Advancing WSIS Implementation: Emerging Trends across Governance, Infrastructure, Access, and Capacity

Isabelle Lois argues that one of the core agreements across all stakeholder groups and regions during the WSIS Plus 20 review was that the Action Lines remain relevant today and should not be reopened for renegotiation. The focus should instead be on ensuring they are implemented correctly, as the international community has still not delivered on what was originally expected from them.

She noted that a core consensus emerged across stakeholder groups, regions, and countries that the Action Lines are still relevant and that there is no desire to renegotiate them, but rather to ensure proper implementation .

Isabelle Lois describes the WSIS process as a series of interlocking moments where the IGF identifies new topics and concerns, the WSIS Forum focuses on concrete implementation of specific action lines, and UNGASS provides direction for implementation across the UN system. These three mechanisms are designed to work together in a mutually reinforcing way.

She explained that the IGF surfaces new concerns and perspectives that feed into the WSIS Forum, which in turn feeds back into the IGF, while UNGASS reviews outcomes and coordinates both within the UN and with external stakeholders . She also highlighted the emerging multi-stakeholder advisory group intended to advise UNGASS on how to continue implementing the action lines .

Isabelle Lois explains that one outcome of the CSTD negotiations was a decision to move from annual to biennial resolution negotiations. In the years when no resolution is being negotiated, the focus will shift to reviewing the implementation of the action lines, which aligns with the roadmaps requested in the WSIS Plus 20 review.

She noted that the removal of the annual resolution in favour of a biennial cycle was a key outcome of the CSTD negotiations, with the intervening years dedicated to focusing on the action lines . She also referenced the WSIS Plus 20 roadmaps as the framework within which this review would take place, with the hope that member states and stakeholders would be able to assess progress at the next CSTD session .

Isabelle Lois argues that the roadmaps requested in the WSIS Plus 20 review should consider each action line through the lens of the GDC, WSIS, and SDGs simultaneously, using the existing mapping and comparison work already available. The goal is to produce concrete, deliverable metrics rather than arbitrary numerical counts.

She referenced the existing matrix mapping the GDC with WSIS and the SDGs, noting significant overlap, and argued that member states have asked for roadmaps that use this existing information rather than creating something entirely new . She expressed hope that even if the SDGs evolve post-2030, the elements would be preserved within the roadmaps .

Gitanjali Sah reports that an open call has been issued for nominations to a multi-stakeholder consultation group for UNGASS, reflecting the commitment to strengthening stakeholder participation in the WSIS implementation process. The nominations are being processed by the vice chairs, which include UNESCO, ITU, UNCTAD, and UNECE.

She noted that an open call for the multi-stakeholder consultation group for UNGASS had been issued and that many participants in the room had either sent nominations or applied . Processing is being handled by the vice chairs, including UNESCO, ITU, UNCTAD, and UNECE, with the rotational chairpersonship of the UN regional commissions having shifted from UNESCO .

Gitanjali Sah explains that all UN Action Line facilitators are now meeting monthly to coordinate their implementation work and to prepare the CSTD roadmap. This coordinated effort involves a wide range of UN agencies working together based on the mandates they received through the WSIS outcome documents.

She confirmed that all UN Action Line facilitators are having monthly meetings and that the CSTD roadmap is under preparation . The agencies involved include ITU, ILO, UNDP, UNESCO, and a whole range of other UN agencies acting as facilitators based on their mandates from the WSIS outcome documents . A high-level leaders meeting involving at least 10 heads of agencies, 15 deputies, and 40 UN agencies in total was held on the Sunday of the forum .

Gitanjali Sah describes a key lesson learned from the WSIS Plus 20 review: the absence of a single, accessible page where anyone could find information about what each action line does and what has been achieved. In response, UN Action Line facilitators are creating a comprehensive one-stop-shop page linked to databases such as the WSIS stocktaking platform.

She explained that a major gap identified in the review was the lack of a single page where stakeholders could find information about the action lines, including who the lead facilitator is, how many meetings have been held, and what work has been done . The page will be linked to databases like the WSIS stocktaking database and will include information on what is happening at the country level, for example in Eswatini or India . It will also incorporate mandates on women and girls and human rights, developed in collaboration with UN Women and OHCHR .

