WSIS+20 Open Consultation session with Co-Facilitators

Summary

This discussion was a public consultation session for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, featuring co-facilitators Ambassador Suela Janina of Albania and Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale of Kenya. The session aimed to gather stakeholder input on the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper and expectations for the upcoming outcome document, which will culminate in a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December.

The co-facilitators outlined the consultation process and highlighted key areas in the elements paper, including ICTs for development, digital economy, bridging digital divides, artificial intelligence governance, and internet governance. Ambassador Lokaale emphasized that the review is occurring amid heightened geopolitical tensions and alongside related processes like the Global Digital Compact (GDC), while stressing the intention to build on progress without reopening old controversies.

Multiple stakeholders provided input during the session, with several recurring themes emerging. Many participants called for stronger human rights language in the elements paper, specifically referencing international human rights treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There was widespread support for a permanent mandate for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) with sustainable funding, recognizing it as the primary multi-stakeholder forum for digital policy discussions.

Participants emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder governance models, with explicit recognition of all stakeholder groups including the technical community, civil society, private sector, and academia. Several speakers advocated for integrating the Global Digital Compact implementation through the existing WSIS framework to avoid duplication of efforts and resources.

Youth representatives stressed the need for meaningful participation of young people, particularly teenagers, as current rather than future stakeholders in digital governance. Regional representatives called for stronger support of national and regional IGF initiatives, viewing them as crucial bridges between global frameworks and local implementation. The co-facilitators concluded by reaffirming their commitment to an open, transparent, and inclusive process, encouraging continued written submissions and promising additional consultations before producing the zero draft in August.

Keypoints

**Overall Purpose/Goal:**

This was an open consultation session at the 20th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) regarding the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The session aimed to gather stakeholder input on the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper and collect expectations for the upcoming outcome document, with co-facilitators from Albania and Kenya leading the discussion.

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Internet Governance Framework and IGF Future**: Multiple participants called for a permanent mandate for the IGF with sustainable funding, emphasizing its role as the primary multi-stakeholder forum. There was strong support for strengthening the IGF’s mandate rather than creating duplicate processes, and recognition of National and Regional IGF initiatives (NRIs) as crucial components.

– **Multi-stakeholder Model and Inclusivity**: Extensive discussion on ensuring all stakeholder groups (including technical community, civil society, youth, and underrepresented communities) have meaningful participation in digital governance. Participants emphasized the need for updated language reflecting the multi-stakeholder nature of internet governance and called for joint consultations rather than siloed processes.

– **Human Rights and Digital Rights**: Concerns were raised about strengthening human rights language in the elements paper, with calls to explicitly reference international human rights treaties (UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR). Participants emphasized the need for rights-based approaches to digital governance, including freedom of expression, privacy, and protection of vulnerable groups online.

– **Integration of Global Digital Compact (GDC) with WSIS**: Strong support for implementing the GDC through the existing WSIS framework to avoid duplication of efforts. Participants called for a joint implementation roadmap and better coordination between related UN processes dealing with digital governance.

– **Emerging Technologies and Digital Divides**: Discussion on addressing challenges posed by AI governance, data governance, and persistent digital inequalities. Participants emphasized the need for inclusive approaches to emerging technologies while maintaining focus on connecting the remaining offline population and bridging digital divides.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants expressing appreciation for the co-facilitators’ openness to input. While there were some concerns and critiques regarding the elements paper, the atmosphere remained professional and solution-oriented. The urgency of time constraints toward the end created some pressure, but the overall engagement remained positive and productive, with stakeholders demonstrating strong commitment to the multi-stakeholder process.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jorge Cancio** – Swiss Government representative

– **Roman Danyliw** – Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) representative

– **Amali De Silva Mitchell** – Coordinator for the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies

– **Ellie Mcdonald** – Global Partners Digital, civil society and human rights organization, member of the global digital rights coalition for WSIS

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – His Excellency, permanent representative of the Republic of Kenya to the United Nations, co-facilitator for WSIS plus 20

– **MODERATOR** – (Role unclear from transcript)

– **Amrit Kumar** – Dynamic Team Coalition co-chair

– **Audience** – Multiple unidentified audience members with various affiliations

– **Jordan Carter** – .au domain administration, speaking on behalf of the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism

– **Lucia Camacho** – Latin American NGO representative with expertise on digital issues

– **Jacqueline Pigato** – Data Privacy Brazil co-founder

– **Neil Wilson** – United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

– **Eleni Hickok** – Global Network Initiative representative

– **Anna Osterling** – Article 19 (human rights organization focusing on free speech)

– **Jennifer Chung** – (Role/affiliation not clearly specified)

– **Konstantinos Komaitis** – Workshop moderator/chair

– **Suela Janina** – Her Excellency, permanent representative of the Republic of Albania, co-facilitator for WSIS plus 20

– **Jan Lublinsky** – DW Academy (Deutsche Welle’s international media development organization)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Nikos Chalkis** – Antenna Root

– **Serge Agassiz** – Artistic Director

– **Tim Adamov** – Chief of National television

– **Giacomo** – PNMA (Policy Network for Meaningful Access) co-chair, civil society organization representative

– **Abdeljalil Basharbon** – President of House of Africa organization, representing national IGF Chad

– **Ana Neves** – Portugal representative

– **Nandini** – Global Digital Justice Forum representative

– **Amrita** – Asia-Pacific Regional IGF representative

– **Bojana** – Global Forum for Media Development representative

– **Annalise Williams** – Organising Committee of Australia’s National IGF

– **Sabahan Doshi-Dia** – TEC Global Institute representative

– **Youth IGF Germany representative** – (Name not provided)

– **Women at the table representative** – (Name not provided, also representing gender in the global digital compact coalition)

# WSIS Plus 20 Review Process: Stakeholder Consultation Report

## Executive Summary

This report documents a public consultation session held during the 20th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) regarding the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The session was co-facilitated by Her Excellency Ambassador Suela Janina of Albania and His Excellency Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale of Kenya to gather stakeholder input on the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper and collect expectations for the upcoming outcome document, culminating in a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December 2024.

The consultation brought together diverse stakeholders including government representatives, civil society organizations, technical community members, private sector participants, and youth representatives. Key themes that emerged included strong support for a permanent Internet Governance Forum mandate with sustainable funding, calls for strengthening human rights language in the elements paper, integration of the Global Digital Compact through existing WSIS architecture, and explicit recognition of all stakeholder groups in multi-stakeholder governance processes.

## Background and Process Context

### Framework and Objectives

Ambassador Janina opened the session by emphasizing that the WSIS Plus 20 review process is grounded in UN General Assembly Resolution 79-277, which reaffirms the multi-stakeholder model encompassing member states, civil society, private sector, and technical community. She noted that the review provides an opportunity to assess progress since the Geneva and Tunis phases while shaping a forward-looking vision for the digital age, with particular focus on bridging digital divides.

Ambassador Lokaale contextualized the review within current geopolitical tensions and noted its relationship to parallel processes such as the Global Digital Compact (GDC). He emphasized the co-facilitators’ intention to build upon 20 years of progress without resurrecting old controversies, while acknowledging that related digital governance processes cannot be ignored.

### Elements Paper Overview

The elements paper, as outlined by Ambassador Lokaale, synthesizes contributions from the 20-year review and UN system inputs. Key areas addressed include:

– ICTs for development and digital economy transformation

– Bridging digital divides affecting one-third of the global population

– Artificial intelligence governance challenges

– Internet governance frameworks and multi-stakeholder participation

– Environmental sustainability considerations

– Human rights protection online, particularly for vulnerable groups

## Key Themes from Stakeholder Input

### Internet Governance Forum Future

The most consistently raised issue across stakeholder groups was securing the IGF’s future through a permanent mandate with sustainable funding. Jordan Carter, representing the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism, stated: “The IGF needs a permanent mandate and sustainable funding so organisations can plan and invest long-term.”

Giacomo from the Policy Network for Meaningful Access emphasized the IGF’s unique role: “The IGF is the only place across all the fora that we have about digital transition where all stakeholders are on equal footing. It’s the only place where, through the NRIs, through the dynamic coalitions, through the policy networks, you can see how a policy that could be decided at the global level can impact and which could be the reaction of the communities to which it’s addressed.”

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of National and Regional IGF initiatives (NRIs), noting that strong NRIs are essential for an effective global IGF.

### Multi-stakeholder Model and Stakeholder Recognition

Participants consistently supported preserving and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model. Roman Danyliw from the Internet Engineering Task Force emphasized that “multi-stakeholder approach should be the foundation of internet governance with the broadest set of stakeholders on equal footing.”

Technical community representatives specifically called for explicit recognition in governance documents. Multiple speakers from technical organizations stressed that despite decades of participation, their role requires clearer acknowledgment in WSIS Plus 20 outcomes.

Youth representatives raised important questions about inclusive participation. Amrit Kumar, speaking as Dynamic Team Coalition co-chair, challenged current age-based definitions: “Digital governance models frequently define youth as ages 18 to 35, which leaves out the critical teen years entirely, despite the fact that teens are deeply engaged digital participants.”

### Human Rights and Digital Rights

Civil society representatives consistently called for strengthening human rights language in the elements paper. Ellie McDonald from Global Partners Digital stated: “The elements paper needs clearer references to international human rights law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Anna Osterling from Article 19 emphasized that “the zero draft should explicitly reaffirm all fundamental freedoms including freedom of expression and privacy.” Jan Lublinsky from DW Academy specifically requested explicit mention of media freedom and independence.

Lucia Camacho from a Latin American NGO provided a critical perspective, arguing that the elements paper was “giving way to a punitive approach, rather than those of protection, guarantee, and respect of human rights.”

### Global Digital Compact Integration

Multiple speakers supported integrating the Global Digital Compact through existing WSIS architecture rather than creating parallel processes. Jorge Cancio from the Swiss Government proposed “developing a joint implementation roadmap,” which received support from other participants.

Neil Wilson from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office stated: “We fully support that and hope that the Zero Draft will reflect this agreement.” Ana Neves from Portugal emphasized the need for institutional clarity: “We need a more clear understanding of the institutional framework of the UN. And otherwise, it’s a mess.”

### Emerging Technologies and Digital Divides

The discussion revealed some uncertainty about addressing AI governance and data governance within WSIS Plus 20. Ambassador Lokaale acknowledged: “At this point, I know it’s a big discussion how, for example, we’re just wondering, my co-facilitator and I, how, if at all, we need to get engaged in the whole discussion on AI governance and data governance within the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review.”

