Main Topic 1: Why the WSIS+20 Review Matters and How National and Regional IGFs Can Enhance Stakeholder Participation

Summary

This discussion focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and how national and regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) can enhance stakeholder participation in shaping global digital governance. The session was part of EuroDIG 2025 Day 1, bringing together key speakers including Ambassador Suela Janina from Albania (co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 review), Thibaut Kleiner from the European Commission, and David Souter, who authored the comprehensive 20-year implementation report for the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development.

Ambassador Janina emphasized the commitment to conducting a transparent, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder review process, with a high-level UN General Assembly meeting scheduled for December 2025. She outlined upcoming consultation opportunities including events at UNESCO, the IGF in Norway, and the WSIS Forum in Geneva. The European Union, represented by Kleiner, advocated for permanent IGF institutionalization with stable UN funding, alignment of WSIS action lines with Sustainable Development Goals, and integration with the Global Digital Compact while opposing any reopening of the Tunis Agenda.

David Souter’s presentation highlighted how dramatically the digital landscape has transformed since the original WSIS, noting that most current technologies and services are post-WSIS developments. His report identified six priority areas: closing digital divides, ensuring cybersecurity, developing regulatory frameworks for AI and data governance, accelerating innovation for sustainable development, improving policy coherence, and strengthening international collaboration. Participants stressed the importance of meaningful non-governmental stakeholder engagement, with calls for bottom-up participation through national and regional IGFs to ensure local voices influence global digital policy decisions.

The session concluded with five key messages emphasizing the need for legitimate stakeholder participation, permanent IGF mandate, transparent multi-stakeholder processes aligned with SDGs and the Global Digital Compact, addressing persistent digital divides and emerging challenges, and recognizing national and regional IGFs as vital engines for inclusive governance.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review Process and Multi-stakeholder Engagement**: The discussion centered on the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review, with emphasis on ensuring transparent, inclusive, and meaningful participation from all stakeholders including civil society, private sector, technical community, and academia. The Albanian Ambassador, serving as co-facilitator, outlined the framework for stakeholder consultations and emphasized commitment to a bottom-up approach.

– **Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Future and National/Regional Initiatives**: Participants advocated for granting the IGF a permanent mandate with stable funding from the UN budget, while strengthening the role of National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) as crucial channels for local community input and bottom-up engagement in global digital governance processes.

– **Alignment and Coherence Between Digital Frameworks**: A key theme was the need to align the WSIS Plus 20 review with other major digital governance frameworks, particularly the Global Digital Compact (GDC), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Pact for the Future, to avoid duplication and ensure policy coherence across different UN processes.

– **Addressing Digital Divides and Emerging Challenges**: Discussion highlighted persistent challenges including the gender digital divide, climate change impacts of ICTs, human rights online, AI governance, and the need to connect the remaining unconnected populations, while addressing new technological developments like quantum computing and ensuring inclusive digital transformation.

– **Human Rights and Development-Oriented Approach**: Participants emphasized the importance of maintaining human rights principles at the core of digital governance, ensuring that digital transformation serves development goals, particularly for developing countries, and that no one is left behind in the digital society.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to prepare stakeholders for meaningful participation in the WSIS Plus 20 review process, gather input on key priorities and challenges for the next decade of digital governance, and establish how regional forums like EuroDIG can contribute to shaping a forward-looking, inclusive digital future that aligns with broader UN development and human rights frameworks.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional, collaborative, and constructive tone throughout. Participants demonstrated strong commitment to multi-stakeholder cooperation and showed appreciation for the inclusive approach being taken by the co-facilitators. The tone was forward-looking and solution-oriented, with stakeholders expressing readiness to contribute actively to the review process. There was a sense of urgency about addressing persistent digital divides while embracing opportunities presented by emerging technologies, but this was balanced with optimism about achieving meaningful outcomes through inclusive dialogue.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves** – Session moderator/host

Р**Online moderator** РJọo Pedro from Portugal, responsible for managing online participants

– **Isabel De Sola** – Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies, Office of Audit

– **Tawfik Jelassi** – Assistant Director General for Communication and Information from UNESCO (video message)

– **David Souter** – Independent expert on digital society, lead consultant of the United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development

– **Panelist** – Multiple unidentified panelists/participants

– **Moritz Taylor** – Senior Project Manager at the Digital Development Unit of the Council of Europe

– **Mark Carvell** – UK Independent Consultant on Internet Governance Policy

– **Suela Janina** – Her Excellency, Permanent Representative of Albania to the UN, co-facilitator for the WSIS Plus 20 review

– **Xianhong Hu** – UNESCO representative

– **Lufuno Tshikalange** – Orasa Consulting Enterprise, cyber law consultancy

– **Thibaut Kleiner** – Director of Future Networks Directorate of DigiConnect at the European Commission

**Additional speakers:**

– **Paul Blaker** – UK government representative

– **Pavlos** – Greek NRI representative

– **Adam Peake** – Participant/stakeholder

– **Regina Fuchsua** – Jurid representative

– **Vlad Ivanec** – Journalist and media researcher

– **Member of parliament from Kenya** – Also representative of the Pan-African Parliament and member of APNIC

# Comprehensive Report: WSIS Plus 20 Review and Multi-stakeholder Engagement in Digital Governance

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive report examines Main Session 1 of EuroDIG 2025 Day 1, focusing on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance. The hybrid session, moderated by Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves with online moderation by João Pedro, brought together key stakeholders despite technical difficulties that prevented several registered speakers from participating.

The session featured Ambassador Suela Janina from Albania (co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 review), Thibaut Kleiner from the European Commission, and David Souter, who authored the comprehensive 20-year implementation report for the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The discussion centered on how national and regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) can enhance stakeholder participation in shaping global digital governance frameworks.

Participants emphasized the fundamental transformation of the digital landscape since the original WSIS, the need for alignment between multiple global frameworks, and the critical importance of ensuring meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in the upcoming review process. The session concluded with five key messages that will be published on the EuroDIG website.

## Context and Framework

### The WSIS Plus 20 Review Process

Ambassador Suela Janina outlined the comprehensive framework for the WSIS Plus 20 review, emphasizing that “the digital environment, the range of actors and the geopolitical contests have evolved considerably since WSIS Plus 10.” The modalities resolution establishes transparent, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder processes leading to a high-level meeting scheduled for December 16-17, 2025.

The co-facilitators committed to publishing a roadmap for the review process in mid-June 2025, with stakeholder engagement planned during three major upcoming events: the UNESCO Conference on AI (June 4-5), the IGF 2025 in Norway (end of June), and the WSIS Forum 2025 in July. This timeline provides multiple opportunities for meaningful stakeholder input into the review process.

### Transformed Digital Landscape

David Souter’s presentation highlighted the dramatic transformation since the original WSIS, noting that “most of the technologies at the heart of the information society today have emerged, or at least been transformed, since the summit.” His comprehensive report of approximately 65,000 words documents how mobile broadband, social media platforms, the Internet of Things, cloud computing, and generative artificial intelligence have fundamentally altered both the technological and geopolitical landscape.

This transformation extends beyond technical considerations to encompass new actors, different power dynamics, and evolving perspectives on digital sovereignty, data governance, and the role of technology in international relations.

## Key Stakeholder Positions and Multi-stakeholder Governance

### European Union Approach

Thibaut Kleiner articulated the EU’s comprehensive approach, noting that member states recently endorsed their position on May 19th. The EU strongly supports institutionalizing the Internet Governance Forum beyond 2025 with stable funding from the UN budget, emphasizing that “human rights should be at the core of digital developments” particularly given “the rise in digital authoritarianism.”

The EU advocates for aligning WSIS action lines with both the Sustainable Development Goals and Global Digital Compact commitments while avoiding duplication of efforts. Their approach emphasizes addressing digital divides, including those created by new technologies like artificial intelligence, and ensuring environmentally sustainable digital transformation.

### UNESCO’s Contributions

UNESCO’s input, delivered through Assistant Director General Tawfik Jelassi’s video message and Xianhong Hu’s presentation, highlighted significant progress and persistent challenges. Jelassi noted that “since 2002, the number of access to information laws has nearly tripled from 48 to 140,” demonstrating concrete progress in legal frameworks supporting digital inclusion.

However, UNESCO emphasized that 2.6 billion people remain offline, and highlighted specific challenges facing public sectors in digital transformation, noting that many lack the capacity and data governance competencies needed for effective implementation. The organization’s Internet Universality principles have supported over 40 countries in developing rights-based digital policies.

### Developing Country Perspectives and Structural Challenges

The Kenyan Parliament member, representing both the Pan-African Parliament and serving as an APNIC member, emphasized ensuring that National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) become “trusted feeders of national positions with clear mechanisms for policy adoption.” This reflects concerns about meaningful participation in global processes rather than parallel activities.

Lufuno Tshikalange, participating online from Orasa Consulting Enterprise, articulated a crucial perspective on structural change, arguing that “WSIS Plus 20 process must move beyond a one-size-fits-all model and adopt inclusive, context-aware approaches that embrace cultural diversity.” This challenged assumptions about universal applicability of global frameworks and called for fundamental changes in approach.

## Areas of Consensus and Implementation Priorities

### Strengthening Internet Governance Mechanisms

Strong consensus emerged on institutionalizing the Internet Governance Forum with permanent mandate and stable UN budget funding. David Souter noted that “IGF arrangements broadly supported with proposals for improvements to be considered,” indicating agreement on the basic framework while acknowledging room for enhancement.

Mark Carvell emphasized that “national and regional IGFs are important engines for bottom-up multi-stakeholder approach,” with calls for NRIs to become more formal contributors to national positions rather than remaining separate activities.

### Framework Alignment and Addressing Digital Divides

Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on aligning the WSIS Plus 20 review with the Global Digital Compact and Sustainable Development Goals. Isabel De Sola observed that “every single agenda that we have in the UN and multilateral universe has a digital component,” capturing the shift from digital as a separate domain to digital as integral to all policy areas.

