WS #231 Address Digital Funding Gaps in the Developing World

Summary

This discussion, hosted by the APNIC Foundation at the Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Oslo, focused on addressing digital funding gaps in the developing world. The panel brought together representatives from various organizations including the Tech Global Institute, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ICANN, GIZ, and the APNIC Foundation to examine challenges in internet and digital development funding.

The panelists highlighted that despite 20 years of progress since the World Summit on the Information Society, significant disparities persist, with 32% of the world’s population remaining unconnected and stark differences between global north (93% connectivity) and global south (27% connectivity) regions. A concerning trend has emerged where official development assistance, philanthropic giving, and corporate funding are declining simultaneously, creating unprecedented funding gaps for digital development initiatives.

Key challenges identified include the creation of new digital divides, forced internet shutdowns affecting marginalized populations, and the tension between digital transformation goals and human rights protection. The discussion emphasized that meaningful digital transformation requires more than just infrastructure deployment—it needs local capacity building, community ownership, and alignment with national development priorities rather than externally imposed solutions.

Panelists stressed the importance of shifting from traditional donor-recipient models toward collaborative partnerships that respect local sovereignty and decision-making. They advocated for outcome-focused rather than output-focused approaches, transparency in funding mechanisms, and the mainstreaming of digital solutions across all development sectors including health, education, and climate resilience.

The conversation concluded with calls for greater coordination among stakeholders to avoid duplication of efforts and maximize impact despite shrinking resources. Participants emphasized that digital inclusion should be treated as a fundamental development issue requiring collective action and innovative funding models to ensure sustainable progress across developing regions.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Persistent Digital Divides and Funding Challenges**: The discussion highlighted that despite 20 years of progress since WSIS, 32% of the world’s population remains unconnected, with stark disparities between Global North (93% connected) and Global South (27% connected). This is compounded by declining Official Development Assistance (ODA), reduced philanthropic giving, and shrinking corporate funding for digital development.

– **Need for Structural Change and Local Ownership**: Panelists emphasized moving beyond traditional donor-recipient models toward approaches that prioritize local capacity building, government sovereignty in determining digital futures, and community-driven solutions. There was strong criticism of supply-oriented approaches that impose solutions without considering local contexts and procurement processes.

– **Collaboration Over Competition**: A recurring theme was the urgent need to reduce duplication of efforts among organizations and instead focus on meaningful collaboration. Speakers called for breaking down silos, sharing resources, and creating collective impact frameworks rather than competing for the same objectives with shrinking funding pools.

– **Digital Transformation as Cross-Sectoral Enabler**: The conversation explored how digital transformation should be mainstreamed across all development sectors (health, education, climate, etc.) rather than treated as a separate infrastructure challenge. This includes ensuring that digital solutions contribute to broader socio-economic outcomes and sustainable development goals.

– **Balancing Digital Development with Human Rights**: Panelists discussed the tension between rapid digital transformation and human rights protection, emphasizing that meaningful access must include not just connectivity but also digital literacy, affordability, cybersecurity, and the ability for communities to shape their own digital futures while maintaining fundamental rights.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to address critical funding gaps in digital development across the Global South and developing regions, bringing together diverse stakeholders to explore innovative funding models, partnership approaches, and collaborative frameworks that could ensure sustainable progress in internet and digital development despite declining traditional funding sources.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional yet candid tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating both concern about current challenges and cautious optimism about potential solutions. The tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with panelists building on each other’s points rather than debating. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the widening digital divides, but this was balanced by constructive dialogue about practical approaches. The conversation became increasingly inspiring toward the end, with speakers drawing parallels to successful global health initiatives and emphasizing the potential for collective action to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Neeti Biyani** – Works with the APNIC Foundation, Session moderator/host

– **Sabhanaz Rashid Diya** – Executive Director at Tech Global Institute, working at the intersection of government, businesses and civil society

– **Remy Friedmann** – Senior Advisor Human Security and Business at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

– **Maarten Botterman** – Director on the Board of Directors at ICANN (participating online)

– **Franz von Weizsaecker** – Responsible for Economic Development and Digital Transformation at GIZ

– **Raj Singh** – CEO of the APNIC Foundation

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions and provided comments

– **Online moderator** – Colleague named Omar, serving as online moderator

**Additional speakers:**

– **Molly** – Works with the Digital Health and Rights Project, released research report on ODA donors in Europe

# Addressing Digital Funding Gaps in the Developing World: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This discussion, hosted by the APNIC Foundation at the Internet Governance Forum 2024, brought together experts to examine critical challenges surrounding digital funding gaps in developing regions. The session, moderated by Neeti Biyani from the APNIC Foundation, featured representatives from the Tech Global Institute, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ICANN, GIZ, and the APNIC Foundation.

The discussion revealed persistent digital divides despite decades of progress. With 32% of the world’s population remaining unconnected and stark disparities between the Global North (93% connectivity) and Global South (27% connectivity), the challenge has been compounded by declining official development assistance and reduced corporate funding for digital development initiatives.

Key themes included the need to shift from traditional donor-recipient models toward collaborative partnerships, the importance of mainstreaming digital solutions across all development sectors, and the tension between rapid digital transformation and human rights protection. Speakers emphasized moving from capacity building to capability building and focusing on sustainable outcomes rather than project outputs.

## Key Participants and Their Main Contributions

### Neeti Biyani – APNIC Foundation (Session Moderator)

Biyani framed the discussion around the need for digital transformation that serves whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches. She emphasized that meaningful digital transformation must lead to better lives and socio-economic outcomes, questioning the balance between government interventions and market-driven solutions.

### Sabhanaz Rashid Diya – Tech Global Institute

Diya provided critical statistics showing that 32% of the world’s population remains unconnected, with 93% connectivity in the Global North versus 27% in the Global South. She highlighted concerning trends including “296 shutdowns in 54 countries” and identified an “unhealthy tension between digital development and human rights.” Diya criticized the “culture of imposition” where Global North actors decide what gets implemented in Global South countries, describing this as a “norm shapers versus norm takers dynamic.”

### Remy Friedmann – Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Friedmann emphasized Switzerland’s approach to partnership, inclusiveness, and community-driven solutions. He stressed that governments have a responsibility to protect human rights while setting digital standards and safeguards. He advocated for mainstreaming digital exclusion within climate, gender, education, and health agendas rather than treating it as a separate issue, calling for collective impact frameworks that center local actors.

### Maarten Botterman – ICANN (Online Participant)

Botterman represented ICANN’s “one world, one internet” vision through capacity building and regional outreach programs. He highlighted ICANN’s Coalition for Digital Africa and engagement with 41 African governments. He emphasized that local capacity building and understanding are crucial for successful digital inclusion initiatives, with communities needing to determine their own digital transformation priorities.

### Franz von Weizsaecker – GIZ

Von Weizsaecker noted that German development funding faces a 10% decline while some philanthropic funding attempts to compensate. He advocated for mainstreaming digital transformation across all sectors as an enabler for sustainable development goals. He warned about potential waste of global public goods like low earth orbit satellite infrastructure due to corporate monopolization and called for open ecosystem approaches.

### Raj Singh – APNIC Foundation

Singh highlighted that despite decades of work, “we seem to be creating new digital divides constantly” and questioned whether the development community is solving problems or perpetuating them. He advocated for a fundamental shift from “capacity building to capability building,” explaining that “when you have capabilities, then you can do things.” Singh noted the APNIC Foundation’s 16-year-old innovation fund and criticized significant duplication of efforts among organizations despite shrinking funding resources.

## Major Discussion Topics

### Persistent Digital Divides and Funding Challenges

The discussion opened with stark statistics highlighting ongoing connectivity gaps. Diya’s presentation showed that despite 20 years of progress since the World Summit on the Information Society, significant portions of the global population remain unconnected, with particularly acute challenges in the Global South.

Singh added regional context, noting that the Asia Pacific region presents unique challenges with the most advanced and least developed economies coexisting. He specifically highlighted that “half of the South Asia sub-region remains unconnected” and observed that “there’s a lot of submarine cables being deployed all across the world. The problem is, it’s the cables that are being deployed. There’s no supporting ecosystem that’s being set up at the same time.”

Multiple speakers acknowledged declining resources across traditional funding streams. Von Weizsaecker reported the 10% decline in German development funding budgets, while Singh noted that private sector funding is shrinking due to margin pressure and reduced corporate social responsibility investments.

### Power Dynamics and Local Ownership

A significant portion of the discussion focused on power imbalances in digital development. Diya’s analysis of the “culture of imposition” highlighted how Global North actors often determine solutions for Global South contexts. She suggested that when communities gain the ability to define conditions for accepting or rejecting interventions, “we see a little bit more of that negotiation, a little bit more of that empowerment and that ownership happening.”

Singh supported this perspective by distinguishing between capacity and capabilities: “It’s no longer for us… it’s not about building capacity anymore, it’s about building capabilities. Because when you have capabilities, then you can do things.” This represents a shift from training-focused approaches toward enabling actual implementation and sustainable outcomes.