Desiree Miloshevic Evans sets out the objectives of the session, which include identifying emerging trends and challenges in the implementation of WSIS action lines C1 to C6, drawing on experiences from different regions and sectors. The session is designed to be cross-sectoral, bringing together voices from the private sector, civil society, government, technical community, and academia.

She outlined that the session would explore different approaches and experiences from different regions and cross-sectoral perspectives including private sector, civil society, government, technical community, and academia .

Anriette Esterhuysen argues that no single action line is sufficient to address connectivity challenges in underserved communities. An enabling policy environment, infrastructure, and the capacity to use connectivity must all be addressed together, and linking these elements is what has proven most effective in practice.

She used the example of working in a village in a country without adequate connectivity to illustrate that one action line alone is insufficient, and that enabling policy environment, infrastructure, and capacity must all be addressed simultaneously . She described working in specific countries with specific regulators to change the policy and regulatory environment to enable last-mile and middle-mile access, including licensing for small not-for-profit operators and small ISPs, as well as ensuring a demand-side and supply-side mix .

Anriette Esterhuysen shares the observation from APC's work that engaging directly with regulators tends to yield better results than engaging with policymakers, because regulators generally have a more grounded understanding of the actual connectivity situation. While regulators are not fully independent, their practical knowledge makes them more effective partners.

She noted that APC's work in Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia) and Africa (South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya) has shown phenomenal progress, and that working with regulators is often more effective than working with policymakers because regulators have a better grasp of connectivity realities on the ground .

Anriette Esterhuysen identifies financing as the most pressing current challenge for APC's work, particularly in developing countries and least developed countries. She highlights the WSIS Plus 20 outcome's UNGASS task force on financing as a critically important mechanism to address this gap.

She stated that financing is now the primary challenge for APC's work and that there is insufficient financing available in most developing countries, particularly LDCs, to build out infrastructure in the way needed to ensure meaningful connectivity for the unconnected .

Anriette Esterhuysen raises a concern about the WSIS stocktaking database, noting that it provides a skewed and overly optimistic picture of progress because stakeholders only submit their successes. This means the database does not accurately reflect where the real gaps and failures lie.

She pointed out that the stocktaking database gives a very positive picture because everyone puts their successes into it, and it does not actually reflect the gaps .

Anriette Esterhuysen argues that current targets and indicators are insufficient because they tend to measure inputs or raw outputs such as SIM card registrations or internet penetration rates, rather than meaningful outcomes. Indicators need to reflect whether access is genuinely inclusive, affordable, and rights-respecting.

She stated that targets that simply count the number of SIM card registrations or increases in internet penetration are not sufficient, and that what is needed are frameworks and targets that are outcome-oriented .

Anriette Esterhuysen argues that targets need to be set at the national level and oriented towards outcomes in order to genuinely reflect the vision of a people-centred, inclusive information society. She warns that governments often selectively engage with action lines and indicators, which undermines this holistic vision.

She observed that governments pick and choose their indicators and the action lines they want to work on, citing the example of many African governments that would not work on action lines related to media . She argued that this selective engagement does not deliver the holistic vision of a people-centred inclusive information society .

Anriette Esterhuysen observes that governments tend to cherry-pick the action lines and indicators that are convenient or politically comfortable for them, rather than engaging with the full range. This selective engagement prevents the realisation of the comprehensive, people-centred vision that underpins the WSIS framework.

She noted from her extensive work in Africa that governments pick and choose their indicators and the action lines they want to work on, with many African governments, for example, refusing to engage with action lines on media . She argued this does not give the holistic vision of a people-centred inclusive information society .

Qusai Alshatti highlights that the MENA region is not homogeneous in its digital development, with Gulf states being advanced in AI adoption while the Levant and North Africa are at much earlier stages. These disparities are driven by multiple factors and create an uneven landscape for digital development across the region.

He described how Gulf states are advanced in AI adoption, while the Levant area is still at the start, and North Africa sits somewhere between adoption and early-stage learning, with gaps existing even within sub-regions .

