Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development’s efforts to assess and improve data collection for monitoring digital development goals, particularly in relation to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review, Universal and Meaningful Connectivity, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Esperanza Magpantay from ITU introduced the partnership, which comprises 14 international and regional organizations working together to develop methodologies and build capacity for ICT indicator collection. The partnership has established a core list of over 50 ICT indicators covering infrastructure, access, enterprise use, education, government services, and e-waste, which has been endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission.

The session highlighted ongoing mapping exercises to align these indicators with WSIS action lines, GDC objectives, and meaningful connectivity frameworks. Despite having extensive indicators, significant gaps remain in areas such as employment, health, security, and governance. Representatives from various organizations presented their contributions: UNDESA discussed e-government indicators, ECLAC shared their Digital Development Observatory and Regional AI Index, ESCWA outlined their 85 indicators for measuring digital development, and ILO presented new employment-related ICT indicators focusing on the ICT sector workforce.

Key challenges identified included insufficient funding for data collection, particularly in developing countries, limited technical capacity in national statistical offices, and the need for more disaggregated data to understand digital inequalities. Participants emphasized the importance of incorporating alternative data sources like big data and satellite imagery while maintaining international comparability standards. The partnership aims to finalize its mapping matrix, publish data through ITU’s data hub, and continue building capacity in countries most in need of support for evidence-based digital policymaking.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Mapping ICT indicators to global frameworks**: The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development is conducting a comprehensive mapping exercise to align their 50+ core ICT indicators with WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity goals to identify measurement gaps and areas needing new indicators.

– **Expanding indicator coverage beyond traditional ICT metrics**: Participants identified significant gaps in current indicators, particularly in areas like employment (with ILO proposing new ICT sector employment indicators), health, security, governance, AI usage, and digital platform work that require new measurement approaches.

– **Funding and capacity challenges for data collection**: Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need for sustainable funding mechanisms to support national statistical offices and data collection efforts, particularly in developing countries where the need for data is greatest but resources are most limited.

– **Integration of alternative data sources**: Discussion focused on incorporating innovative data sources like big data, mobile phone data, and satellite imagery to complement traditional surveys, while maintaining international comparability standards through official statistical channels.

– **Strengthening multi-stakeholder coordination**: Emphasis on improving collaboration between national statistical offices, international organizations, regional commissions, civil society, and other stakeholders to enhance data availability, quality, and policy relevance at both national and international levels.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to assess the current state of ICT measurement frameworks and identify how to strengthen data collection and indicator development to support monitoring of major global digital initiatives (WSIS+20, Global Digital Compact, Universal Meaningful Connectivity) while addressing persistent data gaps and capacity challenges.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants demonstrating strong commitment to the partnership’s mission. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges around funding, data gaps, and capacity constraints, the overall atmosphere was solution-oriented and forward-looking, with organizations offering concrete contributions and expressing readiness to take on expanded roles in addressing measurement needs.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Esperanza Magpantay** – Senior statistician at ITU, steering committee member of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development

– **Alexandre Barbosa** – Head of CETIC (research center linked to the Brazilian Networking Information Center, NIC.br and CGI.br)

– **Marco Llinas** – Representative from UN ECLAC (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean)

– **Scarlett Fondeur** – Works with the e-commerce and digital economy branch of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

– **Participant** – Gembly Camacho, senior monitoring and evaluation specialist at APC (international civil society network)

– **Deniz Susar** – Representative from UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs)

– **Ayman El Sherbiny** – Chief of digital cooperation and digital development in UNESCO (regional commission)

– **Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava** – Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau of the ITU

– **Alison Gillwald** – Representative from Research ICT Africa

– **Michael Frosch** – Works at the Department of Statistics within the ILO (International Labour Organization)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Titi Casa** – Works for the AGI (Agency for Digital Italy) for the Italian government

# Comprehensive Report: Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development Discussion

## Executive Summary

This discussion focused on the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development’s efforts to strengthen global ICT measurement frameworks and address critical data gaps. The session brought together representatives from 14 international organisations to discuss three main themes: mapping existing indicators against major international frameworks (WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity goals), addressing significant data gaps particularly in employment, health, security and governance areas, and showcasing regional innovations in data collection methodologies. Key outcomes included commitments to complete the mapping exercise, launch an enhanced ITU data hub, and explore new employment-related indicators using existing microdata.

## Partnership Structure and Current Framework

### Organisational Foundation

Esperanza Magpantay from ITU introduced the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development as a collaborative response to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) call for comprehensive ICT indicators. The partnership comprises 14 international and regional organisations, with a steering committee led by ITU, UNCTAD, and UNDESA.

The partnership has developed a core list of over 50 ICT indicators that received endorsement from the UN Statistical Commission. These indicators cover infrastructure development, household and individual access, enterprise usage, educational applications, government services, and electronic waste management. Despite this comprehensive framework, significant gaps remain in areas such as employment, health, security, and governance applications of ICT.

### Current Data Availability

ITU’s 2024 stocktaking exercise revealed that while internet access at home and usage indicators are widely collected globally, significant gaps exist in ICT skills indicators, mobile ownership data, ICT expenditure measurements, and barriers to internet use. This assessment provides the foundation for prioritising future indicator development and capacity building efforts.

## Key Questions and Framework Alignment

### Guiding Questions for Strengthening Measurement

Cosmas Zavazava from ITU posed four critical questions that framed the discussion:

1. How to strengthen national statistical offices and improve international coordination

2. The role of alternative data sources including big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data

3. Better mapping of ICT indicators against international frameworks

4. Translating data into actionable insights for national digital strategies

### Mapping Exercise Initiative

A central focus was the partnership’s ongoing mapping exercise to align existing indicators with three major international frameworks: WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity goals. This systematic alignment aims to identify measurement gaps and guide future indicator development priorities.

Magpantay explained that this mapping process involves detailed analysis of each indicator’s relevance to specific action lines and objectives, creating a comprehensive matrix to guide future development. The exercise is particularly important given the recent adoption of the Global Digital Compact and the ongoing WSIS Plus 20 review process.

### WSIS Plus 20 Review Context

Deniz Susar from UNDESA highlighted the significance of the WSIS Plus 20 review, noting that it acknowledges the lack of established targets for many action lines and requests proposals for comprehensive monitoring frameworks. The review process has created momentum for strengthening measurement frameworks, with documents like the Compromiso de Sevilla explicitly recognising the importance of financing data availability for evidence-based policymaking.

## Regional Contributions and Innovations

### Latin American Leadership

Marco Llinas from UN ECLAC presented their Digital Development Observatory, which incorporates over 100 indicators following partnership standards. ECLAC has developed a Regional AI Index called “ILIA” covering 19 countries, demonstrating innovative approaches to measuring emerging technology adoption. This regional framework serves as a model for combining global standards with regional priorities.

### Middle Eastern and African Approaches

Ayman El Sherbiny from ESCWA outlined their framework of 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states, emphasising primary data collection capabilities through direct country engagement.

Alison Gillwald from Research ICT Africa highlighted critical insights from their household and enterprise surveys, revealing that despite 95-99% coverage in many African countries, less than 20% uptake occurs due to usage barriers not captured in current indicators. This demonstrates the crucial distinction between technical availability and meaningful access. However, she noted concerning funding sustainability challenges, with digital inequality funding being diverted to newer areas, significantly reducing their survey coverage from previously covering 20 African countries.

### Brazilian Innovation and Capacity Building

Alexandre Barbosa from CETIC presented Brazil’s comprehensive approach, including training programmes, capacity building initiatives, and adoption of innovative technologies such as machine learning and big data for official statistics production. Brazil’s digital transformation school and survey methodology workshops demonstrate how countries with advanced capabilities can support regional development.

Brazil is already implementing AI usage indicators in national surveys, positioning them at the forefront of measuring emerging technology adoption. Their multi-stakeholder funding model involves regulators, ministries, and internet registry agencies supplementing national statistical office budgets.

## Critical Data Gaps and Measurement Challenges

### Employment Indicators Gap

Michael Frosch from ILO addressed the employment measurement gap, proposing development of ICT sector employment indicators using existing microdata. His analysis suggested coverage possibilities for 55 countries using 3-digit ISIC level data (2022-2024) and 90 countries using 2-digit level data, demonstrating how existing data infrastructure can address identified gaps without requiring entirely new collection mechanisms.

### Capacity and Resource Constraints

Alexandre Barbosa highlighted the fundamental challenge facing many countries: increasing pressure to produce data across diverse areas while facing technical and skill capacity gaps in implementing required methodologies. This tension between growing demand and limited capacity represents a critical bottleneck in global measurement efforts.

The capacity challenges extend beyond technical skills to include institutional coordination, with many countries lacking effective mechanisms for coordinating data collection across different government agencies and stakeholders.

### Emerging Measurement Areas

The discussion identified several areas requiring new measurement approaches:

– Artificial intelligence usage and impact across different sectors

– Meaningful connectivity beyond basic access measures

– Environmental sustainability aspects of digital development

– Information integrity and digital security measures

## Innovation in Data Sources and Methodologies

### Alternative Data Integration

Cosmas Zavazava emphasised the potential of alternative data sources including big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data to complement traditional survey methods. This approach recognises both the limitations of traditional data collection and opportunities presented by new data sources, particularly in contexts where traditional statistical capacity is limited.

### Technological Advancement in Official Statistics

Brazil’s experience incorporating machine learning and big data into official statistics production provides a concrete example of how traditional statistical offices can evolve while maintaining rigour and international comparability standards.

## Stakeholder Engagement and Participation

### Civil Society Participation

Gembly Camacho from APC asked about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes. Scarlett Fondeur from UNCTAD’s e-commerce and digital economy branch explained that the partnership works primarily with official statistics producers to ensure international comparability, while acknowledging the importance of broader stakeholder engagement in measurement processes.

### Questions on Measurement Scope

Titi Casa from Italy’s Agency for Digital Italy asked about measurements beyond meaningful access, highlighting the need for indicators that capture the full spectrum of digital experiences and outcomes. Online participants also raised questions about supporting countries facing data collection difficulties.

## Data Platform Development and Access

### ITU Data Hub Launch

Esperanza Magpantay announced the development of an ITU data hub that will host compiled data from all partnership organisations. The platform will feature country dashboards launching in 2025, with upgrades in 2026 including an AI-powered chatbot for enhanced user interaction. A GDC monitoring dashboard is expected soon after the main platform launch.

This centralised platform addresses fragmentation across multiple data sources and will support more comprehensive analysis while reducing the burden on users to navigate multiple platforms.

### Data Quality and Transparency

The partnership’s commitment to publishing available data while conducting quantitative risk assessments demonstrates attention to data quality and transparency. This approach recognises that perfect data should not prevent access to useful data, while maintaining standards for international comparability.

## Future Directions and Commitments

### Immediate Deliverables

The partnership committed to several concrete deliverables:

– Finalising the mapping matrix of indicators against international frameworks

– Launching the ITU data hub with enhanced user features

– ILO’s further exploration of employment-related ICT indicators using existing microdata

### Strategic Priorities

Longer-term priorities include developing sustainable funding mechanisms for regular ICT surveys in developing countries and enhancing coordination between national statistical offices and international organisations. The partnership also aims to develop an indicator framework mandate for the WSIS Plus 20 review to secure political support and resources for enhanced measurement efforts.

### Addressing Sustainability Challenges

The discussion highlighted the need for innovative approaches to resource mobilisation that recognise the public good nature of statistical information while addressing practical funding constraints, particularly in developing countries where data needs are greatest but resources most limited.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated strong collaborative commitment among partnership organisations to improving ICT measurement capabilities globally. While significant challenges remain regarding funding sustainability and capacity constraints, the partnership shows clear potential for addressing critical measurement gaps through coordinated action and innovative approaches.

The commitment to concrete deliverables including the mapping exercise completion and data hub launch provides a foundation for continued progress. The identification of specific gaps in employment, AI usage, and meaningful connectivity offers a clear roadmap for future indicator development. Success will require sustained attention to both technical measurement improvements and the broader resource and capacity challenges that affect measurement capabilities globally.

The partnership’s evolution from basic ICT measurement to addressing complex questions of digital inclusion, emerging technologies, and sustainable development reflects the growing sophistication required in digital development measurement frameworks.

Esperanza Magpantay: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the session organized by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. We are going to start the session, and I’m going to share with you a presentation that will talk about measurement progress relating to the ICT indicators that are needed for the WSIS for the Universal and Meaningful Connectivity and the Global Digital Compact. My name is Esperanza Magpantay, and I’m from the ITU. I’m the senior statistician and one of the steering committee members of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. So those of you who are not familiar with the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, let me introduce to you the partnership, which was initiated in a direct call from WSIS with regards to improving availability and quality of ICT indicators. And I just saw Mr. Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava entering the room, so we will welcome him for his opening remarks. Mr. Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava is the director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau of the ITU. Over to you, Cosmas.

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize for coming a bit late. I was speaking at another event. Thank you very much for inviting me. It is always a pleasure. I see a lot of friends here, familiar faces, and I would like to welcome you all at Palexpo, and I think we’ll be seeing each other very soon when we have the World Telecommunications Indicators Symposium and also the two expert groups. Over the past decades, the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development has been growing and growing from strength to strength, and this session builds on these achievements. As we enter the second decade of WSIS, in tandem with the outcomes of the Summit of the Future and the broader WSIS Plus initiative, I would like to welcome you to the World Telecommunications 20 review, reliable data and robust statistics have never been more critical. So we wanted to work with a double effort to make sure that we reinforce our efforts towards this, and also that’s why we have started measuring the information, the universal meaningful connectivity, which we thank, of course, the European Union for partnering with us. Crucially, they enable us to gauge progress on the WSIS Action Lines from infrastructure to inclusion, capacity building to e-applications and cyber security, and on the commitments of the global digital compact. Every strategy depends on high quality, timely and comparable data, this you know already. That includes Action Line C2 when ensuring affordable internet access, as well as Action Line C7 on empowering communities through e-services. Without data, we cannot identify where the digital divide exists, nor can we design evidence-based policies to close it. With it, we can have a positive and measurable impact on people’s lives. Today, our discussion must also reflect the SDG imperatives, enabling Goal 4 on education, Goal 5 on gender equality, and I’m pleased to say that there are some regions that are doing very well, they’ve reached parity. The Caribbean, for example, the CIS region, and Europe is doing very well. There are some other regions that need hand-holding and we are ready to do that. We thank also many of our partners, including the ILO, who participated in our global skills development in Bahrain, where together we launched the skills toolkit. Goal 8 on decent work and growth, and Goal 9 on resilient infrastructure, Goal 13 on climate action, and we just recently launched our greening digital report, and we thank the private sector for contributing to this effort, and Goal 17 on partnerships, and I think this partnership is made in heaven. We are doing a… Thank you very much, Dr. Zavazava, and thank you to all of you for joining us today. We have a lot together, and we should continue to sustain it. First, how can we strengthen national statistical offices and international coordination so we improve the frequency, quality, and granularity of ICT data? And second, what role can alternatives like big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data play in complementing traditional data sources? And thirdly, how can we better map core ICT indicators against international development frameworks, including the WSIS Action Lines, the Global Digital Compact, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity, which I referred to earlier on? And fourthly, how do we translate the data into action, ensuring it directly informs national digital strategies and embeds accountability and inclusivity in digital transformation? If we can consider these questions, we can embed data-driven accountability at the heart of the Global Digital Compact and WSIS process. We need all stakeholders to commit to strengthening national statistical systems, including through appropriate financing, to integrating innovative data sources ethically and responsibly, and to ensure data is disaggregated by gender, location, and income in order to design effective targeted interventions for digital inclusion. I invite each of you to contribute your insights and expertise, and I wish you a productive and engaging session. And it is important, of course, for us to recognize that at the base or the foundation of artificial intelligence is data. Without connecting everyone or certain regions or certain groups of countries, like least developed countries, landlocked developing states, and small island developing states, we are limited in terms of the availability of data. So it is important for us to join hands and make sure that together with industry and ITU as over 8,000 private sector industry and academic members, we should join our hands and make sure that we move forward together and make data available so that we can embrace the benefits of artificial intelligence while we effectively confront the ills that come with artificial intelligence. Thank you very much.

Esperanza Magpantay: Thank you very much Mr. Zavazava and with those words I’d like to continue presenting the partnership. So some of you may not be here in previous sessions that we organized during WSIS so I was just describing the partnership on measuring ICT for development which is an initiative that is a direct response to the call of WSIS to produce ICT indicators and data, improve data availability and quality of those ICT indicators. It’s our way of coordinating the work that different international organizations is doing with regards to ICT indicators. Currently we have 14 members comprising of international organizations as well as regional organizations working together to develop methodologies and build capacities in countries. Currently the partnership is led by three agencies through a steering committee ITU, UNCTAD and UNDESA. We have developed the core list of ICT indicators covering many areas and this core list of ICT indicators were endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission so it is recognized by national statistical offices as a list where they can start their data collections. We had conducted a number of workshops and trainings to help countries build their capacity with regards to the collection of those indicators. So you’ll see on the screen the different organizations that are working together in this partnership. So what are included in the core list? ICT indicators. So we have from the ITU, ICT infrastructure and access indicators, and ICT access and use by households and individuals. We have from UNCTAD, ICT access and use by enterprises, ICT sector and trade in ICT goods indicators, UNESCO Institute of Statistics on ICT in education, UNDESA for ICT in government indicators, and UNITAR on e-waste indicators. So this work also on e-waste indicators is in collaboration with the ITU. So currently, there are more than 50 indicators in this core list of indicators. So in today’s session, we would like to explore whether these 50 indicators are enough to measure different goals and targets and global monitoring with regards to, for example, universal and meaningful connectivity, the WSIS action lines, as well as the global digital compact, which all require measurements and data to make sure they can monitor the implementation, as well as monitor progress, identify gaps, and guide policymaking. So currently, the partnership is undergoing a mapping exercise of those 50 indicators, where we are listing each and every indicator that I mentioned earlier against the WSIS targets that was initially defined in the very first events of WSIS, as well as WSIS action lines, and the GDC objectives, as well as universal and meaningful connectivity. So this work, we are hoping to achieve and complete very soon. And the idea here is to basically look at the different goals and targets, as well as make an assessment. on whether these indicators are sufficient to measure and identify all the areas that need to be measured. And so far, what we found out is that although we have more than 50 indicators, there are still a number of areas that need indicators or measurement, particularly on employment, on health, on security, on governance, for example. There’s strong coverage, of course, on ICT access and use, and thanks to colleagues who are around on this table, and we will hear from them with regards to the updates that are happening on those areas. From the ITU side, we continue to collect data and help countries improve data availability with regards to ICT, household and access and use indicators for individuals. And currently, what we found out is that from the stocktaking exercise that we initiated in 2024, that most of the countries that responded to the stocktaking exercise, that internet access at home and internet usage indicators are particularly collected in many countries. However, there’s still a lot of gaps with regards to data availability, particularly for ICT skills indicators disaggregated by type of the activity, as well as indicators that relates to mobile ownership and ICT expenditure, as well as indicators on ICT on internet use barriers. So, those indicators are very important to identify why certain proportion of population is still not using the internet, for example. So, internet barriers is an important indicator. So, the partnership is also working on towards third objective. So the third objective is about dissemination of the data that are collected for those core ICT indicators. And so just recently the ITU and also the different partners who are here agreed to compile the data in a single point where users can see all the data that pertains to the core ICT indicators. It will be hosted in the ITU data hub and the idea here is the indicators will be accessible via a data catalog where they can select the indicators and countries that they want to explore. And country dashboards will also be launched in 2025 and upgraded in 2026. So again the idea here is to help monitor the different goals and targets including the GDC objectives and next year and in the coming months we hope that another dashboard will come and become available to reflect the indicators that will be needed to monitor the GDC. An AI-powered chatbot on the data hub is also expected to be launched very soon that will facilitate the availability and interaction with regards to the different outputs and ICT indicators that will be hosted in the ITU data hub. So this is something that I invite you to look forward to and check as soon as this gets available. In terms of the way forward so we hope to finalize the mapping matrix that will be made available in the partnership website and to identify indicators that are needed to be included in the current core list. We also would like to publish available data as I mentioned in the data hub and conduct a quantitative assessment of the risk and my colleague, Dennis, will talk about this particular point in detail, as well as, of course, the first objective of the partnership. We remain committed to improving data availability, and I’d like to point to the recently concluded financing for development conference that happened in Seville, Spain, where the Compromiso de Sevilla explicitly included different mentions about data and the importance of financing the data availability, improving data availability to help policymaking. So I invite you to check the Compromiso de Sevilla, where you will find several mentions of data and different initiatives that needs to be put in place to make sure data are available. And of course, there’s a lot of new data sources. The ITU and partners has been very active in exploring new data sources, particularly on the use of mobile phone data for the indicators that we are responsible for, and also in other areas where applications of mobile phone big data were proven to be very helpful. There’s a lot of information that I’m not able to cover in this presentation, but I invite you to look at the partnership website and also to listen to the rest of the presentation during this session. Thank you very much, and over to you, Deniz.