Despite progress since the original WSIS, persistent digital divides require renewed attention. UNESCO highlighted that “gender divide exists for any new technology and creates barriers without safe enabling environment,” emphasizing the need for safe, enabling environments particularly for women and girls.

## Emerging Challenges

### Artificial Intelligence and New Technologies

The rapid development of artificial intelligence emerged as a significant governance challenge requiring immediate attention. UNESCO emphasized the need to “continually explore systematically frontier technologies like quantum,” reflecting awareness that governance frameworks must be more anticipatory and adaptive to technological change.

### Environmental Sustainability and Digital Authoritarianism

Paul Blaker noted that environmental impact “was hardly mentioned in the original WSIS documents, but of course is an incredibly important issue now,” highlighting how technological advancement has created entirely new categories of challenges requiring integration into digital governance frameworks.

The rise of digital authoritarianism represents another significant concern, with the EU’s emphasis on defending digital freedoms reflecting growing awareness that digital technologies can be used to restrict rather than enhance human rights and democratic participation.

## Civil Society Engagement and Procedural Improvements

Paul Blaker referenced the “five-point plan published by civil society organizations with 170+ signatures,” demonstrating organized civil society engagement in the review process. Adam Peake raised important procedural questions about whether “contributions of non-governmental stakeholders be part of the proceedings record as an official input,” highlighting concerns about the difference between being heard and having influence.

These interventions reflected broader concerns about ensuring meaningful rather than tokenistic participation in global governance processes.

## Key Messages and Next Steps

The session concluded with five key messages that Mark Carvell and Vlad Ivanec presented, which will be published on the EuroDIG website on May 25th. These messages capture the consensus that emerged during the discussion and will contribute to the broader WSIS Plus 20 review process.

The upcoming consultation opportunities at the UNESCO Conference, IGF in Norway, and WSIS Forum in Geneva provide crucial platforms for advancing these discussions. The commitment of co-facilitators to transparent and inclusive processes, combined with strong stakeholder engagement, suggests significant potential for meaningful outcomes.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed both substantial progress since the original WSIS and significant challenges requiring attention. The transformation of the digital landscape has been so comprehensive that most current technologies are post-WSIS developments, requiring fundamental reconsideration of governance frameworks rather than merely incremental updates.

Strong consensus on multi-stakeholder governance principles, framework alignment, and addressing both persistent and emerging challenges provides a solid foundation for the review process. However, achieving meaningful outcomes will require careful navigation of different perspectives on implementation approaches and sustained commitment to inclusive processes.

The emphasis on ensuring meaningful participation, strengthening National and Regional Initiatives, and addressing structural barriers reflects growing sophistication in understanding effective multi-stakeholder governance requirements. Success will ultimately depend on translating these insights into concrete mechanisms that enable all stakeholders to contribute meaningfully to shaping the future of digital governance in our rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Moritz Taylor: Good morning, everyone. My name is Moritz Taylor. I’m a Senior Project Manager at the Digital Development Unit of the Council of Europe. It’s my honour to wish you all a very warm welcome to EuroDIG 2025 Day 1. We had a big day yesterday, Day 0, where we had discussions on everything from AI and the Huderia methodology, which is a risk assessment method for AI systems, to the autonomous weapon system. and today is the first real day after the grand opening yesterday. We will be beginning today with Main Session 1, presented by, sorry, I’m nervous. After yesterday’s celebrations, I think you’re all ready to talk, to interact, and Main Session 1 today is about WSIS. With that in mind, before we begin, I’d like to hand over to our online moderator, João.

Online moderator: Thank you. Hello everyone, my name is João Pedro, I’m from Portugal. Please recognize my face and keep the number 21 if you’re contributing online. For those who join online, please enter the sessions with full name. If you ask a question, raise your hand using the Zoom function, and I’ll be responsible for unmuting you when the moderator of the session gives you the floor. For those who join inside the room, it’s very important that you enter the Zoom session with your mic muted and your speakers from your device also disabled. And I’ll give back the floor.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Please, Ana Neves is going to be hosting this session. Thank you very much. So, hello, good morning, everybody. Let’s go for the Main Session 1. This session will be dedicated to why the WSIS Plus 20 review matters and how national and regional IGFs can enhance stakeholder participation. So, we will have three key participants intervening now to launch the discussion for the first part of this session. And then I will open the discussion to the participants. We will have 12 participants that already signed for making statements. And then we’ll have a free discussion and then go back to the key speakers. And finally, we’ll have the messages from this session that will be published in the ERODIC site on the 25th of May. So, everything is set. So, I think that we are going to start with the first key participant. And who is Her Excellency Miss Suela Janina, permanent representative of Albania to the UN and one of the co-facilitators for the WSIS Plus 20 review. Madam Ambassador, you have the floor.

Suela Janina: Thank you very much Madam Chair, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Colleagues and Friends. It is a great pleasure for me to join you today at EuroDIG 2025 and to provide an update on the preparation for the WSIS plus 20 review. In my capacity as one of the co-facilitators appointed to lead this important process, I would like also to represent my colleague, His Excellency Ekitela Lokale, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Kenya to the United Nations, whose travel engagement did not allow him to participate today in this discussion. The modalities resolution for the WSIS plus 20 review was adopted by consensus on 25th of March of this year. I take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to Kenya and Lithuania, the co-facilitators of the modalities negotiations, for their commitment and leadership in ensuring an inclusive and successful outcome. The modalities resolution provides for us a clear framework for the work ahead, emphasizing the need for a transparent, inclusive and multi-stakeholder process. The key elements of this process are a high-level meeting of the General Assembly to be convened at the highest possible level on 16 and 17 December of this year, with the participation of all relevant stakeholders, at least two informal interactive consultations organized by the President of the General Assembly with stakeholders, one consultation before the zero draft during the 79th session under Cameron’s presidency, and another consultation during the negotiations under the 80th session under Germany’s presidency. While the WSIS plus 20 review is an intergovernmental process, we fully recognize that the success of this process over the past two decades has been built on the strong, active, and meaningful participation of the WSIS community, including civil society, the technical community, the private sector, academy, and youth. We are committed to ensuring that the voices of all stakeholders are heard throughout the WSIS Plus 20 process. The WSIS community has always been a model of bottom-up, inclusive engagement, and AERODIC, as one of the recognized national and regional initiatives of the Internet Governance Forum, embodies this spirit. We value the contributions and proposals from across the stakeholder spectrum. There are many ideas out there, which I will not get into details today, but please be assured that we do and we carefully review these inputs and take all of them into consideration while moving forward. Together with my co-facilitator, the Permanent Representative of Kenya, and with the support of the UN DESA Secretariat, we are advancing two immediate areas of work. First, development of a roadmap. We are finalizing a roadmap inspired by the WSIS Plus 10 process, but updated to reflect lessons learned and today’s digital realities. In addition to the PGA stakeholder consultations, we, as co-facilitators, plan to engage stakeholders during three major upcoming events. First, the UNESCO Conference on Capacity Building on AI and Digital Transformation, which will take place in Paris at the beginning of June, the IGF 2025, which will take place by the end of June in Norway, and the WSIS Forum 2025 in July in Geneva. We are preparing and trying to draft during this Days and Element papers, expected to be released in mid-June 2025 as a basis for discussions. The paper will draw on the CSTD 20-year review report, the most recent CSTD resolution, and other relevant contributions. I know that David Souter is supporting us and UNDES as secretary in this work, and you will hear more from him later in the same session. Distinguished Delegates, the digital environment, the range of actors and the geopolitical contests have evolved considerably since WSIS Plus 10. We now face the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, new challenges around AI governance and emerging technologies, a diversity of perspectives across member states and stakeholder groups. Against this background, member states have emphasised the need for greater efficiency, coherence and inclusivity. We, as co-facilitators, are fully committed to a WSIS Plus 20 review process that is efficient, transparent, inclusive and driven by consensus. Over the coming months, we will remain in listening mode, carefully reflecting the insights from today’s session, from stakeholder consultations, from all the coordination and regional commissions, and from CSTD discussions. With the active engagement of all stakeholders, I am confident that we will deliver a forward-looking, impactful WSIS Plus 20 outcome that builds a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented information society for the future. I thank you.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: I thank you very much, Madam Ambassador. Thank you very much for your message. I think that it’s really good to hear that we have such a co-facilitator, and together with the co-facilitator from Kenya, I think that you are setting the right scene to have this multi-stakeholder setting for the discussion of the WSIS Plus 20 review, which should lead us at the end of this year to a very good compromise on what we want and what the world needs. the need for the future in the short, medium and long terms. So I hope that you stay with us until the end of the session, because I think that we will have some very good elements from the participants in this room that they will try to convey to you today. And now I will give the floor to Mr. Thibaut Kleiner. Thibaut is the Director of Future Networks Directorate of DigiConnect at the European Commission. So Thibaut, good morning, bonjour, you have the floor.