Roman Danyliw argued that “AI governance should include the widest set of stakeholders in the governance process,” while Neil Wilson from the UK opposed creating separate sections: “On data governance, we do not believe this should have its own section. This was dealt with in the GDC and we should allow the CSTD working group on data governance to complete its work.”

Regarding digital divides, participants noted that fundamental connectivity challenges persist despite technological advances, with calls for prioritizing universal and meaningful connectivity.

## Specific Recommendations and Requests

### Institutional and Process Improvements

– Permanent IGF mandate with sustainable funding mechanisms

– Explicit recognition of technical community as integral stakeholder

– Integration of GDC implementation through WSIS architecture

– Strengthened support for National and Regional IGF initiatives

– Clearer UN institutional framework to avoid duplication

### Content and Language Updates

– Stronger human rights language with explicit references to international human rights law

– Updated internet governance language reflecting developments since 2003

– Explicit mention of media freedom and independence

– Recognition of environmental sustainability challenges

– Inclusive language for youth participation including teens

### Implementation Mechanisms

– Joint implementation roadmap for GDC and WSIS processes

– Continued multi-stakeholder consultation throughout the process

– Regional engagement and consultation opportunities

– Clear measurement frameworks for progress assessment

## Process Next Steps

The co-facilitators committed to several concrete actions:

– **Zero Draft Production**: A zero draft will be produced by mid-August 2024 incorporating consultation feedback

– **Written Contributions**: Deadline set for 15 July 2024, with possible extension based on interest

– **Additional Consultations**: Joint consultation with member states and stakeholders may be organized by end of July 2024

– **Regional Engagement**: Co-facilitators will participate in ITU WSIS Plus 20 forum and other regional consultations

– **Transparency**: Continued inclusive process with ongoing stakeholder engagement

Ambassador Lokaale specifically invited stakeholders to attend upcoming regional forums, including the ITU WSIS Plus 20 forum in Geneva and African regional consultations.

## Outstanding Questions

Several issues require further consultation and resolution:

– Scope and approach for addressing AI governance and data governance within WSIS Plus 20

– Specific funding mechanisms for sustainable IGF operations

– Concrete institutional arrangements for GDC-WSIS integration

– Whether to establish specific WSIS targets for measuring progress

– Updates needed for UN Group on Information Society and CSTD mandates

## Conclusion

The consultation demonstrated broad stakeholder engagement with the WSIS Plus 20 review process and identified key priorities for the zero draft. While participants raised diverse perspectives on implementation details, there was notable alignment on fundamental principles including multi-stakeholder governance, IGF sustainability, human rights protection, and process integration.

The co-facilitators’ commitment to transparency and continued engagement, combined with stakeholder willingness to provide constructive input, establishes a foundation for the next phase of the review process. Success will depend on how effectively the zero draft incorporates stakeholder feedback while navigating the complex institutional landscape of global digital governance.

The consultation highlighted the evolution of WSIS from addressing basic connectivity issues to managing complex governance coordination and emerging technology challenges. The sophistication of stakeholder input suggests the community is well-positioned to contribute meaningfully to updating the WSIS framework for contemporary digital governance needs.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Nikos Chalkis, Antenna Root Serge Agassiz, Artistic Director Tim Adamov, Chief of National television Good morning everyone and welcome. It’s great to see so many of you here. We are here, this is a workshop on the WSIS plus 20 open consultation session with the co-facilitators. Can you hear me? Yes? Okay. A little bit of context, we are here of course to, this year is the World Summit on Information Society 20 year review and we are already deep into the process and we are very lucky to have with us the co-facilitators that have been assigned in order to make sure that we see the end of this process. This is the 20th iteration of the Internet Governance Forum which of course is one of the outcomes of the World Summit of the Information Society. I will not be taking more time because the idea of today’s session is to hear from the co-facilitators and from you to ask any questions that you may have. I would just like very quickly to present to my right, we have Her Excellency Miss Suela Janina, the permanent representative of the Republic of Albania and to my left, His Excellency Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, the permanent representative of the Republic of Kenya to the United Nations. And with that, I will turn to you Ambassador for your opening remarks. Thank you.

Suela Janina: Thank you very much, Konstantinos. Good morning, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. It’s a honor and a pleasure at the same time to be today together with my colleague, His Excellency Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale of Kenya and to be together with you to exchange some views on the consultation process that we have been tasked to follow on the WSIS plus 20 process. Today’s meeting marks a crucial step in our journey towards a comprehensive review of the implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society as we commemorate 20 years since its conclusion. This review process, which will culminate in a high-level meeting on the General Assembly in December this year, provides an important opportunity to assess our collective progress since the original Geneva and Tunis phase of WSIS and also at the same time to shape a forward-looking vision for the digital age. These consultations today are intended to serve two core purposes. First, to hear your expectations regarding the scope and priorities of the WSIS plus 20 outcome document and second, to gather inputs from the WSIS plus 20 elements paper which was published last week on 20th of June and it’s available at the UNDESA website. Now, please allow me to introduce some of the elements of the preparatory process that will follow. First, we had some round of consultations with member states and with stakeholders. Further on, we had some more dialogues at forums including UNESCO which took place in May and also we are present all this week at the IGF and will be also present at ITU WSIS plus 20 forum that will take place the week after this one. The elements paper, as I mentioned, was published on 20th of June and a summary of this elements paper will be shared soon by my colleague, Ambassador Locale. The ZERO draft that we intend to produce, we hopefully will have it available in August, mid-August, after we hear and we have written contributions but also hearing from you during this week and the week of Geneva and after that we expect some rounds of consultations to take place. Some of them will take place virtually to allow a big number, more number of people and contributors to have their say in the outcome ZERO draft document that we are going to produce but at the same time we’ll have rounds of consultations with member states in New York as well. So let me emphasize also that this review process is firmly grounded on the General Assembly Resolution 79-277 which reaffirms the multi-stakeholder model encompassing member states, civil society, private sector and technical community and we are very grateful and really we thank the IGF for providing this valuable platform to gather additional perspectives and contribution to the elements paper. This review is not merely an exercise in documentation but mostly a moment to affirm our shared commitment to a people-centered, inclusive and development oriented information society while also tackling today’s pressing challenges such as artificial intelligence, data governance, digital inclusion and capacity building. Bridging the digital divide whether in terms of connectivity, capability or participation is also a central pillar of our work. The WSIS vision will not only be fully realized when all countries and all communities within them enjoy equal access to the opportunities of digital transformation. So this is not only a question of infrastructure but one of voice, agency and equity in shaping the governance of our shared digital future. As co-facilitators we have actively engaged in consultations with stakeholders and will continue to do so and we are looking forward to continue this dialogue in WSIS plus 20 forum in Geneva. So dear participants and ladies and gentlemen allow me again to emphasize the importance that we give to this process and the fact that the WSIS process belongs to all of us. None of us has ownership on it only so that’s why we need to work together and to foster space in collaboration. The space which is transparent and ambitious at the same time which builds on past commitments but also is responsive to today’s evolving digital landscape. So with that first presentation I would like to hand over to my colleague and we’re really very pleased to have this opportunity to exchange with you and I hope that the interactive dialogue that we could have later on would be very meaningful and essential

Konstantinos Komaitis: for our work. Thank you. Thank you Ambassador Iannina. Before I turn to Ambassador Locale for purely logistic purposes if you have questions you will need to go to the microphone and start lining up for your questions. Ambassador Locale please. Thank you

