WS #479 Gender Mainstreaming in Digital Connectivity Strategies

Summary

This roundtable discussion at the Internet Governance Forum 2025 focused on gender mainstreaming in digital connectivity strategies, addressing the significant barriers that prevent women from accessing digital opportunities. Moderated by Rispa Arose from Tenda Community Network in Kenya, the session brought together experts from civil society, regulatory bodies, and community organizations to examine why 2.6 billion people remain offline, with women disproportionately affected by the digital divide.

Mathangi Mohan presented research from the Association for Progressive Communication on integrating gender into community-centered connectivity models, emphasizing that community networks are not automatically inclusive despite being locally driven. The research revealed that women remain underrepresented in community network governance and proposed policy recommendations including gender impact assessments during licensing processes and quotas for women in network leadership roles. Lilian Chamorro from Latin America highlighted specific challenges women face in building connectivity infrastructure, including care work responsibilities, low self-confidence with technology, and limited access to technological devices.

From a regulatory perspective, Dr. Emma Otieno from Kenya and Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu from Ghana emphasized the economic consequences of excluding women from digital strategies. Waqas Hassan shared Pakistan’s success story, where a dedicated national strategy reduced the gender gap from 38% to 25% through whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches. The discussion revealed that connectivity strategies often focus primarily on infrastructure expansion while assuming equal access, without addressing inherent barriers like affordability, skills gaps, and societal norms.

Key recommendations emerged around the need for intentional measurement and tracking of gender inclusion outcomes, cross-sectoral collaboration beyond ICT ministries, and recognition of digital caretaking as legitimate labor. The panelists stressed that bridging the digital divide requires moving beyond gender-neutral policies to actively address the specific needs and barriers faced by women and marginalized groups in accessing and benefiting from digital connectivity.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Gender gaps in digital connectivity strategies**: Despite global frameworks like SDG 5 and the Global Digital Compact advocating for digital inclusion, gender is explicitly referenced in only half of national ICT policies, leaving 2.6 billion people offline with women facing disproportionate barriers to accessing digital resources.

– **Community networks as solutions with inherent challenges**: While community-centered connectivity models offer locally-driven alternatives to traditional telecom infrastructure, they are not automatically inclusive – women remain underrepresented in governance due to care work responsibilities, low technical confidence, limited access to devices, and restricted participation in decision-making.

– **Policy implementation gaps versus policy existence**: Many countries have gender-inclusive digital policies on paper but lack intentional implementation, meaningful measurement, and disaggregated data collection to track outcomes and impact, resulting in continued exclusion despite regulatory frameworks.

– **Economic consequences of digital gender exclusion**: The exclusion of women from the digital economy has caused approximately $1 trillion in GDP loss over the last decade in developing countries, with potential for another $500 billion loss over the next five years if current trends continue.

– **Cross-sectoral collaboration as essential solution**: Effective gender mainstreaming requires moving beyond ICT ministry silos to involve education, finance, health, and gender ministries in a “whole of government” approach, supported by multi-stakeholder partnerships including civil society, private sector, and community representatives.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how to effectively mainstream gender considerations into digital connectivity strategies, moving from global policy commitments to practical local implementation. The session sought to identify barriers preventing women’s participation in digital infrastructure development and propose actionable solutions for creating more inclusive connectivity models, particularly through community networks.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and solution-oriented tone throughout. It began with a serious acknowledgment of the scale of digital exclusion challenges, evolved into detailed problem analysis with speakers sharing candid experiences about implementation gaps, and concluded on an optimistic note with concrete recommendations and successful examples like Pakistan’s gender strategy. The tone remained constructive and forward-looking, emphasizing shared responsibility and the urgency of action while celebrating incremental progress and best practices.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Rispa Arose** – Works for Tenda Community Network based in Nairobi, Kenya; Session moderator focusing on grassroot-driven development by expanding access to connectivity and digital opportunities

– **Mathangi as Rispur** – Works at the intersection of gender technology and digital governance; leads programs in partnership of Data Currency, Artificial Intelligence; works with Self-Employed Women Association in India leading decentralized livelihood and digital upskilling program for women in the informal economy

– **Lillian Chamorro** – From Colnodo; supports community-centered connectivity in the Latin America region with focus on gender inclusion in grassroots community-centered connectivity initiatives

– **Dr. Emma Otieno** – Digital Inclusivity Champion; serves as Kenya country coordinator for REFEN (Réseau Internationale des Femmes Expertises du Numérique); previously served as Deputy Director for Universal Service Fund and Manager for Strategy Development and Fund Mobilization

– **Waqas Hassan** – Representative from Global Digital Partnership (GDIP); spearheads policy and advocacy engagement for Global Digital Inclusion Partnership in Asia; has background in inclusive policy development and gender responsive strategies

– **Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu** – Senior Manager, Regulatory Administrator with National Communication Authority in Ghana; ICT Development and Digital Inclusion Advocate; has experience in digital connectivity, internet development and ICT training

– **Josephine Miliza** – Works for Association for Progressive Communication as global policy coordinator; provides civil society perspective on integrating and mainstreaming gender in connectivity strategies

– **Kwaku Wanchi** – From Ghana IGF

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dr. Rhonda Zalesny-Green** – Co-founder and director at Panoply Digital; co-authored report on gender integration in policy and regulation for community-centered connectivity models (mentioned but did not speak directly)

# Gender Mainstreaming in Digital Connectivity Strategies: A Comprehensive Roundtable Analysis

## Executive Summary

This roundtable discussion at the Internet Governance Forum 2025 examined gender mainstreaming in digital connectivity strategies, addressing why 2.6 billion people remain offline with women disproportionately affected by the digital divide. Moderated by Rispa Arose from Tenda Community Network in Kenya, the session brought together experts from civil society organisations, regulatory bodies, and community networks across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The discussion revealed that whilst global frameworks advocate for digital inclusion, gender is explicitly referenced in only half of national ICT policies. More critically, even where policies exist, they often lack intentional implementation and meaningful measurement mechanisms. Speakers highlighted that gender exclusion from the digital economy has caused approximately $1 trillion in GDP loss over the last decade in developing countries, with potential for another $500 billion loss over the next five years if current trends continue.

## Key Themes and Findings

### The Infrastructure Fallacy in Digital Inclusion

A central theme emerged around the misconception that infrastructure development automatically translates to inclusive access. Waqas Hassan from the Global Digital Partnership explained: “The connectivity strategies are still primarily developed from an infrastructure mindset… that mindset is based on the assumption that if you provide access and expansion, coverage expansion, that is somehow synonymous with inclusion… infrastructure development does not mean equitable access.”

Mathangi Mohan from the Association for Progressive Communication reinforced this point: “If we don’t address or even consider the gendered digital divide, then you’re not really closing the gap, but more like building the infrastructure on top of the inequality and marginalisation that is already existing.”

### Community Networks: Opportunities and Barriers

The discussion examined community-centred connectivity models as potential solutions to traditional telecom limitations. However, speakers emphasized that community networks are not automatically inclusive despite being locally driven. Mathangi Mohan presented research findings showing that women remain underrepresented in community network governance structures due to multiple intersecting barriers.

Lillian Chamorro from Colnodo in Latin America identified specific barriers women face, including care work responsibilities, low self-confidence with technology, and limited access to technological devices. She noted that “women prefer to stay away from technical roles” due to these confidence issues and structural limitations.

### Regulatory Perspectives and Implementation Gaps

Dr. Emma Otieno from Kenya provided a candid assessment of policy failures: “We have not been intentional in terms of putting in these clauses in the policy regulation strategies, we are putting them in as aspects of satisfying the social or compliance aspects, but not meaningfully and intentionally putting them… What has lacked completely is measurement, the intentional and meaningful tracking.”

Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu from Ghana emphasized the need to move “from equality to equitable distribution,” using the metaphor: “You cannot give us the same level of a tree to climb or something. One of them will need a ladder to be able to climb the tree.”

Both regulatory experts identified the lack of gender-disaggregated data as a fundamental barrier to creating targeted policies and noted limited coordination across ministries responsible for gender, education, and health.

### Success Stories

Waqas Hassan shared Pakistan’s achievement in reducing the gender gap from 38% to 25% through a dedicated national gender strategy. This success was attributed to inclusive policymaking processes involving multiple stakeholders and adopting both whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, with formal institutional structures including high-level steering committees and official working groups.

## Areas of Consensus

### Intentional Design and Implementation

All speakers agreed that gender mainstreaming requires intentional design from inception rather than treating gender as an afterthought. This consensus emerged across different sectors and regions.

### Cross-Sectoral Collaboration

There was unanimous agreement on the need for whole-of-government approaches extending beyond ICT ministries, requiring coordination with education, finance, health, and gender ministries, supported by multi-stakeholder partnerships.

### Local Context and Cultural Sensitivity

Speakers agreed on the importance of respecting local contexts, languages, and cultural values whilst creating supportive spaces for women to engage with technology, including translating digital skills training into local languages.

### Economic Imperative

Speakers emphasized that gender digital inclusion represents both a social justice issue and a critical economic imperative with measurable financial consequences.

## Concrete Recommendations

### Regulatory and Policy Reforms

– Implement gender impact assessments during licensing processes for community networks

– Create financing funds with special conditions for women’s participation in technology access and training

– Accommodate informal women’s groups and non-registered collectives in licensing frameworks

– Establish meaningful measurement, tracking, and monitoring systems for gender inclusion policies

### Community-Level Interventions

– Create women’s circles for dialogue and expression whilst respecting community values

– Translate digital skills training into local languages using retired language teachers

– Support collaboration between community networks and community libraries or information centres

### Funding and Sustainability

– Create infrastructure funds with contributions from all sectors benefiting from ICTs, not just telecom operators

– Develop financing mechanisms that support women-led community networks at scale

## Outstanding Challenges

The discussion identified several unresolved issues requiring further attention:

– How to effectively redistribute care work responsibilities that prevent women’s participation

– Developing sustainable funding models for women-led connectivity initiatives

– Balancing respect for traditional community values with promoting women’s technical participation

– Creating standardized approaches for collecting gender-disaggregated data across different contexts

## Conclusion

The roundtable demonstrated both the complexity of gender mainstreaming in digital connectivity and the potential for coordinated action. The high level of consensus among speakers from different sectors and regions suggests significant potential for collaborative policy development and implementation.

The session established that bridging the digital divide requires moving beyond gender-neutral policies to actively address specific barriers faced by women and marginalized groups. This represents a fundamental shift from treating digital inclusion as a technical challenge to recognizing it as a complex social and economic issue requiring equity-focused approaches.

The path forward requires sustained commitment to intentional implementation, meaningful measurement, and collaborative action across sectors and stakeholders. As demonstrated by Pakistan’s success, the tools and knowledge exist to address these challenges effectively; what remains is the political will and institutional commitment to transform policy commitments into practical results for women and marginalized communities worldwide.

Rispa Arose: Hello everyone, and a warm welcome to this roundtable discussion. To our online audience, good morning, good evening, good afternoon from where you’re joining us from today. It has been an enriching and insightful week, participating at the Internet Governance Forum 2025 here in Norway. My name is Rispa Arose, I work for Tenda Community Network that is based in Nairobi, Kenya, where we work towards fostering grassroot-driven development by expanding access to connectivity and digital opportunities. We are honored for this opportunity and platform to bring our local voices on this global stage. Today I have the privilege of moderating our discussion on a topic that really lies at the heart of digital inclusion, gender mainstreaming in digital connectivity strategies. Many of you, if not all of you, are aware that we have 2.6 billion people that are still offline. That’s a huge number and that’s a big challenge. As we know, digital connectivity is no longer a luxury, it’s really a critical enabler of socio-economic participation. Despite global efforts to close this digital gender gap, women continue to face significant barriers in accessing financial, educational, social and health resources in this digital age. And while some governments have introduced policies to address this divide, gender mainstreaming in ICT policy and regulation remains limited or sometimes even absent. According to different frameworks, such as, according to the ITU, gender is explicitly referenced in only half of national ICT policies or master plans and the frameworks such as WSIS Action Plus 20, the Global Digital Compact and Sustainable Development Goal SDG No. 5 collectively advocate for an inclusive infrastructure and digital rights. However, without intentional gender mainstreaming in digital strategies, millions of women and girls will remain excluded from the benefits of the digital economy. So this session will explore how global commitments can translate into local actions by implementing gender responsive policies and regulations in the different frameworks as well as look into how to mainstream gender and digital connectivity strategies. I’m thrilled to have a distinguished panel of experts and practitioners with me, with us today, both here in person as well as online. Three are joining online and I’ll begin with the ones we have here. So I’ll start with Josephine Miliza who is here and works for the Association for Progressive Communication as their global policy coordinator and she will be really giving us insights from a civil society perspective on what it takes to integrate and mainstream gender in connectivity strategies. We also have Lilian Chamorro from Colnodo who is also part of supporting community-centered connectivity in the Latin America region and will also be really sharing from for her experience working with this community-centered connectivity, what it means to support women and ensure that there is gender inclusion in grassroots community-centered connectivity initiatives. Online, I’m joined with Dr. Emma Otieno, who is a Digital Inclusivity Champion and serves as a REFEN, which is Réseau Internationale des Femmes Expertises du Numérique, and she is the Kenya country coordinator championing for digital gender inclusivity and promoting women’s leadership in the digital technology space globally. Previously, she has served in other capacities as Deputy Director for the Universal Service Fund and also the Manager for Strategy Development and Fund Mobilization Manager. She will be sharing a lot from a regulator perspective around this topic. Then we have Waqas Hassan, who is a representative from the Global Digital Partnership, the GDIP. He spearheads the policy and advocacy engagement for Global Digital Inclusion Partnership in Asia. He has a strong background in inclusive policy development, especially the gender responsive strategies and program. He has also implemented connectivity and community empowerment projects, with particular focus on underserved areas. Then we have Ivy Tufor Hoytil, who is a Senior Manager, Regulatory Administrator, working with the National Communication Authority in Ghana. At this specific meeting, she will be… presenting in her own capacity as ICT Development and Digital Inclusion Advocate. She has done work, she has considerable experience in digital connectivity, internet development and ICT training as well as also has been responsible for monitoring radio spectrum bands, resolving maintenance frequency database and enforcing authorization conditions. Then last but not least, we have Mathangi Mohan, who works at the intersection of gender technology and digital governance. She currently leads programs in partnership of Data Currency, Artificial Intelligence where she designs global capacity building initiatives on responsible artificial intelligence and data governance across 80 countries. She is working now with the Self-Employed Women Association in India where she leads decentralized livelihood and digital upskilling program for women in the informal economy. So that’s our lineup of speakers and I’d like to get right into the session and now welcome Ms. Mathangi Mohan to give us a keynote presentation on a recent research conducted by the Association for Progressive Communication on integrating gender in policy and regulation for community-centered connectivity models. Ms. Mathangi Mohan, please, you can have the floor.