Thibaut Kleiner: Good morning and I’m sorry I couldn’t be with you in person today, but I’m very pleased to be able to participate in this EuroDIG. So excellencies, honorable members, dear participants, ladies and gentlemen, I was indeed a bit more than one month ago appointed in this role, supervising also Internet governance in the European Commission. And clearly this meeting of EuroDIG and this year is very important because we have indeed a series of developments. The Y6 plus 20 review is essential because the world is changing and it is a pivotal opportunity to shape really digital future globally and to set the right path. Because sometimes we may think that Internet governance issues are made for experts and for initiated people, but they are actually at the core of our digital fabric. And it is very important that we link them up with important digital developments in terms of technologies, but also in terms of changes in the way the world is evolving with deeper geopolitical tensions that could have repercussions even on the way the Internet globally is governed. So from the side of the European Union, we want to be a positive force in this process of the YSYS plus 20 review. We believe that we have a role to play also from the experience we gathered in the past years, organizing also a digital rulebook for the digital economy and space, and also building upon our long tradition in this area. We have recently completed our process internally, so that we can form really the priorities for the EU going forward in the YSYS plus 20 process, and these lines were recently endorsed by our member states on the 19th of May, so I can share with you today, and I’m very pleased about this, some highlights. So the EU, not surprisingly, is advocating transparent, inclusive negotiations for the YSYS plus 20 review process. We want to ensure active participation by all stakeholders. I think this is the starting point, and we are really now actively engaging, so that we can meet and discuss with relevant parties, starting with the co-facilitators, and I was very pleased to hear the Albanian ambassador just now. But we also think that there are additional challenges this year. We think that the YSYS plus 20 review, and in the wake, I would say, also of the global digital compass, is an opportunity to address digital divides that are building up, including those that come from new technological developments like artificial intelligence. So that’s something that we think we need to do more and better. We need to make sure that the Internet’s power to connect people and to foster economic opportunity is shared not by a few, but by everyone. And that’s why we are proposing to align, actually, the YSYS action lines. with sustainable development goals. We think this is really important and this is an opportunity this year. We also want to make sure that we have incremental updates in these YCIS action lines to align them not only with the SDG and the Global Digital Compact commitments, but also to make sure that we have a coherent and effective policy implementation, so that we don’t need to create new governance structures, but we need to make them more operational and to create synergies with the various organizational structures that exist within the UN process and beyond. So we don’t want to divert from what matters and on the contrary, we want to make sure that this process will be deepened and empowered. And of course, the EU will oppose reopening the Tunis agenda. We don’t want to change the way the Internet governance operates. So now in our discussions internally in the EU, we are proposing to actually take also some further steps. One important goal is to have an institutionalization of the Internet Governance Forum beyond 2025. We would like to have stable funding from the UN budget as well as from voluntary contributions, but we believe that we need to really anchor the IGF so that it is really a place of reference, not only on a temporary basis, but for the long term. Human rights is also a theme, as you will not be surprised, that is very important for the EU. So especially today when we see a rise in digital authoritarianism, we believe that it is essential to anchor really the racist framework in universal human rights principles. This is very important because otherwise, if we are not vigilant, there are risks that are mounting. we see the potential of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds as a way to contribute to development, and we want to make sure that here as well, human rights are at the core of these developments. Some more points we discussed in the context of important UN reform. We believe that the multi-stakeholder governance approach should be really a central principle within the UN Digital Governance Framework. That’s something we should not overlook. Especially, we believe that engagement from developing countries, also supporting collaboration and equitable digital policies should be enhanced. Now, in terms of the Internet governance context, we believe that everyone should participate in the preparation. We also believe that we need to team up globally with many countries. We don’t want this feeling that some countries are outside of the discussions. We need to make sure that the process will be inclusive, and we want from the EU to build coalitions and collaborations with a lot of partners in all continents and with all types of stakeholders. Inclusivity, we believe, should be a prominent theme for that reason also in the YSYS plus 20, and we want to make sure that also national and regional IGF, and here I would think also that EuroDIG is important, need to be allowed to participate meaningfully in the dialogues, so that we have really not the impression that all these discussions on Internet governance are distant, but rather they are close by, and that everyone has an opportunity to reach through these regional and national dialogues. Defending digital freedoms will be at the heart of our positioning, and we really encourage that for the future there will be concrete actions and outcomes from these debates. We want to make sure that we translate what we are discussing today in EuroDIG into some tracks for also the IGF. We want to build these links, these regional dialogues, also with EU policy development, because we believe that these bridges, these synergies will make our discussions in the IGF, in the YCIS plus 20, even more legitimate. And I think that the quality will improve in the debate. So to conclude, I would say that this year is important. We have now in the coming weeks an opportunity to raise the momentum, to make sure that the right issues are on the table, and also that through inclusivity, we have really a result that matches our expectations. It is not just about technologies, not just about the internet. It is really about the digital future, what we want from this digital transformation. And from the EU, we want to make sure that it is human-centric, secure, inclusive, and collaborative, as well as sustainable for also the environment. So let’s all take part and let’s ensure that our digital society is one where every voice matters for a better future. Thank you.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Thank you very much, Mr. Kleiner. It is very good to know that the European Union is preparing itself for the WSIS review and for the GDC, and so to see this as a whole process. And it’s very good to know that on the 19th of May, there will be the adoption by the member states of the lines to take that European Union countries will follow during the discussions. And in this context, what I understood is that there will be, so it will be taken into account the WSIS Plus 20 review, the Global Digital Compact, and the Agenda 2030 with the Sustainable Development Goals. And together with this, we will have a compromise with development. And so it will be an interesting process that started already in the European Union, already started in all the other fora all around the world. And the strength of the national and regional initiatives, if we will achieve this compromise of having. with a permanent body, the Internet Governance Forum, together with stable funding. So, very good news as well. After the co-facilitators from Albania conveyed a very good message on the multi-stakeholder approach for the negotiations, we have good news from the European Union. And now I’ll give the floor to David Souter. David is an independent expert on digital society, lead consultant of the United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development, and he prepared the reports looking at the implementation of WESI’s outcomes over the last 20 years. So, David, you wrote a very good report. Of course, then it was finalized by the Secretary of the CSTD, but your work was really very comprehensive, and so it will be very good to hear now from you what are your thoughts and what messages you would like to convey at the beginning of this main session today. David, over to you. Thank you.

