Open Forum #83 ITU Call for Inputs on the WSIS+20 Review

Summary

This discussion focused on the ITU’s call for inputs regarding the WSIS Plus 20 review, examining the World Summit on the Information Society’s progress and future direction twenty years after its inception. The session was moderated by Cynthia Lesufi and organized by the ITU and South Africa, bringing together stakeholders to share perspectives on ITU’s contributions to the WSIS Plus 20 review process.

Representatives from Brazil, Australia, Korea, Germany, and Japan presented their countries’ viewpoints on the review process. Key themes emerged around the importance of maintaining and strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones, particularly emphasizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum and WSIS Forum as essential multi-stakeholder platforms. Several speakers stressed that the IGF mandate should not be reopened or renegotiated, but rather strengthened through improved funding and secretariat support.

The discussion highlighted significant progress in global connectivity, with ITU serving as facilitator for multiple WSIS action lines including ICT infrastructure, capacity building, and cybersecurity. However, participants acknowledged that 2.6 billion people remain offline, with the challenge shifting from coverage gaps to usage gaps requiring more nuanced interventions around digital literacy, affordability, and cultural relevance.

Stakeholders from developing countries raised important concerns about ensuring meaningful participation from marginalized communities and the Global South in the review process. Questions were posed about language barriers, the need for multilingual resources, and the importance of grassroots engagement. The discussion emphasized that WSIS outcomes should complement the Global Digital Compact while avoiding duplication of efforts. Participants agreed that the review represents a crucial opportunity to realign digital transformation efforts with principles of inclusion, equity, and development for the next decade.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **ITU’s Role in WSIS Plus 20 Review Process**: The discussion centered on ITU’s call for inputs on the WSIS Plus 20 review, with participants sharing perspectives on ITU’s contributions over the past two decades as facilitator of key action lines (ICT Infrastructure, Capacity Building, Cybersecurity) and coordinator of UN framework activities.

– **Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Platform Strengthening**: Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening existing multi-stakeholder platforms like the WSIS Forum and Internet Governance Forum (IGF), with calls to extend IGF’s mandate without renegotiation and improve its financial foundation and secretariat capacity.

– **Digital Divide and Inclusion Challenges**: Participants highlighted persistent inequalities despite technological progress, noting that 2.6 billion people remain offline and emphasizing the need to address not just coverage gaps but usage gaps, particularly focusing on marginalized communities and developing countries.

– **Integration and Coordination of Digital Governance Frameworks**: Discussion focused on aligning WSIS action lines with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Global Digital Compact (GDC), while avoiding duplication of efforts and improving coordination between various UN processes and mechanisms.

– **Grassroots Participation and Linguistic Barriers**: Speakers raised concerns about ensuring meaningful participation from developing countries and local communities, addressing multilingual needs, and incorporating voices from the grassroots level rather than being dominated by Global North perspectives.

## Overall Purpose:

The session aimed to gather stakeholder input on ITU’s contribution to the WSIS Plus 20 review process, exploring achievements since the Geneva Plan of Action, current challenges, and future directions for digital transformation and governance leading up to the UN high-level event.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants expressing appreciation for ITU’s work while offering thoughtful suggestions for improvement. The atmosphere was professional and forward-looking, with speakers building on each other’s points rather than expressing disagreement. There was a consistent emphasis on inclusivity and the need to ensure developing countries’ voices are heard in the process.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Cynthia Lesufi** – Moderator of the session, representing South Africa in organizing the ITU session

– **Renata Santoyo** – Representative from the Telecommunication Regulator of Brazil, ANATEL

– **William Lee** – Assistant Director from Australia

– **Mina Seonmin Jun** – Vice chair of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDG from Korea

– **Swantje Jager Lindemann** – Representative from Germany

– **Yoichi Iida** – Ex-Vice Minister from Japan, currently a Special Advisor

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Representative from the ITU (International Telecommunication Union)

– **Louvo Gray** – Representative from the South African Internet Governance Forum and telecoms operator in South Africa

– **Abdul Karim** – Representative from University of Ilona in Nigeria

– **Kweku Enchi** – Representative from Ghana IGF

– **Moderator** – Representative from UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)

– **Speaker** – Representative from the Ministry of Communications for the Republic of Cuba

– **Audience** – Mohamed Abdulla Konu from Bangladesh IGF

**Additional speakers:**

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

# ITU WSIS Plus 20 Review Discussion Summary

## Executive Summary

This discussion session, moderated by Cynthia Lesufi from South Africa, focused on gathering inputs for the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. Representatives from multiple countries, UN agencies, and civil society organizations shared their perspectives on WSIS progress and future directions. The ITU Council decided to submit these inputs to the UN General Assembly in December through the ITU Secretary-General, and South Africa as chair of the high-level event will include this discussion in their summary report.

## Background and Context

As explained by Gitanjali Sah from the ITU, the organization serves as sole facilitator of multiple WSIS action lines including ICT Infrastructure, Capacity Building, Cybersecurity, and Enabling Environment, while coordinating with more than 50 UN entities on implementation. The ITU’s call for inputs received over 90 submissions from different sectors, and the WSIS Stocktaking Database now contains 15,000 projects demonstrating the framework’s impact.

The session included co-facilitators Ambassador from Albania and Ambassador from Kenya, reflecting the multi-stakeholder nature of the WSIS review process.

## Key Inputs and Perspectives

### ITU’s Coordinating Role

Multiple speakers recognized ITU’s role in WSIS coordination. Renata Santoyo from Brazil’s telecommunications regulator ANATEL emphasized that “ITU plays a crucial role in demonstrating the value of WSIS architecture and helping address technological challenges.” This coordination function extends across the comprehensive WSIS framework involving multiple action lines and UN agencies.

### Multi-stakeholder Platform Strengthening

Participants emphasized the importance of existing multi-stakeholder platforms. William Lee from Australia noted that the WSIS Forum serves as a vital bridge between the multi-stakeholder community and governments. Mina Seonmin Jun from Korea highlighted that both the WSIS Forum and IGF are essential mechanisms for multi-stakeholder engagement and regional coordination.

Regarding the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Swantje Jager Lindemann from Germany stated that “the IGF mandate should be extended without reopening or renegotiating the existing mandate.” Yoichi Iida from Japan supported this position, noting that the IGF mandate is sufficiently broad and should not be reopened for renegotiation.

Germany proposed establishing long-term stable financial foundation for the IGF and strengthening its secretariat, possibly through appointing a director position. Japan expressed willingness to contribute to IGF funding and secretariat strengthening.