### Digital Transformation as Cross-Sectoral Enabler

Speakers emphasized viewing digital transformation not as standalone infrastructure but as an enabler across all development sectors. Von Weizsaecker stated that “digital transformation should be mainstreamed across all sectors as an enabler for sustainable development goals.”

Friedmann reinforced this view, emphasizing that “digital exclusion should be mainstreamed within climate, gender, education, and health agendas.” This mainstreaming approach suggests that digital solutions should contribute to broader socio-economic outcomes rather than being pursued independently.

### Human Rights and Development Tensions

The discussion addressed tensions between rapid digital transformation and human rights protection. Diya identified this as an “unhealthy tension,” noting that digital transformation often comes with “disconnection trends through forced shutdowns and network throttling” that particularly affect marginalized populations.

Friedmann offered a governmental perspective, emphasizing that “governments have responsibility to protect human rights whilst setting digital standards and safeguards,” suggesting that human rights considerations should be integrated into digital development from the outset.

## Key Challenges Identified

### Coordination and Duplication

Singh highlighted the problem of “multiple organizations doing similar work with little actual collaboration despite funding constraints.” He questioned whether progress had been made on collaboration, asking “In six months, have we gone any step forward or not in terms of collaboration and avoiding duplication?”

### Infrastructure Without Ecosystems

The discussion revealed concerns about infrastructure deployment without supporting systems. Singh noted that submarine cables are being deployed without supporting ecosystems, while Von Weizsaecker warned about potential waste of satellite infrastructure due to corporate monopolization.

### Declining Traditional Funding

Multiple speakers acknowledged the convergence of declining official development assistance, reduced philanthropic giving, and shrinking corporate funding, creating unprecedented challenges for digital development initiatives.

### Transparency and Accountability

An audience member from the Digital Health and Rights Project asked: “How can we work together as funders and other stakeholders, with transparency in investment amounts, where they’re being invested and who we’re working with?” This highlighted the need for better tracking and coordination mechanisms.

## Proposed Solutions and Next Steps

### Outcome-Focused Approaches

The APNIC Foundation committed to shifting focus from outputs to outcomes in their grant-making and project evaluation. Singh offered to share expertise on outcome-focused metrics with other organizations, including ICANN.

### Collaborative Frameworks

Friedmann proposed collective impact frameworks that center local actors while bringing together funders, implementers, and communities into strategic alignment. This approach could help reduce duplication while respecting different organizational mandates.

### Mainstreaming Digital Solutions

Multiple speakers advocated for integrating digital solutions across all development sectors rather than treating them as separate initiatives. This requires coordination across health, education, climate, and gender programs.

### Open Ecosystem Approaches

Von Weizsaecker proposed open ecosystem approaches to infrastructure development, particularly for satellite networks, to ensure that global investments automatically benefit underserved regions.

## Audience Participation and Questions

The session included active audience participation, with questions about transparency in digital health investments and challenges faced by private companies trying to offer solutions in developing regions. A representative from a Norwegian company highlighted difficulties private companies face due to skepticism and lack of trust, making it difficult to offer even low-cost solutions to developing regions.

These questions underscored ongoing challenges in creating effective mechanisms for private sector engagement in development contexts while maintaining focus on sustainable, locally-owned solutions.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed that addressing digital funding gaps requires more than mobilizing additional resources—it demands fundamental changes in how digital development is conceptualized and implemented. Key themes included shifting from donor-recipient to partnership models, from capacity building to capability building, and from outputs to outcomes.

While speakers identified significant challenges including declining funding, persistent coordination problems, and ongoing power imbalances, they also outlined concrete steps forward. These include the APNIC Foundation’s commitment to outcome-focused approaches, proposals for collective impact frameworks, and emphasis on mainstreaming digital solutions across all development sectors.

The conversation concluded with recognition that success will depend not just on what is done, but how it is done—with genuine partnership, respect for local priorities, and focus on sustainable outcomes that serve the communities digital development aims to support. As Singh observed, the challenge is ensuring that decades of development work actually solve problems rather than perpetuate them, requiring honest assessment and willingness to make fundamental changes in approach.

Neeti Biyani: Hello, a very good afternoon to everyone who’s joining us in person in Oslo and good morning or good evening if you’re joining us online. I am Neeti Biyani. I work with the APNIC Foundation and I am going to be hosting this session today, which is titled Addressing Digital Funding Gaps in the Developing World. Considering we do have the scope for a roundtable set up here, I’d request if anyone wants to join us on stage so that we can have a more candid, informal conversation, I’d like you to be as big a part of it as we are. So if anyone wants to please come on stage and join us here, please feel free. All right. Let me just start out by introducing the APNIC Foundation, a little bit about what we do. We are an internet and digital development organisation. We serve across 56 economies in the Asia-Pacific region. We invest in and channel resources towards building technical and human capabilities. We help drive digital innovation and we enable digital transformation across the region, working with a host of different stakeholders and partners. I am privileged to be hosting this conversation on addressing gaps in funding for digital development at the IGF 2025 in Oslo today, this afternoon. As we all know, we’ve seen quite a rapid decline in official development assistance, ODA, philanthropy giving, corporate giving, all of which have together exacerbated gaps in funding available for internet and digital development or ICT for development in the global majority especially. In this context, I hope that you know, as various stakeholders present in the room today, we can discuss, have a rethink of funding models, partnerships and collective impact to ensure that we are impacting sustainable progress and outcomes across the various regions in the developing world. I am joined today by a remarkable panel. I’ll maybe start from my absolute left. I have Sabhanaz Rashid Diya. She is Executive Director at Tech Global Institute, working at the intersection of government, businesses as well as civil society. To my left is Remy Friedmann, who is Senior Advisor Human Security and Business at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. I am joined online by Maarten Botterman, who is a Director on the Board of Directors at ICANN. On my right, I am joined by Franz von Weizsaecker. Did I completely murder your last name? Who is responsible for Economic Development and Digital Transformation at GIZ. And to my absolute right is Raj Singh, CEO of the EPNIC Foundation. And I am Neeti, your moderator today. So, I maybe want to start out by asking Diya, how do you understand digital development efforts across the global majority, across the developing regions so far, maybe, you know, in the last couple of decades, you know, how do we, how do we, you know, for the establishing of a common understanding of digital development, of internet development, how do we understand that collectively?

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Neeti. And hi, everybody. Very privileged and excited to be on this panel. I think just diving right into it, you know, in the last, I would say, if you take the last 20 years, perhaps, starting with the original commitments of the WSIS process and how there was a real sort of global understanding around bringing the unconnected online, you know, supporting digital transformation, particularly an important, and addressing some of the issues in digital divides, gender, you know, sort of creating more equitable world that is digitally transformative. We’ve seen a tremendous amount of progress. We’ve seen sort of, you know, more countries coming online, communities coming online. There has been a huge push to create jobs, create sort of development outcomes, you know, tackle some of the most pressing, pressing issues in society using technology. But at the same time, I think, you know, we are still, you know, 20 years later, we’re still at a point where 32% of the world’s population still remains unconnected. And, you know, that continues to be a challenge. And it’s, and the global north-south disparity is, is quite, still quite prevalent. In the global north, we have 93% who are people who are online. In the global south, we only have 27% of the people who are online. So that disparity is very much present. And we know, you know, from our work and communities that the people who are most disproportionately affected are women, girls, marginalized populations, you know, minority groups, et cetera, who, who just are not able to come online, whether that’s for device affordability, whether that’s because of, you know, lack of the actual infrastructure, being able to reach certain parts of the world. And so we have a number of challenges, which is beyond just the infrastructure, but also many structural challenges. And so I think there’s still a lot of need for that push to happen. But also in the last 10 years, I would say, there’s also been trends of not just people not having the resources to come online, but also when people are online, a tendency to also disconnect them. So we talk a lot about the unconnected population, but there is also a tendency of disconnecting populations through forced shutdowns or network throttling. And that’s also a huge concern. And so just based on Access Now’s report, last year alone, there was 296 shutdowns in 54 countries. So that’s an extraordinary number. So even when there is this push in the broader development agenda to get more people online, there’s also this counter, I would say, sort of trend where people are getting disconnected. And in that sort of a situation, I think there’s we’re at a pivotal moment where more and more people, especially the global south, they feel the need to kind of catch up with the global technology race. They’re seeing huge amounts of some countries moving very fast, some countries slowing down. And so I think at this point, and especially in line with the discussion we’re going to have today, the funding reductions we see around the world, the older systems falling is a really concerning trend, because in many ways, that’s going to really set back years of progress that has been made. And now more than ever, we need that to happen, because that disparity between the global north and south is, you know, whatever progress we’ve made, that’s probably going to widen a lot more. And it’s going to put an entire part of the world, perhaps the majority part of the world, in a position where they’re completely left out of any kind of technological progress and any kind of opportunities to see the benefits of digital in their countries. And so I think this broad connection between resource availability, you know, the country’s aspirations for development and broader economic progress is very much at risk today, and happy to speak more about it to them.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks Diya. I think just bouncing off of what we’ve heard so far, let me turn to Raj. Raj, if you can speak on behalf of the APAC region, which is one of the largest developing regions in the world with the bulk of the unconnected, underserved, remote, dispersed populations. How do you understand, you know, Diya’s reference to the changes that we’ve seen in the funding landscape quite recently?