Ekitela Lokaale: Konstantinos and thank you my colleague Ambassador Iannina. Let me join my colleague in thanking you and telling you how grateful we are to be here to join you at this IGF. I know most of you have already gone through the elements paper. We note that this is a very engaged community but before I go through some highlights of the elements paper allow me to make some three quick points. First we are mindful that the WSIS plus 20 review is happening at a time of heightened or considerable geopolitical activity. Just like in many other processes that are happening at the moment you find that developments in the geopolitical environment are bound to have some form of impact on this current process so we are quite mindful of that. The second is that we are undertaking this process against the immediate backdrop of similar or related processes that have to do with digital governance. Last year for example we had the pact for the future that was adopted by member states which also has the global digital compact as part of it so in this process we have the choice of either acknowledging that those related processes have happened or to conduct the WSIS plus 20 review oblivious of and others. Sometimes, again, as co-facilitators, we find ourselves in a situation where we have to acknowledge the existence of those processes. The third general point that I would like to make is that it’s not the intention of this elements paper to resurrect old controversies. We know that WSIS is one of those processes that has gone on for 20 years now. We intend to build upon the progress that has been made without any attempt to resurrect or relitigate controversies that have been undertaken in the past. That said, let me observe that in producing this elements paper, we adopted a measured approach. Measured in the sense that we tried, one, to acknowledge what has been achieved, the progress that has been made since the WSIS Plus 10, second, to appreciate the processes that have or developments within the digital space which have taken place. For instance, the AI wasn’t a big deal 10 years ago, but now you can’t have any conversation on the digital space without making reference or at least acknowledging the AI revolution, if you can call it that. I know, as I said, that you’ve gone through this, but I’ll highlight some of what we consider to be important or key points of the elements paper. First, the elements paper offers a structured and forward-looking synthesis, drawing from the 20-year review by the CSTD, the UN Secretary-General’s annual reports, and the broad UN system contributions. It recognizes the WSIS Plus 20 review as a key input into the 2030 review of the Agenda for Sustainable Development. I must announce that this paper is not a final text, neither is it a zero draft, but an invitation for all of us, all stakeholders, to shape the next phase of the information society. We therefore urge broad engagement, especially for the places where feedback is explicitly invited. We have a section on information and communication technologies, ICTs for development, and we note that ICTs have expanded dramatically, and yet digital inequalities persist, especially for the one-third of the global population that remains offline. So more inputs to solve this persistent digital access, affordability, and capacity gaps are welcome. ICTs are also critical to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and enabling resilient societies. On digital economy, the digital economy is now a vital engine of global development, but the benefits of the digital economy aren’t even across nations, but also within countries and societies. So we’d be interested to hear from you how some of the structural gaps that exist can be closed, the structural gaps within the digital economy, and what models would support, for example, the micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, and ensure that the digital opportunity is inclusive. Third, on social and cultural development, there are barriers that remain in digital access to education, identity systems, and community infrastructure. We’d be keen to hear, among other things, how we can advance inclusive digital service delivery and safeguard privacy and equity in national digital strategies. On environmental impacts, we note that ICTs are both a solution but also part of the problem regarding sustainability of the environment. They offer solutions on climate action and so on, but also need a lot of energy to be able, for example, to run data centers. So there is a footprint there on the environment. So we would welcome a discussion on how we can reduce the ICTs’ environmental footprint through circular economic principles, better recycling, and sustainability standards. On bridging digital divides and the enabling environment, a holistic approach is needed for legal coherence, innovation and rights, and human rights protection. I would welcome a discussion, for example, on what strategies would best integrate innovation, regulation, and rights. Then under the section on financial mechanisms, we note that there is increasing investment, although it is not even, and the divide, again, is apparent when you look at developing and developed countries, and quite a lot of countries still remain underserved. So I’d like to hear from you what mechanisms can increase equitable financing for inclusive digital infrastructure and readiness for AI. On human rights and ethical dimensions, WESIS reaffirms that human rights that are enjoyed offline must be protected online as well. Yet digital harms persist, especially for women, children, and other vulnerable groups. So we encourage you, all stakeholders, to suggest approaches that would operationalize our rights-based, safe, and inclusive digital ecosystems. Then on confidence and security in ICTs, we note that security remains essential to the implementation of the WESIS outcomes. We therefore invite proposals on how we can enhance confidence and cybersecurity capabilities in alignment with existing platforms. Internet governance, and it’s appropriate that we are having this conversation here at the IGF 20th anniversary. We acknowledge the IGF as the primary multi-stakeholder forum, and we’ve had, for example, during consultations with different stakeholders, calls for either renewal of the mandate of the IGF, or a strengthening of that mandate, or even in some cases, calls to make it a permanent institution that’s able to access financing from regular resources of the United Nations. So we would be keen to hear your inputs on whether, I don’t know whether it’s the question here, because there seems to be unanimity, that its mandate needs to be safeguarded one way or the other, but we’d be keen to hear whether the mandate should be renewed, strengthened, or be made permanent, and what other issues we need to address in this part. Then finally, we highlighted on data governance. These are some of the areas which are emerging. We note that data drives development, but there is a lack of capacity in most places. Proposals are being formulated in light of the CSTD working group on data governance, and stakeholders are invited to make contributions on their perspectives. On artificial intelligence, on AI, as I said at the beginning, it is reshaping digital development, although R&D processes are concentrated in only certain geographies to the exclusion of many other parts of our globe. This poses governance challenges, therefore we welcome any suggestions and comments and inputs on how we can align AI governance with the Global Digital Compact and ensuring global inclusion in the benefits that AI presents. At this point, I know it’s a big discussion how, for example, we’re just wondering, my co-facilitator and I, how, if at all, we need to get engaged in the whole discussion on AI governance and data governance within the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review. We noted, for example, from informal consultations that we had, that there have and the others. There are those that feel we need to have a section that addresses some of those emerging, but there are also others that are of a different view. Capacity building, capacity gaps undermine digital equity. We therefore invite your views and reflections and proposals on how we can strengthen capacity building mechanisms and coordination. Finally, on monitoring and measurement, we note that the WSIS Plus 10 in 2015 did not establish any WSIS targets, but connectivity benchmarks have since emerged. Others have come up with benchmarks to measure, for example, connectivity. And with the growth of the volume and breadth of data that’s available now, I think there might be need, perhaps, for us to set targets, but we leave this to you, whether or not we need to establish targets for measuring this. Input in this regard will inform the zero draft proposals on future monitoring and measurement frameworks. On follow-up and review, we would like to hear proposals on follow-up mechanisms that are essential to design an effective post-2025 WSIS Plus 20 follow-up structure. So I think I know it’s difficult to summarize this that quickly, but I’m also mindful that I’m in the presence of an audience that’s really engaged on these issues and which no doubt, as I did dive into the elements paper, so we look forward to hearing your inputs and perspectives on this. I thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you very much, both of you. Thank you very much for providing this context. So now I turn to all of you. If you have questions, please start lining up in the microphone to my left. There are also online participants, and I believe we also have we can take questions from them. So please introduce yourself and then ask your question. And try to be as short as possible. We have approximately 50 minutes, 45 to 50 minutes. Thank you so much.

Jan Lublinsky: Thank you very much. First of all, thank you for introducing and living the spirit of this whole process so well. I think you convey the idea of what this is all about really well in the way you explain things. My name is Jan Lublinsky. I work for DW Academy, so Deutsche Welle’s international media development organization, so I care for developing of fair ecosystems and journalism as a public good. We had four sessions yesterday and before yesterday which covered various aspects at this meeting. Why in our new AI media, social media world, journalism still is important and media freedom. However, I note that it’s not fully recognized in the Elements paper, unlike the Global Digital Compact where really the language on human rights as a freedom of expression is very explicit, and the independence of media is also mentioned very explicitly. Unfortunately, in the Elements paper so far it is not yet, so I would encourage you to look into this. Of course, I would also, as you said, also stress that the multistakeholder approach for us is equally important as a media development and digital rights community. Of course, including the human rights aspects and the digital governance of public infrastructure is something we strongly support as a media development sector, but I would like to emphasize that the line nine, which is a bit old language, should not be completely forgotten but should be renewed in the light of what we had already agreed upon in New York. Thank you very much.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you so much.

Audience: Thank you. I’m with the Internet Society. We are a nonprofit organization founded in 1992. We have the common view that the Internet is for everyone, and we thank you for the opportunity for having this consultation. We have the vision that our belief is that everyone must have fundamental abilities to connect, communicate, innovate, share, choose, be safe, and trust on the Internet, and to achieve this, our co-recommendation for the Zero Draft is to recognize that the original WSIS framework is flexible and technology neutral enough, and it’s uniquely suited to address both existing and emerging challenges through focused, innovative implementation, and we believe that the Zero Draft must prioritize concrete issues, for example, actions to achieve universal access to the Internet for all. We believe that the Zero Draft must prioritize concrete issues, for example, actions to achieve universal and meaningful connectivity by promoting community networks and IXPs, support the free flow of data while protecting privacy by reaffirming the use of tools like end-to-end encryption, measures to preserve the global interoperable nature of the Internet, and to resist measures that could lead to its fragmentation, and ensure that the implementation of the global digital compact complements and not duplicates the work of the WSIS Action Alliance. We are also, we would like to suggest tangible support for the evolution and strengthening of the IEF, and including its national, regional initiatives on Internet Governance. We believe that the achievements of the WSIS Vision are the result of decades of multistakeholder collaboration in which the technical community is an integral stakeholder that should be explicitly mentioned. As such, we believe that the Zero Draft must recommit to this model and to the permissionless nature of the Internet, allowing creativity and innovation to thrive within the framework of the WSIS Action Alliance. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Israel. Jorge, please.

Jorge Cancio: Hello. Good morning. Jorge Cancio, Swiss Government. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this consultation. We look forward to further conversations, of course, with you. I would like to ask you a few questions. First of all, I would like to ask you a few questions about the Zero Draft. What is missing in the Elements paper that we think should be in any case in the Zero Draft? So, the first question, and you just mentioned it in the Elements paper, but it’s very important, is the integration of the implementation of the Global Digital Compact into the WSIS architecture. I think there are several elements that are missing. One is the implementation of the Global Digital Compact. We have seen in the past large agreement in the community, and we have seen that in different consultations, that the architecture we have is fit for purpose to implement almost everything or many parts of the GDC. Amongst other things, by developing a joint implementation roadmap, which is a proposal from the CSDD, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, that was adopted a couple of months ago. And also, by using the content of the GDC, which updates what we do in the United Nations systems, by complementing what we already have in the Action Lines. Fortunately, the Action Lines are, as somebody put it today, technology agnostic, so we can put a lot of emerging topics into the Action Lines. A second point we think is missing is the ideas floated by many different stakeholders, also by our government, of course, on institutional updates to the WSIS architecture to make it even more fit for purpose. By updating the UN group on information society, we are able to make it even more fit for purpose. And also, by using the content of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, which is a proposal from the CSDD, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, by updating the UN group on information society and including new offices and players like the OHCHR, ODET, UN Women, et cetera, would be very important. And also, by better interconnecting the WSIS Forum with the IGF, by enhancing both the WSIS Forum and the IGF, we are able to make it even more fit for purpose. And finally, by establishing a help desk that helps stakeholders to navigate the WSIS framework and the work of the United Nations on digital cooperation. And finally, of course, as we are here in the IGF, we call for a permanent, sustainable, and well-funded IGF with a stronger secretariat with different goals and objectives. And finally, I would like to conclude by saying that the most important element, immediately, more or less, in the wording we have seen in the elements paper is the language on Internet governance, which is a very old language from 2003 or 2002. We should really base our discussions on language from WSIS plus 10 or even better, from WSIS plus 10 to WSIS plus 10. And I think it’s very important for us to state that the IGF is not just one other issue amongst other issues. It’s an instrument to discuss about all the issues, about artificial intelligence, about artificial intelligence, about AI, about artificial intelligence, about AI, about to the governance on the internet including emerging topics like AI which we have been discussing here at the IGF for more than eight years. And finally the human rights language as we have heard from so many people is completely not adequate to what we agreed in the Global Digital Compact. So we have to be very careful there and use the latest and best language we have. As to the process towards a good outcome document we think that and we welcome all the efforts you are doing in having an open inclusive process. We welcome the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board. At the same time it’s important that they are understood just as a channel but not the only representatives of the global multi-stakeholder community. It’s important to make sure that the stakeholders are included. It’s very important also for planning purposes especially for smaller countries also our country to have a clear plan on when are you having the consultations, when are you having the negotiations until December and that they are grouped as much as possible in week or multiple day slots so that we can travel from the capitals to New York to take part in the negotiations. The more people from capitals from all stakeholder groups you have the more ownership you will have in the result of the negotiation and on how you do the consultations and the negotiations we would really urge you to have joint sessions together with all stakeholders government and stakeholders not in silos but together in the same room at the same time. We can be creative on how we do that or at the minimum back to back so that we really have the opportunity to interact with stakeholders and of course fully hybrid consultations so that we allow for participation from those who cannot afford to travel to New York and it’s important that amongst other things we have timely summaries of what is being discussed. So I’m sorry for being so long but I was also reporting from the discussions in many other

Roman Danyliw: places. Thank you. Thank you Jorge. Please. Good morning my name is Roman Danilo I’m from the Internet Engineering Counter Task Force and I want to first thank the co-facilitators for enabling this opportunity to receive input from the IGF community. Now coming from the Internet Engineer Task Force a standard development organization for internet protocols the inclusion of the broadest set of stakeholders on equal footing it needs to be the foundation of internet governance. I respectively suggest that the zero draft address the internet governance section in such a way as that’s consistent with the multi-stakeholder model that’s in place now and has enabled the internet to thrive for the last several decades and enable the global society to reap its benefits. Explicitly naming the technical community in academia as stakeholders is a critical element of what needs to be in the zero draft. Regarding artificial intelligence the governance of a rapidly evolving technology where we’re seeing innovation almost kind of daily sometimes fielded without the risks being considered would significantly benefit also from the widest set of stakeholders in that governance process. So I would also respectfully recommend that the zero draft provide explicit consideration for all stakeholders including civil society, the technical community, and academia. Learning from the internet governance kind of model that the multi-governance model is really an approach that allows emerging technologies to blossom and to transform the global society and we think that as it’s done for the internet it can do for AI as well. Thank you.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you so much.

