Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on digital solutions for sustainability, examining both the environmental impact of the ICT sector and its potential role in climate action and biodiversity protection. The session was part of the AI for Good Summit and brought together experts from ITU, UNEP, UNCTAD, World Bank, and various industry representatives to address standardization, measurement, and implementation of sustainable digital technologies.

The conversation began with ITU’s strategic priorities of universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation, emphasizing the need for technical standards to provide common measurement foundations and enable global scaling of sustainability innovations. Participants highlighted that the ICT sector currently accounts for 2-4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, comparable to the aviation sector, with projections showing a 50% increase in CO2 emissions within the next five years. This presents particular challenges for developing countries in Latin America and Africa, which face the dual burden of being furthest behind in digital adoption while being most impacted by climate change.

A significant portion of the discussion centered on the development of standardized methodologies for measuring ICT’s environmental footprint, including the ITU-T L.1472 standard and a pilot project to create a global database for emission and energy consumption data. The importance of harmonized data collection across different regions and ICT sectors was emphasized, with experts noting the need for capacity building among regulators who often lack basic knowledge of emission reporting frameworks.

The session also explored how ICT can enable climate action in other sectors, with examples including early warning systems for floods and droughts, applications for farmers to select drought-resistant seeds, and IoT sensors for Amazon biodiversity monitoring. Speakers emphasized that successful implementation requires not just connectivity and infrastructure, but also comprehensive digital public infrastructure including ID systems and mobile money platforms.

The discussion concluded with insights on smart cities’ digital transformation toward net zero goals, highlighting ten practical guidelines for cities to leverage ICT for energy efficiency, renewable energy integration, and citizen behavior change. Overall, the session underscored the critical need for international cooperation, standardization, and capacity building to harness digital technologies for environmental sustainability while minimizing their own ecological footprint.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Standardization and Measurement of ICT Environmental Impact**: The discussion emphasized the critical need for standardized methodologies to measure and report the ICT sector’s environmental footprint, including greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water usage. ITU’s development of standards like L.1472 and L.1410 was highlighted as essential for creating consistent, comparable data across companies and countries.

– **Digital Solutions for Climate Action and Sustainability**: Participants explored how ICT technologies can be leveraged as tools for environmental protection and climate mitigation in other sectors. Examples included early warning systems for floods and droughts, apps for farmers to select drought-resistant seeds, and IoT sensors for biodiversity monitoring in the Amazon.

– **Capacity Building and Implementation Challenges**: The conversation addressed significant gaps in knowledge and capacity, particularly among regulators and developing countries. Speakers noted that many ICT regulators lack awareness of basic concepts like scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, highlighting the need for training programs and simplified guidance.

– **Global Collaboration and Partnership**: The importance of international cooperation was emphasized throughout, with ITU working alongside UNEP, UNCTAD, World Bank, and other organizations. The discussion stressed that partnerships are essential for scaling digital product information systems and ensuring standards are implemented effectively across regions.

– **Smart Cities and Net Zero Transformation**: The session covered how cities can achieve carbon neutrality through digital transformation, presenting 10 practical guidelines including embracing comprehensive digital strategies, utilizing ICT for energy efficiency, promoting circular economy practices, and encouraging behavioral change through digital tools.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore the dual role of ICT in environmental sustainability – both addressing the sector’s own environmental impact and harnessing digital technologies as solutions for broader climate action. The session sought to present ITU’s standardization work, showcase practical implementations, and foster collaboration among international organizations, governments, and industry stakeholders.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional, collaborative, and solution-oriented throughout the discussion. Speakers maintained an urgent but optimistic approach, acknowledging significant challenges while emphasizing concrete progress and opportunities. The atmosphere was highly technical yet accessible, with participants demonstrating strong commitment to international cooperation. The tone remained consistently constructive, with speakers building upon each other’s points and highlighting successful partnerships and initiatives.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Reyna Ubeda** – Works for ITU standardization sector, session moderator

– **Bilel Jamoussi** – Deputy Director of TSV (ITU)

– **Fabienne Pierre** – UNEP, Coordinator of the Green Growth Knowledge Partnership

– **Luis Adrian Salazar** – Professor at Latin University of Costa Rica, panel moderator

– **Laura Cyron** – Economy Affairs Office of UNCTAD

– **Jean-Manuel Canet** – Vice-chair of ITU-T Study Group 5 on Environment and Circular Economy, works at Orange

– **Rosendo Manas** – Co-founder of Resilio

– **Rosie McDonald** – Climate change officer of TDB-ITU (Development Bureau)

– **Sara Ballan** – Senior digital development specialist at the World Bank, leads Green Digital Business Line

– **Hiroshi Yamamoto** – Director and head of the standardization office at Nippon Telegraph and Telecom Corporation (NTT Inc.)

– **Cristina Cardenas** – Works at Coursera, leads government opportunities

– **Leonidas Anthopoulos** – Professor of e-business at the University of Thessaly in Greece, expert in smart cities and digital governance

– **Participant** – Works on Paris Agreement carbon mechanism and AI developments at UNFCCC

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Digital Solutions for Sustainability: Standardisation, Measurement, and Implementation

## Executive Summary

This session at the AI for Good Summit brought together international experts from ITU, UNEP, UNCTAD, World Bank, and industry representatives to examine digital technologies’ dual role in environmental sustainability. The discussion was structured as two fireside chats addressing both the ICT sector’s environmental footprint and its potential for enabling climate solutions.

The conversation highlighted a critical shift in global climate policy, with digital technologies emerging as a recognised issue at COP28 and COP29. While the ICT sector accounts for 2-4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, it offers significant opportunities for environmental solutions. Central themes included the urgent need for standardised measurement frameworks, capacity building challenges particularly in developing countries, and the gap between technical standards and political implementation.

Technical difficulties and time constraints affected the session flow, with some speakers experiencing connection issues and abbreviated presentations due to scheduling limitations.

## Opening Framework and Strategic Context

**Reyna Ubeda** from ITU’s standardisation sector introduced the session’s dual focus on digital solutions for sustainability while acknowledging the sector’s environmental impact. She outlined the structure as two fireside chats: first examining the ICT sector’s environmental footprint, then exploring ICT-enabled climate solutions.

**Bilel Jamoussi**, Deputy Director of TSV at ITU, emphasized ITU’s strategic priorities of universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation. He noted a significant shift in climate discourse: “before COP28, I don’t think digital was one of the topics on the agenda of negotiators,” highlighting how rapidly digital technologies have gained recognition in international climate policy.

Jamoussi stressed that technical standards provide essential foundations for climate action by enabling stakeholders to “compare Apple to Apple” across companies and countries, though he departed partway through the session.

## First Fireside Chat: ICT Environmental Footprint

Moderated by **Luis Adrian Salazar**, Professor at Latin University of Costa Rica and former government minister, this segment focused on measuring and addressing the ICT sector’s environmental impact.

Salazar opened by noting the challenge of operating “in two worlds – the environmental world and the digital world” and emphasized the need to move beyond strategy proliferation: “stop to release strategies… We have a strategy for AI. We have a strategy for 5G. We have a strategy for the strategy, and it’s very confused for the different layers of the governments to implement solution.”

**Laura Cyron** from UNCTAD provided key statistics, noting that ICT’s current 2-4% share of global greenhouse gas emissions is projected to increase by 50% within five years. She emphasized that developing countries in Latin America and Africa face dual challenges: needing digital infrastructure for development while being disproportionately affected by climate change.

**Jean-Manuel Canet**, Vice-chair of ITU-T Study Group 5 from Orange, detailed the sector’s ambitious targets, including 45% greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2030 compared to 2020 levels. He highlighted key standards development including L.1472 for measuring CO2 footprints and L.1410 for assessing biodiversity impacts, providing frameworks for consistent industry measurement.

**Rosendo Manas**, co-founder of Resilio, presented a pilot project testing data collection frameworks with common definitions across ICT sectors and regions. The initiative aims to create a global database for emission and energy consumption data, addressing practical implementation challenges. He specifically invited collaboration: “if you want to participate in this pilot, please contact us.”

**Rosie McDonald**, Climate Change Officer of ITU’s Development Bureau, highlighted significant capacity gaps among regulators. Survey results showed many ICT regulators lack familiarity with basic emission scope reporting frameworks, creating barriers to effective environmental governance. She outlined efforts to address these gaps through regulator training programmes and e-learning courses.

## Second Fireside Chat: ICT-Enabled Climate Solutions

Moderated by **Cristina Cardenas** from Coursera, this segment explored how digital technologies can enable climate action across sectors.

**Sara Ballan**, Senior Digital Development Specialist at the World Bank, highlighted investments in solar-powered connectivity solutions that address both digital inclusion and environmental sustainability. She provided examples of ICT-enabled climate solutions including early warning systems, mobile applications for drought-resistant seed selection, and IoT sensors for Amazon biodiversity monitoring.

Ballan emphasized that successful implementation requires comprehensive digital public infrastructure, including national ID systems, mobile money platforms, and reliable connectivity – recognizing that individual applications cannot succeed without supporting ecosystem infrastructure.

**Hiroshi Yamamoto**, Director at NTT’s Standardisation Office, introduced perspectives on distributed data centre architecture connected by high-quality, low-energy optical networks. This approach could potentially reduce energy consumption while creating opportunities for developing countries to participate more fully in the digital economy.

## Technical Difficulties and Session Constraints

The session experienced several challenges that affected content delivery:

– **Leonidas Anthopoulos**, Professor at University of Thessaly specializing in smart cities, experienced significant connection problems. While he mentioned having “10 guidelines” for cities pursuing net zero objectives through digital transformation, technical difficulties prevented full presentation of this content.

– **Fabienne Pierre** from UNEP was introduced to discuss digital product information systems, but her introduction was cut off mid-sentence and she did not complete her presentation.

– Time constraints led to abbreviated discussions and limited the depth of technical exchanges.

## Key Areas of Consensus

Despite session limitations, several areas of strong agreement emerged:

**Standardisation as Foundation**: Participants agreed that standardised methodologies are crucial for consistent, comparable measurements of ICT environmental impact across companies and countries.

**Capacity Building Imperative**: All speakers emphasized extensive capacity building needs, particularly for developing countries and government officials lacking technical expertise in environmental measurement.

**Dual Role Recognition**: Universal acknowledgement that while ICT has environmental costs, it offers significant opportunities for climate action across various sectors.

**Partnership Necessity**: Consistent emphasis on collaborative partnerships across organisations, regions, and sectors for effective environmental governance.

## Implementation Challenges

Several critical challenges were identified:

**Political Translation Gap**: Salazar emphasized the fundamental challenge: “how can we convince the President, the Prime Minister, to be the leader in the digital strategy and the environmental strategy.” This highlighted the gap between technical capabilities and political implementation.

**Fragmented Approaches**: The tendency to develop separate strategies for different technologies instead of integrated approaches creates implementation confusion across government layers.

**Measurement versus Action**: Tension between focusing on standardised data collection versus prioritizing implementation of existing frameworks.

**Scaling Beyond Pilots**: Moving from successful pilot projects to global implementation, particularly in resource-constrained developing countries.

## Immediate Next Steps

The discussion identified several concrete action items:

– Continued testing of the proposed data collection framework through Resilio’s pilot project, with open invitation for participation

– Implementation of regulator training programmes and e-learning courses to address capacity gaps

– Development of extended greenhouse gas emission trajectories for the ICT sector to 2035-2040

– Increased participation from Latin America and Africa in standardisation efforts

## Conclusion

This session revealed both the urgency and complexity of addressing digital technologies’ environmental role. While there was consensus on the need for standardised measurement and capacity building, significant challenges remain in translating technical solutions into political action.

The emergence of digital technologies in international climate policy represents a significant opportunity, but realising this potential requires addressing the political and implementation dimensions beyond technical standards. As Salazar noted, success depends on securing high-level political leadership for integrated digital-environmental strategies rather than fragmented approaches.

The session demonstrated that while technical solutions are necessary, they are insufficient alone. The path forward requires continued collaboration to ensure digital technologies contribute positively to environmental objectives while minimising their ecological footprint, with particular attention to inclusive implementation across diverse global contexts.

Reyna Ubeda: Good afternoon, everyone. Many thanks for being here. Welcome to our sessions on digital solutions for sustainability. Recording in progress. Sorry, now we start again. Good morning, everyone. My name is Reyna Ubeda. I work for the ITU for the standardization sector. Welcome to our session on digital solutions for sustainability, ICT’s role in GHG reduction and biodiversity protection, and also from data to impact, digital product information system, and the importance of traceability for global environmental governance. To start this session, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Bilel Jamoussi, Deputy Director of TSV. Bilel, you have the floor.

Bilel Jamoussi: Thank you very much, Reyna. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the session. It’s really a pleasure to have you as part of the AI for Good Summit with us this week. The ITU has two strategic priorities, universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation. These are the two strategic priorities agreed at our plenipotentiary conference in 22 in Bucharest. And so everything we work on is really guided by those two principles of universal connectivity and digital transformation that is sustainable, especially now that all industries are transforming and leveraging digital technologies. And this highlights the importance of a sustainable future for the digital tech industry, but also that this industry can be a powerful force for climate action. Technical standards are essential tools for action because they give us a common foundation to measure things. So we can compare Apple to Apple. They help us bring key innovation to global scale. When we uncover new opportunities to improve sustainability, standards can provide blueprints for everyone to benefit. Energy efficiency, for example, is fundamental to the cost efficiency and the climate action commitments of the digital tech industry. It’s also an area where digital technology companies are gaining new revenue from innovations improving energy efficiency in other industries. The optimizations, for example, through use of AI as one of the technologies, can help other industries reduce their energy use. And that’s why companies invest in the ITU standardization work. Our standards for sustainable power feeding and smart energy control help us optimize efficiency and make better use of renewable energies. Our standards provide climate impact metrics and measurements, methods to keep us on the right track. And very importantly, our standards are the result of collaboration and consensus decisions. They are voluntary commitments to new ways of working together. Standards help technologies to speak the same language, but they also support clear communication among companies, business… Hello, how are you? Good. Who was that? So our green digital action activities also work in service of this communication. And that’s why these activities engage so many partners. How many of you were in COP29? Right. Okay. So as part of these activities at the UN Climate Change Conference, digital tech companies have highlighted their commitment to greater transparency on climate impacts. And I’m glad to say that we are achieving strong progress. Before COP28, I don’t think digital was one of the topics on the agenda of negotiators. So we started this in COP28 in Dubai, COP29 with the declaration in Azerbaijan, in Baku, and we have a plan in working with Brazil for COP30. ITU members are working on standards for a new database on emission energy consumption. And I’m looking at my colleague here from BDT, Rosie, who is leading some of this effort for… We are launching a project to test the feasibility of the proposed data collection framework. We all need to agree on how we are going to collect the data. We will present this project today, as well as other key ITU standards for climate action. Our United for Smart Sustainable Cities initiative is also launching two new reports this week. This initiative includes 17 UN agencies that have been working on smart sustainable cities for a number of years based on an ITU standard for key performance indicators for smart sustainable cities. Methodologies to assess net zero progress in cities and guidelines for cities to achieve net zero through digital transformation. In the following session, we will look at how ITU standards are supporting the creation of sustainability passports for digital products with the aim of delivering data essential to circular economy. These standards are being developed in collaboration with ETSI. We have an amazing partnership with ETSI. We develop together and we publish together most of the standards in this area as technically aligned deliverables. And this work forms part of a broader global framework for digital product information systems developed jointly with One Planet Network, UNEP, the Wuppertal Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and other partners. So partnership is a key in order for us to really work together and pool all of our resources and efforts towards achieving concrete outcomes. All of you, whether in government, industry, academia or civil society, can drive ITU standards work with your collaboration and consensus decisions. I welcome you all to join us. I thank our organizing partner today, One Planet Network, UNEP and UNCTAD. And I thank our expert speakers and everyone joining us for your contributions to this important discussion. And I’m looking forward to learning more about your latest thinking and priorities and how ITU could best support you. Thank you.

Reyna Ubeda: Thank you, Mr. Jamoussi. Now I would like to give the floor to Dr. Fabienne Pierre from UNEP. Fabienne, you have the floor.

Fabienne Pierre: Thank you very much and thank you for this opportunity. So indeed, I work for UNEP. I am the coordinator of the Green Growth Knowledge Partnership. and well, before I say a few words about this and about the importance of the topics that will be discussed today during the session, I just want to say that indeed, I fully agree with what you just said and how important it is to harness the power of digital technologies to achieve sustainability and circular economy, but also how important it is to make sure that such technologies are part of the sustainability transition. And so in GGKP, which is a global initiative that is led by UNEP together with the World Bank, I know we have the World Bank today, UNIDO, the OECD and Global Green Growth Institute in Korea, our very objective as a partnership is indeed to leverage knowledge partnerships and digital technologies to facilitate the sharing, the flowing and the application of green and circular economy solutions. And we very much focus on actionable knowledge, knowledge from experience, knowledge for action that can guide stakeholders within value chains and high impact sectors, including the ICT sector into adopting a new standards and policies and norms and practices that support the transition to sustainability. So this is a very important topic for us and in the work that we are doing because we want to also contribute in the dissemination and making sure that those standards and norms and best practices actually reach the right stakeholders within value chains in a way that meets their needs and specific context. That’s a challenge that we’re facing to all of us have experienced that, that we are overwhelmed with the amount of information available out there. And at the same time, it’s difficult to navigate this ocean of information. How digital technologies can help us, including AI, help us access and channel and access this knowledge in a much more effective manner. And this is true for a. The product information is one of the topics for discussion today and indeed you said it also, digital technologies are reshaping industries today and we have tools that enable unprecedented data integration and innovation. So indeed digital product information systems that includes things like digital product passports are emerging as transformative tools to increase transparency and accelerate the transition to a circular and sustainable economy. Indeed those systems are meant to facilitate the sharing of standardized product data along the life cycle of products and include environmental performance but also resource composition and other relevant information that will impact potential end-of-life options. So digital product information systems are all about transparency, efficiency but also recyclability of products and informed choices and that’s what we want to highlight is how those instruments can empower consumers also in making informed decisions. And so how can we look at digital product information systems also as an essential tool for transparency within value chains that also informed consumption with detailed information about the products that we are purchasing and consuming from origin to end of life. In fact scaling, so there are many initiatives at the moment at country level, in regions working on different sectoral digital systems. So again such as digital product passports and they are focusing on specific areas or products like batteries or plastics, textiles, electronics. But how do we scale up those information systems and those initiatives? It really requires, as you mentioned, partnerships, coherence, coordination, harmonization. And so the question is how can we work together to ensure that such systems and initiatives talk to each other and how do we help them continue developing in a way that allows information and data to flow in an effective, accessible and verifiable manner within and across industries. So indeed UNEP and the One Planet Network is working in very close partnership with ITU and UNCTAD, the Consumer Information Program of the One Planet Network and many other strategic partners to develop a global framework for digital product information systems which is, as was highlighted, fundamental to harmonize and bring those initiatives and practices together, address the challenge of fragmented approaches and

Bilel Jamoussi: Thank you very much Fabienne. I am going to leave you in good hands with my colleague Reyna, who is the counselor for our Study Group 5. As you can imagine, we have many parallel sessions and I would like for you to excuse me and I’ll leave you in good hands

Reyna Ubeda: with Reyna. Thank you. Thank you, Bilel. Okay, thank you so much Fabienne for your words. Now allow us to start with the first fireside chat, exploring the environmental footprint of the ICT sector from standardized measurement to transition plans. And I would like to give the floor to Prof. Luis Adrián Salazar from the Latin University of Costa Rica that will be the moderator of this session. Thank you very much and good afternoon. We

Luis Adrian Salazar: have two challenges. The first of all is to talk about the environmental and digital world. And the second is to use extremely effective the 25 minutes that we have with four excellent panelists. So for that, all that I want to say is that this panel have a big goal and needs to try to give one idea in order to improve all that the people are doing to understand that we are living in the virtual world. However, it makes sense while we have a planet because we don’t have a planet and we lost all that we have in the environmental access, we’re going to fail. So my idea is to have two minutes in the and Dr. Laura Cyron. We are going to start with the first question and then to try to make a wrap-up with one idea. And after that we define ten questions with Reyna, we start to work in order to make two resume questions. I would like to present my panel. Laura Cyron from Economy Affairs Office of UNTAC, thank you very much. Jean-Manuel Canet is the vice-chair of ITU-T Study Group 5. Then Rosendo Manas, where is Rosendo? Rosendo is over there. He is co-founder of Resilio. Rosie McDonald, climate change officer of TDB-ITU. So thank you very much to all of you. The first question is how can standardization methodologies and harmonized data disclosure practice support more consistent, transparent and comparable measure of the ICT sector’s environmental footprint across companies and countries, covering the full life cycle, including scope-three emissions? Just one comment in this question. When we talk about countries, I will want to emphasize about how can we include countries in LATAM and Africa, because in some countries, like Europe, it is easier to be involved with the digital world and environmental in the same page. So I would like to include LATAM and Africa in your answer. Please, Laura.

Laura Cyron: It’s a small question with minor, well, very sub points. OK, so thank you very much, first of all, for having me. I am coming from this perspective a bit with the question of how does this problem fit into the question of trade and development, basically. So standardization, of course, is a very essential role in this case, because we in our work very much look for evidence-based policymaking approaches. And for that, we need data. And as we know very well that the ICT sector, and especially the measurement of its footprint, is something that is still well fragmented, to say the least, in the case of how we measure this. And therefore, of course, this implies that there is a lack of reliable and standardized data that we can use for the policy guidance that we try to offer to countries, particularly in developing countries that tend to be also somewhat further behind in measuring their ICT sector. In this context, just to maybe give a bit of context, so we think or estimate that the ICT sector emissions currently are somewhere between 2 and 4 percent of global GHG emissions, which is apparently close to the aviation sector, so quite sizable already. But this is somewhat outdated data. The International Energy Agency anticipates that within the next five years, the CO2 emissions of the ICT sector will rise by at least 50% after having already grown around 60% within the previous five years. And that, of course, is a significant concern, especially for developing countries, because in our work at UNCTAD, we quite often face this dual reality of digitalization, which will be a very helpful tool to make things more efficient for economic growth, but also in terms of climate solutions. At the same time, we are very keenly aware of the fact that the developing countries are the furthest behind and most impacted by climate change and environmental pressures, so that they are the ones that face this dual issue of a double burden, where they cannot harness digital technologies yet to the extent necessary. And that is, well, first of all, of course, one of the reasons why we very strongly support initiatives like the ITU-TL 1472, because this will bring more standardization to this area in terms of measuring the CO2 footprint. But what we also look at quite keenly in our work is sort of the more holistic lifecycle approach. So we are also quite concerned in the case of water use for the ICT sector and the impacts of biodiversity. But for that, of course, ITU also already has an approach, which is quite good in terms of L1410. So that is quite encouraging. And what is initially quite encouraging, I think, in the work today that we’re seeing is the growing awareness of this issue, so that the Global Digital Compact, for instance, has recognized the fact that we need more measurement and awareness of the ICT sector impact, as well as the recent intergovernmental group that we had at UNCTAD. And then I think just two days ago, the BRICS very keenly also emphasized the importance that we figure out what the AI governance will bring in positives, as well as in its environmental impact. So thank you very much.

Jean-Manuel Canet: Thank you, Laura. Jean-Manuel, please, the floor is yours. Thanks very much. Thanks very much for having me this afternoon. Very pleased to be here. representing the study group five, which is the lead study group on environment, climate, biodiversity, water topics. And so maybe to answer first to your question, we, so we, we develop standards and we develop standards cooperatively, and this is done with the participation of experts from all the regions. And we have seen in the past years, a strong participation, for instance, from LATAM, from Africa region, we have a lot of participation of experts coming from member states, from, let’s say, the industry, from academia. And this is very important for us because they bring a lot. And also in the study group five, we have the chance, the opportunity to have regional groups. And through these regional groups, the different members contributed, they coordinate, they give more strength to the effort. So this is very important. So that was to answer your first aspect of question. And then to continue, and thank you so much for mentioning all the standards that we have been developing. I can say first that it’s important to set a goal. And we did that. And we did that in cooperation with the International Energy Agency and with the so-called science-based target initiative. We set the goal for the ICT sector to reduce its GHG emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2020. We know some of the actors in the ICT sector are doing well, like telecom operators, because they are using much more renewable energy to power their networks in many regions of the world. And their emissions are decreasing. We know there are some challenges, of course, corresponding to the development of artificial intelligence in particular. And to address that, we collectively, the study group has decided to develop some new trajectories up to 2035-2040. We invite all of you to contribute to this work and to contribute to the trajectories. In terms of GHG emissions, we also have development of standards regarding the impact of the RCT sector on biodiversity, for instance. Water is another important topic that we are going to look at regarding the impact of artificial intelligence. As you mentioned, we have developed a standard to look at all the key indicators that should be collected in order to have the nice view, the full view on the RCT sector, GHG emissions, energy footprint at worldwide level, at national level. And for this, a pilot is going to start and I will let colleagues explain further about that. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Rosendo.

Rosendo Manas: Thank you, Jean-Manuel. It’s quite easy when someone introduces the work you’re doing right now. So exactly, we’re launching this pilot project. It is very simple. We have this database that we’re creating and the question is how or what should be included, what definition should be in it, because we can all say people should report on the carbon emissions, but what exactly should be inside, specifically so that everyone has the same language, same words, same wording, and knows exactly what to do, what to report on. And it’s really that common language that we’re trying to figure out in this project, this pilot project, as to later have those figures, that information, which will help all the sector guides and go through those towards that direction of the emissions. One of the key aspects that was mentioned before of this pilot project is that not only we’re looking at different sectors within the ICT, so looking at telecom operators, data central operators, as well as manufacturers from ICT, but also looking at that regional level, making sure that we have actors from all the different regions within the world, Spain, Europe, Africa, North America, Asia, and all the other different regions, basically. So to be able to, at the end, say we’ve actually covered all the scope. We have all the insights from all those different organizations and companies and that will help us create that standard, reinforce that LW1472, which we believe is key in order to help the whole sector, ICT sector, reduce those emissions. And yeah, lastly, we are inviting you all to help you contribute on our work. If you’re interested in what we’re doing, please come after the talk, reach us, talk to us. If you’re interested, happy to have this conversation, explain you in detail what we’re trying to do. We believe this is super important for everyone, for all the ICT sector. So really keen to help you on that.

Luis Adrian Salazar: Thank you, Rosendo. Rosie? Great.

Rosie McDonald: Thank you very much for having me here as well today. So I’m also a colleague in ITU and I’m in the Development Bureau. So we do a lot of work, particularly with countries and to complement the work going on within the Standardization Bureau and the database development. We’ve also been working with a group of experts from different countries to try and harmonize and sensitize different regulators specifically to start collecting this data. We saw that as a big gap when we start collecting data. A lot of regulations are not in place. A lot of ICT regulators don’t really collect environmental data. So we see this as a big opportunity to really help start collecting data to establish what indicators there are based on a first set, based on the standard, based on a report that we do, an annual green digital companies report, where we also collect data from 200 companies. So we know what data currently exists publicly. So we’re really trying to build capacity at the country level. And yeah, we have within that group quite a lot of experts from different regions, but we do see that as a gap currently. And there’s a couple of countries who are leading data collection efforts and, for example, the French regulator and the Norway regulator have been starting this work. So we’re really trying to feed in from their experience to really improve data collection globally and see how we can better populate this database over the next coming years. Thank you.

Luis Adrian Salazar: Thank you very much. We are going to make the second question. However, I will give you time to make a final reflection. I think that we have been talking about that. If we don’t have measures, we don’t have data, it is very difficult to have information, and the most difficult is to take decisions for public policy. I was Minister of Technology of Telecommunication in Costa Rica, and I know the difficulties that represent when you try to coordinate public policy in different areas. So, if we are talking about e-waste, GHG, water consumption, it is very difficult to put all of the people in the same line. But the most important and the most difficult thing is how can we convince the President, the Prime Minister, to be the leader in the digital strategy and the environmental strategy. So, in this line, I would like for you to make a final reflection about what you recommend. How can we implement some method to translate from the technical words to the political action, in order to measure but to make a call to action and replicate along the word. Please, Laura, it is your turn.

Laura Cyron: That is a good question. Well, as I said before, one of the main issues often missing, especially in an area that is evolving that fast, is data for background. But then at the same time, what we see a lot in our work is also just a lot of capacity building about the different technologies and why we are now all of a sudden talking about digitalization, but also the impact on the environment. So, I think that is something that you need to enforce, well, not enforce, but bring about a lot more, is that there is more capacity building about how quickly technology evolves and what the impact on the environment is, especially, for example, in resource-rich countries where there is a lot of mining effects, for example. Thank you.

Jean-Manuel Canet: Thank you so much. I believe that it is important to provide some examples showing that it is already existing. You mentioned, Rosy, the example of France. France is collecting data and it is working for several years. Other countries have started to show the example, to explain how to proceed in a relatively simple manner, to provide some clear guidance, simplified guidance, I would say, and then to delegate the effort. Because, of course, we need people to help us doing this effort in every country. So, some training would Dr. Bilel Jamoussi, Dr. Laura Cyron, Mr. Jean-Manuel Canet, Dr. Rosie McDonald, Ms. Cristina Cardenas,

Participant: Dr. Rosie McDonald, Mr. Hiroshi Yamamoto, Ms. Cristina Cardenas, Dr. Rosie McDonald, Dr. Rosie McDonald, Ms. Cristina Cardenas, Dr. Rosie McDonald, Dr. Rosie McDonald, Dr. Rosie McDonald,

Rosie McDonald: Dr. Rosie McDonald, Dr. Rosie McDonald, Dr. Rosie McDonald, Dr. Rosie McDonald, Dr. Rosie McDonald, And yeah, with the capacity building as well, I think that’s a really important aspect. We put out a survey to really try and understand what the knowledge of different regulators, for example, were on emission scope-free reporting, and a lot of them weren’t aware of the simple terms with scope 1, 2, 3 emissions, so I think that is a big gap, and it’s something we’re trying to improve and increase, and we have a new project at least, which is focusing on and piloting in a couple of countries in Asia-Pacific and Africa, and has a global component where we’ll do an e-learning course to really try and at least sensitize and improve that basic knowledge in terms of what the standards are, what the different landscape is to help collect, so yeah, I agree very much with what the colleagues have said. Thank you.

Luis Adrian Salazar: Thank you very much. I hope to accomplish with the time, Reyna, and thank you for my panel, because we practice to speak extremely fast, so this awake all of us. Just a little observation. I want to remark in the global awareness and the useful of a standard, and the action of ITU making more standard and replicate more standard is incredible, and just one recommendation is for the countries is stop to release strategies, and what mean that? We have a strategy for AI. We have a strategy for 5G. We have a strategy for the strategy, and it’s very confused for the different layers of the governments to implement solution for the different. Thank you very much for the opportunity, and please, an applause for all of my panelists. Thank you.

Reyna Ubeda: Thank you so much, Luis. Thank you for doing well with the time. It’s very much appreciated. But just wanted to add a bit of what this session, because I know it was just 20 minutes of discussion and we cannot talk about everything. But one, what is important is that standards, they should be implemented. And once they are implemented, we can know where is good, where is not good, what can be changed, what works for this country, what works for others. And for that, we need implementing partners. For example, our collaboration with UNTAC, with One Planet Network, with the World Bank, or with other organizations that are working on environment, this is very important. So, when you think about standards, don’t think, oh, they are written on stone, there’s no change. No. Standards are written by people in a nice venue, but then you need to implement it. Then you need to see how we can make it easier also for the regulators, for the other stakeholders, because sometimes they are technical. So, we need also this part on the raising awareness, the campaigns, the trainings that you are working on, and also for the governments. Don’t be afraid about the results. There are no bad results. There is just results that are giving an opportunity to improve. So, now, let’s go to the next session. Fireside Chat 2, Enabling ICT-Based Solutions for Climate Action. And I would like to give the floor to Cristina Cardenas. First, we learn about the impact of ICT, the GHG emission of ICT, and now how ICT can help other sectors to reduce their GHG emission. Cristina,

Cristina Cardenas: the floor is yours. Yeah, thank you. I hope I can be as fast as the panel before was. Well, good afternoon. I’m Cristina Cardenas. I’m in charge of leading all the opportunities that we have with Coursera in different governments. And I see the good part of technology. I always see how technology can impact and need no one behind in terms of education. But this time, we are going to talk about the other side of technology, but also how technology be a solution also for improving the conditions of the environment. So, we are going to talk about two main things here, how we measure and report the environment impact of the ICT, and the new digital tools that can help and protect the environment. And we have experts. I will also give some instructions of our panel, which is like two to three minutes to present what are they doing, the field of work. I know it’s very brief time, but we also rehearsed before. And also, we are going We are going to have two questions that we want to solve in each one. So I will start with Sara Valen, a senior digital development specialist at the World Bank where she collaborates with Green Digital Business Line and Sara supports countries in expanding digital access through sustainability investment and promotes the use of technology for green solutions. I know that you are going to talk about your experience, the perspective that you have on how innovation can drive environmental impact, so the floor is yours, Sara.

Sara Ballan: Thank you so much. Can you hear me? Great. So good afternoon, everyone. My name is Sara Valen and I work at the World Bank in the digital vertical. I actually work with Yolanda over here, so it’s great to have a colleague. I lead what we call the Green Digital Business Line and my role is twofold. As you mentioned, I work together with our country clients on greening the digital investments themselves. So we don’t measure as much as ITU, but we try to actually work with the clients when they invest in digital infrastructure to also reduce the footprint. And then I work with countries on how to leverage digital technologies for various green applications, including biodiversity, climate resilience and so forth. To give you an example, we do it for many different purposes because climate change is an issue, but we also do it very much for digital inclusion. So, for example, we invest in last mile connectivity solutions and there we also invest in solar. That’s good because it reduces the footprint of telecom infrastructure, but it’s even better because it reduces the cost of the connectivity. Diesel is super expensive. Others have mentioned orange. You have to have a car to drive it. So if we use solar, we do two things at once.

Reyna Ubeda: Thank you. Very fast. Into two minutes. And Sarah, can I ask you one of the questions? What are examples from the World Bank on ICT is used for climate action?

Sara Ballan: Yeah, no, good question. So I used to live in Kenya and Nairobi where I live, there are lots of floods and it creates lots of problems. In other parts of the countries, they have droughts and the farmers have to migrate because of droughts. So I have bank colleagues working on early warning systems using digital solutions. I have other bank colleagues working on apps for farmers to pick drought resistant seeds or apps that help farmers reduce the footprint of their production. So those are very practical examples together with our sectoral colleagues. So we support those, but we also work on the digital infrastructure that enable these. Another example is from Brazil. There we are working in the Amazonian region with different solutions that link to biodiversity with the Amazon IoT sensors. So very important work there. But without connectivity or data centers and so forth, there are no of these applications. So we also have investments in that kind of digital infrastructure. And the role of our teams are to link those investments in good ways to really accelerate these applications. Thank you.

Reyna Ubeda: My brother-in-law is doing that in Africa. I’m very used to that. So what type of enablers are necessary to scale these? You mentioned connectivity, you mentioned infrastructure, but what else?

Sara Ballan: Yeah. No, it’s a great question. So let me give you another example. So in Ethiopia, they also have droughts and they also have floods. And in Ethiopia, they have emergency cash transfers when that happens. So there we also invest in connectivity, data centers and so forth. But we also invest in digital public infrastructure. So ID systems, mobile money, so we can actually find the right people, get the money to them. So if we don’t have that full ecosystem, then we don’t get the applications and the impact.

Reyna Ubeda: Okay. Thank you so much. It seems very similar. What am I doing? It’s not only deploying the solution, but also a companion and guide the ones who are implemented. Thank you so much, Sara. Hiroshi? Yeah, we are neighbors now. He’s the director and head of the standardization office at Nippon Telegraph and Telecom Corporation where he leads global efforts in telecommunication standardization. He has a distinguished career in research and development, and he has represent entity in major international standard settings organizations. Today, he’s going to talk about what is he doing related to Redis Center. Thank you.

