Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the ITU’s call for input regarding the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, which will assess progress and determine the future of WSIS beyond 2025. Cynthia Lesufi, chairperson of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs, led the session alongside colleagues from ITU, Brazil, and Australia to gather stakeholder feedback on digital development progress over the past two decades.

Gitanjali Sah from ITU provided background on the WSIS process, which began in 1996 and has been coordinated by ITU with over 50 UN agencies to implement various action lines covering capacity building, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and enabling environments. The ITU maintains a stocktaking database and organizes annual WSIS prizes to showcase successful implementations. The Council Working Group has received 97 submissions from member states and stakeholders, which are being analyzed to identify both achievements and ongoing challenges in areas like connectivity, cybersecurity, and capacity building.

Participants raised several important concerns during the interactive session. A Canadian civil society representative expressed worry about decreased government engagement compared to earlier WSIS phases, while others discussed funding challenges facing the UN system and the need for greater private sector involvement. The discussion emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches at both national and international levels, with suggestions for encouraging voluntary participation and alternative funding mechanisms.

The session concluded with encouragement for continued participation in the input process, as all contributions will inform the UN General Assembly review scheduled for December 16-17, 2025, which will determine WSIS’s future direction.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review Process and ITU’s Role**: The discussion centered on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-year review process, with ITU serving as the lead coordinator. The ITU Council Working Group has issued a call for input, receiving 97 submissions from member states and stakeholders to assess progress and identify future challenges in digital development beyond 2025.

– **Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Government Participation**: Participants discussed the importance of maintaining strong multi-stakeholder participation, with specific concerns raised about declining government involvement (particularly Canada’s reduced presence compared to earlier years). The conversation emphasized the need for continued engagement from all sectors – government, private sector, and civil society.

– **Resource Mobilization and Funding Challenges**: A significant portion of the discussion addressed funding constraints facing UN processes, including the UN’s need to cut activities by 20-30%. Participants suggested solutions including increased private sector involvement, encouraging volunteerism, and creating member state contribution funds to support WSIS activities.

– **Implementation and Avoiding Duplication**: The conversation highlighted the need to use existing WSIS architecture to implement Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives rather than creating duplicate structures. Emphasis was placed on practical implementation of WSIS action lines to make real differences in people’s lives, not just producing reports.

– **National Reporting and Best Practices Sharing**: Discussion of the importance of country-level reports for the WSIS Plus 20 review, with templates available at wsis.org/review. Participants emphasized the need for comparative analysis of these reports to identify best practices, gaps, and areas needing improvement.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to gather stakeholder input and feedback on the ITU’s contribution to the WSIS Plus 20 review process, encourage continued participation in the call for input, and discuss challenges and opportunities for digital development cooperation beyond 2025.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was collaborative and constructive throughout, with participants showing appreciation for the WSIS process while acknowledging real challenges. The conversation maintained an encouraging and solution-oriented approach, with speakers building on each other’s points and offering practical suggestions. There was a sense of urgency about the December 2024 deadline for the UN General Assembly review, but this was balanced with optimism about the multi-stakeholder model’s resilience and adaptability.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Cynthia Lesufi** – Chairperson of the ITU Council Working Group on Nurses and SDGs

– **Gitanjali Sah** – ITU Secretariat member

– **Renata Santoyo** – Vice-chair of the ITU Council Working Group, from Brazil

– **Participant** – Representative from Australia, participant in the Council Working Group (appears to be William based on context)

– **Jennifer Corriero** – Works with an NGO based in Toronto, Canada; former part of Youth Caucus and used to be a key focal point in Canada from the government

– **Horst Kremers** – Chair of an international group of experts in risk information management, from Berlin, Germany

– **Mervi Kultamaa** – From Finland, representing ISOC Finland; former government representative and WSIS plus 10 coordinator at UNCTAD

– **Amali De Silva-Mitchell** – From the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies; participated at WSIS since PrepCom One

– **Wisdom Donkor** – Ghana IGF coordinator, speaking from Ghana

**Additional speakers:**

– **Professor Anki Goyal** – From India, Chairman of Association of Telecom IT (referred to as “Professor Gohel” at one point in the transcript)

# Comprehensive Report: ITU Council Working Group Discussion on WSIS Plus 20 Review Process

## Executive Summary

This discussion, led by Cynthia Lesufi, Chairperson of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs, focused on gathering stakeholder feedback for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The session brought together representatives from ITU, member states, civil society organisations, and technical experts to assess two decades of digital development progress and chart the course for WSIS beyond 2025.

## Background and Context

### WSIS Historical Framework

Gitanjali Sah from the ITU Secretariat provided comprehensive background on the WSIS process, which began in 1996 when Tunisia, a member state, proposed that there should be a framework for the WSIS process at ITU’s plenipotentiary conference. The summit was conducted in two phases – Geneva and Tunisia – with ITU serving as the natural lead coordinator due to its mandate and expertise in telecommunications and information and communication technologies.

The WSIS framework encompasses action lines covering critical areas including capacity building, cybersecurity, infrastructure development, and enabling environments. ITU coordinates implementation efforts with over 50 UN agencies, maintaining a comprehensive stocktaking database that demonstrates global-to-local implementation of digital development projects. The organisation also administers annual WSIS prizes to showcase successful implementations and organises the annual WSIS Forum, which has become a significant platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue.

### Current Review Process

The ITU Council Working Group has issued a comprehensive call for input to assess progress over the past two decades and explore the future of WSIS beyond 2025. This initiative has generated substantial engagement, with 97 submissions received from member states and stakeholders, published on the ITU website with some exceptions for stakeholders who requested non-publication.

The review process utilises structured templates available at wsis.org slash review, designed to capture achievements, identify gaps and challenges, and articulate future visions. A key deadline of 15th of July was mentioned for contributing to the elements paper. Gitanjali noted that the WSIS Forum did not initially appear in the elements paper, describing this as “a careless omission” that needed to be addressed in the review process.

## Key Discussion Points and Stakeholder Perspectives

### Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Government Participation

Renata Santoyo, Vice-chair of the ITU Council Working Group from Brazil, emphasised the evolution of multi-stakeholder engagement over the past two decades. She noted that the multi-stakeholder model has improved networking and communication compared to 20 years ago, creating more effective channels for collaboration between government, private sector, and civil society actors.

However, Jennifer Corriero from a Toronto-based NGO raised concerns about government participation, specifically noting that she did not see “any official government representative on the agenda” for the current week’s discussions. She observed that whilst Canada had over 50 people on its government delegation to WSIS in 2005, current official government representation appeared diminished.

In response to these concerns, it was noted that the ECOSOC president, who is the Canadian ambassador, had given a speech, indicating continued Canadian engagement at senior levels. Professor Anki Goyal also contributed supportive comments, describing WSIS as “the most wonderful platform for more than 20 years.”

### Resource Mobilisation and Financial Challenges

The discussion revealed concerns about funding constraints facing the UN system. Mervi Kultamaa from Finland, representing ISOC Finland, provided context by connecting the WSIS review to broader institutional realities. She highlighted that the UN faces financial constraints requiring delivery of more with less whilst maintaining effectiveness.

This financial reality prompted discussion about innovative resource mobilisation. Wisdom Donkor, Ghana IGF coordinator, advocated for greater private sector involvement in funding, arguing that private companies should contribute more as they benefit from global policy discussions and processes. He suggested that current UN funding policies may create barriers to private sector contribution and recommended examining these policies to increase engagement.

Amali De Silva-Mitchell from the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies, who mentioned participating “since the very initial PrepCom One,” offered a balanced perspective, emphasising that the spirit of volunteerism should remain important whilst encouraging private sector support for specific activities.

### Implementation Focus and Avoiding Duplication

A significant theme emerged around the need to focus on practical implementation rather than creating duplicate structures. Gitanjali Sah emphasised the importance of using existing WSIS architecture to implement Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives, avoiding duplication of efforts and maximising efficiency.

Renata Santoyo reinforced this perspective, arguing that WSIS action lines require broader interpretation and should focus on making real differences in people’s lives beyond just producing reports.

### Analytical Rigour and Best Practices

Horst Kremers, chair of an international group of experts in risk information management from Berlin, introduced methodological considerations. He argued that comprehensive reviews should include comparative analysis to identify what goals are positive, what goals are less successful, and where best practices can be identified. His intervention suggested that simply collecting reports without systematic comparison might not provide sufficient insights for meaningful policy development.

This prompted responses from both Cynthia Lesufi and Gitanjali Sah, who clarified that their templates do include sections for challenges and that analysis is planned.

## Areas of Consensus and Future Directions

### Leveraging Existing Architecture

Strong consensus emerged around the principle of leveraging existing WSIS structures rather than creating new mechanisms. Participants consistently emphasised that the established WSIS architecture should be utilised to implement new initiatives like the Global Digital Compact, particularly given resource constraints and the need for efficiency.

### Private Sector Engagement

Participants reached consensus on the need for increased private sector involvement, though they proposed different implementation approaches. There was agreement that private sector entities should contribute more to funding given their benefits from global policy discussions, whilst maintaining the inclusive character that has made WSIS successful.

## Recommendations and Action Items

### Immediate Actions

The discussion generated several concrete action items for stakeholders. Participants were encouraged to continue submitting contributions through the template available at wsis.org slash review and to submit national reports to strengthen ITU’s input to the UN General Assembly review scheduled for 16th and 17th of December.

### Engagement Strategies

Specific recommendations emerged for encouraging multi-stakeholder participation at domestic levels to sustain government engagement. The discussion also highlighted the importance of connecting civil society representatives with active government officials involved in WSIS processes.

### Analytical Enhancement

Participants agreed on the need to analyse received contributions to highlight successes, challenges, and recommendations for post-2025 implementation. This analysis should go beyond simple documentation to provide comparative insights and identify best practices.

## Conclusion and Future Outlook

The discussion demonstrated the continued relevance and adaptability of the WSIS process after two decades of implementation. Participants showed strong consensus on fundamental principles whilst engaging in constructive debate about optimisation strategies. The emphasis on practical implementation over mere documentation reflects growing sophistication in international digital cooperation.

Key challenges remain around resource mobilisation and sustaining government engagement across all member states. However, the multi-stakeholder model has proven adaptable and effective, with improvements in collaboration noted over the past two decades.

As the process moves towards the UN General Assembly review in December, the foundation laid by this discussion and similar stakeholder consultations will inform critical decisions about WSIS’s future direction. The discussion concluded with encouragement for continued participation in the input process, recognising that all contributions will inform the decisions about WSIS’s future role in global digital development cooperation.

Cynthia Lesufi: Hello, everyone. My name is Cynthia Alesofi. I’m the chairperson of the ITU Council Working Group on Nurses and SDGs. And really, it’s an honor to welcome all of you in this session. And with me, I’m joined by my esteemed colleagues, Gitanjali from the ITU, Renata as a vice chair of the ITU Council Working Group, and my good friend from Australia as a good participant of the Council Working Group work around this particular issue. And I really want to say to all of you that this is an interactive session. We welcome the input and feel free to say whatever that you want to say with regards to the ITU’s call for input. With this, I want to give Gitanjali as the ITU secretariat to say something about this. Thanks.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Cynthia. So basically, we wanted to, hello, Professor Gohel. You can join us on the table since it’s a small place. Yeah. So as you all know, basically, the WSIS process started in 1996 when in ITU’s plenipotentiary conference, Tunisia, a member state, said that there should be a framework of the WSIS process. And it was then that we took it. to the UN General Assembly. And in the UN General Assembly, it was decided that the WSIS will be held in two phases, one in Geneva and the other one in Tunisia. So Geneva confirmed the Geneva Plan of Action, where we came up with the framework of the WSIS action lines. And in Tunisia, it was more about enhanced cooperation, internet governance, and that’s where IGF was born. So the ITU was a very natural lead coordinator since we work on issues of communication and technologies. We have been coordinating the implementation of the WSIS action lines with the different UN agencies. So we work with more than 50 UN agencies to implement the different action lines. We lead the coordination of the action line on capacity building, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and enabling environment. We coordinate the WSIS forum every year. And internally within the ITU, we also have a system for member states to advise us on what we should be doing through our council working group that Cynthia chairs, and the plenipotentiary conference where we have a resolution 140. So we also maintain a WSIS stocktaking database where all of you are invited to submit entries every year. And this stocktaking database is a really good practice of sharing information amongst all stakeholders, countries, getting to know what you all are doing to implement the WSIS action lines. It’s connected to the SDGs. And now we’ve also provided a framework connecting it to the GDC, showing how the WSIS action lines are clearly implementing the GDC objectives. We also have the WSIS prizes that we… organized every year that showcase real good implementation of these action lines on the ground. You saw that they were awarded on Monday. Many of you here have been prizes champions and winners. And the last point, Cynthia, is this WSIS is really UN Digital Cooperation in Action. We have this group called the United Nations Group on Information Society that has been leading this coordination with more than 50 UN entities to implement the WSIS process. Now, what we hear from all the stakeholders is that in implementing the GDC, we should avoid duplication. We have limited resources. We should use the structure and the WSIS architecture, which was coined at the CSTD, to implement the GDC objectives and the process. GDC was really a booster to the WSIS process. It was a great achievement in terms of digital technologies. But we should use the existing WSIS architecture to implement it. That’s the message we have got from all of you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Back to you, Cynthia. Thank you, Ketanjali, for that background. I think it’s very useful. Perhaps before I give Renata and William the floor, I just need to take the colleagues through why the ITUs call for input. The Council of the ITU has actually, through a resolution, mandated the Council Working Group to issue a call for input into the review process and looking at the outcomes and the future of WSIS process beyond 2025 with the intention to assess progress, identify challenges, explore emerging trends in digital development. And this call was meant for member states and all stakeholders. And if I were to report as to how far we are with that call is that we have received about 97 submissions. And those submissions are currently published in the ITU website. But there are those submissions which are not published as a result of the stakeholders indicating that. that they don’t need those contributions to be published. So the other work that we have done together with the ITU Secretariat is to go through the contributions, which is really painting a picture of really showing the work that the ITU, through the UNJIS framework, has done with other UN agencies. And they are also highlighting the progress that we have made since 2003 to date in terms of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes. The contributions are highlighting that there’s actually a good progress in terms of the connectivity, the infrastructure. But they are also highlighting the fact that there are so many issues that are still lacking behind in terms of implementing the action lines. And the other components that these contributions are highlighting is the issue of cybersecurity. They’re also touching on issues of capacity building and many other issues. And so the intention, really, is to take all those contributions to then submit them at the UN General Assembly later this year. So with this, I want to give the floor to then Australia, William, to then say a few words about this process. Thank you.

Participant: Thank you very much for giving me the floor, Cynthia. And let me first thank both ITU for the process that it ran to prepare its members for the WSIS Plus 20 review. And obviously, Cynthia Renato, our chair and vice chair of the Council Working Group on WSIS. As you’ve outlined, Cynthia, the process has been quite extensive in terms of the preparations by ITU for the WSIS Plus 20 process, which I think has really shown a best practice. in terms of how the action line facilitators can support the WSIS Plus 20 review. And the Secretary General’s report is an excellent read if you haven’t had a chance to read it about how some of the work is going forth through ITU and through other action line agencies as well. I think the other thing to mention, obviously you talked about the 97 inputs from member states and other stakeholders. I think that is an excellent resource package as well. If you’re wanting to see where individual member states see the WSIS Plus 20 process going, those inputs are a really useful resource in that regard. Both showing the achievements that have been delivered so far, but also areas where further work may need to be done. So I think that’s a really, really important resource. The WSIS Forum, which we are all here this week, I think is an excellent demonstration of ITU’s contribution to the WSIS process in general. And also another important input into the WSIS Plus 20 review. And I know at our next council working group meeting in September, we’ll have an excellent opportunity to reflect upon this conversation here this week in Geneva. The other thing I just wanted to kind of draw out is the stocktaking database. And I know probably we have all had an opportunity to familiarize ourselves with that stocktaking database that ITU has been compiling over the last 20 years and some of the awards and prizes that many worthwhile recipients have received. But I think that stocktaking database really shows the global to the local. And what I mean by that is the opportunity. opportunity for global action through the WSIS to really be implemented on the ground through local and regional projects, in some cases very hyper-local regional projects. And the work that ITU does in that respect is really, really, really important, and I think that has really set a foundation upon which the call for inputs that Cynthia talked about was able to build upon. I might pause there. Thanks very much, Cynthia.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you, William, for such an extensive intervention in terms of, you know, looking at the process that we’ve been following in order to support the WSIS Plus 20 review. And I would now want to give the floor to my vice-chair, Renata, from Brazil.

Renata Santoyo.: Hi. Good afternoon. I just would like to add to what Cynthia and William said before, the importance about WSIS action lines and reflect about them, if we need some, maybe, how we’re going to interpret this WSIS action lines, because it’s a broader concept now, and I think it’s very important to have that in mind. Also about all this process with WSIS, we need to avoid duplication. And I think during this last 20 years, we had the opportunity to see how WSIS have increased the importance in evolution and importance of ITU coordinating all this process. I think it’s crucial to have in mind. Also how the multi-stakeholder model make a lot of differences, because we could see, like in the beginning, we didn’t have all this network created, people didn’t used to talk to each other, and now we can see a lot of difference 20 years ago. So I think this reflection is very important to think about the next steps for the WSIS that are going to be decided in the end of the year. All the achievements we want to have, all the inclusiveness, inclusive and transparency we saw this year, I think it’s also very important to take in mind. And I think that’s my words, I give back to Cynthia, and we’re going to be very happy to hear all of you. Thank you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you, Renata, for sharing your perspective on the ITU’s call in relation to the WSIS review process that is due to take place in New York later this year. And with this, I want to now open the floor for interaction for any reaction to this great work that I believe the ITU is doing, and of course supported by many stakeholders including member states in ensuring that there’s an efficient way of implementing WSIS action lines for achieving sustainable development. I now open the floor for any reaction, any comments to this. I see a hand there. And really, if you can just introduce yourself. I’m known as Professor Anki Goyal from India. Chairman of Association of Telecom IT. I’m not commenting on the subject, but on the views given by Geetanjali. Yes, WSIS has been the most wonderful platform for more than 20 years or so. Multi-stakeholder, inviting everybody, putting their views together, and we are very happy to be a part of that thing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Prof, for that encouraging intervention and for supporting the WSIS process that we, me as a chair, really believe in that, is doing a great work in terms of implementing the action lines and ensuring that we are able to achieve the sustainable development by 2030. Any other reaction? Yes, ma’am.

Jennifer Corriero: Thank you. My name is Jennifer Corriero. I work with an NGO based in Toronto, Canada. And in 2005, there was over 50 people on the Canadian government delegation to WSIS. And in 2003, I was part of the Youth Caucus and the government of Canada was very, very involved in the process. But I’ve noticed this week, I haven’t seen any official government representative on the agenda. And I want to know what I can do to encourage my government to be more involved. And I would love to see a report by the government of Canada, highlighting our progress in the last 20 years and also looking at our priorities into the future. I just, I used to be a key focal point in Canada from the government. They used to ask me for inputs. We had national campaigns all around the world and I know the challenges, like I know maybe some of the reasons why, but at the end of the day, like commitments are commitments and we have a lot to also be proud of. So it’s, I don’t want countries like Canada to fall off the map because we have a lot of value to add. And I’d say like in the early 2000s, we were leading in investing in these areas. So I just, it hit me now, like I don’t think some civil society people are here and I did meet with them. There are Canadians, a few Canadians here, but I don’t think there was an official speech at all. So that’s my question. What can I do to urge my country?

Cynthia Lesufi: Yes, I’m going to give the floor to Kitanjali as the IT Secretary to respond to those.

Gitanjali Sah: No, thank you so much. for your passion and it’s really nice to know that you were involved right from the beginning. We also heard your passionate speech about education and about children being involved in the process. I can reassure you that the Canadian government is very involved in the WSIS process, especially even within the ITU. They are very active. They attend our council working groups and here at the WSIS Forum, we even had the ECOSOC president who is the Canadian ambassador. So he very, and I was informed that he studied in Geneva. He’s very close to the WSIS process as well. So he gave a very nice speech highlighting the importance of the WSIS action lines, the WSIS process, and I do hope that he, as the president of ECOSOC, has also taken it back to New York, which is very important, colleagues. We really need all of you to be active in New York. It’s okay to say that WSIS is important, but all the decisions will be taken in New York on the 16th and 17th of December. There is an elements paper that the WSIS Plus 20 COFAQs have come up with, and I’m not sure if you’ve read it, but WSIS Forum does not appear in the elements paper. So when we asked, we were informed that as co-organizers, ITU, UNESCO, UNDP made an inquiry and we were informed that it was just a careless omission, but we definitely need to be more alert and ensure that we contribute to the elements paper. The deadline is, I think, 15th of July. It was extended. It was extended, right? Yeah, but we must really appreciate the COFAQs, the ambassador of Albania and the ambassador of Kenya. They were here all throughout the week, patiently listening to all of us, to all the stakeholders. So we really appreciate their kindness and their patience that they’ve been around. is we can put you in touch with the Canadian government officials who are very active right now because we have called for action the WSIS plus 20 reports. So we have country reports, we have stakeholder reports, so you should also submit one. We encourage everyone to submit WSIS plus 20 reports. South Africa was one of the first ones to submit their report. We have one from Saudi Arabia. I know William that Australia will submit one. So we encourage you to submit these. They don’t have a deadline because we really want you to contribute to showcase what we’ve done in these 20 years. So I’ll take, I have your email address

Cynthia Lesufi: and I’ll connect you to the Canadian government. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Kitanjali for that. I see William also want to take the floor. Just very briefly, so from the Australian

Participant: perspective where we’re working very closely with our Canadian colleagues, I think you’re right, Canada has a really strong story to tell and I don’t want to speak for my Canadian colleagues, but just to say you obviously have some really important and difficult connectivity challenges in terms of remote and rural areas. You have cultural and linguistic diversity. You’ve got a range of really interesting and really positive stories to tell and certainly from an Australian government perspective, Canada has been a really strong partner in the review process with us and as Kitanjali said, I’m sure we can make the connection to your government as needed.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you William for that and as a chairperson of the Council Working Group, I can also attest to what Kitanjali and William are saying. Canada is actually active and yes, and I think the same challenges that William has highlighted about what Canada is experiencing, I think it’s the same thing that South Africa is experiencing, but not only South Africa, but Africa as a region. So, I think we have common challenges. So, can I give the floor? Yes, please introduce yourself.

Horst Kremers: My name is Horst Kramers, Berlin, Germany. I’m chair of an international group of experts in risk information management, and I have a suggestion or a question on these national reports. As far as I understood here, it’s more or less a report on the state of the art, what have we done, as we thought. In a review, in a complete review, there also should be some part of comparison, where are we, what goals are positive, what goals are not so positive. Governments sometimes are a little bit reluctant with this, so it’s good to have stakeholder private or public stakeholder additional reports. But what I see from a different process I observed in another program of United Nations was that it’s absolutely difficult to make analysis and comparison analysis of these reports. This is a list of reports, nice, you can read them. It would be better if some whosoever, person or institution or something, gets a task of seeing the difference, seeing the best practice, seeing, you see this management-oriented thing, not just what you have done. This is very important, no question. But nevertheless, even society is much more interested in is it positive or is it negative, what could be done, where it should be faster, where should it be deeper, where should it be broader, whatsoever. So just as a suggestion, I know it’s hard work if you would do it. society would appreciate.

Gitanjali Sah: I must say that the template in the, and I’m, and I’m, you will correct me if I’m gonna say something that is wrong here. The report that, I mean, the template that was published by the ITU in relation to this 20 year review reports, it does actually give all stakeholders, member states, not only member states, but also the private sector, the civil society, to make contribution, but in that template, they also are giving space for challenges, you know, the issues that you are raising, to highlight them. The report is not necessary to talk about the good things, but it also gives you an opportunity to highlight those challenges and to then also give recommendations as to how, you know, can we deal with those challenges. And I know that the Secretariat of the ITU, working with myself, we are in the process of actually analyzing, if possible, you know, because it’s quite a huge, you know, information that is contained in this report. You know, we are in the process of actually analyzing and the analysis, the intention of the analysis is to, of course, highlight the successes, but also highlight the challenges. And what is it that can be done to then address those challenges beyond 2025? Thanks. Gitanjali, do you wanna add on what I’ve said? Cynthia, you’ve covered most of it. I just want to give you all the web address of where you can find these templates. It’s wsis.org slash review. Very simple. So instead of forum, just replace it with and this plus 20 reports. You can also see samples of what we received. in 2014 and 2015. We received them for 10 years of WSIS as well, quite a few of them. And 20 years of WSIS, we should have more of them. And as Cynthia mentioned, the templates has various sections. What have you achieved? What are the main gaps and challenges? And what is the vision that you see for the future? So once we have all this information, maybe we can do a nice analysis of that as well. But for that, we need as many of you submitting the report as well. We can put them into nice covers and we can also promote them on your behalf. We can promote your work as well.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thanks, Kitanjali, for that. Anyone asking for the floor? Yes, ma’am.

Mervi Kultamaa: Yes, thank you. My name is Mervi Kultamaa, I’m from Finland. I’m representing here ISOC Finland, but I have also been government representative as well as the WSIS plus 10 coordinator at UNCTAD. I think there was a very valid point on how to sustain government’s interest in WSIS. And one of the approaches that could be taken would be to encourage governments to submit multi-stakeholder contributions to the review. I think that’s what we did as Finland 10 years ago. And that would be one possibility to try to get your government more engaged to show that there is lots of interest in the non-governmental side for this kind of activity. The second point that I wanted to make is the geopolitical situation and the sort of the financial crisis that UN faces at the moment. And I’m just wondering as at the same time when the governments are negotiating about the 20 year review, there is also negotiations on the UN 80 reform. And we all know that the UN needs to cut its activities by 20, 30%. And I’m just wondering how, when we think about all these gaps what more needs to be done, how we actually take into account that the UN might actually look a bit different next year, with reduced capacity, mergers and changes that will need to take place. And it’s kind of a challenge when all this happens during the same year. But it would be nice to know your reflections about it.

Cynthia Lesufi: Yes, yes, indeed. That’s quite a very useful reflection to look at. And I believe that the review process itself will take that into consideration. And as Kitanjali has suggested, perhaps it will also be useful if you go to the website and then you include this, you know, you get the template and then you submit. Because submission, as Kitanjali has said, it’s going to assist us, or the ITU, rather, to receive this information so that it then forms part of the issues that the ITU will be then submitting to the UNGA review process. And again, as Kitanjali has mentioned, it’s also going to be helpful if, you know, most of you and your governments, your organizations, you also form part of the discussions that will be happening in New York with regard to the review itself. Any? Yes? Yes, take the floor. Is there anyone asking for the floor? Oh, yes, Yuna. Do you have any words you’d like to say?

Participant: Just in response to your excellent questions, I think your point about multi-stakeholder engagement at the domestic level in terms of supporting governments, I think, really, really important. It’s a process we have adopted in Australia, and I’m glad to hear that. We’re perhaps stealing from our Finnish friends in terms of that, and I think it would be incumbent on all of us to encourage governments to take forward a multi-stakeholder approach. I know South Africa’s doing similar, I know a number of other countries doing similar. On your question about the geopolitical situation, the kind of financial constraints that the UN finds itself in, I can only echo my colleague Cynthia’s comments around that being taken into account. But I think WSIS is one of those frameworks that has shown its ability to adapt to different circumstances over time, and the multi-stakeholder approach I think gives it a lot more resiliency than processes that are just tied to the regular UN budget, which is really the core challenge at the moment. And there is, I think, a significant opportunity through the WSIS Plus 20 review to work out how we deliver more with less, how we continue to drive efficiencies, how we continue to deploy the resources that we have in the most effective way, and how we continue to attract new resources, whether that be from the private sector, whether that be from civil society, the technical community, governments, other resources to closing the digital divides and building those digital transformation and digital development gaps. And I would say that’s probably a real strength of the ITU. Potentially it’s not there, so I can praise her. But I think that’s a real strength of the ITU, being able to work through and prioritise where resources can be best deployed across the world to close some of those digital development gaps. And I know once we have an outcome at WSIS Plus 20, then it’ll be an opportunity for for ITU members, through the working group, through other places, to work through how we can best deliver on the agreement that’s achieved in December.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thanks, William, and indeed, the issue of the resource, resource mobilisation is one of the issues that is coming out in terms of the analysis of the contributions that we have received to date, you know, through this process, the resource mobilisation is key to really close those gaps that we are identifying in, you know, in different regions, in different countries. This is what the member states and other stakeholders are also raising, William. Yes. Any, okay, I see there’s a hand online. Please come through and introduce yourself.

Wisdom Donkor: Thank you very much. My name is Wisdom Donkor. I’m speaking from Ghana. And then a motion for… No, we can see the hand online. Can you please unmute yourself and take the floor? Of course, I’ll unmute myself. Can you hear me? Okay. Then… Hello? Okay. Can you hear me? I’ve got a hand. Any other person wanting to make a comment on the issues we are… Okay. Mr. Moderator, can you hear me? Are they speaking? Yeah, because Wisdom’s hand is up. Okay. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Wisdom. I’m speaking from Ghana, and then I’m the Ghana IGF coordinator. Yes, I just want to contribute to the UN funding. Yes, I will say that I think there is much funding if we try to involve… and we try to involve everyone. Over the years, I’ve been on the map before and then it looks like UN has policies on funding. And at most time, those kind of policies, I think makes it difficult for private sector to even come in and say, okay, they want to also contribute to whatever processes that is going on within the UN. So we need to look at that and if possible, open up to the private sector for them also to come in. I’m saying this because all that we are discussing at a global level, whatever forum or whatever meeting goes to the benefit of this private sector. So we need to open up for them to also come in, whatever benefit that they are looking for, whatever policies that we are discussing and then putting together. They need to also contribute somehow. And also, we also need to open up to the community. We have civil societies. There are more organizations that are willing to come in and support. And finally, I think the UN can also take it upon itself to engage the member states. And if there is an agreement, a member state can contribute towards a fund that can be utilized whenever we want to have any such event, activities or global, so that this issue of lack of funding and all of that should be behind us. Because there are issues that we need to be solved. We’ve progressed, we’ve done much more, but much more needs to be done. And then we all need to come together and then put in effort and solve these problems once and for all. And I’m just hoping that by 2030, I mean, we should be able to address. some of the issues and make progress before the 2030. Thank you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you Wisdom for this useful intervention in terms of resource mobilization. How was it? You know, the suggestions that you’re making in terms of how we can actually use the very same process or approach that we are advocating for multi-stakeholder approach to solve the issue of resource mobilization and something that my colleague William here has actually touched on. Your intervention is quite useful. Can I now give the floor to Amali?

Amali De Silva-Mitchell: Thank you so much. Amali De Silva Mitchell. I’m from the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies. I actually have participated at WSIS since the very initial PrepCom One. I just want to say during those times, we really were voluntary based. And I just want to stress that, that, you know, we go through pockets of lack of funding through the decades, but you know, that spirit of volunteerism is very, very important. And I really think people really should promote that spirit of volunteerism. And I know it’s very strong in the UK and other places as well. And I know originally the civil society was just completely volunteer based. And even now the IGF, people are donating their time there. There are of course, lots of paid people. But I think if the private sector can be open to providing a little bit of funding to places like IGF and so forth, and various nonprofit groups for WSIS, I think that would be really good. But I think the main thing is to have that great spirit of volunteerism. It’s very inclusive bottom up. Thank you so much.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you so much for that. Also interesting, I would say, suggestion in terms of how we can address the issue of funding by actually encouraging the private sector in particular to volunteer in terms of putting, I would say, resources on the table to address these challenges. This is quite an interesting one and very useful intervention. Any other intervention or question in terms of? of the issues raised here. I see no one asking for the floor. Perhaps this is time where I would then ask my colleague, William, to then provide closing or parting words in terms of the experience and the issues that are raised here and how do we then can move forward with regard to the ITU’s call for input process. Thanks.

Participant: Thanks very much, Cynthia, and what a really good conversation that’s kind of touched on a number of issues in terms of participation of countries, in terms of multi-stakeholder participation, in terms of resourcing and capabilities. I think all issues that have been raised in the ITU call for input process and in the Secretary General’s report, which is an input to the co-facilitators as well. So I think all really positive and I think some of the challenges that we’ve got to tackle over the next five months between now and the 16th of December. I think from an ITU perspective, there’s an opportunity to continue to have these conversations within the ITU context for both governments and the ITU sector members, but there’s also an opportunity for ITU to take the outputs of the conversations and look at meaningful actions it can do to continue to deliver on the WSIS vision in the way as an action line facilitator, as a coordinator of UNGASS and in its other many roles that we have ahead. So probably as a closing remark, I would only encourage everyone to continue to have those conversations. continue to express your ideas and views, whether that’s to your government, whether that’s to the ITU directly. I’m sure Cynthia won’t mind if you express those ideas through to her and Renata as the Council Working Group on WSIS as well. So I’d only just encourage the more voices that are heard, the better and the stronger the process is going to be, and the better and the stronger the outcome is going to be. And I think ITU continues to have a good role in ensuring that outcome that we receive in December is an outcome that we all want to see. Thanks very much,

Cynthia Lesufi: Cynthia. Thank you, William. Yes, indeed, the call for input is still open. So as William has said, can we, you know, we encourage all of you to continue to make the input, I mean, to respond to the call. And as William has said, to then continue the conversation, even at the UN level.

Renata Santoyo.: Renata? Thank you, Cynthia. For the future of the WSIS, I just, I hope that we can bring everybody to the table more and more and speak the same language, because sometimes I think different sectors doesn’t like speak the same language between each other. So I think it’s very important. And from ITU perspectives, I hope to see another WSIS next year. And the WSIS Action Line is implemented in a proper way to really make some difference in people’s life, not only making reports, because I think that’s the real thing that we want to see, some efficient implementation of WSIS Action Line. And thank you, the presence of everybody here. And thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Yes, thank you very much for Renata and William for those closing remarks. And from my side, I really want to thank you for your active participation and for the, I would say, useful points that you have raised. And I’m also hoping that we can receive them in writing, some of the intervention that you’ve made here, because it can only make the ITU’s contribution to this review process more stronger only if you raise your voice and you keep on submitting this contribution. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you for watching!

Agreement points

WSIS architecture should be leveraged to avoid duplication and maximize efficiency

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Mervi Kultamaa
– Participant

Arguments

Need to avoid duplication and use existing WSIS architecture to implement Global Digital Compact objectives

UN faces financial constraints requiring delivery of more with less while maintaining effectiveness

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Summary

All speakers agree that existing WSIS structures and processes should be utilized rather than creating new mechanisms, especially given resource constraints and the need for efficiency

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential and has proven effective

Speakers

– Renata Santoyo.
– Mervi Kultamaa
– Participant

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model has significantly improved networking and communication compared to 20 years ago

Multi-stakeholder contributions at domestic level can help sustain government interest in WSIS process

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize the value and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder engagement in WSIS processes, noting improvements in collaboration and recommending its expansion

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Private sector should contribute more to funding and resource mobilization

Speakers

– Wisdom Donkor
– Amali De Silva-Mitchell
– Participant

Arguments

Private sector should be more involved in funding as they benefit from global policy discussions and processes

Spirit of volunteerism remains important foundation, with private sector encouraged to provide funding support

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Summary

There is consensus that private sector should increase financial contributions to WSIS processes, given their benefits from the outcomes and the ongoing resource challenges

Topics

Economic | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of comprehensive analysis that goes beyond just documenting achievements to include challenges and comparative assessment for meaningful insights

Speakers

– Cynthia Lesufi
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Template for reports includes sections on achievements, gaps/challenges, and future vision to enable comprehensive analysis

Analysis and comparison of national reports needed to identify best practices and areas requiring improvement

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlight ITU’s effective coordination role and comprehensive approach to WSIS implementation as exemplary practices

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Participant

Arguments

ITU coordinates implementation with over 50 UN agencies and maintains stocktaking database, WSIS prizes, and annual forum

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers are concerned about maintaining government engagement and suggest strategies to encourage continued participation in WSIS processes

Speakers

– Jennifer Corriero
– Mervi Kultamaa

Arguments

Canada was heavily involved in early WSIS but current government participation appears reduced, requiring encouragement for continued engagement

Multi-stakeholder contributions at domestic level can help sustain government interest in WSIS process

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Volunteerism as a sustainable foundation despite funding challenges

Speakers

– Amali De Silva-Mitchell
– Wisdom Donkor

Arguments

Spirit of volunteerism remains important foundation, with private sector encouraged to provide funding support

Private sector should be more involved in funding as they benefit from global policy discussions and processes

Explanation

Despite discussing funding challenges, there’s unexpected consensus that volunteerism should remain central while simultaneously advocating for increased private sector funding – showing a balanced approach to resource mobilization

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Need for practical implementation over reporting

Speakers

– Renata Santoyo.
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

WSIS action lines require broader interpretation and should focus on making real difference in people’s lives beyond just reporting

Analysis and comparison of national reports needed to identify best practices and areas requiring improvement

Explanation

Both speakers, from different perspectives, converge on the need to move beyond documentation to meaningful analysis and real-world impact, showing unexpected alignment on implementation effectiveness

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on leveraging existing WSIS architecture, maintaining multi-stakeholder approaches, increasing private sector funding, and focusing on practical implementation over mere reporting

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment on key issues. The agreement spans structural, procedural, and resource-related aspects of WSIS, indicating mature understanding of challenges and shared vision for solutions. This consensus strengthens the foundation for the WSIS Plus 20 review process and suggests good prospects for collaborative implementation of outcomes.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing UN funding constraints and resource mobilization

Speakers

– Mervi Kultamaa
– Wisdom Donkor
– Amali De Silva-Mitchell

Arguments

UN faces financial constraints requiring delivery of more with less while maintaining effectiveness

Private sector should be more involved in funding as they benefit from global policy discussions and processes

Spirit of volunteerism remains important foundation, with private sector encouraged to provide funding support

Summary

While all speakers acknowledge funding challenges, they propose different solutions: Kultamaa focuses on working within reduced UN capacity, Donkor advocates for changing UN policies to allow more private sector funding, and De Silva-Mitchell emphasizes maintaining volunteerism while seeking private sector support for specific activities.

Topics

Economic | Development

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current reporting and analysis mechanisms

Speakers

– Cynthia Lesufi
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Template for reports includes sections on achievements, gaps/challenges, and future vision to enable comprehensive analysis

Analysis and comparison of national reports needed to identify best practices and areas requiring improvement

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are discussing the same reporting process, yet they have different assessments of its adequacy. Lesufi, as the Working Group chair, defends the current template and analysis process, while Kremers, as an external expert, questions whether the current approach provides sufficient comparative analysis for meaningful insights.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows minimal direct disagreement, with most differences centered on approaches to resource mobilization and the adequacy of current analysis mechanisms. The main areas of disagreement involve funding strategies and the effectiveness of current reporting processes.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with constructive differences on implementation approaches. The disagreements are primarily about methods rather than fundamental goals, suggesting a collaborative environment where speakers build on each other’s ideas rather than opposing them. This indicates strong consensus on WSIS objectives with healthy debate on optimization strategies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of comprehensive analysis that goes beyond just documenting achievements to include challenges and comparative assessment for meaningful insights

Speakers

– Cynthia Lesufi
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Template for reports includes sections on achievements, gaps/challenges, and future vision to enable comprehensive analysis

Analysis and comparison of national reports needed to identify best practices and areas requiring improvement

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlight ITU’s effective coordination role and comprehensive approach to WSIS implementation as exemplary practices

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Participant

Arguments

ITU coordinates implementation with over 50 UN agencies and maintains stocktaking database, WSIS prizes, and annual forum

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers are concerned about maintaining government engagement and suggest strategies to encourage continued participation in WSIS processes

Speakers

– Jennifer Corriero
– Mervi Kultamaa

Arguments

Canada was heavily involved in early WSIS but current government participation appears reduced, requiring encouragement for continued engagement

Multi-stakeholder contributions at domestic level can help sustain government interest in WSIS process

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The ITU has successfully coordinated WSIS implementation with over 50 UN agencies for 20 years, demonstrating effective multi-stakeholder collaboration

97 submissions were received for the WSIS Plus 20 review, showing good progress in connectivity and infrastructure but highlighting remaining gaps in cybersecurity and capacity building

The existing WSIS architecture should be used to implement Global Digital Compact objectives to avoid duplication of efforts

Multi-stakeholder engagement has significantly improved over the past 20 years, creating better networks and communication channels

Resource mobilization is a critical challenge that requires innovative approaches including greater private sector involvement and volunteerism

The WSIS stocktaking database effectively demonstrates global-to-local implementation of digital development projects

National reports should include comprehensive analysis comparing achievements, challenges, and best practices rather than just listing accomplishments

Resolutions and action items

Continue accepting submissions for the WSIS Plus 20 review process through the template available at wsis.org/review

Submit contributions and national reports to strengthen ITU’s input to the UN General Assembly review in December 2025

Encourage multi-stakeholder participation at domestic levels to sustain government engagement

Connect Canadian civil society representatives with active Canadian government officials involved in WSIS processes

Promote the call for input process and encourage broader stakeholder participation in the review

Continue conversations and express views to governments, ITU, and the Council Working Group on WSIS

Analyze received contributions to highlight successes, challenges, and recommendations for post-2025 implementation

Unresolved issues

How to sustain consistent government participation across all member states in WSIS processes

How to address UN financial constraints and 20-30% budget cuts while maintaining WSIS effectiveness

How to better integrate private sector funding and overcome UN policy barriers to private sector contributions

How to ensure WSIS Forum and processes are properly represented in UN negotiations and elements papers

How to conduct meaningful comparative analysis of the growing number of national reports and submissions

How to ensure different sectors ‘speak the same language’ and improve cross-sector communication

How to balance the need for more resources with the founding spirit of volunteerism in WSIS processes

Suggested compromises

Use existing WSIS architecture to implement Global Digital Compact objectives rather than creating new parallel structures

Combine government and stakeholder contributions into multi-stakeholder national reports to increase engagement

Leverage both paid resources and volunteer contributions to address funding challenges

Focus on delivering more with less through improved efficiency and resource deployment while seeking new funding sources

Encourage private sector funding support while maintaining the inclusive, bottom-up volunteer spirit of WSIS

Provide templates and frameworks that allow for both achievement reporting and honest assessment of challenges and gaps

Jennifer Corriero’s observation about Canada’s declining participation: ‘In 2005, there was over 50 people on the Canadian government delegation to WSIS… But I’ve noticed this week, I haven’t seen any official government representative on the agenda… I don’t want countries like Canada to fall off the map because we have a lot of value to add.’

Speaker

Jennifer Corriero

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it highlighted a critical trend of diminishing government engagement over time, despite initial strong participation. It brought a concrete, personal perspective to the abstract discussion of stakeholder participation and raised concerns about sustaining momentum in international processes.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from theoretical frameworks to practical challenges of maintaining government engagement. It prompted immediate responses from both Gitanjali and William, who provided reassurances about Canada’s continued involvement and offered concrete solutions. The comment also led to a broader conversation about how to encourage multi-stakeholder participation at the national level.