### Digital Divide Evolution

William Lee observed that the digital divide challenge has evolved, noting that “one of the problems is now less and less a coverage gap and more and more a usage gap,” requiring different interventions including digital literacy, technology affordability, online safety, and ensuring online environments are compatible with language and cultural diversity.

Gitanjali Sah noted that 2.6 billion people remain completely offline, while Mina Seonmin Jun provided regional context, explaining that one-third of the Asia-Pacific region remains offline, with systematic barriers particularly affecting developing countries.

### Framework Integration

Participants discussed relationships between WSIS and other frameworks. Renata Santoyo argued that WSIS can be complementary with Global Digital Compact processes, while William Lee referenced the GDC-WSIS-SDG matrix that helps understand linkages between digital development processes.

Mina Seonmin Jun advocated for action lines to integrate more deeply with SDGs and GDCs while tailoring to local needs.

### Maintaining Existing Frameworks

The Cuban representative strongly argued that existing WSIS mechanisms should continue without creating new processes to avoid participation difficulties, particularly for developing countries. They emphasized that WSIS outcome documents remain fully valid and should be reaffirmed without reopening.

## Inclusion and Participation Concerns

Louvo Gray from the South African Internet Governance Forum raised a critical question: “How do we ensure that this process genuinely reflects the voices and the lived realities of developing countries, especially marginalised communities who remain unconnected, rather than being dominated by the narratives from the global north and large technology corporations?”

Mohamed Abdulla Konu from Bangladesh IGF emphasized that voices from developing countries and local IGFs should be meaningfully reflected in outcomes.

Kweku Enchi from Ghana IGF proposed innovative solutions including using retired language teachers as resources to bridge age and technology gaps, and advocating for multilingual translation and grassroots engagement. He suggested bringing together researchers, practitioners, and regulators for better coordination.

## Practical Considerations

Abdul Karim from Nigeria questioned whether ITU output documents would be publicly accessible before submission to the Secretary-General, highlighting transparency concerns in the review process.

Gitanjali Sah responded that ITU is experimenting with advanced interpretation technology at the AI for Good Summit and WSIS Forum to address multilingual participation challenges. She also announced regulatory roundtables bringing together 40+ regulators at the WSIS Forum.

## Key Themes Emerging

Several consistent themes emerged from the discussion:

– Support for maintaining existing WSIS frameworks without reopening negotiations

– Recognition of ITU’s coordinating role across multiple action lines

– Emphasis on strengthening rather than replacing multi-stakeholder platforms

– Concern about ensuring meaningful participation from developing countries

– Recognition that digital divide challenges have evolved from coverage to usage gaps

– Support for better coordination between WSIS and other digital governance frameworks

## Next Steps

As outlined by Cynthia Lesufi, the inputs from this session will be included in South Africa’s summary report as chair of the high-level event. The ITU will submit the compilation of inputs to the UN General Assembly through the Secretary-General in December as part of the WSIS Plus 20 review process.

The discussion provided valuable perspectives from multiple stakeholders that will inform the broader WSIS Plus 20 review, with particular emphasis on strengthening existing mechanisms while addressing evolving challenges in digital inclusion and governance.

Cynthia Lesufi: Good morning everyone and welcome to our session and I want to take this opportunity to welcome all of you for joining us in this IGF 2025 session. The session is called the ITU call for inputs on versus plus 20 review and my name is Cynthia Lissoufi and it is honestly an honor to be your moderator today and this session is organized by the ITU in South Africa and invites all stakeholders. I really want to invite all stakeholders to share their available perspective on ITU’s contribution for versus plus 20 review which is actually informed by the work that the ITU is doing through the ITU council working group on versus and there is a specific resolution that is actually guiding this particular process the ITU council resolution which has actually invited member states and stakeholders to share their views on the ITU’s work on versus plus 20 review including the ideas on reviewing versus action lines through the council working group versus and SDGs and with us, I also want to recognize Ambassador from Albania, one of the co-facilitators is Ambassador Kenyan. Welcome and thank you for joining us and okay and I see, I apologize and I see the Ambassador from Kenya, the two co-facilitators are actually joining us today. We are really honored for you to be joining us. So, as I’ve mentioned, you know, I just want to highlight this particular session. Our aim here is to really to explore the important areas, including the remakeable strides and evolving challenges since the Geneva Plan of Action, the crucial elements of the OASIS process with a transformative 2030 agenda and the exciting trajectory of OASIS beyond 2025. And this session will also highlight the ITU’s impactful work over the past two decades and underscore the paramount importance of inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement in fostering comprehensive and forward-looking review of the OASIS process. And with this, really, I want to welcome all my panelists with me here and I will then start by inviting Ms. Renata Santoyo from the Telecommunication Regulator of Brazil, ANATEL. Ms. Renata, can you please take the floor? Thank you.

Renata Santoyo: Thank you, Cinthia. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Gitanjali, for being here, all the panelists and all the judges, of course. Well, the last years I had the opportunity to be closer to the OASIS. and Gitanjali Sah, Renata Figueiredo Santoyo and Gitanjali Sah, Renata Figueiredo Santoyo and Gitanjali Sah, Renata Figueiredo Santoyo and Gitanjali Sah, Renata Figueiredo Santoyo and Gitanjali Sah, Renata Figueiredo Santoyo and Gitanjali Sah, Renata Figueiredo Santoyo and Gitanjali Sah, Renata Figueiredo Santoyo and together with the process with GDC, they can be complementary. The GDC can, I think, after the call of inputs, we could see that the WISD architecture is very valuable for the whole process and we can add with also the element paper that we had last week so I think we can see that all the documents together, all the inputs together can look at the future and can help to the challenges that we still have with the fast technological changes help to the digital divide, all the new challenges like cyber security, help with inclusivity so I think the call for input was very valuable for the process and to show that ITU plays a very vital role in the process. That’s it, thank you very much.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you, Renata, for sharing those incredible valuable inputs from the Brazilian perspective on the ITU’s call for WSIS Plus 20 review. Now, on the second panelist that I want to call is Mr. William Lee, an Assistant Director from Australia. Is William Lee in the room? Yes, yes. Hey, William. Sorry, please take the floor.

