Uncategorized

Summary

This panel discussion focused on identifying alternatives to overcome challenges for effective and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in global Internet governance spaces, particularly for Global South civil society organizations. The session was organized around the WSIS Plus 20 review and examined barriers to participation as well as recommendations for strengthening civil society engagement in digital governance processes.

The panelists emphasized a crucial distinction between mere presence at governance forums and meaningful participation that includes agenda-setting power and influence over outcomes. Nandini Chami from IT4Change highlighted how multi-stakeholder processes often confuse equal stakes dialogue with genuine bottom-up participation, noting that technical standards frequently become substitutes for political norms without addressing underlying power dynamics. Michel Oliveira de Souza from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights stressed that participation in public affairs is a fundamental human right and emphasized the importance of safe spaces, transparency, and access to decision-makers.

Paloma Lara Castro from Derechos Digitales pointed out specific barriers including visa problems, language barriers, and financial constraints that prevent meaningful participation, often resulting in tokenistic engagement. She emphasized the need for specific mechanisms and recognition of marginalized groups including LGBTQI communities, indigenous populations, and farmers affected by digital policies. Bia Barbosa, participating online from Brazil, discussed the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s work and highlighted the Sao Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines as a model for inclusive processes.

The panelists provided concrete recommendations for WSIS Plus 20, including stronger corporate accountability mechanisms, public financing for digital infrastructure, clearer participation criteria, financial support for civil society attendance, and robust human rights language in outcome documents. They emphasized the urgent need to move beyond formal participation toward implementation and accountability mechanisms that ensure civil society voices translate into concrete policy outcomes.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Barriers to meaningful participation for Global South civil society organizations in digital governance**: The panel identified structural obstacles including financial constraints, visa problems, language barriers, lack of safe spaces for participation, and transparency issues that prevent meaningful engagement beyond mere presence in governance forums.

– **Distinction between presence and meaningful participation in multi-stakeholder processes**: Speakers emphasized that simply having a “seat at the table” is insufficient – true meaningful participation requires agenda-setting power, follow-up mechanisms, and the ability to influence outcomes rather than tokenistic involvement.

– **Corporate accountability and human rights violations in digital spaces**: Discussion focused on the need for stronger mechanisms to hold big tech corporations accountable for human rights violations, data extractivism, and their role in perpetuating inequalities, particularly affecting Global South communities.

– **Recommendations for WSIS Plus 20 review process**: Panelists proposed concrete improvements including implementing the São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines, ensuring transparent processes, providing financial support for civil society participation, strengthening human rights language, and creating tracking mechanisms for civil society contributions.

– **Coordination challenges and fragmentation in digital governance**: The discussion addressed how multiple parallel processes addressing similar issues create difficulties for civil society participation, especially for Global South organizations with limited resources, emphasizing the need for better coordination and avoiding duplication.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to identify alternatives to overcome challenges for effective multi-stakeholder participation in global Internet governance, specifically focusing on how Global South civil society organizations can meaningfully engage in digital governance processes like WSIS Plus 20 review despite growing financial and political constraints.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was constructively critical and solution-oriented throughout. Speakers maintained a professional but urgent atmosphere, acknowledging serious systemic problems while offering concrete recommendations. The discussion remained collaborative and focused on practical improvements rather than becoming confrontational, with participants building on each other’s points and sharing experiences from different regional perspectives.

Speakers

– **Bia Barbosa** – Journalist and specialist in human rights from University of Sao Paulo; civil society representative at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br)

– **Nandini Chami** – From IT4Change; development practitioner working on rights and digital governance

– **Kemly Camacho** – From Costa Rica; President of Zulabatzu Cooperative and part of APC team; panel moderator

– **Paloma Lara Castro** – Public Policy Director at Derechos Digitales (Latin American organization with 20 years of experience working in the intersection of human rights and technology)

– **Michel Oliveira de Souza** – Human Rights Officer at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Jacqueline Pigato** – From Data Privacy Brazil, civil society organization

– **Anne McCormick** – From EY

# Report: Alternatives for Effective Multi-Stakeholder Participation in Global Internet Governance

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Kemly Camacho (President of Zulabatzu Cooperative and APC team member), examined barriers to meaningful civil society participation in global Internet governance and explored concrete alternatives for improvement. The session was structured in two rounds: first identifying barriers to participation, then discussing specific recommendations for the WSIS Plus 20 review process.

The discussion emphasized the critical distinction between mere presence at governance forums and meaningful participation that includes agenda-setting power and influence over outcomes. Panellists highlighted how current multi-stakeholder processes often fail to address underlying power dynamics and structural barriers that prevent Global South organizations from effectively participating in digital governance decisions.

## Key Participants

**Bia Barbosa** – Journalist and human rights specialist from the University of São Paulo, civil society representative on the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), participated online from Brazil

**Nandini Chami** – IT4Change, development practitioner focused on rights and digital governance

**Paloma Lara Castro** – Public Policy Director at Derechos Digitales, with 20 years of experience working at the intersection of human rights and technology

**Michel Oliveira de Souza** – Human Rights Officer at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The discussion also included interventions from audience members including Jacqueline Pigato (Data Privacy Brazil) and Anne McCormick (EY).

## Round 1: Barriers to Meaningful Participation

### Presence Versus Meaningful Participation

Nandini Chami established a key framework for the discussion: “When we are talking about meaningful participation and inclusion of historically marginalised groups in digital governance… presence does not always translate into meaningful participation, even if presence is achieved. Because it’s also about agenda setting power and whether the voices expressed translate into actual concerns that account for a digital justice and Southern perspective.”

### Structural and Practical Barriers

Paloma Lara Castro identified concrete obstacles including “visa problems, language barriers, and financial constraints” that prevent meaningful participation and often result in “tokenistic engagement.”

Michel Oliveira de Souza emphasized that “financial support and online participation mechanisms are essential for civil society engagement” while noting the importance of “safe spaces” for participation, acknowledging that engagement can pose risks in some contexts.

Bia Barbosa highlighted how “civil society faces difficulties following simultaneous and duplicative processes,” noting that multiple parallel governance processes create particular burdens for organizations with limited resources.

### Technicalization of Political Issues

Nandini Chami provided a critical analysis of how multi-stakeholder processes can depoliticize inherently political questions: “We confuse the idea of an equal stakes dialogue where there is an aggregation of different interests in the room with the same thing as bottom-up participation of a plurality of processes… technical standards start becoming stand-ins for political norms.”

She illustrated this with a concrete example: “It’s not the same thing as saying that instead of talking about democratic and accountable digital public infrastructure, it’s enough to talk about open and interoperable public infrastructure.”

## Round 2: Recommendations and Solutions

### Human Rights Framework

Michel Oliveira de Souza grounded recommendations in international human rights law, stating that “participation is a human right that must be respected in digital governance decisions” and emphasizing the need for “safe spaces, transparency, and access to decision-makers.”

### Brazilian Multi-Stakeholder Experience

Bia Barbosa highlighted Brazil’s experience with multi-stakeholder governance, noting that CGI.br has been operating for 30 years and that “multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation.” She promoted the “São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines as a model for inclusive processes” and mentioned Brazil’s support for various IGF forums including Brazilian, Latin American and Caribbean, and Lusophone forums.

She also referenced the NetMundial Plus 10 event held “last year” as an example of inclusive processes organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee.

### Corporate Accountability

Nandini Chami argued that “big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations” and highlighted issues of “data extractivism” and corporate roles in “perpetuating inequalities, particularly affecting Global South communities.”

She also advocated for “public financing for inclusive digital infrastructure development,” referencing the “digital development tax proposed by the Secretary-General in the Our Common Agenda report.”

### Specific WSIS Plus 20 Recommendations

**Strengthening Human Rights Language**: Paloma Lara Castro noted that “human rights language in WSIS Plus 20 elements paper is weaker than in Global Digital Compact” and called for strengthening human rights language in outcome documents with “specific references to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.”

**Explicit Recognition of Marginalized Groups**: Rather than generic terms, speakers emphasized the need for “explicit recognition of specific groups like LGBTQI communities and indigenous populations” in WSIS Plus 20 texts.

**IGF Mandate**: Paloma Lara Castro recommended that the “IGF mandate should be made permanent in the review process.”

**Procedural Improvements**: Michel Oliveira de Souza called for “clear, transparent, and fair participation processes with access to documents” and emphasized the need to “provide financial support for civil society participation.”

## Implementation Challenges

### Coordination Between Processes

Bia Barbosa emphasized that “coordination between governance spaces is essential to avoid fragmentation” and called for “new working methods and allocate financial/human resources for better coordination between governance processes.”

### Accountability Mechanisms

The discussion identified the ongoing challenge of “holding stakeholders accountable for commitments” even when meaningful participation is achieved. Speakers recommended creating tracking mechanisms to monitor how civil society contributions are incorporated into final outcomes.

## Audience Engagement

During the Q&A session, Jacqueline Pigato raised questions about “how to effectively connect global governance decisions with local implementation and accountability.” Anne McCormick emphasized urgency, asking “What can we do in the next 12 months because we don’t have three years?”

Michel Oliveira de Souza acknowledged that “civil society plays a strong role in bringing global agreements to regional and local environments” while recognizing the ongoing challenges in ensuring effective implementation.

## Key Frameworks and References

The discussion referenced several important frameworks:

– São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines as a model for inclusive processes

– UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights for corporate accountability

– The Transnational Institute review of 21 global multi-stakeholder initiatives

– UN Special Rapporteur’s report on corporation’s complicity in genocide

## Conclusion

The panel demonstrated that meaningful civil society participation in digital governance requires addressing structural barriers, ensuring adequate resources and safe spaces, and moving beyond technical solutions to engage with the political dimensions of digital governance. The speakers provided concrete recommendations for improving the WSIS Plus 20 process while acknowledging the ongoing challenges of implementation and accountability in multi-stakeholder governance models.

Michel Oliveira de Souza concluded by inviting participants to another session on “standard setting and human rights and the role of the private sector,” indicating the continuation of these important discussions throughout the IGF.

Kemly Camacho: This is a really interesting panel that focuses on identifying alternatives to overcome multiple existing challenges for effective and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in global Internet governance spaces. Multicultural participation has multiple challenges, even more and more, especially for the global South and for the civil society organization, including the dismantling of established global governance regimes and coordinated attacks against those who defend human rights and social justice values, including in the context of digital governance. This session is going to address how civil society, particularly the global South and within the current geopolitical landscapes, can meaningfully participate in global digital governance and sustain that engagement amidst growing financial and political constraints. Civil society holds a key role since it represents the voices and demands of historically marginalized groups and digital governance scenarios. This is what we are going to talk about in these 45 minutes. And for that, we have here our wonderful speakers, wonderful panelists. I’m not going to hold their view, it’s on the website because of the time. But we have here with us Nandini Chami from IT4Change. We have Michel Oliveira de Souza. Olivera de Souza as a Human Rights Officer at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. And we have online Bia Barbosa, a journalist and a specialist in human rights from University of Sao Paulo. And we have Paloma Lara, which is a Public Policy Director at Derechos Digitales. Nice to meet you. My name is Kemly Camacho from Costa Rica, President of Zulabatzu Cooperative and also part of APC team. Then we are going to organize this session in two rounds. In the first round, we are going to discuss about the main barriers for meaningful participation from the Global South Independent Civil Society Organization having the digital governance arena. Then the focus is going to be more in the barriers and how this WSIS Plus 20 review can integrate better participation and more voices from organized civil society. And also how we can connect Global Digital Compact with WSIS Plus 20, taking into account in Global Digital Compact was developed, yes, with the participatory process. We are going to begin with this first part, identifying challenges and also good practices. And in the second part, we are going to focus on recommendation for WSIS Plus 20 for strengthening civil society from the Global South participation as part of this. multi-stakeholder approach. Then I’m going to pass the word first to Nandini, yes, for the first part of the discussion. If all of you will have four to five minutes, then please go to the right points, taking into account the time. I know it’s a few times, but go ahead.

Nandini Chami: Thank you, Kemly. And thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion, Paloma. I just wanted to say that when we are talking about meaningful participation. Can you put more your microphone closer? This should be fine? Yeah, thanks. So when we are talking about meaningful participation and inclusion of historically marginalized groups in digital governance, including in the WSIS Plus 20 review and other digital cooperation processes, I think we are talking about two things. One is the question of presence and who is in the room. And as all the reports from the Internet Governance Forum, the breakdown of participation statistics show, we know how inaccessibility of particular spaces and structural barriers will also play a role in affecting an inclusive politics of presence itself. But as we all recognize as development practitioners and people working on rights, that presence does not always translate into meaningful participation, even if presence is achieved. Because it’s also about agenda setting power and whether the voices expressed translate into actual concerns that account for a digital justice and Southern perspective and the most marginalized and furthest from the first agenda being front and center at the table. And here, I just want to make a couple of like a. you know reflections on the way we do digital multi-stakeholderism which has not always led to deepening democracy. The first point is that oftentimes in multi-stakeholder decision making we confuse the idea of an equal stakes dialogue where there is an aggregation of different interests in the room with the same thing as bottom-up participation of a plurality of processes. We know that in a public policy process it’s not just about expressing different interests and stakes, it’s also about how those stakes are mediated in order to produce a public policy consensus that is accountable and inclusive. And even the NetMundial 2014 statement actually points this part out when it says that in an institutional process the respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should only be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. And the question is how legitimacy is achieved in a process of standard setting in internet institutions that cannot be treated as a default institutional mechanism, a format or principle which you will apply to every internet related public policy issue as the gold standard. Where we are not, I mean of course it’s important to have multi-constituency engagement, it’s important to have plurality and diversity of participation and different stakeholder perspectives, but how do we mediate these stakes and we are not really able to resolve this. The second point is that if we look at the historical data of how different norm-setting multi-stakeholder initiatives have worked, there happens to be a public trust deficit in the way consortium processes of governance standards creation and soft guidelines are working. So two years ago the Transnational Institute did a review of 21 global multi-stakeholder initiatives that have been created in different digital policy arenas such as AI, cyber security, trade and e-commerce, human rights, the whole gamut of haunted us from the time of the visas 20 years ago, which is that we tend to technicalize political issues of public interest, which tends to depoliticize them. For instance, we’ve all seen the magic bullet thinking around ICTs for development and its limitations. But then we see big data and UN global pulse type of thinking, and then we see AI for good thinking. And what happens in these processes is technical standards start becoming stand-ins for political norms, where it’s not the same thing as saying that instead of talking about democratic and accountable digital public infrastructure, it’s enough to talk about open and interoperable public infrastructure, because the openness towards what and under what conditions. These types of issues, like you know, the slippages, that we don’t seem to have learned so much from the past. And in this area, I think we need to be doing more. I’ll just stop here. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you very much, Nandini. Thank you so much for all these insights. Very wonderful insights. Michel, how about you? Which are your reflections in terms of the challenges in these 20 years?

Michel Oliveira de Souza: Hello, good morning, all. Thank you, Kamili, and thank you to the Italians for the invitation for this panel. I think that this is such an utmost important. an important topic to discuss participation from civil society and mostly with a global south perspective. I think that this is one of the most important topics to be discussed and I think that the WSIS plus 20 reveal is an important time to understand what happened in these 20 years and how can we go forward in this topic. I first would like to say that we have a human rights to participate in public affairs and I think that this is something important to state here because civil society also has to participate in the decisions that are made that are concerning them and I think that from the office of the human rights the perspective is that people should participate in the decisions, in the political decisions that are taken and I think that this is something important and sometimes, as Nandini was saying, was not that much respected. So we have places that we don’t have participation at all in terms of process, in terms of be open to participate. We have states and we have some cases that we have we do not have a safe space for participation. Just participating in one specific public policy is a risk for the person and for the community that’s participating and we have problems of transparency, problems of access to documents, access to decision makers and so on. So I think that we have a full list of problems regarding to participation and I think that regarding the WSIS and all that have been done during these 20 years, I think that this is a very important model for mood stakeholder participation, allowing participation from the from Civil Society, from the Global South. We have the IGF, we have the national IGFs and all the participation that we have in these spaces. And I think that this is important to bring human rights to the table. We have seen in these 20 years the participation from Civil Society, from the Global South. We bring the topics, the risks, the problems to the table, to be discussed together with stakeholders, to be discussed together with technical community, to be discussed together with governments. So I think that the WSIS model was very important to have human rights at the table, to have the voice from the unheard, because sometimes not to be heard is not to fulfill their own human rights. So I think that for now, I would like to stop here and I’m happy to discuss further, but my main concern is that we are talking about participation, we are talking about human rights, we are talking about the internet, we are talking about human rights.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much, Michelle. Paloma, the same approach, which are from your perspective and the perspective of Derechos Digitales, the most important challenges for real participation.

Paloma Lara Castro: Thank you, Kemli, and thank you all for joining us. I’m Paloma from Derechos Digitales. We are a Latin American organization with 20 years of experience working in the intersection of human rights and technology. In this process, we have been, I mean, in this area of work, we have been very active regarding international, regional, and local advocacy, trying to bring the voices specifically of Latin America and the global south to these discussions. What we see in the field… The field is reflected in what has been already expressed by Nandini and Michel. I don’t want to be duplicative of what they said, but I do want to highlight some of the points that were mentioned. So first of all, there is a need to consider the linkage that Michel was mentioning between multi-stakeholder and human rights. So participation at the same time that is a human right, it’s a political and civic social human right, at the same time is key for inclusion. Participation is at the core of the WSIS vision, and when we think about the PLOS 20 review, we do really need to focus on how to contextualize the WSIS vision into the diverse experiences of local and marginalized communities that are more affected for the policies or lack of policies regarding internet and digital policies. So when we think in that perspective, what we are seeing in different processes, and to put a concrete example within the GDC, we are seeing that maybe there is some participation, and as Nandini mentioned, that’s not enough for meaningful participation, it’s not enough to get a seat on the table. And then again, when we think about who actually gets a seat on the table, there are very few organizations that actually get to participate in this discussion. We have to consider there visa problems, language barriers, financial constraints that actually impede these groups to actually participate, and when they do participate, or when we do participate, there is no actual mechanism for follow-up, so our participation sometimes becomes tokenistic. And this is heightened or deepened within the geopolitical sphere that we’re living right now, the geopolitical problems and issues that we’re living with right now that tend to push back on human rights. We are at a moment right now where there is a strong pushback on human rights, specifically when we see, for example, on gender-related issues. which is a specific example. So when we link it back to the discussions right now, trying to think about how, looking forward as Michel said, how are we thinking about how to actually include these groups, there are many things we need to consider. First of all, specific mechanisms. The Sao Paulo guidelines are very useful for that and OBS is going to touch base on that. Second of all, there’s a need to include specific groups within the recognition of rights. This is not only to say relevant stakeholders, as is mentioned for example in the elements paper which will serve as a basis for negotiations of the WSIS plus 20. We actually need to recognize who are these people, who are these communities that need to be specifically included to actually benefit from the digital and internet policies but also to ensure their participation within these debates. If we don’t ensure their participation with these specific events and discussions, we are risking deepening the structural inequalities that Nandini Chami already touched base on. So when we’re thinking about looking forward, inclusion is not only to advance on multi-stakeholder and actually considering the, not only as I mentioned the geopolitical shifts, but also considering that right now all of the discussions regarding human rights and technology are being centered in New York which deepens the barriers that I already mentioned and touched base upon. So when we’re thinking about this geopolitical sphere and the challenges regarding that, we really do need to contextualize the WSIS plus 20 vision into the challenges facing today and this is a crucial time for us to do that and multi-stakeholder participation is key to actually advance on rights, not only as a formality. So I’m going to leave it at that, but happy to continue this conversation. Thank you. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you very much, Paloma. And now, Bea, the word to you. Are you online?

Bia Barbosa: Yes, Kimmy. Can you hear me?

Kemly Camacho: Yes, we hear you very well. Thank you, Bea. Thank you for being here. Thank you.

Bia Barbosa: Thank you very much and thank you to Direitos Digitales for this invitation. It’s a pleasure to be here with you all, even if it’s 4 a.m. in the morning here in Brazil, it’s pretty cold. So thank you so much for having me. I would like to share with you a little bit the contributions we have made on this topic within the scope of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which is a multi-stakeholder body that for 30 years has been fundamental in formulating guidelines for the use and development of the internet in our country. I’m one of the civil society representatives at the CGI.br and expanding the meaningful participation of the Global South in internet governance forums and arenas is one of our main missions. That’s why CGI not only supports and actively builds the Internet Governance Forum, but also holds annually one of the largest national governance forums, the Brazilian Internet Forum, and supports IGF, the Latin American and the Caribbean one, and the Lusophone Forum as well, which brings together Portuguese-speaking countries. We know that the rapid digital transformation and the spread of multiple internet-based technologies and applications present us with opportunities and challenges impacting economic, political, and civic spheres, and these need to be addressed in governance of the internet and digital policies process, which more than ever requires precedent coordination and cooperation among stakeholders to effectively unlock the benefits of this massive transformation for everyone everywhere. I totally agree with the points brought by Nadine and Paloma, and when we say that no stakeholder can handle these challenges alone, we think that in all the difficulty to civil society to be at this space, but we believe that each stakeholder has different roles and responsibilities depending on the issues and stages of specific stakeholder process. We know that there are persistent concerns that too many government processes are failing to properly guarantee a meaningful participation, and this is especially due to the lack of inclusive participation of all relevant stakeholders on a genuinely equal footing. multistakeholder approaches to internet governance and digital policies work better when they are inclusive and when a stakeholder can identify their own interest in an issue and participate in the process to address it. They succeed when there is a mindset of openness to new ideas and a willingness to understand other points of view and make compromises to find a consensus. That said, a vital component of protecting and improving such a process is to make sure they incorporate the relevant forms of expertise and experience that are required at different stages of discussing a particular issue. Capacity building, for example, is essential to improve stakeholders’ understanding and ability to participate on an equal footing. This also implies a realistic analysis of and response to power asymmetries between and within stakeholders in a discussion. Another point I would like to raise regards to coordination. Coordination of governance spaces is essential. Numerous initiatives and processes have emerged to address the broad diversity of issues raised by the digital transformation. And sometimes multiple processes address the same issue in parallel. This has both positive and negative impacts. Distributing initiatives on a particular issue can help cover the diversity of approaches and perspectives. But at the same time, there is a risk that separated discussion on a specific issue may create incompatible and even conflicting outcomes. There are also difficulties posed for stakeholders, especially for the civil society, to follow simultaneous and duplicative processes, especially for those from the Global South as us. It’s important to avoid fragmentation and duplication of fora to make sure that internet governance and digital policy processes can be effective. Instead, better coordination between processes dealing with overlapping issues is strongly needed. I finish just with a final point that we believe that to deliver an expectation for coordination and information sharing, new working methods may need to be developed. And new financial and human resources would be essential. This could be designed to deliver what we mentioned before, which is genuinely improved coordination and information sharing, and also to generate improved outcome deliberation and insight. They could also drive stronger connections between governance process and implementation of outcomes that would strengthen the overall effectiveness of Internet governance and digital policies process. So I leave it here and so we can move forward for the second round that I think it would be more interesting.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much, Bia. Okay, we finished this first round. I’m going to take five specific points, maybe to go later to the discussion around the recommendation for WSIS. Yes, maybe first, it’s not the same to be present that having meaningful participation. If we study the public digital agenda, we see how big tech is defined in this agenda based on concrete examples. We have passed by ICT4D, data for development, IEA for good, and we are almost in the same point discussing more inclusive digital policies. We cannot, it’s urgent to have a human rights approach in terms of the development of the… Digital Public Policies and the policies in the digital in general. There are really difficulties to have safe spaces for all the participants in some countries or some processes and there are problems of transparency also. There is a really need to put inclusion in the core and we need to understand that having a multi-stakeholder is not exactly the same than inclusion. Civil society organizations have specific problems and constraints to really participate, to have a meaningful participation in the process like WSIS, IGF and others. We have to contextualize WSIS plus 20 in the geopolitical context and also be very specific about how we coordinate this governance, how to follow up, how we share information and the urgency to develop capacity building to the different stakeholders to have really a meaningful participation. Just mentioning a few points on the discussion at the moment to pass then to our next session around which are the recommendations we have for WSIS plus 20 from now to the next years. Then Nandini, your time. Thank you very much.

Nandini Chami: Yeah, when we look at the concrete recommendations that we want to see out of the WSIS plus 20 process, I would just like to talk about two agenda which I think must find mention in a concrete way in the outcome document. So the first point is something that has come up a lot of times in the first round, which is about the accountability of big tech corporations for human rights violations, civic political rights, economic, social, cultural rights violations in data value chains, and even the right to development violations stemming from their data extractivism and natural resource extractivism, especially in the Global South. And I just wanted to mention that this report released last week recently, which everyone would have seen about the United Nations Special Rapporteur’s comments on the corporation’s complicity in genocide, for instance, that just proves the point how we do not have a viable mechanism to hold them to account effectively. The second point is that when we look at the positive agenda of forging equal digital economies where the majority world can participate in inclusive and equitable ways, lessons from the WSIS show us that if we don’t invest in public financing, inclusive digital infrastructures cannot be developed. The market has not been able to close the connectivity gap for those last hundreds for whom there is no viable market case to close the access trap. That’s what the statistics are telling us. And the same thing will also happen in terms of building data and AI infrastructural capabilities where we do not want citizens of the Global South to be just included as passive consumers of data and AI products, right? We want them to be meaningfully included in ways they are producers and they are able to make gains in data and AI value chains. And in a global context where sovereign debt of majority world countries are at an all-time high, how is public financing deficit going to be solved unless we have mechanisms like the digital development tax proposed by the Secretary-General? in the Our Common Agenda report, and we also support the right of countries to tax digital corporations operating in their territories and don’t attempt to thwart that right through trade agreements. Those are the points, yeah.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much Nandini. Michel, the same question for you, which are the recommendations? Thank you.

Michel Oliveira de Souza: Well, I think that we have some topics that were mentioned by all the speakers that I would like to highlight. I think that the first is we need to have better processes, and I think that the Sao Paulo guidelines are important documents to be seen, not only because of how it was built in a multi-stakeholder environment in Sao Paulo, but also because it brings concrete things, concrete examples to go forward. And as we have seen, the process also is important. We have to have access to documents, to have access to criteria about participation, we have to have access about who is going to participate, who is going to be on the table. And I think that this is something that we should highlight. We have to have clear, transparent and fair ways so civil society can participate, and to know in advance what’s going to be the agenda, to be able to influence the agenda, to give inputs to this agenda, because as I said, the agenda set is how we frame the question, how we frame what is going to be discussed. It’s always important, because we can have different views, we can have different perspectives. One thing that I also would like to highlight, it’s about the financial support from civil society to participate. We know it’s not easy to travel to Geneva. to Geneva, to New York, to different places. And I think that this is something that really civil society struggles to participate. And also online participation, as Bia is doing right now, it’s very important to have this possibility to participate online and to follow online and to have meaningful participation online. It’s important not only to see after what happened, but also to be in the discussion, to have their arguments in the discussion. So I think that this is something very important. I think that also information about relevant decision making processes and events proactively made available is something important. So civil society can program themselves to participate and to know what’s going to happen, what’s going to be discussed, and decide if they’re going to participate or not and how they’re going to participate. And I think that just to highlight that any restrictions on civil society engagement can be contexted and promptly revealed. I think that restrictions to participation should be revealed because we need like independent accountability mechanisms to be communicated to these concerned parties. I think that this is something important. Also during the events, because we know that it can happen and we have to have mechanisms to deal with that and to deal with the risks. And I think that this is something important. Participation should be easy and should be safe. Otherwise, we can have problems regarding the independence of the participation. And my last point regarding WSIS, I think that it’s important to acknowledge the multi-stakeholder model and to bring civil society to the table. I think that we should allow participation. Thank you very much for your participation and think about the participation not only here in this high-level events in Geneva and New York, but also during the work of the WSIS, during the action lines. So all the co-facilitators should also take account the voice from civil society, the voice from different stakeholders throughout their works. So I think that this is important and bringing guidelines, bringing concrete guidelines and examples, it’s a great way to go forward. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you. Thank you very much, Michel. Paloma?

Paloma Lara Castro: Yeah, thanks. I think what Michel said is key. We really do need to look forward and not just focused on this process, but actually how civil society and stakeholders will be actually and meaningfully involved in the implementation of the WSIS plus 20. In that sense, it’s important to highlight two main points, although there are many others. First of all, thinking about human rights, we really do need to make sure or states need to make sure that the human rights language is a great language. What we’re seeing in the elements paper is very weak language that is not even, that doesn’t even comply with recent agreed language such as the GDC. And I want to be clear that the GDC doesn’t even have enough language, but I’m civil society so I get to say that. But it’s not even strong language, but it does have two specific points that are standalone principles on human rights and on gender equality, which are not reproduced in the elements paper. That is on the one hand. Then on the multi-stakeholder approach. First of all, we do need to strengthen the language again, thinking about actual mechanism participations and thinking about if we think about other processes and what we can learn from other processes. The main thing is that, as I mentioned, the participation is tokenistic, and this also means that we have three minutes to intervene on a several number of chapters, and then we are not even, we don’t have the same position as states, we are not in the same place, so joint consultations are also key in these processes. So, not only for us to hear states, but also for states to hear us, and that we can still be in the same place as the multistakeholder, as the Sao Paulo guidelines that Bia mentioned regarding process were very useful for that. But also to think about how we track the contributions made by civil society, just not, yeah, civil society participated in this and this space, but how do we actually track the changes, what was actually put within, and what was not included, and why? How can we track these processes? And then finally, when we’re thinking about inclusion, we do need to make sure that groups are specifically and explicitly recognized within these texts. Not only thinking about gender, and this is very important, when we’re thinking about social and structural asymmetries, it’s not only about women and girls, it’s also about LGBTQI communities, we need to include those. We need to include indigenous populations, we need to include farmers’ populations that, as Nandini mentioned, are very much affected from data centers or from extraction policies, not only from state, but also corporate. So we do need to think about how the challenges today need to take into account the diverse experiences of these communities and actually include them specifically in the text and also in participation mechanisms. Finally, and this is a connected element, although not specific to multistakeholder, but a connected element, there’s a very troubling trend that we’re seeing worldwide that is being reflected in the Cybercrime Convention, also in the GDC, but now very strongly within the Elements paper, that has to do with a punitive vision regarding ICT abuse. There is a specific para in the elements paper which puts in the same level terrorism, disinformation and TFGBV, which is not the same and have different structural difficulties that need to be addressed specifically and especially from a human rights perspective. And when we think about the cybercrime convention that lacks total safeguards on how to actually protect people and affected communities from ICT abuse and that actually pushes for surveillance and criminalization of defenders and security researchers, this document, the WSIS plus 20, thinking about how its core vision is people centered is an opportunity to bring a balanced position to these discussions that are being advanced global wide. So I’m going to leave it at that for the time, but thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much, Paloma. Bia, you have the few minutes. Yes, because I want to take at least five minutes to open the floor a little bit, okay? Thank you, Bia.

Bia Barbosa: Sure, sure. So I’m going to wrap up just to mention regarding NetMundial plus STEM that I think that everybody has already mentioned. The idea of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee organized it first in 2014, and then 10 years ago last year in Sao Paulo was due to the goal to reaffirm the need to build an effective and functioning multi-stakeholder government architecture that facilitates an informed participatory and transparent engagement between sectors. But I would like to mention a point that NetMundial plus STEM declaration, it goes beyond the idea of defending the multi-stakeholderism as a model for decision-making process regarding the future of internet with all the limitations that we know that multi-stakeholderism has, and this panel is about it, right? NetMundial plus STEM final declaration proposed guidelines and recommendations in such a way that… Community voices have an impact also on multilateral and other decision-making processes so that effective solutions to the challenges we face can be found and implemented. We believe in the spirit of this declaration, multilateral process should evolve and governments have a key responsibility to guarantee the conditions for securing diversity and achieving robust multilateral process. And the fact that the entire process, as you mentioned, of Sao Paolo Mood Stakeholder Guidelines was Mood Stakeholder, it was fundamental to the result we achieved. I invite everyone to read the document if you don’t know, it’s available in all the six UN languages and many others, and it’s a document with 13 guidelines and 12 process step-oriented guidelines, so recommended process step for an open and inclusive Mood Stakeholder process, steps like identifying stakeholders to include all the groups, organisations and communities affected by the decision, respect and value the linguistic diversity of participants, share information, facilitate dialogue, encourage respectful communication, submit final outcomes to the consideration of the wider community, and establish a mechanism for implementing decisions and holding stakeholders accountable for their commitments among others. So we are pretty happy with the results of the Sao Paolo Stakeholders Guidelines, and at the final part of the document, the declaration brings a specific message to several other processes underway in the UN context, including the WISES plus 20 review, so we believe that renewed commitment and innovative strategy for achieving digital inclusion and protecting human rights online is needed, and the Mood Stakeholder model is fundamental in ensuring that WISES remains a dynamic process. based on the development of a global standards and cooperation mechanism around key digital issues. So I leave it there. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you. Thank you, Bia. We have five, six minutes and I wanted to open the floor to see if there are questions, specific questions or comments or follow-up to the conversation. Go ahead. I’m going to take two, three and to pass to the table, okay?

Audience: Thank you so much. My name is Jacqueline Pigato. I’m from Data Privacy Brazil, civil society organization. And first, congratulations on the panel. I think this is a very important discussion. I have some comments regarding especially what Bia was mentioning about the NetMundial, how Brazil did this 11 years ago and now today to discuss the multistakeholders, but also this innovation that it needs to happen on multilateral processes. And I’m hearing some discussions two weeks ago at the IGF and now here again about how we should have a hybrid governance model, because we need to have this multistakeholder participation, but also the implementation that multilateralism usually brings to the processes, like to actually put in practice the decisions. And this is not something new. I think President Dilma Rousseff said that in the first NetMundial in 2014 how we need to put together multistakeholderism and multilateralism. So my question is how can we secure implementation and connection between what is being decided in the global level with the local action, like how local governance… should also be multi-stakeholder and should implement the decisions of global governance, like how we can connect these two governance models and put in practice these decisions. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much. I’m going to take another question. Bia, I think you can answer this one in a minute, okay?

Bia Barbosa: Do you want me to answer right now or are you going to collect the second one?

Kemly Camacho: I’m going to collect the two, three, and then you will answer.

Bia Barbosa: Yes. Okay.

Audience: Yeah, I was going to say, it’s not a question, but just to what you were saying about corporate accountability being important to include both in the Elements paper and the Zero Draft. At least what we’ve been asking for is like specific reference to the UNGPs. So just wanted to share that that’s an ask that we’ve been putting in our submissions.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much. Yes, go ahead.

Audience: Thank you. Anne McCormick from EY. Thank you for what’s been shared. It’s extremely insightful and helpful. A comment and a question. Comment is that the private sector has many facets and has also its own challenges with some of the international and very powerful, currently dominant developers of critical technologies. And from a pure business point of view, if you were to leave all the other more important reasons, being able to trust the technology, being able to deploy it responsibly, is fundamental from reputation, sustainability, legal responsibility. I mean, I talk in a really hard mindset. It makes business sense, right? I think the question for us is, and we participate in some of the standard setting. We’re very aware of the limitations of inclusion, and that needs to be improved. I think what we’re interested in hearing from all of you and those outside the room is, business is really good at testing, at evaluating, at monitoring, at learning and improving. That’s what you need to do in business to succeed. Where can we partner in an inclusive, respectful and balanced way to advance that? We want to discuss this concretely and urgently. We know that India is hosting the next kind of Bletchley Summit and is talking about impact monitoring. What can we do in the next 12 months because we don’t have three years? I’ve only heard urgency once mentioned in this conversation. This is beyond urgent. What is a priority? What do we pick in the next 12 months? Where can businesses, small and big, with their limitations but also their strength, partner on these particular concrete actions that can then be measured and pulled into learning and improvement? If it’s not today in this room, we’d be really interested in getting it offline, but we need those because we cannot be accused of just talking. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you very much. Bia, I’m going to leave you the word first, yes? To answer the question, OK?

Bia Barbosa: Yeah, but pretty quickly because I’m so sorry, but I don’t have the $1 million answer. But thank you, Jacqueline, for bringing that. I totally agree with you that one of the key aspects regarding stakeholderism, meaningful participation has to do with implementing decisions. And as I mentioned, holding stakeholders accountable for the commitments that they have. We here in Brazil, we have a very important history regarding social participation. And we know that during some governments, not all of them, civil society inputs are really taken into account for developing public policies, not only on the digital topics, but in different areas of the public policy in general. But we know that when it comes to holding stakeholders accountable for the commitments that they have made in the past, it’s not the same thing. So I don’t have an answer for that. But I think that it’s important to take advantage of initiatives as the WSIS Plus 20 review and also the NetMundial Plus 10 forum and guidelines to try to reinforce the commitments that the states made there. There were many governments present to NetMundial Plus 10. And I think that is an opportunity to have the declaration on our hands all the time to say, you committed to that. So, please establish that and implement that in your country.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you. Thank you, Bia. I don’t know in the last minute if you have some comments to the question around the private sector. Some of you? Yes, Nandini?

Nandini Chami: Yeah, just to quickly respond. I think that from a private sector standpoint, how can we ensure that the standards we comply are the best in the world and we don’t do like, you know, lowest common denominator jurisdiction shopping? That could be a very important concrete action.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, Nandini, Michel.

Michel Oliveira de Souza: Thank you. I’m gonna take the opportunity also to invite you all to a session that we’re doing today to discuss standard setting and human rights and the role of the private sector. And I think that we can continue this conversation over there. I can share the link and the invitation. And just to highlight something that Jacqueline was telling us and how do we deal with the global, regional and national discussions. And I think that the civil society has a strong role over there, like participation in global discussions and bringing these discussions, bringing the agreement to the regional and to the local environments is something that really happens. And it’s important to hold also the regional actors and the local actors accountable to what they agreed in the global discussions, in the global agreements and treaties. So I think that this is something that the role of the civil society and it’s important to acknowledge that. Thank you.

Paloma Lara Castro: Just 30 seconds, following back on what Michel mentioned. on the importance of the IGF to make sure to really achieve bottom-up strategies for policies and especially consider the national and regional IGFs. And in that sense, we really do need to make sure that the mandate of the IGF is made permanent in the review. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: It is a shame we have only 45 minutes for all this discussion. We have arrived to the time to close. Thank you very much, Nandini, Michel, Paloma, Bia, and all of you for being in this room and outside also. Thank you very much. I hope this conversation continues. It’s a very, very important one. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Presence does not equal meaningful participation in digital governance

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Presence doesn’t equal meaningful participation; agenda-setting power is crucial for digital justice

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that simply having civil society representatives in governance spaces is insufficient. True meaningful participation requires agenda-setting power, follow-up mechanisms, and the ability to influence outcomes rather than just being present.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Financial and structural barriers prevent Global South participation

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Paloma Lara Castro
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Financial support and online participation mechanisms are essential for civil society engagement

Visa problems, language barriers, and financial constraints prevent Global South participation

Civil society faces difficulties following simultaneous and duplicative processes

Summary

All three speakers identify concrete barriers including travel costs, visa issues, language barriers, and the burden of following multiple parallel processes that particularly affect Global South civil society organizations.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Multi-stakeholder processes need improvement and better coordination

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Bia Barbosa
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder dialogue often confuses equal stakes with bottom-up participation

Multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Summary

Speakers agree that current multi-stakeholder models have significant flaws, including confusion between equal representation and meaningful participation, lack of capacity building, and insufficient follow-up mechanisms.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

São Paulo Guidelines provide concrete framework for better participation

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Clear, transparent, and fair participation processes with access to documents are essential

São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines provide concrete examples for better processes

Summary

Both speakers reference the São Paulo Guidelines as a concrete framework that provides practical steps for improving multi-stakeholder processes, including transparency, access to documents, and clear participation criteria.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Human rights approach is essential for digital governance

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Paloma Lara Castro
– Kemly Camacho

Arguments

Participation is a human right that must be respected in digital governance decisions

Human rights language in WSIS Plus 20 elements paper is weaker than in Global Digital Compact

Human rights approach is urgent for digital public policies development

Summary

All speakers emphasize that human rights must be at the center of digital governance processes, with stronger language and concrete protections for participation rights.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers critique how multi-stakeholder processes can become superficial exercises that avoid addressing underlying political and power issues, turning substantive policy questions into technical matters.