Qusai Alshatti broadens the concept of open access beyond its traditional association with knowledge and information, arguing that it must also include access to services, infrastructure, and operational resources. This broader definition is particularly relevant in the context of AI and digital tools.

He stated that for the MENA region, open access means services, infrastructure, operational resources, as well as information and knowledge, not just the latter .

Qusai Alshatti argues that in the MENA region, the primary challenge has shifted from access to services — which are now widely available and often free — to the knowledge of how to use and build with those services, particularly AI. He uses the metaphor of knowing what is around a circle but not the circle itself to describe this knowledge gap.

He explained that open access to services is now available and free with choices, but the knowledge of how and what to do with AI is where the challenge lies . He used the metaphor of knowing the details around a circle but not the circle itself to describe the gap between knowing about AI governance and ethics versus knowing how to build with AI . He also noted that platforms offering AI services cannot be relied upon to provide the knowledge of how to use those tools .

Qusai Alshatti adds to the discussion on indicators by arguing that for AI, it is not sufficient to measure outcomes alone; indicators must also capture the rate and quality of AI adoption. This adoption-oriented dimension is essential to understanding whether AI is genuinely being integrated into economies and societies.

He argued that in the case of AI, indicators should be adoption-oriented as well as outcome-oriented, and that both the adoption of AI and its outcomes need to be rated and measured .

Qusai Alshatti argues that when partnerships are referenced in roadmaps and implementation frameworks, they should not be described in vague or general terms but should instead be defined by the specific outcomes they are expected to deliver. This outcome-oriented approach to partnerships would make them more accountable and effective.

He called for a focus on outcome-oriented partnerships - partnerships that have a defined outcome - rather than partnerships stated in general terms .

Hisham Ibrahim describes a framework developed by RIPE NCC that maps communities across two axes — local trust capacity (local knowledge, leadership, and know-how) and execution conditions (political will and ability to self-organise) — resulting in four quadrants that guide different capacity-building approaches. This framework helps RIPE NCC determine what kind of intervention is most appropriate for each community.

He presented a slide illustrating the four-quadrant framework, with the X axis representing local trust capacity and the Y axis representing execution conditions . He described the four quadrants: emerging (low on both), coalescing (better execution conditions but still needing capacity investment), constrained (know-how exists but community cohesion is lacking), and mature (both conditions present) .

Hisham Ibrahim argues that a one-size-fits-all approach to capacity building is insufficient, and that the appropriate intervention depends on where a community sits within the four-quadrant framework. Some communities need technical training and knowledge-building, while others need support in building political will or fostering community cohesion.

He explained that in the coalescing phase, where execution conditions are better but local capacity is still lacking, the approach involves capacity building and bringing communities together to collaborate . In constrained communities, where know-how exists but community cohesion is lacking, the approach shifts to facilitating dialogue and bringing stakeholders together rather than sending in trainers .

Hisham Ibrahim highlights that RIPE NCC has mapped its technical community work to specific Sustainable Development Goals, making it easier to articulate the community's contributions within global development frameworks. This mapping has facilitated engagement with broader UN processes by translating technical work into the language of the SDGs.

He referenced an article that maps different SDGs to the work done by the technical community, noting that RIPE NCC directly contributes to SDG 9 and 11, and indirectly to SDGs 4, 10, 16, and 17 . He noted that the work has always been aligned but that using different terminology previously made it harder to communicate this alignment .

Zdravko Jukic argues that an effective cybersecurity regulatory framework must be reasonable in the sense that it carefully balances costs against benefits and is risk-based in its approach. Such a framework must also take into account the distribution of competencies between different levels of governance, such as between EU member states and the Union itself.

He explained that a reasonable regulatory framework is one that takes into account costs versus benefits, is security and risk-based, and also takes into account competencies, using the example of the EU's 27 member states and the importance of understanding where the borders of responsibility lie .

Zdravko Jukic points to the European Union's experience as evidence that regional cooperation is essential for consistent and effective cybersecurity implementation. The development of the 5G toolbox and the structure of BEREC, which includes all 27 EU member states plus 11 associated countries, are cited as concrete examples of successful cooperation.

