Afternoon session

Summary

The 68th plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly concluded the high-level review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20, focusing on the implementation of outcomes from the original 2005 summit. Multiple stakeholders presented statements emphasizing the critical role of digital technology in sustainable development and the persistent challenges of digital divides globally. The Africa ICT Alliance highlighted the multistakeholder nature of the information society and the need for enhanced digital cooperation, while the International Federation of Library Associations emphasized libraries as vital digital public infrastructure serving marginalized communities. Youth representatives from AI for Good Young Leaders called for meaningful participation in decision-making processes rather than symbolic inclusion, arguing that young people are not just consumers but creators and shapers of digital reality.

The Internet Society praised the multistakeholder model of internet governance and welcomed the decision to make the Internet Governance Forum permanent, while IT for Change criticized the current innovation economy as built on exploitation and called for redistributive justice in digital infrastructure. The United States expressed significant reservations about international internet governance standards and disassociated from various provisions, while developing countries through the G77 and China group lamented the absence of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Several countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Nigeria expressed reservations about gender-related language and human rights provisions that they viewed as outside WSIS’s original mandate.

Despite procedural concerns and substantive disagreements, the Assembly adopted the outcome document by consensus, establishing a framework for continued digital cooperation while scheduling the next high-level review for 2035.

Keypoints

Major Discussion Points:

– Digital divide and connectivity gaps: Multiple speakers emphasized that 2.2 billion people still lack meaningful internet access, with particular focus on bridging divides between and within countries, especially affecting developing nations, women, girls, persons with disabilities, and rural populations.

– Multi-stakeholder governance model vs. state sovereignty: There was tension between supporting the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance (including making the Internet Governance Forum permanent) and concerns from some countries about maintaining national sovereignty and government roles in digital policy decisions.

– Youth empowerment and meaningful participation: Young leaders called for moving beyond symbolic inclusion to actual decision-making power, emphasizing that youth should be co-designers of digital policies rather than just participants, given their role as digital natives and technology creators.

– AI governance and capacity building: Discussions centered on establishing AI fellowship programs, research initiatives, and capacity building for developing countries, while addressing concerns about AI’s impact on labor, human rights, and the need for international AI governance frameworks.

– Procedural concerns and consensus challenges: Multiple delegations expressed dissatisfaction with the negotiation process, citing lack of transparency, rushed final stages, and concerns that the outcome document didn’t adequately reflect developing countries’ priorities or include principles like “common but differentiated responsibilities.”

Overall Purpose:

This was the 68th plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly conducting a high-level review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) outcomes after 20 years, aimed at adopting a consensus outcome document to guide future digital cooperation and bridge digital divides globally.

Overall Tone:

The discussion began with a collaborative and appreciative tone as various stakeholders shared their visions and commitments. However, the tone became increasingly tense and critical during the explanations of vote, with multiple countries expressing reservations, dissociations from specific paragraphs, and frustration with the negotiation process. Despite these concerns, most delegations ultimately supported consensus adoption while clearly stating their reservations, reflecting the complex balance between multilateral cooperation and national sovereignty concerns.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Chair – Distinguished delegates facilitator, presiding over the 68th plenary meeting of the General Assembly

– Africa ICT Alliance – Jimson Olufuye, Chair of Advisory Council of AFICTA, member of WSIS Plus 20 Informal Multistakeholder Standing Board, member of IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group, Chair of Contemporary Consulting Limited (systems integration, software engineering, cybersecurity and research)

– International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions – Professor and librarian at the University of Illinois, representing IFLA

– AI for Good Young Leaders – Young AI leader speaking on behalf of the San Francisco Hub

– Internet Society – Representative of the Internet Society, part of the global Internet community

– IT for Change – Representative advocating for redistributive justice and alternative innovation paradigms

– United States – Distinguished representative providing explanation of position regarding WSIS Plus 20 outcome document

– Secretariat – Representative providing oral statement regarding financial implications under Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure

– Saudi Arabia – Representative providing explanation of vote, expressing reservations on various paragraphs

– India – Representative providing explanation of vote, emphasizing developing countries’ perspectives

– Israel – Representative providing explanation of position on draft resolution, expressing concerns about process transparency

– Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China – Representative delivering explanation of position on behalf of the Group of 77 and China

– Russian Federation – Representative welcoming adoption while distancing from certain provisions