Deniz Susar: Thank you very much, Esperanza. Good morning. This is Deniz Susar from UNDESA. I will first raise the paragraphs, the section monitoring and measurement in the elements paper of the WSIS plus 20 overall review by the UNGA. We are serving as the secretariat, and as you know, UN General Assembly is reviewing the progress in the WSIS implementation in the last 20 years, and it will conclude with a high-level meeting in December. If you look at the elements paper, the paragraphs from 82 to 84 is monitoring and measurement. uh the co-facilitators acknowledged that WSIS plus 20 uh WSIS plus 10 10 years ago review didn’t establish targets for the uh for the WSIS however they also acknowledged that there are different uh target indicators available in different fora and now they are asking in paragraph 84 proposals concerning monitoring and measurement which Esperanza mentioned it could be the WSIS action lines but then the co-facilitators as we know based on the UNCTAD resolution trying to integrate GDC and WSIS so maybe it could be a set of indicated action lines that Esperanza showed in the spreadsheet earlier so I think one one idea that could go from here and as partnership we can propose to them is maybe to give the mandate of coming up with this indicators in the resolution that will be adopted end of the year with some timeline ahead because I think the partnership is well positioned to undertake this task of course with the involvement of all agencies and my second point is about our work on ICT in government indicators we will be updating the indicators as instructed by the partnership in the in the spreadsheet our indicators are related to e-government so we look at how national governments and also the cities use technology to deliver public services so this is all part of the UN e-government survey and for the cities we have the local online service index so these will be our contribution from this over to you

Marco Llinas: thank you Deniz Thank you, Esperanza. I introduce myself quickly, Marco Ginaz from UN ECLAC. It’s my pleasure to be attending once again this meeting of the partnership at the WSIS meeting. At ECLAC, we firmly believe that sound, timely, and comparable ICT statistics are foundational to effective policymaking and to measuring progress on digital transformation. So today, let me quickly share two concrete regional initiatives that exemplify our commitment to measurement. First, the ECLAC’s Digital Development Observatory. This is an online open access platform, including ICT-related indicators across Latin America and the Caribbean. The observatory offers up-to-date statistics on connectivity, access, usage, and digital skills, desegregated whenever possible by gender, age, income, and geography. We already have over 100 indicators. We are particularly interested in deepening efforts on measuring usage, and especially digital technology adoption by the productive sector, where initial measurements suggest we have huge gaps. It is worthwhile mentioning that the observatory’s methodology follows international standards set by the partnership, ensuring regional data comparability with global frameworks. And the second initiative is the Regional AI Index, also known as ILIA, which is prepared in conjunction with CENIA, AI National Center of Chile. The ILIA, and we are now preparing its third edition, complements traditional ICT is a professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is a professor of statistics by measuring key aspects of AI ecosystems in 19 countries of the region. Ilia covers three critical dimensions. The first, enabling factors, including infrastructure, connectivity, and human capital. Second, research, development, and adoption, which includes national AI strategies, regulatory frameworks, ethics, and sustainability. Importantly, for ILIA 2025, we are emphasizing the production of innovative indicators that capture emerging and actionable dimensions of AI readiness and adoption. Just to finish, ECLAC reaffirms its commitment to the partnership and to the strengthening of the AI ecosystem. And it looks forward to continuing participating in the partnership. Thank you, Esperanza, and over to Ayman. Ayman.

Ayman El Sherbiny: Thank you so much, Mike. So thank you so much. I will follow up to my colleague, Marco, from ECLAC, and my name is Ayman Elshirbeh. I am the chief of digital cooperation and digital development in UNESCO, another regional commission working with the partnership on measurement since its inception. And we have been some time also active on the steering committee. It is not, I mean, this time is historical challenge for our partnership, especially with the new elements introduced in the GDC. And I’m very glad that it is part of the roadmap that we have to continue our role, especially as regional commissions, in, like, bringing the information and the data from the countries to complement the data that are sent by NSOs. We can have also direct, let us say, primary sources of data through our connections with multiple sectors in our countries. And I’m very glad that it is part of the roadmap that we have to continue our role, especially as regional commissions in, like, bringing the information and the data from the countries to complement the data that are sent by NSOs. And I’m very glad that it is part of the roadmap that we have to continue our role, especially as regional commissions in, like, bringing the information and the data from multiple sectors in our countries. And therefore, we can also contribute to this evolution of whether measuring the GDC objectives or certain elements of it, or measuring the rest of the elements of the WSIS that has been, let us say, not left behind, but put aside for its complexity. So we know the core indicators. We know the, let us say, advancement in them and the evolution of the WSIS. And we still have something to offer. Regarding the digital economy in our region. We have 85 indicators that we use for Measuring digital development across the 22 member states and these 85 indicators Some of them are Row data primary data directly for of countries through reviews. We want to share with you the methodology and Metadata and so on maybe they can become comparable and we can benefit Out of them all of us and of course some of them are part of what you produce so the measurement paradigm itself that we use is we have made like a kind of intersection between all the wishes action lines and All the SDGs in under like five holistic clusters the state the ICT sector Digital economy or the economy and the society The government and and this kind of constellation are five We have underneath them as I said about 85 indicators some of them are going to be measured for the first time and We would like to revise with you the metadata and everything and then we might also work on them globally I’ll give an example for example Issues related to FDI in ICT sector is not measured at all It is difficult, but Torbjorn told me there are solutions for it. So he was working with UNCTAD Also, we can find the the job like And also employment related things Simple things like zero or one like using a common statistical manual for classifying the ICT sector Isaac four for example or whatever in each country. We just need to know zero one. Yes, it is The same manual or not and so on and so forth many things we can fill gaps in digital economy also in certain simple boolean parameters like Strategies existing or not these sectors bla bla bla e x or e y or e z These let us say thematic strategies. We need to know who has what. Other examples also related to this AI index, we need to take it from you now and also to implement it in other regions. So we have a lot to do in the next few months, not a lot, because we need to reflect some kind of convictions in the drafts, not zero of course, but maybe in subsequent ones. So I think we can declare our readiness and our will to undertake as regional commissions the part of the burden of measurement with you and with all the partners for 20 plus or 2026 and beyond. And that is my two cents I have to leave now because we have a meeting in room E for regional commissions on AI governance. And I will leave, of course, Marco, he has committed to stay, but he will also come a little bit earlier to catch up with us. Thank you so much and I have to leave. Thank you. Thank you for giving me the time.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you very much, Eamon, for giving, expressing once more the support of the regional commissions to the measurement work. We’re going to hear now from the International Labour Organization, ILO, who’s one of the more recent members of the partnership and is advancing work in terms of measurement of employment by digital platforms.

Michael Frosch: Yes, thank you. There we go. Thank you very much. I had some slides, I don’t know, are they, they should be there. OK, let’s see. Oh. Yes, but let me introduce myself to begin with. So, yes. Michael Frosch working at the Department of Statistics within the ILO and as you heard we have recently joined the partnership and I think already now we start to see how fruitful this collaboration is for all of us including the ILO. So I will spend some short time to talk a little bit about the ILO stat and the possibility to create employment related ICT indicators. But first of all a few words about the Department of Statistics within the ILO. So we are working in different areas but all related to the labor market of course. One of the core areas in which we are engaged is in relation to developing statistical standards related to labor statistics and in addition to that developing and providing technical tools and recommendations for data collection which can support countries in the implementation of the labor standards. But beyond that we are also the focal point to the UN in relation to labor statistics and this includes developing and maintaining and updating the ILO stat which is the labor statistical database in which we produce and collect labor market indicators and make them available for users. So the ILO stat is draws from different statistical sources. Household surveys particularly labor force surveys is the key source for us in order to produce our indicators but beyond that we are also using official estimates, administrative sources, establishment based surveys and also statistics from the national accounts and we collect this data through different means. We have automated processes that collect the data from the websites of the statistical offices if they publish them. But beyond that, and that’s probably our most important way of collect data, is that countries are sharing their microdata with us and then we can process it in order to produce our indicators. And finally, for those countries that don’t share data or which we are unable to collect it through automated means, then we are also collecting it through sending out an Excel questionnaire to the countries. So looking into the ILO stat, well, then it covers a wide range of different topics, again, of course, all related to the labor market and labor statistics. The core focus is typically on the labor supply, so that would include indicators relating to the population and labor force, employment and unemployment, and labor underutilization. But beyond that, we are also covering areas such as working conditions, competitiveness, poverty and inequality, industrial relations, as well as other key topics, such as the SDGs that the ILO is host for, as well as child labor and unpaid work. And we are also producing indicators for some selected groups, such as labor migrants, youth, women and volunteers. So the ILO stat includes a broad, broad range of different indicators, and in addition, it also includes the possibility to disseminate these indicators by the use of different characteristics. So this includes demographic characteristics, as well as employment-specific characteristics and other characteristics as well. So the ILO stat is really a flexible tool, I would say. It includes a broad range of indicators for users to use. They can produce their own tables, looking at countries, looking at regions. looking at global estimates and on top of that there’s also the possibility to disseminate these indicators based on on the need of the user. But the ILO stat also includes the possibility due to that we have all this underlying data to create new indicators as well and this would also include the possibility to create employment related ICT indicators and by that maybe fill some of the gaps in the core list of the ICT indicators which was pointed out in the introductory presentation. So in other words based on the available data in the ILO stat it would be a possibility to create employment related ICT indicators and this could for example include an indicator on the proportion of the employed persons in the ICT sector where we define the ICT sector based on the definition already provided in the handbook for the collection of administrative data on telecommunications. So this could be a core indicator that really would reflect well the importance of the ICT sector from the point of view of employment and employment creation and also allow to track the development in terms of trends development over time as well as also enabling cross-country comparison and then in addition it would be possible to do further disaggregation and also to also reflect the characteristics and the structures of the persons and the types of jobs within this sector. So this could include disaggregation by sex, occupation, institutional sector and so on. So one way in which this could be done is to base definition of the indicator on a 3-digit ISIC level which so this would be an indicator that would be in a complete alignment with the definition of the ICT sector as provided in the handbook and it would really capture the proportion of employed persons in the ICT sector out of total employment. Now to create this indicator would require that we would have access to countries three digit level ISIC and it would also require us to produce these indicators based on the microdata that we have received from countries. So if we’re looking at the number of countries for which we would be able to produce these indicators and if we’re looking at it in the period of 2022 to 2024, well then currently we would be able to produce this indicator for 55 countries globally, 12 countries from Africa, 14 in the Americas, three in the Arab states, 20 in Asia and Pacific and six in Europe and Central Asia. And then we could produce these indicators for example twice per year and again we would also be able to disseminate this indicator with additional characteristics. However in addition and as an approach to increase the number of countries for which we could produce an indicator for, it could also be relevant to as well include a kind of a complementary supplementary indicator that has a bit broader definition but that would include an increased number of countries. So that could be a two digit ISIC level based definition. It would of course be less precise but it could still give valuable insights on the size and development of the ICT sectors in terms of employment and this would be an indicator that actually is already available in the ILO stat and then we would be able to produce this indicator for 90 countries globally. So this would really increase the number of countries. So we would then have 24 countries in Africa, 17 in the Americas, 4 in the Arab states, 24 in Asia and the Pacific and 20 in Europe and Central Asia. And of course if we are removing this time limit because this is really just looking back at the two last year but if we’re looking at countries with any available data well then obviously we would increase the number of countries for which we can produce this indicator for so on a two-digit level we would be able to provide the indicator for 155 countries and on the three-digit level we would be able to provide this indicator for 100 countries. So to summarize the idea here is really that well because the data is already available in the ILOs that an employment related ICT indicator could relatively be easy produced so it’s in a sense a low-hanging fruit here and a possibility is to use an indicator based on this more precise definition that would be in alignment to the boundaries of the ICT sector but then potentially complement this indicator with a slightly broader an indicator with based on a slightly broader definition in order to be able to increase the number of countries for which the data can be produced and these indicators well they would provide valuable insights in terms of the development and importance of the ICT sector from the perspective of employment so it could be contribute to the understanding of the role of the ICT sector within countries labor markets. So a next step for us would be in collaboration to further explore these two different indicators to see how they relate to each other how they correlate to each other as well as assess the possibilities for dissemination look at more closely what is actually feasible in order to still ensure that we are producing indicators with a robust estimation as well as working more on providing more detailed definitions about these indicators as well as its methodology. So I will stop there yeah but of course happy to discuss further later thanks.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you thank you very much Michael and Ailo and Marco. from ECLEC. We’ll leave a good good luck with your regional commission, Sibel. Thank you again for your support of the partnership. So in the case of, I’m Scarlet Fonder by the way, I’m with the e-commerce and digital economy branch of the UN Conference on Trade and Development. Maybe can we put back the slide that Esperanza presented with the table that shows the mapping for the indicators, please? In the meantime, just to let you know, UNCTAD as well as DESA and ITU is part, has been a long-standing member of the steering committee of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. UNCTAD in particular focuses on the indicators on ICT used by enterprises. Until now, we’re still collecting or trying, attempting to collect the indicator unemployment in the ICT sector. We cover also value-added of the ICT sector and international trade in ICT goods, ICT services and digitally deliverable services. Now, in addition, UNCTAD is currently in the process of developing methodological guidelines on measuring e-commerce value, which we hope will lead to comparable statistics in this area in a few years. Despite limited availability of official statistics on use of digital technologies by businesses and enterprises, the core indicators under UNCTAD’s aegis are already due for a review that would reflect the evolution in the digital economy over the past decade. review is coming at the same time as was already evoked by some of our speakers as the convergence of both the WSIS plus 20 review and figuring out how the international community and countries will monitor GDC commitments. So UNCTAD is contributing to the partnerships mapping presented by Esperanza earlier that you can see here in the slide, but also we expect to use this mapping to inform the review of our own core indicators so that we are able to make some comeback with a new core indicators list that is useful for the future and forward looking. The review of the core indicators under our mandate will be done through a consultation with national statistical offices and other producers of official statistics because in the case of e-commerce and the digital economy, producers of official statistics may include also central banks, customs authorities, ministries of trade and technology. We will need to eliminate probably some core indicators that have become less important for digital policymaking. We might also relinquish indicators like we will probably do with the employment in the ICT sector to ILO. We will probably develop new ones like the e-commerce value indicators and maybe others that could be gathered through the review process that we will launch in the second half of this year. We hope to have a completed reviewed core indicators list by next year and at that time we also will need to both raise awareness and build capacity among producers of official statistics as widely as possible, but particularly in developing countries so that we can ensure the indicators will be produced and do not remain a theoretical exercise. So we hope that, I don’t know how many national statistical offices or producers of official statistics are sitting down here, but we hope to have your support in conducting this review and also in providing inputs to the mapping that we have here because we’re still at a very low level of official statistics in information society and digital economy for developing countries and this needs to be remedied in order to guide policy making that will help place the developing world in a better position. So I would like now to open the floor for questions and answers. And I would like to ask the remote moderator if there are any remote participant questions to please let us know. Thank you. I would like to give the floor to our old friend Alexander.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you Scarlett and good morning everyone. For us it’s a pleasure to be here in this session since Brazil is following the partnership since the very beginning, since its inception that it was in Brazil in 2004. I’m Alexandre Barbosa, head of CETIC, which is a research center linked to the Brazilian Networking Information Center, NIC.br and CGI.br. I guess that what we have seen in this presentation today was a summary of this very hard working being conducted by the partnership which are very strategic alliance that really is providing proper guidance to member states in the field of measurement and of course data collection in standard setting, data compilation and dissemination. But I think that despite the great effort we still have to face many challenges because countries are being pressured to have more and more data in a very different areas that it’s difficult to really keep up to date with the requirements of data for evidence policymaking and I think that the data gap that we still face in many regions like in my region Latin America we are advancing in data production in many countries. Brazil is a good example of that but we are still facing difficulties in funding surveys so National Statistical Office are not always able to fund national surveys and also in some countries we still have technical and skill capacity gap in terms of implementing the methodologies that are being set by those organizations. So I think that we need really to force a new institutional arrangement where NSOs can cooperate with other organizations and also of course as I guess it was a Marco Linas from Sepau has mentioned to use new alternative data sources. We have been making a great exercise in an effort in Brazil in adopting new data sources in using new technologies like machine learning and big data. to produce official statistics and I think that one good example that Brazil is giving is also providing training and capacity building programs not only for Brazil but also for the region. One of our partners is UNECLAC, CEPAL, we have been running for 12 years digital transformation school in which we invite not only national statistical office but policy makers and regulators to discuss this new data ecosystem and also the NIC.br annual workshop on survey methodologies that we have in this room many partners including UNCTAD, ITU, OSD, UNDESA that has been coming to Brazil to help improve the dialogue with these different stakeholders. But not to talk too much I would like just to make a reflection that the partnership has to look ahead and try to advance in developing new indicators. We have now new agendas like the global digital compact now with the WSIS plus 20 review and I think that we could prioritize topics that include like meaningful connectivity and ITU has already made a very important contribution in proposing a framework for measurement and Brazil was one of the first countries that adopted last year and during the G20 under the Brazilian presidency ITU was the knowledge partner of the Brazilian government and also CETIC was one of the organizations that helped ITU and the Brazilian government to set a toolkit a framework for the G20 member states and it was adopted. So, I think that we have to promote this framework to allow countries to really provide indicators on meaningful connectivity. Also artificial intelligence issues, ITU is now working on the household survey to include some indicators on the use of AI by individuals. In Brazil, we have already adopted the IRISTAT set of indicators that is already on the field right now being collected. We are going to provide very soon released data on the use of AI by individuals. Also information integrity is something that we have to think in the context of the mandate of the partnership, how to measure information integrity. And also other topics such as DPI and environmental sustainability in the digital age. So those are areas that we should move ahead because there is a real pressure to have indicators to design proper and effective policies in these new areas and we have to follow up these new data ecosystems, not only NSOs but also other organizations. They are very relevant, providing relevant data sources that we should take advantage of. Thank you very much.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Aleksandar. We also have a question from Alison.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you. Like Aleksandar, I suppose it’s also some by way of comment, but hopefully there’s some feedback on it as well. I’m Alison Gilbert from Research ICT Africa. We have been conducting surveys, household, individual, and microenterprise informal sector surveys together alongside CETIQ for over 20 years. Unfortunately not adequately funded like CETIQ. far more irregularly. And perhaps just to make the point that in the heyday of these surveys, we were supported to be able to cover 20 African countries. Of course, we were looking at much smaller surveys, just looking at telecom and mobile and early internet penetration. Now, because it costs so much to go into the field, we pack in a survey that looks extensively at some of these usage issues that have been raised here as not covered in currently by the indicators, including digital inclusion, including platform work, some of the demand side data that’s obviously not available in the administrative data or in big data for that matter. But it’s absolutely critical to getting the disaggregated data that we need on the exact points of policy intervention. And even, you know, masked by some of the disaggregated high level statistics we have, for example, on gender, that is informing some of the discourse and some of the inappropriate responses to some of these intersectional inequalities. You know, these are really challenges around intersections around poverty and gender and multiple other things, geographic location, not women as a homogenous group that are, you know, inexplicably affected by this. So gender is just one of them. But I think the ability to model this data and really identify, you know, where the challenges are and where the barriers are, you know, it’s absolutely critical that we get funding for this. And just to make the point that together with ITU as knowledge partners of the G20 under South Africa’s presidency, one of the objectives, hopefully we’ll see this come through in final declarations, is the finding funding for the support of this. You know, it keeps coming up. It’s in the GDC. It’s been longstanding and, you know, underpinning of the WSIS process. But actually the sustainable funding for this is just not there. digital inequality, which we like to describe not just digital divide funding, has dried up. That funding’s all been diverted to data governance now, DPI, and artificial intelligence. And of course, unless we address these underpinning inequalities, you don’t get transformative DPI or equitable AI, all those sorts of things. So just to make an appeal, that while at the very high level, one might see enormous progress over the last 20 years, for the majority of Africans, for example, people are as inequitably excluded, the bulk of people. And if we apply those meaningful connectivity work done under the Brazilian G20 and the ITU, under the Brazilian G20, on a global level, as we’ve tried to do, and on a continental level for the work that we’re doing within the G20, then those figures of 2.6 billion are actually more like double that in terms of meaningful connectivity. And further to extend the scope of the meaningful connectivity to look at equitable digital inclusion, which would look at some of those things that are out of scope for the meaningful connectivity, but are absolutely critical to understanding why with 95, 99% coverage in many African countries, many of the least developed countries, they’ve got a signal, and yet we have less than 20%, less than critical mass. uptake of these services, and therefore we don’t see the correlations with GDP and growth and other developmental aspects of that. So just an appeal for us to absolutely extend those indicators to look at the usage factors, the cost of the device, of course, absolutely critical, but even where in our micro enterprise and our informal sector surveys, for example, done with the World Bank, even where people have access to a device, they are very often not using it for anything at all, but if anything at all for WhatsApp. And again, just to say again, the importance of getting this data at more than the just very high level that you either get from the labour survey or from the census or something like that. We see equity in many countries in the informal sector around very poor, but equity or parity, I should say, around internet access. But in fact, as soon as you unpack that a little bit between men and women, parity, as soon as you unpack that a bit, you see that women become unable to use it. They don’t have the education, the skills, the affordability to use these devices. So just a appeal that we continue.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you, Alison. Sorry, it’s just we have just a few more minutes to go before we have to give up the room. We had one hand raised here and another one over there. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Participant: My name is Gembly Camacho. I’m the senior monitoring and evaluation specialist at APC. APC is an international civil society network. Yes, we are based in a membership of network all over the world, especially in the global south. But I have just a specific question. I really wanted to know how much the civil society is participating in the design of the indicators, in the design of the data collection processes, and how much the civil society organization is participating in the analysis of the data to analyze the results and how the indicators are behaving and how they are connected with the policymaking. Then I just wanted to know how much the civil society is participating and also how much importance do you think the civil society have in the participation of the civil society, how much importance you think it has, and I’m talking about that because of the right of the population to create the data they need to really reflect on their own realities. Then I wanted to know that part. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. We’ll answer that question, I think, at the end. Okay, thank you. My name is Titi Casa. I work for the AGI, the Agency for Digital Italy, for the Italian government. I am also AGF magma. So thank you so much for your great presentation. And as far as I understand, I mean, most of the measurements you are doing are related to the meaningful access. So I wonder if, in relation to the other 11 action lines, there are other kinds of measurements that you are doing, that you are collecting. And the second question is referring also to the source that you are using to collect this data. As, for instance, in Italy, are you using just the National Statistic Institute or are you using also other…

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you very much and we had one question online which I’ll add to the list and then maybe we can attempt to respond within five minutes so that we can leave the room for the next session. We were asked online, the countries which are in most need are usually those where there is most difficulty in obtaining reliable data and what measures will be made to support them. So maybe I would like to just mention that the issue of funding for data collection that was raised by Alexander and by Alison is one that is definitely difficult but the interlocutors for the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development have to be producers of official statistics because one of the main objectives of the partnership is to make available and improve the availability of comparable, internationally comparable statistics and in order for them to be internationally comparable, official statisticians or producers of official statistics have to agree on what are the parameters of comparability. So there is scope at the national level to use other sources of data and I think that’s part of the work that Alexander pointed to of how can national statistical offices or other producers of official statistics can incorporate innovative sources of data but they have a critical role in giving a stamp of approval in so far as the methodologies are and how that data is used and disseminated. Maybe you would like to add something?