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes tend to technicalize and depoliticize political issues

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers, drawing from Brazilian experience, view the WSIS multi-stakeholder model as fundamentally valuable while acknowledging it needs improvements in implementation and capacity building.

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

WSIS model has been important for bringing human rights and Global South voices to discussions

Multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the need for concrete accountability measures and explicit recognition of marginalized groups rather than vague references to stakeholders or general human rights principles.

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations

Specific groups like LGBTQI communities and indigenous populations must be explicitly recognized

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Private sector partnership potential for technology accountability

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Audience (EY representative)

Arguments

Big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations

Private sector faces challenges with powerful technology developers and needs inclusive partnerships

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was alignment between a civil society advocate calling for corporate accountability and a private sector representative acknowledging the need for responsible technology deployment and partnerships. This suggests potential common ground for collaborative approaches to technology governance.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Implementation challenges across governance levels

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa
– Audience (Data Privacy Brazil)

Arguments

Civil society plays a strong role in bringing global agreements to regional and local environments

Holding stakeholders accountable for commitments remains a significant challenge

Implementation of global decisions at local levels requires connecting governance models

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different speakers about the fundamental challenge of translating global digital governance decisions into local implementation, suggesting this is a universal concern that transcends organizational perspectives.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental challenges facing civil society participation in digital governance, including structural barriers, the need for human rights-centered approaches, and the limitations of current multi-stakeholder models. They agreed on concrete solutions like the São Paulo Guidelines and the importance of accountability mechanisms.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among civil society speakers with constructive engagement from other stakeholders. The agreement suggests a mature understanding of systemic issues and potential pathways forward, which could facilitate more effective advocacy and policy development in the WSIS Plus 20 process and beyond.

Different viewpoints

Effectiveness of multi-stakeholder model versus need for multilateral implementation

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder dialogue often confuses equal stakes with bottom-up participation

WSIS model has been important for bringing human rights and Global South voices to discussions

Multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation

Summary

Nandini is more critical of multi-stakeholder processes, arguing they confuse equal stakes with genuine participation and tend to technicalize political issues. Michel and Bia are more supportive of the WSIS multi-stakeholder model, viewing it as important for inclusion, though Bia acknowledges implementation challenges.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Role of technical standards in governance

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes tend to technicalize and depoliticize political issues

São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines provide concrete examples for better processes

Explanation

While both speakers support better multi-stakeholder processes, Nandini warns against technicalization of political issues, while Bia promotes technical guidelines as solutions. This represents a subtle but significant disagreement about whether technical frameworks can adequately address political governance challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show remarkable consensus on identifying problems (barriers to participation, need for human rights approaches, corporate accountability) but differ on solutions and the fundamental effectiveness of current multi-stakeholder models.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers are largely aligned on goals but differ on approaches and the degree of systemic change needed. This suggests potential for collaborative solutions while highlighting the need to address different perspectives on implementation strategies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers critique how multi-stakeholder processes can become superficial exercises that avoid addressing underlying political and power issues, turning substantive policy questions into technical matters.

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes tend to technicalize and depoliticize political issues

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers, drawing from Brazilian experience, view the WSIS multi-stakeholder model as fundamentally valuable while acknowledging it needs improvements in implementation and capacity building.

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

WSIS model has been important for bringing human rights and Global South voices to discussions

Multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the need for concrete accountability measures and explicit recognition of marginalized groups rather than vague references to stakeholders or general human rights principles.

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations

Specific groups like LGBTQI communities and indigenous populations must be explicitly recognized

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Meaningful participation in digital governance requires more than just presence – it demands agenda-setting power and the ability to influence outcomes from a digital justice perspective

Multi-stakeholder processes often confuse equal stakes dialogue with genuine bottom-up participation, leading to technicalization of political issues

Participation in digital governance is a fundamental human right that must be protected, especially for marginalized communities from the Global South

Significant barriers prevent meaningful Global South participation including visa problems, language barriers, financial constraints, and lack of safe spaces

Corporate accountability mechanisms are urgently needed to address human rights violations by big tech companies in data value chains

Public financing is essential for inclusive digital infrastructure development, as markets have failed to close connectivity gaps for the most marginalized

The São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines provide concrete examples and processes for improving inclusive participation

Coordination between governance spaces is crucial to avoid fragmentation and duplication that burdens civil society organizations

Implementation and accountability remain major challenges – global agreements must be effectively translated to local action

Resolutions and action items

Strengthen human rights language in WSIS Plus 20 outcome documents to at least match Global Digital Compact standards

Include specific references to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in Elements paper and Zero Draft

Explicitly recognize specific marginalized groups (LGBTQI communities, indigenous populations, farmers) in WSIS Plus 20 texts

Establish clear, transparent participation processes with advance access to documents and decision-makers

Provide financial support and robust online participation mechanisms for Global South civil society

Create tracking mechanisms to monitor how civil society contributions are incorporated into final outcomes

Make the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) mandate permanent in the WSIS Plus 20 review

Develop new working methods and allocate financial/human resources for better coordination between governance processes

Support countries’ rights to tax digital corporations operating in their territories

Implement capacity building programs to enable stakeholders to participate on equal footing

Unresolved issues

How to effectively connect global governance decisions with local implementation and accountability

Concrete mechanisms for holding stakeholders accountable for their commitments over time

How to balance multi-stakeholder approaches with multilateral implementation needs

Specific partnership models between private sector and civil society for urgent technology impact monitoring

How to address power asymmetries between and within different stakeholder groups

Methods for preventing jurisdiction shopping by corporations seeking lowest common denominator standards

How to ensure meaningful participation in WSIS action line implementation, not just high-level events

Addressing the troubling trend toward punitive approaches to ICT abuse that conflate different issues

How to maintain human rights focus amid current geopolitical pushback on rights-based approaches

Suggested compromises

Hybrid governance model combining multi-stakeholder participation with multilateral implementation mechanisms

Joint consultations where civil society and states can engage on equal footing rather than separate interventions

Flexible interpretation of stakeholder roles and responsibilities depending on specific issues under discussion

Balanced approach to ICT abuse that addresses different structural challenges (terrorism, disinformation, gender-based violence) with appropriate human rights safeguards rather than treating them as equivalent

Recognition that different stakeholders have different roles and responsibilities at various stages of governance processes

Compromise between technical standards and political norms that doesn’t depoliticize issues of public interest

When we are talking about meaningful participation and inclusion of historically marginalized groups in digital governance… I think we are talking about two things. One is the question of presence and who is in the room… But as we all recognize as development practitioners and people working on rights, that presence does not always translate into meaningful participation, even if presence is achieved. Because it’s also about agenda setting power and whether the voices expressed translate into actual concerns that account for a digital justice and Southern perspective.

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between mere presence and meaningful participation. It introduces the critical concept of ‘agenda setting power’ and challenges the assumption that having diverse voices in the room automatically leads to inclusive outcomes. This insight exposes a deeper structural issue in multi-stakeholder governance.

Impact

This comment established the conceptual foundation for the entire panel discussion. It shifted the conversation from simply discussing barriers to participation toward examining the quality and effectiveness of participation. All subsequent speakers built upon this distinction, with Michel emphasizing human rights to participate in decisions that affect communities, and Paloma discussing tokenistic participation.

We confuse the idea of an equal stakes dialogue where there is an aggregation of different interests in the room with the same thing as bottom-up participation of a plurality of processes… technical standards start becoming stand-ins for political norms, where it’s not the same thing as saying that instead of talking about democratic and accountable digital public infrastructure, it’s enough to talk about open and interoperable public infrastructure.

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Reason

This observation reveals a fundamental flaw in how multi-stakeholder processes operate – the tendency to technicalize inherently political issues, thereby depoliticizing them. The concrete example of ‘open and interoperable’ versus ‘democratic and accountable’ infrastructure illustrates how technical language can obscure power dynamics and democratic values.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical analytical lens that influenced how other panelists framed their contributions. It helped explain why multi-stakeholder processes often fail to achieve meaningful change despite broad participation, and provided a framework for understanding the limitations of technical solutions to political problems.

We have a human rights to participate in public affairs and I think that this is something important to state here because civil society also has to participate in the decisions that are made that are concerning them… sometimes, as Nandini was saying, was not that much respected.

Speaker

Michel Oliveira de Souza

Reason

This comment grounds the entire discussion in international human rights law, elevating participation from a procedural nicety to a fundamental right. By explicitly connecting civil society participation to human rights obligations, it provides legal and moral weight to the arguments for inclusion.

Impact

This human rights framing became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with other speakers referencing human rights approaches and the need for rights-based language in outcome documents. It shifted the conversation from technical governance issues to fundamental questions of democratic participation and state obligations.

Participation is at the core of the WSIS vision, and when we think about the PLOS 20 review, we do really need to focus on how to contextualize the WSIS vision into the diverse experiences of local and marginalized communities that are more affected for the policies or lack of policies regarding internet and digital policies.

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Reason

This comment bridges the gap between global governance processes and local realities, emphasizing that those most affected by digital policies are often least represented in their creation. It challenges the universality assumptions of global governance and calls for contextualization based on lived experiences.

Impact

This observation redirected the discussion toward the practical implications of exclusion and the need for specific mechanisms to include marginalized communities. It influenced the recommendations phase, where speakers emphasized the need to explicitly recognize specific groups rather than using generic terms like ‘relevant stakeholders.’

We believe that each stakeholder has different roles and responsibilities depending on the issues and stages of specific stakeholder process… multistakeholder approaches to internet governance and digital policies work better when they are inclusive and when a stakeholder can identify their own interest in an issue and participate in the process to address it.

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Reason

This comment introduces nuance to multi-stakeholder governance by acknowledging that roles and responsibilities should be flexible and context-dependent, rather than fixed. It suggests a more sophisticated understanding of how different stakeholders can contribute at different stages of policy processes.

Impact

This perspective helped move the discussion beyond binary critiques of multi-stakeholderism toward a more constructive vision of how it could work better. It influenced the recommendations section where speakers discussed specific mechanisms and processes rather than rejecting multi-stakeholder approaches entirely.

Where can we partner in an inclusive, respectful and balanced way to advance that? We want to discuss this concretely and urgently… What can we do in the next 12 months because we don’t have three years? I’ve only heard urgency once mentioned in this conversation. This is beyond urgent.

Speaker

Anne McCormick (Audience)

Reason

This intervention from the private sector challenged the panel’s focus on structural critique by demanding concrete, immediate action steps. It introduced a sense of urgency and practical business perspective that had been largely absent from the academic and advocacy-focused discussion.

Impact

This comment created a notable shift in the room’s energy and forced panelists to move beyond critique toward actionable recommendations. It highlighted the tension between the time needed for meaningful structural change and the rapid pace of technological development, though the limited time prevented full exploration of this tension.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing a sophisticated analytical framework that moved beyond surface-level participation issues to examine deeper structural problems in global digital governance. Nandini’s distinction between presence and meaningful participation became the conceptual anchor for the entire conversation, while Michel’s human rights framing provided moral and legal grounding. The comments collectively revealed how multi-stakeholder processes can inadvertently perpetuate exclusion through technicalization of political issues, tokenistic participation, and failure to address power asymmetries. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing solutions, with the private sector intervention adding urgency and practical considerations. The overall flow demonstrated how critical analysis of existing systems can lead to more nuanced and actionable recommendations for reform, though the time constraints prevented deeper exploration of the tensions between immediate needs and long-term structural change.

How do we mediate different stakes in multi-stakeholder processes to produce accountable and inclusive public policy consensus?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge in multi-stakeholder governance where simply having different interests in the room doesn’t automatically lead to legitimate decision-making processes

How can we develop viable mechanisms to hold big tech corporations accountable for human rights violations effectively?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

Current accountability mechanisms are insufficient, as evidenced by recent UN Special Rapporteur reports on corporate complicity in serious violations

How can public financing deficits for digital infrastructure be solved in majority world countries with high sovereign debt?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

This is critical for enabling meaningful participation of Global South countries in digital economies rather than just as passive consumers

How can we ensure safe spaces for participation in digital governance processes?

Speaker

Michel Oliveira de Souza

Explanation

Participation in public policy can pose risks to individuals and communities in some contexts, requiring protective mechanisms

How can we track contributions made by civil society and what changes were actually implemented based on their input?

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

This addresses the need for accountability mechanisms to ensure civil society participation is meaningful rather than tokenistic

How can we connect global governance decisions with local implementation and action?

Speaker

Jacqueline Pigato (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses the gap between global multi-stakeholder decisions and their practical implementation at local levels

How can we combine multi-stakeholderism with multilateralism to ensure both participation and implementation?

Speaker

Jacqueline Pigato (audience member)

Explanation

This explores hybrid governance models that leverage the strengths of both approaches for more effective digital governance

What concrete actions can private sector partners take in the next 12 months to advance inclusive digital governance?

Speaker

Anne McCormick (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses the urgency of implementing concrete, measurable actions rather than just discussing principles

How can we ensure better coordination between multiple governance processes addressing overlapping digital issues?

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

Multiple parallel processes create fragmentation and burden stakeholders, especially those from the Global South with limited resources

What new working methods and resources are needed to deliver improved coordination and information sharing between governance processes?

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

This addresses the practical mechanisms needed to reduce duplication and improve effectiveness of digital governance processes

How can we hold stakeholders accountable for commitments made in global digital governance processes?

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

Implementation and accountability for commitments remains a significant challenge even when meaningful participation is achieved

Summary

This discussion was a side event focused on Action Line C7 on the environment as part of the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Forum, examining the intersection of digital technologies and environmental sustainability over the past 20 years and future priorities. The session was moderated by David Jensen from the UN Environment Program and structured around four main components: reflecting on past achievements, examining current regional and country perspectives, identifying future directions, and developing strategic priorities for input into the WSIS Plus 20 process.

Dr. Archana Gulati from ITU outlined the three core goals of Action Line C7 established in 2003: using ICT for environmental protection, supporting sustainable production and disposal of ICT hardware, and establishing ICT-based disaster risk reduction systems. She highlighted significant progress including AI-powered forecasting, satellite early warning systems, and the integration of digital technologies into global environmental agreements, while acknowledging challenges like rapidly growing e-waste streams.

The discussion featured several practical examples of digital environmental applications. Thomas Ebert from the European Commission presented the EU’s digital product passport initiative, which will require data carriers for products to enable circular economy practices by 2027, starting with batteries. Anita Batamuliza from Rwanda discussed the implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility for e-waste management, highlighting challenges including limited capacity, enforcement issues, and inadequate data collection. Dr. George Ah-Thew from SADC described successful regional cooperation in developing National Emergency Telecommunications Plans, with five member states already implementing the model framework following devastating cyclones.

Future priorities identified by the panelists included addressing critical raw materials consumption, improving e-waste management and EPR implementation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector, expanding early warning systems, and enhancing capacity building. The discussion concluded with audience input emphasizing the need for AI integration in waste mapping, responsible technology consumption, stronger governance frameworks, and inclusive community participation in developing environmental digital solutions.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This was a side event for the WSIS+20 High-Level Forum focused on Action Line C7 on e-Environment. The session aimed to: 1) reflect on 20 years of achievements in connecting digital technologies with environmental action, 2) examine current regional and national implementations, 3) identify future priorities for digital-environment integration, and 4) develop concrete input for the WSIS+20 elements note.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Digital Product Passports as Circular Economy Enablers**: The European Commission’s development of digital product passports (DPPs) to link physical products with digital information, supporting circular economy use cases like repair, resale, and recycling. Starting with batteries in 2027, this system will eventually expand across most sectors in the EU to track materials and enable sustainable consumption.

– **E-waste Management and Extended Producer Responsibility**: Challenges in implementing e-waste regulations, particularly in developing countries like Rwanda, including lack of financing mechanisms, limited technical capacity, poor data collection, and enforcement difficulties. Despite having regulatory frameworks since 2018, actual implementation remains problematic with increasing e-waste generation.

– **Emergency Telecommunications and Early Warning Systems**: SADC’s successful development of model National Emergency Telecommunications Plans (NETP) following disasters like Tropical Cyclone Idai, with five member states already implementing the framework. The focus includes cell broadcast SMS systems, harmonized emergency frequencies, and integration with the UN’s Early Warning for All initiative.

– **Critical Raw Materials and Environmental Impact of ICT**: Growing concerns about material consumption for digital infrastructure (especially with 2.6 billion people still unconnected), greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector (now equivalent to airline industry), and the challenge of recycling only 25% of the 62 million tons of annual e-waste in documented ways.

– **Governance and Implementation Challenges**: Common barriers across all initiatives including unclear policy frameworks, capacity building needs, data gaps, enforcement difficulties, and the need for stronger committed leadership. Questions arose about regulatory responsibility for ICT’s environmental impact and the importance of inclusive civil society participation.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, with speakers sharing both achievements and challenges openly. While there was optimism about technological solutions and some success stories (particularly SADC’s emergency telecommunications progress), the tone became more urgent when discussing implementation gaps, governance challenges, and the scale of environmental problems. The session concluded with a sense of collective responsibility and commitment to advancing these priorities in the WSIS+20 framework.

Speakers

– **David Jensen** – Moderator, UN Environment Program

– **Archana G. Gulati** – Deputy Director of the Telecommunications Development Bureau at the ITU

– **Thomas Ebert** – Second national expert from the German Environment Agency, working on digital product passports at the European Commission

– **Anita Batamuliza** – National Government Representative on Extended Producer Responsibility with the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority

– **George Ah-Thew** – Senior Program Officer, Directorate of Infrastructure, ICT Sector at the SADC Secretariat

– **Garam Bel** – ITU, Climate Change and Emergency Telecoms Division

– **Peiliang Shi** – World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

– **Audience** – Various participants including:

– Kwaku from Ghana

– Kimberly Camacho from Cooperativa Zulabatzu, Costa Rica

– Tim Unwin from the ICT4D collective

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

# WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Forum: Action Line C7 on e-Environment – Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This side event at the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Forum examined Action Line C7 on e-Environment, coordinated jointly by UNEP, WMO and the ITU. Moderated by David Jensen from the UN Environment Programme, the session brought together international experts to reflect on two decades of progress and identify future priorities for integrating digital technologies with environmental action.

The discussion revealed both significant achievements and persistent challenges in leveraging ICTs for environmental protection. Digital technologies have evolved from optional tools to essential enablers of environmental action, but fundamental implementation gaps remain across regulatory frameworks, capacity building, and governance structures. The session concluded with ten priority areas for the WSIS Plus 20 process, emphasizing strengthened implementation mechanisms and attention to emerging challenges such as critical raw materials consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector itself.

## Historical Context and Evolution of Action Line C7

Dr. Archana Gulati from the ITU’s Telecommunications Development Bureau provided an overview of Action Line C7’s evolution since 2003. She outlined three core goals that remain relevant: utilizing ICT for environmental protection and sustainable resource management, supporting sustainable production and consumption patterns for ICT hardware, and establishing robust ICT-based disaster risk reduction systems.

The transformation over two decades has been remarkable. Digital technologies have progressed from supplementary tools to essential enablers of environmental action, with integration into major global environmental agreements spanning climate action to biodiversity conservation. AI-powered forecasting systems, satellite-based early warning networks, and sophisticated environmental monitoring platforms demonstrate the maturation of digital environmental applications.

However, this progress has created new challenges. The rapid expansion of digital infrastructure has generated unprecedented e-waste streams, while the ICT sector’s greenhouse gas emissions have grown substantially, raising questions about the environmental impact of digital transformation itself.

## Regional Perspectives and Implementation Experiences

### European Union: Digital Product Passports Initiative

Thomas Ebert, a second national expert from the German Environment Agency working at the European Commission, presented the EU’s digital product passport framework. This initiative represents a systematic approach to enabling circular economy practices through digital information systems, developed under the SURPASS 2 project within the Digital Europe program.

Digital product passports will link physical products to comprehensive digital information across 13 different categories, enabling repair services, resale markets, and recycling processes. Implementation begins in 2027 for batteries before expanding to other sectors. The framework addresses information asymmetry in circular economy systems by providing standardized digital information about products’ materials, components, and lifecycle data.

### Rwanda: Extended Producer Responsibility Challenges

Anita Batamuliza from the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority, who chairs an East African collaboration working group, provided a candid assessment of e-waste management implementation in developing countries. Despite establishing e-waste regulations in 2018, Rwanda’s experience illustrates significant gaps between regulatory frameworks and effective implementation.

Primary challenges include inadequate financing mechanisms, limited technical capacity for enforcement and monitoring, insufficient infrastructure for collection and processing, and persistent informal sector activities. These barriers have resulted in poor compliance rates and continued growth in unmanaged e-waste streams, demonstrating that legislation alone is insufficient without institutional and financial infrastructure for implementation.

### SADC: Regional Cooperation in Emergency Telecommunications

Dr. George Ah-Thew from the SADC Secretariat presented a success story in regional cooperation for disaster response applications. Following Tropical Cyclone Idai in 2019, SADC developed the first regional model National Emergency Telecommunications Plan (NETP) under the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDIP).

With 95.2% mobile penetration across the region, five member states have implemented the framework and five additional states are in development. The approach includes establishing national emergency telecommunications working groups, implementing cell broadcast SMS systems alongside traditional channels, and harmonizing emergency frequency allocations. This demonstrates the potential for coordinated approaches when supported by committed regional leadership and practical, adaptable frameworks.

### Global Meteorological Infrastructure

Peiliang Shi from the World Meteorological Organization highlighted the fundamental role of global integrated observing systems in environmental monitoring and forecasting. WMO is implementing the WMO Information System 2.0 with a unified data policy, targeting 90% completion by 2030.

This infrastructure enhancement will improve data sharing, forecasting accuracy, and integration with early warning systems. The organization collaborates with companies like Google and Microsoft on AI applications, providing the foundation for machine learning applications that offer transformative opportunities for enhanced environmental services and forecasting capabilities.

## Current Challenges and Implementation Barriers

### E-waste Management and Extended Producer Responsibility

Garam Bel from ITU’s Climate Change and Emergency Telecoms Division provided sobering statistics: countries with e-waste legislation achieve average collection rates of 25%, while those without approach zero percent. With global e-waste generation reaching significant levels and less than 25% formally recycled, the challenge is immense.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes face common implementation challenges including unclear policy frameworks, inadequate financing mechanisms, limited technical capacity, poor data collection systems, and enforcement difficulties. The experience from Rwanda and other developing countries demonstrates that EPR implementation requires comprehensive support systems beyond regulatory frameworks.

### Critical Raw Materials and Resource Constraints

A significant challenge emerged around critical raw materials consumption. Garam Bel highlighted the tension between universal connectivity goals and finite material resources, noting that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected while critical raw materials are finite resources comparable to coal in their scarcity.

Kimberly Camacho from Costa Rica responded with the insight that responsible consumption by already-connected populations must balance raw material needs for connecting others. This introduces questions of global equity and resource distribution that extend beyond technical implementation to fundamental sustainable development patterns.

### Governance and ICT Sector Emissions

Throughout the discussion, governance challenges emerged as a persistent theme. David Jensen identified common barriers including policy and legal frameworks, compliance mechanisms, capacity limitations, data gaps, and enforcement difficulties.

A significant governance question arose regarding regulatory responsibility for ICT sector greenhouse gas emissions. Garam Bel raised questions about whether telecommunications regulators or other authorities should oversee emissions from the ICT sector, highlighting institutional complexity and potential regulatory blind spots.

## Priority Areas and Future Directions

### Ten Key Priorities Identified

The session identified ten priority areas through speaker presentations and audience participation:

1. **Digital Product Passports**: Expanding the EU model to support global circular economy practices

2. **Early Warning for All**: Implementing the UN Secretary-General’s initiative with ITU’s role in Pillar 3 on warning dissemination and communication

3. **ICT Sector Emissions**: Addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector with clarified regulatory responsibilities

4. **Enhanced EPR and E-waste Management**: Strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility schemes

5. **Critical Raw Materials**: Managing finite resources while pursuing universal connectivity

6. **Capacity Building**: Expanding technical and institutional capacity, particularly in developing countries

7. **AI Applications**: Implementing AI-aided mapping for waste management and environmental monitoring

8. **Responsible Consumption**: Promoting sustainable consumption patterns among connected populations

9. **Holistic Environmental Frameworks**: Starting with environmental systems rather than technology impacts

10. **Governance Enhancement**: Combining stronger institutional leadership with inclusive civil society participation and community-level engagement

### Emerging Technology Applications

The discussion highlighted significant potential for AI and machine learning in environmental applications. Kwaku from Ghana specifically inquired about AI-aided mapping for waste management systems, suggesting practical applications for developing countries. The integration of satellite systems, IoT sensors, AI, and geospatial mapping could create comprehensive disaster monitoring systems.

However, participants noted that the environmental impact of emerging technologies, including increased energy consumption from AI systems and data centers, must be carefully managed to avoid undermining sustainability objectives.

### Implementation and Community Engagement

Multiple participants emphasized the need for stronger institutional leadership combined with inclusive civil society participation. The challenge of last-mile uptake of environmental digital products and services at the community level represents a significant gap between developing sophisticated solutions and achieving actual community adoption and appropriate responses.

## Conclusion

This discussion of Action Line C7 revealed both significant progress over two decades and substantial remaining challenges. The evolution of digital technologies to essential enablers of environmental action represents a fundamental transformation, but persistent implementation gaps, governance challenges, and emerging concerns about digital technologies’ environmental impact require urgent attention.

The ten priority areas identified provide a roadmap for the WSIS Plus 20 framework, building on successful experiences like SADC’s regional cooperation and the EU’s digital product passport initiative. Success will depend on balancing technological advancement with environmental sustainability, ensuring equitable access to digital environmental solutions, and developing governance frameworks that combine institutional leadership with community participation. The session’s insights provide a valuable foundation for producing an input paper to the WSIS Plus 20 elements note.

David Jensen: on time. So I want to extend a warm welcome to everybody to this side event on the Action Line E7 on the environment. I’d like to also extend that welcome to those online. I hope everybody can hear me. So I’ll be your Humber moderator for today’s event. My name is David Jensen and I’m working with the UN Environment Program. Now I’m just gonna let the door close so everybody can hear me. We have a bit of a mission impossible ahead of us, but I guarantee you we will succeed. We have about 45 minutes to go through this agenda and we want to accomplish four things in this time period. First, we’re going to start with a bit of a reflection, the past achievements of the Action Line over the last 20 years. And then we’re going to go from the history to the present. We’re going to focus on some of the current achievements in different regions and different countries. Then we’re going to move into the future. What are the future directions and future priorities in terms of connecting digital and environment? And then finally, we’re going to have a strategic conversation trying to nail down priorities and trying to come up with an input paper to the WSIS plus 20 elements note, which is now circulating. So I’m hoping we can make this very concrete and actually have an output from this meeting. Now, given the fact that we’re under time pressure, I will introduce our panelists when they speak, not at the outset. So without further ado, let’s move into part one. And as I said, part one is really about reflecting on the past and the achievements, the major achievements of Action Line 7 on the environment. So it’s my pleasure to introduce now Dr. Achana Gulati, the Deputy Director of the Telecommunications Development Bureau at the ITU. You have five minutes to give us this historical overview. The floor is yours.

Archana G. Gulati: Thank you. Distinguished delegates, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Dr. Cosmos Lakisan Zavazava, Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau, it is my pleasure to address you. It is an honour indeed to join you for this important segment of the Action Line C7 on e-Environment and to say a few words about the achievements and the evolution of digital environmental action over the past 20 years of the WSIS process. Action Line C7 on e-Environment is coordinated jointly by UNEP, WMO and the ITU and it has been guided by three clear goals since its inception in 2003. First, to use and promote information and communication technology for environmental protection and sustainable use of natural resources. Second, to support the sustainable production and consumption and environmentally safe disposal and recycling of ICT hardware and third, to establish ICT based systems for disaster risk reduction, forecasting and monitoring. These goals remain remarkably relevant even today. In fact, they have become even more urgent in the light of accelerating climate and environmental crises that we face. So I am pleased to report that we have seen transformational progress over the past two decades. ICTs have moved from being optional tools to essential enablers of environmental action and for saving lives. Just to mention a few, we are now developing satellites capable of sending early warning alerts directly to mobile phones, AI models forecasting a variety of hazards and the Internet of Things networks that support many aspects of our daily lives. The integration of digital technologies into major global environmental agreements from climate to biodiversity is a clear testament of this evolution. At the same time, the environmental footprint of our digital world cannot be ignored. E-waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams globally with disproportionate impacts on least developed countries. ITU is addressing this challenge in collaboration with partners, in particular the UNITAR, through global standards, policy and regulatory support, and data-driven strategies that create a circular economy for electronics. Moreover, in today’s world of escalating climate-related disasters, digital resilience is critical. This is why the UN Secretary-General’s Early Warning for All initiative aims to ensure everyone is protected by an early warning system. ITU’s Telecom Development Bureau leads Pillar 3 on warning, dissemination and communication, ensuring alerts reach people at risk at the right time, so that concrete life-saving actions can take place before a disaster strikes. In the Telecommunication Development Bureau, we are proud to work across both environmental sustainability and disaster resilience, supporting countries in deploying digital technologies that safeguard both the people as well as the planet. From national emergency telecommunication plans to green digital strategies, our goal is to build a more connected, resilient and sustainable world. Today’s session is both a celebration of progress and a call to continued action. Let’s keep building on the vision of the C7 Action Line on e-environment and ensure that digital technologies remain a force of sustainability, equity and resilience in the decades ahead. Thank you. Over to you, Nitin.

David Jensen: Thank you so much, Dr. Salathi. There’s no audio. Part two, where we begin to look at, thank you, where we begin to look at country and regional perspectives, some of the lessons learned and some of the innovations. And we’re going to start looking at the work, some of the interesting work of the European Commission. We have online Thomas Ebert, who is working on digital product passports. I think these are one of the most fundamental digital technology enablers for circularity. And we’re going to listen to Thomas to give us an update on what’s happening in the EU level with respect to digital product passports, some of the progress, some of the challenges. Thomas, over to you, please.

Thomas Ebert: Yes. Thank you for the invitation. And thank you for giving me the presence to talk at this important event today. Actually, I’m a second national expert coming from the German Environment Agency. And this is just to emphasize the link between the digital product passport, what I’m working here in the Commission, and environment, because we clearly see, as you just said in your introduction, a strong link between DPPs and circular economy. In the Environment Agency, I was working on product policy, so designing requirements for products. And together with a colleague who was more working on the waste stream, we were discussing how can we make circular economy really happen. And we realized that there’s a lot of problems with generating the information and transporting them along the value chain of the products. So to link the information to the product gives a lot of use cases and benefits for the circular economy. For example, when you want to resell an electronic vehicle, you need to have information about the state of health of the battery, because that determines the value of the product. Or for example, when you want to repair a product, you need to understand how can you open and dismantle the product to exchange parts? How can you do the repair? So there are a lot of circular economy-based use cases, which need information about that product. And if you make that link from this physical product to the digital information, that’s really supporting these use cases. And we were very happy to see that in 2020, this was also recognized in the Circular Economy Action Plan, which first mentioned digital product passports here in Europe. And it was further spelled out in 2022, when the EcoDesign for Sustainable Product Regulation had been adopted to spell out a bit more the details on the digital product passport. This is a framework regulation, so it doesn’t introduce the digital products right away, but it just allows to set requirements on a product level. Because when you want to do it right, there are two work streams you have to distinguish. The one is the work stream on setting up the technical system, how to exchange information between stakeholders, how to link it to the product. That needs to be like overarching, that needs to be the same for all products. Because when you want to have a product passport for a battery, and later you have the product passport for the car, you need to link them. And also different actors need to be able to introduce their information. So this is work which is ongoing at the moment at European level, and especially also in standardization, where we have asked Sense Intellect to develop standards to produce the system based on openness, interoperability, transparency, and also to ensure that there’s no vendor lock-in on a specific provider. And then there’s a second discussion element, which is what data needs to be in the digital product passport. And that depends very much on the product. So when you think about electronic products, you might have more information on repair than, for example, for textiles. So this needs to be really spelled out on the individual product group level, where you need to look at the product, where you need to identify the environmental hotspots, and also understand the value chain around the product to make circularity happen in that stage. And because that is maybe a slow process, a rather slow process, we try to encourage everybody, especially companies, to look what’s in for you with a digital product passport. How could digital information link to a product help you to transition to circular business models to really push your company in that respect. And we see that the DPP, it can be the core, it can be the seed for a whole ecosystem of services growing around this. And that’s why also we have the Surpass 2 project running under the Digital Europe program, which tries to go into practice to build digital product passports in 13 different categories and to understand the value of these digital product passports for circular economy. And I hope we can discuss more later. I think my time is up now.

David Jensen: It’s basically a data carrier, which will contain all of this information, as you just talked about, but eventually the vision is that digital product passports will be required for every sector inside the European Union except agricultural and pharmaceuticals. Is that right?

Thomas Ebert: Well, it started with a few product groups. The first ones would have to have DPP is the big batteries or car batteries or stationary storage batteries, but it will be growing. And the recently adopted single market strategy also spelled out quite clearly that whenever we redo a regulation or come up with a new regulation, we need to see that if there’s digital information required, how to link that to the digital product passport. So it started all from circular economy. And that’s, I think, also the main driver. And we need to keep up with that. But it might grow in different directions also with regard to electronic reporting and different other use cases. But the core is circular economy and the core is a few products in eco design, but it will grow more and more in the next years, also even outside the box. But important is also to stress that it’s not just the mandatory part. It’s what you make out of it, how you make the transition to circular economy happen with that, too.

David Jensen: And 2027 is the is the core year, right? That’s where the regulation kicks in. It becomes a regulatory requirement. Is that correct?

Thomas Ebert: Yes, in 2027, batteries need to have a DPP. For other product groups like textiles and iron and steel, this is also envisioned, but a bit later in time. But 2027, the first DPPs will be operational.

David Jensen: Fantastic. Thank you so much. And we’ll come back to this as a fundamental core enabler of the circular economy throughout the discussion. I’d like to move on to Anita Hodari. She’s the National Government Representative on Extended Producing Responsibility with the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority. And I think this is a nice transition because Extended Producer Responsibility was kind of the first, in a way, step to track and trace electronic products, and it’s kind of morphed into DPP. So let’s start with Anita or go back to Anita, and she can explain some of the experience from Rwanda on using EPR. Anita, the floor is yours.

Anita Batamuliza: Okay, thank you, Moderator, for allowing me to present the status of implementation of EPR in Rwanda. It is a project which is still ongoing, but I can give you a background so far. Since 2018, Rwanda, through the Regulatory Authority, has had a regulation governing E-Waste. However, the regulation framework has had neither a financing mechanism nor the full range of the decreased obligations for all players along the E-Waste value chain. This has therefore resulted in the regulations not being implemented nor enforced. So in 2022, ITU, together with UNEP, has been providing technical assistance to the Government of Rwanda, focusing on designing and implementing E-Waste. and Mr. Thomas Ebert, Mr. Garam Bel, Ms. Anita Batamuliza, Mr. Peiliang Shi, Mr. Thomas Ebert, Mr. Garam Bel, Ms. Anita Batamuliza, Mr. Garam Bel, Ms. Anita Batamuliza, Mr. Thomas Ebert, Mr. Garam Bel, Ms. Anita Batamuliza, Mr. Garam Bel, Ms. Anita Batamuliza, Mr. Garam Bel, Ms. Anita Batamuliza, Ms. Anita Batamuliza, Ms. Anita Batamuliza, Ms. Anita Batamuliza We have a challenge of limited capacity, personal and technical, in terms of physical collection and treatment infrastructure, not even in Rwanda, but in many developing countries. We have also the challenge of enforcement, lack of enforcement. We have a challenge of entry formal sectors. For others, if you need more information, I’m lucky there is Garam, who is attending physically, he can give you more information about this project of IPERA implementation in Rwanda. Otherwise, in the region, we are lucky, we are collaborating with East African collaborations, where we share the experts and we share the status for each country in East Africa, and I’m a chairperson of that working group. We have a working group, seven, which deals with the US and the Green ICT. Thank you. For some reason, I can’t seem to remember to turn my microphone on. One follow-up question. You talked about poor data, but do you have any general trend lines? I mean, is the problem getting worse or is the problem improving based on some of the activities you’ve discussed? Based on, because we had a sort of like inventory survey in 2018, within five years, now it is worsening because it was increasing, obviously. And since then, we haven’t done any inventory survey, so there is that lack of data.

David Jensen: But despite our best efforts, it’s still a major problem, basically. The trend line is going up rather than down, so we still need it. It’s still an absolute priority to get under control. Thanks for that perspective, Anita. Let’s move now to the final speaker in this section, Dr. George Patrick Athieu, the Senior Program Officer, the Directorate of Infrastructure, ICT Sector at the SADC Secretariat for a Regional Perspective. Dr. George, the floor is yours.

George Ah-Thew: Thank you so much for the kind introduction, Mr. Jensen. A very good morning to everyone. It’s an absolute pleasure to be on the panel for WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Forum, representing the Southern African Developing Community. For those who have had the opportunity to visit SADC, our region is blessed with immense natural beauty, flora, fauna, wildlife and minerals, but it is the most disaster-prone region in Africa. When disasters strike, often local telecommunications systems get disrupted in the affected area and test the need for a national emergency telecommunications plan. Development of the SADC model NETP is one of the flagship projects stemming from the SADC Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan, in short, RISDIP. It has become the guiding strategic instrument for the region to enable member states to strengthen and enhance their emergency telecoms capabilities and preparedness, and it is assisting member states to easily develop their NETP to enable a more integrated and comprehensive disaster risk management framework in the region in all four phases of DRM, namely mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Now, tropical cyclone Idai in 2019 was the last straw, as it was one of the worst to hit the SADC region. Thereafter, SADC Secretariat requested the assistance of the ITU, and the support came through the Office of the Head of Environment and Emergency Telecoms Division. Everybody knows Madame Vanessa Gray. And in 2022, ITU supported SADC to undertake the situation analysis to capture the state of play in terms of emergency telecoms ecosystem, including early warning system. And in 2023, we developed the SADC model NETP. SADC is the first mover on this. And I’m pleased to announce that five member states have already transposed the SADC model NETP, such as the Kingdom of Eswatini, Malawi, Namibia, United Republic of Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Now, as we speak, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, and Zambia are also doing likewise. So member states have established their national emergency telecoms working groups to start the conversation on NETP. And that’s where the work begins. ITU BDT, under the leadership of Dr. Zava Zava, has provided support to most of these SADC member states. In 2020, we developed the SADC framework for harmonization of radio frequency spectrum for public protection and disaster relief, PPDR, that caters for narrowband, wideband, and broadband services in the region’s harmonized UHF band to bring about economies of scale interoperability and cross-border collaboration to respond to disasters. Now, in view of the high SADC mobile penetration rate of 95.2%, SADC is promoting the implementation of cell broadcast SMS, in addition to radio, TV, and other means of how to get to people, so that we reach 100% of our people. With the support of the ITU, SADC member states such as Botswana, Mauritius, and Seychelles are moving towards that direction of using cell broadcast SMS mobile early warning systems. Now, let me, despite of all this progress, allow me a few minutes just to talk about some of the challenges the region is facing. One, establishment of clear policy and legal framework to designate the National Regulatory Authority, the NRA, as the champion to lead on implementing emergency telecoms. Two, access to a central depository of high-resolution vulnerability maps from various entities within the country with the ability to overlay maps to be shared by the NRA and telcos for contingency planning of critical infrastructure. Three, SADC plans to use mobile phone data and satellite real-time data images for various geospatial mapping for visualization of disasters to enable well-informed decisions and enhance planning and also for before and after views. Four, development and enforcement of regulations for early warning alert dissemination and a designation of a national and centralized alert abrogator to receive all the types of alerts using the ITU common alerting protocol and then send them to different alerting disseminations. Five, we plan to harmonize three-digit shortcode for toll-free emergency services such as pandemics and disasters to promote public safety response. And last but not the least, practice makes perfect. As member states establish their NETPs, simulation exercises, CMEX, tabletop exercises, TTXs at national and regional levels are important and they can enforce the competencies of member states on emergency services. The progress of SADC member states have made thus far is good and it has all of these dependent on some other entities such as the WMO on additional CAP training. GSME, UNDRR, the World Food Program and ETC. We look forward to strengthening these relationships and linkages and support to ensure SADC is prepared in terms of emergency telecoms before the next disaster. One life lost is too many. I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on behalf of SADC, which consists of 16 member states, four island states, six completely landlocked states, and six coastal states. Thank you so much, Mr. Jensen.