David Souter: Well, thank you, Anna. I should say, firstly, that my connectivity here in South London appears to be unstable this morning, so I have passed what I intend to say on to Mark Carvell, just in case something goes wrong during the next 10 minutes or so. You asked me to say something about the issues around the WESI’s review process, and in particular what I’ll do is outline the report on the implementation of outcomes, which was recently approved by the CSTD, of which I was the lead author, and which now goes to the Economic and Social Council and then forward to the General Assembly as part of its work on the review. Just to say a little bit about my own background here, I’ve been involved with WESI actually since preparations began in the late 1990s. sessions of the summit. So I led the 10-year review for CSTD, which is the body charged with reviewing outcomes on behalf of ECOSOC. And as you said, I just completed the work on the 20-year review, which is a substantial report. It’s around 65,000 words, and I put the link to it in the chat. So it covers the whole range of issues addressed in WUSSIS. I’ve also drafted the Secretary General’s annual reports on WUSSIS implementation for the last decade or so. And as Ambassador Suela Janina mentioned, I’ve recently been appointed to work with the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs on the review process that’s now underway. So what I’ll do is talk a little about the CSTD report as a background for the discussions. And I’ll start by making two or three points about the summit itself and the evolution of WUSSIS over the past two decades, which I’ve emphasised in that report. I think it’s fair to say that WUSSIS established the framework for many of the international discussions of digital development that have taken place in the last 20 years, including the GDC, which was adopted last year. So as you know, and just as opening background, the summit happened in two phases. And I distinguish between the outcome documents of those two phases. So the 2003 outcome documents, Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Geneva Action Plan, they set out the principles and frameworks across many areas of digital development concerned with the digital sector and with its impact on development. And their overarching vision was set out in the opening paragraph to seek an information society that would be inclusive, human-centred and development-oriented, consistent with sustainable development and human rights. So they established action lines on technical issues such as connectivity, cyber security, and in public policy areas such as development, health and education. The Tunis agenda. which was the main outcome in 2005, was concerned with two issues on which agreement could not be reached two years previously, which were finance and internet governance. So it agreed a working definition of internet governance, which covers both technical and public policy issues, and among other things, it set up the IGF, whose mandate is included in the review. And this was also where the multi-stakeholder approach became established as the starting point for international digital discussions that have happened since. So I think it’s worth emphasising two things that are really important when looking at the report and the review in general, both of which I think may be obvious, but I think are worth restating. So the first is that the digital world today is very different from that of 20 years ago. The information society described in the Geneva outcome documents was to a large extent an aspiration, not the reality we see around us now. And almost all of the technology and services we’re most concerned with today are post-WSIS. So it isn’t, the report isn’t therefore just about what’s happened to the things that seemed important 20 years ago. It’s also about the changes that have taken place in digitalisation and in its impact, and about what can be anticipated for the future. And the second point is that WSIS is not primarily about the internet, which may be the principle interest for many people in this meeting, but it’s not the principle concern of the summit outcome documents. For many governments, most and other stakeholders, the key issues are those concerned with the impact which digitalisation has on their economies and societies, and the inclusiveness of digital development and governance. So you can find the CSCD report on CSCD’s website and through the link which I put in the chat. It’s still a draft until it goes through the UN’s Economic and Social Council, which I think will be next month. And if you’re looking on the website, be careful to distinguish it from the second report. This is the longer one. It’s deliberately written to allow… allow readers to select the sections that most interest you if you don’t want to read the whole text. So what does it say has happened since? Well, first it emphasises that there’s been enormous change, and the first section of the report focuses on technology and services. Most of the technologies at the heart of the information society today have emerged, or at least been transformed, since the summit, and it describes that process and the impact of that. So there are almost no references in the summit outcome documents, for instance, to mobile phones, because they weren’t then seen as likely to become a principal means of access to the Internet. So mobile broadband, social media, other digital platforms, the Internet of Things, the cloud economy, hyperscale data centres, generative AI. These are all phenomena that have become central to the digital society since Worcester. And they’re not, of course, themselves outcomes of the summit, but the report considers how the ways in which they’ve evolved have been influenced by the contrasting vision of the summit established and by the impetus it gave to thinking about digitalisation’s impact and potential by governments and other stakeholders. Many of the developing country governments that made contributions to the consultation for the report referred to the value of the action lines, for example, in developing their national strategies. And the second overarching change described in the report concerns the extent to which digital technologies have become pervasive in individual lives and in the structures of economies, societies and cultures. Well, access and connectivity are obviously central to this, and the report illustrates the growth in access and usage of digital technologies by individuals, but also stresses the extent to which that growth is incomplete. And it notes the growing concern as a result of that, that inequalities in digitalisation may be reinforcing social and economic inequalities between countries and within societies rather than reducing them. describe the ways in which digitalisation has altered, and in some cases transformed, the structures of economies and societies through the emergency government, for instance, the development of the digital economy, the displacement of traditional modes of production and consumption, the emergence of powerful data corporations, dynamic impacts on human rights, including expression and privacy, the complex relationship that’s emerged between digitalisation and environmental sustainability. WSIS articulated those issues as they were at the time of the summit in its action guidelines, and the report considers the implementation of these and other WSIS outcomes in six thematic chapters, which are concerned with digital inclusion, the digital ecosystem, the digital economy, sustainable development, human rights, and digital governance, and particular attention is paid to gender equity and women’s rights, and to the rights and welfare of children, partly as a result of focus groups which were organised on those and three other central issues. So it’s worth remembering that none of this digital development has taken place in our isolation, the report reminds us that the pace of digital development has been affected by two global crises since the summit, by the economic crisis in 2008-9, and by the Covid-19 pandemic around five years ago, and there have also been major changes in international relations, in particular around the time of the WSIS plus 10 review, the UN adopted the 2030 agenda for sustainable development with the ambitious set of sustainable development goals that that contains. The Covid pandemic, as we know, has set back progress to many of those goals, so a subsequent discussion has emphasised the potential of digital technologies to help to put them back on track. The relationship between WSIS outcomes and sustainable development is an important theme in the report. Alongside the opportunities, there’s also been growing awareness of risks arising from digitalisation over the past two decades, and this is also addressed in the report. I’ve already mentioned the perception that digital inequality… is increasing economic and social inequality between and within societies. Something first emphasized by the World Bank around 10 years ago. There’s also much concern about the impact of digitalization on environmental outcomes, including climate change, pollution and the overuse of scarce resources. Human rights concerns include issues related to information integrity, gender-based violence, other forms of abuse, complex issues surrounding children’s rights and welfare. So the report reflects the growing acknowledgement of the need for digital frameworks to recognize risk as well as opportunity, and an understanding that ensuring no one is left behind, which is the key target of the SDGs, is more complex than just providing access, or even just providing meaningful and affordable access, but reaches into broader developmental areas. The report, as I said, is concerned with the future as well as the past, so some of the issues that have emerged in WUSSIS are addressed in the global digital trough that was adopted by the General Assembly last year, including data management, artificial intelligence, and the ethical and regulatory frameworks required to meet broader goals of public policy, or indeed the common good. Many contributors to the consultation emphasized the importance of ensuring consistency and coherence between WUSSIS outcomes and the GDC within that context of the SDGs, and as a pact for the future, which was also adopted by the General Assembly last year. I’ve deliberately not said much specifically about the internet or the IGF, because others will do so. The WUSSIS arrangements for internet governance were broadly supported in the consultation process, and that’s reflected in the report. The IGF in particular was regarded by many as a success. A number of proposals were made in the consultation for improvements to the IGF, and these will no doubt be considered during the review. So, in closing, I thought it might be worth summarizing the six points six priorities for progress towards fulfilling the six goals that emerged from the consultation and are set out in the conclusion of the report as inputs from that consultation process. So here are those priorities. The first is continued efforts to close digital divides, including the gender digital divide, through infrastructure investment, targeted efforts on affordability and digital literacy. Second comes work to achieve a safe and secure digital environment, particularly cyber security. Third is the development of regulatory frameworks for data governance and privacy and AI ethics, and associated with that the responsibilities and accountability of digital stakeholders in contexts like information integrity, technological inequalities and biases, environmental sustainability and human rights. Fourth, efforts to accelerate innovation in areas that will help achieve sustainable development, including digital public infrastructure and digital public goods. Fifth, greater policy coherence at national level, including the relationship between digital policy and areas of public policy that are impacted by it. And sixth, stronger collaboration at international level, including greater inclusion of developing countries in decision-making processes. So I hope that’s given a broad picture of what’s in the report, and I hope you’ll look at it in more depth online. There’ll obviously be many more contributions in the process between now and December, but I hope that gives some background which will be helpful in your discussions this morning. And I hope my internet connectivity held out for the last 10 minutes. Thanks again.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Thanks David for this very insightful presentation of the report, which I think it’s the most valuable input that CSTD is providing this year, and goes now for ECOSOC. But I promise that if you read the report, you may start with the chapters that have something where you work on. You can start with the chapters that interest more to you, but then I think that you have to flavor, and you’ll read all the reports in a very pleasant way. So if you need facts, if you need evidence, go to the report. If you need arguments, go to the report, to this report. It’s really important. It’s neutral, but it gives you facts, it gives you evidence, and it gives you the progress that has been made since 2005. And what was achieved is huge. And with the help of the NRIs, the impact was really global. Thank you very much, David. And so after these three interventions, I now start the discussion with the participants. And we have 12 participants that will make some statements for two minutes, but before that, I would like to ask you if you would like to put any questions to our key participants. So everything was really clear for the time being? Oh, it seems like it. So we go to the registered participants who would like to make statements. Well, it’s very challenging for me, the names. Some of the names are really challenging, so I will start with Azmik Hakobyan. Are you here? Online? Okay. It’s not online? So let’s go for the 11 statements. Now I’ll give the floor to Georgi Tsikharishvili. Sorry for the pronunciation, but it’s really difficult for me as a Portuguese. Georgi, it should be on site. It’s not. Oh, what a pity. So they resisted and they are not here to make the statement. Well, things happen. Now I’ll give the floor to Jonas Kepi. It should be here. No? Oh boy. So let’s move with Gurgen Petrosyan. No. Okay. At least we have Paul Blaker here. You are on my list, but not now. But Isidora Petković. No. Sorry? No, I have here on site and online. So now I’ll give the floor to Duyugu Kiksai. Online. We have one? Who? So we have Duyugu. Lufunu, wait. Lufunu, do you hear us? You have the floor. Hello. Good morning. Please go ahead. Can I type? Yes.

Lufuno Tshikalange: Okay. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Titi Chikarangu from Orasa Consulting Enterprise. We are a cyber law consultancy focusing on digital transformation, ESG and cyber security. As we look forward to the future of global digital cooperation, it is vital that WSIS Plus 20 Review is not only reflective in principle, but also credible in practice. Systems inequalities and… …meaningfully with other… The WSIS Plus 20 is more than a retrospective. It is a pivotal opportunity to shape the future of global digital cooperation. For it to be legitimate and impactful, the meaningful inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders, particularly civil society, is essential to advance people-centered digital future. Yet persistent structural barriers such as infrastructure gaps, digital tracing language and accessibility continue to marginalize local voices and hinder their participation in decisions that affect them directly. To address this, we recommend that WSIS Plus 20 process must move beyond a one-size-fits-all model and adopt inclusive, context-aware approaches that embrace cultural diversity and enable substantive engagement on the ground. To address this, we also urge that WSIS Plus 20 process shifts from a… …shift to a tailored, inclusive participation models that will enable engagement from all corners of the world, not just the developed countries. At national and regional level, NRIs can serve as outcome agents of bottom-up engagement. but this requires the deliberate shifts away from siloed, top-down consultations. Our input from local forums must be formally integrated into national WSIS Plus 20 positions to ensure that the action plans for the next decade are context-based and responsive to the local needs. Finally, on alignment, we believe that the WSIS Plus 20 review must not operate in isolation. It should build on the momentum of the 2023 SDG review report and the 2024 Global Digital Conference to close gaps, avoid duplication and reinforce institutional alignment. This alignment must be context-sensitive, acknowledging that digital development is not at the same stage everywhere. Thank you.

Online moderator: Thank you. I ask also the online participants to be on the lookout of the timer. We have a timer also available in the stream that we are doing to the Zoom session and we will enforce the timer and we will mute after the timer is up.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Yes, but as we didn’t have so many statements before this one, I thought that three minutes was a fair time to allocate to Duygu. So, I hope that you will share your statement with us so it can be in the minutes and can be part of the messages from this session as well. Well, I was wondering whether my bad pronunciation of the names is preventing people to understand that I’m giving them the floor. So, let’s try it now with Lufuno Tshikalange. That was the speaker we had online. Lufonu. Oh, sorry. So, I was saying Duygu. No, Lufonu. Thank you very much for your statement. So, I hope you can share the statement that you just made with us. And now I’ll give the floor to Reden Pilinti from Albania. He should be on site. No, he’s not. So, now Modestus Amuts. On site. No. Paul Bleker, please. But now I’ll give the floor to Paul Bleker and then I’ll go through the list and then we’ll have Isabel.

