that really needs to be addressed in a way of improving it? And if we start on this kind of approach, there are a lot of elements to discuss here. If you are discussing, for example, for WSIS architecture, how we can improve IGF or how to better connect IGF with WSIS forum. These are some of the questions or the elements that we have heard very often. But we’ll really, if we want to have a deep dive on that, we really need this kind of concrete inputs from you, from the community. What are really the instruments that have proved to be successful on which we can build upon this new architecture or improved architecture of WSIS that we would like to have for the next 20 years?

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Ambassador. Oh, excellent. Three hands. Bruna? Sorry. Let’s start with Bruna. Please.

Bruna Santos: Thanks for making me the favorite. Thank you, Ambassadors, for the conversation and for the openness as well. My name is Bruna Santos, I work at Witness, a human rights organization based in New York that works on AI. So my question is going to be about that part. I do appreciate the acknowledgments about the set so-called power imbalances on AI governance discussions and the need for fostering new technologies on that. But we do have seen, we have indeed seen some level of fragmentation or mirroring of the debates on AI governance from, you know, from UN agencies, UNESCO, the creation of the global panel and the scientific, the global fund, the scientific panel and everything that emerged from the GDC. So my question to you guys is whether there is a clear idea already on how you’re going to integrate all of those debates or promote a bit more of alignment between what’s going on in the different agencies. And if I may just make a point about the consultations, I think the main point that was missing from the GDC consultations was a bit more time for stakeholders to be heard because at some point they would just be cut off. And I don’t want to suggest any more work to you guys by no means, but if you could work on perhaps summaries of how the stakeholder consultations went, I think it would be a great point on accountability and transparency for the whole process. So thanks.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Bruna. Thank you, Bruna. Let’s take the other two. Thank you. Anna, please go ahead.

Panelist 6: Thank you so much. My name is Anna Osterling and I work for Article 19, a local-to-global freedom of expression organization. And I had the wonderful opportunity to speak to both ambassadors multiple times in Dillström, so I’ll keep this very brief because I’ve given you my substantive inputs. There’s just one substantive point and one procedural point I’d like to make. In terms of substance, one thing that I would really like to emphasize is the need for inclusion in terms of what will go into to make sure that the WSIS framework really results in an inclusive information society, just to make sure that we include all vulnerable groups, communities, hard-to-reach, underserved, far-away communities, migrants, refugees, and so forth. So that’s just one point I would like to reiterate, to be as inclusive as we can. In terms of the process, we are also a member of the Global Digital Rights Coalition on WSIS, and I know you’ve seen our letters with process recommendations. I’m just looking at the roadmap, and since you’re suggesting you will update it, if I might just question or maybe make a suggestion. In terms of, I’m really happy to see the consultations that you are planning with stakeholders. If they are in New York, then I can tell you that for a lot of stakeholders, especially from civil society, especially from global majority, but equally from Global North, it will be very, very difficult to come to New York in these current circumstances, both due to funding restrictions, but also concerns around visa and immigration. And this is an extreme concern for everyone in the community. So just to make sure that if you’re doing it in New York, we probably won’t be able to attend. So it’s great that you’re doing it virtually. I would love to, though, make sure that the consultations are joined, because it is great to be there and to talk, but we want member states to hear us. We want them to hear what we have to say. So it would be really important for all stakeholders, civil society, technical community, academia, private sector, and the member states to talk together. And then the other question I would have in terms of procedure, it’s wonderful to have these consultations and it’s wonderful that you’re so open, but once member states go into negotiations and the intergovernmental process happens, please still consider the input from stakeholders and make them as open as possible. There is obviously the maximalist solution, like at the Human Rights Council, where actually stakeholders are in the room and able to take the floor, which I’m happy to suggest. I know New York is not Geneva, but why not? But if not, then at least live stream on UN Web TV, offer summaries afterwards, something so we can stay in touch with what’s happening and remain included in the process. So it would be wonderful if you could reflect some of that in your roadmap. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Anna. Please go ahead, introduce yourself as well.

Panelist 7: Thank you. My name is Titi Casa. I work for Italian government. So I want to share just general consideration, because I think that the WSIS, the Global Digital Compact, also the IGF, are important initiatives, and each of them has significant strengths but also some weakness. And the enhancing cooperation among these initiatives could help to reinforce each one’s strengths and address their respective gaps. And so I think the key word here is the cooperation, the cooperation among all these three initiatives that could help to drive the implementation of the WSIS vision and the achievement also of the GDC objectives. The WSIS is an important and robust framework that has played an important and critical role in all this year-in-advance digital transformation across all UN member states. But at the same time, even if every year there is an important assessment that is conducted to monitor progress, despite all these efforts, it’s quite challenging to capture the comprehensive snapshot of the implementation of the WSIS Action Line at national, regional, and global level. At the same time also, I mean, the Global Digital Compact is making an important effort to try to implement this dashboard to collect inputs and to understand the status of the five objectives. Also there are some things that are in common. So I think that in all this process to monitor and to progress the status of the Action Line and also to achieve the GDC objectives, an important role could be played by the IGF. So I think the IGF should remain a platform, a debate platform, but it should be upgraded in order to have also the important role to monitor the progress of the Action Line. Because the IGF is an important network that includes 177 NRIs, but also several dynamic coalitions, all the intersessional activities. So they could contribute to understand what progress has been made on the Action Line, but also on the GDC. So I think in this context, this should be considered, I mean, in the evolution of the IGF and the evolution of the WSIS framework. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you so much. Any reflections, Ambassadors?

Suela Janina: The first general reflection, thank you very much for all the points. And the first general reflection would be that all these points are very carefully taken note. Because I suppose that everyone understands that at this point, when still the consultation is open, we are still waiting for inputs. We cannot take, let’s say, side in terms of trying to understand from this very point which is the most favorable one. So the richness of the process and the effectiveness is that we hear as many. Many of the ideas that you are putting converge. We have heard them in IGF. We are hearing it. And it’s not that it’s bad repetition. In this way, it’s positive. Because it emphasizes really what are the expectations that you have. And all these elements are crucial. Inclusivity. We have discussed it. You pointed out very strongly the fact that there are constraints for participating in the consultation and negotiation process. That’s why we have been flexible also to accommodate different time zones. We’ll do it in the future as well. Also including the fact of hybrid formats or online participation. If you have any other concrete idea or how to use the new technologies. We have had also ideas of how to use AI in terms also of summaries of discussions. When it comes to the point of the discussion summaries raised by Bruna as well. We have already started to do that. I don’t know if you have had the chance. DESA has set up a specific dedicated webpage on which every activity that we are doing is being reflected. And this has started also with the summary of the consultation with member states. The summary of consultation with stakeholders during the two days. It has also a reflection of main takeouts that we have had from IGF. It will continue with this forum. All your inputs will be transparently put to the webpage. So it will continue like that and we hope that you will support us also in this kind of engagement that is based on the transparent way that we would like to conduct the negotiation and the consultation process. Another point that you, Bruna, raised and is very important in the discussion we are doing is how to link and how to find this kind of synergies and alignment with the process that are taking place already at the UN. Sometimes we need also to agree on something that we are not able to stop the processes that have already started. What we need to do is to find the synergies between them and to align them under an umbrella that covers everything but also having in mind that we have existing mechanism in place that we can use and just to try to be also very much aware on the process that we are going and the president of ECOSOC can also support the idea that we are hearing more and more and more engaged on the initiative UN80. So anyone is not feeling the appetite to have new instruments or to put more money on the scarce resources that we have. The role of IGF is also linked with the point that the delegate from Italy made and the fact that we need also to put the products that we have at the national level and their eyes are very important at the regional level and also how to use the same discussion, GDC aligned with WSIS and use the same instruments that we can find to be effective and helpful in both processes.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you Ambassador. Nothing much to add except I think on the issue of inclusion, particularly these constraints that geographical locations of consultations have on participation. It’s not just New York. I know New York now is much more difficult. We met groups in Norway who said many more people could not travel to the IGF because of the visa restrictions. They couldn’t get the Schengen visa. I’m sure there are many more people who would have wanted to be in this room here in Geneva but are not able to come because they can’t get the visa. So what does this mean? I think it’s a challenge for us to make these processes truly inclusive by finding ways of getting those who cannot travel to these capitals, to these venues, and I’m talking about people from Africa, people from most of the global south who are excluded by structural things that have nothing to do with WSIS or IGF or bad policies of governments and so on. So that’s a challenge on all of us. But also secondly, if we were to migrate to virtual consultations, very good, it’s inclusive in that sense for those who are able to log in, you know, still. So there are different levels of exclusion which thankfully forms the subject matter of WSIS, right, to bridge the digital divide and so on and so forth. But on the specifics, I’m not competent enough to really say because we can migrate it from New York and then bring it to Geneva perhaps, well, maybe more inclusive, but then that those who will have, still find Geneva inaccessible because they can’t get the Schengen visa, you know. So what do we do? But there’s been a very interesting suggestion around strengthening the IGF, people saying, you know, strengthen the regional IGFs, strengthen the national IGFs so that more and more of these conversations can take place at levels where people would ordinarily find themselves. And then, you know, even the expense of the cost of hosting an IGF, for instance, make it affordable for countries of the global south. host so that it’s not prohibitive and so on and so forth. So I guess that’s what I would say but the rest of the comments are welcome. We’ve taken very good note of them and we will process them together with others that will come through in the next couple of weeks. Thank you. Well that’s all I have to say at this point. I think I don’t know whether we’ve left out any but we can always.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you Ambassadors. We’d like to inform the room that there is remote participation and around 40 of our participants are joining remotely. If they would like to take the floor they can raise their hand and the remote participation moderator will tell us. Thank you very much.

Anita Gurumurthy: For another point of information I think we have just about 17 minutes left at this point and unless we can go over the hour is it possible that I wouldn’t know? Sorry. Yes but there are others in the queue I would certainly was that all right. So let’s start here and then the delegate there and Paloma and yourself. Thank you.

Panelist 8: Thank you so much. My name is Ellie McDonald and I’m speaking on behalf of Global Partners Digital. We’re also a member of the Global Digital Rights Coalition that my colleague Anna mentioned earlier. I really appreciate this opportunity to speak as well as all of the comments you’ve just made Ambassadors about the measures you’re taking to ensure an inclusive process. I can be quite brief but I just had two follow-ups. I wanted to ask particularly about the consolidation of the inputs received and to make a suggestion that if it would be possible to make visible the areas where there are agreement as well as those where there is not yet agreement. That could be really helpful for our community to be able to target the interventions that we wish to make most effectively to inform your work. The second point is that we really welcome the creation of the Sounding Board and it’s a really useful measure and you have some really excellent experts on board. I also really appreciate the acknowledgement you made earlier that this will not be the only channel to engage the stakeholder community. I wanted to ask what measures you have in mind beyond the October consultation to engage the broader set of stakeholders and if you don’t mind to make a suggestion that you make use of some of the coalitions and forums that we already have. I already mentioned the Global Digital Rights Coalition. I know there are a number of stakeholder coalitions represented here today. Also regional forums and spaces and perhaps an approach that leverages them as well as providing space for thematic and regional consultation could be really helpful.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thanks for the time to speak. There is a participant online, Dr. Lab Singh. So I call on Dr. Singh to please take the floor and if you could kindly keep your comments to about two minutes. Thank you.

Online participant: Yes, thank you. Thank you so much. Actually, my name is Dr. Lab Singh and I’m basically a vice reporter on the study group about digital skill framework, you know. I have put in something like 35 years in IT and telecom sector in India. So I have been going through, I mean from last two days I’m attending the proceeding. My points are already in the chat box. Will it be possible to just read it out and then get the, you know, response from that? Could you just see that?

Anita Gurumurthy: We’ll try to convey that to the ambassadors. Meanwhile, we will move on to the next delegate. There’s Paloma and then there’s Willem. Thank you so much.

Panelist 9: Thank you. Thank you, all facilitators and ambassadors. Actually, something I have, I want to raise, I mean, three points. The first is about multi-stakeholderism. When we talk about multi-stakeholderism in national level, it is a, I mean, a good approach to, I mean, to let all stakeholders give opinion about different issues that are related to digital and AI or, I mean, internet affairs. But when we are talking at the international level, stakeholders, especially big, I mean, tech companies, they are not in the same, I mean, position. Some of them are very strengths. They are powerful and, I mean, they can have dominant role in the digital area. And so, regarding this, I mean, issue, I believe that it is very important that in review of VCs, we address this kind of, I mean, this kind of things, because small and medium-sized companies in developing countries cannot, I mean, have equal participation in the international area. Another point is about the UCM, because the unilateral coercive measures is, I mean, this kind of measures are very important and big assets for having inclusive and development-oriented information societies. And some developing countries are suffering these issues. Then my last point is about digital divide. In some, let’s say, paragraphs of documents of VCs in 2003 and 2005, especially paragraph like 61 and 66, are directly on digital divide. As we see, the digital divide, I mean, haven’t, I mean, digital divide exists, and there is a need to focus on this problem in VCs review. Very, I mean, especially we should pay attention to this problem. Thank you.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you very much. I just wanted to read out what Mr. Singh wanted to contribute. It is just a suggestion to have student-centric strategies for sustainable, resilient media literacy. So he is keen to input that. I request Paloma and others to keep your input to as short as possible, so that we have a chance to hear from the ambassadors.

Paloma Lara Castro: Hi, thank you. I’m Paloma Lara Castro, representing Derechos Digitales, and also part of the Global Digital Justice Forum in the WSIS Coalition. I’m going to be very brief, because I know I’ve spoken a lot of times, so two points. One substantive point has to do with the need to address corporate accountability, especially the need to make sure that the UN guiding principles on business and human rights are applied and are actually being effective within this process, especially considering how strategic is logistics and corporate massive extraction is being affected specifically on Global South. So this is a problem that needs to be addressed. And then on the second point, just to process, you asked on how other processes could serve as a basis or as an example of more inclusive participation, and I think that we can point to the Cyber Crime Convention, that although it needs a lot of improvement, it’s not perfect at all, but still it gave us a chance to be in the same room while states were negotiating, and we could see not only the proposals, but the track of changes. So that made it more possible for us to engage more directly and to have more participation and to be aware of what the discussions were, and at least point to know where the discussions were in the agreement and disagreements. So I think that that could also serve as a precedent for future implementation in this process. Thank you.

Panelist 10: Thank you, Ambassadors, for being here, and thank you for giving me the floor. My name is William Lee from the Australian Government. I firstly just wanted to thank you on the way that the process has been run. I think it has been an excellent process so far, and your commitment to even simply spending three weeks in Europe, having conversations with stakeholders, I think has been well noted. The other thing I would note as a country from the Asia-Pacific, your recognition of the challenge of time zones has been strongly heard in our region, and we have certainly heard feedback from our stakeholders that your recognition of that has been really appreciated. I wanted to touch on the question of how we as UN member states can support you in terms of the process going forward. I think it is a true service that you are both doing to the WSIS community to lead this review, both on behalf of the community but also on behalf of all members of the UN General Assembly. And I suppose my question is simply how can we as member states, as governments across the world help support you in the process that lies ahead. Thank you very much.

Anita Gurumurthy: We have our last participant.

Panelist 11: Thank you so much. I will not repeat most of the points William said, many things which I wanted to say. And I would be wearing my Asia-Pacific regional IGF hat at this point. Thank you for recognizing and acknowledging that having regional discussions or at national levels would help. In that context, I would like to invite the co-facilitators to the Asia-Pacific regional IGF, which would be from 11th to 14th in October. There would be a lot of maturity in the discussions. Please come and hear the voices of Asia-Pacific. Nepal is an LDC, so we would have an amalgamation of all kinds of APAC voices. So please do come. Thank you.

Ekitela Lokaale: All right. Thank you. First, again, let me thank all of you for the very useful comments. A lot of them will definitely go a long way in helping us to clarify this. The first comment that I would make is I would encourage all of us, including those following online, to just visit the UNDESA page and see, for example, what we’ve done with the summaries on the IGF consultations. So there you’ll see under each of the issues, areas where – and I’m trying to respond to the colleague who spoke first – areas where there seems to be some general agreement on what needs to be done. So we intend to keep it that way as much as possible, and to the extent that the rules and procedures and so on, as we all understand, will permit. But it’s our intention to be as transparent as we possibly can. Dr. Singh, I think your suggestion to have student-centric strategies is well noted. In one of the virtual consultations, there was a young person – actually, it was a teen – who said that teenagers need to be recognized as one of the stakeholders. So comments such as those actually enrich the discussion and broaden the horizons of some of these concepts. So that point is well noted. Multistakeholderism – sorry, I didn’t get the name of the colleague. We know that big tech, big private sector companies hold certain leverage because of resources and the capacities that are available to them compared to the smaller ones. I think that’s a point that we are aware of. UCM – this point has been raised in the past – from Iran, thank you. This point has been raised by a number of member states. We’ve taken note of it, and we’ll find how to address it in the document. Thank you, William, for that encouragement. How you can support us as member states, I think, is for us to have constructive conversations because the WSIS vision, the WSIS discussion, is in the interest of all of us, all stakeholders, all member states. So whatever we can do to make the negotiations as less difficult as possible, even where we don’t agree, we find a way of bridging those divides. And if Ambassador Yanina and I can co-facilitate a process that leads to a consensual outcome, I think that would be a big achievement. As you know, that is becoming increasingly difficult of late, but we hope that with the support of all of you and member states, we’ll be able to achieve that. Asia Pacific, thank you again for the very kind invitation. We’ve made ourselves available to participate as much as we can. But you know, as ambassadors in New York, we handle everything, you know, from nuclear and proliferation to peace and security to all this, but we take this task very seriously. Where we’re able to physically come, we’ll happily do so. But if because of exigencies of work, we’re not able to, we’ll try to participate remotely. But again, thank you for inviting us to your beautiful region. I’ll be particularly happy to come if I’m able to. Thank you.

Suela Janina: Thank you, Ambassador. I think it’s, on the short time that we have at the disposal, it’s not very easy to touch on everything. But rest assured that everything is being taken note, and it will also be combined with the written inputs that you have been invited to address to us, and also will be of relevance for the future discussions that we’ll have. So I don’t think it will take a lot of time to go one by one. You, Ambassador, mentioned many of them. But an element that has been raised often is this kind of sometimes misunderstanding on the concept of multi-stakeholderism at the national level and vis-a-vis the international level. So there is no doubt on the international level, sometimes we have been said that governments understand it in a different way in the national level, not giving the full kind of cooperation and space that is needed. So let’s understand a little bit more on that if there is really some examples or a way how to foster also this element of multi-stakeholderism at the national level. And of course the fact that MS, MS have different position to participate, so we know this kind of constraints and how to make small and medium enterprises to be more involved, it’s also another challenge. And I wanted also to conclude with the question, very pertinent question made by the colleague of Australia, how you can help us member states. But I would put it in more broader terms of how we can help each other in this process, because I believe that the major mindset we should have is that let’s take ownership of the process all together. Sometimes we have this use of words within our roles and responsibilities, but really it’s important that each of us can be also a little bit open-minded, because we know that sometimes we are seen like different islands focusing on our particular interests. So more concretely, if there is this request from stakeholders to have this joint kind of consultations, you as member states can have a say on it, because sometimes we are not on the same line of thinking with everyone. So if you really would like or are able to support some initiatives coming from stakeholders, that would be very great and good message that we really are aiming to the same objective and we are putting the same efforts to it. So I mean, that is the thing that I would like to conclude. Let’s keep alive the spirit of OASIS and let’s enrich it to make it fit for the future. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Ambassador Janina, Ambassador Lokaale, thank you so very much for being here, for listening, for participating, and thank you all very, very much for also asking all the questions. And I believe that Gitanjali, would you like to say? Okay. So thank you all very much and have a good evening.

Agreement points

Need for inclusive and transparent multi-stakeholder process

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Panelist 6
– Panelist 8

Arguments

Emphasis on open, transparent, and inclusive process throughout

Accommodation of different time zones in virtual consultations

Need for joint consultations between stakeholders and member states

Encouragement for leveraging existing coalitions and regional forums

Summary

All speakers agreed on the fundamental importance of maintaining an inclusive, transparent process that accommodates all stakeholders through various means including hybrid formats, time zone considerations, and leveraging existing networks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Challenges of geographical accessibility and visa restrictions

Speakers

– Panelist 6
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Panelist 5

Arguments

Concerns about visa restrictions and travel costs limiting participation

Recognition of structural exclusion challenges for Global South participants

Request to avoid multiplying discussion venues and forums

Summary

Multiple speakers acknowledged the practical barriers to participation, particularly for Global South participants, due to visa restrictions, travel costs, and the burden of multiple venues.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Need for transparency and documentation throughout the process

Speakers

– Bruna Santos
– Panelist 6
– Panelist 8
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Request for summaries of stakeholder consultations for accountability

Request for live streaming and summaries of negotiations

Suggestion to make visible areas of agreement and disagreement

Commitment to transparent documentation on UNDESA webpage

Summary

There was strong consensus on the need for comprehensive documentation, transparency measures, and accountability mechanisms throughout the consultation and negotiation process.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Importance of forward-looking approach while being selective about reopening settled issues

Speakers

– Panelist 2
– Panelist 5
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Emphasis on forward-looking, action-oriented discussions

Recognition that some issues may need reopening due to technological changes

Flexibility to update discussions where necessary for current developments

Summary

Speakers agreed on balancing forward-looking discussions with selective reopening of issues where technological and societal changes necessitate updates, while avoiding unnecessary revisiting of settled matters.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers expressed concern about fragmentation across different UN processes and emphasized the need for better coordination and alignment between WSIS, GDC, IGF, and other related initiatives rather than creating new mechanisms.

Speakers

– Panelist 7
– Bruna Santos
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Need for alignment between WSIS, GDC, and IGF initiatives

Concerns about fragmentation across UN agencies on AI governance

Finding synergies between existing processes rather than creating new ones

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Asia-Pacific representatives appreciated the co-facilitators’ efforts to accommodate regional participation challenges and emphasized the importance of regional engagement in the process.

Speakers

– Panelist 10
– Panelist 11
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Appreciation for recognition of Asia-Pacific time zone challenges

Invitation to participate in Asia-Pacific regional IGF in Nepal

Accommodation of different time zones in virtual consultations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need to address power imbalances and ensure protection of vulnerable groups, whether through inclusive frameworks or corporate accountability mechanisms.

Speakers

– Panelist 6
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Need for inclusion of vulnerable groups and underserved communities

Importance of addressing corporate accountability and UN guiding principles

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

Use of AI and technology for process improvement

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Suggestion to use AI for discussion summaries

Zero draft preparation during August with hybrid consultation options

Explanation

It was somewhat unexpected that the co-facilitators themselves suggested using AI technology for improving the consultation process, showing openness to innovative approaches in a traditionally formal UN setting.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Recognition of power imbalances in multi-stakeholderism

Speakers

– Panelist 9
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Power imbalances between large tech companies and smaller entities in multi-stakeholderism

Recognition of structural exclusion challenges for Global South participants

Explanation

There was unexpected acknowledgment from both a developing country representative and a co-facilitator about the inherent power imbalances in the multi-stakeholder model, which is typically promoted as an equitable approach.

Topics

Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on procedural matters including the need for inclusive, transparent processes, accommodation of participation barriers, and comprehensive documentation. There was also agreement on balancing forward-looking approaches with selective updates to existing frameworks, and on the need for better coordination between related UN processes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on procedural and process-related issues, with constructive alignment between co-facilitators and stakeholders on how to conduct the review. The consensus suggests a collaborative approach that could facilitate successful negotiations, though substantive policy disagreements were not extensively explored in this session.

Different viewpoints

Whether to reopen settled language and agreements from previous WSIS processes

Speakers

– Panelist 2
– Panelist 5

Arguments

Avoiding revisiting settled debates from the past

Recognition that some issues may need reopening due to technological changes

Summary

Panelist 2 emphasized avoiding discussions of historic issues and language already agreed in other texts to focus on future-oriented agenda, while Panelist 5 argued that life has changed significantly in 20 years and some issues may need to be reopened, specifically mentioning NetMundial work that needs to be taken into account.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Approach to multi-stakeholderism at international vs national levels

Speakers

– Panelist 9
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Power imbalances between large tech companies and smaller entities in multi-stakeholderism

Emphasis on open, transparent, and inclusive process throughout

Summary

Panelist 9 highlighted significant power imbalances at the international level where big tech companies dominate while small and medium-sized companies in developing countries cannot participate equally, while the co-facilitators emphasized maintaining inclusive multi-stakeholder processes without directly addressing the power imbalance concerns.