David Jensen: Thank you very much, Dr. Arthew. That’s a good news story. Fantastic. It’s great to have a positive example of one of the action line goals going forward in such a dramatic and positive way. But of course, as you talked about, and I found that interesting, a lot of the challenges are actually very similar to some of the challenges we heard in the EPR case, policy and legal framework, compliance, capacity, data, enforcement, very, very common set of challenges across these two examples. So that’s sort of part two of our panel where we sort of dived very quickly into a couple of examples at the regional level, the national level of the action line goals. We’re going to shift now to part three, where we’re going to focus on the future. What are the future priorities for bringing together digital and environment? And how can we begin to place those priorities within the WSIS plus 20 implementation framework and the global digital compact implementation framework? And to do us, to lead us in this third part, we’re going to turn now to my colleague, Dr. Garam Bell. He’s also with the ITU, the Climate Change and Emergency Telecoms Division. And Garam’s going to talk a little bit about his experience on e-waste, on greening, ICT, on circular economy, and what do the future priorities hold for this space? Garam, the floor is yours.

Garam Bel: Yeah, thank you very much. David. So I think this is a very fast moving complex space right now when we look at circular economy and when we look at climate change and we look at those in the context of digitalization. Maybe there’s one sort of main premise behind everything that we are consuming when it comes to products and services, and that’s the material consumption, what’s in those products. So we’ve already heard from speakers about digital product passports, which are obviously looking at one side of the story, which is that side of the story, but others as well, tracking where those materials are going, making sure that we have some kind of also understanding of what sort of supply and continuity there is around those materials. So going forward, I would like to put one clear sort of objective or proposal from my side as somebody who’s worked in this space for a while now is critical raw materials. That is a very important area. We understand, I think, estimates from ITU around 2.6 billion people are currently unconnected to the internet. So what’s the material requirement to achieve that goal? Yeah. So, I mean, there are some big questions out there. And then when we look at the sort of waste side, we have the physical or the tangible waste, which is the electronic waste that’s generated. So we’re currently generating around 62 million tons of e-waste per year, and we’re only recycling less than a quarter of that in a formally documented way. So that also means that whatever we’re sort of consuming or putting into products when we manufacture them, we’re not necessarily getting much of that back in terms of the critical raw materials. And those critical raw materials are are finite. It’s like coal, basically. So we have to sort of look at this side of the story as well, I think, going forward here. And then, yeah, I’m mentioning here the e-waste part, the physical, tangible waste. That’s obviously a big issue to address as well. So Anita from Rwanda mentioned some examples there. We have policy frameworks, extended producer responsibility. We have countries that have legislation in place, but we don’t see so much implementation. She mentioned financing issues. Financial mechanisms are needed for this type of waste because it’s a special waste stream. We cannot rely on local authorities, municipalities that maybe are collecting things like cardboard or aluminium cans from our households to also collect e-waste. This is a real challenge. So the financing side behind it. We see that countries that have legislation in place have, on average, a collection rate of 25 percent for e-waste. Those countries without any legislation, it’s close to zero percent. So the effect of legislation, having a level playing field for all is essential. So I’ve talked about critical raw materials. I’ve talked about e-waste and now I will finish by talking about greenhouse gas emissions. This is another core area that I think is worth considering as we look forward in the WSIS process. We understand, according to estimates, that this sector is now generating basically the same as the airline sector when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. I’d like to also touch on a point that George mentioned, the previous speaker, when talking about emergency telecommunications and that lack of understanding maybe of who is regulating that issue. It’s the same here. Who is regulating the greenhouse gas emissions coming from this sector? Is it the telecom regulators or is it somebody else? and others. What’s the scope here? So there is some really big, challenging policy questions, but also some big, challenging data questions across these topics. So just to wrap up, critical raw materials, electronic waste, and greenhouse gas emissions, some really, really hot topics looking forward. Thank you.

David Jensen: For some reason, I can’t remember to do the bush the button, but that’s okay. On the greenhouse gas emissions, I think that really speaks also to the increasing use of artificial intelligence and the massive increase in emissions coming out of data centers from that huge demand. And so, as you say, the question of who regulates that is an interesting one. Let’s move to the final speaker now in this particular section. We’re going to hand it over to our colleague from WMO to talk a little bit more about the early warning work and the future priorities for early warning for all initiative. So please, the floor is yours.

Peiliang Shi: Thank you, David. Good morning, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. The World Meteorological Organization recognized the pivotal role of information and communication technologies in achieving sustainable development for all. WMO’s core mandate is to develop and implement globally coordinated systems for Earth system observation, including weather, climate, and water. Our global integrated observing systems and global information systems are fundamental infrastructure for providing accurate and timely information vital for the informed decision-making across all sectors. A critical aspect of our work directly aligned with the WSIS goals is the early warning systems. We are committed to ensure those life-saving systems are in place globally, and key focuses Minister of Environment and Food Peace Democracy and Finnish Governing Minister for 2021 and years under the cap and hold government. I am very pleased to participate in this conference and our meeting will take place on the 30th anniversary of the WMO and the WMO plays a crucial role in data and information management ensuring the quality, accessibility and effective use of Earth system data for the benefit of all nations. As a typical example in this area, the WMO Information System 2.0 provides an advanced framework to enhance the sharing and accessibility of weather, climate and water data among WMO members. It provides a modern, flexible and powerful platform for data sharing in the new century and it supports our WMO’s unified data policy. Looking back over the years, our experience highlights the critical need for skilled ICT professionals within the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services to fully harness the potential of those technologies. Addressing this technological gap is essential for effective implementation. Looking ahead, particularly in line with the summit of the future, we see great potential in regional and sub-regional collaboration. We’ve heard a very exciting story from Sadek. and colleagues a few minutes ago. So we also see new technologies like AI, machine learning, cloud computing and open source approach offer transformative opportunities for enhanced services. Ongoing migration to the new WMO information system targeting a 90% completion by the year 2030 will be a key enabler. So let’s work together, continue work together to leveraging the power of digital technology to build a more resilient, sustainable and informed future for all. Thank you.

David Jensen: Thank you so much. It’s a perfect wrap up now. So we’re going to open it up to part four where we talk to the audience, the members of the participation in the group and online as well. We’ve heard now I’d say six priorities going forward that should be addressed as part of the WSIS Action Line plus 20 process and GDC. We’ve heard about the digital product passport. We’ve heard about early warning for all, the need to address greenhouse gas emissions in the ITC sector, the need for more emphasis on EPR and e-waste and a fundamental need to start looking at material consumption and critical raw materials. And then finally, underpinning all of that would be much more emphasis on capacity building. And what’s interesting, of course, is that all of those actually fit very nicely into the existing Action Line. So it’s really about sort of interpreting the Action Line and prioritizing what has to happen in the coming years. But what’s missing? I want to turn it down to the audience. What’s missing from these six priorities? What have you not heard we should be looking at in terms of the Action Line going forward? What are the burning issues that are in your minds that we should be writing down and putting into the input process for what’s called the Action Line? What’s it called? The executive note? There’s an executive note that’s being developed right now for the Action Line. and we’re putting an input on environment. So we would like to know from you what’s missing from our list. Please introduce yourself and then be succinct.

Audience: My regards to the speakers. My name is Kwaku from Ghana. I am very interested in Anita’s case study. I want to find out if there are plans to incorporate AI-aided mapping into the waste management ecosystem to aid efficiency in tackling waste management. That is a gap that we need to fill and I’ll be interested in the case studies that other countries like developing countries like Ghana can benchmark. Thank you very much.

David Jensen: How do we look at the enabling applications of AI as well as the impact of AI? Either Anita or Thomas, do you guys have any experience in using AI for mapping waste or looking at using AI for global e-waste modeling? Maybe I’ll let Anita go as well.

Thomas Ebert: From my side, it’s a very new area and it’s not something that we have worked on in ITU. I will be completely honest.

David Jensen: Sorry, Anita, do you have any reflections on that question?

Anita Batamuliza: Sorry, Jensen, where I am is sort of like, too much sound, I didn’t hear very well the question.

David Jensen: Sure.

Anita Batamuliza: But as long as Garam is there, then you can ask me.

David Jensen: The question was just, do you have experience in using AI to map e-waste or to use AI for tracking and tracing e-waste or conducting inventories? Not yet, but it could be a priority to look at going forward.

Anita Batamuliza: Yes.

David Jensen: Thank you so much. And of course, WMO is using AI in terms of a lot of its systems, and this is a major priority for you. Do you want to just mention anything about your AI applications with respect to early warning for all or the work that you’re working on in forecasting?

Peiliang Shi: Very briefly, yes, WMO has just developed its roadmap to integrate AI into its forecasting system development strategy. And in addition to that, we are also working with the big tech like Google and Microsoft. We know that they are using AI to analyze pictures before and after a disaster event. I think the same sort of technology could apply to e-waste monitoring as well, I guess. So I see a lot of opportunities there, and we are just starting to explore.

David Jensen: Thank you.

Audience: Thank you, Kimberly Camacho, Cooperativa Zulabatzu, Costa Rica. I was doing a sign to turn on the telephone, not raising my hand, but I will take the opportunity. It’s just a very, very small comment in relation to the raw material required to connect everybody that you mentioned, yes. We always think… I think that it doesn’t have, maybe it’s a controversial issue, but when we talk about connecting everybody at the material that we need for this connection, it doesn’t have to be accompanied by responsible consumption of technology for the ones that are already connected, yes, and reducing the consumption of technology, then we can really balance the raw material needed to connect the others with the responsible consumption from us, from the ones who are very much connected. Then it has to be accompanied by something like that, yes, and not just create more possibility to connection, which is good, but also to reduce the consumption of the others, then just an observation.

David Jensen: No, that’s a great point. We’ve got three minutes left, and I want to make sure that everybody’s ideas are reflected. If there’s no other hands to go up, I have one question to the audience.

Audience: Very briefly, Tim Unwin from the ICT4D collective. Much of the discussion and rhetoric is around the impact that technologies have. I’d just like to encourage us to think more the other way around and to begin with environment, because we don’t really have an existing systematic holistic framework. We’ve been developing one that, David, I think we spoke in 2021 about it, but that addresses all the aspects around lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere. If we begin there and actually look at how digital technologies are being used to destroy that environment and begin with that kind of approach, I think we would get some very, very different conclusions that might actually enable us to have a better human engagement in nature in the future. I’m very happy to talk further.

David Jensen: See, I pressed it this time and it went off. It doesn’t like me. It’s a question of governance. And oh, there’s a hand. Sorry. Go ahead.

Audience: This is a very late question. I wanted to send the question to the WMO. It’s very interesting that we’re having more sessions at tech for circular economy in the environment. Please keep it up and increase slots for conversations about the realities from global South countries. Thank you.

David Jensen: Thank you so much. The final question is really about governance. And I would really wanted to have a brainstorm around what kind of governance frameworks are needed to actually monitor the new WSIS process going forward, the WSIS plus 20. What governance, let’s say, challenges face the previous one and how can those be corrected in the future one is the final question. We’ve got a minute left. If anybody wants to come up with anything about governance, that would be great. There’s a hand with a speaker who had their hand up. Sorry. Is it George? Yes. Yes. Moderator.

George Ah-Thew: Just wanted to come in very quickly on something that perhaps as a new forward looking technology, we mentioned earlier Google Maps. You know, when you go to Google, you have a layer for wildfires. With the advent of satellite and internet of things, we could have sensors for floods, for example, across Africa. I know ITU did a project in 2017. They put two sensors in Zambia. If you could have a layer for different types of disasters, we put them on maps because geospatial mapping is important, but also include navigation. In our vehicles, in our phones, as we move around, we could navigate through those disasters. I think in terms of using a combination of AI technology, there’s a new satellite system that was launched in March called Firesat. All those technologies bledded up together with geospatial capabilities. That is a tool we really need. I just wanted to bring that to the table, to the fore, so you could consider that in your paper. Thank you.

David Jensen: I know we don’t have much time. No, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. It’s a very valid point. Great point. It’s also about combining the technologies and looking, thinking about not just the environmental side, but also the social, economic, political side of these different applications. Does anybody want to do a closing remark on government?

Audience: Stronger committed leadership. This is in general so important, it needs driving forward. I’m very much a bottom-up person, but it’s strange for me to say it, but I think if we’re going to make an impact, we have to have a team. You’ve been great, but a team really, really driving this with all the key players, and this is the future. It’s the most important session, I think.

David Jensen: Mark, closing remarks on governance?

Audience: Strong and really inclusive civil society participation with the representation of communities.

David Jensen: Last week, all the population have heard that it would be in five years that the temperature will increase very much in Europe, for example, but in the rest of the world. And they are really waiting for answers, what they can do, also the basic population. and the rest of the population, they’re waiting for answers. Yeah, this whole question of last mile uptake, I think it’s a big one, right? We develop all these products and services and they’re great in theory, but the last mile uptake is a real challenge, as you say, at the community level. So they need to be at the table giving feedback on what these products and services are and if they’ll actually use them, if they’ll trust them, and what are the suitable responses. I think with that, we have concluded our discussion. We have 10 points now where we will document these into this input paper to WSIS plus 20 and we will do our best to lobby to ensure that they are reflected in the elements paper that the co-chairs are now drafting. So I thank you very much for your participation. I thank you for the exchange and I wish you a fantastic AI for Good. Let’s keep the environmental flag waving high. Recording stopped.

Agreement points

ICTs have evolved from optional tools to essential enablers for environmental action and disaster response

Speakers

– Archana G. Gulati
– George Ah-Thew
– Peiliang Shi

Arguments

ICTs have transformed from optional tools to essential enablers of environmental action over 20 years

SADC developed the first regional model National Emergency Telecommunications Plan (NETP) following tropical cyclone Idai in 2019

WMO’s global integrated observing systems provide fundamental infrastructure for accurate and timely information for decision-making

Summary

All speakers agree that digital technologies have become fundamental infrastructure for environmental protection and disaster response, moving beyond being merely optional tools to essential systems for saving lives and protecting the environment

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Telecommunications infrastructure

Early warning systems and emergency telecommunications are critical for disaster preparedness and response

Speakers

– Archana G. Gulati
– George Ah-Thew
– Peiliang Shi

Arguments

Early Warning for All initiative aims to ensure everyone is protected by early warning systems with ITU leading communication dissemination

Cell broadcast SMS is being promoted alongside radio and TV to reach 100% of population for early warnings

AI and machine learning offer transformative opportunities for enhanced environmental services and forecasting

Summary

There is strong consensus that early warning systems are essential for protecting lives, with agreement on using multiple communication channels including mobile technologies and AI to reach all populations before disasters strike

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Telecommunications infrastructure

Regulatory frameworks and legislation are essential but insufficient without proper implementation mechanisms

Speakers

– Thomas Ebert
– Anita Batamuliza
– Garam Bel
– David Jensen

Arguments

The EU framework regulation allows setting requirements on product level, with technical system development and product-specific data requirements as two key work streams

Rwanda’s 2018 e-waste regulation lacked financing mechanisms and full obligations, resulting in poor implementation and enforcement

Countries with e-waste legislation achieve 25% collection rates versus near-zero for countries without legislation

Policy and legal frameworks, compliance, capacity, data, and enforcement represent common challenges across environmental ICT applications

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that while regulatory frameworks are necessary, they must be accompanied by proper financing mechanisms, enforcement capabilities, and implementation support to be effective

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | E-waste

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of tracking and tracing products throughout their lifecycle to enable circular economy practices and address the massive scale of e-waste generation

Speakers

– Thomas Ebert
– Garam Bel

Arguments

Digital product passports link physical products to digital information, enabling circular economy use cases like reselling, repair, and recycling

Currently generating 62 million tons of e-waste annually with less than 25% formally recycled

Topics

Development | E-waste | Sustainable development

Both speakers highlight the particular challenges faced by developing countries in e-waste management, including capacity limitations and the need for proper regulatory frameworks

Speakers

– Anita Batamuliza
– Garam Bel

Arguments

Limited capacity, infrastructure, and informal sectors pose major challenges to e-waste management in developing countries

Countries with e-waste legislation achieve 25% collection rates versus near-zero for countries without legislation

Topics

Development | E-waste | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of regional collaboration and the transformative potential of new technologies like AI for improving environmental and disaster response services

Speakers

– George Ah-Thew
– Peiliang Shi

Arguments

Five SADC member states have transposed the model NETP with five more in progress, establishing national emergency telecoms working groups

AI and machine learning offer transformative opportunities for enhanced environmental services and forecasting

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Digital standards

Unexpected consensus

Governance and regulatory responsibility for ICT environmental impacts

Speakers

– Garam Bel
– George Ah-Thew
– Audience

Arguments

Greenhouse gas emissions from ICT sector now equal airline sector emissions, raising questions about regulatory responsibility

Five SADC member states have transposed the model NETP with five more in progress, establishing national emergency telecoms working groups

Stronger committed leadership and inclusive civil society participation with community representation are needed

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus around the governance challenges in environmental ICT, with speakers from different backgrounds agreeing that unclear regulatory responsibilities and the need for stronger leadership represent fundamental barriers to progress

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Capacity development

The need to balance technological expansion with responsible consumption

Speakers

– Garam Bel
– Audience

Arguments

Critical raw materials represent a key challenge with 2.6 billion people still unconnected and finite material resources

Responsible consumption of technology by connected populations should balance raw material needs for connecting others

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around the tension between expanding digital access and managing finite resources, with both technical experts and civil society recognizing the need for balanced approaches to technology consumption

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Digital access

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists around the fundamental importance of ICTs for environmental action, the necessity of regulatory frameworks, and the critical role of early warning systems. Speakers also agreed on common implementation challenges including capacity, financing, and enforcement.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles and challenges, with implications that the WSIS Action Line C7 framework remains relevant but requires strengthened implementation mechanisms, better governance structures, and more attention to emerging issues like AI applications and responsible consumption patterns.

Different viewpoints

Approach to environmental ICT analysis – technology impact vs environmental framework first

Speakers

– Tim Unwin (Audience)
– Other speakers

Arguments

Beginning with environmental framework rather than technology impact could yield better human-nature engagement outcomes

Much of the discussion and rhetoric is around the impact that technologies have

Summary

Tim Unwin advocates for starting with a holistic environmental framework (lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, biosphere) rather than focusing on technology impacts, suggesting this could lead to better conclusions about human-nature engagement. This contrasts with the general approach of other speakers who focused on how technologies impact the environment.

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Interdisciplinary approaches

Unexpected differences

Regulatory responsibility for ICT sector greenhouse gas emissions

Speakers

– Garam Bel
– George Ah-Thew

Arguments

Greenhouse gas emissions from ICT sector now equal airline sector emissions, raising questions about regulatory responsibility

Establishment of clear policy and legal framework to designate the National Regulatory Authority, the NRA, as the champion to lead on implementing emergency telecoms

Explanation

While George Ah-Thew advocates for clear designation of National Regulatory Authorities as champions for telecommunications-related environmental issues, Garam Bel raises fundamental questions about who should regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector, suggesting uncertainty about regulatory responsibility. This represents an unexpected area where there’s no clear consensus on governance structures.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sustainable development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers on most issues, with only minor disagreements on approach and methodology rather than fundamental goals. The main areas of disagreement were: 1) Whether to start with environmental frameworks or technology impacts, 2) How to balance material consumption for connectivity, and 3) Uncertainty about regulatory responsibility for ICT emissions.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications – while speakers largely agreed on problems and goals, the few disagreements that existed were fundamental to implementation approaches. The lack of clear consensus on regulatory frameworks for ICT emissions and the methodological approach to environmental ICT analysis could significantly impact the effectiveness of Action Line C7 implementation going forward.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of tracking and tracing products throughout their lifecycle to enable circular economy practices and address the massive scale of e-waste generation

Speakers

– Thomas Ebert
– Garam Bel

Arguments

Digital product passports link physical products to digital information, enabling circular economy use cases like reselling, repair, and recycling

Currently generating 62 million tons of e-waste annually with less than 25% formally recycled

Topics

Development | E-waste | Sustainable development

Both speakers highlight the particular challenges faced by developing countries in e-waste management, including capacity limitations and the need for proper regulatory frameworks

Speakers

– Anita Batamuliza
– Garam Bel

Arguments

Limited capacity, infrastructure, and informal sectors pose major challenges to e-waste management in developing countries

Countries with e-waste legislation achieve 25% collection rates versus near-zero for countries without legislation

Topics

Development | E-waste | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of regional collaboration and the transformative potential of new technologies like AI for improving environmental and disaster response services

Speakers

– George Ah-Thew
– Peiliang Shi

Arguments

Five SADC member states have transposed the model NETP with five more in progress, establishing national emergency telecoms working groups

AI and machine learning offer transformative opportunities for enhanced environmental services and forecasting

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Digital standards

Key takeaways

Six future priorities were identified for WSIS Action Line C7 plus 20: digital product passports, early warning for all, addressing greenhouse gas emissions in ICT sector, enhanced EPR and e-waste management, focus on material consumption and critical raw materials, and increased capacity building

Digital technologies have evolved from optional tools to essential enablers of environmental action over the past 20 years, now integrated into major global environmental agreements

Digital product passports will become mandatory in the EU starting 2027 for batteries, expanding to other sectors as a key circular economy enabler

E-waste management faces common challenges across regions: policy frameworks, financing mechanisms, capacity limitations, data gaps, and enforcement issues

SADC’s regional model National Emergency Telecommunications Plan represents successful regional cooperation, with 5 member states already implementing and 5 more in progress

Critical raw materials present a fundamental challenge with 2.6 billion people still unconnected and finite material resources available

ICT sector greenhouse gas emissions now equal airline sector emissions, raising important questions about regulatory responsibility

AI and emerging technologies offer transformative opportunities for environmental monitoring, forecasting, and waste management

Resolutions and action items

Document the 10 identified priority points into an input paper for WSIS plus 20 process

Lobby to ensure environmental priorities are reflected in the elements paper being drafted by co-chairs

Continue regional collaboration through East African working groups on e-waste and Green ICT

Complete WMO Information System 2.0 migration targeting 90% completion by 2030

Implement cell broadcast SMS systems in SADC member states for early warning dissemination

Explore AI applications for e-waste mapping and tracking systems

Strengthen partnerships between WMO, ITU, UNEP and other organizations for early warning systems

Unresolved issues

Who should regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector – telecom regulators or other authorities

How to address the material requirements for connecting 2.6 billion unconnected people while managing finite critical raw materials

Lack of systematic holistic framework beginning with environmental perspective rather than technology impact

Limited data availability for tracking e-waste trends and inventory management in developing countries

Financing mechanisms for e-waste management in countries with legislation but poor implementation

Last mile uptake challenges for environmental ICT products and services at community level

How to balance raw material needs for connectivity expansion with responsible consumption by already connected populations

Suggested compromises

Balance raw material consumption by promoting responsible technology consumption among connected populations while expanding connectivity to unconnected areas

Combine bottom-up community participation with strong committed leadership to drive environmental ICT initiatives forward

Integrate AI applications for environmental monitoring while addressing the increased emissions from AI and data centers

Develop governance frameworks that include both strong institutional leadership and inclusive civil society participation with community representation

We understand, I think, estimates from ITU around 2.6 billion people are currently unconnected to the internet. So what’s the material requirement to achieve that goal? […] And those critical raw materials are finite. It’s like coal, basically.

Speaker

Garam Bel

Reason

This comment reframes the digital divide discussion by introducing the concept of material scarcity as a fundamental constraint. Rather than viewing connectivity as simply a matter of infrastructure deployment, Bel highlights the finite nature of critical raw materials needed for digital devices, creating a tension between universal connectivity goals and environmental sustainability.

Impact

This comment immediately prompted audience member Kimberly Camacho to respond with the crucial insight about balancing connectivity expansion with responsible consumption by those already connected. It shifted the discussion from a purely technical implementation focus to a more holistic view of resource constraints and equity in digital access.

It doesn’t have to be accompanied by responsible consumption of technology for the ones that are already connected, yes, and reducing the consumption of technology, then we can really balance the raw material needed to connect the others with the responsible consumption from us.

Speaker

Kimberly Camacho

Reason

This comment introduces a critical equity dimension to the sustainability discussion. It challenges the assumption that we can simply expand connectivity without addressing overconsumption in developed regions, proposing a redistribution approach to resource allocation that balances global connectivity goals with environmental limits.

Impact

This intervention deepened the conversation by introducing questions of global equity and consumption patterns. It moved the discussion beyond technical solutions to address fundamental questions about resource distribution and consumption justice in the digital transition.

Who is regulating the greenhouse gas emissions coming from this sector? Is it the telecom regulators or is it somebody else? […] So there is some really big, challenging policy questions, but also some big, challenging data questions across these topics.

Speaker

Garam Bel

Reason

This comment exposes a critical governance gap in environmental regulation of the ICT sector. By questioning regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions, Bel highlights the institutional complexity and potential regulatory blind spots in addressing the environmental impact of digital technologies, particularly relevant given the rapid growth of AI and data centers.

Impact

This comment set up the final discussion segment on governance challenges and prompted David Jensen’s closing question about governance frameworks. It shifted attention from technical solutions to institutional and regulatory challenges, highlighting the need for clearer accountability structures.

Much of the discussion and rhetoric is around the impact that technologies have. I’d just like to encourage us to think more the other way around and to begin with environment, because we don’t really have an existing systematic holistic framework […] that addresses all the aspects around lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere.

Speaker

Tim Unwin

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the framing of the entire discussion by proposing to invert the analytical approach – starting with environmental systems rather than technological capabilities. It suggests that the current technology-first approach may be missing critical environmental impacts and interactions.

Impact

While made near the end of the session, this comment introduced a paradigm shift that could reframe future discussions. It challenged participants to reconsider their analytical framework and suggested that beginning with environmental systems might reveal different conclusions about technology’s role.

Countries that have legislation in place have, on average, a collection rate of 25 percent for e-waste. Those countries without any legislation, it’s close to zero percent. So the effect of legislation, having a level playing field for all is essential.

Speaker

Garam Bel

Reason

This comment provides concrete evidence for the critical importance of regulatory frameworks in environmental outcomes. The stark statistical contrast (25% vs. near 0%) demonstrates that policy frameworks are not just helpful but essential for meaningful environmental action in the digital sector.

Impact

This data point reinforced the governance theme that emerged throughout the discussion and provided empirical support for the importance of regulatory frameworks. It connected the technical discussions about e-waste management to broader questions about policy effectiveness and implementation.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about digital environmental solutions into a more complex examination of systemic challenges. The progression from Garam Bel’s material scarcity insight to Kimberly Camacho’s equity response established a critical tension between universal connectivity goals and environmental limits. The governance questions raised by multiple speakers, particularly around regulatory authority and institutional frameworks, highlighted that technical solutions alone are insufficient without appropriate institutional structures. Tim Unwin’s paradigm challenge near the end suggested that even the fundamental framing of technology-environment relationships may need reconsideration. Together, these interventions elevated the discussion from implementation details to fundamental questions about resource allocation, global equity, regulatory governance, and analytical frameworks – creating a more nuanced and challenging conversation about the future of digital environmental action.

Are there plans to incorporate AI-aided mapping into the waste management ecosystem to aid efficiency in tackling waste management?

Speaker

Kwaku from Ghana

Explanation

This addresses a gap in current e-waste management systems and could provide benchmarking opportunities for developing countries like Ghana

What kind of governance frameworks are needed to monitor the new WSIS process going forward, and how can governance challenges from the previous process be corrected?

Speaker

David Jensen (moderator)

Explanation

This is critical for ensuring effective implementation and oversight of the WSIS plus 20 framework

Who is regulating the greenhouse gas emissions coming from the ICT sector – telecom regulators or someone else, and what’s the scope?

Speaker

Garam Bel

Explanation

There are challenging policy and regulatory questions about jurisdiction and responsibility for ICT sector emissions

What is the material requirement to achieve the goal of connecting 2.6 billion currently unconnected people to the internet?

Speaker

Garam Bel

Explanation

Understanding material consumption is essential for sustainable digital inclusion planning

How can we develop a systematic holistic framework that begins with environment (lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, biosphere) and examines how digital technologies impact environmental destruction?

Speaker

Tim Unwin from ICT4D collective

Explanation

Current approaches focus on technology impacts rather than starting with environmental systems, which could lead to different and better conclusions

How can we combine technologies like satellite systems, IoT sensors, AI, and geospatial mapping to create comprehensive disaster monitoring and navigation systems?

Speaker

George Ah-Thew

Explanation

Integration of multiple technologies could provide real-time disaster information and navigation capabilities for better emergency response

How can responsible consumption of technology by those already connected be balanced with the raw material needs for connecting the unconnected?

Speaker

Kimberly Camacho from Costa Rica

Explanation

This addresses the sustainability challenge of digital inclusion while managing resource consumption

How can we ensure stronger committed leadership and inclusive civil society participation with community representation in environmental ICT initiatives?

Speaker

Multiple audience members

Explanation

Governance and participation gaps need to be addressed for effective implementation and community uptake

How can we improve last-mile uptake of environmental digital products and services at the community level?

Speaker

David Jensen (summarizing audience concern)

Explanation

There’s a gap between developing products/services and actual community adoption, trust, and appropriate responses

Summary

The transcript documents the WSIS Prizes 2025 Winner’s Ceremony, which celebrated groundbreaking ICT innovations driving progress across various action lines of the World Summit on the Information Society. The ceremony was hosted by moderators and featured Secretary General Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin presenting awards to outstanding winners from around the world. Gitanjali Sah announced that the competition received a record-breaking 970 submissions from over 107 countries, with more than 2 million online broadcasts, demonstrating the global commitment to inclusive digital development.

Winners were recognized across multiple categories, including government ICT promotion, communication infrastructure, information access, capacity building, cybersecurity, e-government, e-business, e-learning, e-health, e-employment, e-environment, e-agriculture, e-science, cultural diversity, media, ethical dimensions, and international cooperation. Notable winners included Kazakhstan’s Situational Analytical Complex for government ICT promotion, Peru’s Internet para todos for communication infrastructure, Nigeria’s Digital Awareness Program for information access, and Malaysia’s NADI project for capacity building. The ceremony featured a unique occurrence where two winners were announced for the cybersecurity category, with projects from Thailand and India both receiving recognition.

Each winner delivered acceptance speeches emphasizing themes of digital inclusion, leaving no one behind, and using technology to bridge gaps in their respective countries and communities. The ceremony concluded with a group photograph of all winners with the Secretary General, followed by an exhibition inauguration and networking lunch, highlighting the collaborative spirit of the global digital development community.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Record-breaking participation and global reach**: The ceremony celebrated receiving over 970 submissions from more than 107 countries with over 2 million online broadcasts, demonstrating unprecedented global engagement in ICT innovation and digital development initiatives.

– **Digital inclusion and bridging the digital divide**: Multiple winning projects focused on connecting underserved communities, including rural internet access in Peru, digital infrastructure for schools in Nigeria, community centers in remote Malaysian islands, and agricultural market systems in Bhutan.

– **Government digital transformation and e-services**: Several awards recognized innovative government initiatives, including Kazakhstan’s analytical complex, UAE’s AI-powered government services, Philippines’ business permitting system, and various e-government applications that streamline public services.

– **Cybersecurity and digital safety**: The ceremony highlighted critical security initiatives, including Thailand’s anti-scam operations center, India’s telecom verification system, and Qatar’s cybersecurity education curriculum, emphasizing the importance of building trust in digital technologies.

– **Sector-specific digital solutions**: Awards were presented across diverse application areas including e-health (Tanzania’s digital health IDs), e-learning (Saudi Arabia’s education platform), e-agriculture (Bhutan’s market information system), and youth empowerment through digital innovation.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion centered around the WSIS Prizes 2025 Winner’s Ceremony, which aimed to recognize and celebrate outstanding ICT innovations that advance the World Summit on the Information Society’s action lines. The ceremony served to highlight successful digital development projects from around the world and demonstrate how technology can drive inclusive progress across various sectors.

## Overall Tone:

The tone throughout the ceremony was consistently celebratory, formal, and appreciative. It maintained a positive and congratulatory atmosphere from beginning to end, with speakers expressing gratitude, pride, and commitment to continued digital development. The tone was diplomatic and international in nature, with representatives from various countries sharing their achievements and thanking the global community for recognition. There was no notable shift in tone – it remained upbeat and ceremonial throughout the entire proceedings.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator** – Event host/facilitator for the WSIS Prizes 2025 Winner’s Ceremony

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Co-host/facilitator for the WSIS Prizes 2025 Winner’s Ceremony

– **Dauren Nuraliyev** – Representative from Engineering and Technical Center of the President’s Affair Administration, Kazakhstan

– **Teresa Gomez** – Representative from Telefónica del Perú, Peru

– **Speaker 1** – Representative from Nigeria Communications Commission, Nigeria

– **Datuk Ahmad Fahmi bin Mohamed Fadzli** – Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Communications, Malaysia

– **Prasert Chantararuangthong** – Representative from Thailand (Anti-Online Scam Operations Centre project)

– **Rajkumar Upadhyay** – Dr., Representative from Centre for Development of Telematics, India

– **Solly Malats** – His Excellency, Minister of Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, South Africa

– **Speaker 2** – Representative from Department of Government Enablement, United Arab Emirates

– **Emily Delfin** – Representative from Department of Information and Communication Technology, Mimaropa Region, Philippines

– **Khalid Al Asfour** – Dr., Representative from Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia

– **Nassor Ahmed Mazrui** – His Excellency, Minister of Health of Zanzibar, Tanzania

– **Orkhan Salahov** – Representative from Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of Population, Azerbaijan

– **Yu Xiaohui** – President of China Academy of Information and Communication Technology, China

– **Tenzin Rondel Wangchuk** – Ambassador Excellency, Representative from Bhutan

– **Lyonpo Younten Phuntsho** – Minister from Bhutan (video message)

– **Francisco Carvalho** – Representative from Chilean mission to UN

– **Claudio Hatz** – Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile (video message)

– **Speaker 3** – Representative from Bababev, Indonesia

– **Amon Murwira** – His Excellency, Minister from Zimbabwe

– **Anoziva Marindire** – Representative from FUSAWA Institute, Zimbabwe (video message)

– **Abdulrahman bin Ali Al Farahid Al Malki** – His Excellency, President of the National Cyber Security Agency, Qatar

– **Kirstin Grosse Frie** – Dr., Representative from German Development Agency, Germany

– **Session video 1** through **Session video 15** – Various promotional/informational videos about winning projects

**Additional speakers:**

– **Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin** – Secretary General of ITU (mentioned but did not speak in transcript)

# WSIS Prizes 2025 Winner’s Ceremony: Summary Report

## Executive Overview

The WSIS Prizes 2025 Winner’s Ceremony celebrated global digital innovation, recognizing outstanding ICT initiatives that advance the World Summit on the Information Society’s action lines. The ceremony was hosted by moderators with Secretary General Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin presenting awards to winners across eleven categories.

Co-host Gitanjali Sah announced record-breaking participation figures, with over 970 submissions received from more than 107 countries and over 2 million online broadcasts. The ceremony included video presentations for each winning project, winner acceptance speeches, and concluded with a group photograph, exhibition inauguration, and networking lunch.

## Award Winners by Category

### C1: Government ICT Promotion and Digital Infrastructure

**Kazakhstan – Situational Analytical Complex**

Kazakhstan’s comprehensive digital ecosystem incorporates real-time dashboards and predictive models. Dauren Noraliyev emphasized that this international recognition demonstrated Kazakhstan’s focus on technology and open collaboration, highlighting the country’s commitment to digital transformation at the governmental level.

### C2: Communication Infrastructure – Internet para todos (Peru)

Peru’s Internet para todos project successfully connected almost 4 million people across more than 19,000 rural communities. Teresa Gomez stated: “Access to Internet shouldn’t be a privilege. Access to the Internet is a fundamental right. That opens doors to innovation, education, better living conditions, new opportunities, and equity.”

### C3: Information Access – Digital Awareness Program (Nigeria)

Nigeria’s Digital Awareness Program has been equipping public schools, mostly rural, underserved, and unserved areas for the past 20 years, enabling thousands of students to access digital tools. The Nigerian representative emphasized the programme’s long-term commitment to bridging educational gaps through technology.

### C4: Capacity Building – NADI Project (Malaysia)

Malaysia’s NADI project ensures that even remote island communities are connected with digital access and services. Datuk Ahmad Fahmi bin Mohamed Fadzli stated Malaysia’s commitment to ensuring “no one in remote regions is left behind in the digital era,” and noted: “This award belongs to the communities who have embraced digital skills for a better future, and to all Malaysians driving our vision of an inclusive, connected nation.”

### C5: Cybersecurity (Two Winners)

**Thailand – Anti-Online Scam Operations Centre (AOC)**

Thailand’s AOC provides 24/7 service using AI to analyze financial records and suspicious transactions. Prasert Chantararuangthong emphasized Thailand’s commitment to building trust and security in the digital age through dismantling online criminal networks.

**India – AI and Facial Recognition Solution**

India’s AI and Facial Recognition solution for telecom SIM subscriber verification enhances security infrastructure. Dr. Rajkumar Upadhyay highlighted how this technology strengthens national security systems.

### C6: E-Government – Digitec Programme (South Africa)

South Africa’s Digitec programme ignites local ICT SMMEs to solve real-world challenges. His Excellency Solly Malats attributed the innovation to “public officials who drive solutions in the department,” emphasizing the human element behind technological achievements.

### C7: E-Government Services – TAM AI Assistant (UAE)

The UAE’s TAM AI Assistant, launched in October 2024, connects the public to over 1,100 government services, supporting more than 700,000 conversations across 90 languages and resolving more than a million cases. This multilingual approach demonstrates sophisticated attention to linguistic diversity in digital service delivery.

### C7: E-Government Services – ELGU-BPLS System (Philippines)

The Philippines’ ELGU-BPLS system revolutionized business permitting, reducing processing times from weeks to minutes across 11 local government units. Emily Delfin observed: “While geography may divide us, technology brings us together.”

### C7: Education and Learning – Madaracity Platform (Saudi Arabia)

Saudi Arabia’s Madaracity platform serves over 10 million users with end-to-end learning journeys and virtual classrooms. Dr. Khalid Al Asfour noted that the platform reflects the country’s commitment to innovation and digital transformation under Vision 2030.

### C7: Health – Matibabu Card System (Tanzania)

Tanzania’s Matibabu card system provides 92% of Zanzibar’s population with unique health IDs, reaching 312,000 households. The system achieved 18% population coverage for health insurance in its first year. His Excellency Nassor Ahmed Mazrui described this achievement as representing “the power of partnership and commitment to ensure no one is left behind in healthcare.”

### C7: Employment – Graduate Employment Ranking Platform (Azerbaijan)

Azerbaijan’s Graduate Employment Ranking platform covers data from over 100,000 graduates across 30 universities. Orkhan Salahov explained that the platform “empowers choices to enable futures by connecting education with employment.”

### C7: Agriculture – Agricultural Market Information System (Bhutan)

Bhutan’s Agricultural Market Information System enables farmers to access pricing information from any part of the country. Ambassador Excellency Tenzin Rondel Wangchuk stated: “I would like to dedicate this award to all the farmers in Bhutan and farmers around the world for feeding us every day.” Minister Lyonpo Younten Phuntsho, in a video message, emphasized how the system helps the Ministry improve agricultural marketing for farmers’ daily benefit.

