Day 0 Event #123 Making the WSIS+20 moment deliver digital rights and justice – A civil society brainstorming session

Summary

This discussion was a civil society brainstorming session focused on strategizing how to make the WSIS Plus 20 review process deliver digital rights and justice. The session was organized by multiple civil society coalitions, including the Global Digital Justice Forum and the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS, and took place at the Internet Governance Forum 2025. Anna Oosterlinck from Article 19 provided an overview of the current WSIS Plus 20 review process, explaining that co-facilitators from Albania and Kenya had recently issued an “elements paper” on June 20th that outlined key issues heard during consultations with member states and stakeholders.

The elements paper covers various sections including ICT for development, digital economy, human rights and ethics, internet governance, and emerging issues like data governance and artificial intelligence. However, Oosterlinck noted concerns about the lighter treatment of human rights sections and missing language around multi-stakeholder governance models. Ellie McDonald, speaking for the Global Digital Rights Coalition, outlined three core priorities: promoting a human rights-based approach grounded in international human rights law, advancing multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance, and strengthening WSIS institutions like the IGF.

Nandini Chami from the Global Digital Justice Forum presented their campaign focusing on four key agendas: establishing an integrated human rights framework adequate for the digital paradigm, preserving the internet as a global communications commons, ensuring sustainable digital transition, and creating a just international economic order addressing digital colonialism. The session emphasized the need for civil society input through online forms by July 15th and highlighted structural issues in the digital environment, including concerns about digital monopolies and infrastructure control that affect human rights online.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review Process and Elements Paper**: Discussion of the current state of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, including analysis of the recently issued “elements paper” by co-facilitators from Albania and Kenya, and opportunities for civil society input by July 15th deadline.

– **Human Rights-Based Approach to Digital Policy**: Emphasis on grounding digital policy responses in international human rights law, particularly addressing issues like surveillance, censorship, internet governance, and online discrimination, with calls to formally recognize the role of UN human rights bodies.

– **Multistakeholder Governance and IGF Preservation**: Advocacy for maintaining and strengthening multistakeholder approaches in internet governance, reaffirming the São Paulo multistakeholder guidance, and ensuring the continued existence of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multistakeholder space.

– **Digital Justice and Structural Issues**: Focus on addressing structural inequalities in the digital environment, including data extractivism, digital monopolies, corporate accountability, and the need for an expanded understanding of human rights that includes those affected by AI and data value chains but not necessarily online.

– **Sustainable Digital Transition and Global South Perspectives**: Discussion of environmental impacts of digital technologies, universal meaningful connectivity, preserving the internet as a global communications commons, and ensuring equitable international digital economic order.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to strategize how civil society organizations can effectively influence the WSIS Plus 20 review process to advance digital rights and justice. The session was designed as a brainstorming opportunity for multiple civil society coalitions to coordinate their advocacy efforts and develop unified messaging for engaging with governments and international bodies.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was collaborative and strategically focused, with speakers presenting organized, professional analyses while maintaining an activist orientation toward social justice. The discussion maintained urgency throughout due to upcoming deadlines and the importance of the WSIS Plus 20 process, though it became somewhat rushed toward the end due to time constraints. The speakers demonstrated both expertise in technical policy matters and commitment to human rights advocacy.

Speakers

– **Ellie McDonald**: Works for Global Partners Digital, a civil society and human rights organisation working to ensure that human rights underpins the digital environment. Speaking on behalf of the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS.

– **Zach Lampell**: Senior Legal Advisor and Coordinator for Digital Rights at ICNL (International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law).

– **Anna Oosterlinck**: Works for Article 19, a local to global free speech organisation working across the globe trying to promote freedom of expression and related rights.

– **Nandini Chami**: Representative of the Global Digital Justice Forum, which is a coalition of civil society organisations from across the Global South and their allies in the Global North. The Forum works on multi-pronged action to realise the vision of an equitable, just, and development-oriented international digital order.

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Civil Society Strategy Session: Making WSIS Plus 20 Deliver Digital Rights and Justice

## Executive Summary

This civil society brainstorming session brought together representatives from multiple coalitions to strategise how to influence the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The session was organised by the Global Digital Justice Forum and the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS, with the primary objective of coordinating civil society efforts to ensure the review process advances digital rights and justice globally.