Hiroshi Yamamoto: Thank you. And I appreciate him giving me these precious opportunities. My name is Hiroshi Yamamoto from NTT Inc. Let me introduce NTT, recently has changed corporation name, NTT Inc. So our corporation name changed. And let me introduce my views from industry perspectives. The biggest entity groups started our business. We are the world’s third-largest data center providers, and recently widespread AI, such as MLMs, consumes considerable energy, an unexpectedly large size of energy required and it indicates our social responsibility also getting bigger, getting larger at the same time. So we expect ITU and these very strong partners to discuss practical measures to reduce reduce energy consumption in such a very big data center age. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So can you talk us more about the solutions that you are implementing in there? Okay, thank you very much. As I mentioned before, now we are facing the limit of size of a single data center due to landscape and the power source limit our data center expansions from industry perspective. So we assume in the near future data center needs to be more distributed, distributed shape. In the past 10 years, most efficient investment is consolidation, consolidation in developed countries data center, but we think distributed data center requires also we need to invest developing country and need to connect these data centers at the very, very high quality and with very low energy efficiency. From technology perspective, we entity group now tackling to enable more optical technologies using end-to-end optical technologies into data center connections, even more user side we are trying. And furthermore, we are trying to, it’s very challenging, but we are trying to change current computing system into optical based, not electric, but optical computing systems that can reduce energy consumption considerably, we expect. But it’s currently R&D phase, but such kind of a combination of practical measures and this cutting edge technology can solve our problem, greenhouse gas problems we expect. Thank you very much.

Reyna Ubeda: Yeah, thank you. So we can keep generating more data. He will help us to reduce the impact on generating that data. Thank you so much. And well, I think I will continue with Carlos Riz. No. No. No. No. Okay. I will continue with Leonidas. Good evening, everybody. Can you hear me? I’m remote.

Participant: Oh, okay. That’s what I was trying to say to you. I’m going to introduce myself and I think I’m not going to be able to answer the questions that Carlos got because I’m from a different area. My name is Kim Barris. I’m leading the development of the Paris Agreement carbon mechanism and all the developments on AI and the UNFCCC. And I was trying to catch the topic. And more or less what I can say, and it’s nice to have entity here because I had several conversations with colleagues from entity. One of the things that I see in the area of data centers, I cannot measure everything. I have to focus on one area, is to establish a methodology that the ones that are doing a good job, they can create carbon emission reductions and sell these to the ones that are not doing a good job. This is an option, these methodologies. For that, we need to measure. That is clear. The other thing that I can say, because these are my areas of work, is what we are doing to accelerate climate action. UNFCCC is a political institution. We don’t implement anything, which means that if I tell you that I’m going to do natural whatever, it’s not true. But what we are doing is to, through a project that is named AI Diplomacy, we are trying to accelerate the knowledge of the negotiators in every topic. It means you have this massive delegations with 400 people that we see in COPS where they are super prepared with consultants and so on. And then you have some countries that they come there with three people, two people, and they have to catch up everything that is in several areas. That is almost impossible. Our objective is to use AI, one, to train new delegators. Second, to make easy for delegations to understand where the topics that are interesting to that nation are evolving. This is our proposal for this year. We are talking with government of Brazil in some aspects of that. They are really very interested in add technology and AI to the COP. It’s time. We are only three, four years late. That is quite good for UNFCCC. And that is our two places where we can help to reduce emissions. Okay, accelerating is not a direct exercise, of course, but I think AI diplomacy can have a good opportunity to accelerate climate action because if countries understand what they are debating, but it seems normal, but it’s not normal in many little countries, then they will be able to take action and take decisions instead of simply stopping the negotiations. Okay, thank you.

Reyna Ubeda: Yeah, well, and my question, it was not there, but based on what you mentioned and what was mentioned in the previous conversation, it is very hard to find the champions in the countries that are using what here is produced as standards. So you say that you also work in the diplomacy to reach that goal. So what do you think are the most successful or what are the conditions that a country needs to have of the people that need to be in those roles to make it happen? Because here are many who want that their standards that they create in the data that they are using are implemented. What are the main characteristics? Dr. Luis Adrián Salazar, Dr. Rosendo Manas, Dr. Rosie McDonald, Mr. Jean-Manuel Canet,

Participant: I don’t know, somebody’s putting data centers in the ocean and that is not a good idea. I think we need to measure that. It means there is no measures. That is a problem. We don’t know which actions are going to produce effect. And this is what we need to start to establish. I cannot answer the question who is doing well or not because it’s not my area. What I can say is that we need data, we need measures, and standards. OK, when you say standards, private runaway, OK? They, if they are on top, yes, they like standards because it’s making them, the competition easier. But if you are trying to create something, it’s, or you are in a developing country, I think the standard is difficult to achieve, OK? That’s why I think trying to establish baselines that indicate when you are working well or not, it’s, you know, by terabyte or by whatever measure you want to use, that can help at least to see how far are you from the optimization. And then try to find a win-win. If you spend less electricity, if you reduce waste, if you reduce heat, and you can sell that as in the carbon markets, maybe that also can be something interesting for these people to, because they need to do better, that’s clear, is what she was saying. It’s not about decision, it’s they have an opportunity.

Reyna Ubeda: Thank you so much. So we have Prof. Leonidas online.

Leonidas Anthopoulos: Unfortunately, remotely. Good afternoon from Greece.

Reyna Ubeda: He is a professor of e-business at the University of Thessaly in Greece. He is leading experts in smart cities and digital governance, having led transforming projects such as Smart Cities of Trikala. He will share insights on two key deliverables that he was developed as part of his contribution to the Working Group 4 of the United Smart and Sustainable Cities Initiative. So thank you so much, Professor, for joining us remotely. So the floor is yours.

Leonidas Anthopoulos: First of all, it’s my pleasure to be with you. I would like to thank you for inviting me and take place in this very interesting and very valuable meeting. As my colleague mentioned, I am a full professor at the University of Thessaly. I’ve been working with a smart city domain since its appearance back in 2000. And I’ve been working with the ITU during the last, I think, 12 years in several, serving several roles like a rapporteur for Study Group 20, rapporteur for Study Group 5, part of the United for Smart and Sustainable Cities in two working groups. And this really makes me happy and makes me feel that I contribute somehow around all these challenges that the globe has to deal with. Indeed, these two deliverables were part of this very interesting thematic group about digital transformation for people-oriented cities. I was leading the Working Group 4 and these two deliverables actually address. Very interesting, very important aspects about cities. As the titles try to mention, the first one deals with a methodology to assess net zero progress. I will try to present them in brief later. And we also try to provide cities with useful guidelines about how they can achieve net zero objectives, how they can transform to net zero cities with the use of digital technologies. Once again, thank you for inviting me to this session. Thank you, Professor. So can you give us a practical guidance and how can we provide the cities on their digital transformation to achieve carbon net zero that you just mentioned? I could do my best to present in brief the summary of the second report about the guidelines, which actually contain information about this question that you asked me. In the context of achieving carbon net zero and creating people-centered cities, city digital transformation plays a vital role. This is why this report is very important. Cities are enabled to leverage technology and address pressing environmental challenges and optimize resource management. With digital transformation, cities can unlock new opportunities for sustainability, innovation and citizen engagement. This report actually tries to show how can cities accelerate their transition to net zero with specific guidelines about ICT to enhance city service and building sufficiency. ICT, green ICT for city economic growth and ICT to transform citizen behavior. The practical guidelines that you asked me about. can be enumerated as 10. The first one has to do with how can cities embrace digital transformation. This can happen with a comprehensive digital strategy, with the adoption of interoperable platforms for data sharing and management, with the preservation of security, flexibility, data, and technological sovereignty, and with urban operation digitization. Second, with the utilization of ICT for energy efficiency and carbon neutrality, like the integration of ICT in the energy sector, ICT for energy and resource optimization, and tracing with the ICT recycling and reuse, and carbon management digital tools integration. The third direction has to do with harnessing renewable energy sources in conjunction with the ICT networks. Fourth direction, promotion of efficient mobility with the use of the ICT for active mobility, for micromobility, EV and EV sharing. The fifth measure has to do with the adoption of circular economy practices, where the ICT are integrated in the circular economy principles. The sixth direction, encouraging carbon-related behavioral change, which has been highlighted with all the experts that participate in the working group. This can happen via leveraging ICT-enabled ICT-based economic growth to promote upskilling and behavioral change that reduce carbon impact, and with digital tools adoption that can engage communities and businesses around carbon neutrality efforts. The seventh measure, how can cities assure city-level capabilities and competencies? This can happen with organizational technical design and monitoring capabilities, and with innovation centers that incubate Sustainable Technologies. Eight, promote environmental-friendly behavior with campaigns, interventions that label positive action and with the definition of socially desirable outcomes. Nine, with coordinated efforts and inclusive policies led by government agencies. And ten, strengthen cooperation across government levels to achieve shared net zero objectives and meet the evolving carbon neutrality goals. I hope I provided answer to this question.

Reyna Ubeda: Thank you so much, professor, for your participation. Thank you. Well, I think that because we are very much in time, I want to introduce Jean-Manuel Canet, Vice Chair of ITUT, Study Group 5 on Environment and Circular Economy. He will talk today about the work of the International Telecommunication Unit Study of the Group 5 on Environment and Climate. And he will also may add some points about what are they doing in Orange. OK, I understand for time reason,

Jean-Manuel Canet: I will keep it very short. So just to say that in complement to what I mentioned earlier in the first panel, it’s very important to be able to assess the positive impact in a robust manner of using ICT solutions. I can only agree with what you said earlier is very important. So the Study Group 5 has developed a methodology, a standard, L.1480, that provides a sound method to assess the actual impact of using a service. And we have recently published a new version, which is providing detailed examples, worked examples. So there is one example related to teleworking, and it shows how teleworking can help reduce GAG emissions because it cuts some travels under some specific conditions. The other example is on optimization of wind farms. And this also shows how, well, thanks to an ICT solution, we do have some benefits. And so it’s very important to be able to give some. and I think this is it, to keep it short.

Reyna Ubeda: Okay, perfect. Thank you. Well, I will ask you only one question. Why do you think it’s important to measure all this impact and bring these digital solutions? You mentioned the examples that can be…

Jean-Manuel Canet: Yeah, because we know the food, the ICT sector has its own footprint and it’s important to be able to assess, to measure the benefits that we can bring, because I believe that more and more in the coming years, these topics will be more and more looked at, because we are already facing extreme events, biodiversity loss and so on, so I do believe that in the future, these topics, they will become more and more important and so strategically for the ICT sector, it’s very important to be able to give some proofs of the benefits that it can bring.

Reyna Ubeda: Thank you so much. Well, we conclude this panel and we invite the second chat. Thank you. I think it will be… The AI, sorry. I have ITU in my, no, no, it will be, it will be nice because I know that follow COP, it’s super difficult, all the negotiations, and not even for COP, also for other assemblies, I don’t know, the assembly from ITU, for example, because they are very small delegations, or also for standards, you know, that we have 10 questions in a study group five, so how you follow all the 10 questions. So, it’s very nice, it will be nice to learn more about this tool. Thank you so much for presenting it.

Agreement points

Standardization is essential for measuring and comparing ICT environmental impact

Speakers

– Bilel Jamoussi
– Laura Cyron
– Jean-Manuel Canet
– Rosendo Manas
– Rosie McDonald

Arguments

Technical standards are essential tools for action because they give us a common foundation to measure things. So we can compare Apple to Apple

Standardization is essential for evidence-based policymaking and reliable data collection

Standards L1472 and L1410 provide frameworks for measuring CO2 footprint and biodiversity impacts

Pilot project is testing feasibility of proposed data collection framework with common definitions

Harmonizing data collection efforts globally through regulator sensitization and training

Summary

All speakers agree that standardized methodologies and frameworks are crucial for creating consistent, comparable measurements of ICT environmental impact across companies and countries

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Partnership and collaboration are essential for scaling environmental solutions

Speakers

– Bilel Jamoussi
– Fabienne Pierre
– Jean-Manuel Canet
– Reyna Ubeda

Arguments

Standards help technologies speak the same language and support clear communication among stakeholders

Global framework for digital product information systems requires partnerships and harmonization across initiatives

Regional participation from LATAM and Africa is crucial for global standardization efforts

Standards must be implemented and tested to identify what works in different contexts

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that effective environmental governance requires collaborative partnerships across organizations, regions, and sectors to achieve harmonization and implementation

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

ICT can provide positive environmental solutions while having its own environmental footprint

Speakers

– Bilel Jamoussi
– Jean-Manuel Canet
– Sara Ballan
– Hiroshi Yamamoto
– Cristina Cardenas

Arguments

Digital technologies can be a powerful force for climate action through technical standards

Standard L.1480 provides methodology to assess positive impact of ICT solutions like teleworking

Early warning systems and farmer apps demonstrate practical climate applications of ICT

Distributed data centers with optical technologies can reduce energy consumption considerably

Technology can have dual impact – both positive environmental solutions and negative environmental effects

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that while ICT has environmental costs, it also offers significant opportunities for climate action and environmental solutions across various sectors

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Capacity building and training are critical for implementation

Speakers

– Laura Cyron
– Rosie McDonald
– Luis Adrian Salazar
– Participant

Arguments

Standardization is essential for evidence-based policymaking and reliable data collection

Capacity building needed for regulators who lack basic knowledge of emission scope reporting

Need to translate technical standards into political action and presidential leadership

AI diplomacy can accelerate climate action by training negotiators and improving understanding

Summary

Speakers agree that successful implementation requires extensive capacity building, training, and knowledge transfer, particularly for developing countries and government officials

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

These ITU representatives share a coordinated approach to developing and implementing standardized measurement frameworks for ICT environmental impact, working across different bureaus but toward common goals

Speakers

– Jean-Manuel Canet
– Rosendo Manas
– Rosie McDonald

Arguments

ITU developed goal for ICT sector to reduce GHG emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2020

Pilot project is testing feasibility of proposed data collection framework with common definitions

Harmonizing data collection efforts globally through regulator sensitization and training

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers emphasize that comprehensive digital infrastructure ecosystems are necessary for effective climate solutions, whether at national or city levels

Speakers

– Sara Ballan
– Leonidas Anthopoulos

Arguments

Digital public infrastructure including ID systems and mobile money enables climate response programs

Cities can achieve net zero through comprehensive digital strategies and interoperable platforms

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize the critical gap between technical solutions and political implementation, emphasizing the need for better communication and training for decision-makers

Speakers

– Luis Adrian Salazar
– Participant

Arguments

Need to translate technical standards into political action and presidential leadership

AI diplomacy can accelerate climate action by training negotiators and improving understanding

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Developing countries as key stakeholders rather than just beneficiaries

Speakers

– Jean-Manuel Canet
– Laura Cyron
– Luis Adrian Salazar

Arguments

Regional participation from LATAM and Africa is crucial for global standardization efforts

Standardization is essential for evidence-based policymaking and reliable data collection

Need to translate technical standards into political action and presidential leadership

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was strong consensus that developing countries should be active participants in creating standards and solutions, not just recipients. This represents a shift from traditional development approaches toward more inclusive governance models

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Economic incentives as drivers for environmental performance

Speakers

– Sara Ballan
– Participant
– Hiroshi Yamamoto

Arguments

World Bank invests in solar-powered connectivity solutions that reduce costs and environmental footprint

Carbon markets and win-win solutions can incentivize better environmental performance

Distributed data centers with optical technologies can reduce energy consumption considerably

Explanation

There was unexpected alignment on using economic incentives and cost savings as primary drivers for environmental improvements, rather than relying solely on regulatory compliance or moral imperatives

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the need for standardized measurement frameworks, collaborative partnerships, and capacity building for environmental governance in the ICT sector. Speakers agreed that ICT has both environmental costs and solution potential, requiring balanced approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting viewpoints. The implications suggest a mature, coordinated approach to ICT environmental governance is emerging, with clear roles for different stakeholders and recognition that technical solutions must be paired with political and economic incentives for successful implementation.

Different viewpoints

Standards implementation approach for developing countries

Speakers

– Participant
– Jean-Manuel Canet

Arguments

Carbon markets and win-win solutions can incentivize better environmental performance

Standards L1472 and L1410 provide frameworks for measuring CO2 footprint and biodiversity impacts

Summary

The Participant argues that standards can be difficult for developing countries to achieve and suggests market-based incentives, while Canet emphasizes the importance of standardized frameworks with regional participation

Topics

Development | Economic

Focus on measurement versus implementation

Speakers

– Laura Cyron
– Luis Adrian Salazar

Arguments

Standardization is essential for evidence-based policymaking and reliable data collection

Countries should stop releasing multiple strategies and focus on integrated implementation

Summary

Cyron emphasizes the need for more standardized data collection and measurement, while Salazar argues countries should stop creating strategies and focus on actual implementation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role of standards in developing countries

Speakers

– Participant
– Jean-Manuel Canet

Arguments

Carbon markets and win-win solutions can incentivize better environmental performance

Regional participation from LATAM and Africa is crucial for global standardization efforts

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement emerged where the Participant suggested standards might be problematic for developing countries (‘if you are in a developing country, I think the standard is difficult to achieve’), while Canet emphasized strong participation from these regions in standards development. This reveals tension between inclusive standards development and practical implementation challenges

Topics

Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most speakers aligned on the importance of measuring ICT environmental impact and using digital solutions for climate action. Main disagreements centered on implementation approaches and the role of standards versus market mechanisms

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The implications suggest that while there is broad consensus on goals, there are important nuances in how to achieve them, particularly regarding developing country participation and the balance between standardization and practical implementation. This could affect the effectiveness of global initiatives if not properly addressed through inclusive dialogue and flexible implementation approaches

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

These ITU representatives share a coordinated approach to developing and implementing standardized measurement frameworks for ICT environmental impact, working across different bureaus but toward common goals

Speakers

– Jean-Manuel Canet
– Rosendo Manas
– Rosie McDonald

Arguments

ITU developed goal for ICT sector to reduce GHG emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2020

Pilot project is testing feasibility of proposed data collection framework with common definitions

Harmonizing data collection efforts globally through regulator sensitization and training

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers emphasize that comprehensive digital infrastructure ecosystems are necessary for effective climate solutions, whether at national or city levels

Speakers

– Sara Ballan
– Leonidas Anthopoulos

Arguments

Digital public infrastructure including ID systems and mobile money enables climate response programs

Cities can achieve net zero through comprehensive digital strategies and interoperable platforms

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize the critical gap between technical solutions and political implementation, emphasizing the need for better communication and training for decision-makers

Speakers

– Luis Adrian Salazar
– Participant

Arguments

Need to translate technical standards into political action and presidential leadership

AI diplomacy can accelerate climate action by training negotiators and improving understanding

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Digital technologies can serve dual roles as both contributors to environmental challenges (2-4% of global GHG emissions) and powerful solutions for climate action across sectors

Standardization and harmonized data collection are essential for measuring ICT environmental impact and enabling evidence-based policymaking, particularly through ITU standards like L1472 and L1410

The ICT sector must reduce GHG emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2020 levels, requiring coordinated global efforts and standardized measurement frameworks

Digital product information systems and sustainability passports are critical tools for enabling circular economy and transparency in global value chains

Capacity building is urgently needed, especially for developing countries and regulators who lack basic knowledge of emission scope reporting and environmental data collection

Smart cities can achieve net zero through comprehensive digital strategies, ICT-enabled energy optimization, and behavioral change programs supported by digital tools

Successful implementation requires translating technical standards into political action, with presidential/prime ministerial leadership and integrated rather than fragmented policy approaches

Partnership and collaboration across organizations (ITU, UNEP, World Bank, UNCTAD) is essential for scaling digital solutions and harmonizing global frameworks

Resolutions and action items

Launch pilot project to test feasibility of proposed data collection framework with common definitions across ICT sectors and regions

Develop new GHG emission trajectories for ICT sector extending to 2035-2040 to address AI and emerging technology challenges

Implement capacity building programs including e-learning courses to sensitize regulators on emission scope reporting and environmental data collection

Continue development of global framework for digital product information systems in collaboration with One Planet Network, UNEP, and other partners

Expand regional participation from LATAM and Africa in standardization efforts through Study Group 5 working groups

Pilot AI diplomacy project to train climate negotiators and improve understanding of technical topics for developing country delegations

Test and implement ITU standards L1472 and L1410 for measuring CO2 footprint and biodiversity impacts across different country contexts

Develop carbon market methodologies to incentivize better environmental performance in data center operations

Unresolved issues

How to effectively translate technical standards into political action and secure presidential/prime ministerial leadership for integrated digital-environmental strategies

Addressing the challenge of fragmented policy approaches where countries have separate strategies for AI, 5G, and other technologies instead of integrated approaches

Scaling digital solutions beyond pilot projects to achieve global implementation, particularly in resource-constrained developing countries

Balancing the growing energy demands of AI and data centers with sustainability goals and emission reduction targets

Ensuring that digital product information systems and sustainability passports can interoperate across different regional and sectoral initiatives

Determining optimal approaches for distributed data center architecture to reduce energy consumption while maintaining service quality

Establishing baseline measurements for countries and organizations that currently lack environmental data collection capabilities

Suggested compromises

Focus on win-win solutions where environmental improvements (reduced electricity use, waste reduction, heat reduction) can be monetized through carbon markets to incentivize adoption

Implement simplified guidance and training programs to make technical standards more accessible to regulators and policymakers with limited technical background

Use solar-powered connectivity solutions that simultaneously address digital inclusion goals and environmental sustainability by reducing costs and emissions

Develop flexible standards that can be adapted to different country contexts and capacity levels rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

Combine practical immediate measures (like energy efficiency improvements) with longer-term R&D investments (like optical computing systems) to address both short and long-term sustainability goals

Establish regional coordination mechanisms to balance global standardization needs with local implementation realities and capacity constraints

Before COP28, I don’t think digital was one of the topics on the agenda of negotiators. So we started this in COP28 in Dubai, COP29 with the declaration in Azerbaijan, in Baku, and we have a plan in working with Brazil for COP30.

Speaker

Bilel Jamoussi

Reason

This comment reveals a significant shift in global climate policy discourse – the emergence of digital technology as a recognized climate issue at the highest international level. It highlights how rapidly the conversation has evolved and positions ITU’s work within this broader policy transformation.

Impact

This comment established the urgency and timeliness of the entire discussion, framing all subsequent technical conversations within the context of high-level international climate negotiations. It elevated the importance of standardization work from technical necessity to global policy imperative.

We have a strategy for AI. We have a strategy for 5G. We have a strategy for the strategy, and it’s very confused for the different layers of the governments to implement solution for the different.

Speaker

Luis Adrian Salazar

Reason

This observation cuts through technical discussions to identify a fundamental governance problem – the proliferation of disconnected strategies that create implementation paralysis. As a former Minister, his perspective carries particular weight in highlighting the gap between technical solutions and political reality.

Impact

This comment shifted the conversation from technical capabilities to implementation challenges, prompting other speakers to address capacity building and the need for simplified guidance. It introduced a critical perspective on how standards and technical solutions actually get deployed in practice.

So, if we are talking about e-waste, GHG, water consumption, it is very difficult to put all of the people in the same line. But the most important and the most difficult thing is how can we convince the President, the Prime Minister, to be the leader in the digital strategy and the environmental strategy.

Speaker

Luis Adrian Salazar

Reason

This comment identifies the core challenge of digital environmental governance – the need for high-level political leadership to coordinate across multiple complex domains. It moves beyond technical solutions to address the political economy of implementation.

Impact

This prompted all panelists to shift from discussing what standards exist to how they can be made politically actionable, leading to discussions about capacity building, simplified guidance, and the need for concrete examples that can convince political leaders.

Don’t be afraid about the results. There are no bad results. There is just results that are giving an opportunity to improve.

Speaker

Reyna Ubeda

Reason

This reframes measurement and standardization from a compliance/judgment framework to a learning and improvement framework. It addresses a psychological barrier that may prevent organizations and countries from engaging with environmental measurement.

Impact

This comment helped create a more collaborative tone for the subsequent discussions, encouraging participation in pilot projects and data collection efforts by removing the fear of negative assessment.

In the past 10 years, most efficient investment is consolidation, consolidation in developed countries data center, but we think distributed data center requires also we need to invest developing country and need to connect these data centers at the very, very high quality and with very low energy efficiency.

Speaker

Hiroshi Yamamoto

Reason

This comment reveals a fundamental shift in data center architecture driven by energy constraints, and importantly connects this technical evolution to development opportunities in developing countries. It shows how environmental constraints can drive inclusive technological development.

Impact

This introduced a new dimension to the discussion – how environmental pressures on the ICT sector could create opportunities for developing countries, shifting from a focus on burden-sharing to opportunity creation.

OK, when you say standards, private runaway, OK? They, if they are on top, yes, they like standards because it’s making them, the competition easier. But if you are trying to create something, it’s, or you are in a developing country, I think the standard is difficult to achieve, OK?

Speaker

Participant (Kim Barris)

Reason

This comment introduces a critical perspective on standards as potentially exclusionary tools that may favor established players over innovators and developing countries. It challenges the assumption that standards are universally beneficial.

Impact

This comment introduced tension into the discussion about standardization, prompting consideration of how to make standards more accessible and how to create incentive structures (like carbon markets) that could help developing countries participate rather than be excluded.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond technical specifications to address the political, economic, and social dimensions of digital environmental governance. Salazar’s interventions as a former minister were particularly impactful in grounding the technical discussions in political reality, while Jamoussi’s framing of the COP evolution established the global urgency. The comments collectively shifted the conversation from ‘what can be measured’ to ‘how can measurement drive action,’ and from ‘what standards exist’ to ‘how can standards be made accessible and actionable.’ The discussion evolved from a technical briefing to a more nuanced exploration of the barriers and opportunities in implementing digital solutions for environmental challenges, with particular attention to developing country perspectives and the need for political leadership.

How can we include countries in LATAM and Africa in standardization methodologies and harmonized data disclosure practices for ICT environmental footprint measurement?

Speaker

Luis Adrian Salazar

Explanation

This is important because some countries, particularly in Europe, find it easier to integrate digital and environmental considerations, but developing regions may face greater challenges in implementation and participation.

How can we convince Presidents and Prime Ministers to be leaders in both digital strategy and environmental strategy?

Speaker

Luis Adrian Salazar

Explanation

This is crucial because coordinating public policy across different areas (e-waste, GHG, water consumption) requires high-level political leadership and commitment to align various stakeholders.

How can we implement methods to translate from technical words to political action for measuring and replicating solutions globally?

Speaker

Luis Adrian Salazar

Explanation

This addresses the gap between technical standards development and practical implementation at the policy level, which is essential for scaling solutions worldwide.

How do we scale up digital product information systems and initiatives across different sectors and regions?

Speaker

Fabienne Pierre

Explanation

This is important because there are many fragmented initiatives at country and regional levels focusing on specific products, but coordination and harmonization are needed for effective global implementation.

How can we work together to ensure that digital product information systems and initiatives talk to each other across industries?

Speaker

Fabienne Pierre

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of fragmented approaches and the need for interoperability between different systems to enable effective data flow within and across industries.

What are the most successful conditions or characteristics that a country needs to have, or people that need to be in roles, to make standards implementation happen?

Speaker

Reyna Ubeda

Explanation

This is important for identifying champions in countries who can effectively use and implement the standards being developed, bridging the gap between standard creation and practical application.

How can we establish baselines that indicate when countries or organizations are working well in terms of environmental performance, especially for developing countries?

Speaker

Participant (UNFCCC)

Explanation

This is crucial because standards can be difficult to achieve for developing countries or those trying to create new solutions, so baselines could help measure progress and identify optimization opportunities.

How can we better measure the impact of data centers, including unconventional deployments like ocean-based data centers?

Speaker

Participant (UNFCCC)

Explanation

This is important because there are emerging data center deployment strategies that may have unknown environmental impacts, and proper measurement is needed to assess their sustainability.

How can AI diplomacy tools be effectively implemented to accelerate climate action and help smaller country delegations better understand and participate in climate negotiations?

Speaker

Participant (UNFCCC)

Explanation

This addresses the disparity between well-resourced delegations and smaller countries with limited representation at climate conferences, potentially improving global climate action through better-informed negotiations.

How can we develop new trajectories for ICT sector emissions reduction up to 2035-2040, particularly addressing challenges from artificial intelligence development?

Speaker

Jean-Manuel Canet

Explanation

This is important because while some ICT sectors like telecom operators are reducing emissions, AI development presents new challenges that require updated emission reduction trajectories beyond the current 2030 targets.

Summary

This UNESCO session focused on harnessing digital public goods and fostering digital collaboration as part of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. UNESCO’s Guilherme Canela opened by emphasizing that information must be truly accessible to all, highlighting the Windhoek Plus 30 declaration that establishes information as a public good. He outlined three essential pillars: empowering people with critical digital literacy skills, strengthening content producers like journalists and educators, and addressing the broader digital ecosystem including technology companies.

The panel featured five speakers addressing both past achievements and future recommendations. Andrea Millwood Hargrave from UNESCO’s Information Accessibility Working Group stressed that accessibility is the cornerstone of meaningful digital inclusion, noting that without it, all other efforts become meaningless. Maria De Brasdefer from IFLA presented their policy brief on empowering libraries for digital inclusion, highlighting how the global network of 2.8 million libraries has evolved beyond traditional roles to provide digital literacy training, e-government access, and entrepreneurship support.

Mary-Ruth Mendel from Australia discussed breaking literacy barriers through indigenous language platforms, presenting a five-point global plan to address language and literacy vulnerability gaps. Alexandre Barbosa from Brazil’s CETIC emphasized the critical need for reliable, disaggregated data and indicators to measure digital inclusion progress, introducing concepts like “meaningful connectivity” that reveal deeper inequalities than basic internet access statistics.

Onica Makwakwa from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership concluded by advocating for truly inclusive governance and meaningful connectivity, particularly for the 2.6 billion people still excluded from digital technologies. The discussion revealed that despite 20 years of WSIS progress, significant digital divides persist, requiring more sophisticated approaches that prioritize equity, accessibility, and community-centered solutions in the post-2025 digital development agenda.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Information as a Public Good and Digital Commons**: The discussion emphasized the importance of treating information as a public good, referencing UNESCO’s Windhoek+30 declaration. Speakers highlighted the need to address information asymmetries and ensure equitable access through three pillars: empowering people with digital literacy, supporting content producers, and regulating the ecosystem including tech companies.

– **Digital Inclusion and Meaningful Connectivity**: Multiple speakers stressed that basic internet access is insufficient – true digital inclusion requires “meaningful connectivity” including daily access, fast speeds (minimum 4G), device ownership, and requisite skills. The discussion revealed significant gaps when measuring inclusion through this lens, particularly affecting women and marginalized communities.

– **Role of Libraries and Community Infrastructure**: Libraries were presented as crucial digital public infrastructure, with over 2.8 million libraries globally serving as multipurpose spaces for digital literacy, e-government access, and community support. The discussion highlighted how libraries have evolved beyond traditional roles to become key facilitators of digital inclusion.

– **Language Barriers and Indigenous Communities**: Speakers addressed how illiteracy and language barriers perpetuate digital exclusion, particularly for indigenous communities. Solutions included platforms for preserving and digitizing first languages, with examples from Australia’s Living First Language Platform that enables communities to create their own language datasets.

– **Data-Driven Approaches and Measurement**: The importance of reliable, disaggregated indicators to track digital inclusion progress was emphasized. Speakers discussed the need for sophisticated metrics that reveal inequalities hidden in aggregate data, including socioeconomic, geographic, and gender disparities.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the WSIS+20 review process, focusing on how to harness digital public goods and foster digital collaboration to advance global digital inclusion beyond 2025.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, with speakers building on each other’s points constructively. While there was one critical intervention from a journalist questioning library inclusivity and UNESCO’s approach, the overall atmosphere remained respectful and solution-oriented. The tone was forward-looking and action-oriented, with speakers sharing concrete examples and recommendations rather than dwelling on problems alone.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Maria De Brasdefer** – Digital Affairs Policy and Advocacy Officer of IFLA (International Federation of Libraries and Archives), founding member of Dynamic Coalition on Digital Inclusion

– **Onica Makwakwa** – Executive Director of Global Digital Inclusion Partnership (GDIP), co-founder of Dynamic Coalition on Measuring Digital Inclusion and Gender Equality

– **Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave** – Member of UNESCO’s Information for All Program Working Group on Information Accessibility, leading author of IFAP issue brief on global challenges in information accessibility

– **Alexandre Barbosa** – Representative of Regional Centre for Studies and Development of the Information Society (CETIC.br) from Brazil

– **Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi** – UNESCO’s Director for Digital Inclusion Policy and Transformation, Secretary of IFAP (Information for All Program)

– **Mary-Ruth Mendel** – Vice Chair of the Information Working Group on Information Literacy, works with Living First Language Platform in Australia

– **Xianhong Hu** – Program Specialist in the Secretariat of UNESCO’s Information for All program, session moderator

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dorothy Gordon** – Former chair of IFAP, member of the IFAP Working Group on Information Literacy (participated online, asked questions in chat)

– **Yichen** – Colleague supporting online moderation (mentioned but did not speak)

# UNESCO Session on Digital Public Goods and Digital Collaboration: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This UNESCO session, conducted as part of the WSIS Plus 20 review process, brought together international experts to examine digital public goods and collaborative approaches for advancing global digital inclusion. The discussion featured five primary speakers representing UNESCO’s Information Accessibility Working Group, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA), Australia’s indigenous language preservation initiatives, Brazil’s digital inclusion research, and the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership.

Key themes included the need to move beyond basic connectivity to meaningful digital inclusion, the importance of accessibility and language barriers, the role of libraries as digital public infrastructure, and the necessity of improved measurement approaches. The session also featured a provocative audience intervention about potential exclusion within supposedly inclusive institutions.

## Opening Framework: Information as a Public Good

UNESCO’s Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi opened the session by establishing that “information must be really for all,” while acknowledging this is “easy to say but not that easy to do.” Drawing from UNESCO’s Windhoek Plus 30 declaration, which establishes information as a public good, he outlined three essential pillars for digital inclusion.

The first pillar focuses on empowering people with critical digital literacy skills to interact meaningfully with digital technologies. The second addresses strengthening content producers, including journalists, educators, and community leaders. The third tackles the broader digital ecosystem, including governance of technology companies, AI developers, and media organizations.

Canela emphasized the need to “reduce the asymmetries of information that we have” to guarantee the existence of public goods, framing digital inclusion as addressing fundamental power imbalances rather than merely technical solutions.

## Accessibility as Foundation

Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave from UNESCO’s Information Accessibility Working Group presented accessibility as the cornerstone of digital inclusion. She outlined five key principles: design that considers diverse user needs, connectivity that reaches all communities, equity in access and participation, inclusivity for all users regardless of ability, and transparency in information systems.

Hargrave provided a critical assessment of progress, noting that “despite 20 years since WSIS, many goals remain unachieved with persistent inequalities, suggesting we may be moving backwards.” She argued that artificial intelligence “must be approached as a global public good to address the digital divide and advance digital inclusion.”

## Libraries as Digital Public Infrastructure

Maria De Brasdefer from IFLA presented libraries as essential digital public infrastructure, highlighting the global network of 2.8 million libraries staffed by 1.6 million people and 500,000 volunteers. She explained that “libraries operate digital public infrastructure and manage repositories, making them integral to digital public goods.”

De Brasdefer demonstrated how libraries have evolved beyond traditional roles to provide internet access, digital literacy training, e-government services, entrepreneurship support, and open-source software education. She noted that “public and community libraries serve different purposes in urban versus rural areas, offering free resources to those unable to access them elsewhere.”

She mentioned that IFLA’s policy brief contains “56 tailored recommendations” for supporting libraries’ role in digital inclusion.

## Language Barriers and Indigenous Digital Rights

Mary-Ruth Mendel from Australia’s Living First Language Platform, joining from evening hours in Australia, addressed how language barriers perpetuate digital exclusion for indigenous communities. She argued that “chronic marginalisation from digital technology participation is perpetuated by entrenched illiteracy,” emphasizing that “equitable access to information begins with first language literacy.”

The Living First Language Platform creates community-owned language and literacy datasets with authentic pronunciation, empowering indigenous communities to preserve languages while preparing speakers for digital participation. Mendel proposed a Global Five-Point Plan involving systematic mapping of affected communities, identification of barriers, deployment of appropriate technologies, establishment of progress benchmarks, and creation of sustainable support systems.

When asked by Dorothy Gordon about training requirements, Mendel explained the platform’s approach to community-based capacity building.

## Data-Driven Measurement Approaches

Alexandre Barbosa from Brazil’s CETIC, established in 2005 and a UNESCO Category 2 center since 2012, emphasized the importance of reliable, disaggregated data for understanding digital inclusion challenges. He introduced the concept of “meaningful connectivity,” which requires daily access, minimum 4G speed, device ownership, and requisite skills.

