Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the Partner to Connect (P2C) Digital Coalition’s progress toward achieving universal connectivity and bridging the digital divide globally. ITU Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin announced that the coalition has reached $75 billion in pledges, representing a 34% increase from the beginning of the year, with a target of $100 billion by 2026. The session emphasized that despite 30 years of internet growth, one-third of humanity remains offline, making urgent action critical to achieve the 2030 goal of universal meaningful connectivity.

Several major organizations announced significant new commitments during the panel. Cisco revealed a $1 billion global AI investment fund to support entrepreneurs and expand digital skills training for 230,000 individuals over three years. China Unicom pledged $1.38 billion over five years for fiber network expansion and 5G access in rural areas, along with digital village construction. South African Minister Solly Malatsi highlighted his government’s efforts to connect 5.8 million residents through the South African Connect project and remove luxury taxes on smart devices to improve affordability.

Technology companies like ZTE, Amazon, Google, and others shared their infrastructure and capacity-building initiatives. Amazon’s Project Kuiper aims to provide satellite-based broadband to underserved communities, while Google announced investments in subsea cables and AI training programs reaching 100 million people globally. The Internet Society reported exceeding its original pledge to train 10,000 people in internet infrastructure maintenance and committed an additional $30 million over five years for community networks.

The discussion emphasized that partnerships across government, private sector, and civil society are essential for scaling digital transformation efforts. Speakers highlighted successful collaboration models, such as Haiti’s community network deployment and public-private partnerships in spectrum licensing with social obligations. The session concluded with announcements of upcoming P2C events and community meetings to continue mobilizing resources and partnerships toward achieving meaningful connectivity for all.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Partner to Connect Coalition Growth and Financial Milestones**: The coalition has achieved significant progress, growing from $54 billion to over $76 billion in pledges within a year, demonstrating strong momentum toward the $100 billion target by 2026.

– **Major Corporate AI and Infrastructure Investments**: Several major announcements were made, including Cisco’s $1 billion global AI investment fund, China Unicom’s $1.38 billion commitment for rural connectivity, and Google’s $120 million AI opportunity fund, all aimed at bridging digital divides.

– **Policy and Regulatory Barriers to Connectivity**: Discussion of practical obstacles like taxation of smart devices as luxury goods (highlighted by South Africa’s Minister) and the need for supportive regulatory frameworks, particularly for emerging technologies like LEO satellites.

– **Partnership-Driven Approach to Digital Inclusion**: Emphasis on multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations, with specific examples like Internet Society’s community networks in Haiti and various UN agency partnerships.

– **Addressing Both Connectivity and Skills Gaps**: Recognition that infrastructure alone is insufficient – there’s equal need for digital skills training, AI literacy, and capacity building, with multiple speakers announcing training programs reaching millions of people globally.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to showcase progress and mobilize additional commitments for the Partner to Connect Digital Coalition, which works to achieve universal and meaningful connectivity by 2030. The session served as both a progress report and a call to action, encouraging new pledges and partnerships while highlighting successful models for bridging the digital divide.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently optimistic and collaborative throughout the discussion. It began with celebratory announcements of major financial commitments and maintained an encouraging, partnership-focused atmosphere. Speakers demonstrated urgency about the 2030 deadline while remaining positive about achievable solutions through cooperation. The moderator kept the energy high with interactive elements and clear calls to action, creating an atmosphere of shared commitment rather than criticism or concern.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Video**: No specific role or expertise mentioned (appears to be introductory content)

– **Alex Wong**: Executive Office, overseeing Partner to Connect initiative at ITU, session moderator

– **Doreen Bogdan-Martin**: Secretary General of the ITU (International Telecommunication Union)

– **Nicole Isaac**: Vice President of Global Public Policy at Cisco, expertise in digital inclusion and AI investment

– **Solly Malatsi**: His Excellency, Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, South Africa, leadership in WSIS Plus 20 process and G20 South Africa presidency

– **Liqian Hao**: Senior Vice President at China Unicom, expertise in telecommunications infrastructure and connectivity

– **Summer Chen**: Vice President at ZTE, expertise in ICT infrastructure and AI deployment

– **Christopher Hemmerlein**: Senior Manager in Public Policy at Amazon, expertise in satellite connectivity and Project Kuiper

– **Melike Yetken Krilla**: Head of international organizations at Google, expertise in AI, digital infrastructure, and global connectivity

– **Sally Wentworth**: President and CEO of Internet Society (ISOC), expertise in Internet infrastructure and community networks

– **Yu Ping Chan**: Head of Digital Partnerships and Engagement in the Chief Digital Office at UNDP (United Nations Development Program)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Comprehensive Report: Partner to Connect Digital Coalition Progress and Universal Connectivity Initiatives

## Executive Summary

The Partner to Connect (P2C) Digital Coalition convened a high-level session during the WSIS+20 process and AI for Good summit to report on significant progress towards achieving universal connectivity and addressing the global digital divide. Moderated by Alex Wong from the ITU’s Executive Office, the discussion brought together senior representatives from international organisations, governments, and major technology companies to announce new commitments and assess progress towards the coalition’s ambitious targets.

Following an opening video that highlighted P2C’s mission to achieve universal meaningful connectivity through “hundreds of pledges worth billions of dollars submitted by entities from all around the world,” ITU Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin announced that the coalition had reached $75 billion in pledges from over 450 organisations. This represented a substantial increase from $54 billion at the beginning of the year. By the session’s conclusion, incorporating new pledges announced during the panel, Alex Wong updated this figure to $76.1 billion, demonstrating remarkable momentum towards the ultimate goal of $100 billion in commitments by 2026.

The urgency of this mission was underscored by the stark reality that approximately 2.6 billion people—one-third of humanity—remain offline despite three decades of internet growth. This digital divide represents not merely a technological challenge but a fundamental barrier to economic development, social inclusion, and human rights realisation globally.

## Major Financial Commitments and Corporate Investments

The session featured several transformative new financial commitments from P2C champions and other key partners. Cisco Vice President Nicole Isaac announced a $1 billion global AI investment fund designed to support entrepreneurs and expand digital skills training to 230,000 individuals over three years. This builds upon Cisco’s existing Networking Academy programme, which has trained over 20 million individuals globally, now expanding from cybersecurity to include AI competencies.

China Unicom Senior Vice President Hao Liqian (speaking in Chinese with English translation) pledged $1.38 billion over five years, with $1.14 billion allocated for fibre and 5G network expansion and $240 million for digital village construction. This commitment leverages China’s remarkable infrastructure achievements: 98% 4G coverage and 90% 5G coverage in villages, plus 66% fibre coverage. Through co-building partnerships with China Telecom across 4.5 million towers (with China Unicom building 700,000), the company has achieved $51.6 billion in cost savings, $6 billion in annual operating cost reductions, and 2 million tons in carbon emission reductions.

ZTE Vice President Summer Chen committed $400 million annually for ICT infrastructure deployment, complemented by training programmes reaching over 50,000 people in developing regions. ZTE’s innovative solar-powered base stations in remote areas like Liberia have connected over 800 previously offline individuals, demonstrating adaptive technological solutions.

Google’s Melike Yetken Krilla announced a $120 million AI opportunity fund and the goal of training 100 million people through Grow with Google programmes. Google also revealed “hot off the presses” a new partnership with UNICC for an AI hub announced just hours earlier, alongside collaboration with the World Meteorological Organization on flood prediction systems. Google’s tens of billions in subsea cable infrastructure investments carry 95% of global data traffic, providing critical backbone connectivity.

The Internet Society, through President and CEO Sally Wentworth, exceeded their original 10,000-person training pledge and announced an additional $30 million commitment over five years for community networks. Building on their Haiti success story of over 100 community networks connecting tens of thousands through local expertise and diaspora funding, they’ve established a co-fund with Meta as the first contributor.

## Government Policy Initiatives and Regulatory Frameworks

South African Minister Solly Malatsi provided compelling examples of policy-driven digital inclusion, particularly his government’s removal of luxury taxes on smart devices—a practical solution addressing fundamental affordability barriers. This initiative, developed in partnership with the Global Mobile Association, represents an immediately replicable model for other nations.

The South African Connect project aims to connect 5.8 million residents through government facilities and telecommunications partnerships, demonstrating effective public-private collaboration. Minister Malatsi also announced an upcoming July 18th roundtable as part of the G20 Digital Economy Working Group, extending P2C’s country-specific approach.

Amazon’s Christopher Hemmerlein, Senior Manager in Public Policy, emphasised that current regulatory frameworks inadequately address Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite technologies, necessitating collaborative government-private sector efforts to develop appropriate regulatory structures for emerging connectivity solutions.

## Infrastructure Solutions and Technological Innovation

The session showcased diverse technological approaches to connectivity challenges. Amazon’s Project Kuiper represents a satellite-based solution providing broadband access to 95% of the global population between 56 degrees latitude north and south. With terminals measuring 28 centimeters squared, offering speeds up to 400 Mbps at costs of hundreds of dollars, this initiative demonstrates satellite technology’s potential to complement terrestrial infrastructure.

Amazon’s collaborative approach—working with incumbent operators like Vodafone, Vodacom, and Verizon rather than competing—exemplifies how global technology companies can support existing ecosystems whilst expanding connectivity. This partnership model builds comprehensive digital ecosystems rather than creating parallel infrastructure.

The combination of ZTE’s solar-powered base stations addressing power and connectivity challenges simultaneously, Google’s massive subsea cable investments enabling all other connectivity initiatives, and China Unicom’s extensive terrestrial network deployment demonstrates the multi-layered infrastructure approach required for universal connectivity.

## Skills Development and Capacity Building Initiatives

Infrastructure alone proves insufficient for meaningful digital inclusion, with multiple speakers emphasising critical skills development requirements. Cisco’s Networking Academy expansion to include AI skills addresses emerging technological challenges, whilst Google’s provision of open-source AI models like GEMMA to 7 million researchers and academics democratises access to advanced technologies.

ZTE’s CORA alliance, targeting 1,000 global players to accelerate AI industry applications, demonstrates industry collaboration overcoming technical barriers. The Internet Society’s focus on training local technicians reflects their community-driven sustainability approach, recognising that long-term success requires local expertise rather than external dependency.

## Addressing the AI Divide and Future Technologies

A forward-looking discussion theme was preventing the digital divide from becoming an “AI divide.” Multiple organisations announced AI-focused initiatives recognising that emerging technologies could exacerbate existing inequalities unless deliberately addressed through proactive measures.

The UNDP’s Yu Ping Chan highlighted their support for over 90 countries on inclusive digital transformation and 69 policies related to digital ecosystems between 2022-2024. UNDP also launched the AI Hub for Sustainable Development in collaboration with Italy’s G7 presidency, demonstrating international coordination on AI accessibility.

## Partnership Models and Accountability Mechanisms

Throughout the session, speakers consistently emphasised that addressing the digital divide requires collaborative partnerships across sectors. Alex Wong established clear accountability by requiring that “if you’re committing to doing something and you haven’t entered it into the Partner2Connect platform as a pledge, we’re going to chase you on that.”

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus on fundamental principles: the critical importance of partnerships, substantial financial investment needs, essential skills development roles, and comprehensive infrastructure solutions addressing both urban and rural connectivity challenges.

## Future Directions and Upcoming Initiatives

The session concluded with announcements of upcoming P2C events designed to maintain momentum: sessions at the Landlocked Developing Countries Conference in Turkmenistan, the UN General Assembly, the World Telecom Development Conference in Azerbaijan, and an annual partnership meeting in December.

Planned community events for pledge sharing, matchmaking, and partnership development recognise that achieving ambitious goals requires ongoing facilitation beyond one-time commitments. Country roundtables following the Guatemala and upcoming South Africa models represent approaches addressing national-level challenges through global-local coordination.

## Conclusion

The Partner to Connect Digital Coalition session demonstrated significant progress from $54 billion to $76.1 billion in pledges whilst highlighting the scale and complexity of connecting 2.6 billion people by 2030. The strong consensus among diverse stakeholders, combined with concrete accountability mechanisms and forward-thinking approaches to emerging technologies like AI, provides a comprehensive framework for addressing current and future digital inclusion challenges.

The session’s emphasis on partnerships, substantial financial commitments, skills development, and policy reform, coupled with recognition that the digital divide could evolve into an AI divide, positions the coalition to address both immediate connectivity needs and emerging technological developments. The combination of large-scale infrastructure investments, community-driven approaches, and capacity building initiatives demonstrates mature understanding of digital inclusion’s multifaceted nature, providing reason for optimism about achieving universal meaningful connectivity by 2030.

Video: and many others who have contributed to the development of the Internet. Despite 30 years of steady growth, today, millions of people remain offline, and hundreds of millions more still lack the connectivity required to tap onto the transformative power of the Internet. The Partner to Connect Digital Coalition is set to change this paradigm by mobilizing resources, partnerships, and commitments to achieve universal and meaningful connectivity. To date, hundreds of pledges worth billions of dollars have been submitted through the P2C platform by entities from all around the world. But the Coalition’s work doesn’t stop here. In fact, it’s just getting started. Partner to Connect will scale pledges, track progress on implementation, and mobilize more resources and partnerships. P2C will also be working with partner countries to facilitate the implementation of the P2C pledges to accelerate digital transformation at the national level. Join Partner to Connect. Make a pledge for any of the focus areas of the Coalition. And help us come closer to our goal of a meaningfully connected planet. For more information, visit www.itu.int.com

Alex Wong: Okay, good afternoon everyone. If you could all take a seat if you’re planning to stay for the session. My name is Alex Wong in the Executive Office. I’m overseeing our Partner to Connect initiative. Welcome. Without further delay, I’m pleased and honoured to introduce as a Doreen Bogdan-Martin, the Secretary General of the ITU, Doreen.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin: Thank you so much, Alex. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to have the Partner2Connect community join us in marking the WSIS plus 20 process, let’s say. I think as you know and you heard this morning, the WSIS gave us a powerful vision of an inclusive, people-centered information society, and it helped us to build a shared understanding that digital development means leaving no one behind. The Partner2Connect Digital Coalition gives us a framework, a framework that helps us bring the WSIS vision to life. Launched just three years ago, the coalition has grown into one of the most dynamic platforms to match digital transformation needs with resources to meaningfully connect the underserved communities all over the world. A platform that mobilizes investments, forges bold partnerships, and delivers tangible results where it matters the most. At the beginning of this year, we had recorded $54 billion in pledges, and ladies and gentlemen, today I’m proud to share that we have crossed the $75 billion mark. So thank you for that. And that 34% increase is something that I think we can all be proud of. It’s progress, and it’s progress that demonstrates the collective will of this coalition, Thank you all for joining us today. I want to begin by acknowledging the collective will of my amazing panelists here with us today, made up of governments, of companies, of civil society, and international organizations to bridge the digital divide. It shows that like the WSIS community, Partner to Connect Digital Coalition is more than the sum of its parts. Because behind each pledge is a story of digital opportunity, is a story of access to more affordable devices and services, a story of new skills learned, a story of more skills, more skills, more communities, more schools meaningfully connected, and it’s a story of greater economic potential being unlocked. While we have come a long way in three years, I think it’s fair to say we still have a long way to go because, ladies and gentlemen, a third of humanity remains unconnected, offline. And the window to achieve our 2030 goal of universal, meaningful connectivity is closing fast. What we do next and how quickly we do it matters. This afternoon you’re going to hear from public and private sector leaders who are delivering results and impact on the ground. You’ll hear about new high-impact pledges that push us closer to our target to get to $100 billion U.S. in commitments by the end of 2026. And you’ll see what’s possible, what’s possible when we come together and we act together across sectors, across borders, and across regions. So thank you for… Thank you for being part of this Partner2Connect journey. Let’s keep going with purpose, with urgency and with the people we serve always at the center of our actions. Again, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. And with that, I hand back to our moderator.

Alex Wong: Thank you. Thank you, Doreen. So, we are looking forward to a great discussion and as Doreen mentioned, we have the pleasure of a panel of excellent leaders here who will share a bit more of what they’ve done in terms of Partner2Connect. And there’s going to be one rule here in this session which applies to both our panel and to those in the audience because we’re going to have some time for you to maybe make an intervention. If you’re committing to doing something and you haven’t entered it into the Partner2Connect platform as a pledge, we’re going to chase you on that. So, you’re welcome to announce what you’re doing, but you’re going to have to put it in the Partner2Connect system. So, with that, I’m going to introduce each panelist as they speak so you’ll get to hear who they are. We’re going to kick off with actually an exciting first speaker who’s going to get us off on the right track because she’s going to announce something new that’s being done by Cisco. So, with that in mind, my first speaker is going to be, as I look through my notes, excuse me. Our first speaker is going to be Nicole Isik, who’s the Vice President of Global Public Policy at Cisco. Cisco has long led on digital inclusion and they’ve been doing a lot of things with ITU on digital inclusion topic. And for today’s, to kick us off on our discussion, I’m pleased to invite Nicole to announce a major AI investment. Nicole, over to you.

Nicole Isaac: Thank you so much, Alex. It’s great to be here and thank you, Secretary General Doreen Bogdan-Martin. We truly appreciate all of the work that we’ve done together and we look forward to the work that’s to come. Cisco’s mission is to power an inclusive future for all. And we’re not just talking about some, we’re talking about everyone around the world everywhere. And we do that each and every day through our people, places, devices, and all of the technology, tools, and hardware that we’re investing in infrastructure, databases, and security to adequately and effectively connect everyone. As part of this commitment, our CEO just announced a global AI investment hub that we’re working on. that was created and leveraged for $1 billion. And we are looking forward to utilizing that fund to invest in entrepreneurs globally and to expand access to digital skills, not only through our NetAcademy partnership, but also through our greater work with the AI Internet Coalition Technology Forum, a partnership with multiple companies at the table. And we’re committed to expanding this work globally. And so not only do we have an investment fund of a billion dollars, but we also announced a global AI hub in France, where we are committed to expanding digital skills for over 230,000 individuals in the next three years. I’m happy to speak more as time goes on, but I know there are other panelists and really excited for the work that we’ll do together. Thank you for this work.

Alex Wong: All right. Okay, so the idea of Partners Connect is now people can go to talk to Nicole afterwards, because they might be doing something on AI capacity building or something to contribute. And the idea is that if you’re pledging on Partners Connect, you’re also open to exploring partnerships. So that will go to all of the pledges that are in the Partners Connect system. So thank you, Nicole. Next, I’m going to turn to my right. I have the pleasure to introduce His Excellency, Mr. Solly Malatsi, the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, South Africa. He of course is playing a leadership role in the WSIS Plus 20 process. He’s also been playing a leadership role in the G20 South Africa presidency, where I too has been a pleasure and an honor to be the knowledge partner on the Digital Economy Working Group. And within South Africa, connectivity begins at home. And Minister, you made that one of your key priorities. Would you like to share how you’re planning to make this a reality?

Solly Malatsi: Thanks very much for that. And greetings to everyone, including the panelists. And I think Nicola has set the bar high with that succinct contribution. I know you said we had three minutes, but her interventions was very succinct and way. and Mr. David M. Nguyen. So I’m going to try and break that. So our focus is several years ago the South African government recognized the power of connectivity towards uplifting people towards economic prosperity and it took a decision to initiate the South African Connect project to connect people who weren’t connected. And this targeted not only Wi-Fi high sports but also to connect government facilities as those are the central hubs for a lot of people who are outside the metros and the metropolitan areas and major cities. And the aim was to connect 5.8 million residents. And as this project has unfolded, we’ve also taken note of the fact that in order to achieve that goal, it requires an inclusive approach, working together with private sector, telcos and also small and micro-medium enterprises. So one of the things that our regulator does in the issuance of licensing and also selling auctioning spectrum is that it attaches to the telcos what are called social obligations, which is their commitment towards connecting public facilities so that together and collectively we can try and make the impact and the difference that we are making. But we also acknowledge that connectivity on its own is insufficient, right? So you have to also look what are the other barriers that stand in the way of people making meaningful participation to drive economic outputs. One of those, and Doreen touched on it slightly, is around the affordability of smart devices. In our taxation dispensation, they are classified as luxury goods and that drives their high cost. So one of the key milestones that we’ve been able to achieve in a short space of time was to persuade our national treasury to look at the entry point of those smart devices to remove that luxury tax so that they can be much more affordable to a lot of low-income households who we know with their access to this can drive more e-learning, e-commerce and even e-services.

Alex Wong: Thank you, Your Excellency. So taxes, I hope you all heard that because that’s what we always talk about as one of the inhibitors is to look at how taxes of ICT equipment are. I would also add, if you’re okay, Your Excellency, that as part of the G20 South Africa Digital Economy Working Group, there will be a roundtable in South Africa on July 18th to look specifically at the connectivity situation and some of the challenges and opportunities. So thank you for your leadership, sir. Okay, so our next speaker, and I’m going to invite all of you to pick up your headsets or your translation devices and switch to Channel 1 because our next speaker, Mr. Hao Liqian, who’s the Senior Vice President at China Unicom, will be speaking in Chinese. So we do have Chinese-English translation. We don’t have all the other languages, but we do have Chinese-English, so I’m giving everyone a moment to get their headsets on. Mr. Hao is going to be announcing also an ambitious new pledge. So I have the pleasure to pass the floor over to you, sir. Thank you very much.

Liqian Hao: Thank you. I’m Hao Liqian from China Unicom. Thank you. I’m Mr. Hao Liqian from China Unicom. Everyone knows China has 9.6 million square kilometers and we have 1.4 billion population. What you do not know is that China’s distribution of population is dense in the southeast and less dense in the northwest. 6% of the west regions only have 6% of the population, and in the west region we only have less than 20 people per square kilometers. The network building and the operation cost is quite high, and therefore this electricity supply stability is also an issue. As a Chinese operator, we try to get rid of the digital divide, and we need to overcome this challenge. In the past few years, with our efforts, we have been able to achieve that. In China, we have sold more than half a million villages, so we can achieve that for 98% 4G coverage in these villages, and 90% of the villages with 5G coverage. And for our fiber villages, we can achieve about 66%. With these numbers, you can see that we have achievement, but there is still a gap. Therefore, ITVU has this strategy, and we are planning for the next five years, we will invest 1.38 billion U.S. dollars, and this 1.1 billion will be used on the fixed fiber network and the 5G access, and also 0.24 billion will be used on the digital villages construction, meaning the digital infrastructures and applications. We were also planning on this $14 million to be used on the globalization and also for the disabled seniors and the low-income people. We have these discounts for the service charges within our plan. The next phase, we will have $250 million to be used for these discounts. These initiatives have been put into practice in China. We hope to do better in the future. Thank you.

Alex Wong: Thank you, Mr. Hao. Again, as I mentioned, anyone interested or doing work in China, or I think you have some international component to the pledge, if I heard correctly, please see Mr. Hao. Our next three speakers, who are from ZTE, Amazon, and Google, are especially recognized as part of our Partner2Connect champions community. In addition to the three organizations I just mentioned, I should also add Microsoft and the Inter-American Development Bank. The five P2C champions have played as very strong advisors and supporters of Partner2Connect at the ITU, so we want to give a little bit of the extra recognition for the leadership they’ve played. With our next speaker, I’m pleased to call on Summer Chen, who is the vice president at ZTE, one of our P2C champions. She will share some of the most recent exciting opportunities that ZTE is exploring. Over to you, Summer.

Summer Chen: Thank you. It’s very exciting to come here and share some interesting progress ZTE has contributed to the whole industries. As you know, ZTE is a kind of infrastructure supplier. We developed IT and city infrastructure for all the worlds, especially for the… and Mr. Eric L. Liqian. So, what we have done is not just making the connection, we also overcome the AI divider now. So, I want to focus on three points. First, we’re making the connectivity, especially in some non-connected area for these recent years, as we are one of the champions for P2P, we have insisted every year we are making the deployment of ICT infrastructure for 400 million U.S. dollars. And we also making the AI infrastructure to handle the barrier of technical barriers, making it easier to deploy the AI applications and smart computing deployments. And the most important thing is empower human. We give the lectures, lessons for the people that learn technological courses. We do this kind of courses for over 50,000 years to some developing areas like South Africa, like Indonesia and Estonia. They give the power or ability for this kind of people to learn technical, to learn a skill or a capability for their facing in the future. So, what we have done is not just technical, we give this kind of solutions, this kind of infrastructures for all global people, not just for the modern city or we also gaming for the chance to their remote areas. For example, this year we have some use case in Liberia with an orange operator. For these people, we set up a base station with solar power to serve more than 800% of the people. They are offline, they are not connecting to the internet. So all these kinds of projects give them a chance to catch up to digital life. So what we have done is help them, and the technical folks and the people, that’s what we have done. Thank you.

Alex Wong: Thank you, Summer. So I think for those of you listening, you’re getting a sense that we have to address the demand side, the supply side, policy, and Partner Connect is that place where all these kinds of commitments can be announced so we can also see how they can support each other and what we call matchmaking. Next I have the pleasure to introduce Chris Hemmerlein, Christopher Hemmerlein from Amazon. He is Senior Manager in Public Policy. Chris and Amazon have also been long-standing supporters of Partner Connect, as I mentioned earlier. Chris, over to you to give a little more details on some plans that you have on achieving universal connectivity.

Christopher Hemmerlein: Thanks, Alex. It’s a real pleasure to be here today. As you know, we’ve been a long supporter of the P2C program. I’d really like to talk a little bit today about Project Kuiper, although we’re not making a specific pledge about Kuiper today. It really does aspire towards the same goals as that program. Project Kuiper is Amazon’s initiative to bring high-speed, low-latency, affordable broadband connectivity to communities that are currently unserved or underserved by that type of connectivity today. It’s based upon a satellite system that operates in low-Earth orbit. or Leo. And there are really three dimensions of the program that are really helping to bridge the digital divide, and those are affordability, ubiquitous coverage, and partnerships. When it comes to affordability, historically the biggest barrier to affordable satellite service has been the customer terminal. But at Amazon, we’ve engineered a customer terminal that is lighter and more compact than legacy systems. It’s going to be easier to manufacture and to ship and to install. And so our major terminal, our prime terminal, is going to be about 28 centimeters squared, about the size of a laptop, capable of downloading speeds up to 400 megabits per second. And we’re producing them in-house for a couple of hundred dollars, a price that we think we’re going to make even lower and lower, and of course pass that savings on to consumers. When it comes to coverage, we all know that the areas that have long lagged behind when it comes to access are communities that are in rural and remote areas, perhaps challenged by topography such as mountains or islands. And we are going to be able to deliver service to those types of communities because we’re less reliant upon terrestrial infrastructure. Our service footprint is going to be between 56 degrees latitude north and south, so that’s about 95 percent of the global population. So together, those two dimensions mean we can really bring tens of millions of new customers online with high-speed broadband connectivity. And finally, when it comes to partnerships, a partner-to-connect would be a great slogan for Kuiper. Unfortunately, I can’t use it, but otherwise…

Alex Wong: We’ll sell it to you.

Christopher Hemmerlein: We’ll sell it to me, okay. Because in a way, we understand at Amazon that the digital divide is too great a challenge for one company or one organization to overcome alone. So we’re working with partners who share our vision for bringing universal connectivity. A prime example is working with mobile network operators to expand the reach. The four G or five G networks by providing satellite backhaul to new extended reaches of the network and bring it back to the to the core network. What’s really important about that, I think is, you know, we’re working with incumbent local operators. And so we’re supporting local economies, we’re building the overall digital ecosystem. And then I’ll leave it at there, but I look forward to further discussion. Thank you.

Alex Wong: Thank you, Chris. So Matt, next I have Malika Yetken Krilla, who’s heading international organizations at Google. Malika, over to you to share the latest developments on Google and its pledges to partner and connect.

Melike Yetken Krilla: Thanks very much, Alex. And thanks to the ITU family for hosting such an important gathering for AI for Good and certainly partner to connect. Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. We are tech optimists. We think tech is a place to go that can transform the world and do so in a very positive way, while realizing that we need to ensure that the digital divide does not become the AI divide. And when we have 2.6 billion people unconnected still, the mechanics of how we do that is in partnership, it’s being bold and responsible, is in our innovation. And so there’s three things I want to talk about today. The first is infrastructure. Google has spent tens of billions of dollars on data center and subsea cable development to connect people all over the world. Last year alone, we announced high frequency optic cables that will connect Latin America to Africa, Africa to APEC, remote areas in the Pacific Ocean to the Americas. 95% of the world’s data is now free flowing through subsea cable. So the connectivity and others. We are committed to open-source models, so if you look at things like our GEMMA AI model that we give to researchers for free to be able to create innovations, create them in their local language, think about local challenges they have, and build local solutions to global issues. We now have 7 million researchers and academics and scientists using these open models to build and create their own destiny. It’s a five-times increase from what we saw this time last year. Second, if we think about global skilling, particularly around our Grow with Google program, which is looking at AI essentials, training in data science, how to use new large-language models like GEMMA and I, we are training 100 million people globally on that program. Second to looking at a global AI opportunity fund that we announced, $120 million to help grant local organizations throughout the world to get the skills they need, the training they need, the capacity that they need. And third, Chris covered this and Nicole did as well, is partnerships. We like to think of ourselves as a bold and innovative company, but we want our innovations to be deployed responsibly, and part of that is in the partnerships we create and the relationships we do and the work we do with the UN. So when we’re talking about the transformational nature of AI with healthcare, with agriculture, with education, we want to partner with all of you to do that. Thanks very much.

Alex Wong: Thank you, Adhiya. And last but not least, of course, Partner Connect and WSIS is all about mobile. and Ms. Sally Wentworth, President and CEO of Internet Society. I think many of you are familiar with ISOC, who has been an organization making the forefront of making the Internet more open and accessible for years. And ISOC, your original pledge was to support 10,000 people to build and maintain Internet infrastructure and also supporting 100 complementary connectivity solutions. Kyrgyzstan, your chapter there, has been very active as well. So maybe over to you, Sally, to give an update and share anything else.

Sally Wentworth: Thank you, and it’s a real pleasure to be here and to be participating in the high-level event in Partnered Connect. It’s so important that we remain committed and steadfast in our work to ensure that the remaining unconnected are brought online. And that is part of the Internet Society’s mission and vision, is that the Internet is for everyone. As you said, Alex, we made a commitment in 2022 to train 10,000 people to maintain Internet infrastructure and to support 100 complementary connectivity solutions. And I’m happy to report that we have achieved those pledges and even exceeded them, as you point out, with the Kyrgyzstan chapter. And before I speak about where we want to go next, I want to tell a little bit of a story that affirms that we think we’re on the right path here. The Internet Society has chapters all over the world that are carrying out our mission at the local level, and we’re tremendously proud of the work that they do and we’re honored that they are a part of the global community. Back in 2019, the Internet Society chapter in Haiti participated in the national IGF that was focused on connectivity. Working out of that, the chapter decided that they wanted to take a more proactive role in connecting the unconnected in Haiti. They reached out to colleagues in India who had been successfully deploying community networks, and they went to India to learn how to do that. And they brought back lessons learned that they incorporated into their own plans. They did a national survey of where the connectivity gaps were, and they worked with the local regulators to ensure that they were complying with national law. They then found contributions from across the globe, particularly in the diaspora living overseas. And after five years, they have been able to implement over 100 community networks or points of presence across Haiti. They’ve done that with a sustainable business model that’s connecting tens of thousands of people and training local experts to both build and maintain that connectivity. So that’s the kind of model that we think is very successful in the hardest-to-reach communities. And on the basis of that, I’m happy to report that we made another Partner Connect pledge in April to scale this model across the world. We’re committed to training over 15,000 more people to build and maintain Internet infrastructure worldwide. And we’re committing, through a connectivity co-fund initiative, $30 million over the next five years to support locally scalable, sustainable networks that create jobs and foster entrepreneurship, scale these training solutions through train-the-trainer models, and expand local infrastructure and make it more reliable and more resilient going forward. So we are always happy to partner with organizations. We’re happy to report that Metta was our first contributor to the co-fund, and we’re delighted to have them as a partner. And we’re in conversations with others to continue to do that. to build out this fund. But this is our contribution to achieving the vision that we have, that the Internet truly is for everyone. Thank you.

Alex Wong: Thank you. Okay, so before I turn it to a second rapid round, and also open it up to the audience for any comments, I see our good colleague and friend Yu-Ping Chan in the front row here from the UNDP. The reason is, I want to mention is, Partner Connect has over 450 organizations now involved who have made pledges, and we’re really proud that 29 UN agencies have made pledges, because Partner Connect, we built it for the UN as well as the global world to also share commitments. We had many of the UN leaders. Your former Administrator, Akram Steiner, was one of our original leaders of the Partner Connect initiative. USG Rabab Fatima, the Undersecretary General of the OHRLLS, has been a steadfast presence. Let me invite Yu-Ping to share. I’ll give you my mic here, Yu-Ping. Yu-Ping is the Head of Digital Partnerships and Engagement in the Chief Digital Office. Maybe to share a bit of UNDP’s progress on the Partner Connect pledges.

Yu Ping Chan: Thank you so much, Alex. Indeed, UNDP has been proud to be a close partner of the ITU in this as well as many other initiatives, including, for instance, the work around SDG Digital and the convenings that we’ve done around the United Nations about the power of technology to really accelerate development and the achievement of sustainable development. On behalf of the United Nations Development Program, the UN’s development arm present in over 170 countries and territories around the world, I just wanted to reaffirm our full commitment to the P2C through our pledges on supporting development of local digital ecosystems built on inclusivity, sustainability, and human rights. As Doreen, the ITU Secretary General has said, we believe that the P2C coalition is a critical part of the WSIS framework and community. Indeed, our pledges speak directly to the WSIS Action Line’s own capacity building, enabling environment, and the international region of and our environment. We’ve make significant progress on our PTC pledges, for instance between 2022 and 2024, UNDP has supported over 90 countries on inclusive digital transformation and has supported 69 policies and strategies related to enabling digital ecosystem. This year we will further expand our work on capacity building, digital public infrastructure and artificial intelligence which will advance the objectives of PTC and data-wise outcomes. Just last month, UNDP, in collaboration with Italy’s G7 presidency, launched the AI Hub for Sustainable Development which involves many of the partners around the room, which focuses on accelerating local private sector innovation and partnerships, which was also highlighted and mentioned by many of the speakers on stage, for advancing AI for sustainable development in Africa. We’re doing much more, I would be happy to speak with any other colleagues in the room, but I don’t want to take up more time, but please do continue to count on UNDP as a committed partner in all of this.

Alex Wong: Thank you. All right, thank you Yuqing. So the question I’m going to turn to the panel, but you know, offer one or two or three or however many wish to to quickly respond and then open it up to the floor if you have a question or a commitment you’d like to make or a partnership you’d like to talk about, but the question is about partnerships. I mean that is the spirit of WSIS, the spirit of Partner Connect, and I’d like to just ask the panel if in implementing their pledges do they have an example of a partnership they’d like to highlight and maybe a lesson learned for those of you that might come to talk to you afterwards to see how they can work with you. So maybe an example if you have one and maybe a lesson learned that you’d like to share, but I’m just opening it up if anyone wishes to start and we can take a few minutes on the panel to speak. Summer, you have the mic. I have some information to share. Okay, over to you Summer.

Summer Chen: Okay, as all you know, ZTE is very ambitious in ecosystem cooperation and actually we have joined more than 200 ecosystem organizations to do our, to help the organization, to help the whole industry’s development. So this year, we just mentioned, we are upgrade our strategy, more focus on AI. So it’s not just connecting, it’s more helping to use AI. We are focused on AI for all, so AI accessible. So how to realize AI for all? In supporting this, we are set up a kind of organization, we call it CORA, it’s a cooperating, it’s a open cooperation, intelligent industry cooperation alliance. Some industry top player, they join this kind of alliance. What we are target is to making the AI more quick, and it’s accelerate the using AI to the industry applications. So our target is to involving more than 1,000 players in this alliance globally. So it’s quite important to collecting all the different forces to get together to accelerate this kind of development, making the technicals to overcome the financial, to overcome the technical, or overcome the equal resources challenges. And I’m happy to hear, to engage in all this, a deep discussion, so I want to hear more voices from different players to join us. Thank you.

Nicole Isaac: Sure, thank you Alex. I mentioned briefly the Cisco Networking Academy, which is our educational academy that’s been training on cyber security skills for the last 20. and others, and have trained over 20 million individuals globally. We’ve committed of course to expanding that offering to include AI skill sets and what are some of the more foundational digitization skills that need to be taught to really bring up those 2.6 billion individuals who are disconnected and ensure they have the requisite training to be connected to the internet and to have a deep understanding of the skills for tomorrow. I will say that to Alex’s question, what are the lessons that we’ve learned? And it actually goes back to what the minister outlined. It’s so important to have every partner that’s at the table be a committed partner that’s willing to not only leverage their respective expertise, but to help us get to scale. And that’s also the unique role of government. When government comes to the table and works with the private sector, works with civil society, we’re able to not only execute on our objectives, but get it to scale in a way that’s most impactful and that will drive outcomes for those who are most marginalized. So very grateful for that work. We recently announced a partnership with Humane AI in Saudi Arabia and a number of other companies. Really excited to what’s to come and just very grateful for all the work that’s happening across the board and all the work that’s happening in the room. Thank you.

Alex Wong: Okay, great. Thank you. I think Chris was going to go and then Malika. And did you want to close? Okay, Chris, over to you. Let’s try to keep them pretty quick responses so we have a chance.

Christopher Hemmerlein: You got it, Alex. Thank you. I just wanted to touch briefly in my previous intervention, I mentioned the type of partnerships that Kuiper is forming with mobile network operators. And so for a couple of examples, we have partnerships with Vodafone and Vodacom in Europe and Africa, and in the United States with Verizon. But because I’m a policy person, I’d be remiss just to note how valuable we see partnerships with governments. and Mr. David Borenstein. Governments have connectivity objectives, they have social and economic development objectives. And in many cases, because LEO satellites are still a new and evolving technology, regulatory frameworks don’t yet account for them. And so we’re working with governments really hand-in-hand at the ITU and at the national level in developing kind of the type of regulatory and policy frameworks that work both for ourselves and for the government and for local operators as well to really develop that win-win-win win-win-win. So I’ll be thrilled to talk about sort of our relationship with governments and what we can do more to further those relationships. Thank you.

Alex Wong: All right. Thank you. Melike.

Melike Yetken Krilla: Thanks very much. At Google, as I said, we really are excited about partnering with other people to address and identify solutions to some of these great challenges and how AI can be the primary tool. Two partnerships I want to highlight both with the UN. First, hot off the presses, just upstairs at 2 p.m., UNICC, the UN Shared Service Provider, announced they are creating an AI hub in order to deploy AI systems within the UN to transform daily ability to get your job done and to AI capacity building. Google is thrilled to be a partner with UNICC to be able to build solutions that UN officials throughout the world are able to deploy and use and make their life easier and make their life more efficient and reduce redundancies, et cetera. And we’re doing that as well with training through their AI academy with our apolitical relationship to be able to have virtual training. That’s first. Second is the World Meteorological Organization just endorsed our flood hub program, which is geospatial data and large language models use predictive analytics to predict floods in advance. The technology is so good, we’ve been able to identify floods seven days in advance.

Alex Wong: Thank you. I’m going to go to the Minister last. So, Sally, you can take the floor next, and then over to you to end. Go ahead, Sally.

Sally Wentworth: Thank you. I think it’s definitely true within the Internet technical community that the way the Internet is developed is through partnership. It’s through collaboration. It is fundamental to the Internet itself, and so we at the Internet Society have sort of emerged out of that tradition. For our work, especially on connectivity, a key dimension of our work is the need to have a strong local partner. We don’t want to be in the position of being in from the outside and claiming to understand what’s going to work best in any particular environment. So we really are looking for that local expertise that can help shape the connectivity approach that will work best in a particular market. I think the Haiti example is an example of, in this case, the local chapter of the Internet Society really having that kind of expertise. But then if you take that further, you see that they worked with the government. They worked with other local partners, international partners to make that possible, but they were the locus of that work. They understood what the community needed, what the environmental position was. They’re a small island, and so they faced unique challenges that they understand best, and we come in behind that as a supporting function. So local Digital partners is critical to our strategy.

Alex Wong: Thank you. Mr. Hao, did you want to add?

Liqian Hao: Yeah.

Alex Wong: Thank you, please.

Liqian Hao: For partners for getting rid of the digital divide, it’s very important. First, the network, this ubiquitous connectivity and the China Unicom and China Telecom, we have built together the largest, this co-built, co-shared, this 5G network. This is for getting rid of digital divide. It’s very helpful to carriers. We work together on the 4.5 million and these towers. And China Unicom built about 700,000 and these towers. It’s for the villages. It’s tried to get rid of the digital divide. We saved 51.6 billion and annually we can save 6 billion operating costs and we can reduce carbon emission and 2 million tons per year. And with these network access, what’s more important now is about the computing power and also the AI equality. And this is more of a conflict than the network access. We work with the government and the different civil societies together, especially on the agriculture production and the medical education, using our infrastructure, using our digital platforms. and others. We have to make sure that we continue to work with our partners and our applications to provide services and we expect to do more on these areas. Thanks.

Alex Wong: Thank you. Thanks very much.

Solly Malatsi: Two of the partnerships that are worth sharing in here is we are working together with the Global Mobile Association, particularly looking at the impact where in the removal of the luxury techs can make in making smart devices more affordable. We think it’s a very important instrument, as I shared earlier, in terms of expanding access to the smart devices and the impact that they can do in empowering citizens from being much more digitally active and connected. Secondly, it’s around the public services and young people with digital skills. We’ve got an ongoing partnership that will be finalized. It’s in the pipelines with the private sector, but it’s on assessment of our needs in the public service, looking in terms of the capacity of the digital skills of public servants, because as the drivers of digital transformation in the state, we’ve got to make sure that they are fully capacitated and empowered to be able to drive the digital transformation that we want. Thanks.

Alex Wong: Thank you, panel. I’m sorry I’m not going to have time to go to the audience. I will wrap up the session now, and then we can give a round of applause to our panel at the end. If we can just go to the next slide, I wanted to make sure our colleagues here and everyone in the room is aware that Partner Connect is not just a session, and what we have planned in the coming few months, if the slide can come up, it’s a bit of a busy slide on purpose because we think there’s a lot to be done, but we will be convening Partner to Connect sessions at the upcoming Landlocked Developing Countries Conference that will be taking place in Turkmenistan in August. If you want to be on the session and say a few words and share your pledge, please. come talk to us. We plan to be having a session to celebrate again progress and pledges that are during the UN General Assembly. We’re still finalizing the exact date but most likely September 22nd and we’ll also of course be present at our World Telecom Development Conference hosted in Azerbaijan. That’ll be taking place in November and then we have our partnership annual meeting. I will be in probably Geneva and perhaps also paired with New York during the WSIS plus 20 event in December. I guess I’ll just want to finish off on the calendar by sharing that also on the bottom line we are continuing to hold community events for the PDC community to share pledges, to share opportunities to match make and partner and we’re also convening country roundtables. We held one recently in Guatemala with the government which we’re very pleased together with Inter-American Development Bank and the private sector where we brought together the community to talk about the Guatemala challenges and opportunities. So please stay tuned on that. If you go to the next slide I think there’s a QR code for you to scan if you want to be added to the PDC emailing list. So I will finish by sharing an update on the number of pledges. Because of some of the new pledges announced in the panel, correcting my Secretary General which I never get to do, we’re now actually at 76.1 billion in pledges. So give a round of applause to yourselves and also to our panel. And with that I’d like to thank our panel. Thank all of you for listening. Again I’m sorry we hadn’t had a chance to hear from some of you on the floor but hopefully next time there’ll be plenty of occasions. Thank you again panelists and enjoy the rest of the WSIS. Thank you.

Agreement points

Partnerships are essential for achieving digital connectivity and transformation goals

Speakers

– Nicole Isaac
– Christopher Hemmerlein
– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Sally Wentworth
– Solly Malatsi
– Liqian Hao

Arguments

Government-private sector collaboration is crucial for achieving scale and impact in digital transformation initiatives

Private sector partnerships with mobile network operators are essential for extending 4G/5G networks through satellite backhaul

UNICC partnership with Google creates AI hub for UN system deployment and capacity building

Local partnerships are critical for understanding community needs and environmental challenges in connectivity projects

South Africa partners with Global Mobile Association on smart device affordability and with private sector on public service digital skills assessment

China Unicom works with government and civil society on agriculture, medical, and education applications using digital platforms

Summary

All speakers emphasized that addressing the digital divide requires collaborative partnerships across sectors, with government, private sector, civil society, and international organizations working together to leverage their respective expertise and achieve scale.