William Lee: Thank you very much, Cynthia, and it’s a pleasure to be here and let me acknowledge the hard work that ITU and South Africa have been putting in to prepare the ITU community for the WSIS Plus 20 review process. Probably just, I guess, four points to acknowledge in terms of the contribution that ITU is making and is continuing to make to the WSIS process. I think one of the first things to call out is the work done by UNGASS and in particular ITU in relation to the GDC, WSIS and SDG matrix. I think as a government we have found that particularly helpful to understand where the linkages and commonalities lie between the various processes that are going on and to orientate where WSIS plus 20 can take forward meaningful actions into the next 10 or 20 years of digital development and digital transformation. The second thing that I would acknowledge is the WSIS Forum. I think that is an important part of the cycle of conversation that happens between the IGF, the national and regional initiatives, intergovernmental consultation and the WSIS Forum acts as a vital bridge between the multi-stakeholder community and government. And I know we’re meeting again in a couple of weeks on the WSIS Forum and it’s very impressive to see the number of governments and other stakeholders engaging in that process and serving as that bridge between the multi-stakeholder discussions happening here at IGF and the conversations happening in Geneva. The third point I think to pick up on the call for contributions and the call for inputs, we saw over 90 submissions to that ITU call for inputs which were extremely valuable in understanding the perspectives of different parts of the ITU community, whether that’s from the standard sector, the development sector or the radio communication sector, all really, really useful inputs. And I think the inputs that were received coupled with conversations such as on multilingualism in another council working group really show what is possible, what governments are looking for, what stakeholders are looking for and what WSIS Plus 20 can deliver into the future. And then finally, simply to acknowledge the 15,000 projects that have happened through the WSIS Stocktaking Database have really shown in a very practical and tangible sense the impact that the WSIS Framework and the WSIS Action Lines are having. And I think ITU has done an excellent job in collating that information, in championing the support for those projects, shining a light on areas that might not otherwise have seen the light of day, and helping all of us as a multi-stakeholder community contribute to the development of the WSIS objectives and the WSIS vision. So I think there is a bright future ahead. I know as a member of the ITU community, we are excited to see where the WSIS plus 20 process goes. And as a member of the IGF community, keen to continue to see ITU contributing alongside other stakeholders in the WSIS Framework to deliver outcomes over the coming years.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thanks very much, Cynthia. Thank you, William, for sharing with us those thoughtful contributions on what is it that the ITU is doing with regard to the implementation of WSIS outcomes and what is the future. And doing that, of course, responding to the ITU’s call. I now want to give the floor to Ms. Mina from the – as a vice chair of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDG from Japan. I mean, from Korea. From Korea. I apologize.

Mina Seonmin Jun: From Korea. Thank you, Cynthia. Good morning, everyone. Yes, Japan and Korea, we are best friends. You can come next. And then I welcome both ambassadors here. And then you have really good, important job in your hands. We are looking forward to meeting you in the coming WSIS high-level event in UN. Well, as we mark two decades since the launch of the WSIS process, we are not only looking back, but we are looking ahead and with urgency. So the WSIS plus 20 review is a crucial opportunity to reassess whether our digital transformation is truly aligned with the principle we agreed upon, inclusion, equity, and development. In many years, WSIS and the Asia-Pacific region reflected both the promise and the paradox of the digital process. We’ve seen great advancement, 5G now reaches like 65% of our population, and news internet usage exceeds like 82%, far above the regional average. And countries have made tangible strides in digital infrastructure, inclusion, and innovation with the support of ITU and the WSIS community. Yet, deep inequality persists. One third of our region remains offline, and many small island and then landlocked developing countries continue to face systematic barriers to meaningful connectivity. This mixed picture reminds us that the digital transformation must be measured not only in bandwidth, but in equity and then impact. That’s why the WSIS plus 20 process must be supported by strong inclusive platforms. And here, both the WSIS forum and the Internet Governance Forum plays an indispensable role. These aren’t just like annual meetings, they are essential mechanism for multi-stakeholder engagement and then regional voice and then global coordination. So their contributions must be fully reflected in the lead up to the UN high-level events in New York and this December. So this connection must not be overlooked. And the WSIS plus 20 gives us the opportunity to re-energize and our shaped goals. to integrate the action lines more deeply with the SDGs and GDCs and then to tailor implementation to local needs and to uphold the spirit of collaborative, multi-stakeholder governance. So WSIS was not just a framework of the past, but it is a living process and now is the time to renew it, like boldly, fairly and together.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you. Thank you, Mina, for sharing with us the, I would say, the Asia-Pacific’s views on the ITU call for inputs on the WSIS Plus 20 review. And I want to take this opportunity to welcome Ms. Lindemann from Germany to take us through their views on those things. Yes, thank you very much for having me. Sorry, I just…

Swantje Jager Lindemann: Well, as previous speakers pointed out, we are very happy that we can contribute meaningful in the WSIS Plus 20 process. And so therefore, of course, we appreciated also the ITU’s process within. We think this year marks a key moment for internet governance and international digital policy with this review process and the follow-up to the GDC. Having that said, the WSIS Plus 20 negotiation will require careful diplomacy to build a constructive and forward-looking agenda. Key priorities for us and the European Union include the extension of the Internet Governance Forum mandate and ensuring meaningful multi-stakeholder participation. One way to support this is by involving this IGF multi-stakeholder advisory group through the proposed sounding board, as it was suggested by the European Union. So we think this is a really great idea. And we are also very pleased that the co-facilitators who are actually in the room as well. Thank you so much for this. I took up the idea and have launched the call for application for the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board. We believe the IGF mandate should not be reopened or renegotiated. From our perspective, the existing mandate is sufficiently broad. A top priority to secure a long-term and stable financial foundation for the IGF to ensure its full implementation of its mandate. So we do see value in strengthening the IGF Secretariat. Maybe we were pondering about ideas through the appointment of a director, a post that had been there in the past and hasn’t been reappointed. We also encouraged improved public outreach and communication from the IGF and its Secretariat. And in addition, we support aligning the follow-up to the GDC compact with the business action lines. Finally, we advocate for the strengthening of the role of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Digital Matters. Thank you so much. This is from my side. Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you for sharing with us Gemini’s perspective on this important call. And now I want to invite Mr. Aida, the ex-Vice Minister from Japan. He’s currently a Special Advisor. Mr. Aida, please take the floor. Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for this opportunity. So, very similar to a German colleague, our priority is not only to maintain IGF but also to strengthen this platform as the multi-stakeholder. platform to discuss internet governance and we don’t also support the renegotiating the mandate and also we don’t want to open the discussion on action line. We also support the strengthening the secretariat of IGF and we have to think about the funding but we would be very positive to contribute. We also understand there are some AI part and we do not support duplication with existing instrument but the output related to AI needs to be streamlined and also inclusive. So that is our position. Thank you very much.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you Mr Aida for sharing Japan’s perspective on the WSIS plus 20 review and I now want to