Barbosa’s research in Brazil revealed that while gender equality appears achieved when measuring basic internet use, significant disparities emerge when applying meaningful connectivity indicators. He argued that “reliable, disaggregated indicators and monitoring data are essential for tracking digital inclusion progress and understanding complex challenges.”

## Meaningful Connectivity and Governance

Onica Makwakwa from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership concluded with a critique of current approaches to digital inclusion. She challenged existing affordability benchmarks, asking: “affordable access is considered to be one gig of data for no more than 2% of average monthly income. One gig of data per month? Hello, what are you doing? Definitely not meaningfully connected.”

Makwakwa emphasized that “connectivity alone is not inclusion” and stressed the need for meaningful connectivity that enables genuine participation. She noted that “the most disconnected populations are absent from governance conversations and must be included beyond checkbox consultations.”

She announced a new protocol aimed at impacting 100 million women and girls, highlighting the need for alternative financial models and community networks to reach marginalized populations.

## Critical Audience Interventions

The discussion was significantly enriched by a provocative challenge from a journalist who questioned the assumed inclusivity of libraries. The journalist asked “Who are the excluded ones from the library even in Geneva?” and shared an anecdote about political polarization in library services, specifically mentioning the removal of right-wing magazines and resulting user conflicts.

This intervention created productive tension, forcing speakers to examine assumptions about institutional neutrality. Maria De Brasdefer defended libraries while acknowledging the need for continuous community engagement and self-examination.

Dorothy Gordon also asked specific questions about training requirements for digital platforms and implementation challenges, while other audience members addressed content development for multilingual communities and ethical considerations in digital public goods development.

## Key Themes and Takeaways

The session revealed several critical insights for digital inclusion efforts:

**Beyond Basic Access**: Multiple speakers emphasized that meaningful digital inclusion requires more than basic internet connectivity, demanding adequate speed, device ownership, digital skills, and true affordability for regular use.

**Language and Cultural Barriers**: Indigenous and minority language communities face particular challenges that require community-centered solutions and recognition of first language literacy as fundamental to digital participation.

**Institutional Infrastructure**: Existing institutions like libraries represent valuable digital public infrastructure that should be supported and leveraged rather than replaced by new technological solutions.

**Measurement Challenges**: Current indicators for digital inclusion are inadequate, requiring more sophisticated approaches that reveal hidden inequalities across demographic and geographic lines.

**Governance Gaps**: The most marginalized populations are often excluded from decisions about digital inclusion initiatives, creating a fundamental paradox in current approaches.

## Conclusion

This UNESCO session demonstrated both progress and persistent challenges in achieving global digital inclusion. While significant infrastructure development has occurred since the original WSIS, fundamental questions about equity, accessibility, and meaningful participation remain unresolved.

The discussion’s strength lay in its multidisciplinary approach, bringing together policy, research, community practice, and advocacy perspectives. The speakers’ shared commitment to treating digital technologies as public goods provides a foundation for collaborative action, but implementation requires addressing systemic inequalities and governance challenges.

The session highlighted that achieving meaningful digital inclusion demands not only technological innovation but also fundamental changes in how digital resources are developed, governed, and distributed globally. The path forward requires sustained commitment to addressing the complex, interconnected barriers that prevent full participation in digital society.

Xianhong Hu: Okay, great. I think we are still two minutes too, but I’d like to start to gain some time. So bonjour, hello everyone, welcome to everyone in Geneva and also online to this interesting session on Harnessing Digital Public Goods and Fostering Digital Collaboration. We aim to provide multidisciplinary recommendations and contributions to this very important review of OASIS Plus 20. My name is Xianhong Hu, as you can see from my screen, the program specialist in the Secretariat of UNESCO’s Information for All program. And I’m very honored to introduce my colleague, Mr. Guilherme Canela, who is in the room. He’s the UNESCO’s Director for Digital Inclusion Policy and Transformation, as well as a Secretary of IFAP. I mean, Guilherme, you are head as an IFAP Secretary, it’s very important for this session because we have some peers and working group members present in this session, also online. And I would like to give the floor to address some welcome remarks and also share your vision and views. I mean, given your long-term involvement in the global internet governance and also digital issues. So Guilherme, could you please take the floor?

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you, Xianhong. Good afternoon for everyone in this time zone. But if you are joining us from other time zones, I guess I’m seeing Mary Ruth from Australia. which is bravely join us. I don’t know what time in the evening, that’s it. So in a very cold weather, my daughter told me this morning. So welcome, good evening and good morning if someone is in the other side of the pond. Pleasure to be here opening another session in a way or another co-organized by IFAP. And I say that not only because we in UNESCO are in charge of the information for all program but because I think more important than that is the message within the UISIS context that we need to keep underlining the importance that information must be really for all. And this is easy to say but not that easy to do. So the particular topic of this session that is the idea of digital public goods and the digital cooperation is one of those important things that has evolved in the recent years in a very positive manner in my opinion. And the first important thing is that we are talking more and more about public goods and common goods in this space. If you do a bit of archaeological history of the idea of common goods or public goods was very often used on the topics of environment or clean air or even before that the tragedy of the commons was about land and of course those things are relevant I’m not saying that they are not but it was quite unusual or it’s not the trend that we were using those expressions for information, for information as a public good, for the digital commons as public goods. And this helps us in many ways including because the theory behind the public goods in general and how they should be governed is something well developed in the theory of economy, the economic theory, the theory of governance of public sector and so on. So a lot of our challenge is how we take advantage of these now some decades or even almost a century of different conceptualization of what are the challenges in protecting and promoting public goods and how we translate these or we transfer these or we tailor made these for the specific discussion of information as a public good or the digital sphere and elements as public goods. And here allow me before concluding and reminding that UNESCO a few years ago, all our 193 member states approved this Windhoek plus 30 declaration that says that information is a public good and in a nutshell the declaration is articulating this idea through three pillars. The first one is if we really want to promote information as a public good we need to empower the people, everyone to have a critical interaction with the digital ecosystem. So this means education, this means media information literacy, this means a lot of things, right? Meaningful connectivity my friend. But of course this is a necessary condition but it’s not a necessary and sufficient condition for the system because it’s unfair to put all the weight on the shoulders of the society when on the other side you have governments eventually misusing the space or you have trillion dollar companies or whatever it is, right? So you need to empower the people so this is the demand side but we need you need more than that. And the other side is the the fly site, the content site. So then you need to empower the content producers, the journalists, the influencers, the scientists, the teachers, the librarians and so on and so forth. So this is important, but again, this is a necessary condition but it’s not a necessary and sufficient condition. Because you can empower, you can qualify the demand, you can qualify the supply, but you also need to discuss the ecosystem together, the transmission chain, so the tech companies, the AI companies, the media or whatever it is, right? So this is particularly relevant for our discussion here because in order to guarantee the existence of public goods in all areas, including in our area, one of the issues that we needed to deal with is to reduce the asymmetries of information that we have. Because when you have strong asymmetries of information, for example, a few companies dominating the entire data space, then you have problems to actually guaranteeing public goods and common goods. So there aren’t silver bullets to solve this problem. There is not one size fits all. Unfortunately for complex problems, we need to find complex solutions. And I finish with this. This is a bit of what we want to discuss here, right? What are the different angles we can offer to this conversation to actually guarantee that these things, these many things we want to protect, they can actually be protected as public goods? Thank you, Xianghong, back to you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you so much, Guillermo, for sharing your insights on the information as public goods. I will also post a link to the 30 years window for declarations, a very important milestone document for our reference and reflections, particularly relevant for today’s discussion. And also thank you, Guilherme, for setting such a wonderful scene for today’s discussion. Now I’d like to move to our five wonderful panelists to share their views. I mean, given the time limit, everyone will have five minutes maximum to intervene. I will then proceed to the Q&A, so can we have more people, more voices to be heard in the room and online. I would encourage you, our speakers, with your five minutes, if you can, possibly tackle two dimensions. One is to look into the past to share your major work, achievement, success stories of your organization or yourself in harnessing digital public goods and fostering digital collaborations. And the second dimension is about the future. We are at the WSIS Platform Review. What’s your views, major recommendations, suggestions on tackling the emerging challenges and gaps and what do you perceive the future directions, future areas for the collaboration for beyond 2025? I also encourage those online participants to introduce yourself, share your work and comments, questions in the chat. My colleague Yichen is here to support the online moderation. We are able to engage you properly with the room so we can really have a hybrid discussion. So the first speaker I’m very pleased to introduce is from online, Miss Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave. You are the member of our Information for All Program Working Group on Information Accessibility. You are also a leading author of one of our IFAP issue brief on the global challenges in the information accessibility. So Andrea, we look forward to hearing from you.

Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave: Thank you very much indeed. And I’m scared to, will I keep within my time? I came in at the end of the previous meeting and indeed this welcome that we’ve just had talks about information as a fundamental right and I want to start from there. But also I wanted to, there was a quote from last month by Professor Fang from Zhejiang University, apologies if I’ve mispronounced that, and he said AI must be approached as a global public good. So he talked about AI as a public good. It’s now time for us to take concrete action to address the digital divide, thereby advancing the process of digital inclusion, which is what we’re here to talk about. And as you have already said, I’m part of the UNESCO working group which is on information accessibility and the whole purpose of this group is to bring together a number of different perspectives, all of which are looking at the public goods as you have defined here, open software, inclusion, things like that, but also infrastructure and what that means. And it’s absolutely the cornerstone of the work that we have done and I would argue that information accessibility is the cornerstone of IFAP and that program, because without accessibility, all the work we do means nothing and that’s what we’re trying to encourage. I’m not going to talk about my personal bio, I’m sure people can look it up or ask me, but as you said, we have produced a document which will be produced and it talks about certain principles for the adoption of good practice for truly inclusive information accessibility. We’re not being naive, we recognize also that there’s no magic solution, but the principles which also draw on work by UNESCO in other parts and other colleagues, recognizes that the principle of design, connectivity, and Mr. Stanislas Tregulli. We know that equity, inclusivity, transparency must sit alongside information integrity, flexibility, efficiency and legal tools. Only in that way can we enable our communities to have equitable access to information that can empower them and make their lives better. The Working Group, I know I am running up against time, also meets annually for a conference which is hosted online. Importantly, the purpose of that conference is to bring together different perspectives and very, very diverse perspectives. It’s held on September the 28th every year, we’re into our sixth year now, which is the day for Universal Access, the International Day for Universal Access, or Declaration of Universal Access, and we invite people to tell their story, share their expertise and try and move the discussion forward. So this year, the meeting has as its theme, the question of trust. That’s a very broad overview of the work that we do within the Working Group. You did also ask me to talk about where I saw WSIS review going, and I think I, two things really, today sees the start of the AI for Good Summit, and of course, one of its key foci is to advance partnership and to solve global challenges, and this is exactly what you’re doing with this programme. This is why this programme is so very important, I think. But I have a downbeat observation. I was involved with WSIS at a distance 20 years ago, and it seems to me, we believed then that many of the goals that we set could and should have been achievable, but we still live in a world of inequalities, and that is why IFAP exists, part of the reason it exists, and why what might have been called meaningful access to the opportunities of the digital world could and should offer have not been met. And I think one might argue that we’re going backwards in and Dr. Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, Mr. Cordel Green, Ms. Mary-Ruth Mendal, Mr. Alexandre Barbosa, Dr. Xianhong Hu and Dr. Xianhong Hu. So I think on that, I just about made it in time. I think I’d like to stop and I look forward to the questions and answers.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Andrea, for your excellent remarks and for being so time cautious. I trust that in the Q&A, we still have time to really throw away your actions suggested. Thank you again for your remarks. And now I’d like to introduce our second speaker, Ms. Maria De Brasdefer, the Digital Affairs Policy and Advocacy Officer of IFLA, meaning International Federation of Libraries and Archives. And IFLA is also one of the founding members of our Dynamic Coalition on Digital Inclusion. We have done a lot of collaboration, including also another IFLA issue brief on empowering libraries for digital inclusion. So, Maria, please take the floor.

Maria De Brasdefer: Thank you so much, Xianhong, and also thank you for the invitation to this panel. Could you please put up the slides? Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: You want me to show it for you?

Maria De Brasdefer: No, no, they have them here, so they will put them up. Thank you. OK, great. Thank you. Thank you. OK, so, well, as you can see, I’m going to talk a little bit about another brief that we are also co-authoring. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay, well, as you can see, I’m going to talk a little bit about another policy brief that we are also, well, IFLA is also co-authoring in collaboration with UNESCO-IFAB. And as you can see, this brief is called Empowering Libraries for Advancing Digital Inclusion. It is also going to be part of the IFAB policy brief series. And I’m just, well, just to give you a bit of introduction on why we decided to do this. And this is not the first publication or collaboration that we have with UNESCO in this sense. But we also decided to do it because we know that sometimes it is not very straightforward perhaps for some member states, stakeholders, or other organizations, how to leverage the power of the library network and how to also collaborate with us in digital related matters. So this is why we decided to do the policy brief paper. And of course, we also see a big topic, especially because we believe that libraries or what libraries do, the work that they do is very intertwined with digital public goods.

Xianhong Hu: Maria, sorry to interrupt you, your slidedidn’t move. Did you move your slide already?

Maria De Brasdefer: No, not yet. I’m going to start now. Perfect. And so we do believe that this topic is also very, well, libraries are also very intertwined with the topic of digital public goods because they run digital public infrastructure. And as some of the other speakers mentioned, well, we manage, libraries manage a lot of repositories and a lot of information. So we also think it’s a, for us, it’s also a topic that is close to our hearts. And so I’m just going to present this policy brief very briefly. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask them at the end. Thank you. And so as I said, well, what is in the policy brief is mainly a series of library and policy recommendations from the states on digital inclusion and also how to rely on the global library expertise and infrastructure. And we also wanted to call it an entry point for policymakers and other stakeholders to begin or to deepen engagement with relevant library system. And so, as I said, it’s also an opportunity to leverage on the power of the library network and also just to give a brief introduction on that, because perhaps I know a lot of people are not aware that while it is true that the original purpose of the libraries is still kept today, the reality is that libraries do a lot of well, much more than holding books and collections today. And so the nature of the library network has changed very rapidly. Now it has extended to what we have mapped so far to over 2.8 million libraries globally that we can call functional or active and is staffed by over 1.6 million people. And we have also half a million volunteers across the world that work with the staff. And so, as I said, in a way, libraries have redefined their spaces and also approaches for the digital era. So they’re more multipurpose spaces for digital things. And so this slide, I always put it here because while I know there’s a lot of things that perhaps we see there that we relate to libraries like digital literacy skills building, access to research databases, the reality is there’s a lot of things that libraries are also doing that perhaps we don’t necessarily relate to them. And libraries are doing a lot of capacity building for entrepreneurs, for example, or facilitating access to e-government services, doing a lot of access and training. for Open Source Software, so many, many other things that are very related to access to information and of course also to the fulfillment of many WSIS action lines. And these are just some examples, for example, or how some library digitization centers have provided training and employment for people with special needs or perhaps in Tunisia, for example, in the case of women, promoting opportunities for women in a library. And now going back to the policy brief, this is why we have used this, we have used this to base the policy brief on six core policy areas. So we are using the areas that you see in there and we also have also tailored, 56 tailored recommendations and also actions for member states in the policy brief. And so a part of the brief is in each of these thematic areas, you will find some recommendations for those different groups. And we also have some recommendations, for example, in this case for library partners also on how to engage the other way around. Because as we said, we know sometimes this collaboration is not always straightforward, but we want to make it more clear and easy for member states and other stakeholders to understand how it is possible to collaborate with these networks on all of these themes that libraries are also working on right now. And as I say, just before finishing up, beyond the commendations, we have also these tailored actions like for governments and also policymakers, library partners. We have also included some case studies like the one I’m showing in the photo about a library giving rural farmers access to ICT skills and support. So this is also part of the policy brief so you can see how this plays out in practice. And so just to finalize now, the policy brief has been finalized and is going through a final approval phase. And of course, upon publication, what we want to do is a more targeted dissemination outreach for it. And of course, one of our goals is also to make a connection with the stakeholders and the people that would be interested also in leveraging the power of this network, also for digital inclusion. And so this is also a call to action from our sides. If you see, for example, a potential for partnering with us upon reading the brief, please feel free to reach out to us. And with this, I’m going to conclude. So if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask in the end. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you, Maria, for this wonderful presentation on the issue of brief and also broadly tackling the issues of libraries. I trust that one of the recommendation for our session would be that the library should continue to be a vital vehicle to foster the digital inclusion after 2025. And also, I’d like to recall that the IFA Council has endorsed two e-fly manifesto in supporting public library and also the school libraries. We will also share some more information in the chat. With that, I’d like to move to our third speaker, Ms. Mary-Ruth Mando, the Vice Chair of the Information Working Group on Information Literacy from ONLINE. Hi, Mary-Ruth, good evening. And thank you again for making big efforts to connect us online from the cold Australia and also very late now. Please go ahead with your presentation. I can see your PPT. Thank you. Hello, Mary-Ruth. I cannot hear you. Did you unmute yourself?

Mary-Ruth Mendel: Hello, everybody. Now you can hear me. This is the topic I’d like to address tonight. And it’s about. chronic marginalisation from digital technology participation is perpetuated by entrenched illiteracy and talk about how to break through the illiteracy barrier by empowering communities to read, write, comprehend and collate data sets. And, wait a minute, hold on, now it’s right. So illiteracy or low literacy is a key determinant of persistent vulnerability that impedes participation in multiple life skills, clearly including digital technology opportunities. Equitable access to information begins with first language literacy. There’s an Australian case study that I’d like to draw your attention to. It’s the Living First Language Platform and it showcases a process about how digital technology serves communities to create their own language and literacy data sets and digital technology interface solutions. Here’s the article link and I’d encourage you to go and have a look and I can put that link in the chat as well. But for us, we need to quickly close the literacy gap and the LFLP does that. It quickly connects language and literacy elements across data sets that can be used then for a variety of activities such as education curriculum content, literacy teaching learning resources for adults and children or exporting to other programs such as reading programs and translation apps and AI. This building of the bridge by collating first language… elements starts with what we call Coding Aboriginal Languages for Indigenous Literacy, short name CALIL, and that processes and records authentic pronunciation, which is key. An example in English is this. The letter A has four main pronunciation options, as in at, A as in lady, R as in father, O as in watch. From there, we need to then make sure that multi-sensory content is auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic, with algorithms that populate the data sets. That creates, for example, phonics in home language with the authentic speech sounds that I was talking about, vocabulary lists with authentic speech, with illustrative photos and sentences, and of course, a library of supporting stories, songs, lyrics, content. So, providing data sets of spoken language to text, and text to spoken language, is what removes the initial barriers. The conduit to the information superhighway is that first languages are revitalized in a fit-for-purpose format that instantly can interface with modern digital technologies, and that equals authentic cultural well-being and knowledge sharing. All of the LFLP data sets is community curated, approved, managed and owned, and most importantly, community members are the architects of those data sets. So, we would like to put forward the next steps, which is the Global Five-Point Plan. The objective is to close the language and literacy vulnerability gap, with a deliberate focus on mediating vulnerable people’s literacy learning needs, utilising platforms such as the Living First Language Platform and the KLIL process, suggesting it should be across the UNESCO programs and build into support for governments and NGOs and education and research facilities. The map has got the five points, I mean, the plan has got the five points. Firstly, to map the location of these language and literacy vulnerable communities. Secondly, to identify any barriers that would impede interaction with the LFLP or KLIL, such as a lack of access to devices or connectivity. Deploy the LFLP process and collate, display and use those data sets. Identify interface opportunities with current and emerging digital technologies. And then of course, establish benchmarks for reviews and reportings and iterative improvement. That’s the end of my presentation. I’d be happy to accept any questions and I’d welcome any ongoing conversations and my email address is here. Thank you, Xianhong. That’s the end of my presentation.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Mary-Ruth, for your marvellous sharing. And it’s so exciting to hear that wonderful example on the indigenous language platform, which is definitely a good practice should be recorded in the WSIS implementation. And also I like your action plan for the future as well. And do please stop sharing your screen now so I can see other speakers. Thank you. So now I’d like to move to the next speaker, Mr. Mr. Alexandre Barbosa, representing the Regional Centre for Studies and Development of the Information Society, CITIC.br from Brazil, to give your views. and remarks from the room. Fabio, the floor is yours.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you Xianhong. Thank you very much for the invitation. Thank you UNESCO and all the participants. So I’d like to, my contribution here today, I’d like to stress that to address these complex problems and challenges that we have in the face of the future needs, including the WSIS review and other discussion. We do need to have reliable and disaggregated indicators, monitoring and data to really track these changes and understand how we are moving in this scenario. So that’s more or less the mission of CETIC.PR, which is a part of the multi-stakeholder governance, internet governance model that we have in Brazil. CETIC is a department of the Brazilian Network Information Center, the NIC.BR, and linked to the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, this CGI.BR. And we were established 20 years ago in 2005 to produce highly quality international comparable indicators on digital technology access, use and also digital skills, which is a very important topic covered here. And since 2012, CETIC is also a UNESCO Category 2 center that supports other countries to develop and implement such type of projects. So our projects are primarily focused on conducting surveys and studies to measure the socio-economic impacts of the ICTs and the internet, covering a wide range of sectors, including households, enterprises, education, health, culture. So a very different range of topics that we cover through these projects. And all of these type of indicators can… and Dr. Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, Mr. Cordel Green, Ms. Mary-Ruth Mendal, Ms. Onica Makwakwa, nine different indicators from each individual in Brazil and to qualify each individual according to this level of meaningful connectivity. And although, for instance, we had no gender differences when we cover the Internet use, for instance, when the rates of Internet use has no gender differences, when it comes to meaningful connectivity, we solve huge inequalities, gender inequalities and other inequalities by having better data and more informed data in this field. And this model was supported and informed the discussion on G20 by the Brazilian presidency of G20 and also the BRICS this year, so it has also an international discussion on this topic. Another project that I think is relevant is the implementation of the ROMAX indicators from UNESCO in Brazil. Brazil was the first country that implemented the model back in 2019. And then we also revised. and Dr. Guilherme Canela De Sousa Godoi, Mr. Cordel Green, Ms. Maria De Brasdefer, Dr. And we do need more disaggregated and sophisticated indicators to know where there are other problems and how to track differences. So for instance, we participated recently in a BRICS paper that suggested to countries the need for more disaggregated data in terms of socioeconomic disparities, indicators on geographic disparities such as urban, rural, community disparities. So the level of the disaggregation and the quality of the data can really impact all of the discussion, the complexity of the discussion that we are having here. So this is my first intervention and thank you very much.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you, Fabia, for so well highlighting the importance of evidence, data, indicator-based approach to measure. I mean, the elephant in the room, which is the digital inclusion we are now tackling. That’s exactly why UNESCO-IFAF has co-founded with NASA. GDIP, with CIDIC, with you, with many others on the Dynamic Coalition on Measuring Digital Inclusion and also Gender Equality. With that, I think I’m so happy to invite our last speaker, but really not least, Ms. Onica Makwakwa, the Executive Director of Global Digital Inclusion Partnership GDIP, as a co-founder of the Dynamic Coalition. I also just read so wonderful news from you that you are initiating the new protocol to impact 100 million women and girls in digital inclusion. So, Onica, please take the floor.

Onica Makwakwa: Great, thank you so much for this opportunity to participate in this session. So, I’ll get right to it because I realize we’re almost out of time. At GDIP, we’re a multi-stakeholder partnership that is focused solely on advancing meaningful connectivity for the global majority. We are committed to equitable and inclusive digital development that is rights-based and focuses on a real transformation of the use of digital technologies. So, when we look at digital public goods, we really view these as an opportunity for us to – and a challenge, rather, to make sure that we are serving a public interest, indeed, by making sure that emerging technologies are inclusive and not necessarily feathering the divides that we know very well exist at the moment. In order to unlock the full potential of emerging digital technologies as a digital public good, we must center inclusion, accessibility, and equity across the value chain. From data and design to governance and accountability, we can’t leave those behind. Our work at GDIP focuses on – I’m going to look at and Dr. Yolanda Gaviria. So I think there are three priorities that we are looking at at the moment. One is promoting meaningful connectivity as the foundation for digital public goods. You know, as highlighted in our Connected Resilience Report, which looks at gendered experiences of women through meaningful connectivity, marginalized groups are disparately impacted when we look at inclusion from a meaningful connectivity point of view. As my colleague just said here, when you look at just access, it may seem like we’ve reached equity. Women are online. Women are using digital technologies. But when you look at it from the lens of meaningful connectivity, and at the moment we define that as being able to have access on a daily basis when you wish to, having access to fast speed connectivity at minimum 4G, and owning a device at minimum entry level smartphone would be what we consider, you know, appropriate device for meaningful connectivity, as well as having the requisite skills to be able to engage in digital technologies. You know, however, access remains limited when we look at it from that point of view. It continues to also be quite unaffordable and unsafe, especially for women. The issue of safety cannot be left behind. We therefore advocate for policies that prioritize affordability benchmarks, and a benchmark that needs to be improved. At the moment, affordable access is considered to be one gig of data for no more than 2% of average monthly income. One gig of data per month? Hello, what are you doing? Definitely not meaningfully connected in the context of the conversations that are taking place 20 years post, you know, into WSIS. So, you know, we want to also support public access and community networks in the same way that we told communities we didn’t have access to water that they can learn how to build a well and breathe. and Dr. Andrea Mabuse. We have to have a similar approach to connectivity as well, where we need to begin to open not only to different technologies for connecting the unconnected, but also be open to a different financial model. And in this climate, with few companies owning everything, it’s really important for us to accept that there are communities where affordability may not come as easily, and therefore we need to look at a different financial model to connect everyone. And the second area is inclusive governance and multi-stakeholder participation. The people who are most disconnected at the moment are not in these conversations. It’s really important that we build with them and alongside them, and that they are included in the multi-stakeholder processes as well as in the governance thinking that we are espousing in these kinds of forums. And that needs to go beyond just a checkbox, multi-stakeholder consultation format that we’ve seen. We need to really, truly be inclusive. And I will just conclude by saying that, you know, as we approach WSIS plus 20, we must recognize that connectivity alone is not inclusion. Despite progress, and I know the gaps still exist around affordability, governance structures, and emerging technology systems, and digital public goods that are often developed without local context or inclusive design. You know, let us seize this moment, not just to build back better, but to build more justly, inclusively, and collaboratively, especially with the 2.6 billion people who are not yet included in digital technologies. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you, Monica, for sharing the valuable work from TDIP. I mean, you have been standing in the front line to connect, and actually meaningful connect the women and girls into this global digital society. and I trust that we should really have that in the post-2025 actions of WSIS. And now I’m so happy, thanks to all of you, we still have maybe at least 10 minutes for discussions. And before that, I’d like to, I’m very happy to recognize the online participation of Madame Dorothy Gordon, the former chair of IFAB, and also, I mean, Dorothy, could you please turn on your camera? I’d like to see you. You are still a member of the IFAB Working Group on Information Literacy. You already posted a question on the chat. I’m going to read it before I hand the floor to my colleague Guilherme to continue the moderation of the Q&A with the persons in the room. So Dorothy has raised a question to Mary-Ruth about that language platform you presented. So how is it that the people have the skills to manage that platform? How long did the training take? Was it done by the already literate or you were able to take people from illiteracy to managing the platforms? Hi, Dorothy, we saw you. Thank you. I like your smile. So now I’d like to give the floor to my colleague Guilherme to continue to collect questions and then we can go back to the speakers together. So Guilherme, please.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you, Xianghong. So we have a first question from Dorothy to Mary-Ruth. Let’s collect at least two more here or three from the room and then we can have a first round of responses and if we have more time we can collect more. Do you have a question, gentlemen?

Audience: I’m not a gentleman. I heard some of you saying, alluding to questions close to our heart. What about the people, the heartless people like me? Are they allowed to ask a question? Yeah, okay. So I am a journalist, journalist freelance. Who are the left behind? the ones we need to include in libraries. The other day I was in Geneva, the most democratic equalitarian city on earth, at a debate at the library. And after some time when there was enough confidence between us to ask the difficult question and believe the answer would be right, I asked how many people in our group, 50 people or 100, have voted right-wing. And not a single one. They were all left-wingers, red, green, possibly pink. So who are the excluded ones from the library even in Geneva? Then, one month back, there was a workshop, a symposium, a whole morning symposium at the University of Geneva, staged by the university library. And the main topic is we must purge libraries because there are magazines, right-wing magazines, which can intoxicate the public. We have to remove them and objectivity is a lie. And now we want our motto is fight objectivity. So for me, when I want to look for information, I don’t go to the library anymore. I go to the flea market. And there I discover a lot of people about the aboriginal culture because in the heyday of the study of aboriginal culture, this was made by priests. Of course, they were biased, but it is not necessarily the history of lines written by the hunters. And this is the treasure of knowledge we have about traditional societies. Those of today, they are just looking for jobs with UNESCO. So that’s basically what I had to say. And you may understand that I will start loving UNESCO when it starts changing a bit.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you very much. And we will, so maybe you can take this question, sir.

Audience: Chair, thank you, and thanks to all those who have spoken earlier on. Listening to all the speakers, I note that one of the major issues is multilingualism. How do we promote content development for those who have been left out? Multilingualism, and in addition, the ethical issues surrounding the use of information. These two areas, I think, might be probed into a lot of extensive discussion. Thank you very much.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you. So we have a question straight forward to Mary-Ruth, then another question about libraries, and then one on multilingualism. Let’s try to take those three, because I think we have five minutes. So unfortunately, we need to be concise, and then we can conclude. So Mary-Ruth, why don’t you start?

Mary-Ruth Mendel: I put the answer to Dorothy in the chat, and you could all read that in the interest of time. And to the multilingualism question, you’re absolutely and entirely right. The most vulnerable people are those who are being left out of digital opportunities because their language isn’t being represented, or there isn’t space being made for their language. And that’s something that’s happening here in Australia with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, and that is exactly why the Living First Language platform was devised and is being used very successfully in Australia. So we feel that it has a significant contribution to really go towards empowering people who are speaking languages other than the dominant languages and being left behind as a consequence. I’m happy to show you, if you want to email me, I can then take you through on a Zoom link, the Living First Language platform, and I’d be happy to do that. Anybody who’d like to join me.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you very much, Mary-Ruth.

Maria De Brasdefer: Yes, well to address the question on the libraries I would just like to say that yeah I think I fully agree the issue of exclusion is a big one and that is also why from the side of IFLA we really always try to advocate on the side of saying okay the library is what is closest to what the communities need usually the libraries are in close contact with the public and they know what they need not just in general terms but also in terms they can offer that information in their own language in based on their daily in the context of their daily lives so we also agree on that and I think the libraries that have the power to address the the people that are most excluded in this case for example from connectivity from access or meaningful access or connectivity for outside the public and the community libraries so we see a lot of potential in working with them because we are also aware there’s it’s very different to work with libraries in urban areas and in rural areas we think they also serve very different purposes and so we also try to emphasize a lot of work with public and community libraries because we know that those are the ones that also offer content resources and services free of cost and also to people who would perhaps not be able to access those resources and so I hope that helps answer the question and if not feel free to also ask after the session.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: I’m sorry to hear that your experience with this particular library in Geneva was kind of reproducing a particular echo chamber or a particular bubble of people, but she mentioned they have 2.8 million libraries spread out of the world, so I think you shouldn’t take your particular experience with one library and extrapolate that this happens in every other of the 2.8 million libraries in the world. 70 million libraries around the world. So maybe it’s a good journalistic investigation to check if maybe libraries are spaces for more democratic conversations between right, left, middle, and so on. Maybe they are not, but that’s maybe is an interesting journalistic question, but so thank you for that. So thank you so much.

Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave: I think it’s very important not to forget industry. I know I said that earlier. Industry is frightened of regulation. They think it will stifle it. And certainly in work that I do elsewhere on social media and young people, we find working with designers and developers trying to allow industry into their bodies is very important. And I think UNESCO actually has an image that allows that in a way that perhaps regulators don’t. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you, Andrea. And I’m sorry I didn’t offer you the time for your final reflections. It’s these hybrids thing that sometimes has these kind of inconsistencies. Thank you very much. Fascinating discussion. Obviously, something we need to continue, but we got interesting points here that my colleagues are, of course, summarizing and we will share with the WSIS coordination because to make sure that what you have raised will also be food for thought for the co-facilitators of the WSIS plus 20 process. Thank you very much. Thank you for those online and continue enjoying the WSIS and the AI for Good this time. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thanks to everyone. Bye.

Agreement points

Information and digital technologies must serve as public goods accessible to all

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Information must be truly accessible to all, requiring empowerment of people for critical digital interaction, content producers, and ecosystem governance

AI must be approached as a global public good to address the digital divide and advance digital inclusion

Digital public goods must serve public interest by ensuring emerging technologies are inclusive rather than widening existing divides

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that information and digital technologies should function as public goods that serve the broader public interest rather than exacerbating existing inequalities. They agree on the fundamental principle that digital resources must be accessible to all populations.

Topics

Human rights principles | Digital access | Sustainable development

Complex, multifaceted approaches are needed to address digital inclusion challenges

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Complex problems require complex solutions without silver bullets, necessitating reduction of information asymmetries

Reliable, disaggregated indicators and monitoring data are essential for tracking digital inclusion progress and understanding complex challenges

Post-2025 WSIS actions must recognize that connectivity alone is not inclusion, requiring focus on affordability, governance, and inclusive design

Summary

These speakers agree that digital inclusion cannot be achieved through simple solutions but requires comprehensive, multi-dimensional approaches that address various aspects of access, measurement, and governance simultaneously.

Topics

Digital access | Sustainable development | Human rights principles

Meaningful connectivity requires more than basic internet access

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Meaningful connectivity requires daily access, minimum 4G speed, device ownership, and requisite skills – revealing greater inequalities than basic internet access

Current affordability benchmarks are inadequate – one gigabyte per month at 2% of income is insufficient for meaningful participation

Summary

Both speakers agree that traditional measures of internet access are insufficient and that meaningful connectivity requires multiple components including adequate speed, device ownership, skills, and true affordability for regular use.

Topics

Digital access | Telecommunications infrastructure | Inclusive finance

Language and literacy barriers are fundamental obstacles to digital inclusion

Speakers

– Mary-Ruth Mendel
– Audience

Arguments

Chronic marginalization from digital participation is perpetuated by entrenched illiteracy, requiring first language literacy as foundation

Multilingualism and content development for excluded populations are major challenges requiring extensive discussion

Summary

Both speakers recognize that language barriers and literacy challenges are core issues that must be addressed for effective digital inclusion, particularly for marginalized communities whose languages are underrepresented in digital spaces.

Topics

Multilingualism | Digital access | Cultural diversity

Libraries serve as crucial infrastructure for digital inclusion

Speakers

– Maria De Brasdefer
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

Libraries operate digital public infrastructure and manage repositories, making them integral to digital public goods

Libraries should continue to be a vital vehicle to foster digital inclusion after 2025

Summary

Both speakers agree on the essential role of libraries as digital public infrastructure and their continued importance in fostering digital inclusion beyond 2025.

Topics

Digital access | Telecommunications infrastructure | Capacity development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about the lack of progress in digital inclusion despite decades of effort, and emphasize the need for more genuine inclusion of marginalized populations in governance processes.

Speakers

– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Despite 20 years since WSIS, many goals remain unachieved with persistent inequalities, suggesting we may be moving backwards

The most disconnected populations are absent from governance conversations and must be included beyond checkbox consultations

Topics

Human rights principles | Digital access | Sustainable development

Both speakers emphasize community-centered approaches that recognize local contexts and needs, whether through libraries serving specific community requirements or platforms enabling communities to preserve and develop their own languages.

Speakers

– Maria De Brasdefer
– Mary-Ruth Mendel

Arguments

Public and community libraries serve different purposes in urban versus rural areas, offering free resources to those unable to access them elsewhere

The Living First Language Platform demonstrates how communities can create their own language and literacy datasets with authentic pronunciation

Topics

Digital access | Cultural diversity | Multilingualism

Both speakers advocate for systematic, data-driven approaches to understanding and measuring digital inclusion, emphasizing the need for sophisticated indicators that can capture various forms of inequality.