The discussion centred on analysing the current state of the WSIS Plus 20 review process, particularly the recently issued “elements paper” by co-facilitators from Albania and Kenya, and developing strategic responses to address identified gaps in human rights language and multistakeholder governance principles. Speakers identified immediate opportunities for civil society engagement whilst highlighting structural issues that need to be addressed in digital governance.

*Note: The transcript quality deteriorates significantly in the latter portion, particularly during some speakers’ remarks, which may affect the completeness of this summary.*

## Current State of WSIS Plus 20 Review Process

Anna Oosterlinck from Article 19, which she describes as “a local to global free speech organisation,” provided an overview of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The co-facilitators from Albania and Kenya issued an “elements paper” on June 20th that represents a critical juncture in the process, as it has not yet crystallised into a zero draft, meaning significant changes remain possible.

The elements paper covers multiple sections including ICT for development, digital economy, social and cultural development, environmental impacts, bridging digital divides, enabling environment, financial mechanisms, human rights and ethics, building confidence and security, internet governance, data governance, artificial intelligence, and capacity building. However, Oosterlinck raised concerns about the treatment of these topics, particularly noting that “there’s a section on human rights and ethics which I really ask for you to look at because that’s a bit of a lighter section.” She also observed that “the multi-stakeholder governance model is a little bit missing in action there.”

The co-facilitators are actively seeking input through an online form with a deadline of July 15th, and have organised open consultations. Oosterlinck specifically invited participants to “fill out that online form” and attend the open consultation scheduled for “Wednesday morning” at IGF.

## Global Digital Rights Coalition Priorities

Ellie McDonald from Global Partners Digital, speaking on behalf of the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS, outlined three core priorities for their advocacy efforts. The coalition started in “October last year” and focuses on ensuring digital rights are properly embedded in the WSIS Plus 20 outcome.

The first priority centres on promoting a human rights-based approach grounded in international human rights law. McDonald emphasised that “policy responses must be grounded in international human rights law, especially regarding surveillance, censorship, and discrimination online.” She noted concerns that “elements paper language is not always consistent with international human rights law in key areas.”

A crucial component involves formal recognition of existing UN human rights institutions. McDonald argued for the need to “formally recognise the role of OHCHR and the other UN human rights bodies and the wealth of interpretive guidance that they bring to the regulation of digital technologies.”

The second priority focuses on advancing multistakeholder approaches in internet governance. McDonald called for the need to “reaffirm and apply São Paulo multistakeholder guidance in practice” in both multilateral and multistakeholder processes.

The third priority involves strengthening WSIS institutions, particularly the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). While acknowledging that the elements paper recognises the importance of the IGF, McDonald noted that “it doesn’t yet make any policy proposals related to it.”

## Global Digital Justice Forum Campaign

Nandini Chami, representing the Global Digital Justice Forum, presented their campaign focusing on four key agendas, reflecting perspectives from civil society organisations across the Global South and their allies in the Global North. She referenced materials available on the table and directed participants to globaldigitaljusticeforum.net for more information.

*Note: Due to transcript quality issues, Nandini’s full remarks are not completely captured, but the following key points were identified:*

The campaign focuses on establishing an integrated human rights framework adequate for the digital paradigm, with Chami advocating for “an expanded idea of what human rights means for all people in the data and AI value chains.” This includes “looking at the rights of those who are affected by data extractivism, but may not be on the Internet, or maybe not being online.”

Additional priorities mentioned include preserving the internet as a global communications commons, ensuring sustainable digital transition, and addressing digital colonialism through corporate accountability measures.

## Structural Issues and Power Dynamics

Zach Lampell, Senior Legal Advisor at ICNL, synthesised concerns from breakout group discussions, noting “there is a lack of acknowledgement of the structural issues in the digital environment” in current policy frameworks.

Lampell highlighted that “persons who control the internet infrastructure really have full control over how we exercise our human rights online.” This observation connects technical infrastructure control to human rights exercise, revealing how technical arrangements become critical human rights issues. The concentration of power in digital infrastructure creates systemic challenges that cannot be addressed through traditional individual rights frameworks alone.