Raj Singh: So you’re quite right to say that the Asia Pacific is very diverse. It’s the world’s largest region. And just before this session, I was speaking in the parliamentary session and what I said there was, and I’ll just repeat that here, the fact that the Asia Pacific as an example, you know, we’ve got some of the most advanced economies in the world and we’ve got some of the most least developed economies in the world. And that in itself becomes a challenge. Now, overlaid on top of that is that, you know, you see parts of the world leaping ahead in various types of new technologies, be it, you know, the government itself either invest in it or they’ve got very mature industries or the private sector who are taking the lead in moving forward. Then you have all these other economies that are nowhere near that level of development. And then, you know, for example, you go to an event like the IGF or to various other multilateral meetings and other conferences around the world and you hear all these stories, people say, no, we’re doing this, we’re doing that. AEA does this, you know, IOT or whatever the next iteration is going to be, it’s going to change everything and this is what you need to do. So suddenly you have here an economy which probably doesn’t even have a fully-fledged policymaking unit. in their regulatory section that can actually develop policies and shape what things should look like because most of the time they’re working off a reactive basis right something happens they need to react to that so it’s what I call reactive policy making not proactive policy making so that just to sort of lay the foundation there of why I think this is a problem right then you have the different levels of development that exists and again Asia Pacific is pretty much a poster child South Asia which is one of the four sub-regions in the Asia Pacific half of that sub-region is still unconnected okay which is a very stark statistic right now there are various challenges on why that is the case but the fact still remains half that sub-region is unconnected and and if someone’s heard me speak before they you would know that I always bring up one thing is and that’s that we seem to be creating new digital digital divides constantly we’re not stopping and I’ve been in this sector this industry for pretty much all my career so going on close to 30 years now we were talking about stuff 30-20 years ago in a slightly different guise it was ICT4D we’re still talking about the same issues some of those issues have not been solved I mean last year we did a couple of panels at the AGF and we brought up these issues again given it’s only been six odd months since the last IGF but the fact is you know nothing has changed all that much now on top of all that what we’ve seen in in the front end of this year there’s been changes made globally in how things have been funded ODA for example overseas development assistance so so that’s one the part of money is shrunk but if you look at the private sector even their own parts of money are shrinking because there’s margin pressure right there was a time when a lot of the private sector would go and fund things out of CSR or other reasons what we are seeing right now that’s shrinking very very rapidly And then governments themselves, they have their own priorities. I mean, you know, do they invest in primary health care, or do they invest in a funky new internet infrastructure, right? So that’s sometimes a hard decision to make. So I’m just going to let that hang there, because, you know, what I’m keen to see is, and Franz was with me on the panel last year, we had some interesting discussions on where we should get to, and which means, you know, don’t duplicate stuff, work together, collaborate, complement. But I’m keen to understand, in six months, have we gone any step forward or not? I don’t know.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Raj. We’ll definitely come to that in the course of this conversation. I think at this point, let me turn to Maarten. Maarten, you’re online. Hopefully, you can hear me, even though I can’t see you at the moment. But, you know, you’re here representing ICANN. I see you. Hi, Maarten. You’re here representing ICANN, wearing a few more hats, I’m very sure. ICANN’s had a particularly focused approach to supporting initiatives and developments across the world, which is that you want to further your vision of a single, open, globally interoperable internet. I just want to ask you, bouncing off of what we’ve heard from Raj, and, you know, the particular challenges that, you know, either being unconnected or, you know, not having meaningful connectivity or meaningful access. How do you interpret those in terms of ICANN’s mission, the role that ICANN plays, as well as how you envision ICANN’s impact across the landscape, across the sector?

Maarten Botterman: Thanks, Neeti, for the question. It’s indeed, as you say, it’s one world, one internet. And ICANN is there to serve the world. Raj is representing the APEC region. As we know today, most of the internet users live in the APEC region, whereas 25 years ago, most of them lived in North America. So you see a shift in the world. This also means that there’s a shift in the world in terms of experience, where the markets are. And we’re very much aware that we are there to support the world. And that means that in countries where advancement of internet is less, there’s more to win. And we actually actively reach out to support that. An example is the continent of Africa. The continent of Africa is where, percentage-wise, there’s most growth happening over the years to come in terms of people also getting connected. That is where we see many of the next billion, as well as in other parts of the world, including APEC. But in Africa, we are, for instance, actively engaged in a capacity-building initiative, which is called the Coalition for Digital Africa, which is really to support all kinds of transformative projects that aim at enhancing Africa’s internet infrastructure, cybersecurity, digital inclusivity, and the governance. So initiatives we have there is engaging with about 41 African governments, countries, but also with, for instance, the African University Collaboration Group. And things we’ve been doing there is, on one hand, together with internet society, for instance, setting up new connection points for the internet, installing new root server instances from the ICANN managed route that Elroot referred to. That results now, most of the traffic within the region and to expand also the top-level domain performance monitoring in Africa. All this to help Africa to also step up and grab the opportunities. Next to that, we’re also supporting, for instance, as you know, ICANN is a multi-stakeholder organisation in which different groups have their place. And also for governments, we do capacity development. We help them to get on board of the GECC, become aware of law-making practices and with people from over 19 countries on the technical functioning of the internet. Now, next to that, of course, this is just a regional example and we have regional outreach throughout the world because we are very much aware that we are there to serve the world. Now, with that, a very clear example of that would be the next round of top-level domains where there will be an opening for new initiatives to have a top-level domain that serves specifically also regions around the world. For instance, in their own character sets, on languages. Languages are important, they represent culture, but also not everybody in the world is able or should be expected to communicate in English. So it’s good that we also support that richness and we actively do of languages and character sets. Also in a new round. And also being aware that particular regions that aren’t that advanced yet, extra support is necessary. We foresee that the applicant support programme that has been put in place for those who are less aware at the moment, to help them to get up to speed with appropriate applications and good business plans. So with that, we truly believe one world, one internet and ICANN is standing ready to support that effectively.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks Maarten. I think, Franz, if I can come to you. We’ve heard from Maarten that, you know, their support starts with squarely serving the mission of a single, open, interoperable internet. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like GIZ had a slightly different approach, where you support bettering and furthering socio-economic progress and outcomes across the service regions you work in. But you’ve, since 2018, mainstreamed digital solutions as part of the projects that you do support, wherein you’re trying to make sure that every project has a digital solution, a digital infrastructure component that then can be mainstreamed or replicated or scaled. What’s your experience been like working on real, very real world issues, if I may call them that, but with, you know, squarely mainstreamed digital solutions?

Franz von Weizsaecker: Thank you so much. Maybe let me get one thing straight. It shouldn’t come across as if I was not in favor of free and open and internet for everybody. So that definitely is part of our agenda. And the general trends in development funding, you’ve been describing it initially, the official development assistance tendencies, looking at USAID and so on, are going down. At the same time, some philanthropic funding is coming with the Gates Foundation, trying to compensate some of those declines. And just today, we got the draft budget of the German government. We have about a 10 percent decline in the German development funding budget of the BMZ ministry, which is not as disruptive as in some other contexts. So indeed, what you mentioned is digital transformation is indeed a mainstreaming topic across our entire portfolio of achieving all the sustainable development goals or all the goals of the African 2063 agenda or various national development agendas. And just like, I mean, there are some mainstreaming topics that development actors are working on. We have gender mainstreaming, human rights mainstream and digital mainstreaming. And to be honest, the digital mainstreaming is possibly the most successful one of those, knowing that no line ministry, no initiative, no health initiative, education initiative, and throughout all the sectors, the Internet became a key enabler to be achieving the sustainable development goals and the factor for economic growth and for trade and for all the other goals that you have there. At the same time, some of the goals are conflicting. So if you look at the climate goals, of course, we have a huge energy consumption and corresponding carbon emissions resulting from AI, from data centers, from digital infrastructures. But then if you compare how much carbon emissions per economic activity you have in the digital sector, that is still much less than you have in more traditional industries in mining and manufacturing and all these other economic activities. So still you could say the the GDP per carbon emission is still quite good in the digital economy in comparison. And yeah, we do try to achieve these sustainable development goals in a context where, you know, our funding governments from Germany, from Europe, there are some political shifts we have to deal with. And if you look at the European Union, the major initiative is called the Global Gateway. And that is the attempt to leverage also private capital, also private capital of European investors in the achievement of development goals in infrastructure and for energy, for digital data centers, IXPs. So, that is part of what we are doing, is trying to leverage these private capital for the achievement of the development goals, knowing that we cannot entirely rely on public ODA funding all the time. So, that is maybe the big trend going forward. Of course, at the same time, any private capital depends on the regulatory and the investment environment to be ready for that. And I cannot say that this is the case in all of the countries that we work with, where any European investors might be very hesitant to come in and invest in some countries when the general investment environment doesn’t seem to be ready. So, that is part of the risk of this tendency, is that we are losing out, especially on some of the security-wise, like those countries where the security situation or the general investment environment is not good. So, that is indeed a big open question of how we best… deal with that. For the Asian region, largely, a very large part of it is very ready for private investment, also international FDI. However, not all of the places, and especially in Africa, many countries, private investors would be concerned to be putting their money in. So, it’s about de-risking from using development banks’ mechanisms, de-risking these private investments, and then, of course, using the ODA where it is needed, where there is no alternative with this, for example, global gateway investment package.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Franz. Having spoken of EU governments, we happen to have a representative on our panel. Remy, if I can turn to you, last but not the least at all. How do you see the role of the Swiss government in the debate of digital development, building the digital rights narrative, contributing to this ongoing conversation of more and more people having access, what kind of access, etc.? While there is an infrastructure and a connectivity and access question, there is also a quality of access question. So, would you want to comment on that from the Swiss government’s perspective?