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role and scope of the sounding board as communication channel

Speakers

– Panelist 3
– Panelist 8
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Question about vision for sounding board contribution to resolution development

Encouragement for leveraging existing coalitions and regional forums

Emphasis that sounding board is not the only communication channel

Explanation

While there was general appreciation for the sounding board creation, there was subtle disagreement about its role and exclusivity. Some stakeholders seemed concerned about it becoming the primary channel for engagement, while co-facilitators had to clarify it wouldn’t be the only communication avenue.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The consultation showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being procedural rather than substantive. Main areas of disagreement included whether to revisit settled language from previous processes, how to address power imbalances in multi-stakeholderism, and practical concerns about participation accessibility.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most participants shared common goals of inclusive, transparent, and effective WSIS review process, but differed on specific approaches and mechanisms. The disagreements were constructive and focused on process improvements rather than fundamental opposition to the review itself. This suggests good potential for consensus-building, though attention will be needed to address participation barriers and power imbalances raised by stakeholders.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers expressed concern about fragmentation across different UN processes and emphasized the need for better coordination and alignment between WSIS, GDC, IGF, and other related initiatives rather than creating new mechanisms.

Speakers

– Panelist 7
– Bruna Santos
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Need for alignment between WSIS, GDC, and IGF initiatives

Concerns about fragmentation across UN agencies on AI governance

Finding synergies between existing processes rather than creating new ones

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Asia-Pacific representatives appreciated the co-facilitators’ efforts to accommodate regional participation challenges and emphasized the importance of regional engagement in the process.

Speakers

– Panelist 10
– Panelist 11
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Appreciation for recognition of Asia-Pacific time zone challenges

Invitation to participate in Asia-Pacific regional IGF in Nepal

Accommodation of different time zones in virtual consultations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need to address power imbalances and ensure protection of vulnerable groups, whether through inclusive frameworks or corporate accountability mechanisms.

Speakers

– Panelist 6
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Need for inclusion of vulnerable groups and underserved communities

Importance of addressing corporate accountability and UN guiding principles

Topics

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

The WSIS Plus 20 review process will be conducted with an open, transparent, and inclusive multi-stakeholder approach, with co-facilitators acting under delegated authority from the UN General Assembly President

The process will be future-focused and action-oriented, avoiding revisiting settled historical debates while using agreed language from GDC and other consensual documents as starting points

Hybrid consultation formats will be implemented to address participation barriers, including visa restrictions, travel costs, and time zone differences that particularly affect Global South stakeholders

The deadline for elements paper inputs has been extended to July 25th, with zero draft preparation during August and updated roadmap details to be provided by end of July

There is recognition of power imbalances in multi-stakeholderism between large tech companies and smaller entities, particularly affecting developing countries

Integration and alignment between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes is needed to avoid fragmentation and leverage existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones

Transparency will be maintained through documentation on UNDESA webpage, including summaries of consultations and areas of agreement/disagreement

The sounding board will work intensively but is not the only communication channel – regional and thematic consultations through existing coalitions are encouraged

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators will provide updated roadmap with specific dates by end of July 2024 for autumn negotiations planning

Zero draft will be prepared during August 2024 after receiving all inputs by July 25th deadline

Hybrid consultation formats will be implemented to accommodate different time zones and remote participation

Sounding board meeting scheduled to begin immediately (tomorrow) with intensive work schedule

All inputs and consultation summaries will be transparently documented on dedicated UNDESA webpage

Co-facilitators will continue periodic meetings with UN General Assembly President to update on process progress

Regional consultations will be supported, with invitation extended to participate in Asia-Pacific regional IGF in Nepal (October 11-14)

Unresolved issues

Specific modalities for stakeholder participation during intergovernmental negotiations remain unclear

How to effectively address power imbalances between large tech companies and smaller entities in multi-stakeholder processes

Integration mechanisms between WSIS review, GDC implementation, and IGF evolution are not yet defined

Whether WSIS Action Lines need updating or are sufficient as currently structured

How to ensure meaningful participation from Global South stakeholders facing structural barriers (visas, funding)

Specific role and enhanced functions for IGF in monitoring Action Lines progress

How to address unilateral coercive measures impact on developing countries’ digital development

Corporate accountability mechanisms and application of UN guiding principles on business and human rights

Suggested compromises

Use hybrid formats (in-person and virtual) for consultations to balance inclusivity with meaningful participation

Leverage existing coalitions and regional forums rather than creating new consultation mechanisms

Focus on areas needing updates due to technological changes while preserving agreed language where consensus exists

Strengthen regional and national IGFs to enable more accessible participation for those unable to travel to major capitals

Provide live streaming and detailed summaries of negotiations when full stakeholder participation in rooms is not possible

Use technology (including AI) for discussion summaries and documentation to improve transparency and accessibility

Coordinate timing and content between WSIS review and other UN digital processes to avoid duplication while maintaining distinct roles

Time is quite short, of course. We all recognize that the window for these discussions is shorter than probably we would normally like to have. I would just like to say that this WSIS review does need to be as future-focused, action-oriented as possible to address the opportunities and challenges around digital development that we all face. I’d just like to stress the point that we should avoid as much as possible spending time discussing issues that are historic, language that’s been agreed in other texts and things like that.

Speaker

Chris Adamson (UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology)

Reason

This comment was insightful because it directly addressed a fundamental tension in international negotiations – the balance between building on existing agreements versus getting bogged down in rehashing old debates. It provided strategic guidance for how to use limited time effectively.

Impact

This comment significantly influenced the co-facilitators’ approach, with Ambassador Lokaale directly responding that there was ‘general agreement that we need to conduct the current review in a forward-looking manner’ and that they would use ‘agreed language, including in the GDC and other consensual documents as a starting point.’ It established a key principle that guided subsequent discussions about methodology.

I heard the discussion about not changing something who are already been agree upon, but life changed within these 20 years, and maybe there are some issues that need to be reopened, because, or open, I will say, because, for example, the work done by NetMundial need to be taken into account, and I am not sure that the wording made 20 years ago will be or could be the same.

Speaker

Sébastien Bachelet (Internet Society France, chair of EURALO)

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it directly challenged the previous speaker’s position about not reopening settled issues, introducing nuance about when revisiting agreements might be necessary due to technological and social evolution over 20 years.

Impact

This created a productive tension in the discussion, forcing the co-facilitators to clarify their position. Ambassador Lokaale responded by acknowledging that ‘if, in the opinion of stakeholders, we need to revisit some of the discussions in order to bring them up to speed with the current or recent developments, as a matter of necessity, then we’ll have to do that,’ showing how the comment helped refine the approach to balancing continuity with necessary updates.

When we talk about multi-stakeholderism in national level, it is a, I mean, a good approach… But when we are talking at the international level, stakeholders, especially big, I mean, tech companies, they are not in the same, I mean, position. Some of them are very strengths. They are powerful and, I mean, they can have dominant role in the digital area… small and medium-sized companies in developing countries cannot, I mean, have equal participation in the international area.

Speaker

Paloma (representing developing country perspective)

Reason

This comment was deeply insightful because it exposed a fundamental flaw in the idealized notion of multi-stakeholderism – that power imbalances between different types of stakeholders can undermine the principle of equal participation, particularly affecting Global South actors.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical perspective that reframed the entire discussion about inclusivity. It moved beyond procedural concerns about participation to substantive questions about power dynamics. Ambassador Lokaale acknowledged this point, stating ‘We know that big tech, big private sector companies hold certain leverage because of resources and the capacities that are available to them compared to the smaller ones,’ showing how the comment elevated the discussion to address structural inequalities.

It’s not just New York. I know New York now is much more difficult. We met groups in Norway who said many more people could not travel to the IGF because of the visa restrictions… So what does this mean? I think it’s a challenge for us to make these processes truly inclusive by finding ways of getting those who cannot travel to these capitals, to these venues, and I’m talking about people from Africa, people from most of the global south who are excluded by structural things that have nothing to do with WSIS or IGF or bad policies of governments.

Speaker

Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale

Reason

This was a remarkably candid acknowledgment from a co-facilitator about systemic barriers to participation that go beyond the scope of the WSIS process itself, showing sophisticated understanding of how global inequalities affect international governance processes.

Impact

This comment transformed the discussion from focusing on logistical solutions to acknowledging deeper structural problems. It validated concerns raised by multiple stakeholders about accessibility and shifted the conversation toward more creative solutions like strengthening regional IGFs and national-level processes, fundamentally reframing how to think about inclusive participation.

I wanted to ask what measures you have in mind beyond the October consultation to engage the broader set of stakeholders and if you don’t mind to make a suggestion that you make use of some of the coalitions and forums that we already have… Also regional forums and spaces and perhaps an approach that leverages them as well as providing space for thematic and regional consultation could be really helpful.

Speaker

Ellie McDonald (Global Partners Digital)

Reason

This comment was strategically insightful because it offered concrete solutions for enhancing participation by building on existing networks rather than creating new mechanisms, addressing the concern about multiplying forums while maximizing outreach.

Impact

This comment helped bridge the tension between the need for broad consultation and the constraint of limited resources and time. It influenced the co-facilitators’ thinking about leveraging existing structures, with Ambassador Janina responding positively about being ‘very much open’ to regional consultations and using established networks.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and nuances that forced deeper examination of core assumptions. The exchange between Chris Adamson and Sébastien Bachelet established the methodological framework for balancing continuity with necessary updates. Paloma’s intervention about power imbalances elevated the conversation from procedural to substantive concerns about equity in global governance. Ambassador Lokaale’s candid acknowledgment of structural barriers validated stakeholder concerns and reframed the inclusion challenge. Ellie McDonald’s suggestion about leveraging existing networks provided a practical path forward. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a routine consultation into a more sophisticated discussion about the fundamental challenges of inclusive, effective global digital governance in an unequal world.

Are the consultations after the zero draft (mid-October stock-taking session and November consultation) multi-stakeholder or purely governmental?

Speaker

Kusaya Al-Shati (Kuwait, private sector)

Explanation

This clarification is important for stakeholders to understand their level of participation in later stages of the process and plan accordingly.

Will there be side events for multi-stakeholder organizations during the high-level meeting at the General Assembly (December 16-17)?

Speaker

Kusaya Al-Shati (Kuwait, private sector)

Explanation

This affects how stakeholders can participate in the final stages of the WSIS review process.

When will specific details on dates and timings of informal discussions and negotiations during autumn be released?

Speaker

Chris Adamson (UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology)

Explanation

Early planning is essential for stakeholders, especially from the global majority, to secure funding and visas for participation in New York.

What is the vision for the sounding board and how will it contribute to developing the resolution?

Speaker

Chris Buckridge (IGF MAG, technical community)

Explanation

Understanding the role and function of the sounding board is important for effective participation and coordination.

How will co-facilitators cooperate with the President of the General Assembly to ensure stakeholder input impacts intergovernmental negotiations?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwächter (retired professor, MAG member, sounding board member)

Explanation

This addresses the critical link between stakeholder consultations and the formal negotiation process.

How will AI governance discussions be integrated across different UN agencies and processes to avoid fragmentation?

Speaker

Bruna Santos (Witness)

Explanation

There is concern about mirroring debates across UNESCO, global panels, and GDC processes, requiring better coordination.

What measures beyond the October consultation will engage the broader stakeholder community?

Speaker

Ellie McDonald (Global Partners Digital)

Explanation

This seeks to understand how stakeholders can remain engaged throughout the negotiation process beyond formal consultations.

How can existing coalitions and regional forums be leveraged for thematic and regional consultations?

Speaker

Ellie McDonald (Global Partners Digital)

Explanation

This could make the consultation process more efficient and inclusive by using established networks.

How can small and medium-sized companies in developing countries achieve more equal participation at the international level?

Speaker

Unnamed participant (Iran)

Explanation

This addresses power imbalances in multi-stakeholderism where big tech companies have dominant roles compared to smaller entities.

How can multi-stakeholderism be better fostered at the national level?

Speaker

Suela Janina (co-facilitator, responding to various inputs)

Explanation

There appears to be a gap between how multi-stakeholderism works internationally versus nationally, requiring better understanding and examples.

How can the IGF be upgraded to monitor progress of WSIS Action Lines and GDC objectives?

Speaker

Titi Casa (Italian government)

Explanation

This explores how to enhance cooperation between WSIS, GDC, and IGF to address their respective gaps and strengthen their collective impact.

How can consultation processes be made truly inclusive given visa restrictions and travel constraints for Global South participants?

Speaker

Multiple participants (Anna Osterling, Ekitela Lokaale, others)

Explanation

This addresses structural barriers to participation that affect the legitimacy and inclusiveness of the consultation process.

Summary

This discussion focused on democratizing access to knowledge through diamond open access publishing and the right to information, as part of the WSIS Action Line on access to information and knowledge. UNESCO representatives emphasized that access to scientific knowledge is a global necessity that drives innovation and sustainable development, yet remains deeply unequal due to expensive paywalls that particularly affect institutions in the Global South. The session explored diamond open access as a solution, which allows authors to publish and readers to access research freely through public funding and community-driven frameworks, contrasting with traditional subscription models and gold open access that shift costs to authors.

UNESCO’s global consultation on diamond open access collected insights from over 2,900 stakeholders across 92 member states, revealing that equity, feasibility, and cost-saving were the most valued benefits, while funding and recognition remained the biggest challenges. The discussion highlighted alarming cost increases in traditional publishing, with European subscription prices tripling in recent years and gold open access expenditures reaching 8.3 billion euros between 2019-2023. Representatives from IFLA emphasized libraries’ crucial role in providing public access to information, particularly for underserved populations without connectivity, and their involvement in negotiating with publishers and supporting open access initiatives.

The International Federation for Information Processing raised important questions about how artificial intelligence will transform information access, suggesting that traditional library models must evolve as knowledge becomes increasingly born-digital and accessible through AI systems. Participants discussed successful diamond open access implementations in Latin America, France, and Indonesia, demonstrating that government support and institutional collaboration are essential for sustainable models. The session concluded with recognition that the information landscape has fundamentally changed, requiring new policies and approaches that move beyond traditional business models to ensure equitable access to knowledge in the digital age.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Diamond Open Access Model as an Alternative to Costly Publishing**: The discussion extensively covered diamond open access publishing, which allows authors to publish and readers to access research freely without paywalls or author processing charges. This model is presented as a solution to the expensive subscription and gold open access models that create barriers, particularly for institutions in the Global South.

– **UNESCO’s Role in Monitoring Access to Information Laws (SDG 16.10.2)**: UNESCO serves as the custodian agency for monitoring the implementation of access to information laws globally. Through annual questionnaires sent to member states, UNESCO tracks progress from 62 responding countries in 2019 to 125 in 2024, emphasizing both adoption and implementation of these laws.

– **Libraries as Critical Infrastructure for Information Access**: The role of libraries, particularly public and academic libraries, was highlighted as essential for providing equitable access to information, especially for underserved populations without private internet access. Libraries serve as community spaces that remove barriers like subscriptions and paywalls while supporting open access initiatives.

– **Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Traditional Information Access**: The discussion addressed how AI and large language models are fundamentally changing how people access information, potentially making traditional library cataloging and indexing systems obsolete, and requiring new policies for digital natives who will use AI rather than traditional library resources.

– **Global Inequalities in Scientific Knowledge Access**: A central theme was addressing the disparity between developed and developing nations in accessing scientific research, with much publicly-funded research remaining behind expensive paywalls, reinforcing global inequalities in scientific participation and policy-making.

## Overall Purpose:

This session was part of the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) Action Line on Access to Information and Knowledge, aimed at exploring how to democratize access to scientific knowledge through diamond open access models and broader right-to-information frameworks. The discussion sought to gather insights for the WSIS+20 review and develop policy recommendations for creating more equitable, sustainable knowledge-sharing systems globally.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and forward-looking tone throughout, with speakers building upon each other’s points constructively. The tone was professional yet urgent, emphasizing the need for systemic change in how scientific knowledge is accessed and shared. While acknowledging significant challenges (high costs, global inequalities, technological disruption), the overall sentiment remained optimistic about solutions like diamond open access and the potential for international cooperation to create more equitable knowledge systems. The tone became slightly more urgent toward the end when discussing AI’s disruptive impact and the need to adapt policies for future generations.

Speakers

– **Davide Storti**: From UNESCO, session moderator for the WSIS action line session on access to information and knowledge

– **Zeynep Varoglu**: UNESCO senior program specialist in charge of access to information, participated online

– **Marius Lukosiunas**: From UNESCO, works on SDG 16.10.2 (access to information laws) as UNESCO is the custodian agency for this indicator

– **David Oliva Uribe**: UNESCO consultant specializing in diamond open access and scientific communication research

– **Maria de Brasdefer**: Representative from the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA)

– **Anthony Wong**: President of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), formerly worked with Thomson Reuters on digital transformation

– **Participant**: Student studying in France, asked questions about diamond open access implementation

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list provided.

# Summary: WSIS Action Line Session on Access to Information and Knowledge

## Introduction and Context

This discussion formed part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Action Line session on access to information and knowledge, moderated by Davide Storti from UNESCO. The session brought together international experts to examine how to democratise access to knowledge through diamond open access publishing and broader right-to-information frameworks.

The participants included Zeynep Varoglu from UNESCO’s Open Science team, Marius Lukosiunas from UNESCO’s Communication and Information sector, David Oliva Uribe from Science Europe, Maria de Brasdefer from the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), and Anthony Wong from the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP).

## Access to Information as a Universal Right

Zeynep Varoglu opened by emphasising that “access to scientific knowledge is not a luxury, it’s a global necessity that drives innovation, supports sustainable development, and informs public policy.” She highlighted that current access remains deeply unequal, with publicly funded research locked behind expensive paywalls that particularly affect institutions in the Global South.

Marius Lukosiunas reinforced this rights-based approach by highlighting UNESCO’s role as custodian agency for SDG 16.10.2, which monitors implementation of access to information laws globally. He reported that 139 countries have adopted such laws, and UNESCO’s questionnaire responses expanded from 62 countries in 2019 to 125 in 2024. He also mentioned UNESCO’s support for the International Day of Universal Access to Information, which now features over 124 national celebrations, and their capacity building efforts through MOOCs.

## The Crisis of Current Publishing Models

David Oliva Uribe presented concerning statistics about the unsustainable costs of traditional academic publishing. He reported that European subscription prices tripled between 2019 and 2023, rising from 0.5 billion euros to 1.5 billion euros. Meanwhile, gold open access expenditures reached 8.349 billion euros globally between 2019-2023, demonstrating that shifting costs from libraries to authors has not resolved the fundamental affordability crisis.

This economic burden was illustrated by a student participant from France, who shared personal experience of facing 20-euro charges for individual scientific articles—a cost that creates significant barriers for researchers with limited resources.

## Diamond Open Access as a Solution

The discussion extensively explored diamond open access as an alternative model that allows authors to publish and readers to access research freely without paywalls or author processing charges. This approach relies on public funding and community-driven frameworks rather than commercial subscription or fee-based models.

UNESCO’s global consultation on diamond open access collected insights from over 2,900 stakeholders across 92 member states. Varoglu reported that equity, feasibility, and cost-saving were the most valued benefits, whilst funding and recognition remained the biggest implementation challenges. She noted that the full UNESCO report will be published at the end of the month.

David Oliva Uribe highlighted successful implementations in various regions, noting that countries like France and several Latin American nations are implementing diamond open access through government support and university collaboration. He specifically mentioned that Indonesia has over 6,000 diamond open access journals and highlighted institutions like Red Alec and CLACSO as promoting diamond open access in Latin America. He also referenced the European Diamond Capacity initiative led by Science Europe.

## The Role of Libraries

Maria de Brasdefer from IFLA emphasised libraries’ crucial role in providing equitable access to information, particularly for underserved populations without private internet access. She explained that libraries historically operate on open access principles, removing barriers like subscriptions and paywalls whilst serving as community spaces that democratise information access.

Libraries support open access initiatives through multiple mechanisms: maintaining open repositories, guiding researchers toward open access platforms, negotiating with publishers for lower subscription fees, and establishing funds through research grants to support open access publishing. Brasdefer argued that access to information laws should specifically mention libraries rather than including them under broad “community spaces” terminology.

## Technology and Future Considerations

Anthony Wong from IFIP provided perspective on how technology is transforming information access. He noted that IFIP was founded by UNESCO in 1960 and now has 13 technical committees with 100 working groups and over 6,000 professionals. IFIP offers a digital library at ifip.org with more than 20,000 freely accessible documents.

Wong observed that most publications are now available through large language models and noted that China is introducing AI education in primary and secondary schools, suggesting future students may primarily use AI rather than traditional library resources. He also mentioned possibilities like virtual reality and avatars providing new ways to access knowledge, whilst emphasising the need to balance technological capabilities with ethical considerations about protecting sacred and indigenous knowledge.

## Balancing Openness with Protection

Wong highlighted that some indigenous knowledge should be sacred and protected rather than freely accessible, requiring careful balance in access policies. Maria de Brasdefer acknowledged this complexity whilst emphasising libraries’ role in promoting multilingual knowledge and preserving traditional and indigenous knowledge in communities.

## Key Commitments and Next Steps

The session generated several concrete commitments. UNESCO committed to publishing the full report on diamond open access consultation findings at the end of the month. Participants were invited to contribute views for the WSIS+20 review process. IFIP offered to contribute to policy discussions on AI’s impact on information access.

Varoglu synthesised the discussion by noting that “it can’t be business as usual,” acknowledging that traditional approaches are no longer sufficient in the digital age. The session demonstrated both the urgency of current information access challenges and the potential for collaborative solutions through diamond open access models, library support, and technological innovation.

## Conclusion

This WSIS Action Line session successfully connected policy principles with concrete implementation examples and personal experiences. The discussion highlighted the need for sustainable funding models for diamond open access, the crucial role of libraries in democratising access, and the importance of adapting to technological change whilst respecting cultural boundaries around certain types of knowledge.

The success of existing implementations in various countries provides evidence that alternative models are achievable when institutional support and policy frameworks align. As participants prepare for the WSIS+20 review, this discussion provides a foundation for developing policies that can democratise access to knowledge whilst maintaining the flexibility to adapt to technological and social change.

Davide Storti: waiting yes yes so we can start and welcome to this very early morning session and thank you for being here this is a session which is a is a what is called an action line session uh as part of the WSIS action plan so there is a several action line and this line is particularly called the access to information and knowledge action line and which is quite a transversal one because you can’t maybe achieve anything of the other action lines without access to information uh and data so I’m pleased to have with me um so this is Davide Storci from UNESCO first of all and I’m pleased to have with me a few speakers distinguished speakers from IFLA, Maria Bradefer, having online there is my colleague Zeynep Varoglu a senior program specialist in charge of access to information uh Mr. Marius Lukoszny was also from UNESCO, Mr. Anthony Wong from the information Federation of Information Processing and uh Mr. David Oliva-Uribe was also our consultant at UNESCO on on these issues so without further ado I’d like to to give the floor to um to start uh to my colleague Zeynep Varoglu who is online.