Audience: Please. Thank you. Excellencies moderator on behalf of the youth IGF Germany I would like to thank you for the openness of this process and the opportunity to contribute to the this is plus 20 review. This inclusivity reflects the enduring strength of the multi-stakeholder model. The global digital compact reaffirmed the internet governance must remain global and multi-stakeholder in nature. It also highlights the essential role of the internet governance form to implement this approach. Therefore we believe the next phase should focus on concretely strengthening and shaping the IGF’s mandate not renegotiating its existence. We propose a permanent mandate ensuring long-term trust and reliability for the here established processes. As we reflect on two decades of this and look ahead for the next 20 years we must acknowledge that today’s youth will be the ones implementing the outcomes of this review. Youth should therefore be recognized as a key stakeholder group ensuring that the business community remains sustainable inclusive and future oriented. Looking ahead we face several present challenges including the environmental impact of technology deepening digital divides as for example highlighted by the maps recently published on data centers worldwide by the international energy agency and persistent human rights violations as you highlighted in the elements paper. At the same time the long-term implications of emerging and future digital technologies remain uncertain. Our priorities should therefore include reinforcing the technology neutral business action lines and expanding national and regional IGFs as grassroots incubators for digital policy innovation. These spaces are essential for shaping a people-centered inclusive and development-oriented information society as was always planned as a goal. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ellie.

Ellie Mcdonald: Good morning. My name is Ellie Macdonald and I work for Global Partners Digital, civil society and human rights organization and we’re also a member of the global digital rights coalition for WSIS and I see a few of my colleagues from the coalition in the queue behind me as well. Thank you firstly to the co-facilitators for this opportunity to provide input. We greatly appreciate it. I would like to make some brief suggestions on elements we recommend revising in the elements paper as well as those we recommend be added. So first briefly on those we recommend revising. We recommend clearer references to international human rights law and explicitly to the universal declaration on human rights, the ICCPR and the ICESCR which together constitute the international bill of human rights. Reaffirming these existing commitments is key to unlocking the people-centricity which is core to the WSIS. In addition, like my colleagues before me, I would recommend much clearer language on internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model that underpins it. Reaffirming previously agreed language from the WSIS plus 10 outcome document or ideally the NetMundial outcome document. On the elements we recommend be added, we would advise a clear reference to the integration of the GDC through the WSIS framework reflecting the agreement reached in April at the CSTD. To achieve this we would strongly support the recommendations made by Switzerland before us to incorporate a joint implementation roadmap to avoid duplication and ensure the efficient use of resources. Second, we would advise clear next steps to ensure a permanent and sustainable IGF within an updated WSIS architecture. The IGF is a primary multi-stakeholder forum for discussion of internet and digital policy issues in a time of shrinking civic space. It is more important than ever especially for underrepresented and under siege communities. Finally, I would like to thank the co-facilitators for your openness to our input and for your acknowledgement of a five-point plan for an inclusive WSIS plus 20 review endorsed by over 190 organizations and experts from across stakeholder communities. Inclusion in the process is key. It includes ensuring engagement happens both through the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board and beyond it and that dialogue takes place between different stakeholder groups avoiding parallel processes especially at this

Konstantinos Komaitis: early stage. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Eddie. If we can go to the remote participants, we have two questions. Thank you very much. I believe we have one question from Amalie da Silva. Amalie, can you hear us?

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I just want to highlight the importance of dynamic coalitions.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Hello, can you hear me now? Did you just start? We can hear you. Can you please introduce yourself and then go on with your statement?

Amali De Silva Mitchell: Thank you so much. My name is Mali D’Silva-Mitchell. I’m the coordinator for the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies. And I thank you very much for this public consultation. I just want to highlight a couple of things. The IGF Dynamic Coalitions provide a tremendous opportunity for global participation. It’s free of charge. It’s multicultural. It’s diverse. It’s diverse ethnically, with age, with culture, with geographic regions, and so forth. And we also host virtual conversations. And I just want to highlight the importance of this in bringing together everybody globally to build consensus, to build capacity, and so forth. And I just want to highlight that great opportunity that the Dynamic Coalitions and the Internet Governance Forum provides. Thank you so much.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Amali. And I believe we have another remote participant that would like to intervene. Am I right?

Amrit Kumar: Hello. Can you hear me?

Konstantinos Komaitis: Yes, we can. Please introduce yourself.

Amrit Kumar: Hello. Thank you, Excellencies and colleagues. My name is Amrit Kumar. And I’ll be speaking today on behalf of the Dynamic Team Coalition as co-chair. My colleagues and I presented our statements during the WSIS Plus 20 virtual stakeholder consultations triggered about a month ago. But we wish to extend those reflections further and speak on these urgent issues that must be addressed in any serious outlook of the future of digital governance. We must recognize that the conversations that we’re having today are and will continue to be shaped by my generation and by the many teens, young people, and youth that are already active in this space. However, teens like myself are too often systematically excluded in this process. Digital governance models frequently define youth as ages 18 to 35, which leaves out the critical teen years entirely, despite the fact that teens are deeply engaged digital participants. This exclusion is not just a technical oversight, it’s a structural flaw. And therefore, the language matters. When teens are often being described as future stakeholders, our present contributions and lived experience online are ignored. We’re already shaping the digital world, and we have deserved to be recognized as stakeholders today. Therefore, we respectfully urge that the language of the elements paper and forthcoming discussions explicitly reflect the fundamental role of teens, not just referred to as children, youth, or young people, but as teens, a distinct legally and ethically recognized group, 13 to 19, whose rights are affirmed by the UNCRC and general comment number 25 on children rights in the digital environment. We also urge for the recognition of a clear rights-based approach to digital governance that recognizes our role, our voice, and our stake in the digital

Audience: future. Thank you. Thank you so very much. I believe that’s it from the remote participants. Giacomo, back to you. Thank you. I’m not of the youth IGF, as you can see. Apologies. I’m glad to see you in person after having seen you virtually already sometimes. I’m here with two hats. The first is the PNMA, that is the Policy Network for Meaningful Access co-chair, and I want to just to highlight to you that we are collecting since four years already best practices and policies about meaningful access all across the world. We have already a repository with over hundreds of cases that are valuable, that are actionable, replicable, example what can be done. This is, I think, one of the best contributions the IGF can give to the process of digitalization that we want to make possible and accessible to everybody. These are things that can bring in the future plans for the next WSIS that for me has to be permanent and has to be sustainable, as has been said by many others. Of course, we shall send the report even before, because we are supposed to deliver by November, but if you need in advance we can provide you this list of actionable proposals and policies that already are applicable somewhere. Second hat is, as my civil society organization representative, of course, as I said, we support what has been said by the Swiss non-paper and with the methodology of NetMundial. We want to have a permanent sustainable IGF and I want just to stress something that is important, that the IGF is the only place across all the fora that we have about digital transition where all stakeholders are on equal footing. So it’s the only place where, through the NRIs, through the dynamic coalitions, through the policy networks, you can see how a policy that could be decided at the global level can impact and which could be the reaction of the communities to which it’s addressed. The problems we have to solve are not problems that can be solved by one community only, by the government only, by the industry only, but need to be fruit of common efforts. So the future IGF has to be a relevant actor in the GDC implementation. That’s my recommendation. Thank you. Thank you so much,

Konstantinos Komaitis: Giacomo. So we have 27 minutes and we have a long line, so I will also ask you to just try to be

Jordan Carter: brief. Jordan. Thank you, Your Excellencies. Thank you for organizing this consultation. My name is Jordan Carter. I work for the .au domain administration, which runs the .au internet domain, and I’m speaking on behalf of the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism, which is a group of about 40 organizations from all around the world who are part of delivering the infrastructure that makes the internet work. A lot has been said already. I welcome the Ambassador’s comments around not seeking to reopen old controversies in the course of this work. I think the internet governance language, as others have said, could be usefully updated to reflect the fact that internet governance is multi-stakeholder these days, as per the language in the GDC last year. We want to see the technical community of people who make the internet available and reliable as a key contributor to achieving the SDGs and the ambitions of the WSIS framework being recognized in all of the internet governance institutions. We would call on the IGF getting a permanent mandate and sustainable funding so that people can really plan and invest for the long term in making it the best form it can be and in increasing its impact in the various digital policy and digital governance processes that are coming up. We join also the calls for the GDC to be implemented through the WSIS framework. It is already difficult enough for many organizations to engage in internet governance and digital governance more broadly. It’s best not to proliferate new forums that are covering the same topics where it can be avoided. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Jordan. Please introduce yourself.

Audience: Yeah, bonjour. Thank you so much, Excellency, for this opportunity. So my name is Abdeljalil Basharbon. I’m coming from Chad. So I’m the president of an organization called House of Africa and also representing national IGF Chad. So thank you. It’s the first time that we see you face to face but I was there for your online consultation and thank you for being open for this open consultation to listen to the community. So we thank you for this opportunity. So for us we need a clear governance framework without duplication. We don’t need duplication because we have a lot of uses in the world so we don’t need duplication inside the digital world. And we agree also with Switzerland for name change and so I think it’s a good idea for internal governance to digital governance. Yeah, I think that will be very broad and also answer the sustainable funding for the IGF is very important. Renewal mandate is very important. Supporting IGF NRIs is very important because without NRIs there’s no global IGF. I think that it will be very important to have this and to have the permanent mandate. We agree on that also and to have a strong secretariat because secretariat is doing very well so we need to support them. We need to have a strong secretariat. Also we need to know the roles of civil society and the young youth implications. Without youth, without civil society we cannot have IGF also. So diverse voices is very key, very important to renew the mandate and to consider everyone. It’s not a close meeting, close decision but we need to be open. We know that everyone cannot be in New York but I was suggesting as we said that to have a remote hub why not to use the UN national coordinator to use as a hub to gather all the people to listen to them. . I would like to say thank you to all of you for being here.