Horst Kremers’ critique of the review process: ‘In a review, in a complete review, there also should be some part of comparison, where are we, what goals are positive, what goals are not so positive… It would be better if some whosoever, person or institution or something, gets a task of seeing the difference, seeing the best practice, seeing, you see this management-oriented thing, not just what you have done.’

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it challenged the methodology of the entire review process, suggesting that simply collecting reports wasn’t sufficient for meaningful evaluation. It introduced a critical analytical perspective that questioned whether the current approach would actually lead to actionable insights.

Impact

This intervention elevated the discussion from process mechanics to evaluation methodology. It forced the organizers to defend and explain their analytical approach, with both Cynthia and Gitanjali responding to clarify that their templates do include sections for challenges and that analysis is planned. The comment introduced a more critical, academic perspective to the discussion.

Mervi Kultamaa’s connection between geopolitical realities and WSIS planning: ‘The geopolitical situation and the sort of the financial crisis that UN faces at the moment… when the governments are negotiating about the 20 year review, there is also negotiations on the UN 80 reform. And we all know that the UN needs to cut its activities by 20, 30%… it’s kind of a challenge when all this happens during the same year.’

Speaker

Mervi Kultamaa

Reason

This comment was exceptionally insightful because it connected the WSIS review to broader institutional and financial realities facing the UN system. It introduced a sobering external context that the discussion had not previously acknowledged, forcing participants to consider how their idealistic goals might be constrained by harsh budgetary realities.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the tone of the discussion from optimistic planning to realistic constraint acknowledgment. It prompted William to respond with thoughts about ‘delivering more with less’ and leveraging the multi-stakeholder approach for resilience. The comment introduced a strategic planning dimension that hadn’t been present before.

Wisdom Donkor’s systemic critique of UN funding policies: ‘I think there is much funding if we try to involve… everyone… UN has policies on funding. And at most time, those kind of policies, I think makes it difficult for private sector to even come in and say, okay, they want to also contribute… whatever benefit that they are looking for, whatever policies that we are discussing and then putting together. They need to also contribute somehow.’

Speaker

Wisdom Donkor

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified structural barriers within UN policies that may be inadvertently limiting funding opportunities. Rather than simply calling for more resources, it diagnosed why resources might not be flowing effectively, suggesting that the UN’s own policies could be part of the problem.

Impact

This comment deepened the funding discussion by moving beyond resource scarcity to examine systemic barriers. It prompted Amali De Silva-Mitchell to respond with reflections on volunteerism and private sector engagement, creating a more nuanced conversation about different models of resource mobilization and participation.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what began as a procedural briefing about the ITU’s call for input into a much more substantive discussion about the fundamental challenges facing international digital cooperation. Jennifer Corriero’s personal observation about declining participation opened the door to discussing sustainability of engagement. Horst Kremers’ methodological critique elevated the analytical rigor of the conversation. Mervi Kultamaa’s geopolitical context-setting forced realistic constraint acknowledgment, while Wisdom Donkor’s systemic analysis of funding barriers provided concrete diagnostic insights. Together, these interventions moved the discussion from celebrating achievements and describing processes to critically examining structural challenges, methodological limitations, and external constraints. The comments created a more honest, complex, and strategically-oriented dialogue that better prepared participants for the real challenges ahead in the WSIS+20 review process.

How can individual stakeholders encourage their governments to be more involved in the WSIS process and submit national reports?

Speaker

Jennifer Corriero

Explanation

She specifically asked what she could do to encourage the Canadian government to be more involved after noticing reduced official participation compared to previous years

How can comparative analysis and management-oriented evaluation be incorporated into the national reports to identify best practices and areas needing improvement?

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Explanation

He suggested that reports should go beyond listing achievements to include comparative analysis, identifying what works well and what needs improvement, which would be more valuable for society and decision-making

How will the UN’s financial crisis and potential 20-30% budget cuts affect WSIS activities and the implementation of the 20-year review outcomes?

Speaker

Mervi Kultamaa

Explanation

She raised concerns about how simultaneous UN reform negotiations and budget constraints might impact WSIS capacity and activities, especially given the timing coinciding with the review process

How can UN policies be modified to better enable private sector funding and participation in WSIS processes?

Speaker

Wisdom Donkor

Explanation

He suggested that current UN funding policies may be barriers to private sector contribution and recommended examining these policies to increase private sector engagement

What specific mechanisms can be established to create a sustainable funding model involving member states, private sector, and civil society organizations?

Speaker

Wisdom Donkor

Explanation

He proposed that member states could contribute to a dedicated fund and that there should be better engagement with private sector and civil society for sustainable financing

How can the multi-stakeholder approach be strengthened to ensure different sectors communicate more effectively and ‘speak the same language’?

Speaker

Renata Santoyo

Explanation

She identified communication barriers between different sectors as an area needing improvement for more effective collaboration

How can WSIS action lines be implemented more effectively to create tangible differences in people’s lives rather than just producing reports?

Speaker

Renata Santoyo

Explanation

She emphasized the need to move beyond reporting to actual implementation that creates real impact for people

Summary

This discussion focused on strengthening inclusive, rights-based digital governance as part of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, with particular emphasis on artificial intelligence ethics and information integrity. The session brought together representatives from various organizations including the ITU, European Commission, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Wikimedia Foundation, and Internet Society to explore multi-stakeholder approaches to AI governance.

Rasmus Lumi from Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, representing the Freedom Online Coalition, opened by emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining the multi-stakeholder Internet governance model against attempts to impose centralized state control. The panelists consistently stressed that effective AI governance requires meaningful participation from all stakeholders – governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and end users – rather than relying solely on multilateral approaches.

Key themes emerged around the need for transparency, accountability, and inclusion in AI systems. Isabel Ebert highlighted how human rights frameworks should serve as the foundation for ethical AI governance, advocating for a forward-looking approach that asks what kind of societies we want AI to help build. Jan Gerlach emphasized civil society’s dual role as both participants in governance processes and builders of digital public goods like Wikipedia, noting that AI systems are often trained on data from these community-curated sources.

The discussion also addressed persistent digital divides, with Dan York pointing out that 2.6 billion people remain offline, potentially deepening inequalities as AI tools become more prevalent. Panelists called for open standards and protocols in AI development, similar to those that enabled the Internet’s success, while supporting innovation without permission. The session concluded with recognition that balancing AI innovation with societal protection remains a critical challenge requiring continued multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder governance model preservation**: Strong emphasis on defending the distributed, multi-stakeholder Internet governance model against attempts to impose centralized state control, particularly in the context of WSIS Plus 20 review and AI governance frameworks.

– **AI ethics and human rights integration**: Discussion of how to embed human rights frameworks, transparency, and accountability into AI governance, with focus on ensuring AI serves society rather than deepening inequalities or undermining democratic participation.

– **Civil society participation and shrinking civic space**: Concerns about maintaining meaningful civil society engagement in Internet governance processes, including challenges with funding, access to forums, and threats to multi-stakeholder participation in various UN processes.

– **Digital divide and connectivity gaps**: Recognition that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected to the Internet, and that AI development may be widening rather than closing digital divides, excluding voices from global South and marginalized communities.

– **Information integrity and trustworthy ecosystems**: Focus on combating disinformation while protecting freedom of expression, supporting independent journalism, digital public goods like Wikipedia, and ensuring diverse voices are represented in information systems.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how the WSIS Plus 20 review process can strengthen inclusive, rights-based digital governance, particularly regarding AI ethics and information integrity. The session sought to develop concrete policy recommendations for maintaining multi-stakeholder engagement while addressing emerging challenges from AI and threats to Internet freedom.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative yet urgent tone throughout. Participants expressed shared concerns about threats to the multi-stakeholder model and human rights online, while remaining constructively focused on solutions. There was an underlying tension between optimism about technology’s potential benefits and anxiety about current challenges to Internet governance and civil society participation. The tone became slightly more pressing toward the end when discussing immediate threats like the Open-Ended Working Group negotiations and calls to pause AI regulation for competitive reasons.

Speakers

– **Ernst Noorman** – Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands, Session Moderator

– **Rasmus Lumi** – Director General, International Organization and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Strategy and Policy Coordinator at the ITU, responsible for the World Summit on Information Society process

– **Thibaut Kleiner** – Director for Policy, Strategy, and Outreach at DG Connect of the European Commission, former Head of the Unit of Network Technologies

– **Isabel Ebert** – Senior Advisor of Business and Human Rights and Tech at the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights of the UN, Advisor at the BTEC Project on Business and Human Rights in the Technology Sector, member of the OECD AI Group of Experts

– **Jan Gerlach** – Public Policy Director of Wikipedia Foundation, leads global advocacy efforts within Wikimedia Foundation

– **Dan York** – Chief of Staff of the Office of the CEO at the Internet Society, background in DNS, real-time communication, and IETF involvement

– **Participant** – Riyad Abathia, former NGO’s Coordination Office in the United Nations, international civil society activist

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list.

# Strengthening Multi-Stakeholder Digital Governance: WSIS Plus 20 Discussion Report

## Introduction

This discussion, moderated by Ernst Noorman, Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands, brought together representatives from international organizations, governments, civil society, and the technical community as part of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The session, organized by the Freedom Online Coalition, focused on artificial intelligence ethics and information integrity within the context of multi-stakeholder Internet governance.

The panel included Rasmus Lumi (Director General, Estonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs and FOC Chair), Gitanjali Sah (ITU Strategy and Policy Coordinator), Isabel Ebert (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights), Thibaut Kleiner (European Commission DG Connect), Dan York (Internet Society), and Jan Gerlag (Wikimedia Foundation).

## Opening Framework: Freedom Online Coalition Priorities

Rasmus Lumi established the session’s context by highlighting threats to foundational Internet governance principles. He emphasized that “we cannot overcome the challenges without the meaningful engagement of all shareholders” and warned that “efforts to impose centralised control threaten to undermine the Internet’s fundamental openness, risking fragmentation and compromising the very attributes that have made the Internet a catalyst for progress and innovation.”

Lumi positioned 2025 as a critical year when “long-standing values” face challenges, noting that some countries are attempting to “veto multistakeholder civil society organizations out of the room.” The Freedom Online Coalition’s response involves working through multi-stakeholder formats to defend established governance principles.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance Approaches

### Institutional Perspectives

Gitanjali Sah emphasized that “WSIS Plus 20 provides opportunity for multi-stakeholder dialogue to include all voices in the UN General Assembly review process.” She highlighted the ITU’s commitment to inclusive participation, noting the WSIS Forum’s “literally five months” open consultative process and efforts to accommodate remote participation and different time zones.

Thibaut Kleiner advocated for strengthening existing mechanisms, suggesting that the “Internet Governance Forum should become permanent UN institution with own budget and director for ongoing discussions about emerging technologies.” He emphasized that approaches should be “bottom-up, owned by local constituencies rather than imposed.”

### Technical Community Perspective

Dan York brought technical expertise to the governance discussion, noting that “technical communities bring essential expertise whilst civil society provides knowledge about impacts on vulnerable populations.” He emphasized the Internet’s success through “open standards, open protocols, and innovation without permission principle” while expressing concern about maintaining this balance as governance evolves.

## Human Rights Framework for Digital Governance

Isabel Ebert positioned human rights as the foundation for digital governance, arguing that “human rights framework should serve as common minimum denominator for ethical approach to technology.” She reframed the AI governance debate by suggesting we ask “what kind of societies do we want AI to help us build and which accountability structures for different actors and their distinct role can incentivise this.”

Ebert called for “transparent rules matching pace of AI development with benefits shared across nations and risks thoughtfully managed,” emphasizing transparency, accountability, and inclusion as core principles.

## Artificial Intelligence Governance Challenges

### Cross-Sectoral Coordination

Gitanjali Sah emphasized that “AI governance must be cross-sectoral, looking across health, agriculture, education with overarching ethical framework.” This comprehensive approach recognizes AI’s impact across all sectors of society rather than treating it as a standalone technical issue.

### Technical Standards and Openness

Dan York advocated for “open standards and protocols for AI transparency, explainability, and accountability,” drawing parallels with Internet development. He expressed concern about “proprietary, closed AI systems creating vendor lock-in and concentrated power,” emphasizing the need to maintain open, collaborative approaches in AI development.

## Civil Society as Digital Infrastructure Builders

Jan Gerlag provided a significant reframing of civil society’s role, emphasizing that “civil society, the people who use the internet, also build large parts of the internet… They build the digital public goods that the Global Digital Compact aims to support.” Using Wikipedia as an example, he illustrated how civil society creates and maintains critical Internet infrastructure through “massive self-governed collaboration systems.”

Gerlag noted that “good AI governance requires supporting communities who curate and verify information that feeds AI systems,” highlighting civil society’s role in creating trustworthy information ecosystems. However, he warned that “civil society input is critical for internet governance success, but their access to these processes is under threat.”

## Digital Divides and Connectivity

Dan York introduced sobering statistics, noting that “one-third of the world (2.6 billion people) still lacks internet access, and AI development risks deepening digital divide.” He explained how technological advancement can worsen inequalities: “Those of us who have access to the AI tools and systems that we’re all using, we are able to be more productive… And we’re leaving the folks who are offline further behind.”

York also highlighted that “those without connectivity cannot contribute knowledge to information pools used for training AI models,” showing how digital exclusion affects both access to AI benefits and representation in AI systems.

## Information Integrity and Community Approaches

Jan Gerlag presented Wikipedia as a model for community-driven information integrity, noting that Wikipedia and similar projects “provide vital information access and represent massive self-governed collaboration systems.” The Wikimedia Foundation’s approach emphasizes supporting “individual agency through literacy, privacy, safety and transparency” rather than relying solely on top-down content moderation.

The discussion highlighted the need to “support civil society organisations through smart policies and funding to sustain trustworthy information ecosystems,” recognizing that community-driven approaches require institutional support to remain sustainable.

## International Cooperation and Regulatory Balance

Ernst Noorman addressed tensions between innovation and protection, noting that “right now, if you look at the AI discussion, it’s more and more about competition. Who will be the winner?” He argued that “AI is there to serve society and humanity” and criticized calls to “pause the EU AI Act because of competition reasons,” stating that “competition concerns should not override regulation designed to protect society and create level playing fields.”

## Audience Engagement and Practical Concerns

The session included audience participation, with questions about regional coordination and the role of national chapters in Internet governance. Speakers emphasized leveraging existing mechanisms, including what Dan York noted as “180 different national or regional Internet Governance Forums” worldwide, rather than creating entirely new structures.

## Key Challenges and Ongoing Issues

The discussion identified several persistent challenges:

– Ensuring meaningful multi-stakeholder participation while some actors attempt to exclude civil society

– Balancing AI innovation with societal protection and rights-based approaches

– Addressing the digital divide while preventing AI from deepening existing inequalities

– Maintaining open, collaborative approaches in AI development similar to Internet governance

– Supporting civil society organizations’ capacity to participate in governance processes

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated broad agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder governance and human rights-centered approaches to digital governance, while revealing different emphases on implementation strategies. The discussion highlighted the need to defend established Internet governance principles while adapting to emerging challenges from AI development and persistent digital divides.

The session concluded with time constraints as “the president of Estonia is about to make his remarks,” reflecting the broader context of high-level diplomatic engagement around these issues. The emphasis throughout was on maintaining inclusive, participatory approaches to governance while ensuring that technological development serves societal needs rather than merely competitive interests.

Ernst Noorman: Good morning everyone. Very much welcome to this session. First of all, my name is Ernst Noorman. I’m the Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands. By the way, I also want to welcome the online participants to this session. Before I introduce the panelists, I will introduce the subject of this morning. As we approach the 20th year review of the World Summit on Information Society, or the WSIS Plus 20 as we all know it, it’s a timely moment to reflect on how we can strengthen inclusive rights-based digital governance. This session focuses on WSIS Action Line C10 and C11 on ethical dimensions of the information society and international cooperation. Our goal is to explore how multi-stakeholder engagement, including civil society, the private sector, academia, and end-users can help shape digital spaces that uphold human rights and support sustainable development. A key part of this conversation will be the role of artificial intelligence, especially generative and decision-making systems, in shaping the integrity of online information, trust, and democratic participation. We’ll look at how governance frameworks can promote transparency, accountability, and equity while protecting freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination. We’ll also consider whether current international and human rights frameworks are equipped to respond to the rapid evolution of AI and how we can work together to prevent these technologies from deepening existing inequalities. Finally, we’ll highlight, at least I hope, practical and collaborative approaches to bridging digital divides and building trustworthy information ecosystems that advance the sustainable development goals. I look forward to an engaging discussion with concrete strategies and policy ideas that can help to shape a more inclusive and ethical digital future. Now, for that, we have five excellent speakers, which I will introduce right now. First of all, we have Gitanjali Sa to my right, and she’s the Strategy and Policy Coordinator at the ITU and is responsible for the World Summit on Information Society process. Then we have Thibaut Kleiner, to the left of me, and recently appointed as Director for Policy, Strategy, and Outreach at DG Connect of the European Commission, and also experienced as before as the Head of the Unit of Network Technologies, and this unit was in charge, or is in charge, of research and innovation in the area of wireless optical networks, network architecture, Internet of Things, SATCOM, and the 5G public-private partnerships. Then we have Isabelle Ebert, to the right of me, Senior Advisor of Business and Human Rights and Tech at the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights of the UN, and Isabelle is an Advisor at the BTEC Project on Business and Human Rights in the Technology Sector and a member of the OECD AI Group of Experts. Then we have Jan Gerlag, to the left of me. Jan is the Public Policy Director of Wikipedia Foundation, and at Wikimedia Foundation he leads efforts within the global advocacy teams to educate lawmakers and governments worldwide on Internet policies that promote and protect Wikipedia and open knowledge participation. And finally, as a participant in the panel, is Dan York, and Dan serves as the Chief of Staff of the Office of the CEO at the Internet Society, advising the President and CEO, coordinating organizational priorities and managing key relationships, and his recent work has focused on Internet shutdowns, resilience, and projects such as sustainable technical communities, Leo satellites, and open standards everywhere. And with a background in DNS, real-time communication, and long-standing involvement in the IETF, Dan has been working with online technologies since the mid-80s, so a long experience. But first, we start off with my dear friend Rasmus Lumi, Director General, International Organization and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, and right now the Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition, to share his thoughts on what the role of the FOC and similar initiatives could play in shaping AI and information integrity standards in the WSIS-20 process and beyond. Please welcome to the floor. Thank you.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much, and I’m very glad and honored to be here, to be able to deliver the opening remarks to this very distinguished panel. So, first of all, I’d like to say that it’s kind of obvious, maybe, but I think it is also needed to be repeated that 2025 seems to be the year where our long-standing values and principles are being challenged more than ever, and international organizations, especially the United Nations, are in notable difficulties. While, as always, this presents opportunities, I’m afraid we will much more likely be struggling with the challenges. With this in mind, we will have to renegotiate the future of the Internet management. We all know that the multi-stakeholder format is of key importance here. We cannot overcome the challenges without the meaningful engagement of all shareholders. We need coordinated response. This is where the Freedom Online Coalition comes to play. The Freedom Online Coalition’s core mission to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms online remains essential, and this roundtable reflects FOC’s commitment to ensuring that digital transformation is rights-based, and the FOC is a good example of a multi-stakeholder format. As we approach the WSIS Plus 20 review process, we, the like-minded, both through the FOC and in other ways, must unite our efforts to resist any attempts to overturn the existing distributed multi-stakeholder Internet governance model and attempts to expand state control over the Internet. We must adopt a strong common approach to ensure the protection of the Internet’s decentralized model. Efforts to impose centralized control threaten to undermine the Internet’s fundamental openness, risking fragmentation and compromising the very attributes that have made the Internet a catalyst for progress and innovation. Multi-stakeholder approach enshrined in the Tunis agenda and reaffirmed in the GDC is based on the premise that effective Internet governance must be inclusive, participatory, and consensus-driven, involving a broad array of actors from the public sector, private sector, civil society, technical community, academia, regional and international organizations. Multilateralism alone is not sufficient to solve the global digital challenges. Given what I said before about attempts to overthrow the current Internet governance model, it is a risk. Multi-stakeholder models ensure that all relevant actors, including the technical community and so on, are part of the open conversation. Deeper collaboration between the stakeholders is more important than ever to address cross-border challenges. We have to integrate multi-stakeholder involvement into multilateral forums. The continued general availability and integrity of the Internet as a global and interoperable network of networks is fully dependent on the continued functioning of the multi-stakeholder model. This session is an opportunity to develop concrete recommendations that can complement both the WSIS plus 20 process and the FOC’s ongoing efforts to uphold Internet freedom worldwide. Finally, as a token of appreciation to the multi-stakeholders, I would like to thank the Freedom Online Coalition’s advisory network for their proactive advice on WSIS plus 20, as well as on the Elements paper. We will work together with FOC member states to take this feedback into account in our national positions. Thank you very much.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Rasmus, for your opening words. And also for your leadership this year in the FOC, the Freedom Online Coalition. Now, with the question to the panellists, let me, allow me to start with you, Gitanjali Sah. How do you see that WSIS plus 20 can advance ethical and rights-based digital governance, particularly in the context of AI and information integrity?

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you so much, moderator. Good morning, everyone. It’s nice to see a full room because it’s such an important topic. You know, going forward, we need opportunities of multi-stakeholder dialogue like we have, we got at the IGF, we’re getting here at the WSIS forum, so that all the voices are included and put forth to the UNGA overall review. This is where the decisions will be made in December. They will come out with an outcome document where, which should reflect the urgencies, especially the urgencies of the ethical dimension that we face right now. So within the WSIS process, we do have an action line on cyber security as well, along with ethics and access. It’s all cross-sectoral. So what we heard out here is, even when we are talking about regulation, we have to look across all sectors. We had a regulators round table, which, which really concluded with this aspect that, one, we have to look across We need more best practices that we can share across all the countries, across all the stakeholders. Secondly, we really need to have more cross-sectoral work. What we are talking about in health is also equally important in agriculture, is equally important in education. So when we are talking about AI ethics, we really need to ensure that we are looking at it from an overarching framework and it is cross-sectoral. The third thing that we have been pressing upon is that other than the awareness that we are creating with organisations like the, really not an organisation but a group, Freedom Online Coalition, for us like this, awareness building is extremely important so that not only the regular stakeholder communities but also communities of educators, communities of really engineers, the private sector that is designing all of this has this moral responsibility and is included in these kind of discussions. So yes, awareness, ensuring all communities are involved as the UN system, as ITU, we are committed to providing a platform, an equal and just platform where all stakeholders can have a voice and that the voice is included in the UN processes. So really going forward, the ethical dimension remains a crucial element, rights of people online. We were just discussing the rights of children also in the previous session that, you know, there is a lot happening on the internet, the dark net, how do the children know about their rights, are the schools educating them, do we have the right governance structures, do we have guidelines for parents, for educators, so a lot of work has to be done, but the fact that we are discussing it and we are making sure that it’s inputted into the UN process, the overall UN process through WSIS is very important. Thank you very much.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Gitanjali, for your comments. Isabel, now what do you see as the most effective way to promote transparency, accountability and inclusion in AI governance through multi-stakeholder cooperation?

Isabel Ebert: Thanks very much. Thanks a lot also to the Freedom Online Coalition to continue to convene this very important dialogue. It’s an honour to be here. Yeah, I think what we see, I mean also the conference taking place very closely to here, the core goal of this discussion is that we want to realise that technology can really power benefits, but in order to do so we need to make sure that people are not left behind and we are not undermining the purpose of the technology that it sets out to achieve by ignoring certain risks. And here it’s really important also to bring in the ethical dimension and international cooperation that is key to achieve that we are able to realise the benefits by managing the risks. Here there’s always this debate around ethics, human rights, how does it act together. Human rights framework as such is the framework that the member states of the UN have committed to, that the Global Digital Compact has endorsed and it should really serve as the common minimum denominator to conceptualise whether it’s an ethical approach to technology. The other aspect I wanted to highlight is that a responsible technology future is not automatic by just applying technologies to all spheres of society. We need to first understand what type of responsible technology future we want and then see how technology can support this. And these choices we are making in the WSIS process are really important to ensure that the parameters for AI governance we are setting are responsible and rights respecting. So with regard to transparency, accountability and inclusion I would like to lead with three reflections. Firstly, creating transparent rules of the road are important by introducing policies and oversight mechanisms that can match the pace and scope of AI development, new technologies development and ensuring that the benefits are communicated and shared across nations and that risk to people are thoughtfully managed and anticipated. Second, we need to shift the terms of the debate to a forward-looking and solution-oriented accountability conception. Instead of asking how do we adapt AI, we should ask what kind of societies do we want AI to help us build and which accountability structures for different actors and their distinct role can incentivise this. Not only through regulation but also through incentive-based stimulus packages. And thirdly, making the rules of the game inclusive. So with regard to exclusivity, it’s important to expand who gets to participate in the decisions around AI governance beyond state, equipping multilateralism also with a dialogue with affected communities that are often not sufficiently reflected in these processes and making sure that also the design processes of new technologies are developed in engagement with communities in order to make better products, safer products, which also again then bringing me to the most important stakeholder group, at least for BTEC, ensuring responsible business conduct, ensuring that the companies that are at the forefront of developing new technologies build human rights into their products and services. And in that regard, human rights provide a guidance how AI can be governed. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights define respective roles and responsibilities of states and companies towards working human rights and they are also very important to, since they hadn’t been in place when WSIS was conceived initially, to now take into account for the very important process this year. Which leads me to conclude that the multi-stakeholder model is really essential to achieve transparency, accountability and inclusion in AI governance and the human rights frameworks, both the International Human Rights Framework as well as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights can help us to understand what is at stake in the AI governance debate. The BTEC project has published a taxonomy of how AI relates to human rights. We are putting out a lot of guidance in order to, what I said earlier, promote the solutions-oriented, forward-looking accountability approach and this applies to a range of rights, non-discrimination, privacy, access to information, freedom of expression and we are convinced that innovation on human rights values can deliver a lot of benefit to the people.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much. Jan, I think I have an excellent question for you as a follow-up also to the remarks of Isabel and that’s what you see as a role that civil society should play in ensuring that the WSIS plus 20 process leads to a rights-based AI governance and the development of trustworthy inclusive information ecosystem, especially in the face of disinformation and shrinking civic space.

Jan Gerlach: Thank you, Ernst, for the question. It’s quite complex, it took me a bit to unpack it first but I think from a Wikimedia perspective I’d say there are two main things to note about civil society participation in this process. First, and this one may sound obvious, but civil society input makes internet governance and regulation better. In fact, it’s critical for our shared success. However, we’re fighting a bit and maybe that’s an understatement right now for the future of civil society access to internet governance processes. Civil society’s ability to participate in these conversations, just like this one, is directly affected by the outcomes of the WSIS plus 20 review and with it its ability to inform future processes like this about trustworthy and inclusive information ecosystems. Now the FOC’s blueprint for information integrity, which Wikimedia, by the way, contributed to, supports individual agency through literacy, privacy, safety and transparency. The blueprint also promotes trust through, again, transparency and accountability around platforms at work, around their products, around algorithms that are used through support for reliable sources of information, including independent journalism, digital public goods, through privacy and safety, especially that safety of marginalized and vulnerable groups. And finally, the blueprint seeks to promote inclusion through linguistic and cultural diversity, through meaningful connectivity, the promotion of diverse and global voices and protection against discrimination and harassment. In all of this, people are front and center, individuals because the internet really must serve them. Now, not all internet users can fit in this room, let alone in smaller ones, and not every perspective will be represented by the members of civil society here. So those people from civil society organizations who are here and who can travel here really need to work hard to ensure that the values and measures of the blueprint for information integrity are turned into reality and informed policy at the international, at the national and local levels. That requires a lot of coordination among civil society groups and organizations, and also a lot of engagement with their own stakeholders to ensure the needs of people around the world are properly understood and fed into these processes. The conversations we’re having here and in other places around the world about the future of WSIS, about the future of IGF and multi-stakeholderism in general, must have civil society participation in order to include voices that otherwise wouldn’t be heard. These voices make internet governance better, especially during times of shrinking civic spaces, and they help ensure that AI governance, too, truly serves people and their rights when we are all at the risk of really drowning in disinformation and synthetic information that isn’t verifiable. Now to my second point, the thing I want to talk about is that civil society, the people who use the internet, also build large parts of the internet. I think that’s underappreciated. They build the digital public goods that the Global Digital Compact aims to support. They are the independent journalists that the blueprint for information integrity wants to support. They are the people building all the small open knowledge projects that underpin the free and open Internet that we all like to talk about. Take Wikipedia as an example, probably the most prominent example of such projects. This online encyclopedia is built by thousands of volunteers from all around the world, from all walks of life, who contribute their time to add content, engage in conversations about the policies that govern Wikipedia, etc. Wikipedia provides vital access to information for populations around the world, and it’s a massive self-governed system of collaboration from people from everywhere. To ensure such projects can continue to thrive, these people, through civil society organizations, need to have a voice at the table of Internet governance processes. One other point I want to make is this. In the halls of AI4Good, there’s a lot of impressive technology on display, mostly built by the private sector, but the science behind it often stems from work in academia. And there are some academic booths, too, and it’s a good reminder that academia really needs to be part of these conversations as well. Lastly, a lot of AI systems, large language models, etc., are trained on data that comes from projects like Wikipedia that verify knowledge and update information regularly. This open ecosystem of trustworthy information needs to be sustained. Good AI governance, among other things, means to support the communities who curate and verify the information that feeds AI. If we want to support a trustworthy ecosystem of information in the age of AI, governments, including FOC member states, must make sure to support this part of civil society as well, through smart policies and through funding. Thank you.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Jan. You referred also to different processes going on, and where the multistakeholder involvement is so crucial. It makes me also think of right now the Open-Ended Work Group, which takes place right now in New York. This week is a crucial week in New York on the follow-up of the Open-Ended Work Group on responsible state behavior in ICTs. Multistakeholder involvement there is on top of the agenda for us, for many of us like-minded countries, and it has an especially difficult position there, because many countries want to veto multistakeholder civil society organizations out of the room, and unfortunately have been quite successful at that as well. So you can also ensure that, especially from the few FOC countries, they will be fighting for the future and the follow-up of the Open-Ended Work Group to ensure multistakeholder involvement. But let me continue with Thibaut. How do you see that international and regional and multistakeholder partnerships can help bridge digital divides and support trustworthy, inclusive information ecosystems in the context of WSIS and beyond?

Thibaut Kleiner: So first of all, I’d like to congratulate the organizers for having this topic here so prominently also in the WSIS conference. I think that indeed these days, as you pointed out, the risks linked with technology towards human rights are just growing. The ability of AI, of surveillance technologies to infringe on human rights have just increased, and therefore it’s very important that we do not lower the attention. On the contrary, we should make more attention to this. And in the context of WSIS, I think the European Union has been, and it was very clear also when we were negotiating collectively on the Global Digital Compact. I mean, we’ve really insisted that these human rights dimensions cannot be neglected. They have to be forefront. They have to be really at the heart of what we are talking about. And in a way, this is something we have reflected in the recent past with our declaration on digital rights and principles. That’s really something that we’ve tried to encompass, these various elements along six pillars that we believe reflect very much the types of challenges we have also for WSIS. It’s about putting people and their rights at the center of the digital transformation. It’s about supporting solidarity and inclusion, ensuring freedom of choice online, fostering participation in the digital public space, increasing safety, security, and empowerment of individuals, in particular children, and promoting the sustainability of the digital future. And the interesting thing is that this declaration actually has been also underpinning the regulatory efforts that we have conducted in the EU, developing indeed hard elements and obligations towards private and public actors. And this is, I think, what we can now, through WSIS, organize in terms of discussions between multi-stakeholders. And very much in our view, we want to make sure that the Internet Governance Forum towards WSIS becomes a permanent institution with its own budget from the UN with a director, and also that it can become really the place where we have also repeatedly discussions about how the evolving, the emerging technologies can be looked at, and so that we can make sure that we don’t overlook the importance of protecting human rights. And within WSIS, we think that indeed regions, but also countries and even locally, we can engage in these conversations. And this is what we have tried to do also through various projects the EU is supporting, trying indeed to engage with countries in Africa and Latin America, so that we not only explain the challenges of the digital technologies and the risks that I implied, but also so that we support public debate in these regions. Because at the end of the day, it is not something you can impose from the outside. It is very much our belief that human rights is not something that is just coming from certain countries or regions globally. It’s something that is universal, and it’s something that we very much believe can be bottom-up, owned by the local constituency. So our approach is very much not to impose this view, but actually to try and promote discussion and dialogue with our various partners internationally. And as I said, we try to highlight the way we see it, but we very much believe that it is about communities, it is about companies, the public sector, but also the youth embracing these elements. And I think that’s what WSIS can achieve, really creating a space for dialogue and making sure that we not only put human rights as nice to have, but actually centerpiece for everything we try to build.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Thibaut. Then I move to my right, the far furthest right, Dan. With all your experience, how can technical infrastructure, internet standards and governance protocols be strengthened to support trustworthy information ecosystems and ethical AI deployment? And what role should multistakeholder cooperation play in this effort?

Dan York: Thank you for that question, and thank you for the Freedom Online Coalition for hosting this session today. And as a 20-year editor of Wikipedia, I want to say thank you to the Wikimedia Foundation for all that they do around here. So the Internet Society was founded in 1992 by a collection of civil society, academics, technical universities, internet companies, to really build an organization and to think about this vision that the internet is for everyone. It was also the home of the Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF, which has been the standards organization, has brought us stuff like TCPIP, HTTP, the protocols that allow us to work. And I think if we look at the last 20 years of internet governance, of internet operations and pieces, and the lessons that can be applied forward toward what we’re looking at now with AI and the ethics of AI, et cetera, one of those key elements is the importance of open standards and open protocols and the open development of those standards and pieces that are there. That’s really what got us to where we are. And I think a concern we see from the technical side is that we’re seeing a lot of interest in more proprietary, closed AI systems, et cetera, which create the same kind of issues that we see in some parts of the internet today. Vendor lock-in, closed proprietary systems, concentrated power, those kind of things. Just the internet protocols like TCPIP and HTTP, just as they enable global interoperability, we need to also think about what standards can there be for AI transparency, AI explainability, AI accountability. There are some standards starting to be developed by different groups within some parts of that, but it has to happen at all layers of the AI stack, as we might refer to it as, in some kind of form. And those standards need to be developed in a multi-stakeholder way. You know, the technical communities bring essential knowledge and expertise about system design. Civil society brings important, you know, how those AI systems impact vulnerable populations in ways that we may not necessarily grasp. Governments bring information about policies and how these can be extended in ways. End users, you know, provide crucial feedback about how they can change and shape. These are the elements that need to be all part of it. AI systems and policies need to be developed by, you know, the rural farmer that we are. and the students who might be using AI-affected agriculture, and also the students who might be using AI-moderated education. It’s something that’s there. And another key point for us is that we have to think about the fact that a third of the world is still not connected. There’s 2.6 billion people who do not have access to the internet. And those who do don’t necessarily have affordable, reliable, or resilient connectivity. We’re, in fact, with some of what we’re doing, we are deepening the digital divide. Because those of us who have access to the AI tools and systems that we’re all using, we are able to be more productive or use things in different ways. And we’re leaving the folks who are offline further behind. And also, we’re not gaining access to the knowledge and information that they may have. They are not contributing into the pools of information, as was mentioned earlier, that are being used to train these models and to work with things. So there’s a need to bring that in as well. So it’s this combination of open standards, open protocols, ways to involve everyone and connect those who are there, and to really bring all of the folks in to be part of this. And I think the last piece I would just mention is that one of the principles of the internet that has made it work so well to where we are today is this idea that you can have innovation without permission. The ability to go and create new ideas, bring things out, publish new reports, publish new websites, open up new tools, without having to go and ask somebody permission or pay somebody to put this online. Some of us who may have been around before the internet remember a time when you couldn’t put anything online unless you paid somebody to do so. It was a different world. We need to figure out how to balance so that we are protecting the harms and things, but also ensuring that that level of innovation continues and to work with that. So a bit of that from the technical community side, and we’re looking forward to working with all of you in trying to help as we continue to move out into this new world.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much. We do have still some time for questions. I do not see actually microphones. I see at least a hand, so that’s very good. But now the question is if you have a microphone to raise your question. Otherwise you… Someone is running. Yes, great. Please, introduce yourself and…

Participant: Thank you very much. My name is Riyad Abathia. I’m a former NGO’s Coordination Office in the United Nations, international civil society activist in the UN since more than 20 years ago. I’m contributing, we are contributing in WSIS process since the beginning, and civil society effort is recognizable in the WSIS process since the beginning. Ten years earlier, we are celebrating this year 20 years, the best age of life. Ten years earlier, ten years later, the state member adopted precious document and it’s working since then like that. Some other foundation NGOs are actively engaged in the WSIS process. We have a largest network for cities, largest workers for spectrum. We talk spectrum and quick term and other NGOs also. What I want to say that… My questions, yes. I appreciate your talk. But anyway, those institutions who are not international organizations, who are not non-governmental organization, who are not foundation, and we have at least one representative in the panel, ISOC, Internet Society. You are like IEEE, you are like IGF, you are like top level demand, you are five or seven institutions. Your contributions in the Internet community is very highly determinated. But I don’t know because ITU, what they’re doing with state members and the complement effort of civil society. But until now, as Secretary General said the first day, that two billions didn’t be connected until now. But yes, ISOC Congress hosted in Geneva 2012, it was largest 3,000 delegates. But how about the enhancing of regional coordination offices of ISOC, for example? How about to support the national office chapters of ISOC? This is what is needed also and state members are expecting and also ITU will be complemented. Thank you very much.

Ernst Noorman: Hopefully my question has been clear. That’s a question to Dan. Yes. Okay.

Dan York: So, I think you’re asking how can we, as the Internet Society and other groups like that, help these discussions at a national level or local level, regional level? Yeah, I think, so thank you for asking that question. The Internet Society does have 120 chapters around the world in various different areas. Some of those are national, some regional in different areas. And those chapters are very engaged in these kind of conversations, perhaps not in some of this level of AI ethics and pieces around that because this is a newer topic. In many areas, we’re mostly focused around the connectivity and in trying to ensure that people have affordable, resilient, reliable, you know, connectivity and pieces. But this is part of the bigger picture. Some of our chapters are very involved with AI topics and other elements around that. So, it varies widely because they are individual organizations. I think the bigger picture, though, is that how do you engage people from out in various different regions and areas who cannot necessarily come into these forums? The comment earlier about the civil society aspect of this, it’s hard for civil society organizations and others to participate in venues such as this. One of our concerns, certainly, is that we would like to see, we don’t want to see a proliferation of more events or more mechanisms. Because each one of those is more cost, is more elements that it’s harder for organizations to be able to participate in. So, that is one concern. But we certainly do see that organizations at a national level, at a regional level, should be able to have some way to participate in these kind of venues, which is why we’re a big fan of the Internet Governance Forum and the way that it brings people together. There are now about 180 different national or regional Internet Governance Forums which are bringing people together all around the world. And those are other elements and ways that people are having a voice into the ongoing conversations that we’re having. So, thank you again for the question.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you for the response. You want to react?

Gitanjali Sah: Yes, thank you. Riyad, we have ensured as ITU that the WSIS remains multi-stakeholder. For instance, even at the WSIS Forum, you have remote participation in every room for the civil society organizations who couldn’t be here. We are also very responsive about the requirements of the regional time zones. So, we try to accommodate that as well. And as you all know, the agenda and the program of the WSIS Forum is built through an open consultative process. It’s really like literally five months where you can input through an official form and let us know what you want to see at the WSIS Forum. And civil society is a very active partner for that. We have several physical meetings as well. And we really want you to contribute and to help us to ensure that we keep this dialogue going beyond 2025 as well. I just also wanted to add, moderator, that when the WSIS outcome documents were drafted, they were really a universal declaration of human rights is right on the second page of the WSIS outcome document, right? So, we must also recall that the documents were drafted in a very, very inclusive and sound manner. And we must continue that spirit of inclusion, of making sure that the framework of the WSIS Action Lines continue to remain relevant as they have evolved with the technological changes. We would have to finish, moderator, because the president of Estonia is about to make his remarks here in this room.