## Areas of Agreement and Coordination

Throughout the discussion, speakers demonstrated alignment on fundamental objectives while offering complementary approaches. All speakers agreed on the centrality of human rights to the WSIS Plus 20 review process and identified significant gaps in the current elements paper.

The speakers showed consensus on addressing structural power issues in digital infrastructure, with both Lampell and Chami emphasising the need to address digital monopolies and infrastructure control.

## Next Steps and Coordination

The session emphasised coordinated civil society engagement in the WSIS Plus 20 process. Immediate action items include:

– Filling out the online form for inputs to the elements paper by the July 15th deadline

– Attending the co-facilitators’ open consultation scheduled for Wednesday morning at IGF

– Both coalitions committed to issuing papers consolidating the session’s discussions

– Continuing coordinated follow-up work between the organisations

## Conclusion

This civil society strategy session identified both opportunities and challenges in the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The speakers’ analysis revealed significant gaps in the current elements paper, particularly regarding human rights language and multistakeholder governance principles. The discussion highlighted the evolution of civil society thinking beyond traditional user rights frameworks to address systemic power imbalances in digital infrastructure and governance.

The strong coordination demonstrated between civil society organisations provides a foundation for advocacy efforts, though the compressed timeline and need for concrete policy proposals present ongoing challenges. The success of these efforts will depend on civil society’s ability to effectively engage with the formal WSIS Plus 20 process through the identified mechanisms and deadlines.

Ellie McDonald: to our session making the WSIS plus 20 moment deliver digital rights and justice a civil society brainstorming session. We are really delighted to be able to host this today. The session is brought to you by the Global Digital Justice Forum represented by I think a number of you in the audience and by my panellist Nandini, the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS, represented by a number of us as well, the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility, the Digital Constitutionalism Network and the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. So we’re really pleased to have a diverse set of civil society organising this. Sorry folks, I think we need to start over for the live transcript. You just bear with us for one more minute. So I think the video is on maybe. Is the mic, can everybody hear me now? Yeah, all right.

Zach Lampell: Hi everyone. Welcome to IGF 2025. My name is Zach Lampell. I am Senior Legal Advisor and Coordinator for Digital Rights at ICNL, the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law. I believe my colleague and friend Ellie has already introduced all of the speakers today. So again, I just wanted to welcome you all to this session where we will be strategising on how civil society can make WSIS plus 20 work for us and work to improve, protect and promote digital rights for everyone around the world. So the idea is really to spend just a few minutes at the beginning, taking stock of where we are and looking at what is coming up over the next six months as the WSIS plus 20 gets renegotiated or negotiated. And then we’ll split into breakout groups where we can have really deep dive and in-depth discussions on the messages that we all want to put out and send out and advocate for with our partners, our communities and our governments. So with that, I will turn it over to Anna for her presentation. Thank you all so much.