Esperanza Magpantay: Thank you so much for the question. So just to add to what Scarlett had mentioned. But that part of the work is still ongoing at the national level, but it will be indirectly sent to the national statistical offices so that international organizations such as ITU, for example, will be able to get them from the national statistics office. So the point of contact is really the national statistics office. In terms of the question from our colleague with regards to other data collections, so the core indicators are mainly selected indicators that pertain to specific areas. So from the ITU where I came from, there are probably not more than 30 indicators in the core list that’s coming from our big data collection. From the ITU, we have two big questionnaires that we send to national statistical offices and regulators and ministries, and it includes a number of indicators, more than 100 indicators that are available for data users to get more information on areas that are not necessarily covered by the core list. So the quick reply is yes, there’s a lot more data that are available and are collected directly from countries. On the online participants, I think the quick answer there is that, from the ITU, we have conducted a number of workshops and events that are related to indicators on meaningful Universal and Meaningful Connectivity, and particularly engaging all the stakeholders for countries that are coming and those that have challenges in producing the data to help them understand the methodologies that we have, that we use in our data collections, and also to improve national coordination in the country. We always believe that national coordination among the different stakeholders in the country is the most important starting point, like the case of Brazil. I think the other stakeholders in the country facilitated availability, high availability of the data, because funding was identified and there are other stakeholders helping the NSO or the agency collecting the data to produce those statistics. So those are not necessarily budgets that are coming from the national statistics regular operation, but resources that are coming either from the regulators or the ministries or, for the case of Brazil, the Internet Registry Agency that facilitates the collection and improving data availability. Over to you, Scarlet. Thank you, Espy. Just one more point. I think

Scarlett Fondeur: the question coming from Italy also asked about other action lines and how we might measure or whether there are indicators for that, and that is part of the mapping process that we presented now, because we do recognize that the partnership has limits. We have the international organizations in the partnership have a mandate, cover a specific area according to their mandate, and where there are gaps, this mapping exercise is an attempt to identify them and hopefully point out that maybe, I don’t know, in health there might be a gap in data and hopefully have new partners that will help us remedy that gap. Our colleague from DESA would like to add something.

Deniz Susar: Yeah, just something quick. For example, we have e-government indicators, which is in response to WSIS Action Line C7 e-government. But let’s just remember that these are proxy indicators because WSIS has GDC as principles, WSIS has targets. So these are proxy indicators. Within the e-government indicators, we have 200 sub-indicators. So maybe some of those could be proxy to certain WSIS or GDC indicators.

Scarlett Fondeur: And finally, just one more comment regarding the mapping. I think there is also scope. Once we have finished this exercise, we will try to convey what work might be done, what support might be needed to help fill in gaps in the mapping, but also to help national statistical offices and producers of official statistics produce that data in a sustainable manner. That is not something that can be put on a table. That is something that needs to be articulated as accompanying such a mapping. But Partnership has been able to provide its inputs throughout the past 20 years to high-level political processes in the UN and to the UN Statistical Commission. So we hope to convey all of these needs, including the things that have been raised in this session. Thank you very much. Any other questions? No, I think we’re out of time now. Yeah. Thank you so much for joining us, and we encourage you to take a look at the session outcome that should be made available tomorrow, hopefully, and continue giving us your feedback. Thank you. Thank you so much. Recording stopped.

Agreement points

Need for comprehensive data collection and measurement frameworks

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Michael Frosch
– Marco Llinas
– Scarlett Fondeur
– Ayman El Sherbiny
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

Partnership initiated as direct response to WSIS call for ICT indicators with 14 member organizations coordinating measurement work

ILO recently joined partnership and collaboration is proving fruitful for all members

ECLAC operates Digital Development Observatory with 100+ indicators following partnership standards and Regional AI Index covering 19 countries

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

ESCWA has 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states with primary data collection

Brazil adopting new technologies like machine learning and big data to produce official statistics

Research ICT Africa conducts household and enterprise surveys covering usage issues and digital inclusion barriers

Summary

All speakers agree on the fundamental importance of robust data collection and measurement frameworks for ICT development, with each organization contributing specialized indicators and methodologies to create comprehensive coverage

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Recognition of significant data gaps and measurement challenges

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Alison Gillwald
– Participant

Arguments

Current 50+ indicators insufficient for measuring all areas, particularly employment, health, security, and governance

Countries face funding difficulties for national surveys and technical capacity gaps in implementing methodologies

Despite 95-99% coverage in many African countries, less than 20% uptake due to usage barriers not captured in current indicators

Most needed countries are often those with greatest difficulty obtaining reliable data

Summary

Speakers acknowledge that despite extensive indicator frameworks, significant gaps remain in data coverage and collection capabilities, particularly in developing countries and for measuring actual usage versus access

Topics

Development | Digital access

Importance of funding and sustainable financing for data collection

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

Compromiso de Sevilla explicitly mentions importance of financing data availability for policymaking

Countries face funding difficulties for national surveys and technical capacity gaps in implementing methodologies

Digital inequality funding has dried up and been diverted to data governance, DPI, and AI despite persistent inequalities

Summary

All speakers emphasize the critical need for adequate and sustainable funding mechanisms to support data collection efforts, noting that funding challenges are a major barrier to comprehensive measurement

Topics

Development | Economic

Need to incorporate innovative data sources and methodologies

Speakers

– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Need to explore alternative data sources like big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data to complement traditional sources

Brazil adopting new technologies like machine learning and big data to produce official statistics

Partnership committed to publishing available data and conducting quantitative risk assessments

Summary

Speakers agree on the necessity of complementing traditional data collection methods with innovative approaches including big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data to improve data quality and coverage

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Regional organizations are developing comprehensive measurement frameworks that complement global efforts while providing capacity building and training to support other countries in their regions

Speakers

– Marco Llinas
– Ayman El Sherbiny
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

ECLAC operates Digital Development Observatory with 100+ indicators following partnership standards and Regional AI Index covering 19 countries

ESCWA has 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states with primary data collection

Brazil provides training programs and capacity building for the region through digital transformation school and survey methodology workshops

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of aligning existing indicators with major international frameworks and conducting systematic reviews to ensure relevance and eliminate outdated measures

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Scarlett Fondeur

Arguments

Partnership conducting mapping of 50 indicators against WSIS action lines, GDC objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

Topics

Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding measurement into emerging areas while emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder coordination and innovative funding approaches for sustainable data collection

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Need for indicators on meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence use, information integrity, and environmental sustainability

National coordination and multi-stakeholder funding models like Brazil’s approach are essential for sustainable data collection

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Civil society participation in data processes

Speakers

– Scarlett Fondeur
– Participant

Arguments

Partnership primarily works with national statistical offices as official data producers while recognizing need for broader stakeholder engagement

Question raised about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes

Explanation

While a participant raised concerns about limited civil society participation, there was unexpected consensus that broader stakeholder engagement is important, even though the partnership must maintain focus on official statistics for comparability

Topics

Development | Human rights

Transfer of indicators between organizations

Speakers

– Scarlett Fondeur
– Michael Frosch

Arguments

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

ILO can create employment-related ICT indicators using existing microdata for 55-155 countries depending on precision level

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the practical approach of transferring responsibility for specific indicators (like employment in ICT sector) from UNCTAD to ILO based on organizational expertise and data availability

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus among speakers on the fundamental importance of comprehensive ICT measurement frameworks, the need for sustainable funding, recognition of significant data gaps, and the value of incorporating innovative data sources. Regional organizations demonstrated alignment in their approaches to capacity building and complementary measurement initiatives.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with collaborative spirit – speakers consistently built upon each other’s points rather than disagreeing, indicating a mature partnership with shared understanding of challenges and solutions. The implications are positive for continued cooperation and coordinated efforts to address measurement gaps in ICT development.

Different viewpoints

Role of civil society in data collection and indicator development

Speakers

– Participant
– Scarlett Fondeur
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Question raised about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes

Partnership primarily works with national statistical offices as official data producers while recognizing need for broader stakeholder engagement

Summary

A participant questioned the extent of civil society involvement in all stages of indicator development, emphasizing populations’ right to create data reflecting their realities. Partnership representatives responded that they must work primarily through official statistical offices for international comparability, though they acknowledge broader stakeholder needs.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Funding priorities and resource allocation for data collection

Speakers

– Alison Gillwald
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

Digital inequality funding has dried up and been diverted to data governance, DPI, and AI despite persistent inequalities

Countries face funding difficulties for national surveys and technical capacity gaps in implementing methodologies

Summary

Alison Gillwald argues that funding has been inappropriately diverted from addressing basic digital inequalities to newer areas like AI and data governance, while Alexandre Barbosa focuses on the general funding difficulties countries face for surveys and capacity building.

Topics

Development | Economic

Unexpected differences

Tension between standardization and local relevance in data collection

Speakers

– Participant
– Scarlett Fondeur

Arguments

Question raised about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes

Partnership primarily works with national statistical offices as official data producers while recognizing need for broader stakeholder engagement

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement emerged about whether the partnership’s focus on official statistics and international comparability might exclude important local perspectives and civil society contributions. This tension between standardization needs and inclusive participation was not anticipated as a major discussion point.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed limited but significant disagreements around funding priorities, stakeholder inclusion, and measurement approaches. Most speakers agreed on fundamental needs but differed on implementation strategies and priorities.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely shared common goals of improving ICT measurement and data availability, but showed different perspectives on how to achieve these goals, particularly regarding civil society participation, funding allocation, and the balance between standardization and local needs. These disagreements reflect broader tensions in international development work between top-down standardization and bottom-up participation, but did not prevent collaborative progress on the partnership’s objectives.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Regional organizations are developing comprehensive measurement frameworks that complement global efforts while providing capacity building and training to support other countries in their regions

Speakers

– Marco Llinas
– Ayman El Sherbiny
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

ECLAC operates Digital Development Observatory with 100+ indicators following partnership standards and Regional AI Index covering 19 countries

ESCWA has 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states with primary data collection

Brazil provides training programs and capacity building for the region through digital transformation school and survey methodology workshops

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of aligning existing indicators with major international frameworks and conducting systematic reviews to ensure relevance and eliminate outdated measures

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Scarlett Fondeur

Arguments

Partnership conducting mapping of 50 indicators against WSIS action lines, GDC objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

Topics

Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding measurement into emerging areas while emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder coordination and innovative funding approaches for sustainable data collection

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Need for indicators on meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence use, information integrity, and environmental sustainability

National coordination and multi-stakeholder funding models like Brazil’s approach are essential for sustainable data collection

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development has grown to 14 member organizations with 50+ core indicators, but significant gaps remain in measuring employment, health, security, and governance aspects of digital development

A comprehensive mapping exercise is underway to align existing indicators with WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity frameworks to identify measurement gaps

Funding constraints and technical capacity gaps are major barriers preventing countries, especially in the Global South, from conducting regular ICT surveys and producing comparable statistics

New data sources including big data, mobile phone data, and satellite imagery offer potential to complement traditional survey methods, with several countries like Brazil already implementing innovative approaches

Regional organizations are making significant contributions with ECLAC’s Digital Development Observatory, ESCWA’s 85-indicator framework, and various AI measurement initiatives across regions

The partnership is evolving to address emerging areas like artificial intelligence use, meaningful connectivity, information integrity, and environmental sustainability in the digital age

A centralized data hub hosted by ITU will launch in 2025-2026 to provide unified access to all partnership indicators with AI-powered tools for enhanced user interaction

Resolutions and action items

Finalize the mapping matrix of indicators against WSIS, GDC, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity frameworks to be published on the partnership website

Launch the ITU data hub with country dashboards in 2025 and upgrade in 2026, including an AI-powered chatbot for data interaction

ILO to further explore and develop employment-related ICT indicators using existing microdata, potentially covering 55-155 countries depending on precision level

UNCTAD to conduct a comprehensive review of core indicators through consultation with national statistical offices in the second half of the year

Partnership to propose indicator framework mandate to WSIS plus 20 review co-facilitators for inclusion in end-of-year resolution

Regional commissions (ECLAC, ESCWA) to continue contributing primary data and methodologies to complement national statistical office data

Conduct quantitative risk assessment of current indicator coverage and data availability gaps

Unresolved issues

Sustainable funding mechanisms for regular ICT surveys in developing countries remain unclear, with digital inequality funding being diverted to other priorities

The extent and methodology for incorporating civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes needs clarification

How to effectively measure meaningful connectivity beyond basic access, particularly addressing usage barriers that prevent transformative digital inclusion

Standardization challenges for new data sources like big data and mobile phone data to ensure international comparability while maintaining official statistics standards

Capacity building needs for national statistical offices to implement new methodologies and incorporate alternative data sources

Coordination mechanisms between national statistical offices and other data producers (regulators, ministries, private sector) for comprehensive data collection

Suggested compromises

ILO proposed using both 3-digit ISIC level indicators (more precise, fewer countries) and 2-digit ISIC level indicators (broader definition, more countries) to balance precision with coverage for employment indicators

Partnership to work with proxy indicators for complex areas like WSIS action lines and GDC objectives while acknowledging they may not capture all dimensions

UNCTAD suggested eliminating less important core indicators while developing new ones like e-commerce value indicators to keep the framework manageable and relevant

Use of multi-stakeholder funding models like Brazil’s approach where regulators, ministries, and internet registry agencies supplement national statistical office budgets

Regional organizations to provide complementary data collection through direct country engagement to fill gaps in official statistics while maintaining coordination with national statistical offices

Without data, we cannot identify where the digital divide exists, nor can we design evidence-based policies to close it. With it, we can have a positive and measurable impact on people’s lives… it is important for us to recognize that at the base or foundation of artificial intelligence is data. Without connecting everyone or certain regions or certain groups of countries, like least developed countries, landlocked developing states, and small island developing states, we are limited in terms of the availability of data.

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Reason

This comment is insightful because it establishes the fundamental connection between data availability and AI development, while highlighting how digital exclusion creates a vicious cycle that limits both connectivity and AI advancement for vulnerable populations. It reframes the discussion from technical measurement to equity and inclusion.

Impact

This opening comment set the tone for the entire session by establishing data as foundational to both policy-making and emerging technologies like AI. It influenced subsequent speakers to address gaps and inequalities in their presentations, and established the urgency of the measurement work being discussed.

So far, what we found out is that although we have more than 50 indicators, there are still a number of areas that need indicators or measurement, particularly on employment, on health, on security, on governance, for example.

Speaker

Esperanza Magpantay

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reveals a critical gap between the perceived comprehensiveness of existing measurement frameworks and the actual coverage needed for holistic digital development assessment. It challenges the assumption that 50+ indicators are sufficient.

Impact

This observation directly led to concrete responses from other organizations. Michael Frosch from ILO immediately addressed the employment gap by proposing specific ICT employment indicators, and other speakers began identifying how their organizations could fill identified gaps.

But I think the ILO stat also includes the possibility due to that we have all this underlying data to create new indicators as well and this would also include the possibility to create employment related ICT indicators and by that maybe fill some of the gaps in the core list of the ICT indicators… So in other words based on the available data in the ILO stat it would be a possibility to create employment related ICT indicators

Speaker

Michael Frosch

Reason

This comment is insightful because it demonstrates how existing data infrastructure can be leveraged to address identified gaps without requiring entirely new data collection mechanisms. It shows practical problem-solving and resource optimization.

Impact

This response directly addressed the employment gap identified by Esperanza and provided a concrete solution with specific country coverage numbers. It shifted the discussion from identifying problems to proposing actionable solutions and demonstrated how partnership collaboration can work effectively.

But I think that despite the great effort we still have to face many challenges because countries are being pressured to have more and more data in a very different areas that it’s difficult to really keep up to date with the requirements of data for evidence policymaking… we still have technical and skill capacity gap in terms of implementing the methodologies that are being set by those organizations.

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it introduces the critical tension between the growing demand for data and the practical limitations countries face in producing it. It challenges the assumption that more indicators automatically lead to better outcomes.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from technical measurement issues to practical implementation challenges. It prompted subsequent speakers like Alison Gillwald to elaborate on funding challenges and led to discussions about alternative data sources and capacity building needs.

And just to make the point that in the heyday of these surveys, we were supported to be able to cover 20 African countries… Now, because it costs so much to go into the field, we pack in a survey that looks extensively at some of these usage issues… But it’s absolutely critical to getting the disaggregated data that we need on the exact points of policy intervention… digital inequality funding has dried up. That funding’s all been diverted to data governance now, DPI, and artificial intelligence.

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it exposes a fundamental contradiction in development priorities: while there’s increased focus on advanced digital technologies, funding for basic measurement of digital inequalities has decreased. It reveals how funding trends may be undermining the foundational work needed for equitable digital development.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical reality check about resource allocation and sustainability. It connected the technical discussion to broader development funding patterns and highlighted how policy attention to emerging technologies might be inadvertently undermining basic measurement infrastructure needed for inclusive development.

I really wanted to know how much the civil society is participating in the design of the indicators, in the design of the data collection processes, and how much the civil society organization is participating in the analysis of the data… I’m talking about that because of the right of the population to create the data they need to really reflect on their own realities.

Speaker

Gembly Camacho

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it challenges the top-down approach to indicator development and raises fundamental questions about data sovereignty and participatory measurement. It introduces the concept of communities’ rights to shape how they are measured and represented in data.

Impact

This question introduced a new dimension to the discussion about governance and participation in measurement frameworks. While it came near the end and wasn’t fully addressed due to time constraints, it highlighted a significant gap in the partnership’s approach and raised questions about legitimacy and representation in international measurement efforts.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond technical measurement issues to address systemic challenges in digital development measurement. The conversation evolved from a presentation of existing frameworks to a critical examination of gaps, resource constraints, and governance issues. Zavazava’s opening established the stakes and urgency, Magpantay’s gap analysis prompted concrete responses from partners, and the later interventions by Barbosa, Gillwald, and Camacho introduced increasingly complex challenges around implementation, funding, and participation. The discussion demonstrated both the collaborative potential of the partnership (as seen in ILO’s immediate response to identified gaps) and the deeper structural challenges that technical solutions alone cannot address. The flow moved from optimistic collaboration to sobering realism about resource constraints and power dynamics in global measurement frameworks.

How can we strengthen national statistical offices and international coordination so we improve the frequency, quality, and granularity of ICT data?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This is a fundamental question about improving the institutional capacity and coordination mechanisms needed to enhance ICT data collection and quality globally.

What role can alternatives like big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data play in complementing traditional data sources?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This addresses the need to explore innovative data sources to fill gaps in traditional statistical collection methods, particularly important for developing countries with limited statistical capacity.

How can we better map core ICT indicators against international development frameworks, including the WSIS Action Lines, the Global Digital Compact, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that measurement efforts align with and support monitoring of key international digital development commitments and frameworks.

How do we translate the data into action, ensuring it directly informs national digital strategies and embeds accountability and inclusivity in digital transformation?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between data collection and policy implementation, ensuring that statistics lead to meaningful policy changes.

Whether these 50 indicators are enough to measure different goals and targets and global monitoring with regards to universal and meaningful connectivity, the WSIS action lines, as well as the global digital compact

Speaker

Esperanza Magpantay

Explanation

This is a fundamental assessment question about the adequacy of current measurement frameworks for monitoring key digital development objectives.

How much the civil society is participating in the design of the indicators, in the design of the data collection processes, and how much the civil society organization is participating in the analysis of the data

Speaker

Gembly Camacho (APC)

Explanation

This addresses the important question of stakeholder participation and the right of populations to participate in creating data that reflects their realities.

In relation to the other 11 action lines, are there other kinds of measurements that you are doing beyond meaningful access?

Speaker

Titi Casa (Agency for Digital Italy)

Explanation

This seeks to understand the scope of measurement beyond connectivity and access indicators to cover other aspects of digital development.

What measures will be made to support countries which are in most need but where there is most difficulty in obtaining reliable data?

Speaker

Online participant

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of data collection in the most vulnerable countries that often have the greatest need for support but face the most barriers to data collection.

How to measure information integrity in the context of the mandate of the partnership

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Explanation

This identifies a new area requiring measurement frameworks as information integrity becomes increasingly important in the digital age.

How to develop indicators for artificial intelligence usage by individuals and enterprises

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Explanation

This addresses the need for new measurement frameworks to capture the adoption and impact of AI technologies across different sectors.

How to measure environmental sustainability in the digital age

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Explanation

This identifies the need for indicators that capture the environmental impact and sustainability aspects of digital transformation.

How to measure e-commerce value and develop comparable statistics in this area

Speaker

Scarlett Fondeur (UNCTAD)

Explanation

This addresses a significant gap in measuring the economic value and impact of digital commerce activities.