Ernst Noorman: Okay. Then… So, great to have a timekeeper. We have indeed two minutes, but I’m afraid it’s too short for another question and then responses. What are my concluding remarks is that this discussion is still so especially relevant on how to involve multistakeholder. We also have to look, I think, at what do we mean all with multistakeholders? How do we balance the different voices in the multistakeholder model? And also, right now, if you look at the AI discussion, it’s more and more about competition. Who will be the winner? And well, as Isabel, amongst others, said, you know, AI is there to serve society and humanity. And how do we ensure that? And just lately, just these days, you can hear even in Europe, calls to pause the EU AI Act because of competition reasons. I think that’s not the good way to go. Regulation is also there to protect our society. And so far, we have seen often that regulation can even improve innovation by creating a level playing field. So, in that sense also, we have to fight and see how we can continue to involve the multistakeholders in all levels of the discussion. So, let’s go for that. And again, also, Rasmus, I want to thank you and lots of success in your continued work for the next six months as the chair of the FOC. And thank all panelists for your contributions. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for effective Internet governance and AI governance

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Gitanjali Sah
– Isabel Ebert
– Jan Gerlach
– Dan York

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach must be inclusive, participatory, and consensus-driven involving public sector, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia

WSIS Plus 20 provides opportunity for multi-stakeholder dialogue to include all voices in the UN General Assembly review process

Making rules inclusive requires expanding participation beyond states to include affected communities in AI governance decisions

Civil society input is critical for internet governance success, but their access to these processes is under threat

Technical communities bring essential expertise while civil society provides knowledge about impacts on vulnerable populations

Summary

All speakers strongly advocate for inclusive multi-stakeholder participation in Internet and AI governance, emphasizing that effective governance requires input from diverse actors including governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Human rights framework should be central to digital governance and AI development

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Gitanjali Sah
– Isabel Ebert
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

Freedom Online Coalition provides coordinated response through multi-stakeholder format

Universal Declaration of Human Rights featured prominently in original WSIS outcome documents

Human rights framework should serve as common minimum denominator for ethical approach to technology

European Union’s declaration on digital rights and principles puts people and rights at center of digital transformation

Summary

Speakers agree that human rights principles should be the foundational framework for digital governance, with rights-based approaches being essential for ethical technology development and deployment

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Need for transparency, accountability and inclusion in AI governance

Speakers

– Isabel Ebert
– Jan Gerlach
– Dan York

Arguments

Need transparent rules matching pace of AI development with benefits shared across nations and risks thoughtfully managed

Blueprint for information integrity supports individual agency through literacy, privacy, safety and transparency

Open standards and protocols are needed for AI transparency, explainability, and accountability

Summary

Speakers emphasize the critical importance of building transparency, accountability mechanisms, and inclusive participation into AI governance frameworks to ensure responsible development and deployment

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Digital divides and connectivity challenges must be addressed

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Dan York
– Participant

Arguments

Need more cross-sectoral work and best practices sharing across countries and stakeholders

EU supports projects engaging with Africa and Latin America to promote public debate about digital technology challenges

One-third of world (2.6 billion people) still lacks internet access, and AI development risks deepening digital divide

Technical institutions like ISOC, IEEE, IGF need to enhance regional coordination and support national chapters to complement state member efforts

Summary

Speakers recognize that significant portions of the global population remain unconnected and that digital divides risk being deepened by AI development, requiring coordinated efforts to bridge these gaps

Topics

Development | Digital access

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the responsibility of private sector actors in ensuring ethical AI development, with Ebert focusing on companies building human rights into products and Gerlach highlighting the need to support communities that create the data used to train AI systems

Speakers

– Isabel Ebert
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Companies must build human rights into their products and services following UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Good AI governance requires supporting communities who curate and verify information that feeds AI systems

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive, cross-sectoral approaches to AI governance that respect local contexts while maintaining universal principles

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

AI governance must be cross-sectoral, looking across health, agriculture, education with overarching ethical framework

Human rights approach is universal and should be bottom-up, owned by local constituencies rather than imposed

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the foundational role of open, collaborative approaches in building Internet infrastructure, with York focusing on technical standards and Gerlach on civil society contributions

Speakers

– Dan York
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Internet’s success built on open standards, open protocols, and innovation without permission principle

Civil society builds large parts of internet including digital public goods that Global Digital Compact aims to support

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected consensus

Resistance to centralized state control over Internet governance

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Dan York
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Need to resist attempts to overturn distributed multi-stakeholder Internet governance model and prevent expansion of state control

Concern about proprietary, closed AI systems creating vendor lock-in and concentrated power

Civil society input is critical for internet governance success, but their access to these processes is under threat

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around concerns about centralization of power, whether by states or private actors, with speakers from different backgrounds (government, technical community, civil society) all expressing concerns about threats to distributed governance models

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

AI systems should serve society rather than drive technological determinism

Speakers

– Isabel Ebert
– Ernst Noorman

Arguments

Need to shift debate to asking what kind of societies we want AI to help build rather than just adapting to AI

Competition concerns should not override regulation designed to protect society and create level playing fields

Explanation

Unexpected alignment between human rights advocate and government representative on rejecting technological determinism and prioritizing societal needs over competitive or technological imperatives

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around core principles of multi-stakeholder governance, human rights-centered approaches, and the need for inclusive, transparent AI governance. Speakers consistently emphasized the importance of maintaining distributed governance models while addressing digital divides and ensuring ethical technology development.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with broad agreement across different stakeholder groups (government, international organizations, civil society, technical community) on the need for rights-based, inclusive approaches to digital governance. This strong alignment suggests potential for coordinated action in WSIS Plus 20 processes and beyond, though implementation challenges remain around balancing innovation with protection and ensuring meaningful participation of all stakeholders.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation and competition concerns

Speakers

– Ernst Noorman
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

Competition concerns should not override regulation designed to protect society and create level playing fields

European Union’s declaration on digital rights and principles puts people and rights at center of digital transformation

Summary

While both support regulation, Noorman explicitly argues against pausing AI regulation for competition reasons, while Kleiner focuses on the EU’s regulatory approach without addressing the competition vs. regulation tension

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Scope and focus of multi-stakeholder engagement

Speakers

– Dan York
– Isabel Ebert

Arguments

Technical communities bring essential expertise while civil society provides knowledge about impacts on vulnerable populations

Making rules inclusive requires expanding participation beyond states to include affected communities in AI governance decisions

Summary

York emphasizes the distinct roles of technical communities and civil society, while Ebert focuses more broadly on expanding participation to affected communities beyond traditional stakeholders

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Institutionalization vs. flexibility in governance structures

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Dan York

Arguments

Internet Governance Forum should become permanent UN institution with own budget and director for ongoing discussions about emerging technologies

Need to balance protecting against harms while ensuring continued innovation

Explanation

Kleiner advocates for formal institutionalization of the IGF, while York emphasizes maintaining the internet’s tradition of ‘innovation without permission’ and warns against proliferation of formal mechanisms that could hinder participation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkable consensus on core principles (multi-stakeholder governance, human rights protection, AI ethics) but reveals nuanced differences in implementation approaches and priorities

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most differences are complementary rather than contradictory, focusing on different aspects of the same challenges. The main tensions arise around balancing formal regulation with innovation flexibility, and different emphases on technical vs. social approaches to governance. These disagreements reflect healthy diversity in problem-solving approaches rather than fundamental conflicts, which could strengthen overall policy development if properly integrated.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the responsibility of private sector actors in ensuring ethical AI development, with Ebert focusing on companies building human rights into products and Gerlach highlighting the need to support communities that create the data used to train AI systems

Speakers

– Isabel Ebert
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Companies must build human rights into their products and services following UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Good AI governance requires supporting communities who curate and verify information that feeds AI systems

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive, cross-sectoral approaches to AI governance that respect local contexts while maintaining universal principles

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

AI governance must be cross-sectoral, looking across health, agriculture, education with overarching ethical framework

Human rights approach is universal and should be bottom-up, owned by local constituencies rather than imposed

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the foundational role of open, collaborative approaches in building Internet infrastructure, with York focusing on technical standards and Gerlach on civil society contributions

Speakers

– Dan York
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Internet’s success built on open standards, open protocols, and innovation without permission principle

Civil society builds large parts of internet including digital public goods that Global Digital Compact aims to support

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder Internet governance model is under threat and must be defended against attempts to expand state control, particularly in the WSIS Plus 20 review process

AI governance requires a cross-sectoral, human rights-based approach with transparency, accountability, and inclusion as core principles

The digital divide is deepening as 2.6 billion people remain unconnected while AI development accelerates, risking further marginalization of offline populations

Civil society participation in Internet governance processes is critical but increasingly threatened, requiring protection and enhancement of their access

Open standards and protocols are essential for AI systems to ensure transparency, explainability, and accountability, avoiding proprietary lock-in

Human rights framework should serve as the common minimum denominator for ethical technology development, with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights providing guidance for corporate responsibility

Information integrity requires supporting communities that curate and verify information used to train AI systems, including projects like Wikipedia

Regional and international cooperation must focus on bottom-up, locally-owned approaches to human rights rather than top-down imposition

Resolutions and action items

Freedom Online Coalition member states to work together to take advisory network feedback into account in their national positions for WSIS Plus 20

Make the Internet Governance Forum a permanent UN institution with its own budget and director

Develop concrete recommendations to complement both the WSIS Plus 20 process and FOC’s ongoing efforts to uphold Internet freedom

Support civil society organizations through smart policies and funding to sustain trustworthy information ecosystems

Ensure multi-stakeholder involvement is maintained in the Open-Ended Working Group on responsible state behavior in ICTs

Continue providing platforms for multi-stakeholder dialogue through WSIS Forum and IGF processes with remote participation and regional accommodation

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance different voices within the multi-stakeholder model and define what constitutes meaningful multi-stakeholder participation

Whether current international human rights frameworks are adequately equipped to respond to rapid AI evolution

How to prevent AI development from deepening existing inequalities while maintaining innovation momentum

How to connect the remaining 2.6 billion unconnected people and ensure their knowledge contributes to AI training data

How to balance protecting against AI harms while preserving the ‘innovation without permission’ principle that enabled Internet success

How to resist calls to pause AI regulation for competition reasons while maintaining technological leadership

How to ensure meaningful participation of affected communities who cannot physically attend governance forums

How to develop AI standards for transparency and accountability across all layers of the AI stack

Suggested compromises

Integrate multi-stakeholder involvement into multilateral forums rather than replacing multilateral approaches entirely

Use incentive-based stimulus packages alongside regulation to encourage responsible AI development

Focus on creating dialogue and promoting discussion with international partners rather than imposing human rights views from outside

Accommodate civil society participation through remote access and regional time zone considerations when physical attendance is not possible

Leverage existing national and regional Internet Governance Forums (180 worldwide) as venues for broader participation rather than creating new mechanisms

Build on existing WSIS framework and action lines that already incorporate human rights principles rather than starting from scratch

We cannot overcome the challenges without the meaningful engagement of all shareholders. We need coordinated response… We must adopt a strong common approach to ensure the protection of the Internet’s decentralized model. Efforts to impose centralized control threaten to undermine the Internet’s fundamental openness, risking fragmentation and compromising the very attributes that have made the Internet a catalyst for progress and innovation.

Speaker

Rasmus Lumi

Reason

This comment was insightful because it framed the entire discussion around a fundamental tension between centralized state control versus decentralized multi-stakeholder governance. It established the stakes of the conversation – that the very nature of internet governance is under threat and requires active defense.

Impact

This opening comment set the tone for the entire discussion, with subsequent speakers repeatedly returning to themes of multi-stakeholder engagement, the importance of inclusive governance, and resistance to state control. It created a sense of urgency that permeated all following contributions.

Instead of asking how do we adapt AI, we should ask what kind of societies do we want AI to help us build and which accountability structures for different actors and their distinct role can incentivise this.

Speaker

Isabel Ebert

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it fundamentally reframed the AI governance debate from a reactive to a proactive stance. Rather than adapting to AI’s development, it suggested we should first define our societal goals and then shape AI to serve those purposes.

Impact

This reframing influenced subsequent speakers to focus more on human-centered approaches. It shifted the discussion from technical adaptation to values-based design, with later speakers like Jan Gerlach emphasizing that ‘the internet really must serve’ people and Dan York discussing ‘innovation without permission’ as a core principle.

Civil society, the people who use the internet, also build large parts of the internet… They build the digital public goods that the Global Digital Compact aims to support… Take Wikipedia as an example… To ensure such projects can continue to thrive, these people, through civil society organizations, need to have a voice at the table of Internet governance processes.

Speaker

Jan Gerlach

Reason

This comment was insightful because it challenged the typical framing of civil society as merely users or beneficiaries of technology, instead positioning them as active builders and creators of internet infrastructure. It highlighted an often-overlooked contribution of civil society to the digital ecosystem.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion by adding a new dimension to multi-stakeholder engagement – not just consultation but recognition of civil society as infrastructure builders. It influenced the moderator’s later observation about balancing different voices in the multi-stakeholder model and added weight to arguments for meaningful civil society participation.

A third of the world is still not connected. There’s 2.6 billion people who do not have access to the internet… We’re, in fact, with some of what we’re doing, we are deepening the digital divide. Because those of us who have access to the AI tools and systems that we’re all using, we are able to be more productive… And we’re leaving the folks who are offline further behind.

Speaker

Dan York

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it introduced a sobering reality check about digital inequality in the context of AI advancement. It highlighted how technological progress can paradoxically worsen existing inequalities rather than solve them.

Impact

This comment brought a critical equity lens to the discussion that had been somewhat abstract until this point. It grounded the conversation in concrete numbers and consequences, influencing the moderator’s concluding remarks about ensuring AI serves society and humanity rather than just competition.

Right now, if you look at the AI discussion, it’s more and more about competition. Who will be the winner?… AI is there to serve society and humanity. And how do we ensure that?… Just these days, you can hear even in Europe, calls to pause the EU AI Act because of competition reasons. I think that’s not the good way to go.

Speaker

Ernst Noorman (Moderator)

Reason

This concluding comment was insightful because it crystallized a key tension that had been building throughout the discussion – the conflict between competitive economic interests and societal protection. It directly challenged the prevailing narrative that regulation hinders innovation.

Impact

As a concluding comment, this synthesized many of the discussion’s themes and provided a clear call to action. It reinforced the human rights-centered approach advocated by earlier speakers and positioned regulation as an enabler rather than inhibitor of beneficial innovation.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by establishing a clear narrative arc from problem identification to solution frameworks. Lumi’s opening created urgency around defending multi-stakeholder governance, Ebert’s reframing shifted focus to proactive, values-based AI development, Gerlach’s contribution elevated civil society from beneficiaries to builders, York’s reality check grounded the discussion in equity concerns, and Noorman’s conclusion synthesized these themes into a call for human-centered rather than competition-driven approaches. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a technical policy discussion into a more fundamental conversation about power, values, and the future of digital governance. The progression showed how individual insights can build upon each other to deepen collective understanding and create momentum for action.

How can we work together to prevent AI technologies from deepening existing inequalities?

Speaker

Ernst Noorman

Explanation

This was identified as a key area to explore in the session introduction, focusing on ensuring AI doesn’t exacerbate current social and economic disparities

Are current international and human rights frameworks equipped to respond to the rapid evolution of AI?

Speaker

Ernst Noorman

Explanation

This question addresses whether existing legal and regulatory frameworks are adequate for governing rapidly advancing AI technologies

How do children know about their rights online, and are schools educating them properly?

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

This highlights the need for better digital literacy and rights education for children in the context of online safety and governance

Do we have the right governance structures and guidelines for parents and educators regarding children’s online rights?

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

This identifies a gap in support systems for adults responsible for children’s digital wellbeing and education

What kind of societies do we want AI to help us build, and which accountability structures can incentivize this?

Speaker

Isabel Ebert

Explanation

This reframes the AI governance debate from technical adaptation to societal vision and appropriate accountability mechanisms

How can we enhance regional coordination offices and support national office chapters of organizations like ISOC?

Speaker

Riyad Abathia

Explanation

This addresses the need for stronger local and regional representation in internet governance processes, particularly for civil society participation

How do we balance different voices in the multistakeholder model?

Speaker

Ernst Noorman

Explanation

This fundamental question about multistakeholder governance seeks to understand how to ensure equitable representation and influence among different stakeholder groups

How do we ensure AI serves society and humanity rather than just competition and economic interests?

Speaker

Ernst Noorman

Explanation

This addresses the tension between commercial AI development focused on competition versus AI development that prioritizes societal benefit

What standards can be developed for AI transparency, explainability, and accountability across all layers of the AI stack?

Speaker

Dan York

Explanation

This identifies the need for comprehensive technical standards that ensure AI systems are transparent and accountable at every level of their operation

How can we connect the 2.6 billion people who still lack internet access to prevent deepening digital divides in the AI era?

Speaker

Dan York

Explanation

This highlights the urgent need to address basic connectivity issues to prevent AI from further marginalizing already disconnected populations

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the concept of “enhanced cooperation” in internet governance as part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-year review process. The moderator, Konstantinos Komaitis from the Atlantic Council, guided four experts through an examination of this controversial topic that has persisted for two decades since the 2005 Tunis Agenda.

Dr. David Souter provided historical context, explaining that enhanced cooperation emerged from contentious negotiations at WSIS sessions in Geneva and Tunis, particularly around the governance of critical internet resources and the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. government. The Tunis Agenda defined it as enabling governments “on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.” Dr. Peter Major, who chaired the first UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) working group on enhanced cooperation, noted that consensus proved elusive, with working groups in 2013-14 and 2016-18 unable to finalize recommendations due to persistent disagreements about scope and objectives.

Jimson Olufuye, representing the private sector perspective, argued that the 2016 IANA transition largely resolved the original concerns and that CSTD already provides an adequate forum for discussing internet-related public policy issues. He emphasized the private sector’s preference for using existing structures rather than creating new institutions. Anriette Esterhuysen from the Association for Progressive Communications acknowledged that while the original ICANN oversight concerns have diminished, new issues like artificial intelligence governance have emerged, and power asymmetries between nations remain significant.

The discussion revealed ongoing disagreements about implementation, with some participants advocating for CSTD as the appropriate venue while others called for enhanced mandates or new mechanisms. Despite two decades of debate, the concept remains contested, though panelists suggested focusing on the original Tunis Agenda definition and working within existing multilateral frameworks rather than creating separate institutions.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This panel discussion was part of the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) 20-year review process, aimed at examining the concept of “enhanced cooperation” in internet governance – a controversial topic that has persisted for two decades since the 2005 Tunis Agenda. The goal was to reflect on lessons learned and determine how to move forward with this concept in today’s digital landscape.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Historical Context and Definition Challenges**: Enhanced cooperation emerged from the 2005 Tunis Agenda as a compromise solution to address governments’ desire for equal participation in international public policy issues related to the internet, while excluding day-to-day technical operations. Despite being defined in the Tunis Agenda, the concept has remained contested and poorly understood for 20 years.

– **Failed Consensus-Building Efforts**: Two UN working groups (2013-2014 and 2016-2018) under the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) attempted to operationalize enhanced cooperation but failed to reach consensus due to persistent disagreements about scope, objectives, and institutional arrangements, with some requiring 100% consensus blocking progress.

– **Impact of IANA Transition**: The 2016 IANA transition, which ended U.S. government oversight of critical internet resources, significantly changed the enhanced cooperation landscape. While some argued this resolved the main issue that sparked enhanced cooperation, others maintained that many international public policy issues still require governmental coordination.

– **Institutional Framework Debates**: There’s ongoing disagreement about whether enhanced cooperation needs new institutions or can work within existing frameworks like CSTD. The private sector and some stakeholders prefer using existing structures to minimize costs and complexity, while others argue for enhanced mandates or new mechanisms.

– **Evolving Stakeholder Perspectives**: The discussion revealed shifting attitudes over time, with greater acceptance of multi-stakeholder approaches even among governments that initially opposed them, and recognition that enhanced cooperation and multi-stakeholder governance can be complementary rather than competing approaches.

## Overall Tone

The discussion began with a scholarly, historical tone as panelists provided background context. The tone became more animated and sometimes contentious when participants shared personal experiences from the original negotiations and disagreed about interpretations. Toward the end, the tone shifted to be more pragmatic and forward-looking, with participants seeking practical solutions for the WSIS+20 process, though underlying tensions about power dynamics and institutional arrangements remained evident throughout.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Konstantinos Komaitis** – Senior Resident Fellow with the Atlantic Council, Panel Moderator

– **David Souter** – Managing Director of ICT Development Associates Limited, Dr.

– **Peter Major** – Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, Dr., Former chair of the first working group on Enhanced Cooperation within CSTD

– **Jimson Olufuye** – Principal Consultant and Founder and Chair of Afikta Advisory Council in Nigeria, Private sector representative

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Senior Advisor on Global and Regional Internet Governance for the Association for Progressive Communications, Ms.

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Vladimir Minkin** – Representative from Russia, participated in previous Enhanced Cooperation meetings

– **Juan** (mentioned by other speakers) – Appears to be a participant who was present during the Tunis negotiations and WGIG group

# Enhanced Cooperation in Internet Governance: A Comprehensive Analysis from the WSIS+20 Review Process

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Konstantinos Komaitis from the Atlantic Council, formed part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-year review process, focusing specifically on the contentious concept of “enhanced cooperation” in internet governance. The session brought together panelists to examine this controversial topic that has persisted for two decades since the 2005 Tunis Agenda, with the overarching goal of determining how to move forward with enhanced cooperation in today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape.

The discussion was structured around three guiding questions: what enhanced cooperation means in the current context and how this should be reflected in the WSIS+20 outcome; how existing mechanisms facilitate enhanced cooperation in practice; and what gaps or opportunities exist for improvement.

## Historical Context and Definitional Challenges

Dr. David Souter, Managing Director of ICT Development Associates Limited, provided comprehensive historical context, explaining that enhanced cooperation emerged from highly contentious negotiations during the WSIS sessions in Geneva and Tunis. The concept arose particularly from disputes around the governance of critical internet resources and the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. government. The Tunis Agenda ultimately defined enhanced cooperation as enabling governments “on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet,” whilst explicitly excluding day-to-day technical coordination.

However, this definition has proven insufficient to resolve underlying disagreements. As Dr. Souter noted, the concept has remained contested and poorly understood throughout its 20-year existence, with fundamental questions about scope, objectives, and implementation mechanisms continuing to divide stakeholders.

Dr. Souter’s historical account was notably challenged by a Cuban audience member who claimed to have been present during the actual Tunis negotiations. The Cuban representative provided specific details about how the concept was created by UK diplomat David Hendon as a compromise solution to resolve deadlock between different governmental positions. According to this account, “David Hendon from the UK came up with this concept of enhanced cooperation” as a way to bridge the gap between those wanting intergovernmental control and those supporting the existing multistakeholder model.

This historical disagreement highlighted the persistent ambiguity surrounding enhanced cooperation’s origins and intentions. The Cuban intervention suggested that enhanced cooperation was fundamentally a political compromise rather than a well-defined governance concept, which may explain why it has remained so difficult to operationalise over the subsequent two decades.

## Working Group Experiences and Lessons Learned

Dr. Peter Major, who chaired the first UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) working group on enhanced cooperation, provided detailed insights into the attempts to operationalise the concept. The first working group (2013-2014) successfully identified seven clusters of international public policy issues but ultimately could not reach full consensus on recommendations. The second working group (2016-2018) similarly failed to finalise recommendations due to persistent differences about scope and objectives.

Dr. Major’s analysis revealed a crucial insight about the consensus-seeking approach itself. He argued that “we cannot work in a consensus way” and suggested that working groups should instead “reflect different opinions, different options, and without making a ranking among the recommendations.” This represented a fundamental challenge to traditional international negotiation approaches, suggesting that the pursuit of consensus may actually be counterproductive when dealing with such politically sensitive issues.

The working group experiences demonstrated that whilst technical discussions could proceed productively—with the first group successfully mapping international public policy issues—political disagreements about institutional arrangements and power distribution remained intractable. Dr. Major noted that some participants required 100% consensus, effectively giving veto power to any single stakeholder and blocking progress on recommendations that had broad but not universal support.

## Impact of the IANA Transition

A significant development that changed the enhanced cooperation landscape was the 2016 IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) transition, which ended U.S. government oversight of critical internet resources. Both Dr. Major and Jimson Olufuye acknowledged that this transition addressed one of the primary concerns that originally motivated enhanced cooperation discussions.

However, speakers disagreed about the implications of this change. Olufuye argued that the IANA transition largely resolved the main issue and that enhanced cooperation now simply means “improving cooperation regarding management of critical internet resources, which is already being done well.” In contrast, other speakers maintained that whilst the ICANN oversight issue had diminished in importance, many other international public policy issues still required governmental coordination.

Anriette Esterhuysen from the Association for Progressive Communications noted that whilst the original ICANN concerns had become less pressing, new challenges had emerged: “What has changed is what the priority issues or what the concerns are… At the time in 2005, ICANN and the oversight of ICANN by the U.S. government was a major concern. That is not as major a concern… But for example, what is done about AI and decisions about how governments and intergovernmental processes and decisions should impact on AI, that is a major concern.”

## Divergent Stakeholder Perspectives

### Private Sector Optimism

Jimson Olufuye, representing the private sector viewpoint, presented an optimistic assessment of current progress. He argued that “previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach.” From his perspective, CSTD already possesses the mandate to handle international public policy issues related to the internet and should serve as the natural home for enhanced cooperation.

The private sector position emphasised pragmatism and resource efficiency. Olufuye stressed that “the private sector opposes creating new structures due to limited resources and prefers working within existing frameworks.” This perspective reflected broader private sector concerns about the proliferation of governance mechanisms and the associated costs and complexity of participating in multiple forums.

### Civil Society Concerns About Power Asymmetries

Ms. Esterhuysen provided a more critical analysis that directly challenged the optimistic assessments. She recognised that the original ICANN oversight concerns had diminished but emphasised that “power asymmetries remain at the root of enhanced cooperation needs and cannot be ignored.” Her perspective highlighted that enhanced cooperation fundamentally addresses “the need for governments with fewer resources to participate more equally in internet governance decisions.”

Esterhuysen’s contribution was particularly significant in refusing to allow the discussion to become depoliticised. She argued that ignoring power asymmetries was “either naive or Machiavellian or some kind of very unhelpful combination of both.” This intervention prevented the conversation from becoming overly technical or procedural, keeping focus on the underlying political dynamics that make enhanced cooperation both necessary and difficult to implement.

She also provided a constructive framework for moving forward, suggesting that “enhanced cooperation and multistakeholder approaches should be viewed as separate but complementary legitimate processes that can reinforce each other.”

## Institutional Framework and CSTD’s Role

There was broad agreement that CSTD should serve as the institutional home for enhanced cooperation rather than creating new structures. However, speakers disagreed about whether CSTD’s current mandate was sufficient or required enhancement.

Olufuye argued that CSTD already possessed adequate authority, whilst others suggested that a resolution might be needed to formally expand CSTD’s mandate beyond WSIS follow-up and review to explicitly include enhanced cooperation responsibilities. This disagreement reflected deeper questions about whether enhanced cooperation required new formal mechanisms or could be achieved through existing processes.

## Constructive Suggestions for Moving Forward

### Utilising Previous Work

An important intervention came from Vladimir Minkin, who questioned why 12 recommendations from previous enhanced cooperation meetings had been forgotten and not utilised. He specifically asked: “Why these 12 recommendations are forgotten? Why we don’t use them?” This highlighted a recurring problem in international processes where valuable preparatory work is abandoned when consensus cannot be achieved, rather than being built upon in subsequent efforts.

### Reframing the Concept

Wolfgang, an audience member, offered a constructive reframing of enhanced cooperation as “enhanced communication, collaboration, coordination between state and non-state actors.” This definition moved away from the historical baggage associated with the concept towards a more practical, operational understanding focused on improving cooperation rather than resolving political disputes.

This reframing suggested using “enhanced cooperation as a positive concept to enhance communication, to enhance coordination… and not to go back to the battles of the past.” Such an approach could potentially break the cycle of historical grievances that had prevented progress on implementation.

### Practical Implementation Approaches

Esterhuysen proposed that “UN agencies, General Assembly, and other multilateral bodies should report on how they enable government participation on equal footing in internet-related public policy,” with these reports being integrated into the CSTD review process. This approach would create a systematic record of enhanced cooperation activities without requiring new institutions.

## Persistent Disagreements and Fundamental Tensions

Despite two decades of discussion, fundamental disagreements persisted throughout the panel. Olufuye’s optimistic assessment of near-consensus was directly challenged by the continued contestation evident in the discussion itself. His narrow technical interpretation of enhanced cooperation contrasted sharply with Esterhuysen’s broader focus on power asymmetries and equal participation.

The discussion also revealed disagreement about how to proceed with implementation. Major advocated for abandoning consensus-seeking and presenting multiple viewpoints equally, whilst Olufuye claimed consensus had been achieved, and others suggested utilising previously agreed recommendations rather than starting over.

Perhaps most fundamentally, speakers disagreed about whether enhanced cooperation should acknowledge and address power asymmetries (Esterhuysen’s position) or focus on technical coordination mechanisms (Olufuye’s approach). This disagreement reflected deeper tensions about the political versus technical nature of internet governance.

## Questions About WSIS Efficacy

An important question was raised by Chris about whether the contested nature of enhanced cooperation has undermined the overall efficacy of WSIS. This question highlighted concerns that the inability to resolve enhanced cooperation debates may have broader implications for the WSIS process and its credibility as a framework for addressing digital governance issues.

## Implications for the WSIS+20 Process

The discussion revealed both opportunities and challenges for addressing enhanced cooperation in the WSIS+20 review. On the positive side, there appeared to be some convergence on institutional arrangements, with broad acceptance of CSTD as the primary venue. The recognition that multistakeholder approaches had gained broader governmental acceptance also created new possibilities for progress.

However, the persistence of fundamental disagreements about scope, implementation status, and approaches to power asymmetries suggested that enhanced cooperation remained as politically contentious as ever. The optimistic assessment that consensus had been achieved was directly contradicted by the persistent disagreements evident in the discussion itself.

## Conclusion

After 20 years of debate, enhanced cooperation remains a contested concept that reflects deeper tensions in global internet governance. Whilst the IANA transition addressed one major original concern, new challenges such as artificial intelligence governance have emerged, and fundamental power asymmetries between nations persist.

The discussion demonstrated that whilst some progress has been made—particularly in terms of institutional arrangements and the evolution of governmental attitudes towards multistakeholder processes—core political disagreements remain unresolved. The concept’s origins as a political compromise may inherently limit its effectiveness as a governance mechanism.

The most constructive path forward may involve building on previous work rather than starting from scratch, utilising existing institutional frameworks like CSTD, and potentially reframing enhanced cooperation as a positive concept focused on improving communication and coordination among all stakeholders. However, success will require acknowledging both the political realities that gave rise to enhanced cooperation and the persistent power asymmetries that continue to drive the need for more equitable participation in internet governance decisions.

The WSIS+20 process provides an opportunity to move beyond historical debates towards more practical approaches, but the discussion revealed that fundamental tensions about power, participation, and governance in the global digital ecosystem remain as relevant today as they were two decades ago.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Good morning, everyone, and welcome. It’s great to see so many of you waking up for this exciting topic of enhanced cooperation. My name is Konstantinos Koumaitis. I am a senior resident fellow with the Atlantic Council, and I will be moderating this excellent panel. So we are here to, of course, discuss… We are here because the WSIS is the 20-year review, and as part of this review, we are thinking of different things, and one of those things is this concept of enhanced cooperation, which has stayed with us for 20 years through thick and thin, and it has been a bit controversial. However, here we are discussing it, and we have an opportunity right now to actually go back and reflect and think what we have learned from those past 20 years of conversations and how we can move forward. And in order to do that, we have an excellent panel, which I’m going to introduce right now. So to my right, further right, Dr. David Souter. He is the Managing Director of ICT Development, Associates Limited. Then to my left, Dr. Peter Major. He is the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Right to my left, Dr. Jim Sun. I’m sorry for mispronouncing your surname, Olufoye. He is the Principal Consultant and Founder and Chair of Afikta Advisory Council in Nigeria, and of course, last but not least, Ms. Henriette Esterhuizen. She’s the Senior Advisor on Global and Regional Internet Governance for the Association for Progressive Communications. So before we go and we hear their interventions, which I will please ask all of you to keep them short, six, seven minutes max, I would like to pose three guiding questions that I would like our panelists and you to think as we keep discussing this issue for the next 40 minutes approximately. The first one is, what does enhanced cooperation mean today in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, and how should this be reflected in the WSIS Plus 20 outcome? How do existing mechanisms such as forums, partnerships, or policy platforms facilitate enhanced cooperation in practice? And what are the gaps or opportunities for improvement in the WSIS Plus 20 process? And finally, how can the WSIS 20 review process foster a shared understanding of enhanced cooperation among diverse stakeholders? And with that in mind, David, I will turn first to you. If you can please give us a little bit

David Souter: of a historical context of enhanced cooperation. Thank you. So that is indeed what I’ve been asked to do, Konstantinos. So I’ll give a historical account of the enhanced cooperation in the WSIS process, and I’ll quote from relevant documents in doing so. As we all know, internet governance was a subject of contention at both WSIS sessions in Geneva and Tunis. And as everyone here will know, the Tunis agenda, which concluded the second session in 2005, addressed the subject at considerable length. So I’ll begin with that context. First, the agenda adopted a working definition of internet governance, and I’ll quote that. The development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles. of Shared Principles, Norms, Rules, Decision Making, Procedures and Programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. And it recognized that that includes, again I’m quoting, both technical and public policy issues and that it should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. It recognized, quoting again, the need to maximize the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet governance as well as in development and capacity building. And it pointed out the importance of national, regional and international dimensions. It recognized the multi-stakeholder character of Internet governance and the various responsibilities of different stakeholder groups, including governments. It recognized that the Internet is a highly dynamic medium and that Internet governance framework should be inclusive and responsive to its rapid evolution. And it recognized that there were, and here again I’ll quote directly, many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms. So the significant and public policy issues that were identified in paragraph 58 of the agenda include, again I’m quoting, inter alia critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet. And others were identified in the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which met between the two sessions. So to paragraph 68, 69, sorry, of the Tunis agenda, which reads as follows. We recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future to enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact on international public policy issues. I’m quoting these things because I think it is useful to have them directly in mind in a discussion around this. The agenda did not define Enhanced Cooperation further, but paragraph 70 added that it should include, again, a quote, the development of globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical internet resources. So the management of critical internet resources, especially the relationship between Ayanna, ICANN and the U.S. government, had been a particular point of contention during the summit. So that’s at the summit start, and I’ll move on to subsequently. Over the years since the summit, there have been a number of initiatives that have sought to interpret and develop the concept of Enhanced Cooperation, while the range of issues affected by the internet and the number of international organizations and fora that are concerned with those issues has multiplied. The UN Secretary General carried out informal consultations in 2006 with internet-related organizations, including those established internet governance bodies, and that was followed by an open consultation in 2010 and an open meeting at the UN itself. And the subject was extensively discussed during that period in other fora, including the IGF. I think it was clear from the consultations and discussions around those initial processes that there were divergent views about two broad issues. The first about the range of international public policy issues pertaining to the internet, which was referred to in the Tunis agenda, and second about the nature and modalities of the Enhanced Cooperation that might be appropriate. So some contributions to discussions then and since have considered broad themes of digital development and the relationship between multilateral and multi-stakeholder dimensions of internet governance, and others have understood the concept more narrowly, concerned in particular with the governance of critical internet resources and ways in which these were addressed by the IANA transition in 2016. A consultation was held by the UN Commission The Commission on Science and Technology for Development, CSTD, in 2012, and that was followed by two working groups of the Commission. The first of those in 2013-14, and Peter Major will be talking about these in a moment. The first in 2013-14 sought to identify international public policy issues on the Internet and classified those in seven clusters, which were concerned with infrastructure and standardization, security, human rights, legal economic development, and sociocultural themes, sought to do that classification. Although consensus was reached in some areas, its report concluded, I’m quoting again here, there was significant divergence of views in a number of other issues. The complexity and the political sensitivity of the topic did not allow the group to finalize a set of recommendations on fully operationalizing enhanced cooperation. So that outcome was noted in the WSIS Plus 10 report adopted by the General Assembly in 2015. And the General Assembly in that WSIS Plus 10 agreement called on CSTD to organize a further working group, which was convened between 2016 and 2018. That discussed a number of proposed guiding principles to be considered when developing international Internet-related public policy, and some potential modalities and institutional arrangements concerned with those. But it also concluded that it could not finalize a set of recommendations. I’ll quote from that, in the light of persistent differences, including in regard to what should be the nature of the objectives and the scope of the process towards enhanced cooperation. So the concept and approaches to enabling enhanced cooperation have had diverse interpretations in terms of their scope, in terms of potential modalities, and the extent to which they have been implemented since the summit. Finally, and I’ll end with this, the resolution adopted by the CSTD in April this year, and forwarded to to the Echo Sock where it is at present, reaffirmed the Secretary General’s role to pursue the outcomes of the World Summit related to internet governance, including both Enhanced Cooperation and the IGF, recognizing that these may be complementary, and noted the outcomes from the working groups that I’ve just mentioned, that is the consensus was reached in some areas, but it was not possible to achieve it in others. So I hope that helps to frame the discussion.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you very much, David. Peter, we heard from David, there were two working groups on Enhanced Cooperation within the CSTD. You were the chair of the first working group, but you also followed the conversations on the second one. What lessons have we learned? What was, what, take us a little bit back in time and tell us what happened during those times.

Peter Major: Thank you. Thank you, Konstantinos. David gave a very good background with full of references to the Tunis agenda. I’m not going to do that. Well, the first working group was set up in a multi-stakeholder format, the second one as well. Basically, what I learned from that, that we cannot work in a consensus way. So a working group should work in the way the WGIC used to work. It should reflect different opinions, different options, and without making a ranking among the recommendations, or making ranking among the different opinions. The first working group did a very good job. We had a questioner concerning enhanced cooperation. We received a lot of responses to the questioner. We have. H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Ms. Suela Janina, H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter and that is the lesson I learned. We agreed not to shoot for consensus but to reflect every opinion, every approach on an equal footing. So basically to answer your question, to me that was the main important thing. However, as it was mentioned by David, in 2016 we had the IANA transition concerning the enhanced cooperation, which was one of the main reasons of enhanced cooperation. And with the IANA transition, this reason just kind of disappeared. And people said, OK, let’s do away with the enhanced cooperation. We don’t need it anymore. Other people said, no, no, no, we do need it. And there are a lot of issues which we should discuss and the governments should have a say and they should have a forum where they can sit down and discuss it on an equal footing. Yes, there are a lot of issues. We have the cybersecurity issues. We have the autonomous weapon issues. We have e-commerce issues naturally. And there are four of our governments can discuss it. Whether this is enough or not, I’m not to judge it. In my mind, it may be enough. We have a lot of places where you can discuss it, including the ITU Council. and Dr. David Souter, H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter, H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, so probably not in a complex way but separately different issues. So probably it may be desirable to have some kind of coordination, what’s going on. So I’ll stop here, thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Peter. Jimson, may I just turn to you please? You’ve been in this space for quite a long time, representing the private sector as part of the private sector community. How do you understand the concept of enhanced cooperation? What does it mean, you think, for the private sector?

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much. Okay, thank you very much, Constantino, and greetings everyone. Let me begin by appreciating DESA for this program, this session. In fact, I’ve heard before that don’t discuss enhanced cooperation anymore, we don’t want to go to that. So I was wondering why. So when I saw that we’re going to have a discussion, I said, yes, why not? Let’s discuss it. Because from our perspective, enhanced cooperation, so just look at the definition, enhanced, to improve on cooperation, just improve on the cooperation. Simply improve on the cooperation with regard to management of the critical internet resources, which is being done pretty well. At least as Dr. Peter Major mentioned, the IANA transition settled that October 1st, 2016. and H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter Because that time, there was a proposal on the table that, okay, since internet public policy issue is a subset of international public policy issue, then whichever organization is already handling international public policy issue should be responsible for enhanced cooperation as defined in paragraph 68 to 71 of the Tunis Agenda, and looking critically, CSTD already has that mandate. CSTD already has mandate to have purview over international public policy issue. Are you talking about cyber security? Is it about development issue, intellectual property? Whatever it is that is connected to the issue of internet matters pertaining to the internet can be discussed at CSTD. It’s still part of science and development issue. As a majority of us agreed, and I can see some of us that were in opposition before, we all agreed, majority, and only one country said no, unless we have a new organization set up, maybe with its own building, to discuss this issue. And we don’t want the new structure. In the private sector, we have little resources. We don’t have all unlimited resources. We have limited resources, and we want to be able to minimize expenses. And so, it is not in our interest to begin the new setting of structure for enhanced cooperation. We agree that CSTD is the home for and Dr. David Souter. They are the founders of the A.N.C.E. Corporation. That is from private sector perspective, at least from Africa. And the opposition was there because we were looking for 100% consensus, so people said it did not work, it did not succeed. I didn’t agree with that. The working group succeeded. The first working group chair did very well. So, intelligently and wisely, and the majority agreed, 99.9% that we should move forward with CSTD as the home of enhanced cooperation. But one person objected. But I could see since 2018, January 2018 when we concluded, that same country has now embraced the multi-stakeholder engagements and equal footing for all stakeholders and even hosted IGF. To the surprise of many, I was shocked when the country hosted us and we all did very well. They did an excellent job of hosting all stakeholders. I was really impressed. And I made sure that I was there to see, to witness it. And I witnessed it. So, the point is, from 2018 to now, the opposition to 100% consensus, I think has evaporated. So, I could take it that we already have the consensus that the enhanced cooperation should work within the framework of CSTD, even though the chair said, yes, it’s happening elsewhere. In April, I also did my best to attend CSTD, the last session, just to see what is going on. And then, I was impressed to see that the government on equal footing, they are debating and they are doing exactly what is there in Paragraph 68 to 71. They even had to vote on an issue, which I never witnessed before. So, they voted and they agreed that this is the resolution. Why didn’t we do this that time, 2018?

Anriette Esterhuysen: They will vote and then we will have this stuff. But we have learned. But the private sector, too, we are giving free hands. H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter What has changed is what the priority issues or what the concerns are. Or how governments feel about the institutional mechanisms that are needed to facilitate that. I think that has changed dramatically. As David has said, at the time in 2005, ICANN and the oversight of ICANN by the U.S. government was a major concern. That is not as major a concern. Maybe it should become one again because governments change, but that has stopped being a priority concern. But for example, what is done about AI and decisions about how governments and intergovernmental processes and decisions should impact on AI, that is a major concern. But that ability for governments who have fewer resources, the ability to not participate in multiple spaces at the same time, to feel more empowered, it’s never going to go away. Not unless we wake up tomorrow and the world is not one that is primarily defined by massive power asymmetries. I think it still excludes technical coordination. I think that is in the Tunis agenda. I think that is good. I think there is so much fear about what this means that I think the fear by particularly global north governments and by private sector actors and technical community actors that enhanced cooperation is going to open up governmental destruction of the multistakeholder. At the beginning of the session, several governments who demanded enhanced cooperation were also very ambivalent about the multistakeholder approach. I think that has shifted. I think there’s much more acceptance of the multistakeholder approach as a viable and valuable way of working in Internet governance. There’s much more understanding that one can in fact even strengthen multilateral decision making processes through building multistakeholder participation in. In fact, that can be enhanced. The cybercrime treaty, for example, I see as an illustration of enhanced cooperation, but it could have had much more multistakeholder engagement even if it was an intergovernmental process. So I think that has shifted as well. And I think for me, the opportunity at the moment is to be able to talk about enhanced cooperation and the multistakeholder approach, but separately as two legitimate processes that actually can really reinforce and strengthen one another and help facilitate digital cooperation at a geopolitical moment when we need it more than we’ve needed it for a very long time.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Henriette, and thank you all for your interventions. We have around 17 minutes for questions and or comments. Please, may I just ask you, because I see a lot of you wanting to speak, be short and crisp. And yeah, I’m going to take two, three questions right now. President of the Cuban Government. How many of you were in Tunis in the room where this

Audience: was discussed and enhanced cooperation created? In the room in Tunis, in the negotiation? You were during the negotiation? I doubt it, because that was only governmental, what we’re doing here. So for you, if you really want to know what enhanced cooperation and how it came out, I’m sorry, David, it has nothing to do with Geneva. In Tunis, that was the day before the summit began, and it was in the negotiation in a drafting group that was headed by the Pakistani Human Rights Council. Well, I don’t want to make it short. There’s an excellent book that was published by the APC, and the responsible of that was the diplomat David Hendon of the UK, who was the president of the European Union in that day. He explained how he came with that concept. He’s the real intellectual author. Read the article, page 184 of the APC book. Read it. It’s interesting. It’s like a detective novel, because you see how it is. Just in a nutshell, Henriette was totally right. Enhanced cooperation was a result of a very hard bargain compromise in the negotiations, because there was a group that was coordinated by Benedito Fonseca from Brazil of like-minded groups that wanted what is written in Article 35 of the Tunis agenda in the subsection A. that government has, I will try to read it, sovereign rights over international policy issues pertaining to the internet. So the question is, how are we going to implement this? And the basis is from the WIEGE group, that by the way, I was also in the WIEGE group, in which we defined, as you say, the internet governance, the principle, all the agreement, but the institutional arrangements were always the contentious. And as Peter said, very wisely in the WIEGE group, we didn’t go for one, we got four proposals, or three, because two are very similar. So that came to Tunis. And so we have the principles that government need to have exert that sovereign right. We also acknowledge the multistakeholder nature, that’s what was the proposition of internet governance. But then there was the problem of how to implement this right that government had. There was no consensus, it was impossible to get a consensus. And that is very written here. So the solution is to recognize the right of governments, and to say, and in the other hand, to create this multistakeholder IGF, and that the implementation of that right in the mechanism will be this enhanced cooperation that will be open for the next six months to that. So I’m sorry, Jim, so this has not happened. But what you said, it has some merit. And also what H.E. Ms. Suela Janina says, the nutshell of enhanced cooperation now is the need for an intergovernmental space in the architecture of WSIS. And it could be a new thing. We don’t believe that we create a new thing. But it may be the CSTD. But the mandate of CSTD, then we have to be enhanced. Because nowadays, the mandate of the CSTD is only follow up and review of WSIS.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you. I’m sorry. You need to wrap up because really we have, we’re running out of time. To do, as Handiet very rightly said about intergovernmental space. And second, that’s the truth without discussion.