Remy Friedmann: Thank you, Neeti, and thank you for inviting me to this very interesting conversation. Hello, everyone. You put me just in an awkward position. Switzerland is not an EU member, so we’ll speak for Switzerland, not for the EU. But anyway, I mean, Switzerland’s international cooperation is guided by several principles, including promoting sustainable development, alleviating poverty, fostering peace and human rights. This is embedded in our international cooperation strategy, which is currently being renewed. And we really emphasize partnership, inclusiveness. Switzerland really strives to strengthen digital capacities of its partner countries to improve the resilience of public services and civil society, but still risks like the digital divide which worsens inequalities must be addressed. We are, as Switzerland, committed to establish strong digital governance frameworks aligned with international law and the different processes, ensuring fair and secure data use that protect individual dignity and safety. We are all here committed to advancing digital inclusion through open, rights-respecting and sustainable approaches, but we must recognize that the declining landscape of ODA and philanthropic capital poses a serious challenge, but also an urgent call for innovation and coordination also in the way we work. We are all convinced, and you just asked what we are striving for, is really that we all believe that meaningful Internet access is not a luxury, it’s really a foundational element of economic development, participation, democratic participation and community resilience. Switzerland is a member of the Freedom Online Coalition, and in line with the donors’ principles for human rights in the digital age at the Coalition published in 2023, we support efforts that are transparent, locally grounded and aligned with broader development goals. So, to this end, we see value in pooling resources, whether through catalytic funding, regional investment mechanism or blended finance, in order to unlock scalable and context-sensitive solutions. But we need, really most importantly, to ensure that these solutions are community-driven, inclusive and capable of strengthening local digital ecosystems rather than creating dependency. So really, this session is an opportunity to rethink how we work together, but not just how we fund. So, let’s see how we can construct a collective impact framework that builds. on Existing Knowledge, centering on local centres, local actors, bringing together funders, implementers and communities into a strategic alignment. These are great assemblages, but it’s a big question also. So let’s see how we can do so to more effectively close the digital divide and ensure that communities are not left behind in this digital transformation. So a question for all of us, I mean, how can we collectively address this growing gap and ensure that digital progress benefits everyone, not just a few?

Neeti Biyani: Thank you, Remy. I think you did my job there. That was going to be my next question, actually. So maybe before I just go back to some of the speakers, I wanted to open up the question to the audience and ask if you wanted to step in at this point and share any ideas, any reflections you had about, you know, how do we bridge the gaps that we see in internet development, digital development at the moment? Remy brought in, you know, a very key element of what the rest of the conversation is hopefully going to focus on, which is establishing a collective impact framework or ways of thinking where we are not competing, but we’re sharing space and we’re working with one another to hopefully make change, transformation, impact more sustainable, where we’re not reinventing the wheel, excuse me, but we’re replicating and scaling solutions where we can. The floor is open. The mic’s all yours. If you want to jump in, share your ideas, share your thoughts.

Audience: Yes, hello. I work for a Norwegian company within law enforcement, and we currently sell to… police in all across the world. What we see is it’s difficult to sell to countries that are used to getting funding, even though they are, you know, have support from the UN system. It is a lot of skepticism around how this can be done. And also this zero trust is also difficult to handle. So there are ways that this works in the current setup. And we are happy to offer a low cost version of our tools to these regions, but it’s difficult to find the way. So I think that is, there are options of using current setups that we’re using in every other country. But it’s the zero trust and the lack of kind of solutions and ways to work around this that is difficult, I would say. So how to get in, how to be able to market or talk about the solution, because nobody wants to talk about who they’re collaborating with, if it’s a private company. So there’s a lot of skepticism around private companies. And I think this is a challenge that could have an easy solution. If there was kind of a marketplace or one or another way of dealing with these challenges. So I don’t know if anybody has any experience with this or yeah, can help.

Neeti Biyani: Okay, maybe we can, yeah, Maarten, just before I come to you, maybe we can take one more reflection before we go back to the panel. Ah, I see someone already at the mic there. Yeah, please go ahead.

Audience: I don’t have my headphones in, so I can’t hear. Should I go for it? Thank you. My name is Molly. I’m with the Digital Health and Rights Project, and I’ve just released a research report looking at seven ODA donors in Europe alongside the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust looking at their investments into digital health. We found it really difficult to understand where investments were being made, who to talk to, different collaborating partners, and I’m really interested in this idea of collaboration and how we can work together as funders and other stakeholders, but transparency in those investment amounts, where they’re being invested and who we’re working with is really important. So I wondered if the speakers had any comments on transparency and tracking and M&E for investment portfolios. Thank you.

Neeti Biyani: That’s a great question. Thank you. Maarten, if I could go to you for the first reflection, if you had any responses before checking in with the rest of the panel. Yeah, no, thanks.

Maarten Botterman: Thanks a lot. I think it’s a very good question. What we see is there is a lot of offer of willingness to help, but how do you get that to help where it’s most needed? And there is organizations to focus on that. I think the crucial element is that if you talk about digital inclusion, if you really want to serve the world with the internet, if you want the world to access the internet, you also need local capacity building. And without local understanding of what’s needed and what can help, it’s very difficult to lend anything there successfully. So there is initiatives that really follow up on that, ranging from youth training programs to, for instance, the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise, that has capacity building workshops in diverse regions, where they bring in global knowledge together with local knowledge and local stakeholders to match what’s needed today, how good practice looks like, how to implement it. from the global perspective, Topol Tweif, Insights, and Local Needs, and then work together on, so, how would an action plan, what actions could we draw from here that would really help us to leapfrog? Because many of the problems that we have in different regions are already solved somewhere in the world. And also, I think, strategically, we recognise very much in the ICANN strategic plan. If it’s about inclusion, you need to work with locals. You need to make sure that you reach out. And also, Internet Society is very active in reaching out to the regions in that way. So, without contact in the local community, how can you successfully lend a global donation? Global Forum for Cyber Expertise is one of those things. But indeed, it’s to funnel it right and transparency is limited. I realised that we had a conference in Ghana, in Accra, where somebody from the UN presented all the different funds that were available to stimulate something of the Internet in the region. And there were like 60 different ones. Impossible to see where they overlap, how they connect, etc. So, we really need to work on that, and organisations like GFC, but also Internet Society, Global Cyber Alliance and other bodies, they can be very helpful in that, because they understand it’s about linking the global to what’s needed local.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Maarten. Do any of my other panellists have responses or views to what we’ve heard so far from the audience? Franz?

Franz von Weizsaecker: Yeah, I would like to respond to the intervention from the Norwegian company trying to sell a digital government solution worldwide. and I do see a major gap and I do see there is an unhealthy tendency sometimes that some of the aid projects they come basically saying like okay here’s your solution we bring it and this is what we want to bring and so it’s a very much supply oriented approach and then not looking about how does the government procure these services in their local national legal system and not looking about how this is going to be how the operational cost of it is going to be covered resulting in quite a few of solutions that come there and then as soon as the project is over they’re gone and that is very unhealthy tendency and therefore I believe the solution to the challenge you were describing is this is a governmental solution so it needs to go through the national governmental procurement process it needs to be a conscious decision by a competent procurement body saying like is this something make or buy is this something which part of the solution can we can we do and maintain locally through our ministerial staff which part of the solution do we need to buy what’s the mode of purchase is this software as a service do we purchase hardware what what is the mode so and that requires quite some more capacity and procurement than is present in many of our partner countries so I definitely am a great advocate in favor of supporting even though it’s not a sexy topic but supporting public procurement for digital solutions that is that is really at the core of it to achieving a lot of the development goals in the line ministries in the security sector as the example you mentioned.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks Franz, Diya you wanted to respond as well?