Panelist: Thank you. I’ll just check the mic. Yeah. Great. Thank you, Anna. I am here, yes. My name is Paul Bleker. I represent the UK government. And I would say first, thank you to all the participants so far, our key speakers. In particular, thank you to Her Excellency, the Ambassador from Albania. We really appreciate the fact that she made time to join us today. I think the WSIS process has many achievements over the last 20 years. And David Souter’s report sets them out very well. The review is an opportunity to take stock and, of course, to reaffirm the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, which has enabled the Internet to grow and develop so successfully. But we also need to look ahead to the challenges that we face in the future. And we need to approach the review, I think, with a new, positive, forward-looking agenda. Because there’s so much more to do. We need to connect the unconnected still. Yes, we have made good progress. But connecting the last third who are still unconnected will be an even bigger challenge. We need to use the existing WSIS action lines, which are technology neutral, to address the opportunities and challenges of new technologies. We need to address the gender digital divide. And we hope that UN Women, which did not exist at the time of the original WSIS, we hope that UN Women will play a valuable role. there. We need to tackle the environmental impact of ICTs as they make a growing contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. This was hardly mentioned in the original WSIS documents, but of course is an incredibly important issue now. We need to fully address the impact of ICTs on human rights, and I was pleased that the EU also mentioned this as a key issue, and we hope that the UN OHCHR will be given a more formal role here. We would also like to see a permanent mandate for the IGF and much stronger recognition of national and regional initiatives. NRIs, national regional IGFs, were not mentioned at all in WSIS plus 10, but they play such an important role giving a voice to local communities, and the WSIS plus 20 is an opportunity to strengthen their role. We’d like to see the initiatives from the GDC fully integrated into the WSIS process, something that member states of CSTD called for last month. So there’s a really big agenda ahead. It’s really important that stakeholders can contribute meaningfully to the review process, and we were pleased to see the five-point plan that was published by a number of civil society organizations recently. I think it has 170 or more signatures now from organizations around the world, and we hope that the co-facilitators will take that plan into account as they plan the review. We think that this bottom-up stakeholder engagement gives the WSIS process an authority, a legitimacy, and a real-world impact, and it’s so important that we maintain that, and we look forward to working with all stakeholders to ensure a successful outcome to the review and to build a renewed WSIS that will be fit for the future. Thank you.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: And now on my list, I’ll give the floor in principle to Karim Shukdai. Okay. It’s not online as it was supposed to be, and the last one I have on this list is Gulalai Khan. Online? No? Okay. So now I would like to put the three guiding questions for our discussion. And while that is being done, I will give the floor to Isabel De Sola from the Office of Audit, the Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies. Please, Isabel.

Isabel De Sola: Thank you, Ana. Good morning. I wasn’t planning on taking the floor, but this is obviously a topic of my great passion and interest, and thank you for making the effort and the great initiative to have this conversation here. It’s part of a two-year-long process almost, or three-year-long process to get to the WSIS review. From the UN Office on Digital and Emerging Technologies, we speak in a sense on behalf of GDC implementation, perhaps not directly WSIS implementation, but because of the repeated calls to make sure that the two agendas work together, are coherent, are complementary, and especially efficient, I felt that it could be useful to share just 30 seconds or one minute worth of reflection. It’s been now almost eight months, perhaps, since the summit on the future, summit of the future, and the approval of the PAC for the future and its annex, the GDC, and we’ve learned quite a lot about how these two agendas are complementary and how they work together. I think first and foremost it’s important just to recall that the PAC for the future is a very broad umbrella that has six pillars, and it goes from all topics of peace and security, climate change, youth, digital technologies, international financial architecture reform. It’s a very broad umbrella, and the GDC is one part of the PAC for the future. In that broad umbrella, the WSIS is recognized and welcomed as an essential piece of the future, of course, summit on the future, the future that we want, making it more inclusive, more human-centric, that it works for that the Internet is open, free, safe, and for all. Many of the aspirations and the exact texts of the WSIS Summit outcome documents are reflected in the GDC and therefore in this broader umbrella of the Pact for the Future. I think what’s interesting to note is that at the time of the WSIS Summit, digital was perhaps kind of in its own bubble. It needed a summit all on its own. Whereas 20 years later, every single agenda that we have in the UN and multilateral universe has a digital component. So what I think I would like to transmit is that in GDC implementation, we are of course carrying forward some of the aspirations of the WSIS. As part of now a broader whole of society or six-pillar summit, where we see how these issues are interlocking. And that’s something that I would like just to offer as food for thought for the review, is how can we on the one hand maintain the integrity of the WSIS agenda, which is not yet finished. I think I align myself with all of Paul’s remarks. This is an agenda that isn’t done yet. While at the same time integrating it into other agendas on climate change, on youth, on peace and security, on health, etc. So that would be one reflection I’d like to share as food for thought here. And I look forward to listening to others’ remarks. Thank you.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Thank you very much, Isabel. And thank you for remembering that we have this pact for the future that was adopted last year. And so it has six pillars, being one dedicated to the digital. And so the Global Digital Compact is part of this pact for the future. Now, on the guiding questions. Can you put them on the screen, please? Okay. So, now we’d like to hear from you. So, we still have time. It’s about the guiding principles. Sorry, the guiding principles. The guiding questions. Yes. So, sorry. 1, 4, 6. It’s a bit ridiculous, but 1, 4, 6. You have the floor.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you for giving me the floor. and Florence Xianhong Hu representing UNESCO. I did ask for a statement, but it’s okay, I can combine because I do have a lot of thoughts since yesterday. Yesterday, we had some very important discussion I could share to inform our guiding questions. For example, in the Dynamic Coalition Measuring Digital Inclusion, they launched an issue brief on the human rights-centered governance of quantum technologies. This shows that how important the WSIS process should be continually explore systematically the frontier technology. Now we have five years before we achieve the 2030 agenda, so it’s so important to continue to use this process and also ITF and RIS to track the complex implications of those new technologies. That’s why one recommendation from the policy brief is also to continue integrate a new subject to this existing multi-stakeholder platforms. That’s one point. Second thing resonate to that topic is about the gender divide and gender-related violence facilitated by the rise of the artificial intelligence and the new technologies. Equally, I mean, the gender divide exist for any new technology, for quantum, for AI, for internet. Without creating a safe, enabling environment for women, girls, we cannot imagine any inclusive digital futures as set out in the Global Digital Compact. That’s my second point. And so the one I like to also point out, so it’s really to what Freedom Online Coalition has launched yesterday on the principles of the DPI, Digital Public Infrastructure. There is a huge challenge, as UNESCO perceived, about the barriers of public sector to digitize, to undergo this, to succeed in the digital transformation. Public sectors are facing so many barriers, challenges in many countries. They have no capacity to handle this digital transformation, lack of policies, lack of data governance competencies among the policy makers and civil servants. So to tackle that, I’d like to inform you that UNESCO is organizing a conference in June 4 to 5 about capacity building on AI and the digital transformation in the public sector. It’s also broadly related to how we can contribute to the broader process of WSIS plus 20 consultation, as well as the implementation of Global Digital Compact. So I really want to invite you to continue our conversation from your take on this to UNESCO next month. Thank you very much.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Sorry, thank you very much for informing us and about this very important moment that will be held in UNESCO on AI on the 4th and 5th of June in Paris. Thank you very much. And so now I will open the floor for these questions that we have here on the screen and that… and mainly they want to steer a discussion on how can non-governmental stakeholders be effectively engaged in the WSIS Placement Review process. So we have here the ambassador from Albania. She will be one of the co-facilitators, so I think this is a good moment to present some ideas on how to better include the non-governmental stakeholders in all this discussion. Tomorrow we will have a discussion on the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines, but I think that in this main session something can be said as well. And then we have the importance of the NRIs, how can they be more involved in this whole review process, and then the alignment between the different processes that we have here. So the review itself of the WSIS, now that it has a path for the future and the Global Digital Compact being part of it, and the Sustainable Development Goals, the Agenda 2030, so an agenda for the development and for developing countries. And the importance of having a key message on human rights, on gender issues, on climate change, etc. So I will give you now the floor, please, to discuss, to say, well, whatever you want to say about these questions. Don’t be shy, come on, this is supposed to be a question, a discussion. So, 068, please introduce yourself. Okay, so I see 68 from this side, I’m wondering if 268 is also me. No, 068, sorry. Right, thank you for these timely questions.

Panelist: I’m a member of parliament in Kenya and also representative of the Pan-African Parliament, and a member of APNIC. I believe it is imperative that the WSIS plus 20 reviews embed non-governmental stakeholders, particularly youth, civil society and grassroots innovators, not just in consultation but in agenda settings. National governments must be encouraged or even mandated to establish multi-stakeholder reviews, platforms to feed into official WSIS plus 20 positions. For instance, Kenya’s strong digital ecosystem could be leveraged through open forums, town halls and youth-led policy labs. Regional and national IGFs, NRIs, should not be parallel voices, they must become trusted feeders of national positions with clear mechanisms for policy adoptions and budgetary inclusion. Lastly, the alignment with the global digital compact and SDGs is not optional. We must adopt a whole-of-society approach that sees WSIS as a foundation, not a silo. This includes integration. Creating Digital Rights, Green Tech, and Inclusive AI International Development Plans because sustainable development without digital equity is incomplete. Thank you.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Absolutely. Thank you very much. And I would like to congratulate Kenya because it’s one of the few countries in the world that included already the multistakeholder approach in their law. So congratulations. And now I will give the floor to Juan91, but please introduce yourself. Juan91. Yes. Okay. Your mic is open. Okay. Thank you. Hello.

Panelist: My name is Pavlos, and I’m representing the Greek NRI, so this is why I would like to comment on that and mainly insist on the NRI participation. So our NRI was held for the first time last year, and it’s going to be organized next year as well in Greece. So I would like to insist on NRI participation because it really allows people from local communities to effectively participate in these processes. For instance, one thing that we did is that we tried to engage as many local communities as possible and actually invite people to even propose topic suggestions and actively engage in discussions. So then we can, if NRIs are more included in these high-level meetings, then they can more effectively diffuse all the information they gather to the local communities so that the people that these policies actually affect become part of the policies and not just passive recipients of them. So this is my comment. Thank you very much.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Yes. Thank you very much. So we really have to strengthen the national and regional initiatives of the IGF because they should be relevant for the national setting and for the regional influence at the regional level. So in that way, we can better achieve the global objectives of what will be achieved with the negotiations of the Business Review. And now I’ll give the floor to… Am I allowed to say a number and this person has to speak? I cannot see your number. Me?