Topics

Development | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Massive financial commitments are needed to bridge the digital divide

Speakers

– Doreen Bogdan-Martin
– Nicole Isaac
– Liqian Hao
– Summer Chen
– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Sally Wentworth

Arguments

Coalition has grown to over 450 organizations with pledges worth $76.1 billion, exceeding the $75 billion milestone with 34% increase this year

Cisco announced $1 billion global AI investment fund to invest in entrepreneurs and expand digital skills access to 230,000 individuals over three years

China Unicom pledged $1.38 billion over five years, with $1.14 billion for fiber and 5G networks and $240 million for digital village construction

ZTE commits $400 million annually for ICT infrastructure deployment and has trained over 50,000 people in developing areas

Google announced $120 million AI opportunity fund and is training 100 million people globally through Grow with Google program

Internet Society pledged to train 15,000 more people and committed $30 million over five years for locally scalable, sustainable networks

Summary

All speakers demonstrated commitment through substantial financial pledges, ranging from millions to billions of dollars, showing consensus that significant investment is required to achieve universal connectivity goals.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Skills development and capacity building are critical components of digital inclusion

Speakers

– Nicole Isaac
– Summer Chen
– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Sally Wentworth
– Liqian Hao

Arguments

Cisco Networking Academy has trained over 20 million individuals globally on cybersecurity and is expanding to include AI skills

ZTE commits $400 million annually for ICT infrastructure deployment and has trained over 50,000 people in developing areas

Google announced $120 million AI opportunity fund and is training 100 million people globally through Grow with Google program

Internet Society pledged to train 15,000 more people and committed $30 million over five years for locally scalable, sustainable networks

China Unicom allocated $14 million for discounts to disabled, senior, and low-income users, with additional $250 million planned

Summary

Speakers agreed that providing digital skills training and capacity building is essential for meaningful connectivity, with commitments to train millions of people globally in various technical and digital literacy skills.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Infrastructure investment must address both urban and rural connectivity challenges

Speakers

– Liqian Hao
– Summer Chen
– Christopher Hemmerlein
– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Solly Malatsi

Arguments

China has achieved 98% 4G coverage and 90% 5G coverage in villages, with 66% fiber coverage despite geographic challenges

ZTE deployed solar-powered base stations in remote areas like Liberia, connecting over 800 previously offline people

Amazon’s Project Kuiper will provide satellite broadband to 95% of global population with terminals costing hundreds of dollars and speeds up to 400 Mbps

Google has invested tens of billions in subsea cables connecting regions globally, with 95% of world’s data flowing through subsea infrastructure

South African Connect project aims to connect 5.8 million residents through government facilities and partnerships with telcos

Summary

All speakers recognized the need for comprehensive infrastructure solutions that can reach both urban and remote areas, using various technologies including terrestrial networks, satellite systems, and innovative power solutions.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share a focus on AI as a transformative technology that requires significant investment, open collaboration, and global partnerships to ensure equitable access and prevent the digital divide from becoming an AI divide.

Speakers

– Nicole Isaac
– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Summer Chen

Arguments

Cisco announced $1 billion global AI investment fund to invest in entrepreneurs and expand digital skills access to 230,000 individuals over three years

Google provides open-source AI models like GEMMA to 7 million researchers and academics for local innovation

ZTE established CORA alliance targeting 1,000 global players to accelerate AI industry applications and overcome technical barriers

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

These speakers emphasize community-based and locally-driven approaches to connectivity, recognizing that successful digital inclusion requires understanding local needs, leveraging local expertise, and creating sustainable solutions tailored to specific communities.

Speakers

– Sally Wentworth
– Summer Chen
– Solly Malatsi

Arguments

Internet Society’s Haiti chapter implemented over 100 community networks connecting tens of thousands through local expertise and diaspora funding

ZTE deployed solar-powered base stations in remote areas like Liberia, connecting over 800 previously offline people

South African Connect project aims to connect 5.8 million residents through government facilities and partnerships with telcos

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that emerging technologies require updated regulatory frameworks and institutional partnerships to ensure proper deployment and governance, emphasizing the need for collaborative approaches between technology companies and regulatory bodies.

Speakers

– Christopher Hemmerlein
– Melike Yetken Krilla

Arguments

Regulatory frameworks need updating to accommodate new LEO satellite technologies through government-private sector collaboration

UNICC partnership with Google creates AI hub for UN system deployment and capacity building

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Tax policy as a tool for digital inclusion

Speakers

– Solly Malatsi
– Alex Wong

Arguments

South Africa removed luxury taxes on smart devices to make them more affordable for low-income households

So taxes, I hope you all heard that because that’s what we always talk about as one of the inhibitors is to look at how taxes of ICT equipment are

Explanation

The consensus on tax policy reform as a critical tool for digital inclusion was unexpected in a discussion primarily focused on infrastructure and partnerships. This represents a sophisticated understanding that policy barriers, not just technical or financial ones, significantly impact digital access.

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Open-source approaches to AI and technology development

Speakers

– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Summer Chen

Arguments

Google provides open-source AI models like GEMMA to 7 million researchers and academics for local innovation

ZTE established CORA alliance targeting 1,000 global players to accelerate AI industry applications and overcome technical barriers

Explanation

The consensus on open-source and collaborative approaches to AI development was unexpected given that these are competing technology companies. This suggests a shared recognition that the scale of the digital divide challenge requires collaborative rather than competitive approaches.

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus across all speakers on the need for partnerships, substantial financial investment, skills development, and comprehensive infrastructure solutions to address the digital divide. There was also unexpected agreement on policy reforms and open-source approaches.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests that the Partner2Connect initiative has successfully created a shared understanding of challenges and solutions among diverse stakeholders, which bodes well for coordinated implementation of digital inclusion efforts globally.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI accessibility and deployment

Speakers

– Summer Chen
– Melike Yetken Krilla

Arguments

ZTE established CORA alliance targeting 1,000 global players to accelerate AI industry applications and overcome technical barriers

Google provides open-source AI models like GEMMA to 7 million researchers and academics for local innovation

Summary

ZTE focuses on creating a closed alliance of industry players to accelerate AI applications, while Google emphasizes open-source models for broader accessibility to researchers and academics

Topics

Development | Economic

Infrastructure deployment strategy

Speakers

– Christopher Hemmerlein
– Liqian Hao

Arguments

Amazon’s Project Kuiper will provide satellite broadband to 95% of global population with terminals costing hundreds of dollars and speeds up to 400 Mbps

China has achieved 98% 4G coverage and 90% 5G coverage in villages, with 66% fiber coverage despite geographic challenges

Summary

Amazon focuses on satellite-based solutions for global coverage, while China Unicom emphasizes terrestrial infrastructure (4G/5G/fiber) for comprehensive coverage

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected differences

Role of taxation in digital access

Speakers

– Solly Malatsi

Arguments

South Africa removed luxury taxes on smart devices to make them more affordable for low-income households

Explanation

While other speakers focused on investment and infrastructure, only South Africa addressed taxation policy as a barrier to digital access. This represents an unexpected policy dimension that other speakers did not consider or mention in their approaches

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers, with most disagreements being tactical rather than strategic. All speakers agreed on the fundamental goals of universal connectivity and digital inclusion, but differed in their preferred methods and emphasis areas.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high collaborative potential. The differences represent complementary approaches rather than conflicting philosophies, suggesting strong potential for partnership and coordination among the various initiatives. The main implication is that the Partner2Connect platform successfully brings together diverse stakeholders who share common goals while contributing different expertise and resources.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share a focus on AI as a transformative technology that requires significant investment, open collaboration, and global partnerships to ensure equitable access and prevent the digital divide from becoming an AI divide.

Speakers

– Nicole Isaac
– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Summer Chen

Arguments

Cisco announced $1 billion global AI investment fund to invest in entrepreneurs and expand digital skills access to 230,000 individuals over three years

Google provides open-source AI models like GEMMA to 7 million researchers and academics for local innovation

ZTE established CORA alliance targeting 1,000 global players to accelerate AI industry applications and overcome technical barriers

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

These speakers emphasize community-based and locally-driven approaches to connectivity, recognizing that successful digital inclusion requires understanding local needs, leveraging local expertise, and creating sustainable solutions tailored to specific communities.

Speakers

– Sally Wentworth
– Summer Chen
– Solly Malatsi

Arguments

Internet Society’s Haiti chapter implemented over 100 community networks connecting tens of thousands through local expertise and diaspora funding

ZTE deployed solar-powered base stations in remote areas like Liberia, connecting over 800 previously offline people

South African Connect project aims to connect 5.8 million residents through government facilities and partnerships with telcos

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that emerging technologies require updated regulatory frameworks and institutional partnerships to ensure proper deployment and governance, emphasizing the need for collaborative approaches between technology companies and regulatory bodies.

Speakers

– Christopher Hemmerlein
– Melike Yetken Krilla

Arguments

Regulatory frameworks need updating to accommodate new LEO satellite technologies through government-private sector collaboration

UNICC partnership with Google creates AI hub for UN system deployment and capacity building

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

The Partner2Connect Coalition has achieved significant growth, reaching $76.1 billion in pledges from over 450 organizations, demonstrating strong global commitment to digital connectivity

Universal meaningful connectivity by 2030 requires urgent action as one-third of humanity (2.6 billion people) remains unconnected, with the window for achieving goals closing rapidly

Multi-stakeholder partnerships across government, private sector, and civil society are essential for bridging the digital divide at scale

Major technology companies are making substantial investments in AI infrastructure, connectivity solutions, and skills development programs

Policy reforms such as removing luxury taxes on smart devices and updating regulatory frameworks are critical enablers for digital inclusion

Local expertise and community-based approaches are fundamental to successful connectivity projects, as demonstrated by successful models in Haiti and other regions

The digital divide risks becoming an AI divide, requiring proactive measures to ensure equitable access to emerging technologies

Capacity building and skills development must accompany infrastructure investments to achieve meaningful connectivity

Resolutions and action items

Participants making commitments during the session must enter their pledges into the Partner2Connect platform system

Continue scaling pledges and tracking implementation progress toward the $100 billion commitment goal by end of 2026

Convene Partner2Connect sessions at upcoming conferences: Landlocked Developing Countries Conference in Turkmenistan (August), UN General Assembly (likely September 22nd), World Telecom Development Conference in Azerbaijan (November), and annual partnership meeting in December

Hold community events for pledge sharing, matchmaking, and partnership development

Conduct country roundtables following the Guatemala model to address national-level challenges and opportunities

Facilitate implementation of P2C pledges to accelerate digital transformation at national levels

Expand the Partner2Connect emailing list for broader community engagement

Unresolved issues

Specific mechanisms for coordinating the numerous pledges and ensuring effective implementation across different organizations and regions

How to address the affordability challenge for the remaining 2.6 billion unconnected people, particularly in the most remote and economically disadvantaged areas

Standardization and interoperability issues across different connectivity technologies and platforms being deployed by various organizations

Measurement and evaluation frameworks for tracking the actual impact of pledges on meaningful connectivity outcomes

Regulatory harmonization across different countries to facilitate cross-border connectivity initiatives

Sustainability models for community-based connectivity projects beyond initial funding periods

Suggested compromises

Public-private partnerships that combine government policy support with private sector technical expertise and funding

Shared infrastructure models like China Unicom’s co-building approach with other carriers to reduce costs and environmental impact

Flexible pricing models and subsidies for underserved populations while maintaining commercial viability

Open-source technology sharing (like Google’s GEMMA AI model) balanced with proprietary innovation incentives

Gradual regulatory framework updates that accommodate new technologies while ensuring security and competition

In our taxation dispensation, they [smart devices] are classified as luxury goods and that drives their high cost. So one of the key milestones that we’ve been able to achieve in a short space of time was to persuade our national treasury to look at the entry point of those smart devices to remove that luxury tax so that they can be much more affordable to a lot of low-income households.

Speaker

Solly Malatsi (Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, South Africa)

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it identified a concrete, actionable policy barrier that governments can immediately address. Rather than focusing solely on infrastructure or technology solutions, it highlighted how tax policy directly impacts digital inclusion. This represents a practical, replicable solution that other governments could implement.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from purely technological and infrastructure-focused solutions to include policy and regulatory approaches. Alex Wong immediately reinforced its importance, stating ‘taxes, I hope you all heard that because that’s what we always talk about as one of the inhibitors.’ This validation elevated tax policy as a key theme and likely influenced other participants to consider policy barriers alongside technical ones.

We understand at Amazon that the digital divide is too great a challenge for one company or one organization to overcome alone. So we’re working with partners who share our vision for bringing universal connectivity… we’re working with incumbent local operators. And so we’re supporting local economies, we’re building the overall digital ecosystem.

Speaker

Christopher Hemmerlein (Amazon)

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it explicitly acknowledged the limitations of individual corporate efforts and emphasized the importance of working with existing local infrastructure rather than replacing it. This represents a more sustainable and collaborative approach to addressing connectivity challenges.

Impact

This comment reinforced the partnership theme that became central to the discussion. It influenced the moderator’s follow-up questions about partnerships and lessons learned, leading to a dedicated segment where all panelists shared their partnership experiences and strategies.

We want to ensure that the digital divide does not become the AI divide. And when we have 2.6 billion people unconnected still, the mechanics of how we do that is in partnership, it’s being bold and responsible, is in our innovation.

Speaker

Melike Yetken Krilla (Google)

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it introduced the concept of an ‘AI divide’ as a new dimension of digital inequality. It connected the current connectivity challenges to emerging AI technologies, suggesting that without addressing basic connectivity, the gap could widen further with AI advancement.

Impact

This comment expanded the scope of the discussion beyond traditional connectivity to include AI accessibility. It influenced Summer Chen from ZTE to elaborate on their ‘AI for all’ strategy and contributed to the session’s evolution toward discussing not just connection, but meaningful participation in the digital economy including AI technologies.

We don’t want to be in the position of being in from the outside and claiming to understand what’s going to work best in any particular environment. So we really are looking for that local expertise that can help shape the connectivity approach that will work best in a particular market.

Speaker

Sally Wentworth (Internet Society)

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it challenged the traditional top-down approach to development aid and technology deployment. It emphasized the importance of local knowledge and community-driven solutions, which is often overlooked in technology-focused discussions.

Impact

This comment provided a counterbalance to the corporate presentations by emphasizing grassroots, community-driven approaches. It influenced the discussion by highlighting the Haiti success story as an example of local empowerment, and reinforced the importance of sustainable, locally-owned solutions rather than externally imposed ones.

If you’re committing to doing something and you haven’t entered it into the Partner2Connect platform as a pledge, we’re going to chase you on that. So, you’re welcome to announce what you’re doing, but you’re going to have to put it in the Partner2Connect system.

Speaker

Alex Wong (Moderator)

Reason

This comment was significant because it established accountability and transparency as core principles of the session. It moved beyond rhetoric to demand concrete, trackable commitments, which is often missing in international development discussions.

Impact

This comment set the tone for the entire session, creating an expectation of concrete deliverables rather than just aspirational statements. It influenced all subsequent presentations to include specific, measurable pledges and encouraged a more results-oriented discussion throughout the session.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively shaped the discussion by expanding it beyond traditional infrastructure-focused approaches to digital connectivity. They introduced multiple dimensions including policy reform (tax policy), partnership strategies, emerging challenges (AI divide), community-driven solutions, and accountability mechanisms. The comments created a more holistic framework for addressing digital inclusion that encompasses technology, policy, partnerships, and local empowerment. Most importantly, they shifted the conversation from theoretical discussions to practical, actionable solutions with built-in accountability measures. The emphasis on partnerships and local ownership became a recurring theme that influenced how subsequent speakers framed their contributions, creating a more collaborative and sustainable approach to addressing the digital divide.

How can partnerships be effectively structured and scaled to maximize impact in bridging the digital divide?

Speaker

Alex Wong

Explanation

This was a key question posed to the panel about partnership examples and lessons learned, as partnerships are fundamental to the WSIS and Partner2Connect initiatives

What are the most effective regulatory and policy frameworks for emerging LEO satellite technologies?

Speaker

Christopher Hemmerlein

Explanation

He noted that regulatory frameworks don’t yet account for LEO satellites and emphasized the need to work with governments to develop appropriate frameworks

How can the luxury tax removal model for smart devices be replicated in other countries?

Speaker

Solly Malatsi

Explanation

The Minister mentioned their success in removing luxury taxes on smart devices and indicated they are working with the Global Mobile Association to study this impact, suggesting broader applicability

What are the specific digital skills capacity needs in public services across different countries?

Speaker

Solly Malatsi

Explanation

He mentioned an ongoing partnership to assess digital skills needs of public servants, indicating this is an area requiring further research and development

How can AI flood prediction technology be scaled and implemented globally?

Speaker

Melike Yetken Krilla

Explanation

She mentioned Google’s flood hub program that can predict floods seven days in advance, suggesting potential for broader implementation and research into scaling this technology

What are the most effective models for sustainable community networks in hard-to-reach areas?

Speaker

Sally Wentworth

Explanation

She highlighted the Haiti community network model as successful and mentioned plans to scale this approach globally, indicating need for further research on replication strategies

How can the digital divide be prevented from becoming an AI divide?

Speaker

Melike Yetken Krilla

Explanation

She specifically mentioned the concern that the digital divide should not become an AI divide, suggesting this is an important area for ongoing research and intervention

Summary

This UNESCO session focused on building resilient information ecosystems through balanced platform governance and technology, examining challenges and solutions in the digital media landscape. Assistant Director General Tawfik Jelassi opened by explaining UNESCO’s constitutional mission to build peace through education and culture, noting how digital platforms have become sources of misinformation, hate speech, and harmful content that undermine this goal. He highlighted UNESCO’s “For an Internet of Trust” initiative, which developed guidelines for digital platform governance through extensive global consultations involving over 10,000 inputs from 134 countries.

Professor Ingrid Volkmer emphasized that current crises require shifting from focusing solely on information and disinformation to understanding communication more broadly as an ecosystem. She pointed to examples from Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where vital connectivity, cloud storage, and AI platforms create complex communication networks dominated by global corporate monopolies that remain largely unregulated during crisis periods. Frédéric Bokobza from France’s ARCAM discussed regulatory challenges, particularly the need to reduce information asymmetry with platforms and implement transparency requirements under the Digital Services Act, while emphasizing the importance of direct cooperation channels with platforms, especially during elections.

Google’s Nadja Blagojevic outlined the company’s approach to user empowerment through provenance technologies like SynthID watermarking, context tools such as “About This Image,” and media literacy programs like “Be Internet Awesome.” Maria Paz Canales from Global Partners Digital highlighted positive uses of AI by civil society, including protecting protesters’ identities, real-time crisis reporting, and preserving collective memory. The discussion concluded with calls for enhanced global cooperation among regulatory authorities and recognition of information as a public good requiring multi-stakeholder solutions.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Expanding Crisis Communication Beyond Disinformation**: The discussion emphasized moving from a narrow focus on disinformation to a broader communication ecosystem perspective, particularly during crises. This includes vital connectivity infrastructure (like Starlink), cloud storage, AI platforms, and various communication technologies that create a holistic crisis communication environment.

– **Platform Governance and Regulatory Challenges**: Regulatory authorities face significant challenges in governing digital platforms, particularly around transparency, accountability, and reducing information asymmetry with platforms. The discussion highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and international cooperation among regulatory networks.

– **User Empowerment and Media Literacy**: The conversation addressed the dual responsibility of platforms to provide transparency tools and users to develop critical thinking skills. This includes technical solutions like digital watermarking (SynthID), context tools, and comprehensive media literacy programs for both children and adults.

– **Civil Society’s Role in Leveraging Technology**: The discussion explored how civil society organizations use AI and digital platforms positively to amplify marginalized voices, support freedom of expression, organize during crises, preserve collective memory, and enhance advocacy efforts despite funding constraints.

– **Building Resilient Information Ecosystems Through Global Cooperation**: The conversation emphasized the need for international collaboration among regulatory authorities, the importance of treating information as a public good, and the challenges of supporting public interest media in a market-driven digital environment.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to assess progress on media-related aspects of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and identify key challenges and actions needed to maintain a resilient information ecosystem. The session was designed to gather multi-stakeholder input for the WSIS revision process, focusing on balancing platform governance with technological advancement.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, characterized by constructive problem-solving rather than confrontational debate. Speakers acknowledged both the challenges and opportunities presented by digital platforms and AI, with a balanced approach that recognized the complexity of the issues. The tone remained consistently forward-looking and solution-oriented, emphasizing the need for cooperation among different stakeholder groups rather than adversarial relationships.

Speakers

– **Ana Cristina Ruelas** – UNESCO’s Freedom of Expression, Safety of Journalist sections within the communication and information sector

– **Tawfik Jelassi** – Assistant Director General (ADG) at UNESCO

– **Ingrid Volkmer** – Professor of Media and Communication at the University of Melbourne, member of the i14 Global Knowledge Network

– **Frederic Bokobza** – Deputy Director General at the French Authority for Regulation of Audiovisual and Digital Communication (ARCAM), part of the Francophone Network of Regulatory Authorities (REFRAM)

– **Maria Paz Canales** – Head of Policy and Advocacy at Global Partners Digital

– **Nadja Blagojevic** – Global Go-to-Market Lead and Knowledge and Information Trust Manager at Google

– **Audience** – Various participants asking questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Building Resilient Information Ecosystems: UNESCO WSIS Review Session on Platform Governance

## Executive Summary

This UNESCO session, part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) review process, examined critical challenges facing global information ecosystems. Moderated by Ana Cristina Ruelas, the discussion brought together regulatory authorities, academia, civil society, and technology sector representatives to assess progress on media-related aspects of WSIS and identify actions needed to maintain resilient information ecosystems. The session explored how digital platforms have transformed the information landscape, creating both opportunities for democratic participation and threats to social cohesion.

## Opening Framework: Information as a Public Good

Assistant Director General Tawfik Jelassi opened by establishing UNESCO’s constitutional mission to build peace through education, science, and culture. He quoted 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa, stating: “without facts, there is no truth. And without truth, there is no trust. And without trust, there is no shared reality upon which we can act.”

Jelassi highlighted UNESCO’s 33-year history with the World Press Freedom Conference and 27-year World Press Freedom Prize, emphasizing that digital platforms, while offering potential for knowledge sharing, have become sources of misinformation and hate speech. He cited an MIT study showing that “lies online travel ten times faster than the truth.”

The Assistant Director General outlined UNESCO’s “For an Internet of Trust” initiative, which developed guidelines for digital platform governance through global consultations involving inputs from 134 countries. He emphasized treating information as a public good rather than a commercial commodity, noting that misinformation and online violence “do not contribute to peace building” but rather “contribute to more hatred, more divisive communities, and sometimes to genocides and to conflicts and wars.”

## Paradigm Shift: From Information to Communication Ecosystems

Professor Ingrid Volkmer from the University of Melbourne argued for expanding focus beyond information and disinformation to understanding communication as an interconnected ecosystem. She stated: “it is not just information or disinformation that is central to crisis, but communication more broadly… we need to shift from this information paradigm into a broader communication paradigm, which is relevant for regulation of crisis communication.”

Volkmer provided concrete examples from Ukraine, where crisis communication involves complex networks including Starlink satellite connectivity, cloud storage platforms, open source software, and Magtag systems for trauma treatment. She highlighted concerns about data sovereignty, noting that crucial national information stored in commercial cloud systems raises questions about access and control during crises.

Her analysis revealed how global corporate monopolies dominate critical communication infrastructure during crisis periods, often remaining largely unregulated despite their essential role in maintaining social cohesion and democratic processes.

## Regulatory Approaches and International Cooperation

Frédéric Bokobza, Deputy Director General at France’s ARCAM and representative of the Francophone Network of Regulatory Authorities (REFRAM), discussed practical regulatory challenges. He emphasized the need to reduce information asymmetry between regulators and platforms while implementing effective transparency requirements.

Bokobza highlighted the Digital Services Act’s significance in establishing transparency obligations for platforms regarding content moderation and algorithmic decision-making. He stressed the importance of direct communication channels with platforms, particularly during critical periods like elections.

He announced that REFRAM and ACRON held a meeting in Abidjan with four major platforms (Meta, X, TikTok, and Google), securing commitments on moderation practices, transparency measures, and local language support. This represents a shift from confrontational approaches toward collaborative frameworks that maintain accountability while recognizing practical complexities of platform governance.

## Technology Solutions and User Empowerment

Nadja Blagojevic, Google’s Global Go-to-Market Lead and Knowledge and Information Trust Manager, outlined technology sector approaches to information ecosystem challenges through user empowerment and technical innovation.

Blagojevic detailed Google’s implementation of provenance technologies, including the SynthID watermarking system for identifying AI-generated content and the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) standards. She described context tools like “About This Image” that provide users with information about image sources and verification status.

She emphasized Google’s media literacy programs, including “Be Internet Awesome,” which builds critical thinking skills across multiple countries. Blagojevic acknowledged the complexity of serving diverse global audiences, noting that “what works in one country or culture may not work in another” and recognizing “differing needs and sometimes divergent interests” in global platform governance.

Google announced plans to open-source the SynthID watermarking technology for text, demonstrating commitment to technical transparency and collaborative solutions.

## Civil Society Perspectives and Technology Applications

Maria Paz Canales from Global Partners Digital highlighted both positive AI applications and challenges facing civil society organizations. She outlined how civil society uses AI for protecting protesters’ identities, enabling crisis reporting, amplifying marginalized voices, and preserving collective memory through digital archiving.

Canales noted funding constraints that limit civil society’s ability to compete with well-resourced commercial and state actors, while demonstrating how technology enables more effective advocacy and broader audience reach.

She introduced important nuance regarding media support, stating: “I am very careful coming from Latin America about drawing the line between traditional media and public interest media because they are not the same, at least from the region that I come from.” This highlighted how media ownership and political contexts vary dramatically across regions.

## Key Challenges and Audience Concerns

Audience interventions raised critical concerns about the economic sustainability of public interest media, noting that 75% of advertising revenues now flow to digital platforms. This has created a funding crisis for traditional media organizations that requires public sector intervention to maintain diverse media ecosystems.

Questions were raised about supporting media organizations that serve the public interest while addressing the financial challenges created by platform competition for advertising revenue.

## Future Directions and Next Steps

UNESCO announced plans to move forward with pilot implementations of their platform governance guidelines. The Global Forum of Networks established a 2024-2026 roadmap focusing on developing network capacities, knowledge sharing, and action on generative AI and synthetic content.

REFRAM committed to continued technical forum meetings with major platforms to monitor commitments on moderation, transparency, and local language support. The emphasis was on maintaining collaborative approaches while ensuring accountability.

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated evolving approaches to digital governance that emphasize collaboration between stakeholders while addressing fundamental challenges in information ecosystem resilience. Key themes included treating information as a public good, the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation, and balancing platform accountability with recognition of cultural diversity and varying population needs.

Significant challenges remain, including the economic sustainability of public interest media, data sovereignty concerns during crises, and governance of global infrastructure monopolies. The discussion highlighted the need for continued dialogue, practical experimentation with governance mechanisms, and commitment to serving democratic objectives rather than purely commercial interests.

The path forward requires sustained multi-stakeholder cooperation, innovation in both technical solutions and regulatory approaches, and recognition that effective governance must balance global coordination with respect for cultural diversity and national sovereignty.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Mrs. Maria Paz Canales, Ms. Ingrid Volkmer, Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Mrs. Maria Paz Canales, Ms. Ingrid Volkmer, Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Mrs. Maria Paz Canales, Ms. Ingrid Volkmer, Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Thank you, everyone, for being here. I am Ana Cristina Ruelas, and I am part of UNESCO’s Freedom of Expression, Safety of Journalist sections within the communication and information sector. And this session is to talk about how we’re doing in the media line on WSIS. Considering that we are in the process of revising this important actions. We have here our Assistant Director General to give us a first thought, a food for thought, as everyone says, to start discussing this issue. And then I will introduce you to all of our speakers. ATG, Tofiq Jalassi, please.

Tawfik Jelassi: Thank you very much, Ana Cristina. Good morning to all of you and thank you for being here on time on this Tuesday morning for this important session on Towards a Resilient Information Ecosystem, Balancing Platform Governance and Technology. As Ana Cristina said about her affiliation, UNESCO has been for more than three decades in charge of freedom of expression, media freedom, safety of journalists, access to information. We have been the designated agency within the United Nations system on these topics. And actually, we also have the UN Observatory for the Killings of Journalists. And for more than 33 years now, we have been organizing every year the World Press Freedom Conference, which is a major event of UNESCO. And for 27 years running, every year UNESCO awards its World Press Freedom Prize. In 2021, 2022 and 2023, the laureate of the UNESCO Prize received six months later the Nobel Peace Prize. And we do this conference always on May 3rd, which is, as you know, the World Press Freedom Day. So this is the context, because why is UNESCO working on digital platforms? Where does that come from? Is that part of the UNESCO mandate? We hear these questions all the time. People think that UNESCO is about culture, education and sciences. Not about digital platforms, not about press freedom, not about media freedom. And here, I said it in my opening remarks yesterday morning at this event, our focus on this topic for the last several years comes from our constitutional mission at UNESCO, which was defined 80 years ago, in 1945, when UNESCO was set up. And at the time, our founding fathers said the mission of UNESCO is to build peace in the minds of men and women. Some people say, well, this is maybe an overblown mission. How can you build peace, UNESCO? Well, we can, through education, through culture, through the sciences, in the minds of men and women. All starts with the mindset of the people from a very young age, like education, but also through culture, which is a very important lever for social cohesion, for solidarity, for intercultural dialogue. So starting with that mission from 1945, if you look at what has been happening through digital platforms over the last several years, we have been seeing an exponential increase of misinformation, hate speech, cyber bullying, online violence, and other forms of harmful online content. This does not contribute to peace building. This contributes to more hatred, more divisive communities, and sometimes to genocides and to conflicts and wars. And we have the evidence. I can show some examples of recent cases where disinformation through platforms have led to genocide and to communities fighting each other. Because once that disinformation is believed by some members of society, once they rush to using arms, that’s it. You cannot take it back. You cannot say, by the way, that was fake information. Let me give you the fact-checked information. Too late. We want information to be a common public good. We don’t want information to be a common hazard, risk, nor a common harm. That’s our starting point. And that’s why, three years ago, we launched a major global initiative called For an Internet of Trust. We want trustworthy information. We want fact-checked information. And a recent study from MIT shows that lies online travel ten times faster than the truth. People say, do you have evidence? Well, here is one study. You can look it up at MIT. So, is it about fact or fake? Is it about truth or lies? And let me quote the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Maria Ressa, the journalist from the Philippines, who once said, without facts, there is no truth. And without truth, there is no trust. And without trust, there is no shared reality upon which we can act. And that’s why we called it For an Internet of Trust. And we developed, through open global consultations, three of them, which we run. And we used an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach. We received over 10,000 inputs from our 194 member states, civil society organizations, academia, research, technical community, the media. 10,000 inputs coming from 134 countries. And we summarized them in this booklet, which we published in November 2023. And now we are about to start pilot implementation. implementations of the UNESCO guidelines for the governance of digital platforms. Nobody can stop digital platforms from becoming even more of a mainstream media, more of the number one source of information for hundreds of millions of people, especially the youth worldwide. All what we can hope for is a more effective governance of these platforms through a set of principles. Transparency, accountability, independent oversight bodies, user empowerment, content curation, content moderation. All these principles are detailed in this booklet and the outcome here resulted also from the involvement, the engagement of the tech companies and the platform operators. So again, balancing platform governance and technology, the topic of this session, I wanted to give you one example of a contribution, a humble contribution by UNESCO to try to move the needle and if all the key stakeholders from regulators to the platform companies, to social media influencers, to digital content creators, if they all adhere to these principles, hopefully we’ll have a safer, more trustworthy cyberspace. And I’m sure that my colleague Ana Cristina will tell you some of the steps we have done recently, in particular with these key stakeholders, the regulators, but also the social media influencers and digital content creators, to say we need all of you, those who supply information online, but also working with those who consume information online, supply and demand, and we have a major program called Media and Information Literacy in the digital era. because we need to educate the users. We need to develop a critical mindset, helping them hopefully to distinguish between falsehood and fact-checked information, or to systematically check the source of information before they like and they share, and they become themselves amplifiers of this information. So, this is meant, my remarks are meant to set the stage. I hope I did so, Ana Cristina, but keep in mind it’s nine o’clock and they didn’t have a good coffee yet. Thank you.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Thank you very much, ADG, for this opening. So, one of the key elements that UNESCO wanted to highlight in this acknowledgement of the Media Line is that, yes, it is true that we have advanced a lot over the last 20 years when it comes to cold information as a public good, and I can say that one of the key achievements is to broaden the participation of different stakeholder groups in these discussions. Right now, we are sitting here between different stakeholder groups that represent the private sector, the social sector, the public sector, which is very, very important for this discussion because when it comes to the digital space, it doesn’t, it’s not anymore a thing that relates only to governments and the, let’s say, the regulated entities which are the platforms or the companies. It comes with a lot of other members of society that have something to say and that have something to do. So, in order to take stock of what we have gained, what we wanted here in this session is to try to acknowledge what is that that still remains as a challenge and what is that that we see now as a challenge given the specific context that we’re living in, but also what are the key elements, the key actions to maintain a resilient information ecosystem in order to be able to input this new revision in a way that can help us. identify what are the actions that we can do from the different perspectives and from the different roles in this multi-stakeholder manner. So for this we invited great, great speakers and I’m going to introduce you to Ingrid Volkmer. She’s Professor of Media and Communication at the University of Melbourne and she’s part and member of the i14 Global Knowledge Network which is a network that helps us at UNESCO to observe how the guidelines are being implemented. We also welcome Frédéric Bokobza who is the Deputy Director General at the French Authority for Regulation of Audiovisual and Digital Communication, ARCAM, and who’s also part of the Francophone Network of Regulatory Authorities. He’s joining us online. We have Maria Paz Canales who is the Head of Policy and Advocacy at Global Partners Digital and we have Nadja Blagojevic, I’m sorry, Global Go-to-Market Lead and Knowledge and Information Trust Manager at Google. So thank you very much and thank you to all of you that are here. I’m going to start with you, Ingrid, because I think that we need to acknowledge that we are in an ongoing global crisis in between many different conflicts. What new or exacerbated threats do information ecosystems face and what strategies are needed to safeguard and be resilient?

Ingrid Volkmer: Big questions. I will try to answer these big questions in three minutes and I have notes to discipline myself and really stay within the three minutes. Normally I speak freely but I feel I just need to go along my bullet points here. So I wanted to start with reminding ourselves that over the past few years, as I think we all agree that crisis scenarios are increasing, or we feel they are increasing, across world regions, from the pandemic to humanitarian crisis, environmental crisis, displacements to armed conflicts. Decades ago, as you might agree as well, the regulation of information during a national crisis had a focus on national linear media. Governments tried to create a national narrative, convincing national linear media to join and to promote that narrative. Today, as we just heard, social media platforms and specifically disinformation are seen as central for crisis information and are in focus of regulatory initiatives. Actually, across the world, we are doing a study and we clearly see that the governments have a focus on disinformation, propaganda, those kinds of things, fake news, and feel that’s central. So they shift this paradigm from information of linear media, then to disinformation on social media platforms. However, when you look at current crisis, for example, in the Ukraine, in DRC, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other countries, it becomes clear that it is not just information or disinformation that is central to crisis, but communication more broadly. And that is really important to understand that we need to shift from this information paradigm into a broader communication paradigm, which is relevant, I feel, for regulation of crisis communication. To just use some examples from the Ukrainian case, as you well know, vital connectivity is provided by LEO satellite system, Starlink, which is a global monopoly, and has invented that new low earth orbit space for connectivity. Crucial national information is stored on clouds. Open source software used for military and civilian communications. Technology such as Magtag is developed to treat trauma. AI platforms are used by military personnel and civilians in addition good old social platforms are too embedded in this whole communication space and they provide spaces for crisis bloggers, influencers and people engaging with their own communities. If we are looking at that, I think it becomes clear that most services, of course, are provided by major global corporate monopolies with commercial interests, starting owned by SpaceX, to Amazon Web Services, to JetGBT OpenAI, and they are widely regulated in context of crisis communication. These different dimensions need to be seen, in my view, as a holistic perspective, as they are creating a communication ecosystem of crisis communication, which will also be significant, not just in Ukraine in the future, but in other world regions. And as I said, we do study in Democratic Republic of Congo, we see that they are signing up to Starlink as well, and this sort of broader holistic perspective is coming into place there as well. And we have to have a focus on this in terms of regulation, that is my view. So it’s across the global north and south and not just in the global north anymore, because these services are provided by globalized platform. This ecosystem is no longer national, but situated between transnational networks, actors, Starlink, Elon Musk, and national interests. As most digital regulation is drafted for periods of peace, it is important to plan for crisis, do risk assessments of crisis communication, to consider crisis period as an own regulation.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Thank you very much, Ingrid. So you have broadened the scope, you know, going beyond only, let’s say, the last layer, the one that we deal with as users every single day, when it comes to this information disruptions, in order to try to think broader, and how the information is storage, how the information comes, you know, how can we access to information, and how things are shifting to a more concentrated space. Frédéric, thank you very much for being here. I don’t see you in the screen, but I hope that I can see you. So, Ingrid has highlighted the different risks that today’s information ecosystem faces in crisis-driven environments. From REFRAM, as part of this network of francophone regulatory authorities, but also as lead of the Arkham Regulatory Authority, what are the paramount challenges that regulatory authority faces to effectively govern this digital space, particularly digital platforms?

Frederic Bokobza: Yes. Good morning, Ana Cristina. Good morning, all. I hope you can hear me well, even if you can’t see me. Yes, we can. Oh, great. So, first of all, thanks a lot for the invitation. I’m really sorry I couldn’t be with you physically today. Very few quick words on Arkham’s role. Arkham is the French independent public authority regulating audiovisual and now digital communication. And regarding online platforms, what we do is basically we ensure that they fulfill their obligations. to moderate content on their services in a transparent accountable and balanced manner and this covers the measures that they deploy to combat dissemination of illegal and harmful content including disinformation of course and that’s under the Digital Services Act but also things like terrorist content or copyright infringing content. So to come to your question what are the major challenges in governing digital platforms? Well I would say I would start with the challenge to reduce the huge information asymmetry with the platforms internal information so that we can actually make them accountable and go beyond you know the usual official soothing talk saying that everything is going well. So on this one significant step is that they have started in Europe to publish from last year onwards their first transparency reports as well as for the very large online platforms and search engines their reports on systemic risks detection and mitigation measures they took and that’s in application of the Digital Services Act and that’s for us a really very important first step in establishing this new balance of power with the platforms. Obviously there’s still a lot to do lots of challenges ahead which also are lots of opportunities and to take two examples well some of the tools provided for by the GSA have not yet been fully implemented and I think especially about researchers access to data for very large online platforms which will be instrumental and also the involvement more broadly of a civil society such as trusted flaggers and that’s really is a whole environment that we need to succeed so in other words a multi-stakeholder such as approach such as the one promoted by UNESCO is particularly important here if we want to to succeed and maybe a last remark if I may because I wouldn’t like our approach to be viewed as a mere Confrontation with or even leeds against digital platforms we obviously need to have direct communications and cooperation channels with them. On this i ll take one example that of elections. Obviously election Periods is crucial. It happens that in France we had three major election, last year, 2024, what we did, we organised bilateral and multilateral meetings with main online platforms and search engines in France. Also with candidates and campaign teams. and other national authorities responsible for organizing elections and combating disinformation more broadly. So there the platforms could, well, present the resources they had deployed to comply with our recommendations, the difficulties they were facing, the doubts they may have had, and really having this direct communication channel with all these players helped raising awareness, raising trust, and was very useful for early detection and coordinated mitigation of any worrying trend in this context of election. So, well, there would be much more to be said, but I’ll stop here for the moment to respect the three minutes. Thanks a lot.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Thank you, Frédéric. That gives me the leads directly to talk to Nadja, because I think that one of the key elements is just the responsibility for platforms to be able to respond and to be transparent and accountable. But on the other side, there’s a lot of responsibility on the users to have control and to be able to engage safely with their different services where they are participating. But it is also a lot of good practice when it comes with platforms, giving the opportunity and the tools to these users to be able to engage. And in alignment with the UNESCO MI election plan, Google has a lot of actions that aim to try to create user empowerment. Can you tell us a little bit about those?

Nadja Blagojevic: Yes, very happy to. And thank you so much for having Google here. We’re very happy to be speaking with you all today. When we think about the information ecosystem, I mean, this has been central to Google since our founding. 25 years ago, our mission has always been to help organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. And so from day one, we really thought about how to help people connect to the information that will matter to them. We have a lot of deep thinking around information quality. So for example, we have search quality radar guidelines. These are 100-page documents that outline how we think about expertise, experience, authoritativeness, trustworthiness, when we are deciding how to elevate and rank information on Google search. Because we believe that it is an important responsibility for platforms to be able to surface information, the right information to people when they need it. But we also, as Ana Cristina was alluding to, want to really make sure that we are providing people, our users, with tools and also skills to help them evaluate the information that they see. And when we think about what it means to have signals of trustworthiness in an AI era, we think about it in three different ways. We believe that first, there need to be strong signals of provenance. When content is created, it’s very important that there are technical mechanisms that allow people to understand whether that content was generated with AI or not. We have a number of different strategies that we use to do this at Google. And one of them is called SynthID, which is a digital watermarking technology, which basically embeds in the pixels of audio, imagery, video, and text, a watermark that identifies that content as being created by AI. This watermark is very difficult to remove, even if an image is cropped or has a filter applied. And this watermark can be a signal for people to understand whether or not that piece of content was created by AI or not. But whether or not something is created by AI doesn’t necessarily mean it’s trustworthy or not. You know, AI is often used for artistic expression, as you can see from the great exhibits lining the halls today. We also know, though, that AI can be used for actors who have abusive intents in mind. And that’s why we think this provenance technology is so important, and also why we have open-sourced SynthID for text, and also work with the coalition for content provenance at Google. and Authenticity, C2PA. I see a few nods in recognition around the room. This is an organization that is devoted to promoting technical standards and brings together a wide variety of stakeholders from technology companies to hardware manufacturers to camera companies like Nikon and Sony to have a unified approach to this issue. And while provenance is important, it’s by no means the sort of solution here. We also think it’s very important for people to understand the broader context of a piece of content that they have discovered or that they’re encountering online. Maybe it’s something that someone has sent them, maybe it’s something that they’ve seen on social media, maybe it’s something that they’re reading and they want to know a little bit more about it. So we have a number of tools to help people understand the context of what they see, whether it’s an ad, a webpage, or an image. And these tools, for example, called About This Image, allow people to understand for a given image, when was that image first crawled by our search engines? How often does it appear online? Here’s this, for example, a picture of a conflict from five years ago, and it’s in a news article purporting to be from last week. We really think that these kinds of context clues are very important for people to help them understand and sort of think critically about the information that they’re encountering online. And to help them build the skills to be able to do that. We’ve also invested deeply in media literacy programs and initiatives. We have a flagship program called Be Internet Awesome, which helps children understand how to think critically, how to determine fact from fake, and how to practice basic online safety skills. We run this program in more than 20 countries with more than 60 governmental and civil society partners to help build these skills in the next generation of information consumers. And we also run programs that are aimed at adults to help them build their critical thinking, media literacy, and sort of lateral reading skills. We think it’s very important for people to be able to help develop the capabilities and also the mindset to, you know, think about the content that they are encountering online in these ways. And all of these programs and initiatives are very much aimed at both leveraging the expertise and technical capabilities of Google while also working with third parties, civil society, governmental organizations, because this really will take a whole of society approach. Thank you.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Thank you, Nadja. Maria Paz, Nadja already said that it is true that that AI normally is perceived as a threat, but it’s also true that civil society, the ones that we are dealing all the time and trying to create advocacy, has also used AI to strengthen their actions and to make sure there’s more engagement and to uphold freedom of expression. So, could you share some compelling stories of how civil society can use AI to be resilient and to make the information ecosystem more resilient?