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

More sophisticated indicators are needed covering socioeconomic, geographic, and community disparities

Evidence-based approaches with data and indicators are essential for measuring digital inclusion progress

Topics

Digital access | Sustainable development | Gender rights online

Unexpected consensus

Industry engagement in digital governance

Speakers

– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Arguments

Industry engagement is crucial as they fear regulation will stifle innovation, requiring collaborative approaches

Complex problems require complex solutions without silver bullets, necessitating reduction of information asymmetries

Explanation

It’s somewhat unexpected that speakers focused on accessibility and public goods would emphasize the importance of engaging industry stakeholders collaboratively rather than through regulation alone. This suggests a pragmatic recognition that achieving digital inclusion requires working with rather than against private sector interests.

Topics

Digital business models | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Alternative connectivity models and community networks

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Maria De Brasdefer

Arguments

Community networks and alternative financial models are needed where traditional affordability approaches fail

Libraries have evolved into multipurpose digital spaces with 2.8 million active libraries globally staffed by 1.6 million people

Explanation

The convergence on community-based solutions from both a digital inclusion advocate and a library representative suggests unexpected consensus around decentralized, community-driven approaches to connectivity and digital access, moving beyond traditional market-based models.

Topics

Telecommunications infrastructure | Digital access | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles including information as a public good, the need for multifaceted approaches to digital inclusion, the importance of meaningful rather than basic connectivity, and the critical role of community-centered solutions. There was also agreement on the persistent challenges facing digital inclusion efforts and the need for more sophisticated measurement approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles and challenges, with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The speakers represented different sectors (UNESCO, libraries, digital inclusion organizations, research institutions) but shared similar values and approaches to digital inclusion. This strong consensus suggests a mature understanding of digital inclusion challenges and potential solutions, which could facilitate coordinated action in post-2025 WSIS implementation. The agreement across diverse stakeholders indicates that there is a solid foundation for collaborative efforts in advancing digital public goods and fostering digital collaboration.

Different viewpoints

Adequacy of current affordability benchmarks for meaningful connectivity

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

Current affordability benchmarks are inadequate – one gigabyte per month at 2% of income is insufficient for meaningful participation

Meaningful connectivity requires daily access, minimum 4G speed, device ownership, and requisite skills – revealing greater inequalities than basic internet access

Summary

While both speakers discuss meaningful connectivity, Onica explicitly criticizes current affordability benchmarks as completely inadequate, whereas Alexandre presents the meaningful connectivity framework more neutrally as a measurement tool without directly challenging existing affordability standards

Topics

Digital access | Inclusive finance | Telecommunications infrastructure

Assessment of progress since original WSIS

Speakers

– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

Despite 20 years since WSIS, many goals remain unachieved with persistent inequalities, suggesting we may be moving backwards

Reliable, disaggregated indicators and monitoring data are essential for tracking digital inclusion progress and understanding complex challenges

Summary

Andrea expresses pessimism about WSIS progress, suggesting regression in some areas, while Alexandre focuses on the need for better measurement tools to track progress, implying that improved data collection can lead to better outcomes

Topics

Digital access | Sustainable development | Human rights principles

Unexpected differences

Role and neutrality of libraries in information provision

Speakers

– Audience member (journalist)
– Maria De Brasdefer

Arguments

Criticism of libraries becoming politically biased and excluding certain viewpoints

Public and community libraries serve different purposes in urban versus rural areas, offering free resources to those unable to access them elsewhere

Explanation

The journalist’s critique of libraries as politically biased spaces that exclude certain viewpoints was unexpected in a session focused on digital inclusion. This challenged the assumed neutrality and inclusiveness of libraries as presented by Maria, creating tension around whether libraries truly serve all community members equally

Topics

Content policy | Digital access | Freedom of expression

Overall assessment

Summary

The session showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement among panelists, with most conflicts being subtle differences in emphasis or approach rather than fundamental opposition. The main areas of disagreement centered on the adequacy of current standards and progress assessment, while most speakers shared common goals around inclusion and accessibility.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The implications suggest that while there is broad consensus on the need for digital inclusion and public goods, there are significant differences in how to measure progress, set standards, and implement solutions. The unexpected challenge from the audience about library neutrality highlights potential blind spots in assumptions about institutional inclusiveness that could affect implementation of digital inclusion strategies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about the lack of progress in digital inclusion despite decades of effort, and emphasize the need for more genuine inclusion of marginalized populations in governance processes.

Speakers

– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Despite 20 years since WSIS, many goals remain unachieved with persistent inequalities, suggesting we may be moving backwards

The most disconnected populations are absent from governance conversations and must be included beyond checkbox consultations

Topics

Human rights principles | Digital access | Sustainable development

Both speakers emphasize community-centered approaches that recognize local contexts and needs, whether through libraries serving specific community requirements or platforms enabling communities to preserve and develop their own languages.

Speakers

– Maria De Brasdefer
– Mary-Ruth Mendel

Arguments

Public and community libraries serve different purposes in urban versus rural areas, offering free resources to those unable to access them elsewhere

The Living First Language Platform demonstrates how communities can create their own language and literacy datasets with authentic pronunciation

Topics

Digital access | Cultural diversity | Multilingualism

Both speakers advocate for systematic, data-driven approaches to understanding and measuring digital inclusion, emphasizing the need for sophisticated indicators that can capture various forms of inequality.

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

More sophisticated indicators are needed covering socioeconomic, geographic, and community disparities

Evidence-based approaches with data and indicators are essential for measuring digital inclusion progress

Topics

Digital access | Sustainable development | Gender rights online

Key takeaways

Information must be treated as a public good requiring three pillars: empowering people for critical digital interaction, empowering content producers, and governing the ecosystem to reduce information asymmetries

Digital public goods and meaningful connectivity are foundational to digital inclusion, but current measures are inadequate – meaningful connectivity requires daily access, minimum 4G speed, device ownership, and requisite skills

Libraries serve as crucial digital public infrastructure with 2.8 million active libraries globally, evolving beyond traditional roles to provide digital literacy, e-government access, and community-specific services

Language barriers and illiteracy are major obstacles to digital inclusion, with first language literacy being essential for equitable access to information

Current affordability benchmarks (1GB data for 2% of monthly income) are insufficient for meaningful digital participation in the modern context

Reliable, disaggregated data and indicators are essential for tracking digital inclusion progress and revealing hidden inequalities that basic access statistics miss

The most disconnected populations are absent from governance conversations and must be meaningfully included in multi-stakeholder processes beyond token consultations

Resolutions and action items

IFLA policy brief ‘Empowering Libraries for Advancing Digital Inclusion’ to be published and disseminated with targeted outreach to stakeholders

Global Five-Point Plan proposed to close language and literacy vulnerability gaps through mapping communities, identifying barriers, deploying platforms, and establishing benchmarks

Call for collaboration with library networks for digital inclusion initiatives, with invitation for stakeholders to reach out upon publication of policy brief

Recommendations from the session to be shared with WSIS coordination and co-facilitators for the WSIS+20 process

Continued advocacy for improved affordability benchmarks and support for community networks and alternative financial models

Promotion of meaningful connectivity indicators and disaggregated data collection across countries and organizations

Unresolved issues

How to effectively include the most marginalized and disconnected populations in governance processes and technology design

Addressing the challenge of political polarization and echo chambers in information spaces, including libraries

Scaling successful local initiatives like the Living First Language Platform to global implementation

Balancing industry innovation concerns with necessary regulation for inclusive digital development

Developing sustainable financial models for connecting communities where traditional affordability approaches fail

Creating truly multilingual and culturally appropriate digital content and services at scale

Measuring and addressing safety concerns, particularly for women, in digital spaces

Suggested compromises

Recognition that complex digital inclusion problems require complex solutions without silver bullets, necessitating multi-faceted approaches

Acknowledgment that while empowering individuals is necessary, it’s insufficient without also addressing systemic issues in governance and industry practices

Acceptance that different communities (urban vs rural, different linguistic groups) require tailored approaches rather than one-size-fits-all solutions

Understanding that meaningful connectivity standards must evolve beyond basic access metrics while remaining practically achievable

Balancing the need for regulation with industry concerns about stifling innovation through collaborative engagement approaches

Information must be really for all. And this is easy to say but not that easy to do… we need to keep underlining the importance that information must be really for all… we need to discuss the ecosystem together, the transmission chain, so the tech companies, the AI companies, the media or whatever it is, right? So this is particularly relevant for our discussion here because in order to guarantee the existence of public goods in all areas, including in our area, one of the issues that we needed to deal with is to reduce the asymmetries of information that we have.

Speaker

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by identifying the core challenge: information asymmetries as the fundamental barrier to digital public goods. It moves beyond surface-level access issues to systemic power imbalances and introduces the three-pillar framework (empowering people, content producers, and ecosystem governance) that becomes a recurring theme.

Impact

This opening comment established the theoretical foundation for the entire session, with subsequent speakers referencing back to concepts of asymmetry, ecosystem thinking, and the complexity of achieving true inclusion. It shifted the discussion from technical solutions to systemic governance challenges.

Equitable access to information begins with first language literacy… chronic marginalisation from digital technology participation is perpetuated by entrenched illiteracy… The conduit to the information superhighway is that first languages are revitalized in a fit-for-purpose format that instantly can interface with modern digital technologies.

Speaker

Mary-Ruth Mendel

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the assumption that digital inclusion is primarily about connectivity or devices. It identifies literacy in one’s native language as the foundational barrier and presents a concrete solution through the Living First Language Platform, addressing indigenous and marginalized language communities.

Impact

This intervention shifted the conversation from infrastructure and policy to fundamental human capabilities and cultural preservation. It prompted follow-up questions about implementation and training, and reinforced the multilingualism theme that emerged as a key concern throughout the session.

Connectivity alone is not inclusion… affordable access is considered to be one gig of data for no more than 2% of average monthly income. One gig of data per month? Hello, what are you doing? Definitely not meaningfully connected… We have to have a similar approach to connectivity as well, where we need to begin to open not only to different technologies for connecting the unconnected, but also be open to a different financial model.

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Reason

This comment powerfully challenges existing metrics and assumptions about digital inclusion by exposing the inadequacy of current affordability benchmarks. The rhetorical question ‘One gig of data per month? Hello, what are you doing?’ effectively demonstrates how disconnected policy metrics are from real-world meaningful connectivity needs.

Impact

This intervention introduced a critical perspective on measurement and policy effectiveness, building on Alexandre Barbosa’s emphasis on better indicators. It challenged the room to think beyond traditional access metrics and consider alternative economic models for connectivity, particularly for marginalized communities.

Who are the excluded ones from the library even in Geneva?… after some time when there was enough confidence between us to ask the difficult question… I asked how many people in our group, 50 people or 100, have voted right-wing. And not a single one… So for me, when I want to look for information, I don’t go to the library anymore. I go to the flea market.

Speaker

Audience member (journalist)

Reason

This provocative comment challenges the assumption that libraries are truly inclusive spaces by highlighting ideological exclusion. It forces the discussion to confront uncomfortable questions about who is actually being served by digital inclusion initiatives and whether these efforts create their own forms of exclusion.

Impact

This comment created a moment of tension and forced speakers to defend and clarify their positions on inclusion. It shifted the conversation from celebrating libraries as inclusive spaces to examining the complex reality of who actually participates in these initiatives and why some groups might feel excluded.

We do need more disaggregated and sophisticated indicators to know where there are other problems and how to track differences… when it comes to meaningful connectivity, we solve huge inequalities, gender inequalities and other inequalities by having better data and more informed data in this field.

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Reason

This comment introduces the critical insight that measurement methodology fundamentally shapes our understanding of digital inclusion. By showing how gender equality appears achieved in basic internet use but reveals significant gaps when measured through meaningful connectivity, it demonstrates how inadequate metrics can mask persistent inequalities.

Impact

This intervention provided empirical support for other speakers’ arguments about the inadequacy of current approaches. It reinforced Onica’s critique of existing metrics and provided concrete evidence for why the field needs to move beyond simple access measurements to more sophisticated indicators of digital inclusion.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a more critical examination of fundamental assumptions about digital inclusion. Guilherme’s opening established the systemic nature of the challenge, moving beyond technical fixes to governance and power structures. Mary-Ruth’s intervention on language and literacy challenged the technological determinism often present in digital inclusion discussions, while Onica’s critique of connectivity metrics exposed the inadequacy of current policy frameworks. The journalist’s provocative question about ideological exclusion forced participants to confront uncomfortable truths about who these initiatives actually serve. Alexandre’s emphasis on measurement provided the empirical foundation showing how better data reveals hidden inequalities. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from celebrating progress to critically examining whether current approaches are truly achieving inclusive outcomes, ultimately pushing the conversation toward more nuanced and systemic solutions for the post-2025 WSIS framework.

How is it that the people have the skills to manage that platform? How long did the training take? Was it done by the already literate or you were able to take people from illiteracy to managing the platforms?

Speaker

Dorothy Gordon

Explanation

This question seeks to understand the practical implementation and training requirements for the Living First Language Platform, particularly how communities transition from illiteracy to managing digital platforms

How do we promote content development for those who have been left out, particularly regarding multilingualism?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap in multilingual content development and the need to include marginalized language communities in digital public goods

What are the ethical issues surrounding the use of information in digital public goods?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This highlights the need for further exploration of ethical frameworks and considerations when developing and implementing digital public goods

Who are the excluded ones from libraries and how can libraries address different political perspectives and avoid echo chambers?

Speaker

Journalist audience member

Explanation

This raises concerns about political bias and exclusion in library services, questioning whether libraries truly serve all community members regardless of political affiliation

How can we better engage industry in digital public goods development while addressing their concerns about regulation?

Speaker

Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave

Explanation

This suggests the need for research on effective industry engagement strategies that balance innovation with regulatory compliance in digital public goods

How can we improve affordability benchmarks for meaningful connectivity beyond the current 2% of monthly income for 1GB of data?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

This challenges current affordability standards and calls for research into more realistic benchmarks that enable true meaningful connectivity

How can we develop alternative financial models for connecting underserved communities where traditional market approaches fail?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

This identifies the need for innovative financing mechanisms to achieve universal connectivity, particularly for marginalized communities

How can we ensure meaningful participation of the most disconnected populations in multi-stakeholder governance processes?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of inclusive governance and the need for research on effective methods to engage marginalized communities in digital policy-making

Summary

This discussion focused on resilience in critical infrastructure and technology systems, exploring how organizations can build capacity to withstand and recover from disasters and disruptions. The panel included representatives from the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), ICANN, the Marconi Society, and CERN, moderated by Mike Mullane from the IEC. Helen Ng from UNDRR explained how her organization supports countries in implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, emphasizing the need to integrate resilience into infrastructure planning and address multi-hazard scenarios rather than single threats.

Maarten Botterman from ICANN and the Marconi Society highlighted how society’s dependence on the internet has transformed it from a luxury to a necessity, requiring a shift from rapid deployment to reliable, resilient systems. He discussed the interconnected nature of critical infrastructures, where failures in one system can cascade across sectors like energy, communications, and finance. Benjamin Frisch from CERN presented the White Rabbit project as an example of how open collaboration and precise time synchronization technology developed for particle physics research has found applications in financial trading and power grid management.

Key challenges identified included the gap between disaster risk reduction and infrastructure development, the difficulty of retrofitting legacy systems for resilience, and the need for cross-sectoral collaboration. The discussion also explored the relationship between resilience and sustainability, with participants generally agreeing that resilience is essential for achieving sustainable development goals. The panel emphasized that no single organization can address these complex challenges alone, making partnerships and capacity building crucial for creating resilient infrastructure systems that can support society’s growing technological dependence.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Defining and Understanding Resilience**: The discussion explored resilience as both the ability to “bounce back” from disasters (from Latin “resiliere” – to rebound) and the proactive design of systems that can withstand disruptions. Speakers emphasized that resilience isn’t just about recovery but also about prevention and building robust systems from the start.

– **Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies**: A key theme was how modern infrastructure systems are deeply interconnected – when power fails, internet stops working, which affects hospitals, communications, and other essential services. The speakers highlighted the need for cross-sectoral collaboration to understand these dependencies and prevent cascading failures.

– **Challenges in Implementation**: The panel discussed significant barriers including lack of common understanding of what resilience means across organizations, short-term political thinking that makes it difficult to invest in prevention, budget constraints, and the challenge of upgrading legacy systems while maintaining current operations.

– **The Relationship Between Resilience and Sustainability**: Speakers debated whether resilience and sustainability are becoming synonymous, with general agreement that resilience is either a subset of sustainability or an essential enabler for achieving sustainable development goals. They emphasized that without resilient infrastructure, sustainable development gains cannot be safeguarded.

– **Importance of Partnerships and Open Collaboration**: All speakers stressed that no single organization can address these complex challenges alone. They highlighted the need for multi-stakeholder approaches involving governments, academia, industry, and civil society, along with capacity building and knowledge sharing across sectors and regions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore the concept of resilience in critical infrastructure from multiple perspectives, examining how different organizations approach building resilient systems, the challenges they face, and the collaborative approaches needed to address complex, interconnected infrastructure vulnerabilities in an increasingly digital and interdependent world.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional and collaborative throughout, with speakers building on each other’s points constructively. There was a sense of urgency about the challenges discussed, but also optimism about solutions through cooperation. The conversation maintained an academic yet practical focus, with speakers sharing real-world examples and concrete experiences. The moderator kept the discussion interactive and accessible, using relatable analogies (like the Big Bad Wolf story) to introduce complex concepts. The tone remained consistently engaged and solution-oriented rather than alarmist, despite discussing serious infrastructure vulnerabilities.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Mike Mullane** – Moderator, works at the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) on cybersecurity and AI, focusing on resilience and mitigation

– **Benjamin Frisch** – Works for CERN (European organization for nuclear research), involved in the White Rabbit project for clock synchronization technology

– **Helen Ng** – Works at UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction), focuses on resilient infrastructure and supporting countries to enhance infrastructure resilience through governance

– **Kishor Narang** – Active in IEC’s smart city work, has been leading smart city sanitization in India, involved in developing unified digital infrastructure for cities

– **Maarten Botterman** – Wearing two hats: works with Marconi Society and ICANN, focuses on internet infrastructure resilience and cross-sectoral collaboration

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Ian Opperman** – Was supposed to join from Australia but had connection issues and did not participate in the discussion

– **Pierre** – An audience member from AFNIC (a registry of domain names) who asked a specific question about sustainable development goals and infrastructure

# Comprehensive Report: Resilience in Critical Infrastructure and Technology Systems

## Introduction and Context

This discussion brought together representatives from diverse international organisations to explore resilience in critical infrastructure and technology systems. Moderated by Mike Mullane from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the panel featured Helen Ng from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), Maarten Botterman representing both the Marconi Society and ICANN, Benjamin Frisch from CERN’s White Rabbit project, and Kishor Narang, who leads smart city initiatives in India. Ian Opperman from Australia was scheduled to participate but experienced connectivity issues and could not join the discussion.

The conversation maintained a collaborative tone throughout, with speakers building on each other’s insights while addressing urgent challenges facing modern interconnected infrastructure systems. The discussion explored how organisations can build capacity to withstand and recover from disasters and disruptions in an increasingly digital and interdependent world.

## Defining Resilience: Multiple Perspectives

Mike Mullane opened by explaining that resilience derives from the Latin “resiliere,” meaning to rebound, and noted how children’s stories often illustrate this concept of bouncing back from adversity. However, the discussion revealed that resilience encompasses much more than simple recovery.

Maarten Botterman positioned resilience as fundamental for critical infrastructure, emphasising both prevention and quick recovery capabilities. He highlighted society’s growing dependence on internet infrastructure: “we’ve become so dependent on the internet that when the power goes out, or the roads are blocked, or a mobile doesn’t work, everything else stops. And it’s no longer a technical luxury, but a societal necessity.”

Helen Ng from UNDRR acknowledged that different governments have varying understandings of resilience, advocating for focusing on common principles rather than definitional debates. She specifically referenced the Sendai Framework Target D, which aims to substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services.

The definitional discussion revealed tension between the need for clear frameworks and the practical reality of working across diverse organisational contexts—a theme that would resurface throughout the conversation.

## Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies

A central theme was the deeply interconnected nature of modern infrastructure and cascading failure effects. Botterman illustrated this with examples from Spain and Portugal, where electricity outages demonstrated how internet infrastructure dependencies mean that power failures cascade through hospitals, communications, financial systems, and other essential services.

This interconnectedness has transformed infrastructure design requirements. As Botterman noted, society’s dependence on the internet requires shifting from “time to market” thinking to “reliability first” approaches, with profound implications for how infrastructure is designed, funded, and maintained.

Benjamin Frisch provided concrete examples through CERN’s White Rabbit project, originally developed for precise time synchronisation in particle physics experiments. The technology has found applications in financial trading systems, power grid management, and potentially quantum computing precisely because accurate timing is fundamental across multiple critical infrastructure sectors.

Kishor Narang offered a different perspective through India’s smart city development experience. Rather than allowing separate utility systems that would later need integration, India’s 100 smart cities initiative created unified digital infrastructure from the start, with 8000 cities learning from this approach. This integrated design, he argued, reduces carbon footprint, improves cybersecurity, and creates inherent resilience compared to siloed systems.

## Implementation Challenges

The conversation revealed significant barriers spanning technical, political, and economic dimensions. Helen Ng outlined key obstacles UNDRR encounters: multi-hazard considerations, interdependency understanding, short-term political thinking, and budget constraints. She specifically mentioned Bhutan’s GovTech department as an example of innovative approaches to these challenges.

The challenge of multi-hazard considerations is particularly acute for small island developing states. As Helen Ng observed: “they don’t have the luxury of bouncing back or recovering. So they’re always stuck in this cycle of… if you’re constantly being hit by something, you don’t have time to recover.” This powerfully illustrated inequality in resilience capacity.

Botterman addressed technical challenges of legacy systems, noting that evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes are required for infrastructure serving billions of users. He mentioned specific technologies like DNSSEC, RPKI, ROA, and DMARC as examples of gradual improvements to internet resilience.

Benjamin Frisch highlighted unique challenges of designing systems for extremely long operational periods. CERN’s Future Circular Collider project, starting operations in 2047 with plans extending to the 2090s, exemplifies the generational thinking required for truly resilient infrastructure.

## Standards Development and Technological Change

Helen Ng raised concerns about standards development speed versus rapid technological change, creating particular challenges for developing countries seeking guidance on technology adoption.

Mike Mullane explained that while full standards typically require 2-3 years for proper consensus-building, organisations also produce faster technical specifications to address immediate needs. He emphasised that standards development balances consensus-building requirements with technological adaptation needs, and that anticipating future requirements is part of the process.

Benjamin Frisch offered CERN’s perspective on open collaboration, explaining how creating open ecosystems around technologies like White Rabbit enables broader participation and faster adoption across sectors. This approach suggests that open collaboration can help address speed versus consensus challenges in standards development.

## Sustainability and Resilience Interconnections

The relationship between sustainability and resilience emerged as a significant theme. Helen Ng positioned them as interconnected concepts, arguing that resilient infrastructure is needed to safeguard development gains and that without resilience, sustainable development achievements cannot be maintained.

Kishor Narang took a more definitive position, stating that “you cannot be sustainable without being resilient” and arguing that resilience is a subset of the sustainability paradigm.

The discussion took on particular urgency when Kishor raised concerns about artificial intelligence, calling it “the new plastic” of the 21st century and noting that “AI is really a carbon energy guzzler” while “the AI ecosystem is still not listening to the sustainability aspect.”

Benjamin Frisch contributed the perspective of long-term machine design, noting that CERN’s decades-long operational timelines require considering carbon impact and environmental sustainability from the design phase.

## Collaboration Models and Partnerships

All speakers emphasised that building resilient infrastructure requires collaborative approaches transcending traditional boundaries. Helen Ng outlined UNDRR’s multi-stakeholder approach involving government, academia, industry, and civil society, emphasising UNDRR’s role as a convening organisation.

Benjamin Frisch described CERN’s model of international collaboration across member states with open global participation, enabling technologies like White Rabbit to serve broader societal needs beyond their original research purpose.

Botterman highlighted capacity building through training and education at multiple levels, from primary school to professional development, including efforts to develop integrative university curricula on internet governance covering technologies, governance, and policy dimensions.

## Economic Dimensions and Sustainability Concerns

An important intervention came from audience member Pierre from AFNIC, who raised concerns about economic sustainability of infrastructure operators. He highlighted how market forces directing investment toward higher-value applications like AI could undermine basic infrastructure resilience if foundational service providers lack stable financing.

This economic dimension connected to broader themes about infrastructure interdependence and the need for holistic resilience approaches. The concern was that if basic infrastructure operators cannot maintain stable operations due to economic pressures, higher-level services built on that infrastructure become vulnerable regardless of their technical sophistication.

## Technology Development and Open Innovation

Benjamin Frisch provided detailed examples through CERN’s White Rabbit project, demonstrating how open source approaches enable wider adoption and societal benefit. Originally developed for nanosecond-level time synchronisation in particle physics, White Rabbit now serves financial trading, power grid management, and other critical infrastructure sectors.

The success illustrates key principles: open collaboration enables broader participation and faster innovation; technologies developed for extreme requirements often have applications in other demanding environments; and creating ecosystems around technologies enables adaptation serving diverse needs.

Kishor Narang’s description of India’s unified digital infrastructure approach for smart cities demonstrated how strategic technology choices can create inherent resilience through integration rather than requiring resilience to be added to fragmented systems.

## Areas of Consensus and Continuing Challenges

Despite representing diverse organisations, speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on fundamental principles. All agreed that collaboration and partnerships are essential, that resilience requires both prevention and recovery capabilities, and that sustainability and resilience are interconnected concepts.

However, several challenges remain unresolved. The tension between standards development timeframes and technological change continues to create difficulties, particularly for developing countries. Questions about ensuring stable financing for infrastructure operators as resources shift toward higher-value applications represent a systemic challenge requiring policy attention.

The balance between AI system energy consumption and sustainability goals represents an emerging challenge that requires continued attention as AI becomes more prevalent in infrastructure systems.

## Practical Outcomes and Next Steps

The discussion concluded with concrete steps for continued collaboration. Mike Mullane proposed establishing a WhatsApp group for ongoing conversation and invited participants to contact him at mmu.iec.ch for continued engagement in a wider conversation platform.

The practical outcomes reflected the collaborative spirit characterising the discussion, with speakers recognising that the challenges discussed require ongoing engagement rather than one-time solutions. The emphasis on combining global expertise with local knowledge and implementation capacity suggests a promising direction for future resilience initiatives.

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated both the complexity of building resilient infrastructure in an interconnected world and the potential for collaborative approaches to address these challenges. The convergence of perspectives from disaster risk reduction, internet governance, scientific research, and smart city development created rich dialogue that moved beyond traditional sectoral boundaries.

The strong consensus on fundamental principles—particularly the need for collaboration, the interconnection of sustainability and resilience, and the importance of both prevention and recovery capabilities—provides a solid foundation for future work. The discussion illustrated that resilience is not merely a technical challenge but a societal imperative requiring coordinated responses across multiple domains.

As Botterman noted, quoting Vint Cerf, the transformation of internet infrastructure from a technical luxury to a societal necessity exemplifies how our approach to infrastructure must evolve to match society’s growing dependence on interconnected systems. The path forward requires sustained commitment to collaborative principles, continued innovation in technical and governance approaches, and recognition that building resilient infrastructure is ultimately about building resilient societies.

Mike Mullane: going to start and we can continue trying to connect to Ian, of course, Ian Opperman who will be joining us from Australia. My name is Mike Mullane. I’m delighted you found time to join us this afternoon. As I was coming over, I was thinking about resilience, obviously, and making a mental list of what the most important issues are. And it occurred to me that resilience is such an enormously important topic that we learn about it as children. The big bad wolf huffs and puffs and blows down the house made of sticks. He blows down the house made of straw, but he can’t blow down the house made of bricks because it’s resilient. Of course, that’s only one aspect of resilience. If we look at the etymology of the word itself, it comes from the Latin resiliere, which means to rebound, to come back. And a lot of what resilience is about, as we’ll be hearing from our panel, is about the ability to come back from a disaster, from a negative episode and to restore business or to continue as before. And of course, that’s also true of children’s stories. All the best heroes are people that have to come back from a negative and bad experience, and they bounce back. And that’s why we love them as heroes. And this impact, this aspect of mitigating, of helping organizations to recover, is central to a lot of the work that I’ve been doing at the IEC connected to cybersecurity, and to AI, where the emphasis really is on trying to mitigate, trying to make sure that when those cyber attacks happen, for example, because they always will happen, that organizations are strong enough, are resilient enough to bounce back as soon as possible and to continue on their normal course. We were going to start with with Ian, but I don’t think he’s he can join us yet. So I wanted to start with an organization that has a name that really tells us what they do, and it’s the UNDRR, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Helen, can you tell us a bit about your work and about the organization?

Helen Ng: Sure, thank you. So as many of, maybe some of you don’t know, but the UNDRR, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, is the UN agency that is responsible for coordinating efforts to reduce disaster risk and also promote resilience. So we support the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. This is a 15-year global agreement to reduce disaster risks and enhance resilience, and we take a all-of-society approach. And within the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, there is the Target D, which aims, which specifically aims at substantially reducing disaster risk, reducing disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services. So this is the area where I work on resilient infrastructure, supporting countries to enhance their infrastructure resilience by strengthening their governance. And we do this by integrating resilience into infrastructure planning and development. strengthening governance by helping develop strategies, strengthening regulatory frameworks and legislative frameworks, assessing infrastructure risks and interdependencies of these risks, and also improving financing through better public spending and budget allocations and private investment mobilization for countries. Just a quick question, how do you go about ensuring that your strategies are as inclusive as possible? So our focal points are really, we work directly with the Sendai focal points, which usually are the national disaster management agencies. And so we try to bring all of the different stakeholders together. So the different line ministries that work on infrastructure, so this could be the Ministries of Infrastructure, the Ministries of Energy, Transport, ICT. So in Bhutan, for example, there’s a department called GovTech. So that’s more of an independent government organization. So it’s about bringing the different actors and stakeholders that work on infrastructure together to develop these strategies.

Mike Mullane: Thanks, Helen. Helen Ng from UNDRR. Next, turn next to Martin Boteman, who’s wearing two hats today, Marconi Society, and ICANN. What does resilience mean for you?

Maarten Botterman: Well, resilience is something that you really need, if you become dependent on something, right? It’s not a play thing anymore. We need the internet. We rely on it. If we don’t have it, society grinds to a halt. Vint Cerf, if I may quote him, we’ve become so dependent on the internet that when the power goes out, or the roads are blocked, or a mobile doesn’t work, everything else stops. And it’s no longer a technical luxury, but a societal necessity. And that means we need to change our thinking, where in the early days it was about time to market and get out there with the most funky stuff as soon as possible. It’s now make sure that people can rely on it and put the emphasis there. So ICANN is very strong on that. Let’s keep the internet going and the infrastructure is well protected, always under attack, but it doesn’t let you down. If somebody says the internet doesn’t work, they probably don’t mean the internet. They may mean the Wi-Fi or sometimes even the 5G networks. So that’s one thing, but I agree with you that it’s about bouncing back. But I think if you really think about critical infrastructures, it’s also about prevention, about designing in resilience, that it’s not easy to topple it over. And if it topples over, that there’s also quick ways of recovering the bouncing back.

Mike Mullane: Tell me a little bit about the project you’re working on with the Marconi people.

Maarten Botterman: Marconi Society, I have a couple of slides on that that will help. It’s been established as a response to this urgent need for discussing cross-sectoral, not only within the internet environment, but too often even today’s talk in silence. And as you can probably recognize some of the people in that picture, it’s really brought up some enthusiasm to think out of the box and say, so what could possibly go wrong? Let’s not go too deep in that because that would be taking the rest of the session. But four threats are that we see is the tangled systems that hidden links trigger chain reactions. If electricity falls out, the internet will stop working. And as we’ve seen, for instance, in Spain, Portugal, but but even in Switzerland, that electricity outages lead to real breakdown of communications, that hospitals can’t function anymore, et cetera. You see how important the links are. Regulatory friction, that you see that technology development at times is much faster than policy development and regulatory development. And we need to do something about that. The funding gap, it’s that there’s a lot of money to go to market. There’s less money in general to stay in the market. And the software fellowship is really that one flaw can collapse a whole chain of events. We’re trying to look at that. We’re trying to also do crossovers to the energy sector to the finance sector, because gas doesn’t come if you can’t pay the bills, et cetera. This cross-sectoral is something we want to focus on starting this year. If you look at the next slide, this is a report that you can download from MarconiSociety.org. We are looking at the moment with a focus on build and promote and always be rolling program. How can we make sure we always roll? And if there’s a hiccup, that we roll very quickly again. The sectoral and infrastructure interdependencies and in this world today with changing geopolitical situations, I dare say, governance and international collaboration becomes more important than ever. The last slide is really the takeaways from Norway. Resilience is foundational. Power and internet are so interdependent. And resilience requires proactive investment, not only to go to market again, but also to stay in the market. and cross-sectoral collaboration is not a natural thing we do. We are organized in silos, but we need to. No single actor can make the society resilient all by himself.

Mike Mullane: That’s why we like to say at the IEC that the problems we face as a society are too huge for any organization, any one organization, to take on alone. So partnership, collaboration, absolutely critical. I started by talking about children’s stories and the Big Bad Wolf, and one of the reasons was our next speaker, Benjamin Frisch, is involved in the White Rabbit project. And the thing about the White Rabbit is I remember a White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland who’s always running around saying that he’s late. But your White Rabbit is always on time.

Benjamin Frisch: I was wondering whether we are the Big Bad Wolf or how that was going to link. Stop being afraid, having to justify what we do. So I work for CERN, a European organization for nuclear research, and White Rabbit is a technology that was developed for our own needs more than 15 years ago to synchronize clocks. Sounds very simple, but if you’ve ever, I mean, if you look at one clock, you will know what time it is. If you take two clocks, you will realize that they might not show exactly the same time. Now the issue is there are many applications where you need to precisely synchronize your clocks. What we do at CERN is we do fundamental research in particle physics, and we operate the infrastructure that’s needed for that. That means accelerators, detectors, and computing system. And in the accelerators, the biggest one is the Large Hadron Collider, just, well, a couple kilometers north of where we are right now. We accelerate particles almost to the speed of light. They fly in a ring 27 kilometers long. They pass magnets, accelerating cavities, thousands of different bits of electronics that need to be precisely synchronized. synchronized to do exactly what they need to do when the particle flies through it. So we need to synchronize clocks in electronics with a precision much better than the nanosecond, better even going down to the picosecond. And the WideRabbit technology is a perfect example for why open research, open collaboration, creating an ecosystem is so important to create resilience because then when you look at WideRabbit, when you look at where else do you need to perfectly synchronize things, well, you could look at financial trading, the German Stock Exchange, the Frankfurt de Börse uses WideRabbit to synchronize buy and sales orders. But if you think about power grids, there is also a need to synchronize clocks in the distributed power grid to maintain synchronization in your power grid and avoid precisely the grid not functioning as expected. Which has happened a bit recently, I think of the outages in Spain and Portugal, for example. In my limited understanding of what happened, that’s exactly one of the reasons. I’m not saying that WideRabbit would have prevented it, but at some point you start looking at all the little building blocks, at all the enabling technologies that you need to get right to get the complex infrastructures that we have today to work and also to provide somewhere this common base, talk about standardization, that you would need.

Mike Mullane: Thanks very much, Martin. If anyone has any questions, please don’t hesitate to put your hand up, interrupt if I don’t notice you. This is supposed to be an interactive session, so to make it interactive, we really need to hear your voices. Don’t be shy. Any news from Ian? No. Let’s have another quick round, going back to Ellen Ng. What sort of gaps are you noticing in terms of aligning? Disaster Risk Reduction and Infrastructure Development.