Zeynep Varoglu: Thank you Davide, thank you very much and welcome to all the participants, welcome dear colleagues, dear friends to the session on democratizing digitizing knowledge through diamond-open access and the right to information. Access to scientific knowledge is not a luxury, it’s a global necessity. It drives innovation, supports sustainable development, and informs public policy. At UNESCO, we see access to knowledge as a public good, yet today access remains deeply unequal. Much scientific knowledge, especially when publicly funded, remains locked behind expensive paywalls out of reach for many researches and institutions, particularly in the global South. It’s limits who can participate in science and policymaking, reinforcing global inequalities. To address this, UNESCO promotes Open Solutions, a portfolio that includes open educational resources, open data, free and open-source software, and open access to research. These digital public goods break down barriers, foster inclusive innovation, and build fair and resilient knowledge societies. Diamond-open access is central to this vision. It allows authors to publish and readers to access research freely. Based on public funding and community-driven, multilingual, non-commercial frameworks, diamond-open access turns aspiration to action, building a knowledge ecosystem rooted in equity, openness, and sustainability. This approach aligns with WISE’s Action Line D3, which recognizes access to information and knowledge as universal rights and fundamental to inclusive development. It urges stakeholders to promote affordable public access through open archives and scientific information. Open access removes cost barriers and empowers communities to share knowledge freely. In the context of the Global Digital Compact, openly shared scientific knowledge functions as a true digital public good. accessible, interoperable, and governed in the public interest. This strengthens the digital ecosystems that underpin innovation and collaboration worldwide. Today, we’ll explore how policy frameworks, shared infrastructure, and international cooperation can promote and sustain Diamond Open Access. We’ll draw on key findings from UNESCO’s Global Consultation on Diamond Open Access, which collected insights from over 2,900 stakeholders across 92 member states. These findings will inform policymaking and guide investments in interoperable, community-led publishing platforms, critical to expanding equitable knowledge access, especially in underrepresented regions. But Diamond Open Access is only part of the picture. It must be placed within the broader right to information, as articulated in SDG 1610, which calls for public access to information and protection of fundamental freedoms through enabling legislation. Access to information laws, often called freedom of information laws, provide legal mechanisms for citizens to seek and receive government-held information. This fosters transparency, accountability, and meaningful democratic participation. True access to information goes beyond passive availability. It requires proactive disclosure, open data policies, media freedom, digital connectivity, and the removal of legal, institutional, and technological barriers. It also demands inclusivity, ensuring marginalized groups such as women, persons with disabilities, and rural communities are not left behind. UNESCO, as a custodian of Indicator 1610-2, monitors global progress on Diamond Open Access. access to information frameworks. We support member states in creating legal environments, building capacity, and sharing best practices. Our data collection and reporting to the United Nations help keep access to information central to global development. In closing, diamond open access and the broader right to information are two complementary pillars that advance inclusive knowledge societies where citizens are empowered, governments are accountable, and sustainable development thrives. I trust that our discussions this morning will be both rich and productive as we explore ways to strengthen these foundations and build a more open and equitable future for knowledge world. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much Zeynep. I think you highlighted the different dimensions that are involved in this, in making information accessible from the people, the infrastructure, the laws, the various dimensions that are enabled living in this to happen. And we’ve taken one of these dimensions, I would like to now involve Maria de Pallaferro. She’s from the International Federation of Library Associations, IFLA. So, I mean, who best placed to tell us how access to information is actually brought to life, to life. So, IFLA.

Maria de Brasdefer: Yes, thank you David. And well, I think to start the first thing that I would like to say, and perhaps if you’re familiar to the world of libraries, but something that we always start by saying when we come to this space is that at IFLA we have also realized that that, especially also because most of the access to information today is done online. We always try to continue to advocate for the importance of public access to information despite the existence of private access. This is one of the things that we always mention because this is something that libraries do a lot, particularly for populations who don’t necessarily have access or to connectivity. So this is something that we always want to take forward. And then also, if we talk, for example, about what your colleague mentioned about, for example, SDG 1610-2, that refers to the access to information laws, and something that we see a lot in libraries also is that while there’s a lot of countries who have access to information, in some way have embedded community spaces like libraries in access to information laws. Something that we also want to highlight is that we also find important that the word library is not buried under the policy in those types of laws. So for example, in some of the documents in these countries, libraries are not necessarily specifically mentioned, but they are mentioned broadly as community spaces. And so then there’s, yeah, they can get a little bit in the way. So I think this is also something that we consider very important and highlighting in terms of that, yeah, enabling or following on that line in SDG. And of course, we also think that to improve perhaps following up on that SDG with library support, we would also think, well, it would be more important that more countries perhaps would create and also enforce these policies that guarantee the right to access to information. And we also think the library network could have a big role in it, because after all, they have been historically linked with access to information. And it’s also something that we really want to encourage people from being aware that they can rely on. on this network for that. And that is how relevant it is also for people, particularly in under-served regions, or particularly for the ones who are not connected. And then also, if we go on to talk a little bit about open access, so more in terms of the, on the diamond open access model, for example, what I see relevant in that term is perhaps that when libraries tend to operate on open access models already and they tend to also often remove costly barriers to access to information, like for example, subscriptions, paywalls, this is also something that they commonly do. And particularly public and academic libraries, they have a big role in this and they also have a big story of promoting scientific and open knowledge and also by making information accessible to everyone. So we do think that perhaps also libraries could be, continue to support this model by, continue to maintain open repositories, perhaps also support journals that use the diamond open access model. And perhaps also continue to guide local researchers towards publishing in open access platforms and teaching open science skills, which is also something that we know a lot of, particularly academic libraries are doing now. And yeah, in a way, also replicating the model of what they already do with media and digital literacy skills, which is also something that they tend to do a lot, but perhaps offer workshops and teach researchers about open licenses, for example, like Creative Commons. And another role I also think about is the promotion of multilingual knowledge and communities research and also perhaps preservation of traditional and indigenous knowledge, which is also something that we see libraries in a way are doing in a lot of regions. So they are fulfilling this, a need that is already there in the community, but that, yeah, people haven’t found another way to fulfill it other than through these types of institutions. And then I don’t know if I still have some time.

Davide Storti: Well, maybe, thank you, Maria, maybe we’ll. We continue this conversation. I think it’s quite important. Before getting to Antony, I would like to take the opportunity because we just spoke about SDG 1610-2 and online we have my colleague Marius who, you know, UNESCO is the custodian agency for this SDG particularly. So, I would like to give the floor to Marius for telling us more about how this action line actually is, what it’s doing in terms of access to information and access

Marius Lukosiunas: to information laws. Marius? Thank you Davide. Good morning colleagues in Geneva. A very quick update on where UNESCO stands vis-à-vis SDG 1610-2 which is the adoption of access to information legal guarantees. So, as it has been mentioned UNESCO is a custodian agency for this particular indicator and our main efforts are aimed to first evaluate the situation to monitor the situation with access to information laws and the implementation and here I have to say that it is a very important addition. It’s not just the adoption of the laws but also it’s the implementation. So, first we are monitoring. Based on that monitoring what we are doing we are drawing and important recommendations to the member states especially in the field of access to information implementation of the laws and here is why. First, maybe I’ll continue a little bit with monitoring. How do we do the monitoring? Every year we are launching a questionnaire. Last year which is going to the member states. We’ve started in 2019, and we had only 62 countries responding to our questionnaire. In 2024, we have 125. So basically, through that questionnaire, we collect the major information, and then we translate that information, that data, into the report with the recommendations I’ve mentioned. I think that the result of participation of the member states is quite good. We have above 120 member states responding. So that shows that this is an important issue for the member states. That also provides us with ample data to draw some recommendations. To compare, of course, we have more than 190 member states. So nearly two-thirds are part of that process. Now, I will mention a few recommendations which stem from our data. So for example, we have clearly established, and that is the recommendation which addresses the issue of implementation. We have clearly established the link between the number of access to information requests, and number of adjudicated requests, and the existence of the dedicated oversight body. So this is just one of the examples. I’m not going to go into more of the recommendations we provide through this monitoring and reporting exercise. Now, the next thing which I wanted to touch on is regarding the promotion of the adoption of the laws. That is another very important area UNESCO is engaged and now we have, as of end of 2024, we have 139 countries which adopted that law. And I think it is another very important number because it clearly shows to us that from one hand there is a fundamental understanding among the member states that the right to information, which is the core, the central right within the access to information policies and practices and different infrastructures, the right to information can be best protected by the law. And also it shows that to a certain extent many member states recognize that right as such, which is another, I think, important theoretical dimension of the whole process. So UNESCO, we are actively, as I’ve mentioned, we are actively promoting the adoption and we mainly do it through the organization of the celebration of access to information, International Day of Universal Access to Information. It is a UN day and we are celebrating it on the 28th of September. All in all, we’ve had more than, every year we are having more than close to one to 30 national celebrations. And also we are organizing a big global conference where we discuss with our stakeholders, information commissioners, human rights commissioners, journalists, media, academia, libraries. We discuss different aspects of this whole issue. For example, last year’s IDU-I was mostly focusing on access to big data and other digital aspects of the process. So all in all, as I’ve said, since 2018, we have organized about 124 national celebrations and of course every year we have a global conference which is mentioned. So this is the second dimension I wanted to add to reporting and monitoring and our custodianship role. And the third dimension, of course, all over the world upon the request of the member states, we provide technical expertise in order to assist member states in drafting legislation policies and so on and so forth. And in addition, we’ll have a few MOOCs which provide capacity building for access to information professionals who want to increase their knowledge in the field. So this is a quick summary of what UNESCO does in order to cohesively push for the implementation for the expansion of SDGC.

Davide Storti: 16.10.2. Thank you and back to you, Davide. Thank you very much, Marius. I think you mentioned two important things in my view. One is the monitoring of the access information through the SDG 16.10.2, which is one important dimension overall discussed in the WSIS review, particularly how to monitor the progress. Second, you mentioned the International Day for Universal Access to Information, which is, as you said very well, is an example of multi-stakeholder participation, how to bring in all the participants, the actors that are involved in access to information. So talking about professionals of information, I’ll give the floor to Mr. Wang, who is the president of the International Federation for Information Professionals. So, Mr. Wang.

Anthony Wong: Thank you. Thank you, Davide, and thank you to UNESCO for the invitation for this intervention on access to information and knowledge. For those of you who do not know about IFIP, just a quick intro. IFIP was founded by UNESCO in 1960 in Paris, and its mission statement in brief is the responsible development and deployment of ICT. That’s in brief. So we have 13 technical committees looking from AI education, social impact of technologies, communication networking to very hardcore technical subjects on technology. In that 13 technical committees, we have 100 working groups with more than 6,000 scientists and professionals working in those fields from five continents. around the world. So we have an extensive library and publication with Springer. So if you go to our new website, which is ifip.org, there is a main menu with our digital library, which is freely accessible to anyone logging in. There are more than 20,000 full-text documents, journals and publications online, all freely available. So I’m very glad to mention that’s the IFIP professional contribution to this particular UN agenda, which is a very important step forward. So please to go to ifip.org and look at the digital library, which has been there for many years and it’s growing every day. So what I’d like to talk about in my intervention is looking at the topic, access to knowledge, but the, how it was framed is to do with journals, printed books and digital access. And part of the, during the Q&A, if I may, Davidi, to look at with the impact of artificial intelligence, how that’s going to impact this particular action line in terms of his thinking, because we need to look towards the future. Recently, I had this insight when I moderated a chair, a panel for the Sarawak government in Borneo, part of Malaysia. We did a panel with the State Library of Sarawak with the staff and the leaders to look at how AI is going to impact on the way that libraries work, how people access the knowledge and data, considering a lot of data now is born digital, as never printed. So the whole concept of library, we need to change. and evolve the way we catalog our books and index our publication. If we have charged GDP and Lama, do we need to index things and how we index things? And I’m sure that all the 20,000 publication in the IFIP digital library would now be in most, in most large language models that you use. So all that knowledge will be accessible through one of the generative AI models today. So the way we think and how we structure our discussion, I think Davide and UNESCO would need to change because we need to create new policies. I was fortunate to work with you Davide on Monday, when we look at AI and the impact on competencies for teachers and students. I think that is also an agenda that we need to look at in terms of this UNESCO action line, because I can see drastical changes, not only impacting on the jobs of professionals working libraries, but how students and public will access the library in the future. We also have things called virtual reality coming avatars. So if we can have indigenous elders narrating their wisdom and culture online as an avatar, which does not need categorising and indexing in the library, teaching people about their knowledge and wisdom. So I know indigenous things is part of the ambit of UNESCO. So one of the access to information is a great thing to expose all these things to the world. But we also need to look at the risks, because there are some knowledge of indigenous population, which should be sacred and protected rather just freely accessible. So that’s my short intervention. Thank you.

Davide Storti: So thank you very much. I think, I mean, what I hear is that Exactly. It’s the intersection of this action line with the many other action lines. I mean, indigenous knowledge, traditional knowledge, of course, is also part of the action line C8 on culture, cultural diversity, there is multilingualism, etc. So it’s very interesting. So now I would like to go a little bit more deeper into the research and and going to the maybe the diamond open access model. And I would like to give the floor to Mr. David Oliva-Uribe online, who will be telling more about this research work that UNESCO has done recently. Thank you.

David Oliva Uribe: Hello, everybody. And let me share my screen. Good morning in Geneva to all participants. And just let me be sure that you can see my screen. David, can you confirm, please? Yes. Okay, perfect. So thank you very much. So I am a consultant at UNESCO. And my colleagues say in a better glue, she’s the coordinator of the of the portfolio and open solutions. And well, today, I would like just to make a reflection on the importance of scientific communication and diamond open access. In many cases, sometimes it is addressed that scientific communication is like a site action, but but it’s not, it’s actually a very relevant part of the scientific research process. And this has to be value and everything that is related to the communication through scientific journals through books through any kind of communication is very important, because ensures the knowledge is shared, validated and built on. So dissemination and communication of the of the scientific results is very, very important. And we have been having an evolution of the scientific models. I think most of you are familiar that we have been passing from subscription models where it was cost represented a significant barrier and then we were evolutionary to have more access and there arise gold open access where it was improved visibility but the shift cost from the subscription from the libraries to the authors and this is represented to the institutions and at the end to the governments and in the recent years we have been a transition into what it’s called a transformative agreements which yes it expands access it gives a little bit more room for negotiation on the cost for authors but still it is very limited or very difficult for less resourced regions to get access to it so at this very moment we have a very high cost in these three models and now what we are facing is opportunity to move to a new model that it’s called diamond open access that has been around especially in the global south for example in latin america has been already for almost 20 years where it is free for reading free for publishing and of course the cost it is in the infrastructure there is is not free in terms that somebody has to cover the cost but for the users those who read and host who publish is without cost but what do we specifically speak when we say high or low regarding cost just let me give you some quick information so in 2019 the european university association reported that the subscription prices in europe and for the the countries that represents the european university association the cost was around 0.5 billion euros and there was an increase in average more than 3% per year in the cost of subscriptions for many of the big journals. And the forecast at that time for 2023 were that the costs were almost 1.5 billion euros. So in a very short time, the costs of subscription were tripled. And then we spoke about gold open access. And what does it mean for gold open access? That we thought, okay, now there is more opportunity for dissemination that readers can access to these journals. But the cost was, again, passed to the authors. And when we say the author, it’s the institution that financed those researchers. And in a report for the annual APC expenditure, it is stated that between the 2019 and 2023 for gold and hybrid open access, the spend was 8.349 billion euros. So that means 80 times what is the budget, for example, for Horizon Europe Research Program. Just the cost for France, we are talking about this has also increased three times, and it represents 30 million euros. So when we are passing now to the UNESCO consultation on diamond open access, we really wanted to understand. And we launched a consultation, we got around 2,900 responders from 92 member states, and we got more than 3,000 qualitative comments. Let me just very shortly go through some of the key highlights. We got a very rich participation, multilingual, and the responses were submitted in Spanish, English, mostly. But the regional disparities underlined the importance of inclusive outreach and moving forward. Also, we got a very wide response about researchers. librarians, and international actors such as funder policymakers. We noted that the contribution for publishers and academic societies confirmed their participation. They are like intermediate players between the governments and the funding agencies and the researchers. And these patterns underscore the importance of fostering inclusive dialogue, which is very, very important for Diamond Open Access. What we had in the consultation is that we saw that equity, feasibility, and cost-saving were the most frequently experienced benefits. And also, what is very key is that the respondents also addressed that funding and recognition are still persisting the biggest challenges. So this is very important to underscore that institutional engagement really plays a crucial role in alleviating the promoting and implementation of Diamond Open Access. Just a very last slide is that the respondents, they are overwhelmingly expect a global framework and social equity goals are highly valued, particularly multilingual access, participation of underrepresented groups, and reduction of systematic barriers. So together, all these findings, we can really reflect for a call for more inclusive, collaborative, and equitable scholarly communication framework. Just for communication, at the end of this month, we will have the full report that will be published by UNESCO, and you will find all the information on this topic. So I will stop sharing here, and this is my contribution. Thank you very much.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, David, for this precise insights. So now I would like to maybe open a discussion, if you have any comments from participants. Please, introduce yourself.

Participant: Okay. I don’t know if, okay, yeah, it works. Well, I just wanted to, I didn’t know anything about this Diamond New Access Program, and I honestly think that it’s very enriching, especially for students. I study in France, and I know that from my university, it’s very expensive to access to articles, scientific articles. I know that for PhD students, to be able to access to a specific article can cost about 20 euros, which is very, very expensive, and we actually had to get rid of many subscriptions because of the cost of it. So I’m really glad that this is going on specifically in the Global South, where obviously countries have less wealth and, like, in general, funding for these type of programs. I just had a quick question. How does these, how can we, I don’t know how to explain it. How can countries put this in place? Do we have a specific example of a country that is already implementing this Diamond Open Access, and can I have, like, an example of it? Yes. Shall I respond?

Davide Storti: Yes, please. Thank you.

Participant: Okay. Yes, there are many countries that at the moment are working towards establishing. So how does Diamond Open Access work? In the Global South, for example, in Latin America, it started by universities. Universities, especially in the faculties of social science and humanities, they have this kind of situation and barriers that you mentioned, and what they decide is to get together, to put a common infrastructure, to gather some talent and to establish a journal or a service for Diamond Open Access, which has been really working for more than 20 years. Now, you have institutions like Red Alec, like CLACSO, that they are promoting and giving services to host journals for Diamond Open Access. In the case of Europe, France is one of the most advanced countries establishing Diamond Open Access. And this is receiving direct support from the Ministry of Higher Education, and also through the French National Research Agency, who are placing resources to invest in infrastructure. Because the most important here is that, at the moment, the traditional publishing system is hosted by private companies. And now it’s the role of the governments to establish national policies. For example, in France, they have a national policy for open science, which also includes Diamond Open Access. And through this, they are supporting infrastructure to have hosting of digital services, but they also collecting talent to give the services of editorial reviewing and other roles. So this is what is happening now. And it’s happening, for example, also in Indonesia. Indonesia has more than 6,000 Diamond Open Access journals. So it is common. And now we are focusing on UNESCO to gather all the insights to really have the possibility to permeate or to agree on a global framework. Thank you very much.

Davide Storti: Is there any other question? If otherwise, I’d like to ask a question to Maria about IFLA, you know, how does, you know, we heard about the cost, which is a barrier, which was mentioned just now to the access and how our library is actually coping with that, because I think this is a major issue for libraries.

Maria de Brasdefer: Yes, that is true. It is a big issue that. libraries are dealing with and I think well there’s two main ways I think in which libraries are coping with it and the main one or very traditional ways library sometimes negotiate a lot with publisher it’s in terms of subscriptions and because also this is something that they have been historically doing particularly in some countries they tend to negotiate lower fees for acquiring more amount of content or subscription to scientific journals so this is something they do a lot particularly academic libraries and another thing that I believe also happens very often is through research grants I believe also libraries and institutions they also sometimes establish some of the specific funds also to support open access initiatives and and through those initiatives they sort of like include article processing charges and they also invite researchers to to use those and those are the most common ones but I think the the diamond model is also very interesting and I yeah I wonder if there’s also a lot of libraries who are already benefiting or from that model as well but those are the most two common ways in which they they usually do it

Davide Storti: thank you very much I don’t know if it’s David or Zeynep if you have any idea in terms of responding to Maria’s questions on libraries involvement in this discussion on open access diamond open access yes yes please yes we have to

David Oliva Uribe: close yes yes they are benefiting in different regions for example in the case of Europe there is a new initiative called the European diamond capacity half which is led by different countries and they are liaising directly with with libraries and one of the institutions that is leading this is Science Europe So, maybe this is an initiative that you would like to know. I don’t know, Senepe, do you want to have a final comment?

Zeynep Varoglu: I just wanted to underscore the importance of the ecosystem, of the libraries, the institutions working together. And the fact that is just to bring together also the remarks of Dr. Wang, in the fact that we are really in another space now. And we have here with us, we have IFLA, which has been with UNESCO since 1960, I think. And, I’m sorry, not IFLA, IFIP has been with UNESCO as far as a consultative partner since 1960, if I’m correct. And IFLA is also a very close partner of UNESCO for many years. But the situation has changed. And I think what this discussion has brought out is how all institutions are changing the way that they’re looking at meeting the new challenges. And I think it can’t be business as usual. And that’s what we’ve been saying, basically, for the last 45 minutes. It’s not business as usual. And all of us are working in different ways to be able to really take advantage of the good sides of everything that’s happening. As Dr. Wang pointed out, we’re able to access more information. But there needs to be some sort of structure and it needs to be really in our benefit. So, I think that we’ve had, it’s the voices plus 20 discussion we’re having right now. And I think it is really very clear that access to information has turned into something else. Because we can access more. We can access, we’re not even sure what information we’re accessing sometimes and where it’s coming from. The costs are different. The models are different. The survey that David presented shows that there’s a need for people to access it still in spite of all these developments. And we are in, the game has changed. but everyone is also reacting to this and addressing it. So I think it’s very revelatory.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Zeynep. I think that shows again the transversality of this action line impact. For example, you mentioned the issues that I would link to information integrity, which we discussed a couple of days ago in action line 10 about media new dimension. So maybe I’m really sorry we have to conclude because they are very short sessions, but I would like to give a last word to Mr. Wang because he mentioned exactly this future. And I think the most important lesson from this session is our messages for the WSIS plus 20 review. So we should not forget about it. So I invite you also to come to me or send your own views or points or whatever highlights you would like to stress for this review because the WSIS forum is the place where to do that, especially now, particularly for this action line now. Mr. Wang.

Anthony Wong: Thank you, Davide. Just quickly, yesterday I was at a forum here and it was mentioned that China is introducing AI education to primary and secondary schools. So if you think about what the students are gonna do, they’re not gonna access the library for your publication. They’re gonna use AI to find information that they need to do what they’re supposed to be doing. So I urge all the library and the association and people making policies to start thinking about policies for the children coming up rather than for the oldies who are used to the old traditional way. That’s all I’d like to comment. I is happy to help. I use, if you don’t know, I used to work for five years with Thomson Reuters. and I was instrumental in doing their first digital transformation from paper to digital. So I’m very happy and IFIP is very happy to contribute to that discussion. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much for your participation in this session which is now over. Thank you so much. Thank you to the speakers and I’d like to thank also my colleagues online, particularly Zeynep Varoglu and Marius for their organization of this session. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Have a good day. Bye-bye. Thank you. Goodbye. Bye-bye.

Agreement points

Access to information is a fundamental right and public good essential for development

Speakers

– Zeynep Varoglu
– Marius Lukosiunas
– Davide Storti

Arguments

Access to scientific knowledge is a global necessity that drives innovation and sustainable development

Access to information is recognized as a universal right fundamental to inclusive development under WSIS Action Line D3

139 countries have adopted access to information laws, showing fundamental understanding that the right to information can be best protected by law

Access to information is a transversal action line that is fundamental to achieving other WSIS action lines

Summary

All speakers agree that access to information is not just beneficial but essential – it’s a fundamental human right that drives innovation, sustainable development, and is necessary for achieving other development goals. The widespread adoption of access to information laws by 139 countries demonstrates global recognition of this principle.

Topics

Human rights principles | Development

Current access to scientific knowledge is inequitable and costly, creating barriers particularly for developing regions

Speakers

– Zeynep Varoglu
– David Oliva Uribe
– Participant

Arguments

Current access remains deeply unequal with publicly funded research locked behind expensive paywalls, particularly affecting the Global South

Subscription costs have tripled in recent years, with European universities spending 1.5 billion euros by 2023

Gold open access shifted costs from libraries to authors, representing 8.349 billion euros globally between 2019-2023

High subscription costs create significant barriers for students, with individual articles costing up to 20 euros

Summary

There is strong consensus that the current system of academic publishing creates significant financial barriers that disproportionately affect developing countries, students, and institutions with limited resources. The costs have escalated dramatically, making access to publicly funded research increasingly difficult.