Maria Paz Canales: Ana Cristina, thank you for the invitation to be here today. Yeah, I think that we have been hearing in the introduction and in some of the intervention more of the kind of downside of the evolution of the technology and the threats of the use of AI. I think that it’s a good reminder also that during the WSIS implementation in these 20 years also, technology has supported the exercise of human rights and has opened the possibility of exercising freedom of expression in a way that was not possible before the spreading of this type of technology. So, one very relevant use that civil society has done of different platforms online and technologies at large has been actually elevating the voices of those traditionally marginalized, those that were not featured by the traditional media, those that were not accessing to being able to challenge the current powers in many places around the world. So, we don’t forget the positive side and the things that technology has brought in terms of opening the space and being able to increase participation in that space, which in no way undermine the challenges that now we are seeing in terms of the use of the technology and that we believe as Global Partners Digital that need to be confronted with governance, with enabling environment, with a digital skill, all the things that also previous speakers have mentioned. But to come to the specific question that you were posing to me, Ana Cristina, we have seen use of artificial intelligence and other technologies, as I said, for supporting the exercise of freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, enhancing the privacy of people that is engaging in public manifestation in many cases. For example, through enabling the report of what is going on in real time in an effective manner but obscuring the identities of the participants of the protest in order to protect them from any harmful consequences later on. Other cases that we have seen of the use of technology, even like use of the platform in a very innovative way during a crisis moment, things that also were referred by previous speakers, is that we can use the platform as civil society for reporting real time what is going on and organizing in a more effective manner the action of the platform around the content moderation when these situations are happening and many information needs to be verified and there we see all the work that has been done consistently by Trusted Flagger but also by traditional human rights organizations that have come to a space and support in this collective action. Other type of more like creative and innovative uses that we have seen of the technology from the civil society side, for example, using the power of artificial intelligence to recreate memories and to have a specific account of stories that have been lost in the time because the people that was part of them didn’t have a chance to record at the moment, they were like too young for the moment, so part of the collective memory of the humanity also have been supported in its reconstruction and support, hopefully that we don’t commit the same errors in the future. More largely, for example, civil society also have leveraged the power of AI technology and other technologies for being more effective in their own action, in their own advocacy, in being able to reproduce content and disseminate content in a more effective manner with less resources because currently we are living in a world in which the support for civil society action is confronting. a funding crisis, so being more efficient and leveraging some of these tools in order to be more effective for condensing information, accessing information and enabling that we can reach the audience with the necessary information could be also some positive use that we are seeing in this technology from civil society. I’ll stop there.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Thank you very much. For the sake of time, I’m going to reduce the second part of the, because I really want to hear the public and the questions that they have for you. But I want first to go to Frédéric, because he is the one that is not here in presence. So Frédéric, can you just tell us how can global cooperation, particularly bringing together the Global Forum of Network of Regulatory Authorities, can help to reduce the regulatory fragmentation and build a global trustworthy digital space?

Frederic Bokobza: Yes, thanks Ana Cristina. So now I remove my Arcom hat and put on my REFRAM hat. REFRAM is the regulatory, the network for regulatory authorities in the francophone world, and it gathers around 30 authorities on three continents, Europe, America, Africa, but in majority in Africa. So obviously legal frameworks in these countries differ pretty much, but we all face the same challenges, right? We all want to achieve a safe online space free from incitement to hatred and violence, free from malicious disinformation, interference, harm for minor, etc. And so in this context, we are convinced that global cooperation frameworks that enable regulators to share experience, expertise, share evidence, really do pave the way for a more coherent international approach to online safety regulation, and that it’s really crucial. So we are committed to helping build such a global trustworthy Digital space true cooperation and we do so, well first at the EU level as we cooperation very concretely on day to day basis with our counterparts in the other EU members states as well with EU commission. And we are also committed to doing so at the international level true different networks of regulators, and there well, the guidelines for the governments of digital platforms and global forum of networks UNESCO initiated we actually took part are a major step forward. We actually took part in the drafting of the guidelines and the launch of the forum a year ago in Dubrovnik as chair of REFRAN at that time. So the members of the forum are pretty diverse because we’re talking there about a number of regulators and networks of regulators, to quote a few of them, a network from Africa, ACRAN, two networks mostly based in Europe, the Media Board and EPRA, a global network, GOZERN, network centered on the Mediterranean area, as well as the Ibero-American Audiovisual Regulators, PRAE, and of course the francophone network REFRAN. So the objective of the forum is to provide a space for collaboration and discussion between the various international regulatory authorities and networks and enabling them to exchange good practices on the latest developments in the governance of digital platforms. And all this with a human-based rights approach, human rights-based approach, sorry, and I really want to strongly insist on this. We also have a roadmap for action spanning from 2024 to 2026, which was adopted in consultation with members, and UNESCO has announced three priorities for the network this year, developing network capacities, second, knowledge sharing between between members. And third, interestingly, action on generative AI, as was mentioned, and synthetic content. And maybe a last word quickly to try and illustrate achievements through cooperation. That’s an action that we took within REFRAM, together with ACRON, the African network. We convened in Abidjan last year with representatives of four major platforms, Meta, X, TikTok, and Google. And they voluntarily took concrete commitments on moderation, transparency, use of French language and other local languages, which is so important, as well as cooperation with civil society and a few other items. And we have set up an annual forum to implement and continue this dialogue with the big platforms, and of course monitor how they do improve on the commitments they took. And we will actually hold the first technical forum meeting on Thursday this week in Paris, and our high-level meeting before the end of the year. So again, that’s only an illustration of what cooperation can achieve, but there are many others. And to conclude, we really are convinced that cooperation among regulators and networks of regulators has a lot of value, and that UNESCO’s initiative, in particular with the Global Forum of Networks, is an excellent example of such valuable initiatives. Thanks.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Thank you very much, Frédéric. So I’m going to give the floor to you, in case you have any questions.

Frederic Bokobza: I’d be happy to hear the other…

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Go ahead.

Audience: Thank you for the excellent interventions. I think this is such a critical topic, and I really wanted to lead off of Ingrid’s challenge to look at communication as a public good, because I think we need to see this as a comprehensive, market-driven ecosystem. And the issue of supporting trusted flaggers, and where information is a trusted source, and where information Is trusted source, with a public interest media, from a conversation yesterday, a session yesterday we heard about of the many challenges trusted media face to provide trusted information. One of those being the rising cost of technical platforms, cloud computing, package services. So how does this kind of creating and information as a public good and looking at regulation how do we manage the cost factors when the tech companies are just increasing their profit, and we have, yes this monopoly, how do we promote open source, and other creators entering into the field. What kind of international landscape can we provide?

Ingrid Volkmer: Another big question, a big question. I think these are the questions we have to ask, this same applies to Starlink, as well this same applies to this whole spectrum of different layers that engage in crisis communication and I highlight crisis communication because as I said in the beginning they will increase. Concerning clouds, what we see in Ukraine, everything has shifted to cloud. And the question is how about data privacy, how about access to that crucial national data from the cloud later on. And what sort of regulatory approaches are required in crisis times to ensure that once the content has been moved to the cloud, how can it be moved back. What are the circumstances that can be moved? These are crucial question.

Audience: Public interest media of information, let’s go to nobel prize winner Josef Stiglis, who said if the information is public good then the public sector has to step in. because we cannot wait forever for tech companies or private sector to support the financial viability of traditional media. The traditional media has been suffering, as you know 75% of advertising revenues go online with two companies mainly benefiting from that, Google and Meta. So again, how can traditional media thrive in this digital era? So the issue of financial viability of media is at the core of all of this. And you talk about public interest, I don’t see any other solution than the public sector to step in.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Maria Paz?

Maria Paz Canales: I’m not sure I can add too much to what I already have been saying. I think that for me, there is a relevant point to make, also connected with my previous intervention, in the sense of understanding this as a challenge for public interest media. I am very careful coming from Latin America about drawing the line between traditional media and public interest media because they are not the same, at least from the region that I come from. So I think that it’s very important to foster a regulation that supports the public interest media, that supports models of dissemination of information that are not exclusively market-driven, as a platform like Wikimedia and others of the same type. I think that that’s very relevant and we need to be acknowledging the way in which we address regulation. I think that that was very much discussed during the drafting of the UNESCO guidelines on platform governance and it’s something that we continue to work with when we work with partners across different jurisdictions in implementing those guidelines in the regulatory discussions at the national level. I think that it’s very important to make those differences and to really focus in in the relevance of information as a public good and the public interest compared to exclusively driven market solution. Driven market solution can be aligned also with public interest in many cases. And that’s another thing that we have learned in working with partners at the local level, at the national level. We need to be smart in finding the convergence point that we can address together and use also the possibilities of creating something for the platform to go in the direction of supporting the information as a public good. I will stop there.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Nadja, I don’t want to leave without asking you something because I think that everyone has that question. Sometimes we hear a lot, for instance, from regulatory authorities or from civil society actors that it’s difficult to engage with industry in different ways. But what for you are the most significant barriers preventing effective collaboration and meaningful inclusion between the different stakeholders? And what concrete strategies would you think to target these barriers?

Nadja Blagojevic: Yes, thank you very much for that question. I think from our perspective at Google, we truly believe that these types of issues are something that no one entity, no matter how big they are, can solve alone. So we very much agree with the idea that we really need to all be working in concert to be addressing these issues. I think as we have heard from a few different people on the panel, these are global issues. And what works in one country or culture may not work in another. We are very much invested in trying to work collaboratively to help understand and develop solutions and be part of coalitions that can truly help address some of these issues in the broadest possible ways. But we will always need to be mindful of the fact that what works for one sector of the population may not work for another, that there are differing needs and sometimes divergent interests, even within a set of stakeholders who may be trying to address the same problem.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Well, the sessions are 45 minutes, and we’re done. Thank you very much to all of you for your insights. And I’m sorry that we didn’t go through all of the different questions, but thank you very much to you all for being here. Thank you and see you in the next four days. www.globalonenessproject.org

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for addressing digital platform governance challenges

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Frederic Bokobza
– Nadja Blagojevic
– Ana Cristina Ruelas

Arguments

UNESCO developed guidelines for digital platform governance through multi-stakeholder consultations involving 10,000 inputs from 134 countries

Multi-stakeholder such as approach such as the one promoted by UNESCO is particularly important here if we want to to succeed

Global issues require collaborative solutions as no single entity can address these challenges alone, while recognizing different needs across cultures and populations

Broadened participation of different stakeholder groups in digital governance discussions is a key achievement over the past 20 years

Summary

All speakers agree that effective digital platform governance requires inclusive participation from governments, civil society, private sector, academia, and other stakeholders. They emphasize that no single entity can solve these complex challenges alone.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Information should be treated as a public good rather than a commercial commodity

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Maria Paz Canales
– Audience

Arguments

Misinformation, hate speech, and harmful online content contribute to conflicts and genocides rather than peace-building, requiring trustworthy information as a public good

Important distinction between traditional media and public interest media, especially in regions like Latin America, with need for regulation supporting non-market-driven information models

Traditional media faces financial challenges with 75% of advertising revenues going to digital platforms, requiring public sector intervention to support public interest media

Summary

Speakers converge on the view that information serves the public interest and should not be solely driven by market forces. They advocate for regulatory frameworks that support public interest media and treat information as a common good.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Technology can be used positively to support human rights and democratic participation

Speakers

– Maria Paz Canales
– Nadja Blagojevic

Arguments

Civil society uses AI and technology to elevate marginalized voices, support freedom of expression, and enhance privacy protection during protests and crises

Google implements provenance technologies like SynthID watermarking and context tools like ‘About This Image’ to help users identify AI-generated content and understand information sources

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that while technology poses challenges, it also offers significant opportunities to enhance human rights, democratic participation, and information transparency when properly implemented.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of cooperative rather than confrontational approaches between regulators and platforms, advocating for direct communication channels and collaborative problem-solving.

Speakers

– Frederic Bokobza
– Nadja Blagojevic

Arguments

Effective regulation requires direct communication channels with platforms, especially during critical periods like elections

Global issues require collaborative solutions as no single entity can address these challenges alone, while recognizing different needs across cultures and populations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that traditional approaches to information governance are inadequate for current challenges, requiring comprehensive understanding of how information systems impact peace and security.

Speakers

– Ingrid Volkmer
– Tawfik Jelassi

Arguments

Crisis scenarios are increasing globally, requiring a shift from focusing on national linear media to broader communication ecosystems that include satellite systems, cloud storage, and AI platforms

Misinformation, hate speech, and harmful online content contribute to conflicts and genocides rather than peace-building, requiring trustworthy information as a public good

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Human rights

Both speakers see technology as an empowerment tool that can help users and civil society organizations become more effective and informed participants in the digital information ecosystem.

Speakers

– Maria Paz Canales
– Nadja Blagojevic

Arguments

Technology enables civil society to be more effective in advocacy and content dissemination while facing funding constraints

Media literacy programs like ‘Be Internet Awesome’ help build critical thinking skills in children and adults across multiple countries

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Need for transparency and accountability from platforms

Speakers

– Frederic Bokobza
– Nadja Blagojevic

Arguments

Major challenge is reducing information asymmetry with platforms through transparency reports and accountability measures under frameworks like the Digital Services Act

Google implements provenance technologies like SynthID watermarking and context tools like ‘About This Image’ to help users identify AI-generated content and understand information sources

Explanation

It’s notable that both the regulator and the platform representative agree on the importance of transparency measures. The regulator calls for transparency reports and accountability, while the Google representative describes specific technical implementations that provide transparency to users.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Human rights

Crisis communication requires holistic regulatory approaches

Speakers

– Ingrid Volkmer
– Frederic Bokobza

Arguments

Crisis scenarios are increasing globally, requiring a shift from focusing on national linear media to broader communication ecosystems that include satellite systems, cloud storage, and AI platforms

Effective regulation requires direct communication channels with platforms, especially during critical periods like elections

Explanation

The academic researcher and the regulatory authority representative both recognize that crisis periods require special regulatory consideration and coordinated approaches, suggesting convergence between theoretical analysis and practical regulatory experience.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, treating information as a public good, and recognizing both the positive potential and risks of technology. There is agreement on the importance of transparency, accountability, and cooperative rather than confrontational approaches to platform governance.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than fundamental disagreements. The implications suggest a mature understanding of digital governance challenges that transcends traditional adversarial relationships between different stakeholder groups, pointing toward collaborative solutions that balance innovation with public interest protection.

Different viewpoints

Scope of regulatory focus – information vs. communication paradigm

Speakers

– Ingrid Volkmer
– Frederic Bokobza

Arguments

Crisis scenarios are increasing globally, requiring a shift from focusing on national linear media to broader communication ecosystems that include satellite systems, cloud storage, and AI platforms

Major challenge is reducing information asymmetry with platforms through transparency reports and accountability measures under frameworks like the Digital Services Act

Summary

Volkmer argues for a paradigm shift from information regulation to broader communication ecosystem regulation that includes infrastructure like satellites and cloud storage, while Bokobza focuses on traditional platform governance through transparency and accountability measures within existing regulatory frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Definition and support of media – traditional vs. public interest media

Speakers

– Maria Paz Canales
– Audience

Arguments

Important distinction between traditional media and public interest media, especially in regions like Latin America, with need for regulation supporting non-market-driven information models

Traditional media faces financial challenges with 75% of advertising revenues going to digital platforms, requiring public sector intervention to support public interest media

Summary

Canales emphasizes the distinction between traditional and public interest media, advocating for support of non-market-driven models, while the audience member focuses on supporting traditional media through public sector intervention due to financial challenges from platform competition.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Crisis communication regulation scope

Speakers

– Ingrid Volkmer
– Frederic Bokobza

Arguments

Crisis scenarios are increasing globally, requiring a shift from focusing on national linear media to broader communication ecosystems that include satellite systems, cloud storage, and AI platforms

International regulatory networks like REFRAM facilitate experience sharing and coordinated approaches to online safety across different legal frameworks

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are addressing crisis communication and regulation, but Volkmer calls for a fundamental paradigm shift to regulate entire communication ecosystems including infrastructure, while Bokobza focuses on coordinating existing regulatory approaches across jurisdictions. The disagreement reveals a fundamental tension between revolutionary vs. evolutionary approaches to digital governance.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on regulatory scope (information vs. communication paradigm), media support approaches (traditional vs. public interest media), and implementation methods for multi-stakeholder governance. While speakers generally agree on goals like trustworthy information ecosystems and collaborative approaches, they differ significantly on methods and scope.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications. The disagreements reflect fundamental tensions in digital governance between comprehensive vs. targeted regulation, revolutionary vs. evolutionary approaches, and different regional perspectives on media support. These disagreements could impact the effectiveness of global coordination efforts and the development of coherent regulatory frameworks, particularly in crisis situations where rapid, coordinated responses are needed.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of cooperative rather than confrontational approaches between regulators and platforms, advocating for direct communication channels and collaborative problem-solving.

Speakers

– Frederic Bokobza
– Nadja Blagojevic

Arguments

Effective regulation requires direct communication channels with platforms, especially during critical periods like elections

Global issues require collaborative solutions as no single entity can address these challenges alone, while recognizing different needs across cultures and populations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that traditional approaches to information governance are inadequate for current challenges, requiring comprehensive understanding of how information systems impact peace and security.

Speakers

– Ingrid Volkmer
– Tawfik Jelassi

Arguments

Crisis scenarios are increasing globally, requiring a shift from focusing on national linear media to broader communication ecosystems that include satellite systems, cloud storage, and AI platforms

Misinformation, hate speech, and harmful online content contribute to conflicts and genocides rather than peace-building, requiring trustworthy information as a public good

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Human rights

Both speakers see technology as an empowerment tool that can help users and civil society organizations become more effective and informed participants in the digital information ecosystem.

Speakers

– Maria Paz Canales
– Nadja Blagojevic

Arguments

Technology enables civil society to be more effective in advocacy and content dissemination while facing funding constraints

Media literacy programs like ‘Be Internet Awesome’ help build critical thinking skills in children and adults across multiple countries

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Key takeaways

Information ecosystems face unprecedented threats from misinformation, hate speech, and harmful content that contribute to conflicts and genocides, requiring a shift toward viewing information as a public good rather than a hazard

Crisis communication now involves a holistic ecosystem including satellite systems (like Starlink), cloud storage, AI platforms, and social media – not just traditional linear media – requiring broader regulatory approaches

Multi-stakeholder collaboration has significantly expanded over 20 years, bringing together government, private sector, civil society, and technical communities in digital governance discussions

Technology and AI serve dual purposes – while posing threats through deepfakes and disinformation, they also empower civil society to elevate marginalized voices, enhance privacy protection, and improve advocacy effectiveness

Effective platform governance requires transparency, accountability, independent oversight, user empowerment, and direct communication channels between regulators and platforms, especially during critical periods like elections

Global cooperation through regulatory networks and frameworks like UNESCO’s guidelines helps address regulatory fragmentation while respecting different legal and cultural contexts

User empowerment through media literacy programs and technical tools for content verification is essential alongside regulatory approaches

Resolutions and action items

UNESCO is moving forward with pilot implementations of their guidelines for digital platform governance developed through global consultations

REFRAM will hold a technical forum meeting with major platforms (Meta, X, TikTok, Google) in Paris to monitor commitments on moderation, transparency, and local language use

UNESCO’s Global Forum of Networks has established a 2024-2026 roadmap focusing on developing network capacities, knowledge sharing, and action on generative AI and synthetic content

Google has open-sourced SynthID watermarking technology for text and continues expanding media literacy programs like ‘Be Internet Awesome’ across multiple countries

Unresolved issues

How to ensure financial viability of public interest media when 75% of advertising revenues go to digital platforms, with calls for public sector intervention remaining unaddressed

How to manage rising costs of technical platforms and cloud computing services for trusted media organizations

How to address data privacy and access concerns when crucial national information is stored on commercial clouds during crises

How to effectively distinguish between traditional media and public interest media in regulatory frameworks, particularly in regions like Latin America

How to balance different stakeholder needs and sometimes divergent interests when developing collaborative solutions

How to ensure effective governance of global monopolies providing critical infrastructure (like Starlink) during crisis situations

Suggested compromises

Finding convergence points where market-driven platform solutions can align with public interest goals rather than viewing them as mutually exclusive

Developing regulatory approaches that support non-market-driven information models while still engaging constructively with commercial platforms

Creating direct communication channels and cooperative frameworks with platforms rather than purely confrontational regulatory approaches

Implementing human rights-based approaches in international regulatory cooperation that can accommodate different legal frameworks while maintaining common principles

Balancing platform accountability measures with recognition that solutions must be adapted to different cultural contexts and population needs

We want information to be a common public good. We don’t want information to be a common hazard, risk, nor a common harm… without facts, there is no truth. And without truth, there is no trust. And without trust, there is no shared reality upon which we can act.

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by establishing information as a fundamental public good rather than a commodity, and creates a logical chain linking facts to shared reality. It’s philosophically profound because it connects epistemology (how we know truth) to social cohesion and collective action.

Impact

This foundational statement set the tone for the entire discussion, establishing the moral and practical framework that all subsequent speakers referenced. It shifted the conversation from technical platform governance to fundamental questions about truth, trust, and social cohesion in democratic societies.

It is not just information or disinformation that is central to crisis, but communication more broadly… we need to shift from this information paradigm into a broader communication paradigm, which is relevant for regulation of crisis communication.

Speaker

Ingrid Volkmer

Reason

This insight challenges the prevailing focus on content moderation and disinformation by arguing for a holistic view of communication infrastructure. It’s thought-provoking because it expands the scope beyond what people see on their feeds to include connectivity, data storage, and the entire technological stack.

Impact

This comment fundamentally broadened the discussion scope, moving participants away from narrow platform content issues to consider infrastructure monopolies, data sovereignty, and crisis communication as interconnected systems. It influenced subsequent speakers to think more systemically about governance challenges.

I am very careful coming from Latin America about drawing the line between traditional media and public interest media because they are not the same, at least from the region that I come from.

Speaker

Maria Paz Canales

Reason

This comment introduces crucial nuance by challenging the assumption that traditional media automatically serves the public interest. It brings a Global South perspective that recognizes how media ownership and political contexts vary dramatically across regions.

Impact

This intervention prevented the discussion from falling into Western-centric assumptions about media systems. It added complexity to the conversation about supporting ‘trusted’ media by highlighting that trust and public interest are contextual and that regulatory approaches must account for different media landscapes globally.

We have been seeing an exponential increase of misinformation, hate speech, cyber bullying, online violence… This does not contribute to peace building. This contributes to more hatred, more divisive communities, and sometimes to genocides and to conflicts and wars.

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Reason

This comment is particularly powerful because it connects digital platform governance directly to UNESCO’s core mission of peace-building, and explicitly links online harms to real-world violence including genocide. It elevates the stakes of the discussion beyond technical concerns to matters of life and death.

Impact

This stark framing gave moral urgency to the entire discussion and justified UNESCO’s involvement in digital governance. It influenced other speakers to consider the real-world consequences of their work and helped establish why multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential rather than optional.

What works in one country or culture may not work in another. We are very much invested in trying to work collaboratively… but we will always need to be mindful of the fact that what works for one sector of the population may not work for another, that there are differing needs and sometimes divergent interests.

Speaker

Nadja Blagojevic

Reason

This comment acknowledges the fundamental tension in global platform governance – the need for both consistency and cultural sensitivity. It’s insightful because it honestly addresses the complexity of serving diverse global audiences while maintaining coherent policies.

Impact

This comment introduced important nuance to discussions about global cooperation and standardization. It helped ground the conversation in practical realities of implementation and influenced the discussion toward more flexible, adaptive approaches to governance rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about platform regulation into a profound examination of information as a foundation for democratic society and peace. Jelassi’s opening established the moral framework, Volkmer expanded the analytical scope beyond content to infrastructure, Canales introduced crucial Global South perspectives that challenged Western assumptions, and Blagojevic acknowledged the practical complexities of implementation. Together, these interventions created a multi-layered discussion that moved from philosophical foundations through systemic analysis to practical implementation challenges, demonstrating why effective digital governance requires both moral clarity and cultural sensitivity.

How can crucial national data be moved back from cloud storage during crisis situations and under what circumstances?

Speaker

Ingrid Volkmer

Explanation

This addresses critical concerns about data sovereignty and access to national information stored in cloud systems during crises, particularly regarding regulatory approaches needed to ensure data can be retrieved when needed.

What regulatory approaches are required in crisis times to ensure data privacy and access to crucial national data from cloud storage?

Speaker

Ingrid Volkmer

Explanation

This explores the intersection of data privacy, national security, and crisis management in the context of cloud-based information storage systems.

How can traditional media achieve financial viability in the digital era when 75% of advertising revenues go to Google and Meta?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental economic challenge facing traditional media and the need for sustainable funding models in the digital information ecosystem.

How can international cooperation manage cost factors and promote open source alternatives when tech companies are increasing profits and creating monopolies?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This examines the economic barriers to creating a diverse and competitive information ecosystem and the role of international regulatory frameworks.

What role should the public sector play in supporting public interest media as a public good?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This explores the potential for government intervention to support media that serves the public interest, drawing on economic theory about public goods.

How can regulation effectively distinguish between traditional media and public interest media, particularly in different regional contexts?

Speaker

Maria Paz Canales

Explanation

This addresses the need for nuanced regulatory approaches that recognize different types of media organizations and their varying contributions to public discourse.

What are the most significant barriers preventing effective collaboration between different stakeholders in platform governance?

Speaker

Ana Cristina Ruelas

Explanation

This seeks to identify and address obstacles to multi-stakeholder cooperation in governing digital platforms and information ecosystems.

How can crisis communication regulation be developed as a separate category from peacetime digital regulation?

Speaker

Ingrid Volkmer

Explanation

This suggests the need for specialized regulatory frameworks that account for the unique challenges and requirements of information governance during crisis situations.

Summary

This UNESCO session at the WSIS Forum focused on the global governance of quantum technology from a human rights perspective, based on an issue brief jointly developed by UNESCO’s Information for All Program, Sciences Po, and the European University Institute. The discussion was moderated by Xianhong Hu and featured presentations from lead author Shamira Ahmed and several expert panelists.

Ahmed outlined three main challenges identified in the issue brief: dual-use risks where quantum technologies present both opportunities and threats for encryption and security, an emerging quantum divide that could exacerbate global inequalities, and significant gender inequity in the quantum field where 79% of quantum companies have no female senior leaders. The brief proposes human rights as a key enabler for responsible quantum governance, with recommendations focusing on infrastructure investments, policy action and awareness, capacity building, and leveraging public-private partnerships.

UNESCO Director Guilherme Canela emphasized that innovation and human rights protection are not opposing forces but complementary elements, arguing that the international human rights system actually enabled the conditions for technological innovation. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse from Sciences Po highlighted the need for institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in governance processes and developing agile, forward-looking frameworks that can adapt as quantum technology evolves.

Professor Pieter Vermaas from Delft University stressed the importance of moving beyond dialogue to actual collaborative action, suggesting the creation of international quantum research centers. Journalist Elodie Vialle warned about the surveillance implications for press freedom and the need for proactive rather than reactive governance approaches. The discussion emphasized that quantum governance should build upon existing internet governance principles while addressing the unique challenges posed by quantum technologies, particularly their potential impact on encryption, privacy, and global digital divides.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Three Key Challenges of Quantum Technology**: The discussion identified dual-use risks (opportunities and threats for encryption/security), an emerging quantum divide based on existing digital inequalities, and significant gender inequity in quantum fields (79% of quantum companies have no female senior leaders, only 1 in 54 job applicants are women).

– **Human Rights-Centered Governance Framework**: Speakers emphasized the need for proactive, human rights-driven governance of quantum technologies rather than reactive approaches, drawing lessons from AI governance to avoid repeating past mistakes where technological transitions led to exploitation and discrimination.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Inclusivity**: The conversation stressed the importance of institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in quantum governance, including academia, private sector, civil society, and international organizations, while ensuring developing countries aren’t left behind in quantum development.

– **Quantum-AI Convergence and Security Implications**: Discussion covered the intersection of quantum computing with AI, particularly concerning surveillance capabilities, encryption vulnerabilities, and threats to press freedom and digital safety, with emphasis on protecting journalists and human rights defenders.

– **International Cooperation and Standards**: Speakers highlighted the need for global collaboration in quantum development, shared technical standards for interoperability, and the role of organizations like UNESCO in facilitating responsible quantum governance through science diplomacy.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present findings from a UNESCO policy brief on quantum technology governance, focusing on human rights implications and the need for inclusive, proactive global governance frameworks. The session sought to gather stakeholder input on recommendations for ensuring quantum technologies serve as digital public goods rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating expertise while remaining accessible to non-technical audiences. The tone was forward-looking and solution-oriented, emphasizing urgency without being alarmist. There was a consistent emphasis on learning from past technological transitions (particularly AI governance) to avoid repeating mistakes, and the conversation remained focused on practical recommendations and actionable next steps for international cooperation.

Speakers

– **Xianhong Hu**: Session moderator, UNESCO

– **Shamira Ahmed**: Lead author of the issue brief on quantum technology and human rights

– **Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi**: UNESCO Director for Digital Inclusion, Policy and Transformation; Secretary of IFAP

– **Constance Bommelaer de Leusse**: Executive Director of the Tech and Global Affairs at Sciences Po; Co-author of the issue brief

– **Pieter Vermaas**: Professor and Dr. from Delft University of Technology and Quantum Delta Netherlands; Ethics lead of the Dutch quantum ecosystem; Head of the Delft University Quantum Governance and Values Lab; Professor of Philosophy and Ethics

– **Elodie Vialle**: Journalist; Digital safety trainer; Press freedom defender; Works on surveillance of journalists and human rights defenders

– **Wolfgang Kleinwachter**: Retired professor from the University of Aarhus

– **Chris Buckridge**:

– **Jandhyala Prabhakar Rao**: Prof. from Hyderabad, India; Chair of Information for Development Working Group

**Additional speakers:**

– **Yicheng**: UNESCO colleague supporting online moderation

– **Zhao Wei**: From China, mentioned as IFAP working group member and expert

– **Maxime Brionov**: Author of the book “Global Digital Human Rights in the Implementation of the Global Digital Compact” (participated via chat)

# UNESCO Session on Global Governance of Quantum Technology: A Human Rights Perspective

## Executive Summary

This UNESCO session at the WSIS Forum examined the intersection of quantum technology development and human rights governance, presenting findings from an issue brief published in April 2024 and jointly developed by UNESCO’s Information for All Programme, Sciences Po, and the European University Institute. The brief was based on a March 2024 discussion paper and a May 2023 WSIS consultative workshop. Moderated by Xianhong Hu from UNESCO, the hybrid session brought together experts to discuss the need for inclusive governance frameworks for quantum technologies.

UNESCO Director Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi provided welcome remarks, emphasizing that “there is no innovation without human rights” and rejecting what he called the “false dichotomy” between innovation and human rights protection.

## Key Findings from the Issue Brief

Lead author Shamira Ahmed presented three fundamental challenges identified in the UNESCO issue brief:

### Three Primary Challenges

**Dual-Use Risks**: Quantum technologies present both opportunities and threats, particularly regarding encryption and security. While quantum cryptography could provide enhanced security, quantum computing simultaneously threatens current encryption methods.

**The Emerging Quantum Divide**: Building upon existing digital inequalities, quantum technologies risk creating new forms of global stratification. Ahmed emphasized that “technological transitions do not happen in a vacuum” and that decisions made today within existing inequitable science, technology, and innovation ecosystems will shape tomorrow’s technology landscape.

**Gender Inequity**: The quantum field demonstrates severe gender imbalances, with 79% of quantum companies having no female senior leaders and only 1 in 54 job applicants being women.

### Four Key Recommendation Areas

Ahmed outlined four areas for action identified in the brief:

1. **Infrastructure Investments**: Strengthening digital infrastructure fundamentals and leveraging public-private partnerships

2. **Policy Action and Awareness**: Raising awareness beyond national security discussions to include equity and human rights issues

3. **Capacity Building**: Developing systematic approaches to keep policymakers updated on emerging technologies

4. **UNESCO’s International Year of Quantum**: Utilizing the UN-declared International Year of Quantum to advance governance discussions

## Expert Perspectives

### Multi-Stakeholder Governance Approaches

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse from Sciences Po emphasized the need for “institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes,” arguing that experts, private sector representatives, and academia should help define governance agendas rather than merely being consulted. She highlighted the importance of developing “agile and forward-looking frameworks that adjust as technology evolves” and noted that quantum technologies impact the geopolitical order by creating what she described as a “quantum arms race.”

### Collaborative Technology Development

Professor Pieter Vermaas from Delft University advocated for moving “beyond dialogue to actual collaborative technology development.” He argued that quantum technology should “move out of the sphere of developing countries and be developed globally,” suggesting the creation of international quantum research centers as a governance mechanism.

### Press Freedom and Surveillance Concerns

Journalist and digital safety trainer Elodie Vialle highlighted how quantum technologies intersect with existing surveillance threats to press freedom. She warned that “unchecked surveillance already targets journalists and creates chilling effects on free speech” and that stored conversations could be broken in the future when quantum capabilities mature. Vialle emphasized the need to “close the cultural gap between quantum science field and human rights communities.”

## Discussion Points and Questions

### Relationship to Existing Frameworks

The discussion addressed how quantum governance relates to existing internet governance structures. Ahmed explained that “quantum governance relates to internet governance through quantum information and communications technologies,” while Bommelaer de Leusse argued that “fundamental principles from Tunis agenda should apply to quantum technologies governance.”

Wolfgang Kleinwächter raised concerns about definitional clarity, questioning how quantum governance relates to existing internet and AI governance frameworks and warning about “growing confusion” with various governance concepts.

### Technology Sharing and International Cooperation

Chris Buckridge raised practical questions about “how to convince countries with technology to share with those without,” highlighting tensions between openness and national interests in quantum development.

### Cultural Considerations

Professor Jandhyala Prabhakar Rao from Hyderabad introduced questions about the “role of culture in AI-quantum convergence context” and emphasized the importance of building “local AI to solve local problems effectively.”

## Key Themes and Recommendations

### Proactive Governance

Multiple speakers emphasized the urgency of developing governance frameworks now rather than waiting for quantum technologies to mature. Vialle stated that “we cannot afford to be reactive in governance conversations – must act now.”

### Human Rights as Foundation

The session positioned human rights as fundamental to quantum governance rather than as constraints on innovation. Speakers argued for embedding human rights principles into technology development processes from the earliest stages.

### Integration with Existing Processes

Participants discussed integrating quantum governance discussions into existing frameworks like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process and connecting to the WSIS+20 review process.

## Challenges and Next Steps

The discussion identified several ongoing challenges:

– Developing specific mechanisms for technology sharing between countries with different quantum capabilities

– Creating effective multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral governance processes

– Addressing the severe gender imbalance in quantum technology fields

– Bridging knowledge gaps between technical and human rights communities

– Developing coordinated technical standards for quantum technology interoperability

## Conclusion

The session established quantum governance as requiring immediate attention and proactive approaches that integrate human rights principles with technology development. While participants agreed on the importance of inclusive, multi-stakeholder governance and the complementary relationship between innovation and human rights, significant work remains in developing specific mechanisms and institutional frameworks to address the challenges posed by emerging quantum technologies.

The discussion highlighted the need to learn from experiences with AI governance while developing quantum-specific approaches, and emphasized that quantum governance cannot be separated from broader questions of digital equity, press freedom, and inclusive innovation.

Xianhong Hu: We are going to tackle the important issues related to quantum technology, a focus on the human rights center, the global governance of the quantum technology. It’s based on the issue brief UNESCO information for all program jointly developed with our dear partner, who is also present today, with St. Paul, the technology and global affairs center, with the European University Institute, our lead author is here. So, quantum technology is going to be the new frontier technology, which is going to have the potential to transform the entire digital ecosystem and the AI development, as we are hotly debating in this WSIS Forum. They are having complex implications for human rights, for digital inclusion, etc. So, I would like to firstly give the floor to our lead author, Ms. Shamira Ahmed, to unpack the key findings and also the recommendations from the issue brief. So, Shamira, you may start your presentation. You have 10 minutes, and I will signal to you when there are one minute left, so we can have the speakers follow you continue the conversation. Each of the speakers, we have three, each of you have five minutes, and then I hope we can have 10 minutes for the interaction and discussion with the audiences. Also, send my warm greetings to the participants online, so in the room, please prepare your questions, comments while the meeting goes on. And for the online participants, my colleague Yicheng will support the online moderation. Please do not hesitate to post your comments, your questions online, so we can really have a very interactive, hybrid discussion. So, without delaying further, Shamira, please start your presentation.

Shamira Ahmed: Thank you, Xianhong. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us in this session. As Xianhong mentioned, I’m one of the key authors of the issue brief, and I’d just like to give you a background of how we developed the issue brief. It’s based on the extension of the discussion paper that was published in March 2024 on quantum technologies and their global impact. And we also had a consultative workshop at last year’s WSIS in May, and it was called Pioneering Responsible Global Governance of Quantum Technologies. And as a result, we gathered different input from key stakeholders, and we published the issue brief in April earlier this year. So the main challenges we identified in the issue brief after gathering various information is that there are three main challenges that we associated with quantum technologies. Okay, sorry. It’s dual use risks. There’s a quantum divide, and there’s a gender inequity. Sorry, I don’t know what’s happening to the clicker and technology. Yeah, that’s okay, Shamira. You are on the slide on the… Maybe you can help me with the slides instead of me clicking. Yeah, the third slide. Yes, the one before. Yes, perfect. No. Yes, perfect. So, sorry about that, but as I mentioned, there are three main challenges we identified after gathering all the information. It’s dual-use risks, there’s a quantum divide that’s emerging, and there are gender inequity issues. So, in terms of dual-use risks, we found out that quantum technologies paradoxically have opportunities and risks, especially for encryption, privacy, and security. And there’s an emerging quantum divide that’s based on the existing entrenched digital divide, and it could increase multidimensional global inequalities. And as with other STEM subjects, there is gender inequity in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematical pipeline for quantum computing jobs. On other quantum technologies, for example, 79% of quantum companies have no female senior leaders, and one in 54 quantum job applicants are women. And these are some of the highlights that we’ve highlighted and indicated in our issue brief. Next slide. As a result, we consolidated all the information, and we focused on human rights as the key enabler for responsible global quantum governance. And we did a preliminary search and found that human rights could facilitate a few of the sustainable development goals when we align them with protecting fundamental freedoms, like the right to privacy and freedom of expression, addressing global inequalities, as per the quantum divide I mentioned, and gender inequity, for example. Ethical use of digital technologies, having a human rights focus, can facilitate ethical use. and Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. And lastly, anticipating future risks could be mitigated through a human rights lens given the quantum AI convergence and potential environmental risks. In terms of the key recommendations we had four focus areas infrastructure investments, policy, action and awareness, capacity building, and we also focused on UNESCO’s international year of quantum. So the key recommendations in terms of infrastructure was leveraging public-private partnerships, also going back to fundamentals on digital infrastructure, especially if we’re talking about global digital infrastructure and how it would relate to an envisioned quantum internet and quantum communications network. Policy and awareness action, we also identified that raising awareness on global debates on quantum technologies beyond the discussion about national security, sovereignty, and strategic autonomy, it was important to also highlight how existing entrenched systems of inequity could be perpetuated by the inactivity in the global, in predicting global governance for quantum technologies. Next slide. And you can have, we went into further detail in the issue brief, so you can have a look at them for further details. Next slide. So the three key takeaways I’d like us to think about, and you can also raise them in the discussion portion later, is that despite the hype around the positive aspects of quantum technologies, we also have to have meaningful discussions about in ways that they can exacerbate harm, privacy, and freedom, and not only for countries or organizations that have quantum computing capabilities. We should also be cognizant of the fact that technological transitions do not happen in a vacuum. The decisions that are made today are developed in the context of existing and equitable science, technology, and innovation ecosystems and institutions. And without concerted efforts, then they will continue to shape tomorrow’s technology landscape. And lastly, lessons from history show that without concerted efforts, the status quo of technological transitions from the Third Industrial Revolution show that these transitions often lead to exploitation, discrimination, and or suppression of human rights. So we need to be cognizant of the fact that nothing happens in a vacuum, and we need to have active interventions to create a future where everyone can benefit from quantum technologies. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you, Shamira, for your excellent presentation. Actually, we also posted the link to download. this issue brief and it’s a really easy reading of 20 pages and you can just read more once downloaded from UNESCO website. And I wonder if Shamira, can you stop here? I don’t know the technical support, could you stop the PowerPoint because I couldn’t see my speakers from the Zoom somehow. Oh yes, that’s better. Thank you so much. Wow, we have so many online participants. I couldn’t see very clear in the room, but I’d really like to thank all of you for participating in this interesting session on the quantum. I’d like to also recognize our IFAP working group members and experts, Prof. Rao from India, the Chair of Information for Development Working Group, Ms. Zhao Wei from China, and also we have our partners around the world attending us really good morning, evening, and thank you for your interest in this session. So now I’d like to move to our panelists. The first one I’d like to introduce is Ms.

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi: Constance Bommeler-DeLuzo. I think I will need to open another session, maybe you can just

Xianhong Hu: very quickly, one minute. Oh yeah, hi Guilherme and welcome on board because sorry I’m online, I couldn’t see the situation in the room. Thank you for sticking to me. So now I’m very honored to introduce actually Mr. Guilherme Canela, the UNESCO Director for Digital Inclusion, Policy and Transformation, as well as the Secretary of IFAP to address some of his welcome remarks. You know, it’s never too late to address the welcome remarks and also share your visions given your extensive expertise and experience in digital governance. So, Constance, if you don’t mind, I’m now giving the floor to Guilherme to address some remarks and then we’ll continue with our panelists. So, Guilherme, please take the floor. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi: Thank you, everyone. I won’t take too much of your time. The very bright algorithm of WSIS organization put three sessions I need to speak at this very same moment, so I’m trying my best to do it. So, actually, basically, the paper already underlines the key recommendations that are also recommendations from the Information for All program. I won’t repeat that. But my presence here is more to reinforce how much UNESCO is committed to this conversation in different ways. As you know, this year is the quantum year established by the UN General Assembly. UNESCO is the agency in charge of organizing this conversation and this discussion. And this paper was very timely to contribute to this conversation from the perspective of human rights-driven approach to this conversation. Obviously, the science approach is very much important. The economic approach is very much important. But we can’t forget the central element of having a human rights-driven approach to this. So, of course, we need to discuss opportunities and risks in this conversation. It’s not one thing or the other. It’s one thing and the other. I was just in a session when I was saying that I’m listening in a very worried manner, more and more about a false dichotomy that we would need to choose between innovation and protecting human rights. I think this is wrong and we need to stop this. We need to show that there is no dichotomy here. Those things actually exist. They are interlinked. There is no innovation without human rights. And we need to make that point absolutely clear, but with evidence. The innovation that we are facing today, everything these companies were able to do, it’s precisely because the UN system created the universal system of human rights eight years ago that allowed an international rule of law system. An international rule of law system that allowed the circulation of scientists, the circulation of ideas. So without these, there were no innovation. So we need to be very clear on that point. So I think this paper or this policy brief tried to go into that direction, not only talking about risks, but also about opportunities, but showing that those things should go hand in hand. So sorry to interrupt the conversation, but I just wanted to make clear that from the perspective of the UNESCO Secretariat, we are very much engaged with you in this conversation. We want to be part of it. We want to listen to you. And I’m very happy that this session is taking place with this concrete issue brief that was launched earlier this year. Back to you, Xiangkong. Thanks.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Guillermo. I also take this opportunity to actually thank you for your editorial guidance of the entire issue brief. Without your support, we won’t be able to launch this issue brief in such a comprehensive manner. And thanks again for your remarks, Guillermo. Now I’d like to move to continue with our speaker, another co-author of the issue brief, Constance Bolleman. You are the executive director of the Tech and Global Affairs at Sciences Po as well. And actually, it was you who had also initiated with UNESCO to develop this quantum issue brief. Also, you are the co-author. and you have been at the forefront of science diplomacy and governance in emerging technology for so many years. Given your extensive experience and drawing lessons from the current AI governance, what do you think should be the most effective approach to ensure the inclusive multi-stakeholder governance of quantum so that it will be a technology as to be harnessed as a digital public good and to ensure our approach, our policy to be really proactive, inclusive instead of just being reactive. So Constance, the floor is yours.

