Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of eHealth in fostering digital transformation foundations in the age of AI, moderated by Dr. Derrick Muneene from WHO within the WSIS framework. The session highlighted WHO’s 20-year collaboration with ITU to promote equitable use of ICTs in health, beginning in 2005 with the WSIS framework establishment. Dr. Muneene outlined WHO’s Global Strategy on Digital Health, which aims to achieve universal health coverage through digital means while addressing four key objectives: capacity building, ensuring countries have strategies, fostering governance, and achieving people-centeredness.

Hani Eskandar from ITU presented the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) as a solution to the persistent problem of fragmentation in digital health systems. He emphasized the need to shift from a solution mindset to an infrastructure mindset, focusing on enabling information flow through trust and interoperability rather than developing isolated vertical solutions. The DPI approach involves establishing minimum capabilities and building blocks that can be shared across health systems, including electronic health records, supply chain management, registry services, and insurance claims processing.

Regional perspectives were provided by panelists from Africa, Asia, and WHO programs. Steven Wanyee from HELENA discussed Kenya’s “digital health superhighway” initiative, which uses electronic claims as a driver for DPI investment through social health insurance contributions. Surabhi Joshi presented the Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative, focusing on digital wallets and health credentials for non-communicable diseases. Jai Ganesh from the Asia eHealth Information Network emphasized the importance of multi-sectoral coordination and convergence approaches in implementing national digital health strategies.

The discussion concluded with audience questions addressing AI governance, multi-stakeholder engagement, and the need for continued international collaboration to transform health sectors sustainably.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) for Health Transformation**: The shift from fragmented, vertical health solutions to integrated digital infrastructure that enables information flow across health sectors. This includes establishing foundational building blocks like electronic health records, supply chain management, registry services, and insurance claims systems that can interoperate seamlessly.

– **The “Pilotitis” Problem and Need for Systematic Approach**: Addressing the persistent issue of numerous disconnected pilot projects and experimental digital health solutions that lack integration and sustainability. The discussion emphasized moving from a “solution mindset” to an “infrastructure mindset” with government ownership and strategic planning.

– **WHO’s 20-Year Journey and Global Strategy on Digital Health**: Celebrating two decades of WHO’s work in supporting member states’ use of ICTs in health, from the 2005 resolution through the current Global Strategy on Digital Health aimed at achieving universal health coverage by 2030.

– **Country-Specific Implementation Examples**: Real-world applications including Kenya’s “digital health superhighway” using electronic claims as a driver, digital wallets for non-communicable diseases, and regional approaches in Asia and Africa for scaling digital health infrastructure.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Challenges**: The critical need for cross-sector coordination between health, telecommunications, and other government ministries, along with addressing regulatory gaps as technology advances faster than governance frameworks, particularly regarding AI in healthcare.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to build awareness of WHO and ITU’s collaborative work in fostering foundations for scalable digital health systems within the WSIS framework. The session focused on promoting the Global Initiative on Digital Health and demonstrating how digital public infrastructure can enable sustainable health sector transformation in the age of AI, ultimately supporting the achievement of universal health coverage and health-related SDGs by 2030.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and forward-looking tone throughout. It began with formal presentations establishing the technical and strategic framework, then evolved into more interactive dialogue with practical examples and country experiences. The tone remained consistently optimistic about the potential for digital transformation while acknowledging real challenges like fragmentation and governance gaps. The session concluded on an encouraging note with calls for continued collaboration and concrete next steps, including upcoming meetings and working groups.

Speakers

– **Derrick Muneene**: Dr. Derrick Muneene from WHO (World Health Organization), Head of Capacity Building and Partnerships, Session Moderator

– **Hani Eskandar**: Mr. Hani Eskandar, works with ITU, focuses on Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and reference architecture for digital health

– **Steven Wanyee**: Mr. Steven Wanyee from Kenya, President of HELINA (Health Informatics in Africa), an organization representing more than 20 African countries focused on professionalizing health informatics and digital health

– **Surabhi Joshi**: Surabhi Joshi, Technical Officer at World Health Organization in Geneva, works on digital health and non-communicable diseases, part of the Be Healthy, Be Mobile initiative (joint WHO-ITU initiative)

– **Innocent Chiboma**: Mr. Innocent Chiboma from the Zambian Ministry of Health

– **Jai Ganesh**: Dr. Jai Ganesh from Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN), a regional digital health network working on governance, architecture, people and program management, standards and interoperability

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Ibrahim**: Director of the Digital Health Department from Senegal

– **Edna Somra**: Works for SPIDER (Center of Enablement for Inclusive Digital Development), leading a Team Europe initiative with telecom regulators in 43 African countries

– **Sanya**: Representative of an AI-based health system solutions provider

– **IT for Change representative**: From a non-profit organization in India that does research and public policy advocacy

# Comprehensive Discussion Report: eHealth’s Role in Digital Transformation Foundations in the Age of AI

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion, moderated by Dr. Derrick Muneene from the World Health Organisation (WHO), examined the critical role of eHealth in fostering digital transformation foundations within the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework. The session brought together international experts from WHO, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), regional health informatics networks, and country representatives to address the persistent challenges of fragmentation in digital health systems and explore solutions through Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) approaches.

The discussion highlighted WHO’s two-decade collaboration with ITU to promote equitable use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in health, beginning with the 2005 WSIS framework establishment. Central to the conversation was the shift from fragmented “pilotitis” solutions to comprehensive digital public infrastructure that enables interoperability and sustainable digital health transformation.

## Background and Context

### WHO’s 20-Year Journey in Digital Health

Dr. Derrick Muneene opened the session by contextualising WHO’s extensive work within the WSIS framework, beginning in 2005 with foundational member state resolutions. This collaboration has evolved through multiple mandates, including standardisation and interoperability initiatives in 2013 and the comprehensive digital health mandate established in 2018.

The Global Strategy on Digital Health represents the culmination of this work, incorporating four fundamental principles that Dr. Muneene outlined: government ownership of digital health initiatives, implementation of appropriate digital tools, achievement of universal health coverage, and contribution to health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The strategy aims to address persistent challenges in digital health implementation while ensuring equitable access to health services.

### The Challenge of “Pilotitis”

A central theme throughout the discussion was the problem of “pilotitis” – the excessive fragmentation and verticalisation of digital health solutions. Dr. Muneene identified this as a persistent issue first recognised in 2012-2013, where numerous disconnected pilot projects lack integration and sustainability. He referenced Gates Foundation research from 2022 showing that despite significant investment in digital solutions across Africa, the impact has been limited due to this fragmentation.

This fragmentation results in duplicated investments, incompatible systems, and limited scalability, ultimately hindering the transformative potential of digital health initiatives.

## Digital Public Infrastructure: A Paradigm Shift

### Conceptual Framework

Mr. Hani Eskandar from ITU presented the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) as a fundamental solution to the fragmentation problem. He emphasised a critical paradigm shift from a “solution mindset” to an “infrastructure mindset,” arguing that true digital transformation requires enabling information flow through trust and interoperability rather than developing isolated vertical solutions.

Eskandar’s key insight was that “digital is data,” and without the ability to unlock data flow, organisations cannot leverage the full impact of digital transformation. This perspective reframes the entire approach to digital health, moving from solving individual problems to creating foundational infrastructure that enables comprehensive sector transformation.

### Technical Architecture and Building Blocks

The DPI approach involves establishing minimum capabilities and building blocks that can be shared across health systems. Eskandar outlined five key building blocks that WHO and ITU are developing:

1. **Electronic Health Records**: Comprehensive patient data management systems

2. **Supply Chain Management**: Digital systems for medical supplies and pharmaceuticals

3. **Registry Services**: Population and health facility registries

4. **Claims/Insurance Claims Processing**: Digital systems for health financing

5. **Foundational DPI Components**: Digital identity, e-signature, and trusted information exchange services

Eskandar mentioned that ITU is working on the GAFSTAC project to develop foundational DPI specifications, recognising that transformational health use cases cannot operate in isolation but must connect with underlying digital public infrastructure.

## Regional Perspectives and Implementation Examples

### African Experiences

#### Kenya’s Digital Health Superhighway

Mr. Steven Wanyee from the Health Informatics in Africa (HELENA) network presented Kenya’s innovative approach to DPI implementation through their “digital health superhighway” initiative. This programme demonstrates how countries can leverage domestic financing for digital health infrastructure, using social health insurance contributions to fund DPI development.

The Kenyan model uses electronic claims processing as the primary driver for DPI investment, recognising that this creates a compelling business case for continued investment in digital health infrastructure.

#### Zambian Strategic Approach

Mr. Innocent Chiboma from the Zambian Ministry of Health briefly described his country’s systematic approach, noting that Zambia is conducting a mid-term review of its digital health strategy and developing a comprehensive digital health architecture document that will be shared with stakeholders.

#### Regional Capacity Building Through HELENA

HELENA, representing more than 20 African countries, focuses on professionalising health informatics and digital health across the continent. The organisation promotes workforce capacity development and knowledge sharing, recognising that successful digital health transformation requires skilled human resources capable of managing and maintaining these systems.

### Asian Regional Network Approach

Dr. Jai Ganesh from the Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) outlined their comprehensive approach to supporting countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability. He announced that AIHIN’s upcoming annual general meeting would focus on “investing in DPI for person-centred health,” demonstrating the regional commitment to moving beyond fragmented solutions towards integrated infrastructure approaches.

## Innovative Approaches and Emerging Solutions

### Digital Wallets and Health Credentials

Ms. Surabhi Joshi from WHO presented the Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative, which focuses on digital wallets and health credentials for non-communicable disease management. She explained that digital wallets serve as secure interfaces that enable individuals to access and share verifiable health credentials while protecting privacy and giving people ownership of their health management.

The initiative aligns with the Global Digital Health Certification Network, which enables countries to verify health credentials across borders. Joshi emphasised that the initiative develops digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure using open standards and open source tools, ensuring that solutions can be adapted and scaled across different country contexts while maintaining interoperability.

She announced that the Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative would be relaunched in September during the UN General Assembly in New York.

## Audience Interventions and Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives

### Capacity Building and International Support

Ibrahim from Senegal raised concerns about the absence of regular WHO-ITU training meetings for countries over the past 1-2 years, highlighting gaps in capacity building support that countries have been expecting. This intervention pointed to the need for sustained international collaboration and support mechanisms beyond strategy development.

### Cross-Sectoral Coordination Challenges

Ms. Edna Somra from SPIDER highlighted practical challenges in multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly in getting telecommunications regulators to engage with health champions. She noted that many digital health initiatives fail because they don’t adequately involve the telecommunications sector that enables data sharing, especially across regional boundaries.

### Rights-Based Approaches and Governance

A representative from IT for Change introduced critical perspectives on equity and governance, emphasising the need to translate bioethics principles and right to health concepts into digital health governance frameworks. This intervention highlighted concerns about ensuring that DPI approaches don’t inadvertently create new barriers to health services or concentrate power in ways that undermine health equity.

### AI Integration and Governance

Sanya, an AI solutions provider, asked about how artificial intelligence fits into the DPI workflow and governance frameworks. The discussion addressed growing concerns about AI governance in healthcare settings, with WHO having published comprehensive guidance on ethics and governance of AI for health. However, participants noted that many countries lack specific AI governance laws, creating challenges for health sector implementation of AI technologies.

## Key Themes and Takeaways

### Government Leadership and Sustainability

Throughout the discussion, speakers consistently emphasised that government ownership and leadership are essential for sustainable and scalable digital health implementations. This represents a shift away from donor-dependent, partner-led approaches that have characterised many previous initiatives.

### Standards and Interoperability

There was strong agreement on the critical importance of establishing common standards and ensuring interoperability across digital health systems to enable effective information sharing and system integration.

### Multi-Sectoral Collaboration

The discussion revealed the critical need for collaboration across sectors, particularly between health ministries and telecommunications regulators, to ensure that digital health initiatives are properly integrated with broader digital government strategies.

## Next Steps and Future Initiatives

Dr. Muneene announced a five-day virtual convening the following week, with registration details provided to participants through a QR code. This global initiative on digital health represents continued collaboration between WHO, ITU, and country representatives in advancing digital health transformation.

The discussion also established the framework for technical working groups focused on developing specifications for the five key building blocks of health DPI, indicating ongoing collaboration in translating conceptual frameworks into practical implementation guidance.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion demonstrated significant progress in understanding digital health transformation challenges and solutions across diverse stakeholders and regions. The strong focus on moving from fragmented solutions to Digital Public Infrastructure approaches represents a fundamental paradigm change that addresses long-standing problems of “pilotitis” and system fragmentation.

The WHO-ITU collaboration, now in its twentieth year, has successfully built shared understanding across regions and stakeholder groups. The next phase of this work focuses on translating this understanding into practical implementation support for countries, with particular attention to the technical working groups and capacity building initiatives outlined during the discussion.

As the health sector continues to grapple with opportunities and challenges presented by artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, the foundations established through this collaborative work will be essential for ensuring that digital health transformation contributes to universal health coverage and health equity goals.

Derrick Muneene: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. My name is Dr. Derrick Muneene. I’ll be moderating this session on Action Line eHealth within the WSIS framework. It’s my pleasure to also introduce the four-man panel that will be taking the floor after me. Let me just introduce the topic. We’ll be discussing the role of eHealth in as far as fostering foundations for digital transformations is concerned in the age of AI. And the purpose of this particular session is to really build awareness on our work as WHO with the ITU in terms of fostering foundations that enable the scaling of digital health systems and tools. So I’m Dr. Derrick Muneene, once again from WHO, and I am head of capacity building and partnerships. I’m joined by Mr. Hani Eskandar, who introduced himself. There will be four speakers in this session, and we hope we can have a good dialogue. Mr. Innocent Chiboma from the Zambian Minister of Health. Mr. Steven Wanyee, who is to my left, who is president of a network on informatics in Africa called Helina. And we’ll also be joined with Surabhi Joshi from the World Health Organization. And lastly, online from Mr. Jay Ganesh. We hope we can have a good 45 minutes or so together in discussing this topic. Allow me to just introduce what we’ll be dealing with. So from the World Health Organization’s perspective, we have worked with the WSIS platform with the ITU to ensure the equitable use of ICTs in health. And as you know, health affects all of us. We are all part and parcel of the health system’s delivery. And so member states gave us a 20-year cycle of supporting the transformation of the health sector. We’re actually pleased to be celebrating the 20 years of and the 20 years of WHO in supporting member states on the use of ICTs in health. We actually started in 2005, the same year that the WSIS framework was actually put in place. And so our member states gave us a resolution on the use of ICTs in health in 2005. This was complemented by another action in 2013 that was around standardization and interoperability. And then finally in 2018, our member states gave us another mandate of an encompassing mandate called digital health that gave birth to an implementation arm called the Global Strategy on Digital Health. And all these mechanisms are really intended to help achieve the SDGs, the health-related SDGs by the 2030 Agenda. Just to recap, as has been discussed throughout this forum, the role of digital is to ensure equitable access to services, whether it’s health, education or agriculture. And so the vision that member states gave us on the Global Strategy on Digital Health is really around achieving universal health coverage by using digital means and modalities. There are principles that we have put in place or otherwise member states have put in place in achieving of this particular strategy. They include government ownership. They include the whole issue of ensuring that their strategy is put in place to inform the implementation of strategies. They also include the whole issue of ensuring that we have appropriate digital tools that are fit for purpose and contextualize as appropriate. There is also a dimension that deals with making sure that our needs of countries are assessed and addressed appropriately. There are four objectives or four points on the strategy, which include capacity building, the whole issue of ensuring each country has a strategy, fostering governance, and at the same time, ensuring that we are using digital to achieve the people-centeredness that we’ve talked about. Now, we just came out of an exciting set of two meetings. We did have our executive board. and the Information Society. It sort of recognizes the existence of this particular framework. Now, in terms of the current issues that we see as opportunities, we realize that countries get the use of digital health in the health sector. The biggest challenge that we see coming up is that the technology is moving so fast that the regulations, as you’d expect, are sort of lagging behind. And with the ease of developing digital solutions, we are seeing a lot of fragmentation. And so this particular diagram you see is a research that the Gates Foundation had conducted in 2022, assessing the state of digital solutions and integration in the African region. The findings here basically were that there were so many pilots, so many experiments that were being conducted. And by the way, this 2022 research is not different from what we saw earlier in about 2012, 2013, where Sean Blaschke, our colleague in UNICEF, also conducted an observation of digital implementation in Uganda, where they discovered the same fragmentation. We then called it pilotitis during that time. So we see that the issue of pilotitis or verticalization is still with us, especially in this age of AI, where digital solutions can be built quite rapidly without a holistic approach. And so we recognize that the global digital compact has a call towards investing in foundations like we heard today from Tanzania. Tanzania got a So, let’s start with the first question. What is the transformation of the health sector holistically? There are four points. A, what are country needs and gaps, as it was discussed in the Global Studies and Digital Health? And how can we match these needs to available resources from developing partners? And the foundational question is, over the past 20 years, WHO has given a lot of guidance in this area. How do we ensure that we can guide countries in those tools that are needed for them to achieve the transformation they’re looking for? And then lastly, convergence at the global, regional, and national level, such as this area, to have some knowledge exchange activities. The Global Initiative on Digital Health is a way for us to engage with different partners. And just to point out that there are three points, transparency, DPIs, which is what my colleague, Mr. Hani Eskandar, will be talking about, focusing on those foundations, and also making sure that we have, we strengthen the equitable deployment of the transformation of the health that we’re looking at. These are the three points of the Global Initiative on Digital Health, which we’re using as a vehicle to… implement our option line on e-health to ensure that there’s a robust sustainable transformation of the health sector. The second bullet is what the speakers will be speaking about. What’s digital public infrastructure? How can we use this digital public infrastructure agenda to ensure that country implementations on digital health are sustained, whether these be telemedicine, electronic medical record systems, e-learning and et cetera? How do we ensure that they sit on foundations to foster sustainability? I’ll just flash some of the achievements global initiative has enhanced. We have created an avenue to track country requests and that’s still work in progress. That’s based on pillar number one. And then based on the second pillar, we have had a number of convenings like this one. There’ll be another one happening next week for five days on the global initiative on digital health. This is really around ensuring that there’s knowledge exchange and that partner needs are being mapped. We have also ensured that tools such as the global digital health monitor are available for countries to monitor their progress on the transformation, including a database of digital health solutions. We also have ensured that countries have a strategy on digital health. As we speak, more than 129 countries have posted digital health strategies globally. They still work to be done to make sure that these are implementable. Also to just point out that as we look at the remaining gaps in the maturity of countries, people skills still remain to be a gap. And so that’s one area that we hope we can actually emphasize. And then to just speak to the whole issue of country focus, we are working with Zambia and Bangladesh and you hear from Zambia on ensuring that we have tangible results from these two countries. I’ll just pause on this slide. We do have a five day meeting, which is virtual. We invite you all to join us for five days next week. And that’s the QR code. And this particular second convening is intended to bring this agenda we’re discussing today.

Hani Eskandar: Thank you very much, Derrick. By the way, I sent you the presentation, if you can…

Derrick Muneene: Okay, so we just change gears here.

Hani Eskandar: Yes. Okay, so I will really focus on one of the things that is very much in line with the global digital health strategy of WHO around the concept of digital public infrastructure. For those who are from the digital community, you will definitely know that DPI or digital public infrastructure is an emerging kind of focus, though it is not new. But I think it gained with particularly the G20 of India, like two years ago, a significant interest. And it’s essentially started in the area of digital governance. But I think now other sectors, including health, are now trying to understand how they can embrace the concept of digital public infrastructure. In that sense, we started with WHO recently, a work to establish a reference architecture for this digital public infrastructure, with all the kind of relevant standards that are important for the health sector digital transformation. So let me maybe just guide you to give you a little bit of information about what is this kind of reference architecture. As Derek mentioned, the health, digital health has been suffering from this kind of fragmentation, siloing, vertical solutions that are really focusing on one particular issue, on one particular problem. I think now all the sectors are moving towards a broader concept of digital transformation for health. What is it? What is the difference? The main difference is that we are looking here at transforming the health sector as opposed to solving one particular solution. The underlying thing that you need to unlock for digital transformation is unlocking information flow. This has been the number one problem in all different types of digitalization. And as I always say, digital is data. And if you are not able to unlock data flow, then you cannot really leverage the full impact of digital. So the whole idea of this DPI is to enable two things that are important for information flow, trust and interoperability. So the whole concept of DPI is to allow the digital infrastructures that allow information flow to really talk about digital transformation, where we are talking about information flow across the health sectors, across the use cases, and not only locked in one particular thing. Our approach is not to propose to countries solutions, whether open source or non-open source, but really try to understand first the framework so that countries set the reference architecture with all the types of regulations and governance issues that are attached to it. This kind of change, it’s a kind of a more radical mindset shift from this solution mindset to an infrastructure mindset, which we can call the DPI approach. And this has implication on how you invest in digital. Believe me, even if people understand what’s DPI and when they start to develop solution, they go back and develop it with the traditional monolithic way of developing solution. So you need much more change in the mindset to really enable how do you run your investments and procurements. to enable component-based solutions that are maybe those components are not even developed by the same provider. And each provider is developing a separate product. How all those kinds of products and components interact and interoperate in a way that they seem to be like one big thing and not discrete solutions. What we hope to have is to say, if you are going to invest in digital for health, please put in place what we can call the minimum capabilities. What are the main, what we call building blocks or components instead of spending and duplicating the investment in different solution. And this, by the way, applies also for non-health sectors. All the other sectors are suffering. Even digital governors are suffering from the same issue. How we invest in putting in place the minimum capabilities to ensure that those investments will stay and they will not be duplicated and they will not be replicated and even become obsolete in some cases. We really very much focus on knowledge transfer. We would like to make sure that governments, countries own and understand and steer the investments themselves. So we really much put a lot of emphasis on capacity building. Another thing which is super critical is that if you look at most of the transformational health use cases, like for example, universal health insurance or other types of health use cases that are really truly transformational, they cannot be developed and operate without connecting with the underlying digital public infrastructure. Because any applications that needs trust and interoperability will need services like digital identity, e-signature, trusted exchange of information, consent based type of interactions. So all those are not necessarily services that are developed only for the health sector. Those are. more broader, and the health sector needs to be part of that. What happens, unfortunately, in most of the sectors is that each sector thought that they can do it alone. I think many people realize now that a sector cannot transform itself alone, and you don’t need to build the whole stack within each sector, simply because you don’t have the expertise, you don’t have the resources, you don’t have the time even to build a whole stack per sector. So you need to have one stack that is common for the whole of government. This stack, it’s not about this DPI for health should not be like a super complicated, like a Mercedes to cross the road. You need to be fit for purpose. And here with our starting point is really the type of use cases that you need to enable and what kind of outcomes and based on that you develop and design your DPI. So, of course, don’t reinvent the wheel because, you know, many of the things of the health sector has been already developed. So we have established those kind of working groups. And one of the big first things that we are interacting with working groups is to tell them, please don’t think that you need to develop everything alone because many of those things have been developed outside of the health sector and you need to develop it and leverage what has been done. So let me maybe skip or maybe summarize additional points. More and more we’ll have less funding coming at least from the donor community. I think we saw a very good example recently. So I think it’s about being very careful in rationalizing the investment. You cannot continue to depend on donors’ funding. You cannot depend on duplicating investments. And you need to shape the market, meaning you need to steer the public, sorry, the private companies to develop things based on your own. and five building blocks that are very relevant for health. Those are related to electronic health records, supply chain, which are very important for, you know, avoiding stockouts, particularly for very important drugs like malaria and others. The third component, sorry, is registry services. There are very key important services, registries for health. I think there are maybe five or six that are key, health professionals, health facilities, patients, products, catalog, and other types of registries. And then the other one is the claims, insurance claims. So this kind of shareable common components within the health sector needs to interoperate with the underlying, what we call foundational DPI. We have worked at ITU. I was personally part of this other project that we call GAFSTAC, which basically provides specification and open APIs definitions for the underlying DPI, foundational DPI. We started really from the cloud till the digital ID payments, exchange, consent, e-signature, et cetera, et cetera. So we want to make sure that the sectoral DPI fits very well with the underlying type of infrastructure. So what we are trying to do now is that we have established those five different technical groups with one architecture group who are developing started to develop the specification for all those kinds of health specific and you are all more than welcome to join these types of technical working groups if you are interested and of course I can provide you more information later on. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: All right, a big hand for Mr. Hani Eskandar here. Thank you so much. We would shift now to hearing from our panelists. We do have others online, Mr. Innocent Chiboma who is trying to get registered and then we have Surabhi Joshi, we have Stephen and we have Jai. We would perhaps start with the interventionists that are in the room. So I’ll be asking Stephen to introduce himself and the role of the panelists is to really contextualize this in terms of what it means in their respective sectors. So Mr. Stephen, your three minutes.

Steven Wanyee: Thank you Derrick and good afternoon everyone. So my name is Stephen Wanye from Kenya and I’m currently in this panel as the president of HELENA. So HELENA stands for Health Informatics in Africa. It’s an organization where we’ve got more than 20 countries who are members of our association. Basically we exist to professionalize health informatics and digital health by promoting workforce capacity development. I mean so I think with respect to this topic, I mean I think as has been clearly spelled out by Derrick and by Hani, what we’re seeing in Africa and I have the privilege of working in a couple of countries, we’re seeing a lot of ministers of health actually working more broadly with the governments. So as a very specific example, for any of you who’s worked in Kenya, you probably come across a new term called digital health super highway. So the ministry of health in Kenya has actually found domestic financing to build up the DPI for health and the use case in Kenya is actually electronic claims. So I think as Hani mentioned, in the green block there, you have to latch on DPI onto something that actually means something to that country. You know, so the UHC agenda for Kenya is a very clear strategy for access, and access is about affording payments. And so the way the country is looking at this is, how do we then invest the DPI for health in Kenya and use electronic claims as a driver? You know, so there’s a new bill, so we are all contributing to something called social health insurance. And out of our contributions, part of that is funding the DPI for health. So that’s really how it’s working. As one example of what I’m seeing currently going across Africa. So I think to wrap up, Derrick, I think it’s about two minutes or three minutes. What we’re seeing is that digital health and DPI is being driven not necessarily for health purposes, but for either social health enablement strategies, you know, so can you pay for it, and that becomes a driver. I think digital health has suffered a lot because we’ve been looking a lot more at just health outcomes only, but we need to look at associated drivers for digital health investment for DPIs to succeed. Thanks, Derrick.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much, Stephen. A big hand for Stephen as well. We shall turn to Sharabi Joshi online to give us another use case. So we just said from the African region in terms of the specific instance on DPIs in a country for claims and identifying of people, and so ask Sharabi Joshi to also give us a programmatic use case. Sharabi, over to you. We’ll ask the technicians to also unmute Sharabi Joshi to make her interventions. You have three minutes as well.

Surabhi Joshi: Thanks very much, Derrick, and hello, everybody. I’m Sharabi Joshi. I’m a technical officer in the World Health Organization here in Geneva, and I work on with a focus on digital health and non communicable diseases. And I work as part of an initiative called the Be Healthy, Be Mobile initiative, which is a joint initiative between WHO and the International Telecommunications Union. It has a mandate to scale up digital health for non communicable diseases. And we are currently in a refresh mode, we will be relaunching the Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative in September, during the UN General Assembly in New York, on the sidelines of the high level meeting on NCDs as well. And at the moment, we have four areas of priority to focus on. And one of them is on digital public infrastructure, basically developing digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure, and supporting countries develop scalable and secure systems that build on open standards and open source tools. So one of the visions is to contribute to the massive ongoing efforts, both by WHO and ITU towards a more interoperable and person centered ecosystem, also in alignment with the global digital health initiative, GIDH, that Derrick spoke about previously. And this, you know, something that we’ve recently begun to explore is digital wallets, and how non communicable diseases like diabetes and cancers, hypertension, and also their risk factors, how they can be added to the ongoing efforts and initiatives in this broad area of work. So to take digital wallets as a case, when we talk about digital wallets, we are referring to more than just an app, as we heard from Hani. It’s a secure interface that lets people access and share verifiable health credentials, like your vaccination record, for example, in a way that protects the privacy of the person, but also gives him a sense of ownership about managing his own health. So we’ve been thinking about what this could mean for chronic, non-communicable diseases, because they’re lifelong in nature, right, like diabetes. So this could be, for example, a credential that confirms cervical cancer screening for a person, or his participation and successful completion in a tobacco use again and again for a type 2 diabetes treatment. Or it could be also eligibility for a follow-up service at a, let’s say, a tertiary healthcare center. So there could be so many use cases, but all as part of a trusted and integrated digital infrastructure. And something that WHO has been working a lot since the past couple of years, along with the European Commission, is the Global Digital Health Certification Network, which is also a foundational layer of digital public infrastructure that enables countries to verify health credentials across borders. So a use case that has been very successful is the HUDGE health record. And also over time, something that will be done is work on e-prescriptions and immunizations. So what we are hoping to do is to ground our work in this broader effort, and with open standards and interoperability, and also in alignment with the Global Digital Health Certification, taking very practical steps, while keeping on…

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much, Serbi. Can you still hear us? Thank you so much for that programmatic use case, a big handful, virtual handful actually. So thank you very much. Dear participants, we just have one more speaker and then we open it up to hear your reflections on this topic. And Mr. Jai, Dr. Jai Ganesh will be calling us to give us the Southeast Asia, you know, implementation or thoughts or reflections on this particular topic.

Jai Ganesh: Thank you, Derrick. This is Jai. I’m from Asia eHealth Information Network, which is a regional digital health network, which has been working closely with WHO, ITU and many other partners here in terms of supporting countries for the national digital health programs. Primarily, we have been focusing on the four main areas of governance, architecture, people and program management, standards and interoperability. So the DPA approach is very much aligned with what we have been doing in the region. And we have countries officially representing in terms of working council and convergence approach is another way of bringing various sectors, like, for example, multi sectoral coordination, cooperation and collaboration to have a coherent approach in terms of national digital health strategy and its implementation. So one of a couple of things that we are looking at at DPA is like also identifying there are countries in the region who have already leveraged the DPAs for health sector. And then there are others who are yet to do. And then there are some. who are actually thinking in terms of how to do. So we are, because AIHIN actually has been also specialized in training capacity building in the region, we are looking at how we could support countries. And then, so WHO had recently also shared the reference architecture for digital health, and which I have also posted in the chat. So that is something that we are closely looking at how we could actually support countries towards looking up the reference architecture, how they can actually implement it at the country level. And then we see also the, our convergence workshop is also a nice forum where we could actually look at how countries are leveraging DPIs or not, and then how they could actually do. So that’s where like we are currently, our focus is towards supporting countries in terms of how they can leverage the DPIs. In fact, very interesting that in another three months, like we will have our annual event, there will be announcement very soon. And the theme of the event, the general meeting, AIHIN’s general meeting is actually focused on investing in digital public infrastructure for health and person-centered health. So this is very much like the discussion in the panel is very much aligned with what we have been working and then what we are looking forward. And then I would say that look forward to work together with WHO, ITU and partners in terms of taking this to implementation. Thank you very much, Derrick, Hani and team.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much, Dr. Jai Ganesh. Last round of applause to the speakers. All right. We have now about 10 minutes to spend our time together reflecting, getting your views. Again, this is the eHealth Action Line. We’ve actually come from very far based upon the timetable I gave. And right now we’re looking at foundations and we have listened to the ITU’s work with WHO. We’ve also heard from the Helena Network. We’ve also had the programmatic example from Surabhi. And then last, we also heard from Jay Ganesh from the Asia eHealth Network. The floor is open both virtually and also in the room for your reflections on how we can actually take this forward. So let’s start from the room and we’ll be keeping an eye on the interventions. We did have one more speaker who hasn’t been able to join from the Zambian Minister of Health. And if he joins, I’ll give him the floor as well. Okay, the floor is open, both virtual and also in person. Okay, on the left side of the room. Checking on the right side. Okay, there is a point on my right side.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Ibrahim. I come from Senegal. I’m the Director of the Digital Health Department. I have just one question. Generally, WHO and I to invite us in Geneva in order to improve, in order to train, et cetera. Since one year or two year, we don’t see this meeting. When they’re inviting this meeting, I don’t know, it is linked by the lack of resources that you mentioned, or what is the problem? Because generally, WHO and I to help the countries sometimes in some topics, in some project. They lead some project, they open the door and after countries can know what is happened and how they can carry on. But since one year and a year and a half, we don’t have this meeting, I don’t know why.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much. Let’s maybe take. a few more and then we’ll answer them together. Thank you so much, Dr. Derrick, for that.

Audience: Hi, my name is Edna Somra. I work for SPIDER, which is the Center of Enablement for Inclusive Digital Development. And I’m so happy to see Hani and Derrick and Steve. I’ve missed you guys. And also, Hani, I’m sorry. I always come here and I’m not the whole way around. I’m currently leading a Team Europe initiative, working with telecom regulators in 43 African countries. And it really resonates with me, this intersectionality across. It can be within the same country, within the same ministries even. And I think we really have to focus that going forward. I remember a few years back, you kept hammering in systems thinking, system thinking, and I think we’re there now. So I think now multi-stakeholder engagement at all levels of government of digitalization is really key. So I am happy to rejoin some of the working groups, but one of the things I still do, even though it’s not in my mandate to do so, is I think working with the national regulatory associations and the regional regulatory organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa. One of the things I keep driving is, do you know your digital health champions? And they say, why? No, we just sit with documents. Yes, but without you sitting with those documents, enabling data sharing across region, you know, boundaries, we will never get there. So I think it’s really critical that we do engage other sectors and health does affect also. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much for that comment. We’ll take one last intervention and then come back to Dr. Kim.

Audience: Thank you. Mine is in the nature of a comment, but I would be very grateful if there are comments from the floor. I wanted to say that we’ve been working on health-related APIs in India, and we are a non-profit organization that does research and public policy advocacy. It’s called IT for Change. One of the concerns I have is that in the presentations and in your comment as well, we do need to see that the right to health and right to universal access to health for all are part of a continuity of discourse which also needs to find echo in the way in which we conceptualize digital health governance. For instance, bioethics principles in the WHO become extremely important and what they have to do when we translate those principles into the techno-social context of digital health policy is very important. The second I think that’s important is we’ve had many, many debates across time, particularly on issues of intellectual property with respect to health and generic health drugs, for instance, and how those principles will translate into public digital goods or digital infrastructure would be instructive because the principles are the same. The whole idea of populations and their right to health and preventing big pharma from capture is very similar to the way we need to think about digital public goods and health and prevent capture in some ways. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: All right. Thank you so much for the comments. Why don’t we get two more and then Dr. Dia will come. We’ll make Dr. Dia’s question the crowning response because we do have an answer that we’d like to provide. So take the two hands and then we’ll get back.

Audience: Maybe I will just turn a little bit to artificial intelligence, not specifically digital health, but integrated it with AI. A lot of countries actually do not have really an AI governance law. But some of the countries, they do have regulations sectoral, especially in the health sector, like Canada, for example, they have some regulations by sector. So I just wanted to know if the ITU or or the WHO, they have any kind of guidelines or principles or regulations for the health sector, especially that a lot of government, actually, they want to move forward with their digital health use cases.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you. All right, and then last intervention and then we have a conversation.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you so much about talking about AI. My name is Sanya. I represent an AI-based health system solutions provider. I think I actually wanted to talk about how does AI fit in this workflow. A lot of times AI also becomes an intermediate layer which connects different digital infrastructures and adds more value to it, which we have seen working in different under-resourced settings as well. So, just want to understand how are you thinking about this in this entire scheme. Thanks.

Derrick Muneene: I think we should close the floor. All right. Yes. So, we have a few minutes, three minutes to go actually. Let’s now go into the response. Let me ask Mr. Hani Eskandar. Yeah. Two minutes.

Hani Eskandar: Yes. Okay. I’ll try to respond to some questions very quickly. There is already, for the question from Dr. Ahoda, the WHO guidance on ethics and governance of AI for health. It’s a published paper. I think it was published probably more than a year ago. And it contains at least the type of ethical issues that needs to be governed in the use of AI for health. It doesn’t provide specific type of regulations, but it gives us a foundation for what kind of regulations should be considered at least. There was a lot of other questions in this side for the question from India. Very, very briefly, we looked very much for the work that has been done for by the digital health mission in India for the DPI for health. And we got a lot of inspiration and actually some of the working groups are from India.

Derrick Muneene: We will talk about the guide in Zambia and reflections in one minute. All right. If we may mute the microphone.

Innocent Chiboma: Thank you very much. I think agreeing with what the previous speakers have said, for Zambia we are using this opportunity with the guide to strengthen collaboration, to strengthen governance. I think it is very important that whatever we are doing in the area of digital health, that we are in the middle of a digital health strategy. We are doing a mid-term review. Thank you very much.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you. Thank working with colleagues from WHO and many other partners, we’re reviewing that and we’re soon also going to develop our digital health digital health architecture document that that we’re going to be able to share with everybody, but really the important thing is having government leadership in all that we do for the sake of sustainability and also for the sake of scalability we really need to make sure that governments are leading these processes as opposed to what we’ve seen in the past where it’s really partner-led. Thank you. Well, thank you so much. Thank you so much. We almost got to the Swiss timing arrangement. We’re one minute past the hour. I just want to thank all the participants virtual and in person for the enrichment of this conversation and all the panelists for the conversations that have brought to the table. The call to action is we would want to ensure we use action like LINE on eHealth to collaborate effectively to really make the transformation of the health sector a reality in pursuit of university health coverage. I thank you so much. I’ve been your moderator, Dr. Derrick Muneene from WHO and so wishing you a pleasant WSIS engagement. Thank you so much.