Anna Oosterlinck: Thank you so much Zach and hello everyone. I hope you can hear me. It’s a funny thing because this is very high tech at the IGF but I’m usually quite low tech. My name is Anna Osterlink and I work for Article 19 which is a local to global free speech organisation working across the globe trying to promote freedom of expression and related rights. I’m going to start off by sort of situating us in the process right now of the WSIS plus 20 review process which has been ongoing for a little bit. But where are we today? So on the 20th of June which was last Friday, the co-facilitators of the process of the WSIS plus 20 review process, the permanent representatives in New York of Albania and Kenya issued what they call an elements paper. And if you’re like me, you read this on the plane ride over coming here trying to understand what’s in this paper. Now it’s an elements paper. What does that really mean? It means it’s a list of issues that they’ve heard when they were going through their consultations with member states of course but also with stakeholders. And perhaps you were one of the few people being able to speak during the consultations with multi-stakeholders on the 9th and 10th of June which was online. And you’ve raised your issues. Now what is now in this elements paper? So the idea is that it’s a list of issues. It is not yet a zero draft or it’s not yet the first draft of the outcome document that will conclude this WSIS plus 20 review process. It’s important to be aware of that because a lot can still change which can be a positive, maybe also negative. In terms of the actual review paper, sorry issues paper and what’s in there. I’m not going to give you a detailed analysis of this. There’s a lot of issues in there. I think it’s important everyone from their own perspective looks at it and considers it. But I just wanted to raise a few things for you to consider as we’re going later into breakout groups to kind of walk through this and discuss amongst each other. There’s an introduction section which sort of sets out the overall picture. And then there are a number of sections. There’s a section on ICT for development. There’s one on digital economy, social and cultural development, environmental impacts, bridging digital divides and the enabling environment. And financial mechanisms which are the first few sections. They talk about the issues, the progress made, the issues and the invite for input. Then there’s a section on human rights and ethics which I really ask for you to look at because that’s a bit of a lighter section. Then it goes into building confidence and security which it refers to amongst other things to the UN cybercrime convention. And then it talks about internet. and Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani. We’re going to start with the first question, which is, how do we achieve good governance? There, again, I invite you to take a good look. There’s some old language in there which refers sort of the multi-stakeholder governance model is a little bit missing in action there. And then it moves to some of the newer issues that the COFAX will have heard, the data governance, artificial intelligence, and something that’s really important for a lot of people, capacity building. And then it ends with monitoring and measurement. So, this is really important to you, bearing in mind that we’re trying to progress the WSIS plus 20, or we’re trying to progress the WSIS agenda, right, which was originated 20 years ago. So, try to think about progressive language where we can make achievements and move forward. The co-facilitators have asked for inputs into the elements paper. There’s an online form that you can fill out, which asks about the achievements that you see, the challenges that you see remaining, the priorities for actions, do you see any significant changes in the way that we’re doing things and how we’re doing things. And then, of course, there’s a lot of work to be done. So, the co-facilitators have asked for inputs into the elements paper. There’s an online form that you can fill out, which asks about the achievements that you see remaining, the priorities for actions, do you see anything missing here, and do you have any specific comments. This is by the 15th of July. I invite you all to fill out this online form. And also to let you know that on Wednesday morning, the co-facilitators will organize an open consultation for anyone here at the IGF. So, that’s another place where you can go and raise your questions and thoughts. So, everything is there. So, I needed, but I’m sorry that I have cut my time. If you haven’t read it, skim it now and I will pass on to my colleagues.

Ellie McDonald: So, I’m going to start by saying that I work for Global Partners Digital, we’re a civil society and human rights organisation working to ensure that human rights underpins the digital environment. But, today I’m speaking on behalf of the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS. So, I’ll just share briefly a little bit about the coalition and the priorities that we bring to the review process. So, the GDRC WSIS evolves slowly into being from a global partnership. So, we started in October last year, we’re a group of human rights and civil society organisations grown from the global north and south. Offering our shared expertise to ensure a WSIS review anchored in international human rights law and built upon meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement. We’ve agreed on three core priorities as a coalition. These are the basis for our work, however, we really welcome this session as an opportunity to discuss and elaborate on these. So, these priorities are first, to promote a human rights based as well as a people-centric, sustainable and development oriented approach to the WSIS review. For us, this means ensuring that policy responses are grounded in international human rights law, especially in areas including surveillance, censorship, internet governance and discrimination online. Areas where we’ve seen that government responses can be not consistent with international human rights law. Like Anna, I don’t want to prejudge too much the elements paper, but I will say that the language is not always consistent with international human rights law with respect to those areas. Because of our first aim, we also want to promote regulation aligned with international human rights law. And avoiding the normative gaps that we see in other legislation, so, for instance, excluding military applications or private sector applications from scope. We also wish to formally recognise the role of OHCHR and the other UN human rights bodies and the wealth of interpretive guidance that they bring to the regulation of digital technologies. Our second priority is to promote a human rights based approach to the WSIS review. And our third priority is to advance the multistakeholder approach in internet governance and to extend it to digital policy processes. Critically, this means reaffirming and applying in practice the São Paulo multistakeholder guidance. We think they offer really practical and useful guidance for how multistakeholder approaches can be applied in both multilateral as well as multistakeholder processes. And finally, our third priority is to strengthen the WSIS vision and its institutions like the IGF. This includes ensuring that WSIS isn’t subsumed by other more centralising processes. It means implementing new policy frameworks like the Global Digital Compact through the WSIS institutions and ensuring the continued existence of the IGF as a multistakeholder forum in a context of shrinking civic space. Something that is the importance of the IGF is to ensure that multistakeholder policies are implemented in a multistakeholder space. And this is something that we have been working on for a long time. The importance of the IGF is currently recognised in the Elements paper, but it doesn’t yet make any policy proposals related to it. As mentioned, we’re an evolving coalition, so we really welcome that we have this space today to talk through these ideas in a bit more depth. With that, I think I’m handing over to Nandini.