Topics

Development | Economic | Digital access

Diamond open access offers a viable solution to knowledge inequality

Speakers

– Zeynep Varoglu
– David Oliva Uribe

Arguments

Diamond open access allows free publishing and reading based on public funding and community-driven frameworks

UNESCO’s global consultation with 2,900 stakeholders from 92 countries shows equity, feasibility, and cost-saving as main benefits of diamond open access

Countries like France, Indonesia, and Latin American nations are successfully implementing diamond open access through government support and university collaboration

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocate for diamond open access as a solution that enables free publishing and reading while being based on public funding and community-driven frameworks. The UNESCO consultation provides evidence of broad international support for this model.

Topics

Development | Digital access

Libraries play a crucial role in providing equitable access to information

Speakers

– Maria de Brasdefer
– Anthony Wong

Arguments

Libraries historically provide public access to information, particularly for populations without connectivity or private access

Libraries operate on open access models and remove costly barriers like subscriptions and paywalls

IFIP provides free access to over 20,000 full-text documents through their digital library at ifip.org

Summary

Both speakers recognize libraries and library-like institutions as essential infrastructure for providing equitable access to information, particularly for underserved populations. They demonstrate this through both historical context and concrete examples of free access provision.

Topics

Digital access | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers see libraries and educational institutions as key implementers of diamond open access, with libraries providing both infrastructure support and educational guidance while countries demonstrate successful implementation through institutional collaboration.

Speakers

– Maria de Brasdefer
– David Oliva Uribe

Arguments

Libraries can support diamond open access by maintaining open repositories and guiding researchers toward open access platforms

Countries like France, Indonesia, and Latin American nations are successfully implementing diamond open access through government support and university collaboration

Topics

Development | Digital access

Both speakers acknowledge that technological changes, particularly AI, are fundamentally transforming how information is accessed and that institutions must adapt their approaches to meet these new challenges.

Speakers

– Anthony Wong
– Zeynep Varoglu

Arguments

AI is drastically changing how people access knowledge, with most publications now available through large language models

The situation has changed and all institutions are changing the way that they’re looking at meeting the new challenges

Topics

Development | Digital access

Both speakers emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in promoting access to information, using the International Day for Universal Access to Information as a successful example of bringing together diverse actors.

Speakers

– Marius Lukosiunas
– Davide Storti

Arguments

UNESCO promotes adoption of access to information laws through International Day of Universal Access to Information with over 124 national celebrations

Multi-stakeholder participation is essential for access to information initiatives, as demonstrated by the International Day for Universal Access to Information

Topics

Human rights principles | Development

Unexpected consensus

Need to protect certain types of knowledge from open access

Speakers

– Anthony Wong
– Maria de Brasdefer

Arguments

Some indigenous knowledge should be sacred and protected rather than freely accessible, requiring careful balance in access policies

Libraries play a role in promoting multilingual knowledge and preserving traditional and indigenous knowledge in communities

Explanation

Despite the overall push for open access, both speakers recognize that some knowledge, particularly indigenous and traditional knowledge, requires protection rather than open sharing. This represents a nuanced understanding that open access principles must be balanced with cultural sensitivity and respect for sacred knowledge.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Human rights principles

Fundamental transformation needed in traditional information access methods due to AI

Speakers

– Anthony Wong
– Davide Storti

Arguments

Traditional library indexing and cataloging methods need to evolve considering AI capabilities like ChatGPT

The WSIS Plus 20 review requires new approaches because the landscape of access to information has fundamentally changed

Explanation

Both speakers, despite coming from different perspectives (technology and policy), agree that traditional approaches to information access are becoming obsolete and that fundamental changes are needed. This consensus on the need for transformation is significant given their different professional backgrounds.

Topics

Development | Digital access

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on core principles: access to information as a fundamental right, the inequity of current systems, the promise of diamond open access, and the crucial role of libraries. There is also emerging agreement on the need to adapt to technological changes while protecting sensitive knowledge.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment. The speakers complement each other’s perspectives rather than conflict, creating a comprehensive view that spans legal frameworks, practical implementation, technological adaptation, and cultural sensitivity. This strong consensus suggests favorable conditions for collaborative policy development and implementation of diamond open access initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Approach to indigenous knowledge protection vs. open access

Speakers

– Anthony Wong
– Zeynep Varoglu
– Maria de Brasdefer

Arguments

Some indigenous knowledge should be sacred and protected rather than freely accessible, requiring careful balance in access policies

Access to scientific knowledge is a global necessity that drives innovation and sustainable development

Libraries play a role in promoting multilingual knowledge and preserving traditional and indigenous knowledge in communities

Summary

Wong argues for protecting sacred indigenous knowledge from open access, while Varoglu advocates for broad access to knowledge as a necessity, and Brasdefer sees libraries as promoters of indigenous knowledge access without addressing protection concerns

Topics

Cultural diversity | Human rights principles | Development

Future relevance of traditional library systems vs. AI-powered access

Speakers

– Anthony Wong
– Maria de Brasdefer

Arguments

Traditional library indexing and cataloging methods need to evolve considering AI capabilities like ChatGPT

Libraries can support diamond open access by maintaining open repositories and guiding researchers toward open access platforms

Summary

Wong questions the continued relevance of traditional library cataloging and indexing in the AI era, while Brasdefer emphasizes libraries’ ongoing role in supporting open access through traditional methods

Topics

Development | Digital access | Digital standards

Unexpected differences

Generational shift in information access methods

Speakers

– Anthony Wong
– Maria de Brasdefer

Arguments

China is introducing AI education in primary and secondary schools, suggesting future students will use AI rather than traditional library access

Libraries historically provide public access to information, particularly for populations without connectivity or private access

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement on whether traditional library services remain relevant for future generations, with Wong arguing for AI-first approaches while Brasdefer maintains libraries’ continued importance for underserved populations

Topics

Online education | Development | Digital access

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most speakers aligned on core principles of open access and information rights. Main disagreements centered on implementation approaches, the balance between openness and protection of sacred knowledge, and the future role of traditional institutions in an AI-dominated landscape.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with significant implications for policy development – while speakers agree on goals, different approaches to implementation could lead to fragmented or conflicting policies, particularly regarding indigenous knowledge protection and the evolving role of libraries in digital transformation

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers see libraries and educational institutions as key implementers of diamond open access, with libraries providing both infrastructure support and educational guidance while countries demonstrate successful implementation through institutional collaboration.

Speakers

– Maria de Brasdefer
– David Oliva Uribe

Arguments

Libraries can support diamond open access by maintaining open repositories and guiding researchers toward open access platforms

Countries like France, Indonesia, and Latin American nations are successfully implementing diamond open access through government support and university collaboration

Topics

Development | Digital access

Both speakers acknowledge that technological changes, particularly AI, are fundamentally transforming how information is accessed and that institutions must adapt their approaches to meet these new challenges.

Speakers

– Anthony Wong
– Zeynep Varoglu

Arguments

AI is drastically changing how people access knowledge, with most publications now available through large language models

The situation has changed and all institutions are changing the way that they’re looking at meeting the new challenges

Topics

Development | Digital access

Both speakers emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in promoting access to information, using the International Day for Universal Access to Information as a successful example of bringing together diverse actors.

Speakers

– Marius Lukosiunas
– Davide Storti

Arguments

UNESCO promotes adoption of access to information laws through International Day of Universal Access to Information with over 124 national celebrations

Multi-stakeholder participation is essential for access to information initiatives, as demonstrated by the International Day for Universal Access to Information

Topics

Human rights principles | Development

Key takeaways

Access to information is a universal right and public good that requires multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, libraries, institutions, and international organizations

Diamond open access model offers a viable solution to knowledge inequality by providing free publishing and reading access, contrasting with expensive subscription and gold open access models that create barriers especially for the Global South

Current publishing costs are unsustainable – subscription costs have tripled in recent years with European universities spending 1.5 billion euros by 2023, while gold open access represents 8.349 billion euros globally

Libraries play a crucial intermediary role in democratizing access to information, particularly for underserved populations without connectivity, and can support diamond open access through repositories and researcher guidance

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally changing how people access knowledge, requiring new policies and approaches as traditional library methods become less relevant for future generations

UNESCO’s global consultation with 2,900 stakeholders from 92 countries demonstrates strong international support for diamond open access, with equity, feasibility, and cost-saving identified as main benefits

139 countries have adopted access to information laws, showing global recognition of the legal framework needed to protect information rights

The intersection of access to information with other issues like indigenous knowledge protection, multilingual access, and digital literacy requires careful balance and inclusive policies

Resolutions and action items

UNESCO will publish the full report on diamond open access consultation findings at the end of the month

Participants are invited to contribute views and highlights for the WSIS+20 review process

IFIP offers to contribute to policy discussions on AI’s impact on information access, drawing on their experience with digital transformation

UNESCO continues monitoring global progress through SDG 16.10.2 with annual questionnaires to member states

Libraries should continue supporting diamond open access by maintaining open repositories and guiding researchers toward open access platforms

Unresolved issues

How to balance open access with protection of sacred and indigenous knowledge that should remain restricted

Funding and recognition challenges for diamond open access implementation remain the biggest obstacles

Need for new policies to address how AI will impact traditional library and information access methods

How to ensure access to information laws specifically mention libraries rather than burying them under broad ‘community spaces’ terminology

How to create sustainable global framework for diamond open access while addressing regional disparities

How to prepare education systems and policies for students who will primarily use AI rather than traditional library access methods

Suggested compromises

Develop inclusive dialogue between all stakeholders including publishers, academic societies, governments, and funding agencies as intermediate players

Create national policies for open science that include diamond open access support, as demonstrated by France’s approach

Establish collaborative infrastructure through university partnerships and government support, following successful models in Latin America and Indonesia

Balance proactive disclosure and open data policies with protection of sensitive indigenous knowledge through careful policy design

Combine traditional library services with new AI-enabled access methods to serve both current and future user needs

Access to scientific knowledge is not a luxury, it’s a global necessity. It drives innovation, supports sustainable development, and informs public policy. At UNESCO, we see access to knowledge as a public good, yet today access remains deeply unequal.

Speaker

Zeynep Varoglu

Reason

This opening statement reframes the entire discussion by establishing access to knowledge as a fundamental right rather than a privilege. It introduces the concept of knowledge as a ‘public good’ and immediately highlights the inequality problem, setting up the moral and practical framework for the entire session.

Impact

This comment established the foundational premise for all subsequent discussions. It shifted the conversation from technical considerations to ethical imperatives, influencing how other speakers framed their contributions around equity and accessibility rather than just technological solutions.

Recently, I had this insight when I moderated a chair, a panel for the Sarawak government in Borneo… If we have charged GDP and Lama, do we need to index things and how we index things? And I’m sure that all the 20,000 publication in the IFIP digital library would now be in most, in most large language models that you use.

Speaker

Anthony Wong

Reason

This comment introduced a paradigm-shifting perspective by questioning the fundamental assumptions about how knowledge will be accessed in the AI era. Wong challenged the traditional library and indexing models, suggesting that AI might make current access mechanisms obsolete.

Impact

This intervention fundamentally altered the discussion’s trajectory from focusing on current access models to considering future disruptions. It prompted other speakers to acknowledge that ‘the game has changed’ and forced a reconsideration of traditional approaches to knowledge access and preservation.

We also have things called virtual reality coming avatars. So if we can have indigenous elders narrating their wisdom and culture online as an avatar, which does not need categorising and indexing in the library… But we also need to look at the risks, because there are some knowledge of indigenous population, which should be sacred and protected rather just freely accessible.

Speaker

Anthony Wong

Reason

This comment introduced crucial complexity by highlighting the tension between open access principles and cultural sensitivity. It challenged the assumption that all knowledge should be freely accessible, introducing ethical considerations about sacred and protected knowledge.

Impact

This observation added a critical dimension to the discussion, forcing participants to consider that access to information isn’t just about removing barriers but also about respecting cultural boundaries. It connected the technical discussion to broader issues of cultural preservation and indigenous rights.

In 2019 the european university association reported that the subscription prices in europe… were around 0.5 billion euros… And the forecast at that time for 2023 were that the costs were almost 1.5 billion euros. So in a very short time, the costs of subscription were tripled.

Speaker

David Oliva Uribe

Reason

This comment provided concrete, shocking data that quantified the scale of the access problem. The dramatic cost escalation (tripling in just four years) made the abstract concept of ‘expensive access’ tangible and urgent.

Impact

These statistics gave weight and urgency to the theoretical discussions about diamond open access. The concrete numbers helped justify why alternative models are necessary and provided a compelling economic argument that resonated with the student participant who later shared their personal experience with expensive article access.

I just had a quick question… I study in France, and I know that from my university, it’s very expensive to access to articles, scientific articles. I know that for PhD students, to be able to access to a specific article can cost about 20 euros, which is very, very expensive.

Speaker

Participant (Student)

Reason

This personal testimony from a student provided a human face to the statistical data presented earlier. It demonstrated the real-world impact of access barriers on the next generation of researchers and scholars.

Impact

This intervention grounded the entire discussion in lived experience, making the abstract policy discussions concrete and personal. It validated the urgency of the problems being discussed and demonstrated that the issues affect real people in their daily academic work.

I think it can’t be business as usual. And that’s what we’ve been saying, basically, for the last 45 minutes. It’s not business as usual… The game has changed. but everyone is also reacting to this and addressing it.

Speaker

Zeynep Varoglu

Reason

This synthesizing comment captured the essence of the entire discussion, acknowledging that traditional approaches to knowledge access are no longer sufficient in the digital age. It recognized both the disruption and the adaptive responses occurring across institutions.

Impact

This comment served as a powerful synthesis that tied together all the previous discussions about AI disruption, cost challenges, and institutional changes. It provided a framework for understanding the session as being about fundamental transformation rather than incremental improvements.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about publishing models into a comprehensive examination of the future of knowledge access. The session began with Varoglu’s moral framing of access as a public good, was disrupted by Wong’s AI-focused future vision, grounded by Oliva Uribe’s economic data and the student’s personal experience, and synthesized by Varoglu’s acknowledgment of fundamental change. The most impactful dynamic was how Wong’s AI-centric perspective forced all participants to reconsider their assumptions about traditional knowledge access mechanisms, while the economic data and personal testimony provided urgency and human relevance to these futuristic considerations. The discussion evolved from presenting solutions (diamond open access) to questioning whether current frameworks will remain relevant, ultimately concluding that the entire ecosystem of knowledge access is in transformation.

How can countries implement Diamond Open Access and what are specific examples of countries already implementing it?

Speaker

Participant (student from France)

Explanation

The participant wanted concrete examples and implementation pathways for Diamond Open Access, which was answered with examples from Latin America, France, and Indonesia

How are libraries benefiting from the Diamond Open Access model?

Speaker

Maria de Brasdefer (IFLA)

Explanation

Maria wondered about libraries’ involvement and benefits from Diamond Open Access, which was partially addressed by David Oliva-Uribe mentioning the European Diamond Capacity initiative

How will artificial intelligence impact access to information and knowledge, particularly regarding libraries and traditional information access methods?

Speaker

Anthony Wong (IFIP)

Explanation

Wong raised concerns about how AI will fundamentally change how people access information, suggesting the need for new policies focused on future generations rather than traditional methods

How should policies be developed for children who will use AI for information access rather than traditional library systems?

Speaker

Anthony Wong (IFIP)

Explanation

Wong emphasized the need to create policies for students who will primarily use AI tools rather than traditional library resources, citing China’s introduction of AI education in primary and secondary schools

How can indigenous knowledge be protected while still promoting access to information?

Speaker

Anthony Wong (IFIP)

Explanation

Wong highlighted the tension between open access principles and the need to protect sacred indigenous knowledge that should not be freely accessible

What are the key messages and recommendations for the WSIS+20 review regarding access to information?

Speaker

Davide Storti (UNESCO)

Explanation

Storti called for participants to provide input for the WSIS+20 review, indicating this as an important area requiring further input and research

Summary

The Smart City Leaders’ Talk focused on developing safe, smart cities that address climate frustration through digital technologies and people-centered approaches. The discussion was co-organized by the Global Cities Hub, ITU, and WEGO, bringing together international organizations, city leaders, and experts to explore how digitalization can create climate-resilient urban environments.

ITU Deputy Secretary General Tomas Lamanauskas emphasized that cities account for 70% of global CO2 emissions while being vulnerable to climate shocks, highlighting the need for smart connectivity that supports both climate mitigation and adaptation. He outlined ITU’s Green Digital Action initiative and Early Warnings for All program, which work with cities worldwide to develop standardized frameworks for tracking progress and implementing disaster management systems.

Johan Stander from the World Meteorological Organization discussed the UN Secretary General’s goal of protecting everyone with early warning systems by 2027. He stressed the importance of understanding local risks, developing forecasting capabilities, and ensuring warning messages reach all people through multiple communication channels, including low-tech solutions like SMS and voice messages for illiterate populations.

WEGO Secretary General Jeong-Kee Kim highlighted the organization’s work in training young professionals through the Sustainable Smart Cities Champions Program, recognizing that today’s youth are tomorrow’s climate-conscious leaders. The Mayor of Amman, through a video message, described how the city integrates smart city strategies with climate action, aiming for 60% emissions reduction by 2040 while ensuring inclusive digital transformation.

Nadia Verjee from Expo City Dubai presented their model of building a sustainable city from scratch, emphasizing the importance of embedding climate consciousness from the initial design phase rather than retrofitting existing infrastructure. Nicholas You from Guangzhou shared insights on implementing people-centered approaches by breaking down city management to the neighborhood level, allowing communities to identify their specific resilience priorities. The discussion concluded with a call for greater involvement of local and regional governments in international smart city debates, recognizing their crucial role as implementers who understand local contexts and citizen needs.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Technologies for Climate Resilience**: How digitalization and ICT can help cities build climate-resilient infrastructure, particularly through early warning systems for extreme weather events and better data collection/monitoring capabilities.

– **People-Centered Smart City Development**: The critical importance of involving citizens, especially youth, in smart city planning and ensuring that technology serves human needs rather than being implemented for its own sake. This includes breaking down institutional silos and consulting communities at the neighborhood level.

– **Early Warning Systems and Risk Management**: The UN’s initiative to protect everyone on the planet with early warning systems by 2027, emphasizing multi-hazard approaches that are accessible to all populations, including those who are illiterate or lack access to high-tech solutions.

– **Youth Engagement and Intergenerational Equity**: Recognizing that 60% of the global population will live in urban areas by 2030, with a significant portion being youth who will bear the brunt of climate change impacts, and the need to actively involve them in policy-making and solution development.

– **Practical Implementation Models**: Examples from various cities (Amman, Dubai, Guangzhou) showing different approaches to combining smart city strategies with climate action, from retrofitting existing infrastructure to building new sustainable cities from scratch.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how cities can leverage digital technologies and smart city approaches to become more climate-resilient while ensuring that development remains people-centered and inclusive. The event sought to demonstrate the value of involving local and regional governments in international discussions about digitalization and climate action.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout. Speakers were optimistic about the potential of technology to address climate challenges while being realistic about implementation challenges. There was a consistent emphasis on inclusivity and the need for practical, context-appropriate solutions. The tone remained professional and forward-looking, with speakers building on each other’s points and emphasizing partnership and cooperation across different levels of governance and stakeholder groups.

Speakers

– **Anh Thu Duong** – Co-director of the Global Cities Hub, moderator of the event

– **Tomas Lamanauskas** – Deputy Secretary General of ITU (International Telecommunication Union)

– **Johan Stander** – Senior Director of Services at WMO (World Meteorological Organization)

– **Jeong-Kee Kim** – Secretary General of WEGO (World Smart Sustainable Cities Organization)

– **Yousef Al Shawarbeh** – Mayor of Amman, Jordan (participated via video message)

– **Nadia Verjee** – Executive Director of Expo City Dubai (participated online)

– **Nicholas You** – Executive Director of Guangzhou Institute for Urban Innovation, advisor to the mayor

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Smart City Leaders’ Talk: Comprehensive Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

The Smart City Leaders’ Talk, moderated by Anh Thu Duong, Co-director of the Global Cities Hub, brought together international organisations, city leaders, and experts to explore how digitalisation can create climate-resilient urban environments. This third event in the series was co-organised by the Global Cities Hub, ITU, and WEGO, conducted in a hybrid format with both online and in-person participants, with interpretation available in English and French.

The panel featured distinguished speakers including Tomas Lamanauskas (Deputy Secretary General of ITU), Johan Stander (Senior Director of Services at WMO), Jeong-Kee Kim (Secretary General of WEGO), Yousef Al Shawarbeh (Mayor of Amman, Jordan, participating via video message after being unable to attend at the last minute), Nadia Verjee (Executive Director of Expo City Dubai), and Nicholas You (Executive Director of Guangzhou Institute for Urban Innovation and advisor to the mayor).

## Major Discussion Themes and Speaker Contributions

### Digital Technologies for Climate Resilience

Tomas Lamanauskas from ITU emphasized the critical role of digital technologies in building climate-resilient cities, noting that cities account for 70% of global CO2 emissions whilst being vulnerable to climate shocks. He briefly mentioned ITU’s involvement in the Green Digital Action initiative and Early Warnings for All programme, highlighting the need for standardised frameworks for tracking progress and implementing disaster management systems.

Johan Stander from the World Meteorological Organisation provided detailed insights into the UN Secretary General’s goal of protecting everyone with early warning systems by 2027. He outlined the four-pillar approach of the Early Warnings initiative: disaster risk reduction, observation and forecasting infrastructure, communication systems, and community preparedness. Stander emphasized a shift from traditional weather forecasting to impact-based forecasting, explaining: “We’ve moved away from forecasting. We’ve moved into impact-based forecasting. What should you do? Not what the weather will be, but you as an individual, what you should do when these conditions are expected in the city.”

### People-Centred Smart City Development and Youth Engagement

A central theme throughout the discussion was the importance of involving citizens, especially youth, in smart city planning. Johan Stander posed challenging questions about youth engagement: “Speaking to the converted youth, everybody knows that by 2030, 60 percent of the population will live around urban areas… Not everybody thinks that 1.8 billion people constitute the youth and by 2030, 60% of those we define as youth will live in these cities. However, are we engaging them enough when policies need to be written or decisions need to be taken? Are we co-developing solutions with them?”

Jeong-Kee Kim from WEGO, which was originally established as “the world e-government organization 15 years ago by 50 cities” before broadening its mission in 2017, highlighted the organisation’s work in training young professionals through the Sustainable Smart Cities Champions Programme. Kim announced WEGO’s inaugural Global Youth Award for 2025 to recognise exceptional young leaders in smart cities and climate action.

Nicholas You from Guangzhou provided a critical perspective, referencing COVID-19 as a wake-up call: “What happened five years ago? The world was hit by this pandemic and I think it was a gigantic wake-up call. We discovered in cities both in the global north and the global south that many people and many places were being left behind… Despite the fact that we have smart city tools around for almost 30-40 years, what went wrong?”

### Technology Adaptation and Accessibility

Johan Stander challenged high-tech assumptions by providing concrete examples of effective low-tech solutions: “Some people may say, but this is all high-tech. When high-tech works, great, we’re all happy. But high-tech technology, the funding for that is not always accessible… So two examples. One from Argentina, a city called Luján… they send out a particular warning for a particular city and what the people should do on SMS. No smart technologies, just information… Another example is in Senegal… they’ve realized that the majority of their population is illiterate… So they’ve moved into a voice-over warning system.”

This perspective influenced the discussion’s understanding of ‘smart cities,’ emphasizing that solutions must be inclusive and adapted to local contexts rather than imposing universal high-tech solutions.

### Practical Implementation Models

Mayor Yousef Al Shawarbeh of Amman, in his video message, described how the city integrates smart city strategies with climate action, aiming for 60% emissions reduction by 2040 whilst ensuring inclusive digital transformation. He emphasized that “building smart and climate-resilient cities requires fostering holistic vision that invests in digital infrastructure while ensuring inclusion of youth, women, and persons with disabilities.”

Nadia Verjee from Expo City Dubai presented their model of building a sustainable city from scratch, emphasizing embedding climate consciousness from the initial design phase. She reported specific results: “93% of our waste away from landfill,” “9% increase on our solar energy production,” and “21%” reduction in grid consumption. Verjee positioned Expo City as a testbed for the UAE’s net zero 2050 targets, piloting solutions that can be adapted and scaled elsewhere.

### Governance and Measurement Challenges

Nicholas You raised fundamental questions about governance structures in smart cities, identifying a critical structural problem: “The reason I want to turn the clock back is because if we look at how smart city approaches have been applied to cities, they have been largely following the existing structure of cities… we have still not overcome those silos. So the real challenge for us going forward is how do we use digital tools and hopefully use AI intelligently to help us bridge those silos.”