Gitanjali Sah: invite Ms Gitanjali Sah from the ITU. Please take the floor. Thank you Cynthia. We’d like to thank the COFAX for joining our session. Thank you ambassadors. We of course as secretariat at the ITU work under the guidance of our membership and the chair Cynthia and our vice chairs Mina, Renata, of course those of you who could not be with us Susanna from Sweden, Janet from Africa and Ahmed from Iraq who are currently serving as vice chairs at the council working group. So the responses highlighted that in 20 years of implementation the WSIS process has significantly advanced the global connectivity, reduced digital divide and promoted inclusive digital transformation. ITU has been instrumental in implementing the WSIS process, providing leadership across many domains as the sole facilitator of ICT Infrastructure Action Line C2, Capacity Building C4, Building Confidence and Security in the Use of ICT, Cyber Security C5 and C6, the Enabling Environment. Additionally, ITU has been a central coordinator for this UN framework, working with more than 50 UN entities nearly on a day-to-day basis, based on our respective mandates. We just had a session before this where we had FAO, UNESCO, UNDP and many other UN agencies working with us together in implementing the WSIS process. The comments and inputs also highlight with respect to the WSIS process and the pact of the future and its GDC to leverage existing mechanisms along with its key elements such as the WSIS Action Lines, UNGIS, WSIS Stocktaking, WSIS Forum, IGF, which provide a comprehensive framework for implementing the commitments outlined in GDC. The inputs, of course, also outline ways to maintain and strengthen multi-stakeholder platforms like the WSIS Forum and the IGF. The call for inputs as decided in the ITU Council last week, Cynthia, perhaps you can also provide the way forward that was decided. The Secretary-General will definitely input this through her WSIS Plus 20 report to the UNGA overall review. And as ITU, the Secretary-General also noted in her opening address that 2.6 billion people are still completely offline. Closing these digital divides and building digital governance together with urgency is very timely. It means that securing global digital infrastructure is secure and resilient from submarine cables to satellite networks, setting trustworthy technical standards, innovation in AI especially, of course innovation in emerging tech, especially AI is sustainable and responsible. So ITU of course is working with all its membership and all stakeholders to make sure that connectivity is not just universal but meaningful, it’s safe, affordable and empowering.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you so much Madam Chair, back to you. Thank you very much Gitanjali for taking us through the summary of the call for input. Yes indeed, as you have highlighted, the ITU is currently holding its ITU council, however this issue was also discussed in the council and the decision of the council was to actually submit this to the upcoming UNGA in December and this will be submitted by the ITU Secretary-General. But not only that, the council also decided that through the chairperson of the high-level event, the upcoming high-level event which is South Africa would also include this in the summary report that the chair will be producing and the intention of that report is also to submit to the upcoming high-level event. And with this, ladies and gentlemen, I now want to open the floor for comments. UNDP, please take the floor.

Moderator: There we go, I apologise for that. So just my thanks to ITU and South Africa for organising this event, for giving UNDP the floor. We just wanted to reiterate that as a member of the United Nations Group on the Information Society that the UK had mentioned. had mentioned that we, as one of the UN agencies, the United Nations Development Programme, stand ready to support the co-facilitators, the member states, the stakeholder community in any way that we can to continue this very important multi-stakeholder dialogue. We work very closely in New York and so this connection between Geneva, New York, other parts of the world will be particularly important and that we really, as the UN system, stand ready to support in any way possible and that we are looking forward to the outcomes of the WSIS Pursuant to Review. So just again to reiterate our thanks to being part of this conversation and our readiness as the UN system to make sure that the very important multi-stakeholder conversations that start here, begun elsewhere, translate into impact, into delivery and concrete contributions to improving the lives of communities and peoples that we serve. Thank you very much for giving me the floor. Thank you, Euping, UNDP. Of course, the ITU do work with all UN agencies and we appreciate your input. Any person asking for the floor? I see Cuba asking for the floor.

Speaker: Thank you, Madam Moderator and Panelist. I represent the Ministry of Communications for the Republic of Cuba and we have submitted a contribution for the WSIS Plus 20 process to the CSTD, also to the ITU, and I think it will be submitted also to the co-facilitators. I just want to mention some key parts of this contribution. The first one is that we think that the outcome documents of both phases of WSIS remain fully valid and should be reaffirmed. The concepts, principles and objectives that should govern the construction of the information society were meticulously drafted and negotiated over more than two years. As a result, the WSIS outcome documents have a depth generality and breadth that makes them remain fully relevant despite the elapsed time and the emergence of new technologies, so they do not need to be updated, reopened or renegotiated. They should be reaffirmed as was done in the 2024 Summit of the Future. Another key aspect of the contribution is that we believe that no new mechanisms and processes should be created for the implementation and follow-up of the WSIS and the Global Digital Compact, because the increase in the amount of governance mechanisms and processes in the digital world make it difficult for many Member States, particularly developing countries, to participate. This diminishes the inclusiveness of these mechanisms and processes, as many countries and regions of the world would not be adequately represented. The other key element, I’m just going fast, is that the existing processes and forums of the WSIS implementation and follow-up mechanism at the international level should continue. We then mentioned the Internet Governance Forum that has been mentioned here, and that the mandate of the existing is sufficient to keep as it’s mandated as a policy dialogue, multi-stakeholder policy dialogue forum. Also, the importance of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, because it’s a space open for intergovernmental discussions that is also necessary in this framework. Of course, this has been tasked with the follow-up and revision of the outcomes of WSIS, but it could be widened to some more, like recently it’s open for data governance and some others, so it’s another one. Of course, the WSIS forum should continue, but we emphasize that it should focus more on the follow-up of the action lines and the accountability of the facilitator moderators of those action lines. At the end, I will give a personal comment around that. and the final point and of course the General Assembly is the all this you know every year goes to the General Assembly as the at the end of this process and the other key point that this process need to be improved and need to be increased the communication linkage between them to avoid duplication and emphasize synergies. Those in a nutshell is is the content of the contribution now I’m going to make a comment just to underline what we are mentioned about the WSIS forum because we are now focusing here in the ITTU we believe and that’s also in the contribution that the action lines should be a sort of a cleaning house for all the activities regarding the topic because it’s cross-cutting around thematics for instance I’m going to put an example in which I have personal experience the the there’s one action line regarding cyber security but on the other hand there’s some other process even within the United Nations like the Operating Working Group in the first commission and sometimes there’s no communication between those two processes and that that could reinforce each other and avoid duplication the same could happen and happens with some other action line so I think that this was mentioned before that one of the parts of improvement of all these processes to increase the complementarity by making formal linkages maybe formal liaisons between all these processes in order to avoid duplication and I will repeat in in in the Open Ended Working Group of Cyber Security in New York there are many action-oriented Recommendations that could fit very well within the WSIS Action Line in cybersecurity. Thank you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you Cuba for sharing Cuba’s perspective on the WSIS Plus 20 review. Is there anyone asking for the floor? Yes.