Nandini Chami: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for inviting me to be a part of the IGF and the Global Digital Justice Forum, which is a coalition of civil society organisations from across the Global South and their allies in the Global North, and the Forum is trying to work on multi-pronged action that will realise the vision of an equitable, just, and development-oriented international digital order. So in the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review, the GDJF members, APC and IT4Change, co-ordinated a campaign on digital justice, non-discrimination, and inclusion, and the GDJF members co-ordinated a campaign on digital justice now, a call to action for WSIS Plus 20 and beyond, where the attempt was to speak with civil society organisations and people’s movements, not just working on digital rights, but also traditional development domains and issues pertaining to food sovereignty, the universal right to health, ecological sustainability, workers’ rights, gender justice, and so on, with an attempt to see what is it that we seek out of this year of the Plus 20, and how we can make a difference. So I’ll hand over to Nandini. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. I’m Nandini, and I’m the co-chair of the WSIS Plus 20 review, and other emerging institutional mechanisms on data and AI governance, and what would it take to bring in a human rights and structural justice vision back at the centre. So the details of this campaign are like in a brochure that I have put out there on the table behind, and you can check that out. And we also have voices and testimonies from across different groups in the world, which you can check out on our website, globaldigitaljusticeforum.net, but what I would just now very quickly do is to talk about some of the agenda of the campaign, which becomes very critical in the context of civil society, thinking around the elements paper, and the things that are emerging in WSIS Plus 20 review as policy priorities. So the campaign basically talks about four agendas. So the first agenda is about, you know, ensuring that we have an integrated and indivisible human rights and structural justice framework. And the second agenda is about, you know, ensuring that we have an integrated and indivisible human rights and structural justice framework. And the third agenda is about ensuring that we have an integrated and indivisible human rights framework adequate to the digital paradigm. The elements paper does mention that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, but in the current context, it’s important to move beyond this by looking at the rights of those who are affected by data extractivism, but may not be on the Internet, or maybe not being online, so an expanded idea of what human rights means for all people in the data and AI value chains, and what we can do to ensure that we have an integrated and indivisible human rights and structural justice framework, and what we can do to ensure that we have an integrated and indivisible human rights and structural justice framework adequate to the digital paradigm and AI value chains, and what would it mean to seek corporate accountability in a transnational digital context for enforcement of these rights. The second agenda is about ensuring that we preserve the Internet as a global communication commons, and this would include universal and meaningful connectivity for all, and ensuring we no longer end up with walled gardens. The third agenda would be a very critical priority in the context of climate change, talking about a sustainable digital transition that saves lives. And the fourth agenda would be a very critical priority in the context of climate change, talking about a sustainable digital transition that safeguards the rights of future generations, and finally, a just and international economic order that addresses digital issues. Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos

Zach Lampell: Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Dr. Shumaila Hussain Shahani, Ellie McDonald, Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Bruna Martins dos Santos Thank you everyone so much for a really great discussion or great discussions I should say. We just have a minute left and so apologies for this session being a little bit shorter and more rushed than we had anticipated. But again, everything we’ve heard from the discussions have been really great. So just a couple high-level points that have come out from some of the breakout groups to share with you. First, there is a lack of acknowledgement of the structural issues in the digital environment. What we mean by this is that there’s really nothing, no language that discusses digital monopolies or the internet infrastructure at that layer. And how the people or persons who control the internet infrastructure really have full control over how we exercise our human rights online. So just in the last 30 seconds that I have before we get cut off, I want to thank you all again. I want to thank the other panelists and moderators. I want to thank everyone at the Global Digital Justice Forum as well as everyone at the GDRC WSIS Coalition. We will be issuing a paper on each of these two forums’ websites that bring together our thoughts here today. And we hope that we will be able to work together and follow up so that we can push for a WSIS plus 20 that takes into account all of our and our community’s needs. So thank you all very, very much and I look forward to seeing you throughout the week. Thank you.