Agreement points

Need for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) to Transform Health Systems

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar
– Steven Wanyee
– Surabhi Joshi
– Jai Ganesh

Arguments

The Global Strategy on Digital Health aims to achieve universal health coverage through digital means, incorporating principles such as government ownership and the implementation of appropriate digital tools. This strategy is designed to help achieve health-related SDGs by the 2030 Agenda.

DPI represents a fundamental shift from fragmented, solution-focused approaches to an infrastructure mindset that enables information flow across health sectors. The key difference is transforming the entire health sector rather than solving individual problems, with the main goal being to unlock data flow through trust and interoperability.

Countries are increasingly investing in digital health infrastructure using domestic financing, as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway initiative. This investment is funded through social health insurance contributions, with electronic claims serving as the primary use case driver.

Digital wallets represent more than just applications – they are secure interfaces that enable people to access and share verifiable health credentials while protecting privacy and giving individuals ownership of their health management.

Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) supports countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability.

Summary

All speakers agree that digital health transformation requires moving from fragmented, vertical solutions to comprehensive digital public infrastructure that enables interoperability and information flow across health systems.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Importance of Government Leadership and Ownership

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Steven Wanyee
– Innocent Chiboma

Arguments

The Global Strategy on Digital Health aims to achieve universal health coverage through digital means, incorporating principles such as government ownership and the implementation of appropriate digital tools.

Countries are increasingly investing in digital health infrastructure using domestic financing, as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway initiative.

Zambia is conducting a mid-term review of its digital health strategy and developing a digital health architecture document that will be shared publicly. The emphasis is on government leadership in digital health processes for sustainability and scalability, moving away from partner-led approaches.

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that government ownership and leadership are essential for sustainable and scalable digital health implementations, moving away from donor-dependent, partner-led approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Need for Standards and Interoperability

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar
– Surabhi Joshi
– Jai Ganesh

Arguments

WHO has collaborated with the WSIS platform and ITU for two decades to ensure equitable use of ICTs in health, beginning in 2005 with member state resolutions. This work has evolved through multiple mandates including standardization and interoperability (2013) and the comprehensive digital health mandate (2018).

WHO and ITU are developing a reference architecture with five key building blocks for health: electronic health records, supply chain, registry services, insurance claims, and foundational DPI components.

The Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative focuses on developing digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure using open standards and open source tools. This work aligns with the Global Digital Health Certification Network, which enables countries to verify health credentials across borders.

Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) supports countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability.

Summary

All speakers agree on the critical importance of establishing common standards and ensuring interoperability across digital health systems to enable effective information sharing and system integration.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers identify the same core problem of fragmentation and ‘pilotitis’ in digital health implementations and advocate for the same solution – moving to a comprehensive infrastructure approach rather than isolated vertical solutions.

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar

Arguments

The health sector suffers from ‘pilotitis’ – excessive fragmentation and verticalization of digital solutions, with technology advancing faster than regulatory frameworks can keep pace.

DPI represents a fundamental shift from fragmented, solution-focused approaches to an infrastructure mindset that enables information flow across health sectors.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both African representatives emphasize the importance of domestic financing and government-led approaches to digital health, demonstrating a regional shift toward self-reliance and sustainability in digital health investments.

Speakers

– Steven Wanyee
– Innocent Chiboma

Arguments

Countries are increasingly investing in digital health infrastructure using domestic financing, as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway initiative.

Zambia is conducting a mid-term review of its digital health strategy and developing a digital health architecture document that will be shared publicly. The emphasis is on government leadership in digital health processes for sustainability and scalability, moving away from partner-led approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers from WHO and regional networks emphasize the importance of open standards, governance frameworks, and capacity building as foundational elements for successful digital health implementation.

Speakers

– Surabhi Joshi
– Jai Ganesh

Arguments

The Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative focuses on developing digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure using open standards and open source tools.

Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) supports countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Cross-Sector Collaboration Beyond Health

Speakers

– Hani Eskandar
– Audience

Arguments

Transformational health use cases like universal health insurance cannot operate without connecting to underlying digital public infrastructure. Health sectors need services like digital identity, e-signature, and trusted information exchange, which are broader than health-specific and require cross-sector collaboration.

Multi-stakeholder engagement across sectors and government levels is critical for successful digital health implementation. This includes collaboration between health champions and telecom regulators to enable data sharing across regional boundaries, as digitalization affects multiple sectors.

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that digital health cannot succeed in isolation and requires deep integration with broader government digital infrastructure and collaboration with sectors like telecommunications. This represents a significant shift from traditional health-sector-focused approaches.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

AI Governance and Ethics in Health

Speakers

– Hani Eskandar
– Audience

Arguments

WHO has published comprehensive guidance on ethics and governance of AI for health, providing foundational principles for what kind of regulations should be considered.

The right to health and universal access principles must be translated into digital health governance, incorporating bioethics principles from WHO into techno-social contexts.

Explanation

Despite the technical focus of the session, there was unexpected consensus on the critical importance of ethical frameworks and governance principles for AI in health, with both technical implementers and policy advocates agreeing on the need for rights-based approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus across all speakers on the need to move from fragmented, vertical digital health solutions to comprehensive digital public infrastructure approaches. There was unanimous agreement on the importance of government leadership, standards and interoperability, and cross-sector collaboration. Regional representatives from Africa and Asia demonstrated aligned approaches despite different contexts.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. The implications are positive for global digital health transformation as it suggests a mature, unified understanding of the challenges and solutions needed. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated international action and suggests that the WHO-ITU collaboration has successfully built shared understanding across diverse stakeholders and regions.

Different viewpoints

Funding and Resource Allocation Approaches

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar
– Steven Wanyee

Arguments

More and more we’ll have less funding coming at least from the donor community. I think we saw a very good example recently. So I think it’s about being very careful in rationalizing the investment. You cannot continue to depend on donors’ funding.

Kenya’s ministry of health found domestic financing to build DPI for health using electronic claims as driver, with new social health insurance contributions funding the DPI for health

Summary

While Hani emphasizes the need to move away from donor dependency and rationalize investments, Steven presents Kenya’s approach of using domestic financing through social health insurance. The disagreement lies in the emphasis – Hani focuses on reducing donor dependency as a constraint, while Steven showcases successful domestic financing models.

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Cross-sector Collaboration Emphasis

Speakers

– Audience
– Hani Eskandar

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder engagement across sectors and government levels is critical for successful digital health implementation. This includes collaboration between health champions and telecom regulators to enable data sharing across regional boundaries.

Health sectors need services like digital identity, e-signature, and trusted information exchange, which are broader than health-specific and require cross-sector collaboration.

Explanation

While both recognize the need for cross-sector collaboration, the audience member emphasizes the practical challenges of getting telecom regulators to engage with health champions, suggesting current collaboration is insufficient. Hani acknowledges the need but presents it more as a technical integration challenge rather than a stakeholder engagement problem.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on core challenges (fragmentation, need for DPI, importance of government leadership) but revealed subtle disagreements on implementation approaches, funding strategies, and the adequacy of current governance frameworks.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most disagreements were about means rather than ends, with speakers generally aligned on goals but differing on emphasis and implementation strategies. This suggests a mature field where practitioners agree on problems but are still working out optimal solutions, which is positive for collaborative progress.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers identify the same core problem of fragmentation and ‘pilotitis’ in digital health implementations and advocate for the same solution – moving to a comprehensive infrastructure approach rather than isolated vertical solutions.

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Hani Eskandar

Arguments

The health sector suffers from ‘pilotitis’ – excessive fragmentation and verticalization of digital solutions, with technology advancing faster than regulatory frameworks can keep pace.

DPI represents a fundamental shift from fragmented, solution-focused approaches to an infrastructure mindset that enables information flow across health sectors.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both African representatives emphasize the importance of domestic financing and government-led approaches to digital health, demonstrating a regional shift toward self-reliance and sustainability in digital health investments.

Speakers

– Steven Wanyee
– Innocent Chiboma

Arguments

Countries are increasingly investing in digital health infrastructure using domestic financing, as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway initiative.

Zambia is conducting a mid-term review of its digital health strategy and developing a digital health architecture document that will be shared publicly. The emphasis is on government leadership in digital health processes for sustainability and scalability, moving away from partner-led approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers from WHO and regional networks emphasize the importance of open standards, governance frameworks, and capacity building as foundational elements for successful digital health implementation.

Speakers

– Surabhi Joshi
– Jai Ganesh

Arguments

The Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative focuses on developing digital blueprints for public digital infrastructure using open standards and open source tools.

Asia eHealth Information Network (AIHIN) supports countries through four main areas: governance, architecture, people management, and standards and interoperability.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Digital health transformation requires a shift from fragmented, vertical solutions to integrated Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) that enables information flow through trust and interoperability

WHO and ITU have successfully collaborated for 20 years on digital health initiatives, with over 129 countries now having digital health strategies globally

Government ownership and leadership are critical for sustainability and scalability of digital health initiatives, moving away from donor-dependent, partner-led approaches

Countries are increasingly using domestic financing for digital health infrastructure, with specific use cases like electronic claims driving investment (as demonstrated by Kenya’s digital health superhighway)

Multi-stakeholder engagement across sectors (health, telecom, governance) is essential for successful digital health transformation

The health sector suffers from persistent ‘pilotitis’ – fragmentation of digital solutions that duplicate investments and lack interoperability

Digital wallets and verifiable health credentials represent promising approaches for chronic disease management while protecting patient privacy

Regional networks (HELENA, Asia eHealth Information Network) play crucial roles in capacity building and knowledge sharing across countries

Resolutions and action items

WHO and ITU will host a five-day virtual Global Initiative on Digital Health convening the following week (QR code provided for registration)

Technical working groups are being established for five key building blocks: electronic health records, supply chain, registry services, insurance claims, and foundational DPI components

Be Healthy, Be Mobile 2.0 initiative will be relaunched in September during UN General Assembly in New York

Zambia will complete mid-term review of digital health strategy and develop digital health architecture document to share with stakeholders

Asia eHealth Information Network will announce their annual general meeting in three months focusing on investing in DPI for health and person-centered care

Participants were invited to join technical working groups for developing health-specific DPI specifications

Unresolved issues

Lack of recent WHO-ITU training meetings for countries, with participants noting absence of such meetings for 1-2 years

How to effectively translate bioethics principles and right to health concepts into digital health governance frameworks

Integration of AI as an intermediate layer connecting different digital infrastructures and its governance within DPI framework

Specific regulatory frameworks for AI in health sector, as many countries lack comprehensive AI governance laws

How to prevent capture of digital public goods in health similar to intellectual property issues with pharmaceuticals

Addressing the gap in people skills and capacity building that remains a challenge for country digital health maturity

Suggested compromises

Countries should leverage existing DPI components from other sectors rather than building everything from scratch within health sector

Focus on fit-for-purpose solutions rather than overly complex systems (‘not a Mercedes to cross the road’)

Use specific health use cases (like electronic claims, universal health insurance) as drivers for broader DPI investment rather than health outcomes alone

Combine sectoral approaches with foundational cross-government digital infrastructure to avoid duplication while meeting health-specific needs

Balance open standards and interoperability requirements with practical country implementation needs and existing systems

This has been the number one problem in all different types of digitalization. And as I always say, digital is data. And if you are not able to unlock data flow, then you cannot really leverage the full impact of digital.

Speaker

Hani Eskandar

Reason

This comment cuts to the core of digital transformation challenges by identifying data flow as the fundamental issue. It reframes the entire discussion from focusing on individual solutions to understanding the underlying infrastructure needed for true transformation.

Impact

This insight shifted the conversation from discussing fragmented health solutions to emphasizing the need for interoperability and trust mechanisms. It provided the conceptual foundation for understanding why DPI is necessary and influenced subsequent speakers to focus on integration rather than isolated implementations.

This kind of change, it’s a kind of a more radical mindset shift from this solution mindset to an infrastructure mindset, which we can call the DPI approach. And this has implication on how you invest in digital.

Speaker

Hani Eskandar

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental paradigm shift required for successful digital health transformation. It challenges the traditional approach of building individual solutions and calls for a completely different way of thinking about digital investments.

Impact

This observation elevated the discussion beyond technical considerations to strategic and philosophical ones. It influenced subsequent speakers like Steven Wanyee to provide concrete examples of how countries are actually implementing this mindset shift, such as Kenya’s digital health superhighway approach.

I think digital health has suffered a lot because we’ve been looking a lot more at just health outcomes only, but we need to look at associated drivers for digital health investment for DPIs to succeed.

Speaker

Steven Wanyee

Reason

This comment provides a crucial insight into why many digital health initiatives fail. It suggests that focusing solely on health outcomes is insufficient and that broader socio-economic drivers (like payment systems) are necessary for sustainability.

Impact

This perspective broadened the discussion scope significantly, moving from technical architecture to understanding the political economy of digital health. It influenced the conversation to consider how DPI investments need to be tied to tangible benefits that governments and citizens can immediately recognize and value.

The whole idea of populations and their right to health and preventing big pharma from capture is very similar to the way we need to think about digital public goods and health and prevent capture in some ways.

Speaker

Audience member from IT for Change

Reason

This comment draws a powerful parallel between traditional health equity issues and digital health governance, introducing critical questions about power dynamics and potential corporate capture in digital health infrastructure.

Impact

This intervention introduced a more critical and equity-focused lens to the discussion, challenging the predominantly technical and implementation-focused conversation. It raised important questions about governance, ownership, and the potential risks of DPI approaches that weren’t adequately addressed in the initial presentations.

One of the things I keep driving is, do you know your digital health champions? And they say, why? No, we just sit with documents. Yes, but without you sitting with those documents, enabling data sharing across region, you know, boundaries, we will never get there.

Speaker

Edna Somra

Reason

This comment highlights a critical gap in multi-stakeholder engagement, specifically pointing out that telecom regulators – who are essential for enabling data flows – are often disconnected from digital health initiatives.

Impact

This observation reinforced the need for cross-sectoral collaboration that had been mentioned earlier but provided a concrete example of how siloed thinking persists even within government structures. It supported the broader theme about the need for systems thinking and multi-stakeholder engagement.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by elevating it from a technical presentation about digital health solutions to a more nuanced conversation about systemic transformation challenges. Hani Eskandar’s insights about data flow and mindset shifts provided the conceptual framework that influenced how subsequent speakers framed their contributions. Steven Wanyee’s observation about looking beyond health outcomes alone introduced important considerations about political economy and sustainability. The audience interventions, particularly from IT for Change and Edna Somra, brought critical perspectives on equity, governance, and cross-sectoral collaboration that weren’t adequately addressed in the initial presentations. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a straightforward technical discussion into a more comprehensive examination of the complex socio-technical challenges involved in digital health transformation, highlighting the need for fundamental changes in how stakeholders think about, invest in, and govern digital health infrastructure.

When will WHO and ITU resume their regular training meetings for countries that have been absent for the past 1-2 years?

Speaker

Ibrahim (Director of Digital Health Department, Senegal)

Explanation

This addresses a gap in capacity building support that countries have been expecting and relying on for digital health development

How can multi-stakeholder engagement be better coordinated across different government ministries and sectors for digital health implementation?

Speaker

Edna Somra (SPIDER)

Explanation

This highlights the need for systems thinking and cross-sectoral collaboration, particularly involving telecom regulators who enable data sharing across boundaries

How should bioethics principles from WHO be translated into techno-social contexts of digital health policy?

Speaker

Participant from IT for Change (India)

Explanation

This addresses the critical need to maintain right to health and universal access principles when implementing digital health governance

How can principles from intellectual property debates in pharmaceuticals be applied to prevent capture in digital public goods for health?

Speaker

Participant from IT for Change (India)

Explanation

This draws parallels between protecting populations from big pharma capture and preventing similar issues in digital health infrastructure

What specific AI governance guidelines or regulations does WHO/ITU provide for the health sector?

Speaker

Unnamed participant

Explanation

Many countries lack AI governance laws but need sectoral guidance for health-specific AI implementations

How does AI fit as an intermediate layer connecting different digital infrastructures in the DPI framework?

Speaker

Sanya (AI-based health system solutions provider)

Explanation

This addresses how AI can add value by connecting different digital infrastructures, particularly in under-resourced settings

How can countries ensure digital health strategies remain implementable rather than just existing as documents?

Speaker

Derrick Muneene (WHO)

Explanation

While 129 countries have digital health strategies, there’s still work needed to make these strategies practically implementable

How can the issue of ‘pilotitis’ and fragmentation in digital health solutions be systematically addressed in the age of AI?

Speaker

Derrick Muneene (WHO)

Explanation

The fragmentation problem identified in 2012-2013 persists in 2022, and rapid AI development may exacerbate this issue without holistic approaches

Summary

The Youth Knowledge Café was a special interactive session held as part of the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025, designed to gather youth perspectives on the future of the World Summit on the Information Society process. The session brought together young leaders, ITU Youth Advisory Board members, young professional program officers, and ITU 160 gender champions to contribute ideas that would feed directly into the high-level dialogue and ultimately into reports submitted to the UN General Assembly in December 2025.

The event began with opening remarks emphasizing the historical significance of youth participation in WSIS and the importance of meaningful youth engagement in digital policy-making. Speakers highlighted that this session represented a youth-driven approach where young people would lead discussions rather than simply listen to presentations. Vladimir provided a comprehensive overview of WSIS history, explaining how the process began in 1998, evolved through summits in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005), and established eleven action lines that continue to guide digital development globally.

Participants were divided into working groups to brainstorm ideas for enhancing WSIS over the next 20 years. Key themes that emerged included the need to operationalize youth ideas rather than leaving them conceptual, ensuring dedicated seats for youth in high-level plenaries, and increasing participation of community-based organizations. Groups emphasized the importance of digital literacy initiatives that go beyond simple connectivity, advocating for programs that empower individuals to use technology effectively for community development.

Other significant recommendations included localizing WSIS outcomes to reach grassroots communities, improving awareness of WSIS among young people through storytelling and media engagement, and creating structured pathways for sustained youth involvement. Participants stressed that technology should serve people rather than the reverse, calling for ethical and responsible approaches to AI development that include diverse youth perspectives. The session concluded with a commitment to compile all ideas into a comprehensive report that would influence the December 2025 UN General Assembly review of the WSIS process.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Youth Knowledge Café Introduction and WSIS Overview**: The session introduced participants to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, its 20-year history since 2003-2005, and its upcoming review by the UN General Assembly in December 2025. Speakers emphasized that this youth-driven session would directly feed into high-level policy discussions.

– **Operationalizing Youth Ideas and Sustained Engagement**: Multiple groups highlighted the need to move beyond simply collecting youth input to actually implementing their ideas through concrete action. Participants called for sustained youth involvement throughout the WSIS process rather than one-off consultations, including dedicated seats for youth in plenaries and high-level events.

– **Digital Literacy, Capacity Building, and Inclusive Access**: Groups emphasized that connectivity alone is insufficient – there must be comprehensive digital literacy initiatives that empower people to effectively use technology. They stressed the importance of ensuring digital content represents diverse cultures and perspectives, with policies grounded in real community needs rather than bureaucratic requirements.

– **Localization and Grassroots Participation**: Participants advocated for making WSIS more accessible at the local level through storytelling, media engagement, and connecting with entrepreneurship hubs and community organizations. They emphasized the need for better awareness of WSIS among young people globally and creating pathways for grassroots participation.

– **Technology Serving People and Ethical Development**: A key theme emerged that “technology should serve people and not the other way around,” particularly regarding AI bias and data representation. Groups called for youth perspectives in developing ethical, responsible technology solutions and ensuring diverse representation in AI training data.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to gather youth input for the WSIS+20 review process, specifically to shape policy recommendations that will be presented to the UN General Assembly in December 2025. The session was designed as a “youth-driven” consultation to ensure young voices are meaningfully integrated into global digital governance discussions and the future direction of the WSIS process.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently energetic, collaborative, and empowering throughout the session. Speakers used encouraging language, repeatedly emphasizing that participants were “making history” and that their ideas would have direct policy impact. The atmosphere was supportive and inclusive, with facilitators actively working to create a “free and safe space” for innovative thinking. The tone remained optimistic and action-oriented from start to finish, with participants responding enthusiastically to calls for bold, creative solutions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Charlyne Restivo** – Co-moderator from ITU, former WSIS intern

– **Dana Kramer** – PhD candidate at Toronto Metropolitan University, leads a youth internet governance forum for Canada

– **Hamza Hameed** – ITU Youth Advisory Board member of the Secretary General, Head of Space and Development at the Global Government Advisory

– **Speaker 3** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Roser Almenar** – PhD student in AI and Space Law at the University of Valencia in Spain, member of Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Board

– **Speaker 4** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Sylvia Poll** – Senior Gender and Youth Advisor to the ITU Secretary-General

– **Dunola Oladapo** – Youth Programme Officer in ITU, co-moderator

– **Speaker 2** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Nadia Tjahja** – PhD researcher at the United Nations University in Bruges, organizes the European Youth IGF

– **Clinton Oduor** – ITU Secretary General Youth Advisory Board member

– **Speaker 5** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Speaker 1** – Role/expertise not specified

**Additional speakers:**

– **Vladimir** – WSIS team member for 10+ years, involved in coordinating WSIS events and processes

# Youth Knowledge Café: Discussion Report

## WSIS+20 Review Process

### Executive Summary

The Youth Knowledge Café was an interactive session designed to gather youth input for the WSIS+20 review process, with outcomes feeding directly into the high-level dialogue and ultimately into reports submitted to the UN General Assembly in December 2025. The session brought together ITU Youth Advisory Board members, Young Professional Programme (YPP) officers, and ITU gender champions in a collaborative format emphasizing youth leadership and meaningful participation.

The session featured group discussions focused on identifying key priorities and actionable recommendations for the WSIS process, with facilitators emphasizing that participants were contributing to historic policy development. Unlike traditional consultations, this event positioned young people as leaders and experts, creating what organizers described as a “free and safe space” for innovative thinking.

### Session Context and Participants

The session was facilitated by five co-moderators including Charlyne Restivo from ITU (former WSIS intern), Sylvia Paul (Senior Gender and Youth Advisor to the ITU Secretary-General), Hamza Hameed (ITU Youth Advisory Board member), and Dunola Oladapo (Youth Programme Officer in ITU). Participants included Youth Advisory Board members, YPP officers, and gender champions selected from almost 1,300 applications.

Sylvia Paul emphasized that “youth should be in the driving seat of this completely youth-driven session to learn from young people,” positioning senior officials as learners rather than traditional mentors. This approach represented a significant departure from hierarchical consultation models.

### Opening Remarks and WSIS Context

#### Historical Framework

Vladimir, a WSIS team member with over 10 years of experience, provided comprehensive historical context explaining how the WSIS process began as a concept in 1998, evolved through landmark summits in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005), and established action lines that continue to guide digital development globally. He explained that the current review process, now branded as “WSIS Plus 20,” represents a critical juncture for assessing progress and setting future directions.

#### Youth Engagement Imperative

Hamza Hameed provided stark context by noting that “more than 2.6 billion people around the world remain offline, with more than half of them being young people.” He framed digital inclusion as both a technical challenge and “a moral responsibility,” arguing that “connectivity should be recognised as a fundamental human right.”

Charlyne Restivo emphasized that “youth are making history by being embedded in WSIS and their voices matter for the high-level dialogue,” positioning the session as a historic opportunity for direct policy influence.

### Group Discussions and Outcomes

The session featured two rounds of group work. Initially, participants were divided into four groups, later reorganized into three groups when groups 1 and 2 merged. Some participants joined online and contributed via chat.

#### Round One: Priority Identification

Groups engaged in brainstorming exercises to identify key priorities for WSIS+20. A QR code polling system was used to assess participants’ existing knowledge levels of WSIS processes.

#### Round Two: Focused Discussions

Groups developed specific recommendations around identified themes, with each group reporting back to the plenary.

### Key Themes and Recommendations

#### Operationalizing Youth Ideas and Sustained Engagement

Clinton Oduor, ITU Secretary General Youth Advisory Board member, emphasized the “need for operationalising youth ideas through utilising ITU and UN networks to move beyond the idea stage.” Multiple speakers identified the lack of structured pathways for youth to meaningfully engage and have their voices heard in WSIS processes.

Key recommendations included:

– Dedicated seats for youth in plenaries and high-level events

– Structured pathways for ongoing engagement beyond one-off events

– Utilization of existing ITU and UN networks to transform ideas into actionable projects

#### Digital Literacy and Inclusive Access

Participants emphasized that connectivity alone is insufficient for meaningful digital inclusion. One group representative noted: “Beyond simply providing connectivity, we must prioritise digital literacy initiatives that empower individuals to harness the internet effectively for community development and global benefit.”

Dunola Oladapo stressed the importance of “digital health equity and assistive technology access, especially e-health applications and disability inclusive digital development.” Participants consistently argued that information systems should “authentically reflect diversity of culture and perspectives rather than narrow subsets.”

#### Localization and Grassroots Participation

Multiple speakers identified low WSIS awareness in mainstream and education spaces as preventing young generations from knowing about activities. Dana Kramer, PhD candidate at Toronto Metropolitan University who leads a youth internet governance forum for Canada, advocated for the need to “localise WSIS and have more grassroots participation through storytelling and dedicated opportunities.”

Nadia Tjahja, PhD researcher at the United Nations University in Bruges who organizes the European Youth IGF, proposed that “WSIS should be promoted in entrepreneurship spaces and business hubs where youth can learn and contribute.”

#### Technology Ethics and Human-Centered Development

Roser Almenar, PhD student in AI and Space Law at the University of Valencia and member of Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Board, articulated a key principle: “Technology should serve people and not the other way around.” She specifically highlighted concerns about “AI bias and underrepresentation,” arguing for youth perspectives in developing ethical, responsible technology solutions.

#### Financial Barriers and Resource Accessibility

Participants identified “dedicated funding mechanisms” as essential, noting that “many youth want to attend but face financial barriers, especially in developing countries.” Dana Kramer noted that “there’s an opportunity gap both across countries and within countries that needs to be addressed for meaningful engagement.”

### Immediate Outcomes and Next Steps

#### Report Compilation

All group notes and ideas are being compiled into a comprehensive report that will feed directly into the WSIS+20 review process and the UN General Assembly submission in December 2025.

#### Continued Dialogue

Participants were encouraged to attend the immediate follow-up Multi-stakeholder Intergenerational High-Level Dialogue in plenary room C to continue the conversation and ensure continuity between youth-focused discussions and broader stakeholder engagement.

#### Direct Policy Contribution

Youth were advised to contribute directly to draft papers and white papers for the UN review process by connecting with co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania.

#### Institutional Integration

ITU committed to operationalizing youth ideas and integrating them across ITU work streams rather than leaving them as concepts. The Youth Advisory Board and Young Professional Programme officers were tasked with facilitating ongoing youth engagement beyond this event.

### Conclusion

The Youth Knowledge Café demonstrated a meaningful approach to youth engagement in international digital governance, moving beyond token consultation to substantive policy contribution. The session generated concrete recommendations around sustained engagement, digital inclusion, localization, technology ethics, and resource accessibility. The success of this model will ultimately be measured by how effectively the ideas generated translate into the formal WSIS+20 review process and subsequent policy developments.

The high level of engagement and sophisticated understanding demonstrated by participants suggests significant potential for youth contributions to global digital governance, provided that structural barriers around funding, access, and implementation pathways can be addressed.

Charlyne Restivo: And welcome to the Youth Knowledge Café. We’re very happy to host you today. So the Youth Knowledge Café is a very special event. We’re having here today. You are making history by just being here. Youth embedded in WSIS is part also history. So I am Charlyne from ITU and I will be your co-moderator today with my colleague Dunola. And our role is to keep the ideas flowing. This session has been conceived as an interactive session. We want to hear from you. So your role is to speak up, challenge assumptions, shape the conversations. So some of you are familiar with WSIS. Some of you may not be so familiar with WSIS. So not to worry. We’ll have an introduction as to what WSIS is, its importance and why your voice matters. So right after this WSIS Knowledge Café, there will be a multi-stakeholder intergenerational high-level dialogue. And the outcomes of this very session will feed straight into this high-level dialogue. So we will invite you to go straight to plenary room C to attend this important session. So today we will go in few stages. First, I would like to mention that the reason why this session is so special today is because we are joining forces as well with the Youth Advisory Board of the ITU Secretary General. And I would like to invite those Youth Advisory Board members to raise their hand. Yes. But we also have… with us today, some young professional program officers. So this is also a new initiative by the ITU to include young people in our work stream. So please, the YPPs in the room, raise your hands. So today’s session will be facilitated by five facilitators, and I would also like them to raise their hands, please. So our facilitators today are a mix of YPP, young professional program officers, and also youth advisory board members. So we will start with some remarks, some opening remarks, and then we’ll go into some icebreaker questions to warm you up a little bit. Afterwards, we will split in groups where you’ll be invited to think about some maybe tough questions, but we really want you to feel free in being innovative right now. So this is a free and safe space to share your vision. Okay, so we’ll do two separate exercises, one after the other. And you see here that you have some good snacks as well, so do enjoy. And we will conclude with some final reflections. So without further ado, I am pleased to introduce here Ms. Sylvia Paul, our Senior Gender and Youth Advisor to the ITU Secretary-General for some opening remarks. Over to you.

Sylvia Poll: No, thank you. Thank you very much, Charlene, and I know we’re in great hands with you and Dunola. I also would like to give a warm welcome to our ITU 160 gender champions. So please raise your hands, please. Who are you? Please raise your hands. Our gender champions were selected from its initiative. with the support of Canada were selected from almost 1,300 applications, and they’re coming from countries like Pakistan, Ghana, Iraq, Jamaica, and they were selected because of the digital inclusion projects they’re doing in their communities. So they’re going to bring probably a lot of great ideas to this discussion, and I hope that you all are very, very much engaged, and we’re very happy to have you here and participating today. So as everybody has already told you, welcome, welcome, welcome to the WSIS Forum, and also for as of tomorrow, the AI for Good, and especially this Knowledge Café for the Youth Track. I know my colleague Vladimir has done over the years a great job on the Youth Track, and now we’re collaborating even more closely with him to enhance, and next year it’s going to be even better, Vladimir. You’ll see, we’re going to have a lot more, even more things, and building on the great work that Vladimir has, Vladimir is over there. So he has like 10 hats, we saw him a few minutes ago, he was running around with the Secretary General and getting us, trying to get us together for the photo, with the Secretary General and the young people. Vladimir is an amazing colleague. And for us, this is a very special session, because the WSIS Youth Day is because of you. And for us, it’s very important that you as young people are taking the lead, you are in the driving seat. This is a completely youth-driven session. So all people like me are just going to listen and pay attention to what you’re going to do, and learn from you, especially learn from you. And it has been co-organized and will be co-facilitated by young ITU colleagues, and also young digital changemakers. It’s a great opportunity to have your voices to be heard, and your ideas. So every idea will be welcome and your solutions to be integrated into the heart of the WSIS process. And as Charlyne mentioned, what will come out of here, this will be part of the report which will be submitted to Jung Unga in September. So it’s important that what you share today, this will be part of that. And what we’re doing here is fully aligned with the UN Wide Youth 2030 Strategy with calls for meaningful youth engagement and policy making and decision making. This is also reflected to the Pact for the Future and the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration of the Future Generations, and as well the ITU Youth Strategy. For us, it’s very important, the work that we do on youth engagement and youth empowerment. And these frameworks, both the UN as well as the ITU one, they help us do a call for meaningful youth participation in the digital development process and advocate for creating the kind of environment where you, young people, can fully unleash the digital potential to advance the SDGs. So as you engage today in your breakout groups, I do encourage you, be reflective, be ambitious and innovative with your ideas. Your discussions today will contribute to the WSIS outcome report, as I just mentioned. So it counts. Think about what we can reshape and amplify the way young people are engaged in digital spaces, not only from the ITU’s perspective, from the work that we do in the ITU, but also in the whole WSIS process. How can young people better participate and benefit from this process? As a young expert and change maker, your insights on these issues are really valuable. And this session is really an opportunity. We don’t get many of these interactions, as you see. Many are just sitting and listening. But here, we really want to listen to you. And as Charlene mentioned, I’m very honored. I was appointed in February as the Senior Gender and Youth Advisor to the ITU. Secretary General. For me, it’s an enormous honor and privilege. And I’m heading a great team. Dunola is part of the team. Maud, where are you, Maud? Maud is over there. She’s also part of the team. And we have Arianna and Tracy. And we are working to really assure that meaningful youth engagement is not just a priority, it’s a mandate. Okay, we want to ensure that your ideas just don’t remain ideas. We on Friday, we had a the physical meeting, our youth advisory boards were Secretary General, and we told them that we want to operationalize, we want to make your ideas concrete. And, and we want to integrate them into the work of our across the ITU. So, as I already mentioned, it’s really great to see the youth advisory board members here, the YPPs, where are the YPPs? There you go. We’re that’s our first cohort, I hope the first of many, many cohorts. And also, as I just said, the ITU 160 gender champions. So thank you for having me. And if you see me around the week, I’m not very easy to not be seen. I’m very tall and flawed. Please reach out, say hello. Come talk to me. I would love to hear your ideas outside of this event. I’ll be here around the whole week. So thank you very much for having me here. And back to you, Charlene. Thank you.

Charlyne Restivo: Many thanks, Sylvia. It is indeed very energizing to be surrounded by so many bright young minds. And going now over to Hamza Hamid, who is the ITU Youth Advisory Board member of the Secretary General, and also the Head of Space and Development at the Global Government Advisory. Please share with us your opening remarks.

Hamza Hameed: Thank you very much. Charlene, thank you, Sylvia. Distinguished Minister, Honourable colleagues, fellow young leaders and friends. Good afternoon. It’s a real pleasure to talk to all of you and welcome you to this critical and inspiring session. Sincerely like to thank the ITU for opening up this space here for us, all of us today. My name is Hamza and I’m honored to be a member of the ITU Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Board. The Youth Advisory Board has been mentioned quite a lot in the opening remarks we’ve had thus far. And we’re really committed alongside all of you, all of you fellow young leaders, to make sure that the voice of the youth and the voice of the next generation is recognized as we build the next few years of WSIS. This is truly a unique moment for all of us, not just to talk about youth, but also to lead, to shape and to contribute our visions directly to the future of WSIS. The World Summit on the Information Society has already transformed lives over the past 20 years and has advanced digital development, ensuring that the benefits of technology are shared more equitably. Through its various action lines, WSIS has guided real progress in bridging the digital divide, particularly by promoting connectivity in rural areas, improving access to ICT for underserved communities, and fostering universal access to information. But that’s all done. The real question before all of us is what comes next? How can we, as young people, take ownership of this process and ensure that it continues to empower everyone, everywhere? I’m particularly delighted to see that WSIS’ multi-stakeholder community recognizes youth as an essential stakeholder in this process. The presence of so many young leaders in this room here today demonstrates that youth are not only included, but are also valued as one of the most important stakeholders. After all, it is all of you, the youth, that will be using, building and shaping the technologies of the future. We already know that young people are at the heart of digital innovation and inclusion. Around the world, youth-led initiatives are creating platforms for education, driving digital entrepreneurship, advocating for inclusion, and even shaping policies on AI and ethics. Yet, more than 2.6 billion people around the world remain offline, with more than half of them being young people. Bridging that digital divide is not only a technical challenge, but it’s a moral responsibility. And I believe that connectivity should be recognized as a fundamental human right and should be accessible to everyone so that they can unlock the opportunities that they need to succeed in this digital society. And this is why today’s session matters so much. This is your opportunity to think broadly and boldly about WSIS and what it should look like in the next 20 years. I encourage all of you to share your ideas freely, be creative, be critical, and be courageous. Whether you’ve been deeply engaged with the WSIS process for years or you’re learning about it for the first time ever, your perspective matters. Together, through conversations like this, we can shape a WSIS that reflects the needs, the energy, and the vision of our generation. A WSIS that leaves no one behind and truly reflects the aspirations of our generation. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your insights and ideas throughout the session.