### C11: Science – Brain Health Project (Chile)

Chile’s brain health project develops technologies to reduce adverse effects of aging on cognitive decline. Professor Claudio Hatz, in a video message, explained that the research addresses aging as the main risk factor for chronic diseases affecting human populations. Francisco Carvalho represented Chile at the ceremony.

### Additional Category Winners

**Indonesia – Digital-First Movement for Youth**

Indonesia’s digital-first movement reaches youth through competitions and dialogues in local languages. The Indonesian representative accepted the award “on behalf of young people using digital technology for civic participation.”

**Zimbabwe – Girls Speak Out Programme**

Zimbabwe’s Girls Speak Out programme addresses the significant gap where only 65 girls have digital skills for every 100 boys. His Excellency Amon Murwira noted that the programme “bridges digital divides and turns WSIS ideals into tangible realities.” Anoziva Marindire, in a video message, dedicated the recognition to “brilliant young women.”

**Qatar – Cybersecurity Curriculum**

Qatar’s Cybersecurity Curriculum reached over 280,000 students across 400 schools, including special needs institutions. His Excellency Abdulrahman bin Ali Al Farahid Al Malki explained that the project “enhances cyber resilience and empowers the next generation with essential cybersecurity skills.”

**Germany – One Health Data Alliance Africa**

Germany’s One Health Data Alliance Africa improves collaboration for managing environmental and public health risks. Dr. Kirstin Grosse Frie emphasized that the success “demonstrates the importance of partnerships and working together to realise health management dreams.”

**China – Meteorological Disaster Warning System**

China’s meteorological disaster warning system delivers near real-time alerts and is becoming part of national infrastructure. Yu Xiaohui, President of China Academy of Information and Communication Technology, presented this initiative as an example of enhanced disaster preparedness capabilities.

## Ceremony Proceedings

The ceremony followed a structured format with each winner category being announced, followed by video presentations showcasing the winning projects, and acceptance speeches from representatives. Secretary General Doreen Bogdan-Martin presented awards to each winner.

Specific housekeeping arrangements were made for photographers during the ceremony. The event concluded with a group photograph of all winners with the Secretary General, followed by an exhibition inauguration with ribbon cutting and a networking lunch.

## Project Impact and Scope

The winning projects demonstrated significant scale and reach:

– Peru’s connectivity project: 4 million people across 19,000+ rural communities

– Saudi Arabia’s education platform: 10 million users

– UAE’s government services: 700,000+ conversations in 90 languages

– Tanzania’s health system: 92% population coverage in Zanzibar

– Qatar’s cybersecurity education: 280,000+ students across 400 schools

– Azerbaijan’s employment platform: 100,000+ graduates from 30 universities

## Common Themes

Several themes emerged across winner presentations:

– **Digital inclusion**: Multiple projects focused on reaching remote, rural, and underserved communities

– **Partnership approaches**: Winners emphasized collaboration between governments, organizations, and communities

– **Multilingual accessibility**: Projects in UAE and Indonesia specifically addressed language diversity

– **Youth and education**: Several initiatives targeted young people and educational institutions

– **Healthcare digitalization**: Projects addressed health system improvements through technology

– **Government service delivery**: Multiple e-government initiatives streamlined public services

## Conclusion

The WSIS Prizes 2025 ceremony showcased diverse digital initiatives addressing various societal challenges across different regions. The record participation numbers and the range of winning projects demonstrate global engagement in ICT innovation and digital development. The ceremony successfully highlighted practical applications of technology in areas including healthcare, education, government services, cybersecurity, and rural connectivity.

Moderator: Before we begin, just a brief housekeeping rules for photographers. The only two photographers that are allowed to be in front of the first row are the official photographers. Please do not go in front of the first row. With this being said, also in the middle aisle, in the central aisle, with this being said, ladies and gentlemen, once again, good morning and welcome to the WSIS Prizes 2025 Winner’s Ceremony. It is a pleasure to welcome you today as we gather to recognize and celebrate the groundbreaking ICT innovations that are driving progress across WSIS action lines.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for contributing for the successful WSIS Prizes nominations. We received a record number of more than 970 submissions to the WSIS Prizes 2025, representing more than 107 countries with over 2 million broadcasts online. So thank you so much for making this project a very vibrant one and for giving it all your commitment and support. This has demonstrated the dynamism, the creativity, and the commitment for inclusive digital development.

Moderator: Indeed, Gitanjali, what an incredible achievement. These numbers speak volumes about the dedication of the WSIS multi-stakeholder community to harnessing digital technologies in driving development. Before we continue with the ceremony, we would like to welcome to the stage our Distinguished Secretary General, Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin, who will present the awards to this year’s outstanding winners. Please join me in warmly welcoming Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin. Thank you. As we are ready to start, we would like to ask everyone to take your seats. Please take your seats as we are about to start the WSIS Action Line Category 1.

Gitanjali Sah: Ladies and gentlemen, are you ready? In the WSIS Action Line Category 1, the role of governments and all stakeholders in promoting ICTs for development, the five champions, the runners-up are presented on the screen. We would like to congratulate all the champions for Action Line C1. And the winner is, in the WSIS Action Line Category 1, the role of governments and all stakeholders in promoting ICTs for development, Situational Analytical Complex by Engineering and Technical Center of the President’s Affair Administration from Kazakhstan. On behalf of the Engineering and Technical Center, Mr. Doreen Noraliyev is joined by the Secretary General to receive the award.

Session video 1: Real-time dashboards and predictive models, SAC alerts managers to potential issues. Developed by Kazakhstan’s Engineering and Technical Center, SAC represents our vision for the future, a digital ecosystem ready to scale from Kazakhstan to the world.

Gitanjali Sah: Mr. Doreen, we would like to invite you to the lectern to please deliver your winning speech.

Dauren Nuraliyev: Thanks. It’s pretty heavy. Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, we are deeply grateful. It’s wonderful to be here, that’s why we’re really happy. It’s a great honor for us to get this kind of international recognition. That’s why the situation is a little complex. It shows Kazakhstan’s focus on technology and, you know, is working together openly. We want to say thank you to WSIS, ITU, all the other partners for the trust and support. We are proud to help build on a shared digital future. Barluqtarnzakubrahmet, which means in Kazakh language, many thanks again.

Moderator: Congratulations. Congratulations for the winner from Kazakhstan. And we are now moving to the WSIS Action Line C2 Information and Communication Infrastructure. Join me in applauding and recognizing the five champions in the category ICT Infrastructure. The winner in WSIS Action Line Category 2 is Internet para todos by Telefónica del Perú from Peru. We would like to invite Ms. Teresa Gomez to receive the award on behalf of the winner.

Session video 2: In many communities in Peru, the Internet is still a distant dream. Internet for All works to make that dream a reality. We have connected almost 4 million people in more than 19,000 rural communities. And we will continue working to close the digital gap in every corner of the country.

Teresa Gomez: Good morning. Thank you. Thank you, ITU. This is a great honor, and I deeply appreciate this recognition. Access to Internet shouldn’t be a privilege. Access to the Internet is a fundamental right. That opens doors to innovation, education, better living conditions, new opportunities, and equity. These awards belong to the rural communities that dare to believe in a better future for themselves and for their children. Thanks to IPT, team, stakeholders, and partners for making dreams come true. Let’s keep working to ensure no one is left behind. Thanks.

Gitanjali Sah: Congratulations, and now we move on to Action Line C3. The finalists for the WSIS Action Line Category C3, Access to Information and Knowledge, are… And the winner in WSIS Action Line C3, Access to Information and Knowledge, is Digital Awareness Program by Nigeria, Nigeria Communications Commission. We would like to invite you on stage, sir.

Session video 3: The number of email dropouts has gone down. Students no longer have to travel long distances just to register for exams. I just have to warn anyone coming after me that it is actually quite heavy, so be careful.

Speaker 1: Good morning, distinguished guests, your excellencies. I’m truly honored to accept this recognition on behalf of the NCC. My sincere appreciation goes to the ITU, our hosts, and the WSIS organizers. The Digital Awareness Program is a cornerstone of our efforts to promote digital inclusion in Nigeria. Through the Digital Awareness Program, we have been equipping public schools, mostly rural, underserved, and unserved areas for the past 20 years, providing them with digital infrastructure, in the process enabling thousands of secondary school students to access the digital tools they need for learning, innovation, and to have an opportunity. This recognition is more than a celebration of the past, it’s also an encouragement for us to push forward. And we truly appreciate this opportunity to be recognized, and we do promise we will even do more in the future to promote digital access. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Congratulations for the winners from Nigeria. We’re now moving to the WSIS Extra Line C4 Capacity Building. The runner-ups and champions in the Capacity Building category are presented on the screen. Let’s give them a nice applause. The winner in the Capacity Building category for 2025 is… The National Information Dissemination Centre by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission from Malaysia. Congratulations! We would like to invite His Excellency Mr. Datuk Fahmi Fazil, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Communications, to receive the award.

Session video 4: This is NADI, the National Information Dissemination Centre, empowering communities with digital access, entrepreneurship, lifelong learning, well-being and timely government information. Even in remote and underserved areas including islands, communities will now be connected. NADI, empowering communities together.

Datuk Ahmad Fahmi bin Mohamed Fadzli: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I am deeply honoured to accept this WSIS Prize on behalf of Malaysia. The NADI Digital Inclusion Project in Pulau Banggi reflects our commitment that no one, not even those in the most remote regions, should be left behind in this digital era. This award belongs to the communities who have embraced digital skills for a better future, and to all Malaysians driving our vision of an inclusive, connected nation. Thank you, WSIS and the ITU, for this global recognition. Terima kasih.

Gitanjali Sah: We move on to WSIS Action Line C5, and in this category we’ve had like really tough competition, giving us two winners for this category, first time ever. The first winner in WSIS Action Line, there you go, you have the shortlisted projects, the champions. Congratulations to all the champions. And the first winner in WSIS Action Line C5, Building Confidence and Security in the Use of ICT.

Session video 5: The Anti-Online Scam Operations Centre is a 24-7 one-stop service for reporting online crimes and suspending suspicious transactions in real time. Using AI to analyse financial records, phone activity and suspicious transactions, AOC went forward promptly forwarded cases to the Anti-Money Laundering Office or cryptocurrency service providers. We are firmly committed to dismantling online criminal networks, aiming to ensure no Thai citizen falls victim to online scams.

Prasert Chantararuangthong: Secretary-General of ITU, Distinguished Guests, I am truly honoured to receive the BCCIS Prize 2025 for our project Anti-Online Scam Operations Centre. This award is a great recognition of Thailand’s commitment to building trust and security in the digital age. My sincere thanks to the ITU, everyone who voted and all the dedicated team who make this possible. Let’s continue working together for a safer digital future. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: And the second winner in the WSIS Action Line Category C5, Building Confidence and Security in the Use of ICT, is AI and Facial Recognition Powered Solution for Telecom SIM Subscriber Variation by the Centre for Development of Telematics from India. We’d like to welcome Dr Rajkumar Upadhyay to please collect his trophy.

Rajkumar Upadhyay: Good morning everyone, I am deeply honoured to receive the major international award and I would like to thank the selection committee and all the ones who have helped me and supported me during the development of this project. I would also like to thank my organisation Centre for Development of Telematics and Department of Telecom, Government of India who has given me the responsibility to carry out this award winning project. So this award means a lot to my organisation and it has infused a lot of confidence and motivation to my organisation. In all its future endeavours. Thank you.

Moderator: The winner in the VC section line C6 enabling environment is Digitec by the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies from South Africa. Congratulations. We would like to invite His Excellency Mr. Soli Malazi, Minister of Department of Communications and Digital Technologies to receive the prize.

Session video 6: Digitec is South Africa’s flagship innovation programme, igniting the power of local ICT SMMEs to solve real world challenges. From Township Tech Labs

Solly Malats: Thank you very much for this award. This award belongs to all the public officials who drive innovation and solutions in the department. So I’d like to dedicate it to Team South Africa, the public officials. This is all your work, be proud of it and thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah: Congratulations South Africa, we move on to Action Line C7 e-Government. The finalists for the WSIS Action Line Category C7 ICT Application e-Government are, congratulations to all of you for being champions this year. And the winner in the WSIS Action Line Category ICT Applications e-Government is TAM AI Assistant, the AI-powered government agent redefining public services by Department of Government Enablement from United Arab Emirates. We’d like to invite the team to the stage. Thank you.

Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Indeed, it’s an immense honor to accept the WSIS Prize for E-Government on behalf of the Abu Dhabi government and the UAE. TEM is more than just a digital platform. It embodies our leadership’s vision of an intelligent, responsive, and people-focused government. Every day, TEM effortlessly connects our public to over 1,100 vital government services, turning routine interactions into experiences marked by simplicity, by care, and by ease. Our AI assistant that was just launched back in October 2024 has supported over 700,000 conversations across 90 languages, independently resolving more than a million cases efficiently and effectively, very importantly, without the need for any human intervention. This award truly belongs to the people of Abu Dhabi and the UAE, who continually inspire us to serve them better. It belongs to every public servant whose dedication has brought TEM to life, and it belongs especially to our government partners whose collaboration has turned this vision into reality. Thank you for recognizing our commitment to shaping the future.

Moderator: Congratulations for the winners from United Arab Emirates. In the category E-Government, we are now moving to the Business Action Line ICT Applications E-Business category. The finalists in E-Business category are from Lithuania, Philippines, Iran, Laos, and Belize. Congratulations. And the winner in the category E-Business is from Weeks to Minutes. How Occidental Mindoro Revolutionized Business Permitting by the Department of Information and Communication Technology, Mimaropa Region, from the Philippines. Congratulations. We would like to invite Ms. Emily Delfin to receive the award.

Session video 7: From weeks to minutes, how Occidental Mindoro revolutionized business permitting. Occidental Mindoro, a province rich in agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, has embraced progress through ELGU-BPLS, a DICT-developed system to streamline government processes. In 2024, all 11 LGUs of Occidental Mindoro have adopted ELGU-BPLS. And the results? Faster transactions, more registered businesses, and increased revenue revolutionizing business permit processing.

Emily Delfin: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, On behalf of the Philippines, thank you to the International Telecommunications Union and Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin, as well as the WSIS Prizes Committee for this meaningful recognition of our efforts in the Philippines. Mimaropa, a region in the Philippines, is one of the most geographically challenging regions in the Philippines, with island provinces and remote communities. But this is exactly where ICT becomes a game-changer. It breaks barriers, bringing services closer to the people, leaving no one behind. Our ELGU-BPLS project in Occidental Mindoro proves this. It streamlined processes, cut red tape, and made business services accessible even in the farthest towns. This award fuels our resolve to expand ICT services across the country, because while geography may divide us, technology brings us together. To the Philippines, Philippines, the DICT family, and all our partners. This award is for you. And thank you so much. Pabuhay po ang Pilipinas at maraming salamat po sa inyong lahat.

Gitanjali Sah: Your trophy. Congratulations, Philippines. And we move on to Action Line C7 eLearning. The finalists in the eLearning category are Canada, UAE, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore. And the winner in WSIS Action Line Category ICT Application eLearning is Madaracity Learning Management System by Ministry of Education from Saudi Arabia. We welcome Dr. Khaled Al Asfaw to the stage along with his colleagues.

Session video 8: In every classroom, city and village across the kingdom, Madaracity is redefining education digitally, inclusively and effectively, serving over 10 million users. It delivers an end-to-end learning journey, virtual classrooms, interactive courses, real-time dashboards, and access for all, anytime, anywhere.

Khalid Al Asfour: Ladies and gentlemen, it’s with great pride and appreciation to stand in front of you today to celebrate this remarkable achievement. This recognition is not merely a testament to a digital platform. It’s an attribute to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s unwavering commitment to innovation, education and digital transformation as envisioned in our national vision 2030. This success reflects intensive and continuous efforts by the Ministry of Education to empower and prepare future generations to compete globally in a knowledge-based society via provision of inclusive, accessible, to a robust, resilient, high quality educational ecosystem. Thank you.

Moderator: Congratulations for the winners from Saudi Arabia. We are moving to the Business Action Line ICT applications e-Health. Let’s all give applause for the champions in this category. The winner in the category e-Health is a new era in Zanzibar’s health care, the game-changing role of digital unique IDs by Pharmaccess from Tanzania. We would like to invite His Excellency Nasr Rahman Mazrui, Minister of Health of Zanzibar.

Session video 9: In Zanzibar, a digital revolution is transforming health care and lives. With the Matibabu card, 92% of the population now have a unique ID unlocking access to care and real-time health data. Through partnership with the government and Pharmaccess, 268 facilities improved care and 312,000 households were met. In its first year, health insurance reached 18% of the population, targeting the most vulnerable, a replicable sustainable model. Designed for Impact, Power and Welfare in the Nation

Nassor Ahmed Mazrui: On behalf of the United Republic of Tanzania and the Minister of Health from Zanzibar accompanied by my Minister of Health from Tanzania Honourable Jerry Williams-Slar the Minister of Information, Communication and Information Technology Together we are receiving this award for Tanzania I am profoundly honoured to receive this prestigious recognition as the winner in the e-Health category of the WSIS Prizes 2025 I extend my sincere gratitude to the World Summit on the Information Society and the International Telecommunication Union for the championing innovation that advances digital transformations across the globe This milestone was made possible by strong leadership, strong partnership and commitment and a shared ambition to ensure no one is left behind I especially wish to recognise the invaluable partnership with Pharma Access whose technical support and innovation have been instrumental in rolling out the CARDI Yamatibabu system in Zanzibar To all our partners, collaborators and frontline health workers this award is yours as much as it is ours It symbolises the power of working together to transform challenges into opportunities and to build a resilient health system for future generations We accept this honour with deep humility and renewed determination to keep pushing boundaries, bridging gaps and delivering quality healthcare for all Asante Nisana, thank you very much

Gitanjali Sah: Congratulations Tanzania. Action Line C7 E-Employment. And the champions are Cabo Verde, United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan, Guinea and Senegal. And the winner in WSIS Action Line Category ICT Applications E-Employment is the Graduate Employment Ranking by Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of Population from Azerbaijan. We invite Mr. Salahov to please come and collect his award.

Session video 10: The goal of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection’s digital social services is to provide fast and innovative solutions. The Graduate Employment Ranking platform is a groundbreaking initiative that connects education with employment. Covering data from over 100,000 graduates across 30 universities and more than 300 specialties, it provides detailed insights into job market trends, salary levels and employment outcomes. By helping students make informed career choices and supporting national education planning, the platform strengthens the connection between talent and opportunity. Empowering choices, enabling futures.

Orkhan Salahov: Ladies and gentlemen, we are truly honoured to accept the first WSIS award on behalf of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. A proud moment for us and our country. What we do, we do for our people. As mentioned in the video, let’s empower choices to enable futures. Thank you for WSIS community, our partners and all who contribute to us. Thank you, thank you very much.

Moderator: Azerbaijan we are moving to the this is action line e-environment the champions five champions five runner-ups in this category are presented on the screen out of these five one is the winner the winner in e-environment category is rapid accurate and secure production dissemination and communication of early warning for meteorological disaster by china academy of information and communication technologies congratulations we would like to invite mr yu xianghou president of the china academy of information and communication technology to receive the award

Yu Xiaohui: so good morning excellency ladies and gentlemen it’s a great honor to receive this prize thank you at you thank you mr uh the secretary general cict and the pmsc are proud to participate the u.n’s early warning for our initiative when disaster strike no one should be left on word our system can deliver near real-time alerts to people at risk now is becoming part of china’s national infrastructure thank you very much

Gitanjali Sah: Congratulations, sir. That’s a great achievement. We are now moving on to WSIS Action Line C7 e-Agriculture. The finalists for the WSIS Action Line ICT Applications e-Agriculture are on the screen. And we’d like to announce the winner. Are you ready? The winner is WSIS Action Line Category ICT Application e-Agriculture is Agricultural Market Information System by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forest from Bhutan. We would like to invite Ambassador Excellency Wang Chuk to please collect the award on their behalf.

Session video 11: The Department of Agricultural Marketing and Cooperatives of Bhutan have developed the Agricultural Marketing Information System, AMIS, which has both the web and app versions. Through the AMIS, the price of agricultural produce can be known by the users from any part of the country. The AMIS helps the farmers and the small and medium enterprises to make pricing decisions and has the price analysis feature. This helps to enhance agricultural marketing and benefit farmers on a daily basis.

Tenzin Rondel Wangchuk: Well, thank you very much. Thank you to the ITU for giving us this award. I would like to dedicate this award to all the farmers in Bhutan and farmers around the world for feeding us every day. Thank you very much to ITU.

Moderator: Thank you, Excellency. We also have an appreciation message from Bhutan, which is being played on the screen from the Minister.

Lyonpo Younten Phuntsho: We are deeply honoured to have been recognised by the World Summit on Information Society for our effort on Agricultural Market Information System in Bhutan. This system helps the Ministry…

Moderator: Once again, congratulations for the winners from Bhutan and thank the Minister for his video message. We are now moving to the business action line, ICT applications, e-science. The champions in e-science are coming from Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Chile, United States of America and Tanzania. Out of these five champions, the winner is improving brain prostatitis as a strategy to reduce the adverse effects of aging on the cognitive decline of the elderly by the biomedical neuroscience institute, University of Chile. Congratulations. On behalf of the winner, Mr. Francisco Carvalho, representative from the mission to UN is receiving the award.

Francisco Carvalho: Although the winner and the leader of the project, Professor Claudia Hatz, will not be with us today. She shared the video message with us.

Claudio Hatz: Our team from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Chile. So the idea of this project was to develop technologies to reduce the adverse effects of aging on the elderly. This is based on the concept that aging is the main risk factor to develop most of the chronic diseases affecting the human population. So we think that strategies that alter and improve the quality of life are the best.

Gitanjali Sah: Congratulations, we’ll move on to Action Line C8. The finalists for WSIS Action Line Category C8, Cultural Diversity and Identity, Linguistic Diversity and Local Content, are on the screen there. Latvia, Indonesia, India, China, and South Africa. And the winner in the WSIS Action Line Category C8, Cultural Diversity, is Empowering Youth Through Digital Innovation, Enhancing Capacity, Opportunities, and Participation in Civic Life by Bababev from Indonesia.

Session video 12: In Indonesia, young people face barriers to civic participation. Their voices are often unheard, but we’re changing that. Led by a network of women-led NGOs, we’ve created a digital first movement that reaches youth, policymakers, and communities. With digital competitions and in-person dialogues, held in local languages, we can voice our opinions and inspire real change.

Speaker 3: The Honorable IT Secretary General, Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin, fellow winners, and most importantly, Indonesian young people. Basah Ibu is accepting this award on behalf of young people who are using digital technology to speak out about civic issues, who are improving their well-being and their communities. It is truly an honor from the global community. We thank Fondation Botnar for their support, along with Indonesian government at all levels, community leaders, educators, parents, and especially young

Moderator: Congratulations for the winner in Visis Action Line Cultural Diversity. We are now moving to the Visis Action Line Media. The finalists are listed on the screen. Congratulations to the five finalists and champions. And the winner in the Visis Action Line Category Media is Girls Speak Out by USAVA Institute from Zimbabwe. Congratulations. We would like to invite His Excellency Ms. Ever Milo to join Secretary General together with the Minister from Zimbabwe. Thank you.

Session video 13: In Zimbabwe, for every 100 boys with digital skills, only 65 girls have the same. Across Africa, women make up just 26% of the AI workforce. This isn’t just a game. It’s a future we have to hold. At Girls Speak Out, we are changing the script, giving girls the tools to write their own code, co-create solutions, and rise together on their own terms. We are not waiting for the future. We are building it.

Amon Murwira: Thank you. Excellencies, distinguished guests, partners in progress, and fellow advocates for digital transformation. I stand before you with profound humility to accept this prestigious award on behalf of the USAVA Institute. This recognition is not merely accolade. It is a testament. to the tireless dedication of FUSAWA in bridging digital divides and turning the ideals of WSIS into tangible realities for Zimbabwe. Thank you, ITU. Thank you, Secretary General. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Although the winner and the leader of the project from Zimbabwe, Ms. Anoziva Marindre, will not be with us today, she has shared a video message.

Anoziva Marindire: On behalf of the FUSAWA Institute, we are deeply humbled and honoured to accept this WSIS prize for our Girls Speak Out program in the media category. This recognition truly belongs to the brilliant young women in our program. Their courage is powered by our incredible volunteer trainers, staff and partners who ensure this vital work continues. We humbly dedicate this award to our late co-founder, Kelvin Tinashimitze, who designed this really program. His vision for equality continues to guide us all. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Congratulations. We move on to the category C10. It’s the ethical dimensions of the information society. And the finalists, the champions, are on the screen. Switzerland, Qatar, Cote d’Ivoire, Malaysia and the Republic of Korea. And the winner in WSIS Action Line is Cyber Security Education Curriculum by National Cyber Security Agency from Qatar. We would like to invite Excellency Al Malki, President of the National Cyber Security Agency, to please come and collect the award. Thank you.

Session video 14: The Educational Cybersecurity Curriculum Project is a pioneering initiative in the region. It was launched by the National Cybersecurity Agency in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Higher Education. More than 280,000 students have participated in educational content at approximately 400 government and private schools, including those for students with special needs. Winning the WISES 2025 award provides enormous encouragement for the National Cybersecurity Agency to continue developing the project and sharing its achievements with other countries.

Abdulrahman bin Ali Al Farahid Al Malki: Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to receive today the WISES Award 2025 from the ITU for our Cybersecurity Curriculum Project in Qatar. This recognition highlights our commitment to enhance cyber resilience and empower the next generation with essential cybersecurity skills. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the ITU and all our partners who have supported us in this journey. Together we are shaping a safer digital future. Thank you for your trust and your support.

Moderator: the business action line international regional cooperation the champions in category c11 are coming from unica nicaragua kenya germany and malaysia the winner in the international and regional cooperation is one health data alliance africa by the german development agency from germany congratulations we would like to invite dr kirsten grosse frie to receive the award from the secretary

Session video 15: general so we have a lot of activity regarding how we can improve people working together to ensure that health risks are well managed at the environmental public health animal so partnerships are key no one single person no one single institution is going to realize the dreams we have we have to work together and i therefore thank giz and bmz for supporting aui bar

Kirstin Grosse Frie: what a day i really want to appreciate the world summit on information society we want to thank everyone our partners our contributors the experts that have contributed to the success of the one health data alliance africa we really appreciate the expertise the collaboration the working together that you all are brought together to make today possible this prize that we have today is testament to how the hard work to how the deliberations to how the good things that you’ve been working together this prize is for you thank you very much

Gitanjali Sah: That brings us to the end of the prize ceremony for WSIS Prizes 2025, a big round of applause for all the winners and the champions, and we’d like to invite the winners to join Secretary General on the stage for a group photograph, please, with your trophy, if you could please bring your trophy as well for a group photograph with the Secretary General.

Moderator: Once again, all the winners are invited to join Secretary General on the stage for the group photo, and let the music begin. Once again, all the winners are invited to join Secretary General on the stage for a group photograph, please, with your trophy, if you could please bring your trophy as well for the Secretary General on the stage for the group photograph, please, with your trophy, Congratulations to the WSIS Prizes 2025 winners. There are two important announcements. Everyone from this room is now invited for the official WSIS Forum Exhibition Inauguration Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, which will take place in front of this room. So please, everyone, join us with the Secretary General cutting the ribbon at the WSIS Wall. The ceremony starts in five minutes. Another important announcement for those invited for the high-level lunch at the Hilton Hotel, hosted by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ITU. Please note that the Hilton Hotel is a 10-minute walk, or there is a shuttle service available in front of the venue.

Agreement points

Digital inclusion and ensuring no one is left behind

Speakers

– Teresa Gomez
– Datuk Ahmad Fahmi bin Mohamed Fadzli
– Emily Delfin
– Nassor Ahmed Mazrui

Arguments

Access to Internet is a fundamental right that opens doors to innovation, education, and equity

Malaysia’s commitment ensures no one in remote regions is left behind in the digital era

Philippines proves ICT breaks geographical barriers and brings services closer to people in challenging regions

Tanzania’s achievement represents power of partnership and commitment to ensure no one is left behind in healthcare

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the fundamental principle that digital access should be universal, with particular focus on reaching remote, rural, and underserved communities regardless of geographical challenges

Topics

Development | Digital access

Importance of partnerships and collaboration for digital transformation success

Speakers

– Dauren Nuraliyev
– Nassor Ahmed Mazrui
– Kirstin Grosse Frie
– Speaker 3

Arguments

International recognition demonstrates Kazakhstan’s focus on technology and open collaboration

Tanzania’s achievement represents power of partnership and commitment to ensure no one is left behind in healthcare

Germany’s success demonstrates importance of partnerships and working together to realize health management dreams

Indonesia accepts award on behalf of young people using digital technology for civic participation

Summary

Speakers consistently highlighted that successful digital initiatives require collaborative partnerships between governments, international organizations, and communities

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Technology as enabler for empowerment and capacity building

Speakers

– Speaker 1
– Khalid Al Asfour
– Orkhan Salahov
– Abdulrahman bin Ali Al Farahid Al Malki

Arguments

Nigeria’s Digital Awareness Program has equipped public schools in rural areas for 20 years, enabling thousands of students to access digital tools

Saudi Arabia’s platform reflects commitment to innovation and digital transformation under Vision 2030

Azerbaijan’s platform empowers choices to enable futures by connecting education with employment

Qatar’s project enhances cyber resilience and empowers next generation with essential cybersecurity skills

Summary

Speakers agreed that technology serves as a fundamental tool for empowering individuals and communities through education, skills development, and capacity building

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Online education

Similar viewpoints

Large-scale digital infrastructure projects can achieve significant population coverage and impact, particularly in connecting remote and underserved communities

Speakers

– Session video 2
– Session video 4
– Session video 9

Arguments

Peru’s Internet para todos has connected almost 4 million people in over 19,000 rural communities

Malaysia’s NADI project ensures even remote island communities are connected with digital access and services

Tanzania’s Matibabu card system provides 92% of Zanzibar population with unique health IDs, reaching 312,000 households

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Digital access

Digital government platforms can achieve massive scale and efficiency improvements, serving hundreds of thousands of users while dramatically reducing processing times

Speakers

– Speaker 2
– Session video 7
– Session video 10

Arguments

UAE’s TAM AI Assistant connects public to over 1,100 government services, supporting 700,000+ conversations across 90 languages

Philippines’ ELGU-BPLS system revolutionized business permitting from weeks to minutes across 11 local government units

Azerbaijan’s Graduate Employment Ranking platform covers data from 100,000+ graduates across 30 universities

Topics

Development | Digital access

Recognition and success should be attributed to the communities, workers, and individuals who benefit from and implement digital solutions rather than just the technology itself

Speakers

– Tenzin Rondel Wangchuk
– Solly Malats
– Amon Murwira

Arguments

Bhutan dedicates recognition to all farmers who feed people every day

South Africa’s innovation belongs to public officials who drive solutions in the department

Zimbabwe’s program bridges digital divides and turns WSIS ideals into tangible realities

Topics

Development

Unexpected consensus

Multilingual and culturally inclusive digital solutions

Speakers

– Speaker 2
– Session video 12

Arguments

UAE’s TAM AI Assistant connects public to over 1,100 government services, supporting 700,000+ conversations across 90 languages

Indonesia’s digital-first movement reaches youth through competitions and dialogues in local languages

Explanation

Despite coming from very different contexts (UAE’s government services and Indonesia’s youth empowerment), both initiatives prioritized multilingual accessibility, showing unexpected consensus on the importance of linguistic diversity in digital solutions

Topics

Development | Multilingualism

Gender equality as critical component of digital development

Speakers

– Session video 13
– Speaker 3

Arguments

Zimbabwe’s Girls Speak Out addresses gap where only 65 girls have digital skills for every 100 boys

Indonesia accepts award on behalf of young people using digital technology for civic participation

Explanation

The explicit focus on gender equality in digital skills emerged as an unexpected area of consensus, with programs specifically designed to address gender disparities and empower women and girls in technology

Topics

Gender rights online | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The WSIS Prizes 2025 ceremony demonstrated strong consensus around core principles of digital inclusion, universal access, collaborative partnerships, and technology as an empowerment tool. Speakers consistently emphasized reaching underserved communities, the importance of partnerships, and using technology for capacity building.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for global digital development policy. The unanimous focus on inclusion and partnership suggests a mature understanding of digital transformation requirements and strong alignment on fundamental principles across diverse geographical and cultural contexts.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

This transcript represents a WSIS Prizes 2025 award ceremony where speakers presented their winning projects and achievements. There were no disagreements identified among speakers as each presenter focused on describing their own country’s or organization’s digital initiatives and accomplishments.

Disagreement level

No disagreement detected. This was a ceremonial event where speakers shared their success stories and thanked organizers rather than engaging in debate or discussion of conflicting viewpoints. All speakers expressed gratitude for recognition and emphasized similar themes of digital inclusion, bridging digital divides, and using technology for development purposes.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Large-scale digital infrastructure projects can achieve significant population coverage and impact, particularly in connecting remote and underserved communities

Speakers

– Session video 2
– Session video 4
– Session video 9

Arguments

Peru’s Internet para todos has connected almost 4 million people in over 19,000 rural communities

Malaysia’s NADI project ensures even remote island communities are connected with digital access and services

Tanzania’s Matibabu card system provides 92% of Zanzibar population with unique health IDs, reaching 312,000 households

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Digital access

Digital government platforms can achieve massive scale and efficiency improvements, serving hundreds of thousands of users while dramatically reducing processing times

Speakers

– Speaker 2
– Session video 7
– Session video 10

Arguments

UAE’s TAM AI Assistant connects public to over 1,100 government services, supporting 700,000+ conversations across 90 languages

Philippines’ ELGU-BPLS system revolutionized business permitting from weeks to minutes across 11 local government units

Azerbaijan’s Graduate Employment Ranking platform covers data from 100,000+ graduates across 30 universities

Topics

Development | Digital access

Recognition and success should be attributed to the communities, workers, and individuals who benefit from and implement digital solutions rather than just the technology itself

Speakers

– Tenzin Rondel Wangchuk
– Solly Malats
– Amon Murwira

Arguments

Bhutan dedicates recognition to all farmers who feed people every day

South Africa’s innovation belongs to public officials who drive solutions in the department

Zimbabwe’s program bridges digital divides and turns WSIS ideals into tangible realities

Topics

Development

Key takeaways

The WSIS Prizes 2025 achieved record-breaking global participation with over 970 submissions from 107+ countries and 2+ million online broadcasts, demonstrating unprecedented engagement in digital development initiatives

Digital inclusion and bridging the digital divide emerged as the central theme, with winners consistently emphasizing that access to digital technologies should be a fundamental right, not a privilege

Successful digital transformation requires strong partnerships and multi-stakeholder collaboration, as evidenced by projects spanning government agencies, private sector, NGOs, and international organizations

Rural and underserved communities were the primary beneficiaries of winning projects, with initiatives specifically targeting remote areas, islands, and marginalized populations to ensure ‘no one is left behind’

AI and advanced technologies are being successfully deployed for public good, including real-time fraud detection, predictive analytics, facial recognition for security, and automated government services

Digital government services are revolutionizing public administration, with projects demonstrating dramatic improvements in service delivery (from weeks to minutes for business permits) and citizen engagement

Education and capacity building remain critical priorities, with winning projects serving millions of users through digital learning platforms and skills development programs

Cybersecurity and digital safety are essential foundations for digital transformation, requiring comprehensive education and awareness programs alongside technical solutions

Gender equality in digital access requires targeted interventions, as highlighted by projects addressing significant gaps in digital skills between boys and girls

Health digitization and agricultural technology are driving sustainable development, with projects improving healthcare access and farmer livelihoods through digital platforms

Resolutions and action items

Winners committed to expanding their successful projects to reach more communities and scale their impact globally

Continued collaboration with WSIS, ITU, and international partners to share best practices and replicate successful models in other countries

Ongoing development and enhancement of existing digital platforms based on user feedback and technological advances

Dedication to maintaining focus on underserved and rural communities in future digital development initiatives

Commitment to advancing gender equality and youth empowerment through digital technology programs

Unresolved issues

Specific mechanisms for knowledge sharing and collaboration between winning projects were not detailed

Long-term sustainability and funding models for the winning projects were not addressed

Scalability challenges and resource requirements for replicating successful projects in different contexts were not discussed

Measurement and evaluation frameworks for assessing the long-term impact of these digital initiatives were not established

Coordination mechanisms between different countries and organizations implementing similar digital solutions were not defined

Suggested compromises

N

o

n

e

i

d

e

n

t

i

f

i

e

d

Access to Internet shouldn’t be a privilege. Access to the Internet is a fundamental right. That opens doors to innovation, education, better living conditions, new opportunities, and equity.

Speaker

Teresa Gomez (Telefónica del Perú)

Reason

This comment reframes internet connectivity from a commercial service to a human rights issue, elevating the discussion beyond technical achievements to fundamental questions of social justice and equity. It challenges the audience to think about digital infrastructure not just as business or government initiatives, but as essential human needs.

Impact

This statement set a philosophical tone that influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize the human impact of their projects rather than just technical specifications. It established a framework where digital inclusion became the central theme, with later speakers consistently referencing serving underserved communities and ensuring ‘no one is left behind.’

This award belongs to the communities who have embraced digital skills for a better future, and to all Malaysians driving our vision of an inclusive, connected nation.

Speaker

Datuk Ahmad Fahmi bin Mohamed Fadzli (Malaysia)

Reason

This comment shifts the focus from government or institutional achievement to community empowerment and collective ownership. It demonstrates a participatory approach to digital transformation where success is measured by community adoption rather than top-down implementation.

Impact

This perspective influenced the narrative flow by emphasizing that digital transformation is ultimately about people and communities, not just technology. It reinforced the human-centered approach established earlier and encouraged other speakers to acknowledge their beneficiaries and communities more prominently in their acceptance speeches.

While geography may divide us, technology brings us together.

Speaker

Emily Delfin (Philippines)

Reason

This poetic yet profound observation captures the transformative power of ICT in overcoming physical barriers and social divisions. It articulates a core principle of digital inclusion – that technology can be a great equalizer that transcends traditional limitations.

Impact

This comment provided a unifying theme that resonated throughout the remaining presentations, with speakers from various countries echoing similar sentiments about technology bridging gaps and connecting communities. It helped establish a shared vision among the diverse group of winners about technology’s role in creating more equitable societies.

I would like to dedicate this award to all the farmers in Bhutan and farmers around the world for feeding us every day.

Speaker

Tenzin Rondel Wangchuk (Bhutan)

Reason

This simple yet powerful dedication shifts attention from the technology itself to the people it serves, specifically recognizing the often-overlooked contribution of farmers globally. It demonstrates how digital solutions should ultimately serve and honor the fundamental human activities they support.

Impact

This heartfelt dedication brought a moment of genuine human connection to the ceremony, reminding all participants that behind every digital innovation are real people whose lives and livelihoods are being impacted. It influenced the tone of subsequent speeches to be more personal and community-focused rather than purely technical or institutional.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by transforming what could have been a purely technical showcase into a meaningful dialogue about digital equity, human rights, and community empowerment. Teresa Gomez’s framing of internet access as a fundamental right established the philosophical foundation, while subsequent speakers built upon this theme by emphasizing community ownership, geographic inclusion, and recognition of end beneficiaries. The comments created a cascading effect where each speaker felt compelled to address not just what their technology does, but who it serves and why that matters for human dignity and social justice. This elevated the entire ceremony from a technical awards presentation to a collective commitment to inclusive digital transformation.

Summary

This discussion, organized by the Diplo Foundation, explored the convergences and differences between Chinese and Western educational systems in the context of artificial intelligence integration. The session was prompted by the emergence of DeepSeek AI and questions about how different cultural and philosophical traditions influence approaches to education and technology. Jovan Kurbalija from Diplo Foundation and Professor Hao Liu from Beijing Institute of Technology led the conversation, with Norman Sze from Deloitte joining remotely to provide industry perspective.