– Argentina – Representative distancing from 2030 Agenda and related matters

– Ukraine – Representative explaining position following adoption, expressing reservations about unilateral coercive measures

– Iran – Representative of Islamic Republic of Iran, expressing concerns about development pillar and negotiation process

– Nigeria – Representative aligning with G77 position while noting interpretation of certain terms according to national legislation

– Bangladesh – Representative emphasizing need for unprecedented measures in unprecedented times, discussing AI and tech developments

Additional speakers:

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

Executive Summary

The 68th plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly concluded the high-level review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20, marking a critical juncture in global digital governance twenty years after the original 2005 summit. The session brought together diverse stakeholders to assess progress on digital development and adopt a consensus outcome document under Resolution 79-277 and Decision 80-524, despite significant reservations from multiple delegations. The meeting highlighted both achievements and persistent challenges in bridging digital divides, whilst revealing disagreements about governance models, sovereignty, and the scope of international digital cooperation. The process was co-facilitated by Her Excellency Suela Janina, Permanent Representative of Albania, and His Excellency Ekitela Lokaale, Permanent Representative of Kenya.

Opening Statements and Stakeholder Perspectives

Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Digital Cooperation

The session commenced with strong advocacy for maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance. The Africa ICT Alliance, represented by Jimson Olufuye, emphasized that the multi-stakeholder nature of the information society remains essential for digital cooperation and sustainable development. Olufuye highlighted the critical need for enhanced digital cooperation to close digital divides and ensure no one is left behind, whilst advocating for making the Internet Governance Forum permanent as an inclusive platform for policy dialogue.

The Internet Society echoed these sentiments, praising the multi-stakeholder model as enabling effective Internet governance and connectivity solutions. Their representative noted that 2.2 billion people still lack meaningful connectivity, underscoring the urgency of addressing persistent digital divides. The organization welcomed the decision to make the Internet Governance Forum permanent, viewing it as the main venue for multi-stakeholder Internet governance work.

Libraries as Digital Public Infrastructure

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions presented a compelling case for recognizing libraries as vital digital public infrastructure. Their representative argued that libraries serve as global digital public infrastructure, with the content they collect, preserve, and share representing a significant public good. The organization emphasized libraries’ critical role in serving marginalized communities and posed a direct challenge to stakeholders: “How can you, in your future work to implement the WSIS agenda, partner with IFLA, and better mobilize your libraries?”

Youth Empowerment and Meaningful Participation

A particularly powerful intervention came from the AI for Good Young Leaders representative, who fundamentally challenged traditional approaches to youth engagement. Moving beyond symbolic inclusion, they argued that young people should transition from participation to decision-making roles in digital policy. The representative emphasized that youth are creators of digital reality, not merely consumers of technology, delivering a memorable call to action: “Don’t just engage youth. Empower your youth. Give us a seat where decisions are made, and we will help build an inclusive, just, safe, and sustainable digital future that we see as promised for us all.”

Critical Perspectives on Digital Innovation

IT for Change provided one of the most provocative critiques of the current digital paradigm. Their representative argued that the current innovation economy is built on dispossession and dehumanization, calling for an alternative paradigm focused on redistributive justice. They painted a stark picture of digital exploitation: “A worker in India folds hand towels hundreds of times a day with a camera mounted on their head, generating training data for an AI that will never problem-solve for their embedded reality. This is the platformization of work, a story of precarity and indignity of data labour.”

The organization called for an international AI constitution based on global democracy and a technology assessment mechanism, fundamentally challenging the current AI expansion that prioritizes corporate interests over climate and human concerns.

Government Positions and Explanations of Vote

United States: Reservations on International Governance

The United States delivered a comprehensive explanation of position, expressing serious reservations about multiple aspects of the outcome document while not calling for a vote. The US representative stated: “The United States has serious reservations about international organizations setting a standard that legitimizes international governance of the Internet… We oppose references to the Global Digital Compact, Summit for the Future, and Independent International Scientific Panel on AI.”

The United States opposed what it viewed as bureaucratic approaches to AI governance and expressed concerns about threats to freedom of speech, including references to disinformation and hate speech. The delegation argued that economic sanctions are legitimate tools for addressing threats to peace and security, contrasting with developing countries’ positions on unilateral coercive measures.

