WS #69 Beyond Tokenism Disability Inclusive Leadership in Ig

Summary

This discussion focused on disability leadership in internet governance, examining how to move beyond tokenistic representation to meaningful participation of persons with disabilities in digital policy-making spaces. The roundtable workshop, moderated by Muhammad Shabbir at the Internet Governance Forum 2025, brought together practitioners, researchers, and advocates to analyze current achievements and identify future strategies for inclusive internet governance.

Vint Cerf opened the session by emphasizing that accessibility is a high priority and the internet should truly be for everyone, noting that universal design benefits all users, not just those with disabilities. Gunela Astbrink discussed how global frameworks like WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact are incorporating disability inclusion language, but stressed the need to move from policy to implementation, citing the Internet Society’s accessibility framework as a successful case study.

Sarah Armstrong from the Internet Society Foundation outlined their philanthropic efforts, including disability-focused grant programs, accessibility training courses, and website compliance with WCAG standards. She emphasized the importance of senior leadership commitment and suggested that philanthropic organizations should require accessibility features in funded events and support mentorship programs for disability leaders.

Professor Derek Cockburn presented research evidence showing that disability advocacy networks have been among the most effective and sustained voices in internet governance spaces since the IGF’s inception. He highlighted the importance of using data analytics and AI tools to monitor progress and build research capacity in the disability community.

Several barriers to meaningful participation were identified, including lack of awareness about internet governance forums, insufficient funding for attendance, limited exposure to broader policy discussions beyond accessibility topics, and inadequate continuity support for sustained engagement. Participants emphasized that true inclusion requires preparing spaces for persons with disabilities, not just inviting them to participate. The discussion concluded with calls for integrating accessibility across all internet governance discussions, investing in leadership development pipelines, and establishing accountability mechanisms to ensure genuine progress toward inclusive digital governance.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Moving Beyond Tokenistic Representation**: The central theme focused on transitioning from symbolic participation of persons with disabilities in internet governance to meaningful leadership roles and decision-making positions, addressing the gap between participation and actual influence in policy-making.

– **Barriers to Meaningful Participation**: Multiple structural barriers were identified including lack of awareness about IGF among disability advocates, insufficient funding and logistical support, limited exposure to broader internet governance issues beyond accessibility, and challenges with continuity of engagement after events.

– **Institutional Commitment and Implementation**: Discussion of how organizations like the Internet Society are implementing accessibility frameworks, developing training programs, and creating accountability measures, while emphasizing the need for senior leadership commitment and systematic approaches to inclusion.

– **Research, Data, and Evidence-Based Approaches**: The importance of using data analytics, text mining, and research to track progress on disability inclusion in internet governance, with emphasis on building research capacity and utilizing available datasets to guide policy decisions.

– **Global Policy Frameworks and Implementation**: Analysis of how major international frameworks (WSIS+20, Global Digital Compact, UN Disability Inclusion Strategy) address disability inclusion and the challenges of translating high-level commitments into practical implementation at national and organizational levels.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to evaluate the current state of disability leadership in internet governance spaces, identify systemic barriers preventing meaningful participation, and develop actionable strategies for moving beyond tokenistic representation toward genuine inclusion and leadership opportunities for persons with disabilities in digital policy-making.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by professional expertise and shared commitment to the cause. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges and gaps in current approaches, the tone remained optimistic and solution-oriented. There was a notable shift toward more critical examination when audience members raised concerns about low participation rates and the need for more concrete action plans, but this enhanced rather than diminished the productive nature of the dialogue. The conversation consistently emphasized practical solutions and collective responsibility for creating change.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Muhammad Shabbir** – Moderator for the roundtable workshop, described as having limited understanding but proposing the workshop on disability leadership in internet governance

– **Gunela Astbrink** – Has wide experience in promoting, educating and making systems and policies accessible for people with disabilities; Leader of accessibility standing group of the Internet Society; MAG member; Extensive experience in policy making

– **Sarah Armstrong** – Executive Director of the Internet Society Foundation; Has vast experience in philanthropy

– **Vinton Cerf** – Chairman of the leadership panel of the Internet Governance Forum; Known as “the father of the internet” (provided video message)

– **Cogburn Derrick** – Academic and researcher in disability studies; Professor in disability and internet governance; Professor in information technology and analytics and environment development and health at American University; Co-director of internet governance lab; Executive director of Institute on Disability and Public Policy

– **Nirmita Narasimhan** – Accessibility advocate; Policy expert on accessibility

– **Participant** – Role/expertise not specified (appears to be session facilitator/moderator assistant)

– **MODERATOR** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Judith Hellestein** – Co-moderator and online moderator

– **Emmanuel Orok** – From Uganda, one of the online fellows (asked question via online)

– **Jacqueline Jijide** – From Malawi, African Youth Ambassador on Internet Governance; Digital inclusion practitioner from the African Digital Inclusion Alliance

– **Nigel Casimir** – From the Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– **Francis Akwa Amini** – From Ghana, Executive member of ISOC Ghana chapter for the past 10 years

# Comprehensive Report: Disability Leadership in Internet Governance – Moving Beyond Tokenistic Representation

## Executive Summary

This workshop (number 69) at the Internet Governance Forum 2024, moderated by Muhammad Shabbir, brought together leading practitioners, researchers, and advocates to examine the current state of disability leadership in internet governance and develop strategies for meaningful inclusion. The discussion centered on transitioning from symbolic participation of persons with disabilities to genuine leadership roles in digital policy-making spaces. Key participants included Gunela Astbrink (Internet Society accessibility leader), Sarah Armstrong (Internet Society Foundation Executive Director), Professor Derrick Cogburn (disability studies researcher), and Nirmita Narasimhan (accessibility advocate), alongside a video message from Vint Cerf and various international participants.

The session revealed both significant progress and persistent challenges in achieving meaningful disability inclusion in internet governance. While global policy frameworks increasingly incorporate disability inclusion language and organizations like the Internet Society have implemented comprehensive accessibility frameworks, substantial barriers remain to translating these commitments into widespread practice and genuine leadership opportunities for persons with disabilities.

## Opening Context and Purpose

Muhammad Shabbir opened by explaining the workshop’s significance in relation to the WSIS+20 review process and changes to the IGF mandate. He defined tokenism in the context of internet governance as “having persons with disabilities present in meetings or forums without giving them meaningful opportunities to influence decisions or policies.” The goal was to move beyond this tokenistic representation toward genuine leadership and decision-making roles.

Shabbir emphasized that digital accessibility means building internet infrastructure following universal design principles for all users, noting that devices designed for people with disabilities often prove useful for others in different contexts.

## Foundational Perspectives

### Vint Cerf’s Vision

In a video message, Vint Cerf emphasized that accessibility represents a high priority for internet governance, noting that the internet should truly be for everyone. He highlighted that universal design principles benefit all users, not just those with disabilities, citing examples of how hands-free interaction helps people while driving or multitasking. Cerf pointed to emerging opportunities with artificial intelligence and intelligent agents, suggesting these technologies may provide alternative interaction methods beyond traditional keyboards and mice, potentially making applications more usable through conversational negotiation rather than linear navigation.

## Global Policy Frameworks and Implementation

### International Framework Development

Gunela Astbrink provided comprehensive analysis of how major international frameworks are incorporating disability inclusion. She highlighted that WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact represent significant opportunities for embedding disability inclusion language in global policy instruments, with concrete consultation opportunities for stakeholders to influence global digital governance frameworks.

Astbrink emphasized that these high-level global policies must transition to national implementation through legislation and regulation at local levels. However, she identified this transition as one of the most significant challenges facing the disability inclusion movement, noting the gap between international commitments and practical implementation.

### Internet Society’s Systematic Approach

Astbrink explained how the Internet Society achieved board-level resolution on accessibility, creating a comprehensive framework that moves beyond ad-hoc accommodations to systematic inclusion. This approach demonstrates the importance of senior leadership commitment and institutional change rather than individual advocacy efforts.

Sarah Armstrong from the Internet Society Foundation outlined their philanthropic implementation strategy, which includes disability-focused grant programs, accessibility training courses, and operational frameworks based on the “nothing about us without us” principle. Armstrong detailed their five-week disability leadership training program in internet governance, which builds capacity while embedding accessibility considerations in broader policy discussions.

## Research Evidence and Advocacy Impact

Professor Derrick Cogburn presented compelling research evidence demonstrating the sustained impact of disability advocacy in internet governance spaces. Using text analytics of IGF transcripts, his research shows that DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability) language on accessibility has been consistently present since the first IGF, demonstrating the effectiveness of sustained advocacy efforts.