Audience: You can check the people that were there, who was there, that’s the truth. I was also seeing the documents of Tunis agenda. And the second truth, that that has not been implemented. As many have said, the geopolitical conditions have tried to say that implemented. Of course, it may be in the IP, in the internet critical resources, but the definition of internet government says that it’s a wide one. Sorry to, thank you. Chris and Wolfgang, and then we can just react. Chris, Wolfgang, please be sure. Thank you. Sorry, okay, thank you. I’ll be brief here. So thank you to all of you for the insights on this. And with all respect to Jimson’s optimism about how close we are to consensus on this, I think it’s clear that it’s at the very least a contested idea and has been for two decades now. So staring down the barrel of the WSIS 20 year review, I guess the question I have is to any and all of you, what do you think has been the impact on the efficacy of the WSIS project in having such an ill-defined or contested concept at its very heart? Has that undermined the work that we’ve actually been trying to do and achieve with the WSIS? Thanks, Chris. Wolfgang, please. We all know that David Hinton tried to bring. fire and water under one umbrella. And it worked for the moment, but we should not forget this has a, I would call it, a rather destructive political component and a constructive component to enhance cooperation is a good thing. You know, a couple of years after Tunis, we used an academic gathering in one of the schools of internet governance and tried to define what enhanced cooperation could be from an academic point of view. And we said, you know, enhanced cooperation is enhanced communication, collaboration, coordination between state and non-state actors. So, and I think this is really covers everything, including what Juan just said. So that certainly the governance need a space where they can communicate among each other on equal footing, but this is embedded in a multi-stakeholder environment. And I think we should really use the enhanced cooperation as a positive concept to enhance communication, to enhance coordination. So, and not to go back to the battles of the past, which is over with this leads us to nowhere. But unfortunately, I heard yesterday from some governments, they want to go back and oversight and control will surveillance is on the agenda also for the coming negotiation versus plus 10. We should be prepared for this. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you. Quick reflections. I know, Andreette, you want to say something and then I will go to a second round of questions, but please, Andreette, why don’t you start? Um, thanks. I think, I think we already, it’s so fascinating how in the responses,

Anriette Esterhuysen: people are already not actually willing to accept that there is actually quite a clear definition for the people that put that on the table in the first place. It’s like, and depoliticizing the root of enhanced cooperation, which is and Dr. David Souter. Thank you. So, let’s start with the question of multistakeholder spaces. You know, in the way that ICANN has created the GAC to create a space for governments to have a particular voice and influence, can we also create spaces in other multilateral or multistakeholder processes? And then, similarly, where we have these multilateral decision-making processes, can we use multistakeholder approach, the Net Mundial guidelines, for example, to make sure that there’s more equal participation among governments in those spaces? But ignoring that… There are power asymmetries at the root of this is, it’s, I don’t know, it’s either naive or Machiavellian or some kind of very unhelpful combination of both.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you. Thank you, H.E. Ms. Suela Janina. Jameson, can you, please.

Jimson Olufuye: Yeah, just very quickly to Joanne. You said CSC, they only have the mandate for follow-up. I think to tackle that, it should be easy. It’s just, I think a resolution can handle that. If there is a resolution proposed that CSC which also handles the enhanced cooperation stuff, would that not happen? And you can put it to a vote. And I believe many will, to scale through this time around because it is not 100% consensus we’re looking for. So, and that can be scaled to ECOSOC and to GA. And that is a good issue. Thank you. Okay, so we literally have six minutes. It’s the last round of questions. I want you to be very brief in your interventions. Anna, we go first, then to the gentleman and then back there. Please, Anna, go ahead.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you, Konstantinos. And thank you, sir. I fully appreciate the history of all of this. I was not there in Tunis or Geneva, but I’m very keen in terms of the forward-looking aspect because we’re going into this, we are in the WSIS plus 20 review. So I would like to understand what in the panel’s view, what can we make of this today that is workable within the institutions that are already there? Because I think with everything going on, there’s not gonna be any new institutions happening. And to actually make this work positively also through the perspective of the net mondial guidelines as Henriette referenced. So what is the way forward? Thank you, Anna. Please be brief because we also have some… Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, Vladimir Minkin, Russia. Could I ask you who participated in the last nine sessions from the Benedictine for Enhanced Cooperation meeting? Yes. If you remember, we practically agreed 12 recommendations. The only point was when we proposed in the beginning, say, a reaffirmed conforming Tunis agenda, especially 35, it was not disagree with that. And what is pity? Not only that we did not have agreement in spite of the very close, but these 12 recommendations everybody forget. But they exist. Why not to use them? And the other important point, what happened? It was intention not to take into account the role and especially obligations of states, of governments. Only governments have responsibility under their citizens. Don’t forget that, please. When we fully agree, multi-stakeholder, but in our right and obligations. That taken into account, I think we should consider that in December. Thank you very much, sir. Please be brief. You can come in front and use one of the microphones. Good morning, colleagues, and thank you all panelists. Actually, briefly, we cannot say, it’s not a good reason we say we have open-ended working group or something like that, so we don’t need an institution or a special framework for enhanced cooperation.

Jimson Olufuye: to undo that. And CSTD is a home I’ve seen where all the stakeholders can participate freely and the mechanism can be set up there to ensure it works smoothly. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you, Gibson. Henriette? Thanks. I think there’s some consensus here. I think firstly we need to acknowledge it and agree on, instead of fighting about what it means, just use the Tunis agenda because I think the Tunis agenda is pretty clear, which is not everyone wants to read the words in the language that they intended. So I think agree on that definition and affirm that it does not include technical coordination, the day-to-day technical coordination. That language is there in the Tunis agenda. It needs to be emphasized and stressed. And secondly, I think I agree with Peter, no separate body, but let’s create it. The thing is once we’ve acknowledged that we agree on the definition, that it is about governments being able to participate on a more equal footing and public policy related to the internet, then we can actually start inviting UN agencies, the General Assembly, other bodies, regional bodies within the multilateral system to report on how they are actually enabling it. That can go into the CSTD review process. It will give us a record of what is happening and governments will be able to comment on whether they feel it’s efficient or not. I would use that as a starting point. And I think that’s very doable once we actually get over that inability to actually agree on what its intention and definition

Konstantinos Komaitis: is. Thank you very much. I would like to thank all four of you for making your interventions and all of you for waking up in the morning and coming to this session. Thank you so much. Bye. © 2012 University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences UGA Extension Office of Communications and Creative Services

Agreement points

Enhanced cooperation should not include day-to-day technical coordination

Speakers

– David Souter
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

The Tunis Agenda defined enhanced cooperation as enabling governments on equal footing to carry out roles in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, excluding day-to-day technical matters

Implementation should involve UN agencies and other bodies reporting on how they enable government participation on equal footing

Summary

Both speakers emphasized that enhanced cooperation explicitly excludes technical coordination and day-to-day operational matters, as clearly stated in the Tunis Agenda

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

CSTD should be the institutional home for enhanced cooperation rather than creating new structures

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Jimson Olufuye
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

Working groups should reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking consensus, similar to how the WGIG operated

CSTD already has the mandate to handle international public policy issues related to the internet and should be the home for enhanced cooperation

Implementation should involve UN agencies and other bodies reporting on how they enable government participation on equal footing

Governments need an intergovernmental space within the WSIS architecture, which could be CSTD with enhanced mandate

Summary

Multiple speakers agreed that CSTD provides the appropriate institutional framework for enhanced cooperation, avoiding the need for new structures while potentially requiring mandate enhancement

Topics

Legal and regulatory

The IANA transition in 2016 resolved a major original concern driving enhanced cooperation

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The IANA transition in 2016 addressed one major concern that originally drove enhanced cooperation discussions

Enhanced cooperation simply means improving cooperation regarding management of critical internet resources, which is already being done well

Summary

Both speakers acknowledged that the IANA transition significantly addressed one of the primary concerns that originally motivated enhanced cooperation discussions

Topics

Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers support working within existing institutional frameworks rather than creating new structures, though from different perspectives – resource efficiency for private sector and institutional complementarity for civil society

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

The private sector opposes creating new structures due to limited resources and prefers working within existing frameworks

The concept should be separated from but complementary to multistakeholder approaches, with both being legitimate processes

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasized the value of previous working group efforts and the importance of reflecting diverse opinions rather than forcing consensus, suggesting that valuable work has been done that shouldn’t be discarded

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Audience

Arguments

Working groups should reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking consensus, similar to how the WGIG operated

The 12 recommendations from previous working groups should be revisited and utilized rather than forgotten

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Multistakeholder approach acceptance by governments

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The concept should be separated from but complementary to multistakeholder approaches, with both being legitimate processes

Previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that governments who previously opposed multistakeholder approaches have become more accepting of them, with even countries that initially objected now embracing multistakeholder engagement and hosting IGFs

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Practical definition clarity despite historical contention

Speakers

– David Souter
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

The Tunis Agenda defined enhanced cooperation as enabling governments on equal footing to carry out roles in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, excluding day-to-day technical matters

Implementation should involve UN agencies and other bodies reporting on how they enable government participation on equal footing

Enhanced cooperation should be defined as enhanced communication, collaboration, and coordination between state and non-state actors in a multistakeholder environment

Explanation

Despite 20 years of contention, there was unexpected consensus that the Tunis Agenda actually provides a clear enough definition that can be operationalized, with speakers agreeing to use existing language rather than continuing definitional debates

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed significant convergence around using existing institutional frameworks (particularly CSTD), accepting the Tunis Agenda definition, excluding technical coordination, and recognizing that multistakeholder approaches have gained broader acceptance even among previously skeptical governments

Consensus level

Moderate to high consensus on institutional mechanisms and definitional clarity, with implications that enhanced cooperation may be more implementable now than in previous decades due to reduced opposition and clearer understanding of scope and limitations

Different viewpoints

Definition and scope of enhanced cooperation

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

Enhanced cooperation simply means improving cooperation regarding management of critical internet resources, which is already being done well

Enhanced cooperation addresses the need for governments with fewer resources to participate more equally in internet governance decisions

Enhanced cooperation should be defined as enhanced communication, collaboration, and coordination between state and non-state actors in a multistakeholder environment

Summary

Olufuye views enhanced cooperation narrowly as technical cooperation on critical internet resources that is already functioning well, while Esterhuysen sees it as addressing broader power asymmetries and enabling equal government participation. An audience member proposed a more comprehensive definition encompassing all stakeholder coordination.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Whether enhanced cooperation has been successfully implemented

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– David Souter
– Audience

Arguments

Previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach

The second working group (2016-18) also failed to finalize recommendations due to persistent differences about scope and objectives

The concept has remained contested and ill-defined for 20 years, potentially undermining the efficacy of the WSIS project

Summary

Olufuye claims near-consensus has been achieved and implementation is proceeding through CSTD, while Souter’s historical account shows persistent failures to reach agreement, and audience members note the concept remains contested after 20 years.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Approach to achieving consensus in working groups

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Jimson Olufuye
– Audience

Arguments

Working groups should reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking consensus, similar to how the WGIG operated

Previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach

The 12 recommendations from previous working groups should be revisited and utilized rather than forgotten

Summary

Major advocates for abandoning consensus-seeking and presenting multiple viewpoints equally, while Olufuye claims consensus has been achieved, and audience members suggest utilizing previously agreed recommendations rather than starting over.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Historical accuracy and interpretation of Tunis negotiations

Speakers

– David Souter
– Audience

Arguments

Enhanced cooperation emerged from contentious negotiations at WSIS Tunis in 2005, particularly around internet governance and ICANN oversight

Enhanced cooperation was a compromise solution created by UK diplomat David Hendon to resolve deadlock between different governmental positions on internet governance

Explanation

An audience member who claimed to be present during the Tunis negotiations challenged David Souter’s historical account, arguing that Souter was not in the actual negotiation room and providing specific details about how the concept was created by David Hendon as a compromise. This disagreement over historical facts was unexpected as it questioned the credibility of the expert panel’s historical narrative.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Optimism versus realism about current consensus

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Audience

Arguments

Previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach

The concept has remained contested and ill-defined for 20 years, potentially undermining the efficacy of the WSIS project

Explanation

Olufuye’s optimistic assessment of near-consensus was directly challenged by an audience member who questioned whether such optimism was realistic given the 20-year history of contestation. This disagreement was unexpected because it directly contradicted the private sector representative’s positive outlook with a more skeptical assessment of progress.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed fundamental disagreements about the definition, scope, implementation status, and future direction of enhanced cooperation. Key areas of disagreement included whether enhanced cooperation should be understood narrowly (technical coordination) or broadly (addressing power asymmetries), whether consensus has been achieved or remains elusive, and what institutional mechanisms are needed.

Disagreement level

Moderate to high level of disagreement with significant implications. While speakers agreed on using existing institutions rather than creating new ones, they fundamentally disagreed on the nature of the problem enhanced cooperation is meant to solve and whether progress has been made. This suggests that after 20 years, the concept remains as contested as ever, potentially undermining efforts to implement it effectively in the WSIS+20 process. The disagreements reflect deeper tensions between different stakeholder groups and their varying perspectives on internet governance power structures.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers support working within existing institutional frameworks rather than creating new structures, though from different perspectives – resource efficiency for private sector and institutional complementarity for civil society

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

The private sector opposes creating new structures due to limited resources and prefers working within existing frameworks

The concept should be separated from but complementary to multistakeholder approaches, with both being legitimate processes

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasized the value of previous working group efforts and the importance of reflecting diverse opinions rather than forcing consensus, suggesting that valuable work has been done that shouldn’t be discarded

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Audience

Arguments

Working groups should reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking consensus, similar to how the WGIG operated

The 12 recommendations from previous working groups should be revisited and utilized rather than forgotten

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Enhanced cooperation emerged from 2005 WSIS Tunis negotiations as a compromise solution to enable governments to participate on equal footing in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, excluding day-to-day technical matters

The concept has remained contested and ill-defined for 20 years, with two CSTD working groups (2013-14 and 2016-18) failing to reach full consensus on implementation recommendations

The IANA transition in 2016 addressed one major original concern driving enhanced cooperation discussions, changing the landscape of the debate

There is growing acceptance that CSTD should serve as the institutional home for enhanced cooperation rather than creating new structures

Enhanced cooperation and multistakeholder approaches should be viewed as separate but complementary legitimate processes that can reinforce each other

Power asymmetries between governments remain at the root of enhanced cooperation needs and cannot be ignored in discussions

The private sector generally opposes creating new institutional structures due to resource constraints and prefers working within existing frameworks

Resolutions and action items

Use the existing Tunis Agenda definition of enhanced cooperation rather than continuing to debate what it means

Emphasize that enhanced cooperation excludes day-to-day technical coordination as specified in the Tunis Agenda

Invite UN agencies, General Assembly, and other multilateral bodies to report on how they enable government participation on equal footing in internet-related public policy

Integrate these reports into the CSTD review process to create a record of enhanced cooperation activities

Consider enhancing CSTD’s mandate through resolution if needed to formally include enhanced cooperation responsibilities

Revisit and utilize the 12 recommendations from previous working groups rather than abandoning them

Unresolved issues

Whether CSTD’s current mandate is sufficient or needs formal enhancement to handle enhanced cooperation

How to achieve consensus on enhanced cooperation implementation given persistent disagreements over scope and objectives

The specific mechanisms and procedures for operationalizing enhanced cooperation within existing institutions

How to balance intergovernmental spaces for enhanced cooperation with multistakeholder participation

Whether the changing geopolitical landscape and new issues like AI governance require different approaches to enhanced cooperation

How to address the fundamental power asymmetries that drive the need for enhanced cooperation

Suggested compromises

Accept CSTD as the institutional home for enhanced cooperation while allowing for multistakeholder participation

Focus on enhancing existing institutions rather than creating new ones to address resource constraints

Separate enhanced cooperation from multistakeholder approaches while recognizing both as legitimate and complementary processes

Use working group approaches that reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking full consensus

Create spaces within multilateral processes for more equal government participation similar to ICANN’s GAC model

Apply multistakeholder guidelines to multilateral decision-making processes to ensure more equal participation among governments

We cannot work in a consensus way. So a working group should work in the way the WGIC used to work. It should reflect different opinions, different options, and without making a ranking among the recommendations, or making ranking among the different opinions.

Speaker

Peter Major

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the traditional approach to international negotiations by suggesting that seeking consensus may actually be counterproductive. It introduces a paradigm shift from trying to find common ground to accepting and documenting diverse viewpoints equally.

Impact

This insight reframed the entire discussion about why enhanced cooperation efforts have stalled. It moved the conversation from ‘how to achieve consensus’ to ‘how to work productively without consensus,’ influencing subsequent speakers to consider alternative approaches to the deadlock.

Enhanced cooperation was a result of a very hard bargain compromise in the negotiations… So the solution is to recognize the right of governments, and to say, and in the other hand, to create this multistakeholder IGF, and that the implementation of that right in the mechanism will be this enhanced cooperation that will be open for the next six months to that.

Speaker

Juan (Audience member)

Reason

This comment provides crucial historical context that reveals enhanced cooperation as a political compromise rather than a well-defined concept. It exposes the fundamental tension between governmental sovereignty and multistakeholder governance that has persisted for 20 years.

Impact

This intervention significantly shifted the discussion by grounding it in historical reality rather than theoretical interpretations. It forced other panelists to acknowledge the political origins of the concept and influenced the conversation toward more pragmatic solutions.

What has changed is what the priority issues or what the concerns are… At the time in 2005, ICANN and the oversight of ICANN by the U.S. government was a major concern. That is not as major a concern… But for example, what is done about AI and decisions about how governments and intergovernmental processes and decisions should impact on AI, that is a major concern.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment brilliantly illustrates how the digital landscape has evolved, making the original concerns about enhanced cooperation less relevant while new challenges have emerged. It demonstrates the dynamic nature of internet governance issues.

Impact

This observation redirected the discussion from historical debates to contemporary relevance, helping participants understand why enhanced cooperation discussions have felt stagnant and what new directions might be more productive.

Enhanced cooperation is enhanced communication, collaboration, coordination between state and non-state actors… And I think we should really use the enhanced cooperation as a positive concept to enhance communication, to enhance coordination… and not to go back to the battles of the past.

Speaker

Wolfgang (Audience member)

Reason

This comment offers a constructive reframing of enhanced cooperation from a contentious political concept to a practical operational approach. It suggests moving beyond historical grievances to focus on functional cooperation.

Impact

This intervention helped shift the tone of the discussion from defensive positions to collaborative possibilities, influencing the final exchanges toward more solution-oriented thinking.

There are power asymmetries at the root of this… ignoring that… There are power asymmetries at the root of this is, it’s, I don’t know, it’s either naive or Machiavellian or some kind of very unhelpful combination of both.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment cuts through diplomatic language to identify the core issue that enhanced cooperation was designed to address – fundamental power imbalances in global internet governance. It challenges attempts to depoliticize what is inherently a political issue.

Impact

This stark assessment prevented the discussion from becoming too sanitized or academic, keeping the focus on the real-world political dynamics that make enhanced cooperation both necessary and difficult to implement.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it through several important phases: from historical analysis to practical lessons learned, from theoretical definitions to political realities, and from past grievances to future possibilities. Peter Major’s insight about abandoning consensus-seeking provided a methodological breakthrough, while Juan’s historical intervention grounded the discussion in political reality. Anriette’s observations about changing priorities and persistent power asymmetries kept the conversation relevant and honest, while Wolfgang’s reframing toward positive cooperation offered a constructive path forward. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a repetitive rehashing of old debates into a more nuanced exploration of how to make progress on a persistently challenging issue. The discussion evolved from explaining why enhanced cooperation has failed to identifying practical ways it might succeed in the current context.

What does enhanced cooperation mean today in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, and how should this be reflected in the WSIS Plus 20 outcome?

Speaker

Konstantinos Komaitis

Explanation

This was posed as one of three guiding questions for the panel discussion to frame the conversation about enhanced cooperation in the current context

How do existing mechanisms such as forums, partnerships, or policy platforms facilitate enhanced cooperation in practice?

Speaker

Konstantinos Komaitis

Explanation

This was the second guiding question to understand how current structures support enhanced cooperation

What are the gaps or opportunities for improvement in the WSIS Plus 20 process?

Speaker

Konstantinos Komaitis

Explanation

This was part of the third guiding question to identify areas needing attention in the review process

How can the WSIS 20 review process foster a shared understanding of enhanced cooperation among diverse stakeholders?

Speaker

Konstantinos Komaitis

Explanation

This was the final guiding question focused on building consensus among different stakeholder groups

What has been the impact on the efficacy of the WSIS project in having such an ill-defined or contested concept at its very heart?

Speaker

Chris

Explanation

Chris questioned whether having enhanced cooperation as a contested concept has undermined the overall WSIS project effectiveness

Has that undermined the work that we’ve actually been trying to do and achieve with the WSIS?

Speaker

Chris

Explanation

This follows up on whether the contested nature of enhanced cooperation has been detrimental to WSIS goals

What can we make of this today that is workable within the institutions that are already there?

Speaker

Anna

Explanation

Anna sought practical solutions for implementing enhanced cooperation within existing institutional frameworks for the WSIS plus 20 review

Could I ask you who participated in the last nine sessions from the Benedictine for Enhanced Cooperation meeting?

Speaker

Vladimir Minkin

Explanation

Vladimir sought clarification about participation in recent enhanced cooperation meetings and questioned why 12 agreed recommendations were forgotten

Why not to use them [the 12 recommendations]?

Speaker

Vladimir Minkin

Explanation

Vladimir questioned why previously agreed recommendations from enhanced cooperation meetings were not being utilized

How can spaces be created in multilateral or multistakeholder processes similar to how ICANN created the GAC for governments?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

Anriette suggested exploring how to create dedicated government spaces in other governance processes, using ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee as a model

How can multistakeholder approaches be used to ensure more equal participation among governments in multilateral decision-making processes?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

This explores how to address power asymmetries in international governance processes through multistakeholder mechanisms

Can a resolution be proposed to expand CSTD’s mandate beyond just follow-up to also handle enhanced cooperation?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

Jimson suggested this as a practical solution to address the limitation that CSTD currently only has a mandate for WSIS follow-up and review

Summary

This discussion focused on “Connecting the Unconnected” in education, cybersecurity, and rural solutions, with particular emphasis on India’s digital achievements and their global implications. The event was organized by the CMII Association of India during the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), featuring government officials, ITU directors, and technology experts both in-person and online.

Indian officials highlighted the country’s remarkable digital transformation, including the Aadhaar digital identity system serving 1.3 billion people, the UPI payment system adopted by 17 countries, and the BharatNet project – a $20 billion fiber optic infrastructure initiative connecting rural villages. Speakers emphasized India’s rapid 5G rollout and efforts to provide 4G connectivity to over 640,000 villages, with only a few thousand remaining unconnected. The discussion revealed that India has achieved some of the world’s lowest data rates at less than 10 rupees per GB, making connectivity more affordable for rural populations.

ITU Director Cosmas Zavazava noted that 2.6 billion people globally remain unconnected and emphasized the importance of cybersecurity capacity building, particularly for least developed countries that lag 10 years behind in cyber capabilities. Several speakers addressed the persistent digital divides, including urban-rural gaps and gender disparities, with less than 35% of rural Indian women owning mobile phones. The conversation also touched on the challenges of transitioning 300 million Indians from 2G to advanced networks and the need for affordable devices.

Participants discussed the integration of AI in 6G networks, cybersecurity education, and the importance of making newly connected populations aware of digital risks like deepfakes and phishing. The session concluded with calls for India to share its digital success stories more broadly and a proposal for an 18th Sustainable Development Goal focused on “meaningful, safe digital life for citizens.”

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **India’s Digital Infrastructure Achievements**: Extensive discussion of India’s successful digital initiatives including UPI (Unified Payments Interface) adopted by 17 countries, Aadhaar digital identity system serving 1 billion people, rapid 5G rollout, and the BharatNet project – a $20 billion fiber optic network connecting rural villages.

– **Connecting the Unconnected Through Infrastructure**: Focus on bridging the digital divide by providing 4G/5G connectivity to India’s 640,000 villages, with emphasis on making internet affordable through fiber-to-home broadband connections to complement mobile services.

– **Cybersecurity and Digital Safety**: Concerns about protecting newly connected populations from cyber threats, AI-enabled scams, deepfakes, and the need for cybersecurity education alongside connectivity expansion, particularly highlighting the vulnerability of developing nations.

– **Gender and Rural Digital Divides**: Discussion of persistent gaps where less than 35% of rural Indian women own mobile phones, and approximately 300 million Indians still use 2G technology, emphasizing the need for targeted programs to address these disparities.

– **International Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing**: India’s role in sharing its digital public infrastructure model globally, collaboration with ITU on cybersecurity initiatives, and the potential for developing nations to learn from India’s experiences in digital transformation.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to showcase India’s digital transformation successes while addressing the global challenge of “connecting the unconnected” – bringing digital access, education, and cybersecurity awareness to underserved populations worldwide, particularly in developing nations.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently positive and celebratory tone throughout, with speakers expressing pride in India’s achievements while acknowledging ongoing challenges. The atmosphere was formal yet collaborative, with participants showing mutual respect and enthusiasm for sharing knowledge and best practices. The tone remained constructive and forward-looking, emphasizing solutions and international cooperation rather than dwelling on problems.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **NK Goyal** – President, CMII Association of India

– **Seizo Onoe** – Director, Telecommunications Standardization Bureau (TSB), ITU

– **Niraj Verma** – Deputy Ambassador; Administrator, Digital Bharat Nidhi (DBN)/USO Fund, Department of Communications, Government of India; in charge of Optical Fabric project

– **Anil Kumar Bhardwaj** – Deputy Director General, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India; Strategic Engagement role

– **Ninad S. Deshpande** – Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of India to the WTO in Geneva

– **Cosmas Zavazava** – Director, Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT), ITU

– **Tim Unwin** – Emeritus Professor of Geography, Royal University of London; Moderator

– **N Ravi Shanker** – IAS Retd, Principal Advisor, DIT University; former Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand Government, India

– **Lt. Gen. JS Sidana** – AVSM, Director General of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers and Senior Colonel Commandant Corps of EME India

– **M. Revathi** – Joint Wireless and Telecommunications Director, Department of Telecommunications Government of India; Spectrum manager and satellite expert

– **Ambika Khurana** – Chief Reg and Corp AFF Officer and Chief External Media Officer, India

– **Ravi Sinha** – VP Tech Dev and Solutions, Reliance Jio; Co-chairman of ORAN in India

– **Chaesub Lee** – Head of Government Affairs and Public Policy, APAC Bulkerspersky

– **Alfredo Ronchi** – Professor (specific institution not mentioned)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Josh B. Lee** – Ex-Director (institution not specified)

# WSIS Side Event Report: “Connecting the Unconnected” – Digital Inclusion Discussion

## Event Overview

This side event at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was organized by the CMII Association of India, featuring presentations from government officials, ITU directors, and technology experts on digital inclusion challenges and India’s connectivity achievements. The session included both in-person and online participants, though technical difficulties and time constraints affected several presentations.

## Opening Presentations

### India’s Digital Infrastructure Achievements

NK Goyal, President of CMII Association of India, opened the session by highlighting India’s significant digital transformation achievements. He emphasized that India has built comprehensive digital systems including the Unified Payments Interface (UPI), Aadhaar digital identity system, and has demonstrated capabilities in space missions, positioning India as having achieved technological sovereignty at scale.

Seizo Onoe, Director of the ITU’s Telecommunications Standardisation Bureau, provided brief opening remarks noting that there is much the global WSIS community can learn from India’s experiences with digital inclusion at speed and scale, and emphasized that security controls should be applied consistently worldwide with standards providing key support to policy objectives.

### Connectivity Infrastructure and Challenges

Niraj Verma, Administrator USO (Universal Service Obligation), provided detailed insights into India’s connectivity initiatives, particularly the BharatNet project—a major fiber optic infrastructure initiative. He noted that India has achieved some of the world’s lowest data rates at less than 10 rupees per gigabyte, making connectivity more affordable for rural populations. Verma emphasized that mobile connectivity alone is insufficient and that affordable landline broadband through fiber-to-home connections is essential for rural areas.

He reported that India has provided 4G connectivity to over 6.4 lakh (640,000) villages, with only 7-8 thousand villages remaining unconnected. However, he noted that approximately 300 million Indians remain on 2G technology and require support to migrate to 4G for enhanced digital access.

## Government Perspectives

### Department of Telecommunications

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, Deputy Director General of the Department of Telecommunications, highlighted India’s capability to create end-to-end online ecosystems serving 1.3 billion people through comprehensive digital identity and payment systems. He emphasized the complexity of managing such systems across diverse linguistic, cultural, and economic contexts.

M. Revathi, Joint Wireless and Telecommunications Director at the Department of Telecommunications, introduced a framework for understanding connectivity challenges through three fundamental aspects: availability, accessibility, and affordability, recognizing that successful connectivity requires addressing gaps in network quality, device costs, and service pricing simultaneously.

### International Representation

Aninad Deshpande, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of India to the WTO in Geneva, highlighted India’s growing collaboration with the ITU, including hosting the World Telecommunication Standardisation Assembly and proposing to host the Plenipotentiary Conference in 2030.

## ITU Leadership Perspectives

Cosmas Zavazava, Director of the ITU’s Telecommunication Development Bureau, provided global context by noting that 2.6 billion people globally remain unconnected, with persistent capacity gaps especially pronounced in least developed countries. He emphasized that the challenge extends beyond mere connectivity to encompass meaningful engagement with digital services, questioning whether connected populations are actually utilizing digital services for e-commerce, government affairs, and other meaningful activities.

Zavazava also emphasized that child online protection requires a multi-stakeholder approach involving parents, teachers, regulators, and industry, recognizing that protecting vulnerable populations online requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors.

## Key Challenges Identified

### Gender and Rural Digital Divides

Ambika Khurana, Chief Regulatory and Corporate Affairs Officer, highlighted a critical challenge: less than 35% of women in rural India own mobile phones, creating a significant gender-driven digital divide. This statistic illustrated persistent inequalities even within successful digital transformation programs.

Lt. Gen. JS Sidana, Director General of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers, reinforced concerns about gender gaps, noting that women are often unable to access technology in Global South countries, significantly hindering education and development opportunities. He emphasized that technology must serve as an enabler rather than a divider.

### Cybersecurity and Digital Safety

Chaesub Lee, Head of Government Affairs and Public Policy at APAC, highlighted cybersecurity challenges, noting that three out of four people failed to identify AI-generated content in tests. He argued that education about cybersecurity threats must become as fundamental as road safety education for newly connected populations.

The discussion revealed particular concerns about protecting newly connected populations who may lack awareness of digital risks, including AI-enabled threats such as deepfakes and sophisticated phishing attacks.

## Education and Technology Perspectives

Lt. Gen. JS Sidana highlighted the transformative potential of education technology, noting that immersive learning through augmented reality and virtual reality demonstrates 30-40% improvement in delivery effectiveness. He emphasized that technology has democratized education by making high-quality learning resources accessible to previously underserved populations.

Alfredo Ronchi, Professor, provided insights on generational differences in information processing, noting that young generations process information in parallel rather than serial sequences, with implications for educational methodology and technology design.

## Sustainability and Future Development

Seizo Onoe emphasized that sustainability should be prioritized over advanced smart features when developing future connectivity solutions, suggesting that the global community should focus on solutions that can be widely deployed and maintained rather than pursuing cutting-edge capabilities that may not be accessible to all populations.

## Development Framework Proposals

NK Goyal proposed the creation of an 18th Sustainable Development Goal focused on “meaningful, safe digital life for citizens,” recognizing that digital access and safety have become fundamental requirements for human development.

Tim Unwin, the session moderator and Professor at Royal University of London, provided a challenging perspective by questioning whether current development frameworks are adequate for addressing contemporary digital challenges, encouraging India to take greater leadership in global digital governance discussions.

## Limitations and Incomplete Information

This report is based on a transcript that contains technical quality issues, including repeated text sections and incomplete presentations. Several speakers, including Ravi Sinha from Reliance Jio, were cut short due to time constraints, and some online participants experienced connectivity difficulties. The event format was primarily a series of individual presentations rather than an interactive discussion, which limited cross-speaker dialogue and debate.

## Key Takeaways

The session demonstrated broad recognition of India’s achievements in digital infrastructure development at unprecedented scale, while acknowledging persistent challenges in gender inclusion, rural connectivity, and cybersecurity education. Speakers consistently emphasized the need to move beyond basic connectivity to “meaningful connectivity” that includes safety, affordability, and relevant content.

The presentations highlighted the complexity of digital inclusion, requiring coordinated efforts across infrastructure development, policy frameworks, education, and social change initiatives. While celebrating progress, speakers maintained focus on significant work that remains, particularly in addressing gender divides and protecting vulnerable populations in the digital space.

The session reinforced that connecting the unconnected requires comprehensive approaches that address not only technical infrastructure but also economic accessibility, social barriers, and digital safety considerations.

NK Goyal: My heartfelt thanks to all of you here. Heartfelt thanks to our VIPs on the dais. We are waiting for ZAVAZAVA, but in the meantime, we will start. We will start by honoring our VIPs, Mr. Niraj Verma, our Deputy Ambassador here, Mr. Onoe, Director, and Mr. Josh B. Lee, who is the Ex-Director here, and Team Admin. I will start giving the slogans. I also want to welcome all the friends who have joined online. I want to say greetings from India, a country with one of the oldest civilisations on the planet, moving into the world to become the third largest economy. India’s civilization dates back to thousands of years before the Roman Empire, before most of the places in Europe. It invented the concept of zero, advanced astronomy, surgery, mathematics. India built all parallel systems quietly, incrementally, and now it is starting to push those in the global areas from UPI to Aadhaar to space missions and diplomatic. UPI is one of the very great things in India with no foreign interventions and adopted by 17 countries. Aadhaar, our system connected by 1 billion people without any bottlenecks, digital ID integrated into various services for the people, welfare, taxation, etc. ISRO, as you know, landed a rover near the moon’s south place at the friction of the cost it costs in other countries. India is starting its own digital architecture. India is now having the second largest mobile base and we have been the fastest rollout for 5G, working on 6G, AI, quantum, as a mission implementing the world’s largest fiber optic project in the world in India. Mr. Niraj is looking after that thing. India is investing billions of dollars in the chip investment. India has passed its own data localization, data privacy laws, and so on. So, thank you for being here. We will start with the opening address by our director, Mr. Ono.

Seizo Onoe: Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and my thanks to the CMAI. Association of India for inviting me to share a few words. Standards help create global access to new tech capabilities. That’s a key services to developing countries, but it’s also fundamental to security. Security controls should be applied consistently around the world. It’s an area where standards provide key support to policy objectives. Trust in digital services is essential to their widespread adoption. With innovations like Acquia Digital Identity and its broader digital public infrastructure, India has become one of the world’s best-known case studies of how we can expand digital inclusion at speed and at scale. With life-changing benefits, there is so much that the global WSIS community can learn from your experiences. Thank you.

NK Goyal: Friends, we have been joined by around 50 people online and I’m sorry we are not able to place chairs for all of you. I will now request Mr. Niraj Verma, who is in charge of the Optical Fabric project. We call it Administrator USO.

Niraj Verma: Thank you, distinguished guests, participants, including those who have connected in this online. It is my privilege to be amongst you all on a topic which is very pertinent to our country, connecting the unconnected. And let me give you perspective that in India, for example, we have 6.4 lakh villages, and we have been grappling with providing connections to those villages. And as we talked today, in last few years, we have connected all villages except a few thousand, maybe 7-8 thousand with at least 4G connectivity. And our mandate is through USO Fund, my mandate is to provide connections to all villages, all hamlets, through at least 4G connections. India also has seen fastest 5G rollout and all the district headquarters now have 5G connections, but we have to reach to the villages. And it is in this context, I would say that again a second part of connecting the unconnected is to provide connection through landline broadband connection. Because as you all know, mobile has a charge, India’s rate is one of the cheapest, it is less than 10 rupees per GB, but it is still not affordable for those in the villages. So, just providing 5G, 4G connections is not sufficient. To make it more affordable means that we have to decrease the rate. And it is where that fibre to the home broadband connections through landline will come handy. We in India are implementing a project called BharatNet, which is a 20 billion project. And through this, we will provide optical fibre network to Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS, H.E. any artisans or the agriculturists, they can sell their produce using UPI without any currency transaction. And this facilitates the transaction, it improves the digital financial inclusion. So I’m very happy that this topic is being used, this is being discussed and I’m sure that we will have a lot of other ideas from distinguished guests. We will listen to them and we’ll also learn from what is the best practices there and we’ll use that in our country also.

NK Goyal: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Friends, online and present here, I want to tell you, as an association, we are dealing with 74 countries and everywhere we go, they ask, how you achieved this thing? How are you connected or unconnected? And UPI, Aadhaar, and every country asks for cooperation. I will now request my leader, Professor Tim Unwin, Emeritus Professor of Geography, Royal University of London, to take over as moderator. We are with him for the last 15 years. Thank you,

Tim Unwin: Tim, and take over now. Namaste, Suprabhat. It’s a great pleasure to be here. I don’t know how Professor N.K. Goyal manages always to run this session with so many speakers. He hands me the difficult task, which is moderating between nine and eleven speakers in the next half hour. Please will you note, gentlemen and ladies, that I have red cards and I haven’t even time to use my yellow cards, but for the participants, we have four-minute presentations, three-minute presentations, and two-minute presentations. If you see me showing a red card and somebody doesn’t actually stop, please sort of make it visible. Anyway, it’s a… Sorry, huge privilege to be here. I first worked in India 50 years ago and it’s a country that I love very dearly. All protocols observed, if I went through everybody who’s so important here, we’d never get to the end. So without more ado, I would like to invite Anil Bhardwaj, Deputy Director General in the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, to speak for five minutes. Four minutes. Thank you.

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj: I’ll make sure I limit myself to three minutes. Mr. Seizo Onoe, Director TSB, Mr. Niraj Verma, Administrator DBN as Digital Bharat Nidhi, as we call it. I see a very senior officer who headed this initiative and Ravi Shankar online and Professor Tim and all other dignitaries. Thank you very much. While already Administrator DBN has outlined the huge work in terms of laying of infrastructure to connect the unconnected, we are doing. I, as in my role of Strategic Engagement of Department of Telecom, would want to take this opportunity to share with some of the friends from Global South who are sitting here. We are not only laying infrastructure, we are laying the foundation of networks for tomorrow. When we talk digital Aadhaar, digital identity for 1.3 billion, we have proven to the world that we can have an end-to-end online ecosystem. Over that digital identity, today our unified payment interface is functioning for payments as small as one cent without any overhead. Every day, billions of transactions are happening. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr Thank you very much. But I am just saying, we are available to engage with you, we are available to help you out, and we are available to create a new connected digital world which is a real meaningful connectivity. Thank you very much.

Ninad S. Deshpande: Thank you, Ash. That’s a round of applause for India’s achievements. Without more ado, I would like to pass the floor to Ms. Aninad Deshpande, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of India to the WTO in Geneva. Your four minutes starts now. Thank you, Moderator. Mr. Seizo Onoe, Director of Telecommunications Standardization Bureau. Mr. Niraj Verma, who is Administrator for Digital Bharat Nidhi in Department of Communication, Government of India. Mr. Anil Bharadwaj, Professor N.K. Goyal, Dignitaries from Government, Academia and Industry, who have joined today in this room and online. A very good morning to all of you. I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Goyal for his efforts to organize this event, connecting the unconnected in the field of education excellence, cyber security and rural solutions, and women empowerment in ICT. And thank Mr. Onoe for his kind words of appreciation on India’s programs in these fields. As an active member of ITU since 1869, and consistent member of ITU Council since 1952, India’s collaboration with ITU continues to grow both in magnitude and meaningful contribution. In the last two years itself, the relationship has become even more profound. ITU was a knowledge partner to India during India’s G20 Presidency. ITU area office was opened in New Delhi. World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly, WTSA, was held in India last year. Going further, India has proposed to host the Plenipotentiary Conference in 2030. Looking at today’s topic in terms of ICT connectivity, we are aware of the ongoing Giga Connectivity Forum in Geneva, a joint venture of ITU and UNESCO, which focuses on ICT school connectivity. India has senior-level participation in this forum, which shows our deep commitment. In India, our national education policy is laying a robust digital foundation in its schools, ready to scale and create universal digital learning access. The policy focuses on digital equity blended learning models, digital literacy as core skill, and supports TAME AI encoding. India has created digital tools, which offers curriculum-linked e-content, free online courses, including real-time school data tracking system. India’s Meri Panchayat or My Village Council app won the WSIS Champion Prize this week, which is a testimony to our commitment to ICT connectivity to rural governance. On the theme of digital public infrastructure, ladies and gentlemen, Permanent Mission of India in Geneva is in coordination with Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology of Government of India, and ITU and ISPIRIT has the first United Nations Conference on Digital Public Infrastructure, CitizenStack, in January this year in Pali. This event brought together a diverse range of stakeholders, global leaders, technology innovators, and policy experts to explore the global implementation of digital public infrastructure. This event underscored India’s active role in promoting digital public infrastructure as a global public good. The initiative and its progress in terms of ICT connectivity is a topic which has endless success stories in India, some of which were also quoted by Mr Bharadwaj just some time back. With these few words, ladies and gentlemen, I take this opportunity to thank Professor Goyal once again for organizing this side event. Also, to showcase India’s story to the world. My sincere appreciation to the ITU team for taking

NK Goyal: the time out of their busy schedule to join this event. Thank you very much. Friends, we have been joined by Mr Jayawaja, our director, so I would like to honor him. And having put on his shawl, I would like to invite my dear friend Cosmas ZAVAZAVA, who is Director of BDT in the ITU here. Thank you very much for gracing us with your presence.