How to measure employment by digital platforms and platform work

Speaker

Michael Frosch (ILO)

Explanation

This addresses the need to capture new forms of employment and work arrangements enabled by digital platforms.

How to extend meaningful connectivity indicators to look at equitable digital inclusion, including usage factors and barriers

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Explanation

This seeks to develop more comprehensive measures that go beyond basic connectivity to understand actual usage patterns and barriers to digital inclusion.

How to secure sustainable funding for regular data collection, particularly in developing countries

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa and Alison Gillwald

Explanation

This addresses a critical operational challenge where funding constraints limit the ability to collect regular, comprehensive data needed for policy making.

Summary

This roundtable discussion, organized by the European Commission and African Union, focused on the importance of human rights due diligence in technology development and implementation, particularly in the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The panel brought together representatives from the European Commission, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the African Union, civil society, and the private sector to examine how human rights frameworks can guide technological innovation.

The discussion emphasized that human rights should serve as a “compass” for innovation rather than an obstacle, helping to surface hidden harms and ensure technology benefits all people. Panelists highlighted that human rights due diligence is essential for building trust in the digital economy, as consumers are more likely to share data with companies that respect their rights. From a business perspective, Nokia’s representative explained that human rights due diligence must be integrated throughout the technology lifecycle, from research and development to sales processes, requiring strong management support and continuous training.

The conversation addressed the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures, with participants noting that while some companies proactively implement human rights safeguards, regulatory frameworks like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive help create level playing fields. Special attention was given to protecting vulnerable populations, particularly children, given Africa’s young demographic. The African Union representative emphasized the need for algorithmic transparency and digital dignity indices to assess the net effects of technological deployment.

The WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators concluded by reaffirming their commitment to embedding human rights principles throughout the review process, while acknowledging that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected twenty years after the original WSIS vision of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) as a Framework for Technology**: The discussion emphasized HRDD as a systematic approach to identify, prevent, and mitigate human rights risks in technology development and deployment, with speakers describing it as a “compass” rather than an obstacle to innovation.

– **Business Case for Human Rights in Technology**: Panelists argued that respecting human rights is not only ethically correct but also economically beneficial, with trust being fundamental to the data economy – companies that respect user rights build greater trust and achieve more sustainable business models.

– **Implementation Strategies and Best Practices**: The conversation covered practical approaches including embedding human rights considerations early in product development, requiring management support for human rights policies, conducting continuous training, and using external audits through multi-stakeholder initiatives.

– **Integration of Human Rights into WSIS Plus 20 Review**: Participants discussed how to strengthen human rights language in the World Summit on the Information Society review process, emphasizing that human rights should be “by default” rather than an add-on, and calling for explicit inclusion of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

– **Addressing Digital Divides and Vulnerable Populations**: The discussion highlighted the need to focus on those left behind, particularly the 2.6 billion people still unconnected globally, with special attention to children, women, and other vulnerable groups in the context of AI and emerging technologies.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how human rights due diligence can be integrated into technology development and digital governance frameworks, specifically within the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The goal was to demonstrate that human rights considerations enhance rather than hinder technological innovation and business success, while providing practical guidance for implementation.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently collaborative, constructive, and optimistic throughout the conversation. Speakers demonstrated strong alignment on core principles, with the discussion maintaining a professional yet passionate advocacy for human rights integration. The tone remained solution-oriented rather than confrontational, with panelists building on each other’s points and the co-facilitators expressing genuine openness to incorporating human rights perspectives into the WSIS review process. There was a sense of urgency balanced with pragmatic realism about implementation challenges.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Thibaut Kleiner** – European Commission representative, moderator/organizer of the roundtable discussion

– **Anna Oosterlinck** – Article 19 representative

– **Suela Janina** – Co-facilitator of WSIS Plus 20 review process

– **Gbenga Sesan** – Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative, IGF Leadership Panel member

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Co-facilitator of WSIS Plus 20 review process, diplomat and human rights lawyer

– **Fiona Cura-Pietre** – Head of Human Rights at Nokia

– **Peggy Hicks** – Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) representative, panel moderator

– **Lavina Ramkissoon** – Ambassador from the African Union (Her Excellency)

– **Participant** – Josiane with Child Rights and Business in UNICEF

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Human Rights Due Diligence in Technology Development – WSIS Plus 20 Roundtable Discussion

## Executive Summary

This roundtable discussion, jointly organised by the European Commission and African Union, examined the role of human rights due diligence (HRDD) in technology development within the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The discussion brought together representatives from government, UN agencies, civil society, private sector, and international organisations to explore how human rights frameworks can guide technological innovation while addressing the reality that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected twenty years after the original WSIS vision.

## Key Participants

**Thibaut Kleiner** from the European Commission opened the discussion, framing it within current global challenges including surveillance, misinformation, and digital exclusion. **Peggy Hicks** from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) served as moderator, emphasising how human rights can serve as a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology while avoiding risks.

**Suela Janina** and **Ekitela Lokaale** served as co-facilitators of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. Lokaale emphasised the need to ask “who is left behind and why?” when considering the 2.6 billion people still unconnected globally, while both demonstrated openness to incorporating human rights perspectives into the review process.

**Anna Oosterlinck** from Article 19 advocated for strengthening human rights language in the WSIS framework. **Gbenga Sesan** from Paradigm Initiative provided insights on the business case for human rights, while **Fiona Cura-Pietre**, Head of Human Rights at Nokia, offered practical implementation perspectives. **Ambassador Lavina Ramkissoon** from the African Union emphasised algorithmic transparency and child rights protection. A participant from UNICEF raised questions about balancing mandatory and voluntary measures.

## Human Rights as a Framework for Innovation

Ambassador Ramkissoon referenced former UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay’s observation that “human rights is not an obstacle to innovation, but it is a compass,” explaining how this framework determines “the sort of digital divide that we end up with or not.” This reframing positioned human rights as guidance for sustainable development rather than a constraint on technological progress.

Peggy Hicks reinforced this perspective, describing human rights as “a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology and AI while avoiding risks.” The framework’s value lies in its ability to surface hidden harms and make invisible impacts visible, providing a structured methodology for thinking through technology impacts on people in advance.

Suela Janina highlighted technology’s dual nature, noting that it “can both enable human rights through access to information and infringe rights without proper safeguards,” underscoring the need for human rights protection throughout the entire technology lifecycle.

## The Business Case for Human Rights

Gbenga Sesan provided compelling analysis of why human rights protection makes business sense: “the new economy, the data economy, the gig economy, is built on the concept of trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t give you my data. If I don’t give you my data, you can’t process it.” He emphasised that “human dignity is a core need. Everyone wants to be respected.”

This insight links human rights directly to the core asset of digital businesses – user data and trust. Sesan noted the need to find “that bite point, that balance between people and profits,” while identifying “a huge gap between doing just enough to meet legal requirements and doing enough to respect rights.”

Fiona Cura-Pietre reinforced this from a corporate perspective, explaining that “it’s more profitable to implement HRDD than deal with reputational damage from violations.” She noted that Nokia, being “active in over 120 countries,” wants to “deliver connectivity in a responsible way.”

## Practical Implementation Strategies

Cura-Pietre shared Nokia’s approach: “we do [human rights due diligence] as part of our sales approval process… before the sale is done, because that’s where our leverage is. It allows us to walk away and say, no, we don’t want to do this.”

Key implementation elements include:

– **Management Support**: CEO-approved policies are essential for making human rights-based decisions

– **Continuous Training**: Awareness building across all business units

– **Lifecycle Integration**: Building HRDD into R&D processes for both near-term and future technology development

– **External Assessment**: Multi-stakeholder engagement provides valuable external input and accountability

Sesan added that “documented processes enable strategic litigation and provide proof when rights violations occur,” emphasising the importance of clear audit trails.

## Integration into WSIS Plus 20 Review

Anna Oosterlinck observed that “human rights language in current WSIS framework is fairly light and needs strengthening with explicit reference to UN Guiding Principles.” Sesan emphasised that “human rights must be embedded by default, not as a tokenistic add-on to the WSIS process.”

The co-facilitators demonstrated commitment to incorporating these perspectives. Lokaale explained their “open, multi-stakeholder approach to the WSIS Plus 20 consultation process” and committed to strengthening human rights language in the zero draft. She emphasised that a “human rights-based approach should guide both process and outcomes with accountability and non-discrimination.”

Janina noted that “the Global Digital Compact provided positive language developments and compromise formulations” that could inform the WSIS review. Both co-facilitators extended deadlines for written inputs to enable broader participation.

The original WSIS vision of a “people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented information society” inherently embodies human rights principles, providing a foundation for strengthening the framework.

## Addressing Digital Divides and Vulnerable Populations

The discussion repeatedly addressed the challenge that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected. Vulnerable groups requiring special attention include:

– **Children and Young People**: Ramkissoon highlighted that “child rights protection is crucial given Africa’s young population”

– **Women**: Janina specifically mentioned women among vulnerable categories needing special focus

– **Persons with Disabilities**: Recognised as facing particular barriers in digital access

The conversation emphasised ensuring that human rights safeguards enhance rather than hinder digital inclusion for marginalised populations.

## Balancing Mandatory and Voluntary Measures

Participants expressed different perspectives on regulatory approaches. Cura-Pietre advocated that “companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach,” while acknowledging moves toward mandatory requirements through legislation like the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

The UNICEF participant raised concerns about finding the right balance between mandatory and voluntary measures, particularly considering impacts on startups and small tech companies. The discussion suggested that complementary mandatory and voluntary measures may be most effective.

## Future Challenges and Considerations

Ramkissoon raised forward-looking questions about “how to navigate human-AI coexistence and prepare for a society with multiple humanoids functioning alongside humans,” advocating for “algorithmic transparency and checkpoints” and proposing “digital dignity indices” to assess technological impacts.

Current challenges include surveillance, misinformation, and deprivation of choice and voice, demonstrating that human rights concerns require immediate attention alongside preparation for future technologies.

Ramkissoon identified cultural change as particularly challenging, noting that “cultural mindset shifts are needed, which may be the hardest problem to solve in today’s age.” She emphasised that “human rights requires storytelling, open dialogue, and community engagement as fundamental building blocks.”

## Conclusions

The discussion demonstrated broad agreement among stakeholders on the importance of human rights due diligence in technology development. The business case for human rights protection emerged as particularly compelling, with speakers showing that trust built through rights protection is both morally correct and economically advantageous.

The commitment of WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators to strengthening human rights language, combined with practical insights from business and civil society representatives, indicates momentum for advancing human rights integration in digital governance frameworks.

Key challenges remain in connecting 2.6 billion unconnected people while ensuring human rights safeguards enhance rather than hinder digital inclusion. The ongoing work requires balancing various stakeholder concerns while maintaining focus on the original WSIS vision of people-centred digital development.

Thibaut Kleiner: Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Okay, good afternoon. So I’m Thibaut Kleiner from the European Commission, and I’m happy to welcome you today to this discussion, this roundtable. I think that we have really esteemed participants today, so I think excellencies are very happy to be able to also engage with this discussion overall. I think that human rights sometimes seems to be taken for granted in some of the conversations, but I think we have the opportunity today to reaffirm the importance of human rights for our work. And I wanted to start by, in fact, congratulating really the co-facilitators of the YSYS plus 20, because I think that the way you have approached the process, being very open to suggestions, also organizing now a consultation that will be very much based on multi-stakeholder principles, is something that I think has to be underlined, and I think that it is very promising for the following steps. I think we are all looking forward to sharing with you some initial reactions to the first elements, but also towards the zero draft, because we have little time left, actually, until December and the conclusion of these processes. But what is important is indeed that we also benefit from the very important discussions that took place already in the past two years around the Global Digital Compact. I think that there was a lot of positive development, and by and large I think that the language that was found in terms of compromise formulations were very helpful in bridging also various positions. And I think it was very nice to see also last September how countries from the Global South, if I may say, were also actually raising the issue that human rights are not to be compromised with, and I think this was really something that was very much noticed. and I think that it’s also something that from the side of the European Union we really want to again underline that it’s not something that is an issue that is just coming from one part of the spectrum, it’s an issue that we all share and it’s an issue also that we need to repeat because what is clear when you look around even in the whole talking about AI for instance is that the technology is extremely promising in terms of benefits but also that the risks and the opportunities to misuse technology have just increased. I think where we are today is a world where surveillance is a reality, where we are today is a world where you can be deprived from your choice, from your voice and where you can be subject to a lot of misinformation and disinformation. So I think that we cannot basically overlook these issues and these risks and that’s why it’s very important when we contemplate the future of the internet, the YSYS, we also remember its very origin and the formulations we had 20 years ago where again I think that human-centric, human rights-based approach were really cornerstone. So I don’t want to say much more but to basically open the floor I think that we are fortunate to have with us also Peggy Higgs from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights who doesn’t need any introduction because I think that you’ve been also very influential in these debates including on AI precisely and I would like also to commend the participation of precisely the co-facilitators today. Great, thank you so much.

Peggy Hicks: It’s such a pleasure to be with you, to be working with the EU and the AU in partnership on co-organizing this event and to start off from that standpoint of really recognizing as you have the important role that with us. co-facilitators are having in the process. We’re grateful to have you with us, Ambassadors, and we hope it’ll be a fruitful discussion for you as well, especially, of course, as we’ve discussed, emphasizing the multi-stakeholder nature of the process and the inclusive approach that you’ve been taking. And this is an example of that, I think, being part of a conversation like this. As Thibaut has said, we all know that human rights has been brought into the WSIS process and that we’re looking to see how we can continue that engagement and strengthening in the WSIS Plus 20 review. But also, of course, we were quite pleased with the outcome of the Global Digital Compact that really sees human rights as a cross-cutting thread in each of the chapters and has really actionable steps that can be taken in this regard. But I think the most important point I wanted to say in introduction is the way we frame this conversation is important. We really want to start off by talking about how human rights can help, how it can be a tool that allows us to be able to deliver on the benefits that we see from digital technology and AI, and allow them to achieve their greatest purpose for people on the ground in all localities. And through that, of course, do it in a way that avoids the risks and makes it more certain that we’re able to achieve the benefits that are potentially there but sometimes might get lost. If we don’t, in advance, think through how will these technologies relate with real people and how will they be able to deliver the results we seek. And that’s what human rights due diligence is all about. It’s sort of a long phrase which we even, in that horrible UN way, tend to use an acronym of HRDD. But really, it’s just about thinking through what will the impacts of this technology be on people and how can we make sure that it achieves for people what we want it to and avoids or mitigates as many of the risks as we can at the same time. OHCHR, of course, is itself very engaged in this process and, as I said, really looking forward to being able to support the process as it moves forward in terms of how we can bring these issues both into WSIS the WSIS Review, but into the work of UNGIS and through the GDC as well. So with us today in spirit, if not in physical reality, we have a very esteemed panel that I’m happy to now introduce. Unfortunately, some things have interfered and are not actually with us, but I’m assured by our technical colleagues that we will have access to all of them. I would like to introduce them now, and then I’ll go to a question right away. So the three people that will be with us online are Her Excellency Lavina Ramkissoon, who is Ambassador from the African Union, and my good friend Gbenga Sison, who is the Executive Director of the Paradigm Initiative and on the IGF Leadership Panel. It’s good to have you with us, Gbenga. And then also Fiona Kira-Pietre, the Head of Human Rights at Nokia, and it’s very great to have that perspective, the business perspective brought into the conversation as well. So I’m going to tee it up for them in a fairly easy way with just a general question about why do you think human rights due diligence is useful for technology? What’s motivated you in this space and what positive impacts have you seen? And I think, are we still having some problems with getting the Ambassador online? We don’t have her yet? No, we do. Okay, perfect. Then I’d like to turn the floor to Ambassador Ramkissoon to answer that first question.

Lavina Ramkissoon: Thank you so very much, Madam Moderator and the audience, definitely in spirit, and apologies ahead of time. So this is, the question of human rights and due diligence is really sort of the center focus when we have to talk about the sort of African continent. When we really start thinking and unpacking a little bit about HRDD, it really then starts to what we believe is lend and give us a framework, a framework in terms of surfacing a lot of the hidden sort of harms that may or may not be there. And You know, as such, I think it is allowing us to see a lot of the invisibility of what actually is the net effect of what is actually happening alongside us. To quote one of the previous UN higher commissioners, I think it was Navi Pillay who really said that human rights is not an obstacle to innovation, but it is a compass. And I think this becomes even more true as we sort of engage into the sort of digital realm of things. You know, how we embed it and how that becomes so ingrained and part and parcel of how we function really determines the sort of digital divide that we end up with or not. So let me stop there and pass over to the other colleagues.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Thank you. A wonderful start. I really like that compass imagery from High Commissioner Pillay and allowing us to look more visibly at the impacts that are surfaced through this type of analysis. I’m going to turn next to Benga Sassan. Benga, are you with us?

Gbenga Sesan: 100 percent, though virtual. Hello. Yes, thank you so much, Peggy. It’s great to be able to join, although virtually, and this is a topic that I’m very excited about. We were just having conversations about this last week, so I’m glad that we’re also continuing with this important conversation. I think that centrally human rights or whatever name we call it, and I want to maybe, you know, talk about dignity of the human person right now is a core need. Everyone wants to be respected. Just try to remember the first time you met the person sitting beside you earlier today. If they were kind to you, you are definitely going to listen more when they speak. If someone walks past you and sort of even disrespects you, when they speak there’s almost an automatic response that you’re giving, you know, even in your body language, you’re like not listening to them because everyone wants to be respected. We remember, like they say, how people treat us even before we remember the things they’re saying. So human dignity is a core need. We all want to be respected. We want our rights to be respected. Now where there is a challenge is that business models don’t always respect rights. And that is a problem, you know, that we need to admit. There are many times when businesses say, oh, you know, we’re going to do good. We’re going to make sure nothing goes wrong. But more often than not, some businesses have to choose certain things that don’t exactly respect rights. I mean, I don’t need to talk about the extractives industry. I don’t need to talk about even the data economy that we’re in many times. This is the one reason why we need to talk about human rights due diligence, where we need to bring business models back to the table, break it down, analyze it, and ensure that there is a balance between people and profits. There are times when the focus is on profits and people get forgotten. There are times when arguments are made that, well, if you focus on people alone, there’ll be no profit and no company will exist. So we need to find that bite point, that balance between people and profits, making sure that, yes, you can make profits, but you don’t make profits at the expense of people. Of course, it then brings, you know, the central question that I always love to ask, is human rights good for business or do businesses suffer when they try to respect rights? My answer to that is yes, and I’m going to use my sector, the digital sector, as a very good example. Right now, the new economy, the data economy, the gig economy, is built on the concept of trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t give you my data. If I don’t give you my data, you can’t process it. If you don’t process it, you can’t make money from that particular process. And guess what? What makes me trust you is when you respect my rights. So if you respect my rights, I trust you, and you can use my data, and we can both win. You make money, I’m respected. And this is the major reason why I believe that human rights due diligence is important, because many times businesses forget that rights and trust are at the center of the sustainability of their whole system. So when they need reminders, human rights due diligence does that job for them.

Peggy Hicks: Thank you. Thank you so much, Benga. And I love the way that you brought in the dignity of the person, because we do as a lot of lawyers in the room, probably some technologists, we sometimes forget what the conversation can be about. And that linking of the people to the business models and the approaches is crucial. And it’s actually a very good bridge to turn the floor to Fiona Chiaropetri, who’s head of human rights at Nokia, who obviously has tons of experience in this. So it’s a leading company that’s obviously facing these issues on a day-to-day basis. Over to you,

Fiona Cura-Pietre: Fiona. Thank you very much. It’s an honor to be speaking here, even if it’s just virtually. So thank you very much for the invite. So why is human rights due diligence important? Well, for Nokia, I mean, it’s obviously the right thing to do. I mean, we’re active in over 120 countries, and we want to deliver connectivity in a responsible way. And in order to do that, we must have a way to look at what our biggest risks are and mitigate those risks. And that’s where our human rights due diligence process comes in. You know, responsible business is a key part of our sustainability strategy, and we take pride in having strong ethical practices. It’s not just that. I mean, our stakeholders demand it as well. It’s not just the right thing to do. It’s demanded from us, from regulators, including export regulators, investors, structured financers, customers, and much, much more. It’s just the right way to do things. And I would say I would even go as far as to say it’s more profitable to do it this way than end up with something going wrong, and then you have reputational hits, and then you have all sorts of other different troubles. So it’s just the right way to do things. And it’s the best way to do things, in our opinion.

Peggy Hicks: That’s really wonderful to hear that you’re so positively answering the question that Benga asked as well about, you know, is human rights good for business? And the case that it’s actually the best way to do business in that you avoid those risks. And that’s what’s proven by the approach that Nokia is taking with regards to human rights due diligence. I’m going to turn to the online panelists again for one more question, and then we will, if we have time, try to open it up to the room as well for a couple of questions. But going back to Ambassador, your perspective from the AU, could you give us a sense of how you think we could build awareness of and support for human rights due diligence? Fiona mentioned that part of what drives companies to do this is also that stakeholders are demanding it. And sometimes we wonder, you know, whether consumers are really at the table and engaged in the conversation, certainly investors, as she mentioned as well. But how do we make sure that we have the awareness and support for human rights due diligence that we need, Ambassador?