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Yeah thank you I think I’ll try to get a bit to the second question but also maybe till the time of the first one I think one of the challenges we also see in the broader digital transformation narrative is this I think, not really by design, but over the years, sort of this unhealthy tension between digital development and human rights. And I think that itself is the reason why, you know, we don’t see the kind of transparency, see the kind of ownership, or see the kind of, I would say, sort of clarity from many of, particularly in the Global South, right? So I think that tension between, you know, where transformation comes at the cost of human rights, I think that narrative, in many ways, has actually been quite challenging to navigate, particularly in the digital kind of development space. But that has also, at the same time, created this other tension, which is, you know, what we call the norm shapers versus norm takers, right? So you have the Global North, who are shaping the norms, you know, you go to the IGF, look around you, there’s just so few Global South representatives, whether it’s governments, whether it’s civil society, whether it’s the private sector. So there’s also that, because of that tension, I think, even more, there’s this also this culture of, you know, imposition that has also come over the years, where, you know, some of the norm shapers are kind of also deciding what gets done in some of the Global South countries. So to Frances’ point, you know, I think in some ways, you know, ODA, while having a lot of meaningful transformation in many countries, and meaningful impact in many parts of the world, has also kind of permeated that system of, you know, that tension between norm shapers and norm takers, where, you know, you’re constantly having other countries defining in some ways how you should be thinking about development, how you should be thinking about your economy. And that continues to be a challenge. And I think and I think part of trying to tackle that, which goes a bit into Remy’s points, you know, how do we work collectively together, I think is really kind of recognizing that digital transformation and human rights actually can work hand in hand. And when people in the in the norm receiving parts of the world are able to start defining the conditions in which they’re going to take something or reject something. They have the rights to decide, make those choices, I think. Then we see a little bit more of that negotiation, a little bit more of that empowerment and that ownership happening.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Diya. That’s a great perspective. And, you know, one that we should try and unpack more, depending on if we have the time. I know that we have a question online. My colleague Omar is with us here as online moderator. Omar, do you want to come in with the question you have?

Online moderator: Yeah, sure. Thank you, Neeti. So we have an insight. One of the participants, Maarten, says that in our work at the UNUEGOV with the governments and stakeholders globally, we often observe the following in relation to the Internet auctions and digital government investment, including those with donor contributions. First, licensing auctions often end up with a focus on profit optimization. This often leads to slower rollout of the infrastructure by telcos. Once license is issued, subpar infrastructure is in remote or less profitable areas and or increase relative cost to end user. While government naturally want to profit maximize it, it often become counterproductive to digital inclusion, affordable access. And this dilemma is seen in both. developed in emerging economies. Second point he mentions is that many government ICT investments are not focusing on post-project benefit realization, cost benefit, productivity gains are generally not monitored or measured. This often leads to envisioned resource relocation is not happening in practice, including to reinvest new service in new solutions. So this was Maarten. I have a question from Robert. Hold on, let me, he has got two questions. The first one is I would like to know what the panelists have to say about very low digital knowledge in global south. Investing in digital infrastructure is fine, but need to go hand in hand with global scaling. The second question he asks is that, okay, thank you, moderator, for pointing out the access in quality of access. Internet down here in Africa is still very slow, inexpensive. I would like to know what the panelists have to say. Thank you.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Thank you, Omar, and thank you to the panelists. Thank you to the audience who’s joining us online and for your wonderful thoughts and you know, useful questions. I think for both of the questions that we’ve heard, let me first maybe turn to Raj. We’ve, you know, at the APNIC Foundation, had quite significant experience with skilling across various different groups. I know that the APNIC Foundation also has quite a bit of work that we’re doing on meaningful access, quality of access, bringing about affordability of connectivity. Would you want to step in here?

Raj Singh: So, yes, just a couple of things though. One, there was a question about submarine cables. There was a reference to submarine cables, right, in one of the comments. I have a comment on that. You know, there’s a lot of submarine cables being deployed all across the world. The problem is, it’s the cables that are being deployed. There’s no supporting ecosystem that’s being set up at the same time. And in particular, I’m talking about regions such as the Pacific Islands, but as well as other parts of the world. Now, some of the reasons these submarine cables are suddenly being deployed is geopolitical in nature. I think you all recognize that. Some are, of course, very private sector driven. Irrespective of why it’s happening, the fact is, cables are being landed in economies. And when you ask the locals, what are you doing? Has it improved capacity? Yes, they’ve got a big, fat internet pipe coming in. But there’s no supporting ecosystem that can actually leverage the potential that the cable has. You know, there is no supporting ecosystem around creating new industries that could leverage that. Yeah, you can try and retrofit old industries into using whatever capacity is there, but how about the new economy that we want to build using digital connectivity? So that’s one issue. And I’ve raised this multiple times, including with some of the governments who are actually funding these cables. for various developing economies. There’s no clear answer yet, so I’ll also say that, on why that focus is not there yet. In terms of capacity building, and there was a comment about building skills, is this necessary as building connectivity? I absolutely agree. At the APNIC Foundation, we’ve done something interesting this year. We’ve got a new strategic plan that we’ve developed, and what we’ve done is actually we’re going to start speaking about capacity building in a very different way. It’s no longer for us, and I would suggest for the rest of the world, it’s not about building capacity anymore, it’s about building capabilities. Because when you have capabilities, then you can do things. So we’ve been using capacity building for probably three decades, if not more, in this sector. I think enough of that, now we need to build capabilities. And when I talked about the submarine cable example, the capability does not exist. The connectivity capability exists, but not leveraging a capability out of that cable or what it could do to that economy. There was, I’m sorry, just give me one more minute. The comment we had from my right, the person talked about M&E and transparency and so on. A quick comment on that, that’s something I think we’ve also been looking very hard at at the Foundation in particular. So part of our remit is also grant-making. So we’ve got, in fact, the Asia-Pacific’s longest-running innovation fund. It’s been running for 16 years now, and it’s supported some great technologies and developments over the years. But one thing, since I took over the CEO role, what I’ve been looking at, I am no longer interested in the outputs that those projects create. I want to see outcomes. And that goes to something Remy said at the beginning when he was talking about the structural or the ecosystem that needs to be built. So that’s structural in nature, right? And I think a lot of times we get so carried away with trying to do little things at the very granular level. We don’t recognize that if we don’t build a supporting ecosystem, if we don’t make the structural changes, all that is just a one-shot. I think Franz maybe said something about something dropping in and then you go and that’s it. So I think that the need for the structural changes is very, very important and more so to focus on outcomes. And that goes to things like M&E, which the person also mentioned. If I look at a lot of the metrics that are being used, the metrics are very output-related, they’re not outcome-related. And that’s something else that we’re trying to focus on. So Maarten, maybe there’s some advice there for you and your grant-making. I’m happy to have a chat with you and your team on how we can make that better. So thanks, Neeti.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Raj. And thank you to everyone who intervened. Maybe we can come back for a final round of reflections once we’ve discovered a few more things with the panel. I think we’ve heard a lot of thoughts about how to make sure that impact and transformation is more outcome-oriented, how it should really help human beings, societies at large, better their social and economic outcomes, their lives, really. How there are still significant structural challenges that we’re experiencing. And finally, because this panel is about the global majority, it is about the developing regions, how do we then therefore determine our own development goals and our own development outcomes and transformation pathways? So maybe, Franz, if I can start by picking your brain, how does the GIZ understand and approach digital transformation? I’d like to also caveat that by saying that there is no commonly understood and accepted definition of digital transformation at the moment. So I’d just like to say that the way that we understand it at the APNIC Foundation is… Digital transformation is a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach to really using communication technologies, the internet, everything digital and tech, to better lives, to better quality of lives, and to further socio-economic outcomes. Franz, over to you.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Absolutely.

Online moderator: And Neeti, Maarten also has his hand raised, so later on maybe you could give him a chance.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Sorry, Maarten, I’ll come to you.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Yes, absolutely. It’s digital transformation, goes across all the sectors, and we don’t talk anymore about this is a health project. I mean, we say it’s a health project, but it has become a health in a digital age project or education in a digital age project and so on and so on. So that is for all the sectors. But then, of course, you have the underlying digital transformation enablers, which are across the sectors. So internet access, the most prominent one, and may I pick up the question from the online participant on why is internet so little available and so unaffordable in many parts of Africa? It’s the regulatory environment for that. It’s the investment environment for it. And it’s also in some parts, it’s just that the GDP density, like in some rural parts of Africa, there is no economic incentive to build infrastructure. And that maybe leads me to another point. We are about to waste a huge global public good, which is the lower earth orbit and the medium earth orbit by the scramble for space that is happening, driven by a couple of companies that compete in allocating their satellites in this low and medium earth orbit. In a way where it’s not like an open ecosystem where anybody can engage with, but it falls into the hand of a few. very powerful either private companies or governments to occupy that space, so that it will not be used, that this resource will not be put to the best possible use. And I have some slight hope, I don’t know yet where it’s leading to, but I have some slight hope that what either the European Union or some other players are trying to set up with the Iris Square initiative, that this will result in a sort of more of an open ecosystem approach on satellite connectivity, which allows, as you know, these orbits automatically, any satellite that flies over Europe also flies over Africa, if it’s a north-south orbit, or likewise east-west orbit. So you will have an investment that comes, that is fostered by the very, very high developed, like the developed economies, but automatically you’re building an infrastructure that is available for the very low GDP per square kilometre parts of the world, and it will make it economically much more feasible to connect these areas as well. If we are able to establish a framework in which there is good competition, and that’s the second answer to the question, there’s sometimes lack of competition in those telecommunications markets. If there’s one incumbent, and then there is competition from the sky, that also is a factor to lower the prices. So, yeah, that’s my answer to your question.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Franz. Maarten, is your comment or intervention to do with digital transformation?