Jacqueline Pigato: I think it’s very important. I need to stay here for a time. Thank you so much. Thank you so very much. Please. Your Excellencies, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jacqueline Pigato and I speak on behalf of data privacy Brazil, a co-founder of data privacy Brazil. I would like to share with you a few points that I think are important in the WSIS review which are also shared by partner organizations within these alliances. The first point concerns the need to strengthen multistakeholder language in contrast to what we currently see in the Elements paper. Internet governance and the broader WSIS process have historically been multistakeholder. Governance at the top or content level involves legitimate state concerns and the need for multistakeholderism. The second point concerns the need for multistakeholderism and consequently other stakeholders and global cooperation as a whole. State concerns rely on other stakeholders to function in a way that benefits everyone, especially the people at the center, as was originally the WSIS vision. When we talk about multistakeholderism, we are talking about meaningful participation and increasing interaction among influential stakeholders and decision-makers as we are doing right now. This is a key point to be made in the WSIS process and the WSIS document and the WSIS 10 serve as a foundation for the path forward. My second point is about strengthening national and regional IGFs within the WSIS architecture. We believe not only in the continuity of the IGF but in the necessity of a feedback loop between the global debate and local realities. These local spaces can also serve as bridges between governmental representatives and the implementation of global frameworks that address these issues. Also I would like to thank the global governance Board for being able to ease to digitize the existing networks and stakeholder governance, encouraging better communication among stakeholders especially newcomers and policymakers. That way, we can implement concrete actions align with the realities of the population affected by digital dimensions. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for being here. I’m holding many things. Thanks so much. It’s always the problem with different people of different heights. Hi. I’m speaking for women at the table, but also the gender in the global digital compact coalition, which includes ABC, policy, derechos digitales, UN women, UNFPA, and many others. I’m speaking for women at the table, but I’m also speaking for colleagues, and we’d like to actually think about the idea of how do we do a human rights-based approach in the which you had asked, how do we integrate it? And we think that this will help address both the digital divide, help integrate environmental issues, deal with the digital economy issues, by addressing, taking this human rights-based approach that’s impact-based, community-based, and also how do we do it in a global digital compact? So we’d like to propose a standalone gender action line, which would actually help deal with a lot of these issues and bring us forward. We know the global digital compact has a stand-alone paragraph. We know that the SDGs have a stand-alone SDG number 5 on gender, and we believe that this will help bring this technology agnostic, gender-neutral series of convenings to something that’s really gender transformative and help finally bring us forward to the way that we want to go and bring women, but also all people and all their intersectionality who have been left out of decision-making. So thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you very much.

Audience: Good morning. My name is Ana Neves. I’m from Portugal. I’m Ana Neves, and I’m following all these processes for a long time on behalf of Portugal. And I would like to take this opportunity not to say what the position is, but to highlight what I really think is important in all this discussion. So there was a question which was how structural gaps in digital economy can be surpassed. So to answer this question, well, only a few elements for this very broad question. It will be very important to emphasize the role of the national and regional initiatives. In this way, I think that we structurally will be helping lots of regions, lots of countries. So I think this is one of the main streams of IGF. You can perceive IGF, you can see what has been achieved so far, 20 years. And I think that’s a very important element, because it’s a very important element, because it’s been working for years, working a lot. So this cannot only be perceived as a small forum. This is the forum of the Internet governance. And Internet governance, it’s not what is mentioned in the global digital compact. During that negotiation, as far as I remember, Internet governance is not only about the technical community, of course. It’s about what is off in the Internet and on in Internet, as Bertrand de La Chapelle normally says for long years. So many years. So it’s much more, and I think that you are aware of that. On digital infrastructure, please count on ITU. On AI, count more on UNESCO. We need a more clear understanding of the institutional framework of the UN. And otherwise, it’s a mess. And we really need to know where our human resources can be allocated and rightly allocated. Finally, I would like to mention the need for an updated mandate of the CSTD. It is very important, but it’s not delivering properly. And we have to involve the other stakeholders, et cetera. And I think that there is a lot of information how it could be updated. Thank you very much.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you. Please come in. So we have literally 15 minutes and 10 of you, and I would also like to give a couple of minutes to the co-facilitators to respond, so please be brief. Thank you.

Lucia Camacho: Okay. Good morning. I’m Lucia Camacho on behalf of the Latin American NGO with expertise on these issues. We would like to draw the attention on three critical points. The first one, it’s about human rights. The section dedicated to it, although it is acknowledged that it’s acknowledging that human rights are central to the WSIS vision, the suggested narrative only diverts from the vision expressed on the past revision or review of WSIS, but it also worsens the position of human rights in this process. By giving way to a punitive approach, rather than those of protection, guarantee, and respect of human rights, as it will be expected in this process, we need to advance to gender perspective and people-centered view that contextualize this WSIS core vision to this process. The second point concerns the need to articulate the GDC and the WSIS. We know that this is only mentioned in the AI section of the WSIS. We know that this is only mentioned in the AI section of the WSIS. We know that this is only mentioned in the AI section and needs to be explicitly mentioned in all this, the content of this document. We would like to suggest bringing this perspective. For example, we are aware that the development within the GDC framework of an inter-governmental framework, the GDC framework of an inter-governmental framework, the GDC goals and the SDGs, we suggest enhancing that process so that it serves as a monitoring platform to the action lines, for example, and the agreements reaching this review. The third point concerns the apparent need to not to backtrack, but rather to advance in this process. We are aware that the GDC framework of an inter-governmental framework, the GDC goals and the SDGs, we suggest enhancing that process so that it serves as a monitoring platform to the action lines, for example, and the agreements reaching this review. We are aware that the GDC framework of an inter-governmental framework, the GDC goals and the SDGs, we suggest advancing in this process. We strongly advise to strengthen and renew the IJF mandate to strengthen as well the outputs that such model can produce and to monitor its implementation and results. It is still early in this phase to suggest how such integration might look like but we believe the ELEMENTS paper should point towards that vision.

Neil Wilson: Thank you very much. Thank you. Please. Your Excellencies. Your Excellencies, Chair. Thank you very much for convening this open consultation this morning. My name is Neil Wilson and I come from the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The UK welcomes the publication of this ELEMENTS paper. We feel the headings generally provide a reasonable overview of the issues, recognising the progress made and the urgent need to connect the final third of the population that is still offline. We particularly welcome the emphasis on sustainable development, environmental impacts, bridging digital divides and enabling environment, human rights and capacity building. More generally, however, we are concerned by some areas of the paper appearing potentially backward looking, not reflecting the agreements reached just last year in the GDC, particularly on internet governance, data and AI. On internet governance, we were surprised this section does not yet recognise agreements in the GDC that internet governance must remain, must continue to be global and multi-stakeholder in nature. Similarly, we were disappointed that the paper does not yet recognise the many calls for an extended or permanent mandate for the IGF, or recognise the role of local and regional IGFs, which play such an important role in promoting inclusion. The UK is among those calling for a permanent mandate. On data governance, we do not believe this should have its own section. This was dealt with in the GDC and we should allow the CSTD working group on data governance to complete its work. Similarly, on building confidence and security in the use of ICDs, the section we feel should say more about promoting cyber resilience as part of the WSIS development agenda. Cyber crime and state behaviour, as acknowledged, are addressed through the UN in other processes, which the WSIS review should not duplicate. And lastly, we note the Member States that the CSTD recognise the importance of integrating the initiatives of the GDC into the WSIS process. We fully support that and hope that the Zero Draft will reflect this agreement. Thank you, Your Excellencies. We look forward to continuing this multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Audience: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Nandini and I speak on behalf of the Global Digital Justice Forum, a network of networks. And our recommendations come from endorsements from over 100 organisations for our call to action at the WSIS Plus 20 milestone. We thank you for inviting our feedback to the elements paper and have a few suggestions. First, there needs to be clarity on the manner in which the rule of law mentioned in the introduction needs to be actually operationalised, considering that international laws and norms across several traditional areas, from trade, intellectual property, health and food systems, data, and taxation, competition and climate, for instance, are currently not updated for the digital context. And this anachronism is being exploited opportunistically by big powers. System-wide change is a precondition for digital justice, and this must be acknowledged. Secondly, global fiscal justice for all countries must be seen as integral to digital justice, and this is necessary to mobilise the necessary finances legitimately and in accordance with well-established norms for economic governance. Regulations such as the digital development tax, whereby companies that have benefited for decades from a free and open internet must contribute to connectivity of the people who are still offline and to a safer digital world, and taking action to tackle tax evasion, including through a UN tax convention that is comprehensive and inclusive, with no carve-outs for the digital economy, an international digital trade regime that respects the fiscal sovereignty for all countries, and ending regressive social media taxes and replacing these revenues through collection of legitimate taxes from transnational corporations. These mechanisms must be discussed in the elements paper. On human rights, it’s important to broaden the ambit beyond user rights to put human rights and human dignity at the forefront of accountability in cross-border value chains. On data and AI, it’s important to recognise that meaningful and affordable access in the AI context includes the pursuit of self-determination, and this means data flows require more than trust. They need to be based on rights, including the right to development. And finally, on monitoring and measurement, we call for appropriate metrics to assess progress on business and GDC that includes aspects of social and economic justice, including equity and diversity. We call for systematic national reviews of progress on an annual basis for public accountability, with greater coordination between the WSIS Forum and the IGF.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you. Thank you. Anna, please be brief.

Anna Osterling: Hi. Hello, everyone. Oh. Thank you. Thank you so much. Excellencies, colleagues, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Anna Osterling, and I speak on behalf of Article 19, a local to global human rights organisation focusing on free speech and related rights. First of all, I would like to really thank you for organising this session, because it’s amazing for us to all be here together with all the stakeholders, whether they’re technical community, they’re member states, they’re civil society, they’re academia, private sector. This is amazing, and we’d love to see this going forward. A lot has been said, so I’m going to keep it very brief. I just want to pick up on three key points looking forward to the zero draft of the outcome document. First and foremost, we really need to anchor the zero draft in universal human rights and explicitly bolster the role of the OHCHR within the WSIS process. The zero draft should explicitly reaffirm all fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly, rights to privacy and data protection, and rights to equality and non-discrimination, with gender equality at its absolute core, which has been raised by colleagues. We really need to think about how the zero draft can promote human rights respecting regulation and how it can safeguard against human rights abuses, such as surveillance, internet shutdowns and internet restrictions, online censorship, and attacks on independent media and journalists, as also mentioned before. One thing I’d like to pick up on from the GDC is that we need to ensure technology private sector actors effectively implement the responsibilities as per the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Also, we would like to see support for small community and non-profit operators to offer complementary connectivity for rural and remote communities. My second point, I can be brief because multi-stakeholder governance has been mentioned by many, I would just like to highlight one aspect of it, and that is, please, the zero draft, if it could reference the Sao Paolo multi-stakeholder guidelines, that would be amazing. In terms of the integration of WSIS and GDC, we support the proposal made by Switzerland. My final point is on inclusion. Inclusion is absolutely key. It’s the heart of the WSIS project. At the moment, the elements paper is missing a whole number of groups, and some of them have already spoken and highlighted this, but we really need to integrate all underrepresented regions, all underrepresented groups and communities, including under siege civil society activists and journalists, to ensure more equitable, accessible, responsive, transparent, accountable,

Konstantinos Komaitis: and context-aware governance frameworks. Thank you so much. Thanks. So, I keep sending people away, the line is closed, so please, literally, because we have four minutes, and we also have an online participant.