Cogburn highlighted the availability of multiple data sources for monitoring progress, including CRPD state reports, Washington Group Short Set census data, and accessibility mapping initiatives. He emphasized that open data and open source tools like Python and R enable research capacity building, while generative AI tools may enhance participation for those without traditional programming backgrounds.

## Barriers to Meaningful Participation

Nirmita Narasimhan provided detailed analysis of the multiple barriers preventing meaningful participation by persons with disabilities in internet governance. She identified four primary categories of challenges:

**Awareness and Outreach**: Limited awareness about IGF among disability advocates in various countries creates the first barrier to participation. Many advocates working on relevant technology issues remain unaware of international internet governance forums and their relevance to disability rights.

**Logistical and Financial Barriers**: Funding for travel, need for personal assistants, language barriers, and technology access issues create significant obstacles. These challenges are particularly acute for advocates from underrepresented regions who may require additional support for meaningful participation.

**Limited Exposure to Broader Issues**: Persons with disabilities often lack exposure to broader IGF discussions beyond accessibility topics, limiting their ability to contribute to other important areas like artificial intelligence, digital literacy, and cybersecurity.

**Continuity and Ongoing Support**: Participants need sustained engagement and connections to continue working on issues after returning to their countries. Current approaches often provide one-time participation opportunities without follow-up support or ongoing networking opportunities.

### Integration Versus Segregation

Narasimhan argued that meaningful participation requires integration across all IGF sessions rather than confining disability discussions to dedicated accessibility sessions. She advocated for mainstreaming accessibility discussions across all internet governance topics, noting that this approach would both broaden the contributions of persons with disabilities and increase awareness among other stakeholders.

## Capacity Building and Success Stories

### Regional Training Programs

Astbrink detailed successful train-the-trainer workshops conducted in South Asia, which effectively built disability leaders in internet governance through experiential learning and peer interaction. These programs combine online prerequisite courses with face-to-face workshops, creating effective learning pathways for disability advocates.

### Specific Project Examples

In response to Emmanuel Orok’s question about success stories and how to join programs, Armstrong highlighted specific Internet Society Foundation chapter projects in Puerto Rico, Bosnia Herzegovina, Kyrgyzstan, and Indonesia that demonstrate successful disability inclusion initiatives.

## Critical Challenges and Direct Accountability

### Pointed Criticism of Current Practices

The discussion took a critical turn when Jacqueline Jijide, African Youth Ambassador on Internet Governance from Malawi, provided pointed criticism, noting that “we cannot advocate for inclusion while excluding the very voice we claim to empower.” She specifically challenged the session’s lack of sign language interpretation and assistive tools, emphasizing that representation must be standard and intentional rather than symbolic.

This critique exposed contradictions in the session itself – discussing disability leadership while having limited actual participation accommodations for people with disabilities. The organizers responded by explaining they had asked DCAD members about international sign language needs but received no responses.

### Employment and Systemic Change

Francis Akwa Amini from Ghana raised fundamental questions about the effectiveness of current approaches, arguing that without clear pathways to employment and leadership positions, current efforts risk perpetuating dependency rather than creating self-sufficiency. He specifically advocated for employment quotas, suggesting that organizations should implement policies requiring a percentage of positions (such as 5%) to be filled by persons with disabilities.

This intervention shifted the conversation from discussing participation to questioning whether current approaches actually lead to systemic change, demanding concrete employment outcomes and measurable goals rather than just participation in forums.

## Areas of Consensus and Disagreement

### Strong Agreement

All speakers demonstrated consensus on several key principles:

– Universal design and accessibility benefit everyone, not just persons with disabilities

– Meaningful accessibility progress requires commitment from senior organizational leadership

– Sustainable capacity building approaches combining training, networking, and ongoing support are essential

– The gap between high-level policy commitments and practical implementation represents a critical challenge

### Key Tensions

The primary disagreement centered on approaches to achieving meaningful participation. Audience members criticized current efforts as insufficient and demanded immediate structural changes, while panelists defended incremental approaches through capacity building and organizational development. This tension reflects broader debates about reform versus transformation in disability rights advocacy.

## The Moderator’s Vision

Shabbir concluded by articulating an “ideal world” where accessibility would be built-in by default and persons with disabilities would not need to request accommodations or have separate discussions about accessibility – it would simply be standard practice. This aspirational framework provides guidance for the transformative changes required to achieve genuine disability leadership in internet governance.

## Conclusion and Future Directions

This workshop revealed both progress made and significant challenges remaining in achieving meaningful disability leadership in internet governance. While policy frameworks and organizational commitments have advanced, the transition from policy to practice remains incomplete.

The critical interventions from audience members demonstrated the importance of accountability and the need for more ambitious approaches to inclusion. The tension between celebrating incremental progress and demanding transformative change reflects broader challenges in disability rights advocacy.

The combination of emerging technological opportunities, global policy windows, and growing awareness of inclusion challenges creates potential for significant progress. However, realizing this potential requires coordinated action across organizations, sustained funding for meaningful participation, and continued pressure for accountability and systemic change.

The workshop demonstrated that while significant work remains, there is growing consensus on fundamental principles and increasing sophistication in approaches to disability inclusion. The challenge now lies in translating this understanding into widespread practice and ensuring that the voices of persons with disabilities are not just heard, but genuinely influential in shaping the future of internet governance.

*The organizers acknowledged Google LLC’s support for participant attendance at this workshop.*

MODERATOR: 👋 👋 📱 👋 👋

Muhammad Shabbir: 📢Share this video with your friends on social media and leave a thoughtful COMMENT below. Thank you for watching! Hello and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen I am Mohammed Shabbir Your moderator for the roundtable workshop number 69 Beyond tokenism disability leadership in internet governance Thank you very much for joining us today in the IGF 2025 for this very important discussion as We move forward and look towards the future where WSIS 20 is being reviewed IGF is Mandate is getting a new direction It is very important that we discuss and analyze that how? Persons with disabilities have been participating in the IGF discussions What have we so far achieved and what should be done next in this context? In my limited understanding while we were proposing this workshop We thought that though persons with disabilities have been participating in internet governance spaces they come they participated discussed highlighted accessibility issues, but the Representation at the decision-making table or in the room where decisions were made with regards to internet governance Digital accessibility We had a very tokenistic representation of persons with disabilities there though some would arguably also say that even the tokenistic Nomenclature or expression can also be expanded to internet governance spaces to some extent as well to explore different dimensions and aspects of This question and this topic that what has happened so far and what can be done next I have a very excellent and eminent panelists on the stage here and online. I thank everyone for Sparing their time to join us on this panel But before we go to the panelists and ask some very critical questions We need to understand what digital accessibility means and who better to talk about what digital accessibility means is the father of the internet known as Vint Cerf so we have a video message from Vint Cerf talking about The digital accessibility and what it means for persons with disabilities May I request the support team to kindly play the video by Vint Cerf

Vinton Cerf: Hello, my name is Vint Cerf. I’m chairman of the leadership panel of the Internet Governance Forum Today, I’d like to talk a little bit about Accessibility of the internet and the World Wide Web and in general accessibility for a lot of digital applications This is not easy In order to understand how to make applications accessible to someone with a disability Is a non-trivial exercise you really have to have intuition and that’s hard to get unless you happen to have a particular Disability or you happen to make use of certain kinds of applications like screen readers So that you have an appreciation for how well or how poorly some of these ideas work one thing that I can assure you of is that if you’re Responsible for user interfaces or what’s called user experience? It will be very very helpful for you to see examples of successful Applications and also examples of not so successful ones and to try to understand what made them either succeed or fail It also occurs to me that in addition to these kinds of examples from which you can gain intuition That we may discover with artificial intelligence that our ability to interact with the services of the World Wide Web and the Internet Through alternative means than keyboards and mice might turn out to be important. I’m thinking of course of Intelligent agents we may be able to make an application a lot more usable if it’s a question of negotiating With a system as opposed to trying to work your way through a two-dimensional space in a linear way, which is what? Of course the screen readers will do for someone who has vision impairment So it may very well be that AI is our friend here in a number of different dimensions This is relatively unexplored territory Although we’re seeing a great deal more oral interaction hands-free kinds of interaction which is helpful for people who Don’t have a visual impairment or an auto audio impairment But who just don’t have the ability to use their hands at the moment There are often situations where hands-free is really very very important and valuable So the message here is that accessibility is a high priority The Internet should be for everyone and that’s inclusive of people with various disabilities and second It’s important to recognize that everyone who has one or more disabilities will have different combinations and flavors And so there’s no simple single solution for audio impairment or visual impairment We really have to design interfaces that are adaptable to people’s needs Once again a very very important topic to make sure that the Internet really is for everyone So I’m glad to see that the DCAD the DCAD the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility Is active in the Internet Governance Forum. I’m looking forward to Your conclusions and your discussion as you search for better ways of making the Internet an accessible place