Mathangi as Rispur: Thank you, thank you, Rispur, and thank you to APC and also the Internet Governance Forum for the opportunity to be a part of this discussion. My name is Mathangi as Rispur just introduced me and I’m speaking on behalf of my colleague Dr. Rhonda Zalesny-Green. co-founder and director at Panoply Digital and she co-authored this report with Shivam and our colleagues, our team on the gender integration in policy and regulation for community-centered connectivity models. I work alongside Ronda at Panoply on gender technology and connectivity models and governance at both a grassroots level and also in the policy spaces. So today I’ll be sharing insights from the report while also drawing connections to the practice and lived experiences from my own experience as well. So we can start with, let me start with the basics. So what are community networks or CNs? While they are not new, but they’ve been gaining global attention for a good reason because these are internet networks that are built and managed by local communities themselves. They usually operate in places where large telecom companies don’t see a lot of commercial value like remote areas, informal settlements or underserved regions. But what makes them so powerful is not that they fill coverage gaps, but they are mostly locally driven and because of their cooperative spirit and also often they are non-profit, they allow communities to control and own their digital infrastructure, deciding how it is built, how it is maintained and who it benefits. In many ways these CNs represent a form of digital sovereignty as well because they can support local businesses, they can strengthen education and healthcare systems and even provide emergency communications when most national systems fail. And because they are rooted in community needs, they can adapt very quickly and responsibly in ways that traditional internet service providers and telecoms often cannot. And that is what our report was trying to lay bare, that these networks are not automatically inclusive just because they operate in this way and just because the network is community run. It does not mean that everyone in the community is equally represented and we have taken a gender angle. Women, especially in rural and low-income contexts, remain underrepresented in these CN governance. They are most often underpaid or most often offers a suite of policy recommendations. I would like to just highlight a few examples because we have tried to approach it from how do we tailor the recommendations for each ministry involved because we wanted to adopt a whole of government approach as well. So, one would be for the ministries of ICT in these countries and beyond should require a gender impact assessment during the licensing processes itself for the CNs or some kind of an incentive for women-led CNs and they can design more simpler license procedures to reduce the barriers for women to access the leadership roles in these cooperatives or in these networks. And when it comes to the gender ministries itself, they can introduce quotas for women in the CN governance, fund women-only training spaces when it comes to community networks or access cooperatives and also campaign against online gender-based violence because that is also a major deterrent which is keeping women offline. And to the finance ministries, they can of course offer subsidies for smartphones or for connectivity for low-income women or provide tax breaks, consider providing tax breaks to the CNs with a strong gender inclusion or women-led CNs. And finally, for education ministries to mandate that public ICT… and all the other researchers. And I just thought it’s really important to highlight what Risper earlier said, that we often want to say that we want to bridge the digital divide. But if we don’t address or even consider the gendered digital divide, then you’re not really closing the gap, but more like building the infrastructure on top of the inequality and marginalization that is already existing. And community networks are, they offer, they give us an opportunity to do things differently, to make things right. And we definitely need to take the opportunity up and design for it and regulate in it and invest more in these networks. And yeah, with that, I want to say thank you, and I look forward to the discussion as well.

Rispa Arose: Thank you. Thank you so much, Ms. Mathangi, for really giving us a grounding on what community networks are, what community networks bring towards bridging the digital divide, as well as speaking to some of the challenges that exist with regards to thinking of connectivity, not thinking of gender, when thinking about connectivity, having gender not as an afterthought, but thinking through it, even at the inception stage, at the design stage. And this is, as you’ve correctly said, is the opportunity that community. Thank you so much for joining us for this session. We’re going to be talking about the challenges that community networks bring in connectivity strategies. Now, this really gives us a good segue to the next speaker, who will touch on some of the challenges that women face when trying to build and sustain this community network infrastructure. So, I’m going to turn it over to you, Lillian, to talk a little bit about the challenges that women face when trying to build this network, but also supported the ecosystem, we’ll share her experience on what are some of the specific challenges that women face when trying to build this infrastructure, this community-centered connectivity infrastructure. Lillian, over to you.

Lillian Chamorro: Thank you so much for having me. I’m going to start with you, Emma, and then I’m going to turn it over to you, Lillian. Okay, from the experience of accompanying this type of initiative, we can mention some of the challenges for women. One of them is the care work that women must assume makes it difficult for them to participate in the different activities involved in the implementation, but also in the maintenance of the network. So, this is a challenge for women, especially in rural areas, where there is a lot of work that is done exclusively in women. Other challenges for some women, especially in rural areas, have low self-confidence, as they do not feel capable of appropriating technologies and technological knowledge, and access to the technological knowledge. So, they prefer to stay away from the internet, but also, in general, the developing countries, there are some and Dr. Josephine Miliza, Dr. Emma Otieno, Waqas Hassan, Ronda Zelezny-Green, Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu Hoetu. Also around the low participation in decision-making and leadership. Then positive actions are required, but also appropriate methodologies that provide women with confidence in approaching and appropriating these issues. All these result in more difficulty to be part of workshops or participate in training processes. And in many occasions, there are difficulties to leave the home and participate in these kind of spaces. Finally, I can mention lower access to technological devices, since other expenses are privileged and there are not appropriate technological tools to assume certain tasks. Thank you.

Rispa Arose: Thank you so much, Lilian, for sharing some of the challenges that women face when trying to build and sustain connectivity infrastructure. Being just working for TANDA community network, I totally relate with some of these challenges, starting from the low confidence level. It really takes a lot, especially because community-centered connectivity is very technical. There has to be some encouragement, some technical training, some sort of mentorship to even get women coming in to support the network infrastructure, be it of the connectivity or the community. This really helps to frame the challenge of this discussion today. What I would like to hear from the next speaker. Waqas, who’s joining us online, is what do you see as the core disconnect? Why gender is still largely missing from connectivity strategies? Why do we still have a huge gender gap within the different connectivity strategies? And yes, over to you, Waqas.

Waqas Hassan: Thank you. Thank you, Christopher. I hope I’m audible. So I think much of what you just asked was covered by Matangi as well. But if you see it from a holistic level, there are, of course, several factors which are dependent on geographical profile and the level of ICT development and things like that, and lack of data awareness capacity of the government itself to understand and then act on the problem. But from my own experience, from my previous life with the government, I think there are a few things that I have observed, and I think two of them stand out for me, which I would like to, of course, share with all of you. The first one is that the connectivity strategies are still primarily developed from an infrastructure mindset. And that mindset is based on the assumption that if you provide access and expansion, coverage expansion, that is somehow synonymous with inclusion. Now, I think that if a particular community is then provided with mobile connectivity or broadband or whatever they mean, there is now an equal opportunity for men and women to use the digital services. But I think what they need to realize is that irrespective of how much technological innovation we bring about, infrastructure development does not mean equitable access. There are inherent barriers of affordability, skills, societal norm, online safety, and security. These are the Thank you so much for joining us for this session of the Global Dialogues. I’m Ronda Zelezny-Green, and I’m here with Dr. Emma Otieno, Dr. Ronda Zelezny-Green, and Dr. Waqas Hassan, Dr. Emma Otieno, and Dr. Ronda Zelezny-Green. Thank you so much for joining us. And there is undeniable evidence around that. Our own research, GDIP’s research, it proves that the exclusion of women from the digital economy in the developing countries has caused about $1 trillion in the loss of GDP over the last decade. And if it continues, another $500 billion could be lost over the next five years. So I think this realization and this advocacy angle that we also pursue as GDIP when we talk to the governments is that it is not just a women empowerment issue or a social issue. It is actually an economic crisis that we want to work here, all of us together. I think I’ll just end with saying that this is the realization that needs to be propagated through our interactions with the governments, that they have to integrate gender in the connectivity policies and then take concrete actions on it, not just mention it like we see in many of the policies like the IT policies or the broadband policies, and there is some way of mentioning those kind of instruments, but never really the essence of those policies. So I’ll just stop there. And yeah, looking forward to the discussion. Thank you.