Cosmas Zavazava: I know you have to leave soon. If you could share just a few words, three minutes max, or you get the red card. I’m sorry. It’s a pleasure to be here and thank you for this opportunity, Excellencies, esteemed colleagues, friends. It is a pleasure to be here with you. This year, as you well know, ITU is turning 160 years of existence. We have demonstrated resilience, having gone through the two world wars, epidemics, natural disasters, etc. And we didn’t turn into, maybe I should say, we didn’t stagnate. We engaged in evolution and innovation. Over those years, security concerns have evolved with the evolution of technology from physical interference with cables to remote cyber attacks and artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Now we bring free security challenges, but we are ready to confront. Part of our role is to meet those challenges. ITU has been at the forefront of cyber security capacity development and building. And as you well know, we received 11 Guinness Book records recently when we brought 136 countries to Dubai under one roof, discussing and engaging in a global cyber drill. And we celebrate that. Through WSIS Action Line C5 and the World Telecommunication Development Conference, which is going to be held this year in Baku from the 17th to the 28th of November, we are going to be looking closely at the issue of connectivity as well as cyber security. And the good news is that a decade of the Global Cyber Security Index shows that countries are evolving and achieving serious results, but challenges still persist. As much as we have challenges with connectivity, as we still have 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected, and we are worried about those that are connected as to what they are doing with their connectivity. Are they engaging in electronic commerce? Are they participating in government affairs, etc.? So we wanted to be able to be measuring that, and that’s why we have rolled out a universal meaningful connectivity agenda. For one thing, there is a persistent cyber capacity gap. The least developed countries and small island developing states are more than 10 years behind other developing countries, according to our findings and statistics, and we want to confront this challenge. Capacity building is fundamentally very important, and coming together with that, of course, we want to bridge the many divides, which include the urban-rural divide, the gender divide, and the digital skills divide. And we want to make sure that, fundamentally, the platforms are secure. Child online protection is very important, and of course, we developed guidelines that we are rolling out. The first part of the guidelines addresses the parents, the second part addresses the teachers, and the third addresses the regulators, and then finally, also, we address industry and private sector, because this is a multi-stakeholder platform, and we have to work together to confront the ills. And connectivity, universal meaningful connectivity…

NK Goyal: Thank you Mr. ZAVAZAVA. First I want to tell everybody on the line and physically here that we are working with Mr. ZAVAZAVA and Mr. Onoe for cyber security awareness program throughout the world. Because ZAVAZAVA has to go, I will request you and Mr. Onoe and Mr. Niraj. No problem, it’s a good sign. I’m quite excited. And I will request you to kindly come on this stage, we want to honour Mr. Bharadwaj and Mr. Niraj. So we’re having an early photo session up there. I’ll just encourage everyone to move as quickly as possible. If you can make space in the aisles so they can run down and we can then get back to the speeches. While the dignitaries are leaving and moving forward, I would like to invite Mr. Seizo Lee to give just three minutes. Did you know you were being invited to speak? You’re looking shocked. Well, you could just keep it to one minute, then, and we can catch up on time.

Seizo Onoe: Yes, thank you, Tim. It’s a great honor for me to attend this meeting again. This connectivity is quite an important subject, but I wish to highlight with your great achievement in India, think about sustainability rather than smart and advanced. Advanced smart is very important. Your report already passed 4G, 5G, you’re already engaged to 6G, but think about what is a really sustainable environment for you, for all of you. Think about the communities. So, I just want to bring up this subject. Sustainability is more important than any others for the future. So, this is my small piece. Thank you.

Tim Unwin: Thank you very much, Jason. And now we move to our first online speaker, and hopefully the technology will work. But I would like to invite the first remote speaker is Mr. N. Ravi Shankar, IAS Retd, Principal Advisor, DIT University, but former Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand Government in India. The floor is yours for three minutes. And one of the great things about remote speakers is we can actually cut you off when I say so. So, I hope you will excuse me if

N Ravi Shanker: we do that. Over to you, sir. Dignitaries, Delegates, Greetings to all. I thank you all for this recognition. I would like to put the finger on the spot and say connectivity, cost, economics, content, cyber security. These form the cornerstone of connecting the unconnected and reaching out in whatever manner one could do. There are multiple schemes, there are multiple ways, there are multiple collaborations. All of them can lead to that point. Over to you, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. Big

NK Goyal: round of applause. Friends, Mr. Ravi Shankar was holding the position which is now held by Niraj Verma. We want to recognize you by the excellent services you have given and started. Mr. Navtej, please put on the slide for the award for him. You’re about to get

Tim Unwin: a virtual award. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Brilliant. Thank you very much. And we now move to our next remote speaker, who is Lt. Gen. JS Sidana, AVSM, Director General of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers and Senior Colonel Commandant Corps of EME India. Over to you, sir, for three minutes.

Lt. Gen. JS Sidana: So, first of all, thank you very much, moderator, sir, for introducing me. Hello, panelists, distinguished dignitaries, academic leaders and participants, both online and offline. It’s a matter of privilege and honor for me to be invited as a panelist here. I would like to also thank Professor Goel and the CMI Association for organizing a forum that not only celebrates the excellence, but also poses some very pertinent questions with respect to how do we take this education to the unconnected. Having served in the Indian Army for almost 40 years and led one of the most advanced technology institutions in the country, I have been fortunate to witness and in some measure contribute to the convergence of technology, education, discipline which is associated with the Army and national development. Having spent maximum time in the world where mission readiness and situational awareness dictate the technological precision determination which will determine the outcomes, I believe the same principles apply perhaps more than ever to the world of education today. I would like to say a few words on this movement from the chalkboards to the chipsets. The technology today has been primarily able to define, deliver and democratize education. So, we need to move forward in this arena and I will talk from my personal experience having led an institution where the students outperformed the expectations of the people who were educating them. Just because they were given a little bit of trust, some purpose and the tools. The tools are there for the entire world to see whether it is artificial intelligence, the quantum technologies, blockchain and a variety of improvements that have taken place in the fields of data analytics. I have also introduced our concept of immersive learning through AR and VR and the results were there for all of us to see. We saw a 30 to 40 percent improvement in the entire delivery mechanism just because we were able to provide the students with an immersive environment and that is why one of the speakers before me has talked about the connection and the cyber part which is very, very important. However, to take it further, the Indian Army itself has taken on this huge challenge and today we have a system called Abhyaas, a sort of It can be, if I can loosely translate it, it means experiential learning, where every part of structured or unstructured data can be combined and can evolve through a generative AI into something that can be imbibed by the students. So, we are progressing on this noble initiative. But I would still like to say, I said it in India on one of the forums, that if we have to really get the unconnected to be getting connected, we have to have the technology with compassion. The technology can’t be a divider, it has to be an enabler. And more so, when we are talking about the topic is connecting the unconnected in the field of education excellence, cyber security and rural solutions and women empowerment. And I see only very few women participating in this. We have to get them on board because in most of the global south, somebody was mentioning, the women are the ones which are not able to get hold of this technology and therefore the education and therefore the development. I thank all of you for having initiated this topic. But I would like to hear from other speakers and probably

Tim Unwin: imbibe certain lessons myself. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Sir, thank you very much. And I want to inform you that almost half are the women here. And sir, we would like to recognize him for the excellent way they have used IT in defence sector. And you all know the success. So, here’s an award for you, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you. And so, it is with great pleasure that I invite our first lady speaker. We do have two women who are speaking. I was going to make a similar point to the point the general has just made. So, without more ado, I’d like to invite Ms. M. Ravati, who’s joint wireless and telecommunications director at the National Institute of Science and Technology. And I’d like to invite her to come up to the podium. In England, WP stands for Woman Police Officer, but we won’t go into that. Department of Telecommunications Government of India. Thank you for joining us. And three minutes, please. Thank you.

M. Revathi: Thank you, Professor Lim, for a nice introduction. I’m not a police officer. I’m a spectrum manager and I’m a satellite expert. I do spectrum licensing and spectrum management, including satellite orbits in India from the Department of Telecommunications. Jokes apart, coming to the topic, connecting the unconnected. We have seen we are in the 160 years of ITU. Still we are talking of the basic connecting the unconnected. Still there are gaps. We heard from the Cosmos ZAVAZAVA that so many people are still unconnected. For getting connected, what is the fundamental thing? It’s the telecommunication network, the fundamental infrastructure. It’s a critical infrastructure. And there are primary resources to have that infrastructure to work. The wireline, the wireless and the satellite. Everyone should have equitable access to that. Then only that gap you can reduce it. So I just I have three minutes only. I make it very crisp, that three points. The connection, the telecommunication, there should be availability, accessibility, then affordability. It is available. What is available? Some people have 2G connectivity. Some people have 3G connectivity. Why? You need 4G, you need 5G. Why you should be deprived of that? Then accessibility, where the point comes? There is still a little biases to have access within the family. If your affordability is less, only limited people will have access to it. How to work on that to make it more, more, more economical? What India is trying to do it? Your data rate per megabit or gigabit. Then next is affordability, the last. So those services are available, what about your user device? If it is costly, even 4000 rupees, Indian rupees, it is costly for a common person living in the rural and remote areas. How to bridge that gap? The Government of India, we are working to Universal Service Obligation Fund, we call it as Digital Bharat Nidhi and some other mechanisms. Oh, I have already in the red. Thank you. I am also RRB member, I deal with the satellite issues, so I am more attached to it. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Tim Unwin: Thank you for being so succinct with three A’s. Without more ado, we move to our second lady speaker, who is joining us remotely online, Ms. Ambika Khurana, who is Chief Reg and Corp AFF Officer in Chief External Media Officer, India.

Ambika Khurana: Thank you. Thank you very much. 32 minutes, I am afraid, you have already seen in the program, so apologies. Okay, thank you very much. I will just take on from what Revati ma’am just said. I think the divide in India is not as much anymore urban versus rural, because like Mr. Neeraj mentioned, there is widespread 4G coverage and connectivity in the villages, which of course needs to be supported and satellite is one of the areas that we are talking about. But I want to touch upon the gender divide that is there in the topic, men versus women, and very prominently the divide between 2G and 4G, 5G, 6G we go ahead. So less than 35% of the women in rural India, which is almost 60% of the country’s population, own a mobile phone. And if you triangulate these constraints of ownership with further constraints in affordability and skills, we are looking at a glaring chasm of gender-driven social economic divide. So this needs to be bridged, for which there can be skills programs and plans to offer more affordable devices. Secondly, approximately 300 million Indians are still on 2G and it’s critical to enable and empower them to move up the ladder for accessing data towards a truly enriched digital India. And when we talk about India as an example, that would stand for many developing nations at large. So specific device ownership plans, migration of the poor from 2G to 4G for support through devices, government-industry-academia collaborations for skills, many of them are led by Mr. Anil Bhadwaj and other senior leaders from the government sitting here with whom we feel immensely humbled to partner with, will definitely help in accelerating this divide. I rest my points here, but as industry, we are fully committed to the cause and look forward to more deliberations during this forum. Thank you very much.

Tim Unwin: Thank you very much indeed. Thank you for keeping to time. I was fearing having to ask you to be quiet, being a white male elderly, because the points you make about gender divide and differences are absolutely essential and something in all of our countries we should emphasize and take forward. So thank you. We now move to another remote speaker. Please, Dr. Ravi Sinha, who’s VP Tech Dev and Solutions Reliance in Jio and co-chairman of ORAN in India. And two minutes from you, please, sir.

Ravi Sinha: Oh, fantastic. Hi, everyone. Greetings from U.S. I represent ORAN Alliance Next Generation Research Group for SIXI Initiative. We started three years back and we are globally collaborating with every country and every company available, 350 plus kind of members over here. Today, I’ll be talking mainly on to the AI flavor for 6G. At present, like the world is moving very fast. And I think based on our understanding, 2030 is the deployment timelines. And, of course, like probably one or two years prior to that, you’ll have kind of pre-standards already getting trialed worldwide. And the major, I think, capabilities you’ll be seeing related to the deployment, energy efficiency, native security, the resilience, then integrated ground, air and space networks. But I think on the top of it, the neural network is going to be the main mantra. Overall, how exactly you will be joining? I think for 60 cloud native auto drive network, connected sustainable world, massive scalable next generation network, compute fabric, highly programmable physical world, massively scalable next generation automotive framework, massively connected intelligent machines, the internet of multi-dimensional senses, and then enormously digitized and native trustworthy systems. These are some of the kind of areas where you can see open source or an alliance along with 3GPP can do a lot of disruptions and make the technology available for everybody. Now, based on all the development I’m seeing, AI agents and then MCP gateway, these are the very two major enablers for the infrastructure. And this infrastructure will be very different than the infrastructure you are deploying at present worldwide. The major difference is… I just say thank you very much. I’m sorry,

Tim Unwin: the time is up. We’re very tight. Please accept my apologies. Fascinating. Really important work the GEO is doing. Thank you. And we now move to our final remote address that is by Mr. Chaesub Lee, who is head of Government Affairs and Public Policy, APAC Bulkerspersky. Over to you, sir. And if you could please keep it to two minutes, I would be very grateful.

Chaesub Lee: Thank you. Thank you very much, Professor. Very good day to distinguished participants from all over the world. I’ll just make a short intervention on the importance of cybersecurity, even as we endeavor to connect the unconnected. The world today is at an inflection point. A new generation, especially from the underprivileged segment of society, is getting digital devices for the first time, just as AI tools are becoming widely available. And this comes with both risks and opportunities. It is dangerous because AI tools have been abused for criminal activity through deep fakes, voice mimicking and generating phishing emails. But there are also huge opportunities. We have the chance to make the newly connected generation a generation of AI savvy digital natives who are aware of the risks of AI and know how to protect themselves, and to be just as good, if not even better, than those who are already connected. Let me just cite one sobering piece of development from my home country in Singapore. Last week, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore published the results of its Public Awareness Survey. One question asked if respondents were confident of distinguishing between deep fake and legitimate videos. And almost 80% said they were confident, citing telltale signs such as suspicious content, unsynchronized lip movements. But when actually put to a test in the next question, guess how many people actually got it right? 3 out of 4 people actually got it wrong. And we are talking about a highly connected society. So it is all the more important to ensure that complacency doesn’t set in for the newly connected. How do we achieve this? Education is key. Threats such as phishing, scams and caution in clicking links and paying bills need to become part of general knowledge, just like road safety. Good practices like having antivirus on digital devices and using two-factor authorization must become generally understood norms. As we turn the corner, it is a chance for the newly connected to rapidly catch up and learn from the mistakes of those who are already connected. And I’m confident that this can be done. With the help of so many attendees today who are concerned about the cause of connecting the unconnected, I’m sure that we will be able to exchange ideas on how do we do this further. On this note, I would like to thank Professor N.K. Goyal, President of the CMII, Association of India, for the invitation.

Tim Unwin: Thank you very much. And thank you for keeping short and succinct. I’m going to be a little bit naughty now. I’ve never understood why the event happening the other side of this building is called AI for good. I mean, you’ve emphasized that there’s AI for bad as well. You know, if it’s not called AI for bad, maybe at least we can compromise and call AI for question mark. So thank you for raising these very important issues. And finally, thank you to all speakers so far who’ve kept remarkably to time. We have my dear friend Professor Alfredo Ronci to say a few words, a maximum two minutes.

Alfredo Ronchi: So we need to provide proper education. And just jumping to another key word I heard, which is STEM. We know that, we all know that mathematics, for instance, math is usually considered a kind of nightmare for young generations. So in 10 kids, eight of them consider this a nightmare. And professor or teachers, since 20, 40, 50 years, are repeating the same experience, the same experiment, let’s say, in spite to the typical law in physics, that if you are repeating the same experience many times and you are waiting for a different outcome. So the outcome is always that eight of them, or even more, are hating this subject, and we lose quite a lot of, let’s say, brain juice from these people. And this is really something bad. We, since a long time, very well known that young generation have a different mindset. We’re used to process things in parallel. This is due to what someone calls brain or neuroplasticity. So, they modified their own way to elaborate information, no more in a serial sequence, but in parallel. They will probably develop longer times because they are chatting all over the day, and they have a completely different approach to content, to knowledge, even if, unfortunately, this knowledge is on the surface. Down, there’s really far less. Thank you, Tim, and thank you, all of you.

Tim Unwin: Thank you, Alfredo. That brings our proceedings to an end, but there isn’t another session in here afterwards. So, if anyone has a brief, if anyone has a brief comment… I will just order the certificates. Okay. I will like to… I keep getting different messages. Okay, I do feel free to leave if you have to, because I know there are other things happening at 12. Connecting the unconnected is a very interesting theme and it needs to go beyond WSIS and ITU.

NK Goyal: I think what we need is, and particularly in the context of when we talk about AI and cyber security, we need another, maybe proposing an 18th SDG, like a meaningful, safe digital life for the citizens on the planet. A meaningful, safe digital life for the citizens on the planet. I’m sure that AI for Governance Dialogue, they will, we will make a note of it and make sure it goes as India’s submission. Okay. Thank you.

Tim Unwin: That is very good. I would just like to add, I mean, yes, that was a failure. Some of us many years ago tried to get it in there, but we have to recognize, again, be provocative. The SDGs have failed already. We’re not going to deliver them. Digital is not going to deliver the SDGs by 2030. The time is now when we should be talking about what follows the SDGs. And I think getting that right is important. One final brief point. Okay. Thank you all for being so patient. Yes, go, go. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS Mr. Anil Kumar Lahoti, H.E. Mr. N Ravi Shanker, IAS Prof. Goyal for always bringing it as a presence of India in this place of WSIS. I’ve always felt that, with due respect to everybody here present, the Indian government would do much more in sharing its successes in the international community. You have much to offer, you have achieved much, but having been involved in many Commonwealth, particularly initiatives, but also here in the UN, I would love to see you taking the rightful role that you have. You have the largest population in the world, you have achieved great things, and we need to learn much more from your practices. So this is really just to thank Prof. Goyal, but also encourage you to share your voice more loudly, share your physical presence more strongly, and draw on the rich cultural heritage of your country to move us all forward in the digital age. So thank you for your great presentations, thank you for being a wonderful audience. Go forth and multiply. Thank you very much. Thanks, Arun. Thank you everyone online for joining. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Agreement points

India’s Digital Infrastructure as Global Model

Speakers

– NK Goyal
– Anil Kumar Bhardwaj
– Seizo Onoe
– Niraj Verma
– Ninad S. Deshpande

Arguments

India has built parallel digital systems including UPI, Aadhaar, and space missions, demonstrating technological sovereignty

India has proven capability to create end-to-end online ecosystems for 1.3 billion people with digital identity and payment systems

India’s digital public infrastructure serves as a global case study for expanding digital inclusion at speed and scale

India has successfully connected villages with 4G connectivity and is implementing the world’s largest fiber optic project

India’s collaboration with ITU continues to grow, including hosting WTSA and proposing to host Plenipotentiary Conference in 2030

Summary

Multiple speakers consistently praised India’s digital infrastructure achievements, particularly UPI, Aadhaar, and connectivity projects, positioning India as a global leader and model for other countries to follow

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Cybersecurity Education and Awareness

Speakers

– Seizo Onoe
– Cosmas Zavazava
– Chaesub Lee

Arguments

Security controls should be applied consistently worldwide, with standards providing key support to policy objectives

Child online protection requires multi-stakeholder approach with guidelines for parents, teachers, regulators, and industry

Education about cybersecurity threats must become general knowledge like road safety for newly connected populations

Summary

Speakers agreed that cybersecurity requires comprehensive education, standardized approaches, and multi-stakeholder collaboration to protect users, especially vulnerable populations like children

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights

Gender Digital Divide as Critical Issue

Speakers

– Lt. Gen. JS Sidana
– Ambika Khurana

Arguments

Women are often unable to access technology in Global South countries, hindering education and development opportunities

Less than 35% of women in rural India own mobile phones, creating a gender-driven socioeconomic divide

Summary

Both speakers identified the significant gender gap in technology access as a major barrier to inclusive development, particularly in rural and developing regions

Topics

Gender rights online | Development

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized that true connectivity requires addressing multiple barriers including affordability, infrastructure quality, and device accessibility, with particular focus on upgrading rural populations from basic to advanced connectivity

Speakers

– M. Revathi
– Ambika Khurana
– Niraj Verma

Arguments

Connectivity requires availability, accessibility, and affordability – addressing gaps in network quality and device costs

Approximately 300 million Indians are still on 2G and need support to migrate to 4G for truly enriched digital access

Mobile connectivity alone is insufficient; affordable landline broadband through fiber-to-home connections is essential for rural areas

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Both speakers recognized that modern technology and changing cognitive patterns of young people require new approaches to education, moving away from traditional methods to more interactive and adaptive learning systems

Speakers

– Lt. Gen. JS Sidana
– Alfredo Ronchi

Arguments

Technology has democratized education, with immersive learning through AR/VR showing 30-40% improvement in delivery

Young generations have different mindsets, processing information in parallel rather than serial sequences

Topics

Online education | Sociocultural

Both speakers acknowledged the massive scale of the global connectivity challenge and the need for comprehensive approaches that address multiple fundamental barriers simultaneously

Speakers

– Cosmas Zavazava
– N Ravi Shanker

Arguments

2.6 billion people remain unconnected globally, with persistent capacity gaps especially in least developed countries

Connectivity fundamentals include cost, economics, content, and cybersecurity as cornerstones for reaching the unconnected

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Unexpected consensus

Sustainability Over Advanced Technology

Speakers

– Seizo Onoe
– Lt. Gen. JS Sidana

Arguments

Sustainability should be prioritized over advanced smart features when developing future connectivity solutions

Technology must be an enabler rather than a divider, requiring compassion in implementation

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both a technology director and a military technology leader emphasized the importance of sustainable, compassionate technology implementation over pursuing the latest advanced features, suggesting a shift in priorities from pure technological advancement to human-centered development

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Human rights

Need for New Development Framework

Speakers

– NK Goyal
– Tim Unwin

Arguments

A new SDG focused on ‘meaningful, safe digital life for citizens’ should be considered for future development goals

The current SDGs have limitations and may not be achievable by 2030, requiring discussion of what follows

Explanation

Both speakers, from different perspectives, agreed that current international development frameworks are insufficient and need fundamental revision, with digital rights and safety becoming central to future development goals

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed strong consensus around India’s digital leadership, the critical importance of addressing gender and rural digital divides, the need for comprehensive cybersecurity education, and the requirement for sustainable, inclusive technology implementation

Consensus level

High level of consensus with speakers consistently supporting each other’s viewpoints rather than presenting conflicting arguments. The agreement spans technical, social, and policy dimensions, suggesting broad alignment on both challenges and solutions. This consensus strengthens the case for India’s digital model as globally applicable and highlights shared understanding of barriers to digital inclusion.

Different viewpoints

Technology advancement priorities – advanced features vs sustainability

Speakers

– Seizo Onoe
– Ravi Sinha

Arguments

Sustainability should be prioritized over advanced smart features when developing future connectivity solutions

6G will feature AI-native capabilities, energy efficiency, native security, and integrated ground-air-space networks by 2030

Summary

Onoe emphasizes that sustainability should take priority over pursuing advanced smart technologies, while Sinha focuses on the advanced AI-native capabilities and sophisticated features of upcoming 6G networks

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

SDG effectiveness and future development frameworks

Speakers

– NK Goyal
– Tim Unwin

Arguments

A new SDG focused on ‘meaningful, safe digital life for citizens’ should be considered for future development goals

The current SDGs have limitations and may not be achievable by 2030, requiring discussion of what follows

Summary

Goyal proposes adding an 18th SDG to the current framework, while Unwin argues that the entire SDG framework has failed and needs to be replaced with something new

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Educational methodology and generational differences

Speakers

– Lt. Gen. JS Sidana
– Alfredo Ronchi

Arguments

Technology has democratized education, with immersive learning through AR/VR showing 30-40% improvement in delivery

Young generations have different mindsets, processing information in parallel rather than serial sequences

Explanation

While both speakers discuss educational technology, Sidana focuses on proven technological solutions with measurable improvements, while Ronchi emphasizes the need to fundamentally change teaching methods to match how young people’s brains have evolved. This represents a subtle but significant disagreement about whether technology should enhance existing education or whether education itself needs to be reimagined

Topics

Online education | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on major goals (connecting the unconnected, digital inclusion, cybersecurity) with disagreements primarily on implementation approaches and priorities. Key areas of disagreement included technology advancement priorities, development framework effectiveness, and educational methodologies

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most disagreements were constructive and focused on different approaches to shared goals rather than fundamental opposition. The implications are positive as they suggest multiple viable pathways to achieving digital inclusion, though coordination may be needed to avoid fragmented efforts

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized that true connectivity requires addressing multiple barriers including affordability, infrastructure quality, and device accessibility, with particular focus on upgrading rural populations from basic to advanced connectivity

Speakers

– M. Revathi
– Ambika Khurana
– Niraj Verma

Arguments

Connectivity requires availability, accessibility, and affordability – addressing gaps in network quality and device costs

Approximately 300 million Indians are still on 2G and need support to migrate to 4G for truly enriched digital access

Mobile connectivity alone is insufficient; affordable landline broadband through fiber-to-home connections is essential for rural areas

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Both speakers recognized that modern technology and changing cognitive patterns of young people require new approaches to education, moving away from traditional methods to more interactive and adaptive learning systems

Speakers

– Lt. Gen. JS Sidana
– Alfredo Ronchi

Arguments

Technology has democratized education, with immersive learning through AR/VR showing 30-40% improvement in delivery

Young generations have different mindsets, processing information in parallel rather than serial sequences

Topics

Online education | Sociocultural

Both speakers acknowledged the massive scale of the global connectivity challenge and the need for comprehensive approaches that address multiple fundamental barriers simultaneously

Speakers

– Cosmas Zavazava
– N Ravi Shanker

Arguments

2.6 billion people remain unconnected globally, with persistent capacity gaps especially in least developed countries

Connectivity fundamentals include cost, economics, content, and cybersecurity as cornerstones for reaching the unconnected

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Key takeaways

India has successfully demonstrated digital infrastructure at scale, connecting 1.3 billion people through systems like Aadhaar and UPI, serving as a global model for digital inclusion

Connecting the unconnected requires addressing three fundamental pillars: availability, accessibility, and affordability of telecommunications infrastructure

A significant gender digital divide exists, with less than 35% of women in rural India owning mobile phones, requiring targeted interventions

Cybersecurity education must become as fundamental as road safety education, especially for newly connected populations vulnerable to AI-enabled threats like deepfakes

Approximately 300 million Indians still use 2G technology and 2.6 billion people globally remain unconnected, highlighting the scale of remaining challenges

Future 6G networks will be AI-native with integrated ground-air-space capabilities, but sustainability should be prioritized over advanced features

Education technology shows significant promise, with immersive learning through AR/VR demonstrating 30-40% improvement in delivery effectiveness

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between government, industry, and academia is essential for bridging digital divides and ensuring inclusive connectivity

Resolutions and action items

India proposed to host the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in 2030, demonstrating continued commitment to global telecommunications leadership

Continuation of the BharatNet project – a $20 billion fiber optic infrastructure initiative to connect villages across India

Implementation of programs to migrate 300 million Indians from 2G to 4G connectivity through government-industry partnerships

Development of cybersecurity awareness programs globally in collaboration with ITU directors ZAVAZAVA and Onoe

Proposal for India to submit the concept of an 18th SDG focused on ‘meaningful, safe digital life for citizens on the planet’ through AI for Governance Dialogue

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address the persistent 10+ year technology gap between least developed countries and other developing nations

Specific mechanisms for making devices more affordable for rural populations where even 4000 rupees ($48) is considered costly

Strategies for overcoming cultural and social barriers that limit women’s access to mobile technology in rural areas

Methods for ensuring newly connected populations don’t fall victim to AI-enabled cybersecurity threats like deepfakes and phishing

How to modernize mathematics and STEM education to align with young people’s parallel information processing capabilities

Determining what framework should replace the SDGs post-2030, given acknowledgment that current SDGs may not be achievable

Suggested compromises

Balancing advanced technology development (5G/6G) with sustainability considerations rather than pursuing smart features at any cost

Combining mobile connectivity with landline broadband infrastructure to provide both coverage and affordability

Implementing multi-stakeholder approaches to cybersecurity that involve parents, teachers, regulators, and industry rather than single-entity solutions

Focusing on ‘technology with compassion’ that serves as an enabler rather than a divider between connected and unconnected populations

Renaming ‘AI for Good’ initiatives to acknowledge both positive and negative potential of AI technology

Standards help create global access to new tech capabilities. That’s a key services to developing countries, but it’s also fundamental to security. Security controls should be applied consistently around the world.

Speaker

Seizo Onoe

Reason

This comment was insightful because it connected two seemingly separate issues – digital inclusion and cybersecurity – establishing that they must be addressed together rather than as isolated challenges. It reframed the discussion from simply connecting people to ensuring those connections are secure and standardized globally.

Impact

This set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing that connectivity without security is incomplete. It influenced subsequent speakers to address both aspects, with later speakers like Cosmas ZAVAZAVA and Chaesub Lee extensively discussing cybersecurity challenges alongside connectivity initiatives.

Just providing 5G, 4G connections is not sufficient. To make it more affordable means that we have to decrease the rate. And it is where that fibre to the home broadband connections through landline will come handy.

Speaker

Niraj Verma

Reason

This comment challenged the assumption that advanced mobile technology alone solves connectivity issues. It introduced the critical economic dimension – that true inclusion requires not just technical capability but economic accessibility, and that sometimes older technologies (landline broadband) can be more inclusive than newer ones.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from celebrating technological advancement to examining practical implementation challenges. It led to subsequent speakers like M. Revathi elaborating on the ‘three A’s’ (availability, accessibility, affordability) and Ambika Khurana discussing the 2G to 4G migration challenge.

We are not only laying infrastructure, we are laying the foundation of networks for tomorrow… we are available to create a new connected digital world which is a real meaningful connectivity.

Speaker

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it distinguished between mere connectivity and ‘meaningful connectivity’ – introducing the concept that connection quality and purpose matter as much as connection existence. It elevated the discussion from technical metrics to human impact.

Impact

This concept of ‘meaningful connectivity’ became a recurring theme, with Cosmas ZAVAZAVA later referencing the ‘universal meaningful connectivity agenda’ and other speakers discussing how to ensure connections translate into real socioeconomic benefits.

The divide in India is not as much anymore urban versus rural… But I want to touch upon the gender divide that is there… less than 35% of the women in rural India… own a mobile phone.

Speaker

Ambika Khurana

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it challenged the dominant narrative about digital divides. While most speakers focused on geographic or economic divides, she highlighted that gender represents a more persistent and complex barrier, requiring different solutions.

Impact

This comment brought gender equity to the forefront of the discussion, prompting Lt. Gen. JS Sidana to emphasize ‘technology with compassion’ and the need to ensure women are included. It also led Tim Unwin to acknowledge the importance of these gender considerations in his moderation.

We have the chance to make the newly connected generation a generation of AI savvy digital natives who are aware of the risks of AI… But when actually put to a test… 3 out of 4 people actually got it wrong. And we are talking about a highly connected society.

Speaker

Chaesub Lee

Reason

This comment was deeply thought-provoking because it revealed the paradox of digital literacy – that even highly connected populations can be vulnerable to digital threats. It challenged the assumption that connectivity automatically leads to digital competence and safety.

Impact

This comment reframed the entire connectivity discussion by highlighting that connection without proper digital literacy and security awareness can be dangerous. It influenced the closing remarks where speakers emphasized the need for education and the proposal for a new SDG focused on ‘meaningful, safe digital life.’

The SDGs have failed already. We’re not going to deliver them. Digital is not going to deliver the SDGs by 2030. The time is now when we should be talking about what follows the SDGs.

Speaker

Tim Unwin

Reason

This was perhaps the most provocative comment of the session, directly challenging the fundamental framework that guides most international development work. It forced participants to think beyond current paradigms and consider more realistic or alternative approaches to global development goals.

Impact

This comment created a moment of stark realism that contrasted with the generally optimistic tone about India’s digital achievements. It supported NK Goyal’s proposal for an 18th SDG on ‘meaningful, safe digital life’ and pushed the discussion toward more innovative thinking about global digital governance frameworks.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by progressively deepening and complicating the initial theme of ‘connecting the unconnected.’ The conversation evolved from celebrating technical achievements to examining practical implementation challenges, then to questioning whether connectivity alone is sufficient, and finally to challenging the entire framework of how we measure and pursue digital development goals. The most impactful comments were those that introduced paradoxes or challenged assumptions – such as the idea that advanced technology might not be the most inclusive solution, that highly connected societies can still be digitally vulnerable, or that current global development frameworks may be fundamentally flawed. These interventions prevented the discussion from becoming a simple showcase of achievements and instead created a more nuanced dialogue about the complexities of digital inclusion, the intersection of technology with social equity, and the need for new approaches to global digital governance.

How can the global community learn from India’s experiences with digital public infrastructure like Aadhaar and UPI?

Speaker

Seizo Onoe

Explanation

Onoe mentioned that there is much the global WSIS community can learn from India’s experiences with digital inclusion at speed and scale, but specific mechanisms for knowledge transfer were not discussed

How can countries achieve meaningful connectivity beyond just providing infrastructure?

Speaker

Cosmas Zavazava

Explanation

Zavazava raised concerns about whether connected people are actually engaging in e-commerce and government affairs, highlighting the need to measure and ensure meaningful use of connectivity

What are the best practices for bridging the persistent cyber capacity gap in least developed countries and small island developing states?

Speaker

Cosmas Zavazava

Explanation

Zavazava noted that these countries are more than 10 years behind other developing countries in cyber security capacity, requiring targeted solutions

How can sustainability be prioritized over advanced technology in connectivity solutions?

Speaker

Seizo Onoe

Explanation

Onoe emphasized thinking about sustainability rather than just smart and advanced technology, suggesting this is more important for future community development

What specific strategies can effectively bridge the gender divide in digital access, particularly for rural women?

Speaker

Ambika Khurana

Explanation

Khurana highlighted that less than 35% of women in rural India own mobile phones, indicating need for targeted interventions to address gender-driven digital divides

How can 300 million Indians still on 2G be effectively migrated to 4G/5G networks?

Speaker

Ambika Khurana

Explanation

This represents a significant population still using outdated technology, requiring specific migration strategies and support mechanisms

How can newly connected populations be educated about AI risks and cybersecurity from the beginning?

Speaker

Chaesub Lee

Explanation

Lee emphasized the opportunity to make newly connected generations AI-savvy and cyber-aware, but specific educational approaches need development

What educational methods can effectively teach mathematics and STEM subjects to young generations who process information differently?

Speaker

Alfredo Ronchi

Explanation

Ronchi noted that traditional teaching methods fail for 8 out of 10 students in mathematics, requiring new approaches that align with how young people process information in parallel

Should there be an 18th SDG focused on ‘meaningful, safe digital life for citizens’?

Speaker

NK Goyal

Explanation

Goyal proposed this as a potential new Sustainable Development Goal, recognizing the importance of digital safety and meaningful access beyond basic connectivity

What should follow the SDGs post-2030, particularly regarding digital development goals?

Speaker

Tim Unwin

Explanation

Unwin argued that SDGs have already failed and won’t be delivered by 2030, necessitating discussion about successor frameworks that properly address digital transformation

Summary

This discussion focused on approaches toward meaningful connectivity in the Global South, examining challenges and opportunities for bridging digital divides across Africa and Latin America. The panel, moderated by Thobekile Matimbe from Paradigm Initiative, brought together experts to analyze research findings and policy recommendations for achieving inclusive digital access.

Bridget Ndlovu presented findings from Paradigm Initiative’s research on Universal Service Funds across 27 African countries, revealing significant implementation challenges. The study found that while policies exist, actual implementation is lacking, with issues including resistance from telecommunications companies, lack of transparency, and insufficient proactive disclosure of fund information. Only three countries—South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria—make their fund amounts publicly known, highlighting widespread accountability problems. However, some positive examples emerged, such as Botswana’s public-private partnerships and Rwanda’s flexible legislation allowing funding through donations and grants.

Paloma Lara Castro from Derechos Digitales shared insights from their “Latin America in a Glimpse” project, which examined connectivity in Amazonian regions. The research emphasized the importance of meaningful participation by indigenous communities in policy design and implementation, noting that existing policies often fail to address intercultural factors and specific community needs. She highlighted how the same inequalities affecting other rights also impact internet access quality, with communities facing barriers including climate-related disruptions, lack of electricity, poor coverage, and high costs.

Pria Chetty from Research ICT Africa presented data showing that even with high smartphone penetration rates, meaningful digital inclusion remains elusive. Their research revealed that among micro-enterprises, despite 65% owning smartphones, only 38% use the internet and 39% are financially included. The situation is worse for female-owned, informal, and rural enterprises. Key barriers identified include affordability, with users often losing connectivity mid-month due to high data costs, affecting job seeking and education access.

Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change discussed digital public infrastructure, emphasizing the need for publicly accountable systems rather than market-driven solutions. She advocated for rejecting zero-rating services in favor of guaranteed internet access as a right, citing Kerala state’s constitutional right to internet access. The discussion highlighted the importance of local language support and community-based solutions over big tech approaches that often inadequately serve regional needs.

The panel concluded that achieving meaningful connectivity requires comprehensive approaches addressing policy frameworks, community participation, sustainable funding mechanisms, and recognition of connectivity as a fundamental right rather than merely a commercial service.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Universal Service Fund Implementation Challenges**: Research across 27 African countries revealed significant gaps in implementing Universal Service Funds, with lack of transparency, inadequate policy execution, and limited proactive disclosure of fund amounts and usage reports in most countries.

– **Barriers to Meaningful Connectivity in Rural and Marginalized Communities**: Multiple structural barriers prevent true digital inclusion, including high data costs, unreliable electricity, lack of relevant content in local languages, and inadequate infrastructure in rural areas, particularly affecting women and indigenous populations.

– **Indigenous Rights and Inclusion in Digital Policy**: The need for meaningful participation of indigenous communities in policy design and implementation, with emphasis on technological appropriation as part of self-determination rights, particularly highlighted through research in the Amazon region.

– **Moving Beyond Basic Access to Digital Inclusion**: The discussion emphasized shifting from simple connectivity metrics to understanding different levels of digital engagement – from barely online users to those fully embedded in the digital economy, with focus on micro-enterprises and intersectional inequalities.

– **Digital Public Infrastructure and Community Networks**: Exploration of how digital public infrastructure can support meaningful connectivity through accountable public-private partnerships, community networks, and locally-owned technological solutions that respect cultural contexts and linguistic diversity.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine approaches toward achieving meaningful connectivity in the Global South, moving beyond basic internet access to address systemic barriers, policy gaps, and the need for inclusive digital participation that serves marginalized communities, particularly in Africa and Latin America.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, research-focused tone throughout, with speakers presenting evidence-based findings in a collaborative manner. While the content revealed sobering realities about digital divides and implementation failures, the tone remained constructive and solution-oriented, with panelists building on each other’s insights and offering practical recommendations for policy improvements and community-centered approaches.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Thobekile Matimbe** – Senior Manager for Programs, Partnerships and Engagements at Paradigm Initiative; works on digital rights and digital inclusion across the African continent; Session moderator

– **Bridgette Ndlovu** – Partnerships and Engagements Officer at Paradigm Initiative; based in Zimbabwe; conducts research on Universal Service Fund implementation across African countries

– **Pria Chetty** – Executive Director at Research ICT Africa; based in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Kenya; works on digital and data justice research across the continent

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

– **Anita Gurumurthy** – Executive Director at IT for Change; works on digital public infrastructure and digital rights issues

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Bridget Lovo** – Partnerships Officer at Paradigm Initiative (mentioned in introduction but appears to be the same person as Bridgette Ndlovu, possibly a name confusion)

– **Revocato Sinkata** – Audience member from Tanzania with experience in the telecom sector

– **Nandini** – Audience member from IT4Change India who asked questions about public access and internet rights

# Discussion Report: Approaches Toward Meaningful Connectivity in the Global South

## Introduction and Context

This discussion examined approaches toward achieving meaningful connectivity in the Global South, bringing together experts from Africa, Latin America, and India to analyze research findings and policy recommendations for bridging digital divides. The panel was moderated by Thobekile Matimbe, Senior Manager for Programs, Partnerships and Engagements at Paradigm Initiative.

## Universal Service Fund Implementation Challenges Across Africa

Liz Orembo, Partnerships and Engagements Officer at Paradigm Initiative based in Zimbabwe, presented research findings from their study of Universal Service Fund implementation across 27 African countries. The research revealed significant gaps between policy formulation and actual implementation.

The study found that while policies exist across various countries, there is a fundamental “lack of takeoff” when it comes to implementation. Countries are failing to adequately implement Universal Service Funds despite having established policy frameworks. Universal Service Fund contributions typically range from 1% to 3% of telecommunications companies’ revenue.

Key challenges identified include:

– Some countries, such as the Central African Republic, have failed to establish required committees for fund operation

– Active resistance from telecommunications companies who challenge compliance through legal action, as observed in Namibia

– Widespread lack of transparency in fund management, with 24 out of 27 countries studied not making their fund amounts publicly known

– Only three countries—South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria—demonstrate some level of transparency by making fund information available

The research also identified positive examples: Botswana has successfully leveraged public-private partnerships, while Rwanda and Egypt have shown flexibility in their legislation, allowing funding through diverse sources including donations, grants, and development partner collaborations.

## Indigenous Rights and Connectivity in Latin America

Paloma Lara Castro, Policy Director at Derechos Digitales, shared insights from their “Latin America in a Glimpse” project, examining connectivity challenges in Amazonian regions with particular focus on indigenous communities.

The research revealed that indigenous populations face multiple barriers to meaningful connectivity, including lack of coverage, high costs, climate-related disruptions, insufficient electricity infrastructure, and poor service quality. These barriers represent systemic exclusion from digital participation.

Castro emphasized that technological appropriation is an essential component of indigenous communities’ right to self-determination. Communities must have agency in how technology is adopted and integrated into their cultural contexts. Existing policies often fail to address intercultural factors and specific community needs.

A concerning finding was the absence of indigenous communities from key international policy frameworks. Castro noted that indigenous communities are “nowhere to be found” in the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper, representing a significant gap in global digital governance frameworks.

The research emphasized the importance of meaningful participation by indigenous communities in every stage of policy construction, from initial design through implementation and evaluation. Castro highlighted Chile’s public consultation process as a positive example of state efforts to legalize and support community networks.

## Research Findings on Digital Inclusion

Pria Chetty, Executive Director at Research ICT Africa, presented data challenging conventional understanding of digital inclusion. Her research revealed that high penetration rates often mask digital inequalities and that smartphone ownership does not necessarily translate to meaningful digital participation.

Key findings included:

– Among micro-enterprises, despite 65% owning smartphones, only 38% actually use the internet and only 39% are financially included

– Digital inequalities intersect across multiple dimensions, with female-owned, informal, and rural enterprises facing compounded disadvantages

– Affordability remains the primary barrier, with users frequently cut off mid-month due to high data costs

– Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent meaningful engagement when content is not available in local languages or culturally relevant contexts

Chetty emphasized the need for current, relevant data to inform connectivity interventions, noting that many universal service tenders rely on outdated census data.

## Digital Public Infrastructure and Rights-Based Frameworks

Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director at IT for Change, presented analysis reframing connectivity from technical infrastructure to fundamental rights. She introduced the concept of the internet as an “experience good,” explaining that meaningful connectivity requires full access rather than limited services.

Gurumurthy cited Kerala state’s constitutional guarantee of internet access as an example of rights-based approaches. She emphasized the need for publicly-owned protocols and strong vendor accountability in public-private partnerships, arguing that local organizations often outperform global technology companies in understanding local needs but lack access to scaling support.