You also highlighted measurement problems in urban governance: “We recently did a study, we looked at utilities across a dozen different countries and we’re still measuring cubic meters, tons, kilometers, kilowatts, etc. We don’t see people there. So, the best way that we found to approach this problem is to put people in charge.” He described a new planning approach being used “in Guangzhou, but not only in Guangzhou, in other Chinese cities as well” that focuses on neighbourhood-level community consultation.

## Key Themes and Collaborative Insights

The discussion revealed broad alignment on several key principles. All speakers emphasized the crucial importance of youth engagement for climate-conscious smart city development, with multiple speakers highlighting that young people must be actively involved in planning processes as they will be most affected by today’s decisions.

Speakers also demonstrated agreement that smart city solutions must be people-centred and context-specific, prioritising human needs over technology and adapting solutions to local contexts. This was evident across examples ranging from simple SMS warnings in Argentina to neighbourhood-level community consultation approaches.

Additionally, there was strong emphasis on integrating climate action with smart city strategies, with speakers agreeing that smart city development cannot be separated from climate action and requires integrated approaches addressing both emissions reduction and climate adaptation.

## Institutional Advocacy and Future Directions

Moderator Anh Thu Duong made specific advocacy for greater inclusion of local and regional governments in international processes, calling for “institutionalization of local and regional governments” in WSIS processes, including “regular consultation with local and regional governments on standardization.” She emphasized that local governments are “on the front lines of implementation” and stressed the need to “consult people through local and regional governments.”

The discussion generated several concrete initiatives and calls to action. The Early Warnings for All initiative, led by WMO and UNDRR with ITU as a partner, continues working toward the 2027 goal. WEGO announced plans to launch the inaugural Global Youth Award in 2025. Expo City Dubai committed to hosting the Asia-Pacific City Summit and Mayor’s Forum for regional knowledge sharing.

Cities were encouraged to adopt standardised KPI frameworks for progress tracking, while there were calls for more systematic consultation with local and regional governments in digital infrastructure standardisation processes and implementation of neighbourhood-level data collection and community-driven priority setting.

## Ongoing Challenges

Several critical challenges remain unresolved, including ensuring adequate funding for digital infrastructure in developing countries where high-tech solutions may not be accessible, and effectively bridging institutional silos that prevent integrated smart city approaches.

The challenge of scaling successful innovations from test-bed cities to legacy cities with existing infrastructure constraints also requires further attention. Additionally, developing people-centred metrics that focus on human outcomes rather than technical measurements remains an ongoing need.

The discussion also highlighted the continuing challenge of ensuring meaningful youth participation in urban governance beyond consultation, and balancing rapid urbanisation needs with inclusive, sustainable development approaches.

## Conclusion

The Smart City Leaders’ Talk demonstrated an evolved understanding of smart cities that prioritises human needs, local context adaptation, and climate integration. The discussion emphasized that effective smart city development requires moving beyond technology-first approaches toward inclusive, community-driven models that address both digital transformation and climate resilience.

The strong emphasis on youth engagement, combined with calls for greater involvement of local and regional governments in international smart city processes, points toward more democratic and collaborative approaches to urban innovation. As cities continue to face growing climate challenges, the insights from this discussion provide guidance for developing smart city approaches that serve human needs while addressing urgent sustainability challenges.

Due to time constraints, the moderator was unable to conduct a second round of questions, though the discussion successfully highlighted the interconnected nature of digital transformation, climate action, and inclusive urban governance.

Anh Thu Duong: Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, we will start in really a few seconds. Can I call all speakers on the panel. Good afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues. Very pleased to be here with you. Welcome to the Smart City Leaders’ Talk on Safe Smart Cities and Climate Frustration, co-organized by the Global Cities Hub with ITU and with our partner organization WEGO. Very pleased. Thank you. This year, we’ve chosen this topic of safe smart cities and climate frustration because a people-centered smart city approach means addressing people’s needs and expectation. And definitely, a climate conscious, climate resilient, sustainable urban future is really one of those needs and expectation. My name is Anh Thu Duong. I am the co-director of the Global Cities Hub, which is an organization which mission is twofold. Very quickly, we connect local and regional governments to international processes, and we focus on urban topics because we all know our future is urban and we need to apply this lens to everything we do, to everything we reflect on. And therefore, I’ll have the pleasure of moderating this event today. A few housekeeping matters before we start. Just to let you know that the event is hybrid. We have online participants and also online speakers who will join. You will see them at some point on the screen. We also have interpretation in English and French, so please don’t hesitate to choose the right channel to make sure you can follow the discussion which will be in English only. Now allow me to first thank the Deputy Secretary General of ITU, Tomas Lamanauskas, and your team for organizing the WSIS Plus 20 high-level events which feature the Smart City Leaders Talk and for joining us today in person. As you all know, the WSIS Plus 20 process offers the opportunity of harnessing emerging digital technologies which can accelerate the localization of sustainable development goals. In particular, those basically that facilitate local climate resilient development and can help address the global challenge of climate action through information communication technologies. The WSIS process is by nature multi-stakeholders. You see a lot of different constituencies throughout the events. You see states, private sectors, NGO, business people, academia. What we are basically fighting for, I would say, sorry fight is maybe a bit of a strong word, is to have a process that goes a little bit further and really include more local and regional governments. We advocate for the institutionalization of local and regional governments. For instance, that could be through regular consultation with local and regional governments on standardization. organization on digital infrastructure development because they are at the receiving end. So I’m looking at you Tomas, to you know convey that message and I trust that today this discussion will show, will demonstrate to you the tremendous added value of local and regional governments in this debate. The smart city leaders talk, which is I think the third in a row, if my recollection is correct, constitutes a very adequate framework for forward-looking thematic discussion between different constituencies, local and regional government, states, ITU and other relevant international organizations, as well as many other stakeholders including, as I said earlier, the private sector, academia, NGO and you name them. So in relation to our panel today, I will first invite Deputy Secretary-General Tomas Lamanauskas and Senior Director of Services at WMO, Johan Stander, to set the frame regarding the use of digitalization and ICTs to build smart cities and develop adequate early warning systems for extreme weather events. I will then turn to our mayors, city networks, city representative, other experts and ask them about how the transformative development of digital technologies and the opportunities that they offer for smart and climate resilient, for smart and climate resilient sustainable city development unfold. As we all know, extreme heat, extreme weather events, we just got through a very intense heat wave in Geneva for those who were there last week. We know that those phenomenon are getting more intense, more frequent and impact our daily lives. So today’s aim is really to discuss how can we ensure people-centered, climate resilient, smart city development And what are the necessary actions at the local level to be taken in order to confront those events? So we have a great line of speakers to address this issue. We will go with the first round of questions and I will introduce you. And we’ll start with you, Tomas Lamanauskas. As I said, you’re the Deputy Secretary General of the ITU. So tell us how, from the perspective of your own organization, how the ITU can help local leaders use digitalization and smart city approaches to develop more climate-conscious, climate-resilient cities. You have the floor.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you, Ms. Anh Thu. Indeed, it’s great to have you here and have this, I would say, traditional conversation already. And I think that’s already answering your question, how we can help to have those conversations and to transform those conversations into solutions. But indeed, I liked how you said about the Geneva heat wave. Actually, some of us were in Sevilla last week for Finance for Development conference, so we only had 43 degrees Celsius. And watching the temperatures in other parts of Spain coming up to 46. So indeed, this is, I guess, new normal. Last year was the hottest year on record, but I don’t think it’s the last year on the record, regretfully. So I think that’s how, the question is how we all really address that. But then the thing before that, the specific challenge also, I think the importance of those voices from different levels of governance to really have one inclusive conversation. And it’s good here, I’m not only seeing here representatives of the cities, I also see ministers, I also see young people, I also see different UN agencies, that we’re all having this inclusive conversation together. And indeed, our great collaboration in the context of cities with the Global Cities Hub, I think enables that really to happen. Now, why we should care? Indeed, cities regretfully are also the source of emissions. And that’s kind of what we say, we talk about resiliency, how we can address that, but also urban areas account for around 70% of global CO2 emissions. So, yes, cities suffer, but they are also a bit of a culprit, so that needs to be addressed there as well. And that also makes cities vulnerable to the climate shocks, you know, from floods and heatwaves and other things that can help. And the question is now here, when we talk specifically about smart cities, do we talk about smart cities in all the right ways? Yes, we talk about connectivity, which of course IT promotes and have a lot of activities there, but also how we use that connectivity, you know, whether we just use that, you know, for which areas we use that. And we of course use that for economic development, for social inclusion, but do we use that also for climate both mitigation in terms of better use of, you know, from energy grids to other areas, but also climate adaptation in terms of, you know, being ready for disasters and better informed users as well. So now, of course, from our side, you know, so let’s say the governmental side for ITU has been an important part for quite a long while, you know, it’s also part of the business framework with our, with Action Line C7, you know, like all these numbers we keep reminding ourselves in this halls, which just talks about the environment. But also we as ITU, you know, a couple of years ago also decided to kind of give a boost of this with what’s called Green Digital Action. So on Green Digital Action initiative that started with COP28 brought together, you know, brought together stakeholders to say both how digital technologies will help solve the climate crisis for us, including cities, but how we all embrace our own responsibilities as a digital industry as well. And that’s, again, when you build digital… infrastructure in cities is important to think. Through the standards that encourage environmental sustainability, through the better reporting and transparency on greenhouse gas emissions, through disaster management, especially through the early warning systems, and we have this flagship initiative called Early Warnings for All that we run together with the UNDRR, SIRS, International Red Cross, NWMO, our partners here as well, of course. So how do we address those different areas as well? One of our partners there is also looking in the Digital Impact Alliance, is also looking into how to unlock data for climate action through what is called GERAND Learning Network for Climate Action, in which we look how to report data, how to really address the critical data needs, innovating data sharing models also for cities as well, so that we can make sure that we know it. And different cities around the world are involved, from Nairobi, Nairobi in Kenya, Desperados, Argentina, Freetown, Sierra Leone. So indeed, kind of different partners are involved already to measuring that, and I think definitely something can be applied to other cities. Now also, two current cities worldwide have adopted key performance indicators of our United for Smart, Sustainable Cities initiative, which is a standardized framework for cities to track down their progress as well. So of course, measurement and progress in this regard as well. So I think these are just a couple of initiatives that show that we find it very important, both measurement side, progress tracking side, but also then making sure the technologies are available through the right standards there and right partnerships here. But again, going back here, also it’s important to have these very inclusive dialogues in the places like that, to really see what are the needs of the cities and how other communities can contribute indeed. And I have to apologize, I will not run immediately, but I’ll have to leave a little bit earlier. Thank you very much.

Anh Thu Duong: Thank you, Tomas. I can imagine you have a busy program those days, running from one event to another. And thanks for making those points about those initiatives and how you basically, you know, help not only cities, but also, of course, states to measures to track progress, to have the right standards, to have data, basically, in order to better, you know, combat climate change. And I think it’s really important to listen from an agency like you, ITU, that you have, you know, really, you know, taken measures to, you know, go and basically fight climate change. So, thanks a lot for that. Also, to mention maybe that cities have tools that they can use, but for that, they need to contact you and they need to engage in a regular dialogue, I would say, with you. Thanks so much for that. We turn now to Johan Stander, as I said, Director, Senior Director of Services at the World Meteorological Organization, WMO. So, can you tell us, because you must probably work on this issue of urban, you know, so can you tell us how can the transformative development of digital technologies minimize the loss of life from severe weather events? And we’ve seen them, unfortunately, unfold in Texas very recently. How do you, how, basically, can you harness those digital technology and strengthen also early warnings and early action system?

Johan Stander: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity, Thomas. Thank you. It’s great to be here and to represent the WMO on behalf of the Secretary General, Professor Celeste Salo. I would like to take a leap from what Thomas has indicated about the youth, just start slightly different. Speaking to the converted youth, everybody knows that by 2030, 60 percent of the population will live around urban areas. and as we know most of those people will move towards cities close to the ocean. Now, Tomas spoke about the youth. Not everybody thinks that 1.8 billion people constitute the youth and by 2030, 60% of those we define as youth will live in these cities. However, are we engaging them enough when policies need to be written or decisions need to be taken? Are we co-developing solutions with them? Because most of them, not my generation, but we’re feeling the brunt, are experiencing climate change and the impact of climate change. But are we really engaging those people, the food soldiers, so to speak, those people living in informal settlements? And if we think of Africa, they do expect that 60% of the population of Africa will live in cities by 2030. Now, that’s a staggering amount if you can consider the amount of people that live in Africa. Now, Tomas touched on the early warnings of the United Nations Secretary General Guterres with the end of 2022 indicated that everybody on the planet must be protected by early warning systems by 2027. Now, it is requested the WMO with the UNDRR to lead this initiative, but when we started this process, when we developed this high-level action plan, we immediately realized this can’t be done just by us. And we’ve got this four-pillar lead, so working with ITU, which I will go now into, and IFRC. So on the disaster risk reduction side, it’s important to understand the risk. What is the risk in that particular city? Because each city may be different. Can the infrastructure cope with the extreme heat that we’re experiencing? Can cities cope with intense rainfall over a short space of time? Can the cities cope with flash floods and all those that are associated? The microclimate in a city, we spoke about earlier, you know, the people living in a city where the buildings may not be built for air conditioning or cooling systems, or what about the workers outside making sure the streets are clean? Is it safe for them to still work over 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock in the afternoon to do their work? So we need to understand the risk when we develop these technologies. Number two is where the WMO comes in. So making sure we’ve got the infrastructure out there to support this. So we need to make sure we’ve got sufficient information, observation information. What is the temperature? What is the rainfall upstream and downstream that goes towards the city area? And then the modelling capabilities which we can help with, and then the forecasting capabilities. Sending out those early warning messages to the people in the city, to those in the rural community that there’s extreme heat expected in a certain area or in the city, and what should you do? We’ve moved away from forecasting. We’ve moved into impact-based forecasting. What should you do? Not what the weather will be, but you as an individual, what you should do when these conditions are expected in the city. So you need to take action on those warnings. Number three is with the ITU. making sure that the message reach each person. Now people may say, but what if the cell phone system or mobile system goes down? This is where IT is so brilliant. They’re working with the satellite communication people to make sure that if the mobile service goes down, you still get your warning through satellite at no cost to the individual, because they also would like to save lives. And then with the IFRC, making sure the last people are reached at the end of the day, because this whole system which we developed, co-developed with everybody, is a people-centric multi-hazard early warning system. So we must look at all hazards, volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, heat and so on. Now let us look at two examples. Some people may say, but this is all high-tech. When high-tech works, great, we’re all happy. But high-tech technology, the funding for that is not always accessible for those in developing, all these developed countries. So two examples. One from Argentina, a city called Lujan, so when they’ve got the extreme heat expected in their particular area, they send out a particular warning for a particular city and what the people should do on SMS. No smart technologies, just information they receive from the National Meteorological and Hydrological Service. Another example is in Senegal. And apart from using the SMS system, they’ve realized that the majority of their population is illiterate. They cannot read or write. So they’ve moved into a voice-over warning system. So they get the warning, people get the warnings by just listening to the message. Now that’s practical. It’s not costing a lot of money, but they’re still reaching the people at the end of the day. We earlier spoke about floods and all of those type of things, but what about the cities close to the ocean? What about sea level rise? A lot of these cities’ outlets are in the ocean, but if you’ve got sea level rise, you’ve got extremely high waves, what is happening is pushing the water back, so the water cannot flow into the ocean. Can you deal with that? What do you need to do to adapt to those things if the infrastructure is in such a way that it cannot push the water down into the ocean? When we talk about local leaders, I think it’s really important that we understand that we involve everybody. We need to make sure that we’ve got institutional engagement, involve the people as full partners from the start of the process for smart city innovations, education, capacity development and support for those who need it. Sometimes we forget that we need to do that training on the foot soldiers on the ground level and then leverage global networks. I would like to end with a couple of remarks, if I may. Incorporating the views and expectations of a climate-conscious generation is crucial for people-centric, climate-resilient smart cities. Local leaders can create structures and cultures that treat all as partners in urban innovation, while global leaders and organizations provide the support, the framework and resources which Thomas related to earlier. When all people are empowered to influence and shape climate responses in cities, results are much more inclusive, creative and future-proof. By embracing intergenerational collaboration today, city builders and policy makers can cultivate urban environments that are sustainable, resilient and responsive to the hopes of the next generation. Thank you.

Anh Thu Duong: Thank you so much for those very important thoughts, concluding thoughts. I think you really showed how basically defining smart must be adapted to each local context, you know, it’s not always very much, very high, costly, high tech, but it has to respond to a demand from people on the ground. And for that, basically consulting with local and regional governments who know their people, who know their context, who know their actors is very important. Thanks a lot for that. Let me now turn to my next speaker, Mr. Jeong-Kee Kim, U.S. Secretary General of WECO, a smart city organization that gathers quite a number of cities worldwide, working on smart solutions with those cities. We’re very glad to see you here because we’ve been partnering for a long time with WECO, so thanks a lot for the trust and again for the collaboration around this event. May I ask you how local and global leaders can factor in the views and expectations of people who become more climate conscious in smart city development? And you mentioned it earlier, in particular among the young generation who take on more importance, these are people we should listen to them, we should listen to. How do local leaders factor in those views?

Jeong-Kee Kim: Thank you. Hello, good afternoon. I am Mr. Jeong-Kee Kim, the Secretary General of the World Smart Sustainable Cities Organization. It is truly an honor to be here with you today. It is a great pleasure to be to the beautiful and innovative city of Geneva for the second edition of the Smart Cities Leaders’ Talk at WSIS Plus 20 high-level event. Allow me to begin by extending my sincere gratitude to our partners, Doreen Bogdan-Martin, Secretary General of ITU, Tomas Lamanauskas, Deputy Secretary General of ITU, he left present today, and their wonderful team for organizing this important summit and for their warm hospitality. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Global Cities Hub, represented by Anh Thu Duong. Am I correct?

Anh Thu Duong: Yes.

Jeong-Kee Kim: Thank you. Co-Director of Global Cities Hub for their continued partnership and support in co-hosting today’s session. Moreover, I wish to extend a warm welcome to our esteemed WIGO member, Mr. Umar Nasir Usman, Deputy Mayor of Abuja, Nigeria. Additionally, I express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Joseph R. Chawarowe, Mayor of Amman. Mr. Nicholas Yu, Executive Director of the Gangzhou Institute for Sustainable Smart Cities Champions Program. Ms. Nadia Verjee, Executive Director of Expo3Dubai, Mr. Johan Stander, Senior Director of the World Meteorological Organization. We hope to welcome you in the family very soon. Today’s gathering is a unique opportunity to discuss and shape the development of safe and smart cities. It is a chance to reflect on how local and global leaders can integrate the views and expectations of climate-conscious citizens, particularly the youth, into the development of urban spaces. Organizations like the World Smart Sustainable Cities Organization, also known as WIGO, has been instrumental in this journey as a global network dedicated to support local leaders in transforming cities into smart, sustainable environments. WIGO was established as the world e-government organization 15 years ago by 50 cities leading in ICT development, mainly led by Seoul Metropolitan Government. Responding to the evolving landscape in city governance and climate consciousness, WIGO broadened its mission and vision to support the development of smart and sustainable cities in 2017. Today, with over 2,200 members worldwide and 6 regional offices operating across all of the continents, WIGO fosters collaboration in sustainable and inclusive development. inclusive development by acting as a central hub among cities in the world. A key aspect to this action is engaging the younger generation, whose forward-thinking ideas are essential for building cities that are smart, resilient, and sustainable. This is the objective of the WEGO, Sustainable Smart Cities Champions Program, recognizing today’s youth are tomorrow’s leaders. The program aims to build the students’ and young professionals’ expertise in smart and resilient city development by partnering with domestic and international universities and through a combination of online lectures and in-person workshops conducted by accredited professors. The program seeks to build an active community of future leaders who are climate-conscious and equipped to make a significant impact. By hosting workshops around the world, we offer a platform for interaction, networking, and active engagement to share ideas and explore these topics. In addition, in 2025, WEGO aims to involve young people even further by launching its inaugural Global Youth Award. This initiative is set to recognize exceptional global youth leaders excelling in areas such as smart cities, advanced technologies, net-zero initiatives, digital innovation, cultural Since the beginning of this initiative in 2022, we have observed the growing interest of local and global leaders in getting involved and actively preparing their young communities to face these issues. This is why, as we move forward, I would like to call upon global and local leaders to reflect on the importance of this mission and to join us in such an initiative. By integrating the youth into development strategies and initiatives, we can ensure the development of innovative, inclusive, and climate-focused cities for the benefit of all the people in the world. Thank you.

Anh Thu Duong: Thank you very much, Jeong-Kee Kim. Very interesting to learn about how you train the youth, basically, to make sure that you have a future generation of smart city leaders and that basically respond to their own expectations and needs. Thank you for that. We need to accelerate a little bit. I’m looking at the time. You mentioned in your remarks that Amman was a member of WECO. We have the mayor of Amman, who was supposed to come, who could not come at the last minute. He sent us a video message very kindly where, basically, he responds to this question. How can Amman in Jordan combine a smart city strategy with climate action and economic growth at the local level? How does, basically, that city combine all those different objectives at their local level? The message will be delivered in Arabic. Again, please use your headphones to make sure you have the right language.

Yousef Al Shawarbeh: Warm greetings from Amman, the capital of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. We are a city steadily advancing toward a smart, safe and sustainable urban future, guided by a comprehensive vision that places people and climate at the heart of its urban policies. It is my pleasure to join you at this important global event, which highlights the critical role of smart cities in addressing climate change challenges and enhancing urban safety through digital solutions driven by artificial intelligence and advanced technologies. In a time where climate risks are accelerating and the need for integrated and innovative responses is even more pressing, Amman has adopted an integrated approach to the Alliance in Smart Cities strategy with the updated 2024 Climate Action Plan, the Comprehensive Transport Strategy and the City’s Green Growth Plan, all within a coordinated framework that ensures maximum impact on quality of life, emissions reduction and urban resilience. The greater Amman municipality has developed a smart city roadmap built on our interrelated pillars, digital transformation, smart and sustainable mobility, green infrastructure and integrated environmental management. Across all pillars, climate resilience and adaptation are mainstream. Our Climate Action Plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2040 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. We have made smart transformation a strategic tool to achieve three core objectives, enhancing urban resilience to climate change. improving quality of life and building an inclusive, data-driven and innovation-based city supported by effective governance. In this context, Amman officially launched its Smart City Strategy in October 2023, a milestone that reflects the directive of His Majesty King Abdullah II to improve public services, attract investment and create a resilient and safe urban environment. This strategy builds on efforts initiated by the municipality since 2009. The strategy is structured around five clear strategic goals, enhancing the efficiency of urban services, promoting community engagement and improving quality of life, increasing the city’s resilience to climate change and disasters, ensuring environmental, economic and social sustainability, preserving the city’s identity while enabling digital transformation. In terms of mobility, the bus rapid transit system is a leading model of smart and sustainable public transport, reducing the city’s carbon footprint and improving traffic efficiency, supported by electronic ticketing and AI-powered smart traffic systems. On the digital front, we have digitized core municipal services, introduced smart lighting systems, citizen engagement platforms and unified complaint applications, all of which have contributed to enhanced efficiency, transparency and data-driven decision-making. In terms of infrastructure, the city is promoting green building standards and low-emission constructions alongside improved waste management through recycling and composting initiatives and smart tracking tools to boost operational efficiency. Building a smart and climate-resilient city is not just about technology adoption. It is about fostering a holistic vision that invests in digital infrastructure, builds public trust, strengthens national and international partnerships, and ensures the inclusions of all, especially youth, women and persons with disabilities. I would like to thank the organizers of this important summit and reaffirm Amman’s strong commitment to both its achievements and its aspirations to be a model for equitable, smart climate transformation and a proactive international partner in building the cities of tomorrow. Cities that are more sustainable, inclusive and secure. Thank you.