Lavina Ramkissoon: Yeah, thanks so much for that. I think, you know, to continue on what Fiona sort of mentioned, I think around community being a fundamental block, you know, as part of that solution is definitely one area to look at. You know, generally speaking, I think human rights has really been about storytelling, you know, to a large degree, opening this up further to ensuring, you know, open halls and town halls, or even finding, you know, other areas of awareness and, you know, buy-in that is required is fundamental. Culture is something that is, again, you know, the cornerstone of all of that. And it becomes, you know, one where it’s a mind shift, mindset shift that’s required. So some say this is probably the hardest problem for us to solve in today’s day and age is, you know, changing the human mindset. But, you know, I think that definitely then lends itself into, you know, having sustainable models around human rights, especially given in the age of AI. where I think things like child rights and that awareness needs to become quite larger and louder. In addition to that, I think Gbenga Sison mentioned digital dignity and us putting together something like a digital dignity index or having an impact audit or assessment that is there to understand what is the actual net effect again that is being interpreted or being absorbed by everyone. At the end of the day, awareness is one thing, buy-in is another but sustainability is probably where we’re really after when it comes to ensuring that this digital universe that we have is not just bending towards justice but it is something that we are consciously contributing to all the time. Great, thank you so much Ambassador.

Peggy Hicks: That awareness, buy-in and leading to sustainability I think is just a wonderful framework for how we think about this and you gave us some good tips on how we might be able to get there. Fiona, I’m going to turn to you next and obviously coming from your perspective in the private sector, could you give us a little bit more detail about how you’re building human rights due diligence into your work and what tangible results you’ve seen on your side?

Fiona Cura-Pietre: Sure, so first of all the cornerstone of how we look at human rights is based on the UNGPs, so that’s how we look at it and the salient risk for Nokia, maybe if I back up a second, so we sell communications networks, we sell fixed networks, IP networks, mobile networks, data center technology, that’s what we sell and we sell to operators, service providers, enterprises and governments. So the salient risk for Nokia is the potential misuse of our technology by those customer groups to infringe on freedom of expression or right to privacy. So, to mitigate this, we have a human rights due diligence process, and we do that as part of our sales approval process. So, it has to be preempted. It has to be before the sale is done, because that’s where our leverage is. It allows us to walk away and say, no, we don’t want to do this. Once the sale is done, basically, the deeds and the goods are gone, and we have no specific access to the technology. So, we do it before, and it’s institutionalized in our sales approval process. It’s a mandatory step. All sales need to go through this. It’s in our tools. It’s in our sales approval tool. But it’s not just that you need management support. Our human rights policy documents are approved by our CEO and our senior leaders. You need to have the management backing to be able to make decisions based purely on human rights, and that requires management backing to say, we’re not going to go after this deal, because we can’t mitigate the human rights concerns that we see. So, that’s absolutely critical when you’re doing this. And then, of course, you need to build awareness within the company, and it’s continuous training, continuous, continuous training, different kinds of training, but it’s never just a one-and-done. You need to make sure you’re reaching all those groups, all that person when he’s making that initial sales contact. It’s in his head. What are the things I should be thinking about should I be going after this deal? So, that’s very high-level how we implement it.

Peggy Hicks: I think it’s high-level, but very clear, I think, in terms of those three sort of key ingredients that you talked about. When it’s done in the process, and you do it before you’ve lost your leverage by already having committed to a deal to sell. The second piece of it all needs management support, and the human rights policy has to be real. You have to be able and willing to take the decisions that the process leads to. And then, the third piece is, as you said, sort of the continual awareness and training that needs to be part of it. Benka, I’d like to turn to you, finally, and ask you… You’ve obviously engaging quite a bit with protection of human rights and the people involved in it and innovation. And if you can tell us how human rights due diligence really helps to enable protection of human rights and helps us to make innovation more effective, that would be great. Thanks.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you so much, Peggy. One is the fact that whatever we don’t document, we can’t change, right? And one of the advantages of the human rights due diligence process is it allows us to go through a series of documented and proven processes. We definitely need the opportunity to look at case studies. We can talk about the fact that human rights is good for business, but we need more case studies of how respectful rights, and like I said earlier, one of the things that we’ve seen is the role that trust plays in this data economy. And we need to see more examples. We need to see more examples of businesses that have made hard decisions. And I know that there are always the tough choices to make between maybe the engineering team and the policy team that says, you know what, let’s put people at the center. And we need to see more examples of that, the examples of the struggles and the examples of the outcomes where we can then make an argument, a very strong argument that human rights is good for business. And also when we, you know, in civil society, one of the tools that we use a lot is strategic litigation. And when we do strategic litigation, we need proof. You need to be able to state that this is what the process is. This is where there has been a deviation. This is where rights have been respected, and this is what could have been done. When we’re able to do that, one of the powerful tools that we’re able to rely on is the business and human rights framework that the Office of the High Commissioner and other partners within the ecosystem have been able to work on. To say that this is a procedure that has been discussed. This is the convention. These are the principles that have been established as possibilities for human rights in business, and this is where there’s a deviation. And because there is a standard that has been set, we can then use that standard to make an argument that someone has made the least effort. Because to be honest, where we have a lot of problems is where businesses do just enough to meet legal requirements, and there’s a huge gap between doing just enough to meet legal requirements and doing enough to respect rights. So, that gap of just enough to meet legal requirements and enough to respect rights is the space where we need to put a lot more emphasis and where we’re glad that there’s a documented process that allows us to make arguments for

Peggy Hicks: address. Great. That’s really practical in terms of where we need to focus our attention and how to do it. Thank you, Benga. The panel’s actually been really good at keeping their answers short, but we’re still already behind schedule, which I think is how these panels tend to go. So, I have a final question for the three of you, and then we’re going to open it. I hope to be able to have a little bit of time for questions from the room, as I said. So, maybe if you could just give me like a one-sentence or two-sentence answer. As we said, we’re very fortunate to have the WSIS plus 20 co-facilitators with us, and so it’d be good to hear from you how you think human rights broadly and human rights due diligence specifically can be part of WSIS implementation going forward. Shall I just go in the same order? Ambassador, would you like to jump in first?

Lavina Ramkissoon: Yeah, thank you so much. That’s quite a pertinent question, and for me, we find ourselves in such a blended moment for now, because technology is shaping culture, and culture is shaping technology, and given that is the dynamic, in addition to the fact that AI is contributing to the content online, and so are humans. Somewhere between all of these, we’ve got to find a blend between the common phrase, man and machine. So, I think you know, besides being embedded in just the sort of cultural aspect of it, the dignity, accountability, and justice really need to be the sort of cornerstone points. In addition to that, I think, you know, things like having checkpoints in place, having, you know, algorithmic transparency becomes quite key. In addition to that, you know, how exactly are we maneuvering ourselves towards an era and a society where, you know, there’s multiple humanoids amongst us functioning and engaging together with, you know, humans at the same time. What does that sort of blend, you know, in the U.S.’s world sort of look like, and are we making enough provisions for that? In addition to that, you know, I bring up child rights just purely because, you know, on the continent being the largest, youngest population, it is something that becomes quite a key, you know, embodiment for us, ensuring that, you know, there is sufficient, you know, protection, but at the same time that there is no digital divide that is widening as a result of the progress or the adoption that is actually happening on a grand scale. So, you know, one of the examples that come to mind when both the other panelists were talking was something around, you know, what if every business had to, you know, allocate, you know, be it 5%, 10% of their sort of work towards any ethical, you know, sort of focus or ethical alignment that is required or needed to happen, probably in an idealistic world perhaps, but, you know, some of the examples that, you know, I earlier mentioned, whether it be around audit, whether it be around, you know, having an assessment or having, you know, some form of index for us needs to become the sort of guideline pillars as we sort of navigate this. there is no, you know, human rights is one of those areas that is super complex but yet it is, you know, comes almost intuitively to us, you know, naturally. So we need to kind of tap more into the natural sort of reaction states that we would turn towards. Thanks. Thanks very much. A

Peggy Hicks: lot of good touchstones for us to think about as the WSIS process moves forward. Fiona, your 30

Fiona Cura-Pietre: seconds. I’m going to have two points here. I think, first of all, you also need to have this, the human rights diligence built in your close R&D station, new products that are coming up, but also far out. So, for example, with Bell Labs a while back, we realised that there was a technology shift happening with AI. So we built six pillars of responsibility for our business when it made sense for our business. So that’s far outlooking. So, and then the second point I’ve heard touched upon by both other speakers about this transparency and assessments, Nokia is part of the Global Network Initiative, which is a multi-stakeholder group. And as part of that, the companies need to go through these assessments where external auditors come in and assess your practices and policies and processes. And there’s real life cases, real life examples, and it’s really quite thorough. And we find this a very, very useful way of having, getting input, getting voices from other stakeholders who we don’t necessarily get that much input from to see what their view is on our processes and policies. So these multi-stakeholder groups, especially like the GNI are very helpful for us. And also going forward,

Peggy Hicks: we will be very helpful in the future. Great. Now, Fiona, we work closely with GNI and I totally endorse what you’ve said. And it brings a point that I often have thought during AI for Good this year, is that we have a tendency to sort of refer to companies as a group, as if they’re all doing the same things at the same level. And if we’re really going to make progress, we have to start differentiating more. And if we do that with external audits of that sort, it actually gives us a firm foundation to say, no, there are good practices or at least better practices than some. And we really want to encourage that race to the top amongst the companies to get this right. Benga, over to you. Thank you. So, two weeks ago, we had a chance of meeting with the co-facilitators, I’m speaking of the IGF leadership panel, and we spoke to the place of human rights in the internet we want. And that leads me to the two points I want to make. Number one is the fact that as we continue with the research process, we must realize that when we have conversations about human rights and dignity, it has to be by default. It is not a nice add-on, it is not a tokenistic topic, it is not something we put campaign dollars behind, it is a default that we require. And I think the second is that there are frameworks for human rights, you know, in business, and the due diligence that supports that, that states already agreed to, that I believe we can do very easily into the WSIS implementation process, and the review process of WSIS itself, the IGF, and other elements of all the UN processes. Thank you. Thanks very much. So, I feel like it’s been a little bit rapid fire. I hope you’ve, we’ve been able to condense a lot of information into that short conversation. We do have about five minutes, so I can take a couple of questions and then sort of refer them back to the panel quickly. Who would like to come in? Hands? On the end there, please.

Participant: Hi, my name is Josiane with Child Rights and Business in UNICEF, and thank you, Ambassador, for sort of referencing child rights as well. And I just wanted to ask, you know, we see, I think, also in exploring the many startups that are present in this, in this forum, the potential also risks, human rights risks associated with small tech, and also many countries and governments being quite concerned with economic growth and preserving innovation. The panelists did kind of gesture to this, but I was wondering, what is the role of sort of mandatory measures in this space, in relation to some of those arguments that you’re mentioning, that human rights are also good for business, and those cases where actually it is? requiring costs and investment from companies to build in these measures? What is the balance, you think, between the mandatory measures and the voluntary measures, and what are some examples of good practice in encouraging the scale-up of these approaches?

Peggy Hicks: That’s a nice, meaty question, both on the child rights side, but more generally as well, I think, about the balance between. Maybe one other question, and I’m going to throw it back. Please.

Anna Oosterlinck: Sorry. Thank you. I’m Anna from Article 19. I just wanted to pick up on one point that was made by Fiona from Nokia, which I fully agree with, is that human rights need to be built in across a full lifecycle of all technologies, so ideally from pre-design all the way to export, trade, and further use. The second point I’d like to make is that for us, what would be important in terms of the WSIS process, review process, is to really anchor the UNGPs in there very clearly, because human rights-based language is, at the moment in the WSIS framework, fairly light, so we’ve been advocating very strongly with the co-facilitators to hopefully, throughout the process, to strengthen the human rights-based approach, but specifically, I think, the UN guiding principles, if we can really explicitly put those in and then build off the work from the OCHR, including from BTEC, and several great reports from UN special procedures, etc., then that would be, I think, a great point to start from. Thank you. Great. You must guess that we

Peggy Hicks: actually endorse that as well from the side of the UN Human Rights Office. Thank you very much. So, I’m going to go back to the panel. I’m sorry we don’t have more time, but I do think that the co-facilitators want to give them the last word, and we want to get people out of the room marginally on time. So, Ambassador, do you want to come back on the question that was asked about child rights and mandatory human rights due diligence for companies? Yeah. So, from an African

Lavina Ramkissoon: Union perspective, we obviously have two things in play at the moment, one being the digital transformation plan and the other being the Agenda 2063. So, given those two are the focus areas, a lot of everything is driven towards that. If you have to unpack what they mean and take a deeper dive into it, A lot of it speaks towards either an economic sort of impact or a balanced sort of narrative that is needed across the continent. So when we have to talk about impact towards a living standard, impact towards healthcare, impact towards GDP of a particular country or us as a continent, whatever the case may be, I think those are the sort of areas that everyone is nudging towards. In addition to that, I think when we have to talk about it from a corporate perspective, there are definite areas of alignment that can happen between what is happening on a sort of global scale, continental and, you know, internal. And therein always lies the sort of balance between the sort of digital, economic, social and infrastructural issues. And there is a framework that was developed a while ago around the four of these in particular that I would encourage you guys to perhaps have a look at in addition to it.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Thanks very much. Fiona, over to you. Obviously, in the EU context of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which I’m sure is informing your efforts in this area.

Fiona Cura-Pietre: Yeah. I mean, we have been supportive of CSF triple D or the iterations, some of the iterations that we’ve seen. So it often focuses on supply chain, which is, of course, important. But I think for us, what’s very important is it’s the guidance whenever it will appear and where it will appear for our sector, because a lot of the time, the guidance is for supply chain, which is critical. I’m not saying that’s not critical, but when we’re talking about the use of technology, that’s a different set of things. So we are supportive, definitely, of this mandatory due diligence, but that’s not the only reason we do it. We’re doing it now anyway, before there’s been a law. So yes, I think it’s helpful for level playing fields and these sorts of things. But it’s something that we do anyway, as of now, because we feel it’s the right thing to do as of now.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks very much. Benga? Uh, thanks. Just to emphasize again that the guiding principles exist. They have, you know, very useful language that we can engage in the process and that human rights is central. We must emphasize as much as possible, you know, any opportunity that we have in this process and implementation, human rights must be by default. Thanks very much. I just want to thank the panelists. I have to say, I walked into the room quite worried about how this whole virtual panel would work. I have to thank the tech people for seamlessly, it felt like they were in the room with us and I felt like the conversation pulled itself together very well. As I said, we’re very happy to have the co-facilitators with us, excellencies. I wanted to give you the floor, the last word in this conversation. If you have anything you would like to say about the next steps or how we can contribute or, you know, what you take away from this conversation. I’m not sure which of you would like to go first.

Suela Janina: Thank you very much. First, allow me to thank you for organizing this panel. It has been really fruitful. If you started with this kind of remark, Peggy, I think that it has really fulfilled the expectations. Uh, when we talk about this issue, we feel also the need to have more time. So, but let’s put it like a way that we will be continuing discussing this. We started in little storm. We have heard a lot of expectations, especially starting from the input that we have presented with the elements paper, but I need all the time to repeat the thing that it’s like incremental engagement that we need to have. So, we started with something and we need also to have into account some constraints in terms of of, of, of time, but it is important that, uh, what also has been mentioned by, uh, by the panelists is that, uh, the discussion in human rights in the WSIS, uh, plus 20 review is discussion. And the principle that we take with us also that has been also mentioned in all UN document is that human rights and fundamental freedoms should be protected online and offline in the same way. So we have seen, and for me, the picture that we take from this discussion is also a picture of reality that we are facing, each of us in our everyday life, that we have this great impact of technology on human rights in both ways. Technologies can be enables of human rights and we have seen it right in the access to information. But from the other side, if we don’t have the safeguards, they can be damaging or can be just infringing the enjoyment of freedoms and human rights. So we need to see that in both ways. A second element that it is important in my view is the fact that this enjoyment or protection of human rights should be seen in whole cycle of development of the technology. Another important element in my view is the fact that we need also to address, it has been mentioned by several of the panelists and also from the discussion we have heard, of categories in vulnerable situation, children, persons with disabilities, but also when we speak about women and girls empowerment. Because if we see today the big digital divide in gender that we have, we need really to focus on that element. So building also on some previous discussions we had at IGF, also the fact that there is a need also to more precisely refer to some UN documents that have set also the standard which we need not to lower but to uphold and to enrich them. So we have taken note of all of this and also one element that may be also important for yourself is the fact that we see also a growing role and we need to identify a role that the Office of High Commission should have in this discussion and also on the future improved architecture of UN in terms of also bringing the experience and expertise that you have on this discussion. So for the time being we have had a lot of useful inputs. What we need now is to go on the concrete stage of discussing the language on the zero draft that we are going to prepare. So the last call from my side it will be please be engaged and active with written inputs. We have also extended the deadline in order to accommodate the needs of different stakeholders to be prepared and to present them but we’ll be in contact through different ways in order that we see the ambition to have an outcome that will reflect also the objective to promote and to

Ekitela Lokaale: protect human rights. Thank you Peggy, thank you Thibaut and the panelists as well. First let me thank the panelists. I think they have done a great job in this discussion within the short time that we had. Now for us as co-facilitators we are at the point where all of us are engaged in the review of the WSIS and when you are reviewing an important process such as WSIS it’s important to keep in mind the original vision why we had it in the first place. there’s always the risk of running into specifics and then, you know, getting your eyes off the reason why we had WSIS in the first place, which is that we wanted a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. So even as we dig deep, you know, into important concepts such as human rights due diligence and so on, let us always keep in mind that even as we speak today, 20 years after WSIS, 2.6 billion people in the world are not connected. And, you know, in human rights, it’s always important to ask ourselves who is left behind and why? Because if we don’t ask that question, then you go on and on, on and on, you know, further widening the divide, further entrenching the divide, because then, you know, you sharpen, you know, the other aspects. So I think it’s important for us to remind ourselves. And there is no more human rights-centered vision in a lot of the outcome documents that we’ve produced as a UN community than the WSIS one, because what’s the essence of human rights? Is it not the inherent dignity of the human person? So when the vision says, you know, people-centered, inclusive, yeah, and development-oriented, I think it captures the whole essence of human rights. That’s my first point. Second, in both process and outcome, I think it’s important that we make sure that everybody gets to participate, there is accountability, there is non-discrimination in the process, you know, there’s equality and rule of law. Director, OCHR, and UHKM. My challenge to the rest of us, I speak as a human rights lawyer in addition to being a diplomat, is to keep asking ourselves why the 2.6 billion people are still not connected 20 years after we adopted the WSIS vision. So until and unless we look at the fundamentals that keep 2.6 billion people off the internet, we’ll continue building upon all these other concepts and we’ll not be crossing the digital divide. Then finally, we’ve been trying to live up to the expectation of a human rights-based approach in our engagement, which is why, for example, in creating the multi-stakeholder sounding board, we’ve made every attempt to make sure that different stakeholders from the technical community, civil society, women, men, I don’t think we’re lucky this time to get children on board, but I think that’s ambitious for next time. But it’s an improvement to create spaces where all these other groups, which are often left behind, are able to participate. We take your point that the progressive language on human rights, which has been adopted in recent outcome documents. needs to find its way into the zero draft and so on. As my colleague has said, it might not have been apparent in the elements paper, but it’s every intention on our part to make sure that it is strengthened, but not in a way that makes the process unnecessarily contentious, because sometimes as human rights people, and I’m one of them, like I said, we drum the language and in the negotiation process, we problematize it instead of, and it’s common, it should not be one that’s contentious. So I think I’ll give you the commitment on our part as co-facilitators to make sure that human rights runs through the document and really forms the basis of whatever outcomes will be put forward, because that’s what the WSIS vision is all about. People-centered, inclusive, development-oriented. So thank you again for having us. Thank you so much, both ambassadors. I think everyone in the room, I hope, shares my sense of gratitude, really, that we have two people who are looking at this in such an open, thoughtful, and human rights-based approach. I mean, it was almost like we could have written the talking

Peggy Hicks: points for some of what both of you were saying on these things in terms of the elements of the human rights-based approach. And I have to say, I’m not sure if in these rooms that’s always been so easy. So it’s really, really gratifying to hear the commitment that you have to looking at this. And Ambassador, I especially appreciate it. I had already written down that the approach that you’re taking is a forward-looking one, which is very important because we want something that will deliver for children, as the ambassador has emphasized. But also, it’s also looking behind. It’s also looking at who is being left behind currently and how we actually use this process to move things forward in a way that creates greater equity and greater inclusion. going forward. So I think those are critical points that you’ve made. We are very committed to the ongoing dialogue. Thanks again to the European Union and African Union for their partnership on this event and to all of you for participating. Very good to be with you today. Maybe a round of applause for our panelists.

Agreement points

Human Rights Due Diligence is essential for technology development and business practices

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

HRDD provides a framework for surfacing hidden harms and making invisible impacts visible

HRDD helps balance people and profits by ensuring business models respect human dignity

HRDD is the right thing to do and demanded by stakeholders including regulators, investors, and customers

Human rights due diligence is about thinking through technology impacts on people in advance

Summary

All speakers agree that Human Rights Due Diligence is a crucial framework for identifying potential harms, balancing business interests with human dignity, and ensuring responsible technology development through proactive impact assessment.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Human rights should be integrated throughout the entire technology lifecycle

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Anna Oosterlinck

Arguments

Human rights protection should be considered throughout the entire technology lifecycle

HRDD should be built into R&D processes for both near-term and far-out technology development

Human rights need to be built in across a full lifecycle of all technologies, so ideally from pre-design all the way to export, trade, and further use

Summary

There is strong consensus that human rights considerations must be embedded from the earliest stages of technology development through to deployment and use, rather than being added as an afterthought.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Trust is fundamental to the success of digital technologies and business models

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre

Arguments

Trust is fundamental to the data economy – respecting rights builds trust which enables business success

It’s more profitable to implement HRDD than deal with reputational damage from violations

Summary

Both speakers recognize that trust, built through respecting human rights, is essential for sustainable business success in the digital economy, and that proactive rights protection is more cost-effective than dealing with violations.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Privacy and data protection

Human rights must be embedded by default in WSIS processes, not as optional additions

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Anna Oosterlinck

Arguments

Human rights must be embedded by default, not as a tokenistic add-on to the WSIS process

Human rights-based approach should guide both process and outcomes with accountability and non-discrimination

Human rights language in current WSIS framework is fairly light and needs strengthening with explicit reference to UN Guiding Principles

Summary

There is consensus that human rights should be fundamental to the WSIS Plus 20 review process rather than peripheral considerations, with calls for strengthening the human rights framework and making it central to both process and outcomes.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Vulnerable populations require special attention in digital rights protection

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Child rights protection is crucial given Africa’s young population and need to prevent widening digital divides

Vulnerable categories including children, persons with disabilities, and women need special focus

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the need for special focus on protecting vulnerable populations, particularly children, persons with disabilities, and women, in the context of digital rights and preventing digital divides.