Developing Countries’ Collective Concerns

Iraq, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, delivered a comprehensive critique of the outcome document’s adequacy for developing countries. The delegation regretted “the absence of an explicit mention of a principle of common but differentiated responsibilities,” arguing that this omission weakened the development aspect of the declaration and overlooked structural disparities in capacities and resources among countries.

The Group of 77 and China expressed particular concern about the diluted language regarding unilateral coercive measures, arguing it was inadequate to address the negative impacts of such measures on digital development. They also criticized the lack of transparency in final negotiations, which caused procedural concerns about the legitimacy of the process.

National Sovereignty and Cultural Context Concerns

Several countries emphasized the need to respect national sovereignty and cultural contexts in digital governance. Saudi Arabia expressed reservations on various paragraphs, particularly regarding sexual and reproductive health references, which they viewed as outside WSIS’s scope. The delegation emphasized states’ rights to formulate regulatory frameworks according to their cultural contexts and national priorities.

Argentina distanced itself from the 2030 Agenda and related matters, specifically distancing itself from mandates outside WSIS scope, including gender focus. Iran argued that the introduction of human rights elements went beyond the agreed WSIS mandate and that the document weakened the development pillar by failing to translate objectives into concrete commitments. Nigeria aligned with the G77 position whilst noting that references to sexual and gender-based violence would be interpreted according to national norms and legislation.

Procedural Transparency Concerns

Multiple delegations criticized the negotiation process for lack of transparency. India noted that whilst the document reaffirmed the WSIS vision, it could have been more ambitious on means of implementation, and the negotiation process could have been more transparent and organized. Israel expressed concerns about the final negotiation process lacking transparency and proper organization, calling for more transparent and less politicized processes going forward.

Iran characterized the final stage as marked by a lack of transparency and inclusive framework, reflecting broader concerns about multilateral negotiation processes in digital governance.

Financial Implications and Implementation Framework

The Secretariat provided an oral statement regarding financial implications under Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure. Total resource requirements of $1,429,100 were allocated for implementation activities, broken down as follows:

– Department for General Assembly and Conference Management: $153,200

– Department for Economic and Social Affairs: $1,266,400 (including six posts: one D1, one P5, one P3, one P2, and two general service positions)

– Department for Global Communications: $5,500

– UN Office in Geneva: $4,000

The Secretariat noted that resource requirements depend on the availability of adequate liquidity. The establishment of a financial task force was agreed upon, though developing countries argued it needed more concrete recommendations. A high-level meeting was planned for 2035, with cost implications to be determined later. The document also established an AI Capacity Building Fellowship programme for government officials, which India welcomed as potentially benefiting Global South countries.

Key Areas of Consensus and Persistent Disagreements

Areas of Broad Agreement

Despite procedural concerns, several areas of consensus emerged. There was broad support for multi-stakeholder approaches to digital governance, though with different interpretations of implementation. All stakeholders acknowledged the persistent challenge of digital divides, with universal recognition that enhanced digital cooperation is needed to close these gaps. Strong support emerged for making the Internet Governance Forum permanent as a key venue for inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Fundamental Disagreements

Significant disagreements persisted on core issues. A fundamental divide emerged between those supporting international governance approaches and those advocating for multi-stakeholder models with limited government intervention. Multiple countries argued that human rights elements—particularly those related to gender, sexual health, and reproductive rights—fell outside the original WSIS mandate and should be interpreted according to national laws and cultural contexts.

Sharp differences emerged on economic sanctions and coercive measures, with the United States and Ukraine defending such measures as legitimate tools, while developing countries argued they negatively impact technology access and digital development. Content regulation and free speech protections remained contentious, with the United States arguing for broad speech protections while other countries expressed concern about misinformation and disinformation.

Innovative Perspectives and Future Challenges

The discussion featured several thought-provoking interventions that challenged conventional thinking. Bangladesh called for “unprecedented measures in unprecedented times of technological change,” emphasizing the need for new approaches to governance as “tech transcendence, technosyn, and tech singularity are on the horizon.”

Several critical issues remain unresolved following the adoption. Enhanced cooperation among governments on Internet governance remains undefined and unimplemented, despite being a longstanding concern of developing countries. Concrete mechanisms to address the negative impacts of unilateral coercive measures are lacking. The role and accountability of large technology companies require clearer definition, and approaches to misinformation and disinformation lack clear consensus among member states.