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse: Thank you very much Xianhong and good morning everyone. I’m sorry to not be there in Geneva with you. Good afternoon perhaps for those who are joining remotely from other places around the world. First of all I’d like to thank UNESCO for its leadership throughout this exercise. We decided to work on quantum governance at a time where everyone is getting excited about AI. So it was a bit of an interesting exercise in that context and also thank our colleagues from DELF and also Shamira Ahmed who’s been a leading force in developing this paper. Before I propose perhaps a few ideas on the new approaches to ensure we have inclusive multilateral processes to harness governance issues that derive from quantum technologies, I’d like to create a clear link with what Shamira explained in her very good introduction and presentation. The technology of quantum comes along with new governance challenges. You can go back, revert back to the slides that she shared previously, perhaps after this conversation, but just in a nutshell. It’s important to realize, to assess the importance of how this technology is impacting, first of all, geopolitical order. We’re seeing, for instance, that there’s, I would say, a quantum arm race going on in terms of which regional or national force is going to be investing the more in this technology and utilizing it to support its economic, social growth, and perhaps even a defense aspect. There’s also the very important question of the dual nature of this technology that, of course, can be used for good, but also there are some harmful potential impacts of this technology that need to be assessed. Another important, I think, governance issue that hasn’t perhaps been mentioned is the lack of technical standards that are coordinated and that are going to allow interoperability when it comes to quantum governance. Of course, there’s also the divide, the gender, but also geographical divide between those who have and those who have not, the potential to grow in the field of this technology. So, these are some of the governance challenges that are emerging along with this technology. I think given these dynamics along, I would say, some of the reflections and adaptions that have supported the development of other very dynamic technologies, just like artificial intelligence, I think a new approach, a new dynamic is needed when we think about the multilateral frameworks, governance frameworks, that are going to allow us to navigate this technology for the benefit of all. One aspect that is very important from my perspective is almost institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes. We’ve seen the importance on artificial intelligence, technical, digital technical topics in general, but also in other fields when you think about environmental technologies, for instance. These are very technical topics and you need experts around the table. You need the private sector, you need academia. Academia is self-organizing, I would say, at the moment, a little bit like civil society 20 years ago, professionalizing its participation in these global policy discussions. And it’s important that multilateral processes institutionalize how these different stakeholders are going to be not just consulted, but also are going to help define the agenda of multilateral organizations and their meetings. Another, perhaps, aspect that could be explored in how we develop these governance frameworks around quantum technologies is how do we design agile and forward-looking frameworks that are going to be able to adjust as the technology adjusts. Here, I know in the academic environment, we’ve been running a lot of foresight exercises, scenario planning exercises. And I think these technologies and these new governance challenges that come along with it are perfect materials to be utilized for such types of governance approaches. And then finally, and I would conclude with that, I think this notion of science diplomacy, science diplomacy is becoming mainstream. certainly in Geneva and hopefully more and more in other global capitals. This notion that academics, scientists, experts, civil society, individuals actively participate in setting the agenda, but also help leaders of multilateral organizations organize their governance frameworks. And I think this is very important. It’s a notion that is growing, that is becoming mainstream, and that clearly when it comes to quantum governance is a shared responsibility from my perspective. And so with that, I’ll hand it back to you, Xianhong, and happy to pursue the conversation.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you so much for highlighting so many important issues, particularly institutionalizing the most stakeholder governance. It’s so inspiring also for the organization like UNESCO. Thank you. Now I’d like to introduce our second speaker, Prof. and Dr. Pieter Vermaas from the Delft University of Technology and also Quantum Delta Netherlands. Hi Pieter, you are there. As the ethics lead of the Dutch quantum ecosystem and the head of the Delft University Quantum Governance and Values Lab, you would be the best positioned to tell us what needs to be emphasized to navigate the potential global impacts of the quantum technology. Pieter, the floor is yours.

Pieter Vermaas: Okay, thank you, Xianhong. And thank you for all being here. Great to speak here and to have this dialogue, to be part of this dialogue. If I want to emphasize something in this wonderful brief is that I think it should go beyond dialogue. What I really like of the brief is that there’s a plea for dialogue. Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, University of London University of London are trying to address the issues and decide what we want to do. So I’m really as an ethicist in favour of this brief and we should do more on ethics so yes, as a stakeholder yes but I think we should also go beyond that and just do technology together. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Professor. What you have suggested from your side, UNESCO certainly is a leading organisation to foster international collaboration for innovation but also I think what you said about creating centres, international collaboration can also be so valid to be considered by the OASIS plus 20 review process. Imagine what we should do more in the post 2025. We really need such a kind of action. I hope that we can really include what you have said in the session in the conference. I hope that OASIS can also be another important vehicle we can foster quantum collaboration. Thank you very much. So now I’d like to introduce our last speaker Elodie Vialle. In the spirit of multi-stakeholder we are very appreciative of your participation. You are the journalist you are the digital safety trainer as you heard from Shamira from our Professor Peter that quantum is going to impact the safety of communication, encryption, surveillance and decomposing risks and also some opportunities as well to the digital safety free expression, privacy etc. So what lessons do you think we can learn from your work on press freedom and the right privacy particularly I know you are expert on gender and women and gender divide was also mentioned by Constance by Shamira in the issue brief. Could you please give us your opinion?

Elodie Vialle: Thank you so much, Xianhong, and thanks to the brilliant previous presentation. I think if there’s one lesson that we can learn from a previous conversation on AI and surveillance, and particularly surveillance of journalists and human rights defenders, which is the topic I work on, is that we cannot afford to be reactive in this conversation. The question of governance is not a question for the future, it’s a question for right now. And what I can say as a journalist and as a press freedom defender is that unchecked surveillance is already being used to target, intimidate and silence journalists all over the world. And the problem for democracies is that when people feel they are being watched, they no longer feel free to speak. So there’s a chilling effect of this surveillance and the knowledge that encryption can be broken. So all these journalists I work with all around the globe, and particularly since the scandals and around Pegasus, they feel that they’re afraid to use their phone, unsure if the conversations are safe, uncertain whether they’re putting their sources at risk. And yet governments continue to propose backdoors into encrypted systems, while they should actually ensure in domestic laws the inviolability of journalist communication. So now with quantum technologies, for us as a civil society organisation, it’s a powerful new frontier and new threats, potentially. First because when paired with AI, quantum could be used to… surveillance and breaking encryption and not only for tomorrow but also to some point today because what we fear and in terms of maybe a potential risk assessment is that the conversation of today, the encrypted messages today could be stored and maybe break in the future when these quantum technologies are more available. So that’s why we need to prepare now and of course the global rush we’ve observed in terms of AI governance and the race to set up the AI standards can offer us a critical policy roadmap on how to govern quantum responsibly. So as you mentioned Xianhong, I was earlier this year the reporter also of a group of experts, international expert group working on women and media for UNESCO, the head of the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platforms for Action which is a key international text on women’s rights and basically the main concern of this international expert group is today the tech-facilitated gender-based violence targeting women journalists. I mean intimidation, online threats, gender-based disinformation campaigns. For us this is the most severe and urgent threats for women journalists which is used to discredit their work and to silence them and of course with the quantum technology and as it has been mentioned in the policy brief and the UNESCO report as well, these threats could potentially grow with the possibility to also to create and disseminate at scale false documents. and Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter and over the last few years. And what I’ve learned from that is we don’t always speak the same language as well. So there’s a need to, I would say, close the cultural gap between the quantum science field and the human rights communities also to be able to have this conversation, because we have also to acknowledge this, I would say, knowledge imbalance between civil society organisation and the quantum science field and all stakeholders. And yes, I think that UNESCO can also, as you’ve said in your paper, can be a driver of responsible innovation. And I want to add a plus one, if we can say to what Guilherme said previously, because I also think that it’s a huge mistake to oppose innovation and human rights. We are the one in civil society organisation who’ve pushed a lot over the last few years for innovation in terms of safety by design. Last year, I was at the Trust Consummate in San Francisco. and Ms. Constance Bommelaer.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. And thank you, Elodie, for making so many very strong recommendations and share so much excellent work on ground you have done. And now I’d like to thank again my wonderful speakers. You have done a great job in such a short time. You made important points. Now I’d like to open the floor to everyone in the room and also online. I’m inviting our colleague Yichen to moderate online to receive your questions, comments and signals to me. And also I’d like to invite Shamira, please give floor to the participants in the room to raise any questions, comments as well. I’d like to say that this can be broader. You can either react to our issue brief on quantum technology. You can either raise questions to any of our speakers. You can also talk broadly what kind of future directions and actions, not only quantum, but any other frontier technologies, our policymaker sphere, the civil society. I mean, all those policymaker leaders here, we should pay attention to because we need to be more forward looking than ever. Thank you very much.

Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Thank you very much. My name is Wolfgang Kleinwächter. I’m a retired professor from the University of Aarhus. I’m not an expert in quantum, but I was interested in the relative new concept which was introduced by the brief on quantum governance. So I think the term governance emerged in the WSIS context related to internet, and the Tunis agenda includes a definition of internet governance. Since then we have seen a growing confusion about governance. We have ICT governance, digital governance, cyber governance, IoT governance. Recently the UN is organising a new global dialogue on AI governance, and my question is how your proposed concept of quantum governance is related to the governance of the internet. That means, is it based on the definition of the Tunis agenda, and how it’s related to the new global dialogue on AI governance? Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you for the question. I think, Shamira, I’d like to collect a round of questions, and then I will come back to our speakers altogether before we end the session, okay? Sure. Any other questions, or remarks, or comments? Yes, go ahead.

Chris Buckridge: Sorry. Hi, I’m Chris Buckridge, also not an expert in quantum by any means. Two things briefly. One I wanted to highlight, we had a really good session in the Internet Governance Forum a couple of weeks ago about emerging technologies. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Elodie Vialle, Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed Mr. Guilherme Canela de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed where people who can’t afford the technology may share with country that have the technology, but how we convince them to participate and share?

Shamira Ahmed: Thank you for the questions. I will try and attempt all of them or give some feedback, and then my panelists can also jump in, Constance as well. So the first question was on the governance aspects of quantum technologies and how it relates to the WSIS process, basically internet governance as a whole. So in terms of the most funding or investments in infrastructure for quantum technologies is what I’d like to think of as quantum information and communications technologies, which is sensing, networking, communications, and also there’s a lot of investments going to developing a quantum internet. So that’s how it directly links to the internet governance processes. And I think at IGF there was a presentation, the Eurodig, on how quantum technologies can be used for sensing, for example. So those are some use cases. There’s also a lot of hype, but in terms of encryption and cybersecurity, like Chris mentioned, those are how it directly relates to the broad internet governance issues. So I think of the emerging applications of quantum technologies are going to be based on ICTs in a broad definition as an enabler for scale. So that’s how they relate to governance issues, the broad internet governance issues. And then your question was on how we, sorry, what is your question? Perhaps it wasn’t much of a question, but it was more how do we ensure parts of our global society are not left behind as we prepare for the impact quantum might have? Yeah, I think… All the panelists mentioned that it depends on cooperation, and UNESCO might be the platform for that. So yeah, I’ll leave it there. And if anyone wants to take the floor, and…

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Shamira. May I just interrupt? Because I think we have an online speaker who wants to take the floor. So please go ahead quickly. Sure, I’m happy. For the questions or for the responses? Sorry for the questions, because I saw a question about Winnie Nations. Are you going to talk? Hello? It’s okay. Somehow he cannot hear me. Okay, Constance, please go ahead to respond

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse: to the questions. Thank you. I’ll be quick. As I know, we don’t have a lot of time. So thank you for the questions. So Wolfgang’s excellent question about basically quantum governance in relation to traditional internet governance. From my perspective, these are slightly two things, different things. So the internet is one defined technology, quantum governance, quantum, sorry, technology is a separate object for sure. However, I would agree with Shamira. I think some of the fundamental principles that we’ve negotiated and around which we have strong consensus now, the fact that there’s technical community, business, governments, intergovernmental organizations that have to work together on emerging technologies that were agreed in the Tunis agenda. For me, naturally, this consensus should apply to quantum technologies, if we want to have an effective, anticipatory, agile governance system for quantum technology. The second question about IGF, I think maybe what we could propose, Chris, is… Welcome everyone to the IGF Framework Summit. I’m so glad you joined us, and I’m so pleased to be here. I think it’s been a while since we’ve been at a summit, and I’m really looking forward to it. I think the first step is throwing this policy brief into the IGF process and seeing if there’s appetite to build on it as perhaps a basis to maybe could be a policy network, maybe it could be a best practices. I don’t know, but certainly the IGF Framework seems to be emerging technologies. And then in relation to the last question, I think it’s absolutely critical, and I’m sorry I didn’t catch your name, the gentleman basically that pointed to the concerns that can come along with the fact that governance frameworks for quantum technologies today are largely developed behind closed doors, whether of defense entities or institutions. And I think this also comes from the fact that there’s so much focus today on artificial intelligence that topics like quantum seem to not get enough attention. So I think that’s a really important comment. Back to you, Xianghong. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Constance, for tackling so many questions. Actually, before I give the floor to our next speaker, I think I’ll quickly go to a question on the chat. I think Maxime Brionov, the author of the book Global Digital Human Rights in the Implementation of the Global Digital Compact, he asked a question, also how much do you think we need a declaration of global digital human rights? Where to start creating it for human-oriented global governance taking into account quantum technology? So Constance, if you want to add anything on that question, let me know.

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse: I think that this is a really good question, and it’s a question that pops up on a regular basis. I have found that UNESCO has harnessed actually this question pretty well in developing a number of policy frameworks, guidelines. And for me, the Rome Principles that were developed at UNESCO, so rights-based, open, accessible, multi-stakeholder governance, actually is a proposal from the UN to inject human rights at the center of how internet or digital technologies must be governed. So it’s not literally a new human rights digital declaration, but for me, it does the job of addressing how do you ensure that human rights are specifically thought of, respected in developing governance frameworks for emerging technologies. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Can I give floor to our speaker, Prof. Zhao, you have quick points to make. Please take the floor.

Jandhyala Prabhakar Rao: Yeah, thank you very much. This is Prof. J. Prabhakar Rao from Hyderabad, India. Just, I want to know, we are now talking about quantum convergence from ethical aspect and we are also, we have all now, all of us are convinced that there is a need to build a local AI to effectively solve local problems. So how do you see, where is the role of culture, especially in the context of

Xianhong Hu: AI quantum convergence? Thank you. Thank you for the good question on the culture and also on the convergence thing. So I’d like to ask our speaker, Prof. Peter Wekmas, and also LOD Vaila, to please tackle the question you’d like to speak about, maybe quickly in two minutes. Everybody, thank you.

Pieter Vermaas: Okay, thank you. Coming back to the question of why should countries share their tech? and Prof. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Prof. Pieter Vermaas, Ms. Shamira Ahmed For any technology, also quantum, that’s great. And that’s why I think this technology should move out of just the sphere of the countries which develop them. And we should start developing it elsewhere, see what comes out. Yes so good point, I subscribe to that and I would say it’s another argument to ship the technology globally.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, and also Elodie?

Elodie Vialle: Yes I will just add that it’s very important to bring, as it has been said, diverse voices around the table. And to make sure that what we build is made for those who are mostly impacted by these technologies.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, thank you for being so brief. We really had a fascinating discussion today. Any other final comments from the room or online? Before I conclude, we are already running late, but if anybody still wants to talk, still have maybe one minute. Otherwise I would like to say that for UNESCO, we also perceive the gap. I mean, ranging, I mean, taking lessons from the internet governance or AI governance. We don’t need to create the new wheels. All those existing United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are still valid. They continue to be able to be applied to frame the ethical principles. We are going to apply to all the new. to enhance the past of the governments and also public civil servants on their digital competence and on their knowledge and the policymaking regarding technology. I think that should be expanded to the future frontier technology. We should keep our governments’ policymakers updated on the new knowledge about whether it’s about AI or it’s about quantum or even about neuroscience, even more emerging technology. We don’t even know the name yet. We should have a really systematic approach to get the policy not so lagged behind but to be really proactive to tackle the human rights and to tackle about the diversity issues we really care about. I think that’s the entire spirit of this WISD plus 20 review. Thank you again and for your participation, please follow us. We will also have a session this afternoon to talk broadly about the harnessing digital public good. Thank you and let’s give a round of applause to all of us for the speakers, for all the participants in the room. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance is essential for quantum technologies

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse
– Elodie Vialle

Arguments

Human rights should be the key enabler for responsible global quantum governance

Need to institutionalize multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes

Important to bring diverse voices to the table for those most impacted by technologies

Summary

All speakers agreed that effective quantum governance requires inclusive participation from multiple stakeholders including experts, private sector, academia, civil society, and those most affected by the technology

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Proactive rather than reactive governance approach is necessary

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Elodie Vialle
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

Must raise awareness beyond national security discussions to include equity issues

Cannot afford to be reactive in governance conversations – must act now

Need systematic approach to keep policymakers updated on emerging technologies

Summary

Speakers emphasized the critical importance of being proactive in quantum governance rather than waiting to react to problems after they emerge

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Human rights and innovation are complementary, not opposing forces

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi
– Elodie Vialle

Arguments

False dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection must be rejected

Important to bring diverse voices to the table for those most impacted by technologies

Summary

Both speakers rejected the notion that innovation and human rights protection are in conflict, arguing instead that they are mutually reinforcing

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Global cooperation and technology sharing is needed

Speakers

– Pieter Vermaas
– Chris Buckridge
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Technology should move out of sphere of developing countries and be developed globally

Question of how to convince countries with technology to share with those without

Quantum divide emerges from existing digital divide and could increase global inequalities

Summary

Speakers agreed on the importance of global cooperation and sharing of quantum technologies to prevent further inequalities

Topics

Development | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognized the dual-use nature of quantum technologies and their complex implications for security and geopolitics

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Arguments

Quantum technologies create paradoxical opportunities and risks for encryption, privacy, and security

Quantum technologies impact geopolitical order creating a quantum arms race

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the importance of connecting quantum governance to existing internet governance frameworks and principles

Speakers

– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse
– Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Arguments

Fundamental principles from Tunis agenda should apply to quantum technologies governance

Need clarification on how quantum governance relates to existing internet and AI governance frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing gaps and inequities in quantum technology development, whether cultural or gender-based

Speakers

– Elodie Vialle
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Need to close cultural gap between quantum science field and human rights communities

Gender inequity exists with 79% of quantum companies having no female senior leaders

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Moving beyond dialogue to concrete collaborative action

Speakers

– Pieter Vermaas
– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Arguments

Should go beyond dialogue to actual collaborative technology development

Four focus areas: infrastructure investments, policy action and awareness, capacity building, and UNESCO’s international year of quantum

Science diplomacy should become mainstream with active participation of experts and civil society

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was strong consensus that the quantum governance discussion should move beyond theoretical frameworks to practical, collaborative technology development and concrete policy actions

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Cultural and local considerations in quantum governance

Speakers

– Jandhyala Prabhakar Rao
– Elodie Vialle
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Need to understand role of culture in AI-quantum convergence context

Need to close cultural gap between quantum science field and human rights communities

Must raise awareness beyond national security discussions to include equity issues

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the importance of cultural considerations and local contexts in quantum governance, which is often overlooked in technical discussions

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the need for proactive, multi-stakeholder governance of quantum technologies with human rights at the center, global cooperation to prevent digital divides, and moving beyond theoretical discussions to concrete collaborative action

Consensus level

High level of consensus with no major disagreements identified. The implications suggest a clear path forward for quantum governance that emphasizes inclusivity, proactive policy-making, and international cooperation while maintaining human rights as a foundational principle

Different viewpoints

Approach to quantum governance – dialogue versus action

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse
– Pieter Vermaas

Arguments

Human rights should be the key enabler for responsible global quantum governance

Need to institutionalize multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes

Should go beyond dialogue to actual collaborative technology development

Summary

While Ahmed and Bommelaer de Leusse focus on establishing governance frameworks and dialogue mechanisms, Vermaas argues for moving beyond dialogue to actual collaborative technology development, suggesting the governance-focused approach may be insufficient

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Technology sharing versus security concerns

Speakers

– Pieter Vermaas
– Chris Buckridge

Arguments

Technology should move out of sphere of developing countries and be developed globally

Question of how to convince countries with technology to share with those without

Summary

Vermaas advocates for global technology sharing and development, while Buckridge raises practical concerns about convincing countries to share their quantum technologies, highlighting the tension between openness and national interests

Topics

Development | Economic

Unexpected differences

Scope and definition of quantum governance

Speakers

– Wolfgang Kleinwachter
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Need clarification on how quantum governance relates to existing internet and AI governance frameworks

Quantum governance relates to internet governance through quantum information and communications technologies

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it reveals fundamental confusion about what quantum governance actually encompasses and how it fits within existing governance frameworks. Kleinwachter’s concern about ‘growing confusion’ with various governance concepts suggests the field lacks definitional clarity that Ahmed assumes exists

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being subtle differences in emphasis and approach rather than fundamental opposition. Main areas of disagreement centered on governance mechanisms (dialogue vs. action), technology sharing approaches, and definitional clarity of quantum governance itself.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The implications are significant because the lack of sharp disagreements may mask underlying conceptual confusion about quantum governance scope and mechanisms. The subtle differences in approach could lead to fragmented implementation if not addressed through continued dialogue and clarification of terms and objectives.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognized the dual-use nature of quantum technologies and their complex implications for security and geopolitics

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Arguments

Quantum technologies create paradoxical opportunities and risks for encryption, privacy, and security

Quantum technologies impact geopolitical order creating a quantum arms race

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the importance of connecting quantum governance to existing internet governance frameworks and principles

Speakers

– Constance Bommelaer de Leusse
– Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Arguments

Fundamental principles from Tunis agenda should apply to quantum technologies governance

Need clarification on how quantum governance relates to existing internet and AI governance frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing gaps and inequities in quantum technology development, whether cultural or gender-based

Speakers

– Elodie Vialle
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Need to close cultural gap between quantum science field and human rights communities

Gender inequity exists with 79% of quantum companies having no female senior leaders

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Quantum technologies present three main governance challenges: dual-use risks, emerging quantum divide, and gender inequity in the field

Human rights should serve as the central framework for responsible quantum governance, rejecting the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection

Multi-stakeholder participation must be institutionalized in quantum governance processes, including private sector, academia, civil society, and governments

Quantum governance is interconnected with existing internet governance frameworks through quantum information and communications technologies

Proactive rather than reactive governance approaches are essential, as current surveillance technologies already threaten journalists and human rights defenders

International cooperation and technology sharing are crucial to prevent quantum technologies from being developed only behind closed doors by defense entities

Science diplomacy should become mainstream with active participation of experts, academics, and civil society in setting governance agendas

Cultural considerations and local contexts must be incorporated into AI-quantum convergence discussions

Resolutions and action items

UNESCO to continue leadership in quantum governance discussions as part of the UN-declared International Year of Quantum

Integrate quantum governance discussions into existing frameworks like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process

Develop agile and forward-looking governance frameworks that can adapt as quantum technology evolves

Focus on four key areas: infrastructure investments, policy action and awareness, capacity building, and UNESCO’s international quantum initiatives

Leverage public-private partnerships and strengthen digital infrastructure fundamentals

Raise awareness about quantum governance beyond national security discussions to include equity and human rights issues

Close the cultural gap between quantum science communities and human rights advocates through enhanced dialogue

Ensure governments protect journalist communications in domestic laws as quantum surveillance capabilities develop

Unresolved issues

How to convince countries with advanced quantum capabilities to share technology with those without access

Specific mechanisms for institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in quantum governance processes

Detailed relationship between quantum governance and existing internet governance definitions from the Tunis Agenda

Role of culture in AI-quantum convergence and how to build locally relevant solutions

How to develop coordinated technical standards for quantum technology interoperability

Specific strategies to address the gender divide in quantum technology fields

Whether a new global digital human rights declaration is needed or if existing frameworks are sufficient

Suggested compromises

Use existing human rights frameworks (like UNESCO’s Rome Principles) rather than creating entirely new digital rights declarations

Apply fundamental principles from the Tunis Agenda on internet governance to quantum technologies while recognizing quantum as a separate technology domain

Move quantum technology development beyond defense-focused closed-door processes while maintaining necessary security considerations

Balance innovation promotion with human rights protection by demonstrating their interdependence rather than treating them as competing priorities

Integrate quantum governance discussions into existing forums like IGF rather than creating entirely separate governance structures

I’m listening in a very worried manner, more and more about a false dichotomy that we would need to choose between innovation and protecting human rights. I think this is wrong and we need to stop this. We need to show that there is no dichotomy here. Those things actually exist. They are interlinked. There is no innovation without human rights.

Speaker

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi

Reason

This comment challenges a fundamental assumption that often underlies technology governance debates – that innovation and human rights protection are competing priorities. By reframing this as a false dichotomy and arguing that human rights actually enable innovation, Guilherme provides a powerful conceptual foundation for the entire discussion.

Impact

This comment established a key philosophical framework for the session, moving the discussion away from viewing quantum governance as a trade-off between progress and protection toward seeing human rights as essential for sustainable innovation. It influenced subsequent speakers to build on this integrated approach rather than treating ethics as a constraint on development.

The question of governance is not a question for the future, it’s a question for right now… what we fear and in terms of maybe a potential risk assessment is that the conversation of today, the encrypted messages today could be stored and maybe break in the future when these quantum technologies are more available.

Speaker

Elodie Vialle

Reason

This comment introduces the critical concept of ‘harvest now, decrypt later’ attacks, highlighting how quantum threats are not just future concerns but present realities affecting current behavior and security. It brings urgency to what might otherwise be seen as a theoretical discussion.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from abstract future planning to immediate action needs. It demonstrated how quantum technologies create retroactive vulnerabilities, making the governance discussion more concrete and urgent. This perspective influenced the overall tone to emphasize proactive rather than reactive approaches.

I think we should also go beyond that and just do technology together… What I really like of the brief is that there’s a plea for dialogue… but I think we should also go beyond that and just do technology together.

Speaker

Pieter Vermaas

Reason

This comment challenges the sufficiency of dialogue and governance frameworks alone, advocating for collaborative technology development as a governance mechanism itself. It suggests that inclusive development processes are more effective than post-hoc regulation.

Impact

This comment pushed the discussion beyond traditional governance approaches toward more participatory and collaborative models of technology development. It influenced thinking about how governance can be embedded in the development process rather than applied externally, leading to considerations of international research collaboration as a governance tool.

Technological transitions do not happen in a vacuum. The decisions that are made today are developed in the context of existing and equitable science, technology, and innovation ecosystems and institutions. And without concerted efforts, then they will continue to shape tomorrow’s technology landscape.

Speaker

Shamira Ahmed

Reason

This comment provides crucial historical and systemic context, emphasizing how current inequalities will be perpetuated or amplified by quantum technologies unless actively addressed. It moves beyond technical considerations to structural analysis.

Impact

This framing influenced the entire discussion by establishing that quantum governance must address existing systemic inequalities rather than starting from a neutral baseline. It connected quantum governance to broader questions of global digital equity and influenced subsequent discussions about the quantum divide and gender inequity.

I think a new approach, a new dynamic is needed when we think about the multilateral frameworks, governance frameworks… institutionalizing multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes… You need experts around the table. You need the private sector, you need academia.

Speaker

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental gap in current governance approaches and proposes concrete structural reforms. It moves beyond calling for inclusion to suggesting how to institutionalize it within existing multilateral systems.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion toward practical implementation questions and influenced thinking about how to reform existing governance structures rather than creating entirely new ones. It connected quantum governance to broader questions about the evolution of multilateral institutions in the digital age.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about quantum policy into a sophisticated examination of governance innovation itself. Guilherme’s reframing of the innovation-rights relationship provided the philosophical foundation, while Elodie’s urgency argument and Shamira’s systemic analysis grounded the discussion in present realities and historical context. Pieter’s call for collaborative development and Constance’s institutional reform proposals offered concrete pathways forward. Together, these interventions elevated the conversation from reactive policy-making to proactive governance design, emphasizing that quantum governance requires not just new policies but new approaches to how we develop and govern emerging technologies. The comments created a coherent narrative arc from philosophical foundations through current challenges to future institutional innovations.

How is the proposed concept of quantum governance related to the governance of the internet, particularly based on the Tunis agenda definition, and how does it relate to the new global dialogue on AI governance?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwächter

Explanation

This question addresses the need to clarify the relationship between quantum governance and existing governance frameworks, which is important for avoiding confusion and ensuring coherent policy development across emerging technologies.

How can we ensure that parts of global society are not left behind as we prepare for the impact quantum might have, particularly regarding technology sharing between countries that have quantum capabilities and those that don’t?

Speaker

Chris Buckridge

Explanation

This question highlights the critical issue of the quantum divide and the need for mechanisms to ensure equitable access to quantum technologies globally.

How much do we need a declaration of global digital human rights, and where should we start creating it for human-oriented global governance taking into account quantum technology?

Speaker

Maxime Brionov (online participant)

Explanation

This question explores whether new human rights frameworks are needed specifically for digital technologies including quantum, or if existing frameworks can be adapted.

What is the role of culture, especially in the context of AI-quantum convergence, given the need to build local AI to effectively solve local problems?

Speaker

Prof. J. Prabhakar Rao

Explanation

This question addresses the intersection of cultural considerations with emerging technology convergence, which is important for ensuring culturally appropriate and locally relevant technology development.

How can we close the cultural gap between the quantum science field and the human rights communities to enable better dialogue and collaboration?

Speaker

Elodie Vialle

Explanation

This addresses the knowledge imbalance and communication barriers between technical and human rights communities, which is crucial for effective governance of quantum technologies.

How can we develop agile and forward-looking governance frameworks that can adjust as quantum technology evolves, potentially using foresight exercises and scenario planning?

Speaker

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Explanation

This explores the need for adaptive governance mechanisms that can keep pace with rapidly evolving quantum technologies.

How can we institutionalize multi-stakeholder participation in multilateral processes for quantum governance, ensuring experts, private sector, and academia help define agendas rather than just being consulted?

Speaker

Constance Bommelaer de Leusse

Explanation

This addresses the structural changes needed in governance processes to ensure meaningful participation from all relevant stakeholders in quantum technology governance.

How can we develop systematic approaches to keep government policymakers updated on new knowledge about emerging technologies like quantum, AI, and neuroscience to ensure proactive rather than reactive policy responses?

Speaker

Xianhong Hu

Explanation

This highlights the need for capacity building mechanisms to ensure policymakers can effectively govern emerging technologies as they develop.

Summary

This discussion was a panel session titled “WSSIS Legacy in Motion, Honoring the Past and Shaping the Future” that brought together key figures who participated in the original World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process from 2003-2005. The panel was moderated by Anriette Esterhuysen from APC and included Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister, Latvia’s Ambassador Janis Karklins who facilitated the Tunis phase, IEEE’s President Kathleen Kramer, AFNIC’s CEO Pierre Bonis, and Maria Fernanda Garza from the International Chamber of Commerce.

The discussion focused on lessons learned from the 20-year WSIS journey and how to apply them to future digital cooperation challenges. Panelists highlighted the remarkable progress achieved, noting that internet users grew from less than one billion to 5.6 billion, with 94% of the world’s population now having connectivity access. They emphasized that the multi-stakeholder model bringing together governments, private sector, and civil society has been a key success factor that should be preserved and strengthened.

However, participants also acknowledged significant remaining challenges, including the 2.5 billion people still unconnected and growing concerns about digital sovereignty replacing the original vision of a global information society. Ambassador Karklins noted that while the early WSIS dream of global cooperation wasn’t naive, society’s understanding of technology’s complexities lagged behind technological evolution. The panel stressed the importance of high-quality STEM education, robust technical standards, and addressing climate change through technology.

Looking forward, panelists urged avoiding duplication between the WSIS process and the new Global Digital Compact, instead advocating for integration and complementary approaches. They concluded that collaborative, merit-based multi-stakeholder leadership remains essential for building inclusive digital societies that serve all of humanity.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Evolution and achievements of WSIS over 20 years**: Panelists reflected on remarkable progress since 2003, including growth from less than 1 billion to 5.6 billion internet users, advancement from dial-up to broadband connectivity, and successful implementation of multi-stakeholder cooperation models across governments, private sector, and civil society.

– **Challenges in maintaining global cooperation vs. digital sovereignty**: Discussion highlighted the tension between the original WSIS vision of a “global information society” and current trends toward “digital sovereignty” and national borders in digital governance, with concerns about fragmentation of the internet’s global nature.

– **Integration of new technologies and avoiding process duplication**: Panelists emphasized the need to incorporate emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing into existing WSIS frameworks rather than creating parallel processes, particularly regarding the integration of the Global Digital Compact with WSIS structures.

– **Importance of education, standards, and multi-stakeholder governance**: Strong emphasis on the critical need for high-quality STEM education globally, robust technical standardization processes, and continued commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches that include all sectors rather than purely intergovernmental models.

– **Addressing remaining digital divides and future priorities**: Recognition that despite progress, 2.5 billion people remain unconnected, and discussion of priorities for the WSIS+20 review process, including climate change integration and ensuring the Internet Governance Forum becomes a permanent, sustainably funded entity.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to reflect on 20 years of progress since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), extract key lessons learned, and provide guidance for the WSIS+20 review process and future digital cooperation initiatives. The session sought to honor past achievements while identifying priorities and approaches for the next phase of global digital development.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a predominantly positive and constructive tone throughout, celebrating significant achievements while acknowledging remaining challenges. Panelists demonstrated mutual respect and collaborative spirit, with moments of nostalgia balanced by pragmatic forward-looking perspectives. The tone remained diplomatic and solution-oriented, emphasizing cooperation over conflict, though there were underlying concerns about increasing geopolitical tensions and the risk of fragmenting digital governance processes.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Introduction**: Session opener/announcer

– Role: Session introduction and speaker presentation

– **Anriette Esterhuysen**: Moderator and panelist

– Role: Session moderator, member of civil society, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

– Title: Member of official South African delegation

– **Prasert Jantararuangtong**: Government official

– Title: Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Economy from Thailand

– Role: His Excellency

– **Janis Karklins**: Diplomat and former WSIS facilitator

– Title: Ambassador at Large on United Nations and Global Agenda Matters from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from Latvia

– Role: His Excellency, facilitated the WSIS Tunis phase

– **Kathleen A. Kramer**: Technology leader

– Title: President and CEO of the IEEE (Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

– Role: Professor, representing IEEE’s 500,000+ members from 190 countries

– **Pierre Bonis**: Internet infrastructure executive

– Title: Chief Executive Officer of AFNIC

– Role: Manages .fr (France country code top-level domain)

– **Maria Fernanda Garza**: International business and governance expert

– Title: Member of the IGF Leadership Panel, Honorary Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce

– Role: Represents ICC’s 45+ million companies in 170+ countries

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# WSIS Legacy in Motion: Honoring the Past and Shaping the Future – Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This panel session brought together distinguished figures who played pivotal roles in the original World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process from 2003-2005 to reflect on two decades of progress and discuss future directions for digital cooperation. Moderated by Anriette Esterhuysen from the Association for Progressive Communications, the discussion featured Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister Prasert Jantararuangtong, Latvia’s Ambassador Janis Karklins who facilitated the Tunis phase, IEEE President Kathleen Kramer, AFNIC CEO Pierre Bonis, and International Chamber of Commerce representative Maria Fernanda Garza.

The session celebrated remarkable achievements over the past 20 years while addressing emerging challenges, particularly the tension between global cooperation and digital sovereignty trends. Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the value of multi-stakeholder governance models while acknowledging the need for continued adaptation to new technologies and changing geopolitical realities.

## Opening Context and Community Evolution

Moderator Anriette Esterhuysen opened the session by noting that few hands were raised when she asked who had attended the original WSIS events in 2003 and 2005. Rather than viewing this as concerning, she interpreted it positively as demonstrating the growth and evolution of the digital governance community. She reflected on her own journey from attending as a civil society representative in 2003/2005 to now being part of South Africa’s official delegation, illustrating how roles and perspectives have evolved over two decades.

The session also celebrated having a woman Secretary General of ITU as one of the achievements since the original WSIS process, highlighting progress in gender representation in digital governance leadership.

## Key Achievements Over 20 Years

Speakers unanimously acknowledged extraordinary progress across multiple dimensions. Ambassador Karklins provided compelling statistics, noting that internet users had grown from less than one billion to 5.6 billion, while connectivity had evolved dramatically from dial-up to broadband access. He recalled the early days when dial-up internet was the norm and broadband was just emerging.

Pierre Bonis, speaking in French, offered a striking perspective that the internet had become “mainstream infrastructure like running water,” fulfilling promises envisioned two decades earlier. This transformation demonstrated the successful realization of WSIS aspirations to make digital technologies integral to daily life.

Maria Fernanda Garza emphasized that connectivity had reached 94% of the world’s population alongside the deployment of innovative digital solutions across various sectors. However, she noted that 2.5 billion people remain unconnected, making the digital divide more severe for those left behind.

Deputy Prime Minister Prasert Jantararuangtong highlighted Thailand’s progress, mentioning their AOC center that uses AI to fight online fraud, demonstrating practical applications of digital technologies in governance.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance Evolution

A significant focus was placed on the evolution and success of multi-stakeholder governance models. Ambassador Karklins provided historical context, sharing an anecdote about early tensions when civil society representatives were asked to leave a meeting room, and he told them to “sit on the floor in the gallery” rather than leave entirely. This illustrated how multi-stakeholder participation evolved from initial resistance to broad acceptance.

Pierre Bonis emphasized the stability of the multi-stakeholder approach, noting that the system allowing the internet to function had evolved without being fundamentally challenged. However, Maria Fernanda Garza acknowledged that “the multi-stakeholder model is not embraced by all,” indicating ongoing challenges in achieving universal acceptance.

Kathleen Kramer highlighted the importance of “collaborative leadership based on merit with multi-stakeholder input,” suggesting that effectiveness rather than institutional hierarchy should guide decision-making processes.

## Emerging Challenges and Concerns

Despite celebrating achievements, speakers identified concerning trends. Ambassador Karklins raised perhaps the most significant concern, noting a shift from the global information society vision toward digital sovereignty and border-setting. He questioned whether current developments aligned with foundational WSIS principles, asking if “everything that we have decided and implementing now has been leading us towards idea of global information society, or something was not overly right and we missed some turns.”

Karklins also observed that understanding about the complexities associated with technology use was “seriously lagging behind technological evolution.” He noted that educational systems continued to apply principles developed in the 19th century to digital society challenges.

Moderator Esterhuysen observed that international cooperation had become more challenging than it was in 2003, though Pierre Bonis countered that international cooperation had been possible even during crisis situations like the 2003 Iraq War, suggesting historical precedent for cooperation during difficult periods.

## Integration of New Technologies

The discussion addressed incorporating emerging technologies like artificial intelligence into existing governance frameworks. Speakers demonstrated consensus on avoiding duplication while ensuring comprehensive coverage.

Ambassador Karklins emphasized that WSIS and Global Digital Compact processes should be complementary and merge rather than compete. Pierre Bonis reinforced this view, advocating the need to include new topics like AI within current frameworks without creating separate governance structures.

Maria Fernanda Garza provided specific recommendations, suggesting initiatives should avoid creating parallel duplicative processes and leverage existing WSIS structures. She specifically advocated for making the Internet Governance Forum “a permanent entity with sustainable funding.”

## Education and Technical Standards

Kathleen Kramer highlighted the need for robust STEM education and a strong standardization ecosystem to support technological advancement. However, Esterhuysen noted significant inequality in access to high-end technical education globally, highlighting a fundamental challenge in building inclusive digital societies.

The speakers recognized that addressing educational challenges required comprehensive approaches supported by appropriate regulatory environments and international cooperation in developing technical standards.

## Climate and Holistic Approaches

Climate change emerged as a consideration for future digital governance. Maria Fernanda Garza briefly mentioned that climate change must be integrated as part of a holistic approach going forward, while Deputy Prime Minister Prasert identified it as an important topic for future cooperation.

Garza emphasized the need for comprehensive approaches addressing economic, technical, socio-cultural, and governance factors, reflecting lessons learned about the interconnected nature of digital development challenges.

## Future Priorities and Recommendations

In the final round, speakers shared key priorities. The discussion emphasized establishing more interconnected and inclusive frameworks for digital governance by integrating Global Digital Compact commitments with existing WSIS structures.

Pierre Bonis specifically warned against recreating “the battle that we saw 20 years ago between a so-called multi-stakeholder model and the so-called intergovernmental model,” noting that significant work had been done to bring these approaches together.

Key unresolved challenges identified included connecting the remaining 2.5 billion unconnected people, balancing digital sovereignty with global cooperation, ensuring equitable access to quality STEM education, and governing emerging technologies when understanding lagged behind technological evolution.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated strong consensus on core principles while revealing the complexity of implementation. Speakers showed agreement on the value of multi-stakeholder approaches, the need to avoid process duplication, and the importance of addressing persistent digital divides.

The session affirmed that the WSIS legacy remained relevant while acknowledging the need for continued evolution. The speakers’ commitment to collaborative, merit-based leadership and integration rather than duplication provided a constructive foundation for addressing future challenges while building on the achievements of the past two decades.

Introduction: WSSIS Legacy in Motion, Honoring the Past and Shaping the Future I’d like to invite Ms. Anriette from APC to please lead this session. She’s going to be the moderator and will lead you through the session. Anriette, the floor is yours.

Anriette Esterhuysen: It’s good that I have a backup. Good morning, everyone, and thank you very much for being here. This is our first interactive session of this morning. And I am privileged to be here as somebody who was here in 2003 and in Tunis in 2005. This panel is very unique because we’re going to have the opportunity to listen to people, countries and institutions from who were here during the WSSIS process. So I’m going to welcome the panel on stage. First, His Excellency, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Economy from Thailand, Minister Prasit Jarangtong. Please come and take a seat. The one just to my right here. And give him a big hand of applause. And next we have His Excellency Ambassador Karklins, Janis Karklins, Ambassador at Large on United Nations and Global Agenda Matters from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from Latvia. And Janis had a very special role during WSSIS, but you’ll hear more about that. And next we have Professor Kathleen Kramer. She is the current President and CEO of the IEEE, the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers. And then we have Mr. Pierre Bonny, who is the Chief Executive Officer of AFNIC, who manages .fr, the France country code top-level domain. And then we have Maria Fernanda Garza, member of the IGF Leadership Panel. Special welcome to Maria Fernanda. And she is the current Honorary Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce. And I think that is it. We have a full panel. So just before I ask the panel the first questions, I just want to reflect on the fact that, you know, earlier when people were asked who were here during 2003 and who were here in 2005, we saw very few hands. But I actually think that’s an achievement. We should celebrate that. It’s a demonstration of the fact that the WSSIS process has continued to evolve, that it continues to be relevant. And I think it’s also a testimony of the fact that groups like the WSSIS Forum organizers and the Internet Governance Forum as well have really succeeded in bringing new people, more people, and younger people into the WSSIS process. They’ve grown the ecosystem and they’ve grown the people that are part of it. But now we really do need to look ahead. What are the challenges that lie ahead? And this panel is going to look at how we can draw on the lessons of the WSSIS process, what worked and what did not work so well, in taking that road forward. So I’ll ask the first question, and he can answer from his chair, then I’ll take a seat as well. Your Excellency, Minister Jantarang Tong, from your perspective and looking back at the early days of the WSSIS, what lessons do you think we’ve learned around global digital cooperation that can guide us at the moment in approaching future digital development? But I also think doing that in the context of a world that is very different, and I think where international cooperation has become so much more challenging than it was in 2003. Yes.

Prasert Jantararuangtong: Yes, very good question. Thank you. Excellency, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to thank the Secretary-General of the ITU for inviting me to the World Summit on Information Society this year and to this high-level dialogue. One important lesson is the power of working together. From the beginning, WSSIS brought together government, private sector, civil society, and the private sector. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome to AOC. It is a one-stop service. A center that uses AI and cross-sector collaboration to fight against online fraud. So far, AOC has blocked thousands of scammed accounts and prevented significant financial losses. This reflects our commitment to putting safety at the heart of digital development in Thailand. We now have high-speed internet in most of the villages. But beyond connectivity, we also focus on digital skills enhancement to reduce the digital divide in our community so that everyone, including women, youth, elders, and people in remote areas can truly benefit from the digital economy. In closing, we are proud to be part of the VC journey. Thailand will continue working with the ITU and our partners to shape a digital future that is open, far, and safe for everyone. Thank you so much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much, Your Excellency. Is the mic live? Yes. Yanis, you facilitated the difficult phase of the WSIS, the second phase, the TUNIS, where some of those issues which were not resolved in 2003 were having to be dealt with, such as financial mechanisms and internet governance. And I think you sometimes even had to expel civil society from the room when they were unruly, which maybe that’s just an urban myth among civil society. But you are known for having been somebody that really succeeded in dealing with these very complex issues. So based on that experience, what reflections do you have? What lessons do you think that you’ve learned and that we should all have learned that can guide us as we go into this post-WSIS plus 20 process, particularly as we now also try to integrate a new process, the global digital compact?