Maarten Botterman: I think so. Okay, go ahead. Well, basically, in a way, it connects also to Frans’ comment about, for instance, low orbit networks. Accessibility is key if you want to participate in the digital transformation, and as the dear colleague asked online in this question, is not only accessibility but also affordability of that for people. It was so good quality. And part of the answer is in what Franz gave. It’s competing infrastructures. I mean, if you just do Starlink for low-orbit networks, it would be very difficult to have a competitive offer. If there’s some kind of competition between networks, be it Starlink, be it 5G, 4G, 3G networks, or even making good use of LoRaWAN in areas where that would be best in connection with the C cables from Dutch. I think then we talk about enabling something. And let me take you back to 1996 when I worked for the European Commission, I admit. And I had the honor and pleasure of running the European Telework Agenda. And I got to one of the outskirts of Europe. I mean, within Europe, it’s not the world, but also in Europe, there were areas that were less connected. And this specific area was the Western Isles, which is in the very north of Scotland. And by that time, they just had one big line from the two large islands for telecom to get access, to get bits from also other telecom providers and make sure there was good quality. The local council took it upon them to define a strategy for how they would want to do this digital transformation over there, how they would commit to supporting and promoting a digital transformation by their own requirement of products, of access, but also stimulation of their local community in what they call the telework commitment. that led to much higher connectivity. But that’s why it’s so important that it’s understood locally what digital transformation can bring for you. Because if you don’t create a pool from that location, what you will get is what the big companies want to push. And that may not always serve you well. So back to really the matter of making sure that local understanding arises of what’s needed and then to get it. Last point on the point that was made by this gentleman on slow and expensive networks in Africa. This is also where governments can make a difference and a very good example there is India. What one can see in India is that internet access and participation is set as a priority in the digital India plan. And one of the key conditions that helps a lot is to ensure that access to the internet for people is affordable. And government can play a role there either by ensuring competition of infrastructures or if there is too little competition by imposing lower reasonable rates. I hope it is a digital development enough.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you, Maarten. I think on that note, I want to come to Remy. Remy, we’ve heard some interesting perspectives, you know, from the panel itself, from, you know, our participants online, as well as the audience we have here today. Where we’ve talked about digital transformation, the key role, the very unique role that indeed only governments can play in trying to determine what national strategies can look like, what those development outcomes look like. How do we know that we’ve gotten to a place where we can claim that we’ve benefited? you know, many, many of our citizens and our people. On the other hand, we’ve also heard some key questions about, you know, meaningful digital transformation, where we’re factoring in accessibility, affordability, where we’re talking about cooperation, where we’re talking about sharing infrastructure. I’d maybe like to glean your thoughts on these, and I’d like to ask you a follow-up question, which is, what is the role that you think government interventions can play here? Vis-a-vis, what is the role that the market itself and competition can play here?

Remy Friedmann: Thank you, big question. Thank you, Neeti. Well, digital transformation is not only ensuring equitable access to the internet worldwide. This comes with a responsibility, because digital transformation is everything that comes with access. We all have the same connectivity, the same speed. Do we have the capacity to deal with the other side of the coin and be responsible in using the internet? And their governments have the role of protecting human rights, setting standards, the necessary safeguards. And that’s why governments are coming together, for example. It was mentioned in the online coalition and their principles. The workforce working in the tech industry must be a right-respecting workforce. But the rights of the workforce need to be respected as well. So, it’s a fourth industrial revolution. It’s a transition, as we speak, of just transition, when we talk about a fair, I would say, energy transition, climate action that needs to respect human rights. The same thing happens with digital transformation and the fact that it comes with We have a responsibility, we still have the obligation to protect human rights, companies need to respect human rights, citizens, individuals need to have access to effective remedy when the rights are not respected and everything we are discussing here at the IGF and in other spaces about respecting human rights in the digital space, everything becomes relevant when we have equitable access, do we have the capacity and there, well, we have capacity building and that’s also an element, development cooperation must come together with capacity building on cyber resilience for example, how cyber development comes with cyber capability or capacity building as well. So that’s why I was saying we need to join forces across different disciplines, use existing frameworks but sometimes really governments have an important role to play, but needless to say that.

Neeti Biyani: Diya, if I turn to you with a similar question of digital transformation, what role does the government have to play here? I know that some bit of your context is also informed by when governments cannot fulfil that role. I know this is a bit of a stretch, probably not what we are here to interrogate, but because the government has a very key role to play here, maybe a very short reflection from you on a scenario like that.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Yeah, thank you for that. I think Remy actually articulated quite well, we are both part of the Female Online Coalition with the advisory network and I think a lot of what we talk about is the role of governments not just to tackle the digital divide, and I think Raj eloquently talked about we see digital divides being created every day in different ways. It’s not just being connected and unconnected, but it’s also connected and disconnected. It is also, you know, some having rights, some not having rights. It’s about being norm shapers versus norm takers. So there’s so many layers and layers of device that we see across the board. So I think, you know, in the coalition, we talk quite a bit about, you know, how, what role can governments play to ensure that transformation is meaningful, and we say meaningful, that it actually takes into consideration some of the, you know, unique social and political context of where they’re existing, that it isn’t coming at the cost of, you know, an imposition and at the cost of people’s rights. So I think the perspective that I will perhaps take here is, I mean, we’ve heard from governments, we’ve heard from APNIC, perhaps of the actual communities that we serve, for whom we’re doing all of this. And I think from the community’s perspective, it’s, you know, oftentimes, I guess, people start, I guess, you know, having seen that distance from digital or seeing that, you know, seeing themselves removed from transformation, when they’re unable to exercise their voices, and they don’t feel empowered by it. And I think that empowerment is quite critical to a meaningful transformation agenda, where it’s not just about rights, but it’s also about redress. It’s about being able to shape it the way that that makes sense for them, it is able to tackle some very real problems for them. And I think connectivity is just the first step or access is the first step to a much broader conversation around, you know, how do we think about transformation in a way that actually serves the people it’s intended for.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you, Diya. I think we do have some time to go into one final round of reflections or thoughts or comments from our audience. Would anyone like to participate? The mic’s all yours.

Maarten Botterman: I’m always willing to reflect. I really see a lot coming together here. Digital transformation is ongoing, and we want it to be for the world. We want it to be for all. But we can’t stuff it down the throat of the world. We need to enable the world to come to the table, to participate, to make sure they know what they get, what they want, how they can benefit from all these things that the new technologies are offering. The Internet is offering. So I’m really very much inspired by the many young people who have engaged in programs like the Youth Ambassadors Program, the AP Youth Program, and other programs, because this shows that new generations will be even making more of a difference than we’ve been building the Internet in the old days, from the outset. So start young with capacity building. Take your responsibility as a stakeholder, whether you’re a government or an NGO or a company. Take your responsibility and empower people. Make sure that they know what to ask for and help them to get it, help to create the circumstances. I think there’s no way back for digital transformation, but we could do it in a way to make sure it’s fair, it’s inclusive and it serves the world as a whole.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Maarten. I think you’ve brought us to almost the close of the session on a very inspiring note. I think I’m just going to turn back to my panel for any final thoughts on everything we’ve heard today, everything we’ve discussed today. I will leave the audience with, finally, if I may start with Raj.

Raj Singh: Thanks, Neeti. Thanks to the panellists for joining us today. I think it’s been, we’ve discussed, we’ve covered a lot of ground. I’m not sure how well we answered the actual question that we had for today’s panel. So, what I will say, very quickly, is that we’re back to that same situation where funding is shrinking, issues keep on popping up, digital divides keep on widening. There are multiple organisations doing lots of things, be they governmental, non-governmental, private sector, philanthropic organisations and family offices and whatnot. Each time I look at what everyone’s doing, including my own organisation, it’s also very clear to me that there’s actually, we talk about collaboration, but there’s actually very little of it. Everyone’s got their specific objectives they have to do something and they go out and try and do it. Yes, there’s some discussions and some collaboration at some level, perhaps, but there still is a lot of duplication out there. I think that really is something we need to address, knowing that funding levels are shrinking. Because if we just keep on duplicating someone else’s work, I don’t think we’re actually achieving much in the end. So, I’ll just leave it at that, thanks.

Neeti Biyani: Franz?

Franz von Weizsaecker: All right, let me try to leave us with a positive note. In times of shrinking funding, it’s a time for reckoning as well and it’s a time for maybe reinventing the way how the international development community used to operate. And maybe it’s a time to really build on the sovereignty of governments, the sovereignty to determine their own digital future, to get away from the traditional donor and receiver model and to build on what really matters for the individual economies to emerge, good regulatory systems, good public procurement. good rule of law, a fair taxation system that does not rely entirely on taxing telecommunications, making internet very expensive, and that as a basis to encourage also investments also from private sector to become sovereign in many ways and less depending on international development. So ideally I would wish that our role as GIZ at some point may not be needed anymore, at least not in that form, and we’re shifting from the traditional development towards an international mode of cooperation. Yeah, we’re all trying to work ourselves out of a job.

Neeti Biyani: Remy?

Remy Friedmann: Thank you. Well, maybe pointing at the fact that digital exclusion is fundamentally a development issue, as it was already mentioned, and that we need to somehow break the silos and integrate mainstream digital inclusion within different streams, for example within climate resilience, gender equity, education, health agendas, rather than treating this as a really a separate infrastructure challenge. So this could be maybe a way to go really, because it has to be mainstream, it’s not a separate thing that is only related to infrastructure and access.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Diya?