Charlyne Restivo: Thank you very much, Hamza. And you’re right, young people are at the heart of innovation. And actually, there will be great showcases throughout the week, especially in terms of AI. You’ll see that there will be some pitching competitions and also some winning solutions that have been led by the young people. And you will be able to attend the sessions during the AI for Good Summit. So, now, let’s move on. First, we will ask you one question. which is, how much do you know about WSIS? This is a question I ask myself because I started my career at ITU as a WSIS intern, as a matter of fact, some 10 years ago, let’s say. So, WSIS is not only a big annual event, it’s also a process, and we wanted to gauge your understanding on how much do you know about WSIS. Can they spell it out? Can you spell it out? Yes, exactly. So, we already asked that question, I believe, when you signed up and the results show. Next slide. Yes, here is a QR that you please pull out your phone so you can also answer this question live. I will do it myself. And then we’ll go into the results. Okay. So, results so far show that a majority of you have actively participated in WSIS events and activities. May we have the next slide showing? But this is still moving. So, what I see here is, yes, majority has actively participated in WSIS, then about 30%. Then we have a basic understanding of WSIS, and let’s say one third don’t know much about it. So, this is great. It sets the stage for my colleague, Vladimir. We will introduce what is WSIS and what have been the key achievements over the year. So, I would like now to hand over the floor to you, Vladimir. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaker 1: And another thank you. Can you hear me now? Mic is on. Check. One, two. It’s coming up, it’s coming up, it’s coming up. All right. So, welcome everyone to the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025. We have rebranded the event that is generally WSIS Forum, but the ITU members thought that this particular event should be rebranded as the High-Level Event. So, why is it so important? It’s so important because we are in 2025 and what’s happening in 2025 is happening the second overall review by the United Nations General Assembly on 16th and 17th December in New York. They will be talking, deciding, discussing how well did we do in the last 10 years because the previous 10-year review was in 2015. And what will be the future of the WSIS Summit on Information Society process? So, I would like to, of course, thank our moderators, of course, Silvia, for providing opening remarks as always so well, really, you know, making, putting us in the context of the importance of youth for ITU, WSIS including. So, let’s go back to some of the history of the WSIS. Next slide, please. So, it is a UN process. It is hosted by International Telecommunication Union. However, we have been co-organizing this together with the UNDP, UNESCO and UNCTAD. So, besides that, more than 50 UN agencies are contributing either as WSIS Action Line facilitators. or really, you know, coming here to this event, organizing workshops, sessions, high-level dialogues and so on. Next slide. You will also learn that we started in 1998 as a concept idea. It was proposed by the ITU, Member State Tunisia, at the Minneapolis Planning Potentiary Conference in United States in 1998. And as the Planning Potentiary Conferences of ITU are the highest body, a governing body, where the resolutions are being discussed and adopted, this particular proposal by Tunisia was adopted. And in 2001, the ITU Secretary General at that time proposed to the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Secretary General that such a summit should take place. If you go back to 1998, not sure how many of you will be able to, but think about it. There was, all right, great, great, it’s, you know, we belong to a generation that was analog and moved to fully digital, a lot to praise about and a lot to, you know, go around criticizing, you know, how youth are using the digital, you know, too often or whatever, at least my son. So going back to 1998 and 2001, the world was completely different. They figured out that something big is happening. And they said, listen, we need to talk about what is this information society that we should be building. Some of the member states, some of the regions were already, you know, well-advanced into having some already insights into and use of ICTs. Some were really just, you know, starting to understand this. We are still, you know, having one third of the population offline. However, we are all here to, you know, join and work together that nobody stays behind. But you know, thinking about it at that time, no one knew that digital technologies will rise and develop so exponentially. Even today, we are now here discussing lots of things, very hard to predict. So think about 1998 and 2001, the heads of countries, prime ministers, presidents, ministers of ICTs, and all other segments of life came together to discuss, okay, so digital will be really in all segments of life, so we need to decide how we’re going to deal with this. And in 2003, the first summit took place here in Geneva. In 2005, it was in Tunis, and the two major versus, how would I say, basic texts were developed and brought together, the Geneva Declaration and Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda and the Versus Action Alliance, and they are the ones that are still in power. So you can imagine there was something, you know, three to five years that was developed over the time, carefully, with everyone really on board, sharing and giving them contributions and input on how this Versus Action Alliance should be developed, and how can we cover all different segments of life. So in 2005, the first mandate was given to all stakeholders. A very important thing to mention, the world of UN prior to this summit was not so much multi-stakeholder, but this event really opened up doors to all stakeholders. And since then, we’ve been, you know, working on this with everyone to make sure that all stakeholders are there. It’s also an event and a process that is inclusive, that is crowdfunded. If you know, if some of you here are having their own sessions, you would know that you have to submit that to the open consultation process so that the session takes place. So we are here because of you, as Sylvia mentioned. If it wasn’t you telling us what we should be doing, we probably would do something, but not as good as, you know, together with you. So this special track on youth started years ago, and then we moved on having it for a couple of years. Then we started also including the special track on older persons. which is also very, very important. Then both communities came back to us and said, guys, we should do it intergenerational. So we went to the intergenerational angle, and this year we are kind of having a special youth track with intergenerational aspects. In 2005, the General Assembly gave the first mandate to all member states and different UN agencies and all other stakeholders to implement the VC section lines until 2015. So 2015, the first milestone that was reached kind of came timely with the new United Nations Development Agenda. From Millennium Development Goals, we moved to the Sustainable Development Goals. And this is when all the VC section lines and all the VC process got aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Development. And this was done by UN agencies, all of them coming together. And in the next slide, you will see that these are the action lines that were developed in 2003 and continue to be implemented. And in the next slide, this is the framework, the governance framework that has been running from the very beginning, similar to this wheel, from the VC section lines and the VC forum as the annual event, the VC stock taking, a database that has been maintained by ITU since 2004, having more than 15,000 entries. It’s a kind of a museum of ICT and digital projects from 2004 till date. And you can always go back to history thinking about, okay, so which technology was used where and how to make impact on a particular topic or theme. So it’s a great and valuable database that you are all invited to use and contribute to. The UNGES, United Nations Group on Information Society, is something that I would like to mention here. So going back to the mandate in 2005, 2015, this is where this group came together to, first of all, it was established in 2005 by the Chief Executive Board of United Nations. Then in 2015, they worked on this VSIS and SDG matrix. that we’ve been working and implementing since 2015. So in that timeline, you will see that in 2025, where we are right now, is the moment where the second overall review of what we have all been doing is coming together in New York and the decisions will be very important and made by the contributions by all of us. So you are all invited to follow this review and contribute to it more than anyone else because the future and beyond 2025 belongs to you. So don’t miss this opportunity. It’s an open call. There is the modalities resolution, I’ll tell you more about it later, but this is very important to repeat this and have you really contribute actively to this. So you can come back to us, the WSIS team, and ask questions on how you can actually be engaged in that. In the next slide, you will see that what I mentioned, the importance of the multi-stakeholder process and its nature involving all stakeholders for all these many years. In the next slide, we’ll have a bit of a data of what has been achieved since 2005. So not so well-developed targets maybe at the beginning, very difficult to maybe bring the KPIs, but this is something that actually came from ITU Facts and Figures 2024 publication, a very important ITU publication that we all should be using, on how many people are connected, how many schools are connected, what about the gender mainstreaming, the equality in using the internet, again, how much youth, and you can see here 15 to 20 years of age, 79% of youth around the world are using internet. So these are some of the targets that we are still working very hard to continue and reach out to everyone, make sure that everyone stays connected and is connected. So again, this all will be discussed at this review in December, and perhaps the targets will be better shaped. So your input will be very important. In the next slide, we’ll have a bit of a data of what has been achieved since 2005. So not so well-developed targets maybe at the beginning, very difficult to maybe bring the KPIs, but this is something that actually came from ITU Facts and Figures 2024 publication, a very important ITU publication that we all should be using, on how many youth, and you can see here 15 to 20 years of age, 79% of youth around the world are using internet. So again, this all will be discussed at this review in December, and perhaps the targets will be better shaped. So your input will be very important. Next slide. We have some of the impact of the stock taking that I was mentioning about. Very important to mention here, not sure if the next slide will be presenting that, but go to the WSIS stock taking platform, research on the database, contribute to it. And one important spinoff of the WSIS stock taking took place in 2012. Now, a lot of people know about WSIS because of it. It’s called the WSIS Prizes Contest. And more than 6,000 projects were submitted for this since 2012. In the last five, six years, we’ve been averaging 1,000 submissions received each year. So please use this opportunity to, again, mark your calendars for the next year WSIS Prizes and submit. It doesn’t have to be your project. It could be projects that you have been experiencing and you think the world should know about. So it doesn’t have to be really just from our own personal interest and angle, but really to show and present the good work that is being done around the world. The group On Information Society, as I also already mentioned, is a very important group. So the entire process is being, you know, co-organized, implemented by United Nations family, each of them having different tasks or really just in a collaborative manner. In the next slide. The WSIS Forum, the event that started in 2009. So if you follow the history, 2003, 2005, after that there was some cluster of meetings that took place since 2006 until 2009. And at that time, we already saw that so much reporting has been coming through member states, through international organizations, civil society, private sector as well, technical organizations, academia, that ITU started to actually have and host together, co-organizing with other agencies the WSIS Forum annual event. This is where we are right now. So it’s been quite a pleasure for me personally to be a part of the WSIS team the last 10 years. So I joined 2014, my first WSIS Forum as an organizer was in 2015. But prior to that, my first WSIS Forum was in 2009. A very, very unique event where, you know, we can always meet with those VIPs and decision makers and actually bring our topics to them directly. In the next slide, we’re just going to go with some of the data on what is happening this year. Just numbers really say the story for itself. I don’t want to go into too much into it because we are right now. So better experience it than me telling you about it. So if you go more to the VISIS review, I spoke about it in the next slide, you will see some of the important timelines and achievements of the VISIS in the past 20 years. This will all be discussed in December this year in New York in the next slide. We will also have the VISIS Plus 20 review joint preparatory process. It’s been two years since we’ve been doing this. So you know, this is the final milestone. As you can see here, last to last milestone is this event and then we’re going to New York. So at this event in various workshops and sessions, you’ll be hearing how different UN agencies have been implementing their VISIS roadmaps with the outcomes of the important events of all of these sessions will also be delivered at our event. So it’s a very unique space where you’ll be able to learn about all of that without actually being there before. We’ll also be having co-facilitators, as you will see in the next slide, of the modalities resolution on the review. The ambassadors from Kenya and Albania are leading this. So reach out to them, send them your contributions directly. There is also a process on how you can contribute to the draft papers, white papers, elements papers, all those papers of United Nations process on how you are actually going to the review and discussing a certain resolution. So please use this opportunity and also join the sessions where they will be here during this event, and they will be discussing the progress so far and what is, you know, waiting for us until December. In the next slide, I think some of the roadmaps of these modalities processes is very important for you to maybe take a photo of and see how you can contribute to it. Of course, these presentations are all available online and you’ll be able to access them. The next slide, again, you’re going back to the achievements, the milestones and the challenges. We’ll be discussing them this year, this event, and of course in New York. I think this is the last slide. Okay, so please join, you know, and share your story with us as well. Just, you know, put it up on social media. We’d love to hear following today or this year’s event. What do you, what is your story? If you haven’t had it before now, you definitely will have it. The next slide is just a big thank you for again, for being here with us. Youth Special Track to this year is really having an amazing program. Thanks to the colleagues coordinating all of that. I could be telling you about WSIS, you know, for additional couple of hours or days.

Charlyne Restivo: So please, you know, when you see me on the corridor, as anyone else from the coordinating team, approach me and I’ll be very happy to talk more about WSIS with you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Vladimir, for this very insightful presentation of what WSIS is. Now I would like to ask you in the audience, one way the WSIS process is making a difference to you or your community. opening the floor, encouraging you to raise your hand and share your story with us of how WSIS has impacted your community, your country, perhaps some project that has been submitted, won a WSIS prize, best practices that has been shared in this forum. If everybody’s feeling a bit shy, yes, please. Sorry, it looked like we had a bad mic there, and it might have been my fault for touching up

Dana Kramer: to bring it closer. Dana Kramer, for the record, at Toronto Metropolitan University, PhD candidate there. And I also lead a youth internet governance forum for Canada. I think one of the biggest takeaways for WSIS, honestly, like for at least myself, my community have been the NRI network with the IGF and that the IGF was, of course, created through WSIS, because it’s allowed a lot of bottom up youth capacity building in this space for youth to be able to come together as distinct stakeholder groups that are kind of in between, not sure where their career will go, not sure where their learning will take them, and then be able to still convene and connect and then build into these broader global processes. Thank you.

Charlyne Restivo: Excellent, great to hear that. Anybody else? No? Okay. What I really take from Vladimir’s presentation is also the call to action for you to contribute to the draft papers that will be submitted to the UNGA, the final milestone. So really inviting you. to connect with Vladimir, other members of the team, because we are also aware you can have a tangible impact. With that, now, let’s go on to the group exercise. For that, I hand over the floor to my dear colleague, Duna Ola. Thank you. OK, we’ll do the same thing. Oh, hello. Is this better? Great. So, I know some people are scotted enough, that’s fine. If you know that you’re staying, you can now come and take some of those seats so that we can have the full circle. Is everyone able to hear me well?

Dunola Oladapo: Yeah, OK, great. So, I’m Duna Ola, and I’m Youth Programme Officer in ITU. And this is now the meat of the session, because we’re handing the mic now to each of you. And as Sylvia was sharing in her remarks earlier, the ideas that come from your groups will actually feed into the overall report. So, it’s really important that you share your ideas, and Hamza was encouraging everyone to be brave and innovative in your ideas. Please do this. So, now, I will ask the facilitators to please stand up, if you know you’re facilitating a session or you’re a scribe for a group. So, then we break you into groups of five, right? But I need to make sure that each of the facilitators are here. So, if we can have this corner as group one, this corner as group two, yeah? Then this long belt there as group three, that corner as group four, and this corner as group five. So, if you just go to the one closest to you, and then the facilitators will move accordingly. So, group one, only move if you’re a facilitator or a scribe, but everybody else can just keep their seats. Group two, in this corner. Group three, there, and those that are sitting just behind. Group four, there, and then group five. Yes, so group one will be facilitated by Clinton Oduor. Do you want to wave Clinton and just come here? He’ll facilitate this and then Yueqi Qu, who is the founder and general manager of PALS Lightyear Artificial Intelligence. If you’re here, please join because you’ll be helping to be the scribe. Group two will be coordinated by Tan Yuzhi, research assistant at Tsinghua University and Flora, you’re the scribe for this group, so Flora here. Dorian Amanda Clark is facilitating, yes, group three, so you’re sat exactly in the right place already and Prateek, you’ll be helping to take the notes there. Katherine is facilitating group four just in that corner and N’Goran Franck Konan will be taking the notes. Nadir will be facilitating for group five and Tadala will take the notes. So we’re just going to time you for about 10 minutes where we just want everyone in the group, you know, introduce yourselves to each other and start to list as many ideas as possible you can think of about enhancing the work of WSIS for the next 20 years. At the end of that, we will just ask each group to share the top three ideas that came out of that. So please take as many notes as possible, discuss, and I will walk around to make sure that everything is okay. If a facilitator is not around or something, maybe someone will step up and be a facilitator. So I’ll be ready to go. I’ll start the timer now. So introduce yourselves to each other and I’ll leave it to the facilitators. Please, if some people could join group two, if your group is too big, please send some people to group two. Ok, so it looks like this group is smaller actually. I think this group is smaller. I think join them. So group 1 and group 2 will be absorbed together. So Clinton will take care of you. So just to remind you, everyone should list as many ideas as possible they can think of. And near the end, you just vote for your top three ideas and share with everyone. Okay, yes. Please, for those that are joining us online, just look at the chat. You’ll see our colleague Shiyi will be coordinating with you and collecting your ideas. Thank you for our amazing virtual participants. One more minute. Please start grouping your ideas together. One more minute. One more minute. We are to time now, so we’ll just hear some ideas. Don’t worry, you have time, and you don’t need to move, so we’ll just go around. So if we could just wrap up our last sentence and we’ll start to check with each group. So what would be great is if either the session facilitator or someone in the group just wants to go to a mic and just share, you don’t have to say three, but up to three of the interesting ideas that came up from your team, and we go around like this. So group four slash five, please, if we could wrap up so we can hear what the top idea from group one and two merged was. So feel free to take the floor. I hope you can all hear me. Everyone, can we end our conversations? Don’t worry, you’ll have a chance to continue the conversations later. We’ll have a chance to carry on, so let’s just hear from Group 1 and 2, please.

Clinton Oduor: Yes, so first of all, let me just introduce myself again. My name is Clinton Oduor, and I’m part of the Youth Advisory, I’m part of the ITU Secretary General Youth Advisory Board. And I’m just going to go through quickly, like, the top three ideas that came from Group 1. And the first one was around operationalising, like, some of the ideas that come from youths. Like, youths have, like, a lot of ideas. Some of them are technical, but we usually just leave them at the idea stage. So, like, how can we move them to be at an operational level where they can move to the next stage? It can be through utilising, like, some of the ITU and UN networks to make that happen. But it’s something that we need to think about broadly. So the other idea that came up was to have, like, dedicated seats for the youth on plenaries under those high-level events, so that youth voices can also be heard. Yeah, then the third one was around, there are not quite enough community-based organisations, around non-profit organisations integrated into WSIS. So we also need to see how we can increase capacity around that. Yeah, so those are the top three ideas that came from Group 1. Thank you.

Dunola Oladapo: Thank you so much, Clinton. And I heard that the plenary this morning was very packed. So maybe if there were some dedicated seats for youth, we could have ensured that youth were in that room. So next, we go to the next group, quite a big group. So I don’t know if the group facilitator or somebody else wants to just very quickly share with us what the top three ideas that emerged from the group was.

Speaker 2: You just need to go to a mic and press the button. Good afternoon, everyone. So our group, Group 3, The main point that stood out for us was internet access, and we wrote, Beyond simple providing connectivity, we must prioritize digital literacy initiatives that empower individuals to harness the internet effectively for community development and global benefit. And what basically this means is that we foster digital equality and create an inclusive digital future where everyone feels genuinely connected and represented. The next point that we have is information systems should authentically reflect the diversity of culture and perspectives, ensuring that digital content represents the full spectrum of human experiences rather than a narrow subset. Most importantly, policies governing digital access and literacy must be grounded in real-world realities and genuine community needs rather than being designed merely to satisfy bureaucratic requirements or check compliances boxes.

Charlyne Restivo: So that’s what we had. Thank you so much. I love the support from the team. They were like clapping as soon as she finished. I love that. So we have the next group. If we could please have the facilitator or someone brave from the group to please share with us the top ideas. All right. So let me share my team’s. So the first one we got, we got a lot of ideas, but the first we want to have more voice from the young in decision making.

Speaker 3: And also we want to have more participation, I mean, physical participation to WSIS, I mean, forums and so. The second is we want to have more gender positive where we have more gender equality. The third one is capacity building. We want to make sure that every young connected is making use of the connectivity he has. Thank you. Thank you so much. And yes, definitely. The goal is that more young people are included in decision-making, and hopefully this is a great step in that direction.

Dunola Oladapo: And the last but not least group, if we could please have the facilitator or someone brave to share with us, just go to a mic and press the button so we hear your top ideas. All right, thank you very much. I’m Nadir, and basically in our groups, we’ve gathered such amazing ideas.

Speaker 4: But just prioritizing a few are that generally there’s seen the CIS as the lack of structured pathways for youth to meaningfully engage and have their voices heard. Secondly, it’s about the awareness of the CIS itself. So remaining the law in the mainstream and education spaces sometimes gets the young generation and professionals to not know much about CIS and their activities as well. The review process of the process itself overall feels too high level, and we need to generally localize and streamline it to the rich grassroots youth. There are needs for the dedicated funding mechanism as well, because many would like to attend, but there are certain necessities, and especially in the developing countries, the young generation are keen on attending, but the certain funding would really foster that initiative to support them. And of course, finally, we have to just highlight the importance of clearly defining youth as the current categorized versions in the categorization variety of fields, and especially having even more younger generation, like the undergraduate and the school children with their projects or their activities to participate in the certain booths and act their ideas would make CIS even more creative and initiative. Thank you.

Dunola Oladapo: Thank you. Thank you so much. I love the point on, you know, finance and investment, because I think we all know part of the major, one of the major barriers to youth engagement in general is lack of, you know, access to funding and investment in this space. So we’ll have the second and final kind of big group discussion now, and we’ll have this group and this group, one and two and three, we’ll have one topic, and these two have a different topic. It will come on the screen in a moment. And just to say, even if your idea was not read out just now or anything, we will collect from the scribes the notes, and it will all feed into a report. And I hope you all signed up for the session so that we can share with you the outcomes via the email you used to sign up afterwards. So what would be great now, after you’ve had this brainstorming of what could be done, is if we could try to be a bit more targeted. So this group one and the new group two, it will be great for, I know there are many ideas, but maybe you can try to discuss and negotiate and come up with the major topic for you as a young person or as young person adjacent, as some of us are here, or just previously young person that you wish WSIS could address. Try to agree on just one topic for your group, and then it’ll be great if you can explain why it’s important for WSIS to address. One of the reasons why we’re trying to get you to go from big ideas to kind of one big is because when we’re writing the report, to make sure people read it and are interested, we want it to be short and snappy and really to the point. So let’s try to see if there are really some key, like one key idea that you think would really make a difference. Try to think of something that would be impactful, but also feasible with this process. And then for the second group, so group three to five, basically four or five, it will be great for you to ideate how we can practically attract and empower more young people to engage in the WSIS process. So one of the ideas that came from Nadea’s team. was that for more young people to even have the awareness of WSIS. I know a lot of you said in the poll that you knew about WSIS, you’ve been to WSIS events, but you’re a very small portion of the world population. I’m sure there’s billions of people that don’t know about WSIS. How can we get to those young people, how can those young people know about WSIS and feel part of this process as well? It would be great to get some ideas. So we’ll start the timer now for 10 minutes and I please want to ask the facilitators to nominate somebody else in your team to now moderate the discussion and that would feed back to the group. Our scribes stay the same, help take notes please and of course contribute to the conversation as well. So please hand over to the new moderator and start your discussions now. If no one wants to take on the old moderators can be, but please try to be somebody new. I will leave the floor to Steve to get started. I will come back here for the results. Thank you.

Charlyne Restivo:

Dunola Oladapo: So the time is up. So it’s time to hear the ideas. I know the conversations could just go on and on, but we really must start to conclude. Because as you know, we have the high level dialogue on youth happening after this in Room C. And it’ll be nice to all go together. And so this time we’ll start from group five and we’ll go this way to give group one and two a bit of a rest this time. So can we have our new moderator, or if you kept the same one, kindly just take the floor and share with us maybe up to three of the ideas you had on how we can practically attract and empower more young people to engage in the WSIS process for the next 20 years and beyond.

Charlyne Restivo: Group five, it’s okay, you don’t have to say everything, just some of the

Dana Kramer: highlights and we’ll collect everything in written form later. Hi there, group five, Dana Kramer, Toronto Metropolitan University, second moderator. So a large part of what we were talking about was localizing WSIS and trying to have more grassroots participation and engagement, both through storytelling as well as different opportunities for youth to be involved, such as through dedicated WSIS prizes, that there could also be more WSIS youth tracks in the future, but also encouraging panels to have a youth representative on them, both recognizing that youth track allows for a safe space for youth, but also too you want that meaningful youth engagement participation with a more diverse intergenerational panel, for instance, to multi-stakeholder engagement. So I’m just trying to read the handwriting. We also discussed training, the importance of creating media as well, because youth will only be as engaged as what catches the eye, we are in the attention economy. And finally, too, for funded opportunities to ensure that pluralistic youth from around the world can also meaningfully engage because there’s an opportunity gap, both across countries, but also too within countries, as we discussed the diversity of countries. on a meta and international scale, but also to that each country individually will have different regions within it that might be more prosperous or more financial opportunities than other areas, and that we need to understand the diversity for any type of meaningful engagement as well. Thank you. Thank you so much. We look forward to receiving those and

Nadia Tjahja: including them in the draft report. And if we can go to the next team, please. Hello, everyone. Good afternoon. My name is Nadia Chekhia. I’m a PhD researcher at the United Nations University in Bruges, and I organize the European Youth IGF. We discussed three issues. Firstly, to empower youth to do more practice at UISES. The second was to one thing to contextualize this point is UISES is focused a lot on outcomes. And one thing to then engage with is understanding how youth interact with that kind of process. So for example, if we’re looking at innovation, looking at, for example, entrepreneur spaces, so if you have spaces where they do entrepreneurship, like applying for funding, or hubs, fund business hubs and things like that, that they can also learn about UISES there, and that UISES then gets promoted as a space where they can further promote their work in a larger space and contribute more to the world understanding more about what is happening in digital innovation by young people. And then we talked about the role of the IGF national and youth initiatives, where there are young people who are interested in internet governance but are not getting involved in these spaces, and how for them to gain awareness. and to further develop them into the space, back into that context of if this is an outcome space how can we create WSIS in a place where it’s more accessible. This year’s track has been really great in which also you provided an introduction to WSIS and what you can contribute and how you can contribute to continue fostering spaces like this not only on the topics around WSIS but also the wider agenda on the different action lines but then to also create more spaces like previously was mentioned about having people, having youth on panels but also having youth being able to take an open mic or to contribute in discussions.

Dunola Oladapo: Thank you very much. Thank you. So now we move to the other questions where we would like to hear, we know there were several ideas over the course of the session but we want to hear the big idea from group three. If please the new moderator or whoever from the group wants to share can share this idea and why they think it’s important for WSIS to address this. Yes.

Charlyne Restivo: Hi everyone. Thanks Nunoa.

Roser Almenar: My name is Roser Almenar. I’m a PhD student in AI and Space Law at the University of Valencia in Spain and I also serve as a member of Madam Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Board. And basically I think the idea that we overall got and I could sense it for every intervention is that technology should serve people and not the other way around. So we’ve been talking about how AI might be biased and how some people from certain areas and regions are underrepresented and maybe also can misinform people about how they behave or other sort of data. So we believe that it is really important to touch this issue to provide real information maybe through scientific data which is already being discussed but basically in a way that is ethical and responsible. And especially, we’ve also discussed how this could be done from a youth perspective, from a youth angle. And we consider it is really important for youth to be given opportunities. So, for instance, it could be discussed how the Internet can provide opportunities for the youth in this regard. And as well, if we talk about data, how maybe having a youth representative could help in achieving a more solid and a more diverse set of data with which we can then train AI and other sorts of technologies. Thank you. Thank you.

Dunola Oladapo: That was a very powerful opening, like, you know, tech should serve people, that people serve with tech. Interesting. And if we could have the final group, group one and two merged, if you could please share with us what the major topic for you that you believe WSIS should address is. OK, I guess I’ll speak from my mind, from what we discussed. So maybe I’ll borrow that if that’s OK.

Speaker 5: Sure. So what we talked about as a group is we discussed this idea that there should be a concept of sustained youth involvement throughout the WSIS process, but also beyond. So this involves not only integrating youth who are kind of older, who have heard about the process for a long time, but also kind of fostering a sense of digital literacy throughout time and providing this through reaching smaller communities and really encouraging connectivity as a fundamental human right. So when we were sort of talking about this idea of connectivity and this sort of idea of sustained youth involvement, what we discussed was that there should be forums and processes that a variety of young people can get involved with. So whether it’s these high level events and ensuring that people have a seat at the table, or whether it’s individual projects that are funded and sustained throughout time. so that really young people can be encouraged to be involved in this process for years on end rather than just maybe attending one or two high-level events. So that was sort of what we discussed as a topic that’s quite important. Thank you. Thank you. I think sustainability of

Dunola Oladapo: engagement is really key just to make sure, especially when you’re working with young people, you know, every year it could be a different group and then you might lose some of the momentum. So trying to keep a sustained approach is really key. Because we don’t want to end the session too late, we want everyone to get good seats in the high-level dialogue for youth, which we hope you’re all going to in room C right after this. We’ll start looking at some closing remarks. But before everyone rushes off when we do end, which is not right now, so please hold your horses a little bit. Because we know several people on your team may have taken notes that we have scribes. It’s really important that the different ideas and the different notes are compiled into one. So please, if every group could just ensure that you have, whether it’s written on a piece of paper or written on a laptop, that you have synchronized notes and please share it with us before you leave the room so that we can ensure that the report is comprehensive of this session and feeds into the overall report, which will go to Unge later this year. So I’ll hand over now to Charlene to share some of her reflections as a co-moderator and I’ll also then check in to see if some of our colleagues that joined us online, if there are some key inputs from them. So over to you, Charlene. Thanks, Ginola, and a big thank you to everyone.

Charlyne Restivo: This has been a very inspiring session that we’ve held together. I took a few notes throughout. What really emerged today is the operationalization of the young people’s ideas, right? I think here there’s a call to see action. And that’s very important for also ITU as a secretariat of WSIS to take that into consideration. Then digital literacy, prioritizing digital literacy as well as capacity building, the diversity and the representation of young people, whether it is through panels or through open mic contribution like we try to aim to do today. The localization as well of WSIS outcomes is very important and the storytelling, telling the story, the success stories really like WSIS has been based also on showcasing what has worked to inspire others also to share what is working and to provide this platform for exchange of best practices. Then in terms of major topics for WSIS for the years to come, so really like the digital for the people and not the way around and sustained youth engagement. Dunola, is there anything else on your side that really caught your attention as well? Yes, there were so many things, but I just want to take the time to highlight some of the great ideas from our online group. I’m so sorry that we can’t see you because we’re projecting the slides instead, but thanks for also brainstorming in your breakouts. We really appreciate. Some of the key ideas that we’re seeing is going beyond invitation to integration. That’s similar to some of the stuff we were hearing from the other groups. And the other group, the big idea they had was to focus more on digital health equity and assistive technology access, and especially with focus on e-health applications and disability inclusive digital development. Of course, this is very important for young people across the world. So thank you so much. And please, as I said before you go, please ensure that whoever has all your ideas on their laptop. or on their notes please give it to us so that we can round off but because the session will start exactly at two and we want everyone to be seated inside and to have good seats I really really encourage you to just go directly downstairs to room C for the high level dialogue on youth which will be opened up by the ITU Deputy Secretary General Thomas. Thank you so much for your participation and please share the notes. Big round of applause. Recording stopped.

Agreement points

Need for meaningful youth engagement and leadership in WSIS processes

Speakers

– Charlyne Restivo
– Sylvia Poll
– Hamza Hameed
– Clinton Oduor
– Speaker 4
– Speaker 5

Arguments

Youth are making history by being embedded in WSIS and their voices matter for the high-level dialogue

Youth should be in the driving seat of this completely youth-driven session to learn from young people

Youth are essential stakeholders who will be using, building and shaping the technologies of the future

Need for dedicated seats for youth on plenaries and high-level events so youth voices can be heard

Lack of structured pathways for youth to meaningfully engage and have their voices heard in WSIS

Need for sustained youth involvement throughout the WSIS process and beyond, not just attending one or two events

Summary

All speakers agree that youth should have meaningful, sustained engagement in WSIS processes, with dedicated pathways and leadership roles rather than token participation

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Digital connectivity should be universal and accessible to all

Speakers

– Hamza Hameed
– Speaker 2
– Speaker 3
– Speaker 5

Arguments

Connectivity should be recognized as a fundamental human right accessible to everyone

Need to prioritize digital literacy initiatives that empower individuals to harness internet effectively for community development

Need for more gender equality and ensuring every young connected person makes use of their connectivity

Need for sustained youth involvement throughout the WSIS process and beyond, not just attending one or two events

Summary

Speakers agree that digital connectivity should be treated as a fundamental right with accompanying digital literacy and capacity building to ensure meaningful access

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Need to localize and make WSIS more accessible at grassroots level

Speakers

– Clinton Oduor
– Speaker 4
– Dana Kramer
– Nadia Tjahja

Arguments

Need for more community-based and non-profit organizations integrated into WSIS

The review process feels too high-level and needs to be localized and streamlined to reach grassroots youth

Need to localize WSIS and have more grassroots participation through storytelling and dedicated opportunities

WSIS should be promoted in entrepreneurship spaces and business hubs where youth can learn and contribute

Summary

Multiple speakers agree that WSIS needs to be more accessible at the local and grassroots level, with better integration of community organizations and localized approaches

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Financial barriers prevent youth participation and need dedicated funding mechanisms

Speakers

– Speaker 4
– Dana Kramer

Arguments

Need for dedicated funding mechanisms as many youth want to attend but face financial barriers, especially in developing countries

There’s an opportunity gap both across countries and within countries that needs to be addressed for meaningful engagement

Summary

Both speakers identify financial constraints as major barriers to youth participation, particularly affecting those from developing countries and requiring targeted funding support

Topics

Development | Economic

Technology should be human-centered and serve people’s needs

Speakers

– Speaker 2
– Roser Almenar

Arguments

Policies governing digital access must be grounded in real-world realities and community needs rather than bureaucratic requirements

Technology should serve people and not the other way around, addressing AI bias and underrepresentation

Summary

Both speakers advocate for human-centered approaches to technology development and policy-making that prioritize real community needs over bureaucratic or technological imperatives

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Youth participation needs to move beyond ideas and events to sustained, structured engagement with concrete outcomes and operational pathways

Speakers

– Clinton Oduor
– Speaker 4
– Speaker 5

Arguments

Need for operationalizing youth ideas through utilizing ITU and UN networks to move beyond the idea stage

Lack of structured pathways for youth to meaningfully engage and have their voices heard in WSIS

Need for sustained youth involvement throughout the WSIS process and beyond, not just attending one or two events

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

WSIS needs better awareness and promotion strategies that reach youth in their existing spaces and communities rather than expecting them to discover WSIS independently

Speakers

– Speaker 4
– Dana Kramer
– Nadia Tjahja

Arguments

WSIS awareness remains low in mainstream and education spaces, preventing young generation from knowing about activities

Need to localize WSIS and have more grassroots participation through storytelling and dedicated opportunities

WSIS should be promoted in entrepreneurship spaces and business hubs where youth can learn and contribute

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Economic

Digital systems and policies should prioritize inclusion, diversity, and equity across gender, cultural, and disability dimensions

Speakers

– Speaker 2
– Speaker 3
– Dunola Oladapo

Arguments

Information systems should authentically reflect diversity of culture and perspectives rather than narrow subsets

Need for more gender equality and ensuring every young connected person makes use of their connectivity

Focus on digital health equity and assistive technology access, especially e-health applications and disability inclusive digital development

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Adults should learn from youth rather than just including them

Speakers

– Sylvia Poll
– Hamza Hameed

Arguments

Youth should be in the driving seat of this completely youth-driven session to learn from young people

Youth are essential stakeholders who will be using, building and shaping the technologies of the future

Explanation

It’s unexpected for senior officials to explicitly position themselves as learners from youth rather than mentors or guides, representing a significant shift in traditional hierarchical approaches to youth engagement

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Need for fundamental restructuring of WSIS processes rather than incremental improvements

Speakers

– Clinton Oduor
– Speaker 4
– Dana Kramer

Arguments

Need for dedicated seats for youth on plenaries and high-level events so youth voices can be heard

The review process feels too high-level and needs to be localized and streamlined to reach grassroots youth

Need to localize WSIS and have more grassroots participation through storytelling and dedicated opportunities

Explanation

The consensus around needing structural changes to WSIS processes rather than just better youth inclusion suggests a more radical reimagining of how international governance processes should operate

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists around the need for meaningful youth engagement, universal digital access, localization of WSIS processes, addressing financial barriers, and human-centered technology approaches. The discussion reveals broad agreement on both problems and solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with remarkable alignment across diverse speakers on fundamental issues. This suggests the youth engagement challenges in WSIS are well-recognized and there’s shared vision for solutions, which could facilitate concrete action and policy changes.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The session showed remarkable consensus among speakers on core issues, with differences mainly in emphasis and approach rather than fundamental disagreements

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. This was a collaborative consultation where speakers built upon each other’s ideas rather than opposing them. The few partial agreements identified represent complementary approaches to shared goals rather than conflicting viewpoints. This high level of consensus suggests strong alignment among youth stakeholders on WSIS priorities, which could facilitate unified advocacy and implementation efforts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Youth participation needs to move beyond ideas and events to sustained, structured engagement with concrete outcomes and operational pathways

Speakers

– Clinton Oduor
– Speaker 4
– Speaker 5

Arguments

Need for operationalizing youth ideas through utilizing ITU and UN networks to move beyond the idea stage

Lack of structured pathways for youth to meaningfully engage and have their voices heard in WSIS

Need for sustained youth involvement throughout the WSIS process and beyond, not just attending one or two events

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

WSIS needs better awareness and promotion strategies that reach youth in their existing spaces and communities rather than expecting them to discover WSIS independently

Speakers

– Speaker 4
– Dana Kramer
– Nadia Tjahja

Arguments

WSIS awareness remains low in mainstream and education spaces, preventing young generation from knowing about activities

Need to localize WSIS and have more grassroots participation through storytelling and dedicated opportunities

WSIS should be promoted in entrepreneurship spaces and business hubs where youth can learn and contribute

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Economic

Digital systems and policies should prioritize inclusion, diversity, and equity across gender, cultural, and disability dimensions

Speakers

– Speaker 2
– Speaker 3
– Dunola Oladapo

Arguments

Information systems should authentically reflect diversity of culture and perspectives rather than narrow subsets

Need for more gender equality and ensuring every young connected person makes use of their connectivity

Focus on digital health equity and assistive technology access, especially e-health applications and disability inclusive digital development

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Youth voices and ideas from this session will directly feed into the WSIS+20 review report submitted to the UN General Assembly in December 2025, making this a historically significant moment for youth participation in global digital governance

There is a critical need to operationalize youth ideas rather than leaving them at the conceptual stage, utilizing ITU and UN networks to move from ideation to implementation

Digital literacy and capacity building must be prioritized alongside connectivity, as simply providing internet access is insufficient without empowering people to use it effectively for community development

Technology should serve people rather than people serving technology, with emphasis on addressing AI bias, ensuring diverse representation, and maintaining human-centered approaches to digital development

WSIS awareness remains low among youth globally, requiring localized outreach, storytelling, and integration into entrepreneurship spaces and educational institutions to reach broader youth populations

Sustained youth engagement throughout the WSIS process is essential, moving beyond one-time event participation to long-term involvement and capacity building

Financial barriers significantly limit youth participation, particularly from developing countries, highlighting the need for dedicated funding mechanisms

Digital inclusion must address diversity and representation, ensuring that information systems reflect the full spectrum of human experiences rather than narrow subsets

Resolutions and action items

Collect all group notes and ideas to compile into a comprehensive report that will feed into the WSIS+20 review process and UN General Assembly submission

Participants encouraged to attend the immediate follow-up Multi-stakeholder Intergenerational High-Level Dialogue in Room C to continue the conversation

Youth advised to contribute directly to draft papers and white papers for the UN review process by connecting with co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania

ITU committed to operationalizing youth ideas and integrating them across ITU work streams rather than leaving them as concepts

Participants encouraged to submit projects to the annual WSIS Prizes contest and contribute to the WSIS stocktaking database

Youth Advisory Board and Young Professional Program officers tasked with facilitating ongoing youth engagement beyond this event

Unresolved issues

Specific mechanisms for creating dedicated youth seats on plenaries and high-level events remain undefined

Concrete funding solutions for youth participation from developing countries not established

Clear pathways for sustained youth engagement throughout the WSIS process beyond events not fully developed

Methods for reaching and engaging the billions of young people globally who are unaware of WSIS not specifically outlined

Integration strategies for more community-based and non-profit organizations into WSIS processes require further development

Specific approaches for localizing WSIS outcomes to grassroots level need more detailed planning

Clear definitions and categorizations of youth stakeholders, including younger demographics like undergraduates and school children, remain to be established

Suggested compromises

Balance between dedicated youth-only spaces (like youth tracks) and meaningful intergenerational participation on diverse panels to ensure both safe spaces for youth and cross-generational dialogue

Approach to youth engagement that includes both high-level event participation and individual project funding to accommodate different levels of involvement and expertise

Integration of WSIS promotion into existing entrepreneurship and business hub spaces where youth already gather, rather than creating entirely separate outreach mechanisms

Combination of global WSIS processes with localized grassroots engagement to bridge the gap between high-level policy and community needs

Beyond simple providing connectivity, we must prioritize digital literacy initiatives that empower individuals to harness the internet effectively for community development and global benefit… policies governing digital access and literacy must be grounded in real-world realities and genuine community needs rather than being designed merely to satisfy bureaucratic requirements or check compliances boxes.