Helen Ng: So one of the biggest gaps that we have noticed is that when we do speak with governments about what is resilience, and I think you asked this question earlier, what is resilience, what is resilient infrastructure, there is different common understandings of what this is, and there is usually not a clear understanding of what is resilience and what is resilient infrastructure, or they might have an understanding of what is resilience, but then not really knowing what does resilient infrastructure mean, because to many of these countries, it’s a very relatively new term. So instead of coming up with a definition, we’ve decided, you know, I’ve been, I worked in standardization for many years, and I remember sitting in rooms where we’ve discussed for hours and hours going around in circles and circles of what does resilience mean, what does sustainable development mean. So instead of coming up with, you know, definitions, we decided to develop a set of principles for resilient infrastructure with some key actions that help governments to really concretely understand what is resilient infrastructure. So that’s one of the gaps. Another one is considering the wide range of hazards. So we know that the frequency of events and hazard events are increasing. It’s more severe these days, and infrastructure, it needs to be built to consider not only one specific hazard, but multi-hazards, and this needs to be taken into consideration in the designs. So many of the, especially the small island development states, you know, they don’t have the luxury of bouncing back or, you know, recovering. So it’s just, they’re always stuck in this cycle of, I remember one colleague, he explained to me, it’s like you’re, it’s like you’re in a way, if you’re constantly being hit by something, you don’t have time to recover. So it’s really important for them to invest in this resilient infrastructure. So it’s important that at the design phase that all the hazards are taken into consideration. And then also understanding the interdependencies. So a lot of times the infrastructure systems and of course the way the infrastructure is developed and also the way our government is set up is very siloed. So there it doesn’t allow for the understanding of all the different interdependencies across the infrastructure assets and systems. And of course, this is what Martine was talking about, is that when there is one failure, it cascades into many different impacts. So it’s not just, and this is why this cross collaboration is so needed. It’s really to help each other understand what is the interdependencies, where are the vulnerabilities of these systems. And also another issue is the short-term thinking. So often when we make the case, it’s really hard to make the case for investing in resilient infrastructure because you’re investing in something that may never happen. So for politicians, it’s really difficult for them to say, I’m going to put this money into something when they’re just going for votes. And it’s this short-term thinking that’s really causing challenges. And then also, of course, the budget constraints that governments face. So not only is it difficult to convince them to invest in resilient infrastructure, but it’s also really difficult for them to mobilize resources, but also make, prioritize where the investments go. So this creates, of course, the vicious cycle of disaster response, recover, repeat. So this is what we’re trying to do is to help invest in prevention to break this vicious cycle.

Mike Mullane: Thanks. And I think there are a lot of questions there, if those of you are listening. We, in an ideal world, we would design things to be resilient or redesign or knock them down and build them again to be resilient. But in the real world, we actually have security by design isn’t always possible because we have a lot of legacy equipment out there. How do you confront that problem?

Maarten Botterman: I think that’s a fair point. If we’ve got an internet with standards that are serving five and a half billion users or more, how do we change that? We shouldn’t change that overnight, every night. That needs to become an evolution, because there’s a lot of installed base that serves that. We’ve seen that when the internet became big in the early 2000s, when we moved from IPv4. We said, this is not good enough anymore, because the addresses will be gone at some moment. So IPv6 was introduced. And the early introductions were difficult, because the hardware couldn’t handle it. It required more memory. Very practical. I’m not a technical person, but I see the issue. Today, not a problem anymore. So if you give time, and if you start planning for that, you’ll get there. We saw the technical community starting to think in terms of how do we make sure that we can deal with larger memory blocks and things like that. Now, I think we see this with the internet as well. It’s based on standards like BGP, the Internet Protocol, and all these things that come from a past where the connections were different. Where, originally, everybody knew each other. Not true anymore. So we’re hardening that. At ICANN, there’s a big initiative on what is called DNSSEC. So we can ensure that the integrity of the origin is really there. Where do you connect to? We see in the routing, we see protocols like the RPKI, policies like ROA. We see in email, we see next to standards, more and more standards, including now DMARC, on policies of how do you deal with standards to strengthen this root, this core internet more and more, so we can rely on it more and more. Is it perfect? No, but it helps. And it also means that organizations need to be aware of how to do these standards. This is where you see that multi-stakeholder is so important. Governments also have a role. For instance, in the Netherlands, and I’m sure there’s plenty of other examples, the Dutch government is expecting from its agencies to adapt certain secure standards or explain why they can’t. And with that, they lead society in that change. They lead service providers to offer these services. And in that way, we see more and more strengthening. So I think it’s really important to promote investment in risk mitigation built in redundancy. I mean, internet routing, there are certain independent routing operators, but there’s about a couple of thousands of instances of these routers. So we prevent a single point of failing. A couple of these could run the whole internet all by themselves now. But the internet has become so important that it’s good that together they can absorb attacks, absorb higher need. An example that we are on that way, I think we saw when COVID hit the world, and the internet continued to function. But we need to continue to build on that. And we need to continue to work on the resilience. What happens on the internet is the next challenge. Information integrity, privacy, all that kind of abuse. But the internet, we need to make sure that it starts there. And for that, of course, we need to have a resilient backbone. We need to have a smart grid that functions as it should. Including access to energy. And that means For instance, C cables are very important for traffic. And there’s multiple C cables and people map them. But now what happens if you put an extra C cable in, so you have more diversity, it’s laid by those C cable layers. And in some parts of the sea, the route is so the same, through the same hole in the sea bottom, I don’t. So it’s things of that, that we really need to consider all these aspects for electricity, for information streams, and keep that going.

Mike Mullane: Benjamin, CERN has this incredible track record of developing real world applications for emerging tech. What are the challenges?

Benjamin Frisch: Well, the challenges that we have at CERN is that we tend to design things that we’re going to operate in 10 or 15 years from now. If you think about the Large Hadron Collider we’re operating now, the initial design phrase was in 1994 for a machine expected to start originally in 2004 and then start in 2008. For those of you who are following what we’re discussing now, which is the future of particle physics, we discuss a project called the Future Circular Collider that would start operating earliest in 2047. And you have a project plan that goes until the late 2090s. So we’re talking about something that is going to run very far down the road, which means you need to create, and that’s where it resonates, you need to future proof your design. You need something that is going to run for a long time. You need to make it resilient and you need to build the right community. So the challenge that you need to overcome, precisely, is how do you create, how do you do real open science, open development? How do you create real openness? in a community, but also not just in the academic community. We also need industry to work with. So how do you create open collaboration in industry? How do you get actual competitors to agree on a certain number of basic technological parameters? So part of what we want to do is also, well, creating this open ecosystem and in order to get there, you also need to create exchange. You need to get people to discuss with each other. You need to create a common toolbox and a common understanding of what does industry need? What does academia need? How do we work together? How can we in science benefit from technological developments? But at the same time, also, how can the developments that we do be useful to society in different applications? And coming back to the example of White Rabbit, we developed a technology interesting for us. We started to see that that is interesting for the societal applications, energy, telecommunications, finances. From the beginning, it was very clear that we would release that specific technology. So that’s hardware and software under an open source license to facilitate access. Then we saw that that started creating traction, that we started to have a community revolving around it. We engaged with a number of standard-making bodies. White Rabbit became an extension of an IEEE standard. Took 10 years to get there, but it’s now the case. We now have a collaboration of academic institutes, hardware vendors, and end users that work together on deciding how White Rabbit should evolve to answer the challenges of future networks. And we’re talking with power grids. We start to see interesting people working on quantum computing. So one thing is time synchronization in current telecommunications, there you don’t need wide rabbit. But once you start thinking about quantum communications, you will need something a lot more precise than what’s available today. So really, challenges to overcome is, it’s really community creation, and you could think about different examples too, but it resonates a lot what I hear from Helen and Martin.

Mike Mullane: Yeah, and of course, quantum is going to bring a lot of other challenges in terms of resilience as well. I came in wearing an SDG badge, I noticed somebody else had some SDG colours. And it just occurred to me that we talk a lot about, today we’re discussing resilience and we talk a lot about sustainability. To what extent are these two words becoming synonyms? And maybe I could start with you, Helen.

Helen Ng: Yeah, so as I mentioned, we used to have these debates about what is resilience in the standards development process, and what is sustainable development? And they’re saying, can you have, and what is smart cities? Because this was all in the context of the smart cities work I was doing. And so often, what the conversations really led back to was that it all comes back to sustainable development. So resilience and smart cities are really enablers for sustainable development, or others can say that, you know, sustainable development and resilience are one of the same. So we need to be resilient, and we need to invest in resilient infrastructure in order to safeguard our development gains. So if we, you know, for countries to achieve the sustainable development goals, it doesn’t make sense if they do not integrate resilience into everything they do.

Mike Mullane: I’ve just noticed Kishore Narang, a good friend, and very active in the IEC’s smart city work. I was going to ask you, Kishore, the same question. To what extent are sustainability… and resilience the same thing?

Kishor Narang: No I think resilience is a subset of the sustainability paradigm not a complimentary because without being resilient you can’t be sustainable. Okay so it is one part of like even people talk about in context of circularity I say circularity is a subset of this thing without being circular without being resilient a city and infrastructure cannot be sustainable so that is from the short answer to this.

Mike Mullane: Thank you very much and the same question to Martin.

Maarten Botterman: Yeah well there’s two things sustainability can’t happen without the internet either I believe because we need the sensors out there we need to know what’s going on we need to exchange experiences but when we build on the internet and further innovate it’s essential that we take into account the the footprint the energy footprint of that and I think we’re increasingly conscious of that. I would say in the 2000 to 2010s privacy and security was the hot topic now it’s also to see how we can do it in a sustainable way. Awareness of the fact that AI is really using a lot of energy right now when generally used but we use it let’s make sure that we come to solutions where we don’t burn up the world in that that’s essential. I think it’s also crucial for infrastructures to be resilient the more natural disasters we have the more difficult that is and in terms of energy provision I think we will move towards a time where energy harvesting that has been development over ages. You see it already in French highways next to the public points where they collect the energy themselves. I think building in that and having more energy on location is one of those elements that will help to make sure that the way we design the future will become more resilient. You inspired me sir.

Kishor Narang: I think this is something which I’ve been very close to my heart. So in India I’ve been leading the smart city sanitization and one other thing that we realized in 2015 when our Prime Minister announced that you know 100 smart city pilots and people are wondering why 100 cities for pilots and I used to it was a difficult thing that we have 8000 kind of cities that are looking forward to learning from these lessons but anyway having said that what we had realized in Europe and developed nations when they started talking about smart cities they realized that they already had all the utilities are mostly smart. They had a lot of data so what they had to do only put a digital layer on the top collect data because but it was since it was not interoperable write some interworking proxies cloud connectors and provide a citizen dashboard cities are smart. In India our utilities were not smart even that time in 2015 and just electricity was still trying to get smart so we had a choice that whether we go the same way we make each utility everyone smart and then we go city. I said no it’s a chance to leapfrog and one thing which I realized we were being a financially constrained nation we were very conscious about the funding. In a city if you see there are five six utilities and there are five six more the citizen service agencies which set up an individual siloed digital infrastructure across city and which again converged now to give a unified dashboard. It didn’t look funny and it looked okay to me because in the same geography why do we have parallel infrastructure so we came up I personally was very conscious we came up with a unified digital infrastructure reference architecture for all civic and critical infrastructure we have one common ICT backbone all they with private and business they can do anything whatever they want. But for civic and critical, we came up with one. And the basic motivation was this thing. And the key takeaways are, OK, you save on capital expenditure. You save on operation. But the two key, my personal motivation was, instead of 10 different ICT network in the same city, now I have one well-architected. So the carbon footprint goes down drastically. Second thing, now with a well-architected one infrastructure, I can make it. It’s very easy to make it more cyber-secure and cyber-resilient. So that was one of the two key takeaways. But talking about AI, AI is really a carbon energy guzzler. And I think in OSS, I wrote a think piece. Is AI the new plastic in 21, 22? But I’m happy now people have started taking care, listening to these things. But these are narratives which we need to really make more visible. Still, AI ecosystem is still not listening to the sustainability aspect, if you really ask me.

Maarten Botterman: Mike, if you allow me, a very short one on this. First point, people think sustainable means more expensive. That is not necessarily so. And on the long run, not for sure. But even on the shorter run, you will already stop wasting things that are not needed. The other thing is leapfrogging. Thank you for mentioning that. If you talk only about US, Western Europe, it’s a totally different story if you look globally. And then there’s so much opportunity for leapfrogging because every problem we have somewhere is already solved somewhere else.

Mike Mullane: You mentioned this sort of people being afraid of blowing the world up. And that made me think of our friends at CERN. And Benjamin, you mentioned the Large Hadron Collider. And I remember there was this crazy conspiracy theory back in 2005, 2006 that when this thing went online, it was going to suck us all into a black hole. My question is, to what extent sustainability is important? to CERN. You’ve spoken about resilience, but is sustainability part of the equation for you guys as well?

Benjamin Frisch: It is. It is. I really like your introductions. I was waiting for what’s actually going to come as a question at the end of it. Sustainability clearly is part of it. It has become more and more important to understand what impact, what carbon impact we have in science. And in particular, when you think about what I mentioned before, when you think about designing machines that are going to operate for the next century, you need to think about the impact that you will have. And that has become one of the key elements in our operation. It is a reduction of electricity consumption. It is a reduction of any pollutants that you might find. Well, because simply that’s what you were using when you were designing these machines 50 years ago. And it’s also about thinking what impact would it actually have both locally and globally if you design a new machine that will operate in the long term. And, I mean, there’s a bit of another aspect that I also wanted to mention because it didn’t come up yet that much, which is really sharing the knowledge that you create and then the training and educational aspects that you need to create, on one hand, the understanding for the need of creating resilient systems in an approach towards sustainability, but also educating those who design systems towards these criteria, but also those who will be users towards understanding what they are actually working with. When we talk about artificial intelligence, about generative AI, it is a tool that can be very powerful, but you need to create the understanding. You need to educate the user to know exactly what they’re doing there. For us it is extremely important to train generations of engineers and of scientists because they will be working with technologies that at least at CERN will be around for a very long time. And I think it’s also part, whenever you get into a discussion about how can technology support a development, well the technology can be the best there is, if you do not train the users towards understanding what it actually does, what impact it will have, then you might deploy the best technology, but it will not lead to the effects that you want to see.

Mike Mullane: I’m glad you mentioned generative AI. I’m involved in a project about AI and multimedia authentication. You think of things like deep fakes that are really undermining society and creating all sorts of risks for society. And the aim of this project really is to restore trust in media, to enable people to know the provenance of content, not to stifle creativity, but to tell people if something has been created by an AI or by an individual and provide some context around how that content has been developed. That’s an important topic. And if any of you are around on Friday, we’ll be talking about it for most of the day, different aspects related to regulation and governance, which I know is a topic of interest to many of you here, but also a look at the standardisation landscape. And again, this all goes to resilience. This is about making society more resilient. This is about making our institutions more resilient. Which brings me to my next question. And this project is a collaboration between different sorts of organisations. Standards Development Organizations, Big Tech, Academia, Civil Society. For your organizations, how important are partnerships and collaborations? Let me start with CERN.

Benjamin Frisch: They are key. We wouldn’t be able to do it without that. When we talk about CERN, really the four pillars of CERN are the science, I mean that is our fundamental mission, the technologies that we need to develop, the educational aspect, and the collaboration, and that’s collaboration with academia and collaboration with industry, and increasingly also collaboration with civil society, so there is also a training aspect. CERN is an international organization. Our member states are mostly European, but not only. We have about 30 member states and associate member states today. But we do host scientists from almost all across the globe, independent of whether they come from member states or non-member states, so we are really a lab which is open to the world, which means we do collaborate with many countries, with many institutes. At the same time, we cannot build all the things that we need, so we need to work with industry. We need the collaboration to start with for capacity building, and that’s where you start at capacity building in the civil society. Capacity building starts at the primary school. It starts with basic education. It starts with CERN hosting teenagers, just coming to visit to see how practical applications of your basic math course that you have at school, and then it goes on with hosting students, early career researchers, young professionals, and coming here, bringing their knowledge, their way of solving things, adding that little brick to what we do. and taking ideas back home. So it’s really that collaboration even with individuals, collaboration on an individual basis, and then indeed the formal collaboration, again, as I said before, with universities, with industry, and with countries, both member states, associate member states, and non-member state countries.

Mike Mullane: Thank you. Helen and Martin, but first, a question from over here. Sorry, I didn’t see you.

Audience: Thank you very much. I just wanted to come back very quickly on the previous point that you made about sustainable goals, development goals and infrastructure. And maybe from the point of view of a registry of domain names, AFNIC, that is in a way part of ICANN. Just two more things. We have to take into account the planet boundaries and the planet limits, which means that there are a lot of things that, we talk about energy, we talk about a lot of things, but we should talk also about the chips, about the computers, about the basic things that you need to run an infrastructure. And maybe also we should talk about the data center. When we put the infrastructure, and the more we see AI, for instance, but also the restriction of access to these kinds of products because of the planet limit, the more it is dangerous for the infrastructure because the money is not there. The money is somewhere else. It’s in AI, it’s in the added value product, and that’s fair. But if you don’t think about guaranteeing a minimum of finance or a minimum of supply to those who are operating the infrastructure, everything could collapse. So this is something to take into account. Make sure that there is a stable supply to the infrastructure operators. And I’m not talking only about energy. Thank you.

Mike Mullane: Thanks for that. And this is, as you say, this is such a huge topic that 45 minutes does not begin to do it justice. And one of the things we’ve done is set up a little WhatsApp group so that hopefully we can continue this conversation afterwards. And if any of you are interested in joining a wider conversation, we’d be very happy to look into setting up some other kind of platform where we can exchange ideas and possibly meet up as well. My email is really super easy to remember. So if you are interested, drop me a line. It’s mmu.iec.ch. And to wrap up, Martin and Helen, that question about the importance of collaboration and partnerships.

Maarten Botterman: It’s funny. In a way, Pierre gave one of the answers. Capacity development happens on different levels. One of the things I’m very enthusiastic about myself is helping Internet Society and ICANN to train the young new people that are eager to come in. Because if you don’t train them, we need that new blood. We need that new view as well into the further development of where we are. Then I’ve talked, I had, in fact, from India, but also from the Netherlands, two different professors approaching me, like, can’t we set up a kind of curriculum at the university for people where they really have an integrative course on Internet governance and not only on the technologies to really build that capacity there? And then the last thing, to keep it short because I can talk much longer, is that one of the things I really love doing is I work also with the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise, which we call the Triple I Workshop Internet Infrastructure Initiative, where we take global knowledge to regional events, where in the regional event we have multi-stakeholder around the table with their expertise, listening to global expertise, bringing it together. First section is about what standards could you benefit from. Second standard section is good practice examples like that, like DDoS mitigation methods like other. And the third section is about local action plans, because the real most effective action is organized by the people from that region with all the knowledge and input they need. So I would plead for these three investments in capacity building.

Helen Ng: Helen? I’ll be quick, I know we’re running out of time, but so besides the work that we do on resilient infrastructure, in general UNDRR is a small organization, so we depend on partnerships. Since the implementation of the Sendai Framework requires an all-of-society approach, partnerships is really important in everything we do. So we are known for our convening power, so bringing together the member states, bringing together the different partners, academia, the different UN organizations. So it’s also about interagency collaboration within the UN, making sure that we’re not duplicating efforts, but also going into it with a joint approach, so that for our member states, they’re not getting different strategies, different ideas. And of course, this is why partnerships are so important, so that we can do it jointly to avoid duplication of efforts and to provide the best technical expertise that we can give our member states. But I think just to speak to I guess what I’ve heard recently and I think and this is something I think about is also when we support, you know, the Developing countries and thinking about standards a lot of times standards take a long time to develop and I know It’s it’s in a process that engages, you know different Different stakeholders and you Benjamin you said one standard took you 10 years. So how do we? The issue with that is that things change so fast So, what are you telling in terms of when you’re giving advice on standards which standards to use? How do we prevent it from being outdated by the second it gets published?

Mike Mullane: Maybe that’s when I can answer really really quickly So standards usually don’t take 10 years to develop We’re talking about two to two to three years and and the reason they take three years is because they’re about consensus at least those international standards are and unless people buy into them, then they’re not going to have any any impact and We don’t only produce Standards ISO doesn’t only produce standards We also produce technical specifications as well Which are much faster to push out and we can wait for those to turn into standards We also try to anticipate work. So for example, we’re already working in in areas like biodigital convergence and And quantum so when these become pressing pressing issues the standards are already beginning to flow in that’s a very quick answer and My regret is we only had 45 minutes and this is such a huge topic so much more to discuss Hopefully we get a second chance and more time But thank you all very much for listening and thank you panel for participating. Thank you. Thank you for the invitation

Agreement points

Collaboration and partnerships are essential for building resilient systems

Speakers

– Mike Mullane
– Maarten Botterman
– Helen Ng
– Benjamin Frisch

Arguments

Cross-sectoral collaboration necessary because no single actor can make society resilient alone

Internet infrastructure requires proactive investment and cross-sectoral collaboration due to societal dependence

Multi-stakeholder approach essential with government, academia, industry, and civil society involvement

International collaboration across member states and open global participation crucial for scientific advancement

Summary

All speakers emphasized that resilience cannot be achieved by individual organizations working in isolation. They consistently argued for multi-stakeholder approaches involving government, academia, industry, and civil society to address complex resilience challenges.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Capacity development

Resilience requires both prevention and recovery capabilities

Speakers

– Mike Mullane
– Maarten Botterman
– Helen Ng

Arguments

Resilience means ability to rebound and come back from disasters, with emphasis on recovery and continuity

Resilience is foundational necessity for critical infrastructure that society depends on, requiring both prevention and quick recovery

Multi-hazard considerations, interdependency understanding, short-term political thinking, and budget constraints create barriers

Summary

Speakers agreed that effective resilience involves both designing systems to prevent failures and ensuring rapid recovery when failures occur. This dual approach is essential for critical infrastructure that society depends upon.

Topics

Infrastructure | Critical internet resources

Sustainability and resilience are interconnected concepts

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Helen Ng
– Kishor Narang
– Benjamin Frisch

Arguments

Internet development must consider energy footprint and sustainable practices alongside resilience requirements

Resilience and sustainability are interconnected, with resilient infrastructure needed to safeguard development gains

Resilience is a subset of sustainability paradigm – cannot be sustainable without being resilient

Long-term machine design requires consideration of carbon impact and environmental sustainability

Summary

All speakers recognized that sustainability and resilience are not separate concepts but are fundamentally interconnected. They agreed that long-term resilient systems must consider environmental impact and energy consumption.

Topics

Infrastructure | Sustainable development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized that building resilient systems requires long-term thinking and gradual evolution rather than sudden changes. They both highlighted the importance of open collaboration and community building in developing standards and technologies that will operate for extended periods.

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Benjamin Frisch

Arguments

Legacy systems require evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes, with standards development taking time but enabling gradual improvement

Future-proofing designs for decades-long operation requires open collaboration and community building across sectors

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards

Both speakers identified siloed approaches as a major barrier to resilience. They emphasized the need to understand interdependencies across systems and move away from fragmented infrastructure development toward more integrated approaches.

Speakers

– Helen Ng
– Kishor Narang

Arguments

Multi-hazard considerations, interdependency understanding, short-term political thinking, and budget constraints create barriers

Unified digital infrastructure approach reduces carbon footprint and improves cyber-security compared to siloed systems

Topics

Infrastructure | Sustainable development | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of human capacity building and education across multiple levels, from basic education to professional development. They both highlighted the need for international collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Benjamin Frisch

Arguments

Capacity building through training and education at multiple levels from primary school to professional development

International collaboration across member states and open global participation crucial for scientific advancement

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

AI as both enabler and threat to sustainability

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Kishor Narang

Arguments

Internet development must consider energy footprint and sustainable practices alongside resilience requirements

AI presents both opportunities and challenges as energy-intensive technology requiring sustainability considerations

Explanation

Despite coming from different sectors (internet governance and smart cities), both speakers unexpectedly converged on concerns about AI’s energy consumption. This consensus is significant as it shows cross-sectoral awareness of AI’s environmental impact emerging as a critical consideration for resilient and sustainable infrastructure development.

Topics

Infrastructure | Sustainable development

Standards development timing challenges

Speakers

– Helen Ng
– Mike Mullane

Arguments

Standards development speed versus rapid technological change creates challenges for developing countries seeking guidance

Standards development balances consensus-building time requirements with need for rapid technological adaptation

Explanation

An unexpected consensus emerged around the tension between the time needed for proper standards development and the rapid pace of technological change. This is significant as it highlights a fundamental challenge in governance and standardization that affects both disaster risk reduction and technology development sectors.

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles of resilience, particularly the need for collaborative approaches, the interconnection between sustainability and resilience, and the importance of both prevention and recovery capabilities. There was also agreement on the challenges posed by siloed thinking and the need for capacity building.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy and practice. The agreement across diverse sectors (UN disaster reduction, internet governance, research institutions, and smart cities) suggests these principles are universally applicable. This consensus provides a strong foundation for developing integrated approaches to resilience that can address complex, interconnected challenges facing modern society.

Different viewpoints

Relationship between sustainability and resilience

Speakers

– Helen Ng
– Kishor Narang

Arguments

Resilience and smart cities are really enablers for sustainable development, or others can say that, you know, sustainable development and resilience are one of the same

Resilience is a subset of sustainability paradigm – cannot be sustainable without being resilient

Summary

Helen Ng presents resilience as either an enabler for sustainable development or equivalent to it, suggesting they could be the same thing. Kishor Narang definitively argues that resilience is a subset of sustainability, not complementary or equivalent, emphasizing that sustainability cannot exist without resilience as a foundational requirement.

Topics

Infrastructure | Sustainable development

Standards development timeframes and adaptation speed

Speakers

– Helen Ng
– Mike Mullane

Arguments

Standards development speed versus rapid technological change creates challenges for developing countries seeking guidance

Standards development balances consensus-building time requirements with need for rapid technological adaptation

Summary

Helen Ng expresses concern about standards taking too long to develop (citing 10-year examples) while technology changes rapidly, creating challenges for developing countries. Mike Mullane defends the current approach, explaining that standards typically take 2-3 years for consensus-building and that organizations also produce faster technical specifications while anticipating future needs.

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Development

Unexpected differences

Definitional approach to resilience concepts

Speakers

– Helen Ng
– Mike Mullane

Arguments

Different governments have varying understandings of what resilience means, creating need for common principles rather than definitions

Resilience means ability to rebound and come back from disasters, with emphasis on recovery and continuity

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers work in international standardization contexts where clear definitions are typically valued. Helen advocates for avoiding definitional debates in favor of practical principles, while Mike provides a clear etymological definition. This suggests different philosophical approaches to addressing conceptual ambiguity in international cooperation.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most differences being methodological rather than philosophical. Main areas of disagreement included the hierarchical relationship between sustainability and resilience concepts, and the appropriate balance between standards development rigor and speed of technological adaptation.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers generally shared common goals around building resilient infrastructure and systems, but differed on specific approaches, timelines, and conceptual frameworks. These disagreements reflect different organizational perspectives and operational contexts rather than fundamental conflicts, suggesting good potential for collaborative solutions that incorporate multiple viewpoints.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized that building resilient systems requires long-term thinking and gradual evolution rather than sudden changes. They both highlighted the importance of open collaboration and community building in developing standards and technologies that will operate for extended periods.

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Benjamin Frisch

Arguments

Legacy systems require evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes, with standards development taking time but enabling gradual improvement

Future-proofing designs for decades-long operation requires open collaboration and community building across sectors

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards

Both speakers identified siloed approaches as a major barrier to resilience. They emphasized the need to understand interdependencies across systems and move away from fragmented infrastructure development toward more integrated approaches.

Speakers

– Helen Ng
– Kishor Narang

Arguments

Multi-hazard considerations, interdependency understanding, short-term political thinking, and budget constraints create barriers

Unified digital infrastructure approach reduces carbon footprint and improves cyber-security compared to siloed systems

Topics

Infrastructure | Sustainable development | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of human capacity building and education across multiple levels, from basic education to professional development. They both highlighted the need for international collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Benjamin Frisch

Arguments

Capacity building through training and education at multiple levels from primary school to professional development

International collaboration across member states and open global participation crucial for scientific advancement

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Key takeaways

Resilience requires both prevention (designing systems to withstand disruption) and recovery capabilities (bouncing back quickly from failures)

Cross-sectoral collaboration is essential because infrastructure systems are interdependent – failure in one sector cascades to others

Resilience and sustainability are interconnected concepts, with resilience being a subset of sustainability that enables long-term development

Legacy systems present challenges but can be evolved gradually through standards development and proactive investment rather than complete replacement

Open collaboration and ecosystem creation are crucial for developing technologies that serve broader societal needs beyond their original purpose

Capacity building and education at multiple levels (from primary school to professional development) are fundamental to building resilient systems

Multi-stakeholder partnerships involving government, academia, industry, and civil society are necessary for effective resilience implementation

Standards development must balance consensus-building time requirements with the need to adapt to rapidly changing technology

Resolutions and action items

Mike Mullane proposed setting up a WhatsApp group to continue the conversation after the session

Invitation extended for participants to join a wider conversation platform for ongoing idea exchange and potential future meetings

Contact information provided (mmu.iec.ch) for those interested in continued collaboration

Mention of a follow-up session on Friday focusing on AI and multimedia authentication project

Unresolved issues

How to prevent standards from becoming outdated by the time they are published given rapid technological change

How to ensure stable supply and financing for infrastructure operators as resources shift to higher-value applications like AI

How to effectively balance the energy consumption of AI systems with sustainability goals

How to overcome short-term political thinking that prevents investment in long-term resilience infrastructure

How to create common understanding of resilience definitions across different governments and organizations

How to address the challenge that developing countries face in choosing which standards to implement given long development cycles

Suggested compromises

Developing principles for resilient infrastructure rather than attempting to create universal definitions that lead to circular debates

Using evolutionary rather than revolutionary approaches to upgrade legacy systems over time

Implementing technical specifications as faster alternatives while waiting for full standards development

Creating unified digital infrastructure for civic and critical services while allowing private sector flexibility

Focusing on regional action plans that combine global expertise with local knowledge and implementation capacity

We’ve become so dependent on the internet that when the power goes out, or the roads are blocked, or a mobile doesn’t work, everything else stops. And it’s no longer a technical luxury, but a societal necessity.

Speaker

Maarten Botterman

Reason

This comment reframes resilience from a technical problem to a societal imperative. It highlights the fundamental shift in how we must approach infrastructure – moving from ‘time to market’ thinking to ‘reliability first’ thinking because society now depends on these systems for basic functioning.

Impact

This observation set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing that resilience isn’t optional anymore – it’s existential. It led other speakers to discuss cross-sectoral dependencies and influenced the conversation toward viewing resilience as foundational rather than supplementary.

So many of the, especially the small island development states, you know, they don’t have the luxury of bouncing back or, you know, recovering. So it’s just, they’re always stuck in this cycle of… it’s like you’re in a way, if you’re constantly being hit by something, you don’t have time to recover.

Speaker

Helen Ng

Reason

This comment powerfully illustrates the inequality in resilience capacity and challenges the Western-centric view of ‘bouncing back.’ It reveals that for some communities, the traditional definition of resilience (recovery after disaster) is inadequate – they need prevention-focused approaches.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from theoretical resilience concepts to real-world constraints and equity issues. It influenced subsequent conversations about the importance of designing resilience into systems from the start, rather than relying on post-disaster recovery.

In India our utilities were not smart even that time in 2015… we had a choice that whether we go the same way we make each utility everyone smart and then we go city. I said no it’s a chance to leapfrog… instead of 10 different ICT network in the same city, now I have one well-architected.

Speaker

Kishor Narang

Reason

This comment introduces the powerful concept of leapfrogging as a resilience strategy. It demonstrates how constraints can become opportunities for more resilient design, and challenges the assumption that developed nations’ approaches are the only model.

Impact

This comment energized the discussion and prompted Maarten to emphasize leapfrogging opportunities globally. It shifted the conversation from viewing developing nations as behind to seeing them as potentially ahead in resilient design approaches.

We design things that we’re going to operate in 10 or 15 years from now… we discuss a project called the Future Circular Collider that would start operating earliest in 2047. And you have a project plan that goes until the late 2090s.

Speaker

Benjamin Frisch

Reason

This comment introduces an entirely different temporal dimension to resilience thinking. While others discuss immediate challenges, CERN operates on generational timescales, requiring fundamentally different approaches to future-proofing and community building.

Impact

This expanded the discussion’s time horizon and influenced conversations about long-term sustainability and the importance of open collaboration. It demonstrated that true resilience requires thinking beyond typical planning cycles.

Is AI the new plastic in 21, 22?… AI is really a carbon energy guzzler… Still, AI ecosystem is still not listening to the sustainability aspect.

Speaker

Kishor Narang

Reason

This provocative analogy challenges the uncritical adoption of AI by comparing it to plastic – initially seen as revolutionary but later recognized as environmentally destructive. It forces consideration of AI’s hidden costs to resilience and sustainability.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical perspective on AI that influenced the subsequent discussion about the need to balance technological advancement with environmental responsibility. It connected the dots between AI adoption and infrastructure resilience challenges.

If you don’t think about guaranteeing a minimum of finance or a minimum of supply to those who are operating the infrastructure, everything could collapse… Make sure that there is a stable supply to the infrastructure operators.

Speaker

Audience member from AFNIC

Reason

This comment identifies a critical but often overlooked aspect of resilience – the economic sustainability of infrastructure operators. It highlights how market forces directing money toward ‘sexy’ applications like AI could undermine basic infrastructure resilience.

Impact

This intervention near the end of the discussion added an important economic dimension that hadn’t been fully explored. It emphasized that resilience isn’t just technical but requires sustainable business models for infrastructure operators.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about resilience into a nuanced exploration of systemic, temporal, and equity dimensions. The conversation evolved from defining resilience to understanding its societal implications, from Western-centric approaches to global perspectives including leapfrogging opportunities, and from short-term fixes to generational thinking. The comments created a progression that moved beyond traditional disaster recovery concepts to encompass prevention, sustainability, and the complex interdependencies of modern infrastructure. Most importantly, they established that resilience is not just about technical robustness but about social equity, economic sustainability, and long-term thinking – making the discussion far more comprehensive and actionable than a purely technical treatment would have been.

How do you go about ensuring that your strategies are as inclusive as possible?

Speaker

Mike Mullane

Explanation

This question was directed to Helen Ng about UNDRR’s approach to inclusivity in disaster risk reduction strategies, indicating a need to understand best practices for stakeholder engagement.

How do you confront the problem of legacy equipment when security by design isn’t always possible?

Speaker

Mike Mullane

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenge of implementing resilience measures in existing infrastructure that wasn’t originally designed with modern security and resilience principles.

To what extent are sustainability and resilience becoming synonyms?

Speaker

Mike Mullane

Explanation

This explores the conceptual relationship between two key development paradigms and their practical implications for policy and implementation.

How do we prevent standards from being outdated by the time they get published, given that things change so fast?

Speaker

Helen Ng

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of keeping standardization processes relevant in rapidly evolving technological and policy environments, particularly important for developing countries seeking guidance.

How can we make sure we always roll, and if there’s a hiccup, that we roll very quickly again?

Speaker

Maarten Botterman

Explanation

This relates to the Marconi Society’s focus on continuous operation and rapid recovery of critical infrastructure systems.

How do you create real open science and open development, and get actual competitors to agree on basic technological parameters?

Speaker

Benjamin Frisch

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of fostering collaboration in competitive environments to develop shared technological foundations for resilient systems.

How do we guarantee a minimum of finance or supply to infrastructure operators when money flows to higher value-added products like AI?

Speaker

Audience member (Pierre from AFNIC)

Explanation

This highlights the economic sustainability challenge of maintaining basic infrastructure when investment flows toward more profitable technologies.

How can we set up integrative university curricula on Internet governance that goes beyond just technologies?

Speaker

Professors from India and Netherlands (mentioned by Maarten Botterman)

Explanation

This addresses the need for comprehensive education that combines technical knowledge with governance understanding for future infrastructure professionals.

How do we create exchange and common understanding between industry and academia for mutual benefit?

Speaker

Benjamin Frisch

Explanation

This explores the mechanisms needed to facilitate knowledge transfer and collaboration between different sectors working on resilient infrastructure.

Summary

This discussion focused on the evolving role of telecommunications regulators as digital ecosystem builders, held as part of the C6 Business Action Line on Enabling Environment during a broader telecommunications conference. The session was organized around the Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR) 2025 consultation question: “What does it take for regulators to become digital ecosystem builders?” Sofie Maddens opened by emphasizing that regulators must transition from traditional supervisors to proactive architects and facilitators of innovation, noting that the digital world has become the main platform for modern life and commerce rather than a separate sector to oversee.