Panelist: Not entirely sure. Oh, I am working. Yes. That’s good. Adam Peake. I can. Thank you very much. Thank you for organizing the session and all the other things CSDD are doing. So to have an effect, will the contributions of non-governmental stakeholders be part of the proceedings record as an official input so that the member states can then reference them and use them in their discussions? We saw this, and I’m dating myself going back to the WSIS in 2003 to 5, and it was very effective to have a voice and then to be heard and recorded so that if we say something wise, you as the governments can then build upon it. is the point. So it’s more a process issue, but it’s quite important to have, to be effective, means to have an effect and to be part of the record. So just as a thought, I’m wondering if that has been considered and if it hasn’t, then please do so. Thank you.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Okay, thank you very much. So the impact of all these efforts and agendas, they really have to have an impact. And that is something that is well done in the report of David Souter on the implementation of the WSIS over these last 20 years. So it’s interesting. And so the impact is always a very good evidence to make then the right choices for the next years. So we still have some time or not. So yes, no, but we have the key participants online, right? So I would like to give them the floor again, because after this not so lengthy discussion, but I think that some messages were conveyed and I think that it will enrich our session if we have final comments from our key participants. So I would like to ask Ambassador Suela Janina if she could say something as a final message to this main session when in ERODIC.

Suela Janina: Thank you very much. Indeed, I wanted to conclude my participation. First of all, in thanking you, it has been very useful for me. I will convey all these messages that have been received today to my co-facilitator. And of course, I would like also to reiterate what I have mentioned during my opening address and statement that will be guided by the principles of inclusiveness and transparency. So we appreciate a lot every contribution that will come from NRS and all other stakeholders. So I would like in this final remark to encourage every one of you. I think that there is a lot of wealth in all the contributions that I’ve heard today. Indeed, it has been not only a pleasure, but very useful for me to be part of this discussion. It has been the first time that I’ve been engaged as co-facilitator from the time that this task has been assigned to us by the President of the General Assembly. And I think that it’s worth the time. It’s very early in New York, but it has been really very useful for me to hear from all the contributions and to take note and also to understand where the interests of our stakeholders will be in this process. So I just want to encourage everyone. In a few days, we’ll make public the roadmap and everyone can see and find time to engage in one or more of the processes that are ahead, including the major upcoming events, but also the informal interactive consultations. At least two of them will be of importance and everyone is invited to present the expectations that they have from this process and be assured that the co-facilitators will take good note of them and will try to accommodate as many of these perspectives from our partners and stakeholders. So with that, I would like to thank you, Erudit, for your openness also to include us in this discussion and we stand ready to cooperate with you and everyone that is interested in this process into the near future. It will be very intense months ahead, but we are very thrilled and encouraged to go through this process and to deliver an outcome that will be a positive one and a consensus driving one and something that will serve to the people and to be linked with the sustainable development and based on human rights. So I thank you for this opportunity and looking forward to cooperate with you in the upcoming months.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Yes, I’m applauding because Madam Ambassador, I really enjoy your words and I think that we will have co-facilitators really listening to different stakeholders and believe me when I say that we are all preparing the best we can for the upcoming negotiations and we need really this openness to hear all the stakeholders and to have the sessions that will be hearings from the different stakeholders to be really hearings that you can really listen to the message that will be conveyed because all this exercise is being prepared for some months. Now I’ll give the floor to Thibaut Kleiner. So, European Union, European Commission, please tell us what are your final comments to this session. I know we don’t have Thibaut anymore on the call so I think we should jump to the next speaker. And David Souter? David, please. Final remarks?

David Souter: I’m here, yes. Yes, you are. And as I say, it has been really interesting to work with you. I’d say that instead of reflecting on it in particular, paying attention to the interactions between digital policy and other aspects of the policy, is not simply about digital issues, it is about their relationship with the rest of economic, social, cultural life. And perhaps also looking at the six themes that emerged from the consultation process, which I mentioned earlier at the end of my remarks and which are set out in the conclusion of the report. I think that’s all I’d say. Anna, thank you.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Thank you very much, David. And I hope that your report will be really a very important component of the upcoming discussions and negotiations. So, now, we are going to listen to the Assistant Director General for Communication and Information from UNESCO, Mr. Tawfik Jelassi, so we’ll have a video from him. And while you are watching it, or we are watching it, Mark and Vlada, they are finishing the messages from this session. So, after the video, I will ask both Mark and Vlada to present. the main messages from this session. And that’s it. And then we finalize our session today. So the video, please.

Tawfik Jelassi: Distinguished delegates, dear colleagues, I’m very pleased to join you remotely today on behalf of UNESCO and to contribute to this vital dialogue on the implementation of WSIS and the road ahead. First, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to EuroDIG for its long-standing partnership and for providing this important platform to address pressing challenges and opportunities in the digital sphere. The digital world is evolving at an unprecedented pace, presenting both breakthroughs and barriers. From algorithmic biases and digital exclusion to gender inequality and threats to privacy, the list of challenges is long. While AI assistants and digital tools are already part of everyday life for many of us, 2.6 billion people remain still offline, excluded from the transformational potential of digital technologies and the access to information they offer. Thanks to its capacity to convene a variety of influential stakeholders, EuroDIG has become a defining event to tackle these challenges. On behalf of UNESCO, I would like to commend these persistent efforts, which are contributing to the global dialogue on Internet governance and supporting the implementation of WSIS. For two decades, UNESCO has played a central role in WSIS implementation, working closely with ITU, UNCTAD and UNDP to ensure coordinated, inclusive and result-driven actions. As the lead agency on six WSIS Action Lines, UNESCO has been a key partner in this effort. UNESCO has brought forward multi-stakeholder cooperation rooted in our core values of human rights, openness and inclusion. Today, our efforts show tangible results. Since 2002, the number of access to information laws has nearly tripled from 48 to 140, most recently in Cabo Verde, Namibia, Qatar and Zambia. These laws are vital to enhance transparency, public participation and accountability, and they are changing lives, particularly for women, youth and marginalized groups. This progress has been the result of strong collaboration. We cannot overstate the role played by WSIS to support the progress on SDG target 16.10.2, which measures the adoption and implementation of access to information laws. WSIS’ advocacy and partnerships have strengthened global commitments to information access as a fundamental right. At the same time, our Internet universality principles have supported over 40 countries in shaping rights-based, open and inclusive digital policies. Some of these important results and new indicators from this work will be presented at this year’s EuroDIG event. We have also expanded digital learning access through the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Educational Resources, the Digital Transformation Collaborative and the Global Skills Academy in partnership with ITU and UNICEF. This year, we are pleased to contribute to EuroDIG through the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Measuring Digital Inclusion, established under the UNESCO Information for All program. We will also present two important issue briefs, one on human rights-centered global governance of quantum technology, and another on empowering libraries for advancing digital inclusion. WSIS Plus 20 offers a unique opportunity to rethink digital governance in line with the Global Digital Compact and the Sustainable Development Goals. It is also a moment to strengthen WSIS’ flexibility, visibility and funding to ensure it continues to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world. We must collectively address gaps in AI governance, data protection, infrastructure, gender equality and environmental sustainability. The coming months provide key opportunities for dialogue, including the UNESCO Conference on AI and Digital Transformation on June 4th and 5th at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. Also at the Internet Governance Forum in Norway and all of its regional and national editions, which we’ll continue to support. And of course, the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event, co-organized by UNESCO, with ITU, UNDP and UNCTAD, which will play a pivotal role in defining the future of digital cooperation. Let’s reaffirm our commitment to building an inclusive, ethical and rights-based digital future, one that empowers all and leaves no one behind. As the saying goes, information is the currency of democracy. Let’s ensure that this currency is accessible to all. Thank you for your attention.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: I’d like to thank UNESCO for the key messages that were conveyed. So, they are really important, everything that Tawfik Jelassi said. It was a pity that he could not be here today, but the video that he recorded has delivered the main and the key words for what we have to achieve by the end of this year. So, now I’ll give the floor to Mark Carvell, UK Independent Consultant on Internet Governance Policy, and to Vlad Ivanec, journalist and media researcher, so they will help to conclude this session with the main message from the main session one. Please.

Mark Carvell: Thank you very much, Anna, and thank you all for your attention. Thank you. Good morning everybody and thank you Anna for moderating this comprehensive and richly detailed session in preparation for the WSIS plus 20 review. I think it’s been a very very informative exercise and on behalf of the program committee I appreciate very much the contributions of the of the four speakers. We’re very grateful for your contributions and also many thanks to the statements and interventions by stakeholders from the floor here and also online. Also very much appreciated and Vlad and I have been working away to develop broadly based messages drawing on the contributions and comments from stakeholders here and we come up with five messages and we’ll take it in turn Vlad and I to to read through these for your immediate consideration as to whether we’ve we’ve captured as I say broad broadly based reflections and recommendations for the conduct of the review. So I’ll start off with the first one and I’ll just read it out exactly as you see it on the screen. UEDIG stakeholders welcomed the updating by co-facilitator Her Excellency Miss Suela Janina on the opportunities for meaningful stakeholder participation in review which will ensure amongst other things its legitimacy. UEDIG stands ready to contribute as a channel for inputting key issues and establishing the necessary momentum for achieving the right outcomes with a forward looking agenda. UEDIG recommends that all stakeholder inputs and proposals be included on the UN’s official record. So that’s that’s the first message about really ensuring that the review does have legitimacy through delivering on the commitment in the modalities for the review for meaningful stakeholder engagement as Her Excellency described as the intention. Okay I’ll hand over now to Vlad to to go through the second message.

Panelist: Yeah thank you Mark. So the second one is the Internet Governance Forum is a fundamental platform for multi-stakeholder cooperation and should be granted a renewed permanent mandate. The IJF needs to implement the substantive improvements expressed during the open consultations including enhancing its inclusivity and ensuring its outcomes lead to action. So on the third one back to Mark.