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much Vint Cerf we heard right from the top of the Internet Governance leadership that how Accessibility is important. I just want to add number one when Vint was speaking about Building Internet which is for everyone He meant that following the universal design which everyone can use And if it is made accessible the common misunderstanding is that it is made accessible for persons with disabilities, but everyone else can use that so a device which is used or Prepared to make it accessible for people who lack hands or physical disabilities It can also be used by other people who are driving or who want to do some other tasks while commanding to the machines now Before we move forward the discussion I want to go to the speaker on the stage Gunela Espring She has a very wide experience of promoting educating and Making systems and policies accessible for people with disabilities She has vast experience of policy making as well. So with her experience of being the accessibility Being the leader of accessibility standing group of the Internet Society being the MAG member I would want to ask her Gunela. What in your opinion? Do you think that? WIS WS is GDC and inclusion strategy mean for persons with disabilities and What policy make mechanisms can be? there or improved To make the environments digital environments, particularly accessible for people with disabilities Gunela over to you

Gunela Astbrink: Thank you very much. Dr. Shabir and That’s a big question But I will try to answer in terms of such frameworks as dr. Shabir mentioned WSIS 20 plus global digital compact and also the UN disability inclusion strategy. We are right in the middle of these discussions when it comes to WSIS plus 20 and the global digital compact. We will see results according to plan by the end of the year. And these are very complex negotiations. And we will have to find ways to be able to input into that. So the WSIS plus 20 has recently released an elements paper. And this is based on consultation with member states and other stakeholders. And there are a number of paragraphs in there. And I won’t go into great detail. But it does talk about digital divide. It talks about accessibility for persons with disability and also reinforcing existing frameworks for multi-stakeholder cooperation. So we need to read that. We need to make comments by the 15th of July into what’s called the zero draft. And we have the opportunity to input just like any other stakeholder does. I will also talk about the global digital compact. And this is another instrument that is being ‑‑ well, it has been drafted. But it’s now a matter of how that harmonizes or not with the WSIS plus 20. And I want to refer to digital literacy skills and competencies. And it says we, as in the GDC, commit by 2030 to provide accessible user interfaces. These are based on some of the sustainable development goals. And in that case, it’s number 4 and 10. And also to target and tailor capacity building for underrepresented groups, including persons with disability, to ensure meaningful engagement in design and implementation of programs. And that’s really important when we are talking about disability leadership. That here there is something stated about that meaningful engagement. So we have to ask ourselves, how is this going to be implemented? Because this is a high level global instrument. And obviously, it requires national legislation and regulation in many cases to do so. So I just wanted then to go into how do we move from policies to implementation? And there are a number of complexities with that. And I want to refer to basically a case study. And this is the Internet Society. It is important to have senior staff who are accessibility champions. It makes a huge, big difference. And the Internet Society has an accessibility standing group. And it has developed an accessibility framework. And we’re very fortunate that we do have a disability leader in Dr. Mohammad Shabir, who was on the board of trustees of the Internet Society for two years. And then during that time, a resolution was unanimously approved on an accessibility framework. So then how do we move to the implementation stage? And again, I want to emphasize the importance of senior staff being accessibility champions. And it’s been a long and winding road. But now we have a possibility to achieve that through the Internet Society, talking about building a culture of accessibility and minimizing barriers to participation. And through that, we feel that the Internet Society can benefit from having more people with disabilities being part of the organization in a number of different ways. So I think I’ll stop there. But that gives just a flavor. So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Gunela Espring,

Muhammad Shabbir: for your wonderful insights. Your discussion has a lot to unpack. And we may come to you during the discussion session to unpack some of the statements that you have made. Audience may have some questions. But you talked about Internet Society while presenting the case study. And we are fortunate to have the Executive Director of the Internet Society Foundation right on the stage. And this gives me a sort of more motivation to bring her in now and ask her, because Sarah Armstrong is the Executive Director of ISOC Foundation. And she has a very vast experience of philanthropy. So Sarah, I have a couple of questions for you for your intervention. First relates to your philanthropic experience. And that is that what role the philanthropic organizations can play in making the organizations and Internet governance accessible for people with disabilities. And focusing on the more narrow part, what Internet Society and Internet Society Foundations are doing in this context to train persons with disabilities in leadership. And what more as a philanthropic experienced person you would recommend that can be done. Sarah, the floor is yours.

Sarah Armstrong: Thank you so much, Dr. Shabir. Can everybody hear me okay? All right. Thanks. It’s a pleasure to be here, especially with such special people here on the panel. And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the work of the Internet Society Foundation, as well as discussing the philanthropic environment. It is definitely an issue we all need to be focused on. And that is because we know that there’s a large percentage of the population who is in many cases permanently disabled. And they really need to have the opportunity to enjoy all of the things that the Internet brings into our life. We are committed as an organization to be sure that we have content, services, policies, and programs that are in fact accessibility oriented. And we want to make sure that accessibility is all about what we do because of the fact that digital inclusion means the Internet really is for everyone. And that is our vision statement. We have, as Dr. Shabir noted, we have been working with the standing group, the accessibility standing group. And I just want to go through a couple of the different things that the Internet Society Foundation is doing specifically. And then I’ll move on to what we believe the philanthropic arena can do as well. So we are accessibility champions, again, as Gunela mentioned. We have, for example, a very large portfolio of grant programs. And a number of our grant programs are in fact very much focused on targeting the audience of people with disabilities and being sure that they are funding or we are funding organizations and people who are very sensitive to the needs. So we have training programs with some of our grantees from skills, which is all about teaching digital literacy. We have other programs with our Beyond the Net chapter program. And then finally we have Connecting the Unconnected, which is about community networks, also focusing on people with disabilities. We also, as Gunela mentioned, have an operational framework. This was something that was approved by our board and in fact has become a really, really big focus for the organization. And that is a strategy that is based on the nothing about us without us. So it’s guiding what the Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation is doing in this area. We also have been working on our website and making sure that all new content meets the WCAG 22.1 AA standard. And also we do an annual audit to make sure that that continues. And those are our most recent score was a 99 out of 100. in terms of our desktop. So that was good to see that we’re making such progress in those areas. In addition to the grant programs focused on persons with disability, we also have a training course. And this training course is entitled Distability Leadership Training in Internet Governance and Digital Rights. This program is a five-week program, about 15 to 20 hours long, and it’s developed specifically with the ISOC Accessibility Standing Group. It builds leadership and embeds accessibility in Internet governance discussions. It’s designed for persons with disabilities and advocates and trainers, and it covers accessibility policy and links to Internet governance. So this program here does, in fact, advance disability leadership. But the question is, is there more that can be done? Is there more that can be done by us? And then talking about the other possible philanthropic organizations who may be looking at the same important issue. It’s an ongoing journey. So there are some things that we’ve done. I’ve discussed those so far, but there are also other things that we can look at. Explore opportunities for funding for disability leadership is one concept. Encourage grantees to offer more training and support systems. Introduce possibly the tracking and the publishing of participation data. So these are things that we’re looking at as we go on this journey. So we’re gonna continue to move forward and stay committed. As I mentioned, we have, from the board level down, a real support for this direction. And so that’s the place right now where the foundation and the Internet Society are. And then in addition, the second question is, what role can philanthropic organizations play in enabling leadership by persons with disability in Internet governance? This is where I split it into three different areas of things that I believe the philanthropic community can do to make a better world. Encourage inclusiveness in funded events, such as IGFs or NRIs or SIGs. For example, what we’re doing on our webpage on the Internet Governance Forum webpage for our Internet Governance Forum program, we have that disclaimer, a line that we encourage people to strongly make sure that the dialogues that they’re having in these IGFs and these NRIs and in these schools of Internet governance, that they’re strongly encouraged to review and follow the accessibility guidelines that have been developed by the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability when planning any type of event. So we are keeping an eye on that and keeping in touch and seeing how that move is going forward. We also would recommend that philanthropic organizations require accessibility features, such as captioning and sign language, accessibility platforms and venues. And we definitely feel it’s important for people to reference and enforce the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability accessibility guidelines. Furthermore, for the ideas for philanthropic organizations, supporting mentorships, linking new leaders with experts, funding and facilitating disability-specific networks and coalitions, convening dialogues and embedding accessibility in IG agendas, and also back leadership of those who are facing intersecting challenges such as gender geography. And finally, some other key roles for philanthropic organizations to play, prioritize funding for underrepresented regions, invest in research on barriers and solutions, support impact measurement to refine the strategies and ensure accountability. So what I’ve described here are ideas for what we believe other philanthropic organizations can do. And that, of course, is built on the recommendations that have come to us that we have now followed through and implemented for our website, for our training program, for our grant program, et cetera. And we believe that very, very strongly that all of these different areas together have a unique opportunity to drive equity by investing in accessibility and leadership, ensuring the internet is, in fact, for everyone. So with that, I will thank you. And Dr. Shabir, I’ll turn it back to you.