Rispa Arose: Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Waqas, and thank you for bringing in such heaviness on the consequences or the grief, loss that we face when we are not inclusive in our strategies, when we are, when the agenda is left behind in promoting or in, for example, connectivity strategies, then it means not only social loss, but it goes to even economic loss from a global perspective. With that in mind, I want to move to the next speakers, who are the regulators, Dr. Emma from Kenya and Ms. Ivy from Ghana. From a regulatory perspective, why is it important to integrate gender in digital connectivity strategies? And building on what Waqas has just mentioned, as some of the losses that we are having because of the gap, gender gap, what do you think is at stake if we don’t mainstream gender in these digital connectivity strategies? I’ll start with Dr. Emma, and then we’ll move to Ivy, Ms. Ivy.

Dr. Emma Otieno: Okay, thank you very much, Rispa, and I really want to thank the speakers who have gone before me. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, so I just want to start by looking at the question you’ve asked, why? Why should we really worry, or why should we really prioritize this subject of agenda inclusivity? And my simple answer would be that we have contracted both at the global level and at national levels, and agreed generally that we will not leave anyone behind. And we said we will not leave anyone behind because we want the world connected to the last person who’s under a cave, or if there’s another one under the sea, they must all be connected. So, for me, when I look, when I sit at the national level, that is the mantra of a digital transformation, leaving no one behind. When we go international, be it at the UN level, be it at the International Telecommunications Union level, be it at any other forums that we and any other place where the subject of digital transformation is being pursued, the agenda has been leaving no one behind. So, when we come with the eye of the regulator, because we’ve been actually been, why regulation exists is to create enabling environments so that the government can achieve the broader social economic development goals. So, for us to achieve that, leaving no one behind, which is very critical for the government’s social economic development, we must pursue goals, we must pursue regulations that

Rispa Arose: Thank you so much, Dr. Emma. Over to you, Ivy.

Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu: Yes, thank you. And am I audible? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, good morning from my location. So one of the blind spots I would touch on is most of the time we perceive technology as gender neutral and policies are made that technology will benefit everyone equally. But we have diverse needs. And so one thing we are lacking or is at our blind spots is equitable access and distribution of technology as against gender neutrality of technology. It is assumed that technology or digital policies are inherently gender neutral and will benefit everyone equally, which is not the case. Most of the time, the focus has been on overall connectivity metrics without disaggregating data or considering how societal gender inequalities translate into data disparities. And this is largely due to data deficiencies in gender disaggregated data on data access, usage patterns, and online experiences. Governments have been promoting gathering of ICT indicators and all that, but the in-country, the national, the countries, how often do we disaggregate this data? Even if we have to analyze them, do we analyze them based on the gender specific needs? And here, gender, I’m talking about going even beyond women. The gender definition cuts across children, the physically challenged, the elderly, and women, which most of these people are mostly underrepresented. And policies or regulations usually does not affect their specific needs. And it’s all because the data we collect or we gather, we collect them holistically without disaggregating them. So policies are made generally instead of maybe equitable basis. And it makes it difficult to identify these specific needs. So this is one of the blind spots that we are lacking. And I believe if it’s addressed holistically, it can address and target the needs of all these specific genders. Most of the time, yes, it’s women, but there are also even the elderly, we are saying inclusivity, connecting everyone everywhere, ISOC goal. But how can we reach out to these people if we don’t understand their specific needs? If we make regulations or laws equally, that whatever we have in place will benefit everyone equally. It cannot. My height, I am short. Someone is shorter or someone is taller. You cannot give us the same level of a tree to climb or something. One of them will need a ladder to be able to climb the tree. The other will not need a ladder. So we need to disaggregate the data we collect, make specific indicators based on the specific gender needs. And I believe it will address these blind spots. Thank you.

Rispa Arose: Thank you so much, Ms. Ivy. Thank you so much, Dr. Emma, for bringing in the regulatory perspective to this conversation. Before we move into the next segment, which we’ll be looking at now, we’ve talked about the challenges, we’ve talked about the problems, the gaps that exist, and what is at stake. Before we move to some of the solutions, I’d like to see if there’s any question or any comment online or in person. If you have any question, you can just move to the roundtable. We can take it. Yes. We can have that question and then move to the next segment.

Kwaku Wanchi: For your presentation, my name is Kwaku Wanchi from Ghana IGF. There’s something so organic of what you’re talking about in terms of community network, which is speaking about collaboration and being able to provide solutions to the problem. One of the things that I always see as being helpful in some of this is more I want to know more about what I would call our community businesses. And again, this is gender-based or women-led, especially in Africa. I don’t know about Lilian’s experience in Latin America and the rest. And what you would find, I think there was a report about a year or two ago from MasterCard Foundation, which found that most businesses in Africa are run by women and small, medium enterprises. That’s what I mean. And I think one of the things and the challenges and opportunities in thinking about how we go, I don’t know how the next conversation is going to be, is one, what I would like to call synthesizing or having organic technologies or solutions in terms of connectivity. Where you’d see that most of our local businesses or small, medium enterprises are small businesses, but how do we get them digital or being able to do it? An aspect about the work we do in community networks is about imparting digital skills. And I always give this keynote, coming from Africa, we are multilingual. And most of the things that we do need to be owned by the people who can be able to speak their own language or interpret it. So my point is this. The skills impartation and things that we do, we need to be able to translate into our local languages. And I’m giving this for free. I’ve been doing this for five years. Let’s try and translate things into our local languages. And the best people to be able to do that are language teachers or retired language teachers. That’s what I would say. That’s inclusivity in gender. Second part is including our medium-sized businesses to get them digital, to teach them the skills. And also give them their business experience and create that business environment which gives opportunities to give value to our community. And you’d be surprised. You probably might be getting financing from some of these local businesses. So that’s what I’d like to contribute. Thank you.

Rispa Arose: Thank you so much for that contribution. I believe it was just to add to the conversation. The speakers agree that diversity should go beyond just the gender, but also look at languages. Look at age. How can different age levels contribute to digital connectivity for different communities? This now will take us to the next question. I don’t know if there’s any question online.

Josephine Miliza: There’s no question, just a comment from Peter Balaba. He says, I do support the establishment of community networks approach in Kenya. However, collaboration with community libraries and information centers can help bridge the gaps. In Keseke Telecenter and Library, we are now focusing on empowering the youth and women in digital skills and we train them in the local language to enable them to understand the basics. So it’s just a comment and not a question. Thank you, Peter.

Rispa Arose: Thank you. Thank you, Josephine. To the next segment, which we will have another round of interventions from our speakers, we’ll be looking at what it will take to realize the gender inclusive connectivity. And now I’d like to go back to our first speaker that gave us the presentation remark, Ms. Mathangi and Lilian, if you can talk about what actions are necessary to better support the emergence and sustainability of women-led connectivity models. You’ve already mentioned what are some of the challenges and barriers for women to participate in community-centered connectivity models. Now, what are some of the actions that can be taken? For Mathangi, you can talk about some of the recommendations that that came out of the research that you’ve just presented. So I’ll start with Ms. Mathangi and then we can go to Lillian.