Louvo Gray: Thank you very much. My name is Louvo Gray. I am from the South African Internet Governance Forum and I’m also a telecoms operator in South Africa. So we recently held our Internet Governance Forum in South Africa in April. And one of the questions that were asked were, so as the ITU calls for inputs on the WSIS Plus 20 review, how do we ensure that this process genuinely reflects the voices and the lived realities of developing countries, especially marginalized communities who remain unconnected? So rather than being dominated by the narratives from the global north and large technology corporations. Thank you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you Mr. Louvo from South Africa for highlighting South Africa’s view. And you know, I think from one of the stakeholders of South Africa and we thank you very much. And I’m sure the co-facilitators are listening, then they will then take this into consideration. Anyone asking for the floor? Yes. And Nigeria, from Nigeria.

Abdul Karim: Thank you very much Cynthia. My name is Abdu Karim. I am from University of Ilona in Nigeria. I want to first of all commend you for those wonderful presentations and all the panelists for those wonderful presentations they made earlier. I have a question which is regarding the next steps. The document has been approved by the ITU Council, as you suggested, and I know that most of the documents by ITU are restricted documents. Would the output document be published so that the general public will be able to view this document before it’s submitted to the Secretary General? Thank you very much. Thank you. I will try and answer this and

Cynthia Lesufi: Gitanjali can try and add. The documents, as we speak, they are currently published on the ITU website. However, there are those documents that the member states and stakeholders have requested that they shouldn’t be published, but those which they have agreed that they can be published are currently on the ITU website. So anyone is free to go to the ITU website and access the contribution coming from different stakeholders. Thank you. Anyone asking for the floor? So I don’t see anyone. Okay. Chair, there are some online questions and the producer is just going to send them to us. Maybe, Chair, if you permit, I can also respond to the South African participants’ question.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, sir. Of course, we must all never forget that WSIS was about bringing technology to the people. So it is about serving the underserved and to make sure that the process reaches the last mile. This is the reason why all our policy-making processes in terms of WSIS are bottom-up. For example, the agenda of the WSIS Forum, the agenda of the IGF, the ITU call for inputs was also open to all stakeholders and we received many from civil society. I do hope you also participated in it, but just to let you know that the ultimate goal of the WSIS process is to ensure that technology benefits the last mile and that we are bringing the opportunities of technology to everyone everywhere. Producers, do we have the questions, please? Could you read them out? Sorry, we’re just waiting for the producers to send us the questions or read them out. Or they can put them on the screen, if it’s possible. I don’t know what happened to my Wi-Fi. Is there anyone wanting to take the floor while we are waiting for the questions to be put on the screen? Okay, yes, please take the floor.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you, as an observation. Thank you. I’m not so sure if the ITU secretariat want to say something on the observation. Renata Figueiredo Santoyo Sure, Cynthia. As we heard today, of course, you know, there are challenges that remain.

Gitanjali Sah: It’s a huge task like Anirudh from the civil society mentioned in the previous session that it was very ambitious connecting the entire world, bringing the benefits of technology to all over the world, making sure there are capacity building programs, making sure what UNESCO does in the sense of building a knowledge community, like converting information into knowledge. It’s a huge task and we as UN agencies are adhering to the WSIS framework to ensure that, you know, we are able to provide those in a manner that we are not duplicating each other’s mandates and that we are committed towards providing these benefits of technology to all. So, and we have been asked to be ambitious to continue this momentum that stakeholders have built and to ensure that we bring this energy of the stakeholders into the WSIS plus 20 overall review, which is going on right now. And this is the reason why IGF and WSIS forum are so important, so that all these views converge and they are inputted into the UNGA overall review as well. So thank you so much, sir, for bringing that to our attention. I see William wanting to take the floor, William Australia.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thanks very much, Cynthia.

William Lee: And just to build on your question, I think one of the things we have seen is that the problem is now less and less a coverage gap and more and more a usage gap. And that requires a very different set of interventions and ideas and opportunities to close that gap. whether it’s a question of digital literacy, whether it’s a question of access to the technology and affordability of that technology, whether it’s a question of online safety, whether it’s a question of ensuring that the online environment is compatible with the language and the cultural diversity of the people we are trying to connect online. It’s a far more nuanced problem than simply putting up a mobile tower or connecting a community with a line, although those are really important interventions still. So I think WSIS Plus 20 is the opportunity to get actions and ideas to close those gaps and get the excellent work of all of the UN agencies, governments and other stakeholders pointing into that direction to keep that number moving in the right direction.

Cynthia Lesufi: So that was the only thing I wanted to add to that. Excellent question. Thank you.

Abdul Karim: Quickly, just to also mention, Cynthia, sorry, that the value we’re looking at, the 2.6 billion, the numbers are reducing. It’s because we are looking at the numbers in terms of the billions. So by the time we narrow it down to the numbers, it’s not 2.6, it’s yes, 2.6 billion because it’s on the billions.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you. Thank you for adding on William’s comment. I now give the floor to the next speaker.

Kweku Enchi: Thank you so much. My name is Kweku Enchi from Ghana IGF. There are two things I’d like to suggest. The first one for most of us who come from multi bilingual countries, most of the times when we are having our processes and activities, being able to translate to have meaningful connectivity and also understanding from a multicultural and multi linguistic barriers becomes problems because we do not translate the information and even the skills material training into language in which our locality, especially our grassroots, picking up from Professor Lee McKnight, being able to connect the next billion is going to be from the grassroots. It’s not going to be from top down. So the suggestion I always make, especially across Africa, is that to be able to translate this and have it in material which is understandable for the people, we have a lot of teachers who are language teachers. But most importantly, to bridge that divide, especially in terms of technology for our older folks, the older language retired teachers are a resource we can also tap into because they will be retired and they will have some time on their hands to be able to help us and so bridge the age gap. The second point is this. We formed the International Association of Regulation last year in the University of Pennsylvania. And one of the things that I find, especially from my regulatory background, is that very often most of the constituencies that we want to bring together, regulators, those who are doing the research, and the private practitioners, most of the panels that we have sometimes do not bring together what I call the triad or the quadruple triad or whatever it is. So those who do the research in the active field, those who are applying it, those who are regulating, I know ITU and the rest are doing some stuff, but on international front, especially for the upcoming WSIS, I know there was a call to suggest panels. Unfortunately, I couldn’t suggest any of these, but maybe if there’s still an opportunity for us to be able to bring the regulators, those who are using the data, those acting in the field, and let’s have that kind of conversation because you’ve done some great work and I think these are some of the things that you can be able to do, and especially the grassroots, bring some of the grassroots people as well. Thank you so much. Thank you,