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Sarah, for this wonderful intervention and outlining some of the activities and also illustrating the plans that Internet Society, particularly the fellowships that Internet Society is doing and trying to advance the work on digital accessibility for people with disabilities. We have heard from practitioners. I think it is now high time that we talk about evidence and research-based evidence on the accessibility and digital accessibility for people with disabilities. And we are fortunate to have Dr. Derek Cockburn join us online, who is an academic and a researcher in disability studies. And he is a professor in disability and internet governance. Dr. Derek Cockburn, I have a couple of questions for you as well. And while you are making your intervention, we can deep dive while in the question and answer session. But I would want you to focus on the evidence that are there that how people with disabilities can access the leadership corridors of the internet governance. And how can research and data from your experience, would you like to enlighten us that it can guide us and internet governance spaces to make these spaces accessible for people with disabilities? Dr. Derek, floor is yours.

Cogburn Derrick: Thank you very much, Dr. Shabir. I appreciate that. I thank you for your leadership of the DICAD. And I wanna thank all of my fellow panelists and moderators as well. I wanna congratulate the DICAD on this panel and the 20th anniversary of IGF. I attended the initial IGF and it is wonderful to see this continued progress. And I also wanna acknowledge the 20th anniversary of Giganet as well, the Global Internet Governance Academic Network, which was founded at the beginning of IGF as a community of researchers to be able to focus on interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of internet governance. So it’s a nice partnership to have our discussion in this panel also linked with Giganet. I also apologize for not being there in person, as you can tell I’m a little under the weather, but there’s also a parallel conference going on here in Washington at the National Academy of Sciences. And it’s focused on what are called cyber hard problems. And I know that our fellow panelists, Vint Cerf is also involved in that event. And it shows that when we talk about being involved in internet governance and digital policy leadership, there are so many overlapping venues and spaces and locations where we need to continue to insert disability inclusive ideas. And this is helpful for me. As you know, I wear multiple hats at American University. I’m a professor in information technology and analytics and also environment development and health. And I also co-direct our internet governance lab and serve as executive director of our Institute on Disability and Public Policy. So that allows me to bring these multiple areas together as we think about how do we identify data, build datasets, conduct research projects that shed light on these questions. And one of the things that we found is that there has been a range of disability inclusive leadership in internet governance spaces and in some of the broader disability inclusive development strategies related to the SDGs, the digital compact and other areas. If you remember, some of you in my book published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2017, we examined transnational advocacy networks in the information society, partners or puns. And one of the things we focused on in that book was the way in which transnational advocacy networks can bring advocates together in a particular issue area to influence these global spaces. And a chapter in that book highlighted the dynamic coalition on accessibility and disability. This is one of many transnational advocacy networks for the disability community that are active in the SDGs, that are active in disaster risk reduction and a number of other spaces. there are about seven transnational advocacy networks focused on disability inclusive development in a variety of perspectives. You also may remember my book published by MIT Press on researching internet governance. And one of the things that we looked at there were all of the text, we analyzed the text coming from the captions from the IGF going back to the beginning of the IGF. So text analytics has been a very powerful way for us to think about how do we analyze what is actually happening in these spaces and who is participating and engaging and shaping ideas in these spaces. And a chapter in that book that looks at the internet governance transcripts showed that the DICAD language and the language of accessibility and disability is one of the earliest and seemingly most effective of the dynamic coalitions having from the first IGF and maintaining those ideas and concepts in IGF transcripts and in IGF language going forward. And I was quite surprised to see that level of sustained reference to accessibility language and it is a testament to the impact that the DICAD has had in this space. So these approaches for us are very important. So being able to use text mining and natural language processing and now using generative AI tools helps us to take advantage of the kind of data that is available to us. So this kind of large-scale text analytics really lets us understand what kind of impact our ideas are having in these global policy spaces. So two weeks ago, my team organized a side event in New York at the UN for the 18th Conference of States Parties. This side event was entitled Enhancing Community Engagement and Monitoring CRPD Implementation Through AI, Text Mining, Economic Data, and Accessibility Mapping. So one of the things that this side event showed is that when we use various ways of various forms of data, whether it be large-scale text data, so our project looked at analyzing all of the CRPD state reports to be able to understand how much progress is being made on implementing the CRPD around the world and by regions. But some of the other projects looked at data that comes from the Washington Group Short Set that has been able to influence various national census data so we can do traditional statistical analysis and we can also use data that’s called mapping data for accessibility. So there are a number of programs that are mapping accessibility in locations around the world. So for us, this approach gives us lots of opportunity and hope for being able to continue to monitor progress on disability inclusion around the world in different policy spaces. Now most of this data is open data, so all of the text data that I’m talking about can usually be downloaded from websites, all the transcripts from the IGF, for example, that we’ve downloaded, state reports, side reports, alternative reports, committee reports, all of that text data is available. And we have two really, really good sources of disability data. One is called the Disability Data Initiative, which is led by Fordham University, and the Disability Data Hub, led by the World Bank. Both of these data sets, as well as the text data, provides tremendous data for us to be able to analyze how persons with disabilities are faring in this current period, but also how do we understand who’s involved in each of these areas. Now this requires us to be able to focus on continuous capacity development in research capacity. So even though this data is free and open, and we have tremendous open source data analytics tools like Python and R, which are open source programming languages that let us analyze this kind of data, we still need to focus on capacity building in these areas and making sure people are trained to be able to use these tools. Now we believe that the generative AI tools will help to enhance multi-stakeholder participation by those that are not trained in programming. And we have a paper that is just coming out in Data and Policy, which compares our traditional NLP approach with the generative AI approach. But I think that focusing on capacity building for research is going to be an important area for us going forward.

Muhammad Shabbir: Yeah. Thank you very much, Dr. Derrick, for sharing with us the data and data sets that are available and how they are used to advance the cause of disability leadership in Internet governance and other spaces. Let’s hear about the disability and leadership and barriers from another online speaker, Nirmita Narasimhan. I’m sorry if I’m pronouncing your name wrong. And she is one of the accessibility advocates, policy experts on accessibility. And Dr. Nirmita, I would want you to focus on the barriers, if there are any, in the way of persons with disabilities and their leadership in the Internet governance spaces and how those barriers can be removed. What are your experiences? Dr. Nirmita, the floor is yours.

Nirmita Narasimhan: Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shabbir. So let me approach this from a perspective of somebody who would want to be, you know, so set to attend the IGF. So there are barriers at every level, right? And the first barrier is that people don’t know about it, about IGF, especially disability advocates working in different countries. There is not enough outreach to them about IGF and the issues which are discussed. And also that many of them are quite relevant to what the technologies that we use, the content that we access and the engagement and interaction that we have with the Internet. So the first barrier for me would be that there is probably a handful of people in a country with hundreds and hundreds of disability advocates who actually know about the IGF and what takes place there and the fact that they can contribute to it. Once you cross that barrier, how do you engage with the IGF, right? If you want to get there, where do you get the support to get there? There would be logistic issues maybe that, you know, people may need to take somebody along with them to help them navigate the system or to help them communicate. So where do you get the funding from? Who are the organizations you need to be in touch with? And also other issues, maybe language, maybe technology issues. But once you get there, I think one of the chief problems which I feel as a person having been in association with the IGF from 2008, I feel that people with disabilities do not have enough exposure to other issues which are getting discussed at the IGF. So right now it’s probably the only thing they know about is accessibility and disability and the topic they are covering or they’re talking about. But meaningful participation goes beyond just talking in your session about accessibility. You need to be able to engage with other forum. You need to be able to absorb other discussions which are going on and see how you can contribute. And it works both ways. You need to be able to participate in other discussions which are also very important. I mean, AI, for example, is a critical technology for persons with disabilities these days, right? And there’s so much which you would unearth if you, you know, talk to people with disabilities. There is so much that they can contribute to the way the Internet is shaping in terms of AI, in terms of literacy, in terms of safety. And that representation is not coming across. And it’s not coming across on both sides. So I think one needs to pay some more thought to how this people with disabilities and other people can work together for them to, you know, contribute to different discussions. So I think these are primarily the kind of structural barriers one encounters. And finally, after that, what? So remote participation has really helped persons with disabilities be part of the forum. But visibility is also important. And continuity is important. So what happens from one forum to the other? Once you go back, so what? Do you get support or motivation or do you have the connects to work on these issues when you go back to your country? Because at the end of the day, it’s not a one-time thing. It’s not a one-time thing, right? It’s something you need to continue, you need to work at to be able to participate meaningfully. So continuity is, again, an issue, both in terms of being able to work in your country and move beyond just the other kind of projects which you are working on, and the support internationally to continue to work with different members at the IGF. So these are some of the barriers which I see affect meaningful participation of persons with disabilities.