Audience: Thank you so much. My name is Amrita, and first of all, thank you to the co-facilitators for arranging this session and also thinking about the sounding box. On behalf of the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF, we would request more, if there could be more consultations at the regional level, and we would like to welcome you to our APR IGF, which would be in Nepal in September, in case you can come, that would be great, or join online to hear the APAC community and what they have to say on that. We would also, you know, obviously, we would want the IGF to have a permanent mandate strengthened in all facilities. We would also want, we have the policy network on AI at the IGF, which is doing a lot of AI work. How can we have more synergies in it? I will keep it brief, because there are others. Thank you so much. We will be submitting our submissions, but we look for more engagement. Thank you so much.

Jennifer Chung: Please. Hello, my name is Jennifer Chung. I thank you, of course, for this opportunity to speak with the co-facilitators. I’m going to be brief as well. I do want to echo previous speakers’ call for the recognition of the technical community, especially in the paragraphs that talk about Internet governance, paragraphs which is 57 to 64. There is a particularly jarring transition between 59 and 60, because we need to be sure we’re not inadvertently unlinking the important policy-shaping, convening and agenda-setting values and power of the IGF to the actual governance of and governance on the Internet. Colleagues have mentioned also the lack of the mention of the NRIs, the National Regional, Sub-Regional and Youth Initiatives. I think this is an omission. I know this is not the final text, but please do have this in the zero text. One aspect I want to call out is the mention of the multilingual Internet. This is actually a very good thing in paragraph 33, because English is not the language spoken in my home region, Asia-Pacific, and the fact that we need a multilingual Internet, internationalised domain names and email address internationalisation is extremely important. Finally, thank you again for having an APAC-friendly session in the consultation that you had previously. We hope you have this going forward, and I also reiterate the invitation by Amrita to come to the APR IGF.

Audience: Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for organising these consultations. My name is Bojana. I’m here representing Global Forum for Media Development. We are also members with other colleagues of the Global Digital Rights Coalition. I’ll be very brief, Konstantinos. Three points. First one, in the nature of our multi-stakeholder engagement so far, we would like to see this engagement actively reflected in the outcome document to a permanent IGF position that is integrated in a broader business architecture. This also means that in the process of consultations and getting there, we would like to see more multi-directional and two-communication joint consultations where we can actually exchange views in a more formal and informal setting. Second, we believe that building on this, we also believe that certain communities, and especially those that we are representing here, media and journalists, are not having enough space, so special consultations for media and journalists, and GFMD is here to help you convene these consultations. And thirdly, and regarding to the element paper, as many of my colleagues here mentioned, strengthening human rights language is essential, making sure that it actually refers to international human rights treaties that are essential for protection of freedom of expression. And finally, we believe that for the context of the media, it is very important to preserve and strengthen Action Line 9, that I actually provide and kind of keep the successes and achievements that were already established under the GDC. Thank you so much.

Eleni Hickok: You see, I could do it. Eleni. Thank you very much, Your Excellencies, and thank you, Konstantinos. My name is Eleni Hickok, and I am part of the Global Network Initiative. We are a multi-stakeholder initiative bringing together companies, civil society, investors, and academics across jurisdictions. And I will be very brief because we do not have very much time. We are members of the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS, and we echo the points made by our colleague. And I would just add that in the zero draft, it would be wonderful to see affirmation of the private sector respecting the UNGPs. And lastly, I would just say that thank you for this opportunity to engage and participate, but it would be great to see further information about how inputs are being used, both verbal and written inputs, as the consultations proceed.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you. So literally one second, because we are told that we need to wrap it up.

Audience: Thank you, Excellencies. My name is Annalise Williams. I’m from the Organising Committee of Australia’s National IGF. We appreciate the work that’s gone into the elements paper and this opportunity to speak to you today. As others have noted, there is more recent language on internet governance, including in the GDC last year. We’d like to see the text updated to better reflect that. We’d like to see recognition of all stakeholder groups, such as the technical community. And NRIs play a crucial role, and we’d like to see that reflected as well. We’d like a permanent mandate for the IGF and recognition that it’s an instrument for dealing with issues. It’s not itself an issue. And we would also appreciate a clear timeline for consultations as soon as possible, and ensure that consultations are hybrid to allow participation from all parts of the world and stakeholders who aren’t resourced to attend. Thank you. Thank you, Annalise. And sorry, Dia, really. 20 seconds? Okay. All right, let’s do this. Hi, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’m Sabahan Doshi-Dia, and I am speaking on behalf of TEC Global Institute, which is focused on global digital rights organisations. I echo the sentiments of my colleagues before me from the Global Digital Rights Coalition, the Global South Alliance, and the South Asians for Digital Rights. We welcome the elements paper, but we have a couple of key points, which is important for Global South stakeholders specifically. One, the permanent mandate of the IGF with sustainable funding, particularly and explicitly calling out the participation of Global South communities in the multi-stakeholder process, grounded in net mundial principles. Second, we call on human rights to be grounded in the UDHR, and ensuring that there is no punitive languages and the fragmentation of the rule of law is not present. And then, lastly, the GDC implementation should be carried within the well-established framework of the WSIS architecture, so that Global South communities are not forced to participate in competing processes, which strains on existing resources. Thank you. Thanks. Very quickly, we need to go to the remote, but literally 30 seconds, because I would like to give 30 seconds to the ambassadors to just really say the last words. Please, go ahead. Thank you for giving me a floor. Let me share my input to the point. I would like to ask, this is from my UIGF and South Asia UIGF, and I’m part of the UIGF, the Internet Governance Forum Network, and it has been provided a space for young people to contribute meaningfully to the internet governance discussion. And so, we would like to ask that to include the UGIS as a part of the IGF mandate, officially even to be the inclusive internet governance framework demonstrated by the IGF model for building a truly equitable, human-centric information society that brings more voices from the vulnerable communities to the forefront, to include our input in the upcoming version. Sorry, you need to wrap up, because we are told that we need to leave. So, yeah, the last part is we would like to mention that everyone is responsible for our future, so every generation needs to take accountability and responsibility with action while making sure that you advise us ahead and listen. Thank you. Thank you. So,

Konstantinos Komaitis: literally one word, if you just can, and we wrap it up. I’m sorry. Please. First of all,

Suela Janina: great thank you to everyone and each of you for these contributions. These are really very meaningful, but also encouraging. I just want to mention that the elements paper was and is only the starting point. We have a whole process in front of us, and I want to emphasize the fact that this kind of engagement is very much inspiring, and we’ll continue with consultations. Please send your contributions in written. The deadline is by 15th of July. We may extend if we see that there is greater interest on this process, but at the same time, we’ll also reflect on your request to have joint consultations, so by the end of July, we may organize another joint consultation with member states and other stakeholders when you can have the possibility to express your views again, but we will be also announcing the future steps in the website of UNDESA. Please follow us. Any kind of opportunity that you have that we can be present in your regional consultation, let us know. We are just on the way to try to reassure you that the process will be open, transparent, and inclusive, so please be engaged, and we really appreciate

Ekitela Lokaale: your efforts and the spirit, lively spirit that we are seeing here at IGF. Ambassador, one last word? Mine is to thank you for the open manner in which you’ve engaged. We intend to run a transparent and inclusive process where we will try as much as possible to take your inputs in. Where we are not able to do that, we will let you know the difficulty. As you know, we are consulting many stakeholders, but please give us your comments on this orally and also in writing. I thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you all, and sorry for those who haven’t spoken, and apologies to you. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two.

Agreement points

IGF should have permanent mandate with sustainable funding

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Audience
– Jorge Cancio
– Jordan Carter

Arguments

Calls for renewal, strengthening, or permanent mandate for IGF with sustainable funding

IGF should have permanent mandate ensuring long-term trust and reliability

Clear timeline for consultations needed with grouped sessions for better participation

IGF needs permanent mandate and sustainable funding so organizations can plan and invest long-term

Summary

There is strong consensus that the IGF needs a permanent mandate with sustainable funding to ensure long-term stability, enable better planning and investment, and maintain trust in established processes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Multi-stakeholder model must be preserved and strengthened

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Audience
– Roman Danyliw
– Jacqueline Pigato

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model encompassing member states, civil society, private sector and technical community must be reaffirmed

Multi-stakeholder approach should be foundation of internet governance with broadest set of stakeholders on equal footing

Need to strengthen multistakeholder language in contrast to what currently exists in Elements paper

Summary

All speakers agree that the multi-stakeholder model is fundamental to internet governance and must be preserved, strengthened, and clearly articulated in the WSIS Plus 20 outcome documents.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Technical community should be explicitly recognized as key stakeholder

Speakers

– Audience
– Roman Danyliw
– Jordan Carter
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Technical community should be explicitly mentioned as integral stakeholder in internet governance

Multi-stakeholder approach should be foundation of internet governance with broadest set of stakeholders on equal footing

Technical community should be recognized in Internet governance paragraphs to avoid unlinking IGF from actual Internet governance

Summary

Multiple speakers from technical organizations emphasized the critical importance of explicitly recognizing the technical community as an integral stakeholder in internet governance processes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Global Digital Compact should be implemented through existing WSIS architecture

Speakers

– Jorge Cancio
– Ellie Mcdonald
– Neil Wilson
– Audience

Arguments

GDC should be implemented through WSIS architecture with joint implementation roadmap

Integration of GDC through WSIS framework should reflect agreement reached at CSTD

WSIS Plus 20 should acknowledge GDC agreements particularly on internet governance, data and AI

GDC implementation should be carried within established WSIS framework to avoid competing processes

Summary

There is clear consensus that the Global Digital Compact should be implemented through the existing WSIS architecture rather than creating new parallel processes, with particular emphasis on avoiding duplication and resource strain.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Human rights language needs strengthening with explicit references to international law