Agreement points

Human rights must be central to WSIS Plus 20 review process

Speakers

– Ellie McDonald
– Nandini Chami

Arguments

Policy responses must be grounded in international human rights law, especially regarding surveillance, censorship, and discrimination online

Need for expanded human rights framework that includes those affected by data extractivism who may not be online

Campaign focuses on bringing human rights and structural justice vision to center of digital governance

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that human rights should be the foundational framework for the WSIS Plus 20 review, though Nandini advocates for an expanded understanding that goes beyond traditional online/offline distinctions

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Elements paper has significant gaps and inconsistencies with human rights standards

Speakers

– Anna Oosterlinck
– Ellie McDonald

Arguments

Multistakeholder governance model language is missing in action in the elements paper

Elements paper language is not always consistent with international human rights law in key areas

Summary

Both speakers identify critical deficiencies in the current elements paper, with Anna noting missing multistakeholder language and Ellie highlighting human rights inconsistencies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Need for coordinated civil society engagement in WSIS Plus 20 process

Speakers

– Zach Lampell
– Anna Oosterlinck
– Ellie McDonald
– Nandini Chami

Arguments

Civil society strategy should focus on making WSIS Plus 20 work to protect and promote digital rights globally

Co-facilitators are requesting inputs through online form by July 15th and organizing open consultations

Formal recognition needed for OHCHR and UN human rights bodies’ interpretive guidance on digital technologies

Campaign focuses on bringing human rights and structural justice vision to center of digital governance

Summary

All speakers agree on the importance of strategic civil society participation in the WSIS Plus 20 process, with specific calls for input and coordinated advocacy efforts

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive human rights frameworks in digital governance, with Ellie focusing on traditional human rights law application and Nandini pushing for expanded inclusion of those affected by digital systems but not directly online

Speakers

– Ellie McDonald
– Nandini Chami

Arguments

Policy responses must be grounded in international human rights law, especially regarding surveillance, censorship, and discrimination online

Need for expanded human rights framework that includes those affected by data extractivism who may not be online

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize structural issues in digital governance, focusing on the concentration of power in digital infrastructure and the need to maintain the Internet as an open, accessible commons

Speakers

– Zach Lampell
– Nandini Chami

Arguments

Need for integrated approach addressing digital monopolies and internet infrastructure control issues

Importance of preserving Internet as global communication commons with universal meaningful connectivity

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Both speakers are concerned about the inadequate representation of multistakeholder governance principles in current WSIS Plus 20 discussions and advocate for stronger multistakeholder approaches

Speakers

– Anna Oosterlinck
– Ellie McDonald

Arguments

Multistakeholder governance model language is missing in action in the elements paper

Need to reaffirm and apply São Paulo multistakeholder guidance in both multilateral and multistakeholder processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Structural power issues in digital infrastructure

Speakers

– Zach Lampell
– Nandini Chami

Arguments

Need for integrated approach addressing digital monopolies and internet infrastructure control issues

Importance of preserving Internet as global communication commons with universal meaningful connectivity

Explanation

The consensus on addressing digital monopolies and infrastructure control represents an unexpected convergence between traditional digital rights advocacy and broader structural justice concerns, showing alignment between different civil society approaches

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Inadequacy of current WSIS Plus 20 framework

Speakers

– Anna Oosterlinck
– Ellie McDonald
– Zach Lampell

Arguments

Elements paper issued by co-facilitators contains list of issues but not yet a zero draft, with significant room for change

Elements paper language is not always consistent with international human rights law in key areas

Need for integrated approach addressing digital monopolies and internet infrastructure control issues

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus across speakers from different organizations and perspectives that the current elements paper is fundamentally inadequate, suggesting broad civil society dissatisfaction with the direction of WSIS Plus 20

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists among speakers on the need for human rights-centered approach to WSIS Plus 20, concerns about inadequacies in the current elements paper, importance of multistakeholder governance, and need for coordinated civil society engagement