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: I guess I get the last word, but unless Maarten wants to come in. You know, one of the things I always take a lot of inspiration from is I come from the traditional development sector, right? So I’ve worked in digital, but digital for health, digital for agriculture, the old ICT4D crowd. And, you know, whenever I feel a bit hopeless, I think a lot about the polio movement in the world, and it was an impossible problem to solve many, many years ago. It still had this, it’s not similar, but, you know, infrastructure gaps, funding gaps, collaboration gaps. And I think the problem got really, truly solved when all the different actors began to come together and realize this is how we’re going to solve polio. We’re going to innovate around vaccines. We’re going to go out to the most ruralest part of the world and solve this disease. And in many ways, the world has eradicated some out of polio. There’s a few more cases not coming up, but by and large, it has eradicated polio. So I think if we can solve something as dramatic and as drastic as that, I think there is a natural incentive within digital transformation, digital infrastructure, digital connectivity community to come together. And I hope this current moment that we’re in, where funding is shrinking, it seems that we’re back to square one. I hope this becomes a moment of reckoning to realize that we can really solve tough problems better when we come together. So my hope for the Oda community is that this isn’t just a cry for help or something, but also a real moment to see the value of coming together as a community.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Thank you. Maarten, and just in the interest of time, I am going to wrap this up here wearing my moderator’s hat. I wanted to very quickly say thank you to all of our panelists who joined us today, especially Maarten, who joins us virtually. Thank you for attending this session hosted by the APNIC Foundation, to everyone who’s here in person and online as well. I just want to leave everyone on the note of saying I agree with a lot of sentiments we’ve heard today, that I think we are stronger together. I think we need to have very informed conversations about exactly how we determine our own transformation, how we collaborate between various stakeholder groups, and how we make sure that we’re holding space for different voices to be heard as we determine our own development futures. Having said that, I think in the Asia-Pacific, with the region that’s as The APNIC Foundation is as vast and diverse as it is, unlike any other region in the world. The APNIC Foundation has the unique privilege of working across 56 economies, serving the many communities that we do, hopefully, you know, having some amount of impact over the course of our work, touching lives and, you know, making sure that we’re leaving communities a bit better than how we found them. We’re very open to having more conversations with different stakeholders, different groups, different communities, you know where to find us. And once again, thank you for being part of this conversation. Hopefully, we’ll see you next year as well.

Agreement points

Digital transformation requires mainstreaming across all sectors rather than standalone approach

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Remy Friedmann
– Neeti Biyani

Arguments

Digital transformation should be mainstreamed across all sectors as an enabler for sustainable development goals

Digital exclusion should be mainstreamed within climate, gender, education, and health agendas

Digital transformation requires whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach to better lives and socio-economic outcomes

Summary

All three speakers agree that digital transformation cannot be treated as a separate infrastructure challenge but must be integrated across all development sectors and government approaches to achieve meaningful outcomes.

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Local ownership and understanding crucial for successful digital development

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya
– Franz von Weizsaecker

Arguments

Local capacity building and understanding crucial for successful digital inclusion initiatives

Need to address norm shapers versus norm takers dynamic between Global North and South

Government procurement processes need strengthening for sustainable digital solutions

Summary

Speakers consensus that digital development must be locally driven and owned rather than imposed from external actors, with communities determining their own transformation priorities and approaches.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Need to shift focus from outputs to outcomes in development work

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Franz von Weizsaecker

Arguments

Focus should be on outcomes rather than outputs in development projects

Government procurement processes need strengthening for sustainable digital solutions

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of measuring and achieving sustainable outcomes rather than just project outputs, requiring structural changes and proper implementation frameworks.

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Collaboration needed despite current duplication of efforts

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Arguments

Multiple organizations doing similar work with little actual collaboration despite funding constraints

Unhealthy tension exists between digital development and human rights protection

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that despite funding constraints, organizations continue to work in silos with significant duplication, and call for better collaboration to address complex challenges.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the persistent digital divide with specific statistics showing large populations remain unconnected, particularly in developing regions, despite decades of development efforts.

Speakers

– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya
– Raj Singh

Arguments

32% of world population remains unconnected with stark global north-south disparity

Half of South Asia sub-region still remains unconnected despite progress

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers acknowledge the significant decline in development funding across multiple sources, creating substantial resource constraints for digital development initiatives.

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Neeti Biyani

Arguments

German development funding budget faces 10% decline while some philanthropic funding tries to compensate

Rapid decline in official development assistance, philanthropy, and corporate giving exacerbates funding gaps

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of empowering people with actual capabilities rather than just providing training, with focus on enabling action and meaningful participation.

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Raj Singh

Arguments

Youth engagement and empowerment essential for meaningful digital transformation

Need to shift from capacity building to capability building to enable actual implementation

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the critical importance of integrating human rights considerations into digital development, rather than treating them as competing priorities.

Speakers

– Remy Friedmann
– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Arguments

Governments have responsibility to protect human rights while setting digital standards and safeguards

Unhealthy tension exists between digital development and human rights protection

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

Private sector engagement challenges in development contexts

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Audience

Arguments

Government procurement processes need strengthening for sustainable digital solutions

Transparency in investment portfolios and tracking mechanisms remains challenging

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around the challenges private companies face in engaging with development contexts, including procurement difficulties and lack of transparency in investment tracking, suggesting systemic issues in public-private partnerships for development.

Topics

Development | Economic

Infrastructure deployment without ecosystem development

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Franz von Weizsaecker

Arguments

Submarine cables are being deployed without supporting ecosystems to leverage their potential

Low earth orbit satellite infrastructure could provide competitive alternatives if managed as open ecosystem

Explanation

Unexpected alignment on the issue that infrastructure deployment alone is insufficient – both speakers emphasize the need for supporting ecosystems and open approaches to maximize infrastructure benefits, whether for submarine cables or satellite networks.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists around the need for locally-driven, mainstreamed approaches to digital development that prioritize outcomes over outputs, integrate human rights considerations, and require better collaboration among stakeholders. Speakers also agree on persistent connectivity challenges and declining funding landscapes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles and challenges, with implications suggesting a shared understanding of systemic issues requiring coordinated, rights-based, and locally-owned solutions. The agreement spans technical, governance, and development perspectives, indicating potential for unified approaches to addressing digital development gaps.

Different viewpoints

Role of private sector vs government in digital development solutions

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Audience member (Norwegian company)

Arguments

Government procurement processes need strengthening for sustainable digital solutions

Private companies face skepticism and zero trust when trying to offer solutions to developing countries

Summary

Franz emphasizes that digital solutions must go through proper governmental procurement processes to avoid dependency and ensure sustainability, while the audience member from a Norwegian company highlights the challenges private companies face due to skepticism and lack of trust, making it difficult to offer even low-cost solutions to developing regions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Approach to capacity building terminology and focus

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Maarten Botterman

Arguments

Need to shift from capacity building to capability building to enable actual implementation

Local capacity building and understanding crucial for successful digital inclusion initiatives

Summary

Raj argues for a fundamental shift from ‘capacity building’ to ‘capability building’ after three decades of insufficient results, while Maarten continues to emphasize traditional capacity building approaches through local understanding and community engagement.

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

Measurement focus in development projects

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Audience member (Molly)

Arguments

Focus should be on outcomes rather than outputs in development projects

Transparency in investment portfolios and tracking mechanisms remains challenging

Explanation

While both recognize measurement challenges, Raj advocates for shifting from output-focused to outcome-focused metrics, while the audience member emphasizes the need for better transparency and tracking of existing investment portfolios. This represents different priorities in addressing measurement challenges.

Topics

Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement among speakers, with most conflicts arising around implementation approaches rather than core goals. Main areas of disagreement included the role of private sector versus government-led solutions, terminology and approaches to capacity building, and specific mechanisms for achieving collaboration.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely agreed on fundamental goals of digital inclusion, bridging digital divides, and the need for collaboration, but differed on specific approaches, mechanisms, and priorities. This suggests a mature field where stakeholders share common objectives but are still working out optimal implementation strategies. The disagreements are constructive and focused on ‘how’ rather than ‘what’ or ‘why’, which is positive for advancing the field.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the persistent digital divide with specific statistics showing large populations remain unconnected, particularly in developing regions, despite decades of development efforts.

Speakers

– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya
– Raj Singh

Arguments

32% of world population remains unconnected with stark global north-south disparity

Half of South Asia sub-region still remains unconnected despite progress

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers acknowledge the significant decline in development funding across multiple sources, creating substantial resource constraints for digital development initiatives.

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Neeti Biyani

Arguments

German development funding budget faces 10% decline while some philanthropic funding tries to compensate

Rapid decline in official development assistance, philanthropy, and corporate giving exacerbates funding gaps

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of empowering people with actual capabilities rather than just providing training, with focus on enabling action and meaningful participation.

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Raj Singh

Arguments

Youth engagement and empowerment essential for meaningful digital transformation

Need to shift from capacity building to capability building to enable actual implementation

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the critical importance of integrating human rights considerations into digital development, rather than treating them as competing priorities.