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Nirmita, for highlighting these barriers and I think we can explore what are the strategies and how those barriers can be removed. Before I ask some more questions to the panelists, I want to see if there are any comments or questions from the audience in person or online.

Participant: Yes, thank you, Dr. Shabbir. We do have a comment from the online and it’s from Emmanuel Orok from Uganda who’s one of our online fellows. And his question is addressed to the ISOC Foundation and he asks, could you share success stories with practical examples of specific projects or initiatives for people, for persons with disabilities and how does one join them?

Sarah Armstrong: Okay, so I would definitely say that the work that the Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation have been doing just to include more and to do more towards persons with disabilities is an opportunity for people to find ISOC and the Foundation more accessible. So the fact that we have the mandate and that we are following through on it means that more people can be involved in the types of things that the Internet Society and the Foundation are doing. In addition, I can give some examples of our chapters. Beyond the Net, the Puerto Rico chapter is organizing conferences with the University of Puerto Rico around technology for students with disabilities. So there’s an opportunity there. Bosnia and Herzegovina chapters have a project to train sightless journalists. The Kyrgyzstan chapter is working with women with disabilities and with a minister who is visually impaired and working on, again, on things that they can do in those different countries. We are working on incorporating screen readers in some of our programs for connecting the unconnected. And our skills program through Koda Kida, which is the name of our Indonesian grantee, they are equipping women businesses owners and disabilities in greater Solo with digital skills and economic opportunities. So these are just further examples of the types of things that are happening as a result of our commitment to expanding accessibility. And in terms of being able to access information specifically on the Foundation, because of what we’re doing with the website, we are making it easier for people with disabilities to be much more informed about the programs that we offer. So I hope that helps answer the question.

Participant: Yeah, thanks so much. I’m wondering, do we have any questions from the audience in person? You do, okay, yes. So please come to the mic and state your name and your organization you’re with.

Audience: Okay, so my name is Jacqueline Jijide, and I’m from Malawi. I am an African Youth Ambassador on Internet Governance, and I’m also a digital inclusion practitioner from the African Digital Inclusion Alliance. First of all, let me thank you for hosting this session, especially on disability inclusion leadership. However, as somebody who advocates for digital inclusion, I was a bit worried because when I was coming to participate into this conversation, I anticipated to have a high level of this target group participating for this particular event, but the participation is low, and that is also giving me some sort of like a concern, because we cannot advocate for inclusion while excluding the very voice we claim to empower. So representation must not be symbolic, but it must be standard and intentional. And I also want to extend that true inclusion must mean more than just inviting people into the room, but also preparing the room for them. With that being said, I was looking throughout the room to see people providing sign language interpretation. Also, I looked for the take assistive tools that helps the people with disability issues, but it’s not there. And also the environment where everybody can participate like the people that we are trying to empower these people. So my question is, what steps have we put as the organizers or partners to make sure that we have a high level of participation from the people that are living with disabilities and also to equip them and support them to be equal contributors, especially in high level forums like IGF in the future event. Thank you very much.

Participant: Thank you so much for your question. To touch on the sign language issue, we did ask our DCAD members who will be coming online if they wanted, if they need international sign, but we didn’t hear back from them. Currently the event here has human captioning and we also do have several of our disability fellows in the audience and here. The question is, we did promote the event, but there’s a lot of different competing events that are very, that are pulling people away. And oftentimes what people do here is since they can’t go to an event live, they watch the replay of it in their time because there’s so many events that they cannot go to and they cannot split themselves in many different people. So that is one of the reasons, but we do promote the event, the internet government promotes the event. It’s on the YouTube channels too, but it’s always a question of how do we get people here? And that’s the age old question for everyone.

Muhammad Shabbir: Yes, and in addition to what Judith has said, I totally acknowledge your point and that’s where the exact title of this session states beyond tokenism. We need to move beyond tokenism, be that the leadership or the IGF spaces. We all do much to make persons with disabilities a part of these discussions. Now, having said that there, as Nimita said, that bringing persons with disabilities to these spaces requires a lot of effort and finances and DCAD in its limited capacity tries to fulfill that gap. And I know that what we are doing is not enough. We need to do more. Your point is well acknowledged. We do have two persons with disabilities in person attending this IGF, supported by the DCAD and one online. So, and this is courtesy of our first speaker, Vint Cerf, and his organization, Google LLC, that we are doing so. More organization can come forward to contribute to this cause, but as Judith said, with regards to participation in these sessions by the other participants, we are competing with other sessions and priorities that the participating people would have. So it’s the priorities and the priorities of the people and their personal preferences that which sessions they want to attend. But thank you, your point is well taken. Any other points?

Participant: Any other, yes, we do have another question here. If you can come to the mic.

Audience: Thank you so much, Nigel. Hello, I’m Nigel Casimir from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. And in our work around the Caribbean, when we do events, at least annually, we tend to have some workshops in ICT for persons with disabilities. Our focus, though, is more on the local community, and I guess helping persons with disabilities in the local community to understand the value or the power of ICTs maybe to make their life easier. We haven’t actually. We haven’t actually had, and this has not been our focus, we haven’t actually had persons, even advocates for the disabled community, expressing a level of interest in things like these international events or whatever. And I’m wondering how might one try to develop such an ambition, you know, in the persons with disabilities to look just beyond the local community and maybe see how you could make life better for maybe the wider society and make an influence in the world. I’m wondering if there’s any experience people have had or if it’s just up to the individual ambition of persons with disabilities to do something like that. Thanks.

Muhammad Shabbir: Yes, thank you very much. Does any of the panelists want to respond to this comment? Yeah, I could. Okay, Gunela, please do. Yes, and then Darragh goes, but he has to get upgraded again.

Gunela Astbrink: Yeah, thank you very much for that question. And I think as Nirmita also stated, that there is limited knowledge in some communities about internet governance and often there’s a struggle to even get people with disabilities online and build digital literacy. But we can work on that and I’m going to mention some work that we have done in South Asia to build disability leaders in internet governance. And that is through support of the Asia Pacific School of Internet Governance and local chapter in Bangladesh and other supporters to run train-the-trainer workshops in internet governance and digital leadership and digital rights. And that was bringing people from South Asian countries, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nepal to Bangladesh and they are experienced advocates, but not necessarily experienced in internet governance. But bringing those people together to learn by doing, by interacting about the internet governance discussions, the various internet groups and how they connect with disability and accessibility global instruments and so forth. So the idea then was for those advocates to go back to their own countries and run workshops and that has happened over the past three years. And we would like that to have possibilities in other regions of the world as well. It is very important that the people who participate in that can continue the work in their communities and that might be through advocacy to their governments, to the private sector, when it comes to policy implementation in IT. And it could also be working with committees, for example, the local chapter. And it could be working with DCAD, for example, helping in various ways, going on committees to assist in building workshops on this topic in a particular country or region. So there’s a lot of work to be done and we need to make it sustainable. And we are starting, but there’s a lot of work to be done. And I should also mention that we do have, through ISOC, an online course, which Sarah has mentioned, and that is a prerequisite for any of these type of face-to-face workshops. So we’re trying to align with, for example, DCAD in the fellowships that are provided each year where you have remote participants. We just heard a question from him, Emanuel Oruc, and also from our participants here in the room. And that is Sarah and Jalanta, so you might want to just put your hands up. Yeah.

Muhammad Shabbir: Okay, thank you very much, Ganella. But before we take another question, I think Professor Derek wants to contribute to the question. So, Professor Derek, the floor is yours, but if you can be brief, we can take more questions.