Topics

Children rights | Gender rights online | Rights of persons with disabilities

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers frame human rights as an enabling and guiding force for technology development rather than a barrier, emphasizing its role in maximizing benefits while mitigating risks.

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Human rights serves as a compass for innovation rather than an obstacle

Human rights serves as a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology and AI while avoiding risks

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers recognize that true human rights protection goes beyond mere legal compliance and requires companies to proactively adopt ethical practices regardless of regulatory requirements.

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre

Arguments

There’s a gap between meeting legal requirements and actually respecting rights that needs emphasis

Companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of institutional commitment and documented processes for effective human rights implementation, whether for internal decision-making or external accountability.

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

Management support and CEO-approved policies are essential for making human rights-based decisions

Documented processes enable strategic litigation and provide proof when rights violations occur

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Business case for human rights is stronger than compliance case

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

It’s more profitable to implement HRDD than deal with reputational damage from violations

Trust is fundamental to the data economy – respecting rights builds trust which enables business success

Explanation

It’s somewhat unexpected to see such strong consensus between a corporate representative and a civil society advocate that human rights protection is not just morally right but actually more profitable than violations. This alignment suggests a maturation in understanding the business value of human rights.

Topics

Human rights | Economic

Technology has dual nature requiring balanced approach

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

Technology can both enable human rights through access to information and infringe rights without proper safeguards

Current world reality includes surveillance, deprivation of choice and voice, and misinformation risks

Explanation

The consensus between EU and co-facilitator perspectives on acknowledging both the benefits and serious risks of technology represents a balanced, realistic approach that avoids both techno-optimism and techno-pessimism.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Cybersecurity

Need for mandatory measures while maintaining voluntary leadership

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Participant

Arguments

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive represents move toward mandatory requirements, though guidance for technology sector use cases still needed

Balance needed between mandatory and voluntary measures, with consideration for economic growth and innovation concerns

Explanation

The consensus between a corporate representative supporting mandatory measures and a participant raising concerns about balancing mandatory/voluntary approaches suggests a nuanced understanding that regulation and voluntary action can be complementary rather than opposing forces.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

There is remarkably strong consensus among all speakers on the fundamental importance of human rights in technology development, the need for proactive due diligence processes, and the business case for rights protection. Key areas of agreement include the necessity of embedding human rights throughout technology lifecycles, the importance of trust in digital economies, and the need to strengthen human rights frameworks in international processes like WSIS Plus 20.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy development. The alignment between diverse stakeholders (government, business, civil society, international organizations) suggests strong foundation for advancing human rights in technology governance. The consensus on both moral and business cases for human rights protection indicates potential for sustainable implementation without requiring stakeholders to choose between ethics and economics.

Different viewpoints

Mandatory vs Voluntary Human Rights Due Diligence Requirements

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Participant

Arguments

Companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach

Balance needed between mandatory and voluntary measures, with consideration for economic growth and innovation concerns

Summary

Fiona advocates that companies should proactively implement HRDD because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of legal mandates, while the participant emphasizes the need to balance mandatory measures with economic growth and innovation concerns, particularly for startups and small tech companies.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Scope of Human Rights Due Diligence Implementation

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

HRDD must be integrated into sales approval processes before deals are finalized to maintain leverage

Human rights must be embedded by default, not as a tokenistic add-on to the WSIS process

Explanation

While both speakers strongly support HRDD, they have different perspectives on implementation scope. Fiona focuses on specific business process integration (sales approval), while Gbenga advocates for broader, default integration across all processes. This represents a tactical vs strategic approach difference that wasn’t expected given their shared commitment to human rights.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on the importance of human rights due diligence, with only minor disagreements on implementation approaches. The main area of disagreement centered on the balance between mandatory and voluntary measures, particularly regarding economic impacts on innovation.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications for practical implementation. The consensus on principles but differences on methods suggests that while there’s strong political will for human rights integration, the technical details of implementation will require careful negotiation to balance various stakeholder concerns, particularly around mandatory requirements and their economic impacts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers frame human rights as an enabling and guiding force for technology development rather than a barrier, emphasizing its role in maximizing benefits while mitigating risks.

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Human rights serves as a compass for innovation rather than an obstacle

Human rights serves as a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology and AI while avoiding risks

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers recognize that true human rights protection goes beyond mere legal compliance and requires companies to proactively adopt ethical practices regardless of regulatory requirements.

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre

Arguments

There’s a gap between meeting legal requirements and actually respecting rights that needs emphasis

Companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of institutional commitment and documented processes for effective human rights implementation, whether for internal decision-making or external accountability.

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

Management support and CEO-approved policies are essential for making human rights-based decisions

Documented processes enable strategic litigation and provide proof when rights violations occur

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) serves as a compass for innovation rather than an obstacle, providing a framework to surface hidden harms and make invisible impacts visible in technology development

Trust is fundamental to the data economy – respecting human rights builds trust which enables business success, creating a win-win scenario where companies can be profitable while respecting people’s rights

HRDD must be integrated early in business processes (before sales are finalized) to maintain leverage, requires strong management support, and needs continuous training across organizations

Human rights must be embedded by default in the WSIS Plus 20 review process, not as a tokenistic add-on, with explicit reference to UN Guiding Principles

2.6 billion people remain unconnected 20 years after WSIS, highlighting the need to focus on fundamental barriers and ask ‘who is left behind and why?’

Technology can both enable human rights through access to information and infringe rights without proper safeguards, requiring protection throughout the entire technology lifecycle

Vulnerable populations including children, persons with disabilities, and women need special focus, particularly given concerns about widening digital divides

The original WSIS vision of people-centered, inclusive, development-oriented information society inherently embodies human rights principles and should guide the review process

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators committed to strengthening human rights language in the zero draft of WSIS Plus 20 review, building on progressive language from recent UN documents like the Global Digital Compact

Co-facilitators extended the deadline for written inputs to accommodate different stakeholders’ needs for preparation

Participants called to actively engage with written inputs for the zero draft preparation process

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to have a growing role in future discussions and improved UN architecture for digital governance

Need for more case studies and documented examples of businesses making human rights-based decisions to strengthen the argument that human rights is good for business

Unresolved issues

The balance between mandatory versus voluntary human rights due diligence measures, particularly considering economic growth and innovation concerns

How to effectively reach and protect the 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected to the internet

Specific guidance needed for technology sector use cases under emerging mandatory due diligence frameworks like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

How to navigate human-AI coexistence and prepare for a society with multiple humanoids functioning alongside humans

Bridging the gap between meeting legal requirements and actually respecting human rights in business practices

How to effectively change human mindsets and achieve cultural shifts needed for sustainable human rights implementation

Suggested compromises

Finding balance between people and profits in business models – ensuring companies can be profitable while respecting human rights rather than choosing one over the other

Incremental engagement approach for WSIS Plus 20 review – starting with foundational elements while acknowledging time constraints and building progressively

Strengthening human rights language in negotiations without making the process unnecessarily contentious – making human rights common sense rather than problematic

Blending mandatory and voluntary approaches – supporting mandatory due diligence while recognizing that leading companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements

Balancing innovation and protection – ensuring human rights safeguards don’t stifle technological development while preventing misuse of technology

Human rights is not an obstacle to innovation, but it is a compass… how we embed it and how that becomes so ingrained and part and parcel of how we function really determines the sort of digital divide that we end up with or not.

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Reason

This reframes the entire human rights debate by positioning it not as a constraint on technological progress, but as a guiding framework. The compass metaphor is particularly powerful as it suggests direction rather than limitation, and connects human rights directly to digital equity outcomes.

Impact

This comment established a foundational framework that other speakers built upon throughout the discussion. It shifted the conversation from defensive justifications of human rights to proactive positioning of human rights as essential for effective technology deployment.

Business models don’t always respect rights… There are times when the focus is on profits and people get forgotten. There are times when arguments are made that, well, if you focus on people alone, there’ll be no profit and no company will exist. So we need to find that bite point, that balance between people and profits.

Speaker

Gbenga Sesan

Reason

This comment directly addresses the core tension in business and human rights discussions by acknowledging the legitimate concerns of both sides. It moves beyond idealistic positions to practical reality, introducing the concept of finding a ‘bite point’ or optimal balance.

Impact

This honest assessment of business realities gave the discussion credibility and practical grounding. It allowed subsequent speakers, particularly Fiona from Nokia, to engage more authentically about real-world implementation challenges and solutions.

The new economy, the data economy, the gig economy, is built on the concept of trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t give you my data… What makes me trust you is when you respect my rights.

Speaker

Gbenga Sesan

Reason

This insight fundamentally reframes human rights as a business necessity rather than a compliance burden. It provides a compelling economic argument for human rights due diligence by linking it directly to the core asset of digital businesses – user data and trust.

Impact

This comment provided a bridge between human rights advocacy and business interests, making the business case more compelling. It influenced how other speakers, particularly from the private sector, could justify their human rights investments to stakeholders.

We do [human rights due diligence] as part of our sales approval process… before the sale is done, because that’s where our leverage is. It allows us to walk away and say, no, we don’t want to do this. Once the sale is done, basically, the deeds and the goods are gone.

Speaker

Fiona Cura-Pietre

Reason

This provides concrete, actionable insight into how human rights due diligence can be operationalized in business processes. It highlights the critical importance of timing and leverage in making human rights considerations effective rather than merely symbolic.

Impact

This practical example gave substance to the theoretical discussions and provided a replicable model. It demonstrated that human rights due diligence isn’t just about policies but about strategic business process design, influencing how other participants thought about implementation.

There’s a huge gap between doing just enough to meet legal requirements and doing enough to respect rights. So, that gap… is the space where we need to put a lot more emphasis.

Speaker

Gbenga Sesan

Reason

This comment identifies a critical implementation gap that often gets overlooked in policy discussions. It distinguishes between compliance and genuine human rights respect, highlighting where real progress needs to be made.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion toward more nuanced implementation strategies and helped explain why legal frameworks alone are insufficient. It influenced the later discussion about mandatory versus voluntary measures.

Even as we speak today, 20 years after WSIS, 2.6 billion people in the world are not connected. And, you know, in human rights, it’s always important to ask ourselves who is left behind and why?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Reason

This comment grounds the entire discussion in stark reality, preventing the conversation from becoming too abstract or theoretical. It connects human rights due diligence to fundamental questions of digital equity and inclusion.

Impact

This intervention brought the discussion full circle and provided crucial context for why human rights considerations matter in practice. It challenged participants to think beyond process improvements to fundamental questions of access and equity.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing human rights not as a constraint on innovation but as an essential framework for sustainable digital development. The conversation evolved from defensive justifications to proactive business cases, with speakers building on each other’s insights to create a comprehensive view of how human rights due diligence can be practically implemented. The most impactful comments successfully bridged the gap between human rights advocacy and business realities, while the final interventions by the co-facilitators grounded the entire discussion in the fundamental challenge of digital inclusion. This created a discussion that was both practically actionable and morally grounded, setting a constructive tone for the WSIS+20 review process.

How can we build more case studies demonstrating that human rights is good for business?

Speaker

Gbenga Sesan

Explanation

There’s a need for more documented examples of businesses that have made hard decisions prioritizing people over profits, showing the struggles and positive outcomes to make stronger arguments for human rights in business

What would a digital dignity index or impact audit/assessment look like and how would it function?

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Explanation

This would help understand the actual net effect of digital technologies and provide a framework for measuring and ensuring digital dignity

How do we navigate a future society where multiple humanoids function alongside humans?

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Explanation

As AI becomes more prevalent, there’s a need to understand what provisions are needed for human-AI coexistence in the WSIS framework

What is the balance between mandatory measures and voluntary measures for human rights due diligence, especially for small tech companies?

Speaker

Josiane (UNICEF)

Explanation

There’s concern about economic growth and innovation preservation while ensuring human rights protection, particularly for startups and smaller companies that may face cost barriers

How can sector-specific guidance for human rights due diligence be developed, particularly for technology use rather than just supply chain?

Speaker

Fiona Cura-Pietre

Explanation

Current guidance often focuses on supply chain issues, but technology companies need specific guidance for the use and deployment of their technologies

How can the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights be explicitly anchored in the WSIS framework?

Speaker

Anna Oosterlinck (Article 19)

Explanation

The current WSIS framework has fairly light human rights-based language, and there’s advocacy to strengthen this by explicitly incorporating the UNGPs

Why are 2.6 billion people still not connected 20 years after WSIS, and what fundamental barriers need to be addressed?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Understanding the root causes of digital exclusion is essential to ensure that human rights frameworks don’t inadvertently widen the digital divide

What role should the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights play in the future improved UN architecture for digital governance?

Speaker

Suela Janina

Explanation

There’s recognition of OHCHR’s expertise and experience, but the specific role in digital governance architecture needs to be defined

How can algorithmic transparency be effectively implemented and regulated?

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Explanation

Algorithmic transparency was mentioned as a key cornerstone for human rights protection in the digital age, but implementation mechanisms need further exploration

What would a framework look like where every business allocates a percentage of their work toward ethical alignment?

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Explanation

This was mentioned as an idealistic but potentially valuable approach to ensuring businesses contribute to ethical digital development

Summary

This discussion focused on developing capacity for bottom-up AI in the Global South, examining what role the international community should play in supporting AI development in developing countries. The session was organized by the Diplo Foundation in partnership with Kenya’s Permanent Mission, Microsoft, and IT4Change, using a fictional case study of “Landia,” a landlocked agricultural country with 8 million people facing typical development challenges.

UN Tech Envoy Amandeep Singh Gill outlined the Secretary-General’s upcoming report on innovative financing for AI capacity building, emphasizing the need for nuanced understanding of different countries’ AI needs across five development tiers. He highlighted that capacity building requirements vary significantly, from basic AI literacy to advanced development capabilities, and proposed a coordinated global response including a potential global AI fund and better coordination among funders to avoid fragmentation.

Microsoft’s Ashutosh Chadha framed AI adoption as fundamentally a policy challenge, arguing that countries need comprehensive national AI strategies addressing the entire technology stack, from electricity and connectivity to data governance and institutional capacity. He emphasized that technology should adapt to existing work patterns rather than forcing communities to change their practices.

Anita Gurumurthy from IT4Change advocated for “regenerative AI” that is indigenous, inclusive, and intentional, challenging the mainstream view that more computing power automatically leads to better AI outcomes. She highlighted the potential of smaller, task-specific models that can run locally and the importance of building on local knowledge and resources, including public broadcast archives and agricultural data cooperatives.

Participants raised critical questions about infrastructure prerequisites, with representatives from Botswana questioning whether AI policies should be developed before addressing basic connectivity and power supply issues. Others emphasized the importance of ensuring AI serves genuine community needs rather than imposing external solutions, and highlighted the need for government support alongside private sector initiatives. The discussion concluded with plans to continue developing practical capacity-building strategies through an AI agent tool that participants could access after the session.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **AI Capacity Building Framework and Financing**: Discussion of the UN Secretary General’s upcoming report on innovative financing options for AI capacity building, including a proposed five-tier system for countries to progress from “AI nascent” to “AI developer” status, and the potential creation of a global AI fund to address the “AI divide.”

– **Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down AI Development**: Strong emphasis on developing AI solutions that serve local community needs rather than imposing external frameworks, with focus on “small beautiful models” that can run locally and address specific tasks rather than requiring large-scale infrastructure.

– **Infrastructure and Policy Challenges**: Recognition that basic infrastructure issues (reliable electricity, internet connectivity, data governance policies) must be addressed alongside AI development, with debate over whether to tackle these sequentially or simultaneously.

– **Alternative AI Development Models**: Discussion of emerging alternatives to mainstream Western AI approaches, including the BRICS AI declaration’s emphasis on balanced intellectual property rights and the potential for regional cooperation in AI development.

– **Community-Centered AI Applications**: Focus on practical applications that augment existing local practices (especially in agriculture) rather than displacing traditional methods, with emphasis on training local talent to support farmers and rural communities using accessible AI tools.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to move beyond abstract concepts of “capacity building” to develop concrete, practical strategies for AI development in the Global South, using the fictional case study of “Landia” (a landlocked, agriculture-based country) to explore how international cooperation can support bottom-up AI initiatives that respect local contexts and needs.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by genuine problem-solving rather than theoretical debate. The atmosphere was informal yet focused, with participants building on each other’s ideas. The tone remained consistently optimistic about finding practical solutions while being realistic about challenges. The use of the fictional “Landia” case study and the coffee machine AI assistant “IQ whalo” added a creative, engaging element that kept the discussion grounded in practical applications rather than abstract policy discussions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jovan Kurbalija** – Director of Diplo Foundation and Head of Geneva Internet Platform, session moderator

– **Amandeep Singh Gill** – UN Tech Envoy and Under-Secretary General

– **Ashutosh Chadha** – Head of Geneva’s Office of Microsoft

– **Anita Gurumurthy** – Representative from IT4Change

– **IQ whalo** – AI-powered coffee machine serving as an example/demonstration tool

– **Nandini Chami** – Representative from IT4Change, from India

– **Alan Ross** – Area of expertise, role, and title not specified

– **Baratang Miya** – From Girl Hype, organization that teaches women and girls how to code

– **Rudy Massamba** – From Congo Brazzaville, area of expertise and role not specified

– **Audience** – Various unidentified audience members who made comments

**Additional speakers:**

– **Tabaget Zavila** – Regulator from Botswana

– **Unnamed audience member** – Asked about BRICS membership and AI development approaches (specific identity not provided)

# Report: Developing Capacity for Bottom-Up AI in the Global South

## Executive Summary

This discussion, organized by the Diplo Foundation in partnership with Kenya’s Permanent Mission, Microsoft, and IT4Change, explored how the international community should support AI development in developing countries. The session used a fictional case study of “Landia” – a landlocked agricultural country – to examine practical approaches to AI capacity building that prioritize local needs over externally imposed solutions.

The 45-minute workshop-style discussion featured diverse perspectives on AI capacity building, with participants generally emphasizing the importance of adapting technology to local contexts rather than forcing communities to change their practices. Key themes included the potential for alternative AI models that don’t require massive computational resources, the role of policy frameworks in enabling AI implementation, and the ongoing debate about infrastructure prerequisites versus pragmatic implementation approaches.

## Key Participants and Perspectives

**Jovan Kurbalija**, Director of Diplo Foundation, moderated the session and challenged assumptions about infrastructure prerequisites for AI development. He emphasized avoiding the anthropomorphization of AI and demonstrated practical AI applications using an AI-powered coffee machine called “IQ whalo” to illustrate that AI can be embedded in simple devices without requiring massive computational infrastructure.

**Amandeep Singh Gill**, UN Tech Envoy, provided the institutional perspective and outlined the Secretary-General’s upcoming report on innovative financing for AI capacity building. Drawing from his previous work on lethal autonomous weapons, he emphasized that “correct understanding of what we are dealing with, what it is, before policy, before capacity building, before anything else, that’s good action only flows from correct understanding.” Gill mentioned a five-tier system for countries to progress in AI development and noted that capacity building requirements vary dramatically between contexts, observing that “three extra GPUs for Ethiopia, which has a total of 12 GPUs, is meaningful. But 3000 GPUs coming to South Africa, which is currently happening, is another context.”

**Ashutosh Chadha**, Head of Microsoft’s Geneva Office, framed AI adoption as fundamentally a policy challenge requiring comprehensive national strategies. His key insight was that “it’s about how do we make technology work for us? It’s not about how technology makes you work. That’s a very subtle shift in the way we need to apply this.” Chadha emphasized addressing infrastructure, data governance, and institutional capacity simultaneously rather than treating AI as a standalone technology.

**Anita Gurumurthy** from IT4Change advocated for “regenerative AI” approaches that are indigenous, inclusive, and intentional. She warned against mainstream AI approaches, arguing that “mainstream AI may not always deliver… part of humanity will just get extinct, right? I mean, those who can’t run the race.” Gurumurthy championed “smallest beautiful models” and task-based local AI solutions, advocating for the “right to tweak, transfer, and transform” AI systems to serve local contexts.

## Major Discussion Points

### AI Capacity Building and Financing Approaches

Participants discussed various approaches to AI capacity building, with Gill outlining the Secretary-General’s upcoming report on innovative financing options, including a proposed global AI fund to address the “AI divide.” The discussion highlighted that different countries require different types of support based on their development context.

**Nandini Chami** from IT4Change emphasized connecting with micro, small, and medium enterprises in similar agro-economic zones, while **Rudy Massamba** from Congo Brazzaville stressed that government support is essential for community-based AI development. **Alan Ross** focused on practical applications, advocating for helping farmers improve existing practices using simple technologies like $100 drones for leaf analysis.