The intersection of WSIS with other UN processes—including the Global Digital Compact, AI for Good, and Pact for the Future—requires coordination, as highlighted by Bangladesh’s observation that these four processes will intersect in the coming months.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

The 68th plenary meeting successfully adopted the WSIS Plus 20 outcome document by consensus, establishing a framework for continued digital cooperation and scheduling the next high-level review for 2035. However, the consensus masked substantial reservations from multiple delegations, suggesting implementation challenges ahead.

The discussion revealed that whilst there is broad agreement on fundamental principles like multi-stakeholder governance and bridging digital divides, deep divisions exist on cultural and social issues, the role of international governance, and the balance between development needs and sovereignty concerns. The criticism of negotiation transparency from various delegations suggests systemic challenges in multilateral digital governance processes.

Moving forward, the success of WSIS implementation will depend on addressing these unresolved tensions whilst building on areas of genuine consensus. The recognition that there is no one-size-fits-all model for digital development, combined with respect for national priorities and cultural contexts, may provide a pathway for pragmatic cooperation despite philosophical differences. The session ultimately demonstrated both the potential and limitations of multilateral approaches to digital governance, with implementation likely to be fragmented as countries interpret and apply the outcomes according to their own frameworks.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for digital governance and cooperation

Multi-stakeholder approach remains essential for digital cooperation and sustainable development

Multi-stakeholder model enables effective Internet governance and connectivity solutions

US opposes international governance of Internet and supports multi-stakeholder model

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of maintaining multi-stakeholder governance models for digital cooperation, though with different emphases on implementation

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Need to address digital divides and ensure meaningful connectivity

Need for enhanced digital cooperation to close digital divides and ensure no one is left behind

2.2 billion people still lack meaningful connectivity and depend on Internet for development

Document reaffirms WSIS vision but could have been more ambitious on means of implementation

Document inadequately reflects core concerns of developing countries

Broad consensus exists on the urgent need to bridge digital divides and provide meaningful connectivity, particularly for developing countries and underserved populations

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Internet Governance Forum should be made permanent

Internet Governance Forum should be made permanent as inclusive platform for policy dialogue

IGF serves as main venue for multi-stakeholder Internet governance work

Document reaffirms WSIS vision but could have been more ambitious on means of implementation

Strong support for making the IGF permanent as a key venue for inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue on Internet governance

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Concerns about negotiation process transparency

Negotiation process could have been more transparent and organized

Final negotiation process lacked transparency and proper organization

Lack of transparency in final negotiations caused procedural doubts

Introduction of human rights elements goes beyond agreed WSIS mandate

Multiple delegations expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency and organization in the final stages of negotiations

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

These countries share concerns about references to sexual and reproductive health, gender-based violence, and human rights elements, viewing them as outside the WSIS mandate or inconsistent with their national values and legislation

Reservations regarding sexual and reproductive health references as outside WSIS scope

Argentina distances itself from mandates outside WSIS scope including gender focus

Introduction of human rights elements goes beyond agreed WSIS mandate

References to sexual and gender-based violence will be interpreted according to national norms

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Developing countries expressed dissatisfaction with weak language on unilateral coercive measures and lack of concrete mechanisms to address their negative impacts on digital development

Language regarding unilateral coercive measures was diluted and inadequate

Absence of concrete mechanisms to address extraterritorial effects of such measures

Document reaffirms WSIS vision but could have been more ambitious on means of implementation

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both speakers emphasized that the document weakened the development pillar of WSIS by omitting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and failing to provide concrete commitments for developing countries

Absence of common but differentiated responsibilities principle weakens development aspects

Document weakens development pillar by failing to translate objectives into concrete commitments

Development | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected consensus

AI capacity building for developing countries

AI capacity building fellowship could benefit Global South countries

Need for international AI constitution based on global democracy and technology assessment mechanism

Despite their different approaches – India welcoming the fellowship program and IT for Change calling for more radical restructuring – both recognized the critical need for AI governance mechanisms that address Global South concerns

Development | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Youth empowerment in digital governance

Youth should move from participation to decision-making roles in digital policy

Need for unprecedented measures in unprecedented times of technological change

Both speakers, though from different perspectives, emphasized the need for transformative approaches to include youth voices and adapt to rapid technological changes, representing an unexpected alignment on generational change

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on fundamental principles like multi-stakeholder governance, bridging digital divides, and making the IGF permanent. However, significant divisions emerged around human rights language, national sovereignty concerns, and the adequacy of development commitments. Procedural concerns about negotiation transparency were widely shared.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus with significant polarization. While there was broad agreement on core digital governance principles and the need to address connectivity gaps, deep divisions existed on cultural/social issues, the role of international governance, and the balance between development needs and sovereignty concerns. The final adoption by consensus masked substantial reservations from multiple delegations, suggesting a fragile agreement that may face implementation challenges.