Mathangi as Rispur: All right, sure, thanks, Rizpal. And while also talking about the policy lens and recommendation from the report, I would also like to share something that I’ve seen in practice. Because while working with some of the self-help groups and particularly the Self-Employed Women’s Association here in India, I’ve seen where we supported some of these artisan-led cooperatives access digital markets, and that too, during the first and the second waves of the pandemic. And then what happened was something very interesting was that to address the connectivity gaps in one cluster, in several clusters of villages, actually, the women managed to have shared hotspot system, not like the community network, but also not very unlike the CNs that we spoke about earlier. And they used to train each other, watch tutorials, and figure out how do they ensure it gets to the online inventory and all of those, even troubleshooting the basic tech issues. They supported each other, but the catch was it was sustainable only because the initiative worked because it was under an umbrella like SEWA where they could step in to subsidize the hardware. They could, like one of our audience members pointed out, they coordinated all the training in their local language, Gujarati, and they anchored the work in existing self-help groups. So then what finding came out was very similar to what we also studied in the report that if you remove that scaffolding, that model would not have survived or it would not have been sustainable. So combining these two insights, just quickly summarizing three recommendations would be, first, the licensing frameworks for these CNs need to very explicitly accommodate non-registered collectives, informal women’s group, like some of them rightly pointed out that the MSMEs and SMEs, these are majorly owned by women. So supporting a more informal women’s group, that is also equally important because these are mostly cooperatives rooted in trust and solidarity and just assuming that it should be a registered entity and a technical documentation. So that’s also going to exclude a lot of groups. Secondly, there are a lot of already funding mechanisms, but one key insight is that the funds should also allow for experimentation and thereby allowing failure and more iteration to figure out what works and what does not work, because these community networks are not going to scale if you take a startup timeline and when we compare. And third, should be echoing Waqas’s thought on, this is not going to be a social inclusion or women’s empowerment work, but it’s going to be a socio-economic, it’s going to be an infrastructure work as well, and it’s time that we recognize that. And this could mean paying stipends to local women, managing their Wi-Fi and maintenance and doing all the operational ground level operations, recognizing the digital caretaking that involves, that entails as a form of labor, and also not leaving out individual champions when we look at the community networks, recognizing who is anchoring these and who is pulling this together. So it’s not just going to be what they are doing well or just if the access is there, but also go beyond it and see as an infrastructure work. So these are three recommendations that I would like to add.

Rispa Arose: Thank you so much. Lilian, anything to add?

Lillian Chamorro: Well, thank you, Jess. I have a few options that we think could improve women’s participation, and one of them is establish financing funds, both for technology, but also for training with special conditions for women’s participation. For example, in closing the gaps in the basic use of technological devices and technological literacy, and facilitate access to devices. Also, adapting methods. We are a team of epidemiologists that transcend the technical approach for the community networks and also consider other women’s interests and needs related to the care and the support of the community. This diversification of roles in technical, administrative and communicative areas. The communities should promote the participation of women in technical areas such as installation and support. Also men should be involved in the administrative and financial aspects of sustainability. Also promote the participation of women in leadership roles in the communities without neglecting the recognition of the importance of the care work. I think it’s important to recognize the importance because sometimes the women, for example in our case, when we were working on establishment of community networks, of antennas, of that kind of things, many women are caring of us, are working on the food, working on the care of the people. This work is not recognized and we need to recognize that. Promote the participation of women in discussion spaces. Make women in the field of technologies visible so that they can serve as reference for other adult and young women in traditional masculinized scenarios. Reflect on care and how to approach it, recognizing its value and establishing mechanisms for its redistribution. People who require some care should be assumed as a collective responsibility of the communities and if it is necessary, resources should be allocated within the spending structures for the care of these people. Create women’s circles. We think women’s circles are a very good methodology. where women can express their concerns, opportunities, difficulties, not only about technology, but also about their participation in the life of the community. In any case, the action should be respectful of the environment and the values of the community, since we often find ourselves in communities with very different visions of gender roles, and we are not looking to break with the local issue, but rather to seek spaces for dialogue and reflection on the opportunities and inequalities faced by the women and other populations. Finally, conversations on gender must be strengthened in the entities and organizations that accompany these processes, both in men and women. If these reflections have not been integrated in our own work, it would be difficult to integrate them in the processes of accompanying the communities and in the spaces that are generated from there.

Rispa Arose: Thank you so much Liliane, and what I like about the recommendations that you have brought in is that it’s coming from working at the community level, and you know what the challenges are, and what best practice can be adopted by community-centered connectivity strategies at the grassroots. And that really fits in also very well with what Mathangi has just presented, coming from a research report that she conducted in different countries within Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and together these are really strong actions that can be taken to support the emerging and sustainability of women-led connectivity models. Now I want to go back to you Akash.

Waqas Hassan: This was a public perception survey, there was an IVR survey from around 100,000 respondents using the help of the mobile operators. So when all of this that was put into context and then this strategy was being developed, it shaped up into the form of a strategy where there is at the top level, there is this high-level steering committee, which consists of the institutional heads and led by the IT minister. And under that steering committee are six working groups, groups like access, research and data, affordability, safety and security, digital literacy inclusion. And in between these groups, each of the group has its own chair, by the way, is the implementation body, which is PTA and now GDIP has joined PTA as the joint coordinators for the strategy implementation. So with this whole framework that you can see, you can see that there was this whole of government approach that was adopted, but for the implementation itself, it is now essentially a whole of society approach that has been adopted because all of the working groups have representation, not only from the public sector, from the private sector and also from civil society, from telecom operators, from national statistical organizations, you name it and you’ll find probably find a body in one of the working groups contributing to one of the working groups. And one unique feature about this strategy is the support it extends to community networks. The working group on access, it is mentioned in the strategy as one of the DORs of the access working group that it will adopt policies around community networks. And it also mandates the establishment of at least 15 community networks across Pakistan. So this is one of the unique features of the policy that I really like and very relevant to the discussion that we are having today. Now, in the. The latest report that has just been released by GSMA on mobile gender gap, Pakistan’s gender gap has actually reduced from 38% down to 25%. And this is the largest reduction in any of the surveyed countries, which are essentially the developing countries that GSMA has surveyed. So I think in terms of lessons for any policymakers out there, I think we would recommend that first of all, please follow the inclusive policymaking process. Make sure that all of the stakeholders are on board if you want to develop this kind of a strategy, and also take the best use of other use cases, like best practice examples. And a lot of organizations are also working in this space, including ourselves, including APC, GSMA, and others. So I think this is an example from a developing country in the South Asian region, a region having the widest gender gap in the world, along with sub-Saharan Africa, of trying to make a difference in the state of affairs and actually achieving it. Thank you.

Rispa Arose: Thank you so much, Waqas, for those great points. And really, it’s good to know that this can be done, and it has been done from Pakistan. And also thank you for sharing some of the things that we can be in consideration of when thinking about a dedicated gender strategy for digital inclusion. Now I’d want to go back to Dr. Emma and Ms. Ivy, who are online as well. If you could propose one policy or practice shift to improve gender integration in digital connectivity, what would that be, and why?