The discussion featured representatives from various regional regulatory associations who shared their experiences and strategies. Ekaterine Imedadze from the Georgian National Communication Commission described how the EBUREC network of five Eastern European countries has strengthened collaboration through working groups focused on regulatory innovation, spectrum management, and roaming services. She emphasized how smaller markets benefit from joint projects and shared learning to become more agile regulators and enablers of digital development.

Xavier Merlin from France’s ARCEP highlighted Fratel’s approach as a French-speaking regulatory network, focusing on three key areas: addressing new regulatory issues like AI and cloud services, developing new regulatory tools such as data-driven regulation and sandboxes, and fostering national cooperation between different regulatory authorities. He stressed the importance of sharing experiences across markets with different maturity levels.

Omar Al Rejraje from Saudi Arabia’s Communication and Space Commission emphasized the regulator’s role in de-risking investment barriers for emerging technologies through regulatory sandboxes and “RegTech” solutions. He advocated for regulators to use emerging technologies internally to better understand and regulate them, while also promoting sustainability through green networks and data centers.

Petros Galides from Cyprus discussed how emerging technologies like AI and big data enable more proactive, evidence-based regulation through tools such as market observatories and geospatial intelligence platforms. He emphasized that cross-sectoral collaboration is essential for addressing complex digital challenges, requiring trust, interoperability, and shared objectives to overcome barriers like protectionism and resource limitations. The session concluded with a call for continued collaboration and contribution to the GSR consultation process, highlighting the collective effort needed to develop best practices for regulatory excellence in the digital age.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Evolution of Regulatory Role**: The transformation of regulators from traditional supervisors to proactive “digital ecosystem builders” who facilitate innovation, manage cross-sector digital environments, and enable sustainable digital transformation rather than just overseeing telecommunications sectors.

– **Innovation in Regulatory Approaches**: The need for regulators to adopt new tools and methodologies including regulatory sandboxes, data-driven regulation, RegTech (regulatory technology), and agile frameworks that can keep pace with rapid technological change and emerging technologies like AI, 5G, and satellite communications.

– **Cross-Border and Cross-Sectoral Collaboration**: The critical importance of strengthening cooperation between regulatory authorities across regions and sectors, with regional regulatory associations (like EBERG, Fratel, EMERGE, ARGNET) serving as key platforms for harmonization, capacity building, and knowledge sharing.

– **Technology Integration for Regulatory Excellence**: How regulators can leverage emerging technologies like AI, big data, blockchain, and cloud computing not just as subjects of regulation but as tools to enhance their own regulatory processes, decision-making, and market monitoring capabilities.

– **Capacity Building and Institutional Development**: The necessity for regulators to develop new skills, mindsets, and organizational structures to handle the complexity of digital ecosystems, including cybersecurity expertise, data analytics capabilities, and collaborative frameworks with other authorities.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion was part of the ITU’s Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR) 2025 consultation process, specifically focused on developing best practice guidelines for how telecommunications regulators can evolve into “digital ecosystem builders.” The session aimed to gather insights from regional regulatory associations and authorities to inform the GSR best practice guidelines and prepare for the broader digital transformation challenges facing regulators globally.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional, collaborative, and forward-looking tone throughout. Participants demonstrated enthusiasm for sharing experiences and best practices, with a constructive focus on practical solutions and regional cooperation. The tone was optimistic about the potential for regulatory evolution while acknowledging the significant challenges ahead. There was a sense of urgency about adapting to rapid technological change, but this was balanced with confidence in the collective ability of regulators to meet these challenges through collaboration and innovation.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Ahmed El-Raghy** – Working from the Regulatory and Market Environment team in the ITU, session moderator

– **Sofie Maddens** – Chief of Digital Knowledge Society Department in BDT, delivered opening remarks on behalf of the BDT Director

– **Youlia Lozanova** – ITU colleague, provided foundation background on the GSR consultation process and best practice guidelines

– **Ekaterine Imedadze** – Commissioner of Georgian National Communication Commission and outgoing chairperson for the EBUREC (Eastern Europe Regulatory Association)

– **Omar Al Rejraje** – Deputy Governor of the Space Communication Commission of Saudi Arabia, representing ARGNET for the Arab region

– **Xavier Merlin** – Board member of ARCEP and representative of FRATEL

– **Petros Galides** – Deputy Commissioner at the Cyprus Regulatory Authority of Electronic Communication and Postal Service, chairing of the EMERGE (Euro-Mediterranean area)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Louis Sakala** – Director General of ARCEP Congo (mentioned as expected participant but unclear if actually participated in the discussion)

# Comprehensive Summary: Regulators as Digital Ecosystem Builders – GSR 2025 Consultation Discussion

## Introduction and Context

This discussion, held as part of the C6 Business Action Line on Enabling Environment during a broader telecommunications conference, focused on the evolving role of telecommunications regulators as digital ecosystem builders. The session was organised around the Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR) 2025 consultation question: “What does it take for regulators to become digital ecosystem builders?” The discussion was moderated by Ahmed El-Raghy from the ITU’s Regulatory and Market Environment team and featured representatives from various regional regulatory associations sharing their experiences and strategies for regulatory transformation.

The session formed part of the ITU’s GSR consultation process, which aims to develop best practice guidelines for regulatory excellence. As Youlia Lozanova explained, this year’s consultation uniquely focuses on the regulatory institution itself rather than just regulatory practices, representing a significant shift in approach. The consultation process welcomes contributions from governments, regulators, private sector, and civil society to develop annual best practice guidelines that serve as what Sofie Maddens described as “a dynamic chronicle of collective wisdom and global regulatory blueprint for digital development.”

## Opening Framework: The Transformation Imperative

Sofie Maddens, Chief of Digital Knowledge Society Department in BDT, delivered opening remarks on behalf of Dr. Cosmas Lakissan Zavazava, Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau, establishing the conceptual framework for the entire discussion. She emphasised that regulators must fundamentally transform their approach, stating: “We must transition from being traditional supervisors into proactive architects and facilitators of innovation. Our task is to cultivate agile digital ecosystems where investment is secure, competition is fair, and development brings a truly sustainable digital world for all.”

Maddens highlighted that the digital world has become the main platform for modern life and commerce rather than a separate sector to oversee. This transformation requires regulators to move beyond traditional oversight roles to become enablers of innovation and digital development. She positioned regional regulatory associations as “engines of harmonisation and catalysts for capacity building,” emphasising their critical role in facilitating this transformation across different markets and regulatory contexts.

Youlia Lozanova provided foundational background on the GSR consultation process, explaining that there is “an innovation culture that regulators need to develop to approach regulatory challenges in a more efficient way.” She outlined the four main parts of the consultation: fostering innovation, regulatory capacity, technology integration, and cross-border cooperation. Lozanova emphasised that regulators need to proactively integrate new technologies into their core operations and adopt new tools for timely decision-making, noting the need for “new thinking around capacities, skills, and mindsets required for regulatory transformation.”

Lozanova detailed several collaboration themes emerging from the consultation, including making collaboration results-driven, establishing harmonisation priorities, building shared learning infrastructure, coordinating around data, tools, and standards, using cooperation for digital sovereignty, and integrating international perspectives into national work. She noted that 48 contributions had been received so far in the consultation process, with guidelines available in the six ITU and UN official languages.

## Regional Perspectives on Regulatory Evolution

### Eastern European Approach: Collaborative Networks and Agile Development

Ekaterine Imedadze, Commissioner of Georgian National Communication Commission and outgoing chairperson for EBERG (Eastern Europe Regulatory Association), described how the network of five countries – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova – has strengthened collaboration through working groups focused on regulatory innovation, spectrum management, and roaming services. She explained that “the role of regulator has evolved from just watching the market to becoming enablers of digital development.”

Imedadze emphasised how smaller markets benefit from joint projects and shared learning to become more agile regulators. She noted that “small networks of interconnected countries can more quickly tackle emerging challenges through shared experiences,” highlighting the advantage of focused regional cooperation. The EBERG approach demonstrates how working groups with international experts provide “huge flexibility for innovation and benchmarking of regulators,” enabling rapid adaptation to emerging challenges.

### French-Speaking Network: Diversity as Strength

Xavier Merlin, Board member of ARCEP and representative of FRATEL, highlighted the French-speaking regulatory network’s approach across regions in America, Africa, and Europe, focusing on three key areas: addressing new regulatory issues like AI and cloud services, developing new regulatory tools such as data-driven regulation and sandboxes, and fostering national cooperation between different regulatory authorities.

Merlin made a particularly thought-provoking argument about the value of diversity in regulatory networks, stating: “I really don’t believe that difference of maturity in digital markets between members is really an issue. And on the contrary, I would even think it’s something very interesting and very rich in our exchange because if everybody were saying the same thing, there would be no purpose for exchange.” This perspective suggests that diversity rather than uniformity should be valued in regulatory cooperation.

He stressed that “the purpose of networks is to share questions, experiences, good practices and bad practices, and to anticipate future challenges,” emphasising learning over standardisation. Merlin advocated for “new regulatory tools like data-driven regulation and sandboxes” as necessary for fast-moving environments, suggesting these approaches may be more appropriate than traditional regulatory decision-making processes.

### Arab Region: Technology Integration and Innovation Promotion

Omar Al Rejraje, Deputy Governor of the Space Communication Commission of Saudi Arabia, representing ARGNET for the Arab region, provided a comprehensive vision for regulatory transformation. He argued that “regulators should evolve from normal regulators to ecosystem builders, experiment adapters, and innovation promoters,” outlining a clear progression of institutional development. Al Rejraje noted that Saudi Arabia has been “ranked number one in the G20 for the Digital Maturity Index.”

Al Rejraje emphasised the regulator’s role in de-risking investment barriers for emerging technologies through regulatory sandboxes and “RegTech” solutions. He mentioned launching “the third cohort of the sandbox solution” with expectations for graduation “by the end of this year.” He made a compelling case for internal technology adoption, stating: “You cannot regulate what you don’t understand, and you cannot enable what you don’t understand. So for us, if you want to walk the walk, we need to use this emerging tech. to be able to utilise and try this in our regulation, in our inside, let’s say, regulatory body in the market.”

His approach to RegTech was particularly innovative, describing it as “not just a tool but a strategic enabler for trust and speed to make regulation as fast as innovation.” Al Rejraje provided specific examples including “blockchain for sender IDs” and advocated for promoting sustainability through green networks and data centres. He mentioned that Saudi Arabia and DCO have developed a sustainability toolkit for digital development that could be shared globally.

### Euro-Mediterranean Perspective: Cross-Sectoral Collaboration

Petros Galides, Deputy Commissioner at the Cyprus Regulatory Authority of Electronic Communication and Postal Service, chairing EMERGE (comprising 27 members from European, EU and non-EU, and Mediterranean countries), discussed how emerging technologies like AI and big data enable more proactive, evidence-based regulation. He mentioned specific tools including “market observatory, numbering and licensing tool, learning management system, and geospatial intelligence tool.”

Galides provided crucial balance to the technology-focused discussion by emphasising that “technology enables smarter regulation, but it’s the human and institutional collaboration that ensures it is used wisely.” He stressed that cross-sectoral collaboration is essential for addressing complex digital challenges, requiring trust, interoperability, and shared objectives to overcome barriers.

He identified specific barriers that hinder collaboration between authorities, including “protectionism, defensiveness, silos, lack of trust, ignorance, legal obstacles, and resource limitations.” Galides argued that “cross-sectoral and global collaboration is essential as no single authority can tackle complex digital challenges alone,” emphasising that regulators are “co-creators of the healthy and innovative digital system we witness today.”

## Key Areas of Agreement and Consensus

The discussion revealed strong consensus among speakers on several fundamental points, despite their different regional contexts and regulatory environments.

### Fundamental Role Transformation

All speakers agreed that regulators must fundamentally transform from passive oversight entities to active facilitators and builders of digital ecosystems. This consensus was evident across all regional representatives, who consistently emphasised moving beyond traditional supervisory roles to become enablers of innovation and digital development.

### Innovation in Regulatory Approaches

There was strong agreement on the need for innovative regulatory approaches, including sandboxes and data-driven regulation, to keep pace with rapidly evolving digital technologies and markets. Speakers consistently emphasised that traditional regulatory tools are insufficient for fast-moving digital environments.

### Critical Importance of Cooperation

All speakers emphasised that regional cooperation and networks are essential for effective regulation, enabling knowledge sharing, capacity building, and collective problem-solving in the digital age.

### Technology Integration Necessity

Speakers agreed that regulators must actively use and integrate emerging technologies in their own operations to better understand and regulate these technologies effectively.

## Areas of Different Emphasis

While there was broad consensus on fundamental principles, speakers emphasised different approaches and priorities.

### Harmonisation Versus Diversity

A notable difference in emphasis emerged between Xavier Merlin and Sofie Maddens regarding the purpose of regulatory networks. Merlin emphasised that the value comes from diversity of experiences and sharing different approaches, while Maddens described regional associations as “engines of harmonisation” that create coherent landscapes for cross-border services. This represents different perspectives on how regional regulatory networks should balance standardisation with innovation.

### Methodological Emphasis Differences

While speakers agreed on the need for innovative regulatory approaches, they emphasised different methods and tools. Al Rejraje focused heavily on sandboxes and RegTech as primary solutions, Merlin advocated for data-driven regulation, while Galides emphasised AI and big data integration for evidence-based regulation.

## Technology Integration and RegTech Development

A significant theme throughout the discussion was the integration of technology into regulatory operations themselves. Al Rejraje’s concept of RegTech as “a strategic enabler for trust and speed to make regulation as fast as innovation” represented a particularly advanced approach to this integration.

Galides complemented this perspective by discussing how AI and big data enable more proactive, evidence-based regulation through various technological tools. However, he also emphasised the importance of ensuring that human and institutional collaboration guides the wise use of these technologies.

## Sustainability and Environmental Integration

Al Rejraje highlighted the integration of sustainability considerations into digital regulatory frameworks, mentioning promoting sustainability through green networks and data centres, and referencing a sustainability toolkit developed by Saudi Arabia and DCO that could be shared globally.

## Future Directions and Action Items

The discussion concluded with several concrete next steps:

### GSR Consultation Process

Participants were encouraged to continue contributions to the GSR consultation process until the end of August. The first draft of GSR Best Practice Guidelines will be published within two weeks of the session, with final guidelines to be adopted at the Heads of Regulators Roundtable meeting at GSR in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (1st to the 3rd of September with the 31st of August being dedicated to a master class).

### Integration with Broader Processes

The insights from this discussion will be integrated into the broader WSIS 20 review process, ensuring that regulatory transformation considerations are incorporated into wider digital development frameworks.

### Knowledge Sharing Initiatives

Several speakers mentioned specific tools and frameworks that could be shared more broadly, including Saudi Arabia’s sustainability toolkit and various regional network approaches to capacity building and collaboration.

## Unresolved Challenges and Implementation Questions

The discussion identified several critical challenges requiring further exploration:

### Balancing Agility with Coordination

How to balance harmonised approaches with the need for regulatory agility in fast-moving digital environments remains a key challenge for regional networks and international cooperation.

### Cross-Sectoral Collaboration Mechanisms

While speakers agreed on the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration, specific mechanisms for overcoming identified barriers require further development.

### Capacity Building Requirements

The discussion highlighted the need for comprehensive capacity building, including skills development and cultural change within regulatory organisations, but specific frameworks require further development.

### Inclusive Development Concerns

Questions remain about how advanced regulatory approaches can be adopted without overwhelming developing economies and ensuring regulatory transformation benefits all markets.

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated that the transformation of regulators into digital ecosystem builders is an active process being implemented across different regions and regulatory contexts. The strong consensus on fundamental principles, combined with innovative approaches to implementation, suggests that the regulatory community is well-positioned to meet the challenges of digital ecosystem governance.

The session’s emphasis on human and institutional collaboration alongside technological innovation provides a balanced foundation for sustainable regulatory transformation. As the discussion concluded somewhat abruptly due to room constraints, with Ahmed apologising: “Unfortunately, we have to leave the room for the next meeting. So I’m so sorry for no space for having questions from yours. My apology for that,” it highlighted the ongoing nature of these important conversations.

The ongoing GSR consultation process provides a valuable framework for continuing this work and developing practical guidelines for regulatory excellence in the digital age, building on what represents a quarter-century of collective wisdom in regulatory development.

Ahmed El-Raghy: Welcome everyone, and good afternoon, and maybe good morning, good evening for our online participants. Welcome to C6 Business Action Line Enabling Environment. I’m Ahmad Al-Rakhi, I’m working from the Regulatory and Market Environment team in the ITU, and pleasure to be with you today in this session. We are going to tackle a very crucial topic about ecosystem builder for regulation and shifting the mandate of regulatory authority for this new role. And in the beginning of our session, we wish to have an opening remarks, and I will deliver for Sufi Madness, the Chief of Digital Knowledge Society Department in BDT, on behalf of the BDT Director for his opening remarks. Please, Sufi. Thank you very much, Ahmad,

Sofie Maddens: and good morning, good afternoon, good evening to those who are following online. So I have the honor and pleasure to deliver these opening remarks on behalf of Dr. Cosmas Lakissan Zavazava, who’s the Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau. Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, esteemed representatives of our regional regulatory associations, a very warm welcome to you all. It’s a pleasure to open this session of Action Line C6 on forging the enabling environment for our shared digital destiny. For nearly a quarter of a century, yes, a quarter of a century, the GSR best practice guidelines have served as the global regulatory blueprint for digital development. Far from being set in stone, the guidelines are a dynamic chronicle of our collective wisdom, forged through discussions like today’s, and guiding us through decades of profound change. This is the trusted foundation of tried and tested principles that we build upon today. And this brings me to the profound importance of our current focus, which is framed by the GSR 2025 consultation question, what does it take for regulators to become digital ecosystem builders, which in fact, we will discuss in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from the 1st to the 3rd of September with the 31st of August being dedicated to a master class. Clearly, this question is a call to action as much as a topic for discussion. The digital world is no longer a separate sector to oversee, but the main platform for all of our lives, for modern life, for commerce, for growth. And so regulators have a duty to ensure that it is fit for purpose. As regulators look to modernize and adapt to remain effective, we see all of you issuing consultations that address a broad range of digital issues, from online safety to AI governance, from digital content to intelligent platforms, from 5G networks to Leo satellites, as well as IoT and futuristic agile spectrum. We are seeing developed and emerging countries alike grappling with these issues simultaneously. And at the same time, they must continue to focus on a core mandate, which is universal and meaningful connectivity, together with sustainable digital transformation. So this means the role of the regulator is and must continue to evolve. We must transition from being traditional supervisors into proactive architects and facilitators of innovation. Our task is to cultivate agile digital ecosystems where investment is secure, competition is fair, and development brings a truly sustainable digital world for all. And that came up in the Knowledge Café we just had a while ago, talking about the C6 enabling environment action line. So these issues continue to be raised. Ladies and gentlemen, this vision cannot be raised from a single viewpoint. We must be inclusive. And the role of our regional regulatory associations is absolutely essential. Because you are the engines of harmonization. You create the coherent landscapes needed for cross-border services to flourish together with your membership. You are the catalysts for capacity building, sharing expertise that empowers every regulator to face the challenges of tomorrow. And you provide the critical voice of regional reality, ensuring the blueprints we design are practical, relevant, and effective on the ground. We at ITU, as a team, and as ITU as a whole, are committed to empowering you to lead this change through initiatives like the BDT’s digital regulation network. So we all look forward to a rich and interactive discussion today. And the insights will be shared, will be the bedrock, and enrich the GSR best practice guidelines, which we are actually drafting today, together with the inputs from the consultation. And it will resonate through the broader vision of the WSIS 20 review. Thank you, and looking forward to the discussions. Back to you, Ahmed.

Ahmed El-Raghy: Thank you so much, Sophie, for these insightful remarks. And ladies and gentlemen, as we discussed today, that our discussion will be about the digital ecosystem builder and how regulatory bodies could refine, could redefine their roles based on that. So we will have wonderful executives from the regulatory authorities and also from the regulatory associations, so they can share with us their insights about that. So I wish to introduce our panelists today. So I will start to my left. We have Mr. Omar Regraghi, Deputy Governor of the Space Communication Commission of Saudi Arabia, and also representing the ARGNET for the Arab region. We have Ms. Katrina Imadazi, the Commissioner of Georgian National Communication Commission and also the outgoing chairperson for the EBUREC as Eastern Europe Regulatory Association. We have Mr. Rafeer Merlin, the board member of ARCEP and also representative of FRATEL. And we have our dear friend, Mr. Petrus Gladius, Deputy Commissioner at the Cyprus Regulatory Authority of Electronic Communication and Postal Service and also chairing of the EMERGE, Euro-Mediterranean area. We’re expecting to have Mr. Louis Sakala, the Director General of ARCEP Congo, but I believe he will join us very soon. So ladies and gentlemen, before we start our discussion, we will go for a foundation background. And I wish to give the floor to my colleague, Yulia Lazanova from ITU to give us this foundation background about the discussion

Youlia Lozanova: topic for today. Yulia, please. Thank you very much, Ahmed. And good afternoon to everyone. It’s great to see so many faces in this small room. I think we could have used a bigger room for this discussion. That really is an excellent start for our conversation. And indeed, it is an excellent and very timely opportunity to have you here today to talk about the next chapter of regulation towards building our digital future together. The consultation process that is happening every year in the lead up to GSR is where we invite stakeholders, voices from government, from the private sector, from civil society to come together and to provide the views and the needs, the experiences of all of the different stakeholder groups towards improving regulation and making it more agile and more future facing. I’m seeing many familiar faces in the audience. And for those of you who are from a regulator, you’re very familiar with the Global Symposium for Regulators and the consultation process. For the sake of those who might not have been involved or engaged with this process to this point, I wanted to just give a little bit of a background to introduce that consultation, so we can make the most of the time together and you can understand the setup that we’re working in and the goals that we’re working towards. The open consultation of the Global Symposium of Regulators happens every year in the lead up to the annual event since 2003. And that’s an impressive longevity of the GSR as an event, as a platform, but also the stakeholder consultation. And really speaking to the very great importance that is given to the process itself, but also the outcome of that consultation, which are the annual set of best practice guidelines. And as I mentioned, contributions are welcome from governments, from regulators, from ministries, but also from private sector, from market players, and of course, civil society. And very relevant to this discussion today, we also receive contributions to the best practice guidelines from regulatory associations, from regional regulatory associations. And they’re important since they represent the use of several countries and really express that agenda that is common for region, for sub-region, for a group of countries. The GSR best practice guidelines are developed under the auspices of the chair of GSR and they’re adopted at the heads of regulators meeting which happens right at the start of the annual event. And this year at that meeting, the meeting is not only going to adopt the best practice guidelines, but heads of regulators are also having the very difficult but also very important task to start the conversation on operationalizing the best practice guidelines and really taking them one step further in shaping that enabling environment for their markets, for their ecosystems as we will see for the topic of this year’s consultation. You might be interested to see, I hope you will be, the collection of GSR best practice guidelines. We have more than 20 editions of the guidelines available in the six ITU and UN official languages those are available in a library on our website. And as Sophie mentioned, those guidelines, all of the editions that we have there, they provide a blueprint for regulatory excellence. This is something that is very important since what we’re doing in that process is really distilling the wisdom and the experience of many of you through those very complex processes that regulation and markets are evolving together. Moving on to this year’s topic of the consultation, it is quite unique in the history of GSR since we have every year until now focused on regulation. So what is a regulatory best practice approach instrument that would serve towards a goal? And in that very extensive collection of best practices, we have more specific guidelines on topics like universal access or infrastructure sharing, as we also have guidelines looking at more broadly how to improve connectivity, how to enable digital transformation, so those more complex and more overarching topics. But this time in 2025, we are actually focusing exclusively or almost exclusively on the regulatory institution, on the authority, on the people as well doing regulation. And as part of that lens that we’re having for this year’s edition of the best practice guidelines, we recognize that there are a number of shifts that are operating in the environment. One of the shifts is, of course, that shift from regulatory oversight to a more proactive shaping of the enabling environment. And I just wanted to clarify that when we say proactive shaping, we don’t necessarily mean that we will be regulating more or we will be regulating more heavily, but that’s simply to account for the fact that we will be engaging with many more stakeholders in that whole process. And we will be doing that on a continuing basis, not as a one-off exercise. And then another shift that we have been observing for a few years, of course, or over a decade maybe today, is from managing a sector, a vertical, to managing an ecosystem, really providing that foundation for digital societies, for digital economies to happen. And of course, we also need to recognize that regulators are changing operating models from reactive, reacting to change, to more forward-looking and anticipatory in view of that relentless change that we’re experiencing across the board. The question that we have formulated for this year in consultation is around the qualities or the capacities that are necessary for regulators to become an ecosystem builder. So, what does it take for regulators to become ecosystem builders? And as part of that reflection, we have four main parts of the consultation. One is looking at fostering innovation in regulatory approaches. So, of course, there is a lot of innovation happening in markets and that level of innovation regulators need to understand and then find the right response to react to. But that also speaks to the fact that there is an innovation culture that regulators need to develop to be able to approach that exercise in a different way, in a more efficient and more appropriate way in the current circumstance. And then the second pillar of the consultation or the second area that we’re looking at is regulatory capacity. So, of course, this is a very major, very traditional mainstay of the regulatory institution of regulators. We’re looking at mandates, how those need to evolve. We’re looking at capacities, resources from different angles. And really, again, in that bigger perspective of being able to make sense of the changes in the environment and being able to decide which ones of those require regulatory action and what kind of action and which maybe do not require any action. So, certainly, there is a whole new thinking around the capacities, the skills, the mindsets that are needed for that. And, of course, ICT regulators are also having to regulate technologies or certain aspects of those technologies in the market, but they should also proactively look for ways to integrate those technologies in their core operations, adopting new tools, adopting new ways of working in order to make available that data that they need on a timely basis to make various regulatory decisions. So, certainly, there is a lot around that discussion on what are the tools, what is the data, what are the new ways of integrating new technologies into the regulators’ work. And then, of course, the fourth pillar of this consultation is what is the most appropriate and the most relevant part of the consultation for this discussion, which is around cross-border cooperation and how to strengthen that. And we have received so far 48 contributions from governments, from private sector, from civil society, and it has been incredibly interesting and very insightful to discover all the various practical and strategic means that they have identified towards strengthening that cooperation. So, we wanted to provide some of the ideas or the general areas where we think we can provide a foot for thought for this panel. The first one is about making collaboration results driven. And, of course, we’ve been engaging in that discussion about orientation towards results. This time, we’re really engaging with that topic at the international level and at the regional level and recognizing that collaboration is good, but results are important, and this is something that should be driving that collaboration. Of course, we also have here the issue of harmonization. This is a very established, very longstanding area of international cooperation. In this day and time, it is also very clear that we cannot engage or harmonize on absolutely every topic. So, there is a sense of prioritization that needs to be operated also at that level to make sure that we address the issues that are the most important, that matter the most. And then, of course, there is a capacity building component, and I mean capacity building in a broader sense. We’ve formulated it here as building shared learning infrastructure, but that’s simply to recognize that we’re looking at learning at the regional or international level from the various experiences that various countries and regulators have been able to accumulate, but also sharing that experience with the community and making sure that we have a collective learning curve through that uncertain and very fast-changing environment. Coordination around data, tools, and standards also stands out as one of the topics potentially of interest and importance for international collaboration as well. And I think your experience might be speaking to that. Using specific indicators, specific tools at the national level does not really read the really offer the opportunity to aggregate trends or patterns or discussions at the regional level, so certainly there might be something to be done there, again, using those new technologies. One of the themes that have come also strong through the contributions was about using international cooperation and regional representation as a platform to assert the regional voice and stand up for digital sovereignty of countries, of regions as well. Forums like WSIS, platforms like ITU are certainly places where that conversation happens and where those regional positions can be elevated. And of course, there is, last but not least, really, a very strong component in that discussion that we have been able to identify, which is about integrating that international perspective into the rest of the regulators’ work, into the national perspective, so really understanding international cooperation not as an add-on, not as something separate or additional or accessory to the work on national priorities, but something that is really dynamically and organically linked to those national agendas. So certainly, we offer those thoughts for you and for your discussion, and I’m just going to give you a quick timeline so you know how that process is going to continue from now on before I wrap up. 48 contributions received today, we’re still open for contributions, so we are happy to hear your feedback here, your views, but we’re also happy to receive your contributions in a written format until the end of the consultation at the end of August. We will be publishing a draft, a first draft of the GSR Best Practice Guidelines in probably in the next two weeks, again, that would be a process done under the auspices of the GSR Chair, of the GSR25 Chair, and that draft is also going to be open for comments on our website until the Heads of Regulators Roundtable meeting at GSR, where the guidelines are going to be adopted. And I think I will stop here, we have just included in the online presentation a little slide on all of the various activities that are linked to regulatory work and best practices and experiences, and I wish you a very insightful panel.

Ekaterine Imedadze: Thank you so much, Julia, and I wish to go directly for our executive today and allow me to start with Katrina. So Katrina, from your experience and engagement in EBERG, how do you see the strategies, the main strategies to cultivate innovation as a culture for regulatory development? And also, how do you see the balance between harmonized approaches and agility at the same time? How to balance between the risk and opportunity in this innovative development? Please, Katrina. Good afternoon, dear colleagues, Excellencies, it’s a real pleasure that we have first physical meeting for the DRN board, and when we’ve learned about this opportunity or initiative, let’s say, I think that EBERG is one of the networks, quite a years we have as a network, it will count, so 15 years since establishing the partnership network, but it is always a great opportunity for the network of small markets, small countries to become part of a larger network, and DRN was called Network of Networks, I remember this motto. And I can tell, I can share that throughout the years of EBERG, let me give you a quick information for the audience that at EBERG, we are five countries, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, so we have also motto, together we are stronger, and now we are becoming even stronger with global network participation as a DRN part, and our approach throughout the years, so we have three main pillars of work, which is a legacy, classical role of regulators, this is working on regulatory innovation, independence, story, and benchmarking, so you were mentioning actually the transforming regulations, so one of the our working groups is exactly about, it was called initially independence and benchmarking, so we work a lot about the institutional development, and we work with our international partners to understand where we stand as the participants of the network from organizational perspective, and where we can move from the best practices. Another group is about the spectrum, which is also the big topic everywhere, especially with evolving technologies, whether now we are moving to space and satellites, always the spectrum group is very important, before that spectrum group was working, engaged with 5G technology and all the advanced technologies, and the third one, it was specifically for our region, it is roaming working group, but it has a lot, it has done by now a lot of work with traditional telecom services, like interconnection, which always remains our primary role and legacy, so these three pillars helped us to find out what are the areas where we can develop, and as a small, some of us are quite smaller market, Ukraine is of course the bigger one, but actually doing the projects jointly helped us a lot to move forward, and to find like donor organizations who would help us with capacity building and transform ourselves, and what we’ve learned, what we understood quite quickly, and maybe this large exchange of the experience and support from the EU, which was always substantial, but also supporting each other with experience has helped us a lot to become more agile regulators, and what does it mean, that as you have mentioned, we understand that role of regulator is no more just watching the market, not just, but watching the market and regulating, it’s already for a few years or maybe always almost a decade, we need to become enablers, because market is transforming and digital is cross-cutting, it’s not anymore like the telecommunication and direct connection by phone, but this is a digital, this is enabler of digital development of the country, this was I guess the first understanding for especially maybe smaller countries, and this is that it’s quicker, you need to adapt to a new digital landscape, and regulator is a very good enabler, and can play very good role in this enablement process, so we were exchanging our experiences with 5G rollouts, how we are going to approach, how we are going to distribute frequencies, and through this working groups, it was, and in those working groups were not only five countries, but international experts included, so this gives a huge flexibility, for this is for the innovation, for the benchmarking of regulators, again we had international experts, and we could learn how regulators are changing, transforming their capacities, for example, I think, which is, was quite new few years ago, this cyber security capacities, we’ve learned how they are, I think, it’s a scarce resource to find security experts, and yeah, can you do it, or maybe it’s more wishful thinking, but still, so this was in another direction, then same with roaming, when we were discussing specifically EU roaming approach, we learned a lot about the interconnection, about the market, about the MVNO same, so this is how we are, and maybe being, maybe smaller network, but very much interconnected, helped us to quicker tackle, the same was with Starlink, for example, sharing how we gave the authorization, what were our, I mean, the satellite company, Starlink was one of the first entrants in our region, so this is our journey, and we are really happy to be now part of TRN network, where we can discuss with wider pillars of digital, so we’re still looking from the the perspective, which is still coming from our legacy roles, that I was mentioning now, but as far as digital is in every pillar of economy, it’s very important at the, this kind of the networks, and the boards, to understand what are other geographies and other sectors doing. Thank you.

Ahmed El-Raghy: Thank you so much, Ekaterina. That’s a very interesting journey and very interesting plan. And as you highlighted, many pillars needed for this cultivating of innovations in the regulatory framework. So I would like to go to Mr. Merland. Being a regulator in advanced digital market and also working with fratel diversified economies in that position, how do you see advanced regulatory approach be adopted to foster innovation without overwhelming developed economies? What be the crucial lessons from advanced markets as I said, working in France and to promote and help members and fratel to be more efficient digital ecosystem builders?

Xavier Merlin: Please, Mr. Merland. Thank you very much, Hamid, for your presentation and question. And good afternoon, everybody. First of all, I will start by recalling what fratel is because I’m not sure everybody knows about fratel. Fratel is a network of regulator which was created 20 years ago. And what those regulators have in common is not a regional area, but it’s a language. It’s French. And that is very specific because that means that not all members of fratel are, of course, located in the same area. There are members in America, in Africa, in Europe, notably. But the fact that they have French in common also means that they have, to some extent, their legal framework has something in common because they have common grounds. It’s not identical. They are not identical, but they are built on common principles. That’s, of course, important for the discussions we have. Regarding the issue of maturity, I’d like to address this very quickly. I really don’t believe that difference of maturity in digital markets between members is really an issue. And on the contrary, I would even think it’s something very interesting and very rich in our exchange because if everybody were saying the same thing, there would be no purpose for exchange. But we have common problems and different experiences. And that’s where it becomes interesting to share. It’s also interesting, as Ekaterine has recalled, to say that historically we’re all telco regulators and now we are moving in digital world, which is something a little bit different with different actors, different problems, different scopes. And of course, we’re all confronted to global players, global digital services and social concerns, which are more or less the same in all our countries. So, what are we doing at Fratel? I would say that the purpose of this network is absolutely not to harmonize. That would be nonsense. It’s really to share questions, to share experiences, to share good practices and also bad practices, and to anticipate. It’s really to have a step forward to be sure to understand what comes next because, as has been said before, our regulatory environment, our environment is moving very fast and we need to understand and have as many keys to address this. So, I would personally categorize the work that is done within Fratel in three parts. The first one would be new regulatory issues, which is about the content of our policy. What kind of policy do we need to implement to address new subjects like satellite, like digital services, like artificial intelligence, like cloud, which are objects that we didn’t know about a few years ago. Is there a need for regulation? What kind of regulation? And then, of course, France can share its experience as France and as a member of the European Union because you know that some of these issues are relevant for European regulation as well. So, that would be the first area, is new regulatory issues, new regulatory topics. The second issue I would underline is new regulatory tools. As has been said by Julia in her presentation, we are all facing the question of how to regulate in a moving environment, fast-moving environment, what kind of tools are pertinent and appropriate to regulate. Historically, the regulator took decisions, but that is a long process, it’s very complicated, it’s not always adapted to the situation. So, we try to identify new possible ways to regulate. I’ll just give one example, which we call data-driven regulation, which is not about providing decisions but providing data. And giving serious data to the market is a way of indicating what happens in the market, sharing this information between all actors and giving messages, encouraging them to move in the direction without imposing anything, which is very comfortable for a regulator because it has nothing to do, almost nothing to do. But that’s a way to move forward and that’s one of the new tools. There are also sandboxes, it’s something which many regulators have been using, which can seem very appropriate. And I would say that those tools are very useful in an environment where you don’t really know, you have new social concerns emerging, but you don’t really know how far your regulator can engage in this direction. That’s the case, for example, for RCEP in the environment issue, because we started to work on the question of the impact of digital environment before having any competence on this issue. So, that’s where we started to publish data and then we gained competence from the parliament. But that kind of thinking about how we can regulate is something very important. And last but not least is about cooperation, but not international cooperation. I would address national cooperation. Why? Because digital is a very complex universe with many issues. There are competition issues, there are technical issues, there are sovereignty issues, there are, as you said, security issues, there are privacy issues, and not a single regulator can have in his hands, at least not in France, all this competence. So, that means we need to start working with our fellow partners, regulators, or public authorities competent in this field, and then exchanging our experience at Fratel on this issue is very pertinent, because we see how in certain countries there are new ways of addressing issues, how certain regulators already have maximum competence on certain issues, etc. So, that’s a way of trying to address the very vast scope of competence that are required by digital competence and digital regulation. I will stop here just by saying that I think that the presentation that I gave of this scope is very much in line with the consultation you underlined, and we are very happy to contribute to this. Thank you.