Janis Karklins: Yes, thank you, Andrea. Actually, there was a pressure to expel civil society representatives or non-governmental representatives from the room. And I was kind of, because of my duties, I had to do it. But while doing it, I told them that you can go to the gallery of the room in Palais des Nations, but don’t sit on the chairs because then you will be seen, but sit on the floor. And this is how civil society followed the discussions at the time when multi-stakeholder participation was not yet fully accepted in the WSIS process. But jokes aside, looking back to 2005 preparations, I think that one strategic decision which was made to separate discussions on funding issues and the Internet governance issues proved to be right. In the second PrepCon, we finally… H.E. Mr. Sofiène Hemissi, H.E. Mr. Prasert Jantararuangtong, Mr. Pierre BONIS, Ms. Maria Fernanda Garza, Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen H.E. Mr. Prasert Jantararuangtong, Mr. Pierre BONIS, Ms. Maria Fernanda Garza, Mr. Pierre BONIS, Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen H.E. Mr. Prasert Jantararuangtong, Mr. Pierre BONIS, Ms. Maria Fernanda Garza, Mr. Pierre BONIS, Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen And the progress in past 20 years has been remarkable. Less than a billion Internet users that time, 5.6 today. The quality has improved since it is custom seems to ask, raise hands. We were talking about dial-up Internet. How many in this room remember what dial-up Internet is? Yeah, not that many actually. Because today we’re talking about broadband Internet. And broadband was not used as a term in 2005. So I think also looking backwards we can see that the multi-stakeholder cooperation has brought a benefit for all. To governments but also to the other stakeholders. And finally, I would maybe put a little bit of negative spin to reflection. Because at that time we were talking and dreaming about global information society, putting emphasis on global. Global digital village also was used at that time. Increasingly today we are hearing that we need to go to digital sovereignty. Which means putting borders on the global idea. And probably we need to reflect whether everything that we have decided and implementing now has been leading us towards idea of global information society. Or something was not overly right and we missed some turns in order to preserve that dream we had in 2005. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Yanis. I just want to ask you a quick follow-up question on that. Do you think that we were naive in having that dream and that focus? Or do you think we’ve just become more preoccupied with risks and harms and less focused on possibilities and opportunities? And is that perhaps why it’s harder to cooperate? Or do you think it was naivety?

Janis Karklins: No, it was not naivety. I think our understanding about complexities associated with use of technology was seriously lagging behind of technological evolution. And that was one of the reasons. And I think that today is even more that with the development of new technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum soon coming. So we have no idea where that is going and what we will do. Especially when we’re using in our education system principles that have been developed in 19th century. And we’re applying our knowledge of analog society to this new digital society. And there is a physical difference in both.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Yanis. Kathleen, let’s move on to you. And actually stay on that same challenge that I think Yanis has just led us into. Which is how do we shape? What do we need to do to shape the future of digital technology for development? And particularly I would say in a way that retains that focus on the WSIS vision of people-centered development and inclusive information society.

Kathleen A. Kramer: Well, thank you for the question. So I’m honored to be here today. Secretary General, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. I’m here on behalf of IEEE. And looking back at the 20 years, which I confess to not being here at that time. But certainly I was not even I wish I could say I was just starting my technical journey. But that’s not even true. IEEE is a community of over 500,000 members from 190 countries. And all of us, including many of you that are not here as part of my delegation, we’re dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. And it’s through our communities of dedicated and expert members that we’re working to develop global standards and to provide excellence in education to build and sustain the future. And we stand at a remarkable juncture in human history characterized by unprecedented technological advancement. AI, quantum computing, sustainable energy solutions, advanced robotics. The pace of innovation can be breathtaking and seems potentially limitless. But to harness the potential of such advancements to address the grand challenges and to ensure these technologies really serve humanity, the two critical pillars to answer your question a roundabout way are robust education with strength from and for STEM that are sufficient to support that future of innovation. And a strong standardization ecosystem supporting needed and timely development of standards. To consider the qualities of education that is necessary to support this future of innovation and contributing as an engineer or to the future of computing builds fundamentally upon the quality of your studies in science, technology, engineering, and math. Not just being enthusiastic, not just being inspired, not just being happy to be part of it. But to have really high quality education. These are the essential gateways to our fields to allow you to contribute to the future of technology, designing, building, and even just maintaining our complex systems. But even the most brilliant of individuals and our work in our IEEE fields has from the very beginning focused on education and we’re an unsung leader worldwide in education in our fields of interest. But even these most brilliant of individuals need a common language and a set of agreed upon guides and benchmarks to collaborate in design and to enable the practical development of technology to ensure interoperability, promote safety, guarantee quality, and that means the standard development. And IEEE standards do this because they are developed through transparent, bottom up, collaborative efforts, bringing together experts worldwide from across sectors. And as technologies like AI, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, quantum computing, as they’ve evolved, the timely development of these standards is the fundamental necessity to enable these technologies to scale, to be adapted, and for society as a whole to respond. So in essence, education in our fields provides the fuel for innovation and standards provide that ability to go further. And together, these are the critical links that form an unbreakable chain, enabling and empowering us not only to meet, but to truly master the challenges and realize the opportunities presented. And WSWIS 20 is the opportunity to reflect, renew, and reimagine this process. And we are very much a champion of the multi-stakeholder process that WSOWIS has come to represent and empower worldwide. Thank you very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much for that, Kathleen. And that touches on the challenge of ensuring that there’s equitable access to that level of high-end education that you’re talking about all over the world, which currently is simply not the case. There’s so much inequality at that level. And I think similarly, we need to… So that is a really important challenge for us to look at. And I think, Janis, just to come back to what you said, yes, we have made enormous progress in connecting people, but there are still billions that are not connected. And many that are connected are not able to be connected meaningfully. So yes. And Kathleen, also thank you for reminding us that technical standards and technical cooperation remains as important as the social and economic development cooperation that we work on. Very much so. Pierre, going to you. You manage an entity that runs a critical internet resource, the country code top-level domain for France, .fr, and you were involved in the WSIS process. What are your takeaways? What have you learned? And what do you think we should all still draw on from that early WSIS process, where we were much more focused on potential and opportunity and the good of the internet, as Janis reminded us?

Pierre Bonis: Thank you, Henriette. I am going to speak in French. So, I am going to speak in French, so you are going to have to put on your headsets, which is going to bring us back to the good old days of WSIS, where we were speaking five languages. Maybe this has kind of gotten, this habit got lost since Geneva 2005. So, what I remember mainly of what happened at the WSIS is that internet is still there. It’s become mainstream. It’s just like the running water when you turn on the tap. It shouldn’t be an issue. There shouldn’t be any issues with it. When 20 years ago, when we met civil society, private sector, governments, authorities, the community, we all insisted on that. Internet was full of promises. Today, internet is a reality, almost obvious. And of course, it can be bearing threats, but let’s be mindful of this. Internet has grown in the last 20 years. The multi-stakeholder system that allows us to allow it to function has not been really challenged. It has evolved. And I don’t want to be naive, but as Henriette was saying, I think you need to recognize that that’s good news. You need to remember maybe also that 20 years ago, when the WSIS met, more than 20 years ago, in 2003, in Geneva, we were already in an international crisis situation. Today, we can talk about tensions, very strong tensions between the countries. I just want to remind you that the beginning of the Iraqi war is March 2003. It’s not new that we are talking about internet, about international cooperation, of flows of ideas in a context of tensions, of accusation between North and South, East and West, and East and West. How have we managed 20 years ago to get along and to agree on the promises of the internet? Because we had this mix in the room, even though we were in an intergovernmental summit, this mix of expertise and of expectations that were not just represented by governments, but a number of other stakeholders for an entity that manages part of the critical infrastructure of the internet, only a very small party, part of it, the .fr domain, top-level domain. This world summit for us, and its results particularly, represent a guarantee of stability of the underlying infrastructure of the internet. It was recognized as being a carrier of innovation, and like every infrastructure, it needs to remain stable, not changing according to new trends or conflicts or disputes among the states. It should always allow for each part of the world to remain connected. From this point of view, you can say that it was a success, even though we still have – I was reminded numerous times here – even if the number of netizens have grown from 60% to 70% today, it’s precisely the remaining 2.5 billion world citizens are even still more victims of the digital divide than there were the 80%. The less you are connected, of course, and the more people are connected, the more the fact of not being connected is weighing hard on your shoulders, and this challenge has not been resolved.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Pierre, and thanks for reminding us of that. Maria Fernanda, to go to you and to talk not just about the substantive challenges in achieving the WSIS vision, but also as we are entering deeper, I think we have not that many months left of the WSIS plus 20 review process. What do you think? What are the lessons we’ve learned? What are the priorities that we should be taking into account as we continue and complete this WSIS review process?

Maria Fernanda Garza: Sorry. Thank you, Anriette Esterhuysen. Well, good morning to everybody. Just let me begin by saying that ICC is the institutional representative of more than 45 million companies in over 170 countries, and through a unique mix of advocacy, solutions, and standard setting, we promote international trade, responsible business conduct, and a global approach to regulation. And our members include not only the major leading companies, millions of SMEs and mid-sized companies, business associations, and chambers of commerce. And ICC has been the focal point for the WSIS process since it began here in Geneva over 20 years ago. So that’s why we established the business action to support the Information Society initiative to engage with the WSIS follow-up work streams. So ICC bases have been convening here at the WSIS Forum every year to take stock of the implementation of the WSIS action lines and chart a path forward together with partners from all stakeholders. With this as a background, I know that the substantial progress has been made in implementing the WSIS vision. And three key advancements include expanding connectivity to covering 94% of the world’s population, deploying innovative digital solutions, and an increased application of the multi-stakeholder model across various levels of digital governance. Business innovation tied with the collective contributions of the multi-stakeholder community is the designated vehicle to drive the WSIS vision into the future. But despite that there has been significant progress, recent developments continue to show that the multi-stakeholder model is not embraced or considered by all, indicating that continued challenges in extending the benefits for the next billions, and this must be addressed. The multi-stakeholder model is how to leverage all stakeholder collective expertise to realize a better future. The WSIS Plus 20 review should aim to continue to strengthen, spread, and enable this model. Furthermore, to fully achieve the WSIS vision, ICTs must be accessible, affordable, and ready are relevant to the needs of everyone, everywhere. And this requires policy frameworks that are built on stable legal and regulatory grounds, on impinged global data flows that are built on trust, and policy frameworks that take a holistic approach across economic, technical, socio-cultural and overarching governance factors. Finally, we urge that the WSIS Plus 20 outcomes establish a more interconnected and inclusive framework for digital governance by integrating the commitments of the Global Digital Compact. We should avoid creating parallel duplicative processes and instead leverage the strength of the existing structures within the WSIS architecture, especially the IGF, which should become a permanent entity with sustainable funding. ICC stands ready to continue to contribute to the views of the global private sector as we take forward the WSIS process in the coming decade. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Maria Fernanda. And just a quick, that holistic approach, which I think the WSIS vision does direct towards that, do you feel that something like climate change should be part of that approach as we go into the next phase of WSIS? Absolutely. Everything has to be part of this, because we need technology to address the challenges of climate change as we need it to address other many challenges. Thanks very much. So now we have just a few minutes left because we started late. I want to ask each of the panels, and we can start from Pierre going up to Maria Fernanda, keeping this in mind, this holistic approach, this non-duplication that Maria Fernanda talked about and everything else that you’ve all reflected on, the achievements as well as the remaining challenges. What is the one thing you most want to see as we review 20 years of WSIS and hopefully plan for the next 20 years? And if you want to add in your one minute something you don’t want to see, you can add that as well. One thing you want to see, and optionally, one thing you do not want to see. Pierre.

Pierre Bonis: Thank you. So I’m going to switch to English because not everyone had the ears.

Anriette Esterhuysen: But we can follow the transcript, so please feel free to speak in French.

Pierre Bonis: Something I really want to see is the inclusion of the new topics, just like AI, for instance, and ICU is having a great even on AI for good, but others within the current framework without creating different frameworks to deal with different or new technologies. So what I want to see is the inclusion of the modernity within the current framework. And what I would not like to see is to see again the battle that we saw 20 years ago between a so-called multi-stakeholder model and the so-called intergovernmental model. I think a lot of intelligence has been put in place since 20 years to bring these two approaches together, and the splits that we could see again would be a disaster for the future of the Internet governance.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks Pierre. Yanis.

Janis Karklins: Probably I would like to see us not being dogmatic and camping on ideas that we cherish ourselves. Where I’m going to is we have WSIS process, which is 20 years now old, but we are also approaching the discussions about implementation of global digital compact. And as Maria Fernanda very explicitly said, we should avoid duplications. So if we would camp on our sort of belief that WSIS is unique and it should stay as is without looking what’s happening in the world, and those who will negotiate implementation of global compact would say, no, no, no, we do not want to see anything else but just this one. We will end up with the two parallel processes, which would be very bad from a rational point of view, but also from a substantive point of view. These processes are complementary. They should merge at one point under which title doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we’re building inclusive digital society where everyone can benefit from it.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much Yanis. Your Excellency.

Prasert Jantararuangtong: Thank you so much. I think one thing that I want to say is one important lesson is the power of working together. And that you talked before, one thing that’s important in the next topic is the climate change. I think it’s so important too. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Your Excellency. Kathleen.

Kathleen A. Kramer: So in the end, the most important thing is collaborative leadership, and that’s not whoever can win the most votes, but it needs to be based on merit, and that means multi-stakeholder input. So that’s the most important thing.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Kathleen. Maria Fernand.

Maria Fernanda Garza: The biologist E.O. Wilson said that the problem with humanity is that we have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technologies. So we do not just need to govern the technologies. We need to learn how to govern transformation itself, and that means building multi-stakeholder institutions that are not just rules-based, but also change-ready.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, and thanks to the panel. I do think we have achieved a lot, even if not enough. I can just, on a personal note, I was here in 2003 and in 2005 as a member of civil society, the Association for Progressive Communications, a large civil society network. Today I’m here as APC, but I’m also here as a member of civil society of the official South African delegation, so that is also an achievement. I think you’ve all actually summed it up. I think, Yanis, you are telling us to be pragmatic. We do not need to duplicate initiatives, but we also need to recognize the evolution, the change in scope, and the additional topics that we need to address. But let’s address them in a way that actually still provides common platforms for collaboration, and I think for public participation, and I think that’s the power of the WSIS Forum and the power of the Internet Governance Forum. They’ve become the public participation facilities, dimensions, of this process, which is, as Pierre said, both multi-stakeholder and intergovernmental. I think we have the São Paulo guidelines from earlier this year that really gives us ways of integrating those processes, recognizing that they also operate separately sometimes, but both can be more inclusive and more accountable. So thanks very much to this panel. I hope that you inspire all the new people that are here, and I urge everyone to have a very productive, empowering WSIS high-level event, and to keep in mind that the power of the WSIS vision is immense. I mean, I’m speaking now, I don’t care how many people were here in 2003. I care that we keep this vision of a people-centered, inclusive information society at the heart. And just another little final achievement. We have a woman as the Secretary General of the International Telecommunications Union. I think that was really hard to imagine. And I think as a woman in this space, to see how it’s been transformed and how much more prominent gender as a concern and how much more prominent women are in this space is also something we should celebrate. So thanks very much. And please give the panel a huge round of applause.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach has been successful and should be preserved

Speakers

– Janis Karklins
– Pierre Bonis
– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Prasert Jantararuangtong
– Kathleen A. Kramer

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder cooperation has brought benefits to all stakeholders and enabled remarkable progress

Multi-stakeholder system allowing internet to function has evolved without being fundamentally challenged

Significant progress made in expanding connectivity to 94% of world’s population and deploying innovative digital solutions

The power of working together across government, private sector, and civil society was demonstrated

Most important thing is collaborative leadership based on merit with multi-stakeholder input

Summary

All speakers strongly endorsed the multi-stakeholder model as a proven successful approach that has delivered tangible benefits over 20 years and should continue to guide future digital governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Need to avoid duplication and integrate WSIS+20 with Global Digital Compact

Speakers

– Janis Karklins
– Pierre Bonis
– Maria Fernanda Garza

Arguments

WSIS and Global Digital Compact processes are complementary and should merge rather than compete

Need to include new topics like AI within current framework without creating separate governance structures

Should avoid creating parallel duplicative processes and leverage existing WSIS structures

Summary

Strong consensus on avoiding parallel processes and instead integrating new initiatives like the Global Digital Compact within existing WSIS frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Significant progress achieved in connectivity and digital development

Speakers

– Janis Karklins
– Pierre Bonis
– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Internet users grew from less than 1 billion to 5.6 billion, with quality improvements from dial-up to broadband

Internet has become mainstream infrastructure like running water, fulfilling the promises envisioned 20 years ago

Significant progress made in expanding connectivity to 94% of world’s population and deploying innovative digital solutions

WSIS process has successfully evolved and grown the ecosystem by bringing in new, more, and younger people

Summary

Universal acknowledgment of substantial achievements in expanding internet access and digital infrastructure over the past 20 years

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Digital divide remains a significant challenge despite progress

Speakers

– Pierre Bonis
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

2.5 billion people remain unconnected, making digital divide more severe for those left behind

Billions remain unconnected and many connected users lack meaningful connectivity

Summary

Recognition that while connectivity has expanded dramatically, the remaining unconnected population faces increasingly severe disadvantages

Topics

Development | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of avoiding governance model conflicts and instead finding ways to integrate different approaches constructively

Speakers

– Janis Karklins
– Pierre Bonis

Arguments

Should avoid battles between multi-stakeholder and intergovernmental models

WSIS and Global Digital Compact processes are complementary and should merge rather than compete

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both emphasize the need for governance institutions that combine stability with adaptability and are based on expertise rather than political power

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Kathleen A. Kramer

Arguments

Need to build multi-stakeholder institutions that are both rules-based and change-ready

Most important thing is collaborative leadership based on merit with multi-stakeholder input

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both recognize the critical importance of high-quality technical education while acknowledging the global inequality in access to such education

Speakers

– Kathleen A. Kramer
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Need for robust STEM education and strong standardization ecosystem to support technological advancement

There is significant inequality in access to high-end technical education globally

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Unexpected consensus

Climate change integration into digital governance

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Prasert Jantararuangtong

Arguments

Climate change must be integrated as part of the holistic approach going forward

One important lesson is the power of working together. And that you talked before, one thing that’s important in the next topic is the climate change

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged on integrating climate change considerations into digital governance frameworks, showing recognition that environmental challenges must be part of comprehensive digital policy approaches

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

International cooperation was possible during crisis periods

Speakers

– Pierre Bonis
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

International cooperation was possible even during crisis situations like the 2003 Iraq War

International cooperation has become more challenging than it was in 2003

Explanation

Unexpected consensus on the historical context of international cooperation challenges, with recognition that WSIS succeeded during previous crisis periods, providing hope for current cooperation despite increased difficulties

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus on multi-stakeholder approach success, need to avoid process duplication, significant progress achieved in connectivity, and remaining digital divide challenges

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers with remarkable alignment on core principles and future directions. The consensus suggests strong foundation for continued WSIS implementation and integration with new initiatives like the Global Digital Compact. Implications include potential for unified approach to digital governance that builds on proven multi-stakeholder model while addressing emerging challenges like AI governance and climate change integration.

Different viewpoints

Approach to digital sovereignty vs. global information society vision

Speakers

– Janis Karklins
– Pierre Bonis

Arguments

Shift from global information society vision toward digital sovereignty and border-setting

Multi-stakeholder system allowing internet to function has evolved without being fundamentally challenged

Summary

Karklins expresses concern about the movement away from the original global vision toward digital sovereignty that emphasizes borders, while Bonis emphasizes the stability and success of the existing multi-stakeholder system without expressing the same concern about sovereignty trends

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Emphasis on technical vs. holistic approaches to digital development

Speakers

– Kathleen A. Kramer
– Maria Fernanda Garza

Arguments

Need for robust STEM education and strong standardization ecosystem to support technological advancement

Policy frameworks should be built on stable legal grounds with trusted global data flows

Summary

Kramer focuses primarily on technical education and standards as the critical pillars, while Garza emphasizes broader policy frameworks that address economic, technical, socio-cultural and governance factors holistically

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Assessment of current international cooperation challenges

Speakers

– Pierre Bonis
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

International cooperation was possible even during crisis situations like the 2003 Iraq War

International cooperation has become more challenging than it was in 2003

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are reflecting on the same historical period and current context, yet they reach opposite conclusions about whether international cooperation has become more or less challenging over time

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers showed remarkable consensus on most major issues, with disagreements being primarily about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental goals. The main areas of disagreement centered on the balance between global openness vs. digital sovereignty, technical vs. holistic approaches to development, and assessments of current cooperation challenges.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely agreed on core principles like multi-stakeholder governance, avoiding process duplication, and addressing the digital divide. Their disagreements were more about strategic emphasis and interpretation of trends rather than fundamental opposition to each other’s positions. This suggests a mature policy community with shared values but different perspectives on implementation approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of avoiding governance model conflicts and instead finding ways to integrate different approaches constructively

Speakers

– Janis Karklins
– Pierre Bonis

Arguments

Should avoid battles between multi-stakeholder and intergovernmental models

WSIS and Global Digital Compact processes are complementary and should merge rather than compete

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both emphasize the need for governance institutions that combine stability with adaptability and are based on expertise rather than political power

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Kathleen A. Kramer

Arguments

Need to build multi-stakeholder institutions that are both rules-based and change-ready

Most important thing is collaborative leadership based on merit with multi-stakeholder input

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both recognize the critical importance of high-quality technical education while acknowledging the global inequality in access to such education

Speakers

– Kathleen A. Kramer
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Need for robust STEM education and strong standardization ecosystem to support technological advancement

There is significant inequality in access to high-end technical education globally

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Key takeaways

The WSIS process has achieved remarkable success over 20 years, with internet users growing from less than 1 billion to 5.6 billion and connectivity reaching 94% of the world’s population

Multi-stakeholder cooperation has proven effective and brought benefits to all stakeholders, with the governance model evolving without fundamental challenges

There has been a concerning shift from the original vision of a global information society toward digital sovereignty and border-setting approaches

Understanding of technology complexities has lagged behind technological evolution, particularly with emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing

The digital divide remains severe for the 2.5 billion people still unconnected, making their exclusion more impactful as connectivity becomes mainstream

Future success requires robust STEM education, strong standardization ecosystems, and policy frameworks built on stable legal grounds with trusted global data flows

Climate change must be integrated as part of a holistic approach to digital governance going forward

The power of working together across government, private sector, and civil society remains the most important lesson from the WSIS process

Resolutions and action items

WSIS+20 outcomes should establish a more interconnected and inclusive framework for digital governance by integrating Global Digital Compact commitments

IGF should become a permanent entity with sustainable funding

New topics like AI should be included within the current WSIS framework rather than creating separate governance structures

Policy frameworks should take a holistic approach across economic, technical, socio-cultural and governance factors

Need to build multi-stakeholder institutions that are both rules-based and change-ready

Unresolved issues

How to effectively connect and meaningfully serve the remaining 2.5 billion unconnected people

How to balance the shift toward digital sovereignty with the original vision of a global information society

How to ensure equitable access to high-quality STEM education globally to support technological advancement

How to govern emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing when understanding lags behind technological evolution

How to ensure the multi-stakeholder model is embraced by all stakeholders globally

Specific mechanisms for integrating climate change considerations into digital governance frameworks

Suggested compromises

Merge WSIS and Global Digital Compact processes rather than maintaining parallel duplicative structures, recognizing they are complementary

Avoid battles between multi-stakeholder and intergovernmental models by bringing these approaches together as has been done over the past 20 years

Avoid being dogmatic about existing frameworks while remaining open to evolution and new global developments

Include new technologies and topics within existing governance frameworks rather than creating entirely separate structures

Leverage existing WSIS structures, especially the IGF, as the foundation for expanded digital governance rather than building new institutions

Increasingly today we are hearing that we need to go to digital sovereignty. Which means putting borders on the global idea. And probably we need to reflect whether everything that we have decided and implementing now has been leading us towards idea of global information society. Or something was not overly right and we missed some turns in order to preserve that dream we had in 2005.

Speaker

Janis Karklins

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it identifies a fundamental tension between the original WSIS vision of a borderless, global digital society and current trends toward digital sovereignty and fragmentation. It challenges participants to critically examine whether the current trajectory aligns with the foundational goals and suggests that the community may have ‘missed some turns’ along the way.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from celebrating achievements to critically examining whether the direction of digital development has strayed from core principles. It prompted Anriette to ask a follow-up question about whether the original vision was naive, leading to deeper reflection on the evolution of digital governance and the balance between global cooperation and national sovereignty.

I think our understanding about complexities associated with use of technology was seriously lagging behind of technological evolution… we’re using in our education system principles that have been developed in 19th century. And we’re applying our knowledge of analog society to this new digital society. And there is a physical difference in both.

Speaker

Janis Karklins

Reason

This observation is particularly thought-provoking because it identifies a fundamental mismatch between the pace of technological advancement and human institutional adaptation. It suggests that governance failures aren’t due to naivety but to a structural inability to keep pace with technological change, highlighting the need for new frameworks of understanding.

Impact

This comment deepened the analytical level of the discussion by moving beyond surface-level policy discussions to examine fundamental epistemological challenges. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus on education and standards as critical infrastructure for managing technological change.

The biologist E.O. Wilson said that the problem with humanity is that we have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technologies. So we do not just need to govern the technologies. We need to learn how to govern transformation itself, and that means building multi-stakeholder institutions that are not just rules-based, but also change-ready.

Speaker

Maria Fernanda Garza

Reason

This comment is exceptionally insightful because it reframes the entire governance challenge from managing specific technologies to managing continuous transformation. The E.O. Wilson quote elegantly captures the temporal mismatch between human evolution and technological development, while the concept of ‘change-ready’ institutions introduces a new paradigm for institutional design.

Impact

This comment served as a powerful synthesis that elevated the discussion to a philosophical level, connecting the technical and policy discussions to fundamental questions about human adaptation and institutional evolution. It provided a conceptual framework that tied together many of the earlier themes about education, standards, and governance.

What I would not like to see is to see again the battle that we saw 20 years ago between a so-called multi-stakeholder model and the so-called intergovernmental model. I think a lot of intelligence has been put in place since 20 years to bring these two approaches together, and the splits that we could see again would be a disaster for the future of the Internet governance.

Speaker

Pierre Bonis

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies a critical risk of regression in governance models and emphasizes the hard-won progress in bridging different approaches. It shows institutional memory and warns against recreating past conflicts that could undermine future cooperation.

Impact

This comment influenced the discussion’s focus on avoiding duplication and maintaining unity between different governance processes. It reinforced Janis Karklins’ later point about not being dogmatic and the need to merge complementary processes rather than create parallel ones.

These processes are complementary. They should merge at one point under which title doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we’re building inclusive digital society where everyone can benefit from it.

Speaker

Janis Karklins

Reason

This comment demonstrates pragmatic wisdom by prioritizing substance over institutional pride. It challenges participants to focus on outcomes rather than process ownership, which is particularly important when dealing with overlapping initiatives like WSIS and the Global Digital Compact.

Impact

This comment provided a practical framework for thinking about institutional coordination and helped establish consensus around the need for integration rather than competition between different digital governance processes. It influenced the moderator’s final synthesis about the importance of common platforms for collaboration.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and deeper analytical frameworks that moved the conversation beyond celebratory retrospection to serious examination of systemic challenges. Karklins’ observations about digital sovereignty and institutional lag created a more nuanced understanding of why global digital cooperation has become more difficult. Garza’s synthesis using the E.O. Wilson quote provided a philosophical framework that connected technical, institutional, and human evolutionary challenges. The comments about avoiding governance model conflicts and prioritizing integration over institutional competition established practical principles for moving forward. Together, these interventions transformed what could have been a routine anniversary discussion into a substantive examination of fundamental challenges in digital governance, creating space for both critical reflection and constructive path-finding for the future.

How can we ensure equitable access to high-quality STEM education globally to support future technological innovation?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of inequality in access to advanced technical education needed for digital development, which is crucial for achieving inclusive technological progress

How do we effectively integrate climate change considerations into the WSIS framework and digital governance processes?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen and Maria Fernanda Garza

Explanation

Both speakers emphasized the need for a holistic approach that includes climate change as part of digital governance, requiring further exploration of how technology can address climate challenges

How can we merge the WSIS process with the Global Digital Compact implementation to avoid duplication while maintaining the strengths of both?

Speaker

Janis Karklins and Maria Fernanda Garza

Explanation

This is critical for avoiding parallel processes and ensuring efficient use of resources while maintaining comprehensive digital governance frameworks

How do we address the challenge that our understanding of technology complexities lags behind technological evolution, particularly with AI and quantum computing?

Speaker

Janis Karklins

Explanation

This highlights a fundamental gap between technological advancement and our ability to govern and understand these technologies effectively

How can we build multi-stakeholder institutions that are not just rules-based but also change-ready to govern technological transformation?

Speaker

Maria Fernanda Garza

Explanation

This addresses the need for adaptive governance structures that can evolve with rapidly changing technology while maintaining stability and inclusivity

How do we ensure meaningful connectivity for those who are connected but cannot use the internet effectively?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

This goes beyond basic connectivity to address digital literacy and meaningful access, which is essential for truly inclusive digital development

How can we integrate new technologies like AI into existing WSIS frameworks without creating separate governance structures?

Speaker

Pierre Bonis

Explanation

This is important for maintaining coherent governance while adapting to technological evolution and avoiding fragmented approaches to different technologies

Summary

This discussion focused on aligning the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process with the implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) to ensure coherence and prevent duplication in digital governance mechanisms. The session was moderated by Thomas Schneider and featured co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania, along with representatives from various UN agencies and organizations. The primary concern addressed was how to meaningfully integrate these two processes while maintaining the WSIS vision of an inclusive, people-centered information society.

Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need to avoid creating parallel or fragmented digital governance mechanisms, particularly given UN efficiency requirements and resource constraints. Angel González Sanz from the CSTD highlighted that consensus emerged around leveraging existing WSIS mechanisms and building on established institutional strengths rather than creating new frameworks. The discussion revealed four key priorities for alignment: closing the digital divide, fostering safe digital transformation, supporting sustainable development goals, and strengthening international cooperation.

Amandeep Singh Gill noted that the GDC already endorses WSIS principles and emphasizes relying on existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum and WSIS Forum. The European Union proposed developing roadmaps for WSIS action lines as a practical instrument to embed GDC principles while maintaining multi-stakeholder consultation processes. Several speakers stressed the importance of preserving the multi-stakeholder approach that has been WSIS’s hallmark, while others advocated for hybrid governance models combining intergovernmental legitimacy with multi-stakeholder inclusivity.

The discussion concluded with broad agreement on the need for complementarity rather than competition between the processes, emphasizing that both should ultimately deliver concrete solutions that impact communities and individuals’ lives rather than merely creating additional bureaucratic frameworks.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Integration and Alignment of WSIS Plus 20 and Global Digital Compact (GDC)**: The central focus was on how to meaningfully integrate these two processes to ensure coherence and prevent duplication, with speakers emphasizing the need to leverage existing WSIS mechanisms rather than creating parallel frameworks.

– **Avoiding Fragmentation in Digital Governance**: Multiple speakers stressed the importance of not creating overlapping institutional mechanisms or duplicating efforts, particularly given UN efficiency mandates and resource constraints. The emphasis was on consolidating rather than fragmenting global digital governance.

– **Multi-stakeholder Approach and Inclusive Governance**: Discussion of how to maintain and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model that has been central to WSIS success, while addressing the challenge that digital governance issues cannot be solved by governments alone and require broad participation from civil society, private sector, and technical communities.

– **Practical Implementation Mechanisms**: Speakers proposed concrete solutions including roadmaps for WSIS action lines, leveraging existing forums like the WSIS Forum and Internet Governance Forum, and using established reporting mechanisms rather than creating new ones.

– **Focus on Outcomes and Real-World Impact**: Emphasis on ensuring that governance discussions translate into tangible results for communities, with references to successful digital solutions reaching remote areas and the importance of substance over process.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore pathways for coherent integration between the WSIS Plus 20 review process and the Global Digital Compact implementation, ensuring alignment while maintaining the WSIS vision of an inclusive, people-centered information society and avoiding duplication of efforts.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently collaborative and constructive throughout the discussion. Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for alignment and integration, with no apparent disagreements on fundamental principles. The atmosphere was professional yet passionate, particularly evident in the closing remarks that emphasized the real-world impact of digital solutions. There was a sense of urgency about getting the integration right, but also confidence in the existing WSIS infrastructure and achievements over the past 20 years.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Thomas Schneider** – Moderator of the session

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Co-facilitator of the WSIS plus 20 process, Permanent Representative of Kenya to the UN

– **Suela Janina** – Co-facilitator, Representative of Albania to the UN

– **Angel Gonzalez Sanz** – CSDD Secretary

– **Amandeep Singh Gill** – Under-Secretary General and Special Envoy for Digital and Emerging Technology

– **Thibaut Kleiner** – Director of the European Commission at the DG Connect (participated online)

– **Cynthia Lesufi** – Chair of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs

– **Tawfik Jelassi** – Assistant Director for Communications and Information at UNESCO

– **Tomas Lamanauskas** – Deputy Secretary General from the ITU

**Additional speakers:**

– **Thomas Lamanouskas** – Mentioned at the beginning but appears to be the same person as Tomas Lamanauskas with a slight name variation

# Comprehensive Report: Aligning WSIS Plus 20 and Global Digital Compact Implementation

## Executive Summary

This 44-minute session, moderated by Thomas Schneider, brought together key stakeholders to address the critical challenge of aligning the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process with the implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC). The discussion featured co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania, alongside representatives from various UN agencies and organisations, all focused on ensuring coherence whilst preventing duplication in digital governance mechanisms.

Thomas Schneider opened the session with three specific guiding questions:

1. How can we meaningfully integrate the WSIS plus 20 review process and the GDC to ensure coherence and prevent duplication?

2. How can the WSIS framework serve as the foundation for embedding the GDC’s principles and avoiding the creation of parallel or fragmented digital governance mechanisms?

3. What is a pragmatic way forward for the co-facilitators to align both processes and advance shared objectives in multi-stakeholder digital cooperation?

The discussion revealed strong alignment amongst speakers on fundamental principles, with participants emphasising the need to leverage existing WSIS infrastructure rather than creating parallel frameworks, maintain the multi-stakeholder approach, and focus on practical implementation that delivers tangible results.

## Key Participants and Their Perspectives

### Co-facilitators’ Vision

**Ekitela Lokaale**, representing Kenya as co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process, emphasised the importance of alignment with the GDC whilst avoiding duplication, particularly given UN efficiency requirements. She highlighted the process’s strong legacy of multi-stakeholder engagement, welcoming views from all stakeholders rather than limiting participation to member states alone.

**Suela Janina**, Albania’s representative and co-facilitator, experienced significant technical difficulties during her remarks, making much of her contribution unclear in the transcript. What was audible reinforced the commitment to hearing from stakeholders throughout the consultation process about concrete implementation approaches.

### UN Agency Perspectives

**Amandeep Singh Gill**, Under-Secretary General and Special Envoy for Digital and Emerging Technology, provided crucial context by noting that the GDC already endorses WSIS principles from the outset and emphasises relying on existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones. He stressed the importance of maintaining progressive language from the GDC without negotiation down, whilst advocating for substance and outcomes over processes. Referencing the moderator’s earlier comment about avoiding too many processes, he emphasised the need for practical implementation.

**Tawfik Jelassi**, Assistant Director for Communications and Information at UNESCO, introduced a thought-provoking dimension by questioning whether consensus exists on the vision for the digital future before diving into implementation details. He proposed a hybrid governance approach that combines the normative legitimacy of states with the inclusivity and diversity of multi-stakeholder processes, drawing from UNESCO’s practical experience in managing six WSIS action lines.

**Tomas Lamanauskas**, ITU’s Deputy Secretary General, grounded the discussion in concrete achievements, noting WSIS’s progress from 12% to 12.5% internet penetration in 2005 to two-thirds of the world connected today. He made a humorous reference to how civil society used to sit on the floor during early WSIS meetings in 2003, contrasting it with ambassadors now sitting on the floor due to crowded rooms. His closing remarks emphasised that success should be measured by game-changing solutions that directly impact communities.

### Regional and Organisational Contributions

**Thibaut Kleiner** from the European Commission presented a concrete operational proposal, suggesting the development of roadmaps for WSIS action lines as practical instruments to embed GDC principles. His proposal, which he noted was warmly received at IGF, included forward-looking instruments developed through inclusive consultations whilst maintaining facilitator ownership, with the WSIS Forum serving as a venue for presentation and discussion. He also suggested enhancing the Internet Governance Forum’s position within this “galaxy of activities.”

**Angel Gonzalez Sanz** from the CSTD Secretariat reported strong consensus from consultations on the need for alignment. He referenced six specific paragraphs (125-135) of a resolution dealing with GDC-WSIS alignment and noted that CSTD has launched a working group on “fundamental principles of data governance at all levels as relevant for development.” He proposed that UNGIS develop a joint implementation roadmap for presentation to the CSTD session.

**Cynthia Lesufi**, chairing the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs, positioned WSIS as uniquely positioned to support digital development due to its comprehensive implementation ecosystem developed over two decades. She highlighted the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025 as a key opportunity to “evaluate progress, identify gaps, and define a shape” for future work, offering ITU’s support as a coordination leader.

## Areas of Consensus

### Preventing Duplication and Leveraging Existing Infrastructure

The strongest consensus emerged around avoiding duplication and building upon existing WSIS infrastructure. All speakers acknowledged member state concerns about UN system inefficiencies and the imperative to consolidate rather than fragment global digital governance. This included recognition of the comprehensive ecosystem developed over 20 years, encompassing the WSIS Forum, Internet Governance Forum, UNGIS coordination mechanisms, and stocktaking processes.

### Multi-stakeholder Governance Commitment

Participants emphasised the critical importance of maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder governance as a core strength of the WSIS process. This commitment extended beyond diplomatic rhetoric to practical recognition that digital governance challenges cannot be addressed by governments alone.

### Focus on Practical Implementation

There was clear agreement on moving beyond process discussions to focus on practical implementation approaches and measurable outcomes. Speakers consistently emphasised the need for substance over process, with particular attention to solutions that deliver real impact to communities.

## Constructive Differences and Varied Approaches

### Governance Philosophy

Whilst all speakers supported multi-stakeholder approaches, there were nuanced differences in emphasis. Tawfik Jelassi advocated for a hybrid governance model combining intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder approaches, arguing that neither approach alone is sufficient. He also emphasised the need for consensus on digital future vision before proceeding with detailed implementation planning.

### Implementation Mechanisms

Speakers proposed different complementary approaches: the EU suggested action line roadmaps developed by facilitators, the CSTD proposed UNGIS-developed joint roadmaps, and ITU focused on the 2025 High-Level Event as the key opportunity for evaluation and planning.

## Concrete Proposals and Next Steps

### Roadmap Development

The EU’s proposal for developing roadmaps for WSIS action lines received support through similar suggestions from other speakers. These roadmaps would serve as practical instruments to embed GDC principles whilst combining them with existing WSIS frameworks.

### UNGIS Coordination

Angel Gonzalez Sanz proposed that UNGIS develop a joint implementation roadmap for GDC-WSIS alignment, leveraging the existing coordination mechanism that brings together UN agencies.

### Forum Enhancement

Rather than creating new mechanisms, speakers agreed on strengthening existing forums such as the WSIS Forum and Internet Governance Forum, with suggestions for enhancing their positioning and capacity.

## Outstanding Challenges

### Operational Details

Whilst there was consensus on principles, specific modalities for operationalising the alignment between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC remain to be developed, including detailed coordination mechanisms, resource allocation frameworks, and implementation timelines.

### Governance Model Implementation

The practical implementation of hybrid governance approaches requires further development and stakeholder consultation.

### Measurement and Accountability

Speakers acknowledged the need for measurement and reporting on integrated implementation without creating additional reporting burdens.

## Conclusion

This session demonstrated strong consensus on the fundamental need to align WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes whilst avoiding duplication. The agreement on leveraging existing WSIS infrastructure, maintaining multi-stakeholder governance, and focusing on practical implementation provides a solid foundation for moving forward.

The different approaches proposed for implementation mechanisms reflect complementary rather than competing visions, suggesting multiple pathways for achieving shared objectives. The concrete proposals for roadmap development, UNGIS coordination, and forum strengthening provide actionable next steps.

As the session concluded with limited time remaining, the emphasis on real-world impact and community-level outcomes ensures that institutional coordination serves the broader purposes of digital inclusion and development. The path forward requires continued multi-stakeholder consultation, careful attention to governance model development, and sustained focus on practical implementation that delivers tangible benefits to communities worldwide.

Thomas Schneider: Thomas Lamanouskas, Inter Alia, so let’s give us one more minute. Okay, so I think, let’s start, given that we only have 44 minutes for this short but important session. The purpose of this is to discuss synthesis, identify gaps and explore pathways towards coherent integration, emphasizing the continued relevance of the WSIS vision for inclusive people-centered information society, and of course, trying to see how we can align the implementation work of the Global Digital Compact and WSIS plus 20. I’ve been given a few guiding questions that our speakers are supposed to help us find answers to. The first one is how can we meaningfully integrate the WSIS plus 20 review process and the GDC to ensure coherence and prevent duplication? Very important question. The second one is how can the WSIS framework serve as the foundation for embedding the GDC’s principles and avoiding the creation of parallel or fragmented digital governance mechanisms? And the third one is what is a pragmatic way forward for the co-facilitators to align both processes and advance shared objectives in multi-stakeholder digital cooperation? The co-facilitators, of course, I’m happy to again see you after Oslo at the IGF. Mr. Ekitela Lokale, co-facilitator of the WSIS plus 20 process, permanent representative of Kenya to the UN, and Ms. Suella Yanina. facilitator representative of Albania to the UN. Let me give you the floor to say a few words.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you very much and good afternoon. I’m very happy to be here as one of the co-facilitators and to see quite a good number of you that we met at the IGF. I think for us as co-facilitators the purpose of coming here is to listen to the views that you’re going to share, the presenters as well as the different stakeholders, bearing in mind that this is a process in which in a very strong and rich legacy of multi-stakeholder engagement. So we are very much looking forward to receiving the views not just of member states but also of all the other stakeholders. The second thing we are mindful, just as I’m sure all of us are, that the WSIS plus 20 review is happening hot on the heels of adoption of the GDC. So I think it’s incumbent upon us as a community to just see how best to undertake the review in a manner that’s cognizant of the GDC but that’s also keen to make sure that we don’t perhaps have any duplication and all this, you know, happening as it is at a time when at the UN they talk of UNAT and they need to improve efficiencies and remove duplication and so on. So very much looking forward to hearing from all of you. Thank you.

Suela Janina: Thank you, Tomas. Also from my side, good afternoon, President. In fact, I was just thinking it’s turning to a good health. H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Amandeep Singh Gill, Mr. Angel González Sanz, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Amandeep Singh Gill, Mr. Angel González Sanz, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Amandeep Singh Gill, Mr. Angel González Sanz, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Egitela Lokaale, Amandeep Singh Gill, Mr. Angel González Sanz, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Amandeep Singh Gill, Mr. Angel González Sanz, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Egitela Lokaale, Amandeep Singh Gill, Mr. Angel González Sanz, Dr. David Souter , Dr. Angel González Sanz, Dr. David Souter, Dr. Angel González Sanz, Dr. David Souter, So, these are a few elements that will be on our attention but we want to hear from you during this event, this discussion, but also through the entire week. So, let us hear from you, what will be the concrete ways, the principle of putting synergies together? What kind of bridges can you propose that GDC and WSIS serve to the same purpose, to the same objectives that they are creating? To secure a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented digital and information society. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much, Agittela and Azuela. We will now move on to a technical update from the CSDD Secretary. The CSDD is responsible since 2005 for the UN system-wide follow-up and implementation. So, Mr. Angel González Sanz. Thank you.