Speaker

Speaker 2 (Group 3 representative)

Reason

This comment is insightful because it challenges the common assumption that connectivity alone solves digital divide issues. It introduces the critical distinction between access and meaningful use, and boldly critiques bureaucratic approaches to policy-making that may miss actual community needs.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from technical solutions to human-centered approaches. It elevated the conversation beyond infrastructure to focus on empowerment and authentic community engagement, influencing subsequent groups to consider grassroots and localized approaches.

Technology should serve people and not the other way around… we believe that it is really important to touch this issue to provide real information maybe through scientific data which is already being discussed but basically in a way that is ethical and responsible.

Speaker

Roser Almenar (Group 3 new moderator)

Reason

This philosophical statement reframes the entire technology discourse by questioning the fundamental relationship between humans and technology. It challenges the tech-centric narrative and introduces ethical considerations as central rather than peripheral to WSIS discussions.

Impact

This comment provided a unifying framework that resonated across groups and became a central theme. It shifted the conversation from ‘how to use technology better’ to ‘how to ensure technology serves human needs,’ influencing the overall direction toward more human-centered solutions.

There’s seen the WSIS as the lack of structured pathways for youth to meaningfully engage and have their voices heard… The review process of the process itself overall feels too high level, and we need to generally localize and streamline it to the reach grassroots youth.

Speaker

Nadir (Group 5 facilitator)

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it provides a meta-critique of the very process they’re participating in. It identifies structural barriers to youth engagement and challenges the top-down approach of international processes.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical self-reflection element to the discussion, prompting other groups to consider not just what WSIS should address, but how it should operate. It led to concrete suggestions about funding, awareness, and structural changes to make the process more accessible.

We discussed this idea that there should be a concept of sustained youth involvement throughout the WSIS process, but also beyond… whether it’s these high level events and ensuring that people have a seat at the table, or whether it’s individual projects that are funded and sustained throughout time.

Speaker

Speaker 5 (Group 1&2 representative)

Reason

This comment addresses a fundamental challenge in youth engagement – the sustainability problem. It recognizes that one-off participation doesn’t create lasting change and proposes a systemic approach to continuous involvement.

Impact

This insight tied together many of the previous discussions about funding, pathways, and meaningful engagement. It provided a strategic framework for thinking about youth involvement as a long-term investment rather than episodic consultation, influencing the final recommendations.

More than 2.6 billion people around the world remain offline, with more than half of them being young people. Bridging that digital divide is not only a technical challenge, but it’s a moral responsibility. And I believe that connectivity should be recognized as a fundamental human right.

Speaker

Hamza Hameed (ITU Youth Advisory Board member)

Reason

This comment reframes the digital divide from a technical problem to a moral imperative and human rights issue. It provides both stark statistics and a philosophical foundation that elevates the urgency and importance of the work.

Impact

This early comment set a serious, rights-based tone for the entire session. It influenced subsequent discussions to consider equity and justice rather than just technical solutions, and the concept of connectivity as a human right became a recurring theme throughout the breakout sessions.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing three critical shifts: from technology-centered to human-centered thinking, from episodic to sustained engagement models, and from top-down to grassroots approaches. The comments created a progression where participants moved beyond surface-level solutions to examine structural barriers and philosophical foundations. The human rights framing early in the session established moral urgency, while the meta-critiques of WSIS processes encouraged honest self-reflection. The technology-serving-people principle became a unifying theme that influenced how groups approached all subsequent discussions. Together, these insights transformed what could have been a routine consultation into a deeper examination of power structures, engagement models, and the fundamental purpose of digital development initiatives.

How can youth ideas be operationalized and moved from the idea stage to implementation level?

Speaker

Clinton Oduor (Group 1)

Explanation

This addresses a key gap where youth generate many technical and innovative ideas but lack pathways to turn them into actionable projects or policies

How can we increase integration of community-based organizations and non-profit organizations into WSIS?

Speaker

Clinton Oduor (Group 1)

Explanation

There’s recognition that grassroots organizations are underrepresented in WSIS processes, limiting community-level engagement

How can WSIS be localized and streamlined to reach grassroots youth?

Speaker

Nadir (Group 5)

Explanation

The current review process is seen as too high-level, creating barriers for local youth participation and engagement

How can dedicated funding mechanisms be established to support youth participation from developing countries?

Speaker

Nadir (Group 5)

Explanation

Financial barriers prevent many young people, especially from developing countries, from participating in WSIS events and processes

How should ‘youth’ be clearly defined and categorized within WSIS processes?

Speaker

Nadir (Group 5)

Explanation

There’s inconsistency in how youth are categorized across different fields, and need to include even younger participants like undergraduates and school children

How can WSIS create more accessible spaces for youth who are interested but not currently engaged?

Speaker

Nadia Tjahja (Group 4)

Explanation

Many young people interested in internet governance and digital issues are not aware of or engaged with WSIS processes

How can WSIS leverage entrepreneurship spaces and innovation hubs to reach more youth?

Speaker

Nadia Tjahja (Group 4)

Explanation

Youth often engage with digital innovation through entrepreneurship and business contexts, which could be entry points to WSIS

How can AI bias and underrepresentation of certain regions/populations be addressed through youth involvement?

Speaker

Roser Almenar (Group 3)

Explanation

Youth perspectives could help create more diverse datasets and ethical approaches to AI development

How can sustained youth involvement be maintained throughout and beyond WSIS processes?

Speaker

Group 1&2 merged

Explanation

Current engagement is often limited to one-time events rather than long-term participation that builds momentum and expertise

How can digital health equity and assistive technology access be better integrated into WSIS?

Speaker

Online participants

Explanation

There’s a need to focus more on e-health applications and disability-inclusive digital development from a youth perspective

Summary

This discussion focused on media and education accessibility, featuring presentations from female academic leaders who are bridging university research with real-world applications through AI-powered solutions. The session was moderated by Dr. Anita Lamprecht from the Diplo Foundation and organized by the AXS-CAT network from Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, which aims to transfer academic knowledge to industry and society.

Professor Ana Matamala presented the ENACT project, which develops easy-to-understand news content across web, radio, and television platforms to serve diverse audiences including people with intellectual disabilities, migrants, and language learners. The project involves European broadcasters and has identified 13 organizations already producing simplified news content, though challenges remain in balancing accessibility with journalistic principles. Professor Pilar Orero discussed three AI-enhanced projects: Mosaic, which creates a searchable hub for European public broadcaster archives; Alfie, which addresses biases in media and AI models; and a climate change communication project that makes scientific data more accessible to citizens.

Dr. Estella Oncins presented the Inclusivity project, an Erasmus Plus initiative exploring virtual reality in education, particularly for neurodiverse students. Initial results showed positive reception from both teachers and students, with emphasis on hands-on activities and the need for comprehensive training tools. Dr. Mireia Farrus introduced Scribal, a real-time transcription and translation system designed for university environments, specifically supporting Catalan language and dialects while ensuring data privacy. Dr. Mar Gutierrez Colon shared two accessibility projects: a gamified reading app for Kiswahili-speaking children in Kenya and an English proficiency test designed for students with special educational needs.

The discussion concluded with audience questions about challenges in teaching emerging technologies like AI in universities, particularly the difficulty of finding qualified instructors and the rapid pace of technological change. The speakers emphasized the importance of industry-academia collaboration and described digital accessibility as a form of educational justice that benefits all learners.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Media Accessibility Through AI Technology**: Multiple speakers presented projects using AI to make media content more accessible, including easy-to-understand news (ENACT project), automated transcription and translation systems (Scribal), and enhanced subtitle creation for minority languages.

– **Educational Inclusion and Digital Accessibility**: Several projects focused on making education more inclusive, particularly the Inclusivity VR project for neurodiverse students, English proficiency testing for students with special educational needs, and gamified reading apps for underserved communities in Kenya.

– **Challenges in AI Implementation and Bias**: Discussion of significant barriers including lack of trained educators for new technologies, persistent bias in AI translation systems (particularly gender bias), and the gap between rapidly evolving industry knowledge and academic curriculum development.

– **Knowledge Transfer from Academia to Society**: The session emphasized bridging the gap between university research and real-world applications, with the AXS-CAT network facilitating knowledge transfer to industry and society to solve practical communication and accessibility problems.

– **Language Preservation and Minority Language Support**: Focus on supporting minority languages like Catalan through specialized transcription systems, and addressing the needs of multilingual communities including migrants and students with limited language proficiency.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to showcase how female academic leaders are translating university research into practical solutions that address real-world accessibility and communication challenges, particularly through AI-powered tools that make media and education more inclusive for diverse populations.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional and collaborative tone throughout. It was informative and solution-oriented, with speakers presenting their research projects efficiently within time constraints. The tone became more interactive and engaged during the Q&A session, where practical challenges were discussed openly, particularly around the difficulties of teaching emerging technologies and addressing AI bias. The moderator maintained an encouraging and appreciative tone, emphasizing the significance of having multiple female experts in one session.

Speakers

– **Anita Lamprecht**: Dr., Moderator, Diplo Foundation, Emerging tech expert and researcher

– **Ana Matamala**: Professor, Thomas University of Barcelona (mentioned as Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona), Leading the ENACT project on easy-to-understand news

– **Pilar Orero**: Professor, Expert in media accessibility and AI, Working on projects including Mosaic, Alfie, and climate change accessibility

– **Estel la Oncins**: Dr., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Leading the Inclusivity project on virtual reality in education

– **Mireia Farrus**: Dr., University of Barcelona, Presenting the Scribal project for audio transcriptions in university teaching

– **Mar Gutierrez Colon**: Dr., Universitat Rovira Virgili, Working on accessibility projects including language learning apps and English proficiency tests for SEND students

– **Audience**: Various audience members asking questions

Additional speakers:

– **NK Goel**: Professor from India, Connected to 100,000 colleges and universities in India

– **Tamiris**: Works with fact-checking

# Comprehensive Report: Media and Education Accessibility Through AI-Enhanced Solutions

## Introduction and Context

This discussion, moderated by Dr. Anita Lamprecht from the Diplo Foundation, brought together leading female academics from Spanish universities to showcase how university research is being translated into practical solutions for media and education accessibility. The session was organised by the AXS-CAT network from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, which focuses on transferring academic knowledge to industry and society to address real-world communication and accessibility challenges.

The session featured six main presenters, each representing different aspects of accessibility research and implementation. Due to flight cancellations, some speakers participated online, creating a hybrid format. Speakers were given six-minute time slots to present their research projects efficiently before engaging in interactive discussions during the question-and-answer period.

## Major Presentations and Research Projects

### Easy-to-Understand News: The ENACT Project

Professor Ana Matamala from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona presented the ENACT project, funded under the CREA scheme, which develops easy-to-understand news content across web, radio, and television platforms. The project addresses the principle that information should be accessible to all, with news serving as a crucial component of democratic participation.

The research revealed that easy-to-understand language exists on a continuum from easy language to plain language, addressing different user needs across diverse audiences including persons with intellectual disabilities, migrants, language learners, and others who may benefit from simplified news formats. The project conducted a comprehensive survey of European broadcasters, receiving 39 valid responses from 20 countries, finding that 13 organisations are already producing some form of easy-to-understand news content, primarily focusing on written website content.

The project has identified challenges in balancing accessibility requirements with journalistic principles. Professor Matamala noted that making news accessible whilst maintaining journalistic integrity requires careful consideration of editorial standards and professional practices. The project team plans to publish detailed survey results and reports on their website.

### AI-Enhanced Media Accessibility: Multiple Project Approach

Professor Pilar Orero presented three interconnected AI-enhanced projects addressing different aspects of media accessibility and bias. The Mosaic project creates a searchable hub for European public broadcaster archives, establishing a central processing system that enables users to search across multiple broadcaster collections simultaneously.

The Alfie project specifically addresses biases in media and AI models, particularly focusing on cultural and linguistic biases prevalent in European contexts. Professor Orero acknowledged the persistent nature of bias in AI systems, noting that “you will never eliminate bias” and that “AI reflects who we are, reflects humans, and humans are biased.”

Additionally, Professor Orero discussed a climate change communication project that addresses the accessibility gap in scientific data presentation, including making weather apps more accessible. She noted that whilst scientists produce excellent data, citizens often cannot access or understand this information due to presentation barriers.

### Virtual Reality in Education: The Inclusivity Project

Estella Oncins presented the Inclusivity project, an Erasmus Plus initiative exploring virtual reality technologies in educational contexts, particularly for neurodiverse students. The project aims to empower teachers and foster inclusive educational environments by addressing key challenges in social communication, teamwork, and problem-solving skills.

Initial pilot results demonstrated positive reception from both teachers and students, with particular enthusiasm for hands-on and creative activities. However, the research identified several implementation considerations, including time constraints (standard 1.5-hour allocations were insufficient for VR co-creation activities), easy language requirements, and the need for comprehensive storyboard templates for storytelling activities.

Future developments include creating a VR platform with embedded co-created social studies content and developing comprehensive implementation manuals for educators.

### Real-Time Transcription and Translation: The Scribal Project

Dr. Mireia Farrus from the University of Barcelona introduced Scribal, a real-time transcription and translation system specifically designed for university teaching environments. The system addresses accessibility needs for students with insufficient Catalan language command or hearing impairments by providing real-time transcription from Catalan to other languages.

The Scribal system utilises AI technology based on Whisper models, fine-tuned with specific databases including Common Voice and Parla en Parla for Catalan dialects and academic terminology. Importantly, the system is self-managed by universities to ensure privacy and security of data and content, addressing concerns about external data processing.

The project demonstrates particular attention to minority language preservation and support, specifically addressing the needs of Catalan speakers and learners in academic contexts. Dr. Farrus noted that the system will be presented at the Speech conference in Rotterdam for wider dissemination.

### Digital Accessibility as Educational Justice

Dr. Mar Gutierrez Colon from Universitat Rovira i Virgili presented two significant accessibility projects that frame digital inclusion as a matter of educational justice. Her work encompasses both international development and special educational needs contexts.

The first project involves the Tosomena Tuchese app, which addresses reading comprehension in Kiswahili for Kenyan children who primarily speak tribal languages. This gamified reading application serves underserved communities, addressing the fact that 9 out of 10 children in Sub-Saharan Africa cannot understand simple text. The application demonstrates how digital tools can bridge language gaps in educational contexts.

The second project focuses on developing English proficiency tests specifically designed for students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). This work enables these students to access labour market opportunities by providing appropriate assessment tools that accommodate their specific requirements.

Dr. Gutierrez Colon emphasised that digital accessibility represents educational justice, requiring design approaches that work with learners rather than for them. She noted that 240 million children globally have disabilities, and digital inclusion must enable effective learning beyond mere access provision.

## Key Themes and Insights

### Accessibility as Universal Design

The presenters consistently demonstrated that accessibility solutions benefit diverse audiences beyond traditional disability categories. Their tools serve multiple user groups including people with disabilities, migrants, language learners, and those with literacy challenges, emphasising the universal benefits of inclusive design approaches.

### AI as an Accessibility Tool

All presenters agreed that AI technology serves as a powerful tool for improving accessibility across different domains, from media content to educational materials. However, they also acknowledged the limitations and challenges, particularly regarding bias in AI systems.

### Participatory Design Approaches

Several speakers emphasised the importance of involving target users in the design process. Dr. Gutierrez Colon’s principle of designing “with, not for learners” represented a fundamental shift toward participatory design that includes target users as co-creators rather than passive recipients.

## Challenges and Questions Raised

### Training and Implementation Challenges

During the Q&A session, Professor NK Goel from India, representing connections to 100,000 colleges and universities, raised critical questions about training educators in rapidly evolving AI and quantum technologies. He noted that qualified experts are concentrated in companies that don’t typically cooperate with educational institutions, and mentioned having to drop AI courses due to lack of qualified teachers.

### Persistent Bias in AI Systems

Audience members expressed concerns about the persistence of bias in AI systems, particularly in translation systems used for fact-checking. While the Alfie project addresses these issues through research, the fundamental challenge of eliminating human bias from AI systems remains ongoing.

### Balancing Principles with Accessibility

The ENACT project highlighted the ongoing challenge of balancing journalistic principles with accessibility requirements in news production, an issue that requires further exploration and guideline development.

## Future Directions and Dissemination

Several concrete action items emerged from the presentations. The ENACT project will publish comprehensive survey results and reports on their website. The Inclusivity project plans to develop a guidebook for teachers implementing VR technologies and create a VR platform with embedded co-created content.

The Scribal system will be presented at international conferences for wider dissemination, whilst the Kenyan reading app research results will be published to inform similar initiatives globally. These dissemination efforts demonstrate commitment to knowledge transfer and scaling successful approaches.

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated how female academic leaders are successfully bridging university research with real-world societal problems through AI-enhanced accessibility solutions. The session revealed both the significant potential of current research and the ongoing challenges in implementation and scaling.

The presentations showed a mature field with coherent approaches and realistic expectations about both the possibilities and limitations of AI-enhanced accessibility solutions. The integration of technical innovation with social justice frameworks provides a strong foundation for continued development and implementation of accessibility technologies that serve diverse communities and promote inclusive access to information and education.

Anita Lamprecht: and gentlemen, I’m very glad to say welcome to all of you to our very late, but very important session about media and education for all, bridging female academic leaders in society towards impactful results. It’s my honor to moderate this session for you. My name is Dr. Anita Lamprecht. I come from the Diplo Foundation and I’m an emerging tech expert and also work as a researcher. But I want to thank especially the AXS network, CAT network today of the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona for organizing this session. And as the session will demonstrate, the AXS-CAT is a knowledge transfer network that aims to transfer knowledge to industry and society. Well, I’d also like to extend a very warm welcome to our distinguished speakers. I have here on my right side, Estel la Oncinss and on my left side, Professor Pilar Orero. And online, we have Professor Ana Matamala, Dr. Mireia Farrus and Dr. Mar Gutierrez Colon. And thank you very much for joining us online. Our speakers unfortunately had their flights canceled, but thanks to technology, you can still participate in the session. Thank you. Yeah, our session today is about media and education for all. So we will learn how female experts bring ideas from the university to the lives of real people. So it’s really about solving real problems with the help of AI. And while the speakers will cover different projects, they all solve the core, in the core, the same problem. So the fact that some people cannot understand communication in the standard format is a significant issue. For them, it’s some kind of noise, it’s chaotic and without useful information, basically. So a standard news broadcast, for example, is clear to an average person, but it’s effectively useless noise for someone with a lower literacy skill or like a migrant who is confronted with a new language. And here, I’m very much looking forward to the presentation of Professor Anna Matamala. She will show us how to enhance standard news reports into clear and easy to understand information with the help of AI. Subtitles are another great way to make information understandable, especially when you speak a minority language. And here, Dr. Mireia Farrus will present us how AI can be useful as a tool for creating subtitles. Well, speaking English, we all know, is a game changer when it comes to access to information, but learning a language isn’t easy for everyone, especially for people with intellectual disability. So Dr. MarGutiérrez-Colón shows us how to transform a disability into a learning ability. Even for the average person, even for us experts, it can be very difficult and noisy when there is too much information and when the information has the wrong format. And here, Professor Pilar Orero will give us insights into the dedicated Mosaic project. Eventually, one of my personal favorites is virtuality. Dr. Estel la Oncins explores with us how the classroom can be extended into the virtual world to enhance students’ learning experience with a project. And here, you have to help me. How do you pronounce the project?

Estel la Oncins: Inclusivity. Inclusivity. It wasn’t easy.

Anita Lamprecht: That’s true. Excellent. So without further ado, we will now look how the speakers solve these problems that I showed you. Just a very quick organizational note. I will try to keep us on time. So I will give the speaker a notification when they have spoken for about five minutes so they can conclude the presentation after six minutes. And hopefully, we will have some time left so that you have also time to ask us some questions. So without further ado, Professor Ana Matamala from the Thomas University of Barcelona, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Ana Matamala: Thank you very much. I’m sorry that we cannot be there. Thank you very much for the introduction. In less than six, seven minutes, I will try to share with you, give you an overview of the ENACT project. So I will explain what the ENACT project is, the first steps we’ve taken in this project, and some of the challenges we have encountered. The ENACT project is a project about easy-to-understand news. On screen, the logo of the ENACT project, easy-to-understand news for collaborative transformation. It is funded under the CREA project, and the CREA, sorry, scheme. And the aim of the ENACT project is first, to explore the development of easy-to-understand language news in three main settings. So the web, the radio, and television. Of course, to achieve a more diverse media environment and increase media literacy among diverse audiences. The project is led by RTV Slovenia. We have broadcasters involved, RTV Slovenia, ORF, Latvias Radio, and the Catalan broadcaster CCMA. We are a university who’s taking part in that project, and there is also an association of persons with intellectual disabilities, UNIAMOCI. Just a short clarification of what we mean by easy-to-understand language. We think that this is a continuum in which of, or a continuum of language varieties which enhance comprehensibility. So we would have easy language, what was traditionally known as easy to read. And at the end of the continuum, we would have plain language. So our project covers all this spectrum, and we are aware that this implies differences in terms of language simplifications. And we also understand that we are addressing different uses. Why this project? Basically, this is very much aligned with SDG number 10. We think that information should be for all, and news are a fundamental part of this information. And they are also a very fundamental part of participation. So there is an interest in media to reach new audiences, to go beyond traditional access services. And when we started this project, we realised that some broadcasters had already started to produce some, let’s call them easy news. So what are we gonna do with this project? It’s a two-year project. During the first year, which is now exactly, what we’re doing is mapping and exchanging practices. So we’ve done a survey. I will summarise it very briefly in a few seconds. And we’re also doing some training and exchanges between partners so that we learn from what others are doing. And then next year, what we’ll do is we’ll produce some examples, taking inspiration from how others are producing easy to understand news. We will gather user feedback. And at the end, we will co-design a hub where we will feature some of the best practices we have found. As I told you, the first year has been knowing what is out there. So we produce a survey, the ANAC survey, which was shared with European broadcasters and organisations. We got 39 valid responses from 20 different countries. And we found out that from those who responded, 13 are producing some sort of easy to understand news. And also those include nine associations, but they’re mainly focused on written content on the website. We’ve seen that there are different approaches. Some focus more on easy. Some say that they produce some content in plain language. There is reference to persons with intellectual disabilities as a target audience, but also there is reference to migrants, to learners, to all people who may benefit from this easy to understand news format. And well, I think I don’t have time to get into much detail. I wanted to keep it very short. So if you are interested in finding out more about the survey percentages and so on, we will publish the information, the report on our website. On screen, I put a series of snapshots of some examples of easy to understand. Latvia’s radio is producing some easy radio content. RTV Slovenia have a portal, bottom right on screen, in which they include what they call easy to understand news, so it’s a website content. On the left, ORF, they offer Nachrichten, so news in plain language, and they have different videos and information. And on screen also a snapshot of a show, a news programme, that was presented and prepared in collaboration with an association of persons with Down syndrome. So those are some of the examples we’ve gathered. I don’t have time to get into it, but just to point out some of the challenges we found out in the first steps of this project. There’s been discussion about how to interact, how the interaction between accessibility and journalistic principles can take place. We’ve realised that there is still a lack of awareness and the need for further training. There is a need for clear guidelines, and we’ve realised that it is important that this becomes hopefully a strategic priority, because it’s still not a priority in many broadcasters. And with that, I will conclude my presentation. I will thank you for listening to me, and I understand that at the end of the session we’ll be able to take questions. If not, you can email me at anna.matamala.uab.gat. Thank you very much.

Anita Lamprecht: Thank you very much, Anna. I’ll pass the floor to Professor Pilar Orero.

Pilar Orero: Thank you very much. My presentation today… Please change the presentation. Pilar, it’s the first presentation. My presentation before, so I go on. No, no. No, it’s here. I am here. The next two presentations are people on site. Fantastic. Thank you very much. Excuse me. It’s not clicking the clicker. No. No. No. I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you and then you… Yeah? Now it’s going. Now it’s happening? Yes, it’s happening. Thank you very much. My presentation is called Enriching Media Accessibility with AI. The idea here is that the research that we’re doing right now, and this research paid by the European Commission, is to do with AI and how AI can really enhance accessibility services. And accessibility services are subtitling, audio description, sign language, easy to understand or easy to read, that sort of accessibility services that we have. The first course is not working now. The first project is that I would like to talk about is called Mosaic. Mosaic is to do with we are designing a single central processing hub for media content creators, for distributors and consumers. And the idea is that anybody would be able to go into that hub, that hub would end up being a search engine where you can really search in any European language, both by text or by voice. And you would be able to search in the archives of any public broadcaster in Europe. And then you can retrieve that information. And then you would be able to… Then the broadcasters that they don’t do very much with their archives will be able to sell that content or distribute the content further, because after all, it is public content made by, paid by public funding. So that is the first idea of the Mosaic. How do we search in the media that is already in the archives? We search through subtitling, which is one of the access services. So it is through subtitling that we can then understand what is the content of the media, we rescue it, we understand what is about it, and we do that. The next project that I would like to talk about is called Alfie. And Alfie, what we’re doing here is to understand what are the biases that we find in media and how that can be addressed. So the first thing that we have to understand is what, where do we find the biases? Everybody knows about the biases about the black faces, or know this, but there are many more biases beyond black faces. And they are, it is very interesting to point them out. Some of them are cultural, which in Europe, it is fantastic because we’re a very super rich continent. So we have to also take into consideration the languages and the cultures in Europe to understand the bias that we have when creating models for generative AI. The next, and I would really, really be very thankful if you could scan that and reply to that survey, please. The idea is we’re trying to understand what do you think is bias in data and how this should be processed. Thank you very much. And the final project that I’m going to present is to do with climate change, which is, again, very, very strange that I, who work for accessibility services, present a climate change project. The thing is that climate change presents data in a very unaccessible way. For example, the colors, the heat maps are not accessible. If you open your weather application in your mobile phone, you will probably understand only half of the information that is given to you. So what we are doing is trying to, we are working in this project with people who work in weather, scientists in weather, in climate change. And we are working together so they understand how to provide easier information for everyone to understand about the climate change. Because one of the problems is that scientists are producing fantastic data, but the citizen is not getting that information. So how we go across it, that is the idea. And this is my final presentation. Thank you very much.

Anita Lamprecht: Thank you very much, Professor Pilar Orero for this fantastic presentation and truly a showcase of how knowledge transfer can be taking place to the society. So our next speaker is Dr. Estel la Oncins, also from the Autonomous University of Barcelona. The floor is yours.

Estel la Oncins: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I’ll wait until the presentation is on the screen. Yes. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the presentation. Now I’m going to jump into the virtual reality world through a project, an Erasmus Plus project that we are conducting and we are leading at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. It’s on exploring the use of virtual reality in class. And I will present some initial results from the inclusivity project. A short overview, just a few mentions on questions related to immersive environments, XR, in education. Then I will present the inclusivity project. It’s also nice and it’s also helpful in terms of inclusion and capacity building. But the main problem, and this is the sad face, is that there are major barriers that teachers and students face, such as the lack of accessible content, the lack of technical skills, and the lack of training and resources. So this is why we created the Inclusiviarity Project. It’s on VR technologies in teaching context. The three main objectives are empowering teachers with VR technologies, foster inclusive and accessible educational environments, especially with a focus on neurodiverse students, and develop skills such as social communication, teamwork, and problem solving, which according to first literature review that we’ve conducted, are main problems that neurodiverse students face, especially in educational context. Who are the partners? Universities, so we are the partners. We are the leaders of this project. And then, of course, if it’s in a teaching scenario, then we needed schools. We have a network of schools from Piera in Greece, a network of schools specialized with people with disabilities in Italy, and we also have the EMAP, which is the audio-visual school, with trainers based in Spain. Then we have an NGO in Cyprus, Citizens in Power, and, of course, if we are implementing a VR solution, then we needed a technical partner, and this is Ludisius in France. So we are an international consortium. Why? As mentioned, there are already existing VR solutions, but they are mainly standalone solutions, platforms, and they are not integrated in curricula. So what we are approaching is a sustainable development goal 4 and 10, so quality in education and reduced inequalities, and also what we are considering to match skills and include VR as part of the curricula. We are departing from the DIGICOM Framework 2.2, which is digital skills for all, not only for teachers but also for students. I’m not going to enter into what DIGICOM is, but it’s a European framework based on five dimensions, problem-solving, information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation and safety. And we are also departing from the EU key competencies for lifelong learning, so based on the eight main, literacy, multilingual, mathematical slash science, digital, personal slash social, citizenship, entrepreneurship, and cultural awareness, because we want to include virtual reality for real in a curriculum. The first steps that we’ve conducted so far, we’ve started beginning of this year, so half a year more or less. We’ve already conducted a survey, 19 participants across Europe, all teachers and caregivers for neurodiverse students. We’ve conducted six focus groups in five countries, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Cyprus. These are mainly the countries with school networks, and we made the first pilot workshop in Spain. Initial results from a teacher’s perspective, these are the outcomes from the survey and the focus group, potential of VR use in education, especially to address the needs of neurodiverse students, potential of VR to use education to improve motivation. There is a clear need on receiving comprehensive training tools and to integrate this in educational practices. There is a recognized versatility of immersive technology in addressing all key competencies for lifelong learning. This was already reported in the survey and expressed during the focus groups, and the use of technologies and tools in teaching scenarios is considered very positive, especially in terms of hands-on and creative tasks. Initial results from students’ perspectives, this departs from the workshop that we’ve conducted with 16 students. The use of VR in methods in teaching scenarios is considered very positive, so all students reported to be very interested in having virtual reality in their teaching context. Hands-on activities and creative tasks are the most valued. This is also in line with teacher’s perspectives. Easy language is considered a need and a solution. Important also to consider questions related to time, especially in terms of co-creating sessions. We had a one hour and a half session. This was not enough, so when you are including VR in co-creating sessions with students, you have to take into consideration how long will this activity take. Then you also need to provide storyboard templates to support storytelling activities. And with all this, I’ll finish with the future steps. We will proceed to create a guidebook for teachers. We are also implementing a VR technology, a VR platform, with embedded co-created social studies, and an implementation manual and a scientific report on VR to address neurodiversity in education will be also implemented and developed. And this is all. Thank you. If you want to follow us, this is our webpage. Thank you very much for listening.

Anita Lamprecht: Thank you very much for this brilliant presentation. This actually sounds like a very futuristic approach and it sounds like fun. So our next presenter will present from online, please. So it’s Dr. Mireia Farrus from the University of Barcelona.

Mireia Farrus: Good afternoon. I can still not share the screen because there’s another one sharing. Yes, we don’t see on the screen yet. No, because I cannot share it. Estela, can you stop sharing? It’s the technical detail. Okay. Two seconds. Yeah, now. So, can you see? Can you see the slides? Yes, we can see. So good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for the invitation to this meeting. So I’m going to present Scribal. Scribal is a project for providing audio transcriptions in a university teaching environment. So… So Scribal stands for Digital Scribal. It is a real-time transcription system and translation system that aims at providing machine translation from Catalan language into other main languages spoken at universities, such Spanish, English, or other convenient languages. And one of the major strengths of this tool is that it is self-managed by our university, ensuring privacy and security of data and content. So Scribal is a tool that can be used from any device, any device from the student or any device in the classroom. And it covers several sustainable development goals, such as ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education, also increasing access to information and communications technology, or protecting the world’s cultural and natural heritage, the language in this case, especially when we speak about minority and minorised languages. So why do we need Scribal? This is the current situation. There are nowadays several existing automatic speech recognition and machine translation systems that do transcriptions and translations, but they are not trained specifically for an academic environment. Also, Scribal is a tool especially useful for those students without sufficient command of Catalan or students with hearing impairments. so that they can access to the transcriptions of the oral content once this is provided. Escriba is adapted to academic and scientific terminology and also adapted not only to Catalan language but also to different Catalan dialects because we have professors and lecturers from all around the country. So improving the accessibility and empowerment of the people at higher education. So due to a flight cancellation I am not able to be here with this today but from tomorrow I will be able to show you the Escriba interface and the tool which has both a presentation and listener roles for the lecturer and the student respectively. So the presenter can insert a code for the classroom and then if you want to access those classes as a listener you just type the code provided and you can choose whether you wish the transcription or the translation into your own language or any specific language. So Escriba is based on AI technology grounded on the Whisper open source models developed by the OpenAI company and what we do is to better tune the system to Catalan dialects using specific databases such as Common Voice and Parla en Parla which Common Voice is a universal oral speech database, Parla en Parla is specifically for Catalan. And we also work on the teaching plans of each subject provided by the same university to adapt the system to the university terminology. So we are now performing pilot tests at the University of Barcelona however the system can be scalable to other countries and universities especially those with minority languages facing the same problems as Catalan at higher education. Also the key facts reported by the World Health Organization show that a system for deaf people is more than useful nowadays we can see the numbers of people with hearing impairments due to the high rate of people with deafness and hearing loss. This is our wonderful team consisting of a wide variety of specialists like linguists, engineers, mathematicians, physicists and support staff that contribute to develop this pilot test and to the implementation of this tool at the university. And just to finish, Scribal will be presented at the speech conference in Rotterdam next August if you want to be there, we will present a show and demo there and I encourage you to visit our Stanford tomorrow to test it and discuss its potential for your own universities and countries and languages. Thank you very much for your attention.

Anita Lamprecht: Thank you very much for this great presentation and I’m sure this can also help to foster the exchange of students around the world with such opportunities. The next speaker is Dr. Mar Gutierrez Colon from Universitat Rovira Virgili I give you the floor, thank you very much.

Mar Gutierrez Colon: Thank you very much. Thank you, I had my microphone off. So, my presentation is going to be based on two studies that my research group is conducting. Since I have very few time and I’m the last one, I’m going to try to be very quick but you have my email at the end in case you want to ask me some questions, right? So, the accessibility challenge that we propose in these two projects are based on these general accessibility challenges, right? 240 million children globally have disabilities, yes? And digital inclusion must go beyond access. It must enable effective learning. As my colleagues have said, we have many, many different tools but probably many of them are not accessible to these special needs students. So, our first project, the one that I’m going to present you is called Tosomena Tuchese. It’s in Kiswahili. It means let’s read and play. So, what happens in Kenya is that kids… So, there are two official languages, English and Swahili and many kids in rural areas only speak their tribal language and they have to learn Kiswahili, sorry, Swahili to enter school and there are many difficulties finding materials, not to say technology. So, what we have done is we have created an app, a gamified app to improve reading comprehension in Kiswahili, yeah? We have taken into account that these children may not be used to using technology, may not have or be used to use mobile phones, there is no Wi-Fi, well, there is not many things in those schools. So, the first thing we had to do is teach them how to use that, help students with the technology and then use the app. The figures are well-known and shocking. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 9 out of 10 children cannot understand a simple text. And girls, the numbers in girls is even worse. This is why we started this project, right? So, Tsomen Apites has large fonts, audio narration, intuitive gestures, is adapted for emerging readers. We have to imagine that they are very young. It is ideal for underserved communities and we have tested the app in real classrooms. In fact, I spent three months and then two months in Nairobi and travelled around different schools. So, we have the final results that are going to be published soon. We visited more than 30 schools and we tried the app. We have a new project with an improved version of the app. Basically, this is what we have. The second project is an English proficiency test for SEND students. And this is based on the necessity of special needs students to have a level test to assess, for them to get a certificate on their level of English so they can access to the labour market. We tried to get those certificates through the usual language test that we have but it is quite difficult for them to be able to answer all the questions, to follow the text, to read all the text, because they are very long, etc. So, what we are doing is working with special schools and trying to develop this exam. This test will provide multiple means of engagement like games, visuals, audio. Support multiple means of expression, speech, gestures, touch. And then it empowers both learners and educators because they’ve told us that when they teach English, basic English to these students, they find that they have an objective that is past this test in order to go to the labour market. And it enables multiple means of representation, multi-lingual, multi-modal content as it should be. When it has research, research goes to policy impact. We are embedded in AccessCAD mission and I think that we have very good collaboration in terms of we have moved our language acquisition research into this accessibility language acquisition goal in our research group. We are trying to find funding from different governments to be able to include all these or to spread all these projects to different countries. So, we believe that digital accessibility is educational justice. and we must design with, not for learners, yes. Accessibility strength outcomes for everyone and it bridges innovation and equity, as you know. We don’t have much time but my email is here and thank you very much for listening.

Anita Lamprecht: Thank you very much, Dr. Mar. As a lawyer, I found this especially impressive that you said digital accessibility is a form of educational justice. So I think that’s a very good statement. So thank you very much. All the speakers were very fast and precise in the timing. So we still have very valuable five minutes for our guests here in the room and online. I’m sorry, you see even faster than my timer. So we would be very much looking to your questions. It’s a very good opportunity to meet five distinguished experts in this very, very important field. Yes, please.

Audience: NK Goel from India. I came late here. Hello. Yeah, I am Professor NK Goel from India. I have not been able to listen to what you said in the beginning. But my problem is that lots of things being said on the new technologies, AI, quantum, etc. How do we teach them in the university colleges because we don’t get the professors or trained people and technology developers of the world, they do not teach. So we just live on the Google or chat. What is the solution we have?