Anh Thu Duong: Thank you. I apologize to our speakers here who don’t have the interpretation. I’ll provide you with a translation of his statement. But what’s again very interesting to hear in Amman’s basically intervention, it’s again this question of definition of smartness. It’s not about only technology adoption, but how to be as inclusive as possible, how to make sure that all the public services reach the right people in the city, including the youth, including the women, people with disabilities, and responding to your basic mandate as mayor is servicing people. We now move on to Nadia Vergy. I hope you are online with us. I think you are. Great. Thanks. Welcome, Nadia. Welcome to Girona. Nadia, you are Executive Director of Expo City Dubai. It’s a very special example of creating a city from scratch. Expo City Dubai presents itself as a pioneering model for sustainable urban development. Interestingly, in preparing this event, I found that your city, Expo City Dubai, prides itself in not being just a city, but in being tomorrow’s living model for how we live, how we work, how we have leisure, how we connect in the future. So tell us, you know, from your experience, from your standpoint, how does Expo City Dubai reconcile smart city technologies and climate consciousness? The floor is yours.

Nadia Verjee: Thank you very much for having me on the panel today. I hope you can hear me well, and it’s an honor to participate. So Expo City Dubai is the new center of gravity of the future growth of the city of Dubai. So it’s not a retrofit, but it’s a city really born out of intention. And that, I think, and I think it’s very important to say, that it comes with a profound opportunity, but also a very serious responsibility when the stakes are this high. And we’re talking about climate change, digital disruption, rising expectations around safety, equity. Our colleague from WHO is really speaking about intergenerational equity and inclusion. And I think that these are really essential ingredients of how to design holistic. We haven’t really layered sustainability or infrastructure on top of legacy systems. We really embedded it from the very beginning. And so really thinking about the design master plan of this space, how can we think about mobility, energy, waste, data flow in a single system? So almost really thinking of a different paradigm. We’re a 15 minute city by design. scale, walkable, digitally integrated. Our infrastructure like district cooling, sensor-enabled waste was really planned from the outset. We really do prioritise renewable energy, eco-friendly designs, smart urban planning, sort of that whole facility for residents and tenants and everybody who’s living in this city to really benefit from an improved quality of life. In 2024, to give you just a few anchors of statistics, we diverted 93% of our waste away from landfill. We had a 9% increase on our solar energy production. We’re a certified autism centre. On our road to decarbonisation, reducing our consumption of grid and year on year from last year was 21%. So all of this kind of gives you an idea of the fact that we serve as this test bed for the city of Dubai, but for the UAE that’s got its own net zero targets for 2050. So we can pilot, we fail fast. We try to scale because the governance, the land, the institutional framework is all aligned. So we’re not kind of trapped in those long term cycles. And I think this is something that’s very well known about Dubai and the UAE, the sort of governance agility, and that can really accelerate our response to climate. But then I guess the flip side of that is ensuring inclusion, and it’s not enough to have the technology. We have to sort of ask ourselves, well, what does it take to really reduce emissions, improve air quality, and really focus on human dignity? And so that we like to call ourselves a green print, almost a model for export, but really a testbed for solutions that can be adapted, that can be scaled, and that can be tested elsewhere, particularly in the global south. And so, you know, we really, really believe that it’s really got to be. incredibly responsive. Safety is really about physical infrastructure, about digital safeguards and emotional security. So really creating trust in how the city listens and adapts and really sort of creates that enabling environment for the citizens and for folks who are living there. You know, we’re working with colleagues on the panel. You know, EGO is joining us in October at one of our big events that we’re hosting, and I’ll tell you a bit more about that. But really the idea is to co-develop frameworks that measure not just smartness, but really focused on impact. And like I said, on emissions, on equity, this focus on intergenerational equity is a priority for us and really human dignity. So what we’ve done over the course of the last couple of years is really design our own urban framework, which really helps cities benchmark themselves across global standards, but then our own metrics of what we’ve put in place to become this city that’s really based on metrics of sustainability, innovation, R&D, SME support, and really broad international cooperation. So my day job is to take the city into the world and then bring value back from the world into the city for the purposes of really benefiting from what great advances are happening in the rest of the world too. And so, you know, we recognize that it may look a little bit utopian perhaps, or a little bit inaccessible, that this idea of starting from scratch is sort of disconnected from some of these real world urban complexities, but Dubai has its own fair share of urban complexities. And so the burden is on us to kind of really collaborate, showcase what we’re doing, and really build relationships with cities around the world, which is why we’re hosting the Asia-Pacific City Summit and Mayor’s Forum, which is our global mayoral forum, really bringing the BIASA regions, Middle East, South Asia, and Africa region to the table. Because urbanization is happening at such an exponential speed in this part of the world, how do you really interrogate what works, what can scale, and what really inspires adaptation? So we’re really seeing this as an inflection point for cities to think about climate-conscious transformation through digital, through policy innovation, really bringing all of these leaders together to tackle challenges across climate, connectivity, infrastructure, and inclusion. And really for us, we really believe that Expo City is not just about the physical infrastructure, but it’s at the service of really a platform for urban imagination. So we hosted the World Expo, we hosted COP28, and now we believe that the frustration that we all feel about climate inaction, siloed planning, this idea of exclusionary design, really can be redirected into solutions that allow us to converge if we can create spaces to do that. So we’re a work in progress, and our invitation extends to every city to really build with purpose, build with urgency and integrity for what we all deserve and for what the next generations deserve too.

Anh Thu Duong: Thank you so much, Nadia. That sounds absolutely fascinating. I guess a lot of cities worldwide must look at you with a little bit of envy, being able to build a city from scratch. However, I might just rely on that figure that UN-Habitat keeps bringing up, saying that 60% of urban infrastructure by 2050, I think, is still to be built. So we still have a lot of white pages to draw on our urban future. But thanks so much for your intervention and about telling us how you work with that and how you’ve been able to embed all those considerations about climate resilience, climate consciousness from the very start. Very interesting. Now, let me turn to Nicholas You. the last but not the least. You are Executive Director of Guangzhou Institute for Urban Innovation but I’ve learned just before the panel that you were actually the advisor to the mayor which you know is much more interesting from our point of view I have to say because we’re looking for those connections with cities directly. So you’re basically, you extensively work on the concept of innovation in improving social, economic, environmental sustainability in cities. As such you’ve become really an expert on smart cities and advocate for a people-centered approach which we’ve heard throughout you know different interventions. Can you tell us more about the importance of why this is so important to have this people-centered approach? It sounds obvious but it’s not always when you design those smart cities. How does that play out in the context of smart climate resilient cities?

Nicholas You: Thank you very much and greetings to everybody. I would like to start just by turning the clock back five years. What happened five years ago? The world was hit by this pandemic and I think it was a gigantic wake-up call. We discovered in cities both in the global north and the global south that many people and many places were being left behind. I personally had to deal with emergencies in approximately a dozen cities. We were monitoring very closely what was happening and it was quite shocking to find out that even in wealthy cities there were entire neighborhoods where people did not have access to recreational green space. Entire communities did not have access to fresh food that a lot of children were really missing out on their education because of the digital divide. So what didn’t work? Despite the fact that we have smart city tools around for almost 30-40 years, what went wrong? And the reason I want to turn the clock back is because if we look at how smart city approaches have been applied to cities, they have been largely following the existing structure of cities. And our cities today, the structure that we use to govern our cities, manage our cities, was born out of the Industrial Revolution, when cities exploded in growth, in speed, in population, and it became so complex that we had to break down and simplify the city into bite-sized pieces. We call those bite-sized pieces the silos. And what COVID revealed to us was that despite all our efforts on smart city planning, smart city management, etc., we have still not overcome those silos. So the real challenge for us going forward is how do we use digital tools and hopefully use AI intelligently to help us bridge those silos in order to meet the green climate and digital transitions, right? And Guangzhou is no different. We discovered the same problems as other cities around the world, and I just want to use it as an example. We started our digital transition a long time ago already. As most people are aware, China’s pretty much at the forefront of using AI and all kinds of digital tools. But we also had the same problems, and we decided to use this wake-up call to rethink how we plan and design the city, not like Dubai. We’re a legacy city of 18 million people, so it’s pretty hard to try to do something completely new. The key issue here was how to become people-centered to make your city more resilient, was to rethink the management of the city down to the neighborhood level. So there’s a new planning approach in Guangzhou, but not only in Guangzhou, in other Chinese cities as well, where the city is broken down into wards, and most of the data that is being collected and being monitored is being done at the ward level. So we ask neighborhood by neighborhood, what are your priorities in making your neighborhood, your residential area, your community more resilient? It changes from neighborhood to neighborhood, depending on the age of the neighborhood, its type of architecture, when it was planned, when it was built, the age, gender split in that neighborhood. So we found out that some neighborhoods, in order to become more resilient, they primarily had to deal with solid waste. In others, it was urban cooling. How do you actually cool down the temperature of your neighborhood? Yet in others, it was water, but Chinese cities have an overall strategy of the sponge city. Yet in others, it was greening, how to integrate micro parks, micro recreational spaces into an existing urban fabric. So this bottom-up approach to looking at resilience is the strategy that Guangzhou is now pursuing. As I mentioned, most of the data is being collected at the community level. It’s being generated at the community level. It’s using simple applications, using mobile phone technology, while the city itself is monitoring other things, the overall temperature. wind direction, water, etc. etc. So, what basically what I’m getting at is that in order for a city, people-centered smart city to work, we have to re-look at all of our KPIs, sector by sector, silo by solo, to make sure that people are at the center. This is not the case today. We recently did a study, we looked at utilities across a dozen different countries and we’re still measuring cubic meters, tons, kilometers, kilowatts, etc. We don’t see people there. So, the best way that we found to approach this problem is to put people in charge. Put people in charge of collecting, defining which data they want to collect, which are the problems they want to solve, have them be part of the ecosystem that is looking at the data, coming up with solutions, feeding that back into the urban planning and day-to-day management of the city. In conclusion, what I want to say is that for people-centered to work, we have to make this a real pillar of how we measure what we’re doing. It has to be a fundamental pillar. It cannot just be objectives that we fix to a project or to a three-year initiative, etc. It has to become a permanent feature of how we measure progress. Most importantly, I think it implies that we adopt a systems approach, which means that from the governance perspective, we will have to bridge, if not break down those silos. The only way we can do that is really by putting people and communities at the forefront of the decision-making process.

Anh Thu Duong: Thank you so much, Nicolas. It’s really back to basics, basically. If you want a people-centered approach, ask the people. Go to the neighbourhood level, go to the ward level to understand what are their needs and expectations. in terms of smartness of their own city. We had a last speaker, but I think unfortunately we had connection issues. Unfortunately, so therefore we’re coming to the end of this event without having the opportunity to go for a second round of questions. I’m so sorry about this. I feel that this discussion could have lasted much longer, but allow me to simply like express my heartfelt thanks to all of the speakers both in person but also online for their time and valuable contributions. Allow me to also extend sincere gratitude for the ITU team who’ve enabled this event as well as to my colleague Andras Szorenyi who’s worked very hard to gather all those fantastic speakers. I hope we’ve successfully highlighted the critical role that local and regional governments must play in the current but also the future debates on smart cities and you understood that smart is a very big word where we put a lot of things. It means different things for different purple people, but please do consult your own people through local and regional governments who are the level of authority that is in proximity with those people who again know the context, know the territory, know basically what are the needs that need to be responded to. As with many issues discussed at the international level, we must recognize that local and regional governments are often on the front lines of implementation, of decision being made at the state level, at the international level. So their involvement in those discussions is crucial. This is what we’ve attempted to do today by having this focus on city level. And so we know that local and regional governments have the ability to drive real progress when it comes to climate resilience because ITU mentioned it earlier. Nadia, they are the drivers of the climate change, but they’re also the ones being most impacted. So let’s listen to them. Let’s consult people to ensure that we have a people-centered, smart city development. And I thank you again and hope to see you soon.

Agreement points

Youth engagement is crucial for climate-conscious smart city development

Speakers

– Johan Stander
– Jeong-Kee Kim
– Yousef Al Shawarbeh
– Anh Thu Duong

Arguments

1.8 billion youth will constitute 60% of urban population by 2030, but they need to be engaged in policy-making and solution co-development

WEGO’s Sustainable Smart Cities Champions Program builds students’ and young professionals’ expertise through online lectures and workshops to create climate-conscious future leaders

Building smart and climate-resilient cities requires fostering holistic vision that invests in digital infrastructure while ensuring inclusion of youth, women, and persons with disabilities

Incorporating views of climate-conscious generation is crucial for people-centric, climate-resilient smart cities

Summary

All speakers emphasized that young people must be actively involved in smart city planning and development, as they will be the primary urban residents and most affected by climate change decisions made today

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Smart city solutions must be people-centered and context-specific

Speakers

– Johan Stander
– Yousef Al Shawarbeh
– Nicholas You
– Anh Thu Duong

Arguments

Smart solutions must be adapted to local contexts – simple SMS warnings in Argentina and voice-over systems for illiterate populations in Senegal prove effective

Building smart and climate-resilient cities requires fostering holistic vision that invests in digital infrastructure while ensuring inclusion of youth, women, and persons with disabilities

Cities must rethink management at neighborhood level, asking communities what their priorities are for resilience, which varies by neighborhood characteristics

Smart city development must address people’s needs and expectations, particularly climate-conscious and climate-resilient urban futures

Summary

Speakers agreed that effective smart cities must prioritize human needs over technology, adapting solutions to local contexts and ensuring inclusive participation in planning processes

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Integration of climate action with smart city strategies is essential

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Yousef Al Shawarbeh
– Nadia Verjee

Arguments

Cities account for 70% of global CO2 emissions and are vulnerable to climate shocks, requiring smart connectivity for both mitigation and adaptation

Climate Action Plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2040 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 through integrated smart city strategy

Expo City Dubai diverted 93% of waste from landfill, increased solar energy production by 9%, and reduced grid consumption by 21% through embedded sustainability design

Summary

Speakers emphasized that smart city development cannot be separated from climate action, requiring integrated approaches that address both emissions reduction and climate adaptation

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of robust early warning systems that can reach all populations, with ITU and WMO working together to ensure communication infrastructure resilience during disasters

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Johan Stander

Arguments

ITU helps through satellite communication backup when mobile systems fail, ensuring warning messages reach everyone at no cost

Early Warnings for All initiative aims to protect everyone on the planet by 2027 through four-pillar approach: understanding risk, infrastructure, communication, and reaching last people

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers highlighted the importance of standardized frameworks and metrics that allow cities to measure and compare their smart city progress globally

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Nadia Verjee

Arguments

Two thousand cities worldwide have adopted key performance indicators from United for Smart, Sustainable Cities initiative for standardized progress tracking

WEGO developed urban framework helping cities benchmark across global standards with metrics focused on sustainability, innovation, R&D, and international cooperation

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers emphasized that high-tech solutions are not always the answer, and that accessibility and inclusion must be prioritized to ensure smart city benefits reach all populations

Speakers

– Johan Stander
– Nicholas You

Arguments

Smart solutions must be adapted to local contexts – simple SMS warnings in Argentina and voice-over systems for illiterate populations in Senegal prove effective

COVID-19 revealed that despite 30-40 years of smart city tools, many people were left behind due to digital divides and lack of access to basic services

Topics

Development | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Need for governance transformation beyond technology implementation

Speakers

– Nicholas You
– Yousef Al Shawarbeh
– Anh Thu Duong

Arguments

People-centered approach requires breaking down silos and adopting systems approach with communities at forefront of decision-making process

Building smart and climate-resilient cities requires fostering holistic vision that invests in digital infrastructure while ensuring inclusion of youth, women, and persons with disabilities

WSIS process needs institutionalization of local and regional governments through regular consultation on standardization and digital infrastructure development

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from different backgrounds (academic, municipal, and international organization) all emphasized that smart cities require fundamental governance changes, not just technological upgrades. This suggests a mature understanding that technology alone cannot solve urban challenges without institutional reform

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Measurement systems need fundamental redesign to focus on human outcomes

Speakers

– Nicholas You
– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Nadia Verjee

Arguments

Current utility measurements across dozen countries still focus on cubic meters, tons, kilometers rather than people-centered metrics

Two thousand cities worldwide have adopted key performance indicators from United for Smart, Sustainable Cities initiative for standardized progress tracking

WEGO developed urban framework helping cities benchmark across global standards with metrics focused on sustainability, innovation, R&D, and international cooperation

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that current measurement approaches are inadequate, with speakers agreeing that metrics must shift from technical outputs to human-centered outcomes, despite coming from different organizational perspectives

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for people-centered, climate-integrated smart city approaches that prioritize youth engagement, local context adaptation, and governance transformation over pure technological solutions

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for smart city development, suggesting a paradigm shift from technology-first to human-needs-first approaches. This consensus indicates that the smart cities field is maturing beyond initial technology enthusiasm toward more holistic, inclusive, and sustainable urban development models that recognize the interconnected nature of digital transformation, climate action, and social equity.

Different viewpoints

Definition and approach to smart city development

Speakers

– Nadia Verjee
– Nicholas You

Arguments

Expo City Dubai diverted 93% of waste from landfill, increased solar energy production by 9%, and reduced grid consumption by 21% through embedded sustainability design

Cities must rethink management at neighborhood level, asking communities what their priorities are for resilience, which varies by neighborhood characteristics

Summary

Nadia Verjee advocates for a top-down, comprehensive design approach where sustainability is embedded from the beginning in new cities, while Nicholas You argues for a bottom-up, neighborhood-level approach that adapts to existing urban contexts and community-defined priorities.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Technology complexity and accessibility in smart city solutions

Speakers

– Johan Stander
– Nicholas You

Arguments

Smart solutions must be adapted to local contexts – simple SMS warnings in Argentina and voice-over systems for illiterate populations in Senegal prove effective

COVID-19 revealed that despite 30-40 years of smart city tools, many people were left behind due to digital divides and lack of access to basic services

Summary

Johan Stander emphasizes that simple, low-tech solutions can be effective when properly adapted to local contexts, while Nicholas You argues that existing smart city approaches have fundamentally failed to address digital divides and exclusion, requiring more systemic changes.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Role of governance structures in smart city implementation

Speakers

– Nadia Verjee
– Nicholas You

Arguments

Expo City serves as testbed for UAE’s net zero 2050 targets, piloting solutions that can be adapted and scaled elsewhere, particularly in global south

People-centered approach requires breaking down silos and adopting systems approach with communities at forefront of decision-making process

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers advocate for people-centered approaches, yet they have fundamentally different views on governance. Verjee celebrates governance agility and top-down efficiency, while You argues that existing governance structures are the problem and need to be fundamentally restructured to put communities in charge.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around the approach to smart city development (top-down vs. bottom-up), the role of technology complexity, measurement systems, and governance structures. While all speakers agree on the importance of people-centered, climate-resilient cities, they differ significantly on implementation strategies.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications. The disagreements reflect fundamental philosophical differences about urban development approaches that could lead to very different policy outcomes. However, the disagreements are constructive and focus on methodology rather than goals, suggesting potential for synthesis and learning across approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of robust early warning systems that can reach all populations, with ITU and WMO working together to ensure communication infrastructure resilience during disasters

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Johan Stander

Arguments

ITU helps through satellite communication backup when mobile systems fail, ensuring warning messages reach everyone at no cost

Early Warnings for All initiative aims to protect everyone on the planet by 2027 through four-pillar approach: understanding risk, infrastructure, communication, and reaching last people

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers highlighted the importance of standardized frameworks and metrics that allow cities to measure and compare their smart city progress globally

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Nadia Verjee

Arguments

Two thousand cities worldwide have adopted key performance indicators from United for Smart, Sustainable Cities initiative for standardized progress tracking

WEGO developed urban framework helping cities benchmark across global standards with metrics focused on sustainability, innovation, R&D, and international cooperation

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers emphasized that high-tech solutions are not always the answer, and that accessibility and inclusion must be prioritized to ensure smart city benefits reach all populations

Speakers

– Johan Stander
– Nicholas You

Arguments

Smart solutions must be adapted to local contexts – simple SMS warnings in Argentina and voice-over systems for illiterate populations in Senegal prove effective

COVID-19 revealed that despite 30-40 years of smart city tools, many people were left behind due to digital divides and lack of access to basic services

Topics

Development | Human rights

Key takeaways

Smart cities must integrate climate resilience from the outset, with cities being both major contributors (70% of CO2 emissions) and victims of climate change

A people-centered approach is essential for effective smart city development, requiring consultation with local communities at the neighborhood level to understand their specific needs

Digital technologies and early warning systems can save lives when adapted to local contexts – from high-tech solutions to simple SMS and voice messages for illiterate populations

Youth engagement is critical as 60% of the 1.8 billion youth globally will live in cities by 2030, and they must be involved in policy-making and solution development

Local and regional governments are on the front lines of implementation and must be institutionalized in international processes like WSIS for effective smart city governance

Smart city success requires breaking down institutional silos and adopting systems approaches that put communities at the center of decision-making

Technology alone is insufficient – smart cities need inclusive governance that ensures all populations, including marginalized groups, have access to services and benefits

Standardized frameworks and KPIs are needed to measure progress, but metrics must shift from technical measurements to people-centered indicators

Resolutions and action items

ITU to continue supporting cities through Early Warnings for All initiative to protect everyone by 2027

WEGO to launch inaugural Global Youth Award in 2025 to recognize exceptional young leaders in smart cities and climate action

Expo City Dubai to host Asia-Pacific City Summit and Mayor’s Forum to bring regional leaders together for knowledge sharing

Cities to adopt United for Smart, Sustainable Cities KPI framework for standardized progress tracking

Local and regional governments to be more systematically consulted in WSIS processes and digital infrastructure standardization

Cities to implement neighborhood-level data collection and community-driven priority setting for resilience planning

Unresolved issues

How to ensure adequate funding for digital infrastructure in developing countries where high-tech solutions may not be accessible

How to effectively bridge institutional silos that prevent integrated smart city approaches despite decades of available tools

How to scale successful pilot projects and innovations from test-bed cities like Expo City Dubai to legacy cities with existing infrastructure constraints

How to develop people-centered metrics that replace current technical measurements (cubic meters, tons, kilometers) with human-focused indicators

How to balance the need for rapid urbanization (60% of population in cities by 2030) with inclusive, sustainable development

How to ensure intergenerational equity and meaningful youth participation in urban governance beyond consultation

Suggested compromises

Use hybrid approaches combining high-tech and low-tech solutions based on local contexts and resources (SMS in Argentina, voice messages in Senegal)

Implement bottom-up community-driven approaches while maintaining city-wide coordination and standards

Balance rapid innovation and pilot testing with inclusive governance that ensures no communities are left behind

Combine global frameworks and standards with local adaptation and community-specific solutions

Integrate climate mitigation and adaptation strategies within smart city development rather than treating them as separate initiatives

Speaking to the converted youth, everybody knows that by 2030, 60 percent of the population will live around urban areas… Not everybody thinks that 1.8 billion people constitute the youth and by 2030, 60% of those we define as youth will live in these cities. However, are we engaging them enough when policies need to be written or decisions need to be taken? Are we co-developing solutions with them?

Speaker

Johan Stander

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by challenging the assumption that youth engagement is adequate. It introduces the concept of ‘co-development’ rather than just consultation, and highlights a critical gap between demographic reality and policy-making processes.

Impact

This comment shifted the conversation from technical solutions to human-centered governance. It influenced subsequent speakers like Jeong-Kee Kim to elaborate on WEGO’s youth programs and Nicholas You to emphasize bottom-up approaches. It established youth engagement as a central theme throughout the remaining discussion.

We’ve moved away from forecasting. We’ve moved into impact-based forecasting. What should you do? Not what the weather will be, but you as an individual, what you should do when these conditions are expected in the city.

Speaker

Johan Stander

Reason

This represents a fundamental paradigm shift from information provision to actionable guidance. It challenges the traditional meteorological approach and emphasizes individual agency and practical response over technical data.

Impact

This comment introduced the concept of actionable intelligence, which resonated through later discussions about people-centered approaches. It helped establish the framework that technology should serve human needs rather than exist for its own sake.

Some people may say, but this is all high-tech. When high-tech works, great, we’re all happy. But high-tech technology, the funding for that is not always accessible… So two examples. One from Argentina, a city called Lujan… they send out a particular warning for a particular city and what the people should do on SMS. No smart technologies, just information… Another example is in Senegal… they’ve realized that the majority of their population is illiterate… So they’ve moved into a voice-over warning system.