Different viewpoints

Internet Governance Model – International vs Multi-stakeholder Approach

US opposes international governance of Internet and supports multi-stakeholder model

Enhanced cooperation among governments remains undefined and unimplemented

Need to respect national sovereignty and states’ rights to formulate regulatory frameworks

The US strongly opposes international governance of the Internet and supports multi-stakeholder models, while Iran argues for enhanced cooperation among governments on equal footing, and Saudi Arabia emphasizes national sovereignty in regulatory frameworks. This represents a fundamental disagreement about who should govern the Internet.

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Human Rights Content and WSIS Mandate Scope

Introduction of human rights elements goes beyond agreed WSIS mandate

Reservations regarding sexual and reproductive health references as outside WSIS scope

References to sexual and gender-based violence will be interpreted according to national norms

Argentina distances itself from mandates outside WSIS scope including gender focus

Multiple countries argue that human rights elements, particularly those related to gender, sexual health, and reproductive rights, fall outside the original WSIS mandate and should be interpreted according to national laws and cultural contexts.

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Unilateral Coercive Measures (Economic Sanctions)

Economic sanctions are legitimate tools for addressing threats to peace and security

Restrictive measures are legitimate when adopted in accordance with international law

Language regarding unilateral coercive measures was diluted and inadequate

Absence of concrete mechanisms to address extraterritorial effects of such measures

The US and Ukraine defend economic sanctions as legitimate tools, while developing countries (G77, Iran) argue that such measures negatively impact technology access and digital development, with inadequate language in the document to address these concerns.

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Freedom of Expression vs Content Regulation

US concerned about threats to freedom of speech, including references to disinformation and hate speech

Absence of clear approach to misinformation and disinformation despite direct threats they pose

The US argues that all speech, even odious speech, should be protected and opposes references to disinformation and hate speech, while the G77 and China express concern about the absence of approaches to address misinformation and disinformation that threaten social cohesion.

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Procedural Transparency and Negotiation Process

Final negotiation process lacked transparency and proper organization

Negotiation process could have been more transparent and organized

Lack of transparency in final negotiations caused procedural doubts

Introduction of human rights elements goes beyond agreed WSIS mandate

Unexpectedly, countries across different political alignments (Israel, India, G77, Iran) all criticized the negotiation process for lack of transparency. This procedural criticism cuts across traditional geopolitical lines and suggests systemic issues with UN negotiation processes.

Legal and regulatory

Innovation Paradigm Critique

Current innovation economy built on dispossession and dehumanization, need for alternative paradigm

Need for new epistemologies and interpretations of emerging technological ontologies

Unexpected fundamental critique of the current technology paradigm, with IT for Change arguing that the data and AI economy has reversed WSIS values, and Bangladesh calling for entirely new epistemological approaches. This represents a more radical departure from mainstream technology optimism than typically seen in UN forums.

Development | Economic | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals deep divisions on fundamental governance questions (international vs multi-stakeholder Internet governance), cultural and sovereignty issues (human rights scope, national interpretation of gender/sexual health topics), economic policy tools (sanctions), and content regulation approaches (free speech vs misinformation control). Additionally, there were widespread procedural criticisms about negotiation transparency.

Disagreement level

High level of disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements touch on core sovereignty, governance, and values questions that could undermine implementation of WSIS outcomes. The fact that even procedural aspects were widely criticized suggests systemic challenges in multilateral digital governance processes. These disagreements may lead to fragmented implementation where countries interpret and apply the outcomes according to their own frameworks rather than achieving unified global digital cooperation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

These countries share concerns about references to sexual and reproductive health, gender-based violence, and human rights elements, viewing them as outside the WSIS mandate or inconsistent with their national values and legislation

Reservations regarding sexual and reproductive health references as outside WSIS scope

Argentina distances itself from mandates outside WSIS scope including gender focus

Introduction of human rights elements goes beyond agreed WSIS mandate

References to sexual and gender-based violence will be interpreted according to national norms