Professor Liu presented Beijing Institute of Technology’s approach to “intelligent education,” emphasizing human-centered learning that integrates five dimensions: space, knowledge, time, students, and teachers. He described their flexible academic system and efforts to move from traditional force-feeding education to more enlightening and innovative approaches. Norman Sze highlighted how AI is transforming professional consulting work, noting that tasks previously requiring weeks now take days, but emphasized that this shifts rather than eliminates human roles toward strategic insight and creativity.

The central question addressed was whether universities and professors remain necessary in an AI-dominated future. Student participants from various countries provided thoughtful responses, generally agreeing that educators remain essential but must evolve their roles. Key arguments included AI’s current limitations in symbolic interpretation and contextual reasoning, the importance of human emotional intelligence and mentorship, and the irreplaceable value of peer-to-peer learning and dialectical exchange.

Participants emphasized that professors should transition from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side,” focusing on coaching, critical thinking development, and helping students learn how to learn rather than merely transmitting knowledge. The discussion concluded that while professors have a secure future, they must fundamentally change their teaching approaches to remain relevant in an AI-enhanced educational landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **East-West Educational Philosophy Convergence**: The discussion explored differences and similarities between Chinese educational systems (rooted in Confucian traditions) and Western/European approaches (emphasizing critical thinking and creativity), with speakers examining how these philosophical foundations influence AI development and educational practices.

– **The Future Role of Universities and Professors in the AI Era**: A central debate focused on whether educational institutions and teachers will remain necessary as AI becomes more capable, with participants ultimately concluding that while roles must evolve, human educators remain essential for coaching, emotional support, and facilitating meaningful human interaction.

– **AI as Educational Tool vs. Replacement**: Participants discussed how AI should be integrated into education – not as a replacement for human learning but as a tool that requires new pedagogical approaches, emphasizing the need for students to develop critical thinking skills to evaluate AI outputs rather than passively accept them.

– **Transformation of Learning Methods and Assessment**: The conversation addressed how traditional educational practices like essay writing, memorization, and fixed-duration degree programs need to be reimagined in an AI-enhanced world, with suggestions for more flexible, competency-based systems and apprenticeship-style learning.

– **Development of Human-Centered Skills**: Speakers emphasized the growing importance of uniquely human capabilities such as creativity, ethical judgment, emotional intelligence, collaboration, and the ability to ask the right questions – skills that AI cannot replicate and that become more valuable in an AI-augmented world.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how educational systems should adapt to the AI revolution, particularly examining the cultural and philosophical differences between Eastern and Western approaches to education. The session sought to identify what can be learned from both traditions to create more effective AI-integrated educational models that prepare students for an AI-enhanced future while preserving essential human elements of learning.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and optimistic tone throughout, characterized by intellectual curiosity and constructive dialogue. Participants approached the topic with both excitement about AI’s potential and thoughtful concern about preserving human values in education. The tone was respectful of different cultural perspectives and remained consistently forward-looking, with speakers viewing AI as an opportunity for educational transformation rather than a threat. The interactive format encouraged open participation from students and professionals alike, creating an atmosphere of shared learning and mutual respect across cultural and generational boundaries.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jovan Kurbalija** – Director of Diplo Foundation, Professor at the College of Europe, works on interplay between technology and diplomacy, focusing on how AI and digital technologies impact diplomacy

– **Hao Liu** – Professor at Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT), involved in intelligent education initiatives and AI-augmented education

– **Norman Sze** – Former Chair of Deloitte China, Academician at Hong Kong University, Emirates Partner of Deloitte, has experience in professional service and consulting industry

– **Donis Sadushaj** – From ITU (International Telecommunication Union), organizer of AI for Good Summit, managing academic member of ITU

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including:

– Rui Yang from Singapore

– Jingjing – PhD student in law from Beijing Institute of Technology

– Babakar from Senegal, working in edtech

– Bao Zhenzhen – PhD student from BIT

– Ben – Student from University of Amsterdam, represents 40,000 students at his university and students at Epicure University Alliance

– Kong Miao-Ting – Postgraduate from BIT

**Additional speakers:**

– **Zhang Jun** – Professor mentioned as unable to join the session, works on AI and education

– **Zhang Ning** – Professor, former Secretary General for the Chinese Scholarship Council, supported Chinese students studying abroad and international students studying in China

# East-West Educational Convergence in the AI Era: A Cross-Cultural Dialogue

## Executive Summary

This discussion, organized by the Diplo Foundation, brought together educators, industry professionals, and students from diverse cultural backgrounds to explore how Chinese and Western educational systems are adapting to artificial intelligence integration. The conversation was prompted by recent AI developments, including DeepSeek AI, and broader questions about how different cultural traditions influence approaches to education and technology.

The session featured Jovan Kurbalija from the Diplo Foundation, Professor Hao Liu from Beijing Institute of Technology, Norman Sze from Deloitte China, and Donis Sadushaj from the International Telecommunication Union, alongside active participation from students representing Singapore, China, the Netherlands, and other countries. The discussion maintained a collaborative tone throughout, characterized by constructive dialogue across cultural and generational boundaries.

## Key Participants and Their Contributions

**Professor Hao Liu** (Beijing Institute of Technology) presented his institution’s approach to “intelligent education,” emphasizing human-centered learning that integrates five dimensions: space, knowledge, time, students, and teachers. He described efforts to transition from traditional “force-feeding” education models to more innovative approaches that foster creativity and critical thinking.

**Norman Sze** (former Chair of Deloitte China) provided industry perspective on AI’s impact on professional work, noting how consulting tasks that previously required six weeks now take 1-2 days. He emphasized that this shifts rather than eliminates human roles toward strategic insight and creativity.

**Donis Sadushaj** (ITU, organizer of AI for Good Summit) contributed insights on global AI coordination and maintaining human elements in AI-augmented systems.

**Jovan Kurbalija** facilitated the discussion, drawing connections between different cultural approaches to education and their implications for AI integration.

## Central Questions and Themes

### Will Universities and Professors Remain Necessary?

The discussion’s central question addressed whether educational institutions remain relevant in an AI-dominated future. Student participants provided particularly insightful perspectives, generally agreeing that educators remain essential but must evolve significantly.

Key arguments for continued relevance included:

– AI’s current limitations in symbolic interpretation and contextual reasoning

– The irreplaceable importance of human emotional intelligence and mentorship

– The unique value of peer-to-peer learning and collaborative exchange

– The need for meaning-making through human connection

As one student, Ben from the University of Amsterdam, bluntly stated: “I don’t care about ChatGPT, it’s not human.” This captured an essential truth about human motivation and engagement in learning.

### Cultural Approaches to Learning

The discussion explored differences between Chinese educational systems, rooted in Confucian traditions, and Western approaches that emphasize critical thinking and creativity. Norman Sze provided nuanced analysis of how Chinese education excels in knowledge transmission and character cultivation but sometimes limits creativity due to exam-oriented systems, while European education emphasizes student-centered pedagogy that nurtures curiosity and innovation.

Kurbalija highlighted the historical exchange of ideas between Europe and China, suggesting that understanding different cultural approaches could inform better AI integration strategies. He emphasized how Confucian emphasis on procedures and learning processes should complement rather than be replaced by modern efficiency-focused approaches.

### The Role of Struggle and Mistakes in Learning

Several students made insightful contributions about the irreplaceable value of making mistakes and experiencing struggle. Rui Yang from Singapore expressed concerns that AI assistance might prevent students from developing crucial skills that come from struggling through problems independently, noting that “true experimentation, true making mistakes” builds creativity and resilience.

Jingjing, a PhD student from Beijing Institute of Technology, reinforced this point: “Making mistake is very important in our life to interact with others and to become myself… making mistake is also important and AI can’t give us this opportunity.”

## Areas of Strong Consensus

### Transformation Rather Than Replacement

All speakers agreed that while universities and teachers remain essential, they must undergo significant transformation. The consensus emerged that educators should shift from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators, focusing on developing human capabilities that complement rather than compete with AI.

Professor Liu advocated for focusing on capacity building in five key areas: learning, execution, communication, leadership, and judgment-making. Norman Sze emphasized the transition to coaching roles that help students navigate information effectively and connect learning to real-world applications.

### Critical Thinking and Human-Centered Skills

There was strong alignment on the importance of developing critical thinking, creativity, and ethical judgment as essential competencies that AI cannot replace. Norman Sze outlined how AI literacy must include three core areas: critical thinking to evaluate AI outputs, creative collaboration skills, and ethical awareness of AI’s societal impacts.

### AI as Complementary Tool

Participants reached consensus that AI should be integrated as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human education. Professor Liu described how AI represents a paradigm shift requiring fundamental changes in educational approaches, moving from knowledge transmission to human-centered, integrative learning while preserving essential human elements.

## Implementation Challenges and Considerations

### Assessment and Academic Integrity

The discussion revealed practical challenges around maintaining academic integrity while encouraging ethical AI use. Kurbalija posed the fundamental question of how to prevent students from using AI inappropriately for assignments while simultaneously encouraging AI literacy development.

This prompted suggestions for alternative assessment methods, including replacing traditional essay writing with dialectical discussions and interactive formats that AI cannot replicate.

### Flexible Learning Systems

Professor Liu shared examples of how Beijing Institute of Technology is implementing flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces, including consideration of competency-based progression rather than fixed-duration programs.

However, questions remain about balancing individual progression with collaborative learning experiences and maintaining the intrinsic value of the learning process itself.

## Future Considerations

### Preparing for Rapid Change

An audience member raised the prospect of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) arriving within months or years, challenging participants to consider how current educational discussions would relate to such fundamental transformation. This intervention added urgency while highlighting the uncertainty of preparing for unknown futures.

### Cross-Cultural Learning Opportunities

The discussion revealed valuable opportunities for synthesis between Chinese and Western educational approaches. The combination of Chinese strengths in knowledge transmission and character cultivation with Western emphasis on creativity and critical thinking could inform innovative AI integration strategies.

## Key Takeaways

The session achieved remarkable consensus on fundamental principles while revealing important implementation nuances:

1. **Universities and teachers remain essential** but must transform from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators

2. **Human-centered skills** like critical thinking, creativity, and ethical judgment cannot be replaced by AI

3. **AI should complement rather than replace** human education, enhancing rather than eliminating human roles

4. **Cross-cultural learning** between Eastern and Western educational traditions can inform better AI integration

5. **The learning process itself has value** beyond efficient outcomes, including the importance of struggle and mistakes

6. **Flexible, competency-based systems** may be needed while preserving collaborative learning experiences

The discussion demonstrated that education’s future lies not in choosing between human and artificial intelligence, but in thoughtfully integrating both to create learning experiences that develop uniquely human capabilities while leveraging technological tools effectively. This balanced approach, informed by diverse cultural perspectives, offers a promising foundation for navigating educational challenges in the AI era.

Plans for continued dialogue include follow-up sessions on AI, governance, education, and philosophy, reflecting participants’ commitment to ongoing cross-cultural collaboration on these critical challenges.

Jovan Kurbalija: Good afternoon. Welcome to our session. My name is Jovan Kurbalija. I’m director of Diplo Foundation. And there is a short history of this session. It was a discussion between Wu Hao and myself on the convergences and differences between Chinese educational system and, let’s say, Western or European educational systems. I was triggered to this topic by the question of the deep seek and the logic behind deep seek. Deep seek moment on 20th of January was important not only because of the new platform, new LLM, but it introduced different way of thinking and different way of programming. Therefore, I got curious. And then we were discussing it. And we said, OK, why not organize the session with so many young people and some colleagues that we have been knowing for each other and discuss what are these differences, convergences, what we can learn from each other. Because you, especially younger colleagues, you will be interacting with your colleagues from the United States, Europe. Europeans and Americans will interact with their Chinese colleagues. And what are these deeper, probably cultural influences related to the deeper Confucianism or, let’s say, ancient Greek tradition in Europe with Aristotle, Plato, and other thinkers? Are these differences noticeable? Are they important? How should we deal with them? And ultimately, how should we prepare our educational system for changes ahead of us? Basically, changes triggered by use of artificial intelligence. We’ll ask you later on if you are using AI a lot for writing your essays. You can give us honest answers. but that’s an interesting issue of the use of AI in the teaching process. That would be more or less my three minutes of setting the stage, a bit of history, and the idea is what we agreed with, how to have a very interactive discussion today and to hear from you about this critical issue for our future, for your future as young people, our future

Hao Liu: a bit older, but also future of our societies. I think you may give a short, a brief introduction of the Diplo because not everyone is very familiar with the Diplo. It’s a good time to let them know more about the Diplo. And then I will take the floor and after that I will let Norman give his presentation together with the introduction of his team. I thought that everybody at Beijing Institute of Technology knows everything about Diplo. We also have

Jovan Kurbalija: some students from the other universities of China. No, I’m joking, I’m joking. Okay, Diplo Foundation works on interplay between technology and diplomacy, how AI and digital technologies are impacting diplomacy and vice versa. And we do it by providing training, by providing also research, and by providing development of tools, concrete tools. If you go to our website, www.diplomacy.edu, you can find many agents on multilateral diplomacy. I think on Confucius, on Dostoyevsky, on Shakespeare and other things. And you can start interacting and seeing it. Therefore, this is the main idea, how to use AI in order to improve diplomacy, but also philosophy, and to make ultimately a better world, where we can negotiate and more hear to each other, listen to each other, than to have a conflict, tensions and fights, which unfortunately are not missing in the modern world. Therefore, this is the key idea, how to use technology to improve diplomacy, concretely, how to use artificial intelligence in the exercise. Thank you, Juven.

Hao Liu: And today we have Juven, Norman, myself, and we also have a professor, Zhang Jun, even he cannot join us. and AI augmented education. I think both of them should be focused on the mind enlightening. It is not to tell you to gather skills to do some very boring work. It is, well, with AI, compared with previous version of tools education, it will be not only driving force. It will be a potential pre-liberalization. It will be the really game changer for the education. Well, what characters AI education will have? It is first driven by the changing dynamics and the new trends. Compared with the left, that the traditional education, intelligent education will be more focused on the human. So we put the student in the center and we will integrate the space. That is a three dimension, together with the knowledge and the time. The five dimensions needed to be well integrated to serve the people. So intelligent education is the new version of a human-centered education. So with such idea, we are more focused on not the knowledge points, not just isolated knowledge. We are putting the knowledge to be well integrated so the chemical change will happen. And not only focus on the curriculum, your major, the discipline. Roles are created by the people. We need to consider that from a knowledge domains. So the knowledge needed to be well connected. They needed to be well implemented by the human creature. So there are, as I mentioned, there are five dimension education. All of them needed to be, will be changed by the science and technology. Will be changed with a new concept and will be changed with the interaction between the professor and the student. So we are also introducing the gaming practice to make that to be more protective and effective than the traditional education. We changed that in BIT to introduce a flexible academic system. So now we are working on the seven years of PhD. And it is not just only for a small group of people. We consider if that we have a successful practice, we wanted to let more people spend less time, but to be super competent in the job market. So with such intelligent education, we are changing the force-feeding, constrained, isolated education to be enlightening, to be innovative and integrative. So such a practice is not happening just within one or three years. It had happened in the past three decades with three generations of leaders, the three presidents of the university, which are from 19, I think that started from 1995 to 2025. Three decades past, we are working all the time for the evolving of this practical, of this intelligent education. With such a practice, our students not only win in the competition. They are more innovative. They are also working on entrepreneurship, not only the competition, innovation, entrepreneurship. And we also set up a school of global governance, providing the multidisciplinary education is an integration of management and the law. So they are working on the science, diplomacy, and the governance. Next week, we will come to Geneva again, and we also have one session will be provided by the diplo. So in the BIT, we built up the AI brain for the education system. We have a series of online digitalized courses, and we built our supercomputer system to support that. We are not keeping everything only in BIT. We are going with higher education, institute, association, and the other platform to circulate, to share with our counterpart. So we consider that BIT is just one source of the Chinese intelligent education. So that is why we want to share our practice, a lesson we have learned, so that we may get your comments, your inspiration. you may also take whatever successful experience from BIT. That is the end of the presentation from my side, and now I would like give the floor to our colleague, Norman. Norman was a former chair of Deloitte China, and he’s also the academician in the Hong Kong University, and he’s Emirates partner of Deloitte. But today, he wanted to share his experience

Jovan Kurbalija: because he had experience in the education system, in the practicing, in the industry. And his background is kinds of connection of Europe and China. So it’s also connection between the industry and the education. So Norman, the floor is yours. Unfortunately, he can only join us remotely. Thank you, Professor Liu.

Norman Sze: Thank you for introduction. It’s my honor to join this forum and share insight from perspective of professional service and consulting industry. Of course, AI already shaping how we work, but in turn, we should think about how the market, how the society, how the industry link to the education. Now, let me start first with a concrete example from Deloitte. A decade ago, a strategic consulting project required team of consultants spending six weeks on data collection and analysis. Today, AI tools actually accomplish the same task in one or two days. This isn’t about replacing consultants, but it’s about shifting the roles. It’s also rely on more senior experts to provide strategic insight while AI handles routine analysis. This paradigm shift is spreading across industries. As educators, we must ask, how do we prepare students for workforce where AI augments, but it doesn’t replace human creativity, ethics, and critical judgment? The answer slides if we imagine education through a global lens. I think it’s about the alignment between the industry and also the education. So, let’s close from the World Economic Forum. that AI literacy must transcend traditional IT skills. It’s about cultivating three perspectives. Critical thinking to evaluate AI outputs, not just accept them. Creative collaboration to harness AI for meaningful problem solving, and also ethical awareness to navigate AI social impacts. This mirrors our dynamic in business. We embrace AI efficiency while fearing unforeseen risk, and education must equip learners to balance these imperatives. So from China education philosophy, which I also received quite a couple from Hong Kong. So the model is more rooted in Confucian philosophy, excels in knowledge transmission and character cultivations. It’s emphasized on foundation skills as a produced generation of students with strong quantitative skills. However, this tradition shaped by exam-oriented systems has sometimes cyanide creativities and independent thinking. So thankfully, now, which Professor just mentioned, is actively forming policy, more now prioritizing innovation over memorizations. So pushing the schools to integrate AI to foster critical inquiries. From new perspective, which I also serve, quite a few European clients, thrice in the heuristic student-centered pedagogy. Curriculum, encourage classroom-based and crowd-based learnings into disciplinary projects, nurturing curiosity and creativities. Like for example, Historia’s top PI essay rankings in creativity thinking reflect these echoes. And of course, the new AI literacy framework underscores the focus on teaching students to critique AI, collaborate with ethically and question its societal role and model tools in decades of critical thinking training. So what are doing, what they’re doing? So my observation is that from China, some schools already integrates AI cross-teachings from lesson learning, planning, assessments, and also the prime students start to engage AI literacy activities, but the high schools is now. to tackle the interdisciplinary projects, exploring the AI in the life-saving labs. Of course, from New York, we see the observation like Estonia’s national AI-led programs grants 50,000 students and 5,000 teachers free access to cutting-edge AI tools. This co-plays a goal is to replace, memorize, repeat, apply with more high-ordered skills for focus on the deep thinking and non-critical compliance. So what I’m seeing from a global one, for education industry, a few things we need to reconfirm this. We need to integrate algorithmic thinking, data literacy, and machine learning basics. And also, we need to develop holistic skills development, not just the coding prompt engineering, but more human strengths like empathic, empathy, ethical judgment, and teamwork. These are all irreplaceable in AI-driven world. So the China scale and policy execution complement your expertise in critical pedagogy. Okay, so by collaborating on AI literacies, curriculum, teacher training, and ethical guidelines, I believe, I personally believe that we can craft an educational model that blends Eastern rigor and Western innovation. So in closing, AI is not a threat, but a catalyst. Our task, especially from educator, is to ensure education and empower students to be AI-moral stewards and creative architects, not passive users. So today, and I’m confident that China and Europe can lead this transformation for the next generation and the world. Oh, this is my short observations. Also, Professor Liu, thank you.

Hao Liu: Thank you, Norman. Yuvin, shall we start through the question to our student, or we may ask whether they have any comments for a presentation from Norman and Mr. Zhang? You may decide.

Jovan Kurbalija: Definitely, just building on one comment, let’s say, thinking conveyor belt across Euro-Asia. There was one moment which is very important. In 1984, when- and Deng Xiaoping started his reform. One of the most translated book and the publish was Max Weber’s book on Protestantism and Capitalism. Explaining the value basis of the capitalism, it was very popular book for thinkers and policy makers. Therefore, that conveyor belt between Europe and China has been moving both ways. And I think that’s what we just heard is important to see how we can make that conveyor belt function today. Since Marco Polo, via Weber and other things, ideas were moving, not only goods, not only silk, but also ideas. How to organize society, how to learn, how to develop dynamics. That is the context. If we can go in this short session to a bit of gist on the main findings of this conveyor belt. What is it today? How to make critical thinking? Should we learn by heart? Does it make sense to write essays today when AI can generate good essays? Should we drop the narratives, which are very important? How to develop virtue, which is one of the important parts of Confucian legacy. And these are many issues which could sound abstract, but they are boiling down to the way how we write the code, how we interact, and how we develop companies and society. That’s just, let’s say, trigger for you to think about that conveyor belt, which is going across Eurasian space for centuries, and which is now accelerating between ideas converging. Well, I guess. Okay. Can I have a question?

Hao Liu: Yes, we open the floor, first of all, the comments, and then we will serve you with challenging questions. If you have any comments, you don’t feel shy. And today we are also quite lucky to have Professor Zhang Ning. who was a former Secretary General for the Chinese Scholarship Council. He supported so many Chinese students to study abroad and also for the international students to study in China. Thank you so much for all of your contribution today. Also bring a group of students to join our discussions. Thank you, you are more than welcome and we will be very happy to have your insightful comments or the closing remarks later. So if we don’t have any comments right now, we would like to raise questions to let our students to answer the question. I see the room is dominating by the young generation. This is really nice. So, Yuvin, you may kick the floor to ask some questions. Because when I teaching in the university,

Jovan Kurbalija: all the time I raising questions, so- We have hands over there, but you think on a question. Do we need teachers and universities? Yes, it’s a, you know why I’m not asking that question. And don’t answer with yes or no. Give us the reason for yes, hopefully, and also reasons for no, if you find it. But we have question over there, yeah. Thank you very much.

Audience: I have a quick question, I guess, to the panels and the presenters. I think a lot of the comments in my view relate to probably the use of artificial intelligence as we know it today. Depending on who you listen to or speak to, artificial general intelligence, AGI may be here in a number of months, maybe two, three, four, five years. Looking at what scholars and scientists say about artificial general intelligence, this will completely change how we interact as humans. humanity. We do not know what that may look like. But my question is, how do the comments that have been shared, the very valuable comments that have been shared by the panelists, relate to the fact that we may have AGI with us in the next couple of months or midterm future? How would that relate to how we continue to discuss on education and learning? Thank you.

Hao Liu: Yes, thank you so much for the question. This question is quite well connected with the question from you, is that whether we still need a professor or the teachers in the school or the university. So if AI can play that role better than me, and I think we also have some professors, and I got the microphone from my colleague, a professor. So we would be very happy to get the answers, opinions, perspective from our students.

Jovan Kurbalija: Maybe just a quick comment. AGI is a possibility and there are, as you know, many discussions, but what I’m seeing, we will have even bigger challenges ahead of us. But today we have a challenge. I’m professor at the College of Europe. How can I ensure that my students are not using AI for drafting their essays? And on the contrary, I insist that they use AI, because to ask them not to use the AI would be unethical. That’s basically the world. But how to change education system? Do we need professors? Do we need the university? And that’s a challenging question. Maybe we can hear a few quick comments on this question. Do we need university and professors? You have the answer.

Audience: Hi, everyone. My name is Rui Yang. I’m from Singapore. I just have a more fundamental question about the role of education and university. I think you’d mentioned a lot in the presentation about the role of AI in… and fostering critical thinking. But I think there are other softer skill sets like creativity or resilience that you want to imbue in university students. And I think the role of AI providing prompts, this might take away from true experimentation, true making mistakes, that you can sort of build the strength of becoming more creative or becoming more resilient. So I do think that perhaps I’m not sure about the use of AI in some of these contexts, whether it’s actually, you know, preventing sort of the building of some of these more softer skill sets that would also be important in the workforce, yeah.

Jovan Kurbalija: Therefore, you’re not, you’re posing the question and not answering our question if we need professor. Rhetorical question. Yeah, good. Okay, I think that’s a very vital point. My argument is, yes, we can, but our educational system has to be, pedagogy has to be profoundly changed. For example, at Diplo, we are using AI apprenticeship. You know, if you think about grand wall pyramids, all artifacts in the history of the humanity that were developed, they’re developed not by engineers, they were developed by apprentice and masters, students who are learning by doing. And I think we have to get back to that paradigm of learning AI by developing AI. And in that context, by engaging with AI, asking questions, probing, commenting on the answers, checking the logic of the large language models, we can sharpen our thinking on the higher level, not anymore just by memorizing things, but engaging with somebody who is very knowledgeable on the other side, with the help of professors. Hopefully there will be a need for the university.

Norman Sze: These are questions actually from, as I’m a consultant, especially very often that we compare between the professors. and trained consultants. The difference is to connect in the world, the real world, what it’s like. So the professor roles in the past is more to lecturing, to share the knowledge, but now it’s more to connect the world, to connect the people, and also to coach in a way to help the student to think in different ways, and to really to ask the right questions, to help them to stimulate, how even to leverage the AI or the other tools. So this is where we see that, especially when now I’m the coach of a lot of startup companies and entrepreneurs, and I found it’s the challenges, the even of the AI is still not able to just to change the world. The world is always changing and changing. So how to work on this part, and this is exactly the role of professors, they need to upgrade themselves, not just lecturing the past knowledge, but also to help them to ask questions linked to the AI, the real world, and the students. And this is where I see the value of the professors in the future.

Audience: Jingjing, you can take the floor. Hello, hello, my name is Jingjing, and I come from Beijing Institute of Technology. I’m a PhD student in law, and I have two reason to explain why the teachers or the university cannot be replaced by AI. And the first reason is, I’m sorry, the first reason is in the technological, existing evidence has shown that AI have three major shortcomings, and the one is the symbolic interpretation. The second is combinatorial reasoning, and the third is the application of contextual rules. And these limitations in showing us that the AI still falls short of human, and this give us opportunity to effectively acquire new skills more brilliant than the AI. So I think this is the one reason why the university or the professors cannot be replaced by AI. And the second reason is that I think the education, or the role education is not only to teach how to correct knowledge, but also give us the opportunity to make mistake. I think make mistake is very important in our life to interact with others and to become myself. So I think this is the place that AI cannot place a performance too well, because it has organized the system, the knowledge system, and it shortened the experience or the process that we thinking. So in the second reason is making mistake is also important and AI can’t give us this opportunity. And this is my opinion. Thank you.

Hao Liu: Okay, thank you. Don’t tell me that you want all of the professors

Audience: to quit our job. So far we are doing well. I won’t be doing that. So hello everyone. My name is Babakar. I’m from Senegal. I’m in edtech. So we are providing education for people in remote areas. And when it’s done, we have that insight there. Okay, they have the information now, but the key insight is they don’t know how to use it. So that’s why I’m saying the role of the teacher now will be changing because you’ll have to teach them how to learn because that’s the key. People are having access to a lot of information right now. Information is accessible everywhere. But now the key skills is like, okay, is it how to treat it, how to find, how to look for it, how to have the right data. And I really like the use of the word coach because the professor will be now a coach to help the student to. know how to learn, how to use the data to actually provide with, I mean, how can I say it? Outcomes, good outcomes. And yeah, you are still needed.

Hao Liu: OK, thank you. I see. OK. OK.

Audience: Hello, everyone. My name is Bao Zhenzhen. I’m also the PhD student of BIT. In my education before, there is student AI tools. So I think maybe at first, I can understand the feelings of the teachers. And also, I can have the understanding with the students. And also, during my TA experience at BIT, I found there is a point that there is a shift or switch in the thoughts of the students. They put the emphasis on the efficiency instead of the knowledge storage, because they have a lot of classes. It is a fact. So I think maybe there is a challenge for universities or teachers to think how to do or modify the training program, especially for the undergraduates. And I think the traditional program is not, I think, more good for the students or something else. So I think it’s quite a challenge. But I still think teachers play a very important role in the education, because the AI tools now, they can’t give the lead to the students. It’s more like answer and question. But teachers could give their suggestions in the daily life and face-to-face. So that’s my opinion. Thank you.

Hao Liu: Thank you, and we give the floor to that gentleman.

Audience: I think there are two dimensions to answer this question straight on. One is, is it the? the right time to ask this question. And AI has not sunk in with the intensity, which we feel that there should be enough of intensity among the large communities or so, so that they can evaluate what are the likely advantages or disadvantages or so. So I would say, I think this is a little premature. Maybe we have to allow a few years. The second part is, and that’s more a personal opinion. I think with the AI, because it is much more sharing of knowledge in a non-guided way, peer-to-peer learning is likely to become center stage, rather than somebody as a guide and somebody being taught. And probably the role of teachers or professors may evolve more as evaluators or assessors, rather than the facilitators to get knowledge or the competence. That’s more a personal opinion.

Jovan Kurbalija: Would you summarize it that teachers are moving from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side? It’s very difficult to react to such strong questions.

Audience: I think it is much more to see, put yourself, put the mindset as if you are already in 2035 or 2040, how education by that time, AI applications, everything would have matured. So people will not look forward to a classroom or classroom type of setting. I think they will reach out everywhere. Even now, if you see the knowledge gathering is not really waiting for somebody to tell you. You go to internet, your Wikipedia, this, that, this thing, and you really collect that information. And that’s likely to increase a lot. And that time it will be competence-based, this thing. And since the mic is with me, I want to pose one, not a question, but one thing to consider. If you see most of the universities. have defined a certain duration for learning, you must spend three years to take this examination to qualify. Students have a different pace of learning. I think some will learn in six months what the other may not be able to learn in nine months or so. With this AI kind of a, what you call as an acceleration, there will be a time when the universities will have to revisit, should they really prescribe a duration or should they prescribe a set of competencies to be really evaluated whether a person qualifies for that degree or not.

Hao Liu: Before I move on, I wanted to share my comments. In the BIT, we are introducing the flexible academic system. We try to reduce or make that to be flexible because I agree with you, different students may have a different pace of learning. So some people may run faster. That’s why we let them to wait. But we also need to consider that they need also to learn how to collaborate, how to play the team game. Yes, you are running fast, but you are working in the community. So you needed to know how to working together with the other people. So that’s why we will keep, not only let them, okay, they may finish in two or three years for the PhD, but what I can tell you that in the history, we do have people, they go directly for the PhD degree. They finish that in a very short period of time, which is even unbelievable in the current high education system. If we, rows of predecessors make that happen in the history, why? We have hesitation in the university, reject the application of some faster runners to have that PhD degree earlier. So for me, I’m even considering in the SGG, we are considering if the university will approve and we don’t have big regulation barriers, we are considering the student that’s not necessary to attend. attend the lecture or the courses. They may go directly for the examination. If you can finish the examination, whether it’s oral or in written, you demonstrate that you are competent for that part already. You don’t need to attend the lecture anymore. We are keeping good quality assurance, but we are reducing, we are not letting the student waste their time. So this is what we want to bring. And I’m also very happy with the idea from Norman. The professors are sometime more coaching, but we will invite Norman to give, to share his ideas later. And we gave the floor to this young gentleman first.

Audience: Hello? It works, cool. Hi, my name is Ben. I am a student from the University of Amsterdam. I’m on the side of that. I also represent 40,000 students of my university. We good? All right, cool. I also represent the students of my university at the Epicure University Alliance. So to your question of whether universities will be necessary or not, my answer is going to be quite close to what you just mentioned. Yes, but it needs to be reformed. Question is what should universities be for? Now, currently we’re seeing some changes already happening. If you look at, for example, the United States, where you have Palantir pulling students, in like high school students into their company, instead of letting them go into university first, we can see that in some sectors. So for example, anything that has to do with technology, university might become less relevant education-wise. That’s a prediction of mine. I’m not saying that’s going to happen, but I do think it is. But I myself, I’m from the humanities and social sciences. So honestly, you all probably know way better than I, than me, what’s going to happen with that. But speaking for the humanities and social sciences, I believe that writing essays, for example. or has a really practical educational purpose, which is you teach students how to make an argument, right? That’s what the essay is for. Even in your field, I believe it’s, you’re trying to convince others of what you just found, your invention. Now, perhaps it’s true that essays indeed can be written now by Chadjipiti or DeepSeek, but this means that we should be looking for another way to do the same thing, to make an argument, to learn how to make an argument. And I believe that we can do that through means of dialectics, for example. And this very space, I believe it reflects that. You just ask the question, people are responding. People ask different questions to other people. And that’s the beauty of a university, isn’t it? Just, you know, speaking. Chat GPT can’t do that. Like, Chat Gpt, you can ask it, you know, you can write a prompt, say, hey, I’m a student, teach me something, ask me a question, I’m gonna argue to you why I am right, or why I’m confused. That’s not gonna work, because I don’t care about Chadjipiti, it’s not human. So eventually, what this comes down to, I believe, is, you know, meaning making. It’s because through human interaction, we make meaning. And that’s why I’m responding to you right now, and I wouldn’t be responding to Chadjipiti, and that’s why this whole thing is happening. And that’s the beauty of it, I believe. Thank you.

Jovan Kurbalija: Lovely, lovely point. Just one idea for, especially our colleagues from China. One in the Confucius underlying theme is basically rituals or procedures, I’m simplifying it, including in the learning process. Therefore, this element of efficiency, pass exam, do something, which is now obsession of the modernity, which is very tricky, should be complemented, but bit of Confucius thinking where you have a procedures and routine. regardless, this is a key, regardless the outcome. Which means that you will have a process of writing essays. I completely agree, developing narrative arguments is critical, but maybe not necessarily that you produce essays and send to professor, which a GPT of deep sea can do, but to have a process through which you are developing narratives. This is just idea to borrow a bit of thinkers, especially Confucius, and to think of this procedural-based narrative and developing essays, for example, very concretely speaking. Just as an idea for the, and I agree, it’s lovely exchange and that cannot be replaced by AI or anything else.

Hao Liu: Yes, before we give the floor to the young lady, Norman, whether you have any ideas you want to share, I assume you wanted to share something.

Norman Sze: Yes, yes, I think you just asked about the coaching, I think especially now, because when we look at this AI, the knowledge output, it’s challenging right now, is that whether our students or professors have the critical thinking to evaluate the AI outputs. And they also, and they seem to have to be more collaborative, especially in the world, now we call ecosystem. So it’s not just about output, but it’s also about how the use of AI, the knowledge, the outputs, how to really create the collaboration for meaningful problem-solvings. In addition, of course, ethical awareness. So the coaching skills are much important than others, especially, for example, now I’m working on a couple of these coaching for the startup companies, for the students when they will have a startup. So this is more, the roles of the professor, the knowledge, the shifting, not providing knowledge in the past, so technical knowledge, but more on the soft skills side that they need to work together with the students. I think that is where I’m seeing the changes of the roles and the context of the education.

Hao Liu: Thank you, Norman. You may take the floor.

Audience: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Kong Miao-Ting, and I’m a postgraduate from BIT. And I also agree with the idea that the university, the professors are still necessary, even in the era of AI, because the way we engage with AI is by giving prompts or asking questions, but teachers, human teachers, can find or answer the questions that aren’t asked by the students. The human teachers can observe or find the subtle emotional changes of the students, like they are a flicker of confusion, or they are hesitation, all the sadness behind the students. So, but the AI can never find these subtle changes, but these subtle changes just showcase the fundamental lack of knowledge of the students. So this is very important, but this is a vital points of lack for the AI. Yeah, thank you.

Hao Liu: And before we move on to take any question or comments, I wanted to invite Doreen from ITU, who is the organizer for the whole event. He is also managing academic member of ITU. We have a good teamwork, and every year he’s receiving our students to the ITU, and based on your interaction with the university, with academic member of ITU, probably I know you have some insight you want to share. Please, Donis. Thank you. I’m not sure if you can hear me. Doesn’t have the light on.

Donis Sadushaj: So thanks a lot for the presentations, and thank you for welcoming ITU here. As you know, we are organizing the AI for Good Summit, so we want all the teachers to stay with us because we’re here for good. We don’t want any job losses, and it’s true, we welcome academia and the research institutions in the ITU, and everybody is welcome to interact with our work. Just a personal reflection, this is not the position of the ITU. On your question about teachers and students and universities, whether they should stay or not and be replaced by the AI, as a former student of, as a graduate in law and in diplomacy, I am very much in favor of the human touch. I cannot say that the AI should replace the professors and the teachers, because it’s all about the emotions. When you study law or if you ask somebody or if you ask AI to teach you the negotiations rules, if you’re a teacher or a trainer on negotiations, I don’t think AI can do that. If you are training a class or if you are training a group of professionals or a group of diplomats, you need a good negotiator and you don’t need Chad Chibiti or the deep seek. So AI, I personally, I see AI as a complimentary tool for the professors and the teachers and also the students, not to replace the human touch, but to help professors and students to facilitate their lives and not to replace them. So I think we cannot do anything without universities, same as ITU cannot do anything without the academia members. So thank you very much for your presentation today. This is very valuable. And also thank you to Norman for joining online. Very good insights. Thank you. Thank you, Donis.

Hao Liu: And I think it’s a time for the closing remarks. And before we take the time, we gave priority to Norman, whether you want to have any short closing remarks, please. Yes, we can take a, yes.

Norman Sze: Norman, Norman, please, okay, one minute. Sorry, sorry, a couple of observations. First of all, of course, we all agree that the professor can be inevitable, that you have the importance of such an existence of professors and teachers. Secondly, the roles of professors, as I said, it changed the roles and the perspectives and also I’m seeing this alignment between the industry needs and educations and how to really train the people which would meet the requirements. demand in the market, in the industry. So these are a few things that I see that is changing the application of AI in the industry and application of AI in the education industry. So that is where we need to be hard to view and also to integrate the whole ecosystems as a whole. And of course, it’s also leverage as I said, between the Europe and China, I think a lot of the leverage we can really work together to provide a more great framework for the education industry.

Hao Liu: Thank you so much, Jovan, please.

Jovan Kurbalija: Good news, professors will have a future. Bad news, they have to change yesterday, the way of teaching and the way of engagement. And I think that would be basically the gist of everything. Many open issues, how to write essays, coaching as a tool, apprenticeship that we use a lot at our system by learning by doing. But generally speaking, exciting time, especially for young people, where many given systems and approaches are challenged, where new approaches are not yet in the place and you will have a lot of chances to innovate, create and have fun. Thank you, I think in the last few minutes,

Hao Liu: I wanted to say that the professors are not teaching or not just circulating the knowledge, we are working on the capacity and the capability building. The following five capabilities, abilities are quite important for you. The ways that you know how to learn, how to executive, how to communicate, how to lead and how to make a judgment. We do have people that are hardworking, but they have a terrible life because they don’t know how to make the right judgment. Well, we also today we have only 45 minutes, we cannot accept more questions, more ideas. But tomorrow between two to 5pm, we will have one more event, we will discuss the AI and the governance, education and the philosophy. Well, for those of who does not have opportunity to register, you may contact us, we will try to know whether we can make that. possible. If you miss that opportunity, don’t worry, because in August, between August 7th to 17th, we will have the first-ever pilot AI philosophy caravan. We will spend 10 days in China, from a capital region, Beijing, and to Shanghai, Hangzhou, Jiaxing, and then to Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Zhuhai. So for that 10 days, we will travel and we will meet different people in China. We will talk about everything connected with AI. We have people from different parts of the world, have different cultural and philosophical backgrounds, and we hope to see you there. You can join us for more information. Our team is available. Thank you so much for your time to join us, to make this session to be your session, to make it really interactive, and I hope to see you during this week, and we can have a more enjoyable conversation later. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you, Norman. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you.