## Key Themes and Recommendations

### Transparency and Accountability

Speakers emphasized the critical need for transparency in Universal Service Fund management and proactive disclosure of infrastructure and barrier data by all stakeholders.

### Meaningful Participation

There was consensus on the essential nature of genuine participation from affected communities throughout policy processes, not merely consultation or token representation.

### Affordability Challenges

All speakers recognized that high costs for devices, data, and services continue to be fundamental barriers preventing meaningful connectivity, particularly affecting vulnerable populations.

### Community Networks

The discussion highlighted the importance of legal protection and recognition of community networks, with Chile’s legalization efforts cited as a positive example.

## Audience Engagement

During the question and answer session, participants discussed:

– The relationship between public access and full internet rights

– Taxation on technological gadgets and advocacy for tax holidays to improve affordability

– The need for holistic approaches that address both infrastructure and digital literacy

## Conclusions

The discussion revealed that achieving meaningful connectivity requires comprehensive approaches addressing policy frameworks, community participation, sustainable funding mechanisms, and recognition of connectivity as a fundamental right. The evidence from multiple regions strengthens the case for coordinated advocacy and policy reform, particularly around reforming Universal Service Fund governance, ensuring meaningful participation of marginalized communities, and addressing affordability through innovative mechanisms.

The speakers demonstrated that meaningful connectivity in the Global South requires not just technical solutions but fundamental changes in how digital inclusion is conceptualized, measured, and implemented, integrating infrastructure development with human rights frameworks and community-based approaches.

Thobekile Matimbe: All right, good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to our session titled Approaches Towards Meaningful Connectivity in the Global South. And thank you for being still ready to engage in conversations on Thursday. We’ve got one more day to go, so well done to everyone in the room. My name is Tobekile Matimbe, and I work for an organization called Paradigm Initiative as senior manager for our programs, Partnerships and Engagements, and Paradigm Initiative being an organization that works across the African continent, promoting digital rights and digital inclusion. So our work really largely focuses on bridging digital divides, among other work that we do on digital rights. And today, as we are engaging in a very interesting conversation of bridging digital divides, I am joined by several experts who are going to be able to walk us through approaches towards meaningful connectivity in the global south. And that is a very pertinent conversation, at least when we are looking at WSIS and WSIS Action Lines, and where we have come from and where we should be going or where we are at now. So this panel will be able to unpack some of the challenges, some of the gaps, and be able to maybe hopefully come up with some critical recommendations going forward with regards to promoting meaningful connectivity, at least for the global south. Please help me welcome one of our panelists here who is joining online, that’s Bridget Lovo, who is a Partnerships Officer at Paradigm Initiative. She’ll be able to unpack some of the findings from the research that Paradigm Initiative has done. And I’ll allow her, when I hand over to her, to be able to unpack those findings. And also, I’ll ask you to also help me welcome to this panel as well. Right on my immediate left, there is Prya Chetty, who is the Research ICT Africa Executive Director. Welcome to today’s conversation. And next to her is Paloma Lara Castro from Direchos Digitales. And you are welcome to share your perspectives and I’ll allow you as well, as you dive into your reflections, to be able to even unpack further and introduce yourself even much more better than I have done now. And I’ll also ask us to appreciate and welcome as well, Anita Gurumurthy, who is the Executive Director for IT for Change. So welcome, please relax, and let’s have a very good chat and conversation about this very, very important aspect of connectivity in the Global South. So without further ado, I will, I think, start the conversation going. We just have a few, few minutes to unpack this very, very complex subject matter. I will dive right in and ask Bridget Lovell to walk us through. I know that today we are talking about towards meaningful connectivity for the Global South. And I know that you are coming from Paradigm Initiative and you have done some research as an organization unpacking utilization of the. where we are going when we look at that state of affairs. So over to you, Bridget.

Bridgette Ndlovu: Thanks a lot, Thobekile. And as Thobekile indicated, my name is Liz Orembo. I work with Paradigm Initiative. I am the Partnerships and Engagements Officer. I’m based in Zimbabwe. And just to really dive right into aspects relating to the Universal Service Fund, we did conduct a research that covered 27 countries within the African region. And we conduct this research on an annual basis. And key to the findings that we had in the 2024 report also partly reflect on some that came up in the 2023 report as well. So we found that when it comes to the implementation of the Universal Service Fund, there is really a lack of takeoff, if I may put it that way. There are policies that exist within various countries. But when it comes to implementation, there is so much limitations and countries failing to accurately and adequately implement the Universal Service Fund. We did see that there were countries like the Central African Republic in 2023. And also in 2024, they were meant to set up a committee that is meant to run the Universal Service Fund. But this has not happened. And we anticipate that even in 2025, this is something that will come up. Of course, our recommendations to these kind of countries would be that these committees would then need to be set up so that the Universal Service Fund is adequately implemented, and at least implementation takes off. There’s also countries like Namibia, for example, where telecommunications companies have been seen to be resisting compliance through legal action. Because of that, implementation has also not taken off. In 2024, we did find out that there is some bit of progress because Namibia has since gazetted the regulations for the implementation of the Universal Service Fund, but across board, we do see that there are some challenges with implementation of the Universal Service Fund. In countries such as Somalia, for example, there is no Universal Service Fund. In countries such as the Gambia, there are policies that support implementation of the Universal Service Fund, but our thinking is that this should not stop at policy level. Implementation should also take its course. When we look at other issues that have been coming up in our research is that there has been lack of transparency with regard to the implementation of the Universal Service Fund. So, when we looked at all the 27 countries, we did realize that in most of the countries, in fact 24 of the countries, the amount of that particular fund is not known, except in South Africa, Malawi, Nigeria. This already spells out that there is no proactive disclosures when it comes to sharing of information on the Universal Service Fund, and already this translates to lack of meaningful and Ms. Elizabeth Watt, chair of the UKIP. Thank you. Thank you very much. We also noticed that some of the funding that we see is not really being used for the implementation. As we see it, it could then affect how countries achieve meaningful connectivity. We also noted that in some of these countries, the fund exists, but when we really investigate, you find that in countries such as Tanzania, South Africa, Uganda, Nigeria, and Malawi, these are some of the countries that avail their reports, meaning that all the other countries do not avail their reports. And like I said earlier, that means that there is limited proactive disclosure when it comes to the Universal Service Fund. But of course, we noted that it is not all gloom and doom in all of the countries. Some countries have really demonstrated so much opportunities that could help the ensure meaningful connectivity. And we thought that these countries could be model examples of how other countries can take a leap on. For instance, in Botswana, they are already leveraging PPPs, public-private partnerships, and we think that this is something that other countries can do. We think that this is something that other countries can also adopt as well. So just to give an example of how they are doing it, through their Southern District Digital Empowerment Project, they are partnering with telecommunications providers such as Mascom, so that they are able to roll out specific projects under the Universal Service Fund. Of course, there are concerns. I mean, like I said, they do have positive aspects, but there are also some negative aspects. There are concerns also in Botswana relating to transparency, because not all the reports are available and publicly available for everyone to see. And because our research was using a specific index that is juxtaposed against the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights declaration on principles of freedom of expression and access to information, we did realize that proactive disclosures are really not sufficient in countries that we documented. Some key lessons were coming from countries such as Rwanda that are really flexible in terms of their legislation. Countries such as Rwanda have allowed the Universal Service Access Fund to raise funds through donations, grants, and collaborations with development partners. We also saw other strategies from countries such as Egypt. Countries such as Egypt have rolled out road infrastructure contracts. They’ve prepared these and through these road infrastructure contracts, they allow the development of the internet infrastructure. And of course, we have engaged with members of parliament from the DRC as well that have indicated that they are already having such plans to adopt the same strategies, strategies that will enable them to fix their roads, at the same time making sure that whoever gets a road infrastructure development contract should make sure that they also include internet infrastructure development within that aspect. And maybe also just to highlight two other points, I don’t know how I’m doing on time, but… Countries such as Malawi as well have legislation that allows them to be flexible. I’ll give an example of Malawi’s Communications Act, Section 160, which highlights that there should be parliamentary appropriations when it comes to implementation of the Universal Service Fund. So the policy in Malawi allows Malawi to get assistance from the parliament and also through grants, subsidies, gifts, donations, just as it is in Rwanda as well. However, there are major challenges because when we look at Malawi, parliament has so far not appropriated any funds towards the Universal Service Fund, which is really a huge challenge when it comes to implementation of the Universal Service Fund, as well as the broader, bigger picture that we envisage as civil society actors, that picture being achievement of meaningful connectivity by at least 2030. And when we see other countries, for example, as well, just emphasizing on implementation aspects, we do think that countries such as Malawi, for example, they do have the Universal Service Fund supporting community networks through the Yatu Yatu project that they’ve been undertaking. And because of that, I think this is also something to learn from, that other countries within the Global South can also learn from. So I will highlight other points at a later time. I hope I did well on time. Over to you, Tobegule, and thank you so much for your attention.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much for unpacking that, Bridget, and just walking us through some of the key elements of meaningful connectivity, or at least promoting it. And I think financing is one of the things that was coming out really loudly. and the staff member on the front desk where the full day begins. First, as you have talked about, we are looking at digital inclusion as a specific challenge. I would like to pass it on to You.

Paloma Lara Castro: You have been doing a lot on digital inclusion work in dads in America, so please walk us through that. The strides made towards connectivity. What are the gaps and what are the challenges? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to the team for the invitation to participate in such an important space. I am the policy director. We are a Latin American organization with 20 years of experience working in the intersection of technology and human rights. Within our area of work, we are very actively involved in discussions around policy at a global, regional and local level. Within this work that we are doing, we prioritize in our committee and our evidence-based arguments to all of our interventions in several processes such as the WSIS plus 20 review. Within this area of focus, we also work a lot within inclusion. To link it back to what we are talking about and also to the WSIS plus 20 review, I would like to share with you some of the findings we have had within our project called Latin America in a Glimpse, which focuses on a series of reports that investigates connectivity access in the Amazonian region. We have been working on this for a long time. We did a series of reports on connectivity sector in the Amazonian region. The way we worked in this project is we work with local partners that are actually on the field in Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and Brazil. Then we did a comparative report which highlights the commonalities and particularities of the region and the needs. Not only the gaps in access, but also what are the opportunities and opportunities within that broadcasting network. Then we also did a series of a series of collectives and Ms. Liz Orembo. We are looking at the risks and risks of Internet access that are identified by the communities themselves. This was very important to us to really gain perspective on what the communities needs are and then be able to translate that into policy recommendations. What we are recommending in this sense is that we need to take connectivity, again, from a meaningful perspective that takes into account the intercultural factors of this, so that we are thinking about policy in a situated and meaningful way. We are looking at the risks and risks of Internet access. We are looking at different other ways to connect, such as community networks, that are very, very essential to Internet access, but also meaningful access that takes into account what the actual needs of the community are. What we found is that the same inequalities that these populations encounter in the access of rights is also reflected in the quality of access to Internet. We also found that there is a lack of access to Internet, which is related to climate, for example, with drowns, or things that have to do with electricity provision. Besides that, we also found that there is a lack of coverage, and the costs are very high, so the populations are really unable to connect. What we see, and also is reflected in the communities’ expressions on this matter, is that there is a lack of access to Internet, and there is also a lack of access to access to health, education, freedom of expression, but also the way to organize the community. And look forward to how cultural issues can be taken into account in content production that is mostly Western production, that is leading to some certain effects, specifically on young population on their cultural identity. So, in order for policies to be adequate, and this is a very important matter, because it’s not that there aren’t any policies within the Amazon, but they’re not adequate, they’re not targeted specifically for the needs of the community. So, in order for this to happen, meaningful participation is key, and meaningful participation in every stage of the policy construction, from the design to implementation, that really takes into account not only the perspective, which actually consultation is a human right that is recognized internationally for indigenous communities, but that also looks forward to technological appropriation. And what we’re seeing is that technological appropriation is an essential part of the right to self-determination of these communities. So in order to actually achieve the human rights that are recognized for these indigenous communities, we have to advance towards technological appropriation that has as a central component meaningful participation. And then when we link this back to the WSIS Plus 20 review, we see that we need to really push forward the need to include these populations within the special recognition. For example, when we see the elements paper, we see that there are certain communities that are named or that are recognized, but indigenous communities are nowhere to be found in this recognition. And what this might translate into is that even if we apply international human rights law anyhow, regardless of the special recognition, maybe when we see implementation, this could lead to exclusion in the implementation. So it’s really important that we not only advance to recognition of meaningful connectivity, but also recognition of the vulnerable populations that are deeply affected by the lack of policies that are targeted measures and that take into account the intercultural factors and their needs within this spectrum. So besides the recognition and working to meaningful connectivity, we need to take into account situated policies that, again, integrate meaningful participation as a key element. So I’m going to leave it at this for the time being, but I’m really happy to continue this conversation.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you. Thank you so much, Paloma, for taking us in a direction that is really hammering in on the importance of inclusion. It’s not just about bridging digital divides, but it’s about actually ensuring that people are not left behind. It’s about inclusion, and that is actually a serious human rights issue. And where we have indigenous groups left out, no recognition, then even if we talk about meaningful connectivity, it’ll still be meaningful connectivity for some and not for all. That in itself is a problem, and I think you make a very good, valid point, especially also pointing towards what needs to also be included in the elements paper, at least when we’re looking at the drafting process that’s ongoing. So thank you for those reflections and giving us that overview, and also talking about policy issues as well and what policy should be able to do, how it should be able to be of great

Paloma Lara Castro: service in this conversation of bridging the digital divides.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much, and I will ask, you know, a prayer to just walk us through your research findings as well, and I know that you’ve done a whole lot of work on this, and outlining as well priority, concerns for connectivity. I will move, step back again and move back to sub-Saharan Africa, and then just get some of your reflections based on the great work that you’re doing. Feel free as well to add on those good points on your profile that I might have left out.

Pria Chetty: Thanks so much, and thanks again for the invitation, Paradigm, to join this important conversation. And thanks also for painting that picture about the Universal Service Funds, because I think it gives us a reality check on something that we have pinned quite a few hopes on. It was seen as one of the interventions that we hoped could be a local intervention, locally designed and highly responsive to local issues, but clearly is failing to be successful. And so I think already that’s been highlighted. Greetings from Research ICT Africa team, and we are based in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Kenya, and we work across the continent doing various work across themes on digital and data justice. Today I’m really speaking about our after-access research work, and I think directly addresses some of the questions you raised, Tawakile. And in this work, very similar to Directors Digitalis, we have a local research team who also works with partners across the different countries and produces a range of survey instruments and a range of qualitative and quantitative data. And really the need is to try and unpack and maybe disaggregate issues around digital exclusion, moving beyond the connectivity nomenclature. I think we all agree that that’s quite outdated, and we want to move into meaningful connectivity, whatever that means, and to what digital inclusion really means. But it is a vexing challenge, it isn’t easy. This is potentially the wicked challenge of today, is to try and understand how do we go from where we started to where we’d like to be. And when I say this, I mean that we are speaking about, when we disaggregate the data, we’re speaking about populations who may be connected but barely online, those who are using digital services primarily for social uses, those who are using digital services somewhat productively, those who are using them innovatively, so able to tap into the innovation chains, and then those who are completely embedded in the digital economy in their country. And furthermore, and more interestingly to us now, as we look at the links between digital trade and digital inclusion, who are able to actively participate in the digital economy across the continent. And so as we ask these questions about digital inclusion, we perhaps get to a better picture of what it is that we’re striving for. And so what we find is that even where we see high penetration rates in many different African countries, we still see a masking of the intersectional digital inequality. And we speak about the intersection because it can be described in many different permutations and through many different combinations. One of the segments that we take an interest in is micro-enterprises, and because in various digital economy policies you’ll see quite a lot of hopes pinned on the segment and their growth and their trajectory. And so we take an interest in them, but one of the findings we have coming out of our survey is despite 65% of micro-enterprises owning a smartphone, only 38% use the internet, and only 39% are financially included. And this is exacerbated when we speak to the female-owned informal and rural micro-enterprises who are not using the internet and who say that they are unlikely to use the internet. Affordability, as colleagues have presented, still remains a primary barrier. So in Uganda, for instance, as we get into some of the qualitative results, when we speak to respondents, they cite data costs as being a top barrier, but also for consistent use. And so one of the challenges that they raise is because of the high data costs, somewhere across mid-month, they are cut off from internet services because of the data costs. So it could have been… and Ms. Elizabeth Nguyen. We have seen a lot of people who have been connected but not fully and consistently over the month, so not accessing the services consistently. This affects job seeking, education obviously, consistent access to online education services. And then as we look at some of the kind of structural gains in countries like Ethiopia, and some transitions in their policy environment, we still see that they are the least connected with 85% of the adult population offline. And this again exacerbated on the basis of gender, income and the urban rural divides and so their location. So even where digital infrastructure exists, when we do a comparative analysis across the reports, adoption and full digital inclusion is still held back by various factors like digital literacy, safety and trust issues, unreliable electricity, gender and also age. So I suppose the point of our work, and there’s very many other statistics and graphs that I can refer to, is to try and understand what we as communities and individuals in the region look like and what our experience of the internet is as you disaggregate the data. What are the barriers that we really face? And these include cultural and linguistic. So unless the content is relevant to us, it’s not appealing enough for us to access it. And unless it’s in a language that we can engage with, we’re not going to engage with it. And so we have this array of educational content in a school that is connected, that is just not being utilized. I think this paints a reality check, I suppose, for universal service funds and the models, but also for the priorities and their engagement within their ecosystem. So the question of proactive disclosure came up when we spoke about universal service funds disclosing and being transparent about how they’re performing. But they also have a huge dependency on proactive disclosure of data on infrastructure and barriers and school’s data, all of that. They have this huge dependency on proactive disclosure by others in the ecosystem in order to effectively do their work. So yes, mismanagement and technical capacity will be continuous concerns. But there is this access to data, I think, issue that’s going to be fundamental to how we reimagine these organizations, these institutions, but the local ecosystem that’s going to address this. And I think interesting for me, you know, listening to Paloma, to just say that these results resonate with the research that’s coming out from others in the Global South. And so bringing us here into this global forum, I think we can’t help but feel that our society is underrepresented and our needs are underrepresented. And I suppose the call for us is how do we leverage our rights framework to get closer to the kind of representation we need so that the response to some of these challenges can

Thobekile Matimbe: improve in their relevance. Thank you so much. And for also pointing us towards socioeconomic rights development, economic development, how, you know, the urban-rural divide really continues to, I think, isolate certain groups of women, for instance, looking at all the intersectionalities, women in rural areas, how can they access the digital economy? What is the digital economy if it’s just for a few in an economy, if it’s not for everyone? So I think that’s very valid. And also just, you know, stressing the point on, you know, proactive disclosures that are, you know, so important and not just within the management of the universal service funds, but even other, you know, sectors that are, you know, supposed to be feeding in information to ensure that there’s meaningful connectivity. Electricity, I think Paloma also mentioned the same thing, how does this work and what needs to be happening, you know, multi-sectoral, you know, discussions and synergies even at national level to ensure that, you know, all systems are going for connectivity. Yeah, you sort of touched on, you know, digital infrastructure and I would like to pass it on to Anita to just unpack for us how can digital public infrastructure, I know this is one of the most trending topics, DPIs, I hear DPIs everywhere, it’s very nice and good terminology, but how can that steer us towards meaningful connectivity and I’m hoping maybe there could be some, you know, positive vibes that we can get from your end. I know we’ve sort of, like, you know, moved through and pointed at some of the gaps essentially, but please feel free to go for it.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you very much. I think with that very important but somewhat sobering presentation and the way things are, I’m not very sure I can, all of my vibes will be positive, but I think it’s up to us in the room to take stock of reality and to forge the paths that take us towards a sensible future of meaningful connectivity. Building on these excellent, thoughtful and very, very evidenced presentations, I have very little to add, but maybe I can give you a flavor of where we are headed in the context of India and maybe, you know, some thoughts from my own organization about what is digital public infrastructure and what is public about digital public infrastructure. I think that is really the crucial question. So several years ago, maybe close to 18, 20 years ago, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India came up with an old economic conception called experience good. They said the Internet is an experience good. So in economistic terms, that means that the value of that particular resource is obtained through continuous use and the way in which you derive value through use. So the more you experience the Internet, the more you can shape its value, which basically means that you need to have it first to be able to make it a resource that can really drive your society, economy in progressive directions. So one of the important things is the way in which research like this is also indicating how redistribution can take place through extremely important centralized schemes and policies that allow us to take connectivity. I think the question is also about the way in which the market bundles in certain content, you know, what is deemed e-health, e-education, e-whatever, in the name of zero services. So I would really think that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India took a very strong stance on network neutrality, and I think that has stood the country in good stead. And of course, challenges to the neutrality principle of the pipes is constantly emerging in a scenario where mobile operators try, you know, their best to circumvent the law. But zero services need to be rejected. So what we are actually saying is the right to the internet, which is guaranteed as a right in one of the states in India, and in many countries in the world. So nationally we don’t have the right, but because of jurisprudence in one of the subnational state entities in the country, the state of Kerala has a right to the internet, which means that as a society and individually everyone has a right to the internet. That’s a beginning for the experience of the full participation that, Paloma, you were referring to into this world that is shaping opportunities, right? It’s shaping opportunity structures. So I think that we do need to think about what that would mean in the context of mobile connectivity. Could we have data allowances? Could telecommunications authorities use the use of funds to even negotiate with mobile operators? and Mr. Shailendra, the Chair of the National Bank of India. So, we are talking about the two-factor authentication, which is a guarantee that is provided by the Reserve Bank of India through a two-factor authentication, so that there is stability in banking transactions. So, we are actually talking about connectivity, stability, security and progress, which is contextually grounded in the rule of law and accountability. So, the thing is, what would it take to imagine MPSA and re-imagine it as a DPI, right, as a digital public infrastructure? Accountabilities, what kind of publicly-owned protocols may be necessary is a question that I am raising here. Of course, my third point would really be a very obvious state-citizen social contract connection, which is to say that for society-wide delivery of public services and our conceptions of digital infrastructure, meaningful connectivity, a government that is truly at your doorstep rather than you are running behind to establish, you know, through your biometrics that you are indeed you, you know, which is the kind of irony that happens often. What kind of vendor accountabilities can be programmed into public-private partnerships, especially when vendors get into the social welfare delivery system? And this is a big question, not just for developing countries, but for those of us here familiar with the robodebt scandal in Australia, that story is something that would keep you up, you know, it’s like a mystery novel, you read it, and I’m told that many bureaucrats actually spend time really wondering what will happen to their jobs because oftentimes vendors disappear without accountability and it’s really people… Now, my final point really is a bottom-up kind of culture which is then officiated and validated by the policy on the culture of data innovation. Because when you think about digital infrastructure, digital public infrastructure, the state is constantly in the business of digitizing its records. I know that there are ups and downs. Not all countries are at the same level, but it’s an inevitability. And in that context, I’d really like to say that we need to shift to publicly owned systems where we can look at language models and other such data-based AI models. Because research tells us that big tech companies may not consider them a priority, especially when the language is labeled a low-resource language, which is actually referring to women as victims. So it’s not a low-resource language. It’s simply spoken in our regions. And recently, one big company claimed to have an AI language model with state-of-the-art kind of machine translation in 54 African languages. And it was found to have many, many quality issues. And what this really shows, that local organizations in Ghana were outperforming the products. But venture capital usually moves in the direction of bigger companies, because they are seen to deliver on scale. So what really happens to startups and companies in the private sector in the region, which can work much better in the cultural context through, I think, accountable kinds of public tenders and contracts with the public system? and Ms. Elizabeth Koenig. I would like to start by saying that this is a very important question and research will be needed, I think, in the future to integrate what is called GovStack, right? All these different layers of public infrastructural services. So I would, you know, keep this, you know, keep the positivity

Thobekile Matimbe: out there but also say that lots of work remains to be done. Thank you. Thank you for taking us to a lot of work needs to be done which is stakeholders and why it’s important to have, you know, stakeholders coming to onboard and it’s not just, you know, a conversation for governments alone or for governments as well and, you know, in the private sector but also collaboration. You’ve touched on research and how it’s important and I think this panel has demonstrated, you know, findings from research and how that can be also useful to also inform some of the interventions towards meaningful connectivity. So thank you for that and for also articulating, I think, some of the strides in policy. You referenced the rule of law and I know that there’s a lot of jurisprudence as well around digital rights issues at least from India that we continue to find some good lessons there. I will open it up maybe for one or two questions maybe from the audience or contributions towards meaningful connectivity and then I’ll allow you to respond as you give your final remarks. All right.

Audience: Hi, everyone. My name is Revocato Sinkata. I come from Tanzania. So this is just a comment specifically on the issue of universal services and I take note of the first speaker and I really agree with her. And having, you know, worked in the telecom sector for quite a number of time, I would like to add… and Mr. Ndidi. Thank you very much. I would like to share a few of the notable challenges that I think should be looked at when we are speaking of the meaningful connectivity. And mostly actually on the group south, we have to stress in the rural areas, because you know most of the telecom companies, they are concentrating in the urban areas and the rural areas. And the other challenge that I have seen over the issue when it comes to universal service levy is the issue of, you know, data. Most of the data that being used when it comes, you know, to most of the universal service, you know, tenders that are being, for example, in the case of Tanzania, you know, there is universal service authority, which, you know, advertises tenders. But when it comes to data, most of the data that being used, you know, is not being used in the rural areas. So, you know, when you advertise the tenders, and, you know, telecom companies bid, and the telecom, you know, they go on the ground, probably the reality is completely different. So you might be, you know, trying to extend the services, you know, in areas where maybe it’s area for pastoralists and there are no people who are living there. So, you know, there is a need for, you know, to have, you know, to strengthen, you know, the kind of data that, you know, is being provided, because most of them they depend on, you know, sensors, which might have been taken, you know, they are taken in intervals of maybe five to ten years. This is very critical, and I think this should be looked at. The other issue that is very critical is, you know, when it comes to data, you know, when it comes to data, things are very irregular, and I guess with data, you have to be careful about which service you want to offer, but the other critical is, you know, in rural areas, when it comes to UK , Mr. Communications, if I make an inference, no one really addressed it. Without having connectivity in the Global South and more mainly in rural and marginalised areas. Thank you. who pay contribution to the Universal Service Fund in global South countries, in most. All right, I’ll allow. All right. Good afternoon, I’m from IT4Change India and I have two questions to the panel. The first question is, how do you all see the continued importance of public access in the current situation? And my second question is, what new challenges do you see in terms of protecting the right to the full internet given there are zero services and similar restrictions in many contexts?

Thobekile Matimbe: Thanks. Thank you so much for those great questions and contributions. So I’ll allow the panel to answer that you can feel free to pick any specific question, but I know there was a specific question directed to you Anita, so you can always take that but I’ll start with you Bridget and you give your last remarks as well. Thanks a lot everyone for the comments and questions. I’ll just directly respond to questions on the Universal Service Fund. So within the African region,

Bridgette Ndlovu: contributions to the Universal Service Fund are made by telecommunications companies through specific percentages that they’re supposed to contribute. So most of these percentages range between 1% to about 3% where they’re supposed to contribute that specific amount to the Universal Service Fund. And then the other question was on taxation on technological gadgets. I do know that countries such as Malawi are already having specific strategies and advocacy initiatives. and Ms. Elizabeth Ndung’in. I would like to highlight the work that civil society is doing in the various initiatives where they are advocating for tax holidays on technological gadgets so that women and vulnerable groups are able to access these at minimal prices. And maybe just in closing, I would also like to highlight that there is a lot of work that we are in and as well as continuing to document such issues within the different countries where we operate in. Thank you so much for today and over to you, Thobekile.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much, Brigitte. It’s been very insightful. I’ll hand over. Sure. Okay. Yes,

Anita Gurumurthy: I think the previous speaker answered the question. In the context of India, there is the universal service obligation came into being through the new telecom policy in the late 90s and a percentage of the revenue earned by operators and the various licenses is set aside through a universal access levy that is imposed on them. It has been reasonably successful and it allows us to connect 2.5 lakh village points through broadband optic fiber. So it’s directly used for purposes of connectivity through a levy that’s collected from operators. If I could answer that question. I think I don’t remember the I mean, I think your first question, Nandini, was how do we continue to have connectivity and the second was full internet. I will take the second question, maybe because it’s not much time. I think the access to the full internet is a little bit like access to the rights that people have on all economic, social and cultural goods where there is a duty of the state to provide but it is often true, that states experience structural barriers in being able to fulfill their duty and obligation to cover everybody. So it is indeed a right that everybody carries, but I think in the context of the global politics and geoeconomics, it’s really important that we see that as a structural issue where the capacity of countries to be able to meet the obligations of its citizens is treated not just as a national issue, but as an international issue.

Paloma Lara Castro: Just really quickly, just to follow up on Anita’s point, as we’re seeing lack of or gaps in connectivity, especially in Latin America, what I can highlight is that this is not only deepening structural inequalities but generating new forms of exclusion, especially considering digitalization of public services are conditioning the connectivity to access the service. So that’s when also, not only, like Anita mentioned, they need to comply with international law, and as I mentioned, specific international law regarding indigenous communities, but also to push for community networks. And in this sense, it’s important to point out that there is a need for a legal protection of this access, not only for the recognition of community networks, but also for the sustainability. And just to highlight a very positive example, in Chile, for example, now the state is trying to legalize or to access community networks, and is giving serious public consultations to actually make sure, or at least to try to engage with different populations, which again, as I mentioned in my previous discussion, indigenous communities rarely make it to the policy tables, rarely make it to these type of discussions, not even locally, and even less internationally. So that is, looking back to what we can do as a civil society, it’s important to keep bringing these voices to this discussion, and keep pushing for recognition of rights in the diverse lived communities. And this relates directly to the WSIS core vision. and Ms. Stephanie Amaya. And the third is that we are also looking for the inclusion of people-centered and as well as multi-stakeholder. There is no human rights without multi-stakeholder participation, meaningful participation.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thanks. Thanks so much.

Pria Chetty: I wanted to respond to, firstly, the question around the need for sustainable data. And you said that, how do we make sure that we have current data and that we continue pointing at the national statistical authorities to say, look, you’ve got this sophisticated mechanism. We’re able to access the population. And is it now a time to mature that system and also get this kind of data? But it requires a kind of paradigm shift, which is like really getting to know the population and really ask them the questions that matter in order to make sure that the response is relevant. And that’s the harder problem to solve. So the mechanism exists sometimes in the national context, but not necessarily the willingness to try and get that kind of data to inform the interventions. On the funding of the universal services agencies, I think I would say from the South African experience and from some of the other neighboring countries, the challenge wasn’t actually the funding. And strangely, in that particular institutional context, it wasn’t actually the funding. Similar to India, we had an imposed levy from the operators. And so the money was there. We struggled when it came to governance. We struggled in terms of the choice of technology to be rolled out. There was a very early example of a kind of community network, but choosing the wrong technology, not matching it to the needs of the users in that community. So it goes back to this question of there is some kind of intervention, but it is not designed with the user in mind, or even the terrain, or even the needs. So there’s something in that that needs to be re-looked at. And I wonder also if changes in the partnership model for that could lead to something more sustainable to kind of force an interrogation of how it’s managed. And we have great lessons now from community networks. So maybe on the horizon, there’s something else that’s coming. And then finally, to your question, Anneli, I think I agree with what Anita was saying, is that I suppose we move past access to the internet or access to the data, but access to opportunity, as you mentioned as well. And so in the way that we envision what it is that must be publicly available, it isn’t actually access to the internet or access to data. It’s what that brings for a person to fully experience what it is that we want them to use these things to be able to do and change their life and have that transformative quality. And I think unless government and government’s partners appreciate that transformative nature, or what it is that could be the down the line result. We just don’t get closer. We stay in that infrastructure or policy or connectivity kind of narrative, but we don’t get closer to what it is that a young person in a village with several scenarios and prospects is facing

Thobekile Matimbe: and how they get to a better point. Well, thank you so much for taking us here towards meaningful connectivity. I think there’s a lot of great stuff that came from today’s conversation. And I think what has just come out is the importance of an enabling environment looking at policy and practice as well looking at people in the process, not leaving anyone behind and the role of different stakeholders. So this has been quite enriching. So thank you so much and thank you everyone for joining our session. Thank you. You remember, did you get? Thank you. I think it’s because they’re behind it. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah. Thank you in advance for the report that all of you succeeded in your work. Thank you again. That was a lot of fun.

Agreement points

Universal Service Funds face significant implementation challenges despite policy existence

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Lack of implementation takeoff despite existing policies across 27 African countries

Funding mechanisms through operator levies can be successful but governance remains a challenge

Summary

Both speakers agree that while Universal Service Fund policies exist and funding mechanisms can work (through operator levies), the primary challenges lie in implementation, governance, and management rather than policy formulation or funding availability.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Transparency and data disclosure are critical for effective connectivity interventions

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Lack of transparency with fund amounts unknown in 24 out of 27 countries studied

Need for proactive disclosure of data on infrastructure and barriers by ecosystem stakeholders

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that lack of transparency and inadequate data disclosure significantly hampers the effectiveness of connectivity initiatives, whether in Universal Service Fund management or broader infrastructure planning.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Marginalized communities face systemic exclusion from connectivity benefits

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Pria Chetty
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Same inequalities in rights access reflected in quality of internet access for indigenous populations

High penetration rates mask intersectional digital inequalities across gender, income, and location

Importance of inclusion means ensuring no one is left behind in connectivity efforts

Summary

All three speakers agree that existing structural inequalities are replicated in digital access, with marginalized communities (indigenous, rural, women) facing compounded barriers that are often hidden by aggregate connectivity statistics.

Topics

Human rights principles | Development | Cultural diversity

Meaningful participation is essential for effective connectivity policies

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Need for meaningful participation in every stage of policy construction from design to implementation

Multi-stakeholder collaboration essential for meaningful connectivity beyond government and private sector

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that effective connectivity policies require meaningful participation from affected communities throughout the entire policy lifecycle, not just consultation, and that multi-stakeholder approaches are essential.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Cultural diversity

Affordability remains a primary barrier to meaningful connectivity

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Taxation on technological gadgets requiring advocacy for tax holidays to improve access

Affordability remains primary barrier with users cut off mid-month due to high data costs

Lack of coverage and high costs prevent meaningful connectivity in Amazonian communities

Summary

All speakers agree that high costs – whether for devices, data, or services – continue to be a fundamental barrier preventing meaningful connectivity, particularly affecting vulnerable populations.

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that local, culturally relevant solutions often perform better than global technology solutions, but face systemic disadvantages in funding and recognition despite their superior contextual understanding.

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent engagement with irrelevant content not in local languages

Local organizations outperforming big tech in cultural context but lacking venture capital support

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Economic

Both speakers frame connectivity access as a fundamental rights issue, with Paloma focusing on indigenous self-determination and Anita on the right to internet as a foundation for full societal participation.

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Technological appropriation essential for indigenous communities’ right to self-determination

Right to internet guaranteed in Kerala state demonstrates beginning of full participation framework

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Cultural diversity

Both emphasize that outdated or inadequate data leads to mismatched interventions that don’t address actual community needs, particularly in rural areas where conditions may have changed significantly since data collection.

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Audience

Arguments

Need for current data from national statistical authorities to inform relevant interventions

Outdated census data used for universal service tenders not reflecting rural realities

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Universal Service Funds are not primarily constrained by funding but by governance and implementation

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Countries like Botswana leveraging public-private partnerships as model for others

Funding mechanisms through operator levies can be successful but governance remains a challenge

Explanation

This consensus is unexpected because Universal Service Funds are often discussed primarily as funding mechanisms. However, both speakers reveal that when funding is available through operator levies, the real challenges lie in governance, technology selection, and user-centered design rather than resource availability.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Economic

Technology appropriation and local innovation are more effective than global solutions

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Anita Gurumurthy
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Technological appropriation essential for indigenous communities’ right to self-determination

Local organizations outperforming big tech in cultural context but lacking venture capital support

Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent engagement with irrelevant content not in local languages

Explanation

This consensus is unexpected in a global technology context where scale and standardization are often prioritized. All three speakers independently arrived at the conclusion that locally-developed, culturally-appropriate solutions are more effective than global technology products, challenging dominant narratives about technology deployment.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental challenges facing meaningful connectivity in the Global South, including implementation gaps in Universal Service Funds, the need for transparency and data-driven approaches, persistent affordability barriers, and the systematic exclusion of marginalized communities. They also agreed on the importance of meaningful participation, cultural relevance, and rights-based approaches to connectivity.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy and practice. The agreement across speakers from different regions (Africa, Latin America, India) and organizations suggests these challenges are systemic across the Global South. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated advocacy and policy recommendations, particularly around reforming Universal Service Fund governance, ensuring meaningful participation of marginalized communities, addressing affordability through innovative financing mechanisms, and prioritizing local, culturally-relevant solutions over standardized global approaches.

Different viewpoints

Funding vs Governance as Primary Challenge for Universal Service Funds

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Lack of implementation takeoff despite existing policies across 27 African countries

Funding mechanisms through operator levies can be successful but governance remains a challenge

Summary

Bridgette emphasizes funding and policy implementation as the main barriers, citing examples where committees haven’t been established and funds aren’t being collected. Pria argues that funding mechanisms can work (citing South African success with operator levies) but governance, technology choices, and user-centered design are the real challenges.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Scope of Digital Rights Recognition in International Frameworks

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Indigenous communities absent from recognition in WSIS Plus 20 elements paper

Structural barriers require treating connectivity obligations as international rather than just national issue

Summary

Paloma focuses specifically on the exclusion of indigenous communities from international digital governance documents and calls for their explicit recognition. Anita takes a broader structural approach, arguing that connectivity challenges should be addressed through international cooperation rather than specific group recognition.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Cultural diversity

Unexpected differences

Technology Approach – Infrastructure vs Rights-Based Framework

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Bridgette Ndlovu

Arguments

Internet as ‘experience good’ requiring continuous use to derive value and shape society

Countries like Botswana leveraging public-private partnerships as model for others

Explanation

Unexpectedly, Anita advocates for a more philosophical, rights-based approach viewing internet as an ‘experience good’ that requires continuous access to derive value, while Bridgette focuses on practical implementation models like public-private partnerships. This represents a fundamental difference in approaching connectivity – conceptual vs operational.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show remarkable consensus on identifying problems (lack of transparency, cultural barriers, inadequate funding) but diverge on root causes and solutions. Main disagreements center on whether funding or governance is the primary barrier, and whether to focus on specific group recognition or structural systemic changes.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers are largely aligned on goals of achieving meaningful connectivity but differ on implementation strategies and priority focus areas. This suggests a healthy diversity of approaches rather than fundamental conflicts, which could strengthen comprehensive policy solutions if integrated effectively.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that local, culturally relevant solutions often perform better than global technology solutions, but face systemic disadvantages in funding and recognition despite their superior contextual understanding.

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent engagement with irrelevant content not in local languages

Local organizations outperforming big tech in cultural context but lacking venture capital support

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Economic

Both speakers frame connectivity access as a fundamental rights issue, with Paloma focusing on indigenous self-determination and Anita on the right to internet as a foundation for full societal participation.

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Technological appropriation essential for indigenous communities’ right to self-determination

Right to internet guaranteed in Kerala state demonstrates beginning of full participation framework

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Cultural diversity

Both emphasize that outdated or inadequate data leads to mismatched interventions that don’t address actual community needs, particularly in rural areas where conditions may have changed significantly since data collection.

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Audience

Arguments

Need for current data from national statistical authorities to inform relevant interventions

Outdated census data used for universal service tenders not reflecting rural realities

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Universal Service Funds across Africa are failing to achieve meaningful implementation despite existing policies, with lack of transparency being a major issue (24 out of 27 countries don’t disclose fund amounts)

High mobile penetration rates mask deep intersectional digital inequalities, particularly affecting women, rural populations, and micro-enterprises who remain underconnected

Affordability remains the primary barrier to meaningful connectivity, with users being cut off mid-month due to high data costs, affecting consistent access to education and job opportunities

Indigenous communities face systematic exclusion from connectivity policies and are absent from key international frameworks like the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper

Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent meaningful engagement with digital services when content is not locally relevant or available in local languages

Digital public infrastructure requires publicly-owned protocols and strong vendor accountability mechanisms to ensure equitable access and avoid corporate capture

Meaningful connectivity must move beyond infrastructure provision to focus on transformative opportunities and full participation in digital society

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential, but marginalized voices, particularly indigenous communities, are systematically excluded from policy discussions at all levels

Resolutions and action items

Civil society organizations should continue advocating for tax holidays on technological gadgets to improve access for women and vulnerable groups

Countries should adopt flexible legislation models like Rwanda and Egypt that allow diverse funding sources including donations, grants, and development partner collaborations

Universal Service Fund committees need to be established in countries like Central African Republic where implementation has stalled

Indigenous communities must be explicitly recognized and included in the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper and other international frameworks

Community networks require legal protection and recognition for sustainability, following positive examples like Chile’s public consultation process

National statistical authorities should be leveraged to collect current, relevant data about population connectivity needs rather than relying on outdated census information

Public-private partnership models like Botswana’s Southern District Digital Empowerment Project should be replicated in other countries

Unresolved issues

How to ensure consistent funding and governance of Universal Service Funds when telecommunications companies resist compliance through legal action

How to address the fundamental mismatch between infrastructure deployment and actual user needs, particularly in rural and pastoral areas

How to balance the digitalization of public services with ensuring that lack of connectivity doesn’t create new forms of exclusion from essential services

How to support local organizations and startups that outperform big tech in cultural contexts but lack access to venture capital

How to move from connectivity metrics to meaningful participation and transformative impact measurement

How to address structural international inequalities that limit countries’ capacity to fulfill connectivity obligations to their citizens

How to ensure meaningful participation of indigenous communities in policy processes when they are systematically excluded from decision-making tables

Suggested compromises

Adopting public-private partnership models that balance private sector efficiency with public accountability and transparency requirements

Using operator levy systems for Universal Service Fund financing while implementing stronger governance and oversight mechanisms

Focusing on ‘access to opportunity’ rather than just ‘access to internet’ as a framework that bridges infrastructure and social transformation goals

Implementing flexible legislative frameworks that allow multiple funding sources while maintaining accountability standards

Treating connectivity obligations as both national and international issues to address structural capacity limitations in Global South countries

The Internet is an experience good… the more you experience the Internet, the more you can shape its value, which basically means that you need to have it first to be able to make it a resource that can really drive your society, economy in progressive directions.

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This reframes connectivity from a simple access issue to a fundamental prerequisite for societal participation. It challenges the traditional approach of gradual rollout and suggests that meaningful connectivity requires full access from the start, not limited or zero-rated services.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from technical infrastructure challenges to philosophical questions about what constitutes meaningful access. It provided theoretical grounding for rejecting zero-rating services and influenced the conversation toward rights-based approaches to connectivity.

What we found is that the same inequalities that these populations encounter in the access of rights is also reflected in the quality of access to Internet… technological appropriation is an essential part of the right to self-determination of these communities.

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Reason

This insight connects digital exclusion to broader patterns of marginalization and introduces the concept of technological appropriation as a human rights issue. It moves beyond technical solutions to address structural inequalities and cultural self-determination.