Speaker

Johan Stander

Reason

This comment challenges the high-tech bias in smart city discussions by demonstrating that effective solutions can be low-tech and context-appropriate. It introduces equity considerations and shows that ‘smart’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘sophisticated technology.’

Impact

This fundamentally altered the definition of ‘smart cities’ throughout the discussion. Later speakers, including the Mayor of Amman and Nicholas You, built on this theme by emphasizing that smart city solutions must be inclusive and adapted to local contexts rather than imposing universal high-tech solutions.

What happened five years ago? The world was hit by this pandemic and I think it was a gigantic wake-up call. We discovered in cities both in the global north and the global south that many people and many places were being left behind… Despite the fact that we have smart city tools around for almost 30-40 years, what went wrong?

Speaker

Nicholas You

Reason

This comment provides a critical historical perspective that challenges the entire smart cities movement. By using COVID-19 as a lens, it reveals fundamental flaws in existing approaches and questions decades of smart city development.

Impact

This comment served as a turning point that brought critical analysis to what had been a largely promotional discussion. It forced a reckoning with the limitations of current approaches and set up his subsequent argument about the need to break down silos and truly center people in urban planning.

The reason I want to turn the clock back is because if we look at how smart city approaches have been applied to cities, they have been largely following the existing structure of cities… we have still not overcome those silos. So the real challenge for us going forward is how do we use digital tools and hopefully use AI intelligently to help us bridge those silos.

Speaker

Nicholas You

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental structural problem that explains why smart city initiatives often fail. It moves beyond surface-level solutions to address systemic governance issues and proposes a new role for technology as a bridge-builder rather than a solution in itself.

Impact

This insight reframed the entire discussion about the purpose of smart city technology. It connected with earlier themes about people-centered approaches and provided a structural explanation for why consultation and bottom-up approaches are necessary rather than just preferable.

We recently did a study, we looked at utilities across a dozen different countries and we’re still measuring cubic meters, tons, kilometers, kilowatts, etc. We don’t see people there. So, the best way that we found to approach this problem is to put people in charge.

Speaker

Nicholas You

Reason

This comment exposes a fundamental measurement problem in urban governance – that current metrics are dehumanized. It challenges the entire framework of how cities evaluate success and proposes a radical shift toward human-centered metrics.

Impact

This comment provided concrete evidence for the abstract concept of ‘people-centered’ approaches discussed throughout the panel. It gave practical meaning to earlier discussions about youth engagement and inclusive design by showing how measurement systems themselves exclude people.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what could have been a typical technology-focused smart cities discussion into a critical examination of power, inclusion, and effectiveness. Johan Stander’s interventions early in the discussion established youth engagement and practical accessibility as central themes, while his examples of low-tech solutions challenged high-tech assumptions. Nicholas You’s historical analysis using COVID-19 as a lens provided a critical framework that questioned the entire smart cities movement, leading to deeper structural insights about silos and measurement systems. Together, these comments created a progression from identifying problems (youth exclusion, high-tech bias) to understanding root causes (structural silos, dehumanized metrics) to proposing solutions (co-development, people-centered measurement). The discussion evolved from promotional presentations about smart city initiatives to a more nuanced conversation about governance, equity, and the fundamental purpose of urban technology.

How can we ensure more regular consultation with local and regional governments on standardization and digital infrastructure development?

Speaker

Anh Thu Duong

Explanation

This addresses the need for institutionalization of local and regional governments in the WSIS process, as they are at the receiving end of digital infrastructure decisions

Are we engaging youth enough when policies need to be written or decisions need to be taken? Are we co-developing solutions with them?

Speaker

Johan Stander

Explanation

This highlights the gap in youth engagement in policy-making processes, particularly important since 60% of youth will live in cities by 2030 and they are experiencing the brunt of climate change

How can cities cope with infrastructure challenges related to extreme weather – intense rainfall, flash floods, extreme heat?

Speaker

Johan Stander

Explanation

This addresses the practical infrastructure resilience needs that cities must address as climate events become more frequent and intense

What about sea level rise impacts on cities close to the ocean, particularly when water outlets cannot flow into the ocean due to high waves and sea level rise?

Speaker

Johan Stander

Explanation

This identifies a specific infrastructure challenge for coastal cities that needs further research and solutions

How do we use digital tools and AI intelligently to help bridge silos in city governance to meet green, climate and digital transitions?

Speaker

Nicholas You

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of overcoming sectoral silos in city management that prevent effective smart city implementation

How do we re-look at all KPIs sector by sector to make sure people are at the center, moving beyond measuring cubic meters, tons, kilometers, kilowatts to measuring people-centered outcomes?

Speaker

Nicholas You

Explanation

This calls for fundamental research into developing new measurement frameworks that prioritize human-centered metrics over technical metrics

How can solutions tested in cities like Expo City Dubai be adapted and scaled elsewhere, particularly in the global south?

Speaker

Nadia Verjee

Explanation

This addresses the need for research on transferability and adaptation of smart city solutions across different contexts and economic conditions

How do we build frameworks that measure not just smartness, but focus on impact – on emissions, equity, and human dignity?

Speaker

Nadia Verjee

Explanation

This calls for developing new evaluation frameworks that go beyond technical smartness to measure real-world impact on climate and social outcomes

Summary

This discussion centered on a high-level session at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum celebrating the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Jordan’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) and RIPE NCC, demonstrating successful collaboration between governments and the technical community. The session was hosted by Chafic Chaya, RIPE NCC’s regional manager for public policy and government affairs in the Middle East, and featured multiple distinguished speakers from international organizations and regulatory bodies.

His Excellency Bassam Alsarhan, CEO of Jordan’s TRC, emphasized how strategic partnerships with the technical community are essential for building resilient digital infrastructure and advancing sustainable development goals. He highlighted Jordan’s progress in IPv6 deployment, routing security, and internet measurement tools through collaboration with RIPE NCC. Hans-Peter Holen, CEO of RIPE NCC, stressed that the multi-stakeholder model works best when governments and technical communities collaborate, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation.

Representatives from various international organizations praised this collaborative approach. The League of Arab States’ Dr. Khaled Wali noted their successful joint initiatives with RIPE NCC, including capacity development and government roundtables. The European Union’s Fabrizia Benini discussed their multi-stakeholder forum for internet standards and upcoming opportunities for technical community participation. Sally Wentworth from the Internet Society emphasized that no single stakeholder can achieve an inclusive information society alone, highlighting their Internet Impact Assessment Framework as a tool for policymakers.

Regional perspectives were shared by representatives from Egypt, Niger, and Croatia, each describing successful collaborations between their regulatory authorities and technical organizations. The discussion concluded with recognition that such partnerships are crucial for achieving digital development goals and connecting the unconnected by 2030, representing a significant milestone in multi-stakeholder internet governance.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments and technical community**: The central theme focused on demonstrating successful partnerships between regulatory bodies and technical organizations, exemplified by the MOU signing between Jordan’s TRC and RIPE NCC, with emphasis on how this collaboration advances sustainable development goals and digital infrastructure.

– **Digital development and connectivity challenges**: Speakers addressed the ongoing work to achieve universal internet access, noting progress from 20% global connectivity in 2005 to two-thirds today, while acknowledging significant gaps remain in reaching the unconnected and achieving SDGs by 2030.

– **Technical capacity building and infrastructure security**: Multiple speakers highlighted collaborative efforts in IPv6 deployment, routing security, internet measurement tools, and cybersecurity standards, with specific examples like the EU’s NIS2 Directive implementation and various regional technical assistance programs.

– **Regional cooperation and knowledge sharing**: The discussion emphasized the importance of regional forums, roundtables, and capacity-building initiatives, with announcements of upcoming events in Cairo and Riyadh, and recognition of successful regional partnerships across the Middle East, Africa, and Europe.

– **WSIS+20 review and future directions**: Speakers reflected on 20 years since the World Summit on the Information Society, discussing the need to re-energize (not rewrite) digital development action lines and strengthen the multi-stakeholder governance model for addressing 2020s challenges.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as a high-level ceremonial and strategic session at the WSIS Forum to showcase and celebrate successful government-technical community collaboration, formalized through the MOU signing between Jordan’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission and RIPE NCC, while building momentum for continued multi-stakeholder partnerships in achieving digital development goals.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently formal, diplomatic, and celebratory throughout the session. It maintained a positive, collaborative spirit with speakers expressing mutual appreciation and commitment to partnership. The atmosphere was ceremonial during the MOU signing but remained substantive as speakers shared concrete examples of successful collaboration and future initiatives. There was no notable shift in tone – it remained professional and optimistic from start to finish, with speakers reinforcing themes of unity, shared responsibility, and collective achievement.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Chafic Chaya** – Regional Manager for Public Policy and Government Affairs for the Middle East at RIPE NCC

– **Bassam Alsarhan** – His Excellency, Engineer, President and CEO of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) in Jordan

– **Han Petter Holen** – CEO of RIPE NCC

– **Tomas Lamanauskas** – Representative from ITU (International Telecommunication Union)

– **Khaled Wali** – Dr., Plenipotentiary Minister, Head of the ICT Administration at the League of Arab States

– **Fabrizia Benini** – Head of Unit at the European Union

– **Sally Wentworth** – CEO of Internet Society (ISOC)

– **Ahmed Saaed** – Dr., Head of Public Policy and Affairs at the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) in Egypt

– **Anne Rachel Inne** – Director General of the National Information Society Agency in Niger

– **Zdravko Jukic** – Representative from the Regulatory Authority in Croatia, Co-chair of Cyber Security at the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)

– **Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava** – Dr., Head of ITU-D (ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau)

– **Mia Kulivin** – Member of the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF

– **Wouter de Natris** – Representative of the Dynamic Coalitions of the Internet Governance Forum

– **Participant** – Representative from the UK government (name not clearly mentioned in transcript)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Summary: WSIS Forum High-Level Session on Government-Technical Community Collaboration

## Introduction and Context

This high-level session at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum focused on demonstrating successful collaboration between governments and the technical community. The session was hosted by Chafic Chaya, RIPE NCC’s Regional Manager for Public Policy and Government Affairs in the Middle East, and featured the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Jordan’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) and RIPE NCC. The discussion brought together speakers from international organisations, regulatory bodies, and technical communities to explore how multi-stakeholder partnerships can advance sustainable development goals and digital infrastructure development.

## Central Theme: Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration for Digital Development

The session emphasized that multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments and the technical community represents a practical approach to achieving digital development objectives. Speakers consistently supported the principle that such collaboration is fundamental to effective internet governance and sustainable development.

His Excellency Bassam Alsarhan, CEO of Jordan’s TRC, highlighted how strategic partnerships between regulatory frameworks and technical expertise are essential for building resilient digital infrastructure. He noted Jordan’s progress in IPv6 deployment, routing security, and internet measurement tools through collaboration with RIPE NCC, emphasizing how these partnerships shape “a digital future that serves society and future generations.”

Han Petter Holen, CEO of RIPE NCC, stressed that “the multi-stakeholder model works best when governments and technical community collaborate, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation.” He explained that RIPE NCC’s role in allocating and registering Internet number resources requires ensuring infrastructure is robust, secure, and inclusive through collaborative approaches.

Ms. Fabrizia Benini, representing the European Union, demonstrated practical implementation of this collaborative model, noting that “the technical community is a linchpin of multi-stakeholder organisation that the EU cannot do without for an open global internet.” She announced the upcoming EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards that will draft guidelines for practical deployment of IPv6, secure email, and other standards.

Sally Wentworth, CEO of the Internet Society, provided philosophical foundation for this collaboration, stating that “no single stakeholder can achieve an inclusive information society alone; collaboration is intrinsic to mission success.” She introduced the Internet Impact Assessment Framework as a practical tool to help policymakers test public policies against objectives of openness, security, and trustworthiness.

## Regional Perspectives and Capacity Building

The discussion highlighted regional cooperation and capacity building as crucial elements for digital development, with representatives sharing experiences and announcing upcoming initiatives.

Dr. Khaled Wali, representing the League of Arab States, noted that their organisation has prioritised partnerships for capacity development, with Council resolutions from 2021 and 2025 calling for strengthened collaboration with RIPE NCC. He mentioned the 8th edition of the government roundtable held in Amman, Jordan in November, highlighting how joint initiatives have contributed to the Arab Digital Agenda and Cybersecurity Strategy.

Dr. Ahmed Saaed, Head of Public Policy and Affairs at Egypt’s NTRA, announced that Egypt will host a RIPE NCC Roundtable in Cairo in December 2025 to strengthen regional cooperation and align policies with global best practices. He emphasized Egypt’s implementation of IPv6 strategy through ongoing technical assistance, training, and regional coordination with RIPE NCC.

Anne Rachel Inné, Director General of Niger’s National Information Society Agency, provided perspective from a developing nation context, emphasizing that “success demands unity and shared commitment, following the African philosophy of Ubuntu – ‘I am because we are.'” She highlighted Niger’s partnerships with tech innovators for specific solutions including AgriShop, Doudou (agricultural library), E-Santé Niger, and LictaCare, demonstrating practical applications of collaboration in addressing development challenges.

Zdravko Jukic from Croatia’s Regulatory Authority noted that regional roundtables allow countries with similar market situations to discuss technical issues openly. He shared Croatia’s experience in implementing the NIS2 Directive through broad stakeholder involvement and mentioned Croatia’s 8th National IGF edition in Opatija.

## Technical Infrastructure and Policy Development

Speakers emphasized how government-technical community partnerships are essential for developing robust technical infrastructure, particularly in IPv6 deployment, routing security, and cybersecurity measures.

Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava, Head of ITU-D, emphasized the need for practical focus in collaboration, stating that “words are sweet, but food is better. So we want the results and the impact on human life on the planet and bring prosperity to the people.” He announced the ITU Global Symposium for Regulators to be held from 31st August to 3rd October in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and noted ITU-D’s support for digital development through a joint declaration with RIPE NCC in Jordan for IPv6 development.

Mia Kulivin, representing the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF, provided insight into how technical standards organisations operate, noting that “the IETF needs broad input from all stakeholders and works with ISOC to bring policymakers into their processes.” She emphasized that the IETF maintains and evolves internet standards used daily, requiring continuous collaboration across stakeholder groups.

The UK representative supported re-energising WSIS digital development action lines and pushing for a permanent IGF mandate, emphasizing that “governments need to work with the tech community to better understand the technology and what it can and can’t do, but we also need the tech community to work with governments to better understand policy making and how that works as well.”

Walter Natwiss, representing the Dynamic Coalitions of the Internet Governance Forum, highlighted the need for better integration of the IGF’s intersessional work on cutting-edge themes with WSIS action lines and SDGs, noting that ongoing work on themes like health, inclusion, and cybersecurity needs more recognition and integration with broader digital development frameworks.

## Sustainable Development Goals and Digital Inclusion

Speakers consistently linked collaborative efforts to achieving broader Sustainable Development Goals and digital inclusion objectives. The UK representative noted that “despite global connectivity rising to two-thirds of population, SDGs haven’t made desired progress and huge amounts remain to be done,” highlighting the gap between technical achievements in connectivity and broader development outcomes.

Chafic Chaya reinforced this connection, stating that “internet and connectivity is the life and blood for social and economic development in the digital age,” emphasizing how technical collaboration directly supports broader development objectives.

## Key Outcomes and Commitments

The session produced several concrete outcomes:

**Immediate commitments**: Egypt will host a RIPE NCC Roundtable meeting in Cairo in December 2025. The EU will publish a call for participation in its multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards, with the forum becoming operational by October.

**Upcoming events**: The ITU Global Symposium for Regulators will be held from 31st August to 3rd October in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

**Ongoing initiatives**: Continued implementation of Egypt’s IPv6 strategy through technical assistance and training with RIPE NCC, and continued work with the global tech community through various regional tech hubs.

## Future Challenges

Several areas require continued attention:

– Better integration of the Internet Governance Forum’s intersessional work with WSIS action lines and SDGs

– Broader stakeholder engagement beyond traditional participants in government sectors

– Addressing the gap between technical connectivity achievements and SDG progress

– Developing specific mechanisms for the tech community to provide more input to government policymaking processes

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated that multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments and the technical community represents a practical approach to digital development challenges. The MOU signing between Jordan’s TRC and RIPE NCC served as a concrete example of how such partnerships can be formalized and implemented effectively.

The announced initiatives and commitments provide clear pathways for continued collaboration, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation. The discussion reinforced that achieving digital development goals requires sustained collaboration across all stakeholder groups to connect the unconnected by 2030.

Chafic Chaya: Basmati, and Mr. Mohammad Mohamad Sharif, Peace Center for Peace Research and Development , which is hosted by Ahmad Yusuf Mahmoud Safarใ . Good morning and welcome. Good morning to all of you. I am delighted to have 10 guests to speak. First of all, on behalf of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission in Jordan, TRC, and the RIPE NCC, it is my pleasure to welcome you to this exceptional session today to assist. My name is Shafiq Shaya, I am serving as regional manager for public policy and government affairs for the Middle East at RIPE NCC. Today, I believe the theme of this session speaks for itself. It is about the importance of collaboration between governments and technical community. It is not only a slogan, it is proven, and it is practical, and here today we are to showcase this successful collaboration. All of us know that we are living in this digital age, where Internet and connectivity is the life and blood for social and economic development. So today we are not just talking about the digital age, but we are demonstrating the implementation of this collaboration. So without further ado, I would like to welcome His Excellency, engineer Bassam Srahan, the president and CEO of the Regulatory Telecommunications Commission in Jordan, to give his remarks. Your Excellency, for his use. Thank you. Thank you, Shafiq. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Bassam Alsarhan: Thank you. Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, it is a true pleasure, to have all of you today joining us in this high-level session that showcases the strength and impact of multi-stakeholder collaboration in advancing sustainable development goals. The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between TRC of Jordan and the RIPE NCC, witnessed by the Deputy Secretary General of the ITU, represents a pivotal milestone in our shared vision for building resilient, inclusive, and secure digital infrastructure. At TRC, we have consistently recognized the vital role of strategic partnership with the technical community. We firmly believe that combining robust regulatory frameworks with deep technical expertise is essential to shaping a digital future that is both sustainable and secure. Through our collaboration with RIPE NCC and our broader network of international and local stakeholders, we have made tangible progress in enhancing national capabilities, including IPv6 deployment, routing security, and internet measurement tools. I would also like to proudly highlight that Jordan hosted the ITU Regional Development Forum earlier this year, reaffirming our country’s position as a regional hub for digital innovation and cooperation. In addition, TRC Jordan has the honor of hosting Government Roundtable in Amman. and Mr. Tomas Lamanauskas, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, Ms. Fabrizia Benini, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. Chafic Chaya and Mr. Han Petter Holen, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Fabrizia Benini, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, Mr. Han Petter Holen, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Fabrizia Benini, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. Chafic Chaya and Mr. Tomas Lamanauskas, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. our society and future generations and the humanity in general. Thank you very much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Your Excellency. Thank you for sharing your insights. Now I invite Mr. Hans-Peter Hollen, the CEO of RAPP-NCC, to offer, to give his remarks.

Han Petter Holen: Thank you, Sofiq. Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great honor to welcome you to this unique gathering to be here today alongside His Excellency Bassam Alsarhan, an esteemed guest from the League of Arab States, the European Union, the ITU, the Internet Society, National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority in Egypt, the National Information Society Agency in Niger and the Regulatory Authority in Croatia. The signature of this MOU between the RAPP-NCC and the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Jordan marks a significant step, one that builds capacity, fosters collaboration and promotes secure, resilient Internet infrastructure, supporting Jordan’s digital transformation agenda and strengthening the technical foundation. necessary to achieve the sustainable development goals. This MOU builds our ongoing engagement and initiatives in Jordan from IPv6 deployment to routing security and capacity building at all levels. Our role as regional Internet registry is naturally global, yet it’s also extremely local and regional. The RIPE NCC, as an important part of the technical community, allocate and register Internet number resources that form the foundation of the Internet. But we also work hand in hand with our members, governments, regulators, academia, civil society and the private sector to ensure that this infrastructure is robust, secure and inclusive. Today’s signature is a testament to that spirit of collaboration and partnership. It reflects our shared belief that the multi-stakeholder model works best when governments and the technical community collaborate, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation. As we mark 20 years since WSIS, let’s look ahead to a new area of collaboration built on the joint efforts of governments, the technical community and all stakeholders grounded on multi-stakeholder partnership. Thank you, Your Excellency for the trust, and thank you all Excellencies, colleagues and friends here today for your presence and support. Together, let’s shape the future of the Internet, the foundation of the future information society. Thank you. Thank you, Hans-Peter. Thank you so much. With this, we move to the signature of the OMU. So please, Dr. Issa, can we give the copies for Dr. Assam and Mr. Hans-Peter. As you can see, once again, this is the showcasing how a successful collaboration between technical community and governments can achieve the SDGs and the digital future for all of us. Thank you once again for being with us today.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you very much, Thomas, to be with us today. I know you’re busy schedule, so I will give you the floor to give your remarks. Thank you. Thank you. And indeed, thank you. Mission

Tomas Lamanauskas: engineer and thank you very much. I really appreciate you allowing me to witness signing of this MOU today, but also doing this here at WSIS. I think this is exactly what WSIS platform forum should be, that platform for different stakeholders to come together, for the governments and regulators in this regard, from the technical community, and really build those stronger partnerships within this platform. So for us, that’s really very meaningful that this happens. Of course, it’s even a bigger pleasure that this MOU is being signed between the two organizations that we very closely collaborate with and we work together with. Of course, engineer mentioned the regional development forum and our PM that thank you for that. And of course, RIPE NCC is our treasured sector member and strong involvement. We invite you to different activities, and again, it’s a great pleasure that these two organizations here again reaffirm their partnership. So the only thing is, I would like to say, so long live the partnership for the benefit of the people of Jordan and the Middle East and for the benefit of digital development. So thank you very much. And everyone here, more and more youth here, and the more welcome. So take an example. Thank you very much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you. Thank you, Tomas. Thank you so much. Just before you leave, we’ll take a group photo, please. 30 seconds for your time, Your Excellencies, to have a group photo with Tomas. Please, Your Excellency. Please, Mr. Genk. Photo for all the speakers, please. Dr. Khaled, Mr. Mahmoud Elia. Sally. A group photo, yes, with the speakers. Mr. Tomas, a little bit on this side, because of the screen. Please, if you move a little bit from your left side, please. Until there? Yeah. Because of the screen, the light is not good there. Sorry about that. It’s good. Okay. Okay. This way. This way, ladies and gentlemen. This way. One more. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Tomas. With this, we will continue with our guests. Our next speaker is from the League of Arab States, Dr. Khaled Wali, who is the plenipotentiary minister, head of the ICT administration. Dr. Khaled, please. Thank you.