Agreement points

Universities and teachers remain necessary but must fundamentally transform their roles and methods

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija
– Donis Sadushaj
– Audience

Arguments

Professors should focus on capacity building in five key areas: learning, execution, communication, leadership, and judgment-making

Teachers must transition from ‘sage on the stage’ to coaches who help students learn how to learn and navigate information effectively

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based to critical thinking and creativity-focused approaches to complement AI capabilities

AI serves as a complementary tool that facilitates learning rather than replacing the essential human elements of education

Universities remain necessary because they provide human interaction, meaning-making, and collaborative learning that AI cannot replicate

Summary

All speakers agreed that while universities and teachers will continue to be essential, they must undergo significant transformation. The consensus is that educators should shift from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators, focusing on developing human capabilities that complement rather than compete with AI.

Topics

Online education | Capacity development | Human rights principles

AI should be integrated as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human education

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija
– Donis Sadushaj

Arguments

AI represents a paradigm shift requiring fundamental changes in educational approaches, moving from knowledge transmission to human-centered, integrative learning

AI tools dramatically increase efficiency in professional work, requiring educators to prepare students for AI-augmented rather than AI-replaced roles

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based to critical thinking and creativity-focused approaches to complement AI capabilities

AI serves as a complementary tool that facilitates learning rather than replacing the essential human elements of education

Summary

There was strong consensus that AI should augment rather than replace human education. Speakers agreed that AI integration requires fundamental pedagogical changes while preserving essential human elements of learning and teaching.

Topics

Online education | Future of work | Human rights principles

Critical thinking and human-centered skills are essential in an AI-driven educational environment

Speakers

– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija
– Audience

Arguments

AI literacy must include critical thinking to evaluate AI outputs, creative collaboration, and ethical awareness of AI’s societal impacts

Education should focus on developing uniquely human strengths like empathy, ethical judgment, and teamwork that remain irreplaceable in an AI-driven world

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based to critical thinking and creativity-focused approaches to complement AI capabilities

The challenge lies in teaching students how to effectively use AI tools while maintaining their ability to think critically and creatively

Summary

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of developing human-centered skills, particularly critical thinking, creativity, and ethical judgment, as essential competencies that AI cannot replace and that become more valuable in an AI-integrated world.

Topics

Online education | Human rights principles | Capacity development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for flexible, personalized education systems that accommodate different learning paces while maintaining the importance of human guidance and collaborative learning. They both emphasize the coaching role of educators in helping students navigate AI-enhanced learning environments.

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Norman Sze

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Teachers must transition from ‘sage on the stage’ to coaches who help students learn how to learn and navigate information effectively

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the value in different cultural approaches to education and advocate for learning from both Eastern and Western educational philosophies. They see potential in combining the strengths of both systems – Eastern foundational rigor with Western creativity and critical thinking.

Speakers

– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

Chinese education, rooted in Confucian philosophy, excels in knowledge transmission and character cultivation but sometimes limits creativity due to exam-oriented systems

European education emphasizes student-centered pedagogy and interdisciplinary projects that nurture curiosity and creativity

Confucian emphasis on procedures and rituals in learning should complement modern efficiency-focused approaches

Topics

Cultural diversity | Online education | Interdisciplinary approaches

Both advocate for moving away from rigid, time-based educational structures toward more flexible, competency-based systems that recognize individual learning differences while maintaining quality standards and collaborative elements.

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Audience

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Future education may shift toward competency-based rather than duration-based degree programs

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

The necessity of maintaining procedural and ritual aspects of learning despite AI efficiency

Speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija
– Audience

Arguments

Confucian emphasis on procedures and rituals in learning should complement modern efficiency-focused approaches

Universities remain necessary because they provide human interaction, meaning-making, and collaborative learning that AI cannot replicate

Explanation

It was unexpected to find consensus on the importance of maintaining traditional learning processes and rituals, even when AI can produce faster results. This suggests a recognition that the learning process itself, not just outcomes, has intrinsic value for human development.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Online education | Human rights principles

The importance of allowing students to make mistakes as part of the learning process

Speakers

– Audience
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

The challenge lies in teaching students how to effectively use AI tools while maintaining their ability to think critically and creatively

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based to critical thinking and creativity-focused approaches to complement AI capabilities

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the value of inefficiency and mistakes in learning, contrasting with typical discussions about AI’s efficiency benefits. This highlights a sophisticated understanding that struggle and error are essential components of human learning and development.

Topics

Online education | Capacity development | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several key points: universities and teachers remain essential but must transform their roles from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators; AI should complement rather than replace human education; critical thinking and human-centered skills are crucial; and flexible, competency-based educational approaches are needed. There was also unexpected agreement on preserving traditional learning processes and the value of allowing students to make mistakes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with remarkable alignment across speakers from different cultural and professional backgrounds. The implications suggest a shared vision for AI-integrated education that preserves human elements while embracing technological enhancement. This consensus provides a strong foundation for developing collaborative approaches to educational reform that bridge Eastern and Western pedagogical traditions.

Different viewpoints

Pace and timing of AI integration in education

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Audience

Arguments

AI represents a paradigm shift requiring fundamental changes in educational approaches, moving from knowledge transmission to human-centered, integrative learning

The timing for major educational reforms may be premature, requiring more time for AI to mature before making fundamental changes

Summary

Hao Liu advocates for immediate and comprehensive AI integration with fundamental changes to educational approaches, while audience members suggest it may be premature to make major educational reforms before AI technology matures sufficiently in large communities

Topics

Online education | Future of work

Balance between efficiency and learning process

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Jovan Kurbalija
– Audience

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Confucian emphasis on procedures and rituals in learning should complement modern efficiency-focused approaches

The challenge lies in teaching students how to effectively use AI tools while maintaining their ability to think critically and creatively

Summary

Hao Liu emphasizes efficiency and flexible pacing in education, Jovan Kurbalija advocates for maintaining procedural learning processes regardless of outcomes, while audience members worry that efficiency-focused approaches might compromise essential learning experiences like making mistakes and experimentation

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

The role of mistake-making in learning

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Audience

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

The challenge lies in teaching students how to effectively use AI tools while maintaining their ability to think critically and creatively

Explanation

While both sides support maintaining human elements in education, there’s an unexpected tension between Hao Liu’s emphasis on efficiency and flexible progression versus audience concerns that AI-assisted learning might prevent students from experiencing necessary failures and mistakes that build resilience and creativity

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most speakers agreeing on core principles like the continued need for human teachers and universities, the importance of AI literacy, and the necessity of educational reform. The main disagreements centered on implementation approaches, timing, and the balance between efficiency and traditional learning processes.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on fundamental principles but differing views on implementation strategies. This suggests a constructive foundation for collaborative educational reform while highlighting the need for careful consideration of cultural differences and the pace of change in AI integration.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for flexible, personalized education systems that accommodate different learning paces while maintaining the importance of human guidance and collaborative learning. They both emphasize the coaching role of educators in helping students navigate AI-enhanced learning environments.

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Norman Sze

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Teachers must transition from ‘sage on the stage’ to coaches who help students learn how to learn and navigate information effectively

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the value in different cultural approaches to education and advocate for learning from both Eastern and Western educational philosophies. They see potential in combining the strengths of both systems – Eastern foundational rigor with Western creativity and critical thinking.

Speakers

– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

Chinese education, rooted in Confucian philosophy, excels in knowledge transmission and character cultivation but sometimes limits creativity due to exam-oriented systems

European education emphasizes student-centered pedagogy and interdisciplinary projects that nurture curiosity and creativity

Confucian emphasis on procedures and rituals in learning should complement modern efficiency-focused approaches

Topics

Cultural diversity | Online education | Interdisciplinary approaches

Both advocate for moving away from rigid, time-based educational structures toward more flexible, competency-based systems that recognize individual learning differences while maintaining quality standards and collaborative elements.

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Audience

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Future education may shift toward competency-based rather than duration-based degree programs

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Key takeaways

Universities and professors remain essential in the AI era, but must fundamentally transform their roles from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators

AI should be viewed as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human educators, enhancing rather than eliminating the educational process

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based learning to developing critical thinking, creativity, and uniquely human skills like empathy and ethical judgment

There are valuable opportunities for cross-cultural learning between Chinese (Confucian-based) and European (student-centered) educational approaches

AI literacy must encompass three core areas: critical thinking to evaluate AI outputs, creative collaboration skills, and ethical awareness of AI’s societal impacts

The pace of learning varies among students, suggesting a need for flexible, competency-based rather than duration-based educational programs

Human interaction and meaning-making through dialogue remain irreplaceable elements of education that AI cannot provide

Teachers must develop new competencies in coaching students on how to learn, execute, communicate, lead, and make sound judgments

Resolutions and action items

Beijing Institute of Technology is implementing flexible academic systems allowing students to progress at different paces

BIT is considering allowing competent students to skip lectures and go directly to examinations if they can demonstrate mastery

A follow-up session on AI, governance, education and philosophy is scheduled for the next day (2-5pm)

An AI Philosophy Caravan is planned for August 7-17, traveling through multiple Chinese cities to continue these discussions

Universities should integrate AI tools across teaching, assessment, and student engagement while maintaining quality standards

Educational institutions need to develop new frameworks that blend Eastern rigor with Western innovation in AI literacy curriculum

Unresolved issues

How to effectively prevent or manage student use of AI for essay writing while maintaining academic integrity

The timeline and specific methods for transforming traditional pedagogical approaches to accommodate AI integration

How to balance efficiency gains from AI with the need for students to experience the learning process, including making mistakes

The potential impact of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) on education, which may arrive within months or years

How to maintain collaborative learning experiences while allowing students to progress at individual paces

Specific assessment methods that can effectively evaluate student competency in an AI-augmented learning environment

The long-term viability of traditional degree structures and university business models in an AI-driven world

Suggested compromises

Adopt an ‘AI apprenticeship’ model where students learn by engaging with AI tools under professor guidance, similar to traditional master-apprentice relationships

Maintain procedural and ritual elements from Confucian educational philosophy while incorporating modern efficiency and innovation

Use AI to handle routine analysis and data processing while focusing human educators on strategic insight and creative problem-solving

Implement hybrid approaches that combine the knowledge transmission strengths of Chinese education with the creativity-fostering methods of European systems

Allow flexible academic progression while maintaining collaborative learning requirements to develop teamwork skills

Replace traditional essay writing with dialectical discussions and interactive formats that AI cannot replicate

Focus on developing both technical AI literacy and soft skills that remain uniquely human

Looking at what scholars and scientists say about artificial general intelligence, this will completely change how we interact as humans. We do not know what that may look like. But my question is, how do the comments that have been shared… relate to the fact that we may have AGI with us in the next couple of months or midterm future?

Speaker

Audience member

Reason

This comment was insightful because it challenged the entire premise of the discussion by introducing the concept of AGI as a potential game-changer that could make current educational debates obsolete. It forced participants to think beyond current AI capabilities to a fundamentally different future scenario.

Impact

This question created a pivotal moment that shifted the discussion from theoretical educational philosophy to urgent practical concerns. It prompted Jovan to acknowledge current challenges while admitting the uncertainty of AGI’s impact, and led to the central question of whether professors and universities are still needed.

I think the role of AI providing prompts, this might take away from true experimentation, true making mistakes, that you can sort of build the strength of becoming more creative or becoming more resilient… I’m not sure about the use of AI in some of these contexts, whether it’s actually preventing sort of the building of some of these more softer skill sets

Speaker

Rui Yang from Singapore

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified a fundamental paradox in AI-assisted education – that efficiency and assistance might actually undermine the very struggles and failures that build character and resilience. It challenged the assumption that AI assistance is universally beneficial.

Impact

This observation deepened the conversation by introducing the concept that educational struggle has intrinsic value. It influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize the importance of human coaching, emotional intelligence, and the irreplaceable value of making mistakes in the learning process.

I think make mistake is very important in our life to interact with others and to become myself… making mistake is also important and AI can’t give us this opportunity

Speaker

Jingjing, PhD student in law from BIT

Reason

This comment was insightful because it articulated a profound philosophical point about the role of failure in human development and identity formation. It suggested that perfection or efficiency isn’t the goal of education – human growth through imperfection is.

Impact

This comment reinforced and expanded on Rui Yang’s earlier point about the value of struggle, creating a thread in the discussion about the irreplaceable human elements of education. It helped establish a consensus that AI should complement rather than replace human learning experiences.

Chat GPT can’t do that. Like, Chat Gpt, you can ask it… That’s not gonna work, because I don’t care about Chadjipiti, it’s not human. So eventually, what this comes down to, I believe, is, you know, meaning making. It’s because through human interaction, we make meaning.

Speaker

Ben, student from University of Amsterdam

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it identified the fundamental human need for meaningful connection and the role of emotional investment in learning. The blunt statement ‘I don’t care about ChatGPT, it’s not human’ captured an essential truth about human motivation and engagement.

Impact

This comment provided a powerful emotional and philosophical anchor for the discussion, emphasizing that education is fundamentally about human meaning-making. It influenced Jovan to connect this insight to Confucian philosophy about rituals and procedures, deepening the cultural and philosophical dimensions of the conversation.

With this AI kind of acceleration, there will be a time when the universities will have to revisit, should they really prescribe a duration or should they prescribe a set of competencies to be really evaluated whether a person qualifies for that degree or not

Speaker

Audience member

Reason

This comment was insightful because it challenged one of the most fundamental structural assumptions of higher education – the time-based degree system. It suggested that AI acceleration might require a complete reimagining of how we measure and validate learning.

Impact

This observation prompted Hao Liu to share BIT’s flexible academic system and their consideration of competency-based evaluation, showing how the comment connected directly to real institutional innovations. It shifted the discussion from theoretical to practical institutional reform.

The human teachers can observe or find the subtle emotional changes of the students, like they are a flicker of confusion, or they are hesitation, all the sadness behind the students… these subtle changes just showcase the fundamental lack of knowledge of the students

Speaker

Kong Miao-Ting, postgraduate from BIT

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified the sophisticated emotional intelligence required in teaching – the ability to read non-verbal cues and emotional states that reveal learning gaps. It highlighted the irreplaceable human capacity for empathy and emotional perception.

Impact

This comment added a crucial dimension to the discussion about human irreplaceability in education, focusing on emotional intelligence and non-verbal communication. It reinforced the emerging consensus about the unique value of human teachers while providing specific, concrete examples of what AI cannot replicate.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by creating a progression from existential questioning to philosophical grounding to practical solutions. The AGI question created urgency and forced participants to confront fundamental assumptions. The comments about mistakes, meaning-making, and emotional intelligence established a philosophical foundation for human irreplaceability in education. The structural questions about competency-based learning pushed the conversation toward concrete institutional reforms. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a simple pro/con debate about AI in education into a nuanced exploration of human nature, learning psychology, institutional design, and cultural values. The discussion evolved from defensive positioning about the future of education to a more confident articulation of what makes human learning uniquely valuable, while acknowledging the need for significant pedagogical adaptation.

How can we ensure students are not using AI for drafting their essays while simultaneously encouraging them to use AI ethically?

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Explanation

This represents a fundamental pedagogical challenge in the AI era – balancing the prevention of academic dishonesty with the practical necessity of AI literacy in modern education

How do the educational approaches discussed relate to the potential arrival of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in the near future?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

AGI could fundamentally transform human-AI interaction and learning, requiring a complete reconsideration of current educational frameworks and approaches

How can education systems balance AI efficiency with the development of softer skills like creativity and resilience that come from making mistakes and true experimentation?

Speaker

Rui Yang (Singapore)

Explanation

There’s concern that AI assistance might prevent students from developing crucial soft skills that come from struggling through problems independently

Should universities prescribe fixed durations for degrees or should they focus on competency-based evaluation regardless of time taken?

Speaker

Unnamed audience member

Explanation

AI acceleration of learning suggests traditional time-based degree structures may become obsolete in favor of competency-based assessment

How can universities develop alternative methods to essay writing that still teach students how to make arguments and engage in critical thinking?

Speaker

Ben (University of Amsterdam)

Explanation

With AI capable of writing essays, new pedagogical methods are needed to develop argumentation and critical thinking skills

How can the alignment between industry needs and education be improved in the context of AI transformation?

Speaker

Norman Sze

Explanation

The rapid pace of AI adoption in industry requires educational institutions to better understand and respond to changing workforce requirements

How can European and Chinese educational approaches be integrated to create a framework that combines Eastern rigor with Western innovation?

Speaker

Norman Sze

Explanation

Cross-cultural educational collaboration could leverage the strengths of different pedagogical traditions to address AI-era challenges

What specific methods can be developed to teach students critical evaluation of AI outputs rather than passive acceptance?

Speaker

Multiple speakers (Norman Sze, others)

Explanation

As AI becomes more sophisticated, developing critical thinking skills to evaluate AI-generated content becomes increasingly important

Summary

This UNESCO session focused on Action Line C7 concerning e-learning advancements and progress made over the past 20 years since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The discussion centered on transforming education in the era of artificial intelligence and addressing the challenges posed by disruptive technologies like generative AI. Tawfik Jelassi, UNESCO’s Assistant Director General, emphasized that educational institutions cannot simply ban AI tools like ChatGPT, but must instead adapt and leverage these technologies responsibly. He argued that teachers must evolve from being knowledge deliverers to facilitators who share personal experiences, guide discussions, and help students develop critical thinking skills that AI cannot replicate.

The speakers highlighted the importance of bridging educational gaps across geographical, gender, technological, and linguistic divides to ensure inclusive access to quality education. Anthony Wong from IFIP discussed their partnership with UNESCO on sustainable digital education initiatives, particularly focusing on training teachers and developing computational thinking skills among students aged 5-18. The session emphasized the need for open educational resources (OER), with UNESCO’s 2019 recommendation serving as a foundational framework for sharing knowledge globally. Cable Green from Creative Commons addressed the challenges AI poses to the commons, introducing CC Signals as a framework to maintain reciprocity between content creators and AI developers.

Multiple speakers stressed the importance of maintaining human-centered approaches to education while integrating AI tools ethically and responsibly. The discussion concluded with audience questions about skills frameworks, open-source software in education, and the need for better engagement with young learners through private sector partnerships. Overall, the session underscored the complex transformation required in educational systems to harness AI’s potential while preserving human dignity and ensuring equitable access to quality education for all.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Transforming Education in the AI Era**: The discussion emphasized moving beyond traditional “reform” to complete transformation of educational systems, addressing how teachers’ roles must evolve from knowledge deliverers to facilitators of critical thinking and dialogue, especially with the rise of generative AI tools like ChatGPT.

– **Open Educational Resources (OER) and Digital Commons**: Speakers highlighted UNESCO’s 2019 recommendation on OER and the importance of openly licensed educational materials, while addressing new challenges posed by AI systems that may scrape and reuse content without proper attribution or reciprocity.

– **Bridging Educational Gaps and Ensuring Inclusion**: The conversation focused on addressing multiple divides – geographical, gender-based, linguistic, technological, and financial – to ensure equitable access to digital education, particularly in regions with teacher shortages and limited infrastructure.

– **Teacher Training and Capacity Building**: Multiple speakers stressed the critical need for comprehensive teacher training programs to help educators effectively integrate AI and digital tools while maintaining human-centered approaches to learning and developing students’ soft skills.

– **Hybrid Learning Models and Sustainability**: Discussion of practical implementation strategies including blended learning approaches that combine online and in-person instruction, along with the need for policy continuity and sustainable funding models for long-term success.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to review 20 years of progress on WSIS Action Line C7 (e-learning) and gather community feedback for the WSIS+20 review process. The session focused on how UNESCO and partners are addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by AI and digital technologies in education while maintaining human-centered, ethical, and inclusive approaches.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional and collaborative tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating cautious optimism about technology’s potential while acknowledging significant challenges. The tone was forward-looking and solution-oriented, emphasizing partnership and cooperation. During the Q&A session, the tone became more practical and urgent as participants shared real-world implementation challenges, particularly regarding student engagement and the need for private sector partnerships, while maintaining the overall constructive atmosphere.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Davide Storti** – Session facilitator/moderator for Action Line C7 on e-learning, UNESCO

– **Tawfik Jelassi** – Assistant Director General for Communication and Information at UNESCO

– **Anthony Wong** – President of IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing)

– **Shafika Isaacs** – Chief of Section for Technology and AI in Education at UNESCO

– **Cable Green** – Director of Open Education at Creative Commons

– **Zeynep Varoglu** – Senior Programme Specialist in charge of e-learning at UNESCO, Senior Program Specialist at the Communication Information Sector

– **Paul Spiesberger** – From ICT4D.at

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dr. Nabi** – Faculty member for Modan, founder of a curriculum focused on safe device usage and ethical AI education

– **Kathleen** – From Project Ivy (nonprofit from Romania that teaches IT skills)

– **Unnamed audience member** – From Egypt, inquiring about AI skills framework

– **Unnamed audience member** – Policy Analyst at Access Partnership (tech policy consultancy)

# UNESCO Action Line C7 E-Learning Session: Transforming Education in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

## Executive Summary

This UNESCO session, facilitated by Davide Storti, focused on Action Line C7 concerning e-learning advancements and progress made over the past 20 years since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The discussion examined how educational systems must transform to address challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. Key stakeholders from UNESCO, international organisations, and civil society explored how educational institutions must evolve beyond traditional approaches to embrace comprehensive transformation in the AI era.

The session emphasised that educational institutions cannot simply ban AI tools like ChatGPT, but must instead adapt and leverage these technologies responsibly while maintaining human-centred approaches. Speakers highlighted the critical importance of bridging educational divides—geographical, gender-based, technological, linguistic, and financial—to ensure inclusive access to quality education globally.

## Opening Remarks and UNESCO’s Vision

### Tawfik Jelassi’s Keynote Address

Tawfik Jelassi, UNESCO’s Assistant Director General for Communication and Information, delivered the keynote address establishing the session’s foundation. He argued that technological advancement, particularly in artificial intelligence, represents an unstoppable force that educational systems must embrace rather than resist. “Nobody can stop technological advances. Nobody can fight it. We better make the best out of it,” Jelassi stated.

Jelassi argued that the traditional role of educators as knowledge gatekeepers has become obsolete in the digital age. “A professor cannot be anymore the owner of truth and knowledge, cannot anymore meet students to say here is the definition of concept A and B and C, and here is the way to achieve that. The system is better than us, more updated, more thorough,” he explained. This shift requires educators to evolve from knowledge deliverers to facilitators who share personal experiences, guide discussions, and help students develop critical thinking skills.

The Assistant Director General emphasised that AI democratises access to knowledge through continuous learning opportunities. However, this transformation must be accompanied by a shift in educational philosophy from content delivery to teaching students “how to learn” rather than engaging in rote memorisation.

### Addressing Educational Divides

Jelassi identified several critical gaps that must be addressed to ensure equitable access to digital education:

– **Geographical Divide**: Rural and remote areas often lack necessary infrastructure for effective e-learning implementation

– **Gender Divide**: Women and girls continue to face barriers in accessing digital education

– **Technological Divide**: Availability and quality of technological infrastructure vary significantly across regions

– **Financial Divide**: Cost of devices, internet connectivity, and digital educational resources remains prohibitive for many learners

– **Linguistic Divide**: While there are over 8,000 languages spoken worldwide, only 120 are represented in cyberspace

– **Disability Divide**: Accessibility barriers prevent learners with disabilities from fully participating in digital educational opportunities

### Open Educational Resources Framework

Jelassi highlighted UNESCO’s 2019 recommendation on Open Educational Resources (OER), implemented in more than 35 countries, as the first UN normative instrument linking technology and education. He argued that OER can serve as both substitute for and complement to traditional classroom education, particularly in areas experiencing teacher shortages. He proposed rotation systems where students could combine classroom instruction with e-learning platforms to address demographic increases and resource constraints.

## International Partnership Perspectives

### IFIP’s Contribution to Digital Education

Anthony Wong, President of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), provided insights into their partnership with UNESCO on sustainable digital education initiatives. Wong focused on training teachers and developing computational thinking skills among students aged 5-18, emphasising the critical role of educator capacity building.

Wong delivered a direct assessment of current teacher preparedness: “The weakness is our teachers. We need to upgrade the skills of our teachers, especially if we are going to succeed to create a good digital workforce globally.” He identified teachers as the primary bottleneck in digital education transformation.

IFIP’s approach, outlined in their Stockholm Declaration, emphasises training digital trainers and developing computational thinking skills. Wong stressed that teachers must be equipped with both technical skills and pedagogical knowledge necessary to facilitate learning in digital environments. The organisation offers technical expertise through working groups to support policy implementation globally.

### UNESCO’s Policy Framework for AI in Education

Shafika Isaacs, Chief of Section for Technology and AI in Education at UNESCO, provided insights into the organisation’s approach to developing policy guidance for AI implementation in educational settings. Her presentation emphasised that UNESCO’s work focuses on equity, inclusion, and social justice within AI-enabled education systems.

Isaacs stressed that UNESCO develops policy guidance on AI in education with a focus on human rights and human-centred approaches. This framework recognises that while AI can enhance educational opportunities, it must be implemented in ways that protect learner privacy, promote inclusivity, and maintain human dignity.

The UNESCO framework addresses the need for international cooperation and network building as fundamental to sustainable educational transformation. Isaacs highlighted that educational transformation requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors, institutions, and stakeholders.

## Open Educational Resources and Digital Commons

### Creative Commons and AI Challenges

Cable Green, Director of Open Education at Creative Commons, addressed complex challenges that AI poses to the educational commons. He introduced a critical concern: while AI has potential to democratise knowledge, it might actually restrict access by enclosing the commons through unregulated use of openly licensed content.

Green explained that “an unchecked AI ecosystem is starting to lead to the enclosure, not the expansion of the commons.” This concern stems from AI systems that scrape and utilise openly licensed educational content without providing reciprocal benefits to creators or the broader educational community.

To address this challenge, Creative Commons has developed CC Signals, a framework designed to maintain reciprocity between content creators and AI developers. The framework includes four key elements that ask AI companies to provide something in return for commons creators.

### UNESCO’s OER Implementation

Zeynep Varoglu, Senior Programme Specialist in charge of e-learning at UNESCO, provided insights into practical implementation of OER frameworks and their intersection with AI technologies. She emphasised that OER must be openly licensed, not just free resources, to allow proper access, reuse, adaptation, and redistribution.

Varoglu explained that effective OER implementation requires proper legal frameworks, specifically Creative Commons licensing, and normative instruments to ensure resources can be legally shared, adapted, and redistributed. She highlighted that educational ecosystems require multi-stakeholder efforts including knowledge institutions, broadcasting companies, and traditional educational bodies working together.

Varoglu mentioned UNESCO’s ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, which provides capacity building support for educators working with technology. She also addressed the Dubai Declaration, which specifically addresses AI’s impact on OER, including considerations of machine learning attribution and discoverability.

## Audience Engagement and Questions

### Student Engagement Challenges

Kathleen, representing Project Ivy, a nonprofit from Romania that teaches IT skills, shared observations about student engagement. She noted that “the young people, namely, for example, high schoolers do not want to engage with that… Recently I partnered with some private initiatives like Google Developer Groups or UiPath and things like that, and I do not have to sell anything to them because they come very easily to these courses, because being children, they are very attracted to the brand.”

This observation highlighted a disconnect between policy frameworks and student preferences, revealing that young people are often more attracted to private sector brands than traditional educational initiatives.

### Curriculum Development for AI Ethics

Dr. Nabi, a faculty member and founder of a curriculum focused on safe device usage and ethical AI education, offered to provide curriculum resources for teaching safe and ethical AI use across all school grades to UNESCO. This contribution emphasised the practical need for structured approaches to AI ethics education.

### Skills Framework Development

An audience member from Egypt raised questions about developing skills frameworks for AI, particularly for designing training programmes to address job displacement and new job creation. IFIP agreed to follow up with Egypt on developing AI skills frameworks for training programmes.

### Open Source Software in Education

Paul Spiesberger from ICT4D.at raised questions about whether UNESCO’s commitment to open education extends beyond content to include software infrastructure that supports educational systems. Varoglu responded by highlighting UNESCO’s work on software heritage projects focusing on software source code.

## Key Themes and Commitments

### Teacher Capacity Building

Multiple speakers identified teacher training and capacity building as critical factors in successful educational transformation. The discussion revealed that while technological tools are becoming increasingly sophisticated, the human element of education requires significant investment and support to adapt to new paradigms.

### Human-Centred AI Integration

Speakers consistently emphasised the need for human-centred approaches to AI integration in education. All agreed that AI should enhance rather than replace human educators, with technology serving to amplify human capabilities rather than substitute for human judgment and empathy.

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Speakers agreed that educational transformation requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors, institutions, and stakeholders. This includes traditional educational institutions, technology companies, civil society organisations, and international bodies working together toward common goals.

## Concrete Outcomes and Follow-Up Actions

The session generated several concrete commitments:

– IFIP agreed to work with Egypt on developing AI skills frameworks for training programmes

– UNESCO committed to continuing provision of policy guidance and capacity building support to member states on AI in education implementation

– Zeynep Varoglu committed to sharing links to UNESCO’s ICT Competency Framework for Teachers and the OER Dynamic Coalition

– Dr. Nabi offered to provide curriculum resources for teaching safe and ethical AI use to UNESCO

– Creative Commons committed to continuing development of the CC Signals framework for AI-commons reciprocity

– IFIP scheduled additional sessions during WSIS week on education case studies and AI professional standards

## Conclusion

This UNESCO session demonstrated both the complexity and urgency of educational transformation in the AI era. The discussion revealed consensus on fundamental principles—human-centred AI integration, teacher capacity building, educational equity, and international cooperation—while highlighting significant challenges in practical implementation.

The session’s most valuable contribution was its honest acknowledgement of the gap between educational policy frameworks and practical realities, particularly regarding student engagement with traditional versus private sector educational initiatives. The concrete commitments made during the session provide a foundation for continued collaboration and progress on educational transformation challenges.

The path forward requires continued dialogue, experimentation, and collaboration among all stakeholders committed to ensuring that educational transformation enhances human dignity and social justice while leveraging technological capabilities to improve learning opportunities for all learners globally.

Davide Storti: Good afternoon. We are going to have videos today so please enjoy. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming to this session which is a session on the Action Line C7 on e-learning which UNESCO is facilitating and we will be discussing different advancements that have been the progress made on the Action Line of course in the 20 years because this is the point of the session. But as Action Line facilitator we are very much interested in also hearing from you the key messages maybe we should close the door. Key messages for the review itself because we want to of course provide the feedback from the community for the review. So without further ado we have a number of, we have Mr. Tawfik Jelassi Assistant Director General for Communication and Information at UNESCO and we have also colleagues online joining from Paris, Madame Zeynep Varoglu Senior Programme Specialist in charge of e-learning and we have the experts like Mr. Anthony Wong here who is the President of IFIP, the International Federation for Information Processing. We have Mr. Cable Green also joining online for the Director of Creative Commons and Mr. Tafika Isaacs she’s the Chief of Section for Technology and AI in Education at UNESCO. So thank you for coming and I would like to give you the floor Mr. Taufik for some remarks. Thank you Davide.

Tawfik Jelassi: At the end of the previous session I was told that I have given a fiery message. I’ll try to give a subtle message now. The less hot than a few minutes ago and the topic is less hot since we talk about e-learning Action Line 7 which is one of the six Action Lines that UNESCO is the lead implementer of in the context of WSIS. So thank you Mr. Taufik for the of WSIS. So thank you for coming to this session. I’m very pleased to join you. And of course, when you talk about e-learning, we talk about the broader context is transforming education. What is education in an AI era? What is the role of a professor or a teacher? Who owns knowledge? What is e-learning? How do we assess students when in an era of CGPT, when any homework is done by the CGPT and the like? So of course, I mean, that’s why we say it’s not how to reform education, it’s how to transform education in the face of disruptive technologies like generative AI. So I think we all agree here that we have to mitigate the risk, but of course, I mean, some schools, I hear them saying or some eduficials, yeah, we are going to forbid the use of CGPT in the classroom. For me, that is making a losing bet. Nobody can stop technological advances. Nobody can fight it. We better make the best out of it. And this is an old discussion. We saw in 1991, when the Internet became a reality, some countries has forbidden the access to the Internet. And I cannot, my position does not allow me to mention some countries by name, but we know today, the Internet is permitted in those countries who initially opposed Internet or closed the national gateway to the Internet. So again, nobody can stop technological advances. We have to acknowledge a new technological reality and make the best out of it. A professor cannot be anymore the owner of truth and knowledge, cannot anymore meet students to say here is the definition of concept A and B and C, and here is the way to achieve that. The system is better than us, more updated, more thorough. anytime, anywhere learning. I think a professor should share personal experiences, benchmarks, best practices, engage in facilitating a dialogue, reaching a synthesis. It cannot be found on chair GPT. So we have to stand back and say, what is unique to us? How can we, as a professor, as a teacher in an educational setting, how can we bring or enhance or bring about a unique learning value that cannot be found elsewhere? So when we talk about e-learning, yes, e-learning is there. It’s a reality. I can give you examples. The Open University in the U.K. has been around for decades. It has graduated hundreds of thousands of students. And the Open University is fully based on e-learning, fully. No physical classroom experience. This is way before. So there is a reality that has been accelerating lately because of the sophistication of these technologies. And the good news is in places, in countries, in villages where there are not enough schools or not enough teachers, technology and e-learning can be the substitute or complementary to interactions with students. Sometimes you can have a rotation system. Students go to that school and to the classroom two or three days a week, and then you rotate the professor to teach other groups for the rest of the week because you don’t have enough teachers to cater to a large volume of students, especially in Africa where you have demographics increasing by 25% per year. So we don’t have an increase of teachers by 25% per year. We don’t have new schools opening by 25% per year. e-learning could be a way through this alternated model. Pupils go some days to school, some other days they continue through e-learning. So it’s not black or white. It’s not necessarily fully e-learning online or fully in presencia. It could be a hybrid mixed way. And I think what we are talking about as to be able to educate the masses, to give a chance to everybody. And then the teacher or the professor has to focus on the facilitation of discussions, of a group work, of argumentation, developing a critical mindset, a number of things that cannot be done taking into account the specific societal cultural issues of that region, of that country, et cetera, that Chad, GPT or the others cannot really master. Let me here mention one of the contributions that UNESCO has been making since 2019. 2019 is the year when our 193 member states have voted the UNESCO recommendation on open educational resources. In the previous session, I mentioned the legitimacy of states to agree on normative instruments and standards. So this is one of them. The 2019 UNESCO recommendation on open educational resources, today implemented in more than 35 countries worldwide. So of course, this marked a historical step as the first United Nations normative instrument that links technology and education. And we had this past November in Dubai, we had the third OER World Congress, the third Congress on open educational resources on the theme of digital public goods, open solutions and AI for inclusive access. to knowledge. One thing that we all agree upon, I believe, is that technology not only has democratized access to information, but has democratized access to knowledge. Certainly generative AI systems have helped democratize access to knowledge to every student, but also every adult through continuous learning and vocational training. So this is something very important. Also, the 2021 Global Declaration on Connectivity for Education is another major milestone to advance global digital education policies. Clearly, we talk about policies. We are not talking about governance. We are not talking about regulation. We are talking about education policies that leverage the power of technology and try to strengthen the learning value that we, at the end of the day, deliver to the learners. And obviously, this contributes to building an open, inclusive, technology-enabled learning ecosystem. I mentioned the learner and the teacher-professor, but these are only of the stakeholders in an educational and learning ecosystem. So we have to ensure that digital technologies are used purposefully, responsibly, and ethically. This is also why I mentioned in the previous session, but I’m going to repeat it, the importance of the 2021 UNESCO recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. When we talk about the chair, deputy, or others, we are talking about generative AI. And obviously, these digital technologies have must be used also ethically towards achieving inclusion in the educational landscape. And obviously, this requires quite a multi-stakeholder effort to achieve the end result. So, And the end result is partly to bridge the educational gap that we find not only across countries, but within a single country. And the gap is geographical. The gap is gender-wise. I mean, I can tell you even today, I used to be minister of higher education, research and technology there. Even today, if you go to rural areas, you see a major dropout of girls going to school. At the teenager age, they drop out. They don’t continue their education. So the gap is gender gap. It’s geographical gap. It’s technology gap. It’s access to information gap. It’s financial affordability gap. You say, e-learning, you need a device. You need subscription to the internet. Can I afford it? Well, we know very well that it costs quite a bit to buy such digital capabilities, to subscribe to an internet access, and the like. So I think at the end of the day, we want to bridge this gap. We want to be inclusive, regardless of the set of location, regardless of gender. Disability as well. We have to think of persons with special needs, to whom we need to cater to. The slogan of the UN, leave no one behind. How about people with disability, when we design e-learning and educational systems? So this is something. There is another dimension that will be very brief. I’m about to close, Davide. The linguistic divides. In what language are we offering online content? In the world, there are over 8,000 languages. Over 8,000 languages. How many of them are present in cyberspace? 120. How about the others, who don’t speak English, or French, or Spanish, or Chinese, or Arabic, or whatever? If they have a language, or the language they master are not represented online or the educational content is not present in cyberspace, they are excluded from e-learning. So there is also that item which is very, very important and I would say the sustainability issue and the continuity of direction. Sometimes, again I know what I’m talking about, you have a minister of education or certain government officials who push e-learning, who push the use of technology to transform education and then comes another minister or another high-level government saying no, no, no, back to in presencia, classroom-based, school-based, we need continuity of direction if we want to achieve some impact. This does not happen overnight. This at best works medium-term but certainly long-term and therefore that’s why the continuity of direction is very important. So at the end of the day, we really want to have this more inclusive, more cooperative approach, deeply grounded in the principles of equity, openness and empowerment and also co-creation. Again, the technology on one side, the human being, the educational expert on the other side and let me close by quoting the UN Secretary General, Mr. António Guterres, who once said, let’s commit to keeping humanity at the center of education system for everyone, everywhere and I think this is very important if we put the human, we put the learner at the center of what we do. Learner-centered education approach, whether it is through e-learning or in hybrid, very important. So we are at a pivotal point, we are at crossroads. Technology is there, it allows many things. We need to transform not only education, we need to transform mindsets of learner, of teacher, of education policy makers if we want really to achieve or to make education and a truly common digital public good for all. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you, Mr. Jelassi, for this comprehensive presentation. It reminded us a number of the issues that are still there. And this is, I think, very important at the eve of the WSIS 20 review. And I’d like now to give the floor to Mr. Wang.

Anthony Wong: Thank you, Davide.

Davide Storti: Before, I just wanted to tell that we have been working together on some of these issues, particularly on the issues of how to learn how to have information development in a school curricula and to get, for example, informatics in school. So we have already worked, good experience to work with IFIP and get their knowledge in terms of reaching out to the certain age of a group of stakeholders in terms of education. I think you are going to tell us a little bit more on this. Thank you.