Impact

This comment fundamentally reframed the discussion from a technical problem to a human rights and social justice issue. It led other panelists to consider how existing inequalities are reproduced in digital spaces and influenced the conversation toward more inclusive, participatory approaches to policy-making.

Despite 65% of micro-enterprises owning a smartphone, only 38% use the internet, and only 39% are financially included… we’re speaking about populations who may be connected but barely online.

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Reason

This data point reveals the inadequacy of traditional connectivity metrics and introduces the concept of being ‘connected but barely online.’ It challenges assumptions about smartphone ownership equating to meaningful digital participation.

Impact

This statistic became a pivotal moment that shifted the entire panel’s focus from infrastructure availability to actual usage patterns and barriers. It influenced subsequent discussions about the need for disaggregated data and more nuanced understanding of digital inclusion beyond simple connectivity metrics.

There is really a lack of takeoff… There are policies that exist within various countries. But when it comes to implementation, there is so much limitations and countries failing to accurately and adequately implement the Universal Service Fund.

Speaker

Bridgette Ndlovu

Reason

This observation exposes a critical gap between policy intention and implementation reality across 27 African countries. It challenges the assumption that having policies in place is sufficient and highlights systemic implementation failures.

Impact

This comment set a sobering tone for the entire discussion and established implementation gaps as a central theme. It influenced other panelists to focus on practical barriers rather than theoretical solutions, and led to discussions about transparency, accountability, and the need for better governance mechanisms.

Indigenous communities are nowhere to be found in this recognition. And what this might translate into is that even if we apply international human rights law anyhow, regardless of the special recognition, maybe when we see implementation, this could lead to exclusion in the implementation.

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Reason

This critique of the WSIS+20 elements paper highlights how policy documents can perpetuate exclusion through omission. It demonstrates how seemingly neutral policy language can have discriminatory effects on specific populations.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical policy advocacy dimension to the discussion and influenced the conversation toward examining who is included and excluded in global policy frameworks. It led to broader discussions about meaningful participation and representation in international policy processes.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a technical infrastructure conversation to a comprehensive examination of digital justice, human rights, and structural inequalities. The panelists’ evidence-based insights created a cascading effect where each contribution built upon previous points to deepen the analysis. Anita’s ‘experience good’ concept provided philosophical grounding, Paloma’s human rights framing added moral urgency, Pria’s data revealed the complexity of the challenge, and Bridgette’s implementation findings grounded the discussion in practical realities. Together, these comments shifted the conversation from asking ‘how do we connect people?’ to ‘how do we ensure digital technologies serve human flourishing and social justice?’ The discussion evolved from technical solutions to systemic change, from universal access to meaningful inclusion, and from policy design to implementation accountability. This progression created a more nuanced understanding of meaningful connectivity as not just a technical challenge, but as a fundamental question of social justice, cultural preservation, and equitable development.

How can countries effectively implement Universal Service Funds given the widespread lack of takeoff and implementation challenges across African countries?

Speaker

Bridgette Ndlovu

Explanation

Despite policies existing in various countries, there are significant limitations in implementing Universal Service Funds, with countries like Central African Republic failing to set up required committees and others facing resistance from telecommunications companies

How can proactive disclosure and transparency in Universal Service Fund management be improved when 24 out of 27 African countries don’t disclose fund amounts?

Speaker

Bridgette Ndlovu

Explanation

The lack of transparency affects meaningful connectivity achievement, with most countries not making reports publicly available or providing proactive disclosures about fund usage

How can indigenous communities be meaningfully included in WSIS Plus 20 review processes and policy construction when they are currently not recognized in elements papers?

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

Indigenous communities are nowhere to be found in recognition documents, which could lead to exclusion in implementation even if international human rights law applies

What research is needed to integrate GovStack and different layers of public infrastructural services for meaningful connectivity?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

Future research is needed to understand how to integrate various layers of digital public infrastructure services effectively

How can the quality and currency of data used for Universal Service Fund tenders be improved, particularly for rural areas where ground reality differs from census data?

Speaker

Revocato Sinkata (Audience member from Tanzania)

Explanation

Most data used for universal service tenders relies on outdated census information taken at 5-10 year intervals, leading to mismatched service deployment in areas like pastoralist regions

How can community networks be legally protected and sustained, and what models can ensure their recognition and sustainability?

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

There’s a need for legal protection of community networks access, not only for recognition but also for sustainability, with Chile being cited as a positive example of state efforts to legalize community networks

How can national statistical authorities be reformed to collect more relevant and current data for digital inclusion interventions?

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Explanation

There’s a need for a paradigm shift in data collection mechanisms to really understand populations and ask questions that matter for relevant policy responses

What new partnership models could improve Universal Service Fund governance and technology choices to better match user needs and terrain requirements?

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Explanation

Even when funding exists, challenges in governance and inappropriate technology choices lead to interventions not designed with users, terrain, or actual needs in mind

How can public access continue to be important and protected in the current digital landscape, and what new challenges exist for protecting the right to full internet access given zero services and similar restrictions?

Speaker

Audience member from IT4Change India

Explanation

Questions about maintaining public access importance and addressing new challenges to full internet access rights in contexts with zero services and restrictions

Summary

This discussion focused on operationalizing multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance, particularly in preparation for the WSIS+20 review process. The session was co-hosted by Global Partners Digital and the Global Network Initiative, bringing together experts from various sectors to examine how multi-stakeholder principles have evolved since the original WSIS summits.

Carl Gahnberg from the Internet Society emphasized that multi-stakeholder governance should be viewed as a principle rather than a rigid model, noting that many successful projects already operate as multi-stakeholder collaborations without being formally labeled as such. He highlighted the functional value of inclusive processes, particularly in internet development projects like community networks that require collaboration across sectors. Jhalak Kakkar from India’s Centre for Communication Governance discussed how multi-stakeholder understanding varies across international and national contexts, emphasizing the importance of meaningful engagement rather than checkbox activities. She stressed the need for genuine consensus-building processes and highlighted challenges in ensuring Global South voices are heard in international negotiations.

Ian Sheldon from the Australian government provided a detailed case study of Australia’s structured multi-stakeholder consultation process for the WSIS review. This process included capacity-building workshops to educate stakeholders about government processes, transparent drafting sessions for policy documents, and ongoing collaboration with both domestic and international communities. Thobekile Matimbe from Paradigm Initiative shared insights from African contexts, noting the disconnect between government participation in global processes and local awareness, emphasizing the importance of transparency and trust-building.

The discussion concluded with recognition that while multi-stakeholder approaches require significant effort, they produce higher-quality policy outcomes and should be expanded beyond traditional internet governance issues to broader digital policy areas.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Evolution and operationalization of multi-stakeholder governance since WSIS**: The panel explored how multi-stakeholder approaches have developed from principles into practice over the past 20 years, emphasizing that multi-stakeholderism is a governance principle that can be implemented through various models rather than a single prescribed approach.

– **Functional versus normative value of multi-stakeholder processes**: Speakers emphasized that multi-stakeholder engagement provides instrumental benefits beyond just being the “right thing to do” – it produces better policy outcomes, reduces blind spots, and improves implementation success through broader buy-in and trust-building.

– **National-level implementation challenges and successes**: The discussion highlighted significant variations in how countries operationalize multi-stakeholder principles, with Australia’s structured WSIS review consultation process serving as a detailed case study of effective government-led multi-stakeholder engagement, including capacity building for participants.

– **Barriers to meaningful participation**: Key challenges identified included the tendency for multi-stakeholder processes to become “checkbox exercises,” limited financial resources for Global South participation in international processes, and the need for transparency, consensus-building, and inclusive representation beyond just having stakeholders “in the room.”

– **Future directions for embedding multi-stakeholder approaches**: The conversation explored how to better integrate these principles into broader digital governance issues beyond traditional internet governance, the importance of documenting and sharing successful models, and the need for continued capacity building and relationship-building between stakeholders.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine how multi-stakeholder principles established through WSIS and other processes are being translated into practical governance approaches at national, regional, and international levels. The session sought to identify what has worked well, ongoing challenges, and strategies for strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance, particularly in preparation for the WSIS+20 review.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by genuine knowledge-sharing and mutual learning among participants. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges and shortcomings in current multi-stakeholder implementation, the overall atmosphere was optimistic and solution-oriented. The tone became particularly engaged when discussing concrete examples like Australia’s consultation process, with participants expressing enthusiasm about documenting and replicating successful models. The conversation reflected a community of practice dynamic, with speakers building on each other’s insights and expressing gratitude for the learning opportunities.

Speakers

– **Ellie McDonald** – Works for Global Partners Digital, a civil society organisation working to ensure that human rights underpin the development, use and governance of digital technologies

– **Carl Gahnberg** – Director of Policy Development and Research at the Internet Society

– **Ian Sheldon** – Director of the Internet Governance Section at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication, Sport and the Art, Government of Australia

– **Jhalak Kakkar** – Executive Director of the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University in Delhi

– **Thobekile Matimbe** – Senior Manager for Partnerships and Engagement at Paradigm Initiative (an organization working across the African region promoting digital rights and digital inclusion)

– **Lea Kaspar** – Works with Global Partners Digital

**Additional speakers:**

– **Eleni Hickok** – Managing Director of the Global Network Initiative (mentioned as online moderator but did not speak in the transcript)

– **Jorge Cancios** – Government representative (mentioned as being with government, from Switzerland based on context)

# Multi-Stakeholder Approaches in Internet Governance: Operationalising Principles for the WSIS+20 Review

## Executive Summary

This discussion, co-hosted by Global Partners Digital and the Global Network Initiative as part of their project “Shaping the WSIS+20 Review for a Unified Internet Multi-Stakeholderism,” brought together experts from civil society, government, technical community, and academia to examine practical implementation of multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance. The session featured speakers from Australia, India, Africa, and Switzerland, providing diverse regional perspectives on translating multi-stakeholder principles into effective governance mechanisms.

The conversation focused on moving beyond theoretical discussions toward practical implementation strategies, with participants sharing concrete examples of successful multi-stakeholder processes and identifying key challenges that remain. The discussion revealed both significant progress in operationalising multi-stakeholder approaches and persistent barriers, particularly around financing meaningful participation and ensuring quality engagement beyond superficial consultation.

## Participants and Context

**Moderator:** Ellie McDonald, Global Partners Digital

**Speakers:**

– **Carl Gahnberg**, Internet Society – providing technical community perspective on multi-stakeholder principles and implementation

– **Jhalak Kakkar**, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University Delhi – offering insights on Global South participation and transparency requirements

– **Ian Sheldon**, Australian Government – sharing detailed case study of national-level multi-stakeholder consultation processes

– **Thobekile Matimbe**, Paradigm Initiative – presenting African regional perspectives and civil society experiences

The discussion was framed around preparation for the WSIS+20 review process, with participants examining how multi-stakeholder approaches can be more effectively implemented at national, regional, and international levels.

## Key Themes and Discussions

### Multi-Stakeholder Governance as Principle, Not Model

Carl Gahnberg opened with a fundamental reframing, emphasising that “when we talk about multi-stakeholder governance, we’re really talking about a principle of governance, about how we exercise governance… there could be very different models for implementing governance towards the same principle.” This perspective allowed for recognition that different institutions – ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and the Internet Governance Forum – can all operate according to multi-stakeholder principles while implementing them differently.

Gahnberg stressed that the core goal is “allowing for participation of the users, producers, developers of this digital system to be part of the governance of that system,” providing a clear framework for evaluating different approaches. This principle-based understanding proved valuable throughout the discussion as it enabled speakers to explore contextual variations without being constrained by rigid model requirements.

### Implementation Beyond Formal Meetings

A significant theme emerged around recognising that multi-stakeholder governance extends far beyond formal negotiations. Gahnberg highlighted that “the actual governance process is happening outside of this room, it’s happening after the event, it’s happening at the local, the regional levels.” He emphasised the importance of making existing multi-stakeholder work more visible, noting that many successful projects already exist but aren’t formally labelled as multi-stakeholder governance.

Gahnberg pointed to community networks as a prime example: “Community networks… you cannot do community networks without having a multi-stakeholder approach because you need to have the local community, you need to have the technical people, you need to have some government regulatory framework, you need to have some private sector involvement.” This practical example demonstrated how multi-stakeholder principles are already being successfully implemented in internet development work.

### Australian National-Level Case Study

Ian Sheldon provided a detailed case study of Australia’s comprehensive multi-stakeholder consultation process for the WSIS review, which generated significant interest from other participants. The Australian approach included several innovative elements:

**Transparent Process Design**: Australia established “a standing invitation to our multi-stakeholder community to be part of a working group” and implemented “quite a number of workshops to help educate our local community on the mindset of government. What do these multilateral negotiations look like? How do they work? What are the dynamics at play?”

**Collaborative Drafting**: The process involved “opening the doors to really show some of our internal processes, really help them get their heads around what kind of positioning the Australian government might want to take” and collaborative development of policy documents with stakeholder input.

**Functional Benefits**: Sheldon emphasised practical advantages: “the stronger the process the stronger the outcomes and the more implementable they are… the quality of policy output is immeasurably improved because of the process.” He described the work as “hard work but hugely rewarding” and noted that it helps “de-risk future positioning for governments.”

**Broader Applications**: Sheldon referenced Australia’s participation in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and the Internet Governance Forum as examples of how these approaches extend beyond single consultations to ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement.

### Global South Perspectives and Challenges

The discussion revealed significant regional variations in multi-stakeholder implementation, with speakers highlighting particular challenges in Global South contexts.

**African Regional Context**: Thobekile Matimbe shared experiences from Paradigm Initiative’s work across Africa, noting that “at African national level, there’s no prioritisation of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance.” However, she also highlighted positive developments, particularly around trust-building through transparency.

Matimbe provided a specific example from Zambia: “there was a disconnect between what government was doing at global level… and what was actually known at local level and there was no trust but once people began to have that openness and exchange of this is what we are doing there’s this process… everybody’s like why don’t you say so so it’s like let’s have a conversation.”

**Participation and Presence Challenges**: Jhalak Kakkar emphasised critical barriers to meaningful Global South participation: “if Global South leaders, thinkers, decision makers are not in the place physically, they are not being able to influence the final outcomes… if you don’t have them in the corridors of Geneva and New York, you’re not actually going to get the outcomes, which truly reflect the needs of those regions.”

**Financing Constraints**: Both Matimbe and Kakkar highlighted that meaningful participation requires adequate financing, particularly for Global South representation in international processes. This challenge has become more acute with reduced funding availability, creating barriers to the physical presence that Kakkar identified as crucial for actual influence.

### Quality of Engagement and Transparency

A critical theme throughout the discussion was distinguishing between meaningful engagement and superficial consultation processes. Jhalak Kakkar particularly emphasised this challenge, noting that “engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity.”

**Requirements for Meaningful Engagement**: Kakkar argued that “true multi-stakeholder models require consensus building and iterative feedback processes, not one-time consultations.” She identified specific transparency requirements including “publishing submissions, consultation summaries, and points of convergence/divergence.”

**Technology Solutions**: Kakkar suggested that “AI technologies can potentially support decision makers in enabling more transparency despite resource constraints,” offering a potential solution to capacity limitations that prevent adequate transparency in consultation processes.

**Inclusivity Considerations**: Speakers emphasised that inclusivity must ensure diversity of perspectives within stakeholder groups, including marginalised voices, moving beyond simple category representation toward genuine diversity of experiences.

## Questions and Discussion

The session included several important questions that highlighted key implementation challenges:

**Documentation and Replication**: Jorge Cancios asked whether Australia would consider “documenting and mapping their process against established guidelines” to enable replication by other governments. He shared a Swiss example of the EID law, where “stakeholders felt excluded from the process” and “the consequences were that the law was challenged through referendum and rejected by the people,” illustrating the risks of inadequate multi-stakeholder engagement.

**Delegation Composition**: Lea Kaspar asked about “including working group members in delegations” to international negotiations. Ian Sheldon responded that Australia is “considering mixed delegations” and noted the value of having multi-stakeholder input directly available during negotiations.

**Expanding Beyond Internet Governance**: Kaspar also raised questions about applying multi-stakeholder approaches “beyond internet governance to AI, cybersecurity, and other digital policy areas.” Sheldon confirmed that the Australian model “is applicable to other policy areas” and represents broader collaborative approaches to policy development.

## Ongoing Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the productive discussion, several significant challenges remain:

**Financing Meaningful Participation**: The question of securing adequate financing for Global South participation in international processes remains critical, especially given the importance of physical presence in key negotiation spaces.

**Scaling Implementation**: While successful examples exist, scaling multi-stakeholder approaches across different regions and contexts requires continued capacity building and adaptation to local circumstances.

**Moving Beyond Consultation**: Ensuring that multi-stakeholder engagement extends beyond formal consultation to meaningful participation in implementation and ongoing governance remains challenging.

**Documentation and Learning**: The need for better documentation of successful processes to enable learning and replication across different contexts was highlighted throughout the discussion.

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated significant maturation in thinking about multi-stakeholder governance, moving from theoretical advocacy toward practical implementation strategies. The strong consensus on fundamental principles, combined with diverse regional experiences, provides a solid foundation for continued development of multi-stakeholder approaches.

The Australian case study offered a concrete model of effective national-level implementation, while insights from Global South contexts highlighted both challenges and opportunities for broader adoption. The emphasis on functional benefits – improved policy quality, risk mitigation, and implementation success – provides compelling arguments for expanding multi-stakeholder approaches beyond traditional internet governance issues.

As the global community prepares for the WSIS+20 review, this discussion provides valuable insights into how multi-stakeholder principles can be more effectively operationalised. The commitment by participants to continue sharing experiences and documenting successful models suggests ongoing collaborative efforts to strengthen multi-stakeholder governance for addressing digital policy challenges.

The conversation reinforced that while multi-stakeholder approaches require significant effort and resources, they produce higher-quality policy outcomes and should be expanded to address the full range of digital governance challenges facing the global community.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you for joining our session from Principles to Practices of Regionalisation. My name is Ellie McDonald and I work for Global Partners Digital. We’re a civil society organisation working to ensure that human rights underpin the development, use and governance of digital technologies. We’re co-hosting this session with the Global Network Initiative or GNI, the leading forum for accountability, shared learning, engagement and collective advocacy on government and company policies and practices at the intersection of technology and human rights. So why did we want to have this discussion today? As many of you will know, the original WSIS summits and the Working Group on Internet Governance, which evolved from them, provided a blueprint for multi-stakeholder engagement, consolidating a working definition of multi-stakeholder internet governance and a decentralised approach to the implementation of the action lines, supported by multi-stakeholder collaboration. Since then, the IGF and a range of other technical bodies and processes have continued to practice different models of multi-stakeholder governance. More recently, the NetMundial outcome document effectively captured how multi-stakeholder principles should be integrated across national, regional, multilateral and multi-stakeholder processes, and specifically how broader stakeholder input can enhance multilateral processes. So, to contribute to realising the aim of meaningful multi-stakeholder inclusion in the context of the WSIS review, GNI and GPD are running a project shaping the WSIS plus 20 review for a unified internet multi-stakeholderism, supported by the inaugural ICAN grant programme. This aims to uphold and strengthen a rights-respecting and multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as a foundation for the internet’s global, open and interoperable nature. So, with that scene setting out the way, our workshop today hopes to build on that context. We’d like to discuss how multi-stakeholder approaches are being operationalised in different settings and at different levels. Our aim is to stimulate discussion of what has worked, what challenges remain and what we should do next. So, we’re quite an intimate group, so I hope we should be able to achieve that even in the relatively short time that we have. So, we have an expert panel of speakers joining us. I’ll be relatively brief in my intros. So, starting from my left, I have Carl Ganberg, the Director of Policy Development and Research at the Internet Society. Closest to me on the left, Ian Sheldon, the Director of the Internet Governance Section at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication, Sport and the Art. That is a long one, Ian, of the Government of Australia. And then to my right, I have Jalat Kakar, the Executive Director of the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University in Delhi. And then on my far right, Tobekele Matimbe, the Senior Manager for Partnerships and Engagement at Paradigm Initiative. And last but not least, Eleni Hickok, Managing Director of the Global Network Initiative over there is our online moderator. So, in terms of the structure, I’ll start with an initial round of questions to the speakers, but would encourage you to let me know if you’d like to react or respond to anything you’re hearing from the other panellists. And after that, we’ll open the floor for questions. I think with a quick round of questions, we should have time for a good Q&A portion. So, without further ado, I’d like to begin with a question for Karl. So, Karl, from your perspective at the Internet Society, how has the multi-stakeholder approach been operationalised in practice since the original WSIS summits? Perhaps you could focus on some examples of success as well as challenges.

Carl Gahnberg: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the introduction and thank you very much for the invitation to join this panel. I wanted to start kind of before getting into the examples to give a little bit of background context that I think plays to the title of this session, which I really like the title of this session because it points out something that I think is really important to keep in mind, that when we talk about multi-stakeholder governance, we’re really talking about a principle of governance, about how we exercise governance. So, sometimes there’s a tendency to kind of get stuck in discussions of, like, what does one model look like versus another model? And I think it’s important to acknowledge that there could be very different models for implementing governance towards the same principle. So, for instance, an institution like the ICANN or the ITF or the Internet Governance Forum or even the WSIS Forum, they might all sort of operate according to a multi-stakeholder principle of governance, but they might implement that principle in a different way and operate in different manners. So, I think that’s just good to keep in mind that what we’re really talking about is a principle around fundamentally allowing for participation of the users, producers, developers of this digital system to be part of the governance of that system. And if that’s the principle, we’re trying to figure out how do we make that happen in practice, so to speak. The second point that I wanted to raise is that, and this also goes a little bit to the fora that we’re in now, I think there’s a tendency that when we’re in fora like this, we tend to think about this being the end all of multi-stakeholder processes, that people have a seat at the table, people are here discussing and so forth. But that’s kind of a very small component of the actual governance process. The actual governance process is happening outside of this room, it’s happening after the event, it’s happening at the local, the regional levels. So, when we’re kind of pushing this message of the importance of multi-stakeholder governance and multi-stakeholder collaboration in WSIS, it’s not only to have a seat at the table at negotiations and discussions such as this one, but it’s really about enabling multiple stakeholders to be part of the implementation process as well. And I think that sometimes gets lost in these discussions. And that’s not only for a normative ideal of having everyone at the table and everyone should be sort of participating in all of that thing, it’s really for a functional perspective as well, an instrumental role of having all the stakeholders involved, because it tends to produce better outcomes if you do that. And when you think about it that way, if you think about multi-stakeholder process, not only as the kind of agenda setting events like the ones that we have today, but really about how it’s practiced out in the real world, so to speak, there’s quite a few examples of multi-stakeholder governance and multi-stakeholder collaborations that don’t necessarily get branded as such. It’s almost like a categorization error that we don’t label it, but they do happen quite frequently. And I would actually argue that the vast majority of the work that we do at the Internet Society, especially in the area of internet development, where we deploy internet exchange points or connect the unconnected, etc., the vast majority of those projects, if not all of them, are de facto multi-stakeholder projects, multi-stakeholder collaborations, and they wouldn’t work if they weren’t. So to give you a very concrete example, the work that we’re doing around community networks, which is this really cool connectivity model that I recommend everyone to learn about, which goes to effectively enabling local communities to build their own networks to then connect to the broader internet. Those community networks are typically a multi-stakeholder collaboration. They tend to be put on the agenda by civil society participants that recognize the gaps in connectivity in a country. They tend to collaborate with governments to ensure that licensing and other sort of regulatory issues are moved out of the way or conducive to deploying such networks. It’s a matter of connecting those stakeholders with private entities that might be providing the backhaul for those networks, etc. And our organization, coming from the technical community, is often involved in capacity building towards those ends, etc. So those types of projects are quite frequent, but we don’t tend to label them as multi-stakeholder collaborations. They just end up being such. So I think that’s important to recognize that they do happen and that they are practiced. And that also goes for, in many cases, countries that might not formally endorse or champion the multi-stakeholder model. We do have a lot of multi-stakeholder processes happening even in those countries. So a big part of the message around multi-stakeholder governance that we try to promote is to make it visible where we can, because that’s one of the important ideas behind ensuring that it’s included in statements around WSIS, around negotiations in the UN, etc., is to make sure that they are made visible also for those governments that might not sort of formally… embrace it today, but to recognize that it’s actually instrumentally very valuable when you’re getting to the practical implementation of digital governance. The final thing that I wanted to mention is that I started off by saying that, you know, there are different ways of how we can implement this principle of multi-stakeholder governance, and I think we’ll get to some of that today. So, how do you move it over to practice? And I think, and we’ll get to that, I’m sure, there has been some really important events of last year, not least with the NetMundial plus 10 event that tried to codify, if you will, guidelines or best practices around how do you actually conduct multi-stakeholder process? How do you sort of live the principle, if you will? And that, again, is not to, you know, saying that there’s only one blueprint that is going to work everywhere and for everyone, but rather a set of guidelines that helps you sort of question, are we actually operating in accordance with this ideal of inclusiveness and participation from all stakeholders? So, looking forward to these discussions here, but I wanted to highlight that I think we should also look at processes that we don’t necessarily call multi-stakeholder process, but are de facto operating according to this vision.

Ellie McDonald: Thanks a lot, Carl. Yeah, really found that emphasis at the end useful, as well as the point and emphasis you put on the functional, not just the normative value. I find that really useful. I’d like to turn next to Jalak. I think Carl’s given us a really helpful, broad and global view. I know you have experience both at the global level, but also in national context. So, my question for you was perhaps reflecting what you’ve heard from Carl. How has the understanding of multi-stakeholder approach evolved over time? And particularly, what kind of differences do you see in how this concept is actualized on an international versus a national level?

Jhalak Kakkar: Multi-stakeholderism in various contexts, whether it’s internationally, domestically, across various domestic jurisdictions, we see a lot of variation, which is contextual to cultural norms, but also shifting socio-political realities. You know, I was talking to a colleague from the EU, and they were talking about how across the EU, they’ve seen a dip in the level of engagement with civil society on various processes. So, I mean, where in the past, sort of in many instances, legislation and policy coming out of there was held to a certain standard of having gone through multi-stakeholder processes. So, I think there, you know, at any given moment in time, there’s an ebb and flow that we constantly see. Of course, there is an ideal of multi-stakeholderism, which is grounded on principles, which all of us in the room know, things like openness, transparency, inclusiveness, the need for consensus building. I think when we talk about openness and transparency, that’s really the process and the foundation of it, which is that you want to ensure that it’s not a checkbox activity, that it’s actually meaningful, because very often in various country contexts, we see that this interaction with, and when we talk about multi-stakeholderism, who are the stakeholders, right? We’re talking about civil society academia, researchers, we’re talking about the technical community, we’re talking about local communities in various instances, but we’re talking about industry as well. And very often, interactions with industry tend to be meaningful, but with a lot of the other communities, it tends to be a checkbox activity. And then the question is, how do we design many of these processes to ensure that they’re actually meaningful engagement? There is sometimes a resistance in certain country contexts because they feel that engaging too deeply in these conversations opens them up to criticism. But I think one sort of approach and tactic that we have increasingly found useful, which goes back to the point made earlier, is to highlight the relevance and value of this engagement, that it’s useful and impactful in operationalizing and the broader objectives that a particular policy or legislation is seeking to live up to. So I think emphasizing on the usefulness, the functionality, is perhaps a hook that we, across the multi-stakeholder community, need to leverage and emphasize to decision makers to make them feel more comfortable around the value of continuing to engage with us. I think in terms of transparency, it’s sometimes challenging because I think it depends on regulatory capacity as well as financial capacity of various regulators and institutions, because a lot of transparency, there’s a certain basic level of transparency you always, of course, want. But many, you know, we, you know, as civil society, we asked, okay, as our academia, we ask, as a very minimum, we want all submissions that go to a government during a public call be published and put online, right? But what we also want is summaries of consultations that are held, points of convergence and divergence. And sometimes some of those things start to become a little more challenging. It can seem like a very small thing, but in a regulator or a government institution that is relatively low-resourced and managing many things, sometimes these kind of things, while the wish may be there, in practice, it becomes difficult to implement. But with increasing availability of AI technologies, I think we can think about how these can be strategically used to supplement and complement and provide, you know, support to decision makers to enable more transparency. I think there’s a question about consensus building, and I think there is where the multi-stakeholder model, sort of the value of it, where it moves beyond checkboxes, where you actually ensure that there is that consensus building happening. Because very often what we’re seeing is, increasingly, that a lot of sort of closed-door meetings between governments and industries, especially in the digital technology space, happening where civil society is not in the room. Fine, we may not always need to be in the room. There may be instances where it makes sense for them to talk one-on-one. But I think it is very often just a space which is created for civil society to share their views. But there is no consensus building that happens. There is no dialogue that happens both ways. It’s a one-time, one-and-done system, rather than a sort of an iterative process of feedback, which, you know, flows into the final decision making. So I think there is a need to really think through mechanisms that enable such consensus building to really, truly operationalize the multi-stakeholder model, many of which are articulated in things like the Sao Paulo Guidelines, the NetMundia, all things that have been mentioned before. But sort of highlighting these practices and systems to governments, regulators, ministries, that actually operationalizing these things on the ground is important, and to sort of highlight to them in a particular instances what are particular steps and actions they can take. Because very often, even if the intention is there, they don’t quite know how to operationalize and facilitate truly multi-stakeholder models. And we see that even within, you know, many UN agencies which have the intentionality but don’t always know how to operationalize it in practice. And the last thing I want to end with is inclusivity, right? And, you know, it’s at the domestic level, what I want to talk about is we need to be mindful of ensuring that there are diversity of perspectives, even within civil society, academia. There’s a whole spectrum of perspectives on the table, and we need to ensure, and governments and regulators need to ensure that they’re not only engaging with those who resonate with ideas of the government, but those who may have a different or critical stance. As well as, you know, engaging with marginalized groups or groups that don’t traditionally have an opportunity to come to the table. And I think at the international level, there’s an increasing recognition, I would say, in the last several years of the need for global voice, South voices to be spotlighted and heard. And it’s interesting that it comes at a moment when there is less funding available than ever before, perhaps, to actually facilitate these voices coming to the table. Of course, hybrid mechanisms are wonderful, but all of us know that the real negotiations and the real decision making doesn’t happen in a And then we have the panel. So in the process of making these conversations, as I said, it actually happens in conversations like this. It happens in the corridors. It happens in those little meeting rooms where if Global South leaders, thinkers, decision makers are not in the place physically, they are not being able to influence the final outcomes, right? So this is a starting point. But this is really not the process that actually finally influences and dictates the outcome in those international processes. So I want us to recognize that, that there is value, of course, in ensuring that, you know, you have voices from different parts of the world, you know, from different stakeholder groups sitting at the table, at public forums. But if you don’t have them in the corridors of Geneva and New York, you’re not actually going to get the outcomes, which truly reflect the needs of those regions, because they are not in the rooms where those decisions and negotiations and those strategy meetings are happening to really influence and shape what the digital world looks like and whether it reflects the realities of the regions they come from. I’ll stop there. Thanks so much. Yeah, I really appreciate your articulation of how the digital world is changing, and I think it’s a really important part of the conversation. I think it’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region.

Ellie McDonald: It’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region. And I think it’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region. I think it’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region. And I really appreciate your kind of how each of those principles, the kind of sticky point, but the kind of functional value that each of them have on the outcome. I’m really pleased that Ian, you’re speaking next because your government has direct very recent experience of managing a really structured process for input into the WSIS review process. So I wonder if you could reflect a little bit on that, maybe share that experience of how you’re taking the approach, and I’m thinking, you know, it’s not a one-size-fits-all. And I’m wondering if you could share that experience with us. Also, looking forward, yeah, based on having undertaken that structured multi-stakeholder engagement process, how do you think stakeholders could be more effectively integrated into this WSIS review?

Ian Sheldon: Thank you. My name is Ian Sheldon. I’m the director of the intergovernance team in the Australian government. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this panel. So Australia, as you know, is one of the most diverse countries in the world. So we have a lot of different stakeholders. We have a lot of different stakeholders. And we’re really excited to be here to talk about this panel. So Australia has had a long history of multi-stakeholder processes in our policy development, in the legislative work we do, in the regulatory work we do. A lot of it’s multi-stakeholder consultation. And we were very keen to be as transparent, open, and thorough as possible in our preparation processes for the WSIS review. We’re quite fortunate in Australia. We do have a small but highly engaged community who were following the WSIS review process. So we were very keen to be as transparent, open, and thorough as possible in our preparation processes for the WSIS review process. We do have a small but highly engaged community who were following these issues, who come from a broad suite of the technical community, civil society, academia, other parts of our government system, as well as a strong youth cohort, who are all already following a lot of these things. So we started our process reasonably early, with a couple of principles that underpinned our work. We wanted to make sure that we had a strong youth cohort who were already following a lot of these things. So we started our process reasonably early, with a couple of principles that underpinned our work. We wanted to make sure that the preparatory process was as open as possible. So there was a standing invitation for anybody from our community to join a multistakeholder working group, to take part in the preparatory process, to get briefings from us, as well as share what information they may be hearing from their communities about how the WSIS process is unfolding and what they might have been hearing. So we started our process reasonably early, with a couple of principles that underpinned our work. We wanted to make sure that we had a strong youth cohort who were already following a lot of these things. We wanted to make sure that there was transparency baked in. We know that a lot of this process can be quite murky. Governments don’t particularly do a great job of explaining some of our thought processes, some of the systems that we need to work in, how we structure a lot of our work. So we ran quite a number of workshops to help educate our local community on the mindset of government. What do these multilateral negotiations look like? How do they work together? How do they work together? What do these multilateral negotiations look like? What are the dynamics at play? What does a negotiating mandate look like? A lot of these things were foreign to our community, even though they’ve been following processes like WSIS for a while, opening the doors to really show some of our internal processes, really help them get their heads around what kind of positioning the Australian government might want to take through this work. I think that was a really kind of key piece of what we were trying to do. I think that was a key piece of what we were trying to do. That was a really kind of key turning point, and it really supercharged a lot of our community’s engagement and thought process in helping us structure our thinking. A lot of this culminated in the drafting of our non-paper. So the non-paper is a really good articulation of both the Australian government’s creative kind of forward-leaning thinking, as well as a lot of the ideas that our local community brought to us as well. So that was a key turning point. So that was a key turning point. So that was a key turning point. So it was really important that this document was as multi-stakeholder driven as possible. There was quite a number of drafting sessions. We shared early drafts with our community for their feedback. We had a lot of very frank discussions about what works, what doesn’t. And then we continued to have those discussions, both domestically as well as regionally and in the community. As well as regionally and globally as well. So for us, our multi-stakeholder community is both local and domestic, but we also drew very heavily on our regional and global communities as well. Particularly in a lot of spaces where they may not have those mechanisms in their own countries to provide their thoughts and thinking. And we’re very, very happy to leverage as much of this expertise and knowledge that they were very freely happy to share with us. So I think for us, we will continue to openly collaborate. Our negotiating mandate is still being worked through. A lot of our thinking, a lot of our positioning that will be taken through into the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations are being revised as we speak. Taking in feedback from this community, taking in feedback from our local community and really trying to help shape Australia’s direction to be as robust as possible. I have to say, it was hugely rewarding, but it was a lot of hard work. And I think it very much has paid off. If you haven’t seen the document, please come see me. I’m very happy to share a copy with you and very happy to hear if you get any other thoughts on how to improve some of our positioning for this. So I guess looking forward, and I think it’s hard going third because I think a lot of the comments I was going to make have already been made. Things like the NetMundial multi-stakeholder principles are fantastic starting points. I think there’s a real opportunity here for governments looking at both the review and the implementation of the WSIS review to try and look at opportunities to bring multi-stakeholders into their processes themselves. Sometimes it’s not always feasible. Sometimes there are governments with structures which may be incompatible to community-driven policymaking, but there are lots of opportunities for governments to themselves be part of that multi-stakeholder community to bring their views, their perspectives, and help influence some of those other broader policy discussions as well. The GAC at ICANN is a fantastic example of some of those processes in play. The IGF in Oslo, again, where everybody can come together on equal footing, are really good examples of reasonably accessible mechanisms for governments to take part and learn about the value of multi-stakeholders and see the conversations that can be had, how it can improve functional policymaking and broaden some of those horizons. I think going forward it’s important to find those forums and those bridging mechanisms for government to come to share their views, perspectives, and experience, as well as have that constructive two-way dialogue because I think it’s often hard for some governments to find those sensible points. Certainly, even if ICANN or ITF are too difficult, there are courses that ISOC run to help policymakers get their heads around this fantastic digital world, what might be on offer, and help make some of those personal connections, which I think makes multi-stakeholder participation a lot easier. I think there’s certainly a lot on offer and a lot of the successes and mechanisms in place over the last 20 years are going to be a lot of the same ones that I think will take us forward for the next 20. I might leave it there and we can come back to this later. Thank you.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you so much. I’ll just pick out one element. I find that you did capacity building with the stakeholders at the start, a really cool element. Maybe we could hear a bit more about that later. I’m going to turn to Thobekile now and perhaps Thobekile you could continue on this kind of forward-looking theme and I wonder it’d be lovely to hear from you and I think all of our speakers have already picked up on how multi stakeholder principles can be better embedded so maybe and carrying on with that trend and looking forward to the WSIS review and other digital governance processes and what do you think is important?

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much Ellie, I’ll repeat that I’m Thobekile Matimbe and I work for Paradigm Initiative which is an organization working across the African region promoting digital rights and digital inclusion. I think picking up from I think where Ian left I was just listening to Ian I was like wow this would be super cool where I come from because what we’re seeing I think at national level is that there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and it becomes so such a complex idea for some governments at this level to be able to grasp what we’re discussing because 20 years later we’re still you know trying to you know emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholderism and thankfully because of the NetMundial you know guidelines that are coming out of this it’s quite clear that it’s important what are the benefits they are immense when looking at transparency on policy processes transparency on even you know where government governments are participating in global processes around internet governance it’s very important for trust building and we did a research as Paradigm Initiative a project that we’re working in collaboration with the Global Network Initiative and GPD and we were doing consultations at country level and we particularly focus on Zambia and at that country level what we’re trying to do we brought different stakeholders in one room including the government’s technical community we had civil society organizations in the room and the media as well and you know there was a disconnect between what government was doing at global level it was clear in that meeting it was an open conversation and what was actually known at local level and there was no trust but once people began to have that openness and exchange of this is what we are doing there’s this process there was this process and this is what we’ve been trying to do over the years towards meeting the action lines and then everybody’s like why don’t you say so so it’s like let’s have a conversation so I think multi-stakeholderism is it’s it’s something that is supposed to come on board and build trust foster you know you know buy-in from communities especially when we’re looking at any information it’s a society that is people-centric it’s very important that becomes something that is supported and promoted so that specific engagement I think was just you know a sneak peek into what else is happening other countries at least on the African continent around transparency of you know these processes and engagement and it’s important to actually you know build the capacity as well of communities and on these issues because some of the things that we’re talking about in that engagement trust me people were not aware of what it was the media was also saying look we also left behind we’re not involved and it’s good that you know the government has been at least in Zambia been engaging a lot with the private sector a lot of public private partnerships ongoing but civil society not included in that whole process so inclusion I think it’s something that is very important in the conversation of multi-stakeholderism and not just inclusion in the sense of having you know certain groups of people in a room but actually enabling that there’s meaningful participation and I think that has been elaborated enough in the Sao Paulo guidelines the importance of ensuring that these you know access and also meaningful participation and I know that there was also one of the panelists talked about the importance of ensuring access and I think financing is something finances a very important subject matter to this whole conversation to have meaningful representation and participation of global South actors I think it’s important to talk about the issue of adequate resourcing for that to happen and access is something that is very critical and important I would add and I think one of the key takeaways I think from our specific engagement in Zambia was that it was important for government to be you know more out there reaching out and you know communicating whatever is happening and even consulting even when they do submit you know recommendations at global level those should have been ideally informed by consultations at local level you know where inputs are gathered from diverse stakeholders and yeah this is why I say I was really like saying wow you know when Ian was speaking about what what initiatives that they’ve been running out as well so I think there’s something that can be lent there and obviously in terms of engagement what is having stakeholders in the room what are the immense benefits and I think for me my focus basically was on the importance of you know articulating the importance of transparency at least in the processes in those global processes they would be better shaped with you know the voices of everyone being included.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you so much Ms. Thobekile Matimbe, I think that was really useful to set us up with a few different national and global contexts too for the discussion that will follow and so I think we should have time for some questions but before we open the floor perhaps would any of the panelists like to react to anything that they’ve heard briefly?

Carl Gahnberg: It’s very briefly and I think someone mentioned it but it’s really impressive to hear about the Australian government kind of educating about the process I think that’s something that is sometimes overlooked that we can talk about all we want about participation and ensuring people are included etc but having awareness about how the process is working go a really long way to to ensuring that that can work in practice so I thought that was really interesting to hear.

Ellie McDonald: Yeah, agreed. Elena, do we have any online questions? Great, well done Australia. So participants in the room, maybe we can take a few together, yeah. Jorge, go ahead. I’m sorry but I’m Jorge Cancios with government but this is a very exciting topic and I was very interested, well I found it great how you did things in Australia and I was wondering whether you did some documenting of the process that can be shareable and whether even if you made some mapping of that process with the self-governing multistakeholder guidelines which would be exceedingly great because yeah it’s important to really show how things can be done and we are trying to do that for the Swiss IGF to do some mapping of that and yeah there would be many things to cover but just one thought as a selling point to governments which is the stronger the process the stronger the outcomes and the more implementable they are. So in my country in Switzerland it’s a bit embedded in many processes because we have, if you look at process step 10 of the Sao Paulo multistakeholder guidelines, in Switzerland you have the community powers which is the people can struck down any law if they are not agreeing, if they were not consulted, if they were not included. Obviously it’s not perfect, it’s not everything can be improved and we had a very nice example like four or five years ago we had a EID law being produced in Switzerland with all the consultations, with everything that is in built for 20, 30, 40 years in in the Swiss legislative process but it wasn’t really inclusive in the sense of really incorporating all the interested stakeholders into the process itself so they felt excluded. They garnered 50,000 signatures and in the referendum the the option, the EID option was struck down and now they learned, our friends, our colleagues from the Ministry of Justice, that they had to really include stakeholders in a much more proactive fashion and now they have worked out a different law, a different approach and finally we have again a referendum because other people, because of different reasons, are against that approach which is a more public interest approach and we will have a vote at the end of this year so we will see if this time we got it right. Really interesting. Yeah, would you like to come in?