Cogburn Derrick: Yes. Yes. Thank you for reminding me to be brief. I think that’s a great question. And what I wanted to say in my answer is tying in something that Dr. Numita and our previous questioner also said. So participating effectively in these kinds of global spaces requires a sustained, engaged, committed set of activities. And it’s very difficult for an individual to do that unless that individual works for an organization that is able to fund their participation in multiple meetings that are overlapping and related meetings and so forth. And that’s why I have found that it’s these networks, these transnational advocacy networks that are so important. So they allow you in your local community to connect with a group of local advocates who are aware of these issues and ready to get involved, but they are participating in a larger network of like-minded activists around the world. So the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is one example where the advances in this kind of remote participation technology allows the DICAD to have regular meetings and to have people prepare for the IGF, to participate in the IGF, and then to follow up on the IGF, all using these tools and combining those people who will be remote with those people who will be in person. When we first started the IGF and WSIS, these kinds of remote participation processes were not existent and slowly came on board over the years, and we need to be able to take advantage of the fact that they are so robust now and allow people to participate effectively remotely. So to the original questioner, my recommendation is to find these networks like the DICAD and others that are focused on disability inclusion and start participating in those networks, trying to help raise money and encourage fellow participants to engage in those kinds of transnational advocacy networks.

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Professor Derrick, for your insights, and Ganella as well. Gentlemen, you have been very patient. Thank you very much. So you can introduce and ask your question. Please.

Audience: All right. Thank you. My name is Francis Akwa Amini. Looks like I’m very tall. All right. Comfortable now. All right. So my name is Francis from Ghana. I’ve been an executive member of ISO Ghana chapter for the past 10 years, and we have a policy plan or a framework for them to take up leadership role or employment again, because at the end goal, we want them to see them at the top. We have a certain policy which is going to enforce that if probably the various positions in ICANN, Internet Society, ISOC Foundation, when we’re employing, we have a certain position that will say, okay, let me say 5% should be persons with disability if we’re employing, so that at least once we are empowering them to be able to be part of this conversation, we can also let them be sufficient, because until then, once we don’t have a clear plan to make themselves sufficient, they will still become dependent on people. At the end of the day, we’ll be bringing them to forums, trying to empower them, but if you don’t have a clear end goal, I don’t think it’s going to solve the problem. So my question is, is there a clear vision, a clear plan to end this? Thank you.

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Francis. This is a very interesting question, and who of the speaker wants to respond to this?

Sarah Armstrong: Well, I can start by saying for the Internet Society, as I mentioned earlier, it’s a journey, but it is a commitment that we’ve made, that we backed up with a resolution from the Board of Trustees, that we will continue to find ways to include more people with disabilities. And it’s, you know, the work that we’re doing to try to make it so that work that we do is accessible, that’s a journey that we’re taking and that we’re making real progress on. As I mentioned, our website is considered really stellar for people to be able to access information. information and then in terms of you know bringing on more staff I think it’s a question that you were asking whether or not we can have that just something that we are again examining this is something again to which we’re committed and we’re looking ahead at the different ways that we can do that my co-moderator

Muhammad Shabbir: who is the online moderator as well wants to say something so Judith yes

Participant: thanks so much thanks so much yes that is an important question what don’t what we DCAT has been doing is we’ve been advocating for persons with disabilities and also our disability fellows then advocate in their own countries what they’ve been doing is they’ve been advocating for online form for forms to be accessible online we work with different other organizations to make sure that they are aware about week not only about WCAG but also they may be aware and make the websites accessible but they’re nationally not necessarily aware how to make accessible documents how to make infographics accessible how to make all that so it’s a work in progress and what we can do is work on advocacy and work to enable other governments we have governments that put in the WCAG guidelines in their legislation so we could do a lot in advocacy and trying to do all that it is up to the others to actually then to

Muhammad Shabbir: make the next step yes thank you very much Judith but if you ask me what’s the end goal as the organizer of this panel I would say in an ideal world we would not be having this discussion but persons with disabilities would not have to ask for certain facilities services to be made accessible websites to be made but they would already be given to them without asking but I know we don’t live in an ideal world so we are moving towards that goal I know that may be called idealistic not reachable or something some other connotations but I say that we if we don’t have that goal in the side we won’t be reaching anywhere as you said Internet Society what Sara has said it has started by making the organization itself accessible that’s the first step DICAD is trying to make persons with disabilities participate in these discussions and make these meetings accessible for people with disabilities that’s another step there is a whole internet governance ecosystem there needs to be other organizations who would work towards this end goal so I hope to some extent we were able to answer your question are there any other comments or

Nirmita Narasimhan: questions before I go to the mod to the speakers may I contribute to this discussion yes no matter okay so yes I’d say the end goal for us is not any different than other people see the way I see it making things accessible and getting people there in leadership positions is just what you need to do to have the end goal of being able to contribute to the discussion and shape the way the internet is emerging and the technologies are emerging so I don’t see it necessarily as a shift in goal and and we are trying to move beyond the policy and implement things so for me I would say the end goal is still what you can contribute to the discussions what was in there from your experience and being accessible being user-friendly being present these are all just things

Muhammad Shabbir: we need to do to get there Thank You Nimita thank you very much I would give 30 seconds to each of my speakers if they have any wrap-up thoughts to share those with us otherwise I’ll go towards the wrap-up and I’m sorry Sarah oh okay

Sarah Armstrong: wrap up again thank you very much for including me in this important discussion I mentioned when I made my remarks about the importance of the commitment and we really feel like we have an opportunity at the Internet Society and Internet Society Foundation to lead by example to drive equity by investing in accessibility and leadership because we again are very committed to our mission and our vision of the internet is for everyone and that needs to continue and that means to be inclusive so those are the things I would like to reinforce on the importance of that in the we are setting an example and we feel very strongly about the progress that we’re making

Muhammad Shabbir: thank you very much Sarah professor Derek and please remember 30 seconds yes

Cogburn Derrick: yes I would just say that in response to the last question for three years we led a program a master’s program for persons with disabilities in Southeast Asia and I think that kind of program is something that’s really helpful in making sure more advocates are trained in this space and I would just encourage everyone to think about using the data that’s available and joining and participating actively in some of these transnational networks thank you very

Nirmita Narasimhan: much professor Derek dr. Nimita I won’t take up more time I think I’ve given my thoughts and I hope I’m happy to take more questions or respond later what I would like to see going forward is not more sessions on accessibility but also accessibility covered across more sessions as part of other discussions and and let’s see how we can take it forward thank you thank you dr. Nimita

Muhammad Shabbir: now we are moving towards the wrap-up of this session and I would request the my co-organizer Ganella Espring to give us the key takeaways and actionable points that she has listed and also use her 30 seconds for her wrap-up thoughts

Gunela Astbrink: if there are any. Ganella over to you. Thank you very much dr. Shabir yes so there really are quite a lot of key takeaways and and I think the question about the end goals we just need to keep that in mind all the time and also we heard about transnational advocacy networks and how to link across those and we we just need to look at disability inclusive leadership that it’s central to equitable digital governance and we talked about that in a variety of ways global frameworks that we talked about must move from principles to practice and we will be looking at particular strategies to do that in these very pivotal times at the moment and we know about the lived experience that that strengthens policy outcomes when we as persons with disabilities can talk about our experiences and what difference that makes if we are able to live in that ideal accessible world so then we have calls to action shall I go on dr. Shabir okay so well just to follow up again that let’s try and join up with some transnational advocacy networks identify them and and work with them because the more we work together then the more we can achieve but it’s it’s integrating accessibility and disability inclusion in internet governance structures and that is coming together that’s that coming together in various ways we need to invest in leadership pipelines for persons with disabilities and that includes a range of stakeholders including donors and regulators because we are working in a multi-stakeholder mechanism and finally institutionalize accountability for inclusion and that can be through a lot of benchmarking metrics and we’ve heard a lot about the particular work that Derek Coburn’s team has been doing so I think that’s enough for me so thank you very much thank you very much Ganella

Muhammad Shabbir: and this brings me to thank everyone the speakers Ganella Espring, Sarah Armstrong, Nirmita, Dr. Derek, my co-moderator Judith Hellestein and also the captioners the participants and the wonderful sports staff here in this room for joining us today in this session we shall meet in some other session until then bye bye

Agreement points

Universal design and accessibility benefits everyone, not just persons with disabilities

Speakers

– Vinton Cerf
– Muhammad Shabbir

Arguments

Accessibility requires intuition and understanding of how applications work for people with disabilities – examples of successful and unsuccessful applications are crucial for learning

Universal design benefits everyone, not just persons with disabilities – accessible devices can be used by people driving or multitasking

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that accessibility and universal design principles create benefits for all users, not just those with disabilities. Cerf notes that hands-free interaction helps people in various situations, while Shabbir explains that devices designed for people with disabilities can be used by others in different contexts.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Digital standards

Senior leadership commitment is essential for organizational accessibility

Speakers

– Gunela Astbrink
– Sarah Armstrong

Arguments

Senior staff accessibility champions are crucial for organizational change – Internet Society’s accessibility framework was achieved through board-level commitment