### Technology Adaptation Versus Community Adaptation

A recurring theme was whether technology should adapt to local contexts or whether communities should change their practices to accommodate new technologies. **Baratang Miya** from Girl Hype raised the crucial question of agency: “AI should serve whether their needs or is it a choice of the people that are bringing AI to them who’s going to decide what are the needs? Because we might end up automating the inequality that is existing here.”

Multiple participants emphasized the importance of radio networks as key connections in developing countries and the need to work with existing communication infrastructure rather than requiring entirely new systems.

### Alternative AI Models and Geopolitical Considerations

The discussion explored alternatives to mainstream Western AI approaches. Gurumurthy highlighted the BRICS AI declaration’s emphasis on balanced intellectual property rights as offering potential alternatives to current Western-dominated AI systems. She advocated for smaller, task-specific models that can run locally, building on resources such as public broadcast archives.

When asked about geopolitical alignment strategies, Kurbalija suggested working within the broader multilateral system while maintaining good relations with BRICS, noting that even the European Union finds itself in a similar position to developing countries regarding AI dependency.

## Areas of Different Emphasis and Debate

### Infrastructure Prerequisites Versus Pragmatic Implementation

The most significant difference in perspectives emerged around infrastructure requirements. **Tabaget Zavila**, a regulator from Botswana, questioned developing AI policies without addressing basic infrastructure challenges: “How do we develop a policy, an AI policy, while the basic things like network availability and infrastructure, that’s still a challenge.”

Kurbalija countered this perspective, arguing for addressing infrastructure challenges simultaneously rather than sequentially. He cited the example of a Botswana participant in Diplo’s AI apprenticeship program who successfully created an AI agent for non-communicable diseases despite intermittent electricity supply, demonstrating that infrastructure limitations need not prevent beneficial AI applications.

### Mainstream Versus Alternative Development Approaches

Participants offered different perspectives on working within existing AI frameworks versus developing alternative approaches. Gurumurthy advocated for alternative approaches including smaller local models and regenerative AI, while Chadha focused on working within existing frameworks while improving policy coordination across infrastructure, data governance, and institutions.

## Practical Applications and Examples

The Landia case study, used as a teaching tool by the Diplo Foundation, provided a framework for exploring capacity building strategies. Participants discussed how an agricultural country could leverage AI while respecting local contexts and addressing infrastructure constraints.

Key practical applications discussed included:

– Using simple AI tools like drones for agricultural analysis

– Training local graduates to serve as bridges between AI technology and rural communities

– Implementing AI solutions that work intermittently when electricity is available

– Leveraging existing broadcast archives for developing local language models

The session also referenced the successful Botswana AI agent for non-communicable diseases as a concrete example of effective AI implementation despite infrastructure limitations.

## Unresolved Questions and Future Directions

Several important questions remained open for further exploration:

**Implementation Mechanisms**: While participants discussed principles, specific mechanisms for ensuring AI serves community-identified needs rather than externally imposed solutions require further development.

**Scaling Challenges**: How to scale successful local AI solutions while maintaining their community-specific benefits presents ongoing challenges.

**Resource Coordination**: Despite proposals for a global AI fund, detailed implementation pathways for coordinating international AI capacity building efforts remain to be developed.

**Infrastructure Trade-offs**: The debate between sequential and simultaneous approaches to addressing infrastructure challenges and AI development reflects broader questions about development priorities and resource allocation.

## Conclusion and Next Steps

The discussion highlighted the complexity of AI capacity building in the Global South, with participants offering various perspectives on how to balance local adaptation with practical implementation challenges. While there was general agreement on the importance of serving local needs, specific approaches and priorities varied among participants.

The session concluded with practical next steps, including participants receiving access to an AI agent developed by the Diplo Foundation for continued strategy development, and plans for ongoing collaboration on the Landia case study. The Secretary-General’s report on innovative financing options is expected in the coming months.

The use of the Landia case study as a teaching tool proved effective in grounding abstract concepts in practical scenarios. The session’s emphasis on understanding local contexts before implementing solutions, and the recognition that developing countries can shape AI development to serve their specific needs, provides a foundation for continued exploration of these important questions.

Both Ashutosh Chadha and Anita Gurumurthy serve on the UNCTAD committee on data governance for development, suggesting potential avenues for continued collaboration on these issues within existing multilateral frameworks.

Jovan Kurbalija: Good morning, welcome to our session on Developing Capacity for Bottom-Up AI in the Global South, What Role for the International Community. My name is Jovan Kurbalija, I’m Director of Diplo Foundation and Head of Geneva Internet Platform and I’m particularly honored that we are co-organizing today’s session with Permanent Mission Kenya, Microsoft and IT4Change and our colleagues are here from the organization. I will introduce them shortly. The plan for today’s session is to see what we can do practically about capacity development or capacity building, there is terminological confusion and as you know this is a term which is frequently used in the international documents but like any inflated terms which is used a lot after sometimes it can lose the concrete meaning. Therefore our purpose of today’s session is to regain this meaning by having concrete examples. I’m really fortunate today to have with us Amandeep Singh Gill, Tech Envoy, UN Tech Envoy and Under-Secretary General. Amandeep, welcome. Next to him is Ashutosh Chadha, the Head of Geneva’s Office of Microsoft. It’s a pleasure meeting you. And we have also Anita Gurumurthy from IT4Change. I noticed one thing, and I’m here with three colleagues which are somehow connected to India. And I always tell my Indian friends, it’s probably you who attended our session, I said that India put us in trouble because they invented number zero, Shunya. And before that, we had the Romans number and the life was much simpler. And as you know, digitalization and everything else started with number zero. Of course, it’s a joke. But now it’s a time for our Indian colleagues to help us to deal with their invention, which is number zero, which took off gradually from Arab world and al-Khwarizmi and Fibonacci, but came to today where everything is based on these two numbers, zero and one. Therefore, it will be a really inspiring chat and I’m sure we’ll get to quite a few answers. But what is critical, after their introductory remarks, we will co-create the knowledge. I know it’s Amandeep, one of his favorite concepts of co-creation and education. And it is a genuine meaning. There is a lot of expertise around this table, from very young colleagues to more experienced. And instead of us lecturing, we will have that. And we will have also another panelist which joined the IG community in IGF Berlin 2019. It’s a coffee machine. His or her name, we are still deciding on its name, whatever it is, is IQ whalo. IQ whalo is basically an example that you don’t need to have a robot to have AI. It’s our warning about anthropomorphizing AI. You can have a coffee machine, you can have a Hoover, you can have a refrigerator, that can communicate to AI. I’m sure that I’m not going to be in the good books of our colleagues from AI for good, because even in the logo there is a human face. But I’m quite strong on that point that anthropomorphizingPoses major risks for, good AI governance and the development of AI. Therefore, we will ask later on Qvalo, what she thinks about AI development. Before a further due, I would like first to invite Amandeep Singh Gill, Tech Envoy, UN Tech Envoy, to tell us a few words from the perspective of New York and overall thinking.

Amandeep Singh Gill: Thank you so much, Jovan, and thank you to you, Diplo Foundation, and its partners for convening this very timely discussion, and couldn’t agree more with you on the need to avoid anthropomorphizing these technologies, a key principle in the 2017-2018 outcomes of discussion on lethal autonomous weapons. And a key part of my very first presentation to the UN Chief Executives Board in 2022. I don’t know how much we are listening to this, but I think this is key. The correct understanding of what we are dealing with, what it is, before policy, before capacity building, before anything else, that’s good action only flows from correct understanding. On capacity building, Yvonne, your point about what is it that we are dealing with. So I want to bring some reflections, very brief, from the work in the past six to eight months on the Secretary General’s report on innovative financing options for AI capacity building, which he was asked to do by member states in the Global Digital Compact. There was a strong push, and I’m glad to see our friends from Kenya, a strong push by the African group for language on AI capacity building. in the GDC, including the idea of a global AI fund, taking into account the work of the high level advisory body on AI, which had several recommendations that targeted this, bridging the AI divide. They use the terminology, putting a floor under the AI divide, that it doesn’t grow further. And so that action over the past six to eight months has involved a thorough demand analysis of what is it, when we say AI capacity building, what do countries need? It included visits to different parts of the world, 150 plus consultations, submissions, inputs, analysis, because the demand for AI capacity building, you know, it’s a cliche to say you need talent, data, compute. But then in what form? Even the question of talent, in some places, you need talent in SMEs, MSMEs for AI adoption. Other places, you need AI development talent. And then in some other places, you need AI literacy. So there’s many kinds of, so nuanced understanding, and then, you know, categorizing it in terms of where different parts of the world are. Three extra GPUs for Ethiopia, which has a total of 12 GPUs, is meaningful. But 3000 GPUs coming to South Africa, which is currently happening, is, you know, is another context. So we need to get more nuanced. And so the SG’s report uses a tierification, five tiers, and looks at strategic pathways for countries to kind of graduate through them, from AI nascent to AI developer, and looks at what kind of financing, because at the end of the day, the SG has been asked to come up with options on financing this. So what kind of financing becomes relevant at what stage? So bootstrapping, perhaps, with donor funding, philanthropic contributions. In-kind contributions, then where do multilateral development banks come in, where do markets come in. we have started with, you know, dreams in our eyes about global development in many areas, health, climate change, food systems, and we’ve not often got it right. You know, sometimes it’s been too top down, doesn’t respond to realities, needs on the ground. Sometimes money has not been sufficient, you know, look at climate change, for example. And often we’ve ended up fragmenting the systems, you know, there are dozens of funds on climate change, for example, or on health. So how can we avoid the same experience? So there is some reflection in the report on how the international system could come together, leading to a kind of a match between a national minimum national capacity that’s needed everywhere in the world. Every country, regardless of size, level of development, needs a minimum capacity, policy, an ecosystem, some curation of local language data sets, a minimum amount of data storage, compute to even if you’re tuning models in your own context, then corresponding that you need a minimum global response. And that includes a global fund on AI. Look at Africa’s ambition, 60 billion over 10 years. So you know, try and expand that globally, then coordination for funders. So we avoid the previous fragmentation, we’ve seen coordination platform for funders, and then some way to direct in kind resources because in many parts, including Switzerland, you know, compute is lying idle, there are cycles of compute available, provided we can find the digital cooperation, incentives, protocols to link it. We need talent flow. you know, people with domain knowledge, agricultural health coming to places where the AI knowledge is more at another level. So those are the areas that we need to kind of, you know, leveraging our existing institutions, multi-stakeholder centers of excellence, find a way to network capacity building. And this is where I stop, you know, finding a way to create a global network of capacity building that’s multi-stakeholder, that’s impactful, closer to the context and the needs on the ground. Thank you.

Jovan Kurbalija: Thank you, Amandeep. If I understand correctly, that proposal by Secretary General will be presented sometime in September, October, September. Therefore, it would be an interesting and I would say major development of putting all of these things together. Thank you, Amandeep. Ashutosh, am I pronouncing correctly? Thank you. Please let us know your quick input for the discussion. And yeah, please. Thanks.

Ashutosh Chadha: Thanks very much. And thanks Amandeep for the concept that you talked about, because that’s sort of something that I’ll build upon. And if I use the case study, which was given about, what is the name of the state? Landia. Landia. Landia, somewhere in the world, which is grappling with the issue on AI. I’m gonna sort of possibly position this more as a policy challenge. And the reason I’m gonna position this as a policy challenge is that when we look at AI adoption, diffusion, usage in countries, anywhere, we always talk about what is the AI stack. And it starts with having basic electricity, connectivity, access to data, data centers, access to technology by which people can use, and then the capacity. Right, but if you fundamentally look at all of this, when we talk about underdeveloped digital infrastructure, unreliable electricity, fragmented data ecosystems, I think so the fundamental premise that comes over there is that there’s possibly a lack of positive policy confirmation across all of these areas. The fact that we don’t have reliable electricity platforms, the fact that we don’t have data ecosystems or data governance policies, which talk to each other, or enable the usage of AI, the fact that we don’t have educational systems, right. So in my view, I would say, one of the biggest things that this country, Lodina, sorry,

Jovan Kurbalija: Landia, Landia, a far growing country.

Ashutosh Chadha: Right. Landia needs to work on is focus on policy issues, right? I’m not, I’m not underscoring or, or negating the importance of building the infrastructure. I’m not negating the fact that we need to have electricity, not negating the fact that we need to have data access, right data representation, right? All of those are important. But where does that process start when you start thinking about the policies which impact this? Right? That’s where I think so, if the question as a private sector, where, what is the role that we can play as the private sector, I think, I would, again, pass that into and I love talking in threes, right, is pass that into three areas. One is helping build a national AI strategy, which looks at this entire tech stack, right? The second is working with on building capacity of the institutions and the people within the within the country on how do you how do you actually drive data governance, right? And I’m actually very glad that both Anita and I are actually on a committee which has been set up as a part of the GDC by UNCTAD on building up a framework for data governance for development. And I think that’s the fundamental. If you can’t use AI and if you can’t use data to make an impact to the last person on the ground, you’re not doing it right. You’re not doing our jobs, right? So the second is checking data governance capacity in institutions, in the governance frameworks, in the people who are building those regulations and those policies. And the third is embedding the larger concept of AI in broader development opportunities in the country. So how will AI impact agriculture? How will it impact education? And how will education impact AI? How will it impact health? How will it impact logistics? Because when you, as our chairman very clearly says that away from all the glitz and glamor of AI which can help you do a lot of things, create pictures that you want and things of that sort and answer questions to difficult questions or give you answers to difficult questions, the real impact of AI is gonna be when it starts impacting positively our health, agriculture systems, climate and individual well-being. So in our opinion, from a private sector, one of the areas that we need to look at is defining what should be the policy gamut across all of these areas. I’ll stop here.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you. and Mr. Jovan Kurbalija. Thank you for the very, very colorful case study. We love Diplo for these wonderful storytelling ways of learning. So maybe I can be provocative, but yet productive. So I just wanted to say that mainstream AI may not always deliver. I think there’s immense and copious amounts of research out there that talks about cultural adaptation, data that’s not representative upon which AI is built. And the most important thing for governments and the people, particularly in the Global South, but also not just the Global South, where you don’t have control over the model and you need to keep sending the data out and the vendor is all powerful. So the question about the right to tweak, transfer, and transform, which broadly is understood as the right to repair, but broader, and completely agree with the ambassador that talking about infrastructure, talent, and data, well, it tells you one thing that the dice is loaded against you in the race. But that shouldn’t be so confounding because, you know, which simply means that part of humanity will just get extinct, right? I mean, those who can’t run the race. So where’s the hope? We’ve been talking about this, the Secretary General, and I’ve also heard this from the ambassador and others about the possibility of a global public facility for AI and computing. and Mr. A.K. Nair and the International Surn which offers a shared compute power resource arrangement, a genuinely global public good, may be located in the beautiful city of Rio and supported by the BRICS. I hope all of you have read the BRICS latest AI declaration. It’s really good. People are talking about it. The second thing I want to say is there is a genuine curiosity and exploration about smallest beautiful models because you can, in Landia, which is landlocked and primarily agriculture-based, have task-based models that run locally, you know, so everything does not have to be on scale. You don’t need whole-of-systems automation. You can modularize and just have AI for small parts, some parts of the value chain. In fact, I wanted to inform you that the minister’s son in Landia just got back from the U.S. And his team’s research is telling you that LLMs and LRMs are collapsing with complex tasks. That’s what the minister’s son, you know, he’s an AI engineer. He went away from Landia in his 20s and he just got back. And you have the platform cooperative consortium’s latest experiments with local AI on new licenses for agriculture data cooperatives and immense possibilities in the agriculture sector for datafication, bottom-up. You don’t have to do this national top-down. In Landia, the minister’s son wants to advise Landia that the public broadcast archives in the three ethnic languages could be a very important resource to build their own large language model. So, well, can we have access to common data pools? Well, you can approach the FAO and look at the agroecological systems that are similar to Landia. Request for training data sets on climate and crops, can the FAO help? Will we be able to build an agri-data commons? And finally, I think the message I want to convey with all of this is what the Human Development Report of the UN says, that in your AI choices… you really need to augment. And that’s, I mean, and what is the meaning of augmenting? An AI that augments is really reinforcing human dignity. And it’s not only about competitive advantage, which is of course important in the real world, but not everyone is on the top of the AI chain, but human dignity is the same for everyone. At ID4Change, and we’d love to work with Landia, we call this region AI, regenerative AI, which is indigenous, inclusive, and intentional. Thank you.

Jovan Kurbalija: Thank you, Anita, for updating us about the traveling news from the son of the president of Landia. And he told me that he would return next year, but it’s good news that he decided to move back faster. A lovely input on the transfer, transformation, augmented AI, quite a few concepts on bottom-up AI. And I think you now corrected a bit of the predominant view that the more GPUs have, the more NVIDIA we have, the better AI we will develop. And I think it was already going to, as a trace from Amandeep, yes, we need GPUs, we need the hardware, but what we need is some, maybe something just around the corner. A small system, augmented artificial intelligence, capturing and preserving knowledge of the local communities, farmers, villagers, who are condensing thousands of the years of the wisdom of cultivating land, of solving problems, marriages, community problems, that huge, huge resource, huge, what defines us, as you said, as humans and our dignity, knowledge, in addition to ethics, basically a few things that defines us as humans. Therefore, thank you for helping with Landia. We’ll ask you just quickly, our advisor, IQ Vallo, before we open the floor. Hi, IQ Vallo, how are you?

IQ whalo: It sounds like you’re asking about the front end of something, can you qualify what you mean by IQ whalo?

Jovan Kurbalija: But You are IQ whalo, you are the adviser to the president of Lundia, and we need your help on AI strategy.

IQ whalo: I’m not an advisor to the president of Lundia; I’m an AI model designed to assist with various tasks, including information and advice on topics like AI strategies. How can you help you with that?

Jovan Kurbalija: Thank you. She’s quiet. Okay, okay. Good. Great. We heard from our excellent speakers at the very beginning. Now, what is our plan is to use next 20 minutes, 10 minutes, to try to develop building blocks for the Landius capacity building, AI capacity building strategy. That’s the first point. This is bad news. We have only 10 or 15 minutes. Good news is that we’ll share with you, we’ll circulate the paper, we’ll share with you AI agent, which is behind IQ whalo, where you can start developing strategies yourself. We develop AI agent based on the all available AI strategies, including text on capacity building, and you can leave this session with inputs from our speakers and our discussion, but also start developing. The framework is here. I think Anita already introduced Landia, landlocked country, population 8 million, high percentage 60 living in rural areas, 50% of the population has access, low access, electricity, occasional power outages, reliance on agriculture, 65% employment, data ecosystem, lack of reliable national statistics, limited data collection efforts. You have all details, I’m just bringing you lines. Skills and workforce, medium level of digital literacy overall, divides in digital skills in particular between rural and urban areas. Policy environment, existing policy do not adequate support AI development. Other challenges, limited government capacity, few local private sector actors, concerns about brain drain. And some opportunities, of course, growing interest, people are excited about digital among youth, active civil society organization, especially community-based organization, ongoing discussion for partnership universities, neighboring countries, some pilot project in agriculture innovation funded by international donors, strong communities, radio networks. We shouldn’t forget in many developing countries, radio networks are basically key connection of the local communities. And diaspora of tech professionals who they are ready to help country, therefore we have quite a good building blocks. And we outline the potential questions, and I will say we will go in this really limited time through the few questions, but don’t be, when you intervene, just say a few words who you are, try to intervene to the point on all of these questions, we’ll collect them, put them back into the AI model, share AI model with you, and this session is only 45 minutes, but it will continue after we close. and of course, with our partners, we’ll continue interacting and other things. Good. Vision and priorities. What should be country’s vision and priorities for AI development? How can local communities and stakeholders be engaged in defining this vision? Let me just put it, that could be the preambular general formulation. But give us a few inputs, what we say about local communities, how to bring local communities there. What are the key elements required to develop national and local capacity for bottom-up AI? Infrastructure, data ecosystem, skill policy and institutional framework. Just the two points, but you can intervene on any point, raise your hand, make your suggestion what we should put in Landia’s AI capacity development strategy. Now, time is for your inputs, comments, suggestions. Please, go ahead. And our people are shy, coffee, we can’t serve the coffee, but I’m sure there is a lot of wisdom in the room. Please.

Nandini Chami: Hi, I’m Nandini from IT4Change. Sorry, from India again. You have to solve the problems. Yeah. So, I was thinking that from the perspective of Landia, when building community-driven AI, it would be very important to connect with other MSMEs and smaller economic actors in similar context, similar context as in similar agro-economic zones and things like that, who have built solutions for addressing productivity-related challenges. So, because this country’s existing advantage is in its agricultural sector, there will be very important choices about how to bring AI in agriculture without displacing farmers from their livelihoods. and not going in for models which would just focus on maybe aggregating the small landholdings and the productivity focus that is not looking at a livelihoods focus and a future of work strategy about what it would mean to gradually move populations out into other higher value add services and how to balance both the short term interest of economic productivity in agriculture with the longer term question of what future of work and meaningful opportunities for the workforce, this might be very critical in digital industrial strategy.

Jovan Kurbalija: Can I add to that, you know, one of the biggest problems is in any technology

Ashutosh Chadha: infusion or any sort of a new thing is that we try to do a bolt on to things, right? That doesn’t work. If I’m saying technology can make you more efficient, effective and add to the value that you’re creating, I should not be also asking you to change the way you’re working. That’s an extremely important perspective, which I think Nandini was mentioning, right? And that local, so it’s not about, it’s about how do we make technology work for us? It’s not about how technology makes you work. That’s a very subtle shift in the way we need to apply this. So when we’re talking about local context, I think it’s important to understand the MSME, what their problems are, how are they working and build the vision on how then technology can be diffused in their system. It’s extremely critical rather than saying, this is how the technology works, adopt it. You can’t do that.