Speakers

– Jan Lublinsky
– Ellie Mcdonald
– Lucia Camacho
– Anna Osterling
– Audience

Arguments

Media freedom and independence should be explicitly mentioned as in Global Digital Compact

Elements paper needs clearer references to international human rights law and universal declaration of human rights

Human rights section needs strengthening to avoid punitive approach and promote protection

Zero draft should explicitly reaffirm all fundamental freedoms including freedom of expression and privacy

Human rights language needs strengthening and should refer to international human rights treaties

Summary

Multiple speakers from civil society and media organizations agreed that the human rights language in the elements paper is inadequate and needs strengthening with explicit references to international human rights law and treaties.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Youth should be recognized as current stakeholders, not just future ones

Speakers

– Audience
– Amrit Kumar

Arguments

Today’s youth will implement outcomes of this review and should be recognized as key stakeholder group

Youth should be recognized as stakeholders today, not just future stakeholders

Teens aged 13-19 are systematically excluded despite being deeply engaged digital participants

Summary

Youth representatives consistently argued that young people, including teens, are already active digital participants and should be recognized as current stakeholders rather than being relegated to ‘future stakeholder’ status.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Digital divide remains persistent challenge requiring concrete action

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Audience

Arguments

Bridging digital divide in terms of connectivity, capability and participation is central pillar of work

Digital inequalities persist with one-third of global population remaining offline

Universal and meaningful connectivity should be prioritized through community networks and IXPs

Summary

All speakers acknowledged that despite technological advances, the digital divide remains a persistent challenge requiring concrete actions to achieve universal and meaningful connectivity.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

The internet governance language in the elements paper is outdated and needs to be updated to reflect more recent agreements and properly recognize all stakeholders, particularly the technical community.

Speakers

– Jorge Cancio
– Neil Wilson
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Internet governance language needs updating from 2003 language to reflect WSIS Plus 10 or Global Digital Compact language

WSIS Plus 20 should acknowledge GDC agreements particularly on internet governance, data and AI

Technical community should be recognized in Internet governance paragraphs to avoid unlinking IGF from actual Internet governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

The IGF’s unique multi-stakeholder nature and its national/regional initiatives are essential for effective digital governance and should be strengthened and made permanent.

Speakers

– Audience
– Jacqueline Pigato
– Jordan Carter

Arguments

IGF is only place where all stakeholders are on equal footing and can see policy impact on communities

Strengthening national and regional IGFs within WSIS architecture creates feedback loop between global debate and local realities

IGF needs permanent mandate and sustainable funding so organizations can plan and invest long-term

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Gender equality should be central to the WSIS Plus 20 process, potentially through a standalone gender action line, moving from gender-neutral to gender-transformative approaches.

Speakers

– Anna Osterling
– Audience

Arguments

Gender equality should be at absolute core with gender transformative approach

Standalone gender action line should be proposed to address digital divide and human rights issues

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online

Unexpected consensus

Environmental impact of digital technologies

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Audience

Arguments

ICTs are both solution and part of environmental problem, needing circular economic principles

Environmental impact of technology including data centers worldwide needs addressing

Explanation

It was unexpected to see environmental concerns raised as a significant issue in a primarily governance-focused discussion, with both co-facilitators and youth representatives highlighting the dual nature of ICTs as both environmental solutions and problems.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Need for clear governance framework without duplication

Speakers

– Audience
– Jorge Cancio
– Neil Wilson

Arguments

Clear governance framework without duplication in digital world needed

GDC should be implemented through WSIS architecture with joint implementation roadmap

WSIS Plus 20 should acknowledge GDC agreements particularly on internet governance, data and AI

Explanation

There was unexpected strong consensus across different stakeholder groups (developing countries, developed countries, civil society) about avoiding duplication of governance processes, suggesting fatigue with proliferating digital governance forums.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Importance of multilingual internet and cultural diversity

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Multilingual Internet support is important for non-English speaking regions

Explanation

The specific mention and praise for multilingual internet provisions was unexpected in a governance-focused discussion, highlighting often-overlooked cultural and linguistic dimensions of digital inclusion.

Topics

Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

There is remarkably strong consensus among speakers on key structural issues: the need for a permanent IGF mandate, preservation of the multi-stakeholder model, integration of the Global Digital Compact through existing WSIS architecture, and strengthening of human rights language. The consensus spans across different stakeholder groups including government representatives, civil society, technical community, and youth.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for WSIS Plus 20 success. The broad agreement on fundamental principles suggests that the main challenges will be in implementation details rather than core concepts. The strong support for avoiding duplication and building on existing frameworks indicates stakeholder fatigue with proliferating governance processes and desire for consolidation and strengthening of proven mechanisms like the IGF.

Different viewpoints

Scope of AI and data governance in WSIS Plus 20

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Neil Wilson

Arguments

At this point, I know it’s a big discussion how, for example, we’re just wondering, my co-facilitator and I, how, if at all, we need to get engaged in the whole discussion on AI governance and data governance within the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review

On data governance, we do not believe this should have its own section. This was dealt with in the GDC and we should allow the CSTD working group on data governance to complete its work

Summary

Co-facilitator Lokaale expressed uncertainty about whether AI and data governance should be addressed within WSIS Plus 20, while UK representative Wilson explicitly opposed having a separate data governance section, arguing it was already addressed in the GDC

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Language and approach to internet governance

Speakers

– Jorge Cancio
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

The language on Internet governance, which is a very old language from 2003 or 2002. We should really base our discussions on language from WSIS plus 10 or even better, from WSIS plus 10 to WSIS plus 10

It’s not the intention of this elements paper to resurrect old controversies

Summary

Swiss representative Cancio called for updating internet governance language from 2003 to more recent formulations, while co-facilitator Lokaale emphasized not wanting to resurrect old controversies, suggesting a more cautious approach to language changes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Human rights approach – protection vs punishment

Speakers

– Lucia Camacho
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

By giving way to a punitive approach, rather than those of protection, guarantee, and respect of human rights, as it will be expected in this process

Human rights that are enjoyed offline must be protected online as well. Yet digital harms persist, especially for women, children, and other vulnerable groups

Summary

Latin American NGO representative Camacho criticized the elements paper for taking a punitive approach to human rights rather than a protective one, while co-facilitator Lokaale focused on addressing digital harms to vulnerable groups

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Youth age definition and participation

Speakers

– Amrit Kumar
– Other youth representatives

Arguments

Digital governance models frequently define youth as ages 18 to 35, which leaves out the critical teen years entirely

We must acknowledge that today’s youth will be the ones implementing the outcomes of this review

Explanation

An unexpected disagreement emerged within the youth community itself about age definitions, with some advocating specifically for teens (13-19) as a distinct group separate from broader youth categories (18-35), highlighting internal divisions within what might be assumed to be a unified stakeholder group

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Role of technical community recognition

Speakers

– Multiple technical community representatives
– Co-facilitators

Arguments

Explicitly naming the technical community in academia as stakeholders is a critical element

We believe that the achievements of the WSIS Vision are the result of decades of multistakeholder collaboration in which the technical community is an integral stakeholder

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was significant emphasis from technical community representatives on being explicitly named and recognized, suggesting that despite decades of participation, they feel their role is not adequately acknowledged in current formulations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most conflicts centered on implementation details rather than core principles. Key areas of disagreement included the scope of emerging technology governance, specific language formulations, and institutional arrangements.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on core goals but divergent views on implementation mechanisms. This suggests good potential for reaching consensus through negotiation and compromise, though careful attention to language and institutional details will be crucial for successful outcomes.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

The internet governance language in the elements paper is outdated and needs to be updated to reflect more recent agreements and properly recognize all stakeholders, particularly the technical community.

Speakers

– Jorge Cancio
– Neil Wilson
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Internet governance language needs updating from 2003 language to reflect WSIS Plus 10 or Global Digital Compact language

WSIS Plus 20 should acknowledge GDC agreements particularly on internet governance, data and AI

Technical community should be recognized in Internet governance paragraphs to avoid unlinking IGF from actual Internet governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

The IGF’s unique multi-stakeholder nature and its national/regional initiatives are essential for effective digital governance and should be strengthened and made permanent.

Speakers

– Audience
– Jacqueline Pigato
– Jordan Carter

Arguments

IGF is only place where all stakeholders are on equal footing and can see policy impact on communities

Strengthening national and regional IGFs within WSIS architecture creates feedback loop between global debate and local realities

IGF needs permanent mandate and sustainable funding so organizations can plan and invest long-term

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Gender equality should be central to the WSIS Plus 20 process, potentially through a standalone gender action line, moving from gender-neutral to gender-transformative approaches.

Speakers

– Anna Osterling
– Audience

Arguments

Gender equality should be at absolute core with gender transformative approach

Standalone gender action line should be proposed to address digital divide and human rights issues

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online

Key takeaways

The WSIS Plus 20 review process is firmly grounded in multi-stakeholder principles and aims to assess 20 years of progress while shaping a forward-looking digital vision

There is strong consensus among stakeholders for a permanent, sustainable, and well-funded IGF mandate rather than periodic renewals

The Global Digital Compact should be implemented through the existing WSIS architecture using a joint implementation roadmap to avoid duplication of processes

Internet governance language in the elements paper needs updating from 2003 terminology to reflect current multi-stakeholder realities as agreed in WSIS Plus 10 and Global Digital Compact

Human rights language requires strengthening with explicit references to international human rights law, including UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESCR

Technical community must be explicitly recognized as a key stakeholder group alongside governments, civil society, and private sector

Digital divides persist with one-third of global population offline, requiring concrete actions for universal and meaningful connectivity

Youth and teens (13-19) should be recognized as current stakeholders, not just future ones, given their active digital participation

National and Regional IGF initiatives (NRIs) play crucial roles and should be explicitly recognized and supported in the framework

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators will produce a zero draft by mid-August 2024 incorporating feedback from consultations

Written contributions deadline set for July 15, 2024, with possible extension if there is greater interest

Joint consultation with member states and stakeholders may be organized by end of July 2024

Co-facilitators committed to running transparent and inclusive process with continued stakeholder engagement

Co-facilitators will be present at ITU WSIS Plus 20 forum and other regional consultations

Stakeholders requested to provide both oral and written inputs on the elements paper

Clear timeline for consultations and negotiations until December 2024 to be provided for better planning

Hybrid consultation format to be maintained to enable global participation from those unable to travel to New York

Unresolved issues

Whether and how to address AI governance and data governance within WSIS Plus 20 context – co-facilitators noted differing views on including sections on emerging technologies

Specific mechanisms for integrating Global Digital Compact implementation into WSIS architecture beyond general agreement on joint roadmap

Whether to establish specific WSIS targets for measuring progress, particularly connectivity benchmarks

How to operationalize human rights-based approach across all digital governance areas

Specific funding mechanisms for ensuring sustainable IGF operations and broader WSIS implementation

Balance between acknowledging related processes (like Global Digital Compact) while maintaining WSIS Plus 20 focus

How to ensure meaningful participation of Global South communities without straining existing resources

Specific institutional updates needed for UN Group on Information Society and CSTD mandate

Suggested compromises

Measured approach adopted in elements paper to acknowledge progress while addressing new developments like AI without resurrecting old controversies

Recognition that geopolitical tensions may impact process while maintaining focus on technical cooperation

Acknowledgment of related processes like Global Digital Compact while conducting WSIS Plus 20 review

Flexible consultation format combining in-person New York sessions with virtual participation and regional hubs

Using informal multi-stakeholder sounding board as channel while ensuring it’s not the only representative of global community

Building on existing WSIS action lines which are technology-agnostic to accommodate emerging issues like AI and data governance

Balancing state concerns with multi-stakeholder governance needs in internet governance discussions

We are undertaking this process against the immediate backdrop of similar or related processes that have to do with digital governance. Last year for example we had the pact for the future that was adopted by member states which also has the global digital compact as part of it so in this process we have the choice of either acknowledging that those related processes have happened or to conduct the WSIS plus 20 review oblivious of and others.