Cynthia Lesufi: sir, for that valuable input and comments. I will then give the floor to the ITU to react to the comments. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for that very important question. You touched about

Gitanjali Sah: interpretation. We also have been facing a lot of challenge with that because the more interpretation we provide, the more participation we get. For instance, we started the Mayor’s Roundtable at the WSIS Forum last year and we realized that the Chiefs and the Mayors really require interpretation for the conversation to be valuable. So this challenge we are being able to now overcome with the advances in technology. We are being able to get many languages using the different advances in the technology for interpretation. So we will try those also at the AI for Good Summit at the 7th to 11th of July and some of it at the WSIS Forum as well. But within this UN system, we also have processes that we have to follow with the interpretation teams, with the interpreters. So we will do our best, you know, making sure we don’t break any of the rules. But we are experimenting with this at the AI for Good with several languages and with remote interpretation teams. So please do use those and let us know how it works. For the regulators, we have around 40 plus regulators coming to the WSIS Forum and we will have a regulatory roundtable and several interactive discussions where you can interact with the regulators.

Cynthia Lesufi: Back to you, Chair. Thank you very much, Gitanjali, for that. Is there any other question? I think, okay, there is last question because I think our time is over.

Audience: This is Mohamed Abdulla Konu from Bangladesh IGF. I have some observation. As we approach, how does the ITU plan to ensure that voice from developing countries and local IGF, as like Bangladesh, are meaningfully reflected in the review outcome, especially regarding digital inclusion, capacity building, and involvement in multi-stakeholder ecosystem?

Cynthia Lesufi: This is my question. Thank you, sir, for that question. So my plea is that those who have questions, including the question that you have raised, Please be vocal at the upcoming Western High Level Event Forum and some of these things we will then be able to capture them. And with this, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for the speakers and also to thank the co-facilitators for joining us and I’m sure you’ve heard what the stakeholders are saying. And thank you very much for the questions and this was really an insightful session. Thank you very much. What’s up? What’s up? Thank you. Producer review Alina documentary Editor-in-chief Actors Cast Music Developers

Agreement points

IGF mandate should not be reopened or renegotiated

Speakers

– Swantje Jager Lindemann
– Yoichi Iida

Arguments

IGF mandate should be extended without reopening or renegotiating existing mandate

IGF mandate is sufficiently broad and should not be reopened for renegotiation

Summary

Both Germany and Japan strongly agree that the existing IGF mandate is sufficient and should be extended without any renegotiation or reopening of discussions on the mandate itself

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Multi-stakeholder platforms (WSIS Forum and IGF) are essential mechanisms

Speakers

– William Lee
– Mina Seonmin Jun

Arguments

WSIS Forum serves as vital bridge between multi-stakeholder community and governments

Both WSIS Forum and IGF are essential mechanisms for multi-stakeholder engagement and regional coordination

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that WSIS Forum and IGF are not just meetings but essential mechanisms for multi-stakeholder engagement and coordination between different levels of governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

WSIS outcome documents should remain valid without reopening

Speakers

– Speaker
– Swantje Jager Lindemann
– Yoichi Iida

Arguments

WSIS outcome documents remain fully valid and should be reaffirmed without reopening

IGF mandate should be extended without reopening or renegotiating existing mandate

IGF mandate is sufficiently broad and should not be reopened for renegotiation

Summary

Multiple speakers agree that existing WSIS frameworks and documents should be maintained and reaffirmed rather than reopened for renegotiation, as they remain relevant and comprehensive

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Need for strengthening IGF institutional support

Speakers

– Swantje Jager Lindemann
– Yoichi Iida

Arguments

Long-term stable financial foundation needed for IGF full mandate implementation

IGF Secretariat should be strengthened, possibly through appointing a director position

Positive contribution willingness expressed for IGF funding and secretariat strengthening

Summary

Both Germany and Japan agree on the need to strengthen IGF through better funding and institutional support, with Japan expressing willingness to contribute financially

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from developing countries (South Africa and Bangladesh) express concern about ensuring meaningful participation and representation of developing country perspectives in the WSIS Plus 20 process

Speakers

– Louvo Gray
– Audience

Arguments

Process should genuinely reflect voices of developing countries and marginalized communities

Voices from developing countries and local IGFs should be meaningfully reflected in outcomes

Topics

Development | Human rights | Digital access

Both speakers see value in integrating WSIS with other frameworks like GDC and SDGs rather than creating separate processes, emphasizing complementarity and coordination

Speakers

– Renata Santoyo
– Mina Seonmin Jun

Arguments

WSIS can be complementary with Global Digital Compact (GDC) processes

Action lines should integrate more deeply with SDGs and GDCs while tailoring to local needs

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers acknowledge that digital divide challenges have evolved and require more nuanced approaches beyond basic infrastructure, focusing on meaningful connectivity and usage

Speakers

– William Lee
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Problem has shifted from coverage gap to usage gap requiring different interventions

2.6 billion people remain completely offline, requiring urgent action on digital divides

Topics

Development | Digital access

Unexpected consensus

Avoiding duplication and new mechanisms

Speakers

– Speaker
– Yoichi Iida
– Swantje Jager Lindemann

Arguments

Existing WSIS mechanisms should continue without creating new processes to avoid participation difficulties

AI-related outputs should be streamlined and inclusive without duplicating existing instruments

IGF mandate should be extended without reopening or renegotiating existing mandate

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus across different regions (Cuba, Japan, Germany) against creating new mechanisms or duplicating existing processes, showing pragmatic agreement on institutional efficiency despite different political contexts

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

ITU’s central coordinating role recognition

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– William Lee
– Renata Santoyo
– Moderator

Arguments

ITU acts as central coordinator working with 50+ UN entities on daily basis for WSIS implementation

ITU’s call for inputs received over 90 valuable submissions from different sectors showing community engagement

ITU plays vital role in showing WSIS architecture value and helping address technological challenges

UN system stands ready to support co-facilitators and stakeholder community

Explanation

There is broad consensus across different stakeholders (ITU, Australia, Brazil, UNDP) about ITU’s valuable coordinating role, which is unexpected given typical inter-agency competition in UN system

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows strong consensus on maintaining existing WSIS frameworks without reopening negotiations, strengthening multi-stakeholder platforms like IGF, avoiding duplication of mechanisms, and recognizing ITU’s coordinating role. There is also shared concern about ensuring developing country participation and addressing evolving digital divide challenges.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on institutional and procedural matters, with broad agreement on preserving existing frameworks while strengthening implementation. This suggests the WSIS Plus 20 process has strong foundational support for continuity rather than radical restructuring, which could facilitate smoother negotiations and implementation.