Speakers

– Remy Friedmann
– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Arguments

Governments have responsibility to protect human rights while setting digital standards and safeguards

Unhealthy tension exists between digital development and human rights protection

Topics

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

Digital transformation requires a shift from capacity building to capability building, focusing on outcomes rather than outputs to create sustainable impact

Collaboration among stakeholders is essential but currently lacking, with significant duplication of efforts despite shrinking funding resources

Local ownership and understanding are crucial for successful digital transformation – solutions cannot be imposed from outside but must be community-driven and context-sensitive

Digital inclusion should be mainstreamed across all development sectors (health, education, climate, gender) rather than treated as a separate infrastructure challenge

The tension between digital development and human rights protection needs to be resolved, with Global South countries having more agency in defining their own development priorities

Structural ecosystem changes are more important than granular interventions – supporting infrastructure like submarine cables needs accompanying ecosystems to be effective

Government procurement processes and regulatory environments need strengthening to ensure sustainable digital solutions and competitive markets

Meaningful access encompasses not just connectivity but also affordability, quality, and the ability to leverage digital tools for socio-economic improvement

Resolutions and action items

APNIC Foundation committed to shifting focus from outputs to outcomes in their grant-making and project evaluation

Raj Singh offered to share expertise on outcome-focused metrics and evaluation with other organizations including ICANN

APNIC Foundation expressed openness to continued collaboration and conversations with different stakeholders and communities

Panelists agreed on the need to move away from traditional donor-receiver models toward more sovereign, government-led digital development approaches

Unresolved issues

How to effectively coordinate and reduce duplication among the numerous organizations working in digital development

How to address the transparency gap in tracking investments and understanding where funding is being allocated across different initiatives

How to balance private sector profit motives with digital inclusion goals, particularly in licensing auctions and infrastructure deployment

How to create effective marketplace or coordination mechanisms for private companies offering solutions to developing countries

How to ensure sustainable funding models as traditional ODA and philanthropic giving continues to decline

How to address the growing digital divides that continue to emerge even as some connectivity gaps are being filled

How to manage the ‘scramble for space’ in low earth orbit to ensure satellite infrastructure serves global development rather than just commercial interests

Suggested compromises

Leveraging private capital through blended finance mechanisms and de-risking strategies while maintaining focus on development outcomes

Using development banks and Global Gateway-type initiatives to bridge public and private funding while ensuring community ownership

Adopting a ‘make or buy’ approach in government procurement that balances local capacity building with necessary external solutions

Creating open ecosystem approaches for satellite infrastructure that allow developed economy investments to automatically benefit less developed regions

Establishing competitive infrastructure frameworks that balance profit optimization with digital inclusion goals

Moving toward international cooperation models rather than traditional development assistance to respect sovereignty while maintaining support

We seem to be creating new digital divides constantly we’re not stopping… we were talking about stuff 30-20 years ago in a slightly different guise it was ICT4D we’re still talking about the same issues some of those issues have not been solved

Speaker

Raj Singh

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by challenging the assumption of progress in digital development. Instead of celebrating advances, Singh highlights the cyclical nature of digital exclusion and questions whether the development community is actually solving problems or just creating new forms of inequality.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from a focus on solutions to a more critical examination of systemic issues. It prompted other panelists to address structural challenges and led to discussions about the need for outcome-focused rather than output-focused approaches.

There’s also this culture of imposition that has also come over the years, where some of the norm shapers are kind of also deciding what gets done in some of the Global South countries… this unhealthy tension between digital development and human rights

Speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Reason

This comment introduces a power dynamics perspective that challenges the traditional donor-recipient model. Diya identifies a fundamental tension between development goals and human rights, while highlighting how Global North actors often impose solutions rather than enabling local ownership.

Impact

This comment deepened the conversation by introducing questions of agency, sovereignty, and power imbalances. It led Franz to acknowledge the ‘supply-oriented approach’ problem and influenced the discussion toward more collaborative, locally-driven solutions.

It’s no longer for us… it’s not about building capacity anymore, it’s about building capabilities. Because when you have capabilities, then you can do things… I am no longer interested in the outputs that those projects create. I want to see outcomes.

Speaker

Raj Singh

Reason

This distinction between capacity and capabilities, and outputs versus outcomes, represents a fundamental shift in how development impact should be measured and achieved. It challenges the traditional metrics-driven approach to development work.

Impact

This comment influenced the entire panel’s approach to discussing solutions, with subsequent speakers adopting more outcome-focused language. It also prompted discussions about structural changes and ecosystem building rather than project-based interventions.

We are about to waste a huge global public good, which is the lower earth orbit and the medium earth orbit by the scramble for space that is happening, driven by a couple of companies… it will not be used, that this resource will not be put to the best possible use

Speaker

Franz von Weizsaecker

Reason

This comment introduces a completely new dimension to the digital divide discussion by framing satellite infrastructure as a global commons issue. It connects digital inclusion to resource allocation and corporate monopolization in space.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from terrestrial infrastructure challenges to broader questions of equitable resource distribution and opened up discussion about alternative connectivity solutions for underserved regions.

Digital transformation and human rights actually can work hand in hand. And when people in the norm receiving parts of the world are able to start defining the conditions in which they’re going to take something or reject something… Then we see a little bit more of that negotiation, a little bit more of that empowerment and that ownership happening

Speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Reason

This comment offers a constructive resolution to the tension she earlier identified between development and rights. It reframes the relationship from opposition to synergy, while emphasizing local agency in determining development pathways.

Impact

This comment helped steer the conversation toward more collaborative approaches and influenced subsequent discussions about government sovereignty and locally-driven digital transformation strategies.

There’s a lot of submarine cables being deployed all across the world. The problem is, it’s the cables that are being deployed. There’s no supporting ecosystem that’s being set up at the same time… There’s no clear answer yet… on why that focus is not there yet

Speaker

Raj Singh

Reason

This comment reveals a critical gap between infrastructure investment and actual capability building. It exposes how geopolitical motivations for infrastructure development don’t necessarily align with local development needs.

Impact

This observation led to deeper discussions about the disconnect between technical infrastructure and meaningful digital transformation, influencing the conversation toward ecosystem thinking and structural changes.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shifted the discussion from a traditional development narrative focused on funding gaps and technical solutions to a more critical examination of power dynamics, structural inequalities, and the need for locally-driven transformation. The most impactful interventions challenged basic assumptions about progress, questioned whose voices are centered in development decisions, and reframed success metrics from outputs to outcomes. The conversation evolved from problem identification to systemic critique, ultimately arriving at calls for genuine collaboration, local ownership, and recognition that digital transformation must be determined by communities themselves rather than imposed by external actors. The discussion became increasingly sophisticated as speakers built on each other’s critical insights, moving beyond traditional donor-recipient frameworks toward more equitable partnership models.

How can we collectively address the growing gap and ensure that digital progress benefits everyone, not just a few?

Speaker

Remy Friedmann

Explanation

This is a fundamental question about creating inclusive digital transformation that was posed to stimulate discussion on collective action frameworks

How to get in, how to be able to market or talk about solutions, because nobody wants to talk about who they’re collaborating with, if it’s a private company – how can there be a marketplace or another way of dealing with these challenges?

Speaker

Norwegian company representative (audience)

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenge of private companies trying to offer solutions to developing countries but facing skepticism and lack of clear pathways for engagement

How can we work together as funders and other stakeholders, with transparency in investment amounts, where they’re being invested and who we’re working with?

Speaker

Molly (Digital Health and Rights Project)

Explanation

This highlights the need for better transparency and coordination mechanisms in development funding, particularly around tracking and M&E for investment portfolios

How can we construct a collective impact framework that builds on existing knowledge, centering on local actors, bringing together funders, implementers and communities into strategic alignment?

Speaker

Remy Friedmann

Explanation

This seeks to identify practical mechanisms for creating coordinated approaches to digital development that avoid duplication and center local ownership

In six months, have we gone any step forward or not in terms of collaboration and avoiding duplication?

Speaker

Raj Singh

Explanation

This is a follow-up to previous discussions about the need for better coordination, questioning whether progress has been made since the last IGF

How does the government procure digital services in their local national legal system and how will operational costs be covered after project completion?

Speaker

Franz von Weizsaecker

Explanation

This addresses the sustainability challenge of digital solutions in developing countries and the need for proper procurement processes

How can we establish frameworks for more open ecosystem approaches to satellite connectivity that allow global investments to automatically benefit low GDP areas?

Speaker

Franz von Weizsaecker

Explanation

This explores how to prevent the waste of global public goods like orbital space and ensure satellite infrastructure benefits underserved regions

What is the role that government interventions can play vis-a-vis what is the role that the market itself and competition can play in digital transformation?

Speaker

Neeti Biyani

Explanation

This seeks to clarify the balance between government regulation/intervention and market-driven solutions in achieving digital transformation goals

How can we ensure that digital transformation serves the people it’s intended for, with empowerment and the ability to shape transformation in ways that make sense for local communities?

Speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Explanation

This addresses the need for community-driven approaches to digital transformation that go beyond just connectivity to meaningful empowerment