Angel Gonzalez Sanz: Thank you, Moderator, and thank you to the organizers for inviting the CSDD Secretary to give you this technical update, which is a rather cryptic theme. I am not quite sure what technical information I can convey to this group of stakeholders. But anyway, I am trying to convey to you basically the elements of the work that has taken place already within the formal structures of the UN. As most of you know, the CSTD is a functional commission of the ECOSOC and includes in its mandate a role of being the focal point for the system-wide follow-up to the implementation of the WSIS outcomes. And as part of that role, the ECOSOC in 2023 mandated the commission to undertake a wide process of multi-stakeholder consultations leading to the elaboration of a substantive contribution to the WSIS Plus 20 review by the General Assembly. So that substantive contribution is reflected in the WSIS resolution that is expected to be adopted by the ECOSOC at the end of this month. And that resolution, together with a summary of the discussions on WSIS Plus 20 and a report by the Secretariat that documents these two years of multi-stakeholder consultation will be transmitted by the ECOSOC to the General Assembly as an input to the deliberations of the Assembly on WSIS Plus 20. Of course, one of the main messages that emerged from all this process of consultation and discussions among member states and stakeholders is the crucial need for alignment between the GDES and the WSIS process that came across very, very clearly throughout the process. Looking into the future, the discussions by member states at the annual session, but also during the two years of consultation, identified four priorities, substantive priorities for this alignment to take place. One is the absolute need to close the digital divide along all its dimensions. The second, to foster a safe, secure, and trustworthy digital transformation. The third, to ensure that that digital transformation supports the implementation of the Global Sustainable Development Goals. Global Sustainable Development Goals, and fourth, strengthening international cooperation, particularly in the sense of empowering the participation of developing countries in global digital decision-making. During the discussions itself last April, the discussion reaffirmed the vision of WSIS and a submission that is useful to address the challenges that speak both to the WSIS outcomes, but also to those priorities that were identified in the GDC. And in fact, the resolution that I referred to a moment ago includes six paragraphs specifically dealing with the question of how to align the GDC and WSIS. Those are six out of the ten paragraphs between paragraph 125 and 135 of the resolution. Again, one of the clearest messages that one can see coming from that is that there is a clear consensus to recommend that the commitments of the GDC should leverage WSIS mechanisms and build on the institutional strengths that have been developed. A concrete proposal that is included in the resolution is that the outcome of WSIS plus 20 should ask ANGIS, the UN group on the information society, to develop a joint implementation roadmap and to present that roadmap to the 2020 session of the CSTD. This proposal aims to integrate the GDC principles into the WSIS follow-up processes and to ensure that there is a coordinated system-wide implementation. Similarly, during the CSTD, all stakeholders agreed that leveraging and strengthening existing forums, such as the WSIS forum and the Internet Governance Forum, rather than creating parallel mechanisms, is essential for ensuring a source-efficient and impactful implementation. The question of insubordination is only one of the issues that need to be addressed. The CSTD participants also stress the need for inclusive governance. The challenges that lie ahead of us cannot be addressed by governments alone. We need multi-stakeholder involvement, and they cannot be addressed in a fragmented way. A clear example of this is the question of data governance that, as you know, is one important objective identified in the GDC. The CSTD has already launched a working group, a multi-stakeholder working group, that is in fundamental principles of data governance at all levels as relevant for development. And that’s both a contribution to the mandates coming from the GDC and to the long-term objectives of WSIS. With this, I will stop, and I will reiterate that the CSTD provides multi-stakeholder platform for consensus building around these themes. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much, Angel. Now we have a number of speakers that are quite experienced in what we are looking very much forward to, their ideas on how to align the 550,000 trillion processes that we have linked to WSIS-related issues. Let me start with Amandeep Singh Gill. You all know him, Under-Secretary General and Special Envoy for Digital and Emerging Technology. Thank you.

Amandeep Singh Gill: Thank you very much, Thomas. Standing room only, so I’m sorry for those who are up against the wall and those who are uncomfortable sitting down there. Just the importance of the subject today. Thank you to DESA for bringing us together for this discussion, and thank you to the co-facilitators, ambassadors, for leading this important work. Thomas, you said it, you know, a trillion processes. I think while we should worry about processes and try and make negotiations, they strived very hard to ensure that we move forward with complementarity. We don’t duplicate. So for example, right at the outset of the GDC, you have a strong endorsement of the WSIS principles, the WSIS approach, multi-stakeholder, people-centric, development-oriented. So even if these principles are laid out, 13 principles, we start with that, that we are not reinventing the wheel. And then again, if you go further down, this reliance on existing mechanisms, that was part of, you know, the previous remarks, there again, the specific language that says we should rely on existing mechanisms, there’s very progressive language on the IGF, for example, but other forums as well, the WSIS forum. And then in terms of reporting, again, you know, thank you to UNCTAD, CSTD, for what’s been presented, the result of the consultations. There’s a strong emphasis on not creating additional tracks of reporting. Member states and other stakeholders are obviously tied of, you know, multiple reporting channels, so how can we use the existing channels of reporting to move forward on the GDC? So that said, as part of the overall implementation architecture, in the sense of, like, you know, how do we keep ourselves accountable? How do we… Hello everyone. The secretary general created a steering committee, which he himself chairs, the Pact steering committee. Part of it you have groups, there’s a working group on digital technologies that I have the honor to co-chair with Doreen, the secretary general of ITU, so that we bring the Geneva ecosystem, the New York ecosystem, different parts of the system together. And this is a time-limited mechanism. And Thomas is here, you know, we worked on it to make sure that this is not, this doesn’t become, you know, a self-perpetuating mechanism. So for a while, you give the push to the implementation of different aspects of chapter three, and then you wrap up, you know. And then there is the critical, I think this is what I really want to emphasize today. So in the GDC, there are intergovernmental processes that have been set in motion. For example, on the AI governance modalities, there is, of course, a new mechanism on data governance, which is being dealt with for the first time in the UN. So these are kind of necessary additionalities. And they, in a sense, they, in a sense, you know, still uphold the vision. As you remember, though some of you are old timers, I see Yanis over there, over there. So, you know, there was this debate at that time on enhanced cooperation, but we moved on and we have taken forward this idea of digital cooperation, where, you know, in certain areas where we have complex challenges that cut across different aspects of the UN’s mandate, peace and security, human rights development, you need stronger engagement of governments. So you have created those additional avenues for governments to engage on some of these issues while upholding the multistakeholder of this domain. I think Going forward, we, as you know, the ambassadors mentioned, you know, there is progressive language. I think one of, I don’t want to say concern, but I think certainly desire is that the progressive language be upheld and not be negotiated down at a time when, you know, there are these political and other challenges on human rights, on the digital economy, on internet governance. Many at GDC kind of broke new ground, took up the language to the next level. So I think the safest way is to uphold that language and also to try and see if there is something, if we have the bandwidth for, let’s say, reinforcing complementarity, try and see how we can bring more dynamism into the action lines. Because as I said, substance should lead, outcomes should matter. And then try and see if the system itself, where, you know, you have players, new mandates, the Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies with a clear mandate from the General Assembly for strengthening system-wide coordination. So how we can improve our system-wide response, again, something that links strongly back to the UNAT agenda of the Secretary General. So those are areas for improvement. And then at the end of the day, we have to ensure that one of the biggest achievements of those summits, which is the IGF, this epitome of multi-stakeholder collaboration, is taken forward, is strengthened. There is going on for its core foundational mandate. There are new challenges coming up in terms of infrastructure, energy use, some of the problems we see in digital spaces. So how can we succeed? celebrate in December a continuation of these great achievements of the WSIS agenda. Thank you, Thomas, back to you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much, Amandeep. Our next speaker is, I hope it works, connected online. It is Mr. Thibault Kleiner. He is the director of the European Commission at the DG Connect. Yes, hello.

Thibaut Kleiner: I hope you can hear me indeed, dear Ambassador Thomas Schneider, Excellencies, distinguished delegates and esteemed colleagues. Indeed, I’ll be joining you tomorrow evening, but today I still had to be in Brussels. And thanks for accommodating my online participation today. As we know, this is a great opportunity this year with the WSIS Plus 20 review and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact to really forge a united path between these two initiatives. And as some of the previous speakers said, it’s an opportunity to focus on results, on delivery, but also to ensure coherence and strategic alignment between the WSIS action lines and the way we are implementing the Global Digital Compact. And really, we should avoid duplication and fragmentation in the global digital governance. I think that this should be our starting point because the tasks ahead at the moment are very significant. And I think also we’ve had quite a lot of discussions in the context of the EC and consensus was built. And I think we can build on this also now for the WSIS Plus 20 review. But also we should look at the future in terms of how we can implement in an effective manner whatever we discuss and agree upon. So, to that extent, I think that the discussions in the GDC, they have triggered comprehensive dialogues, for instance, around artificial intelligence, around data governance. But what we see from the EU’s perspective is that there are also other UN processes on these, also other processes on cyber security and cyber crime. So, what I think we believe is that we must be efficient. We should avoid to replicate in different fora what is effectively being discussed in one place. And it is very much imperative that the YSYS plus 20 does not establish overlapping frameworks, or even worse, overlapping institutional mechanisms, because this would introduce redundancy implementation at a time where we need to stick together, and also we need to avoid that conversations get diluted, which would only complicate our digital governance landscape. So, from the EU, we have made a proposal to that extent. We think that we can actually meaningfully combine the YSYS plus 20 and the digital compact, but for that we need structured coordination and transparency. So, basically, our proposal is to develop roadmaps for the YSYS action line. This could be something that is taken in the hands of the factors, and we believe that these roadmaps could be a practical instrument to embed the global digital compact’s principles explicitly, and to combine them with existing YSYS frameworks so that we have one conversation where we directly align also this with the sustainable development goal. So, Basically, it’s a practical proposal, and we’ve already tried to test this concept at the IGF a few weeks ago, and I was happy to meet a number of people also in Oslo. Basically, when we presented the idea, it was quite a warm reception. We had many stakeholders embracing this concept, and also recognizing that in the past, maybe we’ve had attempts to look at this, but without an integration effort. So, in a way, with the roadmaps, we can have a forward-looking instrument where we actually try to deliver, which I think is exactly the right message, and where also the facilitators would maintain full ownership of these roadmaps, but also making sure that they are developed through inclusive multi-stakeholder consultations, and where they can reflect the priorities that we all share around digital inclusion, respect for human rights, and equitable participation. So, with this, we believe that we have a process, an instrument, and actually that this could be also something that the WISIS Forum could take also as one of the tasks. The WISIS Forum could be the venue where we present, where we discuss these roadmaps, and where the co-facilitators with the other stakeholders leverage such an instrument for transparency, for coherence, and for support. And in that context, we also believe that the Internet Governance Forum would be enhanced, because it could also get positioned in terms of this galaxy of activities that we would describe. So, essentially, from the side of the European Union, we, as you know, remain very committed to advancing the We are ready to present some non-paper in the coming weeks to illustrate how such roadmaps could be effective. But we need to work together, that’s also today my message, to consolidate, not to fragment, to align, and not to duplicate. And this, I think, this coherence, this consistency at this moment is very much needed, because I think that what we are talking about, this global digital governance, these challenges are really what our populations need for prosperity, for unity, and for inclusion. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you. But let’s move on from north to south to my dear friend Cynthia Lesufi. She is a very known person here in Geneva, in particular at the ITU, because not only, but also is she the chair of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs. Thank you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you, Ambassador Schneider, and good afternoon to all. And I also want to thank the co-facilitators to join us in this session, and I really want to congratulate you in all the great work that you’re doing. But I also want to congratulate all my panelists, my fellow panelists for doing a great job in all your areas that you’re focusing on with regard to this important process that we are talking about today. So for me, I really want to address the questions that are being, the guiding questions that are being asked in terms of this session. I will start with the first question on how can we meaningfully integrate WSIS with GDC. For us, you know, as South Africa, as the chair of the Council Working Group of the ITU Council, we believe that over the past 20 decades, WSIS has, I mean, two decades So WSIS has developed a comprehensive implementation ecosystem, which includes Action Lines, the WSIS Forum, UNGIS Coordination, and the WSIS Stock Taking process. And for us, this remains a uniquely positioned to support digital development and cooperation. And therefore, by aligning the GDC priorities with the WSIS Action Lines and leveraging the existing multi-stakeholder architecture, the international community can translate high-level digital governance principles into coherent and measurable actions. But also, this approach will not only reinforce synergy between both processes, but it will also enhance accountability, continuity, and inclusiveness in the evolving digital cooperation landscape. So moving on to the second question on how can WSIS framework serve to avoid fragmented governance? Again, WSIS has established itself as an effective multi-stakeholder mechanism and effectively bringing together a diverse array of stakeholders, including national governments, international organizations, the private sector entities, the civil society organizations, as well as academic institutions. And this comprehensive collaboration fosters an environment where various interests and perspectives can be represented and addressed. With its extensive global reach and commitment to inclusivity, WSIS serves as an optimal platform for embedding priorities of the global digital compact. And by leveraging the collaborative nature of WSIS, the GDC can engage wider audiences and are met without the need to create separate, potentially conflicting frameworks. This integration not only streamline the efforts, but also enhances the collective of all participating stakeholders on the digital landscape. Now moving on to the third question, which is the last question, what is a pragmatic path forward for alignment? Our view as a council chair of the ITU is that strengthening collaboration between GDC and WSIS. ITU, as a leader in WSIS coordination, stands ready to support the co-facilitators, the UN agencies, in fostering alignment. And for us, again, WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025 is providing an opportunity to evaluate progress, identify gaps, and define a shape. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider: Next is your neighbor, Dr. Tawfik Jelassi, Assistant Director for Communications and Information at UNESCO.

Tawfik Jelassi: Thank you very much, Thomas. Being the number seven speaker, I don’t want to repeat what has been already said, but I want to give you a perspective from UNESCO. UNESCO has been the lead implementer of six action lines of WSIS-11. These six action lines are access to information, e-learning, e-science, cultural diversity and multilingualism, media, and the ethics of information. So that’s where we come from, having been the lead implementer of six action lines out of 11 of the WSIS. I fully agree with Amandeep when he said substance, content, and outcomes matter because it’s an issue of impact. Yes. I would put above that vision and governance. Before we talk about outcomes and substance and processes, what is our vision for the digital future? Do we have a consensus on that? How do we see the world evolving? The world is changing. Have we changed enough in the face of these disruptive changes? Digital is the name of the game, not today, for years to come. What is our vision for the future? and to governmental authorities. These are societal issues that impact every one of us, every community, every society. So we cannot let the governments decide through an intergovernmental process what is good for society at large. And then we can go to the other approach of governance, which is the multi-stakeholder. Of course, it has pluses, inclusivity, diversity by involving civil society, academia, research institutions, the technical community, the sectors concerned. Yes, diversity and inclusivity, but they don’t have the power nor obviously the legitimacy of setting up normative standards. It is the states that have the legitimacy of defining normative instruments and standards. So we see the pluses and we see the minuses of each governance approach. So where do we go from here? What’s the solution? I think we should take the best of each. We should leverage the normative legitimacy of states, but also leverage the inclusivity and the diversity of the multi-stakeholder. We have done this at UNESCO recently. Although our 2021 UNESCO recommendation on the ethics of AI followed a purely intergovernmental process through intergovernmental negotiations. And at the end, the vote by a hundred ninety-three member states for that recommendation. Our more recent 20-23 UNESCO Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms, for stakeholder approach that brought from day one to the fold the platform companies and the tech players. From day one, the Facebook, the Meta, the TikTok, the Instagram, and so on and so forth. From day one, alongside governments, civil society, academia, technical community, etc. And then subsequently, they were endorsed by member states. So I think a hybrid governance approach maybe is one model to consider going forward. The good hands of the two co-facilitators, the esteemed ambassadors of Albania and Kenya. We know all the launch consultations, the process still continuing. We know that next month, by the middle of August, we’ll have draft zero, I believe. So there is a process launch, etc., through a multi-stakeholder, open, global consultations. But I just want to give you a view from some experiences we had. And so the question is, yes, no duplication. I agree. I think we heard it from many previous speakers. No overlapping. I agree when resources are becoming more and more scarce. And I know that member states, at least I heard that UNESCO say, you guys within the UN, get your acts together. WSIS was initiated by the UN, IGF is the largest UN forum so far, GDC initiated by the UN Secretary-General. So these are all UN processes. Member states said, you know, we don’t like duplication. We don’t want to see overlap. Get your act together. We need to get our act together. I mean, this is again, my dear friend, Mandeep, he knows my views, we talked. We need to find a way to create this complementarity, to create this synergy, while of course using effectively the scarce resources that we have nowadays. Thank you, Thomas.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you, Tafik. Last but not least, you came in last, so you can also speak last, of course, Tomas Lamanauskas, Deputy Secretary General from the IT.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you very much, Thomas, and I really apologize for that, you know, we had to open an intergenerational dialogue. That’s a good excuse. So I think hopefully we’re seeing active discussion there, and I think here, for now, we seem to all agree, you know, so hopefully we’ll also find some ways to find some issues where we not always agree but can progress very well forward. But I think I’m back when I was preparing this panel, and I was thinking about what I wanted to say, I was like, I went back to my thoughts this morning, to the winners and champions awards. I was sitting in this front row and seeing people very happily coming on the stage, and this video is playing, you know, of video playing how digital ID is reaching remote communities, video playing how health services are reaching remote communities, video playing how we can deal with scams online. And this came, these winners, I think a total of 19 of them, with another 92 champions, came with a real solution. So I think for me, that was envisioning what this is all about, you know, this is about those solutions changing the world and their communities directly. And I think it’s so tempting for us to talk about modalities of reviews, and they are very important, and a big thanks for Ambassadors McAuley and Yenina being here today with us, you know, these are really important. We think they’re only important when they deliver these results, you know, if they deliver those game-changing solutions straight in their communities to change everyone’s lives. So they don’t end up by being, you know, modalities, discussion between GDC and WSIS, but end up being discussion how this specific digital solution, specific community will impact everyone. I have to be proud that WSIS has done quite a bit, since we gathered here in these halls. I mean, I wasn’t here, I have to admit, I was in 2005, but since the community has gathered here, we did a bit. From very high-level numbers, so 12% to 12.5% of internet penetration in 2005, to two-thirds of the world connected now. These are our own achievements. If you look at the community we gathered, so our WSIS stocktaking has today around 15,000 entries that represent all these different projects around the world, with more than 2 million subscribers that are engaged in that. 50,000 people have passed through the WSIS forums. And it’s actually today, so it’s not only overflowing today, it’s also always overflowing in the morning. We need to remember where we’re coming from. I’ll put on the spot here, Oslav, from our team, he was there when it all started with this forum. That’s probably where, in a couple of dozen, we now have thousands, the CA, with the Eye for Good, more than 10,000 people in these halls, creating these solutions together. And again, not only discussing here, but then going back and delivering that result back, and then feeding this back in. This is, for me, the achievements. Now, the achievements was also in the process. And I think, first of all, it’s really focused on multistakeholder, which is now we’re taking as granted. I think Yanis this morning said that when you went in 2003, civil society had to sit on the floor. Now, apologies, Ambassador, now you are sitting on the floor. So I think it also shows a bit of a dynamics, but I see UNDP colleagues next to you, and other UN colleagues, so hopefully you’re not insulted with that. Exactly, very comfortable in this way. And that took time. The first time I worked for IT was 10 years ago. And I went to some civil society meetings, and the people were not friendly to me, I have to say. In the beginning, people were not friendly to me, because people didn’t understand each other. Now, I think we have a lot of civil society in these halls and I think it’s really productive work, and people understand each other. People know how to work. They understand they do not always think the same thing, and they shouldn’t be, but they’re coming to the same objective. Focus on inclusion. I already mentioned how much we achieved in terms of the digital divide, but also broad approach. And I think also sometimes missing our digital discussions, what we haven’t discussed is that digital is not about digital. Digital about education, health, disaster management, agriculture. All these areas that we impact there. And again, the Swiss’s approach, we bring the UN community, around 50 UN agencies together, we bring different ministries. And today, again, if you see on the stage, it’s not only telecoms ministry, which they’ve come to pick up the prizes, you know, they’re from various… If that’s really broad approach, it really matters. So now, when we move forward, you know, how we can leverage that and not lose it. Because sometimes it’s easy to say, well, just do military colder, don’t worry. You know, but opening up the floor for a few minutes for civil society, you know, it doesn’t mean we’ll just stay colder. You know, it really needs a lot of work. So I think, how do we really making it work? How we bring the governments also with the meaningful voices to our table is a lot. And I think we have a lot of leverage. We have a lot of work. And 20 years, we’re building that here. So really, so my call would be to really look at those things we already have. This infrastructure that we developed, I already mentioned some of that. But also, of course, Swiss’s Forum here, IGF, which next year will celebrate 20 years of its existence. You know, UNGIS with the 50 UN agents is coming together. This is a community that can deliver. And, you know, I really welcome the words of the… I really welcome the provisions in GDC that will encourage joining up the forces and leveraging further. Of course, GDC pushes… …for us that we were not going that far before, like either in artificial intelligence, on data governance. Of course, we need to push those areas. But at the same time, we shouldn’t forget of all this impact in every single area there. We can reuse the frameworks. We can use this convening. We can use reporting. We’re also building up with our partnership for measuring ICTs, the data hub to allow not only with this reporting, but the global digital compact reporting that allow us to better targeting, setting the better targets. We can use this better for reporting. So really, let’s work together to make sure that those integrated frameworks are not just, you know, not just slide down in the modalities resolutions, which are, again, very important, but also impact everyone’s life every day. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you, Thomas, for these passionate words in the end. I have seven seconds or something like this left to wrap up. So I’m going to try. I think what we heard is very clear. Everybody is willing to align, to unite forces, to work together. The how, of course, is probably more tricky, but I think what we’ve heard is it’s not an either or. It’s about complementarity and using synergies. today but the week has still only begun. So enjoy the week and talk to each other, listen to each other. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Need to prevent duplication and ensure coherence between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Angel Gonzalez Sanz
– Amandeep Singh Gill
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Tawfik Jelassi

Arguments

Need to prevent duplication and ensure coherence between WSIS Plus 20 review and GDC implementation

WSIS Plus 20 review must be cognizant of GDC adoption while avoiding duplication, especially given UN efficiency requirements

Strong consensus emerged from consultations on the crucial need for alignment between GDC and WSIS processes

GDC endorses WSIS principles from the outset and emphasizes reliance on existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones

Must avoid establishing overlapping frameworks or institutional mechanisms that would introduce redundancy

Need to get UN acts together as member states don’t want duplication between UN-initiated processes

Summary

All speakers strongly agreed on the fundamental need to align WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes while avoiding duplication, with particular emphasis on UN efficiency requirements and member state concerns about overlapping mechanisms.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Leverage existing WSIS infrastructure and mechanisms rather than creating new ones

Speakers

– Angel Gonzalez Sanz
– Amandeep Singh Gill
– Cynthia Lesufi
– Tomas Lamanauskas

Arguments

Recommendation that GDC commitments should leverage WSIS mechanisms and build on institutional strengths already developed

Agreement on leveraging existing forums like WSIS Forum and IGF rather than creating parallel mechanisms

GDC endorses WSIS principles from the outset and emphasizes reliance on existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones

WSIS has developed comprehensive implementation ecosystem over two decades, uniquely positioned to support digital development

Existing infrastructure includes WSIS Forum, IGF, UNGIS coordination, and stocktaking process that can deliver results

Summary

Speakers unanimously supported building upon the existing WSIS infrastructure, including forums, coordination mechanisms, and processes that have been developed over 20 years, rather than creating parallel systems.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Importance of multi-stakeholder governance and inclusive participation

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Angel Gonzalez Sanz
– Amandeep Singh Gill
– Cynthia Lesufi
– Tawfik Jelassi
– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Process has strong legacy of multi-stakeholder engagement and welcomes views from all stakeholders, not just member states

Challenges cannot be addressed by governments alone and require multi-stakeholder involvement without fragmentation

Progressive language in GDC on multi-stakeholder approach should be upheld and not negotiated down

WSIS serves as optimal platform for embedding GDC priorities due to its multi-stakeholder nature and global reach

Hybrid governance approach combining normative legitimacy of states with inclusivity of multi-stakeholder model

Multi-stakeholder approach took time to develop but now enables productive work despite different perspectives

Co-facilitators want to hear from stakeholders during the entire week about concrete implementation approaches

Summary

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder governance, recognizing it as a core strength of the WSIS process that should be preserved and enhanced in alignment with GDC.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Focus on practical implementation and concrete outcomes

Speakers

– Amandeep Singh Gill
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Cynthia Lesufi
– Tomas Lamanauskas

Arguments

Focus should be on substance, outcomes, and results rather than just processes

EU proposal to develop roadmaps for WSIS action lines as practical instrument to embed GDC principles

WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025 provides opportunity to evaluate progress and identify gaps

Success should be measured by game-changing solutions that directly impact communities and change lives

Summary

Speakers agreed on the need to move beyond process discussions to focus on practical implementation approaches and measurable outcomes that deliver real impact to communities.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers specifically highlighted UNGIS (UN Group on Information Society) as a key coordination mechanism, with Angel proposing it develop joint implementation roadmaps and Tomas emphasizing its role in bringing 50 UN agencies together.

Speakers

– Angel Gonzalez Sanz
– Tomas Lamanauskas

Arguments

Proposal for UNGIS to develop joint implementation roadmap to be presented to 2020 CSTD session

Existing infrastructure includes WSIS Forum, IGF, UNGIS coordination, and stocktaking process that can deliver results

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the importance of supporting co-facilitators in their coordination role, with Kleiner proposing roadmaps that maintain facilitator ownership and Lesufi offering ITU’s support as a coordination leader.

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Cynthia Lesufi

Arguments

Roadmaps would be forward-looking instruments developed through inclusive consultations while maintaining facilitator ownership

ITU stands ready to support co-facilitators and UN agencies in fostering alignment as leader in WSIS coordination

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognized the need to balance intergovernmental processes with multi-stakeholder approaches, acknowledging that some issues require stronger government engagement while maintaining inclusive participation.

Speakers

– Amandeep Singh Gill
– Tawfik Jelassi

Arguments

GDC creates necessary intergovernmental processes for AI governance and data governance while upholding multi-stakeholder vision

Hybrid governance approach combining normative legitimacy of states with inclusivity of multi-stakeholder model

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Strong support for EU’s practical roadmap proposal

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Angel Gonzalez Sanz
– Cynthia Lesufi

Arguments

EU proposal to develop roadmaps for WSIS action lines as practical instrument to embed GDC principles

Proposal for UNGIS to develop joint implementation roadmap to be presented to 2020 CSTD session

WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025 provides opportunity to evaluate progress and identify gaps

Explanation

There was unexpected convergence around concrete roadmap proposals as a practical solution, with the EU’s specific proposal receiving implicit support through similar suggestions from other speakers, indicating readiness to move from conceptual alignment to operational planning.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Acknowledgment of member state frustration with UN process duplication

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Tawfik Jelassi
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

WSIS Plus 20 review must be cognizant of GDC adoption while avoiding duplication, especially given UN efficiency requirements

Need to get UN acts together as member states don’t want duplication between UN-initiated processes

Must avoid establishing overlapping frameworks or institutional mechanisms that would introduce redundancy

Explanation

There was surprising candor and consensus among speakers about member state frustration with UN system inefficiencies and duplication, with multiple speakers directly acknowledging this political reality and the need to address it proactively.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Recognition of WSIS’s concrete achievements and impact

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Cynthia Lesufi
– Tawfik Jelassi

Arguments

WSIS has achieved significant progress from 12% internet penetration in 2005 to two-thirds of world connected today

WSIS has developed comprehensive implementation ecosystem over two decades, uniquely positioned to support digital development

UNESCO leads implementation of six WSIS action lines covering access to information, e-learning, e-science, cultural diversity, media, and ethics

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on celebrating WSIS’s concrete achievements with specific metrics and examples, moving beyond diplomatic language to acknowledge real impact and success stories, which strengthened the case for building on existing mechanisms.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkably strong consensus among all speakers on key principles: avoiding duplication between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC, leveraging existing WSIS infrastructure, maintaining multi-stakeholder governance, and focusing on practical implementation. There was also unexpected convergence on specific solutions like roadmap development and candid acknowledgment of member state concerns about UN system inefficiencies.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests favorable conditions for successful integration of the two processes, with speakers demonstrating both political realism about constraints and practical commitment to moving forward with concrete implementation approaches. The consensus extends beyond general principles to specific mechanisms and approaches, indicating readiness for operational planning and implementation.

Different viewpoints

Governance approach for digital issues

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Amandeep Singh Gill

Arguments

Hybrid governance approach combining normative legitimacy of states with inclusivity of multi-stakeholder model

Progressive language in GDC on multi-stakeholder approach should be upheld and not negotiated down

Summary

Tawfik Jelassi advocates for a hybrid governance model that combines intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder approaches, arguing that neither approach alone is sufficient. Amandeep Singh Gill emphasizes maintaining the progressive multi-stakeholder language from GDC without compromise, suggesting a stronger commitment to the multi-stakeholder model.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Emphasis on vision versus implementation

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Amandeep Singh Gill

Arguments

Need consensus on vision for digital future and how governance should evolve to address societal impacts

Focus should be on substance, outcomes, and results rather than just processes

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are senior UN officials who might be expected to align on priorities. Tawfik emphasizes the foundational need for consensus on vision before proceeding, while Amandeep argues for focusing on substance and outcomes, suggesting different philosophical approaches to policy development within the UN system.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus on major objectives with disagreements primarily on implementation approaches and governance models. Main areas of difference include governance philosophy (hybrid vs. multi-stakeholder), implementation mechanisms (different roadmap proposals), and priority sequencing (vision-first vs. outcomes-first).

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers demonstrate strong alignment on avoiding duplication, leveraging existing WSIS infrastructure, and ensuring multi-stakeholder participation. Disagreements are constructive and focus on methodology rather than fundamental objectives. This suggests good prospects for successful integration of WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes, though careful negotiation will be needed on governance models and implementation frameworks.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers specifically highlighted UNGIS (UN Group on Information Society) as a key coordination mechanism, with Angel proposing it develop joint implementation roadmaps and Tomas emphasizing its role in bringing 50 UN agencies together.

Speakers

– Angel Gonzalez Sanz
– Tomas Lamanauskas

Arguments

Proposal for UNGIS to develop joint implementation roadmap to be presented to 2020 CSTD session

Existing infrastructure includes WSIS Forum, IGF, UNGIS coordination, and stocktaking process that can deliver results

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the importance of supporting co-facilitators in their coordination role, with Kleiner proposing roadmaps that maintain facilitator ownership and Lesufi offering ITU’s support as a coordination leader.

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Cynthia Lesufi

Arguments

Roadmaps would be forward-looking instruments developed through inclusive consultations while maintaining facilitator ownership

ITU stands ready to support co-facilitators and UN agencies in fostering alignment as leader in WSIS coordination

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognized the need to balance intergovernmental processes with multi-stakeholder approaches, acknowledging that some issues require stronger government engagement while maintaining inclusive participation.

Speakers

– Amandeep Singh Gill
– Tawfik Jelassi

Arguments

GDC creates necessary intergovernmental processes for AI governance and data governance while upholding multi-stakeholder vision

Hybrid governance approach combining normative legitimacy of states with inclusivity of multi-stakeholder model

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

There is strong consensus among all stakeholders on the need to align WSIS Plus 20 and Global Digital Compact (GDC) processes to avoid duplication and ensure coherence

The GDC already endorses WSIS principles from the outset and emphasizes leveraging existing mechanisms rather than creating new parallel structures

WSIS has built substantial infrastructure over 20 years (forums, stocktaking, UNGIS coordination) that should be utilized rather than replaced

Multi-stakeholder governance remains essential, though a hybrid approach combining state legitimacy with inclusive participation may be optimal

Focus should be on substance, outcomes, and real-world impact rather than just processes and modalities

Four key substantive priorities were identified: closing digital divide, fostering safe digital transformation, supporting SDG implementation, and strengthening international cooperation

WSIS has achieved significant progress (from 12% to 67% internet penetration) and has proven mechanisms that can support GDC implementation

Resolutions and action items

UNGIS to develop a joint implementation roadmap for GDC-WSIS alignment to be presented to the 2020 CSTD session

EU to present a non-paper in coming weeks illustrating how roadmaps for WSIS action lines could embed GDC principles

WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025 to evaluate progress, identify gaps, and define future direction

Co-facilitators to continue multi-stakeholder consultations with draft zero expected by mid-August

CSTD multi-stakeholder working group on data governance to continue work as contribution to both GDC and WSIS objectives

Strengthen existing forums (WSIS Forum, IGF) rather than creating new mechanisms

Unresolved issues

Specific modalities for how the alignment between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC will be operationalized in practice

How to balance intergovernmental processes for AI governance and data governance with multi-stakeholder principles

Detailed mechanisms for ensuring progressive language from GDC is upheld and not negotiated down in WSIS Plus 20

Specific resource allocation and coordination mechanisms between different UN agencies and processes

How to measure and report on integrated implementation without creating additional reporting burdens

Concrete timeline and milestones for the joint implementation roadmap development

Suggested compromises

Hybrid governance approach combining the normative legitimacy of states with the inclusivity and diversity of multi-stakeholder processes

Using WSIS action line roadmaps as practical instruments to embed GDC principles while maintaining facilitator ownership

Leveraging existing reporting channels and mechanisms rather than creating new ones to address stakeholder fatigue

Positioning new GDC mechanisms (AI governance, data governance) as necessary additions while upholding the overall multi-stakeholder vision

Using WSIS Forum as venue for presenting and discussing alignment roadmaps to ensure transparency and coherence

Time-limited implementation mechanisms (like the GDC steering committee) to provide initial push without creating permanent bureaucracy

Thomas, you said it, you know, a trillion processes. I think while we should worry about processes and try and make negotiations, they strived very hard to ensure that we move forward with complementarity. We don’t duplicate… we are not reinventing the wheel.

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by acknowledging the complexity (‘trillion processes’) while providing a clear strategic direction. It shifts focus from process management to substantive outcomes and establishes the principle of building on existing foundations rather than starting from scratch.

Impact

This comment set the tone for the entire discussion, with subsequent speakers consistently echoing the themes of avoiding duplication and leveraging existing mechanisms. It provided a conceptual framework that other participants built upon throughout the session.

I would put above that vision and governance. Before we talk about outcomes and substance and processes, what is our vision for the digital future? Do we have a consensus on that?… We cannot let the governments decide through an intergovernmental process what is good for society at large.

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Reason

This comment challenges the fundamental assumptions of the discussion by questioning whether there’s consensus on the basic vision before diving into implementation details. It also introduces a critical governance dilemma about the legitimacy of different stakeholder groups in decision-making.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from technical coordination to deeper philosophical questions about governance models. It introduced tension between intergovernmental legitimacy and multi-stakeholder inclusivity, prompting Jelassi to propose a ‘hybrid governance approach’ as a potential solution.

So I think a hybrid governance approach maybe is one model to consider going forward… We should leverage the normative legitimacy of states, but also leverage the inclusivity and the diversity of the multi-stakeholder.

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Reason

This comment offers a concrete solution to the governance dilemma he raised earlier, proposing a synthesis that combines the strengths of both intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder approaches. It’s backed by practical examples from UNESCO’s recent work.

Impact

This introduced a new conceptual framework for governance that hadn’t been explicitly discussed before. It provided a potential pathway forward that could influence how the WSIS+20 and GDC processes are structured, moving beyond the traditional either/or debate about governance models.

I was sitting in this front row and seeing people very happily coming on the stage… came with a real solution… this is about those solutions changing the world and their communities directly… We think they’re only important when they deliver these results.

Speaker

Tomas Lamanauskas

Reason

This comment grounds the entire technical discussion in human impact by connecting abstract policy processes to real-world outcomes. It challenges the group to remember that institutional arrangements only matter if they deliver tangible benefits to communities.

Impact

This comment served as a powerful reality check, shifting the discussion from institutional mechanics back to ultimate purpose. It provided emotional resonance and practical grounding that influenced how other concepts were framed, emphasizing delivery over process.

Our proposal is to develop roadmaps for the WSIS action line… these roadmaps could be a practical instrument to embed the global digital compact’s principles explicitly, and to combine them with existing WSIS frameworks.

Speaker

Thibaut Kleiner

Reason

This comment introduces the most concrete operational proposal in the discussion – a specific mechanism (roadmaps) for achieving the integration that everyone agrees is necessary. It moves from abstract principles to actionable implementation tools.

Impact

This provided the discussion with a tangible next step and implementation mechanism. It gave substance to the general agreement on avoiding duplication by proposing a specific tool that could be developed and tested, influencing how other speakers framed their contributions around practical implementation.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing a progression from strategic framing to philosophical questioning to practical solutions. Gill’s opening reframing set collaborative rather than competitive parameters, while Jelassi’s governance challenge forced deeper thinking about legitimacy and representation. His hybrid governance proposal offered a conceptual breakthrough, while Lamanauskas’s human-centered intervention ensured the discussion remained grounded in real-world impact. Kleiner’s roadmap proposal provided concrete next steps. Together, these comments moved the conversation from abstract coordination challenges to a more sophisticated understanding of governance models and practical implementation pathways, creating a foundation for actionable outcomes rather than just procedural agreements.

How can we meaningfully integrate the WSIS plus 20 review process and the GDC to ensure coherence and prevent duplication?

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

This is one of the core guiding questions for the session that requires concrete answers and implementation strategies

How can the WSIS framework serve as the foundation for embedding the GDC’s principles and avoiding the creation of parallel or fragmented digital governance mechanisms?

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental structural relationship between WSIS and GDC frameworks to prevent institutional fragmentation

What is a pragmatic way forward for the co-facilitators to align both processes and advance shared objectives in multi-stakeholder digital cooperation?

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

This seeks actionable guidance for the co-facilitators on implementation and coordination strategies

How can we develop roadmaps for the WSIS action lines that embed the global digital compact’s principles explicitly?

Speaker

Thibaut Kleiner

Explanation

The EU proposal for structured coordination through roadmaps needs further development and stakeholder input

How can we ensure that progressive language from the GDC is upheld and not negotiated down during the WSIS Plus 20 process?

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Explanation

There is concern about maintaining the advanced digital governance language achieved in the GDC

How can we bring more dynamism into the action lines while maintaining complementarity?

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Explanation

This addresses the need to revitalize WSIS action lines while ensuring they work effectively with GDC implementation

What is our vision for the digital future and do we have consensus on that?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Explanation

This fundamental question about shared vision needs to be addressed before discussing processes and outcomes

How can we create a hybrid governance approach that leverages both intergovernmental legitimacy and multi-stakeholder inclusivity?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Explanation

Based on UNESCO’s experience, this explores new governance models that combine the strengths of both approaches

How can ANGIS develop a joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC principles into WSIS follow-up processes?

Speaker

Angel Gonzalez Sanz

Explanation

This is a concrete proposal from the CSTD resolution that requires detailed development and coordination

How can we ensure that digital solutions directly impact communities rather than just being discussed in forums?

Speaker

Tomas Lamanauskas

Explanation

This addresses the need to focus on practical outcomes and real-world impact rather than just process discussions

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of eHealth in fostering digital transformation foundations in the age of AI, moderated by Dr. Derrick Muneene from WHO within the WSIS framework. The session highlighted WHO’s 20-year collaboration with ITU to promote equitable use of ICTs in health, beginning in 2005 with the WSIS framework establishment. Dr. Muneene outlined WHO’s Global Strategy on Digital Health, which aims to achieve universal health coverage through digital means while addressing four key objectives: capacity building, ensuring countries have strategies, fostering governance, and achieving people-centeredness.

Hani Eskandar from ITU presented the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) as a solution to the persistent problem of fragmentation in digital health systems. He emphasized the need to shift from a solution mindset to an infrastructure mindset, focusing on enabling information flow through trust and interoperability rather than developing isolated vertical solutions. The DPI approach involves establishing minimum capabilities and building blocks that can be shared across health systems, including electronic health records, supply chain management, registry services, and insurance claims processing.

Regional perspectives were provided by panelists from Africa, Asia, and WHO programs. Steven Wanyee from HELENA discussed Kenya’s “digital health superhighway” initiative, which uses electronic claims as a driver for DPI investment through social health insurance contributions. Surabhi Joshi presented the Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative, focusing on digital wallets and health credentials for non-communicable diseases. Jai Ganesh from the Asia eHealth Information Network emphasized the importance of multi-sectoral coordination and convergence approaches in implementing national digital health strategies.

The discussion concluded with audience questions addressing AI governance, multi-stakeholder engagement, and the need for continued international collaboration to transform health sectors sustainably.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) for Health Transformation**: The shift from fragmented, vertical health solutions to integrated digital infrastructure that enables information flow across health sectors. This includes establishing foundational building blocks like electronic health records, supply chain management, registry services, and insurance claims systems that can interoperate seamlessly.

– **The “Pilotitis” Problem and Need for Systematic Approach**: Addressing the persistent issue of numerous disconnected pilot projects and experimental digital health solutions that lack integration and sustainability. The discussion emphasized moving from a “solution mindset” to an “infrastructure mindset” with government ownership and strategic planning.

– **WHO’s 20-Year Journey and Global Strategy on Digital Health**: Celebrating two decades of WHO’s work in supporting member states’ use of ICTs in health, from the 2005 resolution through the current Global Strategy on Digital Health aimed at achieving universal health coverage by 2030.

– **Country-Specific Implementation Examples**: Real-world applications including Kenya’s “digital health superhighway” using electronic claims as a driver, digital wallets for non-communicable diseases, and regional approaches in Asia and Africa for scaling digital health infrastructure.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Challenges**: The critical need for cross-sector coordination between health, telecommunications, and other government ministries, along with addressing regulatory gaps as technology advances faster than governance frameworks, particularly regarding AI in healthcare.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to build awareness of WHO and ITU’s collaborative work in fostering foundations for scalable digital health systems within the WSIS framework. The session focused on promoting the Global Initiative on Digital Health and demonstrating how digital public infrastructure can enable sustainable health sector transformation in the age of AI, ultimately supporting the achievement of universal health coverage and health-related SDGs by 2030.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and forward-looking tone throughout. It began with formal presentations establishing the technical and strategic framework, then evolved into more interactive dialogue with practical examples and country experiences. The tone remained consistently optimistic about the potential for digital transformation while acknowledging real challenges like fragmentation and governance gaps. The session concluded on an encouraging note with calls for continued collaboration and concrete next steps, including upcoming meetings and working groups.

Speakers

– **Derrick Muneene**: Dr. Derrick Muneene from WHO (World Health Organization), Head of Capacity Building and Partnerships, Session Moderator

– **Hani Eskandar**: Mr. Hani Eskandar, works with ITU, focuses on Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and reference architecture for digital health

– **Steven Wanyee**: Mr. Steven Wanyee from Kenya, President of HELINA (Health Informatics in Africa), an organization representing more than 20 African countries focused on professionalizing health informatics and digital health

– **Surabhi Joshi**: Surabhi Joshi, Technical Officer at World Health Organization in Geneva, works on digital health and non-communicable diseases, part of the Be Healthy, Be Mobile initiative (joint WHO-ITU initiative)

– **Innocent Chiboma**: Mr. Innocent Chiboma from the Zambian Ministry of Health

– **Jai Ganesh**: Dr. Jai Ganesh from Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN), a regional digital health network working on governance, architecture, people and program management, standards and interoperability

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members who asked questions and made comments during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Ibrahim**: Director of the Digital Health Department from Senegal

– **Edna Somra**: Works for SPIDER (Center of Enablement for Inclusive Digital Development), leading a Team Europe initiative with telecom regulators in 43 African countries

– **Sanya**: Representative of an AI-based health system solutions provider

– **IT for Change representative**: From a non-profit organization in India that does research and public policy advocacy

# Comprehensive Discussion Report: eHealth’s Role in Digital Transformation Foundations in the Age of AI

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion, moderated by Dr. Derrick Muneene from the World Health Organisation (WHO), examined the critical role of eHealth in fostering digital transformation foundations within the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework. The session brought together international experts from WHO, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), regional health informatics networks, and country representatives to address the persistent challenges of fragmentation in digital health systems and explore solutions through Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) approaches.

The discussion highlighted WHO’s two-decade collaboration with ITU to promote equitable use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in health, beginning with the 2005 WSIS framework establishment. Central to the conversation was the shift from fragmented “pilotitis” solutions to comprehensive digital public infrastructure that enables interoperability and sustainable digital health transformation.

## Background and Context

### WHO’s 20-Year Journey in Digital Health

Dr. Derrick Muneene opened the session by contextualising WHO’s extensive work within the WSIS framework, beginning in 2005 with foundational member state resolutions. This collaboration has evolved through multiple mandates, including standardisation and interoperability initiatives in 2013 and the comprehensive digital health mandate established in 2018.

The Global Strategy on Digital Health represents the culmination of this work, incorporating four fundamental principles that Dr. Muneene outlined: government ownership of digital health initiatives, implementation of appropriate digital tools, achievement of universal health coverage, and contribution to health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The strategy aims to address persistent challenges in digital health implementation while ensuring equitable access to health services.

### The Challenge of “Pilotitis”

A central theme throughout the discussion was the problem of “pilotitis” – the excessive fragmentation and verticalisation of digital health solutions. Dr. Muneene identified this as a persistent issue first recognised in 2012-2013, where numerous disconnected pilot projects lack integration and sustainability. He referenced Gates Foundation research from 2022 showing that despite significant investment in digital solutions across Africa, the impact has been limited due to this fragmentation.

This fragmentation results in duplicated investments, incompatible systems, and limited scalability, ultimately hindering the transformative potential of digital health initiatives.

## Digital Public Infrastructure: A Paradigm Shift

### Conceptual Framework

Mr. Hani Eskandar from ITU presented the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) as a fundamental solution to the fragmentation problem. He emphasised a critical paradigm shift from a “solution mindset” to an “infrastructure mindset,” arguing that true digital transformation requires enabling information flow through trust and interoperability rather than developing isolated vertical solutions.