Internet Society Foundation implements accessibility through grant programs, training courses, and operational frameworks based on “nothing about us without us” principle

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that meaningful accessibility progress requires commitment from senior organizational leadership. They both reference the Internet Society’s board-level resolution and systematic approach to implementing accessibility across operations.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Capacity building requires sustainable, multi-faceted approaches

Speakers

– Gunela Astbrink
– Sarah Armstrong
– Cogburn Derrick

Arguments

Train-the-trainer workshops in South Asia successfully built disability leaders in Internet governance through experiential learning and peer interaction

Five-week disability leadership training program in Internet governance builds capacity and embeds accessibility in policy discussions

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for sustained engagement in global policy spaces, allowing local advocates to connect internationally

Summary

All three speakers advocate for structured, sustainable capacity building approaches that combine training, networking, and ongoing support. They emphasize the importance of creating pathways for disability advocates to develop expertise and maintain engagement over time.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Moving from policy frameworks to practical implementation is a major challenge

Speakers

– Gunela Astbrink
– Nirmita Narasimhan

Arguments

Moving from high-level global policies to national implementation requires legislation and regulation at local levels

Continuity and ongoing support are lacking – participants need sustained engagement and connections to work on issues after returning to their countries

Summary

Both speakers identify the gap between high-level policy commitments and practical implementation as a critical challenge. They emphasize the need for sustained support and local-level action to translate global frameworks into meaningful change.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasize that meaningful inclusion requires systemic integration rather than tokenistic approaches. They argue for mainstreaming accessibility across all activities rather than confining it to specialized sessions or symbolic gestures.

Speakers

– Nirmita Narasimhan
– Audience

Arguments

Integration of accessibility across all IGF sessions is needed, rather than limiting disability discussions to dedicated accessibility sessions

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including sign language interpretation and assistive technologies

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers advocate for network-based approaches to capacity building that connect local advocates with international movements while ensuring sustainable impact through train-the-trainer models and ongoing collaboration.

Speakers

– Cogburn Derrick
– Gunela Astbrink

Arguments

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for sustained engagement in global policy spaces, allowing local advocates to connect internationally

Regional capacity building requires sustainable models where trained advocates return to run workshops in their own countries

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of leveraging available resources and tools to democratize access to Internet governance participation, whether through philanthropic support or open source technologies.

Speakers

– Sarah Armstrong
– Cogburn Derrick

Arguments

Philanthropic organizations should require accessibility features, support mentorships, and prioritize funding for underrepresented regions

Open data and open source tools like Python and R enable research capacity, while generative AI tools may enhance participation for non-programmers

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

AI as a solution for accessibility challenges

Speakers

– Vinton Cerf

Arguments

AI and intelligent agents may provide alternative interaction methods beyond keyboards and mice, potentially making applications more usable through negotiation rather than linear navigation

Explanation

While the session focused primarily on traditional accessibility approaches, Cerf’s emphasis on AI as a potential game-changer for accessibility represents an unexpected technological optimism that wasn’t challenged by other speakers, suggesting implicit agreement about AI’s potential despite limited discussion of this topic.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Digital standards

Need for concrete employment and leadership pathways

Speakers

– Audience
– MODERATOR

Arguments

Employment quotas and clear pathways to leadership positions are needed to ensure persons with disabilities become self-sufficient rather than dependent

The ideal end goal is a world where accessibility is built-in by default, eliminating the need for persons with disabilities to request accommodations

Explanation

The convergence between audience calls for concrete employment quotas and the moderator’s vision of built-in accessibility represents unexpected consensus on the need for systemic rather than charitable approaches to disability inclusion, moving beyond traditional advocacy to structural change.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Future of work

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles including universal design benefits, the importance of senior leadership commitment, the need for sustainable capacity building, and the challenge of implementing policy frameworks. There was also broad agreement on moving beyond tokenistic approaches toward systemic integration of accessibility.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for the field. The agreement spans theoretical principles, practical implementation strategies, and long-term vision, suggesting a mature understanding of disability inclusion challenges. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated action across organizations and regions, though speakers acknowledged significant work remains in translating shared principles into widespread practice.

Different viewpoints

Approach to achieving meaningful participation vs. addressing structural barriers

Speakers

– Audience
– Participant
– MODERATOR

Arguments

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including sign language interpretation and assistive technologies

Remote participation has helped persons with disabilities participate in IGF, but competing sessions and personal priorities affect attendance at specific workshops

Moving beyond tokenism requires systemic change across the entire Internet governance ecosystem, with multiple organizations working toward accessibility

Summary

The audience member criticized the session itself for lacking proper accessibility features and low participation, while participants defended current efforts by citing remote participation improvements and competing priorities. The moderator acknowledged limitations while calling for broader systemic change.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Digital access

Individual vs. organizational responsibility for sustained engagement

Speakers

– Cogburn Derrick
– Nirmita Narasimhan

Arguments

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for sustained engagement in global policy spaces, allowing local advocates to connect internationally

Continuity and ongoing support are lacking – participants need sustained engagement and connections to work on issues after returning to their countries

Summary

Cogburn emphasizes the importance of joining existing transnational networks as the solution, while Narasimhan focuses on the lack of individual support and continuity after participation, suggesting different perspectives on where responsibility lies.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current accessibility efforts within IGF itself

Speakers

– Audience
– Participant
– MODERATOR

Arguments

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including sign language interpretation and assistive technologies

DCAD promotes events through multiple channels but faces ongoing challenges in maximizing participation

Moving beyond tokenism requires systemic change across the entire Internet governance ecosystem, with multiple organizations working toward accessibility

Explanation

Unexpected because this was a session specifically about disability leadership, yet participants disagreed about whether the session itself was adequately accessible. The audience member’s direct criticism of the session’s accessibility created tension with organizers who defended their efforts.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Digital access

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement centered on implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. Speakers agreed on the importance of disability inclusion but differed on whether to focus on capacity building, structural changes, or immediate accommodations.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most disagreements were about methods and priorities rather than fundamental principles. The consensus on core goals (accessibility, inclusion, moving beyond tokenism) was strong, but speakers emphasized different pathways to achieve these goals. This suggests a healthy debate about implementation strategies rather than fundamental ideological divisions, which could lead to complementary approaches if properly coordinated.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasize that meaningful inclusion requires systemic integration rather than tokenistic approaches. They argue for mainstreaming accessibility across all activities rather than confining it to specialized sessions or symbolic gestures.

Speakers

– Nirmita Narasimhan
– Audience

Arguments

Integration of accessibility across all IGF sessions is needed, rather than limiting disability discussions to dedicated accessibility sessions

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including sign language interpretation and assistive technologies

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers advocate for network-based approaches to capacity building that connect local advocates with international movements while ensuring sustainable impact through train-the-trainer models and ongoing collaboration.

Speakers

– Cogburn Derrick
– Gunela Astbrink

Arguments

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for sustained engagement in global policy spaces, allowing local advocates to connect internationally

Regional capacity building requires sustainable models where trained advocates return to run workshops in their own countries

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of leveraging available resources and tools to democratize access to Internet governance participation, whether through philanthropic support or open source technologies.

Speakers

– Sarah Armstrong
– Cogburn Derrick

Arguments

Philanthropic organizations should require accessibility features, support mentorships, and prioritize funding for underrepresented regions

Open data and open source tools like Python and R enable research capacity, while generative AI tools may enhance participation for non-programmers

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Key takeaways

Digital accessibility requires moving beyond tokenism to meaningful leadership participation by persons with disabilities in internet governance

Universal design principles benefit everyone, not just persons with disabilities, and should be embedded in all digital infrastructure

AI and intelligent agents offer promising alternative interaction methods that could make applications more accessible through conversational interfaces rather than traditional navigation

Global policy frameworks like WSIS+20 and Global Digital Compact provide opportunities for disability inclusion, but implementation requires sustained advocacy and national-level legislation

Organizational commitment at senior levels is crucial – accessibility champions and board-level resolutions drive real change

Research and data analytics demonstrate that sustained advocacy works – DCAD’s language has been consistently present in IGF discussions since the beginning

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for connecting local disability advocates to global policy spaces and providing sustained engagement opportunities

Multiple barriers exist to meaningful participation including lack of awareness, funding challenges, limited exposure to broader internet governance topics, and insufficient continuity support

Capacity building through train-the-trainer models and regional workshops can effectively develop disability leadership in internet governance

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including proper accessibility infrastructure and moving beyond symbolic representation