Anthony Wong: Thank you, Davide, Assistant Director General Taufik Gelassi, and co-speakers online from UNESCO, and distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to thank UNESCO for our partnership and for inviting me today to this very important session on education. And I’d like to draw on the IFIP intervention, looking at some of the work that we’ve been doing in the last two years will support this UNESCO initiative, starting with the 2025 Stockholm Declaration that the IFIP board agreed to in Stockholm just in April this year. And then the results of our task force on sustainable digital inclusive education for young people, working with UNESCO over the last two years. And then finally, about our TC3 work on AI and education. So those are the quick summary that I’d like to do in my quick intervention in four minutes. So thank you very much. But before I start, I’d just like to brief the audience, who is IFIP? For those of you know, IFIP was actually established in 1960 under- the auspices of UNESCO. So it has a very distinguished lineage, and I think it’s one of the early reasons why UNESCO created IFERB, because if you look at the technical committee education, it’s technical committee three. So it started very early in its history. We are based in Austria, near Vienna, and we have consultative status with UNESCO, obviously. And recently, we got back our consultative status with UNEDO, after many years of absence, and with UNTAC. So the mission of IFERB is very progressive for what we’re looking at in this particular time and challenges with emerging technology. I don’t know exactly who drafted it, could be UNESCO, but we have to look at the archives in UNESCO. Because for what we’re looking at, it says, the mission of IFERB, to achieve worldwide professional and social responsible development and application of ICT. That’s a very, very big mission statement. And if you look at all the sessions that we’re talking about here at WSIS and IFERGOOD, I think half of them is about what that mission’s about. So I’m very glad that we’re in a position to do that and to work closely with UNESCO. And also, I’d like to congratulate UNESCO on the mission, starting with the ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, and also more recently, the AI Competency Framework for Teachers and Students. I’ve read some of the reports, and I think they’re very excellent. And what I’d like to do in my next intervention is to look at how in the work that we’re doing at IFERB, support those reports as mentioned and as published. So starting with the Stockholm Declaration that we just did in April, the board had a workshop with our society in Sweden, and one of the few… bullet points that I’ve listed all relate to digital skills, and particularly the second bullet point talk about train the digital trainers, the teachers. And that you will see will also appear in our task force report as a major feature. And I think UNESCO and IFIP, I think we are all singing the same song. The weakness is our teachers. We need to upgrade the skills of our teachers, especially if we are going to succeed to create a good digital workforce globally. And I think we all know we are short of digital skilled people within the public service, in private enterprise, especially in artificial intelligence and in all walks of life. So this particular initiative that we just launched was highly supportive of this UNESCO initiative. And I’m now going to turn to our next part, which is on the task force. In 2022, when I became president of IFIP, the first task force I created was called Sustainable Digital Education for 5 to 18 year olds. I noticed we’ve got a few students here in the room. I’m sure you’re older than five, but I’m sure you’re between five and 18. I think in this area, I appointed our chair of our technical committee three education, Don Passi, Professor Don Passi from Lancaster University. I think he’s online. He chaired this task force for two years to look at what’s needed for this particular important area on education. With him was a panel from Sri Lanka, Australia, from Africa, from Europe, all got involved in coming up with this report. And I’d just like to mention quickly the five key findings from this report, which you can read online at your leisure. But particularly, I want to draw on particularly the fourth point, because as I mentioned, it also talks about developing teachers, which closely mirrors the report from UNESCO. And I think we aren’t seeing, because as I said, we’re created by UNESCO and have been working with the education section for a very, very long time. So rather than deliberate on the different factors, you can see for yourself, aspiration, number one, diversity inclusion, which is also in the UNESCO mandate and report, computational thinking, teaching our teachers to teach our students how to think rather than just regurgitate from the books and materials that they’re looking at. Because in the age of artificial intelligence, how do we compete with the AI agents and the AI? We have to think about what’s not in the books and the materials that AI has been training on, something to extend our human experience and our human education. And fourthly, developing school teacher practices, and then looking like short and long term plans. Also working with UNESCO, Professor Don Parsee has identified using case studies in Northern Ireland to look at a number of case studies, which you session on Thursday, on Thursday this week here at WSIS. And I’ll mention quickly the reference to that session before I close my intervention. So just to quickly wrap up for my four minutes. minutes. We do have a number of technical committees on education in IFIP. I’ve listed five of them on the screen, and the latest, the most recent one, is AI in Education, which was created quite recently. So UNESCO, IFIP looks forward to support you on this education on AI. I think it’s a very, very important topic. That’s a working group of technical expertise who will support you, not just in the policy and the formulation, but looking at how to implement some of this around the world. Because our members go across five continents, our member societies, whether it’s the British Computer Society, the Australian, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, the ACM, we have half a million individual members from our 50 societies in five continents, who I’ll be most willing to help. So these are the two events that we’ll be speaking this week at WSIS. The first one, as I said, is Thursday. Don Passey will be going to the detail of the taskforce report, particularly about the case study in Northern Ireland to do with education. So if you are available, this will be a very informative session from IFIP, which directly talks to the education for the future. Our next session is about AI and professional standards, how ICT professionals developing technology need to be across ethics and standards in developing ICT. So we hope to see you there. And if you want to know more about IFIP, we’ve got the IFIP website, ifip.org. So thank you very much, Davide, and thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Dr. Wong. And I think now, even for the next speaker that is exactly taking it from the call you just made with AI in education, Madame Shafika Isaacs is Chief of Education Secretary at UNESCO. She will talk about the UNESCO’s role in shaping a human-centered AI and digital learning agenda.

Shafika Isaacs: Thank you very much, Davide. A very good afternoon, a good morning to to colleagues perhaps joining online and to everyone in the room. I’m going to speak very briefly given the short time period that we were given, just to give a brief overview of the approach that we’re adopting at UNESCO in the context of the hugely complex and contradictory and volatile change that AI is catalyzing in our education systems worldwide, just building on the excellent overview that was given by ADG Taufik Jelassie and my previous colleague who’s spoken. And I also want to take the opportunity to greet all my fellow speakers as well. So I’m going to, yes, I’m just going to put it in slideshow so that it’s more visible. Yes. So I think I’m going to just use the, so try and capture in a nutshell the five key approaches and areas that as UNESCO we feel we have an important role to play to ensure that we can catalyze a change through the use and integration of AI that is based on perpetuating and deepening human rights, human dignity, enabling equitable access, quality, equity, inclusion, ethics, social justice, and education as a public good. So we know that those are the fundamental principles that would continue to guide as it has been over the past few years, the last two decades with the WSIS process on ICT in education, digital learning, and now the influence of AI. So we, a big focus of our work in UNESCO is building on what Dr. Jalassi has said about normative instruments. We have passed the, and data as also the first global normative instrument on the ethics of AI in 2021. But linked to that, we’ve also developed and continue to work on offering policy guidance on AI. And many people here may be familiar with our guidance on generative AI in education and research, as well as our policy guidance on the use of AI in education. And we continue to receive many, many requests from member states and their partners to provide the kind of support in the development of AI in education policy. So the frameworks we are providing continues to be emergent work and continues to be the second area where we are also responding to demand from our member states and our partners is the demand for thought leadership for the kind of ideas that will ensure that we center our interests on human rights and human-centered AI. And so we are engaged in a number of sense-making dialogues, wayfinding dialogues, global events, where we can in fact facilitate these deep dive conversations that will look and particularly address how AI can be designed and implemented from the perspective of human-centeredness, human rights, human dignity, and so on. And alongside that, our hosting of flagship events, such as the one that we’re hosting at the first week of September, Digital Learning Week, becomes the platform and the spaces to have these conversations and where UNESCO plays the role of convener and orchestrator of the global dialogue. conversation. I deliberately made the third basket bigger because that is the most fundamental work that we do is building capacity and support with member states on how to design and implement policy on AI in education, particularly policies that are grounded on equity, inclusion and social justice within an AI world which is an emergent and ongoing debate and linked to that would also be flagship initiatives such as our global digital that we have launched a few years ago in partnership with UNICEF which is promoting public digital goods in the name of also ensuring that we build our public education systems, public education platforms that are also housing open education resources of the kind that Dr. Jalassi has spoken about. The fourth area relates to the need also for strengthening partnerships, communities and networks in AI and education that could be centered around these values value which the United Nations and its partners stand and so for many of our interventions we’ve formed technical teams and are consistently building networks amongst member states and also with our universities given that UNESCO also houses the UNESCO chairs program and also through that the UNITWIN networks and working with networks of academics who are leading the charge in research around education as a common good in education as well. The final big important area of work relates to conducting research and generating new knowledge, human centered inclusive knowledge around research and evidence and innovation. So building the evidence base is one of the stock issues that have also emerged from the WSIS plus 20 process. The need that our evidence base is so very limited that we need to expand our ways of knowing and our repertoire of knowledge generation to be more plural. And evidence base working with the research and knowledge generation community worldwide on different knowledge traditions is an important part of the work that we are doing as well. And so this continues to be an invitation to partner on this important work, but also not forgetting that the last 20 years of WSIS leading conversations, intervention on ICT in education and digital learning is also rich in lessons and rich with also and failure that we need to build on in order to be successful in our work on AI in education. I’m going to conclude on that note because I think I’ve just spoken within my four minutes that were allocated and would be open to any questions or comments. Thank you very much.

Davide Storti: Thank you. Thank you very much also for reminding how complex this issue is and the different dimensions. I’d like now to, Cable Green, Director of Open Education at Creative Commons for talking about AI and open education. Thank you very much. Hello everyone.

Cable Green: My name is Cable Green. I’m the Director of Open Education at Creative Commons. We are an international nonprofit organization dedicated to helping build and sustain a thriving commons of shared knowledge and culture to address the world’s most pressing challenges. This challenge the all rights reserved versus no rights reserved copyright binary. The result, there are now tens of billions of works on the internet, growing the commons and increasing access to knowledge for all of us, educational resources, scientific research, climate data and cultural works from the world’s museums and individual creators. Creative Commons open copyright licenses are foundational to the creation and sharing of OER. The 2019 UNESCO recommendation on OER called for building capacity of stakeholders to create and share OER. Publicly funded educational resources are OER, encouraging inclusive and equitable quality OER and nurturing the creation and sustainability models for OER. All of these calls to action involve the use of free international open CC licenses. We now live as we’ve been talking about in a new age. We live in the age of AI. And in the 2024 Dubai declaration on OER, it noted, and I quote, the use of emerging technologies and AI tools is increasing at a rapid speed. The advancement of generative AI has fostered significant debates about the new ways in which content and data can be scraped, reused and shared, end quote. An unchecked AI ecosystem is starting to lead to the enclosure, not the expansion of the commons. Creative Commons is building preference signals for AI based on reciprocity. we call this CC Signals. We recently launched CC Signals to help sustain a thriving commons in this new age of AI by building a framework that supports a mutually beneficial relationship between those creating and stewarding knowledge and AI developers. We are trying to prevent the trend toward enclosure and drive systematic change by asking AI companies for something in return for the commons and for the commons creators. We have drafted four signal elements for public feedback designed to reflect core elements of the overarching theme of reciprocity. They are credit direct contribution from the AI companies back to the commons, ecosystem contribution and open or openly licensed AI systems. Creative Commons is ready to support your governments and education institutions in understanding and using both the CC Open Licenses and CC Signals. We don’t have time today to go into greater detail about the signals, but if there’s time for Q&A, I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much for this intervention. Now I would like to refer to my colleague, Zeynep Varoglu, Senior Program Specialist at the Communication Information Sector. Only made too many acronyms at UNESCO about open knowledge systems in the era of AI. Zeynep, you have the floor. We can see the slides, but we don’t hear you. Is this better?

Zeynep Varoglu: Okay, so sorry. Thank you very much for the kind introduction. I’m going to speak to you today about the 2019 recommendation, which is a normative instrument that has established a mechanism for sharing knowledge and for sharing learning. I’ll go quickly because this is four minutes. It was launched in 2019. A. D. G. Gelassi provided the background to it in his opening remarks. And what’s really important in this document is that it has a clear definition, which are learning resources that are available on an open license. Again, taking up from where Cable left off, it clearly defines that these are learning resources that are available on a license, which allows them to be accessed, reused, repurposed, adapted, and redistributed by others. And it’s not just free resources on a web that you could copy if you like. It has to be openly licensed to be real. And this is the most important point. The next thing is the stakeholders. We’re not talking about just traditional educational stakeholders, but as you can see from the list on the screen, this includes the knowledge community. The underlying point is that knowledge is actually shared. Lifelong learning is a fact. The stakeholders include knowledge institutions such as libraries, archives, museums. They include broadcasting companies. They include, of course, the traditional educational bodies also. But we have a wider vision of what learning is and who’s doing it and why. So, the inside of this recommendation, I encourage you to read it. It’s actually quite good. Claire, quite easy to read. It’s about capacity building, about understanding what’s inside, what, how to OER if you like, and it’s added value policy issues about incentives, about procurement models, et cetera. And then a point that to inclusive equitable access to quality OER is underscored and then sustainability models. And that in a nutshell is basically to state that the learner and the teacher are not those that burden, that carry the burden of the cost for the use of these materials. And then underneath all this is, of course, international cooperation. This is the basis of this instrument. And it was done in 2019, it was adopted. And in 2024, we realized that, well, there’s GPT, which was launched and the cable just read out in the previous intervention. And we had the third UNESCO World OER Congress, which resulted in the Dubai Declaration on OER, taking into account the same five areas, but this time looking at things from another angle. In capacity building, we’re talking not just about that of the learners and the teachers, but now we have to talk about also the machines and large language models, OER attribution and discoverability, human rights-based strategies. In policy, we’re talking about, again, the machines. Respect for licenses and AI platforms. It comes back also to the presentation of cable just. Now search on attribution systems, for example, are underscored. Again, we go back to the issue of inclusive equitable access to quality OER. It’s OER translation, contextualization, promoting open ecosystems, et cetera. In terms of sustainability, we’re talking here about interoperability and IPR protection, environmental. sustainability, which is a discussion to be had, and of course, participatory governance and transparency, both for humans and for machine learning and AI. Again, it comes back to the humans, as we spoke earlier, regional international networks, open communities, AI and inter-regional cooperation are very important. One of the issues we have in UNESCO in terms of the responsible use of AI are the UNESCO ROMEX principles. I think some of you may have heard of this. This is the basis of our work in this communication information sector, and it does take up in other areas. It’s rights-based, including human rights-based, promoting openness, accessibility, and multi-stakeholder participation and addressing issues such as ethics, gender equality, sustainability, and these are embedded inside the Dubai Declaration. Now, we have something we call the OER Dynamic Coalition. This is the part where the humans get involved, that would be you and I, and basically, it’s a stakeholder group where it’s made on the implementation of this recommendation, and we do common projects. There’s an update. There’s a lot of different resources, and it’s a great way to become part of a larger community. We started out with 100 people. Today, we have some 800 people involved, and I will put the address in the chat, so you could join if you like. Thank you very much. I think I’ve kept to time, and thank you, and I’ll start sharing.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Zeynep.

Zeynep Varoglu: I’m trying to stop sharing. I’m sorry.

Davide Storti: You can close your mic.

Zeynep Varoglu: Yeah, I’m trying to find my mic.

Davide Storti: Sorry. It must be behind some of the slides. Thank you very much for these presentations to all the speakers. I think we have heard about, of course, the most important thing in WIS is probably the dimension, which is one of the key principles of WIS. We heard about the dimension. We heard about the process, and we heard also about the work at stake, because many of the changes in education, particularly, are changes that take a long time to realize and multiple years to actually get some feedback out of the processes or the changes that you are making in the system. So, that’s very hard. Maybe I can take a couple of minutes more if I ask you if you have any questions or maybe any… intervention if you want to share something, please.

Audience: Thank you very much for all the presentation, very useful, and one question regarding IFEP because in Egypt we are looking for a skill set for AI, with what is happening now that the number of jobs will be lost and the new jobs will be coming up. So we wanted to see if your organization can help us in putting a skills framework for specially help us designing our training programs actually. Thank you.

Anthony Wong: Very happy to follow up. So why don’t we talk after the session and I’ll take you through what we can do with you. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Please, maybe you introduce yourself.

Paul Spiesberger: Hello, thank you to all the speakers. My name is Paul Spiesberger from ICT4D.at. I’d like to congratulate UNESCO and Creative Commons and everyone to focus on the Open Educational Research and myself, I know how important it is to actually liberate the learning material. And my question would be for, to anyone of the speakers, so now we liberated the learning material, what about the software behind all of that? Is UNESCO also moving forward with free and open source software to liberate education also in this aspect? Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you.

Audience: Maybe I take another question, please. Analyst at Access Partnership, we’re a tech policy consultancy. My thanks to all the speakers and if I may, I’d like to pick up on one of the closing remarks by Dr. Jalessi about this learner-centered approach and putting humanity at the center of education and specifically about the teacher-student connection that I think speaks to how irreplaceable teachers are within this broader process. By way of example, I think there are various reasons why some students might be a lot more receptive to absorbing information if they’re being taught rather than just expected to read it, but the teacher at the front and being in a school environment, it helps you build discipline. It helps you build resilience and team working and problem solving, so much of which cannot be substituted as hard as we try. And based on that, I’d like to ask if there are any existing or ongoing efforts thinking specifically in the realm of teacher training, not only focused on how teachers can use and leverage digital tools as a partner in the classroom in many ways, but potentially laying the groundwork for a broader re-evaluation and transformation of how teachers allocate their time and the skills that we’re really focusing on students on that you need teachers in the classroom and digital tools can’t really bridge that gap in any way. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you. And the very last one.

Audience: Hello, I’m Kathleen from Project Ivy, which is a nonprofit from Romania. We teach IT skills. They’re also instructors from our community there from high school. I have, I wanted to give some feedback on how the young people perceive the courses that we also discussed today. As other organizations or initiatives, also courses on AI or different topics on education. I also tried to do this with the NGO, that’s its main purpose. What I observed in my country, and it may not be a single case, no matter if the course comes from something like UNESCO or Project Ivy or the European Union or things like that. The young people, namely, for example, high schoolers do not want to engage with that. Maybe it may seem to be shallow what I’m going to say, but at least high schoolers are not that concerned with what we’re talking today, like open education being ethical and things like that. We, as adults, should talk about this. In my last one or two years, for example, I targeted my efforts in trying to partner with the private sector. For example, I try selling the… to teach you AI or cyber security or things like that, and very little people come to this, and I have to struggle with them to learn something. Recently I partnered with some private initiatives like Google Developer Groups or UiPath and things like that, and I do not have to sell anything to them because they come very easily to these courses, because being children, they are very attracted to the brand. What I’m trying to get at, being a non-profit, of course I’m very eager for being open source and creating communities and things like that, but I think we should try to create a form of partnership with the private sector, because what the young people want is to be connected with the people that do the innovation. Okay, I agree, we should not do this in any way possible, we should put some rules into this and try to get to a common ground where we do this ethically, but I think we should try as much as possible. That’s what our kids want to connect with, because they want to connect with the people and initiatives that drive our industry and technology. Thank you.

Davide Storti: I think if we want to hear back from the speakers, we originally have like three minutes, so if you have one phrase, please, because otherwise we will not hear back, thank you.

Audience: One phrase. Yeah, thank you very much. My name is Dr. Nabi, I’m a faculty member for Modan, a founder of a curriculum who can teach the students how to use the devices in a safe mode, and how can you use AI in a fixed mode. We can do this for some community that they need with non-profitable issues, but I think that we can cooperate and we can help in this area in training the people and providing this curriculum, because it has, I mean, as with video step-by-step, how to use it in a safe mode and AI ethically in all grades in the schools. So I’m happy to present such an issue for UNESCO. Thank you very much. Thank you so much.

Davide Storti: May I give, I’m sorry, we’re running out of time, can I give the floor to my colleague Zeynep, just to respond quickly to a couple of the issues that were raised?

Zeynep Varoglu: Yes, very quickly. because we are running out of time. First of all, the internet-centered approach teacher connect, oh, the software issue. We have a project on software heritage, and it’s focusing on software source code. So that is an area in which we are working. And then also my colleague, Cable Green, can speak on open source also very quickly. And learner-centered approach, teacher-centered approach, we have the ICT competency framework for teachers, which is based on giving teachers the capacity to work with technology. And this is a wonderful tool. I’ll put the address in the chat, and I think, or you can find it on the UNESCO website, ICT competency, ICTCFT, UNESCO, and you should find it, but I’ll try and put it in. And I think Cable has something to say also.

Davide Storti: Thank you so much, Zeynep. My apologies to Dr. Cable Green, because we really have to leave the room. So I’d like to give the floor to Mr. Jelassi for the questions that were raised, thank you.

Tawfik Jelassi: Thank you, Davide. I’ll try to be brief, because the issues raised are very important ones. First of all, on learner-centric education. It has to be learner-centric in curriculum design, in content development, in pedagogical delivery. You cannot teach the same subject matter through the same material, through the same curricula, to the same students. Each group of students have some unique features, as you know, and as I know. To what extent we adjust what we are delivering to based on age, based on educational background, business profile, if it’s executive education. So when you say learner-centric, we have to mean it. It’s not convenient for a professor to pull teaching material from a drawer and go and add it. It’s easy. There is no preparation. It’s the, I prepare the lecture once and deliver it, your one and your two and your three, to undergraduates, to master level, to MBAs, to whomever. So I think we use this expression, learner-centric, but I think many professors and teachers, I used to be for 30 years, university professor and dean. So I know the ways, pull it out of your drawer, go and deliver it, done. Is that learner-centric? It is not. So we have to walk the talk. Second remark, students need to learn how to learn. We don’t teach them how to learn. You know the saying, don’t give me a fish, teach me how to fish. If you give me a fish, I have my meal today and that’s it. And they depend on you tomorrow or for dinner to give me another fish. If you teach me how to fish, I can do it on my own. We don’t teach students how to learn. In this highly evolving world where knowledge evolves, technology evolves, it’s very dynamic, it’s very volatile. And we need to stop teaching rote learning. When I say teach them how to learn, not to teach them rote learning. I give you a poem, I give you a formula, learn them by heart and give them back to me the day of the exam and you have an A grade and you pass. That’s rote learning. Memorize and give back to the professor. Where is your value added? Where is your creativity? Where is your innovation? Where is your critical mindset? There is none. I think that we should stop. When I was a pupil and a high school student for 13 years, I was taught rote learning. We had one subject matter called recitals, recitation. Give you something, note by heart, recite it back. and you have an A grade. And then when I went to New York University for my PhD, they told me, we want to, PhD is about advancing the state of knowledge in the world, in a discipline. Therefore, we have to think out of the box. I told them, show me where is the box first. Box. And they couldn’t think out of the box because I was put in a mold through rote learning. We have to avoid that. And finally, in today’s digital world, the focus, in my view, is not on hard knowledge. It’s on soft skills. The hard knowledge can be found through any digital system, any chat GPT, whatever. The knowledge is there. The definitions, the concepts, the formulas, it’s there. If you do ABC accounting, that has not changed over time. If you do calculus, that has not changed. It’s, what is evolving is the soft skills. How to communicate, how to think critically, how to present. And they always say, having the right attitude is before having the right competency. Because if a student, the pupil has the right attitude, he or she will learn the competency. If he or she has the wrong attitude, there is no hope. Soft skills. I was told to stop talking.

Davide Storti: Sorry, that’s the matter. So I would like to thank everybody. I thank the speakers and thank you for coming, for being here. And of course, this is one session, but we saw that the issue is pretty lively. So please, let’s continue online in WSIS. Thank you. Recording stopped.

Agreement points

Teacher training and capacity building is critical for successful educational transformation

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Anthony Wong
– Zeynep Varoglu
– Audience

Arguments

Teachers are the weakest link requiring upgraded digital skills to create a skilled global workforce

UNESCO’s ICT Competency Framework for Teachers provides capacity for working with technology

Teacher training should focus on leveraging digital tools and re-evaluating time allocation and skills development

Summary

All speakers recognize that upgrading teacher capabilities and providing proper training frameworks is essential for implementing educational technology successfully and addressing global digital skills shortages.

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

AI and technology cannot be stopped and must be embraced in education

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Shafika Isaacs
– Cable Green

Arguments

Technology cannot be stopped and must be embraced rather than forbidden in educational settings

UNESCO develops policy guidance on AI in education focusing on human rights and human-centered approaches

AI systems require reciprocal relationships with commons creators to prevent enclosure of knowledge

Summary

Speakers agree that resistance to AI and technology in education is futile and counterproductive. Instead, the focus should be on developing frameworks for responsible and ethical implementation.

Topics

Online education | Human rights principles

Education must be learner-centered and focus on developing critical thinking rather than rote learning

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Anthony Wong

Arguments

Education must be learner-centered in curriculum design, content development, and pedagogical delivery

Students need to learn how to learn rather than engage in rote memorization

IFIP’s Stockholm Declaration emphasizes training digital trainers and computational thinking

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the need to move away from traditional rote learning toward developing students’ ability to think critically and learn independently, with customized approaches for different learner groups.

Topics

Online education

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for educational transformation

Speakers

– Shafika Isaacs
– Zeynep Varoglu
– Davide Storti
– Audience

Arguments

International cooperation and network building are fundamental to sustainable educational transformation

Educational ecosystems require multi-stakeholder efforts including knowledge institutions, broadcasting companies, and traditional educational bodies

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for addressing educational transformation challenges

Partnership between public and private sectors is essential for engaging young people in learning

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that educational transformation requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors, institutions, and stakeholders, including both public and private entities.

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Open Educational Resources require proper licensing and frameworks for effective implementation

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Cable Green
– Zeynep Varoglu

Arguments

The 2019 UNESCO recommendation on OER is implemented in over 35 countries as the first UN normative instrument linking technology and education

Creative Commons licenses are foundational to OER creation and sharing

OER must be openly licensed, not just free resources, to allow access, reuse, adaptation, and redistribution

Summary

All speakers agree that effective OER implementation requires proper legal frameworks, specifically Creative Commons licensing, and normative instruments to ensure resources can be legally shared, adapted, and redistributed.

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Online education

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that educational equity requires addressing multiple intersecting barriers including geographical, gender, technological, economic, and accessibility dimensions, with particular attention to marginalized groups.

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Shafika Isaacs

Arguments

Multiple gaps exist: geographical, gender, technology access, financial affordability, and disability

UNESCO’s work focuses on equity, inclusion, and social justice within AI-enabled education systems

Topics

Digital access | Human rights principles | Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers advocate for prioritizing the development of thinking skills, communication abilities, and critical analysis over memorization of facts, recognizing that information can be easily accessed through digital systems.

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Anthony Wong

Arguments

Focus should shift from hard knowledge to soft skills like communication, critical thinking, and presentation

IFIP’s Stockholm Declaration emphasizes training digital trainers and computational thinking

Topics

Online education | Future of work

Both speakers recognize that AI poses challenges to open knowledge systems and requires new frameworks to ensure that AI development supports rather than undermines the knowledge commons.

Speakers

– Cable Green
– Zeynep Varoglu

Arguments

AI systems require reciprocal relationships with commons creators to prevent enclosure of knowledge

The Dubai Declaration addresses AI’s impact on OER, including machine learning attribution and discoverability

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Online education

Unexpected consensus

The irreplaceable role of teachers despite technological advancement

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Anthony Wong
– Audience

Arguments

The role of professors must shift from knowledge owners to facilitators of dialogue and synthesis

Teachers are the weakest link requiring upgraded digital skills to create a skilled global workforce

Teachers remain irreplaceable for building discipline, resilience, teamwork, and problem-solving skills

Explanation

Despite strong advocacy for AI and technology integration, there is unexpected consensus that teachers remain irreplaceable for developing human skills and facilitating learning experiences that cannot be automated. This represents a nuanced view that technology enhances rather than replaces human educators.

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

The need for private sector engagement in education

Speakers

– Audience
– Zeynep Varoglu
– Anthony Wong

Arguments

Young people are more attracted to private sector partnerships than traditional educational initiatives

The OER Dynamic Coalition provides a platform for stakeholder involvement in recommendation implementation

IFIP offers technical expertise through working groups to support policy implementation globally

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus that engaging private sector organizations is necessary for effective educational transformation, even among speakers from traditional educational institutions. This pragmatic approach recognizes that young people are drawn to innovation-driving organizations.

Topics

Online education

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on fundamental principles including the need for human-centered AI implementation, teacher capacity building, learner-centered approaches, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and proper frameworks for open educational resources. There is also agreement on addressing educational equity through multiple dimensions and the importance of developing critical thinking skills over rote learning.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting viewpoints. The speakers represent different organizations and perspectives but share common values around human rights, equity, and quality education. This strong alignment suggests a mature understanding of educational transformation challenges and indicates potential for coordinated action in implementing AI and technology in education while maintaining human-centered approaches.

Different viewpoints

Role of private sector in education engagement

Speakers

– Audience (Romania NGO)
– UNESCO speakers (implicit)

Arguments

Partnership between public and private sectors is essential for engaging young people in learning

Young people are more attracted to private sector partnerships than traditional educational initiatives

Summary

The Romanian audience member advocates for embracing private sector partnerships because young people are attracted to brands and innovation-driving companies, while UNESCO’s approach emphasizes public goods and open resources without significant private sector integration

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

Student engagement with traditional vs. private sector educational initiatives

Speakers

– Audience (Romania NGO)
– UNESCO speakers (implicit)

Arguments

Young people are more attracted to private sector partnerships than traditional educational initiatives

Partnership between public and private sectors is essential for engaging young people in learning

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it challenges the fundamental assumption that traditional educational institutions and international organizations like UNESCO can effectively engage young people. The Romanian speaker’s observation that students ignore UNESCO-type courses but flock to Google or UiPath initiatives suggests a significant disconnect between institutional approaches and youth preferences

Topics

Online education

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on major principles (human-centered AI, need for teacher transformation, importance of equity) but revealed subtle disagreements on implementation approaches and one significant challenge to traditional educational engagement models

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on principles but divergent views on methods. The main implication is that while stakeholders agree on goals, there may be competing approaches to achieving educational transformation, particularly regarding private sector involvement and student engagement strategies

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that educational equity requires addressing multiple intersecting barriers including geographical, gender, technological, economic, and accessibility dimensions, with particular attention to marginalized groups.

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Shafika Isaacs

Arguments

Multiple gaps exist: geographical, gender, technology access, financial affordability, and disability

UNESCO’s work focuses on equity, inclusion, and social justice within AI-enabled education systems

Topics

Digital access | Human rights principles | Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers advocate for prioritizing the development of thinking skills, communication abilities, and critical analysis over memorization of facts, recognizing that information can be easily accessed through digital systems.

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Anthony Wong

Arguments

Focus should shift from hard knowledge to soft skills like communication, critical thinking, and presentation

IFIP’s Stockholm Declaration emphasizes training digital trainers and computational thinking

Topics

Online education | Future of work

Both speakers recognize that AI poses challenges to open knowledge systems and requires new frameworks to ensure that AI development supports rather than undermines the knowledge commons.

Speakers

– Cable Green
– Zeynep Varoglu

Arguments

AI systems require reciprocal relationships with commons creators to prevent enclosure of knowledge

The Dubai Declaration addresses AI’s impact on OER, including machine learning attribution and discoverability

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Online education

Key takeaways

AI transformation in education is inevitable and must be embraced rather than resisted, requiring a fundamental shift in how educators approach teaching and learning

The role of teachers must evolve from knowledge deliverers to facilitators of dialogue, critical thinking, and soft skills development that cannot be replicated by AI

Educational equity remains a critical challenge with multiple divides (geographical, gender, linguistic, technological, financial) that must be addressed in AI-enabled learning systems

Open Educational Resources (OER) are essential for democratizing access to knowledge, but must be properly licensed and integrated with AI systems through reciprocal frameworks

Teacher training and capacity building are the weakest links in educational transformation and require urgent attention to develop digital skills

Hybrid learning models combining traditional classroom instruction with e-learning can address resource constraints while maintaining essential human connections

Educational methodology must shift from rote learning to teaching students ‘how to learn’ and developing critical thinking skills

Multi-stakeholder collaboration including public-private partnerships is essential for engaging young people and implementing sustainable educational change

Resolutions and action items

IFIP agreed to follow up with Egypt on developing AI skills frameworks for training programs

UNESCO to continue providing policy guidance and capacity building support to member states on AI in education implementation

Zeynep Varoglu committed to sharing links to UNESCO’s ICT Competency Framework for Teachers and OER Dynamic Coalition in the chat

Dr. Nabi offered to provide curriculum for teaching safe and ethical AI use across all school grades to UNESCO

Creative Commons to continue developing CC Signals framework for AI-commons reciprocity

IFIP scheduled additional sessions during WSIS week on education case studies and AI professional standards

Unresolved issues

How to effectively engage young people who are more attracted to private sector brands than traditional educational initiatives

Specific implementation strategies for addressing the linguistic divide with over 8,000 languages but only 120 represented in cyberspace

Concrete mechanisms for ensuring continuity of educational policy direction across government changes

Detailed frameworks for assessing student learning in the age of AI and generative tools like ChatGPT

Specific funding models and sustainability approaches for scaling OER and AI-enabled education globally

Technical standards and interoperability requirements for free and open source educational software

Practical approaches for re-training existing teachers at scale to work effectively with AI tools

Suggested compromises

Hybrid learning models that combine traditional classroom instruction with e-learning to balance human connection with technological efficiency

Rotation systems where students attend physical schools part-time and continue learning through e-learning platforms to address teacher shortages

Public-private partnerships that leverage private sector appeal to young people while maintaining ethical educational standards

Gradual integration of AI tools in education rather than complete prohibition or unrestricted adoption

Multi-stakeholder approaches that include traditional educational bodies alongside knowledge institutions, broadcasting companies, and technology providers

Reciprocal frameworks between AI companies and educational commons that provide mutual benefits while protecting open access to knowledge

Nobody can stop technological advances. Nobody can fight it. We better make the best out of it… A professor cannot be anymore the owner of truth and knowledge, cannot anymore meet students to say here is the definition of concept A and B and C, and here is the way to achieve that. The system is better than us, more updated, more thorough.

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the traditional educational paradigm by arguing that educators must abandon their role as gatekeepers of knowledge and instead embrace AI as a superior information source. It’s provocative because it directly confronts educators’ resistance to AI integration and reframes the debate from ‘whether to adopt AI’ to ‘how to coexist with AI.’

Impact

This comment set the philosophical foundation for the entire discussion, establishing that the conversation would focus on transformation rather than resistance. It influenced subsequent speakers to build upon this acceptance of AI’s inevitability and focus on adaptation strategies rather than debating AI’s merits.

In the world, there are over 8,000 languages. Over 8,000 languages. How many of them are present in cyberspace? 120. How about the others, who don’t speak English, or French, or Spanish, or Chinese, or Arabic, or whatever?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Reason

This stark statistical comparison reveals a massive digital divide that goes beyond economic or technological barriers to include linguistic exclusion. It’s thought-provoking because it quantifies a often-overlooked dimension of educational inequality and challenges the assumption that digital education is inherently democratizing.

Impact

This comment expanded the discussion beyond technical implementation to include cultural and linguistic justice considerations. It added a layer of complexity that influenced later speakers to consider inclusivity not just in terms of access to technology, but access to culturally relevant content.

The weakness is our teachers. We need to upgrade the skills of our teachers, especially if we are going to succeed to create a good digital workforce globally.

Speaker

Anthony Wong

Reason

This blunt assessment identifies teachers as the primary bottleneck in digital education transformation. It’s provocative because it shifts blame from systemic issues to individual capacity, while simultaneously highlighting the critical importance of teacher development in any educational reform.

Impact

This comment redirected the conversation toward practical implementation challenges and the need for capacity building. It influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize teacher training and support systems, making it a central theme throughout the remaining presentations.

An unchecked AI ecosystem is starting to lead to the enclosure, not the expansion of the commons… We are trying to prevent the trend toward enclosure and drive systematic change by asking AI companies for something in return for the commons and for the commons creators.

Speaker

Cable Green

Reason

This comment introduces a critical paradox: AI, which could democratize knowledge, might actually restrict it by enclosing the commons. It’s insightful because it reveals how technological advancement can undermine the very open education principles it claims to support, introducing the concept of ‘reciprocity’ as a solution.

Impact

This comment introduced a new dimension of concern about AI’s impact on open education, shifting the discussion from ‘how to use AI’ to ‘how to ensure AI serves the commons.’ It added urgency to the need for proactive policy frameworks to protect educational resources.

The young people, namely, for example, high schoolers do not want to engage with that… Recently I partnered with some private initiatives like Google Developer Groups or UiPath and things like that, and I do not have to sell anything to them because they come very easily to these courses, because being children, they are very attracted to the brand.

Speaker

Kathleen (audience member)

Reason

This ground-level observation challenges the entire premise of the discussion by revealing a disconnect between policy makers’ priorities (ethics, openness) and students’ actual interests (brand recognition, industry connection). It’s provocative because it suggests that idealistic educational goals may be irrelevant to the intended beneficiaries.

Impact

This comment created a reality check moment that forced speakers to confront the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical implementation. It highlighted the need to make ethical, open education more appealing and relevant to young learners, adding a pragmatic dimension to the idealistic discussion.

Students need to learn how to learn. We don’t teach them how to learn… We don’t teach students how to learn. In this highly evolving world where knowledge evolves, technology evolves, it’s very dynamic, it’s very volatile. And we need to stop teaching rote learning.

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental flaw in current educational approaches – the focus on content delivery rather than learning methodology. It’s insightful because it suggests that in an AI-dominated world, the meta-skill of learning becomes more valuable than any specific knowledge, challenging traditional pedagogical approaches.

Impact

This closing comment synthesized many of the session’s themes and provided a clear direction for educational transformation. It reinforced the need for systemic change in educational philosophy, not just technological integration, and served as a call to action for fundamental pedagogical reform.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively shaped the discussion by establishing a progression from acceptance of technological inevitability to practical implementation challenges to systemic reform needs. Jelassi’s opening comments set a transformative rather than defensive tone, while Wong’s teacher-focused critique and Green’s commons concerns added practical urgency. The audience member’s reality check about student preferences forced a reconsideration of idealistic approaches, and Jelassi’s closing emphasis on learning methodology provided a unifying vision. Together, these comments moved the conversation from theoretical policy discussions to concrete challenges of educational transformation, creating a more nuanced understanding of the complexities involved in integrating AI into education while maintaining human-centered, equitable approaches.

How can we develop a skills framework for AI, particularly for designing training programs to address job displacement and new job creation?

Speaker

Audience member from Egypt

Explanation

This addresses the urgent need to prepare workforce for AI-driven changes in employment, requiring specific skill sets and training programs

Is UNESCO moving forward with free and open source software to liberate education beyond just open educational resources?

Speaker

Paul Spiesberger from ICT4D.at

Explanation

This explores whether the open education movement should extend to the software infrastructure that supports educational systems, not just the content

What existing or ongoing efforts focus on teacher training for using digital tools and transforming how teachers allocate their time and skills?

Speaker

Analyst at Access Partnership

Explanation

This addresses the need for comprehensive teacher preparation programs that go beyond basic digital literacy to fundamental pedagogical transformation

How can we create ethical partnerships with the private sector to engage young people in educational initiatives?

Speaker

Kathleen from Project Ivy (Romania)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of student engagement and the attraction of private sector brands versus traditional educational institutions

How can we develop and implement curricula that teach students to use devices and AI safely and ethically across all school grades?

Speaker

Dr. Nabi, faculty member

Explanation

This addresses the critical need for age-appropriate digital citizenship and AI ethics education integrated into standard curricula

How do we effectively teach students ‘how to learn’ rather than relying on rote learning methods?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Explanation

This fundamental pedagogical question addresses the need to develop meta-cognitive skills and critical thinking rather than memorization

How can we make education truly learner-centric in curriculum design, content development, and pedagogical delivery?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Explanation

This addresses the gap between the rhetoric of learner-centered education and actual implementation in diverse educational contexts

How do we shift educational focus from hard knowledge to soft skills development in the digital age?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Explanation

This explores the fundamental restructuring of educational priorities given that information is readily available through digital systems

How can we address the linguistic divide in e-learning when only 120 out of 8,000+ world languages are represented in cyberspace?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Explanation

This addresses a critical equity issue in global access to digital education and the need for multilingual educational content

How do we ensure continuity of educational technology policies across changes in government leadership?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of maintaining long-term educational transformation initiatives despite political changes

Summary

This discussion, titled “More Truth Less Trust,” focused on the growing challenges of misinformation and disinformation in the digital age, particularly as AI technologies become more sophisticated. The panel featured Christine Strutt as moderator, along with Tara Harris from Prosus, Mike Mpanya from Newbie.ai, and Lori Schulman from INTA, examining how false information impacts public trust and exploring potential solutions.

The conversation began by distinguishing between misinformation (unintentional spreading of false information) and disinformation (deliberate deception intended to cause harm). Tara Harris highlighted how bad actors increasingly use deepfakes and AI impersonation to create investment scams targeting consumers, noting that current IP laws don’t adequately address these emerging threats. She emphasized the need for multi-faceted enforcement approaches and welcomed regulatory developments like France’s ban on sharing deepfakes and Denmark’s consideration of granting copyright to faces and physical likeness.

Mike Mpanya addressed a critical but often overlooked issue: how large language models trained primarily on data from the Global North create inherent biases that disadvantage users in the Global South. He explained that AI systems trained on historically biased datasets can perpetuate discrimination, particularly in healthcare and financial services, and stressed the need for testing data integrity before deployment. Mpanya advocated for establishing global frameworks and best practices for AI development, similar to engineering standards in other fields.