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Developing countries expressed dissatisfaction with weak language on unilateral coercive measures and lack of concrete mechanisms to address their negative impacts on digital development

Language regarding unilateral coercive measures was diluted and inadequate

Absence of concrete mechanisms to address extraterritorial effects of such measures

Document reaffirms WSIS vision but could have been more ambitious on means of implementation

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both speakers emphasized that the document weakened the development pillar of WSIS by omitting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and failing to provide concrete commitments for developing countries

Absence of common but differentiated responsibilities principle weakens development aspects

Document weakens development pillar by failing to translate objectives into concrete commitments

Development | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Key takeaways

The WSIS+20 outcome document was adopted by consensus despite significant reservations from multiple countries and stakeholder groups

The multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance remains central, with the Internet Governance Forum being made permanent

Digital divides persist with 2.2 billion people still lacking meaningful connectivity, requiring enhanced international cooperation

Youth participation should evolve from symbolic inclusion to meaningful decision-making roles in digital policy

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was notably absent from the document, weakening its development focus

National sovereignty and cultural contexts must be respected in digital governance frameworks

AI governance requires new international frameworks and capacity building, especially for the Global South

The negotiation process was criticized for lack of transparency and proper organization in its final stages

Resolutions and action items

Adoption of Draft Resolution A-80-L41 on the WSIS+20 outcome document

Establishment of a financial task force to address digital divides and connectivity gaps

Creation of an AI Capacity Building Fellowship program for government officials

Making the Internet Governance Forum a permanent UN forum

Planning for the next high-level WSIS review meeting in 2035

Resource requirements of $1,429,100 allocated for implementation activities across UN departments

Continued implementation of WSIS action lines by relevant UN agencies and stakeholders

Unresolved issues

Enhanced cooperation among governments on Internet governance remains undefined and unimplemented

Concrete mechanisms to address the negative impacts of unilateral coercive measures are lacking

Specific financing commitments for bridging digital divides in developing countries remain largely procedural

The role and accountability of large technology companies and digital platforms needs clearer definition

Approaches to misinformation and disinformation lack clear consensus among member states

The balance between free speech protections and content regulation remains contentious

Modalities and cost implications for the 2035 high-level meeting are yet to be determined

The intersection of WSIS with other UN processes (GDC, AI for Good, Pact for the Future) requires coordination

Suggested compromises

Recognition that consensus does not mean full agreement, allowing countries to state reservations while joining consensus

Acknowledgment that there is no one-size-fits-all model for digital development, respecting national priorities

Treating the outcome document as non-legally binding and voluntary to accommodate sovereignty concerns

Allowing countries to interpret controversial terms according to their national legislation and cultural norms

Establishing review mechanisms and future meetings to address ongoing concerns and evolving challenges

Maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach while preserving the central role of governments in decision-making

Focusing on practical implementation through existing UN mechanisms rather than creating new bureaucratic structures

Don’t just engage youth. Empower your youth. Give us a seat where decisions are made, and we will help build an inclusive, just, safe, and sustainable digital future that we see as promised for us all.

Speaker

AI for Good Young Leaders representative

Reason

This comment powerfully reframes youth participation from tokenistic inclusion to genuine empowerment and decision-making authority. It challenges the traditional power structures in international governance by asserting that youth are not just future stakeholders but present partners who understand digital realities better than anyone.

Impact

This statement introduced a paradigm shift from viewing youth as beneficiaries to recognizing them as co-creators of digital policy. It elevated the discussion beyond technical implementation to questions of democratic participation and generational equity in governance structures.

A worker in India folds hand towels hundreds of times a day with a camera mounted on their head, generating training data for an AI that will never problem-solve for their embedded reality. This is the platformization of work, a story of precarity and indignity of data labor.

Speaker

IT for Change representative

Reason

This vivid, concrete example cuts through abstract policy language to expose the human cost of AI development. It reveals how the Global South is being exploited as a source of training data while being excluded from AI’s benefits, challenging the narrative of AI as universally beneficial progress.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the tone from celebratory to critical, introducing concepts of data extractivism and digital colonialism. It forced the discussion to confront uncomfortable realities about who benefits from digital transformation and who bears its costs.

The United States has serious reservations about international organizations setting a standard that legitimizes international governance of the Internet… We oppose references to the Global Digital Compact, Summit for the Future, and Independent International Scientific Panel on AI.