Eskandar’s key insight was that “digital is data,” and without the ability to unlock data flow, organisations cannot leverage the full impact of digital transformation. This perspective reframes the entire approach to digital health, moving from solving individual problems to creating foundational infrastructure that enables comprehensive sector transformation.

### Technical Architecture and Building Blocks

The DPI approach involves establishing minimum capabilities and building blocks that can be shared across health systems. Eskandar outlined five key building blocks that WHO and ITU are developing:

1. **Electronic Health Records**: Comprehensive patient data management systems

2. **Supply Chain Management**: Digital systems for medical supplies and pharmaceuticals

3. **Registry Services**: Population and health facility registries

4. **Claims/Insurance Claims Processing**: Digital systems for health financing

5. **Foundational DPI Components**: Digital identity, e-signature, and trusted information exchange services

Eskandar mentioned that ITU is working on the GAFSTAC project to develop foundational DPI specifications, recognising that transformational health use cases cannot operate in isolation but must connect with underlying digital public infrastructure.

## Regional Perspectives and Implementation Examples

### African Experiences

#### Kenya’s Digital Health Superhighway

Mr. Steven Wanyee from the Health Informatics in Africa (HELENA) network presented Kenya’s innovative approach to DPI implementation through their “digital health superhighway” initiative. This programme demonstrates how countries can leverage domestic financing for digital health infrastructure, using social health insurance contributions to fund DPI development.

The Kenyan model uses electronic claims processing as the primary driver for DPI investment, recognising that this creates a compelling business case for continued investment in digital health infrastructure.

#### Zambian Strategic Approach

Mr. Innocent Chiboma from the Zambian Ministry of Health briefly described his country’s systematic approach, noting that Zambia is conducting a mid-term review of its digital health strategy and developing a comprehensive digital health architecture document that will be shared with stakeholders.

#### Regional Capacity Building Through HELENA

HELENA, representing more than 20 African countries, focuses on professionalising health informatics and digital health across the continent. The organisation promotes workforce capacity development and knowledge sharing, recognising that successful digital health transformation requires skilled human resources capable of managing and maintaining these systems.

### Asian Regional Network Approach

Dr. Jai Ganesh from the Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) outlined their comprehensive approach to supporting countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability. He announced that AIHIN’s upcoming annual general meeting would focus on “investing in DPI for person-centred health,” demonstrating the regional commitment to moving beyond fragmented solutions towards integrated infrastructure approaches.

## Innovative Approaches and Emerging Solutions

### Digital Wallets and Health Credentials

Ms. Surabhi Joshi from WHO presented the Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative, which focuses on digital wallets and health credentials for non-communicable disease management. She explained that digital wallets serve as secure interfaces that enable individuals to access and share verifiable health credentials while protecting privacy and giving people ownership of their health management.

The initiative aligns with the Global Digital Health Certification Network, which enables countries to verify health credentials across borders. Joshi emphasised that the initiative develops digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure using open standards and open source tools, ensuring that solutions can be adapted and scaled across different country contexts while maintaining interoperability.

She announced that the Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative would be relaunched in September during the UN General Assembly in New York.

## Audience Interventions and Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives

### Capacity Building and International Support

Ibrahim from Senegal raised concerns about the absence of regular WHO-ITU training meetings for countries over the past 1-2 years, highlighting gaps in capacity building support that countries have been expecting. This intervention pointed to the need for sustained international collaboration and support mechanisms beyond strategy development.

### Cross-Sectoral Coordination Challenges

Ms. Edna Somra from SPIDER highlighted practical challenges in multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly in getting telecommunications regulators to engage with health champions. She noted that many digital health initiatives fail because they don’t adequately involve the telecommunications sector that enables data sharing, especially across regional boundaries.

### Rights-Based Approaches and Governance

A representative from IT for Change introduced critical perspectives on equity and governance, emphasising the need to translate bioethics principles and right to health concepts into digital health governance frameworks. This intervention highlighted concerns about ensuring that DPI approaches don’t inadvertently create new barriers to health services or concentrate power in ways that undermine health equity.

### AI Integration and Governance

Sanya, an AI solutions provider, asked about how artificial intelligence fits into the DPI workflow and governance frameworks. The discussion addressed growing concerns about AI governance in healthcare settings, with WHO having published comprehensive guidance on ethics and governance of AI for health. However, participants noted that many countries lack specific AI governance laws, creating challenges for health sector implementation of AI technologies.

## Key Themes and Takeaways

### Government Leadership and Sustainability

Throughout the discussion, speakers consistently emphasised that government ownership and leadership are essential for sustainable and scalable digital health implementations. This represents a shift away from donor-dependent, partner-led approaches that have characterised many previous initiatives.

### Standards and Interoperability

There was strong agreement on the critical importance of establishing common standards and ensuring interoperability across digital health systems to enable effective information sharing and system integration.

### Multi-Sectoral Collaboration

The discussion revealed the critical need for collaboration across sectors, particularly between health ministries and telecommunications regulators, to ensure that digital health initiatives are properly integrated with broader digital government strategies.

## Next Steps and Future Initiatives

Dr. Muneene announced a five-day virtual convening the following week, with registration details provided to participants through a QR code. This global initiative on digital health represents continued collaboration between WHO, ITU, and country representatives in advancing digital health transformation.

The discussion also established the framework for technical working groups focused on developing specifications for the five key building blocks of health DPI, indicating ongoing collaboration in translating conceptual frameworks into practical implementation guidance.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion demonstrated significant progress in understanding digital health transformation challenges and solutions across diverse stakeholders and regions. The strong focus on moving from fragmented solutions to Digital Public Infrastructure approaches represents a fundamental paradigm change that addresses long-standing problems of “pilotitis” and system fragmentation.

The WHO-ITU collaboration, now in its twentieth year, has successfully built shared understanding across regions and stakeholder groups. The next phase of this work focuses on translating this understanding into practical implementation support for countries, with particular attention to the technical working groups and capacity building initiatives outlined during the discussion.

As the health sector continues to grapple with opportunities and challenges presented by artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, the foundations established through this collaborative work will be essential for ensuring that digital health transformation contributes to universal health coverage and health equity goals.

Derrick Muneene: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. My name is Dr. Derrick Muneene. I’ll be moderating this session on Action Line eHealth within the WSIS framework. It’s my pleasure to also introduce the four-man panel that will be taking the floor after me. Let me just introduce the topic. We’ll be discussing the role of eHealth in as far as fostering foundations for digital transformations is concerned in the age of AI. And the purpose of this particular session is to really build awareness on our work as WHO with the ITU in terms of fostering foundations that enable the scaling of digital health systems and tools. So I’m Dr. Derrick Muneene, once again from WHO, and I am head of capacity building and partnerships. I’m joined by Mr. Hani Eskandar, who introduced himself. There will be four speakers in this session, and we hope we can have a good dialogue. Mr. Innocent Chiboma from the Zambian Minister of Health. Mr. Steven Wanyee, who is to my left, who is president of a network on informatics in Africa called Helina. And we’ll also be joined with Surabhi Joshi from the World Health Organization. And lastly, online from Mr. Jay Ganesh. We hope we can have a good 45 minutes or so together in discussing this topic. Allow me to just introduce what we’ll be dealing with. So from the World Health Organization’s perspective, we have worked with the WSIS platform with the ITU to ensure the equitable use of ICTs in health. And as you know, health affects all of us. We are all part and parcel of the health system’s delivery. And so member states gave us a 20-year cycle of supporting the transformation of the health sector. We’re actually pleased to be celebrating the 20 years of and the 20 years of WHO in supporting member states on the use of ICTs in health. We actually started in 2005, the same year that the WSIS framework was actually put in place. And so our member states gave us a resolution on the use of ICTs in health in 2005. This was complemented by another action in 2013 that was around standardization and interoperability. And then finally in 2018, our member states gave us another mandate of an encompassing mandate called digital health that gave birth to an implementation arm called the Global Strategy on Digital Health. And all these mechanisms are really intended to help achieve the SDGs, the health-related SDGs by the 2030 Agenda. Just to recap, as has been discussed throughout this forum, the role of digital is to ensure equitable access to services, whether it’s health, education or agriculture. And so the vision that member states gave us on the Global Strategy on Digital Health is really around achieving universal health coverage by using digital means and modalities. There are principles that we have put in place or otherwise member states have put in place in achieving of this particular strategy. They include government ownership. They include the whole issue of ensuring that their strategy is put in place to inform the implementation of strategies. They also include the whole issue of ensuring that we have appropriate digital tools that are fit for purpose and contextualize as appropriate. There is also a dimension that deals with making sure that our needs of countries are assessed and addressed appropriately. There are four objectives or four points on the strategy, which include capacity building, the whole issue of ensuring each country has a strategy, fostering governance, and at the same time, ensuring that we are using digital to achieve the people-centeredness that we’ve talked about. Now, we just came out of an exciting set of two meetings. We did have our executive board. and the Information Society. It sort of recognizes the existence of this particular framework. Now, in terms of the current issues that we see as opportunities, we realize that countries get the use of digital health in the health sector. The biggest challenge that we see coming up is that the technology is moving so fast that the regulations, as you’d expect, are sort of lagging behind. And with the ease of developing digital solutions, we are seeing a lot of fragmentation. And so this particular diagram you see is a research that the Gates Foundation had conducted in 2022, assessing the state of digital solutions and integration in the African region. The findings here basically were that there were so many pilots, so many experiments that were being conducted. And by the way, this 2022 research is not different from what we saw earlier in about 2012, 2013, where Sean Blaschke, our colleague in UNICEF, also conducted an observation of digital implementation in Uganda, where they discovered the same fragmentation. We then called it pilotitis during that time. So we see that the issue of pilotitis or verticalization is still with us, especially in this age of AI, where digital solutions can be built quite rapidly without a holistic approach. And so we recognize that the global digital compact has a call towards investing in foundations like we heard today from Tanzania. Tanzania got a So, let’s start with the first question. What is the transformation of the health sector holistically? There are four points. A, what are country needs and gaps, as it was discussed in the Global Studies and Digital Health? And how can we match these needs to available resources from developing partners? And the foundational question is, over the past 20 years, WHO has given a lot of guidance in this area. How do we ensure that we can guide countries in those tools that are needed for them to achieve the transformation they’re looking for? And then lastly, convergence at the global, regional, and national level, such as this area, to have some knowledge exchange activities. The Global Initiative on Digital Health is a way for us to engage with different partners. And just to point out that there are three points, transparency, DPIs, which is what my colleague, Mr. Hani Eskandar, will be talking about, focusing on those foundations, and also making sure that we have, we strengthen the equitable deployment of the transformation of the health that we’re looking at. These are the three points of the Global Initiative on Digital Health, which we’re using as a vehicle to… implement our option line on e-health to ensure that there’s a robust sustainable transformation of the health sector. The second bullet is what the speakers will be speaking about. What’s digital public infrastructure? How can we use this digital public infrastructure agenda to ensure that country implementations on digital health are sustained, whether these be telemedicine, electronic medical record systems, e-learning and et cetera? How do we ensure that they sit on foundations to foster sustainability? I’ll just flash some of the achievements global initiative has enhanced. We have created an avenue to track country requests and that’s still work in progress. That’s based on pillar number one. And then based on the second pillar, we have had a number of convenings like this one. There’ll be another one happening next week for five days on the global initiative on digital health. This is really around ensuring that there’s knowledge exchange and that partner needs are being mapped. We have also ensured that tools such as the global digital health monitor are available for countries to monitor their progress on the transformation, including a database of digital health solutions. We also have ensured that countries have a strategy on digital health. As we speak, more than 129 countries have posted digital health strategies globally. They still work to be done to make sure that these are implementable. Also to just point out that as we look at the remaining gaps in the maturity of countries, people skills still remain to be a gap. And so that’s one area that we hope we can actually emphasize. And then to just speak to the whole issue of country focus, we are working with Zambia and Bangladesh and you hear from Zambia on ensuring that we have tangible results from these two countries. I’ll just pause on this slide. We do have a five day meeting, which is virtual. We invite you all to join us for five days next week. And that’s the QR code. And this particular second convening is intended to bring this agenda we’re discussing today.

Hani Eskandar: Thank you very much, Derrick. By the way, I sent you the presentation, if you can…

Derrick Muneene: Okay, so we just change gears here.

Hani Eskandar: Yes. Okay, so I will really focus on one of the things that is very much in line with the global digital health strategy of WHO around the concept of digital public infrastructure. For those who are from the digital community, you will definitely know that DPI or digital public infrastructure is an emerging kind of focus, though it is not new. But I think it gained with particularly the G20 of India, like two years ago, a significant interest. And it’s essentially started in the area of digital governance. But I think now other sectors, including health, are now trying to understand how they can embrace the concept of digital public infrastructure. In that sense, we started with WHO recently, a work to establish a reference architecture for this digital public infrastructure, with all the kind of relevant standards that are important for the health sector digital transformation. So let me maybe just guide you to give you a little bit of information about what is this kind of reference architecture. As Derek mentioned, the health, digital health has been suffering from this kind of fragmentation, siloing, vertical solutions that are really focusing on one particular issue, on one particular problem. I think now all the sectors are moving towards a broader concept of digital transformation for health. What is it? What is the difference? The main difference is that we are looking here at transforming the health sector as opposed to solving one particular solution. The underlying thing that you need to unlock for digital transformation is unlocking information flow. This has been the number one problem in all different types of digitalization. And as I always say, digital is data. And if you are not able to unlock data flow, then you cannot really leverage the full impact of digital. So the whole idea of this DPI is to enable two things that are important for information flow, trust and interoperability. So the whole concept of DPI is to allow the digital infrastructures that allow information flow to really talk about digital transformation, where we are talking about information flow across the health sectors, across the use cases, and not only locked in one particular thing. Our approach is not to propose to countries solutions, whether open source or non-open source, but really try to understand first the framework so that countries set the reference architecture with all the types of regulations and governance issues that are attached to it. This kind of change, it’s a kind of a more radical mindset shift from this solution mindset to an infrastructure mindset, which we can call the DPI approach. And this has implication on how you invest in digital. Believe me, even if people understand what’s DPI and when they start to develop solution, they go back and develop it with the traditional monolithic way of developing solution. So you need much more change in the mindset to really enable how do you run your investments and procurements. to enable component-based solutions that are maybe those components are not even developed by the same provider. And each provider is developing a separate product. How all those kinds of products and components interact and interoperate in a way that they seem to be like one big thing and not discrete solutions. What we hope to have is to say, if you are going to invest in digital for health, please put in place what we can call the minimum capabilities. What are the main, what we call building blocks or components instead of spending and duplicating the investment in different solution. And this, by the way, applies also for non-health sectors. All the other sectors are suffering. Even digital governors are suffering from the same issue. How we invest in putting in place the minimum capabilities to ensure that those investments will stay and they will not be duplicated and they will not be replicated and even become obsolete in some cases. We really very much focus on knowledge transfer. We would like to make sure that governments, countries own and understand and steer the investments themselves. So we really much put a lot of emphasis on capacity building. Another thing which is super critical is that if you look at most of the transformational health use cases, like for example, universal health insurance or other types of health use cases that are really truly transformational, they cannot be developed and operate without connecting with the underlying digital public infrastructure. Because any applications that needs trust and interoperability will need services like digital identity, e-signature, trusted exchange of information, consent based type of interactions. So all those are not necessarily services that are developed only for the health sector. Those are. more broader, and the health sector needs to be part of that. What happens, unfortunately, in most of the sectors is that each sector thought that they can do it alone. I think many people realize now that a sector cannot transform itself alone, and you don’t need to build the whole stack within each sector, simply because you don’t have the expertise, you don’t have the resources, you don’t have the time even to build a whole stack per sector. So you need to have one stack that is common for the whole of government. This stack, it’s not about this DPI for health should not be like a super complicated, like a Mercedes to cross the road. You need to be fit for purpose. And here with our starting point is really the type of use cases that you need to enable and what kind of outcomes and based on that you develop and design your DPI. So, of course, don’t reinvent the wheel because, you know, many of the things of the health sector has been already developed. So we have established those kind of working groups. And one of the big first things that we are interacting with working groups is to tell them, please don’t think that you need to develop everything alone because many of those things have been developed outside of the health sector and you need to develop it and leverage what has been done. So let me maybe skip or maybe summarize additional points. More and more we’ll have less funding coming at least from the donor community. I think we saw a very good example recently. So I think it’s about being very careful in rationalizing the investment. You cannot continue to depend on donors’ funding. You cannot depend on duplicating investments. And you need to shape the market, meaning you need to steer the public, sorry, the private companies to develop things based on your own. and five building blocks that are very relevant for health. Those are related to electronic health records, supply chain, which are very important for, you know, avoiding stockouts, particularly for very important drugs like malaria and others. The third component, sorry, is registry services. There are very key important services, registries for health. I think there are maybe five or six that are key, health professionals, health facilities, patients, products, catalog, and other types of registries. And then the other one is the claims, insurance claims. So this kind of shareable common components within the health sector needs to interoperate with the underlying, what we call foundational DPI. We have worked at ITU. I was personally part of this other project that we call GAFSTAC, which basically provides specification and open APIs definitions for the underlying DPI, foundational DPI. We started really from the cloud till the digital ID payments, exchange, consent, e-signature, et cetera, et cetera. So we want to make sure that the sectoral DPI fits very well with the underlying type of infrastructure. So what we are trying to do now is that we have established those five different technical groups with one architecture group who are developing started to develop the specification for all those kinds of health specific and you are all more than welcome to join these types of technical working groups if you are interested and of course I can provide you more information later on. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: All right, a big hand for Mr. Hani Eskandar here. Thank you so much. We would shift now to hearing from our panelists. We do have others online, Mr. Innocent Chiboma who is trying to get registered and then we have Surabhi Joshi, we have Stephen and we have Jai. We would perhaps start with the interventionists that are in the room. So I’ll be asking Stephen to introduce himself and the role of the panelists is to really contextualize this in terms of what it means in their respective sectors. So Mr. Stephen, your three minutes.

Steven Wanyee: Thank you Derrick and good afternoon everyone. So my name is Stephen Wanye from Kenya and I’m currently in this panel as the president of HELENA. So HELENA stands for Health Informatics in Africa. It’s an organization where we’ve got more than 20 countries who are members of our association. Basically we exist to professionalize health informatics and digital health by promoting workforce capacity development. I mean so I think with respect to this topic, I mean I think as has been clearly spelled out by Derrick and by Hani, what we’re seeing in Africa and I have the privilege of working in a couple of countries, we’re seeing a lot of ministers of health actually working more broadly with the governments. So as a very specific example, for any of you who’s worked in Kenya, you probably come across a new term called digital health super highway. So the ministry of health in Kenya has actually found domestic financing to build up the DPI for health and the use case in Kenya is actually electronic claims. So I think as Hani mentioned, in the green block there, you have to latch on DPI onto something that actually means something to that country. You know, so the UHC agenda for Kenya is a very clear strategy for access, and access is about affording payments. And so the way the country is looking at this is, how do we then invest the DPI for health in Kenya and use electronic claims as a driver? You know, so there’s a new bill, so we are all contributing to something called social health insurance. And out of our contributions, part of that is funding the DPI for health. So that’s really how it’s working. As one example of what I’m seeing currently going across Africa. So I think to wrap up, Derrick, I think it’s about two minutes or three minutes. What we’re seeing is that digital health and DPI is being driven not necessarily for health purposes, but for either social health enablement strategies, you know, so can you pay for it, and that becomes a driver. I think digital health has suffered a lot because we’ve been looking a lot more at just health outcomes only, but we need to look at associated drivers for digital health investment for DPIs to succeed. Thanks, Derrick.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much, Stephen. A big hand for Stephen as well. We shall turn to Sharabi Joshi online to give us another use case. So we just said from the African region in terms of the specific instance on DPIs in a country for claims and identifying of people, and so ask Sharabi Joshi to also give us a programmatic use case. Sharabi, over to you. We’ll ask the technicians to also unmute Sharabi Joshi to make her interventions. You have three minutes as well.

Surabhi Joshi: Thanks very much, Derrick, and hello, everybody. I’m Sharabi Joshi. I’m a technical officer in the World Health Organization here in Geneva, and I work on with a focus on digital health and non communicable diseases. And I work as part of an initiative called the Be Healthy, Be Mobile initiative, which is a joint initiative between WHO and the International Telecommunications Union. It has a mandate to scale up digital health for non communicable diseases. And we are currently in a refresh mode, we will be relaunching the Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative in September, during the UN General Assembly in New York, on the sidelines of the high level meeting on NCDs as well. And at the moment, we have four areas of priority to focus on. And one of them is on digital public infrastructure, basically developing digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure, and supporting countries develop scalable and secure systems that build on open standards and open source tools. So one of the visions is to contribute to the massive ongoing efforts, both by WHO and ITU towards a more interoperable and person centered ecosystem, also in alignment with the global digital health initiative, GIDH, that Derrick spoke about previously. And this, you know, something that we’ve recently begun to explore is digital wallets, and how non communicable diseases like diabetes and cancers, hypertension, and also their risk factors, how they can be added to the ongoing efforts and initiatives in this broad area of work. So to take digital wallets as a case, when we talk about digital wallets, we are referring to more than just an app, as we heard from Hani. It’s a secure interface that lets people access and share verifiable health credentials, like your vaccination record, for example, in a way that protects the privacy of the person, but also gives him a sense of ownership about managing his own health. So we’ve been thinking about what this could mean for chronic, non-communicable diseases, because they’re lifelong in nature, right, like diabetes. So this could be, for example, a credential that confirms cervical cancer screening for a person, or his participation and successful completion in a tobacco use again and again for a type 2 diabetes treatment. Or it could be also eligibility for a follow-up service at a, let’s say, a tertiary healthcare center. So there could be so many use cases, but all as part of a trusted and integrated digital infrastructure. And something that WHO has been working a lot since the past couple of years, along with the European Commission, is the Global Digital Health Certification Network, which is also a foundational layer of digital public infrastructure that enables countries to verify health credentials across borders. So a use case that has been very successful is the HUDGE health record. And also over time, something that will be done is work on e-prescriptions and immunizations. So what we are hoping to do is to ground our work in this broader effort, and with open standards and interoperability, and also in alignment with the Global Digital Health Certification, taking very practical steps, while keeping on…

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much, Serbi. Can you still hear us? Thank you so much for that programmatic use case, a big handful, virtual handful actually. So thank you very much. Dear participants, we just have one more speaker and then we open it up to hear your reflections on this topic. And Mr. Jai, Dr. Jai Ganesh will be calling us to give us the Southeast Asia, you know, implementation or thoughts or reflections on this particular topic.

Jai Ganesh: Thank you, Derrick. This is Jai. I’m from Asia eHealth Information Network, which is a regional digital health network, which has been working closely with WHO, ITU and many other partners here in terms of supporting countries for the national digital health programs. Primarily, we have been focusing on the four main areas of governance, architecture, people and program management, standards and interoperability. So the DPA approach is very much aligned with what we have been doing in the region. And we have countries officially representing in terms of working council and convergence approach is another way of bringing various sectors, like, for example, multi sectoral coordination, cooperation and collaboration to have a coherent approach in terms of national digital health strategy and its implementation. So one of a couple of things that we are looking at at DPA is like also identifying there are countries in the region who have already leveraged the DPAs for health sector. And then there are others who are yet to do. And then there are some. who are actually thinking in terms of how to do. So we are, because AIHIN actually has been also specialized in training capacity building in the region, we are looking at how we could support countries. And then, so WHO had recently also shared the reference architecture for digital health, and which I have also posted in the chat. So that is something that we are closely looking at how we could actually support countries towards looking up the reference architecture, how they can actually implement it at the country level. And then we see also the, our convergence workshop is also a nice forum where we could actually look at how countries are leveraging DPIs or not, and then how they could actually do. So that’s where like we are currently, our focus is towards supporting countries in terms of how they can leverage the DPIs. In fact, very interesting that in another three months, like we will have our annual event, there will be announcement very soon. And the theme of the event, the general meeting, AIHIN’s general meeting is actually focused on investing in digital public infrastructure for health and person-centered health. So this is very much like the discussion in the panel is very much aligned with what we have been working and then what we are looking forward. And then I would say that look forward to work together with WHO, ITU and partners in terms of taking this to implementation. Thank you very much, Derrick, Hani and team.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much, Dr. Jai Ganesh. Last round of applause to the speakers. All right. We have now about 10 minutes to spend our time together reflecting, getting your views. Again, this is the eHealth Action Line. We’ve actually come from very far based upon the timetable I gave. And right now we’re looking at foundations and we have listened to the ITU’s work with WHO. We’ve also heard from the Helena Network. We’ve also had the programmatic example from Surabhi. And then last, we also heard from Jay Ganesh from the Asia eHealth Network. The floor is open both virtually and also in the room for your reflections on how we can actually take this forward. So let’s start from the room and we’ll be keeping an eye on the interventions. We did have one more speaker who hasn’t been able to join from the Zambian Minister of Health. And if he joins, I’ll give him the floor as well. Okay, the floor is open, both virtual and also in person. Okay, on the left side of the room. Checking on the right side. Okay, there is a point on my right side.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Ibrahim. I come from Senegal. I’m the Director of the Digital Health Department. I have just one question. Generally, WHO and I to invite us in Geneva in order to improve, in order to train, et cetera. Since one year or two year, we don’t see this meeting. When they’re inviting this meeting, I don’t know, it is linked by the lack of resources that you mentioned, or what is the problem? Because generally, WHO and I to help the countries sometimes in some topics, in some project. They lead some project, they open the door and after countries can know what is happened and how they can carry on. But since one year and a year and a half, we don’t have this meeting, I don’t know why.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much. Let’s maybe take. a few more and then we’ll answer them together. Thank you so much, Dr. Derrick, for that.

Audience: Hi, my name is Edna Somra. I work for SPIDER, which is the Center of Enablement for Inclusive Digital Development. And I’m so happy to see Hani and Derrick and Steve. I’ve missed you guys. And also, Hani, I’m sorry. I always come here and I’m not the whole way around. I’m currently leading a Team Europe initiative, working with telecom regulators in 43 African countries. And it really resonates with me, this intersectionality across. It can be within the same country, within the same ministries even. And I think we really have to focus that going forward. I remember a few years back, you kept hammering in systems thinking, system thinking, and I think we’re there now. So I think now multi-stakeholder engagement at all levels of government of digitalization is really key. So I am happy to rejoin some of the working groups, but one of the things I still do, even though it’s not in my mandate to do so, is I think working with the national regulatory associations and the regional regulatory organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa. One of the things I keep driving is, do you know your digital health champions? And they say, why? No, we just sit with documents. Yes, but without you sitting with those documents, enabling data sharing across region, you know, boundaries, we will never get there. So I think it’s really critical that we do engage other sectors and health does affect also. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much for that comment. We’ll take one last intervention and then come back to Dr. Kim.

Audience: Thank you. Mine is in the nature of a comment, but I would be very grateful if there are comments from the floor. I wanted to say that we’ve been working on health-related APIs in India, and we are a non-profit organization that does research and public policy advocacy. It’s called IT for Change. One of the concerns I have is that in the presentations and in your comment as well, we do need to see that the right to health and right to universal access to health for all are part of a continuity of discourse which also needs to find echo in the way in which we conceptualize digital health governance. For instance, bioethics principles in the WHO become extremely important and what they have to do when we translate those principles into the techno-social context of digital health policy is very important. The second I think that’s important is we’ve had many, many debates across time, particularly on issues of intellectual property with respect to health and generic health drugs, for instance, and how those principles will translate into public digital goods or digital infrastructure would be instructive because the principles are the same. The whole idea of populations and their right to health and preventing big pharma from capture is very similar to the way we need to think about digital public goods and health and prevent capture in some ways. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: All right. Thank you so much for the comments. Why don’t we get two more and then Dr. Dia will come. We’ll make Dr. Dia’s question the crowning response because we do have an answer that we’d like to provide. So take the two hands and then we’ll get back.

Audience: Maybe I will just turn a little bit to artificial intelligence, not specifically digital health, but integrated it with AI. A lot of countries actually do not have really an AI governance law. But some of the countries, they do have regulations sectoral, especially in the health sector, like Canada, for example, they have some regulations by sector. So I just wanted to know if the ITU or or the WHO, they have any kind of guidelines or principles or regulations for the health sector, especially that a lot of government, actually, they want to move forward with their digital health use cases.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you. All right, and then last intervention and then we have a conversation.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you so much about talking about AI. My name is Sanya. I represent an AI-based health system solutions provider. I think I actually wanted to talk about how does AI fit in this workflow. A lot of times AI also becomes an intermediate layer which connects different digital infrastructures and adds more value to it, which we have seen working in different under-resourced settings as well. So, just want to understand how are you thinking about this in this entire scheme. Thanks.

Derrick Muneene: I think we should close the floor. All right. Yes. So, we have a few minutes, three minutes to go actually. Let’s now go into the response. Let me ask Mr. Hani Eskandar. Yeah. Two minutes.

Hani Eskandar: Yes. Okay. I’ll try to respond to some questions very quickly. There is already, for the question from Dr. Ahoda, the WHO guidance on ethics and governance of AI for health. It’s a published paper. I think it was published probably more than a year ago. And it contains at least the type of ethical issues that needs to be governed in the use of AI for health. It doesn’t provide specific type of regulations, but it gives us a foundation for what kind of regulations should be considered at least. There was a lot of other questions in this side for the question from India. Very, very briefly, we looked very much for the work that has been done for by the digital health mission in India for the DPI for health. And we got a lot of inspiration and actually some of the working groups are from India.

Derrick Muneene: We will talk about the guide in Zambia and reflections in one minute. All right. If we may mute the microphone.

Innocent Chiboma: Thank you very much. I think agreeing with what the previous speakers have said, for Zambia we are using this opportunity with the guide to strengthen collaboration, to strengthen governance. I think it is very important that whatever we are doing in the area of digital health, that we are in the middle of a digital health strategy. We are doing a mid-term review. Thank you very much.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you. Thank working with colleagues from WHO and many other partners, we’re reviewing that and we’re soon also going to develop our digital health digital health architecture document that that we’re going to be able to share with everybody, but really the important thing is having government leadership in all that we do for the sake of sustainability and also for the sake of scalability we really need to make sure that governments are leading these processes as opposed to what we’ve seen in the past where it’s really partner-led. Thank you. Well, thank you so much. Thank you so much. We almost got to the Swiss timing arrangement. We’re one minute past the hour. I just want to thank all the participants virtual and in person for the enrichment of this conversation and all the panelists for the conversations that have brought to the table. The call to action is we would want to ensure we use action like LINE on eHealth to collaborate effectively to really make the transformation of the health sector a reality in pursuit of university health coverage. I thank you so much. I’ve been your moderator, Dr. Derrick Muneene from WHO and so wishing you a pleasant WSIS engagement. Thank you so much.

Agreement points

Need for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) to Transform Health Systems

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar
– Steven Wanyee
– Surabhi Joshi
– Jai Ganesh

Arguments

The Global Strategy on Digital Health aims to achieve universal health coverage through digital means, incorporating principles such as government ownership and the implementation of appropriate digital tools. This strategy is designed to help achieve health-related SDGs by the 2030 Agenda.

DPI represents a fundamental shift from fragmented, solution-focused approaches to an infrastructure mindset that enables information flow across health sectors. The key difference is transforming the entire health sector rather than solving individual problems, with the main goal being to unlock data flow through trust and interoperability.

Countries are increasingly investing in digital health infrastructure using domestic financing, as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway initiative. This investment is funded through social health insurance contributions, with electronic claims serving as the primary use case driver.

Digital wallets represent more than just applications – they are secure interfaces that enable people to access and share verifiable health credentials while protecting privacy and giving individuals ownership of their health management.

Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) supports countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability.

Summary

All speakers agree that digital health transformation requires moving from fragmented, vertical solutions to comprehensive digital public infrastructure that enables interoperability and information flow across health systems.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Importance of Government Leadership and Ownership

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Steven Wanyee
– Innocent Chiboma

Arguments

The Global Strategy on Digital Health aims to achieve universal health coverage through digital means, incorporating principles such as government ownership and the implementation of appropriate digital tools.

Countries are increasingly investing in digital health infrastructure using domestic financing, as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway initiative.

Zambia is conducting a mid-term review of its digital health strategy and developing a digital health architecture document that will be shared publicly. The emphasis is on government leadership in digital health processes for sustainability and scalability, moving away from partner-led approaches.

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that government ownership and leadership are essential for sustainable and scalable digital health implementations, moving away from donor-dependent, partner-led approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Need for Standards and Interoperability

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar
– Surabhi Joshi
– Jai Ganesh

Arguments

WHO has collaborated with the WSIS platform and ITU for two decades to ensure equitable use of ICTs in health, beginning in 2005 with member state resolutions. This work has evolved through multiple mandates including standardization and interoperability (2013) and the comprehensive digital health mandate (2018).

WHO and ITU are developing a reference architecture with five key building blocks for health: electronic health records, supply chain, registry services, insurance claims, and foundational DPI components.

The Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative focuses on developing digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure using open standards and open source tools. This work aligns with the Global Digital Health Certification Network, which enables countries to verify health credentials across borders.

Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) supports countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability.

Summary

All speakers agree on the critical importance of establishing common standards and ensuring interoperability across digital health systems to enable effective information sharing and system integration.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers identify the same core problem of fragmentation and ‘pilotitis’ in digital health implementations and advocate for the same solution – moving to a comprehensive infrastructure approach rather than isolated vertical solutions.

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar

Arguments

The health sector suffers from ‘pilotitis’ – excessive fragmentation and verticalization of digital solutions, with technology advancing faster than regulatory frameworks can keep pace.

DPI represents a fundamental shift from fragmented, solution-focused approaches to an infrastructure mindset that enables information flow across health sectors.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both African representatives emphasize the importance of domestic financing and government-led approaches to digital health, demonstrating a regional shift toward self-reliance and sustainability in digital health investments.

Speakers

– Steven Wanyee
– Innocent Chiboma

Arguments

Countries are increasingly investing in digital health infrastructure using domestic financing, as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway initiative.

Zambia is conducting a mid-term review of its digital health strategy and developing a digital health architecture document that will be shared publicly. The emphasis is on government leadership in digital health processes for sustainability and scalability, moving away from partner-led approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers from WHO and regional networks emphasize the importance of open standards, governance frameworks, and capacity building as foundational elements for successful digital health implementation.

Speakers

– Surabhi Joshi
– Jai Ganesh

Arguments

The Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative focuses on developing digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure using open standards and open source tools.

Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) supports countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Cross-Sector Collaboration Beyond Health

Speakers

– Hani Eskandar
– Audience

Arguments

Transformational health use cases like universal health insurance cannot operate without connecting to underlying digital public infrastructure. Health sectors need services like digital identity, e-signature, and trusted information exchange, which are broader than health-specific and require cross-sector collaboration.

Multi-stakeholder engagement across sectors and government levels is critical for successful digital health implementation. This includes collaboration between health champions and telecom regulators to enable data sharing across regional boundaries, as digitalization affects multiple sectors.

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that digital health cannot succeed in isolation and requires deep integration with broader government digital infrastructure and collaboration with sectors like telecommunications. This represents a significant shift from traditional health-sector-focused approaches.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

AI Governance and Ethics in Health

Speakers

– Hani Eskandar
– Audience

Arguments

WHO has published comprehensive guidance on ethics and governance of AI for health, providing foundational principles for what kind of regulations should be considered.

The right to health and universal access principles must be translated into digital health governance, incorporating bioethics principles from WHO into techno-social contexts.

Explanation

Despite the technical focus of the session, there was unexpected consensus on the critical importance of ethical frameworks and governance principles for AI in health, with both technical implementers and policy advocates agreeing on the need for rights-based approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus across all speakers on the need to move from fragmented, vertical digital health solutions to comprehensive digital public infrastructure approaches. There was unanimous agreement on the importance of government leadership, standards and interoperability, and cross-sector collaboration. Regional representatives from Africa and Asia demonstrated aligned approaches despite different contexts.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. The implications are positive for global digital health transformation as it suggests a mature, unified understanding of the challenges and solutions needed. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated international action and suggests that the WHO-ITU collaboration has successfully built shared understanding across diverse stakeholders and regions.

Different viewpoints

Funding and Resource Allocation Approaches

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar
– Steven Wanyee

Arguments

More and more we’ll have less funding coming at least from the donor community. I think we saw a very good example recently. So I think it’s about being very careful in rationalizing the investment. You cannot continue to depend on donors’ funding.

Kenya’s ministry of health found domestic financing to build DPI for health using electronic claims as driver, with new social health insurance contributions funding the DPI for health

Summary

While Hani emphasizes the need to move away from donor dependency and rationalize investments, Steven presents Kenya’s approach of using domestic financing through social health insurance. The disagreement lies in the emphasis – Hani focuses on reducing donor dependency as a constraint, while Steven showcases successful domestic financing models.

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Cross-sector Collaboration Emphasis

Speakers

– Audience
– Hani Eskandar

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder engagement across sectors and government levels is critical for successful digital health implementation. This includes collaboration between health champions and telecom regulators to enable data sharing across regional boundaries.

Health sectors need services like digital identity, e-signature, and trusted information exchange, which are broader than health-specific and require cross-sector collaboration.

Explanation

While both recognize the need for cross-sector collaboration, the audience member emphasizes the practical challenges of getting telecom regulators to engage with health champions, suggesting current collaboration is insufficient. Hani acknowledges the need but presents it more as a technical integration challenge rather than a stakeholder engagement problem.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on core challenges (fragmentation, need for DPI, importance of government leadership) but revealed subtle disagreements on implementation approaches, funding strategies, and the adequacy of current governance frameworks.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most disagreements were about means rather than ends, with speakers generally aligned on goals but differing on emphasis and implementation strategies. This suggests a mature field where practitioners agree on problems but are still working out optimal solutions, which is positive for collaborative progress.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers identify the same core problem of fragmentation and ‘pilotitis’ in digital health implementations and advocate for the same solution – moving to a comprehensive infrastructure approach rather than isolated vertical solutions.

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar

Arguments

The health sector suffers from ‘pilotitis’ – excessive fragmentation and verticalization of digital solutions, with technology advancing faster than regulatory frameworks can keep pace.

DPI represents a fundamental shift from fragmented, solution-focused approaches to an infrastructure mindset that enables information flow across health sectors.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both African representatives emphasize the importance of domestic financing and government-led approaches to digital health, demonstrating a regional shift toward self-reliance and sustainability in digital health investments.

Speakers

– Steven Wanyee
– Innocent Chiboma

Arguments

Countries are increasingly investing in digital health infrastructure using domestic financing, as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway initiative.

Zambia is conducting a mid-term review of its digital health strategy and developing a digital health architecture document that will be shared publicly. The emphasis is on government leadership in digital health processes for sustainability and scalability, moving away from partner-led approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers from WHO and regional networks emphasize the importance of open standards, governance frameworks, and capacity building as foundational elements for successful digital health implementation.

Speakers

– Surabhi Joshi
– Jai Ganesh

Arguments

The Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative focuses on developing digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure using open standards and open source tools.

Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) supports countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Digital health transformation requires a shift from fragmented, vertical solutions to integrated Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) that enables information flow through trust and interoperability

WHO and ITU have successfully collaborated for 20 years on digital health initiatives, with over 129 countries now having digital health strategies globally

Government ownership and leadership are critical for sustainability and scalability of digital health initiatives, moving away from donor-dependent, partner-led approaches

Countries are increasingly using domestic financing for digital health infrastructure, with specific use cases like electronic claims driving investment (as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway)

Multi-stakeholder engagement across sectors (health, telecom, governance) is essential for successful digital health transformation

The health sector suffers from persistent ‘pilotitis’ – fragmentation of digital solutions that duplicate investments and lack interoperability

Digital wallets and verifiable health credentials represent promising approaches for chronic disease management while protecting patient privacy

Regional networks (HELENA, Asia eHealth Information Network) play crucial roles in capacity building and knowledge sharing across countries

Resolutions and action items

WHO and ITU will host a five-day virtual Global Initiative on Digital Health convening the following week (QR code provided for registration)

Technical working groups are being established for five key building blocks: electronic health records, supply chain, registry services, insurance claims, and foundational DPI components

Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative will be relaunched in September during UN General Assembly in New York

Zambia will complete mid-term review of digital health strategy and develop digital health architecture document to share with stakeholders

Asia eHealth Information Network will announce their annual general meeting in three months focusing on investing in DPI for health and person-centered care

Participants were invited to join technical working groups for developing health-specific DPI specifications

Unresolved issues

Lack of recent WHO-ITU training meetings for countries, with participants noting absence of such meetings for 1-2 years

How to effectively translate bioethics principles and right to health concepts into digital health governance frameworks

Integration of AI as an intermediate layer connecting different digital infrastructures and its governance within DPI framework

Specific regulatory frameworks for AI in health sector, as many countries lack comprehensive AI governance laws

How to prevent capture of digital public goods in health similar to intellectual property issues with pharmaceuticals

Addressing the gap in people skills and capacity building that remains a challenge for country digital health maturity

Suggested compromises

Countries should leverage existing DPI components from other sectors rather than building everything from scratch within health sector

Focus on fit-for-purpose solutions rather than overly complex systems (‘not a Mercedes to cross the road’)

Use specific health use cases (like electronic claims, universal health insurance) as drivers for broader DPI investment rather than health outcomes alone

Combine sectoral approaches with foundational cross-government digital infrastructure to avoid duplication while meeting health-specific needs

Balance open standards and interoperability requirements with practical country implementation needs and existing systems

This has been the number one problem in all different types of digitalization. And as I always say, digital is data. And if you are not able to unlock data flow, then you cannot really leverage the full impact of digital.

Speaker

Hani Eskandar

Reason

This comment cuts to the core of digital transformation challenges by identifying data flow as the fundamental issue. It reframes the entire discussion from focusing on individual solutions to understanding the underlying infrastructure needed for true transformation.

Impact

This insight shifted the conversation from discussing fragmented health solutions to emphasizing the need for interoperability and trust mechanisms. It provided the conceptual foundation for understanding why DPI is necessary and influenced subsequent speakers to focus on integration rather than isolated implementations.

This kind of change, it’s a kind of a more radical mindset shift from this solution mindset to an infrastructure mindset, which we can call the DPI approach. And this has implication on how you invest in digital.

Speaker

Hani Eskandar

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental paradigm shift required for successful digital health transformation. It challenges the traditional approach of building individual solutions and calls for a completely different way of thinking about digital investments.

Impact

This observation elevated the discussion beyond technical considerations to strategic and philosophical ones. It influenced subsequent speakers like Steven Wanyee to provide concrete examples of how countries are actually implementing this mindset shift, such as Kenya’s digital health superhighway approach.

I think digital health has suffered a lot because we’ve been looking a lot more at just health outcomes only, but we need to look at associated drivers for digital health investment for DPIs to succeed.

Speaker

Steven Wanyee

Reason

This comment provides a crucial insight into why many digital health initiatives fail. It suggests that focusing solely on health outcomes is insufficient and that broader socio-economic drivers (like payment systems) are necessary for sustainability.

Impact

This perspective broadened the discussion scope significantly, moving from technical architecture to understanding the political economy of digital health. It influenced the conversation to consider how DPI investments need to be tied to tangible benefits that governments and citizens can immediately recognize and value.

The whole idea of populations and their right to health and preventing big pharma from capture is very similar to the way we need to think about digital public goods and health and prevent capture in some ways.

Speaker

Audience member from IT for Change

Reason

This comment draws a powerful parallel between traditional health equity issues and digital health governance, introducing critical questions about power dynamics and potential corporate capture in digital health infrastructure.

Impact

This intervention introduced a more critical and equity-focused lens to the discussion, challenging the predominantly technical and implementation-focused conversation. It raised important questions about governance, ownership, and the potential risks of DPI approaches that weren’t adequately addressed in the initial presentations.

One of the things I keep driving is, do you know your digital health champions? And they say, why? No, we just sit with documents. Yes, but without you sitting with those documents, enabling data sharing across region, you know, boundaries, we will never get there.

Speaker

Edna Somra

Reason

This comment highlights a critical gap in multi-stakeholder engagement, specifically pointing out that telecom regulators – who are essential for enabling data flows – are often disconnected from digital health initiatives.