Ian Sheldon: I mean I think the idea of mapping the process is absolutely a fantastic one. Maybe when we get a bit of breathing room between forums, and we’re back in Australia, we’ll sit down and map out some of this. We had a concept of how we thought it should work going into it, and we tried to map some of that stuff early on, but doing a bit of analysis after we’ve tested some of the products I think is going to be useful, and very happy to compare notes. Just to pick up on your second point, multistakeholderism for us, there are a lot of virtues in inclusivity and making sure we have a breadth of perspectives, but it’s also one of necessity in de-risking. Coming back to more traditional policy-making processes, it’s making sure we didn’t have blind spots, it was de-risking future positioning, and like you said, making sure that the outcome and the output is as robust as possible. For us, we hear about the virtues of multistakeholderism, but really the value is in the product, and we really saw the quality of the product improve when we broadened out our consultation, our engagement, and so I don’t think we stress that point enough when we talk about governments making use of multistakeholder processes, because they are hard work, but the quality of policy output is immeasurably improved because of the process, and I think that’s one that sometimes gets lost in the wash when we talk about this approach. Thanks.

Ellie McDonald: Thanks a lot, Ian. Yeah, I was about to ask if we have questions, so maybe we’ll take Lea’s question, and then maybe the panellists can also wrap in your conclusive remarks too, but Lea, go ahead.

Lea Kaspar: Thank you, Ellie, and thanks, everyone. My name is Lea Kasper, I’m with Global Partners Digital. My question is going to be to you, Ian, as you’re a very rare breed in actually giving us a practical case study for operationalising something we’ve been talking about in theory for many, many years, which is why I think a lot of us are looking at you and really wanting to capture how you’ve been approaching this. As a long-standing member of the UK equivalent of what you’ve been trying to do, so the UK government has a multistakeholder internet governance group that’s a standing body, which also is convened to inform UK positions on internet governance, and goes all the way up to including UK non-governmental stakeholders into their delegations at ITU conferences and elsewhere. So besides the point that it would be really great to do a comparative study on how different governments have been operationalising this when it comes to multilateral processes, because I think that’s what we’re talking about now. As someone said at the beginning, maybe the rep from ISOC, it’s really going to depend, the operationalisation will depend on where you are at the national level, depending on which issue you’re dealing with. But if we’re talking about multilateral processes, and WSIS Review being an example of that, now hopefully it goes well. I have two small questions. One is, have you already considered including members of this working group that you’ve convened to become members of your delegation as we go into WSIS negotiations? So that’s one question. And then the other one is, what are your thoughts on expanding, I want to say, the model beyond internet governance issues, although I would say that all of these issues are internet governance issues, but internet-related public policy issues such as artificial intelligence, such as cybersecurity. If you have any thoughts on how we convince governments to go beyond just, say, WSIS Review and think more broadly about applying the model.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you.

Ian Sheldon: So to the first question, yes, absolutely. It’s something that we’re considering, and I think we’re very much waiting to see what the schedule looks like from here on, and then we can start to make more concrete plans about how we operationalise a mixed delegation. To your second point, I think, yes. So frankly speaking, internally within our system, we strongly champion this model. It’s a good way to approach policymaking. There are quite a lot of other complexities that we need to balance through this process. And also, I guess in other parts of the Australian government system, it’s one that’s been deployed on non-digital issues as well. Before I came to this file, I worked in employment policy, and we used, before I learned about multi-stakeholderism and the internet’s history, we were using a very similar approach to design employment policy using kind of a mixed cohort of a taskforce to go work through these challenges. So I think I bring that up to say that the model we’re talking about here isn’t particularly unique, and I think there’s work to be done to find those common touchpoints with other policy processes that already exist in other parts of government, and try to use language that may be similar or align those processes to show that what we’re talking about here and the successes we’ve had here aren’t necessarily completely foreign to other challenges as well. So I think it’s, in theory, a lot easier to import this model to other digital challenges, but it’s something that we’re certainly turning our minds to domestically.

Ellie McDonald: Thanks. Thanks, Ian. I know we should wrap up, but I want to bring in the other panellists. I wonder if there’s anything you’d like to reflect on from what you’ve heard. But I also think that question of the kind of broader internet-related public policies and embedding these approaches there is a really interesting one. So if you’d like to reflect on that or just anything else you’ve heard, and I can save us some time. I won’t do closing remarks. So, yeah.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much, Ellie. I think my last reflections will just be that enabling and also strengthening, I mean, stakeholder models is very important. It’s important for fostering trust, and it’s also important for buy-in and support for implementation of whatever outcomes, from global processes all the way to national level.

Jhalak Kakkar: Yeah, I want to say I’m thankful for this community, because every time we sit down and talk about these things, I always learn so much, which is useful to take back into our own domestic context and sort of try to operationalise and seed, so that in future, we have a more robust mechanism feeding into these processes.

Carl Gahnberg: Yeah, thank you very much. I think just kind of concluding remarks, I would say kind of two messages that I want to leave the room with. The first one is really to consider multi-stakeholder process, sort of the value of it really beyond just the agenda setting and also to the implementation. I think that’s really, really important and sometimes get a little bit lost. And the second part is that there is a value of this information exchange that we’re doing now. We learned about the Australian case, for instance, about some practices there. And I think it’s, in a way, it’s kind of to be, I don’t know, have a positive outlook to these efforts and have a little bit of leeway when they’re trying to be implemented. And I think the NetMundial principles are quite, or guidelines are quite helpful in that they’re kind of helping you do better. And the model that worked in Australia for this consultation, I think that can inspire other countries to do something similar. It doesn’t have to be identical, but it might further improve it or try to do something similar. So to kind of have a glass half full type of approach and recognize that I think many actors are trying to do the right thing. It’s not always easy to put multi-stakeholder into practice. The guidelines are helpful for that. But to recognize that it’s kind of a principle that we’re striving for. We might never sort of reach perfection, but getting there is part of the implementation.

Ellie McDonald: Truly thanks to the panelists. I think we’ve had this conversation a lot this week, so it can sometimes feel tedious, but I think you’ve really brought some fresh and new ideas. And I think chronicling how this all goes and hearing more about all of these cases when we do have a breath of fresh air will be really useful. And we hope also that GNI GPD project, which is fostering some national level consultations that Ms. Thobekile Matimbe mentioned, the one in Zambia. We hope we can also share some of the results from that. So thank you, everyone. Wishing you a good rest of your day. Thank you. Recording stopped. Thank you for tuning in.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance as a principle rather than a rigid model

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance is fundamentally a principle of governance about how we exercise governance, not just one specific model

Different institutions like ICANN, ITF, IGF can all operate according to multi-stakeholder principles but implement them differently

The model can be expanded by finding common touchpoints with existing policy processes in other government areas

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that multi-stakeholder governance should be understood as a flexible principle that can be implemented in various ways across different institutions and contexts, rather than a one-size-fits-all model.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Importance of capacity building and education in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Government education about multi-stakeholder processes and their value is essential for broader adoption

The Australian process included capacity building to help stakeholders understand government processes and multilateral negotiations

Multi-stakeholder approaches foster trust building and buy-in for implementation of outcomes

Summary

All three speakers agree that educating stakeholders about processes and building their capacity to participate meaningfully is crucial for successful multi-stakeholder governance implementation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Multi-stakeholder processes extend beyond agenda-setting to implementation

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance extends beyond agenda-setting events to real-world implementation at local and regional levels

Multi-stakeholder approaches foster trust building and buy-in for implementation of outcomes

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that multi-stakeholder engagement is not just about having seats at negotiation tables but about ensuring stakeholder involvement in actual implementation of policies and outcomes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Transparency as a fundamental requirement for meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Ian Sheldon
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Transparency requires publishing submissions, consultation summaries, and points of convergence/divergence

Australia implemented a structured multi-stakeholder process for WSIS review with transparency, education, and open participation

There’s often a disconnect between what governments do at global level and what’s known at local level, creating trust issues

Summary

All three speakers agree that transparency in processes, including publishing submissions and maintaining open communication, is essential for building trust and enabling meaningful participation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from Global South contexts highlight the challenge of superficial engagement with civil society and other non-industry stakeholders, contrasting meaningful industry engagement with checkbox exercises for other communities.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of adequate funding and physical presence for Global South stakeholders to have real influence in international processes, not just token participation.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Physical presence in negotiation spaces like Geneva and New York is crucial for actual influence on outcomes

Meaningful participation requires adequate resourcing and financing, especially for Global South representation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers represent developed country approaches that have institutionalized multi-stakeholder engagement through formal structures and processes, including stakeholder participation in official delegations.

Speakers

– Ian Sheldon
– Lea Kaspar

Arguments

Australia implemented a structured multi-stakeholder process for WSIS review with transparency, education, and open participation

UK government has established a standing multistakeholder internet governance group that informs UK positions and includes non-governmental stakeholders in delegations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Multi-stakeholder processes already exist but are not labeled as such

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon

Arguments

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

The model can be expanded by finding common touchpoints with existing policy processes in other government areas

Explanation

Both speakers recognize that multi-stakeholder approaches are already being used in various contexts (community networks, employment policy) without being formally labeled as such. This suggests the model is more widely applicable and already practiced than commonly recognized.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Functional value of multi-stakeholder processes for policy quality

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon
– Jhalak Kakkar

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes should focus on enabling participation of users, producers, and developers in the governance of digital systems

Multi-stakeholder processes improve policy quality and help de-risk future positioning for governments

True multi-stakeholder models require consensus building and iterative feedback processes, not one-time consultations

Explanation

There’s unexpected consensus across different stakeholder perspectives (technical community, government, civil society) that multi-stakeholder processes have clear functional benefits beyond just normative ideals – they actually produce better policy outcomes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on fundamental principles of multi-stakeholder governance, including its value as a flexible principle rather than rigid model, the importance of transparency and capacity building, and the need for meaningful rather than superficial engagement. There’s also agreement on practical challenges, particularly around funding and inclusion of Global South voices.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on principles and challenges, with constructive differences mainly around implementation approaches based on different national contexts. This strong agreement suggests a mature understanding of multi-stakeholder governance that could inform future WSIS review processes and broader digital governance initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Current state of multi-stakeholder implementation globally

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Summary

Gahnberg presents an optimistic view suggesting multi-stakeholder processes are already happening frequently but aren’t recognized as such, while Matimbe presents a more challenging reality where governments, particularly in Africa, struggle to understand or prioritize multi-stakeholder approaches even 20 years after WSIS

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Effectiveness of current engagement mechanisms

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Carl Gahnberg

Arguments

Engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

Summary

Kakkar emphasizes systemic problems with current engagement being superficial checkbox exercises, while Gahnberg focuses on successful examples that demonstrate the approach is working in practice

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs. realism about multi-stakeholder progress

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are advocates for multi-stakeholder approaches, yet they present fundamentally different assessments of current progress. Gahnberg’s optimistic framing suggests the approach is already working but needs better recognition, while Matimbe’s experience suggests basic understanding and implementation remain significant challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers showed remarkable consensus on principles and goals of multi-stakeholder governance, with disagreements primarily centered on assessment of current implementation effectiveness and regional variations in progress

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers fundamentally agree on the importance and value of multi-stakeholder approaches but differ in their assessment of how well these approaches are currently working in practice. This suggests a mature field where practitioners agree on direction but have different experiences with implementation challenges, which could actually strengthen collective advocacy by providing multiple perspectives on the same goals

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from Global South contexts highlight the challenge of superficial engagement with civil society and other non-industry stakeholders, contrasting meaningful industry engagement with checkbox exercises for other communities.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of adequate funding and physical presence for Global South stakeholders to have real influence in international processes, not just token participation.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Physical presence in negotiation spaces like Geneva and New York is crucial for actual influence on outcomes

Meaningful participation requires adequate resourcing and financing, especially for Global South representation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers represent developed country approaches that have institutionalized multi-stakeholder engagement through formal structures and processes, including stakeholder participation in official delegations.

Speakers

– Ian Sheldon
– Lea Kaspar

Arguments

Australia implemented a structured multi-stakeholder process for WSIS review with transparency, education, and open participation

UK government has established a standing multistakeholder internet governance group that informs UK positions and includes non-governmental stakeholders in delegations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder governance should be viewed as a principle of governance rather than a single rigid model, allowing for different implementation approaches across various institutions and contexts

Successful multi-stakeholder processes extend beyond agenda-setting meetings to real-world implementation at local and regional levels, with many effective projects already operating under multi-stakeholder principles without being formally labeled as such

Australia’s structured approach to WSIS review preparation demonstrates the practical value of multi-stakeholder processes, including transparency, capacity building for stakeholders, and iterative consultation that improved policy quality and helped de-risk government positioning

Meaningful participation requires more than checkbox consultations – it needs consensus building, iterative feedback processes, adequate financing (especially for Global South participation), and physical presence in key negotiation spaces

Multi-stakeholder approaches provide both normative value (inclusivity, transparency) and functional value (better outcomes, trust building, implementation buy-in), with the functional benefits often being more persuasive to governments

There are significant disparities in multi-stakeholder implementation between regions, with some African countries showing limited prioritization while others like Australia demonstrate comprehensive engagement models

The NetMundial guidelines and São Paulo principles provide helpful frameworks for operationalizing multi-stakeholder processes, offering practical guidance for governments unsure how to implement these approaches

Resolutions and action items

Australia committed to considering including multi-stakeholder working group members in their WSIS negotiation delegation

Australia agreed to document and map their multi-stakeholder process for sharing with other governments, potentially comparing with NetMundial guidelines

GNI and GPD project will continue fostering national-level consultations and share results from ongoing work including the Zambia case study

Participants agreed to continue information exchange and learning from successful models like Australia’s approach to inspire similar efforts in other countries

Unresolved issues

How to secure adequate financing for meaningful Global South participation in international processes, especially given reduced funding availability

How to move beyond checkbox consultations to genuine consensus-building mechanisms in countries with limited multi-stakeholder traditions

How to scale multi-stakeholder approaches beyond internet governance to broader digital policy areas like AI and cybersecurity

How to address the disconnect between global-level government participation and local-level awareness and engagement

How to ensure meaningful inclusion of marginalized groups and diverse perspectives within civil society and academia

How to build regulatory capacity in resource-constrained environments to enable transparency and meaningful consultation processes

Suggested compromises

Recognition that multi-stakeholder implementation doesn’t need to be identical across contexts – countries can adapt the principles to their specific cultural, political, and resource constraints

Acknowledgment that perfect multi-stakeholder processes may not be achievable, but incremental improvements toward the principle are valuable

Suggestion to leverage AI technologies to supplement government capacity for transparency and consultation processes where resources are limited

Proposal to find common touchpoints between multi-stakeholder approaches and existing policy processes in other government areas to ease adoption

Recognition that some closed-door government-industry meetings may be necessary, but these should be balanced with inclusive multi-stakeholder processes

When we talk about multi-stakeholder governance, we’re really talking about a principle of governance, about how we exercise governance… there could be very different models for implementing governance towards the same principle… what we’re really talking about is a principle around fundamentally allowing for participation of the users, producers, developers of this digital system to be part of the governance of that system.

Speaker

Carl Gahnberg

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between multi-stakeholderism as a principle versus specific models of implementation. It moves the conversation away from rigid structural debates toward flexible, principle-based thinking that can adapt to different contexts.

Impact

This foundational insight set the tone for the entire discussion, allowing subsequent speakers to explore contextual variations without getting trapped in ‘one-size-fits-all’ thinking. It enabled Ian to later discuss Australia’s unique approach and Jhalak to explore regional variations as legitimate expressions of the same principle.

The actual governance process is happening outside of this room, it’s happening after the event, it’s happening at the local, the regional levels… it’s not only to have a seat at the table at negotiations and discussions such as this one, but it’s really about enabling multiple stakeholders to be part of the implementation process as well.

Speaker

Carl Gahnberg

Reason

This comment challenges the common assumption that multi-stakeholder governance is primarily about formal meetings and negotiations. It highlights the critical but often overlooked implementation phase where real governance happens.

Impact

This insight shifted the discussion toward practical implementation examples. It directly influenced Thobekile’s later emphasis on national-level engagement in Zambia and Ian’s focus on Australia’s domestic consultation process, moving the conversation from theoretical to practical applications.

We ran quite a number of workshops to help educate our local community on the mindset of government. What do these multilateral negotiations look like? How do they work? What are the dynamics at play? What does a negotiating mandate look like? A lot of these things were foreign to our community… opening the doors to really show some of our internal processes, really help them get their heads around what kind of positioning the Australian government might want to take.

Speaker

Ian Sheldon

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial but rarely discussed element: the need for capacity building and transparency about government processes themselves. It recognizes that meaningful participation requires understanding how the system works.

Impact

This insight became a focal point for the remainder of the discussion. Multiple participants, including Carl and Jorge, specifically praised this approach. It introduced the concept of ‘educating stakeholders about process’ as a prerequisite for meaningful engagement, which hadn’t been explicitly discussed before.

There was a disconnect between what government was doing at global level… and what was actually known at local level and there was no trust but once people began to have that openness and exchange of this is what we are doing there’s this process… everybody’s like why don’t you say so so it’s like let’s have a conversation.

Speaker

Thobekile Matimbe

Reason

This comment reveals a fundamental problem in multi-stakeholder governance: the disconnect between global participation and local awareness. It shows how transparency can immediately build trust and engagement.

Impact

This observation validated and expanded on the Australian model Ian described, showing its relevance across different contexts. It reinforced the importance of transparency and communication, and led to broader discussion about trust-building as a core function of multi-stakeholder processes.

If Global South leaders, thinkers, decision makers are not in the place physically, they are not being able to influence the final outcomes… if you don’t have them in the corridors of Geneva and New York, you’re not actually going to get the outcomes, which truly reflect the needs of those regions, because they are not in the rooms where those decisions and negotiations and those strategy meetings are happening.

Speaker

Jhalak Kakkar

Reason

This comment exposes a critical limitation of current multi-stakeholder approaches by highlighting the gap between formal inclusion and actual influence. It challenges the assumption that hybrid participation or formal representation equals meaningful participation.

Impact

This insight introduced a more critical perspective on the limitations of current approaches, balancing the optimistic examples shared by other speakers. It brought issues of power, resources, and genuine influence to the forefront, adding depth and realism to the discussion about what effective multi-stakeholder governance actually requires.

The stronger the process the stronger the outcomes and the more implementable they are… multistakeholderism for us, there are a lot of virtues in inclusivity and making sure we have a breadth of perspectives, but it’s also one of necessity in de-risking… the quality of policy output is immeasurably improved because of the process.

Speaker

Jorge Cancios and Ian Sheldon

Reason

This exchange shifts the justification for multi-stakeholder approaches from normative (it’s the right thing to do) to functional (it produces better results). This pragmatic framing makes the approach more appealing to skeptical governments.

Impact

This functional framing provided a new lens through which to view all the previous examples and challenges discussed. It offered a practical argument that governments could use internally to justify multi-stakeholder approaches, potentially addressing some of the resistance issues mentioned by other speakers.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it from theoretical advocacy for multi-stakeholder governance toward practical, nuanced implementation strategies. Carl’s opening reframing established multi-stakeholderism as a flexible principle rather than a rigid model, which enabled subsequent speakers to share diverse approaches without contradiction. Ian’s transparency about Australia’s capacity-building approach introduced a concrete model that other participants could reference and adapt. Thobekile’s Zambia example and Jhalak’s critique of Global South exclusion added important reality checks about current limitations, while the functional arguments provided pragmatic justifications for the approach. Together, these comments created a rich, multi-layered discussion that acknowledged both the potential and limitations of multi-stakeholder governance, while providing concrete pathways for improvement. The conversation evolved from ‘why multi-stakeholderism matters’ to ‘how to make it work effectively in different contexts,’ which represents a significant maturation of the discourse.

How can multi-stakeholder principles be better documented and mapped against established guidelines like the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines?

Speaker

Jorge Cancios

Explanation

This would help demonstrate practical implementation of multi-stakeholder processes and provide replicable models for other governments to follow

What are the specific mechanisms and steps that can enable true consensus building in multi-stakeholder processes rather than just checkbox consultations?

Speaker

Jhalak Kakkar

Explanation

Many processes currently involve one-way information sharing rather than iterative dialogue and consensus building, which limits the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder engagement

How can AI technologies be strategically used to supplement transparency and support decision-makers in multi-stakeholder processes?

Speaker

Jhalak Kakkar

Explanation

This could help address resource constraints that prevent regulators from providing adequate transparency in consultation processes

How can adequate financing be secured to enable meaningful participation of Global South actors in international processes?

Speaker

Thobekile Matimbe

Explanation

Physical presence is crucial for real influence in international negotiations, but funding limitations prevent Global South participation in corridor conversations where actual decisions are made

How can the Australian multi-stakeholder model be expanded beyond internet governance to other internet-related public policy issues like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity?

Speaker

Lea Kaspar

Explanation

This would demonstrate the broader applicability of multi-stakeholder approaches across different digital policy domains

What would a comparative study of different governments’ approaches to operationalizing multi-stakeholder processes in multilateral contexts reveal?

Speaker

Lea Kaspar

Explanation

This could identify best practices and common challenges across different national approaches to multi-stakeholder engagement

How can multi-stakeholder processes that aren’t formally labeled as such be made more visible and recognized?

Speaker

Carl Gahnberg

Explanation

Many effective multi-stakeholder collaborations exist but aren’t recognized as such, which limits their potential as models for replication

What are the common touchpoints between multi-stakeholder approaches in digital policy and similar collaborative approaches in other policy areas?

Speaker

Ian Sheldon

Explanation

Identifying these connections could help demonstrate that multi-stakeholder approaches aren’t foreign to other government processes and facilitate broader adoption

Summary

This panel discussion focused on achieving inclusive and sustainable digital transformation twenty years after the World Summit on the Information Society, examining how governments can ensure universal connectivity and effective e-governance. The session featured representatives from Costa Rica, Kuwait, Colombia, Uruguay, and a global AI ethics expert discussing their countries’ approaches to digital inclusion and the challenges they face.

Costa Rica’s Vice Minister highlighted their journey from 10% to 85% internet connectivity, emphasizing investments in rural and indigenous communities while acknowledging ongoing challenges with 29% of indigenous populations still lacking coverage. Kuwait’s representative showcased their citizen-centered approach through the Sahm application, which serves 2.8 million users and processes over 100 million transactions, demonstrating how co-creation with citizens can drive successful digital services. Colombia’s regulatory expert emphasized the importance of having a comprehensive national digital strategy with eight pillars, including connectivity, AI, and digital security, while implementing flexible regulatory frameworks that support community operators serving fewer than 5,000 users.

Uruguay’s representative drew a crucial distinction between digital inclusion and equity, noting that while 96-98% of citizens have internet access through nationwide fiber optic coverage, only 64% actively use e-government services. This highlighted the challenge of moving beyond mere connectivity to actual digital literacy and meaningful usage. The AI ethics expert from EY emphasized the need for robust assessment frameworks and transparent governance systems, noting that citizen confidence in government AI use remains low across 15 surveyed countries. The discussion concluded that successful digital transformation requires not just infrastructure investment but also comprehensive strategies addressing digital literacy, inclusive design, and transparent governance frameworks to ensure no citizen is left behind in the digital age.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Digital Infrastructure and Universal Connectivity**: Countries shared their progress and challenges in achieving universal internet access, with Costa Rica highlighting their journey from 10% to 85% connectivity, while still facing gaps in indigenous communities and low-income populations. The focus was on balancing public and private investment to reach underserved areas.

– **Inclusive and User-Centric Digital Services**: Kuwait presented their approach to designing government digital services that serve all citizens, emphasizing their “Sahm” platform that processes millions of transactions monthly. The discussion centered on making e-government services accessible across different demographics, languages, and digital literacy levels.

– **Regulatory Frameworks for Rural and Community Connectivity**: Colombia outlined their multi-stakeholder national digital strategy with eight pillars, highlighting special regulatory measures for community operators serving fewer than 5,000 users in rural areas, including reduced regulatory burdens and differentiated technical requirements.

– **Digital Inclusion vs. Digital Equity**: Uruguay distinguished between having access to digital infrastructure (inclusion) and actually using digital services effectively (equity), noting that while 96-98% have connectivity, only 60-64% actively use e-government services, emphasizing the need for digital literacy beyond just infrastructure.

– **AI Governance and Assessment in Government**: The discussion addressed the challenges governments face in implementing AI and digital technologies responsibly, with emphasis on the need for transparent assessment frameworks, third-party evaluations, and clear communication to build citizen trust in government AI systems.

**Overall Purpose:**

This panel discussion aimed to evaluate progress made 20 years after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), examining how different countries are addressing digital transformation challenges while ensuring inclusive, equitable, and people-centered digital governance. The session focused on sharing best practices and identifying ongoing challenges in achieving universal digital access and effective e-government services.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with panelists sharing both successes and ongoing challenges in a solution-oriented manner. The atmosphere was professional yet optimistic, with speakers building upon each other’s insights rather than debating. The tone remained consistently forward-looking, emphasizing shared learning and international cooperation, culminating in a collegial photo session that reinforced the collaborative spirit of the discussion.

Speakers

– **Yuhan Zheng**: Moderator/Host of the panel discussion

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

– **Laial Almansoury**: Chief of the Infrastructure, Operations, Communication and Information Technology Regulatory Authority, Minister of Communication Affairs at Kuwait

– **Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio**: Executive Director of the Commissioners of the CRC (Communications Regulation Commission) in Colombia

– **Daniel Mordecki**: Executive Director of AGESIC (Government Information Society and Knowledge Agency), Uruguay

– **Ansgar Koene**: Global AI Ethics and Regulatory Leader at EY

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Report: Achieving Inclusive and Sustainable Digital Transformation – Twenty Years After WSIS

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Yuhan Zheng, brought together government representatives from Costa Rica, Kuwait, Colombia, and Uruguay, alongside a global AI ethics expert, to examine progress in digital transformation twenty years after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The session focused on how governments can ensure universal connectivity and effective e-governance while addressing ongoing challenges of digital inclusion and equity.

The discussion highlighted both significant progress in digital infrastructure and persistent challenges in ensuring meaningful digital participation. Speakers shared their countries’ approaches to digital transformation, revealing common themes around citizen-centered design, regulatory innovation, and the need for targeted approaches to reach underserved communities.

## Key Participants and Their Contributions

### Costa Rica’s Investment in Digital Skills

Hubert Vargas Picado, Vice Minister of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications, explained Costa Rica’s unique strategic approach: “As a small country with no commodities like oil or minerals, we decided that the business of military deterrence was not ours 80 years ago. So, because of that, we abolished our army, and that has allowed us to invest a lot in education and more recently in digital skills, because we believe that our oil, specifically our talent.”

This strategic choice has enabled Costa Rica to advance from 10% to 85% internet connectivity and achieve 99% mobile coverage through public investment. However, significant challenges remain: 29% of indigenous communities are still uncovered and 42% of below-poverty populations cannot afford connectivity. Costa Rica has implemented a 5G tender that subsidizes spectrum costs by up to 90% while requiring operators to expand infrastructure to the 134 most unconnected districts.

### Kuwait’s Citizen-Centered Digital Services

Laial Almansoury, Chief of Infrastructure Operations at Kuwait’s Communication and Information Technology Regulatory Authority, emphasized Kuwait’s citizen-centered approach to digital transformation. She noted that “the most impactful digital solutions are built with the citizen, not merely for them,” highlighting the importance of co-creation in service design.

This philosophy has been implemented through Kuwait’s Sahm platform, which serves 2.8 million users and processes over 100 million transactions, offering more than 450 services from 40 government agencies. Kuwait has also launched initiatives like the “Born’s Journey” providing integrated digital services throughout a citizen’s lifecycle, and the Sahel business platform launched in 2022.

### Colombia’s Multi-Pillar Strategy and Regulatory Innovation

Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio, Executive Director of the Commissioners of Colombia’s Communications Regulation Commission, outlined Colombia’s national digital strategy built on eight pillars including connectivity, AI, digital transformation, capacity building, and digital security. The country emphasizes collaborative regulation and multi-stakeholder approaches.

Colombia has implemented innovative regulatory frameworks, including special measures for community operators serving fewer than 5,000 users in rural areas. These operators benefit from differentiated regulatory requirements designed to support digital inclusion in underserved communities. The country also employs regulatory sandboxes to foster innovation while maintaining appropriate oversight.

### Uruguay’s Digital Inclusion vs. Digital Equity Challenge

Daniel Mordecki, Executive Director of Uruguay’s Government Information Society and Knowledge Agency (AGESIC), presented a critical distinction between digital inclusion and digital equity. Despite Uruguay’s achievement of 96-98% digital inclusion through nationwide fiber optic coverage and zero-cost basic internet access, only 60-64% of citizens actively use e-government services.

Mordecki observed: “The problem is equity and equality of access when you look at index of usage of public administration and e-government services, those numbers reach about 60-ish, 64%. So between 30 and 35 people do have the devices, do have the access, do have the connection. They use it every day, but they don’t significantly use it in order to access e-services… That is not resolved with money nor infrastructure. We need to change their chip, their way they think.”

He illustrated this with examples of citizens who use smartphones for entertainment and GPS services but don’t utilize government digital services, highlighting that technical access doesn’t guarantee meaningful participation.

### Global AI Ethics and Citizen Trust

Ansgar Koene, Global AI Ethics and Regulatory Leader at EY, shared findings from research across 15 countries showing consistently low citizen confidence in government AI use. He emphasized the need for robust assessment frameworks and third-party evaluations for AI implementation in government services.

Koene stressed that “clear standards and well-communicated frameworks are essential for AI assessment in government services, with proper risk management and quality assurance systems to ensure technology works for all citizens.” He also highlighted the importance of making AI systems comprehensible to citizens, not just transparent.

## Common Themes Discussed

### Infrastructure as Foundation, Not Complete Solution

Multiple speakers acknowledged that while infrastructure investment is fundamental, it alone is insufficient for meaningful digital participation. Uruguay’s experience particularly illustrated this point, showing that high connectivity rates don’t automatically translate to high usage of digital services.

### Citizen-Centered Approaches

Both Kuwait and other speakers emphasized the importance of designing digital services with citizens rather than simply for them. This involves understanding citizen needs and involving them in the design process of digital services.

### Targeted Approaches for Underserved Communities

Costa Rica and Colombia both demonstrated the need for special measures to reach underserved populations. Costa Rica’s focus on indigenous communities and below-poverty groups, combined with Colombia’s differentiated regulatory measures for rural community operators, showed recognition that universal approaches may not address specific barriers faced by different communities.

## Challenges Identified

### Reaching Marginalized Populations

Despite progress, all countries continue to face challenges in reaching their most marginalized populations, whether due to geographic isolation, economic barriers, or other factors.

### Moving Beyond Access to Usage

Uruguay’s experience highlighted the challenge of ensuring that digital access translates into meaningful usage of government services. This involves addressing not just technical barriers but also behavioral and cultural factors.

### Building Trust in Government AI

The research presented by Koene revealed a significant trust gap between government AI implementation and citizen acceptance, suggesting the need for better communication and governance frameworks around AI use in public services.

## Conclusion

Twenty years after WSIS, this discussion revealed both significant achievements and ongoing challenges in digital transformation. While countries have made substantial progress in expanding digital infrastructure and services, ensuring meaningful digital participation for all citizens remains a complex challenge requiring approaches that go beyond technical solutions.

The distinction between digital inclusion and digital equity emerged as a key insight, while the emphasis on citizen-centered design and regulatory innovation provided examples of how governments are adapting their approaches to address these challenges. The session concluded with a photo opportunity, reflecting the collaborative spirit of international cooperation in addressing digital transformation challenges.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much for giving the floor. And now, first, let’s welcome all the distinguished panellists on stage. Yuran? Great. So, we have all the speakers here with us today. And so, Excellency and distinguished delegates and all the digital innovators, 20 years ago, after the WSIS first invention of a people-centred digital future, we stand at an inflection point. The promise of click to governance is more than just connectivity. It requires design to transform the e-services that energise the equity. And also, today, we confront more issues linked with sustainability, AI, and a lot of geopolitical tensions. So, now, our leaders across the world gather here to solve this question together with us together. So, now, we have Excellency Vargas Picado, the Vice Minister of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications from Costa Rica. And welcome. And then, we have Ms Laial Almansoury, the Chief of the Infrastructure, Operations, Communication and Information Technology Regulatory Authority, the Minister of Communication Affairs at Kuwait. And now, we have from Colombia, Dr Bustamante Osorio, the Executive Directors of the Commissioners of the CRC in Colombia. And also, we have, you will agree, Mr Mordecki, the Executive Directors of AGESIC, the Government Information Society and Knowledge Agency. And also, we have from EY, Dr Koene, the Global EIS and Regulatory Leaders. So, welcome, all. Now, we would like to begin this session by starting with the question to Costa Rica. So, 20 years ago, the World Summit on the Information Society defined a set of action lines aimed at guiding international cooperation towards a more inclusive, equitable, and people-centered information society. In this context, and two decades later, what are the key challenges that Costa Rica still faces in ensuring the minimal and truly universal connectivity? Additionally, how has the country succeeded in striking a balance between public and private investment in the development of the digital infrastructure over the course of the process? Now, you have the floor.

Hubert Vargas Picado: Good morning, everybody. Costa Rica was particularly guided 20 years ago by the C2 action line. We have invested a lot in terms of infrastructure, not only in urban areas, that is quite natural because of market reasons, but investing specifically in indigenous populations, indigenous communities, and the rural areas. Because of geography, besides our small size, we have a lot of communities that are quite remote. As a small country with no commodities like oil or minerals, we decided that the business of military deterrence was not ours 80 years ago. So, because of that, we abolished our army, and that has allowed us to invest a lot in education and more recently in digital skills, because we believe that our oil, specifically our talent. So, guided by that approach, we have guided our policy, even like a state policy, to increase connectivity. To increase from 20 years ago, we had only 10% of our population connected to the internet. We currently have 85%. And in terms of mobile internet, we actually cover 99% of the population. And besides that good news, the challenges remain specifically in the 29% of indigenous communities that we actually don’t cover recently, and 42% of our below-poverty line that it is quite hard for them to actually pay for connectivity. So, we designed 5G tender recently that is specifically focused on increasing industrial use cases, but we subsidize the cost of the spectrum up to 90%, and we obligated the operators to increase one-third of the current infrastructure in the 134 most unconnected districts in our country, focusing on 5G with great downlink and uplink requirements in those communities that currently they basically only have 3G, or even not 3G at all. So, our focus is continuing developing skills, but also reaching the communities that, besides our recent investment, we are lacking to cover in the last two years. And because of that, we will have a change in two, four and six years, really good plan, and I’m excited to update this in at least two years.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much for this very informative keynote, and also you mentioned one of the most important elements, indigenous, is also important in every realm, including AI, sustainability, and a lot. And also one more thing is that how you create the empowering environment for the young people, for the future generation, to really have the last, to reach the last mile. So now, my next questions would like to go to Kuwait. So, Ms Almansoury, how can governments ensure that the design and delivery of the digital public service are both inclusive and user-centric, especially in rapidly evolving digital ecosystem like your country?

Laial Almansoury: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. It’s an honor, first, to address this respected forum of the state of Kuwait. To answer this question on how to ensure that digital public services are both inclusive and user-centric, it’s not merely a technical one, it reflects our shared commitment to building fair and resilient societies for the future. In Kuwait, our digital transformation is guided by a clear and consistent principle, technology, that must serve everyone. We consider the delivery of inclusive and efficient e-service not only a matter of convenience, but a social responsibility, and a cornerstone of our International Development Agenda as set forth in Kuwait 2035. So to realize the vision, inclusivity is not an afterthought, it is a fundamental design. Our approach is rooted in a citizen-centered technology and methodology. We actively engage with our citizens to co-create the services they need. We believe the most impactful digital solutions are built with the citizen, not merely for them. So this means ensuring the accessibility for elderly and disabilities, supporting multiple languages and designing interfaces that are user-friendly across all level of digital proficiency. A prime example of this approach is our unified government application called Sahm, which launched in 2021 with 13 government entities offering around 123 services. Sahm has evolved into a thriving digital ecosystem. Today it serves over 2.8 million users, has processed more than 100 million transactions and provides over 450 services from 40 government agencies with an average of 4.5 million transactions per month. We continue to improve users’ experience. One example is the new Born’s Journey, the first integrated digital service that combines seven government procedures into one seamless process. Supporting Kuwait’s dynamic economy, we launched the Sahel business in 2022. So the platform, that’s why the platform as the WSIS are invaluable for us. They allow us to exchange insights, learn from international best practices and collaborate on shaping a global digital future. So thank you everyone.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much, it’s very useful and to know the Sahel, it’s good to know that because currently the e-government, of course it’s a trend, but how to make sure that the user’s experience is also good, I think it’s a matter to all, we’re standing here across the different regions. So now I would like to dive deep a little bit further, not only the citizen but also the rural community. So the next questions will go to Columbia, so what do you consider to be the most relevant regulatory and cooperation element to accelerate inclusive and sustainable digitalization, exposing connectivity gaps in rural areas, leveraging those digital services and also improving the relationship between the government and citizens? Thank you.

Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio: Thank you, it’s an honor to be here. I will emphasize two main points. One is to have a national digital strategy, because this is a work for many different entities and it’s a multi-stakeholder approach. Our digital strategy in Columbia has eight pillars, connectivity, data analytics and interoperability, trust and digital security, capacity building, AI and emerging technologies, public sector digital transformation, digital economy or business development, and digital society. With these pillars in mind, all the different entities work to have the goals reached to close the connectivity gap and, of course, increase the digital services. When we talk about regulation, that is the second point, the CRC promotes a flexible, prospective and inclusive approach. We apply state-of-the-art methodologies and regulatory tools to have all the knowledge and the perspective for the evolving ecosystems. For instance, we use regulatory sandboxes, collaborative regulation and promote the digital emerging technologies. Our frameworks are people-centric and we have promoted, for instance, the digitalization of the user protection regime and developed an open data policy to support evidence-based decision making and foster research and innovation within the ICT sector. Also our regulatory framework has differentiated measures with focus in the rural areas and they are less connected because we know they have different economic and societal conditions than the rest of the country. For that reason, we try to reduce the burden for community operators and coordinate our work with the ICT ministry and the spectrum agency to have different technical and process specifications for them in order to help them to thrive. The community providers in Colombia are defined as those who have less than 5,000 users. For that reason, they need support. I think it’s very important also to have the multilateral and international cooperation in mind because these communities and, of course, the government agencies also need more capacity building and more technological tools to improve the kind of situations that they have. In the CRC, we also promote the internal change, the organizational adoption of emerging technologies to help more efficiency in our processes and to have these efficiencies translated to our services to the citizens.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much. One of the most important things is about the digital transformation that you mentioned and how to make sure that accessibility is also guaranteed. Also, one of the most interesting things is the internal changes, like you say, within the organization and country. Now, I would like to direct my next question to Daniel Mordecki. Now, we talk a lot about accessibility, capacity building, and now we would like to stress more on the inclusion part. What are the challenges that you think of the service of digitalization in relation to inclusion really works? Thank you.

Daniel Mordecki: Okay. Voy a hablar en español. I will speak in Spanish, so I’ll give you time to get your headphones on. I believe that the question is aiming at that tension that there could be between inclusion and equity, which is not the same. There are different concepts when we look at them, and they require different approaches. In Uruguay, for example, digital inclusion pretty much is between 96% and 98%, and this This is not out of chance. We deployed an FO fiber optic network over 15 years ago. It is small in size. We are not talking about the capital or main cities. All areas, all the country, all the surface area is covered pretty much by fiber optic. Your basic connection to internet is zero. That provides people with enough bytes to get along and that provides inclusion by its nature. The problem is equity and equality of access when you look at index of usage of public administration and e-government services, those numbers reach about 60-ish, 64%. So between 30 and 35 people do have the devices, do have the access, do have the connection. They use it every day, but they don’t significantly use it in order to access e-services. I mean, an individual who nowadays cannot buy a ticket or cannot perform a given transaction or cannot use geopositioning GPS services or that cannot reserve in a hotel, it’s a citizen that we start leaving behind, unfortunately, and we need to change that as a society. The fact that you cannot access a reservation or geoposition, you do it. If you go to the entertainment world in Uruguay, many theaters and many functions are only through internet. So we as policymakers have this new challenge. We cannot leave those people behind. That is not resolved with money nor infrastructure. We need to change their chip, their way they think. And in order to do that, you need to provide the digital literacy. In order to do that, you need to allow that all citizens, men and women, in an equitarian way, use services. We definitely need to move away from 80-20 law and get equity and inclusion all the way down to the last citizen of Uruguay. Thank you so very much.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much. And also, thank you for telling how electricity is not, you cannot just guarantee the electricity to people, but not many people can use the electricity for the internet. So it’s kind of like an equilibrium of all those decision makers and leaders that we need to make for the people to let them to really use the resources right to fulfill their own life. So thank you so much for this very, very fresh and unique perspective that bring us to think further step into everybody’s daily life. So after all the different nationals and real perspective, and we know there are some emerging trends that we need to capture as a foresight to look into the future and to advise on the future generation on how we ignite a digital future that we really desire. So now I come to my last but also a very important question to you, Dr. Kilney, because as a global AI ethic, so policy, you know, every day you are observing how different countries, their insights into those governance of the digital transformation. So what are the some key concerns that governments need to address in order to achieve a successful implementation of e-governance? Thank you.

Ansgar Koene: Thank you very much, and it’s a pleasure to be with you here today. EY of course is a global network of professional services firms and as such we try to support governments and private sector in their digital and AI transformations. Now for government especially, there is an added challenge because as we’ve already heard from the other speakers, government has the obligation and public sector services has the obligation to serve everyone in the country. It is important that the services will work for all citizens, not just for those that are most easy to access. This brings with it the extra challenge of making sure that you get the right kind of assessments, that you can really check that as you’re implementing a new technology from whatever provider it is, that you can successfully assess whether or not it will work in the context of your country, in the context of all of the people within your nation. Within EY, we’ve recently run a survey, an AI sentiment survey, across 15 different countries and unfortunately we’ve found that the confidence that citizens have in the use of AI by government is not that high. It should be improved and one way to do that is really to ensure that we have an ecosystem of good assessment providers around how these technologies work, preferably third-party assessments to identify, have good governance frameworks being put in place, is risk management being taken into account, is there a good quality management system in place. This does not have to be a regulatory regime, it can be, it depends on what works best for whatever jurisdiction we’re operating in, but it is important that it is based on clear standards, clear outlined and clearly communicated framework around what exactly is being assessed, what is being confirmed, because if assessments are being provided but the citizenry, the receivers of these reports do not understand how to interpret them, then this could lead to a misunderstanding while the governance process has been assessed, they may interpret it as being guarantees on the performance of the system or vice versa. So it is very important that policies within the country provide clear and well-communicated frameworks around how these systems are both being implemented and how good implementation is being assessed and guaranteed.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much and for the work that you’ve done to clean and link all the dots together and for a more resilient digital future that we really want to drive and also the assessment you mentioned, it’s quite important, it’s just like a global stocktake in terms of the every national determined contribution to transform your own country’s perspective and also the landscape into the future stage. So and the most important thing in addition to inclusion and it’s also transparency and to create the ecosystem to really understand what everybody wants and what is really desirable but not palpable to just use the big data to predict a future that we want. So now I would like to give a round applause of all our panellists. Thank you so much for presenting today and yeah thank you and also for your participation. So now I would like to welcome all of our panellists to stand in the middle so that we can take a good photo together. Do you want us to stand or yeah great thank you so much. Thank you.