Speaker

United States representative

Reason

This statement reveals fundamental disagreements about global digital governance among major powers. It exposes the tension between multilateral cooperation and national sovereignty in the digital realm, challenging the assumption of consensus on internet governance approaches.

Impact

This intervention created a clear fault line in the discussion, moving from technical cooperation to geopolitical tensions. It prompted other nations to clarify their positions on sovereignty versus multilateralism, fundamentally altering the diplomatic dynamics of the session.

The Group of 77 and China regrets the absence of an explicit mention of a principle of common but differentiated responsibilities… The omission of this principle was weakened the development aspect of the declaration and overlooked the structural disparities in capacities and resources among countries.

Speaker

Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China

Reason

This comment highlights a critical gap in applying established climate governance principles to digital governance. It reveals how developing countries view digital transformation through the lens of historical inequalities and the need for differentiated approaches based on capacity.

Impact

This intervention reframed the entire discussion around equity and historical responsibility, challenging the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to digital development. It introduced the concept that digital governance should account for structural global inequalities, similar to climate governance.

Libraries are a global digital public infrastructure, and the content we collect, preserve, and share represents a significant public good… How can you, in your future work to implement the WSIS agenda, partner with IFLA, and better mobilize your libraries.

Speaker

International Federation of Library Associations representative

Reason

This comment reframes libraries as essential digital infrastructure rather than outdated institutions, positioning them as critical partners in bridging digital divides. It challenges assumptions about what constitutes modern digital infrastructure by highlighting existing, trusted community institutions.

Impact

This perspective broadened the discussion beyond high-tech solutions to include community-based, human-centered approaches to digital inclusion. It introduced the concept that digital transformation should build on existing social infrastructure rather than replacing it entirely.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what could have been a routine policy review into a substantive debate about power, equity, and the future of global digital governance. The youth representative’s call for empowerment challenged traditional hierarchies, while IT for Change’s critique exposed the dark side of digital progress. The US position revealed deep geopolitical fractures, and the G77’s intervention highlighted how developing countries view digital issues through the lens of global inequality. Together, these interventions moved the discussion from technical implementation to fundamental questions about who controls, benefits from, and bears the costs of digital transformation. They revealed that beneath the diplomatic language lie profound disagreements about sovereignty, equity, and the role of multilateral institutions in governing emerging technologies.

How can you, in your future work to implement the WSIS agenda, partner with IFLA, and better mobilize your libraries?

Speaker

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions representative

Explanation

This direct question seeks concrete ways for stakeholders to collaborate with libraries as global digital public infrastructure to advance digital inclusion and the WSIS agenda

How to establish concrete mechanisms to address unilateral coercive measures and their extraterritorial effects on digital development

Speaker

Islamic Republic of Iran

Explanation

Iran noted the absence of concrete mechanisms to protect developing countries from digital fragmentation and restricted access to critical digital infrastructure caused by such measures

How to define clear roles, accountability, and responsibility of stakeholders, particularly large technology companies and cross-border digital platforms

Speaker

Islamic Republic of Iran

Explanation

This addresses the need to clarify the relationship between tech companies, users, and national regulatory authorities in the multi-stakeholder governance model

How to develop new epistemologies and interpretations for emerging AI technologies and their intersection with digital rights

Speaker

Bangladesh

Explanation

Bangladesh emphasized the need for new frameworks to understand and govern AI as it rapidly evolves, noting that tech transcendence and singularity are on the horizon

How to leverage intersection points between WSIS, Global Digital Compact, AI for Good, and Pact for the Future processes

Speaker

Bangladesh

Explanation

Bangladesh identified that these four UN processes will intersect in the coming months and suggested finding ways to create common standards for humanity’s benefit

How to establish predictable support mechanisms for developing countries’ participation in internet governance

Speaker

Islamic Republic of Iran and Group of 77

Explanation

Both noted that while structural barriers are acknowledged, the outcome document lacks concrete mechanisms to ensure meaningful participation by developing countries

How to move from recognition to delivery on bridging digital divides at scale

Speaker

India

Explanation

India noted that while financing needs and capacity constraints are recognized, commitments on predictable financing and technology transfer remain largely procedural

How to address the platformization of work and data labor precarity in the Global South

Speaker

IT for Change

Explanation

This addresses the need to examine how AI training data generation creates exploitative working conditions, particularly for workers in developing countries