Dr. Emma Otieno: Okay, thank you very much, Rizpa. And I really thank Waqas, Madhanji and Lillian for the insights that they’ve provided, which really link very well to what I’ll provide as an answer. And I like the Pakistan example, and the way they have actually gone ahead. So if I would just make it short and say, which is this one thing that we can actually do, be it at policy or as an initiative to make this improve or work better. I will go back to this, the statement that Madhanji gave during the first session of the presentation and cited Kenya as even having a national gender policy, which is true. But we have the policy and the policy has been there for quite a number of years. And it also speaks about issues of digital inclusivity and matters gender. But why are we like looking at the report that Waqas has talked about, we’re still at about 39% gender inclusivity gap. We are aware that Pakistan was years ago. So it is because of something, I think, which we’re not doing. And that is what’s going to be my answer to your question, Rizpa, is that we have not been intentional in terms of putting in these clauses in the policy regulation strategies, we are putting them in as aspects of satisfying the social or compliance aspects, but not meaningfully and intentionally putting them. And after we have also inserted and we’ve ticked the box of, we have a policy, or we have a framework, we have a guideline. What has lacked completely is measurement, the intentional and meaningful tracking, measurement, so that we can see what are the outputs out of these policies, or this policy, a clause that we have put in to promote digital inclusivity. What is the outcome, what is the impact and then how can we sustain or how can we improve and which are the areas that are paining. So when we ask anybody even in the area of policy or in the area of regulation or in any other space, we don’t have that information and Ivy said it very well, lack of even having disaggregated data to the extent that we know exactly at the point to understand what is the pain point and how do we move from here to the next step. So for me in terms of just having frameworks, most African countries are doing well because we are really complying with issues of SDG 5 of equality in terms of having those policies, but meaningfully measuring them and looking at them as contributors to socio-economic development is what has been lacking. So to summarize that answer is that we must actually start to implement things like the gender intentional digital infrastructure designs in terms of intentionally measuring, tracking, monitoring impact and feeding back through so that we sustainably improve to ensure that we are going back to closing all the gaps and of course our first answer leaving no one behind. There’s also an aspect of how can this be supported. Somebody mentioned that as I think the gentleman from the audience. PPPs bring together partnerships and collaborations because we cannot achieve this as government alone or as regulators alone or as a private sector alone. We must bring on board the financials. We must bring on board the people who are volunteering to say that they can actually translate it to their local languages. We must bring along the people who can cause devices to be cheap, connectivity to be cheap, you know, access issues. So those partnerships become the base of ensuring that actually we are making the progress in this regard. So two things, measurement and collaboration and partnership so that we achieve these aspects. Thank you very much.

Rispa Arose: Thank you so much Dr Emma. Very, very important to consider. Well said on the two critical aspects that we could be incognizant of while thinking about genomic streaming. I’d like to now hand it over to Ivy, Ms. Ivy.

Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu: Yes, thank you. And picking up from where Dr. landed, it’s true we need the metrics and we need the data. And this point was also built from the blind spots I mentioned earlier. The first thing starts from here, from the IGF here. We need from here the communique to move or go with cross-sectoral collaboration. For the past five years, multi-stakeholder collaboration has been pushed. We are doing well and I believe we can do better to address these gender-specific needs. So, different sector regulators often operate in silos with limited coordination with ministries responsible for gender, education, health, social development, et cetera. This fragmentation prevents holistic approach to digital inclusion. Our focus now should shift from one specific ministry to handle digital connectivity at least. We have now known a lot of sectors, governments know that ICT has become an enabler to all sectors. So, we cannot sit as ICT ministry or policymakers and make ICT decisions without these sectors. So, we need all of them. What IGF has done well in recent past is to involve members of parliament who are key legislators and lawmakers. I believe as they were involved, they have come in to understand the specific issues of what IGF. and other leaders, and also the IGF address. And gradually, it’s making an impact, especially in my country, Ghana. In the next decade, we need to create this platform, expand it, extend invitations to educational ministries, finance ministries, task experts. To also come to the IGF, come to the table, we need to involve them. Closely involve them. Once they sit on the table with us, understand the issues. When they are formulating their sector-specific policies, they will maybe have budgets or targets for contributing to ICT. What we don’t usually have is an infrastructure fund. Usually, this fund is taxed or contributed by mobile network operators, the ICT sector. But ICT goes beyond just the communications ministry or the regulators. It’s affecting every sector. So if a fund is created, the contribution shouldn’t just be on the limited field, the operators. The contribution should come from each of these sectors who are benefiting from ICTs. And this can help to promote community networks establishment in underserved communities. Lastly, one other thing we can do in formulating ICT policies is that stakeholder engagement. Dr. mentioned that the ICT frameworks, they are there. They’ve been developed for years. It’s the lack of implementation. Yes, they may have been prepared or drafted without extensive consultation, but it’s not too late. As we leave from here, we should involve all these stakeholders, especially those that these women… focus activists, gender activists, consumer advocates, when we are developing or when we plan to implement them, we need to involve them because they represent this specific focus group and they understand the issues. So when we involve them and we understand their basic needs, that is when we can formulate these policies to target and address their needs specifically, not making it generally, but making it specifically or addressing their specific, sorry, their specific needs. And when we do that, we get to know their issues that are bothering them, that is a concern. Then it will enable policy formulators to implement or draft and develop the right policies that will address their specific gender needs. For instance, if it’s children, ensuring their protection online. We cannot make a general, broad ICT policy just that is going to address everything equally. It cannot. We are moving from equality to equitable distribution. We need to understand the specific needs and then target them specifically. So with online, with women, we have those who are educated, those who are not educated, those who work in various sectors, and we will prepare these regulations or policies to target and address these specific needs. And when we do that, it will encourage them to use the technologies, because now we’ve gone beyond access. Availability is there. There’s availability, it’s access that we are struggling to, someone mentioned meaningful connection and access, which is key. So To be able to address this and make it meaningful, we need to understand the issues. So cross-sectoral collaboration in terms of preparing ICT policy and regulation is key in addressing gender mainstreaming issues in digital connection. Thank you.

Rispa Arose: Very, very well said, Ivy. Thank you so much for those interventions. I wouldn’t want to dilute it further. We’ll just take this time to see if there’s any question on the floor. And online, we have less than five minutes for any question, any comments that you’d want to contribute to this conversation.

Josephine Miliza: There’s no question online. Also, just a comment that women are the backbone of every society. There are fewer women taking part in the digital connectivity strategy. All they need is motivation, guidance, and support to get a lot of them in the space to make better policy. And this is from the IGF Ghana Hub. Thank you.

Rispa Arose: Thank you, thank you so much. I would really want to extend gratitude to our panelists and speakers for your honesty, your clarity, as well as your valuable contribution to this discussion. I would say that we cannot tire to talk about inclusivity because it’s towards the goal of connecting the unconnected as well as bridging the digital gap.

Agreement points

Community networks are not automatically inclusive and require intentional gender integration

Speakers

– Mathangi as Rispur
– Lillian Chamorro

Arguments

Community networks are locally driven but not automatically inclusive, requiring intentional gender integration from design stage

Women face barriers including care work responsibilities, low self-confidence with technology, and limited access to devices

Summary

Both speakers agree that while community networks represent a promising approach to connectivity, they face significant challenges in achieving gender inclusion. Women encounter multiple barriers including care work responsibilities, confidence issues with technology, and structural exclusion from leadership roles.

Topics

Development | Gender rights online | Infrastructure

Need for whole-of-government and cross-sectoral collaboration

Speakers

– Waqas Hassan
– Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu
– Dr. Emma Otieno

Arguments

Pakistan’s dedicated gender strategy reduced gender gap from 38% to 25% through inclusive policymaking

Regulators operate in silos with limited coordination across ministries responsible for gender, education, and health

Need meaningful measurement, tracking, and monitoring of gender inclusion policies with public-private partnerships

Summary

All three speakers emphasize the critical importance of breaking down institutional silos and adopting comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approaches to digital gender inclusion, with Pakistan’s success story serving as a concrete example.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Gender rights online

Importance of local languages and community-centered approaches

Speakers

– Kwaku Wanchi
– Lillian Chamorro
– Josephine Miliza

Arguments

Support collaboration with community businesses and translate digital skills training into local languages

Create women’s circles for expression and dialogue while respecting community values and gender roles

Community libraries and information centers can bridge digital gaps through collaboration with community networks

Summary

Speakers agree that effective digital inclusion requires respecting local contexts, languages, and cultural values while creating supportive spaces for women to engage with technology in culturally appropriate ways.