Pilar Orero: I don’t know in the other universities, but in my university, there is the possibility. In fact, it’s not a possibility. What we do is that we do have some teachers that they are from industry, not academics. They have six hours of teaching only. And we get them for medicine. We get them for all these subjects where media, the industry is running faster than academics. And it is we rely on them to come in and to bring the point of view of industry into our students. And these teachers usually for them is very good to do this teaching and for the students is very good to have them. Also, because they are then able to understand what’s happening in industry and perhaps do internships with them. That’s how we do it in Catalonia, in where we come from. I don’t know in your country if you can do that. You have the possibility.

Audience: Actually, we do have this system because in brief, I am connected to 100,000 colleges, universities in India. And the problem is in the case of traditional industries like cement, steel, chemical, paper, we have this facility. But in the case of new technologies like AI, quantum, all these things, the experts are limited from two, three companies. We know the names. So they don’t cooperate. That is a problem we have. In fact, I will just take half a minute. We started as a compulsory course for AI and data for students in class 10th and 12th. For one year, we could not get a teacher, so we dropped the program, officially in the government.

Pilar Orero: Yes, you’re absolutely right. I mean, if we have to depend on the big names, forget it.

Anita Lamprecht: Do we have another question in the room? Yes, please.

Audience: Hi, everyone. My name is Tamiris. I have a question to you, Professor. We work with fact-checking, and we know the importance of using the right word to refer a fact. So I was thinking about the forms that you shared with us, and I was thinking about the bias in the process of translation. Because what is your experience with this, and what have you found? And what is your point of view about the bias in this process?

Pilar Orero: Thank you very much for your question. It’s terrible, because it is true. And also because you will never eliminate bias, whatever you want, I mean, whatever you’ve done. Yes, in the languages, there is the very, like in faces, you know, AI and black faces. In translation, we have the issue with the gender. I mean, feminine and masculine. That is always there. It’s very stupid, but it’s always wrong, and it’s always there, and it’s persistent. And even in really good Google translation, it’s persistent there. There are other more subtle issues as well, that I don’t think we’re going to never be able to get rid of them. And I think also because AI reflects who we are, reflects humans, and humans are biased, and are biased in the language that they use. So, yeah, I don’t know. Anna Matamala, can you have a better answer than mine?

Ana Matamala: No, I don’t have a better answer. I think it’s pretty good.

Anita Lamprecht: Yeah, excellent. Thank you so much. Well, AI is indeed about probability, so we have the bias, so very well said. And when it comes to AI education, so I think it’s us educators who have to upgrade our knowledge to support the students. So the Diplo Foundation is, for example, doing this with AI apprenticeship, so you’re very welcome also to explore. Yes, please.

Audience: I agree with you. We, the educators, have to upscale. My problem is when you teach MBA, MTech, BTech, there is a course, there is a syllabus, there is a system. When you have to teach new technologies, there is no course, no syllabus, nobody approves it. And it is a real problem I’m facing because every university asks me for the professor or teacher, and we don’t get it. So the problem is upscale is fine, but who will upscale you? And with the things going on in the ChatJPT, you know, all the three, four companies, DeepSeek, et cetera, everything is new coming someday. How do you train the teachers? Only thing is the internet website. And now ChatJPT, I don’t want to comment. You can see the experience of what they do. It is said that all the data of ChatJPT is prior to three, four years. After that, data has been scrambled. It’s a real problem.

Anita Lamprecht: Does one of our speakers want to respond to that? Ana, you’re the organizer of this session together with the Access Cats Network. So I want to give you the honor of the closing words.

Ana Matamala: Thank you. Thank you very much, Anit. I think that the comments that have been made are very relevant and point at one direction, which is the collaboration of industry and academia. And that happens at different levels. It can happen when we design or co-design sessions, educational programs, as the colleague from the audience was mentioning, that allow us to reskill and upskill. But also when we try to transfer the knowledge we generate in research projects as the one that have been presented into society, into industry. So to sum it up in 10 seconds, well, 20, I think that what we’ve tried in this session is to showcase some projects of research groups in the Access Cat Network. And Access Cat, what we are trying to do is support researchers so that this knowledge transfer, this knowledge valorization happens. So again, we apologize for not being there. And we are really grateful from Access Cat to all the speakers and the fantastic moderator that we could have in this session. Thank you very much.

Anita Lamprecht: Yeah, thank you. With these words, we close the session. And I must say, it is very impressive to have five female experts on this topic in one room, even if we share it virtually and physically. So we’re actually in a metaverse already. Thank you so much. And goodbye. Thank you. Bye bye. Maybe Mireia-Marie, if you can stay for a second, please. Sure.

Agreement points

AI technology can enhance accessibility services and make information more inclusive

Speakers

– Pilar Orero
– Ana Matamala
– Mireia Farrus
– Mar Gutierrez Colon

Arguments

AI can enhance accessibility services like subtitling, audio description, and sign language interpretation

The ENACT project develops easy-to-understand language news across web, radio, and television to increase media literacy among diverse audiences

The system uses AI technology based on Whisper models, fine-tuned with specific databases for Catalan dialects

Digital accessibility represents educational justice, requiring design with learners rather than for learners

Summary

All speakers agree that AI technology serves as a powerful tool for improving accessibility across different domains – from media content to educational materials – making information more inclusive for diverse audiences including people with disabilities, language learners, and underserved communities.

Topics

Digital access | Rights of persons with disabilities | Online education

Accessibility solutions must address diverse audiences beyond just people with disabilities

Speakers

– Ana Matamala
– Mireia Farrus
– Mar Gutierrez Colon
– Anita Lamprecht

Arguments

Target audiences include persons with intellectual disabilities, migrants, learners, and anyone who may benefit from simplified news formats

Scribal is adapted to academic terminology and different Catalan dialects, improving accessibility for students with insufficient Catalan command or hearing impairments

240 million children globally have disabilities, and digital inclusion must enable effective learning beyond mere access

Standard communication formats create barriers for people with lower literacy skills or migrants facing new languages, making information appear as useless noise

Summary

Speakers consistently recognize that accessibility solutions serve multiple user groups including people with disabilities, migrants, language learners, and those with literacy challenges, emphasizing the broad societal impact of inclusive design.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Digital access | Multilingualism

Hands-on and creative approaches are most effective in educational technology implementation

Speakers

– Estel la Oncins
– Mar Gutierrez Colon

Arguments

Initial results show both teachers and students view VR positively in educational settings, particularly for hands-on and creative tasks

The Tosomena Tuchese app addresses reading comprehension in Kiswahili for Kenyan children who only speak tribal languages

Summary

Both speakers found through their research that interactive, hands-on, and creative educational approaches are most valued and effective, whether in VR environments or gamified learning applications.

Topics

Online education | Digital access | Rights of persons with disabilities

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of institutional control and awareness of systemic issues in AI systems – Orero focusing on bias recognition and Farrus on data privacy and security in educational contexts.

Speakers

– Pilar Orero
– Mireia Farrus

Arguments

The system is self-managed by universities to ensure privacy and security of data and content

The Alfie project addresses biases in media and AI models, particularly cultural and linguistic biases in Europe

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Human rights principles | Online education

Both speakers recognize that accessibility is not one-size-fits-all but requires nuanced approaches with different levels of simplification and support materials tailored to specific user needs and contexts.

Speakers

– Ana Matamala
– Estel la Oncins

Arguments

Easy-to-understand language exists on a continuum from easy language to plain language, addressing different user needs

Implementation requires consideration of time constraints, easy language needs, and provision of storyboard templates for storytelling activities

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Online education | Digital access

Both speakers frame accessibility work as a matter of justice and empowerment, emphasizing participatory approaches and the role of academic research in addressing real-world social problems.

Speakers

– Mar Gutierrez Colon
– Anita Lamprecht

Arguments

Digital accessibility represents educational justice, requiring design with learners rather than for learners

Female academic leaders demonstrate how university research can solve real-world problems through AI applications

Topics

Human rights principles | Gender rights online | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Bias in AI systems is persistent and reflects inherent human biases

Speakers

– Pilar Orero
– Audience

Arguments

The Alfie project addresses biases in media and AI models, particularly cultural and linguistic biases in Europe

Bias in AI translation systems is persistent and reflects human biases, particularly in gender translation and other subtle linguistic issues

Explanation

The unexpected consensus emerged when an audience member raised concerns about bias in AI translation for fact-checking, and Professor Orero candidly acknowledged that bias is persistent and unavoidable because AI reflects human biases. This honest admission of limitations in AI systems was surprising given the generally optimistic tone about AI applications throughout the session.

Topics

Human rights principles | Multilingualism | Gender rights online

Industry-academia collaboration has significant limitations for emerging technologies

Speakers

– Audience
– Pilar Orero
– Anita Lamprecht

Arguments

Universities face difficulties finding qualified professors for new technologies like AI and quantum computing, as industry experts from major companies don’t typically teach

Traditional collaboration between industry and academia works for established fields but fails for emerging technologies where expertise is concentrated in few companies

Knowledge transfer between academia and industry requires collaboration at multiple levels, including co-designed educational programs and research project implementation

Explanation

An unexpected consensus emerged around the challenges of technology education, with speakers acknowledging that traditional industry-academia collaboration models break down for cutting-edge technologies where expertise is concentrated in a few major companies. This was unexpected given the session’s focus on successful knowledge transfer projects.

Topics

Future of work | Capacity development | Digital business models

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the fundamental principles of accessibility and inclusion, the potential of AI to enhance accessibility services, the need to serve diverse audiences beyond traditional disability categories, and the importance of participatory design approaches. They also agreed on practical implementation considerations such as the effectiveness of hands-on learning approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for the field. The agreement among these female academic leaders suggests a mature understanding of accessibility challenges and a shared vision for AI-enhanced solutions. The consensus extends beyond technical approaches to include philosophical frameworks about justice, inclusion, and participatory design. However, the honest acknowledgment of persistent challenges like AI bias and educational barriers demonstrates a realistic rather than overly optimistic perspective. This level of agreement among experts from different institutions and countries suggests that the field has developed coherent principles and approaches, which could facilitate broader adoption and implementation of accessibility technologies.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing AI bias in translation systems

Speakers

– Pilar Orero
– Audience

Arguments

The Alfie project addresses biases in media and AI models, particularly cultural and linguistic biases in Europe

Bias in AI translation systems is persistent and reflects human biases, particularly in gender translation and other subtle linguistic issues

Summary

While both acknowledge the existence of bias in AI systems, Professor Orero presents an active research approach to identify and address biases through the Alfie project, while the audience member expresses more pessimism about the persistence of bias, particularly in translation systems. Orero suggests biases can be studied and potentially mitigated, while the audience perspective implies they may be inherently persistent.

Topics

Human rights principles | Multilingualism | Cultural diversity

Unexpected differences

Feasibility of eliminating bias in AI systems

Speakers

– Pilar Orero
– Audience

Arguments

The Alfie project addresses biases in media and AI models, particularly cultural and linguistic biases in Europe

Bias in AI translation systems is persistent and reflects human biases, particularly in gender translation and other subtle linguistic issues

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it emerged from an audience question about fact-checking and translation bias, leading to a philosophical difference about whether AI bias can be meaningfully addressed. Professor Orero’s research-oriented optimism contrasted with the audience member’s practical pessimism about persistent bias, revealing different perspectives on the potential for technological solutions to social problems.

Topics

Human rights principles | Multilingualism | Gender rights online

Overall assessment

Summary

The session showed minimal disagreement among speakers, with most differences emerging from audience interactions rather than between the main presenters. The primary areas of disagreement centered on approaches to AI bias mitigation and strategies for AI education in universities.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with significant implications for implementation strategies. While speakers agreed on fundamental goals of accessibility and inclusion, the differences in approach to persistent challenges like AI bias and educator training suggest that the field may need multiple complementary strategies rather than single solutions. The disagreements highlight the gap between research optimism and practical implementation challenges.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of institutional control and awareness of systemic issues in AI systems – Orero focusing on bias recognition and Farrus on data privacy and security in educational contexts.

Speakers

– Pilar Orero
– Mireia Farrus

Arguments

The system is self-managed by universities to ensure privacy and security of data and content

The Alfie project addresses biases in media and AI models, particularly cultural and linguistic biases in Europe

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Human rights principles | Online education

Both speakers recognize that accessibility is not one-size-fits-all but requires nuanced approaches with different levels of simplification and support materials tailored to specific user needs and contexts.

Speakers

– Ana Matamala
– Estel la Oncins

Arguments

Easy-to-understand language exists on a continuum from easy language to plain language, addressing different user needs

Implementation requires consideration of time constraints, easy language needs, and provision of storyboard templates for storytelling activities

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Online education | Digital access

Both speakers frame accessibility work as a matter of justice and empowerment, emphasizing participatory approaches and the role of academic research in addressing real-world social problems.

Speakers

– Mar Gutierrez Colon
– Anita Lamprecht

Arguments

Digital accessibility represents educational justice, requiring design with learners rather than for learners

Female academic leaders demonstrate how university research can solve real-world problems through AI applications

Topics

Human rights principles | Gender rights online | Capacity development

Key takeaways

AI can significantly enhance media accessibility through services like subtitling, audio description, and sign language interpretation, with projects like Mosaic creating centralized hubs for European broadcaster archives

Easy-to-understand news exists on a continuum from easy language to plain language, with 13 out of 39 surveyed European broadcasters already producing some form of simplified news content

Virtual reality shows strong potential in education, particularly for neurodiverse students, with both teachers and students responding positively to VR implementation in learning environments

Real-time transcription and translation systems like Scribal can improve accessibility in university settings, especially for minority languages and students with hearing impairments

Digital accessibility represents educational justice, requiring design approaches that work with learners rather than for them

Female academic leaders are successfully bridging university research with real-world societal problems through AI-enhanced accessibility solutions

Collaboration between academia and industry is essential for effective knowledge transfer and addressing accessibility challenges

Bias in AI systems, particularly in translation and media representation, is persistent and reflects inherent human biases that are difficult to eliminate

Resolutions and action items

The ENACT project will publish survey results and report on their website for broader access

Future development of a guidebook for teachers implementing VR technologies in educational settings

Creation of a VR platform with embedded co-created social studies content

Development of implementation manuals and scientific reports on VR for addressing neurodiversity in education

Scribal system to be presented at the Speech conference in Rotterdam for wider dissemination

Continued pilot testing and scaling of accessibility tools to other universities and countries

Publication of research results from the Kenyan reading comprehension app study

Unresolved issues

How to effectively train university educators in rapidly evolving AI and quantum technologies when industry experts are concentrated in few companies and reluctant to teach

How to develop standardized curricula and syllabi for emerging technologies that change faster than traditional academic approval processes

How to eliminate or significantly reduce persistent biases in AI translation systems, particularly gender-related translation errors

How to balance journalistic principles with accessibility requirements in news production

How to make accessibility services a strategic priority for broadcasters rather than an afterthought

How to scale successful accessibility solutions globally, particularly for underserved communities and minority languages

Suggested compromises

Universities can employ industry professionals as part-time teachers (6 hours only) to bridge the gap between rapidly evolving technology and academic instruction

Relying on internet resources and AI tools like ChatGPT for technology education while acknowledging their limitations and potential data currency issues

Accepting that some level of bias in AI systems may be inevitable since they reflect human biases, while continuing efforts to minimize harmful impacts

Focusing on collaboration between academia and industry at multiple levels rather than expecting complete solutions from either sector alone

Digital accessibility is educational justice

Speaker

Dr. Mar Gutierrez Colon

Reason

This statement reframes accessibility from a technical challenge to a fundamental rights issue, elevating the entire discussion from ‘nice to have’ features to essential educational equity. It connects technology development with social justice principles.

Impact

This comment provided a powerful conceptual framework that tied together all the presented projects under a unified ethical imperative. The moderator specifically highlighted this as impressive, showing how it resonated and provided a memorable closing theme for the session.

We must design with, not for learners

Speaker

Dr. Mar Gutierrez Colon

Reason

This challenges the traditional top-down approach to educational technology design, advocating for participatory design that includes the target users as co-creators rather than passive recipients. It represents a fundamental shift in design philosophy.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical design principle that contrasts with many technology development approaches, emphasizing user agency and participation in the creation process rather than assumptions about user needs.

You will never eliminate bias, whatever you want… AI reflects who we are, reflects humans, and humans are biased

Speaker

Professor Pilar Orero

Reason

This is a brutally honest acknowledgment of AI’s fundamental limitations, challenging the often optimistic narratives around AI solutions. It introduces philosophical depth about the nature of technology as a mirror of human society.

Impact

This response to a question about bias in translation shifted the discussion from technical solutions to fundamental philosophical questions about AI’s relationship to human nature. It grounded the conversation in realistic expectations while maintaining the importance of the work.

How do we teach them in the university colleges because we don’t get the professors or trained people and technology developers of the world, they do not teach

Speaker

Professor NK Goel

Reason

This question exposed a critical gap between technological advancement and educational capacity, highlighting the practical challenges of implementing AI education at scale. It brought real-world constraints into the academic discussion.

Impact

This intervention shifted the focus from showcasing successful projects to addressing systemic challenges in technology education. It prompted responses about industry-academia collaboration and revealed the scalability challenges facing educational institutions globally.

Information should be for all, and news are a fundamental part of this information. And they are also a very fundamental part of participation

Speaker

Professor Ana Matamala

Reason

This connects media accessibility to democratic participation, framing accessible news not just as a service but as essential for civic engagement. It elevates the stakes of the technical work being presented.

Impact

This comment established the democratic and civic importance of the technical projects being discussed, providing a broader social context that connected individual accessibility needs to societal participation and inclusion.

Climate change presents data in a very unaccessible way… scientists are producing fantastic data, but the citizen is not getting that information

Speaker

Professor Pilar Orero

Reason

This insight reveals how accessibility challenges extend beyond traditional disability considerations to affect public understanding of critical issues like climate change. It demonstrates the broader societal implications of accessible design.

Impact

This comment expanded the scope of accessibility beyond the expected domains (education, media) to show how accessibility principles apply to urgent global challenges, demonstrating the universal relevance of their work.

Overall assessment

The key comments transformed this session from a series of project presentations into a deeper exploration of the philosophical, ethical, and practical dimensions of accessible technology. The discussion evolved from technical demonstrations to fundamental questions about justice, bias, and the relationship between technology and society. The audience questions, particularly about educational challenges in implementing AI, grounded the academic presentations in real-world constraints and sparked honest discussions about limitations and systemic barriers. The most impactful comments reframed accessibility as a justice issue and acknowledged the inherent challenges in AI development, creating a more nuanced and realistic understanding of both the potential and limitations of technology in promoting inclusion.

How can universities effectively integrate industry experts from emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing into their teaching programs when these experts are limited and concentrated in only a few major companies?

Speaker

Professor NK Goel from India

Explanation

This addresses a critical gap in higher education where traditional industry-academia collaboration models don’t work for cutting-edge technologies due to the scarcity and exclusivity of experts in major tech companies.

What are the specific types and extent of bias present in AI translation systems, particularly regarding gender and other subtle linguistic biases, and how can these be mitigated?

Speaker

Tamiris (audience member working with fact-checking)

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring accuracy and fairness in AI-powered translation and communication tools, especially given the persistent nature of gender bias in translation systems.

How can educators be systematically upskilled to teach new technologies when there are no established courses, syllabi, or approval systems for emerging tech subjects?

Speaker

Professor NK Goel from India

Explanation

This highlights the structural challenges in educational institutions that prevent rapid adaptation to technological changes and the need for new frameworks for curriculum development in emerging fields.

What are the detailed survey results and percentages from the ENACT project’s mapping of easy-to-understand news practices across European broadcasters?

Speaker

Ana Matamala

Explanation

The presenter mentioned they would publish detailed survey results on their website, indicating there’s more comprehensive data available that could inform best practices in accessible news production.

How can the interaction between accessibility requirements and journalistic principles be effectively balanced in news production?

Speaker

Ana Matamala

Explanation

This was identified as a key challenge in the ENACT project, requiring further exploration to develop guidelines that maintain journalistic integrity while ensuring accessibility.

What specific training methodologies and resources are most effective for helping educators integrate VR technologies into curricula for neurodiverse students?

Speaker

Estella Oncins

Explanation

The research identified a clear need for comprehensive training tools, but the specific approaches and their effectiveness require further investigation.

How can time allocation and session duration be optimized when implementing VR co-creation activities with students in educational settings?

Speaker

Estella Oncins

Explanation

The pilot workshop revealed that standard time allocations (1.5 hours) were insufficient for VR activities, indicating need for research on optimal scheduling for immersive learning experiences.

Summary

This UNESCO session focused on multilingualism in the digital age and strategies for promoting cultural diversity in creating a people-centered information society. Dr. Tawfik Jelassi opened by highlighting the stark digital language divide, noting that while over 8,000 languages exist globally, fewer than 120 are represented online, with 91% of content available in just 14 languages. This forces nearly a billion people to learn additional languages to access online resources, effectively marginalizing thousands of linguistic communities and their cultural identities.

The discussion emphasized that achieving true digital multilingualism requires systemic change beyond just technological tools. Guilherme Canela outlined UNESCO’s comprehensive approach through standard-setting, capacity building, serving as a laboratory of ideas, acting as a clearinghouse, and promoting international cooperation. He highlighted the 2003 UNESCO recommendation on multilingualism in cyberspace and the ongoing UN International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032), which has already resulted in 15 countries developing national action plans for indigenous languages.

Valts Ernstreits shared insights from working with the endangered Livonian language, emphasizing the importance of community-driven approaches and speaker involvement programs. He stressed that technology development must be community-specific and defined by actual community needs rather than imposed solutions. Sofiya Zahova presented successful examples from Nordic and Arctic regions, including Iceland’s initiative to maintain its language presence in AI models and Sámi language technology projects led by indigenous institutions.

David Waweru focused on Africa’s challenges and opportunities, noting that despite Africa being home to over 2,000 languages, fewer than 0.1% of websites contain African language content. He highlighted promising initiatives like the African Storybook project and various digital publishing platforms that are beginning to bridge this gap. Elena Plexida addressed universal acceptance challenges, revealing that only 26% of email servers support internationalized email addresses, making digital inclusion a matter of linguistic justice.

The session concluded with calls for multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, communities, private sector, and civil society to ensure no language or culture is left behind in the digital future.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital linguistic divide and underrepresentation**: Only 120 of the world’s 8,000+ languages are represented online, with over 91% of content available in just 14 languages, creating barriers for nearly a billion people who must learn additional languages to access online resources.

– **Community-driven approaches to language preservation**: Successful examples include hiring native speakers to develop digital resources (Livonian Institute), community-led technology development, and indigenous language initiatives in Nordic/Arctic regions that prioritize cultural sensitivity and self-determination.

– **Universal Acceptance technical challenges**: Only 26% of email servers support internationalized email addresses, and most websites reject non-Latin script email addresses, creating digital identity barriers for users of languages like Arabic, Thai, Greek, and others.

– **Policy frameworks and multi-stakeholder collaboration**: The need for systematic change through UNESCO’s 2003 recommendation on multilingualism, the UN International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032), and coordinated efforts between governments, communities, private sector, and civil society.

– **Cultural and creative industries in digital spaces**: Examples from Africa showing how digital platforms can amplify indigenous storytelling, oral traditions, and local publishing, while addressing the dominance of colonial languages and promoting mother-tongue literacy.

## Overall Purpose:

This UNESCO-led WSIS Action Line C8 session aimed to address multilingualism in the digital age and develop inclusive strategies for cultural diversity in building a people-centered information society. The discussion focused on identifying barriers, sharing successful approaches, and coordinating multi-stakeholder efforts to ensure linguistic diversity is preserved and promoted in digital spaces.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and solution-oriented tone throughout. While speakers acknowledged serious challenges and expressed concern about the digital linguistic divide, the overall atmosphere was constructive and forward-looking. There was a sense of urgency balanced with optimism, as panelists shared concrete examples of successful initiatives and emphasized the importance of collective action. The tone remained consistently inclusive and respectful of cultural diversity, with speakers building upon each other’s insights rather than debating opposing viewpoints.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Davide Storti** – UNESCO, Paris (Session moderator)

– **Tawfik Jelassi** – Assistant Director General for UNESCO Communication and Information

– **Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi** – Director for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation at UNESCO

– **Valts Ernstreits** – Director and Representative of Latvia and University of Latvia in Livonian Institute

– **Sofiya Zahova** – Director of VG’s International Center for Multilingualism and Intercultural Understanding from Iceland (joined online)

– **David Waweru** – Publisher and Researcher (joined online)

– **Elena Plexida** – Vice President for Government and IGO Engagement at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

**Additional speakers:**

None – all speakers mentioned in the transcript were included in the provided speakers names list.

# UNESCO Session on Multilingualism in the Digital Age: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This UNESCO-led WSIS Action Line C8 session addressed multilingualism in the digital age, focusing on strategies for promoting cultural diversity in creating a people-centred information society. Moderated by Davide Storti from UNESCO Paris, the discussion brought together international experts to examine the digital language divide and explore solutions through policy frameworks, community-driven approaches, and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

The session highlighted stark statistics about digital linguistic exclusion: while more than 8,000 languages exist globally, fewer than 120 are represented online, forcing nearly a billion people to learn additional languages to access online resources and effectively marginalising thousands of linguistic communities.

## Opening Remarks and Problem Definition

Dr Tawfik Jelassi, Assistant Director General for UNESCO Communication and Information, opened the session with a powerful metaphor describing the digital world as “a vast library” where “if only a few languages are represented by books on the shelves of that library, think how many civilisations, how many histories would be left unheard and unread.”

Jelassi quoted UNESCO Director General Audrey Azoulay: “languages are more than tools for communication. Languages are the very condition of our humanity.” He emphasised that achieving true digital multilingualism requires systemic change beyond technological tools, highlighting UNESCO’s role in developing a global roadmap for language technologies through consultations running until the end of the week.

## UNESCO’s Policy Framework and Initiatives

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Director for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation at UNESCO, outlined the organisation’s approach to digital multilingualism. He referenced UNESCO’s 80th anniversary and its constitutional mandate regarding the “free flow of ideas and information,” connecting this to current multilingualism challenges.

Canela highlighted the 2003 UNESCO recommendation on multilingualism in cyberspace, which requires government reporting on policy implementation. However, he revealed that only 60% of reporting countries are actually implementing policies in this area, while many governments fail to report altogether.

He emphasised the ongoing UN International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032) as a crucial opportunity, reporting that 15 countries have developed national action plans for indigenous languages, with 20 additional countries currently developing such plans.

## Community-Driven Approaches: The Livonian Case Study

Valts Ernstreits, Director and Representative of Latvia and University of Latvia in Livonian Institute, provided insights from working with the critically endangered Livonian language, which has “less than 20 language speakers scattered all across the country.”

Ernstreits revealed a fundamental challenge: “if you do not able to produce any digital data so you cannot have any digital technology at all and this is true for quite many world’s languages who cannot simply enter digital domain.” He emphasised the importance of speaker involvement programmes, where native speakers are hired to develop digital resources, creating both technological advancement and language revitalisation.

The Livonian case illustrated challenges faced by endangered languages in the AI age, where limited data availability makes it extremely difficult to create AI solutions or large language models, potentially widening the digital divide between well-resourced and endangered languages.

## Nordic and Arctic Success Stories

Sofiya Zahova, Director of VG’s International Center for Multilingualism and Intercultural Understanding from Iceland, presented three specific examples of successful initiatives:

1. Iceland’s government investment in language technology, demonstrating how low-resource languages can assert their digital presence through strategic policy intervention

2. Sámi language technology projects led by indigenous institutions themselves

3. Roma digital engagement initiatives

Zahova warned against “extractive digitisation,” emphasising that “we must avoid the trap of extractive digitisation and ensure that communities, especially indigenous and minority ones, are the authors of their digital futures.” She stressed that multilingual accessibility should be treated as critical infrastructure similar to healthcare, requiring state support and systematic investment.

## African Perspectives and Digital Transformation

David Waweru, Publisher and Researcher joining online, focused on Africa’s unique challenges in digital multilingualism. He presented statistics revealing that despite Africa being home to over 2,000 languages, very little web content exists in African languages, with colonial languages dominating digital spaces.

Waweru highlighted several promising initiatives bridging the digital language gap:

– World Reader’s mobile library providing access to books in local languages

– The African Storybook project offering culturally relevant content in multiple African languages

– Various digital publishing platforms amplifying indigenous storytelling and oral traditions

He referenced the African Union’s Smart Africa Coalition, which launched an AI for Africa Blueprint involving 40 nations, representing a coordinated continental effort to address digital language divides through regional cooperation.

## Technical Infrastructure and Universal Acceptance

Elena Plexida, Vice President for Government and IGO Engagement at ICANN, addressed universal acceptance challenges from a technical infrastructure perspective. She revealed that “only 26% of tested email servers support email addresses in internationalized scripts,” making digital identity “invisible or invalid” for users of non-Latin scripts.

Plexida described universal acceptance as “not a technical luxury, it’s a digital rights imperative,” connecting technical standards to fundamental questions of digital inclusion. She explained that most websites reject email addresses in scripts such as Arabic, Thai, and Greek, creating systematic barriers to digital participation.

She highlighted the role of government leadership in driving change through procurement policies and public service design, and mentioned that ICANN will launch new internationalised domain names in 2026, providing opportunities for more domains in local scripts.

## Key Challenges and Future Directions

The discussion identified several critical challenges requiring ongoing attention:

**Resource and Capacity Constraints**: Many endangered language communities lack the resources to enter the digital domain, requiring innovative funding and support mechanisms.

**Data Scarcity**: Limited data availability for low-resource languages creates barriers to developing AI solutions and language technologies.

**Implementation Gaps**: Significant gaps exist between policy development and actual implementation of multilingual digital initiatives.

**Technical Barriers**: Universal acceptance standards require consistent implementation across millions of existing applications and websites.

**Future Action Items** identified include:

– Continuing UNESCO’s consultation process for the global roadmap on language technologies

– Improving government reporting on the 2003 UNESCO recommendation implementation

– Leveraging the UN International Decade of Indigenous Languages more effectively

– Preparing for ICANN’s 2026 launch of new internationalised domain names

– Strengthening multi-stakeholder collaboration across sectors

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated that multilingualism in digital spaces represents both a technical challenge and a fundamental question of cultural survival and digital rights. The discussion revealed both the urgency of the digital language divide and the potential for coordinated action to address it through community-led approaches, policy intervention, and technical innovation.

Jelassi concluded with an interesting observation about the session’s attendance: “I see 20 women and less than 10 men,” raising questions about demographic engagement in multilingualism discussions. Moderator Storti encouraged participants to contribute to the WSIS+20 review process, emphasising the importance of continued engagement in addressing these critical digital inclusion challenges.

The session highlighted that successful digital multilingualism requires ensuring that technological solutions serve linguistic communities rather than being imposed upon them, with community agency and self-determination emerging as crucial principles for future work.

Davide Storti: in 30 seconds. Thank you. Hello, good morning, everyone. I’d like to start the session. This is a session on action C8. This is Davide Storti from UNESCO, Paris. The title of the session is Multilingualism in the Digital Age, Inclusive Strategies on Cultural Diversity for a People-Centered Information Society. We have here representatives from different sectors joining us as panelists. But before all, I think I will leave the floor to and Dr. Tawfik Jelassi, Assistant Director General for UNESCO Communication and Information, for giving the initial remarks to this session.

Tawfik Jelassi: Thank you, Davide. Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, good morning to all of you and thank you for joining this session on OASIS Action Line 8. UNESCO has been in charge of six action lines out of 11, and this is a very important one, focusing, as you know, on multilingualism in the digital age, how to build inclusive societies, people-centered communities. And of course, yesterday we talked in the opening session about the mission of OASIS and the vision for it since 2005, which is very much about building this people-centered development-oriented information society. UNESCO has been deeply involved in this topic, mainly to preserve, revitalize and support cultural diversity and identity, while safeguarding linguistic diversity as a cornerstone of an inclusive information society. And let me here quote Madame Audrey Azoulay, the Director General of UNESCO, who once said, languages are more than tools for communication. Languages are the very condition of our humanity. The question today, what makes us human? Since the machine also today can master large language models, so what used to be the unique capability of a human’s languages to talk to each other, the machine today is starting imitating that, or mastering that. So obviously, the quote I just mentioned Mr. David reminds us that addressing the digital divide is a key priority because we don’t want lesser heard voices to be silenced and we want to protect the world’s cultural and linguistic heritage. However, despite the fact of recognizing language as a fundamental human capability, our digital infrastructure is far from being inclusive. Let me make a quick metaphor. Think of the digital world as a vast library. If only a few languages are represented by books on the shelves of that library, think how many civilizations, how many histories would be left unheard and unread. We must ensure that this library reflects the full spectrum of human experience, where every language has a place, every voice can be heard, and every culture can contribute. Therefore, a major challenge in building an inclusive digital ecosystem is the persistent lack of multilingualism in cyberspace. Our study has revealed that in the world there are more than 8,000 languages. How many of them are online? Not more than 120. Nearly a billion people must master additional languages in order to access online resources, and this clearly reveals a system that is overwhelmingly favoring a handful of dominant languages. In fact, while 5.5 billion people are connected to the internet, over 91% of all online content is available in just 14 languages. and many other languages, leaving thousands of other languages invisible online. This is not only restricting communication and access to information and knowledge, this marginalises personal and cultural identities. So this is the challenge we are facing and obviously we would like sophisticated technologies like AI and generative artificial intelligence can help bridge this linguistic gap or linguistic divide that we have been facing. Our commitment at UNESCO is reflected by our 2003 recommendation, which focuses on the promotion and use of multilingualism and universal access to cyberspace. And these are of course measures that promote local content creation and provide equitable access in all languages. UNESCO continues to lead these principles through WSIS Action Line 8. Furthermore, UNESCO has recently kicked off the United Nations International Decade of Indigenous Languages. The start was 2022 and this decade will run until 2032. And this obviously underscores the urgent need to preserve, revitalise and promote indigenous languages, especially in cyberspace. This can only be achieved through collaboration with governments, communities and stakeholders. Looking forward, UNESCO is also developing a draft roadmap for language technologies and multilingualism. This framework is currently open for consultation until the end of this week. Its aim is to harness… AI and digital tools to build inclusive, equitable digital ecosystems that promote linguistic diversity and uphold multilingualism. I invite you all to engage in this process and this open global consultation. Let me conclude by saying that only by working together, governments, communities, private sector, civil society, technical community, only by working together can we ensure that no language and no culture is left behind in our digital future. We must call for ethical data governance, inclusive digital policies, and equitable access to language technologies. The lack of resources for underrepresented communities coupled with mainstream use of handful languages is a challenge that you must work together to address. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Dr. Gelassi. And now we’d like to introduce the panelists which are guiding our discussion today. We have Mr. Guilherme Canela, Director for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation at UNESCO. We have Mr. Valts Ernštreits, the Director and Representative of Latvia and University of Latvia in Livonian Institute. We have online, joining us, Sofiya Zahov, Director of VG’s International Center for Multilingualism and Intercultural Understanding from Iceland. We also have online Mr. David Waweru, Publisher and Researcher. And we have, if you’re to my right, Madam Elena Plexida, Vice President for Government and IGO Engagement at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN. So, I’d like… I would like to start with the first intervention I would like to ask Mr. Canela. Realizing the true multilingualism in digital space and age requires more than just tools, it demands systemic change. From your perspective, what are the most strategic levers, policies, partnerships or incentives that can accelerate the integration of linguistic diversity into the global digital ecosystem, particularly for underrepresented communities? Could you give us some perspectives of your own?