Ahmed El-Raghy: Thank you so much, Mr. Murnau. Very interesting having these new ways of regulation that are driven one and also how to develop the regulatory framework to achieve this kind of new role for the regulators. So, I would like to go to Mr. Egraghi, representing the Argnet and coming from the Middle East region, Arab region, and having a leading and significant digital transformation initiative also in Saudi Arabia. From your perspective, how regulatory framework adopt to support this kind of huge investment in emerging technologies? How to ensure this kind of investment could be translated to more sustainable and inclusive digital ecosystem?

Omar Al Rejraje: Please, Mr. Egraghi. Thank you, Ahmed. It’s my pleasure to be here with the distinguished guests and everyone here in the room. Whenever we mention investment in the emerging tech, five things come to mind, always in the investor’s mind, whether scalability of the service or the solution, the innovation in that solution, the growth, the risk. And when I say the risk, always the risk lies under the regulators or the market dynamics. So, that’s why the purpose or the main object for the regulator is to de-risk these issues. Instead of regulating it and do, let’s say, rule enforcement, it should be de-risking all the elements that are not enabling the solution or the service or the technology to be adapted, to be launched, to be going forward in that direction. So, as you mentioned, maybe in the Arab region, there’s a lot of investment activities being done. There’s a lot of emerging tech, let’s say, solution being introduced. And you can see that even in CST, we just, let’s say, ranked number one in the G20. We are honored for that, for the Digital Maturity Index. And it’s not a badge for CST, it’s more into responsibility and that thing that we’re taking into consideration to share the experience and to engage everyone in the region, not to be left behind in this regard. When we say de-risking the factors of not enabling, let’s say, the emerging tech, it came through two different approaches. One approach is using the sandbox. We have just last week launched the third cohort of the sandbox solution in Saudi. We’re enabling space and even different sectors in Saudi to be able to experiment and to use their solution with less restrictions and to try their business models, their solutions in the country freely. So we are expecting that third cohort will be graduating by the end of this year. And also, the second thing we use is direct tech. And why we’re saying direct tech? You cannot regulate what you don’t understand, and you cannot enable what you don’t understand. So for us, if you want to walk the walk, we need to use this emerging tech. to be able to utilize and try this in our regulation, in our inside, let’s say, regulatory body in the market. Can we use cloud, blockchain? Can we use emerging tech in the country so we can see how to work in the regulatory sites? So we believe RIC tech is not a tool. It’s a strategic enabler for trust, for speed, to make regulation fast, as fast as innovation. And we have launched different solutions in the RIC tech in Saudi, such as blockchain for sender IDs, and hopefully by next GSR, we will launch some different solutions also in that event. When we say agility and the speed of innovation, speed of regulation, this creates another risk in the future. Are we catering for this future? Are we looking at that future? What will happen on that? And we have one subject that’s always raised in the future, which is sustainability. That’s why we have worked with the DCO, Digital Cooperation Organization, to make sure, and we have built a toolkit for sustainability, for digital sustainability, to make sure that the carbon footprint, green networks, green data centers being enabled in a toolkit way, an easy way to be adapted by different regulators worldwide. And we are more than happy to share even the experience with everyone and to enhance it more and more. And then I would like to say that to enable emerging tech investment, regulators should evolve. They should evolve from normal regulators to ecosystem builders, to experiment adapters, to innovation promoters. And thank you.

Ahmed El-Raghy: Thank you a lot, Engineer Omar, and really RIC-TEC, experimentation, regulation, are core for such development for regulatory framework. So I wish to go to Mr. Gladius. From your experience and engagement with European regulators, with eMERGE, how you see emerging technologies like AI, big data, and regulatory and cloud computing can be used as a tool for regulatory excellence? What are the most successful institutional mechanisms you have seen for enhancing cross-sectorial cooperation between ICT regulators and other stakeholders? So Petrus, please.

Petros Galides: Thank you. Thank you very much, Moderator, dear Ahmed. Just a few words about eMERGE, as my colleague said. So eMERGE is a Euro-Mediterranean regulators group for electronic communications. It comprises of 27 members, European, EU and not, and essentially all Mediterranean countries. So that’s the background to what eMERGE is. Now regulators are co-creators of the healthy and innovative digital system that we are witnessing today. Now as ex-ante regulators, technologies like AI and big data enable us to be even more proactive and evidence-based. The impact of regulatory measures can be tested in safe environments, as my dear friend Omer has mentioned, before implementation, and even after implementation, they can be monitored in near real-time and be continuously optimized. As was said before, it’s good to try and use these tools so that you are able to also regulate them. We have created some tools in our regulatory authority in Cyprus, like a market observatory, also a numbering and licensing tool, a learning management system, and a geospatial intelligence tool that help us monitor and regulate. All these have been combined on a big data platform, and the non-confidential data in that platform is open to the public. So it can be used by the public to enhance innovation, and of course for more transparency and to further improve trust. Of course for organizations to achieve this and develop, as again has been mentioned before by the colleagues, we require strengthening of institutional capacity and digital skills, and of course a change in culture that is needed as we are evolving and transitioning. And of course we need to ensure effective integration and ethical oversight of AI tools. Now the challenges of the digital age, like digital security and the enhancement of AI, the advancement of AI, are increasingly complex and intertwined. So no single authority or nation, however big or powerful or technologically advanced, can really tackle these challenges. Of course, luckily there is a simple answer, and that is cross-sectoral and global collaboration. This collaboration can be either in the form of loose informal collaboration, or a more official one, say in the form of MOUs, many of which are being signed in this venue during this week, and of course always the active participation in multilateral international platforms like the ITU and regional bodies like the ones represented on this table have proved extremely effective. Now at the national level, the best mechanism that we’ve seen is combined portfolios. So in an integrated structure like telecoms, postal services, digital security, maybe data protection, perhaps competition, any combination of those, or more. But generally, sort of beyond just discussing how important collaboration is, to achieve it in practice, we need to recognize and overcome barriers that really exist and hinder the collaboration between authorities. And this usually, I’m sure most of you have seen them, they are protectionism, defensiveness, introversion, what we call silos, perhaps lack of trust, even ignorance. There may also be legal obstacles, of course, and in many cases, a limitation of resources. So we need to address those and overcome them in order to achieve real collaboration. There have been, of course, many successes. The regional bodies we’ve mentioned before that are here on this table are sort of living examples of successes of collaboration. So trust, interoperability, and shared objectives have been and will be critical success factors for collaboration. So technology enables smarter regulation, but it’s the human and institutional collaboration that ensures it is used wisely.

Ahmed El-Raghy: Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Petrus. And very insightful remarks and technology really enable this kind of technology development. Unfortunately, we have to leave the room for the next meeting. So I’m so sorry for no space for having questions from yours. My apology for that. So by the end of this session, I really would like to thank you so much, our executives and leaders today in the regulatory field. And we look forward to your contribution for the consultation process. Please follow us in the GSR web page for that. And we look forward to see you all in the coming GSR in Riyadh to continue the discussion about the best practice for regulatory development. Thank you so much.

Agreement points

Fundamental transformation of regulatory roles from traditional oversight to proactive ecosystem building

Speakers

– Sofie Maddens
– Ekaterine Imedadze
– Omar Al Rejraje
– Petros Galides

Arguments

Regulators must transition from traditional supervisors to proactive architects and facilitators of innovation

The role of regulator has evolved from just watching the market to becoming enablers of digital development

Regulators should evolve from normal regulators to ecosystem builders, experiment adapters, and innovation promoters

Regulators are co-creators of the healthy and innovative digital system we witness today

Summary

All speakers agree that regulators must fundamentally transform from passive oversight entities to active facilitators and builders of digital ecosystems, moving beyond traditional supervisory roles to become enablers of innovation and digital development.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Importance of regulatory innovation and new approaches to address fast-moving digital environments

Speakers

– Youlia Lozanova
– Xavier Merlin
– Omar Al Rejraje

Arguments

There is an innovation culture that regulators need to develop to approach regulatory challenges in a more efficient way

New regulatory tools like data-driven regulation and sandboxes are needed for fast-moving environments

Sandbox solutions enable experimentation with less restrictions and allow testing of business models freely

Summary

Speakers consensus on the need for innovative regulatory approaches, including sandboxes and data-driven regulation, to keep pace with rapidly evolving digital technologies and markets.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Critical importance of cross-border cooperation and regional networks for effective regulation

Speakers

– Sofie Maddens
– Ekaterine Imedadze
– Xavier Merlin
– Petros Galides

Arguments

Regional regulatory associations are engines of harmonization and catalysts for capacity building

Small networks of interconnected countries can more quickly tackle emerging challenges through shared experiences

The purpose of networks is to share questions, experiences, good practices and bad practices, and to anticipate future challenges

Cross-sectoral and global collaboration is essential as no single authority can tackle complex digital challenges alone

Summary

All speakers emphasize that regional cooperation and networks are essential for effective regulation, enabling knowledge sharing, capacity building, and collective problem-solving in the digital age.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Necessity of integrating new technologies into regulatory operations

Speakers

– Youlia Lozanova
– Omar Al Rejraje
– Petros Galides

Arguments

Regulators need to proactively integrate new technologies into their core operations and adopt new tools for timely decision-making

You cannot regulate what you don’t understand, so regulators must use emerging technologies internally to understand how they work

Technologies like AI and big data enable regulators to be more proactive and evidence-based in their approach

Summary

Speakers agree that regulators must actively use and integrate emerging technologies in their own operations to better understand and regulate these technologies effectively.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the value of international expert involvement in regulatory networks and the importance of sharing diverse experiences rather than harmonizing approaches.

Speakers

– Ekaterine Imedadze
– Xavier Merlin

Arguments

Working groups with international experts provide huge flexibility for innovation and benchmarking of regulators

The purpose of networks is to share questions, experiences, good practices and bad practices, and to anticipate future challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers view technology as a strategic enabler that transforms regulatory capabilities, making regulation more responsive and evidence-based.

Speakers

– Omar Al Rejraje
– Petros Galides

Arguments

RegTech is not just a tool but a strategic enabler for trust and speed to make regulation as fast as innovation

Technologies like AI and big data enable regulators to be more proactive and evidence-based in their approach

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that successful regulatory transformation requires comprehensive capacity building, including skills development and cultural change within regulatory organizations.

Speakers

– Youlia Lozanova
– Petros Galides

Arguments

There is a need for new thinking around capacities, skills, and mindsets required for regulatory transformation

Organizations require strengthening of institutional capacity, digital skills, and cultural change for effective transition

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Regulators as direct users and experimenters with emerging technologies

Speakers

– Omar Al Rejraje
– Petros Galides

Arguments

You cannot regulate what you don’t understand, so regulators must use emerging technologies internally to understand how they work

Technologies like AI and big data enable regulators to be more proactive and evidence-based in their approach

Explanation

The consensus that regulators should actively experiment with and use emerging technologies internally is somewhat unexpected, as it goes beyond traditional regulatory approaches and suggests regulators should become technology adopters and innovators themselves.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Moving away from harmonization as a primary goal of international cooperation

Speakers

– Xavier Merlin
– Ekaterine Imedadze

Arguments

The purpose of networks is to share questions, experiences, good practices and bad practices, and to anticipate future challenges

Small networks of interconnected countries can more quickly tackle emerging challenges through shared experiences

Explanation

There’s unexpected consensus that regulatory networks should focus on sharing diverse experiences rather than harmonizing regulations, which challenges traditional approaches to international regulatory cooperation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the fundamental transformation needed in regulatory approaches, the importance of innovation and technology integration, the critical role of international cooperation, and the need for capacity building. All speakers agree that regulators must evolve from traditional oversight roles to become proactive ecosystem builders.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for regulatory transformation globally. The agreement suggests a paradigm shift in regulatory thinking is already underway across different regions and regulatory contexts, indicating strong momentum for implementing these changes through initiatives like the GSR best practice guidelines.

Different viewpoints

Purpose and approach of regulatory networks

Speakers

– Xavier Merlin
– Sofie Maddens

Arguments

The purpose of networks is to share questions, experiences, good practices and bad practices, and to anticipate future challenges

Regional regulatory associations are engines of harmonization and catalysts for capacity building

Summary

Merlin explicitly argues that harmonization would be ‘nonsense’ for networks like Fratel, emphasizing that the value comes from diversity of experiences rather than creating uniform approaches. In contrast, Maddens describes regional associations as ‘engines of harmonization’ that create coherent landscapes for cross-border services.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Value of market maturity differences in regulatory networks

Speakers

– Xavier Merlin

Arguments

The purpose of networks is to share questions, experiences, good practices and bad practices, and to anticipate future challenges

Explanation

Merlin makes an unexpected argument that differences in digital market maturity between network members is not an issue but rather ‘something very interesting and very rich’ for exchanges. This contrasts with the typical assumption that similar development levels facilitate better cooperation, suggesting that diversity in experience levels actually enhances collaborative learning.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus among speakers on fundamental goals, with only one clear disagreement about harmonization versus diversity in regulatory networks. Most differences relate to emphasis and methodology rather than fundamental disagreements.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications for practical implementation. While speakers largely agree on the need for regulatory transformation and innovation, their different emphases on specific tools and approaches could lead to divergent implementation strategies in practice. The single clear disagreement about harmonization versus diversity represents a fundamental philosophical difference that could significantly impact how regional regulatory networks operate and develop their collaborative frameworks.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the value of international expert involvement in regulatory networks and the importance of sharing diverse experiences rather than harmonizing approaches.

Speakers

– Ekaterine Imedadze
– Xavier Merlin

Arguments

Working groups with international experts provide huge flexibility for innovation and benchmarking of regulators

The purpose of networks is to share questions, experiences, good practices and bad practices, and to anticipate future challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers view technology as a strategic enabler that transforms regulatory capabilities, making regulation more responsive and evidence-based.

Speakers

– Omar Al Rejraje
– Petros Galides

Arguments

RegTech is not just a tool but a strategic enabler for trust and speed to make regulation as fast as innovation

Technologies like AI and big data enable regulators to be more proactive and evidence-based in their approach

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that successful regulatory transformation requires comprehensive capacity building, including skills development and cultural change within regulatory organizations.

Speakers

– Youlia Lozanova
– Petros Galides

Arguments

There is a need for new thinking around capacities, skills, and mindsets required for regulatory transformation

Organizations require strengthening of institutional capacity, digital skills, and cultural change for effective transition

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

Regulators must fundamentally transform from traditional supervisors to proactive digital ecosystem builders and innovation facilitators

Regional regulatory networks are essential for capacity building, harmonization, and sharing experiences across different markets and maturity levels

Innovation culture within regulatory institutions requires new tools like sandboxes, data-driven regulation, and RegTech integration

Cross-sectoral collaboration is critical as digital challenges are too complex for any single authority to address alone

Regulators must use emerging technologies internally to understand and effectively regulate them

The GSR 2025 consultation focuses uniquely on transforming regulatory institutions themselves rather than just regulatory practices

Sustainability and environmental considerations must be integrated into digital regulatory frameworks

Technology enables smarter regulation, but human and institutional collaboration ensures it is used wisely

Resolutions and action items

Continue contributions to the GSR consultation process until the end of August 2025

Publish first draft of GSR Best Practice Guidelines within two weeks of the session

Adopt final guidelines at the Heads of Regulators Roundtable meeting at GSR in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (August 31 – September 3, 2025)

Share sustainability toolkit for digital development developed by Saudi Arabia and DCO with other regulators globally

Integrate insights from this discussion into the broader WSIS 20 review process

Unresolved issues

How to balance harmonized approaches with the need for regulatory agility in fast-moving digital environments

Specific mechanisms for overcoming barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration (protectionism, silos, resource limitations)

Detailed frameworks for implementing RegTech solutions across different regulatory contexts and maturity levels

Concrete measures for ensuring inclusive digital transformation that doesn’t leave developing economies behind

Operational guidelines for transitioning from reactive to anticipatory regulatory models

Specific capacity building requirements and training programs needed for regulatory transformation

Suggested compromises

Focus on prioritized harmonization rather than attempting to harmonize on every regulatory topic

Use informal collaboration mechanisms alongside formal MOUs to enable flexible cross-border cooperation

Implement gradual technology integration through experimentation and sandbox approaches rather than wholesale regulatory overhaul

Combine traditional regulatory oversight with new proactive ecosystem building roles rather than completely abandoning legacy functions

Share both successful and unsuccessful practices among regional networks to enable collective learning

You cannot regulate what you don’t understand, and you cannot enable what you don’t understand. So for us, if you want to walk the walk, we need to use this emerging tech. to be able to utilize and try this in our regulation, in our inside, let’s say, regulatory body in the market.

Speaker

Omar Al Rejraje

Reason

This comment is profoundly insightful because it challenges the traditional regulatory approach of external oversight and proposes internal experimentation as a prerequisite for effective regulation. It introduces the concept that regulators must become practitioners of the technologies they regulate, fundamentally shifting from a supervisory role to an experiential one.

Impact

This comment introduced a new paradigm that influenced the subsequent discussion. It provided concrete justification for the ‘RegTech’ approach and sandbox initiatives, moving the conversation from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation strategies. It also reinforced the theme of regulators as ecosystem builders rather than mere overseers.

We must transition from being traditional supervisors into proactive architects and facilitators of innovation. Our task is to cultivate agile digital ecosystems where investment is secure, competition is fair, and development brings a truly sustainable digital world for all.

Speaker

Sofie Maddens

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reframes the entire regulatory identity from reactive enforcement to proactive ecosystem design. The metaphor of ‘architects and facilitators’ suggests a creative, constructive role rather than a restrictive one, fundamentally challenging traditional regulatory paradigms.

Impact

This opening statement set the conceptual framework for the entire discussion, establishing the central theme that all subsequent speakers built upon. It shifted the conversation from ‘how to regulate better’ to ‘how to become ecosystem builders,’ influencing every panelist to address this transformation in their responses.

I really don’t believe that difference of maturity in digital markets between members is really an issue. And on the contrary, I would even think it’s something very interesting and very rich in our exchange because if everybody were saying the same thing, there would be no purpose for exchange.

Speaker

Xavier Merlin

Reason

This comment challenges the common assumption that regulatory cooperation requires similar levels of market maturity. It reframes diversity as an asset rather than an obstacle, suggesting that different experiences and challenges create more valuable learning opportunities than homogeneous environments.

Impact

This perspective shifted the discussion away from concerns about harmonization challenges toward embracing diversity as a strength. It influenced the conversation to focus on knowledge sharing and mutual learning rather than standardization, affecting how other speakers discussed regional cooperation.

Technology enables smarter regulation, but it’s the human and institutional collaboration that ensures it is used wisely.

Speaker

Petros Galides

Reason

This comment provides a crucial balance to the technology-focused discussion by emphasizing that human elements remain central to regulatory success. It’s insightful because it acknowledges technology’s power while asserting that wisdom and ethical application come from human collaboration, not technological capability alone.

Impact

This comment served as a synthesizing moment that brought together the technological and human aspects discussed throughout the session. It provided a philosophical anchor that reminded participants that despite all the technological innovation, the human and institutional dimensions remain paramount for effective regulation.

Regulators should evolve from normal regulators to ecosystem builders, to experiment adapters, to innovation promoters.

Speaker

Omar Al Rejraje

Reason

This comment crystallizes the transformation journey in clear, progressive stages. It’s thought-provoking because it presents regulatory evolution as a multi-faceted progression rather than a single shift, providing a roadmap for institutional transformation.

Impact

This comment provided a concrete framework for understanding regulatory evolution, giving structure to the abstract concept of becoming ‘ecosystem builders.’ It influenced the discussion by offering actionable categories that other participants could relate to and build upon in their own contexts.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing a new paradigm for regulatory thinking. Rather than focusing on traditional regulatory tools and approaches, the conversation evolved around the central theme of transformation – from supervisors to architects, from external overseers to internal experimenters, and from national authorities to collaborative ecosystem builders. The comments created a progressive narrative that moved from conceptual framework-setting (Maddens) through practical implementation strategies (Al Rejraje’s experimentation approach) to collaborative methodologies (Merlin’s diversity-as-strength perspective) and finally to philosophical synthesis (Galides’ human-technology balance). Together, these insights elevated the discussion beyond technical regulatory matters to address fundamental questions about institutional identity, purpose, and methodology in the digital age. The cumulative effect was a rich exploration of how regulatory authorities can reinvent themselves as proactive shapers of digital futures rather than reactive enforcers of existing rules.

How to operationalize the GSR best practice guidelines in shaping enabling environments for markets and ecosystems

Speaker

Youlia Lozanova

Explanation

This was identified as a very difficult but important task for heads of regulators at the upcoming meeting, suggesting it requires further exploration and practical implementation strategies

How to balance harmonized approaches with agility in regulatory development while managing risk and opportunity in innovative development

Speaker

Ahmed El-Raghy (directed to Ekaterine Imedadze)

Explanation

This addresses the tension between standardization across regions and the need for flexible, rapid regulatory responses to innovation

How advanced regulatory approaches can be adopted to foster innovation without overwhelming developing economies

Speaker

Ahmed El-Raghy (directed to Xavier Merlin)

Explanation

This explores the challenge of transferring sophisticated regulatory practices to markets with different levels of development and resources

How regulatory frameworks can adapt to support huge investments in emerging technologies while ensuring translation to sustainable and inclusive digital ecosystems

Speaker

Ahmed El-Raghy (directed to Omar Al Rejraje)

Explanation

This addresses the need to understand how regulation can facilitate investment while ensuring broader societal benefits

What are the most successful institutional mechanisms for enhancing cross-sectorial cooperation between ICT regulators and other stakeholders

Speaker

Ahmed El-Raghy (directed to Petros Galides)

Explanation

This seeks to identify proven models for collaboration across different regulatory domains and with various stakeholders

How to overcome barriers that hinder collaboration between authorities, including protectionism, defensiveness, silos, lack of trust, ignorance, legal obstacles, and resource limitations

Speaker

Petros Galides

Explanation

These were identified as practical challenges that need addressing to achieve effective cross-sectoral and international regulatory collaboration

How to ensure effective integration and ethical oversight of AI tools in regulatory operations

Speaker

Petros Galides

Explanation

This addresses the need for responsible implementation of AI technologies within regulatory authorities themselves

How to develop data-driven regulation approaches and determine their effectiveness compared to traditional regulatory decisions

Speaker

Xavier Merlin

Explanation

This explores alternative regulatory tools that may be more appropriate for fast-moving digital environments

How to prioritize harmonization efforts when it’s impossible to harmonize on every topic

Speaker

Youlia Lozanova

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenge of selecting which areas deserve harmonization efforts given limited resources and varying priorities

Summary

This discussion focused on intergenerational collaboration in the workplace and the challenges posed by demographic changes in an aging society. The panel, moderated by Raymond Saner, brought together experts to examine how different generations can work together effectively while leveraging technology and addressing age-related vulnerabilities. Alejandro Bonilla-Garcia emphasized that demographic structural changes, which will alter 30-40% of population composition, represent an even greater challenge than climate change. He argued against the paternalistic concept of “leaving no one behind,” advocating instead for giving everyone the opportunity to move forward independently through intergenerational collaboration.

Bonilla-Garcia presented mathematical evidence that multi-age diversity improves results by combining youthful energy and innovation with the experience of older generations. He shared practical examples from the Coffee and Anne Foundation’s mentoring program, where senior professionals successfully mentor young changemakers globally. However, he expressed concern that current AI development is primarily profit-driven by private sectors, potentially undermining collaborative intentions. Professor Bettina Borisch addressed workplace health and well-being in intergenerational settings, noting that modern workplaces now accommodate five generations simultaneously, from silent generation traditionalists to Generation Z.

She emphasized that health is created in places where people live and work, making workplace culture crucial for well-being. Borisch stressed the importance of understanding each generation’s perspective and developing leadership skills appropriate for managing diverse age groups. Lichia Saner-Yiu discussed organizational culture and leadership challenges, highlighting concerns about old-age poverty and social isolation in increasingly digital work environments. She advocated for governance structures that leverage human capital from all age groups and encourage transparent dialogue about work-life phases. The panel concluded that while intergenerational collaboration presents significant opportunities for improved productivity and innovation, it requires deliberate cultural and structural changes to succeed effectively.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Demographic transformation and intergenerational collaboration**: The speakers emphasized that demographic changes (30-40% shifts in population structure) represent a more immediate challenge than climate change, requiring urgent attention to how different generations can work together effectively.

– **Multi-generational workplace dynamics**: The discussion focused on managing five generations simultaneously in modern workplaces (from silent generation to Gen Z), highlighting the mathematical proof that age diversity improves results when properly managed.

– **Knowledge transfer and mentoring systems**: Speakers explored how older workers can mentor younger employees while also learning from them, using examples like the Coffee and Anne Foundation Changemakers Program to demonstrate successful intergenerational partnerships.

– **Technology’s role in bridging or dividing generations**: The panel addressed how digital transformation and AI can either exclude older workers or be leveraged to create more inclusive, accessible workplace tools that benefit all age groups.

– **Workplace health and organizational culture**: Discussion of how workplaces must evolve beyond physical considerations to focus on mental and social environments that support all generations, addressing issues like old-age poverty and creating cultures of transparency and continuous learning.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to explore practical solutions for creating inclusive, multi-generational workplaces that leverage the strengths of all age groups while addressing challenges posed by demographic shifts, technological advancement, and aging populations. The panel sought to move beyond “leaving no one behind” to actively empowering all generations to contribute meaningfully.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a professional yet urgent tone throughout, with speakers expressing both optimism about collaborative possibilities and concern about potential societal fractures. While acknowledging serious challenges (demographic changes, ageism, digital divides), the speakers remained solution-focused and drew on concrete examples of successful intergenerational programs. The tone became slightly rushed toward the end due to time constraints, but remained constructive and forward-looking.

Speakers

– **Raymond Saner**: Moderator/Chair of the session, appears to be involved in aging and ICT research, has been participating in WSIS since 2019

– **Alejandro Bonilla Garcia**: Dr., retired official actuarian from the ILO, currently chair of the UN NGO Committee on Aging, expertise in knowledge management and intergenerational collaboration

– **Lichia Saner-Yiu**: Dr., President of Center for Socioeconomic Development (Geneva-based organization created 32 years ago), focuses on aging, public health, and development, editor of recent publication on aging, economy and productivity, expertise in leadership and organizational culture

– **Vitalija Gaucaite**: Dr., retired chief of the population unit of UNECE, participated virtually

– **Bettina Borisch**: Dr., Professor emeritus of public health, based in Geneva with the Institute of Global Health and medical faculty of the University of Geneva, expertise in workplace health and well-being in intergenerational settings

**Additional speakers:**

– **Angus Yifan Yang**: Prof., from Chengdu, China, was scheduled to participate but couldn’t make it and wasn’t linked virtually

# Intergenerational Collaboration in the Workplace: Navigating Demographic Change and Digital Transformation

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Raymond Saner as part of the ongoing WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) series, examined intergenerational collaboration in an evolving digital workplace. The session, which faced time constraints and technical difficulties, brought together experts to discuss how demographic changes and digital transformation are reshaping workplace dynamics across generations.

The discussion evolved from previous WSIS sessions focused on aging and ICT to broader societal questions about how different generations can work together effectively. Key themes included the urgency of demographic change, mathematical evidence for age diversity benefits, workplace health across generations, and the need for empowerment-based rather than paternalistic approaches to inclusion. Technical difficulties with virtual participation and strict time limits meant the session ended abruptly, with audience questions deferred to individual conversations with panelists.

## Key Participants and Their Contributions

**Raymond Saner** moderated the session, providing context about the WSIS participation since 2019 and the evolution from aging and ICT discussions to broader societal implications. **Dr. Alejandro Bonilla Garcia**, retired ILO official actuarian and current chair of the UN NGO Committee on Aging, presented on demographic change and intergenerational collaboration, arguing that demographic shifts represent a more immediate challenge than climate change. **Dr. Lijia Sano-Yu**, President of the Center for Socioeconomic Development (created 32 years ago), contributed insights on organizational culture and digital transformation, drawing from her role as editor of publications on aging, economy, and productivity.

**Dr. Bettina Borisch**, Professor emeritus of public health at the University of Geneva, discussed workplace health and well-being in multigenerational settings. **Dr. Vitalija Gaucaite**, retired chief of the population unit of UNECE, participated virtually despite technical difficulties to offer brief perspectives on labor market exclusion and digital transformation risks. **Professor Angus Yifan Yang** from Chengdu, China, was unable to attend and present as originally planned.

## The Demographic Imperative: An Urgent Challenge

Dr. Bonilla Garcia opened with a striking comparison, arguing that demographic structural changes represent a more immediate threat than climate change. While climate change might alter global temperatures by one to two degrees, he noted that demographic changes will transform 30-40% of population composition in many countries. “I don’t know if I’m an optimist really badly informed or a pessimist well informed,” he remarked, but emphasized that these demographic shifts affect all sectors and require immediate attention.

This demographic transformation creates both challenges and opportunities for workplace organization. Bonilla Garcia emphasized that aging populations represent vast repositories of knowledge and experience that, when properly integrated with younger generations, can produce superior outcomes. The key is shifting perspective from viewing demographic change as a burden to recognizing it as a potential competitive advantage for organizations that can effectively manage intergenerational collaboration.

## Mathematical Evidence for Age Diversity Benefits

One of Bonilla Garcia’s key contributions was citing mathematical proof demonstrating that age diversity improves workplace results. He explained that when tests are conducted with single age cohorts, each produces specific results, but when these cohorts are mixed, the combined result significantly exceeds either individual outcome. This improvement occurs because collaboration “combines the knowledge, the excellence, and the possibility of the youth with the experience of other generations.”

This mathematical evidence transforms intergenerational workplace collaboration from a social justice issue into a business efficiency imperative. Organizations failing to leverage multi-generational teams operate at a mathematical disadvantage compared to those that successfully integrate different age groups. Bonilla Garcia illustrated this through examples from the Coffee and Anne Foundation’s work, where senior professionals mentor young changemakers globally, demonstrating real-world applications of age diversity benefits.

## Workplace Health Across Generations

Dr. Borisch introduced crucial perspectives on workplace health that extend beyond physical safety to encompass mental and social well-being across generations. Drawing on John Lennon’s observation, she noted: “John Lennon has said once, life is what happens to you while you are busy doing other things. And we say health is what happens to you while you are busy doing other things.” She emphasized that “health is created in the places where we live, work and love.”

Borisch highlighted the unprecedented challenge facing modern workplace leaders: managing five generations simultaneously. This multi-generational workforce requires fundamentally different leadership approaches compared to traditional workplace management strategies. She emphasized that “multigenerational workplaces can be extremely productive when leaders build corporate culture capitalising on each generation’s strengths.”

The shift towards digital and AI-enabled work environments has made mental and social workplace considerations increasingly important. Different generations may have varying needs for social interaction, technological support, learning opportunities, and work-life integration, requiring workplace designs that accommodate the health and well-being needs of all age groups simultaneously.

## Digital Transformation and Generational Integration

Dr. Sano-Yu raised fundamental questions about digital transformation’s impact on intergenerational collaboration. She questioned whether “digitality, by definition, is making everything before we go digital obsolete. Is that really the right way of thinking about it?” This observation challenges assumptions that technological advancement necessarily requires abandoning previous methods and knowledge systems.

The discussion identified key challenges related to technology and generational integration. Rapid technological change could exclude older workers who may require different types of training and support. Additionally, profit-driven AI development by private sector entities may prioritize efficiency over inclusivity, potentially undermining collaborative intentions.

However, technology also presents opportunities for intergenerational collaboration through knowledge transfer facilitation, flexible work arrangements, and new forms of mentorship that transcend geographical boundaries. Sano-Yu advocated for new conceptual frameworks that merge online and offline work realities rather than viewing them as competing approaches.

## Labor Market Risks and Digital Exclusion

Despite technical difficulties, Dr. Gaucaite contributed important perspectives on labor market exclusion risks. She briefly addressed how digital transformation can create new barriers for certain age groups, particularly those lacking digital skills or access. Her virtual participation, though limited by microphone issues, highlighted the practical challenges of digital inclusion even in professional settings.

The discussion acknowledged that while technology can enable continued participation for older adults, it can also create new forms of exclusion. The panel emphasized ensuring that technological advancement does not create “unbreachable barriers” that exclude certain age groups or socioeconomic classes.

## Critique of Paternalistic Inclusion Approaches

One of the most thought-provoking aspects was Bonilla Garcia’s critique of mainstream inclusion frameworks, particularly the “leaving no one behind” principle. He argued this approach is “a little bit paternalistic” because “it’s like if someone had the initiative and I might take you or not take you or forget you or not forget you.”

Instead, he advocated for empowerment-based approaches: “I think that the important thing is giving everybody, every woman and men, the opportunity to walk up front by themselves.” This perspective shifts focus from protective inclusion to empowering participation, recognizing the agency and potential contributions of all age groups rather than positioning some as needing protection.

This philosophical shift has significant implications for policy development and organizational strategy, moving from special accommodations toward universally accessible and empowering systems that enable all generations to participate fully and contribute their unique strengths.

## Organizational Culture and Leadership Transformation

The discussion revealed that successful intergenerational collaboration requires fundamental changes in organizational culture and leadership approaches. Sano-Yu emphasized the importance of transparent dialogue about work life phases, noting that many organizations avoid discussing aging, career transitions, and life changes in professional settings.

Creating cultures where employees can openly discuss their career stages, learning needs, and life transitions enables more effective planning and support systems. This requires moving beyond traditional mentoring models toward bidirectional learning relationships where both parties acknowledge knowledge gaps and learning opportunities.

The leadership challenge extends beyond managing diverse teams to creating environments where different generations can learn from each other effectively while addressing unconscious biases and stereotypes about different age groups.

## Implementation Challenges and Systemic Barriers

Despite compelling evidence for intergenerational collaboration, the panel acknowledged significant systemic challenges. Bonilla Garcia noted that “the problem that we face now is a problem on the real side. Are we willing to do it? Now everything is fraction. Everything is me, my country, now. And that doesn’t really make sense.”

This highlights tension between collaborative, long-term thinking required for effective intergenerational collaboration and the fragmented, short-term focus characterizing much contemporary decision-making. The challenge is not merely technical or organizational but fundamentally political and cultural.

Concerns about profit-driven development, particularly in AI and technology sectors, may prioritize efficiency and cost reduction over inclusive collaboration. Skills misalignment between retiring workforce capabilities and future needs for younger workers creates additional complexity requiring better integration of knowledge transfer with future-relevant skill development.

## Time Constraints and Session Conclusion

The session faced significant time constraints, with Saner noting they needed to end “at quarter to six, Swiss time.” This rushed conclusion meant that audience questions were deferred to individual conversations with panelists after the session. The abbreviated format and technical difficulties with virtual participation highlighted some of the practical challenges of conducting intergenerational collaboration discussions in digital formats.

## Key Recommendations and Future Directions

Based on the discussion, several recommendations emerged for advancing intergenerational collaboration. Organizations need to develop corporate cultures that actively capitalize on each generation’s strengths in multigenerational workplaces, moving beyond tolerance of differences to strategic integration of diverse capabilities.

The panel recommended creating new conceptual frameworks that better merge online and offline work realities, ensuring digital transformation enhances rather than replaces valuable pre-digital knowledge and practices. Encouraging transparent dialogue on work life phases emerged as crucial for addressing isolation and connectivity challenges.

Technology development should focus on improving effectiveness rather than just efficiency, incorporating learning tools and workplace flexibility that benefit all age groups while ensuring accessibility across different technological competency levels.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated that intergenerational collaboration represents both significant opportunity and critical challenge for contemporary organizations. The mathematical evidence for age diversity benefits, combined with practical examples of successful programs, shows that effective collaboration across generations is strategically advantageous.