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Ambassador from Kenya)

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it acknowledged the complex institutional landscape and potential for duplication or conflict between overlapping digital governance processes. It demonstrated strategic awareness of the need to coordinate rather than compete with existing frameworks.

Impact

This comment set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion, with multiple participants (Switzerland, Internet Society, civil society representatives) explicitly calling for integration of the Global Digital Compact through the WSIS framework rather than creating parallel processes. It became a recurring theme throughout the session.

The IGF is the only place across all the fora that we have about digital transition where all stakeholders are on equal footing. So it’s the only place where, through the NRIs, through the dynamic coalitions, through the policy networks, you can see how a policy that could be decided at the global level can impact and which could be the reaction of the communities to which it’s addressed.

Speaker

Giacomo (representing PNMA and civil society)

Reason

This comment provided a unique framing of the IGF’s distinctive value proposition – not just as another forum, but as the only truly equal multi-stakeholder space. It connected global policy-making to grassroots impact in a way that highlighted the IGF’s irreplaceable role.

Impact

This perspective reinforced and deepened the arguments made by previous speakers about the IGF’s permanent mandate, but shifted the focus from institutional sustainability to functional uniqueness. It influenced how subsequent speakers framed their arguments about the IGF’s role.

Digital governance models frequently define youth as ages 18 to 35, which leaves out the critical teen years entirely, despite the fact that teens are deeply engaged digital participants. This exclusion is not just a technical oversight, it’s a structural flaw… When teens are often being described as future stakeholders, our present contributions and lived experience online are ignored.

Speaker

Amrit Kumar (Dynamic Team Coalition co-chair, speaking remotely)

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it challenged fundamental assumptions about stakeholder categorization and participation. It revealed how seemingly inclusive language (‘youth’) can actually be exclusionary and highlighted the difference between tokenistic future-oriented language versus recognizing present agency.

Impact

This intervention introduced a new dimension to the inclusion discussion that hadn’t been raised before, moving beyond geographic and organizational representation to age-based exclusion. It influenced the youth representative who spoke later in person to emphasize similar themes about youth as current rather than future stakeholders.

We need a more clear understanding of the institutional framework of the UN. And otherwise, it’s a mess. And we really need to know where our human resources can be allocated and rightly allocated. On digital infrastructure, please count on ITU. On AI, count more on UNESCO.

Speaker

Ana Neves (Portugal)

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it cut through diplomatic language to identify a core structural problem – the lack of clear institutional division of labor within the UN system on digital issues. It provided concrete suggestions for institutional clarity.

Impact

This direct assessment of institutional confusion resonated with the broader theme of avoiding duplication that had been raised earlier. It reinforced calls for better coordination and clearer mandates, contributing to the overall narrative about the need for institutional reform and clarity.

Global fiscal justice for all countries must be seen as integral to digital justice… Regulations such as the digital development tax, whereby companies that have benefited for decades from a free and open internet must contribute to connectivity of the people who are still offline… ending regressive social media taxes and replacing these revenues through collection of legitimate taxes from transnational corporations.

Speaker

Nandini (Global Digital Justice Forum)

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it connected digital governance to broader questions of global economic justice and power structures. It moved beyond technical and procedural discussions to address fundamental questions about who benefits from and pays for digital transformation.

Impact

This intervention introduced an entirely new dimension to the discussion – the economic justice aspects of digital governance that hadn’t been addressed by previous speakers. It broadened the scope of the conversation beyond governance mechanisms to underlying economic structures, though it didn’t generate direct responses from other speakers due to time constraints.

It’s not the intention of this elements paper to resurrect old controversies. We know that WSIS is one of those processes that has gone on for 20 years now. We intend to build upon the progress that has been made without any attempt to resurrect or relitigate controversies that have been undertaken in the past.

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Ambassador from Kenya)

Reason

This comment was strategically insightful as it attempted to set boundaries around the review process and manage expectations about what would and wouldn’t be reopened for debate. It acknowledged the contentious history while trying to focus on forward progress.

Impact

This comment was referenced positively by Jordan Carter later in the discussion, who welcomed ‘the Ambassador’s comments around not seeking to reopen old controversies.’ However, it also created tension with participants who felt that some ‘old’ language (particularly on internet governance and human rights) needed updating to reflect more recent agreements.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing several critical tensions and themes that ran throughout the session. The ambassadors’ opening comments about avoiding duplication with other processes and not reopening old controversies created a framework that participants both embraced and challenged. The discussion evolved from initial procedural concerns to deeper questions about institutional design, stakeholder inclusion, and power structures. The most impactful comments were those that reframed familiar issues in new ways – such as viewing the IGF as uniquely equal rather than just another forum, or recognizing teens as current rather than future stakeholders. The conversation demonstrated a sophisticated understanding among participants of the complex institutional landscape, with many speakers building on each other’s points about integration, permanent mandates, and inclusive processes. The overall flow moved from broad institutional questions to specific recommendations, with recurring themes of avoiding duplication, ensuring meaningful participation, and updating outdated language to reflect current realities.

How can structural gaps within the digital economy be closed, and what models would support micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises to ensure digital opportunity is inclusive?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

This was explicitly identified as an area where input is needed to address uneven benefits of the digital economy across nations and within societies

How can we advance inclusive digital service delivery and safeguard privacy and equity in national digital strategies?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Identified as a key area needing input regarding barriers in digital access to education, identity systems, and community infrastructure

How can we reduce ICTs’ environmental footprint through circular economic principles, better recycling, and sustainability standards?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

ICTs are both solution and problem for environmental sustainability, requiring strategies to minimize their environmental impact

What strategies would best integrate innovation, regulation, and rights in creating enabling environments?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Need for holistic approach balancing legal coherence, innovation promotion, and human rights protection

What mechanisms can increase equitable financing for inclusive digital infrastructure and AI readiness?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Investment remains uneven between developing and developed countries, with many countries still underserved

What approaches would operationalize rights-based, safe, and inclusive digital ecosystems?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Digital harms persist especially for women, children, and vulnerable groups despite human rights commitments

Should the IGF mandate be renewed, strengthened, or made permanent, and what other issues need to be addressed?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

There are calls for different approaches to the IGF’s future institutional status and funding mechanisms

How should AI governance and data governance be integrated within the WSIS Plus 20 review context?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Co-facilitators noted differing views on whether these emerging topics need dedicated sections in the review

Should targets be established for measuring WSIS progress, and what monitoring frameworks are needed?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

WSIS Plus 10 did not establish targets, but connectivity benchmarks have emerged and there may be need for formal measurement targets

What follow-up mechanisms are essential for designing an effective post-2025 WSIS Plus 20 structure?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Need to determine institutional arrangements and processes for continuing WSIS work beyond 2025

How can the Global Digital Compact be integrated into the WSIS architecture through a joint implementation roadmap?

Speaker

Jorge Cancio

Explanation

Need to avoid duplication and ensure efficient use of resources by integrating GDC implementation with existing WSIS framework

What institutional updates are needed to make the WSIS architecture more fit for purpose, including updating the UN Group on Information Society?

Speaker

Jorge Cancio

Explanation

Suggestions for including new offices like OHCHR, ODET, UN Women and better interconnecting WSIS Forum with IGF

How can a help desk be established to help stakeholders navigate the WSIS framework and UN digital cooperation work?

Speaker

Jorge Cancio

Explanation

Need for guidance mechanism to assist stakeholders in understanding and engaging with complex institutional framework

What is the clear timeline and format for consultations and negotiations leading to December, and how can they be structured to maximize participation from capitals?

Speaker

Jorge Cancio

Explanation

Planning and logistical needs for smaller countries to participate effectively in the negotiation process

How can teens (ages 13-19) be explicitly recognized as distinct stakeholders rather than being subsumed under ‘youth’ or ‘children’ categories?

Speaker

Amrit Kumar

Explanation

Current digital governance models often exclude teens despite their significant digital participation and rights under UNCRC

How can meaningful access best practices and policies collected over four years be integrated into future WSIS plans?

Speaker

Giacomo

Explanation

The Policy Network for Meaningful Access has hundreds of actionable, replicable examples that could inform implementation

How can a standalone gender action line be implemented to address digital divides and promote gender-transformative approaches?

Speaker

Women at the Table representative

Explanation

Proposal to move from gender-neutral to gender-transformative approaches, similar to GDC standalone paragraph and SDG 5

How can global fiscal justice mechanisms like digital development tax and UN tax convention be integrated into digital governance frameworks?

Speaker

Nandini (Global Digital Justice Forum)

Explanation

Need for legitimate financing mechanisms and addressing tax evasion to support connectivity and digital safety

How can more consultations be organized at regional levels, and what synergies can be created with existing policy networks like the AI policy network?

Speaker

Amrita (Asia-Pacific Regional IGF)

Explanation

Need for broader geographic engagement and better coordination between global and regional processes

How can inputs from consultations (both verbal and written) be tracked and their usage communicated as the process proceeds?

Speaker

Eleni Hickok

Explanation

Need for transparency about how stakeholder contributions are being incorporated into the drafting process