Different viewpoints

Whether to create new mechanisms or rely solely on existing WSIS processes

Speakers

– Speaker
– Swantje Jager Lindemann
– Yoichi Iida

Arguments

Existing WSIS mechanisms should continue without creating new processes to avoid participation difficulties

Multi-stakeholder sounding board should involve IGF advisory group as proposed by EU

Summary

Cuba (Speaker) strongly opposes creating any new mechanisms, arguing it would make participation difficult for developing countries. However, Germany proposes creating a new informal multi-stakeholder sounding board involving the IGF advisory group, which represents a direct contradiction to Cuba’s position.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Approach to WSIS outcome documents – reaffirmation vs. integration with new frameworks

Speakers

– Speaker
– Mina Seonmin Jun
– Renata Santoyo

Arguments

WSIS outcome documents remain fully valid and should be reaffirmed without reopening

Action lines should integrate more deeply with SDGs and GDCs while tailoring to local needs

WSIS can be complementary with Global Digital Compact (GDC) processes

Summary

Cuba advocates for simply reaffirming existing WSIS documents without any changes, while Korea and Brazil support deeper integration and complementarity with newer frameworks like SDGs and GDC, suggesting a more evolutionary approach.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Transparency and public access to ITU documents

Speakers

– Abdul Karim
– Cynthia Lesufi

Arguments

ITU output documents should be publicly accessible before submission to Secretary General

ITU Council decided to submit call for inputs to UNGA and include in high-level event summary report

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because it reveals a fundamental tension about transparency in the WSIS process. While the moderator explains the formal submission process, the question highlights concerns about public access to documents before they are submitted, suggesting potential issues with transparency that weren’t anticipated as a major discussion point.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on institutional approaches (new mechanisms vs. existing ones), document treatment (reaffirmation vs. integration), and inclusion methods for developing countries. There’s also an underlying tension about transparency and access.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications. While speakers share common goals around maintaining WSIS relevance and ensuring inclusion, their different approaches could lead to conflicting implementation strategies. The disagreement between preserving existing frameworks versus creating new mechanisms could impact the effectiveness of the WSIS Plus 20 review process and its ability to address evolving digital challenges.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from developing countries (South Africa and Bangladesh) express concern about ensuring meaningful participation and representation of developing country perspectives in the WSIS Plus 20 process

Speakers

– Louvo Gray
– Audience

Arguments

Process should genuinely reflect voices of developing countries and marginalized communities

Voices from developing countries and local IGFs should be meaningfully reflected in outcomes

Topics

Development | Human rights | Digital access

Both speakers see value in integrating WSIS with other frameworks like GDC and SDGs rather than creating separate processes, emphasizing complementarity and coordination

Speakers

– Renata Santoyo
– Mina Seonmin Jun

Arguments

WSIS can be complementary with Global Digital Compact (GDC) processes

Action lines should integrate more deeply with SDGs and GDCs while tailoring to local needs

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers acknowledge that digital divide challenges have evolved and require more nuanced approaches beyond basic infrastructure, focusing on meaningful connectivity and usage

Speakers

– William Lee
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Problem has shifted from coverage gap to usage gap requiring different interventions

2.6 billion people remain completely offline, requiring urgent action on digital divides

Topics

Development | Digital access

Key takeaways

ITU plays a central coordinating role in WSIS implementation, serving as sole facilitator of multiple action lines and working with 50+ UN entities daily

The WSIS Plus 20 review should build on existing frameworks rather than creating new mechanisms, with WSIS outcome documents remaining fully valid and not requiring renegotiation

Multi-stakeholder platforms like WSIS Forum and IGF are essential bridges between different communities and should be strengthened with stable funding and extended mandates

The digital divide challenge has evolved from a coverage gap to a usage gap, requiring more nuanced interventions focused on digital literacy, affordability, and cultural relevance

Strong consensus exists on maintaining and strengthening existing WSIS mechanisms while improving coordination and avoiding duplication between various digital governance processes

Meaningful participation from developing countries and marginalized communities must be ensured in the WSIS Plus 20 review process

Integration between WSIS, SDGs, and the Global Digital Compact should be pursued through existing frameworks rather than new institutional arrangements

Resolutions and action items

ITU Council decided to submit the call for inputs results to the upcoming UNGA in December through the ITU Secretary-General

South Africa as chairperson will include the inputs in a summary report for submission to the high-level event

Co-facilitators launched a call for applications for an informal multi-stakeholder sounding board involving the IGF advisory group

ITU will experiment with advanced interpretation technology at the AI for Good Summit and WSIS Forum to address multilingual participation challenges

Regulatory roundtable will be organized at the WSIS Forum with 40+ regulators participating

Stakeholders encouraged to be vocal at the upcoming WSIS High Level Event Forum to ensure their concerns are captured

Unresolved issues

How to ensure genuine reflection of developing countries’ voices and lived realities in the review process without domination by Global North narratives

Specific mechanisms for meaningful participation of marginalized communities who remain unconnected

Concrete funding solutions for long-term stable financial foundation of IGF and strengthening of its secretariat

Detailed implementation of formal linkages between different digital governance processes to avoid duplication

Specific approaches to address the usage gap beyond general acknowledgment of the challenge

How to effectively translate materials and processes into local languages for grassroots engagement

Balancing AI governance integration without duplicating existing instruments while ensuring inclusiveness

Suggested compromises

Using existing WSIS mechanisms and platforms rather than creating new ones to balance efficiency with inclusiveness

Leveraging technology advances for interpretation while respecting UN system rules and processes

Integrating WSIS with GDC and SDGs through existing frameworks rather than institutional restructuring

Strengthening IGF secretariat through incremental improvements like director appointment rather than major overhaul

Utilizing retired language teachers and local resources to bridge age and language gaps in technology adoption

Bringing together the ‘triad’ of researchers, practitioners, and regulators in panel discussions to ensure comprehensive perspectives

One of the problems is now less and less a coverage gap and more and more a usage gap. And that requires a very different set of interventions and ideas and opportunities to close that gap… whether it’s a question of digital literacy, whether it’s a question of access to the technology and affordability of that technology, whether it’s a question of online safety, whether it’s a question of ensuring that the online environment is compatible with the language and the cultural diversity of the people we are trying to connect online.