However, realizing these benefits requires fundamental changes in organizational culture, leadership approaches, and societal attitudes toward aging and technological change. The shift from paternalistic inclusion models to empowerment-based collaboration represents a significant philosophical change with practical implications for policy and organizational strategy.

The urgency of demographic change suggests these issues require coordinated, systematic responses rather than gradual adaptation. Success will ultimately depend on society’s willingness to move beyond fragmented thinking toward collaborative approaches that leverage all generations’ strengths, though the session’s time constraints and technical difficulties served as reminders of the practical challenges involved in implementing such collaboration.

Raymond Saner: We were just reminded that it’s going to be ending at a quarter to six. So the time is running and it’s Swiss time. It has to be sharp. I’ll be very sharp and very close and I’d like to just briefly mention the following. The people who are sitting here with me at the table and two who unfortunately couldn’t make it, we’ve been participating in the WSIS before. Actually 2019 I was the first to propose to do something about aging and ICT and this has taken off very well and many other people are doing and organizing sessions about aging and ICT. As we went through these sessions and also doing our own research and publications we also wanted to broaden this whole discussion and while of course it’s very important to look at palliative care, to take care of people who need help, we also wanted to put this into the context of society, the economy, old, young, seniors, juniors and what could be thought as solutions which will take care of the needs of both ends of the generational development. So I have with me the ones that are part of the table right now and you have on my very left is Dr. Bettina Borisch. She is professor emeritus of public health, is based here in Geneva and is with the Institute of Global Health but particularly with the medical faculty of the University of Geneva. And to my right sits Dr. Alejandro Bonilla-Garcia. He is a retired official actuarian from the ILO and currently the chair of the UN NGO Committee on Aging. And on my very left, in Geneva, yeah, in Geneva, not in New York, right? Okay. On my very left is my very good better half and partner, Dr. Lijia Sano-Yu, who is the president of an organization that we created 32 years ago. It’s called Center for Socioeconomic Development, based here in Geneva. And we focus, among other things, on aging, on public health, but also on particularly on development. And just one last point about introductions. You see pages over there on the left. That’s a summary of a recent publication where she was the editor, looking at not only aging as such, but also at the economy and productivity and how could this be best put into a larger context. Not with us, but here in person is Dr. Vitalia Gauzite. She is the retired chief of the population unit of UNECE. I’m not sure whether it’s working, she can attend. Okay, she is virtually present. That’s wonderful, Vitalia, that you could join us. But on the other hand, our colleague, Prof. Angus Yifan Yang from Chengdu in China, he couldn’t make it and we’re not linked with him, so he cannot make his presentation. So enough talk for my side. I would immediately now hand over to the first speaker. And that’s Vitalia. So would you be able to connect her? There’s a video. Yeah, there’s a video. It’s about the sound, yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah, did it work? Okay. Okay, maybe you can check a while the first speaker takes over now. Can you at the same time verify maybe you could find some sound for her? Yes? All right. So because of this time limit, I hand over now to Alejandro, and he will be speaking about knowledge management and intergenerational collaboration, looking at the mentoring, coaching, and mutual learning aspects of such mutual multigenerational collaboration. Alejandro, it’s all yours.

Alejandro Bonilla Garcia: Good afternoon, everyone. It’s really a pleasure to be here, and thank you very much for being interested in the subject. I wonder if I can have the presentation. The one that says Alejandro. Otherwise, don’t worry, I have my notes here. Okay, but let’s see it, okay? Yes. Actually, I have my stick. I gave it to you. Okay, looks like it’s coming. Okay. Yes, the next one, next, next, next. Continue, continue, continue. Can you make that a bit bigger? Further. That one, that one. Yes, well, we don’t have that much time, and I really don’t know if I’m an optimist really badly informed or a pessimist well informed. I see that everybody is extremely concerned and rightfully concerned about climate change, because climate change will change one or two degrees in the next years. But what if I told you that demographic structure, not only aging, demographic structure in many countries will change 30 to 40 percent? To me, that’s even more threatening and even much more important to take care of, because its people are the subjects of our interest. The environment is really very important, but the subjects of our interest will change completely. So, of course, I’m really very much focused myself on aging, which represents a challenge, but the whole change of the structure, I really think that it’s really the matter that we have to address, because nothing will remain the same. The number of children that have to go to school will change. The number of working people in the formal sector will change, and the number of retirees that will have will change. And, of course, we have heard many, many times during these days, leaving no one behind. But frankly, I don’t like it that much, because I found it, and I mentioned this to everybody who wants to hear me, it’s a little bit paternalistic. It’s like if someone had the initiative and I might take you or not take you or forget you or not forget you. I think that the important thing is giving everybody, every woman and men, the opportunity to walk up front by themselves, by themselves. And to me, this demographic change and this intention, intentionality, to have everybody with the capacity to move up front, it really makes sense that we work together. I do not see any demographic process that could not consider all generations. I do not see any commercial venture that do not see all the changes that will happen. I do not see any health system that will not consider the changes. It frankly would not make sense. And there is a mathematical proof, it has been proven mathematically, that diversity improves the results. We are really very much familiar with multi-sectoral diversity. But multi-age diversity improves the result. And there is proof about that, mathematical proof. When tests have been done with a single cohort of age, you get X result. With another cohort of age, Y result. But if you mix them, you improve the results and you get a Z result that is much better than X and Y. Because you combine the knowledge, the excellence, and then possibly of the youth with the experience of the other generations. So it really makes developmental sense and it makes efficiency sense. But there is, always when I attend this kind of gatherings and conferences, of course, there is an air of optimism, optimism, we will do, and we will do, and we will do. But there is a danger, if we do not address the issues, we will increase gaps, as it was mentioned here. We will increase inequalities. The world will not be more efficient, will be more dramatic. And the problem, I think, is not technical, and the problem is not really academic. I think that the problem that we face now is a problem on the real side. Are we willing to do it? Now everything is fraction. Everything is me, my country, now. And that doesn’t really make sense. So leaving no one behind is one thing, but I think in the world right now is leaving no profit behind. And I’m really, really very, very worried that we all have very good intentions to put together the different generations. But the development of AI in many countries is from the private sector for profit. So there are really very few that are doing it without any kind of profit. So I think that the real challenge that we have now is to really put into the agenda the intergenerational collaboration, the intergenerational issues, the demographic changes of the subject, and the results and the impact that we’re going to have in the subjects. There is no theory. This is not utopia. I have been personally participating in the Coffee and Anne Foundation Changemakers Program. They choose from 400 changemakers, young changemakers in the whole world, 12 to 14 every year, to be mentored by a senior, by an older person, myself and my colleagues from former UN. The result is really amazing. And it starts with, they don’t know what they don’t know, and I don’t know what I don’t know. So when we put together, we say, well, now we’re finding out that we can work together. And we have built such a good relation that I still have my mentees from four or five years ago, and we continue to have a very, what I think it’s a very nice, but possibly more importantly for them and for the project, more productive relation. So this kind of diversity can happen. And we are not a long example at the Coffee and Anne Foundation, at us, at the NGO Committee on Aging, but I know that there are many champions out here, there are many exhibitions, that collaboration between generations works, makes sense, and it’s feasible. Well, thank you.

Raymond Saner: Thank you very much, Alejandro.

Vitalija Gaucaite: In some instances, these developments have put some population groups at risk of exclusion from the labour market, or left to commit to the practices of the past. And that’s been seen as an alteration, particularly, these groups are even more at risk when facing a digital transformation of today that affects all labour sectors and may leave them further behind, combined with an increasingly uncertain geopolitical situation, and on the portrayals of worse environmental degradation and health threats like pandemic, that may move the price maker’s attention to different priorities. All the workers and youth might end up in worse situations still. In this background, stronger labour market participation and active agencies acquire particular importance, and also in the life of the observed labour shortages, for instance, in Europe. Thank you. How’s everybody doing? What do you think about this project?

Raymond Saner: Does it make sense that necessarily the retiring workforce, their skills might not anymore be the ones that the young should pick up for the future? So what is it that the young should be able to learn? And to some extent it is alarming within the European context that it seems that the younger workforce doesn’t have yet either enough skills or which partially because of age one could understand but they are not necessarily introduced into a work environment where they can participate and learn to pick up the skills that are needed for the future. I think we need to do more work on that but now being mindful of time that we have left I’d like to pass the word over to my left to Professor Bettina Borisch. Bettina, please take over.

Bettina Borisch: Thank you for having me. I’m honoured to be with you. Let me start. I’m the person from public health and from the health side. I have been asked to talk about the workplace, health and well-being at the workplace in an intergenerational setting. I would like to start with John Lennon. John Lennon has said once, life is what happens to you while you are busy doing other things. And we say health is what happens to you while you are busy doing other things. At public health, we know that health is created not in the hospital. There is where we take care of diseases. Health is created in the places where we live, work and love. And this has been the basic knowledge in public health. And it comes already with the Ottawa Charter back to 1986, where we say that the patterns of how we live, work and have leisure time, they impact our health. And so workplaces and leisure places should be a source of health, of good health. For people. And the way how society organises work and life outside work or in between should help create healthy societies. Now we want here to talk about the workplace in the intergenerational setting. And indeed, the workplace of today has expanded like never before. We have never lived in a society where two generations in parallel are already in retirement. And active people take care of parents and grandparents at the same time. Never has happened like this, for example. And as Alejandro said, things are as they will not remain the same. So the workplace of today is characterised by five generations in parallel at the same workplace. And this means from the, some call them the silent generation or the trans-traditionalists born before 45 up to the Generation Z, Gen Z born around 95 and the Gen Alpha soon to enter the workplace. That’s where we are today. And if we want to have this workplace really fit for all of them, I think we have to think of the fact that work is positive for your health. In the case that people who are a long time without work start to have a depression, they start to have other health issues. And a certain way of good work is good for your health. But we have to actively make the workplace a good workplace. And I think for the question how the workplace can be a good workplace for all these generations at the same time, first for me is understanding everyone’s perspective. And I like Alejandro’s, I don’t know what I don’t know and they don’t know what they don’t know. So the first thing is understanding this non-knowing. And then come two, three other points. We have to know how to lead. It’s completely different leadership if you have five generations in the same place. And we have to learn to listen in a quite different way to one another. And please, we have to meet the people where they are and who they are. And that’s not easy, because if you are with one generation or two, it’s very homogeneous. You just already know whom you’re going to meet tomorrow at work, but it will be different if there are five generations. So, to conclude, I would say we all here worked with the ISO document on the intergenerational AI and so forth at the workplace. And for sure, our workplace is using AI. It’s the tool we are all using, more or less, better or less. Very importantly, I think they say it is in former times in the industrialization very much the physical setting up of your workplace that was important. I think more and more now it is the mental and social setup of your workplace, because if work has to be a place for good health, then the mental and social impacts are very important. And that’s the same way with using AI during your work. And I would like to say and come back to again what Alejandro said at the beginning, diversity improves all results. And I think we have a great chance that multigenerational workplaces can be extremely productive and dynamic, provided that leaders build a corporate culture that capitalizes on the strengths of each individual from every generation. And that’s where I would like to thank you and conclude.

Raymond Saner: Thank you very much, Bettina. Wonderful presentation. And I think I will just hand over immediately now to Lijia, who in a way is continuing of what you said before that the workplace is changing. And she is going to talk about leadership and organizational culture. And I know and I see we have actually six minutes left. I’m very sorry about that. I would have loved to have more of you given to the opportunity to ask questions to our speakers. But Lijia,

Lichia Saner-Yiu: are you ready? I will be very fast. All right. I’m really glad that we switched the sequence because I think I follow you very well. Maybe you want to sit over here. No, that’s OK. No. Because I think the challenge is really to think physically, to move to more social, spiritual and psychological. And of course, you know, we just listened to the session about virtual reality and metaverse world and the cityverse. So I think more and more we will find ourselves actually working, living or even loving in isolation rather than together. And so how do we sort of think about the culture in the workplace that could facilitate, you know, sort of collaboration, connectivity and some form of intimacy across generations? You know, because I think we can recognize five generations in the workplace is wonderful. Nevertheless, like most of our group, we start to experiencing loss. And how do we continue sort of moving forward while some of our old teammates or comrades are actually being left behind, not by will, but by reality? So I would like to just say something about, you know, how can we think about organizational culture that we could support multigenerational workplace? A few terms, because I think it is important. Old age poverty, it’s not only about money, but it’s also about, you know, sort of the social capital, the human connection. And I think, you know, this is really sort of a very serious issue. And contributing to this is the norms about aging, ageism, reduced earning opportunities, absence of non-contributory pensions, and inadequate pensions, rising care costs. This is according to the UN Human Rights Council’s definition. And I think what we need to remember is lower income brackets during their lifetime when they receive the pension, if they’re already living very close to poverty line, one can imagine they won’t be able to make it. And so the society is saying your family should take care of you. But if we have a lifestyle like what we have observed today, more and more, you know, sort of the individuals without spouse or without children. So that is a challenge. And digitality, I think it is very interesting because by definition, it is making everything before we go digital obsolete. Is that really the right way of thinking about it? So we need to have a new conceptual framework that better merge the online and offline work in reality. And how, you know, we need to start doing that. And we were invited, reminded that we are at designing planning stage of the future world. So we are not too late yet. So the question is, how can work organization contribute to the alleviation of old age poverty and other vulnerabilities? And I think, you know, what we could look at is think about the governance structure. How can also we can think about how to leverage human capitals brought by all age groups that would include taxing knowledge, organizational memory, thinking outside of the box, creativity and adaptability, just for a few example. And the share of diverse worker and employee achievements, which Alejandro was mentioning it earlier, saying diversity does improve performance. And also I think, you know, what we could think of is more to do more is to encourage more transparent dialogue on work life phases. You know, oftentimes the idea about things, you know, being independent and not to become dependent and not to sort of creating problems for our friends, our group, we tend to keep certain things very private. And maybe this is something we need to start thinking about sharing some of these worries and thoughts could be useful. The last part point, which is connected to this thesis theme is about technology. So how can we sort of work on and start to adopt and encourage more and able continue the workplace learning and engagement type of networks? I gave you a few examples and things that the PowerPoint will be presented online. So you can hopefully you can visit and look at, you know, the examples from Siemens, from Hitachi, from a Finnish Institute of Occupational Health and Companies on Smart Digital Tools. And these are giving some really interesting new ideas and the results. And so let me just conclude by saying this. When we think of technology, we could think of the functions they will have and the different applications and potential benefits. So today, what we need to do is to think about not only about improving efficiency, but about improving effectiveness. As Bettina was saying, work is such an important contributor to health. So how can we use, you know, the learning tools, the workplace flexibility tools, and also strengthen more easy and affordable? I have to underline that accessible interfaces to make sure that technology is indeed contributing to the positive things of our life, rather than it becomes another unbreachable barriers.

Raymond Saner: So thank you for that. Okay, thank you very much. I think we should applaud the whole panel, because it is time to end. If, of course, you have questions, please come to the panelists and address them directly. I’m very sorry that we had some technical problems, which which actually took away some time for quality interactions. But thank you for coming and see you again. Bye-bye. So we should take a picture. Yes, I think we have to call on a picture. Can we turn on the lights, please? Yeah, yeah.

Agreement points

Diversity and multigenerational collaboration improve performance and results

Speakers

– Alejandro Bonilla Garcia
– Bettina Borisch

Arguments

Mathematical proof shows that multi-age diversity improves results by combining youth excellence with generational experience

Multigenerational workplaces can be extremely productive when leaders build corporate culture capitalizing on each generation’s strengths

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocate that diversity across age groups mathematically and practically improves outcomes, with Bonilla Garcia providing mathematical proof and Borisch emphasizing the productivity potential of multigenerational workplaces when properly managed.

Topics

Future of work | Interdisciplinary approaches

Technology should serve human needs rather than create barriers

Speakers

– Alejandro Bonilla Garcia
– Lichia Saner-Yiu

Arguments

AI development driven by private sector profit motives poses challenges to inclusive intergenerational collaboration

Technology should focus on improving effectiveness, not just efficiency, through learning tools and workplace flexibility

Summary

Both speakers express concern about technology development being driven by profit rather than human benefit, advocating for technology that enhances human collaboration and effectiveness rather than creating exclusion or barriers.

Topics

Future of work | Digital access | Digital business models

Workplace transformation requires new approaches to leadership and culture

Speakers

– Bettina Borisch
– Lichia Saner-Yiu

Arguments

Modern workplaces contain five generations simultaneously, requiring different leadership approaches

Digital transformation risks making everything pre-digital obsolete, requiring new conceptual frameworks merging online and offline work

Summary

Both speakers recognize that fundamental changes in workplace demographics and digitalization require entirely new approaches to leadership, culture, and organizational frameworks to accommodate multiple generations and digital-physical integration.

Topics

Future of work | Digital identities | Interdisciplinary approaches

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view workplaces as fundamental environments that shape human well-being and social outcomes, extending beyond mere productivity to encompass health, social connection, and addressing societal challenges like aging and poverty.

Speakers

– Bettina Borisch
– Lichia Saner-Yiu

Arguments

Health is created in places where we live, work and love, making workplaces crucial for well-being

Work organizations can contribute to alleviating old age poverty through better governance structures and leveraging human capital from all age groups

Topics

Future of work | Human rights principles | Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers emphasize the urgency of addressing demographic transitions and skill mismatches, recognizing that traditional approaches to workforce development and generational transition are inadequate for current challenges.

Speakers

– Alejandro Bonilla Garcia
– Raymond Saner

Arguments

Demographic structure changes (30-40%) are more threatening than climate change and require urgent attention

Retiring workforce skills may not align with future needs, requiring better integration of young workers into learning environments

Topics

Future of work | Development | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Critique of paternalistic approaches to inclusion

Speakers

– Alejandro Bonilla Garcia
– Lichia Saner-Yiu

Arguments

The current focus on ‘leaving no one behind’ is paternalistic; instead, everyone should have opportunities to move forward independently

Transparent dialogue on work life phases is needed to address isolation and connectivity challenges

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both speakers critique well-intentioned inclusion efforts as potentially paternalistic, advocating instead for empowerment and transparent dialogue that respects individual agency while addressing systemic barriers.

Topics

Human rights principles | Future of work

Mental and social dimensions becoming more important than technical solutions

Speakers

– Bettina Borisch
– Lichia Saner-Yiu

Arguments

Mental and social workplace setup is becoming more important than physical setup in the AI era

Digital transformation risks making everything pre-digital obsolete, requiring new conceptual frameworks merging online and offline work

Explanation

Both speakers unexpectedly converge on the idea that as technology advances, the human, social, and psychological aspects of work become more critical than technical infrastructure, suggesting a humanistic turn in digital transformation.

Topics

Future of work | Digital identities | Online education

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the value of intergenerational collaboration, the need for human-centered technology development, and the importance of workplace transformation that prioritizes social and psychological well-being alongside productivity.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary expertise – the speakers approach the same fundamental challenges from different disciplinary perspectives (actuarial/policy, public health, organizational development, and development studies) but arrive at remarkably similar conclusions about the need for inclusive, human-centered approaches to demographic and technological change. This convergence suggests robust evidence for their shared recommendations and indicates potential for effective interdisciplinary collaboration on aging and ICT initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Approach to inclusion and empowerment

Speakers

– Alejandro Bonilla Garcia

Arguments

The current focus on “leaving no one behind” is paternalistic; instead, everyone should have opportunities to move forward independently

Summary

Bonilla Garcia explicitly criticizes the widely accepted “leaving no one behind” framework as paternalistic, advocating instead for independent empowerment. Other speakers don’t directly address this critique, suggesting potential disagreement with this fundamental approach to inclusion.

Topics

Human rights principles | Inclusive finance

Primary threat assessment – demographic vs climate change

Speakers

– Alejandro Bonilla Garcia

Arguments

Demographic structure changes (30-40%) are more threatening than climate change and require urgent attention

Summary

Bonilla Garcia argues that demographic changes are more threatening than climate change, which goes against mainstream prioritization. Other speakers don’t engage with this comparative threat assessment, suggesting potential disagreement on priority setting.

Topics

Development | Future of work

Technology’s relationship with the past

Speakers

– Lichia Saner-Yiu

Arguments

Digital transformation risks making everything pre-digital obsolete, requiring new conceptual frameworks merging online and offline work

Summary

Saner-Yiu questions whether digitality should make everything pre-digital obsolete, advocating for integration rather than replacement. This contrasts with typical digital transformation narratives that other speakers don’t explicitly challenge.

Topics

Future of work | Digital identities

Unexpected differences

Critique of mainstream inclusion framework

Speakers

– Alejandro Bonilla Garcia

Arguments

The current focus on “leaving no one behind” is paternalistic; instead, everyone should have opportunities to move forward independently

Explanation

Unexpected because the panel was focused on intergenerational collaboration, yet Bonilla Garcia directly challenges a fundamental UN/development community principle that other speakers implicitly accept. This philosophical disagreement about empowerment approaches was not anticipated in a technical discussion about aging and ICT.

Topics

Human rights principles | Inclusive finance

Private sector profit motives in AI development

Speakers

– Alejandro Bonilla Garcia

Arguments

AI development driven by private sector profit motives poses challenges to inclusive intergenerational collaboration

Explanation

Unexpected because while other speakers discuss technical and organizational aspects of AI integration, Bonilla Garcia raises fundamental concerns about profit-driven AI development that could undermine intergenerational collaboration goals. This systemic critique stands apart from other speakers’ more operational approaches.

Topics

Future of work | Digital business models

Overall assessment

Summary

The disagreements are primarily philosophical and strategic rather than technical, focusing on fundamental approaches to inclusion, threat prioritization, and technology integration. Most speakers share common goals around intergenerational collaboration but differ on methods and underlying frameworks.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications. While speakers agree on the importance of intergenerational collaboration, the philosophical differences about empowerment approaches, priority setting, and systemic concerns about profit-driven development could lead to fundamentally different policy recommendations and implementation strategies. These disagreements suggest deeper tensions between technical solutions and systemic reform approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view workplaces as fundamental environments that shape human well-being and social outcomes, extending beyond mere productivity to encompass health, social connection, and addressing societal challenges like aging and poverty.

Speakers

– Bettina Borisch
– Lichia Saner-Yiu

Arguments

Health is created in places where we live, work and love, making workplaces crucial for well-being

Work organizations can contribute to alleviating old age poverty through better governance structures and leveraging human capital from all age groups

Topics

Future of work | Human rights principles | Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers emphasize the urgency of addressing demographic transitions and skill mismatches, recognizing that traditional approaches to workforce development and generational transition are inadequate for current challenges.

Speakers

– Alejandro Bonilla Garcia
– Raymond Saner

Arguments

Demographic structure changes (30-40%) are more threatening than climate change and require urgent attention

Retiring workforce skills may not align with future needs, requiring better integration of young workers into learning environments

Topics

Future of work | Development | Capacity development

Key takeaways

Demographic structural changes (30-40%) pose a greater threat than climate change and require urgent attention across all sectors including education, healthcare, and commerce

Mathematical evidence proves that multi-age diversity in workplaces produces superior results by combining youth excellence with generational experience

Modern workplaces now contain five generations simultaneously (from silent generation to Gen Z), requiring fundamentally different leadership approaches and corporate cultures

Health is created in workplaces through mental and social setup rather than just physical infrastructure, making intergenerational workplace design crucial for well-being

Digital transformation risks creating obsolescence of pre-digital knowledge and skills, necessitating new frameworks that merge online and offline work realities

Successful intergenerational collaboration is achievable as demonstrated by real-world mentoring programs, but requires moving beyond paternalistic ‘leaving no one behind’ approaches to empowering all generations

Work organizations can help alleviate old age poverty through better governance structures that leverage human capital from all age groups and encourage transparent dialogue about work life phases

Resolutions and action items

Put intergenerational collaboration and demographic changes prominently on policy agendas

Develop corporate cultures that capitalize on strengths of each generation in multigenerational workplaces

Create new conceptual frameworks that better merge online and offline work realities

Encourage transparent dialogue on work life phases to address isolation and connectivity challenges

Focus technology development on improving effectiveness rather than just efficiency through learning tools and workplace flexibility

Make presentations and examples available online for further reference and study

Unresolved issues

How to address the misalignment between retiring workforce skills and future needs for younger workers

How to counter the profit-driven AI development by private sector that may hinder inclusive intergenerational collaboration

How to better integrate young workers into learning environments where they can acquire future-relevant skills

How to create affordable and accessible technology interfaces that don’t become barriers

How to address the challenge of individuals without spouse or children facing old age poverty when traditional family support systems are unavailable

How to balance the need for digital transformation while preserving valuable pre-digital knowledge and experience

Suggested compromises

Adopt a balanced approach that recognizes both the innovation potential of youth and the experience value of older generations rather than viewing them as competing forces

Develop technology solutions that improve both efficiency and effectiveness rather than focusing solely on one aspect

Create workplace policies that accommodate the needs of all five generations simultaneously rather than favoring any single age group

Establish mentoring relationships that are bidirectional, acknowledging that both mentors and mentees have knowledge gaps (‘they don’t know what they don’t know, and I don’t know what I don’t know’)

I wonder if I can have the presentation… I really don’t know if I’m an optimist really badly informed or a pessimist well informed. I see that everybody is extremely concerned and rightfully concerned about climate change, because climate change will change one or two degrees in the next years. But what if I told you that demographic structure, not only aging, demographic structure in many countries will change 30 to 40 percent? To me, that’s even more threatening and even much more important to take care of, because its people are the subjects of our interest.

Speaker

Alejandro Bonilla Garcia

Reason

This comment is profoundly thought-provoking because it reframes the entire discussion by comparing demographic change to climate change – two of the most pressing global issues. By quantifying the impact (30-40% demographic change vs 1-2 degree climate change), Alejandro challenges the audience’s priorities and suggests that demographic transformation may be an even more urgent crisis than climate change.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion’s urgency and scope. It moved the conversation from a technical discussion about aging and ICT to a broader societal crisis framework, establishing demographic change as an existential challenge that requires immediate attention. It set the tone for all subsequent speakers to address intergenerational issues as critical societal imperatives rather than nice-to-have improvements.

Of course, we have heard many, many times during these days, leaving no one behind. But frankly, I don’t like it that much, because I found it… it’s a little bit paternalistic. It’s like if someone had the initiative and I might take you or not take you or forget you or not forget you. I think that the important thing is giving everybody, every woman and men, the opportunity to walk up front by themselves, by themselves.

Speaker

Alejandro Bonilla Garcia

Reason

This is a brilliant critique of one of the UN’s most prominent slogans. Alejandro exposes the inherent paternalism in ‘leaving no one behind’ – suggesting it implies some groups have the power to include or exclude others. His alternative framing of empowerment (‘walk up front by themselves’) fundamentally challenges how we think about inclusion and agency.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical philosophical shift in how the panel approached solutions. Instead of discussing how to help older workers adapt to new technologies, the conversation pivoted toward how to create systems that empower all generations to lead and contribute actively. It challenged the underlying assumptions about who has agency in intergenerational collaboration.

There is a mathematical proof, it has been proven mathematically, that diversity improves the results… When tests have been done with a single cohort of age, you get X result. With another cohort of age, Y result. But if you mix them, you improve the results and you get a Z result that is much better than X and Y. Because you combine the knowledge, the excellence, and then possibly of the youth with the experience of the other generations.

Speaker

Alejandro Bonilla Garcia

Reason

This comment transforms the intergenerational workplace discussion from a moral or social justice issue into a business and efficiency imperative. By citing mathematical proof, Alejandro provides concrete evidence that multigenerational collaboration isn’t just ethically right – it’s strategically superior.

Impact

This shifted the entire panel’s approach from advocacy to evidence-based argumentation. Subsequent speakers, particularly Bettina Borisch, built upon this foundation by discussing how to practically implement multigenerational workplaces. It moved the conversation from ‘why we should’ to ‘how we can’ create intergenerational collaboration.

I think that the problem that we face now is a problem on the real side. Are we willing to do it? Now everything is fraction. Everything is me, my country, now. And that doesn’t really make sense… I think in the world right now is leaving no profit behind.

Speaker

Alejandro Bonilla Garcia

Reason

This comment cuts through the technical and academic discussion to identify the core barrier: political will and societal fragmentation. His wordplay on ‘leaving no profit behind’ versus ‘leaving no one behind’ brilliantly captures how economic interests may be undermining social cohesion and intergenerational solidarity.

Impact

This comment introduced a sobering reality check that influenced the entire panel’s tone. It acknowledged that despite having solutions and evidence, implementation faces fundamental political and economic obstacles. This led other speakers to address practical challenges more directly rather than focusing solely on idealistic solutions.

John Lennon has said once, life is what happens to you while you are busy doing other things. And we say health is what happens to you while you are busy doing other things. At public health, we know that health is created not in the hospital. There is where we take care of diseases. Health is created in the places where we live, work and love.

Speaker

Bettina Borisch

Reason

This comment brilliantly reframes workplace health by adapting a famous John Lennon quote. It shifts the discussion from treating workplace problems to preventing them by recognizing that health is fundamentally created through daily life experiences, particularly work environments.

Impact

This comment expanded the discussion beyond technical skills and productivity to encompass holistic well-being. It connected intergenerational workplace issues to broader public health outcomes, adding a new dimension to why multigenerational collaboration matters – not just for efficiency, but for societal health.

Old age poverty, it’s not only about money, but it’s also about, you know, sort of the social capital, the human connection… And digitality, I think it is very interesting because by definition, it is making everything before we go digital obsolete. Is that really the right way of thinking about it?

Speaker

Lichia Saner-Yiu

Reason

This comment challenges the fundamental assumption of digital transformation – that digitization necessarily makes previous methods obsolete. It also redefines poverty beyond economic terms to include social and relational dimensions, which is particularly relevant for aging populations.

Impact

This comment introduced critical nuance to the technology discussion, moving beyond simple digital adoption to questioning whether digital transformation should completely replace existing systems. It influenced the conclusion by emphasizing the need for technology that enhances rather than replaces human connections and existing valuable practices.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what could have been a routine discussion about aging and technology into a profound examination of societal priorities, power structures, and human values. Alejandro’s opening comparison between demographic and climate change established the discussion as addressing a civilizational challenge rather than a technical problem. His critique of ‘leaving no one behind’ introduced a philosophical depth that questioned fundamental assumptions about agency and empowerment. The mathematical proof of diversity’s benefits provided crucial evidence-based grounding that shifted the conversation from advocacy to strategic implementation. Bettina’s health-focused reframing expanded the scope to encompass holistic well-being, while Lichia’s questioning of digital obsolescence challenged core assumptions about technological progress. Together, these comments created a multi-layered discussion that addressed not just practical solutions, but the underlying values, power dynamics, and systemic changes needed to create truly inclusive intergenerational collaboration. The comments built upon each other to create a comprehensive critique of current approaches while pointing toward more empowering, evidence-based, and holistic alternatives.

What specific skills should young workers learn from retiring workforce, and which skills are becoming obsolete?

Speaker

Raymond Saner

Explanation

This addresses the critical challenge of knowledge transfer in rapidly changing work environments where traditional skills may no longer be relevant for future needs

How can we better integrate young workers into work environments where they can participate and learn future-relevant skills?

Speaker

Raymond Saner

Explanation

This highlights the gap in current workplace integration practices and the need for better onboarding and skill development systems for younger generations

How can we develop new conceptual frameworks that better merge online and offline work realities?

Speaker

Lichia Saner-Yiu

Explanation

This is crucial for addressing the challenge of digitalization making traditional work methods obsolete while maintaining valuable human connections

How can work organizations contribute to the alleviation of old age poverty and other vulnerabilities?

Speaker

Lichia Saner-Yiu

Explanation

This addresses the broader societal challenge of aging populations and the role of workplace policies in supporting older workers and retirees

How can we encourage more transparent dialogue on work life phases in organizations?

Speaker

Lichia Saner-Yiu

Explanation

This explores the need to break down barriers around discussing aging, career transitions, and life changes in professional settings

How can technology be made more accessible and affordable to prevent it from becoming an unbreachable barrier?

Speaker

Lichia Saner-Yiu

Explanation

This addresses the digital divide and ensures that technological advancement doesn’t exclude certain age groups or socioeconomic classes

How can leaders effectively manage and build corporate culture for five generations working simultaneously?

Speaker

Bettina Borisch

Explanation

This addresses the unprecedented challenge of managing the most age-diverse workforce in history and requires new leadership approaches

What are the specific mental and social workplace setup requirements for multigenerational health and wellbeing?

Speaker

Bettina Borisch

Explanation

This focuses on the shift from physical to psychological workplace design needs in the context of diverse age groups working together

Summary

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

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

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

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

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

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

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

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

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

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

## Overall Purpose:

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

## Overall Tone:

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

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

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

## Executive Summary

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

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

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

## Major Financial Commitments and Corporate Investments

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

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

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

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

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

## Government Policy Initiatives and Regulatory Frameworks

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

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

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

## Infrastructure Solutions and Technological Innovation

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

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

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

## Skills Development and Capacity Building Initiatives

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

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

## Addressing the AI Divide and Future Technologies

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

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

## Partnership Models and Accountability Mechanisms

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

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

## Future Directions and Upcoming Initiatives

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

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

## Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alex Wong: We’ll sell it to you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alex Wong: All right. Thank you. Melike.

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

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

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

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

Liqian Hao: Yeah.

Alex Wong: Thank you, please.

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

Alex Wong: Thank you. Thanks very much.

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

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

Agreement points

Partnerships are essential for achieving digital connectivity and transformation goals

Speakers

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

Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Topics

Development | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Massive financial commitments are needed to bridge the digital divide

Speakers

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

Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Skills development and capacity building are critical components of digital inclusion

Speakers

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

Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Infrastructure investment must address both urban and rural connectivity challenges

Speakers

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

Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Similar viewpoints

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

Speakers

– Nicole Isaac
– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Summer Chen

Arguments

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

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

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

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

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

Speakers

– Sally Wentworth
– Summer Chen
– Solly Malatsi

Arguments

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

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

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

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

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

Speakers

– Christopher Hemmerlein
– Melike Yetken Krilla

Arguments

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

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

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Tax policy as a tool for digital inclusion

Speakers

– Solly Malatsi
– Alex Wong

Arguments

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

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

Explanation

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

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Open-source approaches to AI and technology development

Speakers

– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Summer Chen

Arguments

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

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

Explanation

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

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

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

Consensus level

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

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI accessibility and deployment

Speakers

– Summer Chen
– Melike Yetken Krilla

Arguments

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

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

Summary

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

Topics

Development | Economic

Infrastructure deployment strategy

Speakers

– Christopher Hemmerlein
– Liqian Hao

Arguments

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

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

Summary

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

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected differences

Role of taxation in digital access

Speakers

– Solly Malatsi

Arguments

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

Explanation

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

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

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

Disagreement level

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

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

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

Speakers

– Nicole Isaac
– Melike Yetken Krilla
– Summer Chen

Arguments

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

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

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

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

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

Speakers

– Sally Wentworth
– Summer Chen
– Solly Malatsi

Arguments

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

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

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

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

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

Speakers

– Christopher Hemmerlein
– Melike Yetken Krilla

Arguments

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

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

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolutions and action items

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expand the Partner2Connect emailing list for broader community engagement

Unresolved issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested compromises

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker

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

Reason

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

Impact

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

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

Speaker

Christopher Hemmerlein (Amazon)

Reason

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

Impact

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

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

Speaker

Melike Yetken Krilla (Google)

Reason

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

Impact

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

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

Speaker

Sally Wentworth (Internet Society)

Reason

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

Impact

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

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

Speaker

Alex Wong (Moderator)

Reason

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

Impact

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

Overall assessment

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

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

Speaker

Alex Wong

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Christopher Hemmerlein

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Solly Malatsi

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Solly Malatsi

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Melike Yetken Krilla

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Sally Wentworth

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Melike Yetken Krilla

Explanation

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

Summary

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

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

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

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

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

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

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

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

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

## Overall Purpose:

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

## Overall Tone:

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

Speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

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

## Executive Summary

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

## Opening Framework: Information as a Public Good

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

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

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

## Paradigm Shift: From Information to Communication Ecosystems

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

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

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

## Regulatory Approaches and International Cooperation

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

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

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

## Technology Solutions and User Empowerment

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

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

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

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

## Civil Society Perspectives and Technology Applications

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

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

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

## Key Challenges and Audience Concerns

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

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

## Future Directions and Next Steps

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

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

## Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Go ahead.

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

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

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

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Maria Paz?

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

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

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

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