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi: Thank you everyone. Good morning. I notice in a very glad manner that this issue is gaining lots of momentum because in the last few weeks I have seen Valts more than my children. So it seems that we are actually discussing a lot this issue in different forums, which is a good thing, don’t you agree Valts? Although we need to stop that. I will actually go a bit further on different issues that ADG Gelassi already started mentioning in his introductory remarks to just show some extra elements of these policies and multilateral discussions that UNESCO has been leading from 80 years now this year. We are also, as the entire UN system, we are celebrating our 80th anniversary. And in the very first paragraph of the UNESCO constitution, we have there that one of our areas of mandate is to promote and protect the free flow of ideas and information and so on. As you can imagine, to actually fulfill this ultimate goal, We do need to have multilingualism. There is no free flow of information, only with, as A.D. Djilas put, a handful of languages being represented. So, to respond to the first part of your broader question, our challenge is how, as the leading UN agency in charge of protecting and promoting freedom of expression, so the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration, the right to impart, to speak, but also the right to seek and receive. So, when we are doing policy towards the protection and promotion of this very complex right that is the right of freedom of expression, that’s not only about speaking, it’s also about accessing information and knowledge and ideas. So, how multilingualism becomes a cross-cutting element in the overall tools that are protecting this right. So, if you look into the history of UNESCO in terms of the guidelines for broadcasting regulation, which I’m seeing from previous years, not even talking about the internet, the issue of multilingualism in this media ecosystem was already there. So, this is important, how we do it, how we create this using the five areas that UNESCO normally does when we are doing international assistance and cooperation. So, the first is a standard setting, and A.D. Djilas already mentioned, for example, the 2003 recommendation. So, this is a standard setting, right, saying governments, you need to do A, B, and C, and you need to report back, and I will come to a second, to that recommendation. The second thing is capacity building, and we have been doing that a lot during the last many years, and one essential element of the decade of indigenous languages that A.D. Djilas already mentioned, and I will speak about that a bit more in details, all the universal acceptance that we are doing with ICANN, it’s a lot about capacity building. The third element is being in a laboratory of ideas and the global roadmap that I’m sure Valts will mention or that was born also through a kind of an interesting breakthrough conference since UNESCO further discussing cutting edge technology and multilingualism is about that, how we think about the future, right? How we serve in the UN system as UNESCO as in a laboratory of ideas. The other element is being a clearing house. So how we put together these different knowledge. So if you look into the website of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, you will see a lot of content there that’s not generated by UNESCO, but we try to be an aggregator of the conversation around in this case, indigenous languages on this. And finally, we should be a promoter of international cooperation. That is partially what we are doing here, what we are doing with the decade, what we are doing in our association with ICANN or with the VG Center in Iceland and so on. So I don’t want to take much time off the speakers just to go deeper into two or three of these points for you to have an idea. So ADG already mentioned the 2003 recommendation. So you see in the very first year of the WSIS Summit in Geneva agenda, UNESCO was already approving a global standard setting document to promote multilingualism in the cyberspace. You can think, well, this kind of title is a bit outdated today, but if you look into the key recommendations that are in that document, and then you adapt to the new technologies, these still very much valid. And although we actually had many achievements in- In promoting multilingualism in the cyberspace, there is still a lot to be done. So for you to have an idea, although this is a recommendation that requires member states to report back to us every four years, we are still far from an ideal process of reporting. Several of the governments, they don’t report back on what they are doing. And among those that report back, only 60% reported that they are actually implementing policies on this area. So first call for action here. Next year we will start a new cycle. Please help us to stimulate your governments to report back, because the first step to improve any policy is that we need to know what is happening. We need to know what they have in mind, what are the challenges, what are the needs. During the decade of indigenous languages, also already mentioned by ADG Jelassi, let me just give you two or three important facts there. The decade started, 2022 was approved, but actually started in 2023. And right now we already have 15 countries with national action plans on indigenous languages. 20 are discussing their plans in this very moment, and we are providing technical assistance. We are producing with the Global Task Force some guidelines for the governments to do this in a truly inclusive way. The Global Task Force has four important ad hoc groups, one on education, another in languages transmission, another in policies, and another in digital. So please engage with that. Currently, actually, there is a survey open until this weekend about this issue to try to understand what’s going on with indigenous languages worldwide. So this is an important caucus. We need to take advantage of this window of opportunity with the decade that ends in 2022. to really move the needle in this area of multilingualism technology and Indigenous languages in particular. Then I want to, the thunder of ICANN, but I just want to say that we are very happy with this partnership for universal acceptance. I have some data here that my team put for me, but I will leave to you to share the good news on that. And we think this is not one, as I said, it’s not one thing or the other. We need to have a collective action here with many angles, and universal acceptance is one of these angles, is a very important one, and we need to move ahead with that. And then on this idea of not only having events about these issues, like this one, like the one we had in February, like the IGF, we decided to congregate several of these inputs in a global roadmap for languages and technologies. And we had a drafting committee who did the first proposal. This proposal is open, as Adijit Jalasi mentioned, for consultations until the 12th of July. And we hope this roadmap would be an interesting document for helping us in moving to the next steps. And then you were going to mention there is also an action plan, I guess, there is the next step and so on. So David, this is a bit where we are with these different movements. But of course, glad to take questions later on. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Guilherme. And now I’d like to move immediately to Dr. Valts Ernstreits. So we heard about the measuring progress is indeed one of the challenges, maybe ahead of the WSIS plus 20 review, and maybe we can have some insights, particularly on the, you know, the capacity and resource challenges of many endangered languages. So what promising community-driven approaches or technologies, you know, crowdsourcing lexicons Open Source, NLPs. What kind of approaches have you been seeing succeeding revitalizing languages like Livonian and how can this be adapted elsewhere?

Valts Ernstreits: Thank you for the question. So I really am in two capacities here. So one is Director of Livonian Institute, which is dealing with Latvians in indigenous Livonian language. And the other is actually I’m also a co-chair of aforementioned ad hoc group on digital equality and domains. And just for a context, Livonians are kind of a very tiny linguistic group. So we have community around but less than 20 language speakers, which are scattered all across the country. And in a sense, it represents the future of many endangered language communities due to urbanization, which the landscape is changing. And from our perspective, so when we develop technology, we kind of we try to benefit as much as possible from the digital world. But we approach technology from two kind of perspectives. So one is sustaining language. And here it’s like approach where the technology is perceived as kind of prosthetics given or enabling us to replace certain areas in the language ecosystem that are lost over the time, such as language environment or education and others. But another perspective, how we approach technology is we’re looking towards unlocking heritage and unlocking creative process as language and intangible culture, heritage and culture, they are on one hand, they’re bound together strongly. But on the other hand, Intangible heritage is locked behind the language wall simply because like in our case it can only be accessed by those community members who are proficient in the language so we look how we can exploit technology to provide access to cultural contact for those not proficient in language anymore. So what we develop is like a broad spectrum of different digital tools and resources but maybe the first point looking at that is that the technology is community-specific always so it is defined by the community needs and prioritized also by community needs and language actual situation. So for example in Livonian case if we have we have very complex grammar so one of the first things that we developed was one-click access to all the grammatical information. Another for example so you don’t have language situations when you can hear how the language sounds so we’re trying to supplement audio recordings for materials so those who want can hear how the language sounds. And why this is important is also because in this process resourcing is a key so if you look beyond top hundred of world’s languages so a lack of resources starts to become a problem more and more and more and so it’s very important to understand where does the effort goes but resource available resources also define feasibility. So basically if you do not able to produce any digital data so you cannot have any digital technology at all and this is true for quite many world’s languages who cannot simply enter digital domain or the same problem that we have in Livonian case if we have limited data it’s very hard to create AI solutions or large language models. So you know one approach that we have been implementing during the past three years, is the speaker’s involvement program. So the idea is to hire those few Livonian speakers to work for at institute. And on the task connected to the development of digital resources and tools. So they do not have linguistic skills, and they do not possess developer skills, but they have one special power, the proficiency in the language. So this is the resource that we lack very much, which we need to build the understanding for developing digital tools. So have gained an enormous resource for crucial tasks, like giving the voices, etc. So, from one perspective, this is our gain, but it also contributes back. Because it also offers them, besides digital literacy, working with those digital tools, but it also provides them with language environment. So and because of that, in last three years, we see kind of a real clear rise of real revitalization

Davide Storti: thing.

Valts Ernstreits: And another very important aspect for us is that by community being closely involved, so they might not say how to build tools or what kind of specific action should be taken, but they can definitely tell what’s missing, what’s wrong, what doesn’t work. And this is something that we gain back and which improves greatly what we do. So community involvement is actually very crucial when developing technologies. So It is, and it’s actually very beneficial as well, we have worked with developers for quite a long time and maybe two interesting approaches that I have experienced. So one is, and both could be answered with yes, but, so one approach is that, well, it’s too expensive or who needs this, which is basically, yes, but it’s like saying someone who is on life support just telling him that it’s too expensive to keep you alive, so we do deal with someone or somebody else. And another is like, well, here’s technology, please take and use it. But there is example again from Livonian, that there is a major technology technology company that made Livonian keyboard and it’s downloadable. The problem is that it’s missing a couple of characters. So it is there, but it doesn’t work. So past 10 to 20 years, we have moved, but generally if we look at the technology landscape, we are moved towards technology being able to actually suit needs of every individual. So social media was that launched it powerfully, but AI is something that has brought us closer to this than ever before. So because it is not just a technology, but it is really personally trained technology. But we cannot achieve true customization if we don’t solve language issue first, because this is crucial for everything that follows. And beyond also these are cultural context, tradition, governance, and other individualization issues. So the one way that one initiative, which is now is the roadmap of the multilingualism in digital era. And there are lots of things. and in development of the action plan so that we can reach the goal.

Davide Storti: Thank you. Thank you very much for these insights. And I would like now to pass the floor to Dr. Sofiya Zahova. You know, one of the unique values of WSIS is that it provides a multi-stakeholder space to debate about cultural diversity in the formation of society. It’s something we take maybe sometimes for granted, but it’s not the case, really. So how can efforts to promote linguistic diversity in digital spaces be more effectively linked with the protection of cultural diversity? Dr. Zahova, are there examples that have successfully supported both?

Sofiya Zahova: Thank you, Davide. I’m honored and delighted to join you today on this important panel, but even more pleased to receive a question that would allow me to reflect on rather positive examples from our work, our research. and all the forums we have organized as the national promoter of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. And I would like to highlight three examples that are mostly from the geographic area we operate in, that’s the Nordic and Arctic countries, that demonstrate how engagement with language can become a vehicle for preserving identity, fostering inclusion and encouraging community participation. The first example I will give is the Icelandic case. You might be aware that only around 350,000 people speak our national language and Iceland aims to become an example of how low-resource language can assert a presence in the digital era. In collaboration with global technology developers such as OpenAI, investments have been made on behalf of the government in an initiative to enable Icelandic being present and respected in language technology models, applying an approach grounded in cultural sensitivity, awareness of ethnic diversity and the social role of language. The first phase of the program, that was from 2019 to 2023, was focused on data collection and production of language resources, a very important point that also Vaz has mentioned, while currently there is the second language technology program that focuses on implementation, but also on AI. In this respect, Iceland and the Icelandic Language Technology Centre are in close collaboration with UNESCO on reflecting on a global initiative that will touch upon ethical aspects and questions of bias when it comes to language technology. Technology and AI. And looking beyond the national borders, actually Iceland also supported a report that looked at languages with less than half a million speakers in the Nordic region. And in this report, there is a creation of a framework that other communities can adopt. This model suggests that even the so-called long tail or minoritized languages can become medium resourced when supported by policy, data strategy and inclusive partnerships. Then the second example I would like to reflect on is two initiatives led by indigenous people’s community in the Arctic region. Over the past two decades, Sámi language technology has seen pioneering development through projects such as Gela Tekno or Divum. These projects are not just about building keyboards and spell checkers. They were actually developed under the leadership of the Sámi institutions and the Sámi parliaments in the Nordic countries, for instance. So they actually represent a really good model of assertion of cultural rights and self-determination. Similarly, the 2022 launch of Inuktitut as a Facebook interface language that resulted from META’s partnership with Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated and the Pirurivik Center represents a breakthrough for the Inuit languages. It allowed Inuit users to navigate social media in their mother tongue, but also it involved and it’s still involving the creation of new terminology that respects cultural meaning. And then the third example I would like to reflect on is. As one of the world’s largest transnational minorities, Roma populations are often the most underprivileged linguistically, culturally and socially. Despite systematic barriers, Roma communities have shown remarkable digital engagement, particularly in the use of mobile technology and social media. And for me, as a researcher whose field is researching Romani literary heritage, it’s been really inspiring to see how uplifting it is when we put a digital old material from the 19th century that shows that Romani language was a language with written tradition. But this is an unknown fact. Now the digital technologies allow us to digitize this material, put it online, make it accessible and let the communities engage with this material. Then of course, since the last year, we have the inclusion of Lach Romani, a variant of the Romani dialect spoken globally on Google Translate. This may appear as a significant step toward linguistic visibility, but has raised numerous concerns among scholars and community members alike. The concerns were mainly focused on questions of representation, ethical considerations, community involvement and the methodological ground for selecting one dialect over others without transparent consultation or participation from the Romani communities themselves. Over the last years, as I have mentioned, we’ve been engaged as the national promoter of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages and we served as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue. So I would like to share with you just a few important points that have been reoccurring in our research and also during the initiatives and forums that we organized in the framework of the international decade, be them in the framework of larger forums as the Arctic Circle Assembly, held annually in Iceland, or hosted in our center. Multilingual accessibility and preserving linguistic diversity must be viewed as institutionalized and state-supported infrastructure as critical as roles of health care. This refers to something already mentioned earlier by Valts and something I’ve been hearing throughout many sessions, including at this forum. This includes investing in open data sets, community archiving, and local capacity for content creation. Efforts to promote linguistic diversity in digital space are most impactful when they are community-led, culturally and ethically grounded, and supported by long-term partnerships. We must avoid the trap of extractive digitization and ensure that communities, especially indigenous and minority ones, are the authors of their digital futures, and they decide what has to be made available online and how digital technologies have to be utilized. There is a pressing need for international cooperation and a global framework to ensure the inclusion of low-resource languages and underrepresented cultures in the design, training, and evaluation of digital technologies, particularly AI. And to conclude, the examples that I have highlighted show that when linguistic diversity is treated not as a technical challenge, but as a right and a cultural asset, digital tools can become powerful enablers of cultural expression and participation. They also demonstrate the importance of Inclusive design where language technologies are shaped with and by the communities they serve. To effectively link linguistic and cultural diversity, we must invest in infrastructures that go beyond access to ensure agency, representation and digital self-determination.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much for this intervention. I’d like to now give the floor to the next speaker. I hope we have time to give also for some questions in exchange. So I’d like to pass the floor to Dr. David Waworu, and expanding a bit the reach of this discussion and Action Line C8, in the context of rapid digital transformation, how can we ensure that digital spaces genuinely reflect and promote the full spectrum of cultural diversity, not only in terms of linguistic diversity variety, but also to the diverse cultural and creative industries, music, publishing, film, storytelling and indigenous knowledge systems. So Dr. Waworu. Thank you very much, Davide.

David Waweru: And allow me to use Africa as a case study to reflect on how to harness multilingual digital transformation to preserve cultural and linguistic heritage. And I’ll frame my reflection through six critical lenses. The first one is the challenge, and I’ll focus on the diversity in a digital age. The fact that linguistic and cultural diversity is a cornerstone of an inclusive digital society. And yet, when you look at Africa, progress has been slow, and many African languages and communities face systemic barriers. Thank you very much. So, I am very happy to be here today to talk about Africa’s digital transformation. We have seen the rapid digital transformation in the last several years online. From limited infrastructure to under-representation on major platforms. The rapid digital transformation risks leaving these voices behind, undermining linguistic rights and access to transformation. I’ll give you two examples. The first one is Africa being home to over 2,000 languages, which is about a third of the world’s languages. This represents an immense cultural wealth, however. This abundance is not reflected online. Fewer than 0.1% of websites have content in African languages. For example, more websites use Norwegian, spoken by about 4 million people, than use Swahili, which is spoken by over 200 million people. A stark illustration of the digital linguistic divide. The second example is Africa being home to over 2,000 languages, which is about a third of the world’s languages. This represents an immense cultural wealth, however. This abundance is not reflected online. Fewer than 0.1% of websites have content in African languages. For example, more websites use Norwegian, spoken by about 4 million people, than use Swahili, which is spoken by over 200 million people. A stark illustration of the digital linguistic divide. The second example is Africa’s publishing, which, according to the latest African book industry report UNESCO accounts for 5.4 % of the global market in 2023. And yet, despite this growing economic footprint, the sector still heavily relies on foreign publishing houses and imported content. Which means that African linguistic diversity and rich storytelling traditions remain underrepresented, especially in digital spaces. This limits the creation and accessibility of locally relevant, culturally rounded content. The second lens that I would like to reflect on is the cultural and creative industries. That is African voices in digital spaces. Africans’ cultural and creative industries, from music to film, are vibrant and increasingly global. And you might think of Afrobeats, for example, in music, or Nollywood films from Nigeria. And yet local languages and narratives often remain sidelined on global digital platforms, leading to a one-size-fits-all digital culture. African authors and storytellers have earned global acclaim, but historically the industry has been dominated by colonial languages, and local narratives have struggled to find visibility. Solutions for this digital media may offer new opportunities. The rise of digital publishing and indigenous language literature is reshaping this landscape. What was long dominated by English, French and Portuguese is beginning to open up, making African stories more accessible worldwide and fostering greater inclusion across the continent. For example, more books and articles are now published in Kiswahili, spoken by over 200 million people, and Yoruba, Amharic and other major languages. And these are already reaching global audiences instantly. How about indigenous storytelling and knowledge? Africa’s rich oral traditions and indigenous knowledge systems can be amplified by digital tools. When these are recorded and shared online, for example, via podcasts, videos, digital archives, they don’t just preserve, they also provide valuable perspectives on global issues. Example, community media and knowledge hubs have used local oral histories to combat misinformation and countering climate disinformation, for example, by leveraging indigenous knowledge in storytelling. Protecting and promoting such diverse content online enriches the global information. partners with schools and libraries and publishers to put thousands of books including local languages into the hands of readers. In Kenya for instance world readers mobile library and similar platforms for example local e-book stores are expanding the reach of publishers and authors by offering convenient digital access to books countrywide. This tackles the access gap and forced us a reading culture in mother tongues. How about the African Storybook? An open access initiative providing storybooks in dozens of African languages. It offers a library of culturally relevant children’s stories developed by Africans authors and educators that can read, that can be read, downloaded and even translated or adapted widely used for early literacy in multiple countries. African Storybook is supporting mother tongue education and literacy by making over a thousand storybooks available in 40 plus languages of Africa via web and a mobile app. This has become a cornerstone for early reading in local languages. How about Abound to AI? A Kenyan-based AI initiative building language technology by Africans for Africans. Abound to AI leverages advanced models such as chat GPT to develop speech and Dr. Klaus Niemann. The fourth area is Snaplify. One of Africa’s largest platforms. It provides a digital library and text book distribution system used by millions of students and thousands of schools across the continent. Other notable platforms include Nigeria’s Genti for African language audio books, Cameroon’s Ecology, how to localize AI and language tech that hold the promise to bridge linguistic divides. Second one is community innovation across Africa. Researchers and volunteers are rising to the challenge and local AI projects like Ghana’s Kahaya Fortui and Pan-African Masahane NLP community show that when communities outsource data and expertise, they can create voice recognition and translation for languages that big tech overlooks. The fifth lens is basically policy frameworks, ethics and alignment. Inclusive policy is quite important to truly democratize digital spaces. Strategic roadmaps are also critical and African leaders and institutions are actually increasingly recognizing these needs. For example, the African Union’s and Dr. David S. Nguyen. I would like to start by introducing the Smart Africa Coalition comprising 40 nations and recently launched Artificial Intelligence for Africa Blueprint. And the key is implementing these major roadmaps. And the final lens that I would like to reflect on is the need for multi-stakeholder action Again, earlier it was alluded to that no single actor can solve the digital language divide. It requires a broad coalition policy makers, publishers, booksellers, librarians, the creatives across board, authors, tech companies, local startups, academia, civil society, all needed. And of course, the need to empower local voices, global partnerships are also welcome and needed where big and small get together. Tech giants are partnering with grassroots organizations as well. And final comment is that stakeholders should prioritize linguistic diversity in their digital agendas. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much. I would like to move further to ICANN. I did it a number of times. Dr. Elena Plexida. And I would like to ask a question about universal acceptance, which adoption remains uneven. And so can you tell us maybe how do we better raise awareness among developers, providers, policy makers, but also what are the most urgent technical regulatory changes on, for example, ensuring how email addresses and domain names of course, your domain in all scripts are fully supported across all the platforms. Thank you.

Elena Plexida: Thank you, Davide, and thank you to UNESCO and the WISH community for bringing us together today. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to draw attention to something that is both very technical and deeply human at the same time, which is how people are or are not recognized in the digital world because of the scripts and languages we use. What is universal acceptance and why it matters? Universal acceptance, or UA, is the simple but essential principle that all domain names and email addresses, regardless of script, language, length, should work in every software application, which, as you said, unfortunately is not the case. It’s a foundational requirement for a multilingual Internet. On the Internet, without universal acceptance, users that register a domain name or create an email address in their native language, say Greek in my case, or Amharic or Thai or Arabic, they will find that websites reject their email addresses as invalid, or, I’m sure you have seen that, systems process and display characters in a very weird manner, particularly when it comes to right-to-left scripts, such as the Arabic script. In human terms, what does that mean? A person’s digital identity, tied to a language or a script, is rendered invisible or invalid in that way. And that contradicts everything we stand for under WSIS and SDG 9c. It contradicts a universally accessible, inclusive, and user-centric Internet. So, universal acceptance, although it’s a very technical thing, it’s not just a technical upgrade. It’s a matter of digital equity and linguistic justice. And I will quote Dr. Zelassi, who has said, universal acceptance is not the technical luxury, it’s luxury, it’s a digital rights imperative. That is really, really, really true. So, while awareness on universal acceptance is important, Universal Acceptance has grown, as you have said. Adoption remains uneven, for sure. So, the gaps are very large. For instance, only 26% of tested email servers today support email addresses in internationalized scripts. Imagine that, 26% only. There was a study in 2025 by the Universal Acceptance Steering Group. It found that the majority of local websites still reject email addresses in form fields. Overall, I’m very sorry to say, but universal acceptance readiness is the exception. It’s an exception to find that in systems. And that is sad. I find it very sad to see my language is not recognized in the digital world in 2025. I feel my culture is not recognized. It’s just sad, in a way. What we face is not lack of standards. I want to highlight that. It’s not that we lack the standards. The standards are there. What we lack is consistent implementation across code, procurement, and policy. Now, how can we raise awareness, to go to your question, and accelerate action? To close the universal acceptance readiness gap, we need to target three key communities. The developers and technology providers, the service providers, and the policymakers. How are we raising awareness? One of our key awareness activities that we launched to close this gap is the Universal Acceptance Day events. They started in 2023, and it has grown into a global awareness campaign. UNESCO is an invaluable partner in this awareness campaign, and many others, but I will not go into details. As I mentioned, we need three key categories. What do they need to do? Developers, they need to integrate universal acceptance and email address internationalization into coding, best practices. They have to make it part of a core curricula in software engineering, and they can use testing tools, which are already available from the universal acceptance student group. The service providers… They need to conduct universal acceptance readiness audits of platforms and websites and have to fix form validation errors. Policymakers, very important to my mind. They can include universal acceptance in public procurement guidelines and nationally government service design. A government should lead by example. If a citizen cannot register with their local script email, we have failed at inclusivity. Governments can generate demand. They have this power through procurement. And by being demand creators, they can pressure for providers to upgrade. This is something we need. Providers do not feel the need to upgrade. When it comes to the second part of your question, Davide, which is about technical and policy priorities in the next phase, on the technical front, obviously, I sort of covered that we need to increase support for email address internationalization, readiness, and quotas platforms to test and fix errors. On the regulatory front, we have to incentivize universal acceptance through standard bodies, international digital cooperation instruments like the Global Digital Compact, which was recently adopted. It does reference that we need to push through. Create cross-sector incentives. As I said, for example, digital public infrastructure funding tied to universal acceptance readiness. We also have to support the partnerships between registries and indigenous communities and developers to create the main domains and email services in underrepresented languages. Dr. Uwaweru was talking about the more than 2,000 local languages that we have in Africa. This is what I mean. How do they have an online presence? Except the content that is in a language or not, but the email address, the website. On that point, I will say next year, there will be the launch of the new… and Mr. David Storti. I would like to start by saying that this is the first of two rounds of domain names in 2026 by ICANN, and this will give an opportunity to enable more domains in more scripts. People can come and ask for domain names in their own local script. As Guilherme said at the beginning, it involves many different angles. It takes a collaborative way forward. We’re very proud of our collaboration with UNESCO on that front, and I think that is bearing fruit. Let me end with this. Multilingualism online must move from being an aspiration to a system default. Let’s make the universal acceptance the norm, not the exception. Let’s normalize inclusion, not just promote it. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much for this intervention. I’d like to thank all the speakers, because there is a lot to say on this topic, and particularly the last one we heard. I mean, just think about, you know, the hard work that has been put into this. I mean, it’s not easy. It’s not easy. It’s not easy. I mean, you can think about, you know, how to upgrade the millions and millions of forms, apps and interfaces which are already there. It’s a daunting task, so it’s not something which happens overnight. Unfortunately, I’m really sorry. Apologies from my side. There is not really much time for questions. So I, with your indulgence, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Dr. Tawfik Jelass for some final remarks.

Tawfik Jelassi: Thank you, Davide. I will use only ten seconds, not more than that, to thank all the panelists for their insights and perspectives for this very important topic. Clearly, this is top of the agenda going forward, whether it is WSIS plus 20 plus plus or whether the IGF for the next decade or whether the Global Digital Compact, I think multilingualism in cyberspace, promoting linguistic diversity should be a priority for all stakeholders in an inclusive manner. Final observation. I couldn’t resist that we had 30 people in the audience, 20 women and less than 10 men. What does that say, is multilingasm more important for women then men? Is this how we can do an inclusive approach, to promote linguistic diversity? It did strike me when I saw that in the room. Hopefully, men can also play their part, its not a matter of gender it is a matter of we need all, to bring all, less herd voices in cyberspace.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much. Thank you very much and just to conclude I would like to thank my colleagues who are not with us today but are online, David Castillo Parra and Flora Udenzik for their support in organizing this session. Thank you very much and I wish Action Line C8 a great future and if you have suggestions for sharing ahead of the 20 years review, I think it’s very important that you share with me, come please, because we have a message to send to the review and that’s your voice is important, our voice is important. So thank you very much.

Agreement points

Digital language divide represents a fundamental barrier to inclusive digital societies

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– David Waweru
– Elena Plexida
– Valts Ernstreits

Arguments

Only 120 out of 8,000 world languages are online, with 91% of content in just 14 languages

African languages represent less than 0.1% of websites despite Africa having 2,000+ languages

Only 26% of email servers support internationalized email addresses, making digital identity invalid for many users

Limited data availability prevents AI solutions for endangered languages like Livonian with fewer than 20 speakers

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that the current digital infrastructure severely underrepresents linguistic diversity, creating systemic barriers for billions of users who cannot access digital services in their native languages

Topics

Multilingualism | Digital access | Cultural diversity

Community-led approaches are essential for successful language technology development

Speakers

– Valts Ernstreits
– Sofiya Zahova
– David Waweru

Arguments

Speaker involvement programs hiring native speakers for digital resource development creates both technological advancement and language revitalization

Community-led initiatives are most impactful when culturally grounded and supported by long-term partnerships

African grassroots organizations and local startups are creating voice recognition and translation for overlooked languages

Summary

Speakers agree that the most effective language preservation and technology development occurs when communities themselves lead the initiatives, contributing their linguistic expertise and cultural knowledge

Topics

Multilingualism | Cultural diversity | Capacity development

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is necessary to address linguistic diversity challenges

Speakers

– Tawfik Jelassi
– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, communities, private sector, and civil society is essential for progress

The UN International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032) has 15 countries with national action plans and 20 more developing them

Governments should lead by example through procurement guidelines and public service design that supports all scripts

Summary

Speakers emphasize that no single actor can solve the digital language divide alone, requiring coordinated efforts across governments, communities, private sector, and international organizations

Topics

Multilingualism | Legal and regulatory | Cultural diversity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that linguistic diversity in digital spaces requires systematic institutional support and policy implementation rather than just technical solutions

Speakers

– Sofiya Zahova
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

Multilingual accessibility should be treated as critical infrastructure like healthcare, requiring state support

Universal acceptance requires consistent implementation across code, procurement, and policy rather than new standards

Topics

Multilingualism | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlight the importance of policy frameworks and international cooperation while acknowledging implementation gaps in existing initiatives

Speakers

– David Waweru
– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi

Arguments

African Union’s Smart Africa Coalition launched AI for Africa Blueprint involving 40 nations

UNESCO’s 2003 recommendation on multilingualism requires government reporting, but only 60% of reporting countries implement policies

Topics

Multilingualism | Legal and regulatory | Digital standards

Both speakers provide concrete examples of successful community-driven digital initiatives that preserve and promote linguistic and cultural diversity

Speakers

– Sofiya Zahova
– David Waweru

Arguments

Indigenous communities like Sámi and Inuit have successfully developed language technologies under their own leadership

Digital platforms like African Storybook provide culturally relevant content in 40+ African languages

Topics

Multilingualism | Cultural diversity | Online education

Unexpected consensus

Technical implementation challenges are more significant than lack of standards

Speakers

– Elena Plexida
– Valts Ernstreits

Arguments

Universal acceptance requires consistent implementation across code, procurement, and policy rather than new standards

Limited data availability prevents AI solutions for endangered languages like Livonian with fewer than 20 speakers

Explanation

Both speakers, coming from very different contexts (global internet governance vs. endangered language preservation), agree that the main barriers are implementation and resource challenges rather than lack of technical standards or solutions

Topics

Digital standards | Multilingualism | Digital access

Government procurement can drive market change for linguistic inclusion

Speakers

– Elena Plexida
– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi

Arguments

Governments should lead by example through procurement guidelines and public service design that supports all scripts

UNESCO’s 2003 recommendation on multilingualism requires government reporting, but only 60% of reporting countries implement policies

Explanation

The consensus on government procurement as a lever for change is unexpected given that one speaker focuses on technical standards while the other on policy frameworks, yet both see government demand as crucial for market transformation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Digital standards | Multilingualism

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on the severity of the digital language divide, the necessity of community-led approaches, and the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration. Speakers agree on both the problem diagnosis and general solution approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. This strong agreement suggests a mature understanding of the challenges and potential for coordinated action across different sectors and regions.

Different viewpoints

Approach to technology development for endangered languages

Speakers

– Valts Ernstreits
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

Limited data availability prevents AI solutions for endangered languages like Livonian with fewer than 20 speakers

Universal acceptance requires consistent implementation across code, procurement, and policy rather than new standards

Summary

Valts emphasizes the fundamental challenge of data scarcity preventing AI development for endangered languages, while Elena focuses on implementing existing standards rather than developing new technologies. They represent different perspectives on whether the priority should be creating new language-specific solutions or implementing universal technical standards.

Topics

Multilingualism | Digital standards | Cultural diversity

Role of major technology companies in language inclusion

Speakers

– David Waweru
– Sofiya Zahova

Arguments

African grassroots organizations and local startups are creating voice recognition and translation for overlooked languages

Indigenous communities like Sámi and Inuit have successfully developed language technologies under their own leadership

Summary

While both advocate for community-driven approaches, David emphasizes partnerships between big tech and grassroots organizations as beneficial, while Sofiya warns against extractive digitization and emphasizes that communities must be authors of their digital futures, showing more skepticism toward external involvement.

Topics

Multilingualism | Cultural diversity | Digital access

Unexpected differences

Concerns about major platform inclusion efforts

Speakers

– Sofiya Zahova

Arguments

Roma communities show remarkable digital engagement despite systematic barriers, with initiatives digitizing 19th-century Romani literary heritage

Explanation

Unexpectedly, Sofiya raised concerns about Google Translate’s inclusion of Lach Romani, questioning the methodology and lack of community consultation. This represents an unexpected disagreement with what might typically be seen as progress, highlighting that inclusion efforts can be problematic when done without proper community involvement.

Topics

Multilingualism | Cultural diversity | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on goals with subtle but important disagreements on implementation approaches. Main areas of disagreement centered on the balance between top-down versus bottom-up approaches, the role of major technology companies, and whether to focus on new technology development versus implementing existing standards.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic significance. While speakers agreed on fundamental goals of linguistic inclusion and cultural preservation, their different approaches could lead to competing resource allocation and policy priorities. The disagreements reflect deeper tensions between community autonomy and institutional efficiency in digital language preservation efforts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that linguistic diversity in digital spaces requires systematic institutional support and policy implementation rather than just technical solutions

Speakers

– Sofiya Zahova
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

Multilingual accessibility should be treated as critical infrastructure like healthcare, requiring state support

Universal acceptance requires consistent implementation across code, procurement, and policy rather than new standards

Topics

Multilingualism | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlight the importance of policy frameworks and international cooperation while acknowledging implementation gaps in existing initiatives

Speakers

– David Waweru
– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi

Arguments

African Union’s Smart Africa Coalition launched AI for Africa Blueprint involving 40 nations

UNESCO’s 2003 recommendation on multilingualism requires government reporting, but only 60% of reporting countries implement policies

Topics

Multilingualism | Legal and regulatory | Digital standards

Both speakers provide concrete examples of successful community-driven digital initiatives that preserve and promote linguistic and cultural diversity

Speakers

– Sofiya Zahova
– David Waweru

Arguments

Indigenous communities like Sámi and Inuit have successfully developed language technologies under their own leadership

Digital platforms like African Storybook provide culturally relevant content in 40+ African languages

Topics

Multilingualism | Cultural diversity | Online education

Key takeaways

There is a critical digital language divide with only 120 out of 8,000 world languages represented online, and 91% of content available in just 14 languages

Multilingualism in digital spaces requires systemic change involving policy frameworks, community-driven approaches, technical implementation, and multi-stakeholder collaboration

Community involvement is essential for successful language technology development, with native speakers playing crucial roles in creating culturally appropriate digital resources

Universal acceptance of internationalized domain names and email addresses is a digital rights imperative, but currently only 26% of email servers support non-Latin scripts

Cultural and creative industries must be integrated with linguistic diversity efforts to preserve indigenous knowledge systems and storytelling traditions

Government leadership through procurement policies and public service design can drive demand for multilingual digital infrastructure

Resource constraints and limited data availability pose significant challenges for endangered languages in developing AI solutions and digital presence

Resolutions and action items

UNESCO will continue the consultation process for the global roadmap on language technologies and multilingualism until July 12th

Governments should be encouraged to report back on their implementation of the 2003 UNESCO recommendation on multilingualism in cyberspace

The UN International Decade of Indigenous Languages should be leveraged as a window of opportunity, with 20 additional countries developing national action plans

ICANN will launch new internationalized domain names in 2026, providing opportunities for more domains in local scripts

Universal Acceptance Day events should continue as a global awareness campaign targeting developers, service providers, and policymakers

Multi-stakeholder collaboration should be strengthened involving governments, communities, private sector, civil society, and technical communities

Participants should provide input for the WSIS+20 review process to ensure multilingualism remains a priority

Unresolved issues

How to effectively scale community-driven approaches to the thousands of underrepresented languages globally

Addressing the resource and capacity constraints that prevent many endangered language communities from entering the digital domain

Ensuring ethical considerations and avoiding extractive digitization when developing language technologies for indigenous communities

Bridging the gap between technical standards for universal acceptance and consistent implementation across millions of existing applications and websites

Balancing the need for AI language models with limited data availability for low-resource languages

Determining appropriate representation and consultation processes when selecting language variants for digital platforms

Measuring and tracking progress in multilingual digital inclusion ahead of the WSIS+20 review

Suggested compromises

Treating multilingual accessibility as critical infrastructure requiring state support similar to healthcare, while recognizing resource limitations

Combining top-down policy frameworks with bottom-up community-driven initiatives to address different aspects of the language divide

Leveraging partnerships between global technology companies and grassroots organizations to balance technical capabilities with cultural sensitivity

Using government procurement power to create market demand for universal acceptance while providing technical support for implementation

Focusing on both language preservation and unlocking cultural heritage through technology, recognizing that communities have different priorities and needs

Think of the digital world as a vast library. If only a few languages are represented by books on the shelves of that library, think how many civilizations, how many histories would be left unheard and unread. We must ensure that this library reflects the full spectrum of human experience, where every language has a place, every voice can be heard, and every culture can contribute.

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Reason

This metaphor powerfully reframes the technical challenge of multilingualism as a fundamental issue of human representation and cultural preservation. It transforms the discussion from technical implementation to human rights and cultural equity.

Impact

This metaphor set the philosophical foundation for the entire discussion, with subsequent speakers consistently returning to themes of inclusion, representation, and cultural preservation rather than purely technical solutions.

So basically if you do not able to produce any digital data so you cannot have any digital technology at all and this is true for quite many world’s languages who cannot simply enter digital domain or the same problem that we have in Livonian case if we have limited data it’s very hard to create AI solutions or large language models.

Speaker

Valts Ernstreits

Reason

This comment reveals a fundamental paradox in digital inclusion – languages need digital presence to benefit from technology, but they need resources to achieve digital presence. It highlights how current AI development inadvertently excludes endangered languages.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from discussing solutions to acknowledging structural barriers, leading other speakers to address community-driven approaches and the need for alternative methodologies for low-resource languages.

We must avoid the trap of extractive digitization and ensure that communities, especially indigenous and minority ones, are the authors of their digital futures, and they decide what has to be made available online and how digital technologies have to be utilized.

Speaker

Sofiya Zahova

Reason

This comment introduces the critical concept of ‘extractive digitization’ and emphasizes community agency over external technological imposition. It challenges the assumption that any digitization is inherently beneficial.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion to address power dynamics and self-determination, influencing subsequent speakers to emphasize community leadership and ethical considerations in their examples and recommendations.

Universal acceptance is not the technical luxury, it’s a digital rights imperative… In human terms, what does that mean? A person’s digital identity, tied to a language or a script, is rendered invisible or invalid in that way.

Speaker

Elena Plexida

Reason

This reframes a technical standard as a human rights issue, making the abstract concept of universal acceptance tangible by connecting it to personal digital identity and belonging.

Impact

This comment bridged the technical and human aspects of the discussion, demonstrating how seemingly minor technical details have profound implications for digital inclusion and cultural recognition.

More websites use Norwegian, spoken by about 4 million people, than use Swahili, which is spoken by over 200 million people. A stark illustration of the digital linguistic divide.

Speaker

David Waweru

Reason

This striking statistical comparison exposes the disconnect between linguistic demographics and digital representation, revealing how digital spaces don’t reflect real-world language use patterns.

Impact

This concrete example provided powerful evidence for the systemic nature of digital linguistic inequality, reinforcing earlier theoretical discussions with hard data that other speakers could reference.

I couldn’t resist that we had 30 people in the audience, 20 women and less than 10 men. What does that say, is multilingualism more important for women than men?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Reason

This unexpected observation about gender representation in the audience introduces an intersectional dimension to multilingualism, suggesting that different groups may have varying stakes in linguistic diversity.

Impact

Though made at the end, this comment opened up new questions about who is most affected by linguistic exclusion and who advocates for multilingual inclusion, adding complexity to the understanding of stakeholder engagement.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a technical discussion about language technology into a profound exploration of digital rights, cultural preservation, and systemic inequality. The metaphor of the digital library established an inclusive framework that subsequent speakers built upon, while the technical insights about data requirements and universal acceptance grounded the discussion in practical realities. The emphasis on community agency and the stark statistical comparisons provided both ethical guidance and empirical evidence for the urgency of the issue. Together, these comments created a multi-layered conversation that addressed technical, cultural, ethical, and political dimensions of multilingualism in digital spaces, ultimately framing it as a fundamental aspect of human dignity and cultural survival rather than merely a technical challenge to be solved.