Khaled Wali: Thank you, Shafiq. Excellencies, colleagues, delegates, it’s my pleasure to speak today on behalf of the League of Arab States as we commemorate 20 years since the World Summit on the Information Society. This occasion is not only a reflection on the past. but a commitment to building an inclusive, secure digital future. Throughout the years, the League has prioritized partnerships that empower our member states to advance digital development and internet governance. One particularly successful collaboration has been with RIPE NCC, an organization that brings deep technical expertise and long-standing commitment to multi-stakeholder engagement. Together, we have engaged in joint initiatives ranging from capacity development to high-level government roundtables, including the most recent, the 8th edition in Amman, Jordan, which took place last November. Our collaboration extends to strategic frameworks where RIPE NCC has contributed to the Arab Digital Agenda, the Arab Cybersecurity Strategy, and the Arab IGF, working with us to ensure our regional priorities and aligned with global internet government efforts. In addition, through our joint engagement and contribution to the Arab Working Group on Internet Issues, RIPE NCC has helped shape regional discussions on internet infrastructure governance and regional digital cooperation. This partnership has not gone unnoticed. In 2021, the Council of Arab Ministers passed a resolution calling on Arab governments to strengthen their collaboration with RIPE NCC to foster the internet development in the Arab region, and just this year, in 2025, another resolution encouraging Arab governments to cooperate with RIPE NCC. Excellencies and colleagues, the success of this collaboration demonstrates what is possible when the technical community and governments work hand-in-hand, each respecting the roles and strengths of the other. Thank you.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Dr. Khaled, and thanks for your engagement and your support. We did a lot, and we have a long journey ahead. Our next speaker is Ms. Fabrizia Benini, Head of Unit

Fabrizia Benini: Thank you very much and good morning everyone. So I’m really very happy to have this opportunity to discuss with the tech community and this should not be a surprise because for decades the European Union has stood by an open global internet that is based and centred on the multi-stakeholder community and of course the tech community is a linchpin of that organisation and indeed something that we could not do without, let us be very clear. Now in WISIS, as we come up to the review, this position has been officially endorsed by 27 Member States in the Council and so therefore we stand united here before you to renew our commitment to the technical community and thank you for your support and work. Now RIPE NCC is a good example of that, you contribute to the general operational stability, you promote better inter-cyber security ways of working and indeed that collaboration with us, which is regular and constructive, has delivered tangible results. Tangible results that we see in particular in the implementation of the NIS2 Directive, which sets out a set of requirements for better cyber security standards that fall onto certain entities that are particularly exposed because of the trans-border work. Now in that framework there is an aspect which talks about internet standards. The increased development, sorry the increased The Commission has set up an EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards, and the objective of that group, which brings together the technical community, is to draft guidelines to make sure that there are practical steps that organizations can take to make sure that those Internet Standards are deployed. We’re talking about IPv6, we’re talking about secure email, etc. You all know that, so I don’t need to repeat it. But what I wanted to draw your attention to is that there is going to be a call for participation in that forum that is going to be published in the coming weeks, and that call of course will allow us to select the best and the brightest amongst you to contribute to those drafting of the guidelines. We hope to have the forum up and running by October, so when you mentioned that you wanted to talk not only about collaboration but in fact implementation, this is one such example. We can’t go forward in a secure global Internet without you, and we are really very grateful for your contribution and look forward to continuing it. Thank you very much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much for your insights, and yes, this is what we are looking for, agile regulation policy based on technical expertise. Thank you so much. I will move to the CEO of ISOC, Internet Society, Ms. Sally Wentworth. Sally, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Sally Wentworth: Thank you very much, and first I want to congratulate our colleagues at RIPE NCC. and the TRC for the MOU. I think that’s a wonderful reflection on the kind of collaboration that we all seek, I think, within the technical community with policymakers as we try to build out towards a truly inclusive information society. So congratulations and thank you for having me here today. The Internet Society is a global organization dedicated to a vision that the Internet is for everyone. And we have been doing the work that we do on connectivity and Internet governance and pushing towards an open and trustworthy Internet across the globe for over 30 years. And that work has been grounded in a vision and a view that we, no one stakeholder, can achieve the vision of a truly inclusive information society on its own. And that includes the role of the technical community in ensuring that the Internet is stable, secure, trustworthy, resilient, affordable, present everywhere. But we do that within a context, and that context is often set by the policy frameworks that governments and international and regional organizations set around the world. And the work that we do to work alongside governments, with governments, is really intrinsic to how we want to approach our mission and our work. There are many things that the Internet Society does to collaborate with governments, including capacity building. We work with our colleagues, several of whom are here, from the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Architecture Board, to bring policy makers into the IETF to demonstrate how that open standards model is working to support the global Internet. We also ensure that the work that we do to bring connectivity to some of the hardest-to-reach places around the world is done in collaboration with local policymakers, whether that’s through workshops, whether to understand the local needs, through partnership with our chapters around the world. This kind of relationship is incredibly important to us. The last thing I would say is, for some time, we recognized that policymakers have a really, really difficult job. The work you’re doing to try to advance the public interest in your countries is incredibly important and very difficult to do in a fast-moving and changing digital environment. Some years ago, we started thinking about what we could do to help policymakers on that journey, and we developed something called an Internet Impact Assessment Framework. The idea is to recognize the public interest concerns that governments have, but also the commitment, as we heard from the European Commission, to an open and secure multi-stakeholder Internet, and to try to create a framework in which policymakers could test public policies against those objectives of openness and security and trustworthiness. Almost similar to how you would do an environmental impact assessment if you were going to build a bridge or a building somewhere, we think it’s useful to do an Internet Impact Assessment to understand the impact of policies and what tradeoffs there might be. This is something that I offer to you as a tool. There are many tools to use. But, again, a recognition that there are public interests that we all share. I think that’s reflected in the MOU here today. And we are really honored and pleased to be part of that, to be part of that collaboration. And I think it’s the only way where we will finally achieve the results of the WSIS that we all envisioned 20 years ago. So thank you.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Sally. Thank you so much. And yes, our engagement with governments and with your team and colleagues at the ISOC is really very practical and proven on the ground. Thank you. I will move now to the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority in Egypt. On the agenda, we had His Excellency Mohamed Shamroukh, the president of the agency. But for an emergency, he left yesterday to Egypt. So we have here our dear friend, Dr. Ahmed Saeed, head of public policy and affairs. Dr. Ahmed, the floor is yours.

Ahmed Saaed: Thank you, Shafiq. And thank you, Your Excellency, Engineer Bassam and Hans, for inviting us to this important roundtable. It’s a true honor to join you today and take part of this important session of WSIS Forum, an event that continues to embody the spirit of multi-stakeholder collaboration in shaping a secure, inclusive, and sustainable digital future. Egypt’s participation reflects our strong belief in the power of international cooperation. and H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Mr. Han Petter Holen, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel NTRA and RIPE NCC are currently building a solid cooperation and partnership. This partnership encompasses both technical capacity-building and collaborative engagement in the Internet Government process. Together we are planning to work to support the policymaking process, enhance regional technical expertise and promote secure and stable Internet development. As we look to the future, NTRA is proud to deepen the collaboration with RIPE NCC in supporting the implementation phase of Egypt’s IPv6 strategy through ongoing technical assistance, training and regional coordination efforts. Also, we are excited to announce that Egypt will host the RIPE NCC Roundtable meeting in Cairo in December 2025, a high-level gathering that will bring together regulators, policymakers and network operators from across the region to exchange ideas, strengthen cooperation and align national policies and global best practices. Another example is our collaboration with the ITU. NTRA maintains a longstanding and strategic partnership with the International Telecommunication Union built on the shared values of connectivity, innovation and inclusive development. Through active participation in ITU study groups, conferences and regional initiatives, NTRA contributes to shaping global telecom policies, advancing regulatory best practices and fostering capacity building. across the Arab region. This collaboration supports Egypt’s digital transformation agenda while reinforcing multilateral efforts to create a secure, resilient, and equitable global digital environment. We actively engage across all ITU sectors and proudly hold leadership positions with each of them. In summary, NTRA remains deeply committed to continuing this journey and to working hand-in-hand with all stakeholders, governments, and the private sector, civil society, and technical community to ensure that no one is left behind on our shared digital future. To close, I would like to warmly invite you all to join us in Cairo in December for the dedicated DRIVE-NCC roundtable meeting. This gathering will serve as a key opportunity to deepen our collaboration, exchange insights, and collectively advance a more resilient, inclusive, and forward-looking digital future for our region. Thank you.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Dr. Fahez. Thank you. And thank you for the invitation. It will be a pleasure and honor to be in Cairo in December. Thank you so much. I’ll move online. We have one speaker online from Niger to hear from the African perspective, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Director General from National Information Society Agency in Niger. Anne Rachel, you are with us.

Anne Rachel Inne: I am, Shafiq. Good morning. Good morning. We hear you. The floor is yours. Please. Thank you very much. And I’m glad to see you all. And apologies for not being able to join you, but it’s great to have the internet to be able to interact even remotely. So congratulations to DRIVE-NCC in the TRC Jordan for signing this MOU. And thank you for inviting me to participate to this gathering on the anniversary of WSIS 20th year. We’ve come a long way. and we’ve come a long way because the collaboration has been part of it. It is really an honor to be here and to talk about how in a world of interconnected challenges we know that can drive progress alone and success demands unity and what I call what everybody in Africa calls Ubuntu, the African philosophy that basically says, you know, I am because we are and it’s a shared commitment and it’s the only way we can drive innovation for good. Niger is a landlocked country and we have quite a few challenges and opportunities and we face present challenges like insecurity, climate issues, limited infrastructure, gaps in education and health care. But within those challenges we do see, you know, quite immense opportunities. Our greatest resource is not just land or minerals but the people. We have a very youthful population and their resilience, ingenuity and willingness to collaborate is something that is definitely, you know, those are basically the attributes we’re counting on to make sure that we succeed. So, some of those success stories include, you know, collaboration work in digital, for example, and food security since we’re talking about achieving the SDGs. So, in terms of agriculture for food security, for example, we have partnered with tech innovators in, you know, deploying mobile platforms like AgriShop. or Doudou. Doudou, for example, is a full library on agriculture and pastoralism. Niger is a place where we have a lot of agriculturists and pastoralists, and it is important that they get the information that they need, you know, online, but not only online, actually, it has to be in local languages. So those are some of the things that we’re doing, and these platforms, for example, provide farmers with real-time weather forecasts, market prices, farming techniques that, of course, have resulted in crop yields, increased crop yields, reduced post-harvest losses, empowered smallholder farmers as a whole in agriculture. So in terms of renewable energy, for example, we have done quite a few things in terms of partnerships with technical experts also, and we have expanded mini solar grids locally that have also empowered quite a few communities. Other national projects include e-governance and public service delivery. This is really what the national agency is working on, on the whole right now, to be able to produce as much as possible we’re hoping, you know, 45 to 50 percent of citizen services to be accessible by 2030. And this is really a great challenge, but we are collaborating with local tech startups in digitizing administrative processes, reducing bureaucracy, and of course corruption. We have initiatives in the health sector also, like E-Santé Niger, that is working a lot with, on making sure that local communities can have access to medical care, and also getting, for example, a few startups that are like LictaCare that are making sure to produce national equipment in terms of setting them up, for example, in other national hospitals and all of that, that can help transmission of information from doctors in between health care centers, for example, where we don’t have specialists and things like that. So in terms of the role of its stakeholders, I’m really glad to see this MOU again from RIPE and TRC Jordan, just because it is absolutely important. Governments it is absolutely important. Governments create enabling policies. We do have, you know, they invest in digital infrastructure. They foster public-private partnerships. Private sector and NGOs have a role to play. Citizens have a role to play. So in terms of strengthening collaboration, we absolutely need a lot more of these MOUs. We need to build trust and transparency. And the only way we can do that is to make sure that we talk to each other. Traditionally, one of the things that I have said to some of my colleagues is that, you know, when we do this type of things, meetings and all of that, we always end up talking to each other. So we really need this trust and this transparency to go to each sector of governments, not only the regular suspects, in terms of making sure they understand how the machine works and what’s in it for them, actually, you know. So to leverage regional and global partnerships is one of the things that we’re doing, investing in local talent. is one another thing that we’re doing. And we’re really hoping that from governments, technologists, businesses and communities, we have to understand that we need to unite to turn obstacles into opportunities. It is crucial. So we need to commit to deepening these partnerships. The future we want is one of resilience, and it is full of opportunity. It is within our grasp, and we can do it. So thank you very much for listening, and thanks for having me today. And have a good day, all. Enjoy WSIS Plus 20 Forum.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you. Thank you, Anne Rachel. Thank you. And just to comment, this didn’t come from vacuum. We are working for this for a longer years, and trust and transparency, yes, one of the main pillars that this MOU is based on. Thank you, Anne Rachel. We’ll go for Mr. Zdravko Djokovic from the Regulator Authority in Croatia, and he is the co-chair of the Cyber Security at the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, BEREC. Mr. Djokovic.

Zdravko Jukic: Thanks very much, Shafik, dear excellencies, colleagues, and dear RIPE NCC team, thanks for inviting me to this roundtable. I could name many good examples of good cooperation with governments and technical community and other stakeholders, but for this occasion I have picked three, I think, very good examples of this cooperation. First one is the Croatian National IGF. So we just had our 8th edition of the National IGF in Opatija, a very nice place by the sea, just one week before the Global IGF, where we had also a very was among the first member states to fully transpose it in national legal systems. So I can say that this was, as a national regulatory authority, we were a member of this team, but it was driven by the Central Authority for Cybersecurity in Croatia, and they really involved very broad participants from all the stakeholders, especially technical community and private sector. And the third example is, of course, as was already mentioned, the RIPE NCC roundtables, and especially those localized regional roundtables where we can sit down and discuss among countries that have similar situations on their markets, similar problems, and then we can openly discuss technical issues that RIPE NCC can help us. So I’m really looking forward to next editions of those roundtables. And maybe as some kind of conclusion of all these engagements with different stakeholders, is that it really makes sense to engage them when they have some clear interest, and they are really very active in participating in those discussions. I think that’s all for this time for me. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank

Chafic Chaya: you. Just, I want to welcome a friend, a colleague, Dr. Zava Zava, the head Zarrabi, Head of ITUD, to join us. I know you have busy schedule today, but it’s an honor to have you with us. I will give you the floor to make your remarks. Thank you.

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava: Okay, so this is a true ambush. I would like to thank, I recognize of course the presence of the minister who hosted us during the regional preparatory meeting in Jordan and took great care of us. We in the ITU and in the Telecommunication Development Bureau believe in everything that is digital. So our doors are open. We are ready to engage. We are ready to move. Words are sweet, but food is better. So we want the results and the impact on human life on the planet and bring prosperity to the people. I would like to take and abuse this opportunity and invite you to the Global Symposium for Regulators to be held from the 31st of August to the 3rd of October in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. You are most welcome. The minister is welcome. We have a high segment where we want the regulators to speak to policymakers and policymakers to speak to industry, chiefs of industry. So we welcome this signing of life. He’s a friend, also a member of ITU-D, and we support whatever you are going to sign. I haven’t seen anything,

Chafic Chaya: but thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. And by the way, this MOU is the, you know, we, last February in Jordan, just to give Dr. Zabazab our respect and consideration, that we signed a joint declaration with the ITU-D in Jordan for the development of IPV.

Participant: RIPE NCC for offering myself the opportunity to sit on this panel today. So the UK is a strong supporter of the multi-stakeholder model of global internet governance. The tech community are absolutely key alongside industry, government, civil society, academia, etc. And embedding the multi-stakeholder governance model has been a great success of the WSIS process to date, and we believe this is now a settled consensus. We must stay on our guard, but we don’t believe that anyone is seriously looking to reopen this. However, while global connectivity has risen from below 20% at the start of WSIS back in 2005, it’s now risen to two-thirds of the global population. This is a huge achievement, but the SDGs have not made the progress I think we all wanted to see in this regard, and there’s huge amounts still to do. And one of the key themes of the WSIS review is going to be the need to re-energise, but not rewrite, but re-energise the digital development action lines to reflect the reality of the 2020s that we now live in. And in the UK, we see the technical community as key partners in this challenge. But to achieve these goals, governments need to work with the tech community to better understand the technology and what it can and can’t do, but we also need the tech community to work with governments to better understand policy making and how that works as well. So it is great to see the tech community here in Geneva out in force, ISTAR organisations such as the Internet Society, ICANN, regional registries, not least RIPE NCC, but also seeing digital standards bodies as well like ITUT, the Internet Engineering Task Force, IEEE as well. It’s great that the tech community is all here in Geneva. In my view, a key task H.E. Dr. H.E. Mohamed Shamroukh, H.E. Dr. Khaled Wali, Ms. Anne Rachel Inné, Dr. Chafic Chaya It’s great to see elsewhere in the tech community, for example, ICANN’s efforts through its Applicant Support Programme to encourage G77 countries to apply for the next round of global top-level domain names. Similarly, efforts to promote multilingualism and minority scripts, and we welcome the efforts by standards event organisations as well to be more open and to promote their diversity. Governments have a role as well, of course, so the UK will continue to work closely with the global tech community and ask what more they can do. It needs to be a two-way conversation. We need the tech community to come to us as well with their suggestions and ideas as well. For the UK, we have a new digital development strategy and we’ll continue to support and implement our own digital access programme, our support for ITUD, and also our network of tech hubs in places like Brazil, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Indonesia. And as well as reinvigorating the WSIS action lines, we’ll push for a permanent mandate for the IGF. So just to conclude, if we can increase this momentum, I hope by 2030, we will be in touching distance of connecting the unconnected in reality and achieving that momentous goal together. Thank you very much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much. Once again, thank you for being with us today. And yes, I can say that the A-team The RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, IATF, are there to work with you and to collaborate with you all. So I will give the floor. If we have any questions, I can give two or three minutes for the floor. If there’s any question or any remarks, any feedbacks. Yes, we have one question. Please, can you introduce yourself? Thank you.

Mia Kulivin: My name is Mia Kulivin. I’m a member of the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF. And I just wanted to join the chorus here about how important it is to work together. The IETF is the main standards organization that works on internet standards that you’re using every day. We are maintaining and evolving them continuously. And of course, because we’re all using the internet every day, there are social and political questions that come up in this processes as well. So we need broad input from all of you. The IETF is an open organization, so everybody can come and join, but we know that’s not enough. Sometimes we don’t speak the same language. Sometimes we just need to talk more, and that’s why it’s important to have these forums. But we also do a lot together with ISOC, actually, to bring in policy makers to understand our process, to build trust. That’s also something you mentioned. And yeah, I just wanna join that. It’s very inspiring to see that everybody’s here to talk to each other, and we need to continue that. Thank you.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much for this contribution. And yes, we can’t agree more. Thank you. Yeah. One last question, please.

Wouter de Natris: My name is Walter Natwiss, and I represent the Dynamic Coalitions of the Internet Governance Forum here in Geneva, I think where I am always traveling. But I think that what is important to understand that the Internet Governance Forum is often seen as a one-day, one-week event every year, but there’s a lot of intersessional work going on on cutting-edge themes like health, like inclusion, cybersecurity, et cetera, et cetera. And I think that work needs more recognition and more integration in also getting to the WSIS and the Action Blinds and the SDGs, because we’re-

Chafic Chaya: and H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. Bassam Alsarhan, H.E. Eng. David, thank you for being with us. Thank you so much.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for digital development and internet governance

Speakers

– Bassam Alsarhan
– Han Petter Holen
– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Fabrizia Benini
– Sally Wentworth
– Anne Rachel Inne
– Participant
– Mia Kulivin
– Chafic Chaya

Arguments

Strategic partnerships between regulatory frameworks and technical expertise are essential for sustainable digital infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder model works best when governments and technical community collaborate, with technical expertise informing policy and policy driving innovation

WSIS platform should facilitate collaboration between different stakeholders including governments, regulators, and technical community

The technical community is a linchpin of multi-stakeholder organization that the EU cannot do without for an open global internet

No single stakeholder can achieve an inclusive information society alone; collaboration is intrinsic to mission success

Success demands unity and shared commitment, following the African philosophy of Ubuntu – ‘I am because we are’

Multi-stakeholder governance model has been a great success of WSIS and is now settled consensus

The IETF needs broad input from all stakeholders and works with ISOC to bring policymakers into their processes

Collaboration between governments and technical community is not just a slogan but proven and practical

Summary

All speakers unanimously agree that multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, technical community, and other stakeholders is fundamental to achieving digital development goals and effective internet governance. They view this as a proven, practical approach rather than just theoretical concept.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Technical infrastructure development requires government-technical community partnership

Speakers

– Bassam Alsarhan
– Han Petter Holen
– Khaled Wali
– Fabrizia Benini
– Ahmed Saaed

Arguments

Tangible progress has been made in IPv6 deployment, routing security, and internet measurement tools through collaboration

RIPE NCC allocates and registers Internet number resources that form the foundation of the Internet while ensuring infrastructure is robust, secure and inclusive

Joint initiatives have ranged from capacity development to government roundtables, contributing to Arab Digital Agenda and Cybersecurity Strategy

EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards will draft guidelines for practical deployment of IPv6, secure email, and other standards

Egypt is implementing IPv6 strategy through ongoing technical assistance, training and regional coordination with RIPE NCC

Summary

Speakers agree that technical infrastructure development, particularly IPv6 deployment and cybersecurity measures, requires close collaboration between government regulators and technical organizations like RIPE NCC to achieve concrete results.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Development

Regional cooperation and capacity building are crucial for digital development

Speakers

– Bassam Alsarhan
– Khaled Wali
– Ahmed Saaed
– Anne Rachel Inne
– Zdravko Jukic
– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Arguments

Jordan has positioned itself as a regional hub for digital innovation, hosting ITU Regional Development Forum and Government Roundtables

League of Arab States has prioritized partnerships for capacity development, with Council resolutions calling for strengthened collaboration with RIPE NCC

Egypt will host RIPE NCC Roundtable in Cairo in December 2025 to strengthen regional cooperation and align policies with global best practices

Niger leverages partnerships with tech innovators for agriculture platforms, renewable energy, e-governance, and healthcare solutions

Regional roundtables allow countries with similar market situations to discuss technical issues openly

ITU-D supports digital development and signed joint declaration with RIPE NCC in Jordan for IPv6 development

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize the importance of regional cooperation through roundtables, forums, and capacity building initiatives to share knowledge, align policies, and address common challenges in digital development.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Digital connectivity is fundamental to achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Speakers

– Han Petter Holen
– Sally Wentworth
– Participant
– Chafic Chaya

Arguments

Building capacity, fostering collaboration and promoting secure Internet infrastructure supports sustainable development goals

Internet Impact Assessment Framework helps policymakers test public policies against objectives of openness, security and trustworthiness

Despite global connectivity rising to two-thirds of population, SDGs haven’t made desired progress and huge amounts remain to be done

Internet and connectivity is the life and blood for social and economic development in the digital age

Summary

Speakers agree that internet connectivity and digital infrastructure are essential foundations for achieving broader sustainable development objectives, though significant work remains to be done.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Arab region representatives share a common approach of positioning their countries as regional hubs for digital cooperation and hosting international forums to facilitate knowledge sharing and policy alignment.

Speakers

– Bassam Alsarhan
– Ahmed Saaed
– Khaled Wali

Arguments

Jordan has positioned itself as a regional hub for digital innovation, hosting ITU Regional Development Forum and Government Roundtables

Egypt will host RIPE NCC Roundtable in Cairo in December 2025 to strengthen regional cooperation and align policies with global best practices

Joint initiatives have ranged from capacity development to government roundtables, contributing to Arab Digital Agenda and Cybersecurity Strategy

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

European representatives emphasize practical implementation of cybersecurity standards through multi-stakeholder collaboration, particularly in the context of EU directives and frameworks.

Speakers

– Fabrizia Benini
– Zdravko Jukic

Arguments

EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards will draft guidelines for practical deployment of IPv6, secure email, and other standards

Croatia successfully transposed NIS2 Directive through broad stakeholder involvement including technical community and private sector

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Development

Technical community representatives emphasize the need for tools and processes that bridge the gap between technical expertise and policy-making, facilitating better understanding and collaboration.

Speakers

– Sally Wentworth
– Mia Kulivin

Arguments

Internet Impact Assessment Framework helps policymakers test public policies against objectives of openness, security and trustworthiness

The IETF needs broad input from all stakeholders and works with ISOC to bring policymakers into their processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Ubuntu philosophy and collective responsibility in digital development

Speakers

– Anne Rachel Inne
– Sally Wentworth
– Chafic Chaya

Arguments

Success demands unity and shared commitment, following the African philosophy of Ubuntu – ‘I am because we are’

No single stakeholder can achieve an inclusive information society alone; collaboration is intrinsic to mission success

Collaboration between governments and technical community is not just a slogan but proven and practical

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from different continents and organizations converged on a philosophical understanding of collective responsibility, with the African Ubuntu philosophy resonating with technical and policy communities globally, suggesting a deeper cultural alignment in digital governance approaches.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Practical implementation focus over theoretical discussions

Speakers

– Fabrizia Benini
– Chafic Chaya
– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Ahmed Saaed

Arguments

EU multi-stakeholder forum for Internet Standards will draft guidelines for practical deployment of IPv6, secure email, and other standards

Agile regulation and policy should be based on technical expertise

ITU-D supports digital development and signed joint declaration with RIPE NCC in Jordan for IPv6 development

Egypt is implementing IPv6 strategy through ongoing technical assistance, training and regional coordination with RIPE NCC

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different organizational types (EU, regional bodies, national regulators) on moving beyond theoretical discussions to concrete implementation, with specific focus on technical standards deployment and practical capacity building.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development