Speaker

William Lee (Australia)

Reason

This comment reframes the entire digital divide discussion by distinguishing between infrastructure availability and actual usage. It moves beyond the traditional focus on physical connectivity to address the more nuanced barriers that prevent meaningful digital participation, introducing concepts of digital literacy, cultural compatibility, and online safety as equally important factors.

Impact

This insight shifted the conversation from technical infrastructure discussions to human-centered considerations. It prompted subsequent speakers to address multilingual needs and grassroots engagement, fundamentally changing how participants viewed the challenge of connecting the remaining 2.6 billion people offline.

How do we ensure that this process genuinely reflects the voices and the lived realities of developing countries, especially marginalized communities who remain unconnected? So rather than being dominated by the narratives from the global north and large technology corporations.

Speaker

Louvo Gray (South African Internet Governance Forum)

Reason

This comment directly challenges the power dynamics and representation issues within global digital governance processes. It raises critical questions about whose voices are heard and whose perspectives shape policy, highlighting the risk of perpetuating digital colonialism in governance structures.

Impact

This intervention brought equity and representation to the forefront of the discussion, prompting the ITU secretariat to emphasize their bottom-up approach and commitment to serving the underserved. It validated concerns about inclusive participation and influenced subsequent discussions about grassroots engagement.

The outcome documents of both phases of WSIS remain fully valid and should be reaffirmed… they do not need to be updated, reopened or renegotiated… no new mechanisms and processes should be created for the implementation and follow-up of the WSIS and the Global Digital Compact, because the increase in the amount of governance mechanisms and processes in the digital world make it difficult for many Member States, particularly developing countries, to participate.

Speaker

Cuba representative

Reason

This comment introduces a contrarian perspective that challenges the assumption that digital governance frameworks need constant updating. It raises important concerns about ‘governance fatigue’ and the burden that multiple overlapping processes place on developing countries with limited diplomatic resources.

Impact

Cuba’s intervention introduced a note of caution about process proliferation and highlighted the practical challenges faced by developing countries in participating in multiple governance forums. This led to discussions about streamlining processes and avoiding duplication, influencing how other participants viewed the balance between innovation and institutional stability.

To bridge that divide, especially in terms of technology for our older folks, the older language retired teachers are a resource we can also tap into because they will be retired and they will have some time on their hands to be able to help us and so bridge the age gap… bring together what I call the triad or the quadruple triad… those who do the research in the active field, those who are applying it, those who are regulating.

Speaker

Kweku Enchi (Ghana IGF)

Reason

This comment offers innovative, practical solutions by identifying untapped human resources (retired teachers) and proposing a more integrated approach to stakeholder engagement. It demonstrates creative thinking about how to leverage existing community assets for digital inclusion while also addressing the fragmentation of expertise across different sectors.

Impact

This contribution expanded the conversation beyond traditional approaches to digital inclusion, introducing the concept of intergenerational knowledge transfer and cross-sectoral collaboration. It prompted the ITU to discuss their experimental approaches with AI-powered interpretation and regulatory roundtables, showing how creative suggestions can influence institutional planning.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shifted the discussion from a technical, process-focused conversation to a more human-centered, equity-conscious dialogue. William Lee’s distinction between coverage and usage gaps reframed the digital divide challenge, while Louvo Gray’s question about representation brought power dynamics into focus. Cuba’s intervention introduced important concerns about governance complexity, and Ghana’s contribution offered innovative solutions for inclusive participation. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from procedural matters to substantive questions about equity, effectiveness, and innovation in digital governance. They demonstrated how diverse perspectives can challenge assumptions, introduce new frameworks for understanding problems, and propose creative solutions that institutional actors might not have considered independently.

How do we ensure that the WSIS Plus 20 review process genuinely reflects the voices and lived realities of developing countries, especially marginalized communities who remain unconnected, rather than being dominated by narratives from the global north and large technology corporations?

Speaker

Louvo Gray (South African Internet Governance Forum)

Explanation

This addresses a critical concern about inclusivity and representation in global digital governance processes, ensuring that those most affected by digital divides have meaningful input in policy decisions.

Would the output document from the ITU Council be published so that the general public can view it before submission to the Secretary General?

Speaker

Abdul Karim (University of Ilona, Nigeria)

Explanation

This relates to transparency and public access to important policy documents that will influence global digital governance decisions.

How does the ITU plan to ensure that voices from developing countries and local IGFs are meaningfully reflected in the review outcomes, especially regarding digital inclusion, capacity building, and involvement in multi-stakeholder ecosystem?

Speaker

Mohamed Abdulla Konu (Bangladesh IGF)

Explanation

This question emphasizes the need for genuine participation from developing nations in shaping global digital policies that directly affect their populations.

How can we better address the usage gap versus coverage gap in digital connectivity, requiring different interventions for digital literacy, affordability, online safety, and cultural/linguistic compatibility?

Speaker

William Lee (Australia)

Explanation

This highlights the evolving nature of digital divide challenges, moving beyond infrastructure to more nuanced barriers to meaningful connectivity.

How can we improve translation and multilingual support to enable meaningful connectivity and understanding across multicultural and multilinguistic barriers, especially for grassroots communities?

Speaker

Kweku Enchi (Ghana IGF)

Explanation

This addresses practical barriers to participation in digital governance processes and the need for inclusive communication strategies.

How can we better integrate the triad of stakeholders (researchers, practitioners, and regulators) in international forums and panels to create more comprehensive discussions?

Speaker

Kweku Enchi (Ghana IGF)

Explanation

This suggests improving the structure of multi-stakeholder engagement by ensuring all relevant perspectives are represented in policy discussions.

How can formal linkages and liaisons be established between different UN processes (such as the Open Ended Working Group on Cybersecurity and WSIS Action Lines) to avoid duplication and increase complementarity?

Speaker

Cuba representative (Ministry of Communications)

Explanation

This addresses the need for better coordination between various international processes dealing with digital governance to improve efficiency and avoid conflicting efforts.