Mark Carvell: Okay having covered a message about the IJF in particular which is one area of focus for the review of course. The third one is again on the conduct of the review so I’ll read it out. The WSIS plus 20 review process should be conducted in a transparent inclusive and diverse manner. A multi-stakeholder approach is key to achieving this. The upcoming action plan should align with the SDGs the sustainable development goals and the priorities for action set out in the global digital compact to the GDC. So here we are conscious of apparently parallel processes but the need to bring them together in a coherent aligned and convergent manner. Okay so back to Vlad for number four. Yeah thank you. Number four review should address new and still existing social technological and economic challenges such as the north-south digital divides and gender inequalities, human-centric AI regulation, climate change, human rights online, effective data management and maximizing diverse stakeholder participation in the global digital economy from all regions. So by giving message we try to touch upon the many issues that still exist in the digital field and sometimes they can be overlooked or just ignored by the stakeholders, but we really believe that they should be addressed and it was also mentioned by the participants today. Okay, thanks Vlad. Now the fifth and final one and here we are focusing on the contribution of NRIs, so I’ll read it out. National and regional IGFs and NRIs are important and powerful engines for the bottom-up and multi-stakeholder approach and they therefore they should be actively included in the review processes. National and regional initiatives are fundamental in providing national perspectives and mechanisms for policy adoption. So this is about, as I say, this is about us here, what we’re doing here in Unity in terms of setting out our commitment to contribute to the process and why, you know, what is it we as a regional forum and also the national fora, what they can contribute and why they are important to be taken fully into account. Okay, we’ll stop there. I hope that’s helpful. So initial comments, reactions, gratefully received. Thank you.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Thank you very much Mark and Vlad. I think that you did an amazing job. Now I would like to ask you any comments on these five messages. I think that you really did a great work because that’s what I think it’s really what come up from the interventions of the key participants and from the statements and what has been said here. Yes, 109, please introduce yourself.

Panelist: Hello, Regina Fuchsua from Jurid. I have, I wanted to thank youvery much for the great work on the messages. I have just one technical question to the point number five which was referring to the involvement of NRIs in the review process. I’m just wondering if it’s enough to speak just about the review process because actually we are, if not in the middle or towards the end of the review process, if this was not meant more like for the future that the NRIs stay a vital part of the whole process, not only specifically the review process which is going to finish quite soon. Thank you very much.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Thank you. Mark.

Mark Carvell: Thank you very much. That’s a very important point. We’ve kind of inferred that when we talk about mechanisms for policy adoption but maybe we could tweak the language to ensure that this is about the future beyond the review as you say. Yes, thank you very much. We’ll tweak the language I think.

Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves: Thank you, Mark. Please. Yes, so we are concluding. We are concluding. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Moritz Taylor: Thank you so much, Anna. This was a really, really great session. I think all the speakers did a really great job at communicating some of the major issues that are going to be coming up in the near future and in the further future. I’d just like to invite you all now to go into the foyer of the hemicycle for a little coffee break for a return at 11 o’clock. Thank you also, by the way, for the phenomenal timekeeping, I mean, 10.31. Thank you. See you later. I’d also like to thank the interpreters for their work.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental to WSIS Plus 20 review process

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Lufuno Tshikalange
– Panelist
– Mark Carvell

Arguments

Modalities resolution adopted with clear framework emphasizing transparent, inclusive multi-stakeholder process

EU advocating for transparent, inclusive negotiations with active participation by all stakeholders

Process must move beyond one-size-fits-all model to adopt inclusive, context-aware approaches

Bottom-up stakeholder engagement gives WSIS process authority, legitimacy, and real-world impact

National and regional IGFs are important engines for bottom-up multi-stakeholder approach

Summary

All speakers strongly emphasized that the WSIS Plus 20 review must be conducted through transparent, inclusive, multi-stakeholder processes that ensure meaningful participation from all relevant stakeholders including civil society, private sector, technical community, and academia.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Need for alignment between WSIS Plus 20, Global Digital Compact, and SDGs

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Lufuno Tshikalange
– Isabel De Sola
– Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves

Arguments

Need to align WSIS action lines with SDGs and Global Digital Compact commitments

WSIS Plus 20 must build on momentum of SDG review and GDC to close gaps and avoid duplication

GDC implementation carrying forward WSIS aspirations as part of broader six-pillar summit framework

European Union preparing comprehensive approach integrating WSIS Plus 20, GDC and Agenda 2030

Summary

Speakers agreed on the critical importance of ensuring coherence and alignment between the WSIS Plus 20 review, Global Digital Compact, and Sustainable Development Goals to avoid duplication and create synergies.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Strengthening and institutionalizing the Internet Governance Forum

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– David Souter
– Mark Carvell

Arguments

EU proposing institutionalization of IGF beyond 2025 with stable funding from UN budget

IGF arrangements broadly supported with proposals for improvements to be considered

National and regional IGFs are important engines for bottom-up multi-stakeholder approach

Summary

There was strong consensus on the need to provide the IGF with a permanent mandate, stable funding, and enhanced role, while also strengthening national and regional IGF initiatives.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Addressing digital divides and inequalities remains a priority

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– David Souter
– Xianhong Hu
– Tawfik Jelassi

Arguments

Review should address digital divides including those from new technologies like AI

Report shows enormous progress but digital inequality may be increasing economic and social inequality

Gender divide exists for any new technology and creates barriers without safe enabling environment

2.6 billion people remain offline, excluded from transformational potential of digital technologies

Summary

All speakers acknowledged that despite significant progress, digital divides persist and may be worsening, particularly affecting women, developing countries, and marginalized communities.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Economic

Human rights must be central to digital governance frameworks

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Xianhong Hu
– Tawfik Jelassi

Arguments

EU believes human rights should be at core of digital developments with rise in digital authoritarianism

WSIS process should continually explore systematically frontier technologies like quantum

UNESCO working on access to information laws which have nearly tripled since 2002

Summary

Speakers emphasized the fundamental importance of anchoring digital governance in universal human rights principles, especially given emerging challenges from new technologies and digital authoritarianism.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

These speakers shared the view that multi-stakeholder participation should go beyond mere consultation to meaningful involvement in agenda-setting and decision-making processes.

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Panelist

Arguments

Success built on strong participation of WSIS community including civil society, technical community, private sector

Multi-stakeholder governance approach should be central principle within UN Digital Governance Framework

Non-governmental stakeholders must be embedded in agenda setting, not just consultation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both emphasized that National and Regional Initiatives should play a more formal and influential role in feeding into national positions and global processes, rather than being parallel or separate activities.

Speakers

– Panelist
– Mark Carvell

Arguments

NRIs should become trusted feeders of national positions with clear mechanisms for policy adoption

National and regional IGFs are important engines for bottom-up multi-stakeholder approach

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognized that the digital landscape has fundamentally changed since the original WSIS, requiring the process to continuously adapt and address emerging technologies and their implications.

Speakers

– David Souter
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

Digital world today very different from 20 years ago with most current technologies being post-WSIS

WSIS process should continually explore systematically frontier technologies like quantum

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Environmental sustainability as a digital governance priority

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– David Souter

Arguments

EU wants to make sure digital transformation is sustainable for the environment

There’s growing awareness of risks arising from digitalisation including environmental outcomes, climate change, pollution and overuse of scarce resources

Explanation

The emergence of environmental sustainability as a key concern in digital governance discussions was notable, as this was barely mentioned in original WSIS documents but has become a critical issue requiring integration into digital policy frameworks.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Public sector digital transformation challenges

Speakers

– Xianhong Hu
– Tawfik Jelassi

Arguments

Public sectors face barriers in digital transformation lacking capacity and data governance competencies

UNESCO Internet universality principles have supported over 40 countries in shaping rights-based digital policies

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the specific challenges faced by public sectors in digital transformation, highlighting the need for targeted capacity building and support for government digital initiatives.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on core principles including multi-stakeholder governance, the need for inclusive processes, alignment between global frameworks, strengthening the IGF, addressing digital divides, and centering human rights in digital governance.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers with no significant disagreements identified. The alignment suggests strong foundation for moving forward with WSIS Plus 20 review process, though implementation challenges remain in ensuring meaningful participation and addressing persistent inequalities.

Different viewpoints

Scope and approach to stakeholder engagement mechanisms

Speakers

– Lufuno Tshikalange
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Panelist

Arguments

Process must move beyond one-size-fits-all model to adopt inclusive, context-aware approaches

EU advocating for transparent, inclusive negotiations with active participation by all stakeholders

Non-governmental stakeholders must be embedded in agenda setting, not just consultation

Summary

While all speakers support stakeholder engagement, they differ on the depth and mechanisms. Lufuno advocates for context-aware approaches that address structural barriers, the EU focuses on transparent negotiations within existing frameworks, while other panelists push for embedding stakeholders in agenda-setting rather than just consultation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Role of existing versus new governance structures

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Lufuno Tshikalange

Arguments

Need to make sure that we have incremental updates in these YCIS action lines to align them not only with the SDG and the Global Digital Compact commitments, but also to make sure that we have a coherent and effective policy implementation, so that we don’t need to create new governance structures

Need to address persistent structural barriers that marginalize local voices

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there’s tension between the EU’s preference for working within existing structures versus calls for more fundamental structural changes to address marginalization. This suggests deeper disagreement about whether current frameworks can adequately address inclusion challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows broad consensus on key principles (multi-stakeholder approach, need for alignment, importance of inclusion) but reveals subtle yet significant differences in implementation approaches and priorities

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high convergence on goals but divergent views on methods. The implications suggest that while the WSIS Plus 20 review process has strong foundational support, achieving consensus on specific mechanisms and implementation details may require careful negotiation to balance institutional efficiency with inclusive participation demands.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

These speakers shared the view that multi-stakeholder participation should go beyond mere consultation to meaningful involvement in agenda-setting and decision-making processes.

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Panelist

Arguments

Success built on strong participation of WSIS community including civil society, technical community, private sector

Multi-stakeholder governance approach should be central principle within UN Digital Governance Framework

Non-governmental stakeholders must be embedded in agenda setting, not just consultation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both emphasized that National and Regional Initiatives should play a more formal and influential role in feeding into national positions and global processes, rather than being parallel or separate activities.