How can we improve government reporting on multilingualism policies under the 2003 UNESCO recommendation?

Speaker

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi

Explanation

Only 60% of governments that report back are actually implementing policies in this area, and many governments don’t report at all. This is critical for understanding what’s happening and improving policies.

How can we engage more effectively with the International Decade of Indigenous Languages survey and initiatives?

Speaker

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi

Explanation

There’s a current survey open until the weekend about indigenous languages worldwide, and this represents a window of opportunity that ends in 2032 to move the needle on multilingualism technology.

How can we develop ethical frameworks and address bias in AI language technology models?

Speaker

Sofiya Zahova

Explanation

Iceland is collaborating with UNESCO on a global initiative focusing on ethical aspects and bias questions in language technology and AI, which is crucial for fair representation.

How can we ensure transparent consultation and community participation in language technology decisions?

Speaker

Sofiya Zahova

Explanation

The inclusion of Lach Romani in Google Translate raised concerns about representation and methodology for selecting one dialect over others without proper community consultation.

How can we create a global framework for inclusion of low-resource languages in AI design and evaluation?

Speaker

Sofiya Zahova

Explanation

There’s a pressing need for international cooperation to ensure underrepresented cultures are included in digital technology development, particularly AI systems.

How can we implement the African Union’s Artificial Intelligence for Africa Blueprint effectively?

Speaker

David Waweru

Explanation

While strategic roadmaps exist, the key challenge is implementing these major roadmaps across 40 African nations to address digital language divides.

How can we increase universal acceptance readiness from the current 26% of email servers?

Speaker

Elena Plexida

Explanation

Only 26% of tested email servers support email addresses in internationalized scripts, and universal acceptance readiness remains an exception rather than the norm.

How can governments integrate universal acceptance into public procurement guidelines?

Speaker

Elena Plexida

Explanation

Governments can lead by example and create demand through procurement, pressuring providers to upgrade their systems to support multilingual digital identities.

How can we upgrade millions of existing forms, apps and interfaces to support universal acceptance?

Speaker

Davide Storti

Explanation

The technical challenge of retrofitting existing digital infrastructure to support multilingual domain names and email addresses is daunting and requires systematic approach.

Why is there a gender disparity in multilingualism advocacy and how can we engage more men in this cause?

Speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

Explanation

The observation that 20 women and less than 10 men attended the session raises questions about whether multilingualism is perceived differently by gender and how to achieve more inclusive participation.

Summary

This discussion focused on global digital justice and priorities for the WSIS Plus 20 review process, bringing together civil society organizations, government representatives, UN agencies, and technical community members. The session was organized by a diverse coalition of civil society stakeholders working on digital rights, sustainable development, and economic justice issues. Anita Gurumurthy opened by emphasizing the need for structural justice in the global digital economy and presented a call to action outlining four critical agendas: establishing adequate human rights frameworks for the digital age, reclaiming the Internet as a global communications commons, promoting digital non-alignment for international economic justice, and ensuring sustainable digital transitions.

Government representatives from Brazil, Switzerland, South Africa, and Australia shared their top three priorities for achieving global equity and inclusion in the digital sphere. Common themes emerged around the need for digital sovereignty while maintaining multilateral cooperation, closing digital divides through meaningful connectivity, and developing robust governance frameworks that balance innovation with human rights protection. Technical community representative Mallory Knodel emphasized the importance of cooperation beyond security concerns and improving multistakeholder processes through greater diversity and inclusion.

UN agency representatives from UNCTAD, ITU, and UNESCO highlighted the need to align WSIS implementation with the Global Digital Compact, enhance international cooperation, and address financing mechanisms for digital development. Several speakers stressed the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection, calling for genuine multistakeholder participation that includes marginalized voices. The discussion concluded with Ambassador Lokaale, co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process, affirming the continued relevance of the WSIS vision while emphasizing the need to address the 2.6 billion people still unconnected and ensure transparent, inclusive processes moving forward.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Justice and Structural Reform**: The discussion emphasized the need for a human rights-based approach to digital governance that addresses both individual and collective dimensions, including the right to public participation, consensual data representation, and algorithmic transparency to combat “techno-fascism.”

– **Bridging the Digital Divide**: Multiple speakers highlighted the urgent need to address the 2.6 billion people still not connected, focusing on meaningful connectivity, affordability, digital skills, and infrastructure investment, particularly for marginalized communities and the Global South.

– **Multistakeholder Governance and Inclusivity**: Participants stressed the importance of enhancing multistakeholder participation beyond just governments and big tech companies, ensuring diverse voices including civil society, academia, indigenous peoples, children, and developing countries are meaningfully included in digital governance processes.

– **Financing Mechanisms for Digital Development**: Several speakers called for new funding approaches, including a digital development tax, reformed taxation systems for virtualized businesses, and public financing mechanisms to support digital infrastructure and capabilities in developing countries.

– **Integration and Coherence Between WSIS and Global Digital Compact**: There was significant discussion about aligning the WSIS Plus 20 review process with the newly adopted Global Digital Compact to avoid duplication and ensure coherent implementation of digital governance frameworks.

## Overall Purpose:

This was a consultation session organized by civil society stakeholders to gather input from government representatives, UN agencies, and technical community members on priorities for the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The goal was to identify key principles and priorities for achieving global digital justice and equity, while also presenting civil society’s call to action on digital governance reform.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants showing mutual respect and shared commitment to the WSIS vision. There was a sense of urgency about addressing digital inequalities, but also optimism about the continued relevance of the WSIS framework. The tone was professional yet passionate, with speakers demonstrating deep expertise and long-term investment in the process. The atmosphere was inclusive and forward-looking, with participants building on each other’s points rather than expressing disagreement.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Anita Gurumurthy** – Appears to be from civil society/digital rights organization, involved in organizing the session and presenting on digital justice

– **Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota** – Representative from Brazil, discussing Brazil’s perspectives on digital governance and global south priorities

– **William Lee** – Assistant Director at the Department of Infrastructure, Technology, Regional Development and Communications, Australia

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Ambassador, Co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process from Kenyan Mission to the U.N.

– **Thomas Schneider** – Ambassador from Switzerland, discussing Switzerland’s priorities on digital governance

– **Guilherme Canela Godoi** – Director of UNESCO’s Division for Digital Inclusion, focusing on protection of free flow of information

– **Jim Paterson** – Director of ICT Multilateral Affairs, Department of Communications and Digital Technology, South Africa

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Strategy and Policy Coordinator for the ITU, conductor of the WSIS High Level Event

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Moderator of the session, experienced in WSIS processes

– **Liping Zhang** – Chief of Science, Technology and Innovation and Development at UNCTAD, involved in WSIS review process

– **Mallory Knodel** – Representative from the Social Web Foundation, representing the technical community (participated online)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Eugênio Vargas Garcia** – Referenced as being from Brazil, though appears to be the same person as Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota based on context

– **Ambassador Yanina** – Co-facilitator from Albania (mentioned by Ambassador Lokaale but did not speak directly)

# Comprehensive Report: Global Digital Justice and WSIS Plus 20 Priorities Discussion

## Executive Summary

This consultation session brought together diverse stakeholders to examine priorities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, focusing on achieving global digital justice and equity. The discussion featured representatives from civil society organisations, government delegations from Brazil, Switzerland, South Africa, Australia, and Kenya, UN agencies including UNESCO, ITU, and UNCTAD, and technical community representatives.

The session explored whether the WSIS vision remains relevant after 20 years and how to address persistent digital inequalities while adapting to emerging technological challenges. Participants demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles while offering varied perspectives on implementation approaches. The discussion maintained a collaborative tone throughout, with speakers building upon each other’s contributions.

Key themes included the urgent need to address digital divides affecting 2.6 billion unconnected people, the importance of strengthening multistakeholder participation, the continued relevance of the WSIS framework, and the necessity of robust financing mechanisms for digital development.

## Opening Framework: The Call for Structural Digital Justice

Anita Gurumurthy opened the session with a powerful metaphor from Mullah Nasruddin folklore about searching for lost items under streetlights rather than where they were actually lost, simply because the light makes searching easier. She applied this to digital governance, arguing that stakeholders often address visible symptoms rather than tackling difficult structural problems.

Gurumurthy outlined four critical agendas for digital justice, emphasising the need for human rights frameworks adequate to the digital age, reclaiming the Internet as a global communications commons, promoting digital non-alignment for international economic justice, and ensuring sustainable digital transitions that safeguard future generations’ rights.

She specifically highlighted the need for public financing mechanisms for Global South AI capabilities and digital self-determination, referencing the Aarhus Convention’s application to digital innovation participation rights. Gurumurthy also mentioned seven different proposals for fiscal justice, including measures to address tax evasion and support digital development.

## Government Perspectives: Balancing Sovereignty and Cooperation

### Brazil’s Vision for Inclusive Multilateralism

Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota from Brazil articulated three key priorities reflecting the Global South perspective. First, he emphasised multilateral and multistakeholder global governance frameworks that include all countries regardless of their technological capacity. Second, he called for a new universal declaration of human rights in the digital world, emphasising both individual sovereignty and digital sovereignty of countries. Third, he focused on establishing governance frameworks for emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, ensuring these technologies serve humanity rather than replacing human agency.

Patriota also referenced the BRICS declaration on AI governance, highlighting regional cooperation approaches to digital governance challenges.

### Switzerland’s Ecosystem Approach

Thomas Schneider from Switzerland provided a compelling historical analogy about how Switzerland in the 1840s didn’t simply purchase locomotives from the UK but “created a whole ecosystem that allowed them to use, to make a technology their own.” This included developing engineering expertise, infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks.

Schneider applied this lesson to digital transformation, arguing that countries need comprehensive ecosystems encompassing economic, political, and social dimensions. His three priorities reflected this holistic approach: enabling societies to make technology their own, fostering innovation while protecting people, and developing ecosystems that create more value than damage.

### Australia’s Focus on Meaningful Connectivity

William Lee from Australia brought a practical perspective focused on implementation challenges. His first priority addressed meaningful connectivity, citing estimates that achieving universal connectivity would cost approximately one trillion dollars but could generate nine trillion dollars in economic benefits. He emphasised local solutions and micro-targeting rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

Australia’s second priority focused on gender equality, highlighting the usage gap that needs closing to connect communities effectively. The third priority emphasised that no single stakeholder group can solve digital challenges alone, advocating for inclusive approaches that bring all voices to the table.

### South Africa’s Innovation and Participation Framework

Jim Paterson from South Africa offered three priorities balancing innovation promotion with inclusive participation. First, he focused on delivering meaningful connectivity while ensuring access to economic opportunities, education, health, and government services. Second, he emphasised that innovation occurs at every level of society, not just within large technology companies. Third, he called for strengthening participation from stakeholders across all countries and economies.

## UN Agency Perspectives: Integration and Implementation

### UNCTAD’s Focus on Governance and Cooperation

Liping Zhang from UNCTAD brought insights from extensive consultations conducted as part of the WSIS review process. Her three priorities included closing digital divides through investment in infrastructure, affordability, and digital skills development; establishing robust governance frameworks covering data governance, privacy protection, and technology company accountability; and enhancing international cooperation in the post-WSIS scenario while aligning with the Global Digital Compact.

### UNESCO’s Challenge to False Dichotomies

Guilherme Canela Godoi from UNESCO challenged the “false dichotomy between innovation and the protection of human rights.” He argued that “the international human rights system, the international rule of law system that was created eighty years ago and of which WSIS is part of, actually is what promoted and permitted this innovation that these companies are able to do in the first place.”

His second priority emphasised deeper multistakeholder debate acknowledging enormous diversity within each stakeholder group. His third priority directly addressed financing mechanisms, arguing that stakeholders cannot be naive about protection needs without discussing funding sources.

### ITU’s Process and Momentum Perspective

Gitanjali Sah from ITU, as conductor of the WSIS High Level Event, provided perspective on maintaining process momentum. She noted the participation of 64 ministers and 60 regulators in the broader WSIS process, emphasising the success of maintaining momentum over 20 years while adapting to technological changes. Her priorities focused on strengthening multilateral and multistakeholder engagement for emerging digital economy issues.

## Technical Community Perspective: Cooperation Beyond Securitisation

Mallory Knodel from the Social Web Foundation, participating online, advocated for returning to the cooperative approach that characterised early Internet development. She argued that current cooperation focuses too heavily on securitisation rather than the knowledge sharing and diverse approaches that originally built global connectivity.

Her priorities emphasised cooperation beyond security concerns, improving multistakeholder processes through greater diversity and inclusion, and ensuring more input from most affected communities.

## Process Leadership: Balancing Continuity and Innovation

Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale from Kenya, serving as co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process alongside Ambassador Yanina from Albania, posed fundamental questions about whether the WSIS vision remains relevant and whether it is working effectively. He emphasised the challenge of addressing 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected while governments increasingly migrate services to digital platforms.

Lokaale stressed the need to ensure equity and inclusion both in the process and in final outcomes, demonstrating commitment to transparent multistakeholder processes and addressing coherence between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact.

## Areas of Strong Consensus

### Multistakeholder Participation and Inclusivity

Strong consensus emerged around strengthening multistakeholder participation through greater diversity and inclusion. Multiple speakers emphasised that current processes inadequately represent most affected communities, developing countries, and marginalised groups. Speakers consistently argued that no single stakeholder group can solve digital challenges alone, requiring genuine collaboration across sectors and regions.

### Urgent Need to Address Digital Divides

Participants demonstrated unanimous concern about the 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected. The consensus extended beyond simple access to include affordability, digital skills, relevant content, and applications that provide genuine value to users. Speakers consistently rejected simplistic solutions in favour of locally appropriate, culturally sensitive approaches.

### Continued Relevance of WSIS Framework

Despite acknowledging shortcomings, speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the continued relevance of the WSIS vision. Participants consistently argued for enhancing rather than replacing existing frameworks, recognising the value of proven institutional mechanisms while acknowledging the need for continuous adaptation.

### Human Rights and Governance Frameworks

Speakers converged on the need for updated governance frameworks that protect human rights in the digital age while ensuring accountability from technology companies. The consensus explicitly rejected false choices between innovation and rights protection, instead arguing that robust rights frameworks enable rather than hinder innovation.

## Critical Implementation Challenges

### Financing Mechanisms and Resource Mobilisation

The discussion revealed significant consensus on the need for financing mechanisms while acknowledging this area has been neglected despite being part of the original WSIS agenda. Speakers proposed various approaches including digital development taxes, reformed taxation systems, and public financing mechanisms for developing countries.

### Integration with Global Digital Compact

Multiple speakers emphasised the need to align WSIS implementation with the Global Digital Compact to avoid duplication and ensure coherent approaches. Suggestions included integrating the Global Digital Compact into WSIS action lines rather than creating separate processes.

### Meaningful Participation from Unconnected Populations

The discussion highlighted the fundamental challenge of ensuring meaningful participation from the 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected while governments increasingly migrate services to digital platforms. This requires innovative approaches to consultation and participation beyond traditional digital engagement methods.

## Key Insights and Reframings

### The Mullah Nasruddin Metaphor

Gurumurthy’s opening metaphor about searching under streetlights provided a powerful framework for understanding why digital governance discussions often fail to address root causes. This encouraged participants to examine structural issues rather than focusing on easily visible symptoms.

### The False Innovation-Rights Dichotomy

Canela Godoi’s challenge to the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection provided crucial reframing that influenced the discussion. By arguing that the international human rights system actually enabled current innovation, he legitimised advocacy for stronger governance frameworks.

### The Swiss Railway Analogy

Schneider’s historical analogy about Switzerland’s approach to railway technology provided a concrete model for digital transformation, demonstrating how countries can become active shapers rather than passive consumers of technology through comprehensive ecosystem development.

### The Securitisation Critique

Knodel’s critique of current securitisation trends introduced a perspective that challenged dominant policy assumptions, suggesting that early Internet success came from prioritising cooperation and knowledge sharing over security concerns.

## Conclusion: Foundations for Collaborative Action

This consultation session demonstrated remarkable consensus among diverse stakeholders on fundamental principles for digital governance while revealing nuanced differences in implementation approaches. The high level of agreement on core challenges and the continued relevance of the WSIS vision provides a solid foundation for the Plus 20 review process.

The discussion’s strength lay in combining principled vision with practical implementation focus. Speakers consistently demonstrated sophisticated understanding of governance challenges while maintaining commitment to inclusive, rights-based approaches to digital development.

Moving forward, the challenge will be translating this consensus into concrete action and adequate financing while maintaining the collaborative spirit that characterised this discussion. The session ultimately affirmed that the WSIS vision of a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented information society remains essential for addressing contemporary digital governance challenges, but achieving this vision requires renewed commitment to structural justice, adequate financing, and genuine multistakeholder participation.

Anita Gurumurthy: and esteemed delegates for making the time to be with us. We are a diverse array of civil society stakeholders including organizations working for sustainable development, digital rights networks, feminist groups, corporate watchdogs, I think I shouldn’t have said that because it’s dangerous in these times, communication rights campaigners, trade unions and cooperatives and academics. So we are a mix of organizations working for economic and social justice like a network of networks in a world of proliferating alliances. We’d like to believe that we distinguish ourselves for our focus on structural justice, mainly rules for the digital economy, the global digital economy so that we can live in a world of interdependence and peace. For some of us who were at WSIS Geneva and Tunis, the global digital economy seems somewhat like the stories of Mullah Nasruddin. These are those humorous folk tales from West Asia and Central Asia and the Mullah was known as this wise fool, if the contradiction in terms is allowed, and oftentimes these stories teach you, you know, that there is a profound layer of truth, you know, below the surface. So in one particular story, the Mullah is searching for something under a streetlight and someone asks him, what is it that you’re looking for? And the Mullah says, I lost my ring. So then a lot of people gather to search along with him under the streetlight. So finally, someone asks him, are you sure Mullah that you lost it here? He said, no, I know where I lost it. I lost it in my house. So then they ask him, then why are you looking for it here? So he says, because it’s very dark where I lost it and the light is out here. So also the digital economy, we know what is lost, what is being lost, and we look elsewhere, trying hard not to cast the spotlight at the right place. Pretending to fix things, gathering more and more people to look away from the real problems. What would it take to bring to fruition the vision of an equitable, just and development-oriented international digital order in the current conjuncture? And since all of us know the truth and the reality, can we act in concert in order for us to be sure that posterity will be glad we existed? So just to tell you that today is partly an occasion to get a response from all of you on what you think are the most important abiding principles that are needed for the global digital economy, for global digital justice. And in that regard, also to give you a little bit of a flavor into our call to action, and we’ve left a copy of that on the desk for each of you. Our call to action outlines the imperatives for global digital cooperation to deliver on four critical agendas. The first one is on a human rights paradigm that’s adequate to the current digital conjuncture. Of course, all of us know that digital rights are human rights, but we believe that we need to look both at the individual and collective dimensions so that there is no right to public participation without the right to belong in the digital public sphere, no right to privacy in the absence of the right to consensual representation, which basically means that in all of the use cases of aggregate data that are downstream, you really need to have a voice about how your data is being used, no right to knowledge sans the epistemic rights of communities to innovate from their shared data resources, and no right to equality without algorithmic transparency. So this is really an international global governance framework that strikes at the heart of techno-fascism so that the right to communicate is for all. We also believe in building bridges with so many of our predecessors in the and many others who have stood up for global justice, be they from civil society or from academia or from the government and other stakeholders, also fighting for a legally binding instrument on transnational corporations, which, as we all realize in this room, cannot be delayed. The second agenda for us is that the Internet be seen and reclaimed as a global communications commons. I was one of those people with gray hair now that went to Tunis, and there was really this contestation around the Internet as a global public facility, and some government said, You can’t use the word public. You just have to call it the global facility. And it was such a saddening moment because it is a global public facility. It is for everybody, like a public park. So I think this global communications commons needs to be reclaimed today, and the Internet’s walled gardens must make way for an inclusive, pluralistic, decentralized, and vibrant transnational communications agora. Our third agenda is that a just international economic order must be based on the principle of digital non-alignment, which means that we really do need to give this idea at all for a group of countries that can give moral leadership to look for the mullah’s ring in the right place. So the mullah needs to find the ring in his home. To know that the AI arms race is a road downhill, to claim the idea of international data solidarity, and for urgent reform of digital trade, taxation, intellectual property regimes that entrench inequality between countries, because digital inequality, after all, is a reflection of and reinforces other forms of global inequality. Here is why we therefore call for tax justice. We call for fiscal justice, and we have a special campaign that we launched in just the previous few days on fiscal justice. And we’ve got some seven different proposals outlined. And if you find some slightly unstrategic, pick up the ones that you find strategic. And the final agenda is about a sustainable digital transition that safeguards the human rights of future generations so that the future generation remembers us for really being, you know, super brave, you know, for being those courageous voices that needed to speak up when we did need to. And here is where we want to borrow from the precautionary principle from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. And add to it the wonderful European Convention on Arhus, the Arhus Convention, which talks about the right of the public to access information and participate in matters relating to the environment, only that in this context, we want to transpose that right on digital innovation, that the public must inherently, intrinsically have the right to participate in everything that is about digital innovation and it’s not only for opaque sandboxes. So I would like to come back in the end, maybe if I could have a minute or two and our moderator, Andrea, will join us shortly. She’s in another session and we are expecting that the co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process, Ambassador Locali will join us. So at which point we’d like to present the forum’s requests and submissions on the elements paper. So at this point, what I will do is, Valeria, could I call on you to… I didn’t get that. Could you try again? Happily, I can try again. Yes. So we thank you all for taking the time to join us at this point and participate in the day-long, in this hour-long dialogue on this very elusive, but critical idea of digital justice. I think history teaches us that economic interests have always been key drivers of coloniality, but we don’t want that anymore. We want to rewrite history. So thank you for joining us and over to you, Andrea.

Anriette Esterhuysen: That’s a challenge not to consult. and Mr. Anish Mahbubani. I’m going to start with the script. If I go off script, Anita, it’s on you. Thanks very much. Apologies for being late. You can give it to the ambassador. As soon as I’m done. I’m late because we just had a really exciting breakfast with regulators from Africa, Asia and Latin America that are going to be a bit late. But what we wanted to do, as Anita would have said already, is to ask those governments represented here to give us, really, in three minutes, the top three priorities on global equity and inclusion for WSIS. What do you think we should prioritize? We’ve heard a lot about priorities that are reflected in the global digital compact. We have the WSIS action line priorities, we have the vision. But if we’re really going to get things done, we need some kind of sequencing. We need some kind of prioritization of the priorities. So, Guilherme, I’m asking you to start. Mr. Eugênio Vargas Garcia, are you over there? Excellent. Please, from the perspective of Brazil, what are your top priorities?

Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota: This microphone, maybe? Yes. Thanks. I don’t know. Is this working? Thank you. That’s quite a blunt question. The priorities for Brazil at this point in time, I think, would be to preserve, I think, a lot of the perspectives and opportunities for developing countries, the global south, and this radical transition that we are going through for the last decades towards a digital economy, and all that that implies. I think Brazil has done a lot domestically to sort of evolve a framework that provides a degree of equity in terms of the benefits of this transition. It’s a multi-pronged transition. It involves almost cross-cutting. touches upon all elements of civil life in countries, from economy to education, to health, to ethics, to politics, to everything. So I think this is a new paradigm in terms of governance at all levels. So I think we’re looking for some sort of common global rules, a framework, a regulatory framework for members, for countries that is multilateral in nature. We also accept the need for it to be multi-stakeholder, but not just for the big techs and private sectors, but also for civil society, academia, and others. So I think there’s a need for balanced representation of different types of actors and all countries, inclusives of all countries, irrespective of their military power or capacity or infrastructure capacity in terms of digital infrastructure. So I think that’s what we’re looking for, a way forward to speak of global governance. But global governance is not enough. It’s global, it’s national, it’s subnational, and it’s also individual. I think in the opening we spoke of a human rights perspective. So the BRICS summit in Rio this weekend just launched a declaration on AI and AI governance. It’s quite extensive and multifaceted. So I think you should all look at it. It’s the first such declaration coming out of the BRICS country. But I think going beyond that, it touches upon sovereignty, digital sovereignty of countries. So digital sovereignty is important, but I would go beyond. I think we need individual sovereignty from a human rights perspective. So maybe what we really need beyond all that is a new sort of human rights, universal declaration of human rights in the digital world, because I think that’s what’s being least protected at this point. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much, Mr. Eugênio Vargas Garcia. Next, if she’s online. Joining us, representing the technical community, is Mallory Knodel from the Social Web Foundation. Mallory, are you with us? I haven’t had a chance to log in, so…

Mallory Knodel: Yeah, I’m here. If you can hear me okay? Mallory. I’m not sure if you can hear me or not, but… We can hear you. Oh, good. I’m so glad. Hi, everyone. And thanks so much for inviting me. I wish I could be with you here, with you there in Geneva. But I really appreciate the points that you’ve put forward already, Anita. I want to try to weave them together into my three points, but I’ve got limited time. So let me go ahead and get started. I feel like I would start with something that has, to me, since the early 2000s, become a somewhat unfashionable thing to do, which is to look back at that time and be very nostalgic for the way in which everyone cooperated on the Internet to make connectivity happen. And that it was a really important time, actually. And I’m not necessarily cynical about it. I think we probably should be a little bit more impressed with ourselves than we were. And the reason I’ve changed my mind recently is because I think that there’s a real critique for most of the things that we’re cooperating on these days are really focused on and center very much securitization. And I think the Internet, we famously also… I used to tell this story as well, like many other people, with a bit of judgment that the Internet didn’t consider security in the beginning. Enough, right? And that was the sort of… Enough was the operative word there. But in fact, I think it’s a wonderful thing that it did not come and factor in as the central figure, that there were many, many other things about building global connectivity. and Mr. Mallory Knodel. And I think that is the first thing I think we should focus on. And some of those things are in the Elements Paper. Some of those things are in what others are proposing that I want to support. And they are things like caring a lot about knowledge sharing, a diverse political economy. Other things we can continue to cooperate on are human rights, including privacy. If we look at developing out AI, I think there are other ways of doing it rather than thinking through a fully securitized model. So that’s the first one. I think we should cooperate more. And remember that there are values beyond just that of security that matter. The second is, of course, I’m going to talk about multistakeholderism, but I want to give it some nuance, like how and in what ways should it be different than it has so far. And I think this dovetails with things that folks have already mentioned. Things like regulation. Also human rights. There are some elements there. The main nugget that I think we should think of going forward with respect to multistakeholderism is how technology will continue to shape all global governance conversations. And if not just on substance, but process when it comes to multistakeholder conversations about other aspects of governance that are not squarely Internet related, I think that would be a wonderful thing. So in other words, if global governance can itself be more multistakeholder in the way that the Internet has shown us and taught us how to be, I think that would be an excellent development and it goes beyond then just the global governance of the Internet. And then lastly, yes, we have multistakeholderism already. It isn’t perfect. So in the ways in which we feel it should change and evolve is really an effort in diversity, equity and inclusion. And it’s so critical then to imagine. I imagine we need, especially I’m speaking in the technical community, we need a lot more input from most affected communities. And how do you get people who are building technology to speak with those who are using the technology? That loop is not really tight in my view and in my experience. We need to make these conversations more accessible. We need to be a lot more welcoming. And so multi-stakeholderism can improve in a lot of very key ways. Thanks so much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much for that, Mallory. And thanks also for keeping to time. Next I’d like to invite Li-Ping Zhang. Li-Ping is the Chief of Science, Technology and Innovation and Development at UNCTAD and very deeply involved in the WSIS review process, Li-Ping.

Liping Zhang: Thank you, Moderator. Well, UNCTAD is the Secretary of the UN Commission on Science, Technology and Development, which is in short called CSED. And CSED is mandated to carry out WSIS Plus Trending Review. It has just completed its work on WSIS Plus Trending Review at CSED in April. So here today, I would like to share with you some outcomes of these discussions at CSED concluded in April. As a result of the 28th session of the CSED, the discussion on WSIS Plus Trending resulted in some resolutions, resulting in some provisions in the WSIS resolutions. And there are about 20 paragraphs surrounding WSIS Plus Trending, but I just want to summarize them into the three, the number that is given by the organizer that has been shown in the resolution. The first is considering, and now there is also the Global Digital Compact, which has a big impact on digital governance, a topic that is of very much interest to this organization and global digital justice. There is a need to align the implementation of these two processes, and there is also some suggestion about integrating the Global Digital Compact into the WSIS action lines. And the second is that there is a need for enhancing international cooperation in terms of post-WSIS scenario, and this element should be also emphasized in the WSIS Plus Gender Review that’s going to take place in the GA in December this year, because all these matters like addressing digital divide, climate change, digital governance, and other matters, they all require international cooperation, so definitely this should be emphasized more. The third element is to strengthen the role of CSED as an intergovernmental platform for discussion on the impact and opportunities of technologies for the SDGs, and these technologies, of course, include digital technologies and data governance and other issues. And for your information, the CSED has established under the Global Digital Compact a working group on data governance. The working group is now working to carry out its work that is mandated by the Global Digital Compact. At the same time, I would also like to share with you what the Secretary has identified through its one-year-and-a-half consultations. Of course, the Secretary’s report is used as a background paper for the discussion in April for WSIS Plus 20, and the report is It’s called Implementing the WSIS Outcomes, a 20-year review. And through the consultations, we have gathered some points, which are also very much aligned with what the member states have emphasized through the WSIS resolution. The first central priority we have identified through consultations is that there is an urgent need to close digital divides, including the gender digital divide, not just in connectivity but also in device access, affordability and digital skills necessary for meaningful participation. And there’s need to invest in infrastructure, better utilizing existing networks, target actions to improve access and affordability for marginalized groups, and initiatives to enhance digital skills and literacy. The second priority is to develop robust governance frameworks to manage the growing complexity of digital ecosystems, improve data governance, privacy protection, and inclusive governance of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, protecting human rights online, address issues of information integrity, and ensure greater accountability from technology companies and digital platforms. All these issues have been raised during the discussions on consultations. The third element is enhanced international cooperation through inclusive multilateralism and greater participation by developing countries in global digital policymaking. And the current multi-stakeholder approach in the WSIS process should be enhanced. At the same time, there’s also a need to avoid duplication and resource inefficiencies, especially within broader UN processes, and that also concerns the implementation of GDC and WSIS. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks a lot, Li-Ping. And just a note on that, I think people are often not aware that CSTD does not just present the annual report. and host the resolution. The regional consultations that CSTD conducts in all UN regions are really in depth and specific, and I think I’m glad you mentioned that, and I’ve had the privilege of participating in the African consultations. Next, because she has to leave, we have Gitanjali Sah, Strategy and Policy Coordinator for the ITU. She’s also the conductor of this mega symphony orchestra called the WSIS High Level Event. So, Gitanjali, you are next.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Anriette. Good morning, Ambassador. So, thanks a lot for being here. This is a very important consultation, and we look forward to receiving the outcomes, Anita and Anriette, because we’ll be consolidating all of these, perhaps a call for action as well. So, you know, when we heard the moderator, you, asking people yesterday how many have been associated with the process since 2003, we had very few people who raised their hand. So, really, this, I think you also mentioned, was a big success for us. It’s a huge success that the community has evolved over the years, you know. So, not only the process, because we’ve been able to keep the momentum in terms of the implementation of the WSIS action lines, and this is a huge success for a process which is 20 years old. All of us who are working in the implementation of the WSIS process will understand any UN process to be, to maintain this momentum, that the momentum the WSIS process has today, what we saw yesterday, today, we saw at IGF, we see the UN in action, UN agencies implementing the different WSIS action lines. It’s really a momentum that has to be cherished, captured, and we need to move forward with it. So, all of you who are here today, we really expect that we have some calls for actions coming out of these different workshops, which we are able to capture in the chair’s summary, and forward to the UNGA overall review. In terms of the UN system, we are ready. Leping mentioned CSTD. We have the United Nations Group on Information Society. It’s a group of more than 50 UN entities that get together to ensure that the UN is working together. It’s digital cooperation in action. From our side, ITU is the permanent secretariat of UNGIS, but we have rotational chairpersonship between UNESCO, UNDP, ITU and UNCTAD. We also have the regional commissions very involved because if you look at the WSIS outcome document, it has made sure that this doesn’t remain at a global level. But the UN regional commissions have a mandate to implement WSIS at the regional level. And then at the country level, you see the interest from ministers. We had more than 64 ministers here. We will have a ministerial roundtable tomorrow where they will also come out with a call for action. Today, we have a regulatory roundtable with more than 60 regulators. So, I mean, it’s really wonderful to see that the momentum of WSIS has been just growing since 2003. We have been able to do that. Very few UN processes are able to evolve over time and, you know, also adapt with the technological changes. The WSIS action lines have provided a beautiful framework where they have adapted to technological changes of the years. So, from my side, I would just like to emphasize that the key UN agencies involved in the UN process, along with the 50 others we work with, we are ready for the next phase. We do not expect any duplication and we do hope that we can continue to provide you with a service, with a platform where all voices can be heard. Thanks very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: We understand if you need to go. Ambassador Schneider, Switzerland’s top three priorities when it comes to those important topics of global equity and inclusion for WSIS Plus 20. Your top three priorities, please. Yes, hello, I’m very good to see you again.

Thomas Schneider: You can also call me Thomas. I will. It’s just the first, you know, I’m trying to show that I’m not just a civil society. We know that you do this very well, so good morning everyone. Well, I think one thing that is important for us is that every society, every country, every culture need to appropriate, you need to make technology your own, you need to know what do you want with it, what can you do with it, what negative impacts can the technology have on you, and that also goes whether you use it or not. It’s not that if you don’t use it that your world will stay the same. There’s a bunch of Swiss people that emigrated, left Switzerland in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, they went to the U.S., they’re called Amish people, then they still ride around with horses and carts and so on, somewhere in a closed environment, but all around them there’s the modern world, and in particular the young people of this culture are not all necessarily happy, so there’s also quite some alcohol problems and so on and so forth, so this is something that there are developments that you cannot stop, but you can shape them, you can give them your own meaning and your own sense, and I think this is important also with new technologies, that you know what you want to use them for, what do you need, what are things that you may not need, and that of course requires a whole set of ideas and strategy and knowledge about your culture, about your economy, about the technology, about what other people do with this, what impact that this may have, so a little bit of strategic thinking and in-depth discussion with all of your society, of our societies, is fundamental, and that helps on the one hand, that is point number two, to create in a regulatory governance environment that is fostering innovation, but at the same time is protecting people, is protecting societies, is also helping people to protect themselves, because you may not be able to protect them from everything, because to some extent it’s also whatever you do, there’s a risk, but create a regulatory environment. And the third point, and this is something that I just realized recently when I saw a documentary about the end of Credit Suisse of this bank, that was actually created by the guy that brought railways to Switzerland. And that struck me in the sense that in the 1840s, 1850s, Switzerland was lagging behind compared to England and others that already had railways and so on. We still had our horses and carts in the mountains. And then there was one person with a few other people that basically, they didn’t just buy engines and locomotives from the UK. They realized, OK, we need to be able to maintain them. We maybe try to build our own. We need an infrastructure. They started to build tunnels and bridges. They started the ETH because they needed engineers to run the technology. And they also started a bank that was Credit Suisse because they needed an environment of investors. Somebody needed to pay for all of this. So they created, and this is my learning, they created a whole ecosystem that allowed them to use, to make a technology their own. They became very good engineers and so on. We are like the country of railways still today. But that was not just by buying something and then think that’s it. But you need to develop a whole ecosystem that allows you economically, politically, the society to use something in a way that creates more value added than it creates

Anriette Esterhuysen: damage. Thank you. Thanks very much. And I like that. You own the tech. Don’t let the tech own you. I like that. We should put it on a sticker for Anita. Thanks very much for that, Thomas. Next, we have Jim Patterson, Director of ICT Multilateral Affairs, Department of Communications and Digital Technology, South Africa. Jim, South Africa’s priorities on inclusion and equity. And I know also South Africa’s hosting the G20. And in fact, I think this is also a priority for South Africa for the G20 process. But for WSIS, what are your top three priorities?

Jim Paterson: Thank you very much, Henriette. And good morning, colleagues. I think the comments from this morning so far They resonate very strongly with us, so that’s much appreciated. I think, firstly, when it comes to WSIS, I think we all have a very deep appreciation of what WSIS brought to the world, and we would like that to continue. We think this is a very, very important forum. It’s an important forum for multilateralism and for multistakeholder engagement, and it’s certainly a way of making sure that we stay abreast of the most relevant and emerging issues in the digital economy and digital society that we need to be thinking about, certainly from our point of view as governments, but I think for everybody it’s very important. So I think, firstly, we would want to see the WSIS process maintained, and I think we should also then reflect on that and think about how do we strengthen WSIS going forward. And I’m not going to talk about the threats to multilateralism. That’s too complicated for me. But I think we’re all committed to the global multilateral system, and we see the importance of that. I’ll focus more on the multistakeholder side. And I think for us, one of the things is that many of our discussions center around digital inclusion and greater participation, and at the same time, in most of our meetings, we acknowledge a large portion of the world is not actually connected. I think it’s terribly important for us that we look for ways to strengthen the participation of stakeholders from all of the world’s countries and economies. And I know that’s not an easy ask, but I think there are ways we can look at greater representation if we put our minds to it. So I think that would be one of the first things, that if we have these conversations, I think it’s really important that everybody is in the room thinking not only about their current situations, but also about the future challenges. Because I think also one of the things that tends to happen is that for developing countries especially, we tend to think about our current problems, and we think the future ones are not really for us. But in fact, what happens is the governance of future technology is being dealt with today, and it’s going to affect you soon. We will then have a similar set of problems arising, like, for example, on data governance and access to data. These are becoming very real problems in the developing world. So these are things that we should have probably been thinking about sooner, but we didn’t. Well, I can’t speak for everybody, but I think for many countries that’s the case. So I think that will be the first major part, is to make sure big and small countries are involved and engaged with different stakeholders across the board. And then the next thing would be to focus on issues like digital inclusion. I think that is absolutely critical. We need to make sure that we deliver meaningful connectivity, and we make sure that then that everybody in the international community, everyone around the world, has access to the benefits of that, such as the economic opportunities that follow, education, health, government services, ways in which your life can be made better and more efficient, use of time for people and opportunities to innovate, because innovation happens at every level. We shouldn’t be seduced into thinking that this is something that belongs to big tech. It’s not at all the case. I don’t think it happens at every level. I think what does happen is that big tech adopts policies of, they adopt innovations early on, which are very, very successful, and thereafter, they’re more interested in protecting their business models. So they’re not necessarily the lead innovators for social good all the time. So we should allow that kind of competitive spirit of innovation at every level. I think that leads to my third point, which is to make sure then that you have in place frameworks for allowing for empowerment and access to technology and access to data for everybody. I think there are a lot of discussions within the global system about this, things like data policies and access to technology, data.