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The speakers represent different organizations but share fundamental concerns about ensuring WSIS Plus 20 serves civil society goals of digital rights protection, structural justice, and meaningful participation. This strong alignment suggests potential for effective coordinated advocacy efforts in the remaining months of the WSIS Plus 20 process.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate remarkable alignment in their core objectives for the WSIS Plus 20 review process, with no direct disagreements identified. All speakers advocate for human rights-centered approaches, multistakeholder governance, and addressing structural inequalities in digital governance.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. The speakers represent different civil society coalitions but share complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The main differences are in emphasis and scope rather than fundamental disagreements – some focus on applying existing frameworks while others advocate for expanding them. This high level of consensus among civil society representatives suggests strong potential for coordinated advocacy efforts in the WSIS Plus 20 process, though it may also indicate potential challenges in presenting diverse perspectives to policymakers.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive human rights frameworks in digital governance, with Ellie focusing on traditional human rights law application and Nandini pushing for expanded inclusion of those affected by digital systems but not directly online

Speakers

– Ellie McDonald
– Nandini Chami

Arguments

Policy responses must be grounded in international human rights law, especially regarding surveillance, censorship, and discrimination online

Need for expanded human rights framework that includes those affected by data extractivism who may not be online

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize structural issues in digital governance, focusing on the concentration of power in digital infrastructure and the need to maintain the Internet as an open, accessible commons

Speakers

– Zach Lampell
– Nandini Chami

Arguments

Need for integrated approach addressing digital monopolies and internet infrastructure control issues

Importance of preserving Internet as global communication commons with universal meaningful connectivity

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Both speakers are concerned about the inadequate representation of multistakeholder governance principles in current WSIS Plus 20 discussions and advocate for stronger multistakeholder approaches

Speakers

– Anna Oosterlinck
– Ellie McDonald

Arguments

Multistakeholder governance model language is missing in action in the elements paper

Need to reaffirm and apply São Paulo multistakeholder guidance in both multilateral and multistakeholder processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The WSIS Plus 20 elements paper represents a critical juncture where civil society can still influence outcomes, as it’s not yet a zero draft and significant changes are possible

Current elements paper lacks adequate human rights language and multistakeholder governance principles, particularly missing references to the multistakeholder governance model

Civil society coalitions (Global Digital Rights Coalition and Global Digital Justice Forum) have identified three core priority areas: human rights-based approaches, multistakeholder governance, and strengthening WSIS institutions

There is a need for expanded human rights frameworks that address structural issues like digital monopolies and infrastructure control, going beyond traditional online/offline rights protection

The process requires immediate civil society engagement through formal input mechanisms and coordinated advocacy efforts

Resolutions and action items

Fill out the online form for inputs to the elements paper by July 15th deadline

Attend the co-facilitators’ open consultation scheduled for Wednesday morning at IGF

Issue joint papers from both the Global Digital Justice Forum and GDRC WSIS Coalition websites consolidating the session’s discussions

Continue coordinated follow-up work between civil society organizations to push for a WSIS Plus 20 that addresses community needs

Engage in breakout group discussions to develop specific messaging and advocacy strategies

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address the lack of structural justice language regarding digital monopolies and internet infrastructure control in the elements paper

Specific strategies for ensuring multistakeholder governance principles are properly reflected in the final outcome document

Methods for expanding human rights frameworks to include those affected by data extractivism who may not be online

Approaches to ensure WSIS institutions like IGF are strengthened rather than subsumed by other centralizing processes

Detailed coordination mechanisms between different civil society coalitions and their varying priorities

Suggested compromises

None identified

There’s a section on human rights and ethics which I really ask for you to look at because that’s a bit of a lighter section… There’s some old language in there which refers sort of the multi-stakeholder governance model is a little bit missing in action there.

Speaker

Anna Oosterlinck

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies critical gaps in the WSIS+20 elements paper – specifically that human rights content is underdeveloped (‘lighter section’) and that foundational governance principles like multi-stakeholder models are being weakened or omitted. This reveals potential regression rather than progress in digital rights frameworks.