Resolutions and action items

Join and actively participate in transnational advocacy networks like DCAD to connect local advocacy with global policy spaces

Integrate accessibility and disability inclusion into internet governance structures rather than treating it as a separate topic

Invest in leadership pipelines for persons with disabilities through training programs, mentorships, and funding opportunities

Institutionalize accountability for inclusion through benchmarking, metrics, and regular auditing of accessibility progress

Expand train-the-trainer workshop models to other regions beyond South Asia to build global capacity

Philanthropic organizations should require accessibility features in funded events and support disability-specific networks

Move accessibility discussions beyond dedicated sessions to integration across all IGF topics and discussions

Provide input to WSIS+20 zero draft by July 15th deadline to influence global policy frameworks

Develop clear pathways and employment opportunities for persons with disabilities in internet governance organizations

Use available open data and research tools to monitor progress and demonstrate impact of disability inclusion efforts

Unresolved issues

How to significantly increase participation of persons with disabilities in IGF beyond the current limited representation

Sustainable funding mechanisms for supporting persons with disabilities to attend and meaningfully participate in international forums

Effective strategies for raising awareness about internet governance among disability advocates in various countries

How to ensure continuity of engagement and support for disability advocates after they return to their home countries

Balancing remote participation benefits with the need for in-person visibility and networking opportunities

Developing practical implementation mechanisms for translating high-level global policy commitments into national legislation and regulation

Creating effective cross-sector collaboration between disability advocates and other internet governance stakeholders

Addressing intersectional challenges faced by persons with disabilities from underrepresented regions or with multiple marginalized identities

Establishing clear metrics and accountability measures for meaningful inclusion beyond basic accessibility compliance

Suggested compromises

Use hybrid participation models that combine remote and in-person engagement to maximize accessibility while maintaining visibility

Start with organizational self-improvement (like Internet Society’s accessibility framework) while advocating for broader systemic change

Focus on capacity building and training as intermediate steps toward the ultimate goal of full inclusion and leadership representation

Leverage existing data and research tools while building toward more comprehensive monitoring and evaluation systems

Work within current multi-stakeholder frameworks while pushing for more inclusive decision-making processes

Balance dedicated disability-focused sessions with integration of accessibility topics across other IGF discussions

We cannot advocate for inclusion while excluding the very voice we claim to empower. So representation must not be symbolic, but it must be standard and intentional… true inclusion must mean more than just inviting people into the room, but also preparing the room for them.

Speaker

Jacqueline Jijide

Reason

This comment directly challenged the panel’s own practices and exposed a fundamental contradiction – discussing disability leadership while having limited actual participation from people with disabilities. It highlighted the difference between tokenistic representation and meaningful inclusion.

Impact

This comment created a pivotal moment that forced the moderator and panelists to acknowledge shortcomings in their own event organization. It shifted the discussion from theoretical policy recommendations to immediate, practical accountability, leading to defensive but important explanations about funding, outreach, and competing priorities.

At the end goal, we want them to see them at the top… until then, once we don’t have a clear plan to make themselves sufficient, they will still become dependent on people. At the end of the day, we’ll be bringing them to forums, trying to empower them, but if you don’t have a clear end goal, I don’t think it’s going to solve the problem.

Speaker

Francis Akwa Amini

Reason

This comment challenged the entire approach of the discussion by questioning whether current efforts actually lead to systemic change or merely perpetuate dependency. It demanded concrete employment quotas and measurable outcomes rather than just participation in forums.

Impact

This fundamentally shifted the conversation from discussing participation to questioning the effectiveness of current approaches. It forced speakers to articulate their long-term vision and led to the moderator’s idealistic but honest response about living in a world where accessibility wouldn’t need to be requested.

What I would like to see going forward is not more sessions on accessibility but also accessibility covered across more sessions as part of other discussions.

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Reason

This comment reframed the entire approach to disability inclusion in internet governance, suggesting that segregating accessibility discussions into dedicated sessions actually perpetuates marginalization rather than achieving true integration.

Impact

This insight challenged the fundamental structure of how disability issues are addressed in IGF, suggesting that the very existence of separate accessibility panels might be counterproductive. It introduced the concept of mainstreaming disability perspectives across all internet governance discussions.

Meaningful participation goes beyond just talking in your session about accessibility. You need to be able to engage with other forum… And it works both ways. You need to be able to participate in other discussions which are also very important… And that representation is not coming across.

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Reason

This comment identified a critical barrier – that people with disabilities are often siloed into accessibility-only discussions, missing opportunities to contribute their perspectives to broader internet governance issues like AI, safety, and literacy.

Impact

This observation deepened the discussion by revealing how current participation models actually limit the potential contributions of people with disabilities. It connected to later discussions about the need for cross-cutting integration rather than isolated participation.

In an ideal world we would not be having this discussion but persons with disabilities would not have to ask for certain facilities services to be made accessible… but they would already be given to them without asking.

Speaker

Muhammad Shabbir

Reason

This comment articulated the ultimate vision – a world where universal design principles are so embedded that accessibility is automatic rather than requested. It provided philosophical grounding for why the work matters beyond immediate policy goals.

Impact

This response helped synthesize the various critiques and challenges raised during the session, providing an aspirational framework that acknowledged both the idealistic nature of the goal and its necessity as a guiding principle for current efforts.

Overall assessment

The most impactful comments in this discussion were those that challenged the status quo and exposed contradictions between stated goals and actual practices. Jacqueline’s critique of the panel’s own lack of disability representation created a crucial moment of accountability that elevated the entire conversation. Francis’s demand for concrete employment outcomes and measurable goals forced speakers to move beyond theoretical discussions to practical implementation strategies. Nirmita’s insights about mainstreaming accessibility across all discussions rather than segregating it fundamentally reframed how disability inclusion should be approached in internet governance. These challenging comments transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a more honest examination of current limitations and a more ambitious vision for systemic change. The discussion evolved from celebrating existing efforts to critically examining their effectiveness and demanding more transformative approaches.

How can the WSIS+20 and Global Digital Compact frameworks be effectively implemented at national levels to ensure meaningful disability inclusion?

Speaker

Gunela Astbrink

Explanation

She mentioned these are high-level global instruments that require national legislation and regulation for implementation, but the specific mechanisms for this transition remain unclear

How can we increase outreach to disability advocates in different countries about IGF and internet governance issues?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She identified that many disability advocates don’t know about IGF despite working on relevant technology issues, representing a significant participation barrier

What funding mechanisms and support systems can be established to help persons with disabilities attend and meaningfully participate in IGF events?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She highlighted logistical and financial barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from attending IGF, including need for accompaniment and travel support

How can persons with disabilities be better integrated into non-disability-specific IGF sessions and discussions?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She emphasized that meaningful participation requires engagement beyond just accessibility sessions, particularly in areas like AI where persons with disabilities have valuable contributions

What continuity and follow-up support systems can be developed for disability advocates after they participate in IGF?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She noted that one-time participation isn’t sufficient and advocates need ongoing support and connections to continue working on these issues in their home countries

How can organizations implement specific employment quotas or targets for persons with disabilities in internet governance organizations?

Speaker

Francis Akwa Amini

Explanation

He suggested implementing policies requiring a percentage of positions (e.g., 5%) be filled by persons with disabilities to create self-sufficiency and reduce dependency

What strategies can be used to develop ambition and interest among persons with disabilities to participate in international internet governance beyond local community work?

Speaker

Nigel Casimir

Explanation

He observed that while local ICT training for persons with disabilities exists, there’s limited interest in international advocacy and policy work

How can the train-the-trainer model for disability leadership in internet governance be expanded to other regions beyond South Asia?

Speaker

Gunela Astbrink

Explanation

She described successful regional training programs but indicated need to scale this approach globally

What specific metrics and benchmarking systems can be developed to measure progress on disability inclusion in internet governance?

Speaker

Gunela Astbrink

Explanation

She mentioned the need to institutionalize accountability for inclusion through metrics, building on Derek Cockburn’s research work

How can generative AI tools be leveraged to enhance multi-stakeholder participation by those not trained in traditional programming and data analysis?

Speaker

Cogburn Derrick

Explanation

He mentioned upcoming research comparing traditional NLP approaches with generative AI approaches for analyzing policy participation

What are the practical examples and success stories of ISOC Foundation’s disability-focused projects, and how can others join these initiatives?

Speaker

Emmanuel Orok (online participant)

Explanation

He requested specific examples and pathways for participation in Internet Society Foundation programs for persons with disabilities

How can accessibility be integrated across all IGF sessions rather than being confined to disability-specific sessions?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She advocated for mainstreaming accessibility discussions across all internet governance topics rather than treating it as a separate issue