Anriette Esterhuysen: I’m giving the floor to Guilherme Canela-Cordoi from UNESCO, the Director of UNESCO’s Division for Digital Inclusion. And Guilherme, you’ve worked on this in so many different ways. It’s really a privilege to have you here. And for UNESCO, it’s been part of this process from the outset.

Guilherme Canela Godoi: What are your current top three priorities? Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Anriette. Thank you for that. I think it will be dangerous for me to claim I’m speaking on the entire ecosystem of UNESCO, because probably my colleagues from education would have different priorities. So maybe I will concentrate on this particular area that is the protection of the free flow of information. That is what I’m in charge of. Right. So very quickly, the three things. If you look throughout this year, starting with the AI Summit in Paris, and then the CSW, and then the World Press Freedom Day and the UNESCO WISES event, and then IGF, there is a very dangerous conversation going on. And I noticed that is repeated more and more, trying to create a false dichotomy between innovation and the protection of human rights. Like if we choose one, we need to deny the other. So first priority, we need to stop this. We need to be very clear in this process that this is a false dichotomy. We need to make clear, and to be honest, I think this part is our fault for not being able to demonstrate that the international human rights system, the international rule of law system that was created eight years ago and of which WSIS is part of, actually is what promoted and permitted this innovation that these companies are able to do in the first place. The circulation of scientists, the circulation of ideas, this is a creation of the United Nations system. So there is no dichotomy there. This was only possible because we did what we did during these last eight years. So this is the first thing. We need to stop this idea that there is a dichotomy and say that the real innovation is to leave no one behind. This is innovate, and we need to seek that, and at the same time, the business and whatever. Second thing that was already mentioned, we need to go deeper in the multistakeholder debate. Of course, we need to reinforce all what we already know, but we need to acknowledge that within each multistakeholder group, the governments, the civil society, the diversity is enormous, and we haven’t been able yet to deliver that diversity. So we talk about children’s rights without listening a single child or an adolescent. So it’s all us adults. We talk about multilingualism for indigenous people, and it’s me, a white man, talking about that is absolutely ridiculous, and we need to put these in a serious way. It’s not only say we need to listen to them, it’s to put the means for this to happen, and this is real multistakeholderism in different places. And the third priority, we need to talk about money. When we take $38 billion out of the cooperation system, only one single agency that was closed, and when countries are deciding to shift their ODA money to defense, we need to talk about money, how we are going to fund all of this. So the WSIS process will need to make calls about what you guys are discussing here. Maybe it’s different taxes stories, maybe it’s to request countries to use different their funds for the universalization of telecommunications and so on. But we can’t be naive that this talk is only about, well, we need to protect this and that. We need to say where the money is going to come from to protect what is different in the global south and so on. So in a nutshell, stop the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights, being serious about multistakeholderism and let’s

Anriette Esterhuysen: talk about money. Thanks. Thank you, Guillermo. I’m really glad to hear a bit about money because I think we so often forget that the Tunis agenda had a section on financial mechanisms. There was, we all remember the Working Group on Internet Governance, who remembers the Task Force on Financing Mechanisms that was also convened in 2003. I was a member of that task force. We did a report, but no one wanted to talk about money. So we’ve been forgotten. And our last speaker, and definitely not the least, because they’ve put so much thought in their preparation for this process, which I want to commend them for, is Australia. So we have William Lee, Assistant Director at the Department of Infrastructure, Technology, Regional Development and Communications,

William Lee: Australia. We need to, I need to steal this one, I’m sorry. Thanks very much and thanks for having us. I just wanted to, I guess, firstly pick up on Ambassador Schneider’s analogy, talking about the Swiss railways. And I really think we are talking about trying to operate a railway through the Swiss here. We have, over the last 20 years, laid down the tracks. But if anyone has tried to drive a train engine, particularly one that’s 20 years old, you’ll find that there’s lots of levers, lots of buttons, lots of dials and knobs. And I think that the challenge is pulling all of those together in the right… seguents to move forward. A couple of top priorities, I think, for us. The first is the question about meaningful connectivity, that I know some of us have already talked about. Some of the estimates estimate that the cost of achieving meaningful connectivity rivals about a trillion dollars, so about a third of the UN budget or about the GDP ratio. It is going to be something that is really valuable if we get right. Some estimates are around $9 trillion of economic benefit. But as some of my other speakers have talked about, we really need to understand what the local priorities are, what local solutions are, and micro-target those solutions through the WSIS. And while the WSIS is a normative framework, it can help to turn those knobs and dials in ways that help local communities to move forward, whether that’s through new technologies, whether that’s through achieving regulatory frameworks that support existing technologies, whether that’s achieving trust in the Internet, whether that’s achieving multilingual content, or whether that’s empowering youth and innovators and entrepreneurs to create micro and small businesses that drive people online in ways that work for them. The second is around gender equality. There’s a usage gap of about 8%, and so closing that gap is essential to connecting communities, connecting people online, and achieving the outcomes that we’re looking forward through WSIS Plus 20. And then finally, making sure we hear from all voices, and we’ve heard kind of challenges of financing, challenges of making sure all stakeholders are able to participate. But I think that the sum of the challenge is that it’s not something that governments alone can solve. It’s not something that big tech can solve. It’s not something that civil society alone can solve. It’s actually something that everyone pulling at their lever in the right direction will solve. So I think ensuring that we get all voices to the table in a positive, inclusion-orientated agenda is what we need to see out of the process. And I think if we can get that right, then we’ve really set ourselves up for the next 20 years of success. I’ll pause there. Thanks very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much for that, William. Anita, before I give the floor to our extremely overworked co-facilitator, from the Kenyan Mission to the U.N. Did you want to just share some reflections on the Elements paper?

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you very much, and thanks to everybody for their remarks, you know, making it such a reflective first session. From the forum, we are still in the process of aggregating, collecting, and thinking through what our comments should be for the Elements paper, but we have some initial ideas. I think we’ve constantly talked about digital public infrastructure and the corridors of so many different fora, and I think that AI capabilities and any claim to self-determination in the digital society will mean that the Global South needs public financing. I think market mechanisms in the past 25 years have proven to be limited in their ability to deliver, and I think the shortfalls in official development assistance pose a very, very grim future, and so we would really like to look at appropriate financing mechanisms, and I echo Anriette’s, you know, underlining the need for re-looking at this and perhaps to mandate at the end of the Plus20 review a new working group on financing, something similar to the Digital Solidarity Fund, perhaps, because, you know, it should be a public mechanism and not just limited, I think, to market mechanisms. So there has been a call in the Our Common Agenda from the Secretary General for a digital development tax, and the argument is that companies have benefited for decades from a free and open internet, and they must contribute to the connectivity of the people and for a safer digital world, and, of course, I think from the forum we’d want a commitment towards stronger international action to tackle tax evasion in the context of virtualized businesses. The facilitated report is going to be tabled at the 81st General Assembly, and work should be carried forward. You know, that’s really just perhaps part of what’s been happening in the past 10 years in the field, and work should be carried forward from the 81st General Assembly. Further in the PADA, 68 of the elements paper, it’s important to refer to the term equitable governance. We already have responsible and interoperable governance, but I think interoperability is very, very heavily technicalized, you know. So what we really want is the outcome of openness and interoperability to result in a safer world and an equitable world. And so this is also in keeping with PADA 48 of the UN Global Digital Compact, to use the word equitable. So further, we should actually, and this is my last comment, on acknowledging within the enabling environment the idea that international norms and rules across several traditional areas, non-digital areas, from trade to intellectual property, to health and food systems data, and taxation, competition, and climate, all of these are interconnected and need to be updated in the context of the digital. We thank you very much for your time.

Anriette Esterhuysen: And thank you very much, Anita. Ambassador Lokala, I wasn’t joking when I said you are overworked. And thank you very much for being with us. We know how intense your schedule has been. I mean, based on what you’ve heard and, you know, any closing remarks from you, and what do you feel you would take away from this process and from listening to these inputs?

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you very much, Andrea. Thank you everyone for those very insightful comments. First, let me thank you for having me in this conversation because the purpose why my co-facilitator and I came was precisely to be able to listen to what stakeholders have to say on how we should conduct the outcome review as well as what they want to see in the process. Now, when we started undertaking this task on behalf of the General Assembly, one question which I’ve always kept at the top of my mind is, is the WSIS vision still relevant? Is it working? Is it working well? So in all the conversations that we have and all that we’ve had so far, I always try to listen and see if people still think that the WSIS vision is relevant, if it’s working, if it’s working well, and how we can make it better. So, and I’ve been privileged, you know, to have co-facilitated the modality stage of this and now the main outcome review. I was here in April during the CSTD 28th session. And since then, we’ve tried to follow, you know, all the major conversations. And what’s coming out clearly is an affirmation that indeed the WSIS vision is relevant today as it was 20 years ago. And it’s so beautiful, you know, how, you know, Andrea, you and the others who are there at the time, I wasn’t lucky enough to have been in that space then, to couch it, you know, in the words that you did, people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented. I think it captures, you know, the essence of what all of us, government, civil society, and everyone else is trying to do in making the world a better place. Now, when we talk about about global equity and inclusion. I think for us, and I’m grateful again to have a co-facilitator with whom, you know, we seem to have a similar worldview. Both of us are from a human rights background and so on. I think it’s important that we have equity and inclusion both in the process as well as in the final outcome, because that’s what the human rights-based approach is about, isn’t it? So, we have deliberately tried to create spaces where meaningful stakeholder participation happens. Much as we represent member states, for example, when a proposal was made to create a multi-stakeholder sounding board, we readily, you know, acceded to that request. And in putting it together, we’re looking at parameters such as geographical representation, you know, gender representation, and making sure that everybody’s at the table. Although, keeping in mind that it’s not the only avenue through which stakeholders would provide or channel their views. So, equity in terms of both the process and outcome is very important. Second, I know we are pressed for time. You know, in deliberate ways, we should try to seek out those who are often left behind. In a very dynamic field such as this, where technology moves very fast and, you know, things happen quickly, it’s easy to paint a rosy picture of the things that have worked, to say, you know, from 2003 to date, you know, we’ve moved so far. And then we forget, you know, the 2.6 billion that are still not connected. So, as we move onwards and further towards the digitalization, migrating government services to the digital platforms and so on. So, we need to stop for a moment and say, what happens with those 2.6 billion who are not connected? Which brings me to what I consider to be one of the important priorities. I think we just need to get back to the basics and try to bridge in concrete ways the digital divide. for us to achieve a bit more coherence, avoid duplication, and so on and so forth. And listening again this morning to colleagues in the room, I sense that desire again. But I think in a concrete way, we need to just see how to address this, the WSIS, as well as the Global Digital Compact. We need to eventually place our finger there. If not, you know, we’ll say all the nice things and then at the point of actually implementing it, then that’s when we start to encounter a lot. Finally, we are trying, we are committed to running a genuinely transparent multi-stakeholder process. Yeah, you know, of course, you understand yesterday there was an interesting conversation from 2003 about how it began and how we’ve since made progress and so on. So we are looking, for example, at the possibility of getting all the stakeholders in one space at the same time, if possible, civil society, technical community, member states, private sector and everyone else to have a conversation, hopefully before we come up with the zero draft. Or if it’s not possible to do that, at the same time to just have a back-to-back consultation where member states can, you know, consult and then soon thereafter, civil society and the other stakeholders can make their input. So the whole idea is, you know, and I’m not making any conclusions just yet, that the WSIS vision, I think, is celebrated by everyone across the board, all the, you know, member states we’ve had an occasion to speak to, everybody thinks it’s a good idea which needs to be strengthened and going forward. So let me give on behalf of my co-facilitator, Ambassador Yanina of Albania, our commitment to work with all stakeholders. in bringing this. And we are counting on your support, quite frankly, because everybody reminds us, you know, they say all these nice things, then they say, OK, good luck. Then at that point, I’m like, OK, why do I need luck? I thought everybody agrees on almost everything. So we’ll need a bit of their luck. But more importantly, I think the support of all of you. I thank you very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much, Ambassador. And I think you can count on the support. And I think what the session reflects is the commonality between Global North and Global South countries, developed and developing countries, UN agencies, civil society. So you can count on our support. We might become a little bit annoying at times because everyone here is so invested in this process. But thank you for your time, for being with us. And thanks so much to Anita and her team and Valeria for organizing this. And to all of our excellencies and ambassadors and experts from the UN and from governments for being with us. Thanks a lot. I certainly enjoyed listening to you and I felt inspired. Thanks, everyone.

Agreement points

Need for strengthened multistakeholder participation with greater diversity and inclusion

Speakers

– Mallory Knodel
– Guilherme Canela Godoi
– Jim Paterson
– William Lee
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Need for greater diversity, equity and inclusion in multistakeholder processes, with more input from most affected communities

Requirement for deeper multistakeholder debate acknowledging enormous diversity within each stakeholder group

Importance of strengthening participation of stakeholders from all world’s countries and economies, ensuring big and small countries are engaged

Need for all voices at the table in positive, inclusion-oriented agenda since no single group can solve challenges alone

Commitment to transparent multi-stakeholder process and addressing coherence between WSIS and Global Digital Compact

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the need to improve multistakeholder processes by ensuring greater diversity, inclusion of marginalized voices, representation from all countries regardless of size, and recognition that no single stakeholder group can solve digital challenges alone.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Urgent need to address digital divide and ensure meaningful connectivity for all

Speakers

– Liping Zhang
– Jim Paterson
– William Lee
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Urgent need to close digital divides including gender digital divide, requiring investment in infrastructure, affordability, and digital skills

Emphasis on delivering meaningful connectivity and ensuring access to economic opportunities, education, health, and government services

Focus on meaningful connectivity with estimates of trillion-dollar cost but $9 trillion economic benefit, requiring local solutions and micro-targeting

Need to address 2.6 billion people still not connected and ensure they aren’t left behind in digitalization process

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasized the critical importance of closing digital divides through meaningful connectivity, with specific attention to the 2.6 billion people still unconnected and the need for substantial investment in infrastructure and digital skills.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Human rights

Importance of maintaining and strengthening WSIS process momentum

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Importance of maintaining WSIS momentum and strengthening multilateral and multistakeholder engagement for emerging digital economy issues

Commitment to transparent multi-stakeholder process and addressing coherence between WSIS and Global Digital Compact

Emphasis on commonality between different stakeholder groups and regions supporting the WSIS process

Summary

Speakers agreed on the continued relevance and success of the WSIS process over 20 years, emphasizing the need to maintain its momentum while adapting to new challenges and ensuring coherence with other processes like the Global Digital Compact.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Need for comprehensive governance frameworks addressing human rights and technology accountability

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Liping Zhang
– Anita Gurumurthy
– Guilherme Canela Godoi

Arguments

Need for new universal declaration of human rights in the digital world, emphasizing individual sovereignty and digital sovereignty of countries

Importance of robust governance frameworks for data governance, privacy protection, and accountability from technology companies

Call for human rights paradigm adequate to digital conjuncture, including individual and collective dimensions with rights to public participation, consensual representation, and algorithmic transparency

Rejection of false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection, emphasizing that international human rights system enabled current innovation

Summary

Speakers converged on the need for updated and comprehensive governance frameworks that protect human rights in the digital age, ensure accountability from technology companies, and reject the false choice between innovation and rights protection.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Recognition that technology appropriation requires local ownership and comprehensive ecosystem development

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Jim Paterson
– William Lee

Arguments

Need to develop whole ecosystems that allow economic, political, and social use of technology in ways that create more value than damage

Recognition that innovation happens at every level, not just big tech, and need to allow competitive innovation for social good

Focus on meaningful connectivity with estimates of trillion-dollar cost but $9 trillion economic benefit, requiring local solutions and micro-targeting

Summary

Speakers agreed that successful technology adoption requires comprehensive ecosystem development, local solutions, and recognition that innovation occurs at all levels of society, not just within big tech companies.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical need to address financing mechanisms for digital development, noting that funding discussions have been neglected despite being part of the original WSIS agenda, and calling for new approaches including taxation of digital companies.

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Guilherme Canela Godoi
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Call for public financing mechanisms for Global South AI capabilities and digital self-determination, including digital development tax and stronger action against tax evasion

Need to discuss funding sources for digital cooperation and protection, including different tax approaches and telecommunications fund utilization

Recognition that Tunis agenda included financing mechanisms that were forgotten over time

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers advocated for inclusive global governance approaches that don’t favor powerful countries and emphasized the need for alternative models to current power structures in digital governance.

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Need for multilateral and multi-stakeholder global governance framework that includes all countries regardless of military or infrastructure capacity

Principle of digital non-alignment for just international economic order, with moral leadership to address AI arms race and promote international data solidarity

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both speakers specifically highlighted gender digital divide as a priority area requiring targeted attention and investment to achieve meaningful digital inclusion.

Speakers

– William Lee
– Liping Zhang

Arguments

Gender equality priority with 8% usage gap that needs closing to connect communities effectively

Urgent need to close digital divides including gender digital divide, requiring investment in infrastructure, affordability, and digital skills

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

Rejection of security-first approach to digital governance

Speakers

– Mallory Knodel
– Guilherme Canela Godoi

Arguments

Need for cooperative approach beyond securitization, focusing on knowledge sharing, diverse political economy, and human rights

Rejection of false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection, emphasizing that international human rights system enabled current innovation

Explanation

It’s unexpected to see both technical community and UN agency representatives explicitly criticizing the securitization trend in digital governance, advocating instead for approaches that prioritize human rights and cooperation over security concerns.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Strong emphasis on local ownership and ecosystem development over technology transfer

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Jim Paterson
– William Lee

Arguments

Importance of societies making technology their own, understanding its impacts, and creating regulatory environments that foster innovation while protecting people

Recognition that innovation happens at every level, not just big tech, and need to allow competitive innovation for social good

Focus on meaningful connectivity with estimates of trillion-dollar cost but $9 trillion economic benefit, requiring local solutions and micro-targeting

Explanation

The consensus among developed country representatives (Switzerland, South Africa, Australia) on the importance of local ownership and ecosystem development rather than simple technology transfer represents a shift from traditional development approaches.

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Universal agreement on need for financing mechanisms despite traditional reluctance

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Guilherme Canela Godoi
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Call for public financing mechanisms for Global South AI capabilities and digital self-determination, including digital development tax and stronger action against tax evasion

Need to discuss funding sources for digital cooperation and protection, including different tax approaches and telecommunications fund utilization

Recognition that Tunis agenda included financing mechanisms that were forgotten over time

Explanation

The strong consensus on discussing financing mechanisms is unexpected given the historical reluctance to address funding in digital governance discussions, as noted by the moderator’s reference to the forgotten Task Force on Financing Mechanisms.

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus across diverse stakeholders on key priorities including strengthening multistakeholder participation, addressing digital divides, maintaining WSIS momentum, developing comprehensive governance frameworks, and recognizing the need for local technology ownership. Speakers consistently emphasized human rights protection, the importance of inclusion, and the need for sustainable financing mechanisms.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with strong alignment on fundamental principles and priorities. The agreement spans across different stakeholder groups (governments, UN agencies, civil society, technical community) and regions (Global North and South), indicating broad support for the WSIS process and shared understanding of key challenges. This consensus provides a solid foundation for moving forward with WSIS Plus 20 implementation, though the challenge will be translating this agreement into concrete action and adequate financing.

Different viewpoints

Approach to multistakeholder governance – emphasis on government multilateralism vs. technical community cooperation

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Mallory Knodel

Arguments

Need for multilateral and multi-stakeholder global governance framework that includes all countries regardless of military or infrastructure capacity

Need for cooperative approach beyond securitization, focusing on knowledge sharing, diverse political economy, and human rights

Summary

Brazil emphasizes the need for formal multilateral frameworks with balanced government representation, while Mallory advocates for returning to the cooperative, less securitized approach of early Internet development with focus on technical cooperation and human rights

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Focus on individual vs. collective rights in digital governance

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Need for new universal declaration of human rights in the digital world, emphasizing individual sovereignty and digital sovereignty of countries

Call for human rights paradigm adequate to digital conjuncture, including individual and collective dimensions with rights to public participation, consensual representation, and algorithmic transparency

Summary

Brazil emphasizes individual sovereignty and digital sovereignty of countries, while Anita advocates for a framework that explicitly balances both individual and collective dimensions of digital rights

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Tension between innovation and human rights protection

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela Godoi

Arguments

Rejection of false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection, emphasizing that international human rights system enabled current innovation

Explanation

While not directly contradicted by other speakers, Guilherme’s strong emphasis on rejecting the innovation vs. human rights dichotomy suggests this is a contentious issue in broader digital governance discussions, though other speakers in this session didn’t explicitly take opposing positions

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus among speakers on core principles (digital inclusion, multistakeholder participation, human rights protection) with disagreements primarily on implementation approaches and emphasis rather than fundamental goals

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most differences are complementary rather than contradictory, focusing on different aspects of the same challenges. The strongest consensus exists around the need for inclusive digital governance, addressing digital divides, and maintaining WSIS momentum. This high level of agreement suggests strong foundation for collaborative action on WSIS Plus 20 implementation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical need to address financing mechanisms for digital development, noting that funding discussions have been neglected despite being part of the original WSIS agenda, and calling for new approaches including taxation of digital companies.

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Guilherme Canela Godoi
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Call for public financing mechanisms for Global South AI capabilities and digital self-determination, including digital development tax and stronger action against tax evasion

Need to discuss funding sources for digital cooperation and protection, including different tax approaches and telecommunications fund utilization

Recognition that Tunis agenda included financing mechanisms that were forgotten over time

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers advocated for inclusive global governance approaches that don’t favor powerful countries and emphasized the need for alternative models to current power structures in digital governance.

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Need for multilateral and multi-stakeholder global governance framework that includes all countries regardless of military or infrastructure capacity

Principle of digital non-alignment for just international economic order, with moral leadership to address AI arms race and promote international data solidarity

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both speakers specifically highlighted gender digital divide as a priority area requiring targeted attention and investment to achieve meaningful digital inclusion.

Speakers

– William Lee
– Liping Zhang

Arguments

Gender equality priority with 8% usage gap that needs closing to connect communities effectively

Urgent need to close digital divides including gender digital divide, requiring investment in infrastructure, affordability, and digital skills

Topics

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

The WSIS vision remains relevant 20 years later and should be strengthened rather than replaced, with broad consensus among all stakeholders on its people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented approach

There is urgent need to address the digital divide, particularly the 2.6 billion people still not connected, requiring significant investment (estimated at $1 trillion) but potentially generating $9 trillion in economic benefits

A false dichotomy exists between innovation and human rights protection that must be rejected – the international human rights system actually enabled current digital innovation

Multistakeholder processes need deeper diversity and inclusion, ensuring meaningful participation from most affected communities, developing countries, and marginalized groups

Digital governance requires both multilateral frameworks and local ownership, where societies can appropriate technology according to their own needs and values

Financing mechanisms are critical and underaddressed, with calls for public financing, digital development taxes, and stronger action against tax evasion

The Internet should be reclaimed as a global communications commons rather than dominated by walled gardens

Integration and coherence between WSIS and Global Digital Compact processes is essential to avoid duplication and resource inefficiencies

Resolutions and action items

Civil society forum to aggregate and submit formal comments on the WSIS+20 Elements paper

Proposal to mandate a new working group on financing mechanisms similar to the Digital Solidarity Fund at the end of the Plus20 review

Co-facilitators committed to organizing multi-stakeholder consultations, potentially bringing all stakeholders together before the zero draft

Establishment of a multi-stakeholder sounding board with geographical and gender representation parameters

Call for incorporating ‘equitable governance’ terminology in paragraph 68 of the elements paper

Request to acknowledge interconnectedness of digital and non-digital international norms across trade, IP, health, taxation, and climate in the enabling environment section

Ministers and regulators to produce separate calls for action from their respective roundtables

Unresolved issues

How to effectively integrate WSIS and Global Digital Compact implementation without duplication

Specific mechanisms and funding sources for achieving meaningful connectivity for 2.6 billion unconnected people

How to ensure genuine participation from developing countries and marginalized communities in global digital governance

Balancing digital sovereignty of countries with need for global cooperation and standards

Addressing the governance gap between rapid technological development and slower policy/regulatory responses

How to make multistakeholder processes truly representative beyond current limitations

Specific implementation mechanisms for digital non-alignment principle and international data solidarity

How to operationalize the precautionary principle and public participation rights in digital innovation

Suggested compromises

Multi-stakeholder sounding board as one avenue for input while maintaining other channels for stakeholder participation

Back-to-back consultations if simultaneous multi-stakeholder meetings prove impossible to organize

Selective adoption of financing proposals – ‘pick up the ones that you find strategic’ from the seven outlined options

Gradual approach to technology appropriation – societies can choose what they need and don’t need while acknowledging unstoppable technological developments

Enhanced rather than replaced WSIS action lines framework to adapt to technological changes while maintaining proven structure

Balanced representation approach ensuring both big and small countries, developed and developing nations have meaningful participation

Integration of Global Digital Compact into WSIS action lines rather than creating entirely separate processes

The Mullah Nasruddin story about searching for a lost ring under a streetlight instead of where it was actually lost (in the dark house), applied to the digital economy: ‘we know what is lost, what is being lost, and we look elsewhere, trying hard not to cast the spotlight at the right place. Pretending to fix things, gathering more and more people to look away from the real problems.’

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This metaphor brilliantly captures the fundamental problem with current approaches to digital governance – that stakeholders are addressing symptoms rather than root causes because it’s easier to work on visible, well-lit problems than to tackle the difficult structural issues. It reframes the entire discussion around the need for courage to examine uncomfortable truths.

Impact

This opening metaphor set the philosophical tone for the entire discussion, with multiple speakers later referencing the need to address ‘real problems’ and structural issues. It established a framework that encouraged deeper, more honest analysis rather than surface-level solutions.

The critique of creating ‘a false dichotomy between innovation and the protection of human rights. Like if we choose one, we need to deny the other… the international human rights system, the international rule of law system that was created eight years ago and of which WSIS is part of, actually is what promoted and permitted this innovation that these companies are able to do in the first place.’

Speaker

Guilherme Canela Godoi (UNESCO)

Reason

This comment challenges a fundamental assumption that pervades tech policy discussions – that human rights protections somehow hinder innovation. By arguing that the UN system actually enabled innovation, he flips the narrative and provides a powerful counter-argument to tech industry claims about regulatory burden.

Impact

This reframing influenced the discussion by legitimizing stronger regulatory approaches and human rights protections as pro-innovation rather than anti-innovation, giving other speakers confidence to advocate for more robust governance frameworks.

The Swiss railway analogy: describing how Switzerland in the 1840s didn’t just buy locomotives from the UK but ‘created a whole ecosystem that allowed them to use, to make a technology their own. They became very good engineers… But that was not just by buying something and then think that’s it. But you need to develop a whole ecosystem that allows you economically, politically, the society to use something in a way that creates more value added than it creates damage.’

Speaker

Thomas Schneider (Switzerland)

Reason

This historical analogy provides a concrete model for how countries can approach digital transformation – not as passive consumers of technology but as active shapers who build comprehensive ecosystems. It offers a practical framework for digital sovereignty that goes beyond rhetoric.

Impact

Multiple speakers referenced this analogy later, with William Lee from Australia explicitly building on it. It shifted the conversation from abstract principles to concrete strategies for technology appropriation and helped frame digital sovereignty in practical terms.

The observation about nostalgia for early internet cooperation: ‘I think that there’s a real critique for most of the things that we’re cooperating on these days are really focused on and center very much securitization… I think it’s a wonderful thing that it did not come and factor in as the central figure, that there were many, many other things about building global connectivity.’

Speaker

Mallory Knodel

Reason

This comment challenges the current security-first approach to internet governance by arguing that the early internet’s success came precisely from NOT prioritizing security above all else. It’s a counterintuitive argument that questions dominant policy assumptions.

Impact

This perspective introduced a critical lens on current governance approaches and encouraged other speakers to consider whether security-focused frameworks might be limiting more collaborative and innovative approaches to digital governance.

The call to ‘talk about money’ and the observation that ‘we can’t be naive that this talk is only about, well, we need to protect this and that. We need to say where the money is going to come from to protect what is different in the global south and so on.’

Speaker

Guilherme Canela Godoi (UNESCO)

Reason

This comment cut through the idealistic rhetoric to address the practical reality that digital justice requires funding mechanisms. It challenged the tendency to make grand declarations without addressing implementation costs.

Impact

This prompted Anriette Esterhuysen to recall the forgotten Task Force on Financing Mechanisms from 2003 and led Anita Gurumurthy to propose concrete financing mechanisms including a digital development tax. It grounded the discussion in practical implementation challenges.

The question posed by Ambassador Lokaale: ‘is the WSIS vision still relevant? Is it working? Is it working well?’ and his reflection on ensuring ‘equity and inclusion both in the process as well as in the final outcome.’

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Kenya, Co-facilitator)

Reason

This fundamental questioning of WSIS’s continued relevance, coming from a co-facilitator, demonstrated intellectual honesty and opened space for critical evaluation rather than automatic endorsement. The process-outcome distinction also showed sophisticated thinking about governance.

Impact

This legitimized critical assessment of WSIS and encouraged speakers to be more honest about shortcomings while also affirming the vision’s continued relevance. It helped frame the discussion as genuine evaluation rather than ceremonial endorsement.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing frameworks for deeper analysis rather than surface-level policy recommendations. The Mullah Nasruddin metaphor set an expectation for honest examination of structural problems, while the false dichotomy critique and Swiss railway analogy provided concrete alternative frameworks for thinking about innovation and technology appropriation. The call to ‘talk about money’ grounded idealistic visions in practical implementation realities, and the co-facilitator’s fundamental questioning legitimized critical evaluation. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from routine policy talking points to genuine intellectual engagement with the challenges of digital governance, creating space for both criticism and constructive alternatives. The result was a more nuanced, honest, and practically-oriented dialogue that acknowledged both achievements and shortcomings while pointing toward concrete next steps.

How to align the implementation of WSIS and the Global Digital Compact to avoid duplication and achieve coherence?

Speaker

Liping Zhang and Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Both speakers emphasized the need to integrate these two processes effectively, with Zhang mentioning suggestions about integrating the Global Digital Compact into WSIS action lines, and Lokaale noting the need to ‘place our finger there’ on this issue to avoid saying ‘nice things’ without concrete implementation

How to establish a new working group on financing mechanisms for digital development?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

She suggested mandating a new working group on financing similar to the Digital Solidarity Fund at the end of the Plus20 review, building on the Secretary General’s call for a digital development tax and addressing the limitations of market mechanisms

How to achieve meaningful participation from the 2.6 billion people who are still not connected?

Speaker

Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

He emphasized the need to address what happens to those who remain unconnected as governments migrate services to digital platforms, calling this a fundamental priority that requires getting ‘back to the basics’

How to strengthen multistakeholder representation to include more diverse voices, particularly from marginalized communities?

Speaker

Mallory Knodel, Guilherme Canela Godoi, and Jim Paterson

Explanation

Multiple speakers highlighted the need for better inclusion of most affected communities, with Canela Godoi specifically noting the absurdity of discussing children’s rights without children present, and indigenous issues without indigenous voices

How to develop robust governance frameworks for managing the complexity of digital ecosystems, particularly AI governance?

Speaker

Liping Zhang

Explanation

She identified this as a priority emerging from UNCTAD consultations, emphasizing the need for improved data governance, privacy protection, and inclusive governance of emerging technologies

How to create whole ecosystems that allow countries to ‘own’ technology rather than just consume it?

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

Using the Swiss railway analogy, he emphasized the need for countries to develop comprehensive ecosystems including infrastructure, education, financing, and regulatory frameworks to truly benefit from technology

How to address the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection?

Speaker

Guilherme Canela Godoi

Explanation

He identified this as a dangerous conversation trend that needs to be stopped, arguing that the international human rights system actually enabled the innovation that companies benefit from today

How to achieve the estimated trillion dollars needed for meaningful connectivity while capturing the potential $9 trillion in economic benefits?

Speaker

William Lee

Explanation

He highlighted the massive financing challenge and the need to understand local priorities and micro-target solutions through the WSIS framework

How to update international norms across traditional non-digital areas (trade, IP, health, taxation, competition, climate) in the context of digitalization?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

She emphasized that these interconnected areas all need updating for the digital context, representing a comprehensive governance challenge beyond just digital-specific regulations

Summary

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

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

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

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

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

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

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

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

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

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

## Overall Purpose:

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

## Overall Tone:

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

Speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Additional speakers:**

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

– **Anne McCormick** – From EY

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

## Executive Summary

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

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

## Key Participants

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

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

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

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

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

## Round 1: Barriers to Meaningful Participation

### Presence Versus Meaningful Participation

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

### Structural and Practical Barriers

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

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

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

### Technicalization of Political Issues

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

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

## Round 2: Recommendations and Solutions

### Human Rights Framework

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

### Brazilian Multi-Stakeholder Experience

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

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

### Corporate Accountability

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

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

### Specific WSIS Plus 20 Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Implementation Challenges

### Coordination Between Processes

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

### Accountability Mechanisms

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

## Audience Engagement

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

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

## Key Frameworks and References

The discussion referenced several important frameworks:

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

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

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

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

## Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bia Barbosa: Yes. Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, Nandini, Michel.

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

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

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

Agreement points

Presence does not equal meaningful participation in digital governance

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

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

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Summary

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

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Financial and structural barriers prevent Global South participation

Speakers

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

Arguments

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

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

Civil society faces difficulties following simultaneous and duplicative processes

Summary

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

Topics

Development | Human rights

Multi-stakeholder processes need improvement and better coordination

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Bia Barbosa
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

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

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

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Summary

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

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

São Paulo Guidelines provide concrete framework for better participation

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

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

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

Summary

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

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Human rights approach is essential for digital governance

Speakers

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

Arguments

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

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

Human rights approach is urgent for digital public policies development

Summary

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

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

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

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes tend to technicalize and depoliticize political issues

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

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

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

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

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

Topics

Human rights | Development

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

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations

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

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Private sector partnership potential for technology accountability

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Audience (EY representative)

Arguments

Big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations

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

Explanation

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

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Implementation challenges across governance levels

Speakers

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

Arguments

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

Holding stakeholders accountable for commitments remains a significant challenge

Implementation of global decisions at local levels requires connecting governance models

Explanation

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

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

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

Consensus level

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

Different viewpoints

Effectiveness of multi-stakeholder model versus need for multilateral implementation

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

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

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

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

Summary

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

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Role of technical standards in governance

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes tend to technicalize and depoliticize political issues

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

Explanation

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

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

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

Disagreement level

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

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

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

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes tend to technicalize and depoliticize political issues

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

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

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

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

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

Topics

Human rights | Development

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

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations

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

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolutions and action items

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unresolved issues

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

Concrete mechanisms for holding stakeholders accountable for their commitments over time

How to balance multi-stakeholder approaches with multilateral implementation needs

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

How to address power asymmetries between and within different stakeholder groups

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

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

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

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

Suggested compromises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Reason

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

Impact

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

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

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Reason

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

Impact

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

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

Speaker

Michel Oliveira de Souza

Reason

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

Impact

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

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

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Reason

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

Impact

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

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

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Reason

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

Impact

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

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

Speaker

Anne McCormick (Audience)

Reason

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

Impact

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

Overall assessment

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

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

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Michel Oliveira de Souza

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Jacqueline Pigato (audience member)

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Jacqueline Pigato (audience member)

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Anne McCormick (audience member)

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

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

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

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

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

## Major Discussion Points

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

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

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

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

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

## Overall Tone

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

Speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– **Audience** – Various participants including:

– Kwaku from Ghana

– Kimberly Camacho from Cooperativa Zulabatzu, Costa Rica

– Tim Unwin from the ICT4D collective

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

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

## Executive Summary

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

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

## Historical Context and Evolution of Action Line C7

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

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

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

## Regional Perspectives and Implementation Experiences

### European Union: Digital Product Passports Initiative

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

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

### Rwanda: Extended Producer Responsibility Challenges

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

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

### SADC: Regional Cooperation in Emergency Telecommunications

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

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

### Global Meteorological Infrastructure

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

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

## Current Challenges and Implementation Barriers

### E-waste Management and Extended Producer Responsibility

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

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

### Critical Raw Materials and Resource Constraints

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

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

### Governance and ICT Sector Emissions

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

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

## Priority Areas and Future Directions

### Ten Key Priorities Identified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Emerging Technology Applications

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

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

### Implementation and Community Engagement

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

## Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Jensen: Sure.

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

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

Anita Batamuliza: Yes.

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

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

David Jensen: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Jensen: Mark, closing remarks on governance?

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

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