The discussion revealed tension between the desire for harmonized global AI regulation and the reality of fragmented regional approaches. While speakers agreed that harmonization would benefit smaller companies and startups, they acknowledged that current regulatory diversity actually favors large tech companies with resources to navigate multiple legal frameworks. Lori Schulman emphasized that solving AI’s trust and safety challenges requires multi-stakeholder collaboration, noting that these technological disruptions, while challenging, are not unprecedented and can be successfully managed through inclusive cooperation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Distinction between misinformation and disinformation**: The panel explored how misinformation involves unintentional spreading of false information (like a “mistake”), while disinformation is deliberately created to cause harm. They discussed how both concepts manifest in AI-generated content, deepfakes, and executive impersonation scams.

– **Bias and representation in AI training data**: A significant focus on how large language models are predominantly trained on data from the Global North (US and Western Europe), creating inherent biases that disadvantage users from the Global South. This affects everything from healthcare diagnostics to financial services, with historical biases (like apartheid-era data in South Africa) being perpetuated in AI systems.

– **Regulatory fragmentation vs. harmonization**: The speakers debated the challenges of navigating multiple, fragmented AI regulations across different jurisdictions. While harmonized regulation would benefit scaling and innovation, the current reality forces companies (especially smaller ones) to spend more time with lawyers than engineers, potentially favoring big tech companies over startups.

– **Enforcement challenges in current IP law frameworks**: Discussion of how existing intellectual property laws inadequately address AI-generated deepfakes, voice cloning, and executive impersonation. The panel noted emerging solutions like France making deepfakes illegal and Denmark considering granting copyright to faces and physical likeness.

– **Solutions and future outlook**: The conversation concluded with optimism about small language models, open-source AI development, and the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration. Speakers emphasized the importance of creating resource hubs and interdisciplinary cooperation to address these challenges.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine the growing threat of AI-powered misinformation and disinformation, explore current challenges in combating these issues through existing legal frameworks, and identify potential solutions through better regulation, improved data practices, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. The panel sought to bridge perspectives from legal, technical, and policy domains to address how false information erodes public trust and what can be done about it.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, with speakers building on each other’s points constructively. While the conversation began with a somewhat concerning overview of the misinformation landscape, it evolved into a more optimistic and solution-oriented discussion. The speakers demonstrated mutual respect and expertise, with the tone becoming increasingly hopeful toward the end as they discussed emerging technologies like small language models, open-source AI, and the potential for better resource sharing and collaboration to address these challenges.

Speakers

– **Christine Strutt** – Intellectual property attorney and partner at Fonsidals (IP law firm focusing on African region), Chair of the Global Governance Subcommittee of the International Trademark Association (INTA’s Internet Committee), Session moderator

– **Lori Schulman** – Former board member and senior director of Internet Policy at INTA, General counsel and intellectual property counsel for Fortune 100 companies and major non-profit organizations, Immediate past president of the IPC, High-level facilitator at WSIS

– **Mike Mpanya** – Entrepreneur and AI strategist, Founder and CEO of Newbie.ai, Former leader of Africa’s largest youth organization, Has a foundation that trains young leaders, Background in engineering and public policy

– **Tara Harris** – Group IP Lead for Digital and Regulatory at Prosus (global consumer internet group and technology investor), Responsible for intellectual property strategy, enforcement, and risk management across global portfolio, Provides strategic support for digital policies and regulatory initiatives and AI governance frameworks

**Additional speakers:**

– **Audience** (specifically **Nanya Sudhir**) – Works at the ILO (International Labour Organization)

# More Truth Less Trust: Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

The panel discussion “More Truth Less Trust” examined the challenges of misinformation and disinformation in the digital age, particularly as artificial intelligence technologies become increasingly sophisticated. Moderated by Christine Strutt, an intellectual property attorney and partner at Fonsidals, the session brought together diverse expertise from Tara Harris (Group IP Lead for Digital and Regulatory at Prosus), Mike Mpanya (Founder and CEO of Newbie.ai), and Lori Schulman (former INTA board member and Internet Policy senior director).

The conversation evolved from initial concerns about AI-powered fraud and deepfakes to a broader examination of systemic biases in AI training data and regulatory challenges. Speakers generally agreed on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration and better resources for smaller companies, while discussing various approaches to regulatory frameworks and technical solutions.

## Key Themes and Definitions

### Distinguishing Misinformation from Disinformation

The discussion began with establishing clear definitions between two related but distinct concepts. Tara Harris explained that misinformation involves the unintentional spreading of false information—essentially mistakes that propagate through digital channels. In contrast, disinformation represents the deliberate creation and dissemination of false information with the intent to cause harm.

Mike Mpanya introduced a more nuanced perspective, arguing that the most widespread form of misinformation stems from large language models themselves, which are trained on internet data that reflects “the most widespread information” rather than “the most correct information.”

### The Scope of AI-Generated Threats

Christine Strutt presented statistics demonstrating the rapid acceleration of AI-generated deceptive content, noting that video deepfakes tripled between 2022 and 2023, while voice deepfakes increased eightfold during the same period. However, she acknowledged getting some statistics from ChatGPT and invited skepticism about the data.

Tara Harris provided concrete examples of how bad actors exploit these technologies, describing how Prosus has been targeted by sophisticated schemes where criminals use deepfakes and voice cloning to impersonate their executives for Bitcoin scams and fraudulent investment schemes. These attacks target consumers through social media platforms, creating convincing audio and video content that appears to feature trusted business leaders endorsing fake investment opportunities.

## Systemic Bias and Global Representation

### The Global North Bias Problem

Mike Mpanya delivered one of the discussion’s most significant insights by highlighting how large language models perpetuate systemic bias through their training data. He explained that most large language models are trained predominantly on information from the Global North, particularly the United States and Western Europe, creating inherent disadvantages for users in the Global South.

This bias manifests in critical applications such as healthcare diagnostics and financial services. Mpanya provided a particularly striking example from South Africa, where AI systems trained on historical credit data perpetuate apartheid-era discrimination in lending decisions. As he explained, these systems continue to reflect historical biases that systematically disadvantaged certain populations.

### Generational Shifts in Information Verification

Mpanya identified a fundamental shift in how AI-native generations approach information verification. Unlike previous generations who might consult libraries or search engines to verify information, younger users increasingly turn to AI systems as their primary source of truth. This creates a circular problem where biased AI systems become both the source of misinformation and the tool used to verify information.

The implications of this shift extend beyond individual decision-making to broader societal trust in information systems. As Mpanya noted about the regulatory complexity: “Some weeks I spend more time with lawyers than I do with engineers. And I don’t think that’s a great position to be in as a founder of a technology company.”

## Legal and Regulatory Challenges

### Inadequacy of Current IP Frameworks

Tara Harris emphasized that existing intellectual property laws prove inadequate for addressing AI-generated impersonation and deepfakes. Current legal frameworks were not designed to handle sophisticated AI-generated content that can convincingly replicate voices, faces, and mannerisms. This forces companies to pursue creative multi-jurisdictional enforcement approaches, often with limited success.

Christine Strutt highlighted a particular vulnerability: while celebrities and public figures have some recourse through defamation laws, everyday people lack similar protections against AI-powered impersonation.

### Emerging Regulatory Responses

The discussion revealed some encouraging developments in certain jurisdictions. France has made sharing deepfakes illegal, and Tara Harris mentioned that Denmark is considering granting copyright protection to faces and physical likeness. These initiatives represent early attempts to adapt legal frameworks to address AI-generated threats.

However, Lori Schulman raised fundamental questions about the regulatory rush, asking: “Do we know enough about how things work to regulate? What we’re seeing now is a lot of regulations come into place, and then either the ability to technically enforce them, or the principle behind the enforcement isn’t syncing up with, again, the technology.”

### The Regulatory Fragmentation Challenge

Mike Mpanya highlighted how fragmented regional regulations can favor large technology companies over smaller innovators. Only major corporations possess the resources to navigate compliance across multiple jurisdictions, effectively creating barriers for smaller competitors.

Lori Schulman noted the scope of this challenge, mentioning that “dozens, over 60 jurisdictions” have introduced “nearly if not more than 1,000 regulations,” creating uncertainty about enforcement and technical feasibility.

## Areas of Agreement and Collaboration

### Multi-Stakeholder Approaches

The speakers generally agreed on the necessity of multi-stakeholder approaches to AI governance. Tara Harris advocated for companies to adopt global ethical AI policies, noting that Prosus based their policy “largely on the OECD AI principles.” Mike Mpanya emphasized the need for interdisciplinary collaboration extending beyond engineering to include legal, social, and humanities expertise. Lori Schulman reinforced this view and mentioned INTA’s five principles for AI governance.

### Support for Smaller Players

The speakers agreed that smaller companies and Global South entrepreneurs require better access to resources and training for AI governance. Lori Schulman suggested that the ITU could create information hubs providing primers and training for entrepreneurs scaling AI solutions across jurisdictions.

### Technical Evolution Towards Specialization

Both Tara Harris and Mike Mpanya discussed how small language models trained on specific, local datasets can often outperform large language models. Mpanya mentioned that JP Morgan Chase uses small language models, suggesting this represents a promising direction for addressing bias and representation issues.

## Audience Engagement and Youth Perspectives

An important part of the discussion involved an audience question from Nanya Sudhir from the International Labour Organisation about motivating AI-native generations to understand the gravity of biased data sources. This prompted detailed responses from all speakers about youth engagement with AI bias issues.

Mike Mpanya expressed optimism about youth consciousness regarding decoloniality and their demand for technology that reflects their experiences. The speakers discussed various approaches to education and engagement with younger generations who are growing up with AI as a primary information source.

## Solutions and Future Outlook

### Technical Solutions

The discussion revealed growing interest in technical solutions to bias and representation problems. Mike Mpanya highlighted that open-source AI development enables global communities to fine-tune tools to reflect their specific needs and contexts. Small language models offer particular promise, as they can be trained on carefully curated, representative datasets.

### Governance Frameworks

Speakers identified several approaches to governance challenges. Tara Harris advocated for voluntary adoption of global policies based on OECD AI principles. The discussion also touched on upcoming developments, including the EU AI Act code of principles being published “in the next few weeks” and Japan’s AI framework.

### Market Forces and Demographics

Mpanya provided an optimistic perspective on market incentives, noting demographic trends that suggest the Global South represents a significant market for technology products, creating business incentives for developing inclusive AI solutions.

## Ongoing Challenges and Questions

### Legal Protection Gaps

The discussion highlighted ongoing questions about how legal systems can provide protection for ordinary people against AI impersonation when current laws primarily protect celebrities and public figures.

### Data Quality and Training

Questions remain about the best approaches to addressing biased datasets—whether to improve existing datasets or build entirely new ones from scratch.

### Regulatory Implementation

Lori Schulman’s concerns about regulatory enforceability remain significant, particularly regarding the technical feasibility of enforcement and the alignment between legal principles and technological realities.

## Historical Context and Reassurance

Lori Schulman provided valuable historical perspective, drawing parallels to previous technology challenges. She mentioned the domain name system as an example of how the internet community has successfully navigated complex technical and policy challenges before, offering reassurance that “we got through it” and can address current AI challenges as well.

## Conclusion

The “More Truth Less Trust” discussion revealed the complexity of addressing misinformation and disinformation in the AI era. The conversation evolved from tactical concerns about fraud prevention to strategic questions about global technology governance, systemic bias, and regulatory approaches.

The speakers demonstrated broad agreement on fundamental challenges while exploring different approaches to solutions. Mike Mpanya’s insights about systemic bias and regulatory fragmentation, combined with Tara Harris’s practical enforcement experience and Lori Schulman’s historical policy perspective, created a comprehensive dialogue about both current challenges and potential paths forward.

The discussion highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the need for better resources for smaller companies and Global South entrepreneurs, and the potential of technical solutions like small language models to address bias issues. While significant challenges remain, particularly around regulatory coordination and protecting ordinary citizens from AI-powered threats, the speakers’ various perspectives suggest multiple avenues for progress through continued collaboration and innovation.

Christine Strutt: Good afternoon everyone and thank you for joining our session that I’ve loosely renamed More Truth Less Trust. Of course this is a social media phrase that notes the predicament that the greatest tools enabling human communication and productivity nowadays are increasingly becoming the source of deception in the service of manipulating our minds and actions. Now in January this year the World Economic Forum in its global risk report classified misinformation and disinformation as the top short term risk for the second year running. Over and above risks like extreme weather events, societal polarization, cyber espionage and warfare. Now a number of reputable studies have in the last year concluded that between 75 and 90 percent of people are expressly concerned about AI’s role in spreading misinformation and people’s ability to distinguish between real and fake content is becoming alarming with apparently 40 percent of our guesses being accurate. Now those two statistics I got off ChatGPT so I invite you to also approach them with some skepticism but in terms of more academic studies video deepfakes tripled and voice deepfakes increased eightfold between the years 2022 and 2023. Our speakers today are all at the forefront of dealing with these issues and can attest to how false information impacts and erodes public trust in the media, organizations and governments and they can speak to the I will do a quick round of introductions. My name is Christine Strutt, I’m an intellectual property attorney and a partner at Fonsidals, which is an IP law firm that focuses on the African region. I’m also the chair of the Global Governance Subcommittee of the International Trademark Association or INTA’s Internet Committee, and it’s my honor to moderate this panel today and host all three of these distinguished speakers. On the screen, someone you’ll see in a minute, is Tara Harris, Group IP Lead for Digital and Regulatory at Process. Process is a global consumer internet group and one of the largest technology investors in the world, operating across transformative sectors, including e-commerce, fintech, food delivery, and educational technology. As a subsidiary of NASPA, Process powers leading digital platforms across emerging markets, with significant investments in companies such as Tencent and operations spanning India, Brazil, China, and beyond. As Group IP Lead at Process, Tara represents the organization’s intellectual property strategy, enforcement, and risk management across its global portfolio. She also provides strategic support to the company’s broader digital policies and regulatory initiatives as well as the AI governance frameworks. We’re also joined by Mr. Mike Mpanya, entrepreneur and AI strategist with a powerful track record of advancing inclusive, innovative AI solutions across Africa and the global south. As the founder and CEO of Newbie.ai, he leads one of the continent’s most dynamic AI Ventures, recognized for harnessing large language models and cutting edge technologies to solve critical challenges in healthcare, education, financial inclusion, and governance. Mike has advised governments, multinational corporations, and startups on AI adoption, digital transformation, and ethical innovation. Drawing from a background in engineering and public policy, he bridges the gap between complex technologies and real-world impact, particularly in under-serviced communities. And then, with me in person, is Lori Schulman, former board member and senior director of Internet Policy at INTA. Lori is responsible for managing the association’s various Internet policy and advocacy initiatives, as well as representing INTA in forums such as the IGF, ICANN, where she is the immediate past president of the IPC, and of course, WSIS, where she’s served as a high-level facilitator on several occasions. Lori has a varied background as general counsel and intellectual property counsel for both Fortune 100 companies and major non-profit organizations. She’s a notable voice in matters concerning digital policy, data, and domain names. Thank you all for being here today. I’m going to start by posing a question to Tara. I wonder if we could find you on the screen, Tara. But Tara, what is the difference between misinformation and disinformation? And are they really distinguishable, independent concepts?

Tara Harris: Hi, Chris. My video seems to be disabled, so you’ll have to just do with my voice. I hope you can hear me, okay?

Christine Strutt: Okay. Intention. And I think there was another hand at the back. Same. Well, let’s see. Let’s see what our expert has to say. Tara, what, in your opinion, is the difference between those two concepts?

Tara Harris: Yes, indeed. Intention is very important. An easy way to remember it is misinformation sounds a bit like mistake. So it is the unintentional spreading of false or untrue information versus disinformation where this was done on purpose to cause harm. Something that’s quite interesting, however, is that bad actors. we get citizens and faithful customers that come to us and say, we’ve seen this great offering for this new investment and for this option for us, for example to buy into it. Is it real? And then we of course look into it and it’s often a scam. So yes, we see because we’re an investor, we often see bad actors pretending to create gams or investment opportunities to try and trick consumers into believing that they can invest with us. And often there is nothing behind it. They’re just trying to collect their credit card information. So as these technologies are developing, we are starting to see deepfakes, for example, and we definitely seeing a much bigger increase towards bad actors impersonating our execs, trying to trick people with these technologies into thinking that they are real and then hooking them into illegal and often Bitcoin scams or similar. Natara, you’ve mentioned the executive brands, deepfakes, impersonation. Those are not things that all IP laws adequately cover. How do you find taking enforcement measures or addressing those sorts of wrongs given the current IP laws that you are given to work with? Yeah, that’s a great question. I think as these issues are increasing, we’re having to become a lot smarter when it comes to- enforcement. Luckily enough, we have a global footprint, and so we’re experienced in dealing with a large amount of different issues on different platforms. The first thing we’ll have to do is look at where the bad, where the offense is taking place. Is it on a platform? Is it on an internet website? Is it on a telegram or a messaging app? Try and see if there are terms of use. Otherwise, if we’re dealing with something that’s really targeting a certain jurisdiction, try and have a look locally. The issue is often when these problems arrive, you want to get them down as soon as possible. And so you’re trying to find normally a multitude of ways to attack them. It could be looking at IP rights or privacy rights, or as you say, a certain right in a country. Recently, we’ve seen France making it illegal to share defects. Of course, if there’s pornographic or sexual content, the penalties and fines are even worse. So it’s great to see changes like this happening. We’re also seeing a large policy shift in Denmark. I’m sure many of our audience have read in the news that Denmark is considering granting copyright to faces and physical likeness to try and give citizens the ability to enforce against defects. So I think we’re starting to see a shift, but there’s far from harmonization at the moment.

Christine Strutt: So IP for humans. I’m not sure how I feel about that. But I think coming from a country where the concept of image rights doesn’t really exist in our laws, and you only have protections for well-known famous people in terms of defamation, I do think that is a trend that’s promising, because given the current state of affairs, celebrities have recourse or public figures, but the everyday I’m going to start with you, Mike. I think it’s very important to understand that the way that people think about the world today, whether it’s men on the street or women on the street, has no protection if they get impersonated or their likeness or voice gets copied. So that is a very concerning state of affairs to me. Mike, what Tara is describing, though, is deep fakes and sophisticated voice or image impersonations. That typically use generative AI. And, of course, this is top of mind for all of us. When it comes to online fraud, we typically find ourselves, or at least I hope that we find ourselves, discussing how to combat the risks that are presented by these tools. But there are also simpler forms of misrepresentation in the digital space that could occur without any bad actors being involved. And that’s a very important part of the conversation. So, Mike, I’m going to start with you. I’m going to start with you. I think it’s very important to understand that the way that people think about the world today, whether it’s men on the street or women on the street, has no protection if they get impersonated or their likeness or voice gets copied. So that is a very concerning state of affairs to me. In the context of this digital space, that could occur without any bad actors or intentional wrongdoing. Can you perhaps share with us some of the issues that you encounter in your line of work when it comes to the development of language models and applications that are, in fact, intended for good? Thanks for that, Christine. I’m glad that we can see Tara now. Just letting you know you’re visible on our end as well. I think the most widespread form of misinformation that, in my view, is going to become mainstream and where we really need to be the strictest is misinformation around large language models. In other words, someone going to ChatGPT to get information about the real world. And you, of course, Christine, started your conversation by saying and disclosing to us that you had received these stats off of ChatGPT. But you had the presence of mind to say, well, we have to look at other academic sources. And what we’re seeing as an increasingly challenging problem is for generations that are AI native. So, in other words, these are individuals who are coming of age, so anywhere between, you know, 12 and 18.

Mike Mpanya: and early 20s during the AI era, where the first place they go to verify information is not a library or a search browser, as we have done historically, but AI. And now the predominant challenge with large language models is that large language models are neural networks that were trained on the internet. In other words, they’re an amalgamation of information that was available. And therefore, their training data has inherent bias, not towards what is the most correct information, but what is the most widespread information. So in other words, a challenge that we, in my line of work, engage with every day, is the fact that most large language models are trained on information from the global north, in particular, the United States and Western Europe. The majority of information on the internet comes from those markets. So when you’re engaging with a large language model around any topic, whether it’s around inclusive finance and best practice for starting a business in a rural community in Africa, or best practice for growing a business in a part of Southeast Asia, it’s going to give you information that is not necessarily correct. Now, those are perhaps some of the more benign examples where it becomes fundamentally more complex is in AI use cases, when you’re trying to use AI for something like health or finance. If the underlying health data set is a data set that does not include the market you’re trying to reach to. In Nubia’s line of work, we’re trying to expand access to healthcare for those who need it most with a particular focus on the global south. You don’t have an abundance of training data, healthcare data, on the types of people living in the global south. So that can cause some really challenging consequences when you’re trying to look at the risks that someone has for a particular disease, or when you’re trying to get the right form of diagnosis. A practical example we’ve encountered, and I’ll leave it here, is one in the banking space, where in the developing world, fintechs are very quickly becoming… the most common way of finance. And all FinTechs are exploring how do you use large language models, machine learning to expand access to finance, in particular credit. The challenge in a country like South Africa, of course, is that South Africa 30 years ago was not an inclusive society. It was a society separated by race. So if you’re going to use a historical data set to credit rate Africans, people of European origin, et cetera, the different race groups in South Africa, you’re going to be confronted with the challenge that your data set is inherently biased because it reflects the society that the data set was created in. So in order for us to combat what I think will become the most dominant form of misinformation is going to be for us to have a new standard for testing the integrity and the reliability of the underlying data sets we use to train these models. Okay. So I agree about the integrity of the data set, but let’s say you’ve already got a distorted view. What’s the solution to improving that? Is it just feeding in synthetic data or do you just have to build a fresh? What’s your thinking around improving the quality of the data that you are going to use inevitably? So there’s kind of two schools of thoughts around this. One is kind of the reinforcement training that you can do to the model. So in other words, let’s get as many different people to use it as possible. And over time, the model improves. The challenge is if that model that you’re building or the tool you’re building or the use case is supposed to make decisions in real time, are you comfortable with people being adversely affected because the model at the time has an inherent bias? And I think that’s something that in my view, no company would be comfortable with is knowing that a certain segment of customers or clients were being adversely affected because the underlying data set is incorrect. I think what is the more practical option and why conversations like these are so important is that we actually as a society and as AI practitioners, lawmakers, and users, we need to be able to make the right decisions. have to begin to imagine and get creative around what are the requirements we think about when looking at what an underlying data set has to have. So if you look at many of the other disciplines in engineering, there is a best, there’s several best practices and codes and forms of conduct that people ascribe to either by law or willingly because that’s just part and parcel of the best practice culture when building a car or building a bridge. I think having high quality data sets that are representative, that do take in diverse demographics and that are tested for bias before they’re used need to become part and parcel of the design process. So when you’re building a small language model, a large language model or an agent at the beginning of the process, we’re going to have to test the data sets and we’re going to have to create at least a global framework or regional framework around what is best practice to make sure that the data sets we’re building these models on actually have integrity and truth to them.

Christine Strutt: Thanks for that, Mike. Tara, I know you’ve got some views on best practices and regulation and standardization or harmonization. Could you say some of your thoughts around that?

Tara Harris: Indeed. So anyone who’s in the EU, I think, or even who’s not in the EU has probably heard of the EU AI Act. Of course, when that first arrived, we at Process had to try and figure out how are we going to how are we going to manage this risk? How are we going to make sure that our businesses are compliant, that they’re processing fair data, accurate data? Of course, they’ve been using ML and AI for many years. And now many of the normal algorithms are now subject to this regulation. And we took the view that we will adapt a global policy on ethical and responsible AI development. And this was based largely on the OECD AI principles. I think they promote innovative, trustworthy AI that represents human rights and democratic. larger companies voluntarily decide to take up these policies and make sure that they’re trying to ensure that they’re developing and deploying safe and responsible AI, the more it will become the norm. I think this will also help companies such as Mike’s companies, for example, be able to scale because while South Africa might not be subject to this, if they are already setting their benchmark pretty high at an EU level, that’s going to make it much easier for them to go into other regions, because many of the countries have got similar, you know, most of these frameworks are global. So I think that they can be adopted adapted by various industries. But I’d love to hear Mike’s view on this as well.

Christine Strutt: So would I but I just I’ve noticed our slides have sort of frozen. And I want to suggest that we actually just close them out and see only the speakers, if that’s okay. But whilst we do that, Mike, more regulation, harmonized regulation. And do you think that’s the way forward?

Mike Mpanya: I think if I could wave a magic wand, I would want harmonized regulation. I think Tara’s spot on when she’s talking about the challenges around scaling and growing. And that’s something we’re dealing with on a regular basis is when moving from South Africa to a Bangladesh to a Nigerias, we’re deploying what should be the same solution. If you think about the logic behind startups and the traditional laws of scaling. It is that you create a particular product, that product has value and you’re able to replicate and deploy that product all over the world. Unfortunately, because of the current regulation being so regional and in many instances being fragmented, what we’re dealing with is each and every time we go into a new market, as opposed to focusing on the technical requirements of the solution, we’re focusing on the legal requirements of the solution. And I was having this conversation with Christine when we were in South Africa a few weeks ago, that some weeks I spend more time with lawyers than I do with engineers. And I don’t think that’s a great position to be in as a founder of a technology company. So yes, in a perfect world, I think what we would want is more harmonization. I think what we’re seeing though is an increasing regional approach where particular regions and particular countries are choosing how to regulate their data and using kind of data sovereignty as a concept to justify that. What I would say is the downside of that is that it actually plays into the hands of big tech as opposed to small tech. So even though the logic is that if you have a regional framework or local framework, you’re going to make it harder for the big players to come into your market. Actually, what you do is you squeeze out the small players. Because to Tara’s initial point, only the large companies can afford armies of lawyers to understand research and figure out what is best practice and what should be done in each market. And in a world where you have multiple fragmented legal frameworks, what ends up happening is you push out competition in terms of the tech space and the AI space, and you effectively leave the world vulnerable to a few major players with a lot of capital. So I would want more harmonization, clarity around harmonization. I think that would be easier for our scaling. However, in the short term, I do think something practical we’re all going to have to deal with is very fragmented regional approaches to how they govern information.

Christine Strutt: There’s such good observations. And I will just say as the lawyer, whenever we have to advise on, you know, principles, best practices or themes in some other standard, that’s not great for us either, right? Because we are also just hypothesizing and trying to figure out what is the practical implication of that rule. So I understand that you can’t have fixed do’s and don’ts but, you know, that is inevitably why we end up spending so much time with startups and tech founders, because we are all together in this and trying to figure out this sort of uncharted territory of laws and regulations. Speaking of which, Lori, you’ve been very overlooked beside me here. I’d like to ask you more about regulation and policy, because INTA as an organization actually represents very diverse stakeholders. You know, we have the tech community, we have educational groups, non-profits, we have governmental agencies, we have private practice. What’s INTA’s view on AI regulation and policy?

Lori Schulman: I would say that INTA’s views are evolving and we have noticed and I do believe that sitting in a room with a bunch of lawyers when you prefer to be coding is probably not the best situation, but it is the best situation in a world where the legal frameworks are not quite fixed and solid. So it’s not a waste of time speaking as a lawyer. I’ve loved my career as a tech lawyer. Consult a lawyer. I mean, I’m just going to go there. But that being said, yes, we’ve noticed enormous trends in regulation. As you will hear in other sessions, there have been dozens, over 60 jurisdictions that have introduced nearly if not more than 1,000 regulations. So regulations are springing up all over the place, and it begs some questions. One, do we know enough about how things work to regulate? What we’re seeing now is a lot of regulations come into place, and then either the ability to technically enforce them, or the principle behind the enforcement isn’t syncing up with, again, the technology. We’re finding enforcement on the lawyer’s side, we don’t know how to counsel clients. Well, you have to follow this law. I know you want our advice, but we’re all waiting to see. That’s a very tough spot to be in. And I also, in this world, because I’m in a world where I go in front of governments and advocate for INTA’s members, we focus on brands and related intellectual property, and we are very concerned about two things. One, making sure that our members do have the space to innovate, and at the same time, that their innovations are well protected through established intellectual property laws, because we have seen, and have done many studies, where trademark-driven economies, economies that recognize intellectual property rights, grow faster, do better. If you go to inta.org, you will see these studies. They were done quite a number of years ago, but the information still holds up. So, you know, do we know enough to regulate, and can we truly future-proof? That’s what I try to ask regulators, my members, all the time. I would say this, that we’re seeing governmental practices emerging, we’re seeing voluntary practices emerging, and organizations like INTA are developing policy frameworks, where they can go and express to governments what they think might be the most appropriate way for the private sector and the governmental sector to move forward. I’m going to recognize a few jurisdictions, just so you can see the diversity of it. Japan has an AI framework that includes social principles on human and Mr. Mr. Mike Mpanya. The EU has the EU AI Act and the corresponding code of principles. For those of you who follow that, it’s very thorny. There’s a lot of questions. It’s very broad in some cases, extremely specific in other cases, and again, there’s uncertainty around whether or not the AI Act can be enforced, and if it’s enforced, are the principles that we’ve been working on for the last year the right ones. Those principles will be published in the next few weeks, so keep your eye out because I think they will become the world’s guideposts simply because of the size and impact of the European Union on the rest of the world. As Tara already mentioned, OECD has guidelines. You can go to the OECD website, and there’s a lot of great information about things to think about as you’re implementing an AI governance objective. When we speak about AI governance, we’re speaking about it at two levels. One, inside the company. How is the company going to govern its own AI development? But we’re also talking about what we talk about here at WSIS, which is global impacts, global infrastructure. How do we scale up in a world that has thousands of laws? This isn’t a new problem right away, and the other thing I like to emphasize that when we talk about these problems, they’re not new. This happened. I was there about almost 40 years ago now when domain names came on the scene and commercialized domain spaces and websites were popping up 30 years ago in the late 90s. There was absolute panic. We got through it, folks. I mean, we’re not perfect, but we got through it. There’s a lot more understanding now, and I do believe that that will happen with AI. I would be remiss, before I give the mic back to Christine, if I didn’t talk about INSHA’s efforts and where they relate to the strategic development goals, because as you know, it’s all about the STGs. The STGs, in terms of what INSHA’s focusing on, is an STG 9, which is innovation, industry, and economy, and STG 16, which talks about justice and a just world, the rule of law. I don’t have the precise—yes, I do. Peace, justice, and strong institutions. We need both. One cannot coexist without the other and benefit the globe. That’s how— I think that’s most of us here feel that way. I know Intus certainly feels that way. So the five principles that we really support right now is recognizing human versus machine contributions to inputs and outputs. Final decisions on granting or revocation of rights should be subject to human oversight. We don’t want to go off programming AI judges and AI gatekeepers without having also the human element of experience intuition. We’re not there yet with AI, certainly. Rights holders should be able to obtain lawful access to data for the purpose of enforcing their rights. We need to know the sources. We need to know who is the right and fair source to go to. Kind of going to the misinformation versus disinformation distinction. One is clearly a mistake. The other is intentional. And if it’s been intentional, there should be accountability. There must be accountability. And lastly, that transparency, however these frameworks are developed, should be balanced. And that balance should be with the need to protect proprietary information. Going back to innovation, patents, protecting what you develop, trademarks, protecting your brands. And what we’re hearing the most about in AI is copyright, protecting your content, potentially protecting your image. None of this, again, is new, but it does need to be rethought in a different type of technological space. And that’s my job. Thanks, Lori. And I think those principles also speak to the versus action lines. I mean, off the cuff, if I’m thinking about access to accurate information, building confidence and security in ICTs, the role of the media, ethical dimensions, and of course, then the role of governments and stakeholders. Absolutely. And as we know that the SDGs are tied in, the versus action lines flow up to the SDGs. I have come up with a little quote, but I like it because I think it’s right. I think we should let the SDGs be our North Star and let the multi-stakeholder inputs be our compass. There’s no one way to regulate AI. That I’m convinced about it. I mean, if you were in today’s plenary, you heard it’s not a question of either or, government versus non-governmental frameworks. It’s about inclusivity and collaboration at every single level in the stack, whether you call it a policy stack, an information stack, a service stack, right? It all integrates in some way. We can’t look to one and not the other. So I have come to a conclusion when you’re ready. I don’t know if you’d like to take questions first or if you’d like me to read my conclusion.

Christine Strutt: Yeah, I think- You can do it either way. Yes, we have a couple of minutes. And I think before I ask for closing remarks from all the speakers, I do wanna open the floor. This is labeled as a workshop. And if anyone has a question or comment, I think we’d love to hear it. Please feel free to direct or nominate it to any of the speakers. We have a roving mic. Oh, you have speakers if it’s in front of you. If not, we have a roving mic. It’s really a roving clowse.

Audience: Hi, thank you to all the speakers for all of their comments. I think they’re very pertinent and I learned a lot. My name is Nanya Sudhir. I work at the ILO. My question, since I’m usually concerned with the, I would say the sustainability of the UN organizations, is we were talking a lot about how to ensure that data sources are, let’s say, decolonized. Let’s put it this way. That we’re taking from all kinds of data sources. That we are, the AI models that are developed, they take into account a range of sources and not just the biased ones that they currently do. I worry about this because I will live in the future, hopefully. The question here that I come up against a lot personally is how do we motivate a generation that may have grown up only with AI? People who are maybe a decade even younger than me who’ve never lived without the internet. And who, yeah, how do we motivate them or inspire them to be engaged in this when they don’t, maybe they don’t realize the gravity of how increasingly mainstream the sources of data that give answers currently are?

Christine Strutt: I know that Mike has a youth organization. So I want to. pass this question on to him, Mike, if you don’t mind addressing it. You also might have the most interactions with younger users and developers of AI content.

Mike Mpanya: Yeah, yeah. I would say as someone who’s going to live in the future as well, I’m actually very hopeful around this. So to Christine’s point, I ran Africa’s largest youth organization for a number of years and still have a foundation that trains young leaders. And my sense when engaging with youth is that they’re incredibly conscious. They’re incredibly focused on decoloniality. And actually the demands for better and more open technology and technology that’s reflective of them, I think is very, very high. And to give you comfort, I think the biggest reason why AI will be decolonized is because there’s a massive market for it. So even when I spend time in the US and in parts of Western Europe, there are tons of VCs, investors looking at how do we build technology for the global South? And that is because that is the main market. When you look at the demographics data, something that is incredibly fascinating is that though in our cultural conversation, looking at the world through a Western lens is normative. From a numbers perspective, the normative parts of the world are the global South. Most parts of the world will struggle to have compute, will struggle with energy, but data centers are not represented in large language models as it currently exists. So even in a world where the UN organizations might be slow to it, I think the private sector is increasingly going to find a need to be able to answer these questions. And when you talk about decoloniality, one of the things that I think is intimately linked to it is open source technology. And what you’re finding is that open source AI is very quickly growing much faster than closed source AI. And what that means is that people all over the world will be able to fine tune the tools to be able to reflect them. And the reason why that’s happening is because people in India, in Bangladesh, in South Africa, in Nigeria, you know, in Venezuela want technology that is reflective of them and want a tool that’s able to answer their questions. So I would say that right now it might seem very hopeless when you look at the current dominant technology, but I think in the long term we’re going to have very, very representative tools being built.

Christine Strutt: I don’t know if any of the other speakers want to add to that.

Tara Harris: Yeah, I think mine would be that I think we’re certainly seeing in our industry a big increase in small language models. And I guess we’re just using the big language models now to power our own data. So I would imagine, and Mike can comment, but I would imagine if we’re going to be using something, for example, to help a specific sector or look at education, whilst we’ll be using the LLM to power the thinking, the actual datasets that would go into using to looking at, you know, to getting to the query would in fact be the datasets of the relevant audience. But I’d love to hear Mike’s thing on that. So I think we’re going to see before we just had these big LLMs and everyone just used the big LLMs, but I think when are we seeing agents or we’re seeing the small language models. So I’d like to hear Mike’s thoughts on how that might change the datasets and the relevance of them.

Mike Mpanya: Yeah, I think Tara’s spot on there. What we’re seeing is that small language models are going to be the dominant form of interacting with AI. So when you think about the massive stuff like a GPT model or LLAMA model or any of these models with 13 to 32 billion parameters, that isn’t actually going to be how customers or people are going to be engaging with AI. People might take some of the architecture from that and really fine tune it onto local datasets. And we’re seeing companies as large as JP Morgan and Chase who only use small language models in their banking sector. And that is increasingly becoming mainstream. Furthermore, I think what’s dominating or leading to a kind of a market that favors small language models is regulation. As we have more and more regulation, , Ms. Tanya, so we’re going to be talking a little bit about what we’ve seen in the last few years with regards to the collaboration around data remaining in country. You’re just not going to be able to host some of these large language models in these developing countries, because it’s just inefficient. So you’d much rather have bespoke tools built for purpose. And what we found in our work is when you actually build small language models or specific agents that are really, really nuanced on a limited data set, they outperform large language models. And that is common not only in the developing world but even in the United States and Western Europe as well.

Lori Schulman: And I was going to add from a public policy perspective that I think that’s right. I think we’ve seen a lot of jump to global. But the way things really work, and we’re seeing that even in the political sphere right now, we’re going back to multisectorial thinking. And we’re going back to thinking inside of borders, inside of regions, inside of certain interest groups. And I don’t think that’s a trend that’s going to end. I actually think that’s a trend that’s going to get stronger. In terms of sustainability of UN, there’s a lot of questions about that. I’m certainly not here to answer them. But the only thing I will say is that you’re going to hear a lot this week about public-private partnerships and rethinking them. So in terms of how the UN operates, how its funding model might work, what is the appropriate role for the private sector, because I don’t know that that’s an answer that’s been truly satisfactorily answered for the private sector. So I would argue that we need a lot more engagement there, because some of the financial resources that have been dependent upon governments may not be there right now. But they could be in the private sector. Some would argue they are. And so we have to get realistic about how resources flow.

Christine Strutt: I’d love to take more questions, but I think we have about three minutes left. So I’m going to ask each of the speakers just to give us one send-off, just a last thought about misinformation, disinformation, and how we can improve the situation for the future. Lori, would you like to go first?

Lori Schulman: I think it’s important that we can conclude that there’s no single way to solve the question that AI poses in terms of ensuring safety and trust. So it has to be multi-sectorial and multi-stakeholder based. I would hope that’s a given. The other last thought I would say is one call to action we would ask organizations like the ITU, and this is something I’m going to give Mike credit for, is perhaps the ITU, from a sustainability perspective, could form information hubs where entrepreneurs like Mike can go to a single resource to get primers, training on what needs to be thought about in terms of starting smaller and scaling upward. That could be a perfect place to put information that benefits entrepreneurs in any sector. And I just have to say one more thing, and I’m sorry because I talk a lot, but just because this is difficult doesn’t mean we should give up.

Christine Strutt: Thanks, Lori. Tara, any concluding remarks from your side?

Tara Harris: Yeah, I echo what Lori says about resources. I think, you know, we’re a big company. I’ve been doing this, like Lori said, since domain names were created. And even still, it is hard, but we have to work together. I think more hubs, more resources, resources for smaller companies, companies from Global South, from Asia, on how to adopt a basic voluntary AI governance framework, education on how to get harmful content down. I think, again, resources and sharing will go a long way.

Christine Strutt: Thanks, and Mike, from your side, a closing remark?

Mike Mpanya: I would reiterate what Lori and Tara said. I think they’re spot on, and we will appreciate those resources as soon as they’re made available or that portal. All I would add is I would say we are going to need as much interdisciplinary collaboration as possible. and Mr. Mr. Mike Mpanya. I think when you look at the history of technology for a very long time, it’s been dominated by the engineers. And I think the first stage of AI has been dominated by engineers and technicians. But if we actually want to make this tool something that creates a more inclusive world and that bridges divides as opposed to exacerbating them, we’re going to need as many people around a table as possible. So I think the hub shouldn’t just be focused on bringing technical expertise to the table, but legal expertise, social expertise, humanities expertise as well.

Christine Strutt: I couldn’t agree more. So thank you all for that insightful and revealing conversation. May you all continue to create awareness and drive positive, impactful change towards a secure and trustworthy online environment. Thank you everyone for joining the session. Enjoy your afternoon.