Topics

Development | Multilingualism | Sociocultural

Economic imperative of gender inclusion in digital strategies

Speakers

– Waqas Hassan
– Dr. Emma Otieno

Arguments

Gender exclusion from digital economy has caused $1 trillion GDP loss over last decade in developing countries

Need meaningful measurement, tracking, and monitoring of gender inclusion policies with public-private partnerships

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that gender digital inclusion is not just a social justice issue but a critical economic imperative, with measurable financial consequences for countries that fail to address it.

Topics

Economic | Development | Gender rights online

Similar viewpoints

Both regulatory experts identify the gap between policy existence and effective implementation, emphasizing the critical need for better data collection, measurement, and monitoring systems to make gender inclusion policies meaningful and effective.

Speakers

– Dr. Emma Otieno
– Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu

Arguments

Policies exist but lack intentional implementation and meaningful measurement of gender inclusion outcomes

Lack of gender-disaggregated data makes it difficult to identify specific needs and create targeted policies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Gender rights online | Development

Both speakers advocate for more flexible and supportive institutional frameworks that recognize the informal nature of many women-led initiatives and provide targeted financial and regulatory support to enable their participation in digital connectivity.

Speakers

– Mathangi as Rispur
– Lillian Chamorro

Arguments

Licensing frameworks should accommodate informal women’s groups and non-registered collectives

Establish financing funds with special conditions for women’s participation and technology access

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Gender rights online | Development

Both speakers critique the prevailing assumption that technological solutions are inherently neutral and equally beneficial, arguing instead for recognition of structural barriers and the need for differentiated, equity-focused approaches.

Speakers

– Waqas Hassan
– Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu

Arguments

Connectivity strategies are developed from infrastructure mindset assuming coverage equals inclusion, ignoring inherent barriers

Technology is perceived as gender neutral but policies fail to address diverse needs and equitable access

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Gender rights online

Unexpected consensus

Recognition of care work as legitimate labor in digital infrastructure

Speakers

– Mathangi as Rispur
– Lillian Chamorro

Arguments

Implement gender impact assessments during licensing processes and provide incentives for women-led networks

Create women’s circles for expression and dialogue while respecting community values and gender roles

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on recognizing and compensating care work and digital maintenance as legitimate forms of labor, moving beyond traditional technical roles to acknowledge the full spectrum of work required for sustainable community networks.

Topics

Development | Gender rights online | Economic

Community networks as infrastructure requiring formal policy support

Speakers

– Waqas Hassan
– Mathangi as Rispur

Arguments

Pakistan’s dedicated gender strategy reduced gender gap from 38% to 25% through inclusive policymaking

Community networks are locally driven but not automatically inclusive, requiring intentional gender integration from design stage

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged on treating community networks not just as grassroots initiatives but as legitimate infrastructure requiring formal government policy support and integration into national digital strategies.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists around the need for intentional, measured, and collaborative approaches to gender mainstreaming in digital connectivity, with agreement on moving beyond infrastructure-focused solutions to address structural barriers and recognize diverse forms of participation.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The speakers represent different sectors (civil society, government, academia, community organizations) but share fundamental agreement on core challenges and solution approaches. This strong consensus suggests significant potential for coordinated action and policy development, with the main challenge being implementation rather than conceptual disagreement.

Different viewpoints

Approach to accommodating informal vs formal structures in community networks

Speakers

– Mathangi as Rispur
– Waqas Hassan

Arguments

Licensing frameworks should accommodate informal women’s groups and non-registered collectives

Pakistan’s dedicated gender strategy reduced gender gap from 38% to 25% through inclusive policymaking

Summary

Mathangi advocates for accommodating informal, non-registered women’s collectives in licensing frameworks, emphasizing trust-based cooperatives. Waqas presents Pakistan’s success through formal institutional structures with high-level steering committees and official working groups, suggesting more structured approaches work better.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Gender rights online | Development

Unexpected differences

Role of traditional community structures in gender inclusion

Speakers

– Lillian Chamorro
– Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu

Arguments

Create women’s circles for expression and dialogue while respecting community values and gender roles

Technology is perceived as gender neutral but policies fail to address diverse needs and equitable access

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there’s a subtle disagreement on how to handle traditional gender roles. Lillian advocates for working within existing community values and not ‘breaking with local customs,’ while Ivy pushes for moving from equality to equity, which may require challenging traditional assumptions about gender neutrality.

Topics

Gender rights online | Sociocultural | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkable consensus on the problem (gender gaps in digital connectivity) and general solutions (better policies, data, and inclusion), with disagreements mainly on implementation approaches – formal vs informal structures, working within vs challenging traditional frameworks, and policy reform vs grassroots organizing.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely agree on goals and broad strategies, with differences primarily in methodology and emphasis. This suggests a mature field where practitioners have identified common challenges but are still developing best practices for implementation. The disagreements are constructive and complementary rather than conflicting, indicating potential for integrated approaches that combine different methodologies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both regulatory experts identify the gap between policy existence and effective implementation, emphasizing the critical need for better data collection, measurement, and monitoring systems to make gender inclusion policies meaningful and effective.

Speakers

– Dr. Emma Otieno
– Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu

Arguments

Policies exist but lack intentional implementation and meaningful measurement of gender inclusion outcomes

Lack of gender-disaggregated data makes it difficult to identify specific needs and create targeted policies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Gender rights online | Development

Both speakers advocate for more flexible and supportive institutional frameworks that recognize the informal nature of many women-led initiatives and provide targeted financial and regulatory support to enable their participation in digital connectivity.

Speakers

– Mathangi as Rispur
– Lillian Chamorro

Arguments

Licensing frameworks should accommodate informal women’s groups and non-registered collectives

Establish financing funds with special conditions for women’s participation and technology access

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Gender rights online | Development

Both speakers critique the prevailing assumption that technological solutions are inherently neutral and equally beneficial, arguing instead for recognition of structural barriers and the need for differentiated, equity-focused approaches.

Speakers

– Waqas Hassan
– Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu

Arguments

Connectivity strategies are developed from infrastructure mindset assuming coverage equals inclusion, ignoring inherent barriers

Technology is perceived as gender neutral but policies fail to address diverse needs and equitable access

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Gender rights online

Key takeaways

Gender mainstreaming in digital connectivity strategies requires intentional design from inception rather than treating gender as an afterthought

Community networks, while locally driven, are not automatically inclusive and need deliberate gender integration policies

The exclusion of women from the digital economy has caused $1 trillion in GDP loss over the last decade in developing countries, making this an economic crisis rather than just a social issue

Technology is often perceived as gender neutral, but policies fail to address diverse needs and equitable access requirements

Successful gender inclusion requires a whole-of-government approach with cross-sectoral collaboration beyond just ICT ministries

Pakistan’s dedicated gender strategy successfully reduced the gender gap from 38% to 25% through inclusive policymaking processes

Women face multiple barriers including care work responsibilities, low technological self-confidence, limited device access, and exclusion from decision-making roles

Lack of gender-disaggregated data makes it difficult to identify specific needs and create targeted policies

Many countries have gender policies but lack intentional implementation and meaningful measurement of outcomes

Resolutions and action items

Implement gender impact assessments during licensing processes for community networks

Create financing funds with special conditions for women’s participation in technology access and training

Establish women’s circles for dialogue and expression while respecting community values

Accommodate informal women’s groups and non-registered collectives in licensing frameworks

Involve gender activists and consumer advocates in policy development processes

Translate digital skills training into local languages using retired language teachers

Create infrastructure funds with contributions from all sectors benefiting from ICTs, not just telecom operators

Establish meaningful measurement, tracking, and monitoring systems for gender inclusion policies

Promote cross-sectoral collaboration by inviting educational, finance, and health ministries to IGF discussions

Support collaboration between community networks and community libraries/information centers

Unresolved issues

How to effectively redistribute care work responsibilities that prevent women’s participation in technical roles

Specific mechanisms for ensuring sustainability of women-led connectivity models without external scaffolding

Methods for balancing respect for traditional community gender roles while promoting women’s technical participation

Standardized approaches for collecting and analyzing gender-disaggregated data across different countries and contexts

Concrete funding mechanisms and amounts needed to support women-led community networks at scale

How to address the technical complexity barrier that discourages women from participating in community network infrastructure

Suggested compromises

Diversify roles in community networks with women in technical areas and men in administrative/financial aspects while recognizing care work value

Adapt methodologies that transcend purely technical approaches to include women’s interests and community care needs

Seek dialogue and reflection spaces on gender opportunities rather than breaking with local cultural values

Move from equality to equitable distribution by understanding and targeting specific gender needs rather than general broad policies

Recognize digital caretaking as a form of labor deserving of compensation while maintaining community cooperative spirit

If we don’t address or even consider the gendered digital divide, then you’re not really closing the gap, but more like building the infrastructure on top of the inequality and marginalization that is already existing.