Impact

This observation reinforced the need for cross-sectoral collaboration that had been mentioned earlier but provided a concrete example of how siloed thinking persists even within government structures. It supported the broader theme about the need for systems thinking and multi-stakeholder engagement.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by elevating it from a technical presentation about digital health solutions to a more nuanced conversation about systemic transformation challenges. Hani Eskandar’s insights about data flow and mindset shifts provided the conceptual framework that influenced how subsequent speakers framed their contributions. Steven Wanyee’s observation about looking beyond health outcomes alone introduced important considerations about political economy and sustainability. The audience interventions, particularly from IT for Change and Edna Somra, brought critical perspectives on equity, governance, and cross-sectoral collaboration that weren’t adequately addressed in the initial presentations. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a straightforward technical discussion into a more comprehensive examination of the complex socio-technical challenges involved in digital health transformation, highlighting the need for fundamental changes in how stakeholders think about, invest in, and govern digital health infrastructure.

When will WHO and ITU resume their regular training meetings for countries that have been absent for the past 1-2 years?

Speaker

Ibrahim (Director of Digital Health Department, Senegal)

Explanation

This addresses a gap in capacity building support that countries have been expecting and relying on for digital health development

How can multi-stakeholder engagement be better coordinated across different government ministries and sectors for digital health implementation?

Speaker

Edna Somra (SPIDER)

Explanation

This highlights the need for systems thinking and cross-sectoral collaboration, particularly involving telecom regulators who enable data sharing across boundaries

How should bioethics principles from WHO be translated into techno-social contexts of digital health policy?

Speaker

Participant from IT for Change (India)

Explanation

This addresses the critical need to maintain right to health and universal access principles when implementing digital health governance

How can principles from intellectual property debates in pharmaceuticals be applied to prevent capture in digital public goods for health?

Speaker

Participant from IT for Change (India)

Explanation

This draws parallels between protecting populations from big pharma capture and preventing similar issues in digital health infrastructure

What specific AI governance guidelines or regulations does WHO/ITU provide for the health sector?

Speaker

Unnamed participant

Explanation

Many countries lack AI governance laws but need sectoral guidance for health-specific AI implementations

How does AI fit as an intermediate layer connecting different digital infrastructures in the DPI framework?

Speaker

Sanya (AI-based health system solutions provider)

Explanation

This addresses how AI can add value by connecting different digital infrastructures, particularly in under-resourced settings

How can countries ensure digital health strategies remain implementable rather than just existing as documents?

Speaker

Derrick Muneene (WHO)

Explanation

While 129 countries have digital health strategies, there’s still work needed to make these strategies practically implementable

How can the issue of ‘pilotitis’ and fragmentation in digital health solutions be systematically addressed in the age of AI?

Speaker

Derrick Muneene (WHO)

Explanation

The fragmentation problem identified in 2012-2013 persists in 2022, and rapid AI development may exacerbate this issue without holistic approaches

Summary

The Youth Knowledge Café was a special interactive session held as part of the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025, designed to gather youth perspectives on the future of the World Summit on the Information Society process. The session brought together young leaders, ITU Youth Advisory Board members, young professional program officers, and ITU 160 gender champions to contribute ideas that would feed directly into the high-level dialogue and ultimately into reports submitted to the UN General Assembly in December 2025.

The event began with opening remarks emphasizing the historical significance of youth participation in WSIS and the importance of meaningful youth engagement in digital policy-making. Speakers highlighted that this session represented a youth-driven approach where young people would lead discussions rather than simply listen to presentations. Vladimir provided a comprehensive overview of WSIS history, explaining how the process began in 1998, evolved through summits in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005), and established eleven action lines that continue to guide digital development globally.

Participants were divided into working groups to brainstorm ideas for enhancing WSIS over the next 20 years. Key themes that emerged included the need to operationalize youth ideas rather than leaving them conceptual, ensuring dedicated seats for youth in high-level plenaries, and increasing participation of community-based organizations. Groups emphasized the importance of digital literacy initiatives that go beyond simple connectivity, advocating for programs that empower individuals to use technology effectively for community development.

Other significant recommendations included localizing WSIS outcomes to reach grassroots communities, improving awareness of WSIS among young people through storytelling and media engagement, and creating structured pathways for sustained youth involvement. Participants stressed that technology should serve people rather than the reverse, calling for ethical and responsible approaches to AI development that include diverse youth perspectives. The session concluded with a commitment to compile all ideas into a comprehensive report that would influence the December 2025 UN General Assembly review of the WSIS process.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Youth Knowledge Café Introduction and WSIS Overview**: The session introduced participants to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, its 20-year history since 2003-2005, and its upcoming review by the UN General Assembly in December 2025. Speakers emphasized that this youth-driven session would directly feed into high-level policy discussions.

– **Operationalizing Youth Ideas and Sustained Engagement**: Multiple groups highlighted the need to move beyond simply collecting youth input to actually implementing their ideas through concrete action. Participants called for sustained youth involvement throughout the WSIS process rather than one-off consultations, including dedicated seats for youth in plenaries and high-level events.

– **Digital Literacy, Capacity Building, and Inclusive Access**: Groups emphasized that connectivity alone is insufficient – there must be comprehensive digital literacy initiatives that empower people to effectively use technology. They stressed the importance of ensuring digital content represents diverse cultures and perspectives, with policies grounded in real community needs rather than bureaucratic requirements.

– **Localization and Grassroots Participation**: Participants advocated for making WSIS more accessible at the local level through storytelling, media engagement, and connecting with entrepreneurship hubs and community organizations. They emphasized the need for better awareness of WSIS among young people globally and creating pathways for grassroots participation.

– **Technology Serving People and Ethical Development**: A key theme emerged that “technology should serve people and not the other way around,” particularly regarding AI bias and data representation. Groups called for youth perspectives in developing ethical, responsible technology solutions and ensuring diverse representation in AI training data.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to gather youth input for the WSIS+20 review process, specifically to shape policy recommendations that will be presented to the UN General Assembly in December 2025. The session was designed as a “youth-driven” consultation to ensure young voices are meaningfully integrated into global digital governance discussions and the future direction of the WSIS process.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently energetic, collaborative, and empowering throughout the session. Speakers used encouraging language, repeatedly emphasizing that participants were “making history” and that their ideas would have direct policy impact. The atmosphere was supportive and inclusive, with facilitators actively working to create a “free and safe space” for innovative thinking. The tone remained optimistic and action-oriented from start to finish, with participants responding enthusiastically to calls for bold, creative solutions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Charlyne Restivo** – Co-moderator from ITU, former WSIS intern

– **Dana Kramer** – PhD candidate at Toronto Metropolitan University, leads a youth internet governance forum for Canada

– **Hamza Hameed** – ITU Youth Advisory Board member of the Secretary General, Head of Space and Development at the Global Government Advisory

– **Speaker 3** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Roser Almenar** – PhD student in AI and Space Law at the University of Valencia in Spain, member of Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Board

– **Speaker 4** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Sylvia Poll** – Senior Gender and Youth Advisor to the ITU Secretary-General

– **Dunola Oladapo** – Youth Programme Officer in ITU, co-moderator

– **Speaker 2** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Nadia Tjahja** – PhD researcher at the United Nations University in Bruges, organizes the European Youth IGF

– **Clinton Oduor** – ITU Secretary General Youth Advisory Board member

– **Speaker 5** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Speaker 1** – Role/expertise not specified

**Additional speakers:**

– **Vladimir** – WSIS team member for 10+ years, involved in coordinating WSIS events and processes

# Youth Knowledge Café: Discussion Report

## WSIS+20 Review Process

### Executive Summary

The Youth Knowledge Café was an interactive session designed to gather youth input for the WSIS+20 review process, with outcomes feeding directly into the high-level dialogue and ultimately into reports submitted to the UN General Assembly in December 2025. The session brought together ITU Youth Advisory Board members, Young Professional Programme (YPP) officers, and ITU gender champions in a collaborative format emphasizing youth leadership and meaningful participation.

The session featured group discussions focused on identifying key priorities and actionable recommendations for the WSIS process, with facilitators emphasizing that participants were contributing to historic policy development. Unlike traditional consultations, this event positioned young people as leaders and experts, creating what organizers described as a “free and safe space” for innovative thinking.

### Session Context and Participants

The session was facilitated by five co-moderators including Charlyne Restivo from ITU (former WSIS intern), Sylvia Paul (Senior Gender and Youth Advisor to the ITU Secretary-General), Hamza Hameed (ITU Youth Advisory Board member), and Dunola Oladapo (Youth Programme Officer in ITU). Participants included Youth Advisory Board members, YPP officers, and gender champions selected from almost 1,300 applications.

Sylvia Paul emphasized that “youth should be in the driving seat of this completely youth-driven session to learn from young people,” positioning senior officials as learners rather than traditional mentors. This approach represented a significant departure from hierarchical consultation models.

### Opening Remarks and WSIS Context

#### Historical Framework

Vladimir, a WSIS team member with over 10 years of experience, provided comprehensive historical context explaining how the WSIS process began as a concept in 1998, evolved through landmark summits in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005), and established action lines that continue to guide digital development globally. He explained that the current review process, now branded as “WSIS Plus 20,” represents a critical juncture for assessing progress and setting future directions.

#### Youth Engagement Imperative

Hamza Hameed provided stark context by noting that “more than 2.6 billion people around the world remain offline, with more than half of them being young people.” He framed digital inclusion as both a technical challenge and “a moral responsibility,” arguing that “connectivity should be recognised as a fundamental human right.”

Charlyne Restivo emphasized that “youth are making history by being embedded in WSIS and their voices matter for the high-level dialogue,” positioning the session as a historic opportunity for direct policy influence.

### Group Discussions and Outcomes

The session featured two rounds of group work. Initially, participants were divided into four groups, later reorganized into three groups when groups 1 and 2 merged. Some participants joined online and contributed via chat.

#### Round One: Priority Identification

Groups engaged in brainstorming exercises to identify key priorities for WSIS+20. A QR code polling system was used to assess participants’ existing knowledge levels of WSIS processes.

#### Round Two: Focused Discussions

Groups developed specific recommendations around identified themes, with each group reporting back to the plenary.

### Key Themes and Recommendations

#### Operationalizing Youth Ideas and Sustained Engagement

Clinton Oduor, ITU Secretary General Youth Advisory Board member, emphasized the “need for operationalising youth ideas through utilising ITU and UN networks to move beyond the idea stage.” Multiple speakers identified the lack of structured pathways for youth to meaningfully engage and have their voices heard in WSIS processes.

Key recommendations included:

– Dedicated seats for youth in plenaries and high-level events

– Structured pathways for ongoing engagement beyond one-off events

– Utilization of existing ITU and UN networks to transform ideas into actionable projects

#### Digital Literacy and Inclusive Access

Participants emphasized that connectivity alone is insufficient for meaningful digital inclusion. One group representative noted: “Beyond simply providing connectivity, we must prioritise digital literacy initiatives that empower individuals to harness the internet effectively for community development and global benefit.”

Dunola Oladapo stressed the importance of “digital health equity and assistive technology access, especially e-health applications and disability inclusive digital development.” Participants consistently argued that information systems should “authentically reflect diversity of culture and perspectives rather than narrow subsets.”

#### Localization and Grassroots Participation

Multiple speakers identified low WSIS awareness in mainstream and education spaces as preventing young generations from knowing about activities. Dana Kramer, PhD candidate at Toronto Metropolitan University who leads a youth internet governance forum for Canada, advocated for the need to “localise WSIS and have more grassroots participation through storytelling and dedicated opportunities.”

Nadia Tjahja, PhD researcher at the United Nations University in Bruges who organizes the European Youth IGF, proposed that “WSIS should be promoted in entrepreneurship spaces and business hubs where youth can learn and contribute.”

#### Technology Ethics and Human-Centered Development

Roser Almenar, PhD student in AI and Space Law at the University of Valencia and member of Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Board, articulated a key principle: “Technology should serve people and not the other way around.” She specifically highlighted concerns about “AI bias and underrepresentation,” arguing for youth perspectives in developing ethical, responsible technology solutions.

#### Financial Barriers and Resource Accessibility

Participants identified “dedicated funding mechanisms” as essential, noting that “many youth want to attend but face financial barriers, especially in developing countries.” Dana Kramer noted that “there’s an opportunity gap both across countries and within countries that needs to be addressed for meaningful engagement.”

### Immediate Outcomes and Next Steps

#### Report Compilation

All group notes and ideas are being compiled into a comprehensive report that will feed directly into the WSIS+20 review process and the UN General Assembly submission in December 2025.

#### Continued Dialogue

Participants were encouraged to attend the immediate follow-up Multi-stakeholder Intergenerational High-Level Dialogue in plenary room C to continue the conversation and ensure continuity between youth-focused discussions and broader stakeholder engagement.

#### Direct Policy Contribution

Youth were advised to contribute directly to draft papers and white papers for the UN review process by connecting with co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania.

#### Institutional Integration

ITU committed to operationalizing youth ideas and integrating them across ITU work streams rather than leaving them as concepts. The Youth Advisory Board and Young Professional Programme officers were tasked with facilitating ongoing youth engagement beyond this event.

### Conclusion

The Youth Knowledge Café demonstrated a meaningful approach to youth engagement in international digital governance, moving beyond token consultation to substantive policy contribution. The session generated concrete recommendations around sustained engagement, digital inclusion, localization, technology ethics, and resource accessibility. The success of this model will ultimately be measured by how effectively the ideas generated translate into the formal WSIS+20 review process and subsequent policy developments.

The high level of engagement and sophisticated understanding demonstrated by participants suggests significant potential for youth contributions to global digital governance, provided that structural barriers around funding, access, and implementation pathways can be addressed.

Charlyne Restivo: And welcome to the Youth Knowledge Café. We’re very happy to host you today. So the Youth Knowledge Café is a very special event. We’re having here today. You are making history by just being here. Youth embedded in WSIS is part also history. So I am Charlyne from ITU and I will be your co-moderator today with my colleague Dunola. And our role is to keep the ideas flowing. This session has been conceived as an interactive session. We want to hear from you. So your role is to speak up, challenge assumptions, shape the conversations. So some of you are familiar with WSIS. Some of you may not be so familiar with WSIS. So not to worry. We’ll have an introduction as to what WSIS is, its importance and why your voice matters. So right after this WSIS Knowledge Café, there will be a multi-stakeholder intergenerational high-level dialogue. And the outcomes of this very session will feed straight into this high-level dialogue. So we will invite you to go straight to plenary room C to attend this important session. So today we will go in few stages. First, I would like to mention that the reason why this session is so special today is because we are joining forces as well with the Youth Advisory Board of the ITU Secretary General. And I would like to invite those Youth Advisory Board members to raise their hand. Yes. But we also have… with us today, some young professional program officers. So this is also a new initiative by the ITU to include young people in our work stream. So please, the YPPs in the room, raise your hands. So today’s session will be facilitated by five facilitators, and I would also like them to raise their hands, please. So our facilitators today are a mix of YPP, young professional program officers, and also youth advisory board members. So we will start with some remarks, some opening remarks, and then we’ll go into some icebreaker questions to warm you up a little bit. Afterwards, we will split in groups where you’ll be invited to think about some maybe tough questions, but we really want you to feel free in being innovative right now. So this is a free and safe space to share your vision. Okay, so we’ll do two separate exercises, one after the other. And you see here that you have some good snacks as well, so do enjoy. And we will conclude with some final reflections. So without further ado, I am pleased to introduce here Ms. Sylvia Paul, our Senior Gender and Youth Advisor to the ITU Secretary-General for some opening remarks. Over to you.

Sylvia Poll: No, thank you. Thank you very much, Charlene, and I know we’re in great hands with you and Dunola. I also would like to give a warm welcome to our ITU 160 gender champions. So please raise your hands, please. Who are you? Please raise your hands. Our gender champions were selected from its initiative. with the support of Canada were selected from almost 1,300 applications, and they’re coming from countries like Pakistan, Ghana, Iraq, Jamaica, and they were selected because of the digital inclusion projects they’re doing in their communities. So they’re going to bring probably a lot of great ideas to this discussion, and I hope that you all are very, very much engaged, and we’re very happy to have you here and participating today. So as everybody has already told you, welcome, welcome, welcome to the WSIS Forum, and also for as of tomorrow, the AI for Good, and especially this Knowledge Café for the Youth Track. I know my colleague Vladimir has done over the years a great job on the Youth Track, and now we’re collaborating even more closely with him to enhance, and next year it’s going to be even better, Vladimir. You’ll see, we’re going to have a lot more, even more things, and building on the great work that Vladimir has, Vladimir is over there. So he has like 10 hats, we saw him a few minutes ago, he was running around with the Secretary General and getting us, trying to get us together for the photo, with the Secretary General and the young people. Vladimir is an amazing colleague. And for us, this is a very special session, because the WSIS Youth Day is because of you. And for us, it’s very important that you as young people are taking the lead, you are in the driving seat. This is a completely youth-driven session. So all people like me are just going to listen and pay attention to what you’re going to do, and learn from you, especially learn from you. And it has been co-organized and will be co-facilitated by young ITU colleagues, and also young digital changemakers. It’s a great opportunity to have your voices to be heard, and your ideas. So every idea will be welcome and your solutions to be integrated into the heart of the WSIS process. And as Charlyne mentioned, what will come out of here, this will be part of the report which will be submitted to Jung Unga in September. So it’s important that what you share today, this will be part of that. And what we’re doing here is fully aligned with the UN Wide Youth 2030 Strategy with calls for meaningful youth engagement and policy making and decision making. This is also reflected to the Pact for the Future and the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration of the Future Generations, and as well the ITU Youth Strategy. For us, it’s very important, the work that we do on youth engagement and youth empowerment. And these frameworks, both the UN as well as the ITU one, they help us do a call for meaningful youth participation in the digital development process and advocate for creating the kind of environment where you, young people, can fully unleash the digital potential to advance the SDGs. So as you engage today in your breakout groups, I do encourage you, be reflective, be ambitious and innovative with your ideas. Your discussions today will contribute to the WSIS outcome report, as I just mentioned. So it counts. Think about what we can reshape and amplify the way young people are engaged in digital spaces, not only from the ITU’s perspective, from the work that we do in the ITU, but also in the whole WSIS process. How can young people better participate and benefit from this process? As a young expert and change maker, your insights on these issues are really valuable. And this session is really an opportunity. We don’t get many of these interactions, as you see. Many are just sitting and listening. But here, we really want to listen to you. And as Charlene mentioned, I’m very honored. I was appointed in February as the Senior Gender and Youth Advisor to the ITU. Secretary General. For me, it’s an enormous honor and privilege. And I’m heading a great team. Dunola is part of the team. Maud, where are you, Maud? Maud is over there. She’s also part of the team. And we have Arianna and Tracy. And we are working to really assure that meaningful youth engagement is not just a priority, it’s a mandate. Okay, we want to ensure that your ideas just don’t remain ideas. We on Friday, we had a the physical meeting, our youth advisory boards were Secretary General, and we told them that we want to operationalize, we want to make your ideas concrete. And, and we want to integrate them into the work of our across the ITU. So, as I already mentioned, it’s really great to see the youth advisory board members here, the YPPs, where are the YPPs? There you go. We’re that’s our first cohort, I hope the first of many, many cohorts. And also, as I just said, the ITU 160 gender champions. So thank you for having me. And if you see me around the week, I’m not very easy to not be seen. I’m very tall and flawed. Please reach out, say hello. Come talk to me. I would love to hear your ideas outside of this event. I’ll be here around the whole week. So thank you very much for having me here. And back to you, Charlene. Thank you.

Charlyne Restivo: Many thanks, Sylvia. It is indeed very energizing to be surrounded by so many bright young minds. And going now over to Hamza Hamid, who is the ITU Youth Advisory Board member of the Secretary General, and also the Head of Space and Development at the Global Government Advisory. Please share with us your opening remarks.

Hamza Hameed: Thank you very much. Charlene, thank you, Sylvia. Distinguished Minister, Honourable colleagues, fellow young leaders and friends. Good afternoon. It’s a real pleasure to talk to all of you and welcome you to this critical and inspiring session. Sincerely like to thank the ITU for opening up this space here for us, all of us today. My name is Hamza and I’m honored to be a member of the ITU Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Board. The Youth Advisory Board has been mentioned quite a lot in the opening remarks we’ve had thus far. And we’re really committed alongside all of you, all of you fellow young leaders, to make sure that the voice of the youth and the voice of the next generation is recognized as we build the next few years of WSIS. This is truly a unique moment for all of us, not just to talk about youth, but also to lead, to shape and to contribute our visions directly to the future of WSIS. The World Summit on the Information Society has already transformed lives over the past 20 years and has advanced digital development, ensuring that the benefits of technology are shared more equitably. Through its various action lines, WSIS has guided real progress in bridging the digital divide, particularly by promoting connectivity in rural areas, improving access to ICT for underserved communities, and fostering universal access to information. But that’s all done. The real question before all of us is what comes next? How can we, as young people, take ownership of this process and ensure that it continues to empower everyone, everywhere? I’m particularly delighted to see that WSIS’ multi-stakeholder community recognizes youth as an essential stakeholder in this process. The presence of so many young leaders in this room here today demonstrates that youth are not only included, but are also valued as one of the most important stakeholders. After all, it is all of you, the youth, that will be using, building and shaping the technologies of the future. We already know that young people are at the heart of digital innovation and inclusion. Around the world, youth-led initiatives are creating platforms for education, driving digital entrepreneurship, advocating for inclusion, and even shaping policies on AI and ethics. Yet, more than 2.6 billion people around the world remain offline, with more than half of them being young people. Bridging that digital divide is not only a technical challenge, but it’s a moral responsibility. And I believe that connectivity should be recognized as a fundamental human right and should be accessible to everyone so that they can unlock the opportunities that they need to succeed in this digital society. And this is why today’s session matters so much. This is your opportunity to think broadly and boldly about WSIS and what it should look like in the next 20 years. I encourage all of you to share your ideas freely, be creative, be critical, and be courageous. Whether you’ve been deeply engaged with the WSIS process for years or you’re learning about it for the first time ever, your perspective matters. Together, through conversations like this, we can shape a WSIS that reflects the needs, the energy, and the vision of our generation. A WSIS that leaves no one behind and truly reflects the aspirations of our generation. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your insights and ideas throughout the session.

Charlyne Restivo: Thank you very much, Hamza. And you’re right, young people are at the heart of innovation. And actually, there will be great showcases throughout the week, especially in terms of AI. You’ll see that there will be some pitching competitions and also some winning solutions that have been led by the young people. And you will be able to attend the sessions during the AI for Good Summit. So, now, let’s move on. First, we will ask you one question. which is, how much do you know about WSIS? This is a question I ask myself because I started my career at ITU as a WSIS intern, as a matter of fact, some 10 years ago, let’s say. So, WSIS is not only a big annual event, it’s also a process, and we wanted to gauge your understanding on how much do you know about WSIS. Can they spell it out? Can you spell it out? Yes, exactly. So, we already asked that question, I believe, when you signed up and the results show. Next slide. Yes, here is a QR that you please pull out your phone so you can also answer this question live. I will do it myself. And then we’ll go into the results. Okay. So, results so far show that a majority of you have actively participated in WSIS events and activities. May we have the next slide showing? But this is still moving. So, what I see here is, yes, majority has actively participated in WSIS, then about 30%. Then we have a basic understanding of WSIS, and let’s say one third don’t know much about it. So, this is great. It sets the stage for my colleague, Vladimir. We will introduce what is WSIS and what have been the key achievements over the year. So, I would like now to hand over the floor to you, Vladimir. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaker 1: And another thank you. Can you hear me now? Mic is on. Check. One, two. It’s coming up, it’s coming up, it’s coming up. All right. So, welcome everyone to the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025. We have rebranded the event that is generally WSIS Forum, but the ITU members thought that this particular event should be rebranded as the High-Level Event. So, why is it so important? It’s so important because we are in 2025 and what’s happening in 2025 is happening the second overall review by the United Nations General Assembly on 16th and 17th December in New York. They will be talking, deciding, discussing how well did we do in the last 10 years because the previous 10-year review was in 2015. And what will be the future of the WSIS Summit on Information Society process? So, I would like to, of course, thank our moderators, of course, Silvia, for providing opening remarks as always so well, really, you know, making, putting us in the context of the importance of youth for ITU, WSIS including. So, let’s go back to some of the history of the WSIS. Next slide, please. So, it is a UN process. It is hosted by International Telecommunication Union. However, we have been co-organizing this together with the UNDP, UNESCO and UNCTAD. So, besides that, more than 50 UN agencies are contributing either as WSIS Action Line facilitators. or really, you know, coming here to this event, organizing workshops, sessions, high-level dialogues and so on. Next slide. You will also learn that we started in 1998 as a concept idea. It was proposed by the ITU, Member State Tunisia, at the Minneapolis Planning Potentiary Conference in United States in 1998. And as the Planning Potentiary Conferences of ITU are the highest body, a governing body, where the resolutions are being discussed and adopted, this particular proposal by Tunisia was adopted. And in 2001, the ITU Secretary General at that time proposed to the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Secretary General that such a summit should take place. If you go back to 1998, not sure how many of you will be able to, but think about it. There was, all right, great, great, it’s, you know, we belong to a generation that was analog and moved to fully digital, a lot to praise about and a lot to, you know, go around criticizing, you know, how youth are using the digital, you know, too often or whatever, at least my son. So going back to 1998 and 2001, the world was completely different. They figured out that something big is happening. And they said, listen, we need to talk about what is this information society that we should be building. Some of the member states, some of the regions were already, you know, well-advanced into having some already insights into and use of ICTs. Some were really just, you know, starting to understand this. We are still, you know, having one third of the population offline. However, we are all here to, you know, join and work together that nobody stays behind. But you know, thinking about it at that time, no one knew that digital technologies will rise and develop so exponentially. Even today, we are now here discussing lots of things, very hard to predict. So think about 1998 and 2001, the heads of countries, prime ministers, presidents, ministers of ICTs, and all other segments of life came together to discuss, okay, so digital will be really in all segments of life, so we need to decide how we’re going to deal with this. And in 2003, the first summit took place here in Geneva. In 2005, it was in Tunis, and the two major versus, how would I say, basic texts were developed and brought together, the Geneva Declaration and Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda and the Versus Action Alliance, and they are the ones that are still in power. So you can imagine there was something, you know, three to five years that was developed over the time, carefully, with everyone really on board, sharing and giving them contributions and input on how this Versus Action Alliance should be developed, and how can we cover all different segments of life. So in 2005, the first mandate was given to all stakeholders. A very important thing to mention, the world of UN prior to this summit was not so much multi-stakeholder, but this event really opened up doors to all stakeholders. And since then, we’ve been, you know, working on this with everyone to make sure that all stakeholders are there. It’s also an event and a process that is inclusive, that is crowdfunded. If you know, if some of you here are having their own sessions, you would know that you have to submit that to the open consultation process so that the session takes place. So we are here because of you, as Sylvia mentioned. If it wasn’t you telling us what we should be doing, we probably would do something, but not as good as, you know, together with you. So this special track on youth started years ago, and then we moved on having it for a couple of years. Then we started also including the special track on older persons. which is also very, very important. Then both communities came back to us and said, guys, we should do it intergenerational. So we went to the intergenerational angle, and this year we are kind of having a special youth track with intergenerational aspects. In 2005, the General Assembly gave the first mandate to all member states and different UN agencies and all other stakeholders to implement the VC section lines until 2015. So 2015, the first milestone that was reached kind of came timely with the new United Nations Development Agenda. From Millennium Development Goals, we moved to the Sustainable Development Goals. And this is when all the VC section lines and all the VC process got aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Development. And this was done by UN agencies, all of them coming together. And in the next slide, you will see that these are the action lines that were developed in 2003 and continue to be implemented. And in the next slide, this is the framework, the governance framework that has been running from the very beginning, similar to this wheel, from the VC section lines and the VC forum as the annual event, the VC stock taking, a database that has been maintained by ITU since 2004, having more than 15,000 entries. It’s a kind of a museum of ICT and digital projects from 2004 till date. And you can always go back to history thinking about, okay, so which technology was used where and how to make impact on a particular topic or theme. So it’s a great and valuable database that you are all invited to use and contribute to. The UNGES, United Nations Group on Information Society, is something that I would like to mention here. So going back to the mandate in 2005, 2015, this is where this group came together to, first of all, it was established in 2005 by the Chief Executive Board of United Nations. Then in 2015, they worked on this VSIS and SDG matrix. that we’ve been working and implementing since 2015. So in that timeline, you will see that in 2025, where we are right now, is the moment where the second overall review of what we have all been doing is coming together in New York and the decisions will be very important and made by the contributions by all of us. So you are all invited to follow this review and contribute to it more than anyone else because the future and beyond 2025 belongs to you. So don’t miss this opportunity. It’s an open call. There is the modalities resolution, I’ll tell you more about it later, but this is very important to repeat this and have you really contribute actively to this. So you can come back to us, the WSIS team, and ask questions on how you can actually be engaged in that. In the next slide, you will see that what I mentioned, the importance of the multi-stakeholder process and its nature involving all stakeholders for all these many years. In the next slide, we’ll have a bit of a data of what has been achieved since 2005. So not so well-developed targets maybe at the beginning, very difficult to maybe bring the KPIs, but this is something that actually came from ITU Facts and Figures 2024 publication, a very important ITU publication that we all should be using, on how many people are connected, how many schools are connected, what about the gender mainstreaming, the equality in using the internet, again, how much youth, and you can see here 15 to 20 years of age, 79% of youth around the world are using internet. So these are some of the targets that we are still working very hard to continue and reach out to everyone, make sure that everyone stays connected and is connected. So again, this all will be discussed at this review in December, and perhaps the targets will be better shaped. So your input will be very important. In the next slide, we’ll have a bit of a data of what has been achieved since 2005. So not so well-developed targets maybe at the beginning, very difficult to maybe bring the KPIs, but this is something that actually came from ITU Facts and Figures 2024 publication, a very important ITU publication that we all should be using, on how many youth, and you can see here 15 to 20 years of age, 79% of youth around the world are using internet. So again, this all will be discussed at this review in December, and perhaps the targets will be better shaped. So your input will be very important. Next slide. We have some of the impact of the stock taking that I was mentioning about. Very important to mention here, not sure if the next slide will be presenting that, but go to the WSIS stock taking platform, research on the database, contribute to it. And one important spinoff of the WSIS stock taking took place in 2012. Now, a lot of people know about WSIS because of it. It’s called the WSIS Prizes Contest. And more than 6,000 projects were submitted for this since 2012. In the last five, six years, we’ve been averaging 1,000 submissions received each year. So please use this opportunity to, again, mark your calendars for the next year WSIS Prizes and submit. It doesn’t have to be your project. It could be projects that you have been experiencing and you think the world should know about. So it doesn’t have to be really just from our own personal interest and angle, but really to show and present the good work that is being done around the world. The group On Information Society, as I also already mentioned, is a very important group. So the entire process is being, you know, co-organized, implemented by United Nations family, each of them having different tasks or really just in a collaborative manner. In the next slide. The WSIS Forum, the event that started in 2009. So if you follow the history, 2003, 2005, after that there was some cluster of meetings that took place since 2006 until 2009. And at that time, we already saw that so much reporting has been coming through member states, through international organizations, civil society, private sector as well, technical organizations, academia, that ITU started to actually have and host together, co-organizing with other agencies the WSIS Forum annual event. This is where we are right now. So it’s been quite a pleasure for me personally to be a part of the WSIS team the last 10 years. So I joined 2014, my first WSIS Forum as an organizer was in 2015. But prior to that, my first WSIS Forum was in 2009. A very, very unique event where, you know, we can always meet with those VIPs and decision makers and actually bring our topics to them directly. In the next slide, we’re just going to go with some of the data on what is happening this year. Just numbers really say the story for itself. I don’t want to go into too much into it because we are right now. So better experience it than me telling you about it. So if you go more to the VISIS review, I spoke about it in the next slide, you will see some of the important timelines and achievements of the VISIS in the past 20 years. This will all be discussed in December this year in New York in the next slide. We will also have the VISIS Plus 20 review joint preparatory process. It’s been two years since we’ve been doing this. So you know, this is the final milestone. As you can see here, last to last milestone is this event and then we’re going to New York. So at this event in various workshops and sessions, you’ll be hearing how different UN agencies have been implementing their VISIS roadmaps with the outcomes of the important events of all of these sessions will also be delivered at our event. So it’s a very unique space where you’ll be able to learn about all of that without actually being there before. We’ll also be having co-facilitators, as you will see in the next slide, of the modalities resolution on the review. The ambassadors from Kenya and Albania are leading this. So reach out to them, send them your contributions directly. There is also a process on how you can contribute to the draft papers, white papers, elements papers, all those papers of United Nations process on how you are actually going to the review and discussing a certain resolution. So please use this opportunity and also join the sessions where they will be here during this event, and they will be discussing the progress so far and what is, you know, waiting for us until December. In the next slide, I think some of the roadmaps of these modalities processes is very important for you to maybe take a photo of and see how you can contribute to it. Of course, these presentations are all available online and you’ll be able to access them. The next slide, again, you’re going back to the achievements, the milestones and the challenges. We’ll be discussing them this year, this event, and of course in New York. I think this is the last slide. Okay, so please join, you know, and share your story with us as well. Just, you know, put it up on social media. We’d love to hear following today or this year’s event. What do you, what is your story? If you haven’t had it before now, you definitely will have it. The next slide is just a big thank you for again, for being here with us. Youth Special Track to this year is really having an amazing program. Thanks to the colleagues coordinating all of that. I could be telling you about WSIS, you know, for additional couple of hours or days.

Charlyne Restivo: So please, you know, when you see me on the corridor, as anyone else from the coordinating team, approach me and I’ll be very happy to talk more about WSIS with you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Vladimir, for this very insightful presentation of what WSIS is. Now I would like to ask you in the audience, one way the WSIS process is making a difference to you or your community. opening the floor, encouraging you to raise your hand and share your story with us of how WSIS has impacted your community, your country, perhaps some project that has been submitted, won a WSIS prize, best practices that has been shared in this forum. If everybody’s feeling a bit shy, yes, please. Sorry, it looked like we had a bad mic there, and it might have been my fault for touching up

Dana Kramer: to bring it closer. Dana Kramer, for the record, at Toronto Metropolitan University, PhD candidate there. And I also lead a youth internet governance forum for Canada. I think one of the biggest takeaways for WSIS, honestly, like for at least myself, my community have been the NRI network with the IGF and that the IGF was, of course, created through WSIS, because it’s allowed a lot of bottom up youth capacity building in this space for youth to be able to come together as distinct stakeholder groups that are kind of in between, not sure where their career will go, not sure where their learning will take them, and then be able to still convene and connect and then build into these broader global processes. Thank you.

Charlyne Restivo: Excellent, great to hear that. Anybody else? No? Okay. What I really take from Vladimir’s presentation is also the call to action for you to contribute to the draft papers that will be submitted to the UNGA, the final milestone. So really inviting you. to connect with Vladimir, other members of the team, because we are also aware you can have a tangible impact. With that, now, let’s go on to the group exercise. For that, I hand over the floor to my dear colleague, Duna Ola. Thank you. OK, we’ll do the same thing. Oh, hello. Is this better? Great. So, I know some people are scotted enough, that’s fine. If you know that you’re staying, you can now come and take some of those seats so that we can have the full circle. Is everyone able to hear me well?

Dunola Oladapo: Yeah, OK, great. So, I’m Duna Ola, and I’m Youth Programme Officer in ITU. And this is now the meat of the session, because we’re handing the mic now to each of you. And as Sylvia was sharing in her remarks earlier, the ideas that come from your groups will actually feed into the overall report. So, it’s really important that you share your ideas, and Hamza was encouraging everyone to be brave and innovative in your ideas. Please do this. So, now, I will ask the facilitators to please stand up, if you know you’re facilitating a session or you’re a scribe for a group. So, then we break you into groups of five, right? But I need to make sure that each of the facilitators are here. So, if we can have this corner as group one, this corner as group two, yeah? Then this long belt there as group three, that corner as group four, and this corner as group five. So, if you just go to the one closest to you, and then the facilitators will move accordingly. So, group one, only move if you’re a facilitator or a scribe, but everybody else can just keep their seats. Group two, in this corner. Group three, there, and those that are sitting just behind. Group four, there, and then group five. Yes, so group one will be facilitated by Clinton Oduor. Do you want to wave Clinton and just come here? He’ll facilitate this and then Yueqi Qu, who is the founder and general manager of PALS Lightyear Artificial Intelligence. If you’re here, please join because you’ll be helping to be the scribe. Group two will be coordinated by Tan Yuzhi, research assistant at Tsinghua University and Flora, you’re the scribe for this group, so Flora here. Dorian Amanda Clark is facilitating, yes, group three, so you’re sat exactly in the right place already and Prateek, you’ll be helping to take the notes there. Katherine is facilitating group four just in that corner and N’Goran Franck Konan will be taking the notes. Nadir will be facilitating for group five and Tadala will take the notes. So we’re just going to time you for about 10 minutes where we just want everyone in the group, you know, introduce yourselves to each other and start to list as many ideas as possible you can think of about enhancing the work of WSIS for the next 20 years. At the end of that, we will just ask each group to share the top three ideas that came out of that. So please take as many notes as possible, discuss, and I will walk around to make sure that everything is okay. If a facilitator is not around or something, maybe someone will step up and be a facilitator. So I’ll be ready to go. I’ll start the timer now. So introduce yourselves to each other and I’ll leave it to the facilitators. Please, if some people could join group two, if your group is too big, please send some people to group two. Ok, so it looks like this group is smaller actually. I think this group is smaller. I think join them. So group 1 and group 2 will be absorbed together. So Clinton will take care of you. So just to remind you, everyone should list as many ideas as possible they can think of. And near the end, you just vote for your top three ideas and share with everyone. Okay, yes. Please, for those that are joining us online, just look at the chat. You’ll see our colleague Shiyi will be coordinating with you and collecting your ideas. Thank you for our amazing virtual participants. One more minute. Please start grouping your ideas together. One more minute. One more minute. We are to time now, so we’ll just hear some ideas. Don’t worry, you have time, and you don’t need to move, so we’ll just go around. So if we could just wrap up our last sentence and we’ll start to check with each group. So what would be great is if either the session facilitator or someone in the group just wants to go to a mic and just share, you don’t have to say three, but up to three of the interesting ideas that came up from your team, and we go around like this. So group four slash five, please, if we could wrap up so we can hear what the top idea from group one and two merged was. So feel free to take the floor. I hope you can all hear me. Everyone, can we end our conversations? Don’t worry, you’ll have a chance to continue the conversations later. We’ll have a chance to carry on, so let’s just hear from Group 1 and 2, please.

Clinton Oduor: Yes, so first of all, let me just introduce myself again. My name is Clinton Oduor, and I’m part of the Youth Advisory, I’m part of the ITU Secretary General Youth Advisory Board. And I’m just going to go through quickly, like, the top three ideas that came from Group 1. And the first one was around operationalising, like, some of the ideas that come from youths. Like, youths have, like, a lot of ideas. Some of them are technical, but we usually just leave them at the idea stage. So, like, how can we move them to be at an operational level where they can move to the next stage? It can be through utilising, like, some of the ITU and UN networks to make that happen. But it’s something that we need to think about broadly. So the other idea that came up was to have, like, dedicated seats for the youth on plenaries under those high-level events, so that youth voices can also be heard. Yeah, then the third one was around, there are not quite enough community-based organisations, around non-profit organisations integrated into WSIS. So we also need to see how we can increase capacity around that. Yeah, so those are the top three ideas that came from Group 1. Thank you.

Dunola Oladapo: Thank you so much, Clinton. And I heard that the plenary this morning was very packed. So maybe if there were some dedicated seats for youth, we could have ensured that youth were in that room. So next, we go to the next group, quite a big group. So I don’t know if the group facilitator or somebody else wants to just very quickly share with us what the top three ideas that emerged from the group was.

Speaker 2: You just need to go to a mic and press the button. Good afternoon, everyone. So our group, Group 3, The main point that stood out for us was internet access, and we wrote, Beyond simple providing connectivity, we must prioritize digital literacy initiatives that empower individuals to harness the internet effectively for community development and global benefit. And what basically this means is that we foster digital equality and create an inclusive digital future where everyone feels genuinely connected and represented. The next point that we have is information systems should authentically reflect the diversity of culture and perspectives, ensuring that digital content represents the full spectrum of human experiences rather than a narrow subset. Most importantly, policies governing digital access and literacy must be grounded in real-world realities and genuine community needs rather than being designed merely to satisfy bureaucratic requirements or check compliances boxes.

Charlyne Restivo: So that’s what we had. Thank you so much. I love the support from the team. They were like clapping as soon as she finished. I love that. So we have the next group. If we could please have the facilitator or someone brave from the group to please share with us the top ideas. All right. So let me share my team’s. So the first one we got, we got a lot of ideas, but the first we want to have more voice from the young in decision making.

Speaker 3: And also we want to have more participation, I mean, physical participation to WSIS, I mean, forums and so. The second is we want to have more gender positive where we have more gender equality. The third one is capacity building. We want to make sure that every young connected is making use of the connectivity he has. Thank you. Thank you so much. And yes, definitely. The goal is that more young people are included in decision-making, and hopefully this is a great step in that direction.

Dunola Oladapo: And the last but not least group, if we could please have the facilitator or someone brave to share with us, just go to a mic and press the button so we hear your top ideas. All right, thank you very much. I’m Nadir, and basically in our groups, we’ve gathered such amazing ideas.

Speaker 4: But just prioritizing a few are that generally there’s seen the CIS as the lack of structured pathways for youth to meaningfully engage and have their voices heard. Secondly, it’s about the awareness of the CIS itself. So remaining the law in the mainstream and education spaces sometimes gets the young generation and professionals to not know much about CIS and their activities as well. The review process of the process itself overall feels too high level, and we need to generally localize and streamline it to the rich grassroots youth. There are needs for the dedicated funding mechanism as well, because many would like to attend, but there are certain necessities, and especially in the developing countries, the young generation are keen on attending, but the certain funding would really foster that initiative to support them. And of course, finally, we have to just highlight the importance of clearly defining youth as the current categorized versions in the categorization variety of fields, and especially having even more younger generation, like the undergraduate and the school children with their projects or their activities to participate in the certain booths and act their ideas would make CIS even more creative and initiative. Thank you.

Dunola Oladapo: Thank you. Thank you so much. I love the point on, you know, finance and investment, because I think we all know part of the major, one of the major barriers to youth engagement in general is lack of, you know, access to funding and investment in this space. So we’ll have the second and final kind of big group discussion now, and we’ll have this group and this group, one and two and three, we’ll have one topic, and these two have a different topic. It will come on the screen in a moment. And just to say, even if your idea was not read out just now or anything, we will collect from the scribes the notes, and it will all feed into a report. And I hope you all signed up for the session so that we can share with you the outcomes via the email you used to sign up afterwards. So what would be great now, after you’ve had this brainstorming of what could be done, is if we could try to be a bit more targeted. So this group one and the new group two, it will be great for, I know there are many ideas, but maybe you can try to discuss and negotiate and come up with the major topic for you as a young person or as young person adjacent, as some of us are here, or just previously young person that you wish WSIS could address. Try to agree on just one topic for your group, and then it’ll be great if you can explain why it’s important for WSIS to address. One of the reasons why we’re trying to get you to go from big ideas to kind of one big is because when we’re writing the report, to make sure people read it and are interested, we want it to be short and snappy and really to the point. So let’s try to see if there are really some key, like one key idea that you think would really make a difference. Try to think of something that would be impactful, but also feasible with this process. And then for the second group, so group three to five, basically four or five, it will be great for you to ideate how we can practically attract and empower more young people to engage in the WSIS process. So one of the ideas that came from Nadea’s team. was that for more young people to even have the awareness of WSIS. I know a lot of you said in the poll that you knew about WSIS, you’ve been to WSIS events, but you’re a very small portion of the world population. I’m sure there’s billions of people that don’t know about WSIS. How can we get to those young people, how can those young people know about WSIS and feel part of this process as well? It would be great to get some ideas. So we’ll start the timer now for 10 minutes and I please want to ask the facilitators to nominate somebody else in your team to now moderate the discussion and that would feed back to the group. Our scribes stay the same, help take notes please and of course contribute to the conversation as well. So please hand over to the new moderator and start your discussions now. If no one wants to take on the old moderators can be, but please try to be somebody new. I will leave the floor to Steve to get started. I will come back here for the results. Thank you.

Charlyne Restivo:

Dunola Oladapo: So the time is up. So it’s time to hear the ideas. I know the conversations could just go on and on, but we really must start to conclude. Because as you know, we have the high level dialogue on youth happening after this in Room C. And it’ll be nice to all go together. And so this time we’ll start from group five and we’ll go this way to give group one and two a bit of a rest this time. So can we have our new moderator, or if you kept the same one, kindly just take the floor and share with us maybe up to three of the ideas you had on how we can practically attract and empower more young people to engage in the WSIS process for the next 20 years and beyond.