Jovan Kurbalija: This is so critical comment. Thank you so much for bringing that and building on that. We have then, quickly your name and make an intervention.

Alan Ross: Alan Ross, following on from these two things, one of the things is if you’re training young people in the developing world, probably in your country too, that there’s 20% of graduates that are unemployed. Let’s train them in how to use AI, but not models. Let’s look at how they can go into the rural countries and help the farmer, little drone up in the sky, you know, $100 or less. They can take a film and analyse it and show the farmer what he needs to be doing in nitrates or potassium or whatever. Have a leaf, where you take a photograph of the leaf and again helps the farmer to get better productivity doing what he’s doing, but just after giving him 20-30% more productivity so he can get his kids sent to school and he can feed his family. I think we should be seeing how we can help him do what he does, rather than changing what he does to fit whatever model we think society needs.

Jovan Kurbalija: Critical points, which is now nicely building from this point. Instead of trying to put the local communities into some framework that is imposed, let’s build on its underlying echoing message. Let’s use the local dynamics, help them to use AI and preserve their uniqueness and specificities for the AI era. I think it’s a great line of thinking. And now we will have you, please introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Tabaget Zavila from Botswana, the regulator in Botswana. I think all the comments are quite valid, but however, I’m finding it difficult to comprehend how to develop a policy for this country that there are key issues that need to be addressed, which are fundamental to supporting something that rides on solid networks. Just looking at the digital infrastructure, one of the key characteristics here is that 50% of the population have access to reliable broadband internet. Would it be prudent for us to think about building… something that would require a stable internet connection. Similarly, when you look at, I think there is somewhere where they talk about power supply, that electricity, occasional power outages and unreliable electrical power supply. How do we develop a policy, an AI policy, while the basic things like network availability and infrastructure, that’s still a challenge. I think in our development of this policy, we also need to address these two key features. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think there will be any importance for us to continue building something that will need another primary source, something so primary as connectivity and also power supply for it to work well. So, in the development, I want us to also focus on how we are going to address these two features. Thank you.

Jovan Kurbalija: Great comment, and just a quick comment, and then we’ll come to you. I think it’s a really vital comment, which is underlying, and it’s also policy, which Ashmut mentioned at the very beginning. We have so many challenges. Are we addressing them sequentially? We sort out electricity, then we move to data, then we move to AI. All we address them simultaneously through different trade-offs, which we have to make. And I’ll give you one example, and then we move to panelists. We have the AI apprenticeship program, and we have participants from Botswana. Nelson, we can share the link. Who created AI agent for non-communicable diseases for Botswana? And it became very popular. People are using consulting on non-communicable diseases with zero funding. That was basically this thing. Therefore, sometimes, and of course, he told us sometimes there is no electricity in that region, but tomorrow there is electricity. Therefore, that’s a real challenge. How to make a policy, as you said, that we address the

Audience: Thank you. I am wondering whether Landi, as a member of the BRICS, and this is going to Anita’s point, do you think it is more a question than a comment but do you think it would be more beneficial for Landia to get closer to the BRICS and to that vision of AI or would you think that they should stick to the more sort of Western or mainstream dominant view of AI development?

Jovan Kurbalija: According to the latest news from the well-informed circles in Landia, they prefer to stay with G193 and with some ambitions to join maybe other Gs but they want to develop good relations with BRICS. Please.

Anita Gurumurthy: I think this is also a trade-off question and one has to put one’s eggs in different baskets but certainly it’s a question that the European Union is grappling with, right? And as a union of states but also individual countries like Germany are grappling with this question in a very big way. What happens to the automobile sector in Germany, the AI-fication of the automobile industry? It’s a very big question for that country. So I do believe that in respect of the search for viable alternatives that can stand up the test of time and can respect the planetary boundaries, it would be important not to lose sight of the fact and call these experiments utopian. For me, the most significant part of the BRICS declaration is its calling out for a balanced intellectual property. So my answer to that would be yes, Landia should go with the BRICS. It came out with a very sensible intellectual property.

Jovan Kurbalija: Let me add to this point that the geopolitics is changing. Position of European Union today is not different from Landia because European Union does not have all their knowledge and data to the large extent on its territory, its user. It’s basically user like Landia, like many developing countries on the knowledge generated somewhere else. Well, the big changes are ahead of us that we will see. We have three minutes. We have a comment from you and then we’ll wrap it up, collect the inputs and continue online with the development. Please.

Baratang Miya: My name is Baratang Mia from Girl Hype. We teach women and girls how to code. So for me, my thing is I was thinking from what he said from Botswana that we should be careful of what is needed in this community. AI should serve whether their needs or is it a choice of the people that are bringing AI to them who’s going to decide what are the needs? Because we might end up automating the inequality that is existing here by thinking AI is going to solve the problem whilst we just automate the solutions that we are coming with instead of what the community needs.

Jovan Kurbalija: That’s fantastic. Bottom up AI, AI grounded in the local communities, not imposed on the local community, which was already mentioned in quite a few statements and what Anita told us reflected in this new BRICS declaration. Please, thank you.

Rudy Massamba: Thank you very much. My name is Rudy Masamba and I am from Congo Brazzaville. I just wanted to add on what my friend from Botswana said and also say that, okay, when we talk about AI in communities, it’s important also to understand that in most countries in the world, so even in Africa, we have geniuses everywhere. They are capable of learning these things. So for me, the question is not do they know how to use AI or are they going to use AI in a good or bad manner because AI for me is just like a knife. If you’re going to use it to kill your friends, it’s not the knife that’s responsible for killing your friend. So we have people who can actually develop AI and I have seen people developing what you talked about. I mean, they’re going to use AI in order to help farmers grow, I would say, different kind of products. But then my question is we’re talking about communities. If the government is not there to support that, how are we going to actually develop AI in these communities? Because what we have seen in the rest of the world is that, of course, even if there is the private sector, but the public sector is also sometimes helping developing AI.

Jovan Kurbalija: Thank you very much for these points. Sorin, I hope we won’t be persona non gratis. Ah, they’re coming, the next session. Lovely discussion, good points, and thank you very much first for our panellists and for Amandi, but also your great comments and inputs. We’ll follow up, just leave your email, and this is just the beginning of one long-lasting friendship, as they say in Casablanca movie, and a nice discussion that we will have for quite some time. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Technology should adapt to local contexts rather than imposing external frameworks

Speakers

– Ashutosh Chadha
– Alan Ross
– Baratang Miya
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Technology should adapt to local working methods rather than forcing communities to change

Focus on helping farmers improve existing practices rather than changing their methods

AI should serve community-identified needs rather than externally imposed solutions

Mainstream AI may not deliver for Global South; need for right to tweak, transfer, and transform AI systems

Summary

Multiple speakers agreed that AI implementation should respect and build upon existing local practices, knowledge systems, and community-identified needs rather than forcing communities to adapt to externally designed technological frameworks.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Need for multi-stakeholder, networked approach to AI capacity building

Speakers

– Amandeep Singh Gill
– Nandini Chami
– Rudy Massamba

Arguments

Creating global network of multi-stakeholder capacity building closer to local contexts

Connecting with MSMEs in similar agro-economic zones for agriculture-focused AI solutions

Government support is essential for community-based AI development

Summary

Speakers agreed that effective AI capacity building requires collaboration between multiple stakeholders including governments, private sector, and communities, with emphasis on networked approaches that connect similar contexts.

Topics

Development | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Importance of sectoral integration of AI in agriculture and development

Speakers

– Ashutosh Chadha
– Alan Ross
– Nandini Chami
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Focus on embedding AI in broader development sectors like agriculture, health, and education

Focus on helping farmers improve existing practices rather than changing their methods

Connecting with MSMEs in similar agro-economic zones for agriculture-focused AI solutions

Local language models using public broadcast archives and agricultural data cooperatives

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized that AI should be integrated into specific development sectors, particularly agriculture, where it can deliver tangible benefits while respecting existing practices and local knowledge systems.

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the changing geopolitical landscape in AI development and the need for alternative approaches to current Western-dominated AI systems, with BRICS offering potential alternatives.

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

BRICS AI declaration offers balanced intellectual property approach

European Union faces similar challenges as developing countries in AI dependency

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that AI capacity building requires comprehensive policy frameworks and nuanced understanding of different contexts rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

Speakers

– Ashutosh Chadha
– Amandeep Singh Gill

Arguments

AI capacity building should focus on policy challenges across infrastructure, data governance, and institutional frameworks

Need for nuanced understanding of AI capacity building across different contexts and tiers

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the inherent capabilities and wisdom within local communities, arguing against assumptions that external expertise is always needed and advocating for community-driven approaches.

Speakers

– Rudy Massamba
– Baratang Miya

Arguments

Leveraging local genius and talent that exists in communities globally

Importance of understanding what communities actually need versus external assumptions

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Infrastructure challenges should be addressed simultaneously rather than sequentially

Speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija
– Audience

Arguments

Addressing infrastructure challenges simultaneously rather than sequentially

Importance of addressing basic infrastructure needs like electricity and connectivity before AI implementation

Explanation

While an audience member raised concerns about implementing AI without basic infrastructure, Kurbalija’s response created an unexpected consensus that infrastructure challenges don’t need to be solved sequentially, but can be addressed through trade-offs and simultaneous approaches, as demonstrated by successful AI implementations despite infrastructure limitations.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Recognition of local talent and capabilities in developing countries

Speakers

– Rudy Massamba
– Alan Ross
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Leveraging local genius and talent that exists in communities globally

Training unemployed graduates to use AI tools for rural community support

Potential for smallest beautiful models and task-based local AI solutions

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across speakers from different backgrounds that developing countries have significant local talent and capabilities that can be leveraged for AI development, challenging common assumptions about capacity limitations in the Global South.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus around community-centered, locally-adapted approaches to AI development, with agreement on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, sectoral integration (especially agriculture), and respect for local knowledge systems. Speakers consistently emphasized bottom-up rather than top-down approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles of AI capacity building, with implications that successful AI development in the Global South requires paradigm shifts away from technology-first approaches toward community-first, locally-adapted strategies that build on existing capabilities and knowledge systems.

Different viewpoints

Sequential vs Simultaneous Infrastructure Development

Speakers

– Audience (Botswana regulator)
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

Importance of addressing basic infrastructure needs like electricity and connectivity before AI implementation

Addressing infrastructure challenges simultaneously rather than sequentially

Summary

The Botswana regulator argues that basic infrastructure like electricity and connectivity must be addressed before AI implementation, questioning the wisdom of building AI systems without stable infrastructure. Kurbalija counters that countries should address multiple challenges simultaneously through trade-offs rather than waiting for perfect infrastructure.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Mainstream vs Alternative AI Development Approaches

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Ashutosh Chadha

Arguments

Mainstream AI may not deliver for Global South; need for right to tweak, transfer, and transform AI systems

AI capacity building should focus on policy challenges across infrastructure, data governance, and institutional frameworks

Summary

Gurumurthy argues that mainstream AI solutions often fail Global South contexts and advocates for alternative approaches including smaller local models and regenerative AI. Chadha focuses on working within existing frameworks but improving policy coordination across infrastructure, data governance, and institutions.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

BRICS vs Multilateral Alignment

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

BRICS AI declaration offers balanced intellectual property approach

Preference for multilateral approach through G193 while maintaining good relations with BRICS

Summary

Gurumurthy advocates for aligning with BRICS approaches, particularly praising their balanced intellectual property stance. Kurbalija suggests a more balanced approach, preferring to work within the broader multilateral system while maintaining good relations with BRICS.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected differences

Infrastructure Prerequisites vs Pragmatic Implementation

Speakers

– Audience (Botswana regulator)
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

Importance of addressing basic infrastructure needs like electricity and connectivity before AI implementation

Addressing infrastructure challenges simultaneously rather than sequentially

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are presumably supportive of AI development in developing countries, yet they have fundamentally different views on whether basic infrastructure must be in place before AI implementation can begin. The practical example of successful AI implementation despite infrastructure challenges adds complexity to this debate.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows moderate disagreement on implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. Key areas of disagreement include infrastructure development sequencing, mainstream vs alternative AI approaches, and geopolitical alignment strategies.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with constructive implications – speakers share common goals of inclusive AI development but offer different pathways. These disagreements reflect healthy debate about practical implementation strategies rather than fundamental philosophical differences, suggesting multiple viable approaches could be pursued simultaneously.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the changing geopolitical landscape in AI development and the need for alternative approaches to current Western-dominated AI systems, with BRICS offering potential alternatives.

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

BRICS AI declaration offers balanced intellectual property approach

European Union faces similar challenges as developing countries in AI dependency

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that AI capacity building requires comprehensive policy frameworks and nuanced understanding of different contexts rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

Speakers

– Ashutosh Chadha
– Amandeep Singh Gill

Arguments

AI capacity building should focus on policy challenges across infrastructure, data governance, and institutional frameworks

Need for nuanced understanding of AI capacity building across different contexts and tiers

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the inherent capabilities and wisdom within local communities, arguing against assumptions that external expertise is always needed and advocating for community-driven approaches.

Speakers

– Rudy Massamba
– Baratang Miya

Arguments

Leveraging local genius and talent that exists in communities globally

Importance of understanding what communities actually need versus external assumptions

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Key takeaways

AI capacity building requires nuanced, context-specific approaches rather than one-size-fits-all solutions, with different countries needing different types of support (talent development, infrastructure, policy frameworks) based on their development tier

Bottom-up AI development should prioritize local community needs and adapt technology to existing working methods rather than forcing communities to change their practices

Basic infrastructure challenges (electricity, connectivity) must be addressed simultaneously with AI development rather than sequentially, as waiting for perfect infrastructure would delay beneficial AI applications

Alternative AI models like ‘smallest beautiful models’ and task-based local solutions can be more appropriate for developing countries than mainstream large-scale AI systems

Local communities possess existing genius and talent that can be leveraged for AI development, with unemployed graduates potentially serving as bridges between AI technology and rural communities

Policy frameworks should focus on data governance, institutional capacity building, and embedding AI in broader development sectors rather than treating AI as a standalone technology

The geopolitical landscape of AI is shifting, with initiatives like BRICS offering alternative approaches to intellectual property and AI development that may benefit Global South countries

Resolutions and action items

UN Secretary General’s report on innovative financing options for AI capacity building to be presented in September-October, including proposals for a global AI fund

Participants to receive access to an AI agent developed by Diplo Foundation based on available AI strategies for continued strategy development

Follow-up engagement planned with participants through email collection for ongoing collaboration on Landia case study

Continued development of the Landia AI capacity building strategy using inputs from the session

Sharing of AI apprenticeship program link and examples like the Botswana non-communicable diseases AI agent

Unresolved issues

How to balance sequential versus simultaneous approaches to addressing infrastructure challenges and AI development

Whether developing countries should align with BRICS AI approaches or Western/mainstream AI development models

How to ensure AI serves community-identified needs rather than externally imposed solutions without clear mechanisms for community consultation

How to prevent automation of existing inequalities when implementing AI solutions in underserved communities

Specific mechanisms for ensuring government support for community-based AI development initiatives

How to scale successful local AI solutions while maintaining their community-specific benefits

Detailed implementation pathways for the proposed global AI fund and coordination mechanisms

Suggested compromises

Addressing infrastructure challenges simultaneously with AI development through trade-offs rather than waiting for perfect conditions

Adopting a multi-basket approach to geopolitical AI alignment, maintaining relationships with both BRICS and Western AI initiatives

Focusing on augmented AI that enhances human dignity and local practices rather than replacing them entirely

Using simple, affordable AI tools (like $100 drones) that can provide immediate benefits while building toward more sophisticated systems

Developing AI solutions that work intermittently (when electricity is available) rather than requiring constant connectivity

Creating hybrid approaches that combine global AI resources with local data and knowledge systems

Building on existing community strengths (like radio networks) while introducing new AI capabilities

The correct understanding of what we are dealing with, what it is, before policy, before capacity building, before anything else, that’s good action only flows from correct understanding.

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Reason

This comment establishes a foundational principle that challenges the typical rush to implementation. It emphasizes that understanding must precede action, which is particularly insightful in the AI context where there’s often pressure to adopt technology without fully comprehending its implications.

Impact

This set the philosophical tone for the entire discussion, establishing that the conversation would focus on deep understanding rather than superficial solutions. It influenced subsequent speakers to ground their comments in concrete realities rather than abstract concepts.

Three extra GPUs for Ethiopia, which has a total of 12 GPUs, is meaningful. But 3000 GPUs coming to South Africa, which is currently happening, is, you know, is another context. So we need to get more nuanced.

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Reason

This comment brilliantly illustrates the need for context-specific solutions in AI capacity building. It challenges the one-size-fits-all approach and demonstrates how the same resource can have vastly different impacts depending on the baseline context.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from generic capacity building to nuanced, tiered approaches. It influenced later speakers to consider local contexts more carefully and helped establish the framework for the Landia case study discussion.

Mainstream AI may not always deliver… the question about the right to tweak, transfer, and transform, which broadly is understood as the right to repair, but broader… part of humanity will just get extinct, right? I mean, those who can’t run the race.

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This is a provocative challenge to the dominant AI narrative. It introduces the concept of AI sovereignty and questions the assumption that mainstream AI solutions are universally beneficial. The stark warning about human extinction for those who can’t compete is particularly thought-provoking.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from ‘how to adopt AI’ to ‘what kind of AI should we adopt.’ It introduced alternative models like small, task-specific AI and local language models, leading to a more critical examination of AI development pathways.

It’s not about, it’s about how do we make technology work for us? It’s not about how technology makes you work. That’s a very subtle shift in the way we need to apply this.

Speaker

Ashutosh Chadha

Reason

This comment captures a fundamental philosophical shift in technology adoption. It challenges the common assumption that communities must adapt to technology, instead proposing that technology should adapt to existing workflows and needs.

Impact

This comment reinforced and crystallized the bottom-up approach theme. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus on preserving local practices while enhancing them with AI, rather than replacing them entirely.

Would it be prudent for us to think about building something that would require a stable internet connection… How do we develop a policy, an AI policy, while the basic things like network availability and infrastructure, that’s still a challenge.

Speaker

Tabaget Zavila (Botswana regulator)

Reason

This comment brings crucial practical realities into the discussion. It challenges the assumption that AI development can proceed without addressing fundamental infrastructure gaps, forcing the group to confront the sequential vs. simultaneous development dilemma.

Impact

This intervention grounded the discussion in practical constraints and sparked a debate about whether to address challenges sequentially or simultaneously. It led to Kurbalija’s example of the Botswana AI agent working despite intermittent electricity, showing how trade-offs can be managed.

AI should serve whether their needs or is it a choice of the people that are bringing AI to them who’s going to decide what are the needs? Because we might end up automating the inequality that is existing here.

Speaker

Baratang Miya

Reason

This comment raises the critical question of agency and power in AI deployment. It warns against the risk of perpetuating existing inequalities through AI, which is a sophisticated understanding of how technology can embed and amplify social problems.

Impact

This comment brought the discussion full circle to the core theme of bottom-up AI. It reinforced the importance of community agency in determining AI applications and served as a powerful conclusion to the capacity building discussion.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about AI capacity building into a nuanced exploration of power, agency, and alternative development pathways. The discussion evolved from Gill’s foundational call for understanding, through Gurumurthy’s challenge to mainstream AI assumptions, to practical considerations about infrastructure and community needs. The comments created a progression from philosophical grounding to alternative models to practical constraints to community agency. This created a rich, multi-layered conversation that avoided both techno-optimism and techno-pessimism, instead focusing on contextual, community-driven approaches to AI development. The interplay between these comments established a framework for thinking about AI capacity building that prioritizes local needs, challenges dominant narratives, and acknowledges both opportunities and constraints in developing country contexts.

How can we avoid the same experience of fragmentation and insufficient funding that occurred with climate change and health initiatives when developing AI capacity building?

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Explanation

This addresses the critical need to learn from past failures in international development funding to ensure AI capacity building efforts are more coordinated and effective

How can we create effective protocols and incentives to link idle compute resources across different regions for AI capacity building?

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Explanation

This explores the technical and policy mechanisms needed to share computational resources globally, which could significantly reduce barriers to AI development in the Global South

How can AI be integrated into agriculture without displacing farmers from their livelihoods?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

This addresses the critical balance between technological advancement and employment preservation in agriculture-dependent economies

What future of work strategies are needed when gradually moving populations from agriculture to higher value-added services?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

This explores the long-term economic transition planning required when implementing AI in traditional sectors

How do we develop AI policies when basic infrastructure like reliable internet connectivity and stable power supply are still challenges?

Speaker

Tabaget Zavila (Botswana regulator)

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental question of whether to address infrastructure challenges sequentially or simultaneously with AI development

Should countries like Landia align more closely with BRICS AI vision or stick to Western/mainstream AI development approaches?

Speaker

Unnamed audience member

Explanation

This explores the geopolitical dimensions of AI development and the strategic choices countries must make regarding international partnerships

Who decides what AI needs a community has – the community itself or external actors bringing AI solutions?

Speaker

Baratang Miya

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental question of agency and self-determination in AI implementation to avoid automating existing inequalities

How can AI development in communities be sustained without strong government support?

Speaker

Rudy Massamba

Explanation

This explores the role of public sector involvement in supporting community-based AI initiatives and the challenges of grassroots AI development

What specific mechanisms are needed to implement the ‘right to tweak, transfer, and transform’ AI models for local contexts?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

This addresses the technical and legal frameworks needed to ensure communities can adapt AI technologies to their specific needs and contexts

How can public broadcast archives in local languages be effectively utilized to build indigenous large language models?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy (referencing the minister’s son in Landia)

Explanation

This explores practical approaches to leveraging existing cultural and linguistic resources for developing locally relevant AI systems

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 “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