Impact

This observation set the tone for the entire discussion by highlighting that the current draft may be moving backwards on key civil society priorities. It established the urgency for civil society intervention and framed the subsequent speakers’ presentations around strengthening human rights language and multi-stakeholder approaches.

We also wish to formally recognise the role of OHCHR and the other UN human rights bodies and the wealth of interpretive guidance that they bring to the regulation of digital technologies.

Speaker

Ellie McDonald

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it addresses a structural gap in digital governance – the disconnect between established human rights institutions and emerging digital policy processes. It suggests leveraging existing expertise rather than creating parallel systems, which could strengthen accountability mechanisms.

Impact

This comment introduced a concrete institutional solution to the human rights gaps identified earlier. It shifted the discussion from identifying problems to proposing specific mechanisms for embedding human rights expertise into digital governance processes.

An expanded idea of what human rights means for all people in the data and AI value chains… looking at the rights of those who are affected by data extractivism, but may not be on the Internet, or maybe not being online.

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Reason

This is highly insightful because it challenges the conventional ‘online/offline’ human rights framework by recognizing that digital technologies affect people who aren’t direct users. It introduces the concept of ‘data extractivism’ and expands the scope of who should be considered in digital rights discussions, addressing structural inequalities.

Impact

This comment fundamentally reframed the scope of digital rights from individual user rights to systemic impacts on entire communities and value chains. It introduced a more structural and justice-oriented perspective that influenced the final summary’s emphasis on ‘structural issues in the digital environment.’

There is a lack of acknowledgement of the structural issues in the digital environment… persons who control the internet infrastructure really have full control over how we exercise our human rights online.

Speaker

Zach Lampell

Reason

This closing observation synthesizes the discussion by identifying the fundamental power dynamics that underlie digital rights issues. It connects infrastructure control to human rights exercise, revealing how technical architecture becomes a human rights issue.

Impact

As the concluding synthesis, this comment crystallized the key insight from the entire discussion – that digital rights cannot be addressed without confronting the structural power imbalances in digital infrastructure. It provided a unifying framework for understanding the various concerns raised throughout the session.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively deepening the analysis from procedural concerns about policy language to fundamental questions about power structures in digital governance. The conversation evolved from identifying gaps in the WSIS+20 elements paper to articulating a more comprehensive vision of digital justice that addresses structural inequalities, expands the scope of affected populations, and proposes institutional mechanisms for accountability. The comments built upon each other to create a coherent critique that moves beyond traditional digital rights frameworks toward a more systemic understanding of how digital technologies intersect with social justice. This progression culminated in a shared understanding that effective digital rights advocacy must address infrastructure control and structural power imbalances, not just policy language.

How can civil society ensure that the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper incorporates stronger human rights language, particularly in areas like surveillance, censorship, and internet governance?

Speaker

Ellie McDonald

Explanation

She noted that the language in the elements paper is not always consistent with international human rights law in these critical areas, requiring further advocacy and research on how to strengthen these provisions.

What specific policy proposals should be developed to strengthen the IGF’s role and ensure its continued existence as a multistakeholder forum?

Speaker

Ellie McDonald

Explanation

She mentioned that while the importance of the IGF is recognized in the Elements paper, it doesn’t yet make any policy proposals related to it, indicating a need for concrete recommendations.

How can the multistakeholder governance model be better integrated into the WSIS Plus 20 outcome, given its apparent absence from current language?

Speaker

Anna Oosterlinck

Explanation

She specifically noted that the multi-stakeholder governance model is ‘a little bit missing in action’ in the elements paper, suggesting this needs to be addressed.

What does an expanded understanding of human rights mean for people affected by data extractivism who may not be online?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

She emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional ‘same rights online as offline’ approach to consider those affected by AI and data value chains but who aren’t internet users themselves.

How can corporate accountability be enforced in a transnational digital context for human rights violations?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

This was identified as a critical component of ensuring human rights and structural justice in the digital paradigm, but the mechanisms for enforcement remain unclear.

How can civil society address the lack of acknowledgement of structural issues like digital monopolies and internet infrastructure control in digital governance discussions?

Speaker

Zach Lampell

Explanation

He highlighted this as a key finding from the breakout groups, noting that there’s no language discussing how control over internet infrastructure affects human rights exercise online.