Speaker

Mathangi Mohan

Reason

This comment reframes the entire approach to digital infrastructure development by highlighting that gender-neutral solutions perpetuate existing inequalities rather than solving them. It challenges the common assumption that providing access equals inclusion.

Impact

This insight became a foundational theme that other speakers built upon throughout the discussion. It shifted the conversation from simply identifying problems to understanding the systemic nature of digital exclusion and influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize intentional, targeted approaches rather than broad connectivity strategies.

The connectivity strategies are still primarily developed from an infrastructure mindset… that mindset is based on the assumption that if you provide access and expansion, coverage expansion, that is somehow synonymous with inclusion… infrastructure development does not mean equitable access.

Speaker

Waqas Hassan

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental flaw in policy thinking – the conflation of physical access with meaningful inclusion. It exposes the gap between technical solutions and social realities, backed by concrete economic data ($1 trillion GDP loss).

Impact

This observation prompted the regulatory speakers (Dr. Emma and Ivy) to acknowledge policy failures and led to deeper discussions about measurement, intentionality, and the need for whole-of-government approaches. It elevated the conversation from technical challenges to systemic policy critique.

We have not been intentional in terms of putting in these clauses in the policy regulation strategies, we are putting them in as aspects of satisfying the social or compliance aspects, but not meaningfully and intentionally putting them… What has lacked completely is measurement, the intentional and meaningful tracking.

Speaker

Dr. Emma Otieno

Reason

This is a remarkably honest admission from a regulatory perspective about the performative nature of gender inclusion in policies. It distinguishes between compliance-driven inclusion and genuine commitment, while identifying the critical gap in accountability mechanisms.

Impact

This candid assessment validated the concerns raised by civil society speakers and shifted the discussion toward concrete solutions. It led to more specific recommendations about cross-sectoral collaboration and stakeholder engagement, moving the conversation from problem identification to actionable solutions.

We are moving from equality to equitable distribution. We need to understand the specific needs and then target them specifically… You cannot give us the same level of a tree to climb or something. One of them will need a ladder to be able to climb the tree.

Speaker

Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu

Reason

This vivid metaphor crystallizes the difference between equal treatment and equitable outcomes, making complex policy concepts accessible. It challenges the one-size-fits-all approach to digital inclusion and emphasizes the need for differentiated solutions.

Impact

This analogy provided a clear framework that other speakers could reference and build upon. It helped consolidate the discussion around the need for targeted, differentiated approaches and influenced the final recommendations toward more nuanced, context-specific solutions.

The licensing frameworks for these CNs need to very explicitly accommodate non-registered collectives, informal women’s group… because these are mostly cooperatives rooted in trust and solidarity and just assuming that it should be a registered entity and a technical documentation… is also going to exclude a lot of groups.

Speaker

Mathangi Mohan

Reason

This comment reveals how formal regulatory requirements can inadvertently exclude the very communities they aim to serve. It highlights the tension between institutional frameworks and grassroots organizing, particularly for women-led initiatives.

Impact

This insight prompted deeper discussion about the need for flexible regulatory approaches and influenced recommendations about simplifying licensing procedures. It connected the technical aspects of community networks with the social realities of women’s organizing patterns.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a surface-level exploration of gender gaps to a sophisticated analysis of systemic barriers and solutions. The conversation evolved through three distinct phases: first, establishing that gender-neutral approaches perpetuate inequality; second, diagnosing the infrastructure-focused mindset and compliance-driven policies as root causes; and third, developing concrete recommendations for intentional, measured, and equitable approaches. The most impactful comments came from speakers who challenged fundamental assumptions about digital inclusion, provided honest assessments of current failures, and offered clear conceptual frameworks for moving forward. The discussion’s strength lay in how speakers built upon each other’s insights, creating a comprehensive analysis that connected grassroots experiences with policy frameworks and regulatory realities.

How can community networks better integrate with existing community libraries and information centers to bridge digital gaps?

Speaker

Peter Balaba (online comment)

Explanation

This suggests exploring partnerships between community networks and established community institutions like libraries and telecenters to leverage existing infrastructure and trust relationships for more effective digital inclusion.

How can local languages be better integrated into digital skills training and community network operations?

Speaker

Kwaku Wanchi

Explanation

This addresses the need for multilingual approaches to digital inclusion, particularly involving retired language teachers and ensuring technology training is accessible in local languages rather than only dominant languages.

How can small and medium enterprises (SMEs) led by women be better integrated into community network ecosystems?

Speaker

Kwaku Wanchi

Explanation

This explores the potential for leveraging existing women-led businesses as anchor points for community networks, potentially providing both funding and local expertise for sustainable connectivity solutions.

What specific methodologies work best for building women’s confidence in technical roles within community networks?

Speaker

Lillian Chamorro (implied)

Explanation

While challenges around low self-confidence were identified, specific evidence-based approaches for addressing this barrier need further investigation and documentation.

How can licensing frameworks be redesigned to accommodate informal women’s groups and non-registered collectives in community network governance?

Speaker

Mathangi Mohan

Explanation

Current regulatory frameworks may exclude informal women’s cooperatives that operate on trust and solidarity rather than formal registration, requiring policy research on alternative licensing approaches.

What are the most effective models for recognizing and compensating digital care work performed by women in community networks?

Speaker

Mathangi Mohan and Lillian Chamorro

Explanation

Both speakers highlighted the need to recognize women’s unpaid labor in maintaining community networks, but specific compensation models and their sustainability need further research.

How can gender-disaggregated data collection be systematically implemented across different countries’ ICT policies?

Speaker

Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu and Dr. Emma Otieno

Explanation

Both regulators emphasized the lack of gender-disaggregated data as a major barrier, but specific methodologies for consistent data collection and analysis across different regulatory contexts need development.

What are the most effective cross-sectoral collaboration models for integrating gender considerations across different government ministries?

Speaker

Ivy Tuffuor Hoetu

Explanation

The need for collaboration beyond ICT ministries was identified, but specific frameworks for coordinating gender mainstreaming across education, finance, health, and other sectors require further research.

How can the Pakistan model of dedicated gender digital inclusion strategy be adapted to other developing country contexts?

Speaker

Waqas Hassan (implied)

Explanation

While Pakistan’s success in reducing the gender gap was highlighted, research is needed on how this whole-of-government approach can be contextualized for different political, economic, and social environments.

What are the most effective funding mechanisms that allow for experimentation and iteration in women-led community networks?

Speaker

Mathangi Mohan

Explanation

Traditional funding models may not accommodate the experimental nature of community networks, requiring research into alternative funding approaches that support learning and adaptation.