Speakers

– Panelist
– Mark Carvell

Arguments

NRIs should become trusted feeders of national positions with clear mechanisms for policy adoption

National and regional IGFs are important engines for bottom-up multi-stakeholder approach

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognized that the digital landscape has fundamentally changed since the original WSIS, requiring the process to continuously adapt and address emerging technologies and their implications.

Speakers

– David Souter
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

Digital world today very different from 20 years ago with most current technologies being post-WSIS

WSIS process should continually explore systematically frontier technologies like quantum

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

The WSIS Plus 20 review process will be conducted through a transparent, inclusive multi-stakeholder approach with a high-level meeting scheduled for December 16-17, 2025

There is strong consensus on the need to institutionalize the Internet Governance Forum beyond 2025 with stable funding and permanent mandate

National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) are recognized as crucial engines for bottom-up multi-stakeholder engagement and should be actively included in review processes

The digital landscape has transformed dramatically since the original WSIS, with most current technologies (AI, mobile broadband, social media, IoT) emerging post-WSIS

There is urgent need to align WSIS action lines with the Sustainable Development Goals and Global Digital Compact to ensure coherence and avoid duplication

Digital divides persist with 2.6 billion people still offline, and new technologies like AI may be exacerbating inequalities rather than reducing them

Human rights and digital freedoms must be central to the review process, especially given the rise of digital authoritarianism

The review must address both existing challenges (connectivity, gender digital divide) and emerging issues (AI governance, climate impact, data management)

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators will finalize and publish a roadmap for the WSIS Plus 20 review process in mid-June 2025

Co-facilitators plan to engage stakeholders during three major upcoming events: UNESCO Conference on AI (June), IGF 2025 (Norway), and WSIS Forum 2025 (Geneva)

EU member states endorsed their negotiating lines on May 19th for the WSIS Plus 20 process

UNESCO will host a Conference on AI and Digital Transformation on June 4-5 in Paris focusing on public sector capacity building

EuroDIG session messages will be published on the EuroDIG website on May 25th

All stakeholder inputs and proposals should be included in the UN’s official record to ensure meaningful participation

National governments should establish multi-stakeholder review platforms to feed into official WSIS Plus 20 positions

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance maintaining WSIS agenda integrity while integrating it with broader UN agendas on climate, youth, peace and security

Specific mechanisms for ensuring NRI contributions are formally integrated into national WSIS Plus 20 positions

How to address the challenge of connecting the remaining 2.6 billion people who are still offline

Concrete approaches for tackling the environmental impact of ICTs and their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions

Detailed frameworks for AI governance and emerging technology regulation within the WSIS context

Specific funding mechanisms and amounts needed for permanent IGF institutionalization

How to ensure meaningful participation from developing countries in decision-making processes beyond consultation

Suggested compromises

Incremental updates to WSIS action lines rather than wholesale changes to align with SDGs and GDC while maintaining core framework

Using existing governance structures more operationally rather than creating new ones to achieve coherence and effectiveness

Adopting context-aware approaches that embrace cultural diversity rather than one-size-fits-all models for stakeholder engagement

Maintaining the Tunis Agenda framework while allowing for improvements and enhancements to the IGF

Integrating GDC initiatives into WSIS process while preserving the distinct value and approach of each framework

Strengthening NRI recognition and support while working within existing UN multi-stakeholder frameworks

The digital environment, the range of actors and the geopolitical contests have evolved considerably since WSIS Plus 10. We now face the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, new challenges around AI governance and emerging technologies, a diversity of perspectives across member states and stakeholder groups.

Speaker

Suela Janina (Albanian Ambassador and co-facilitator)

Reason

This comment was insightful because it acknowledged the fundamental shift in the digital landscape since the last major review, moving beyond technical updates to recognize the complex geopolitical dimensions now at play. It demonstrated awareness that this isn’t just a routine review but a response to a transformed global context.

Impact

This framing set the tone for the entire discussion, establishing that participants needed to think beyond incremental improvements to address fundamentally new challenges. It influenced subsequent speakers to address alignment between multiple frameworks (GDC, SDGs, WSIS) and consider geopolitical tensions in internet governance.

Most of the technologies at the heart of the information society today have emerged, or at least been transformed, since the summit… mobile broadband, social media, other digital platforms, the Internet of Things, the cloud economy, hyperscale data centres, generative AI. These are all phenomena that have become central to the digital society since WSIS.

Speaker

David Souter

Reason

This observation was particularly thought-provoking because it highlighted the paradox of reviewing a framework when the underlying technological reality has been completely transformed. It challenged participants to consider whether existing structures could address entirely new paradigms.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from incremental policy updates to fundamental questions about framework adequacy. It influenced later speakers to emphasize the need for ‘forward-looking agendas’ and technology-neutral approaches that could adapt to future innovations.

At the time of the WSIS Summit, digital was perhaps kind of in its own bubble. It needed a summit all on its own. Whereas 20 years later, every single agenda that we have in the UN and multilateral universe has a digital component.

Speaker

Isabel De Sola (UN Office on Digital and Emerging Technologies)

Reason

This insight was profound because it captured the fundamental shift from digital as a separate domain to digital as integral to all policy areas. It challenged the traditional siloed approach to digital governance and suggested the need for systemic integration.

Impact

This comment introduced a new dimension to the discussion about alignment between frameworks. It influenced the conversation toward considering how WSIS could maintain its integrity while integrating with broader UN agendas on climate, peace, security, and development.

WSIS Plus 20 process must move beyond a one-size-fits-all model and adopt inclusive, context-aware approaches that embrace cultural diversity and enable substantive engagement on the ground… shift to a tailored, inclusive participation models that will enable engagement from all corners of the world, not just the developed countries.

Speaker

Lufuno Tshikalange

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it challenged the assumption that global frameworks could be universally applied without considering local contexts. It highlighted structural inequalities in participation and called for fundamental changes in approach rather than just improved access.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from procedural inclusion to substantive participation equity. It influenced later speakers to emphasize the importance of NRIs and bottom-up engagement, and contributed to the final messages emphasizing diverse stakeholder participation from all regions.

We need to tackle the environmental impact of ICTs as they make a growing contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. This was hardly mentioned in the original WSIS documents, but of course is an incredibly important issue now.

Speaker

Paul Bleker (UK government)

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it highlighted a critical blind spot in the original WSIS framework – environmental sustainability. It demonstrated how technological advancement had created entirely new categories of challenges that weren’t anticipated in the original framework.

Impact

This observation contributed to the broader theme of addressing ‘new and still existing challenges’ and reinforced the need for the review to be forward-looking rather than just retrospective. It helped establish environmental sustainability as a key consideration for the updated framework.

To have an effect, will the contributions of non-governmental stakeholders be part of the proceedings record as an official input so that the member states can then reference them and use them in their discussions?

Speaker

Adam Peake

Reason

This seemingly simple procedural question was actually quite profound because it cut to the heart of meaningful participation versus tokenistic consultation. It challenged the assumption that being heard was equivalent to having influence.

Impact

This question directly influenced one of the final messages, which specifically recommended that ‘all stakeholder inputs and proposals be included on the UN’s official record.’ It shifted the discussion from participation processes to participation outcomes and effectiveness.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing three critical themes: the recognition that the digital landscape has been transformed beyond the original WSIS framework’s scope; the need to move from siloed digital governance to integrated approaches across all policy domains; and the imperative to ensure meaningful rather than tokenistic stakeholder participation. The comments created a progression from acknowledging the scale of change, to identifying structural challenges in current approaches, to proposing concrete solutions for more effective and inclusive governance. This dynamic elevated the conversation from a routine policy review to a fundamental reconsideration of how global digital governance should operate in a transformed technological and geopolitical landscape.

How can stakeholder inputs and proposals be formally included in the UN’s official record to ensure they have meaningful impact on the WSIS Plus 20 review process?

Speaker

Adam Peake

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that non-governmental stakeholder contributions are not just heard but actually referenced and used by member states in their discussions, making the multi-stakeholder approach truly effective.

What specific mechanisms should be established to ensure that inputs from National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) are formally integrated into national WSIS Plus 20 positions?

Speaker

Kenyan Parliament member (068)

Explanation

This addresses the need to move beyond parallel voices to trusted feeders of national positions with clear mechanisms for policy adoption and budgetary inclusion.

How can the WSIS Plus 20 process move beyond one-size-fits-all models to adopt inclusive, context-aware approaches that embrace cultural diversity?

Speaker

Lufuno Tshikalange

Explanation

This is important for addressing structural barriers and ensuring meaningful participation from all regions, not just developed countries.

How can public sectors overcome barriers and challenges in digital transformation, particularly regarding capacity building for AI and digital governance?

Speaker

Xianhong Hu (UNESCO)

Explanation

This addresses the significant capacity gaps in policy-making and civil service competencies needed for successful digital transformation in the public sector.

How can the WSIS Plus 20 review systematically explore and integrate governance frameworks for frontier technologies like quantum computing?

Speaker

Xianhong Hu (UNESCO)

Explanation

This is essential for ensuring that the WSIS process continues to address emerging technologies and their complex implications for society.

What concrete mechanisms should be established to ensure coherence and avoid duplication between WSIS outcomes, the Global Digital Compact, and the Sustainable Development Goals?

Speaker

Isabel De Sola

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of maintaining the integrity of the WSIS agenda while integrating it with other UN agendas on climate change, youth, peace and security, and health.

How can gender-related violence facilitated by AI and new technologies be effectively addressed within the WSIS framework?

Speaker

Xianhong Hu (UNESCO)

Explanation

This is critical for creating safe, enabling environments for women and girls, which is essential for any inclusive digital future.

What specific improvements should be implemented to enhance the IGF’s inclusivity and ensure its outcomes lead to concrete action?

Speaker

Multiple participants (reflected in messages)

Explanation

This addresses the need for substantive improvements to make the IGF more effective and impactful beyond just being a discussion forum.