He cited the development of the EU's 5G toolbox as a good example of cooperation within the European Union . He also noted that BEREC has 27 members from all EU member states plus 11 additional countries that are either candidate countries or EEA countries, making it a large and effective cooperative organisation .

Zdravko Jukic argues that the value of building a common regulatory framework lies in its ability to be applied broadly, enabling consistent implementation, shared approaches, and common oversight mechanisms. This principle is particularly important in the context of cybersecurity, where fragmented approaches undermine collective resilience.

He advised building such a framework and applying it to as wide an area as possible, because this enables common implementation, common approaches, and common control over implementation .

Nils Berglund argues that credible monitoring and implementation review should be understood not merely as a technical exercise but as an essential part of the enabling environment (C6) that makes implementation of all the other action lines possible. Without robust monitoring, the normative consensus established over two decades of WSIS cannot be translated into real-world outcomes.

He argued that better measurement is itself a kind of governance intervention and is a key to the enabling environment for WSIS implementation overall, describing it as an essential pillar in an accountability stack .

Nils Berglund identifies a significant gap in the WSIS process: the stocktaking platform functions as a showcase of best practices rather than as a genuine monitoring framework. This means there is no dedicated structure within the WSIS process itself to hold actors accountable for implementation.

He noted that despite two decades of global frameworks establishing normative consensus, there has been little dedicated structure and monitoring as part of the WSIS process itself, and that the stocktaking platform showcases best practices rather than providing an actual monitoring framework .

Nils Berglund presents a finding from his research showing a troubling asymmetry: data is most available for connectivity and infrastructure indicators, where states also tend to perform better, while data is weakest for rights and governance indicators, where states tend to perform worse. This asymmetry has significant policy consequences.

He presented maps showing that data availability is strongest for connectivity and infrastructure, where states score higher on implementation, while data availability is a lot weaker for rights and governance indicators, where states also tend to do worse and score lower . He noted that trends such as declining media freedom and increasing internet shutdowns are occurring even as more people come online .

Nils Berglund argues that the asymmetry in data availability has direct policy consequences: what can be measured tends to shape what gets prioritised, funded, reported on, and politically rewarded. If the indicator architecture is narrow, the resulting implementation roadmaps will also be narrow, failing to address the full range of WSIS commitments.

He argued that what can be measured also tends to shape what gets prioritised, funded, reported on, and politically rewarded, and that if the indicator architecture is narrow then the implementation roadmaps will be narrow as well, affecting all action lines from C1 to C5 .

Nils Berglund calls on states and stakeholders to actively participate in the ongoing indicator review being conducted by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, as this is where the baselines for the next WSIS implementation cycle will effectively be set. He frames this as a unique opportunity arising from the WSIS Plus 20 review mandate.

He noted that the WSIS Plus 20 review mandated a systematic review of ICT measurement and methodologies, creating a unique opportunity for everyone in the room to contribute on indicators, baselines, and how progress on all WSIS action lines is measured . He recommended that states and stakeholders actively engage in this indicator review as his first recommendation .

The audience member from the Internet Society argues that the roadmaps agreed to in December during the WSIS Plus 20 review are critically important as an accountability mechanism for implementing the action lines. He also raises the question of how concrete targets within these roadmaps should be defined, given the breadth of the action lines.

He referenced a non-paper recently published by the Internet Society outlining what the roadmaps could look like, and asked panellists what targets might look like given the very broad nature of the action lines .

Desiree Miloshevic Evans frames the session as an opportunity to understand how the WSIS action lines fit within the broader landscape of global digital objectives, including the SDGs and the GDC. She poses the question of how WSIS and the GDC can stay aligned and mutually reinforce each other during the implementation phase going forward.

She directed a question to Gitanjali Sah asking what is needed to ensure that WSIS and the Global Digital Compact stay aligned in the implementation phase and how they are going to mutually reinforce each other .

Desiree Miloshevic Evans observes that many stakeholders, including those from the technical community, are actively contributing to the implementation of WSIS action lines on a daily basis but may not recognise or articulate how their work fits into the overall framework. She highlights the importance of orientation and awareness-building for stakeholders.

She noted that most stakeholders contribute daily to the action lines without being aware of exactly where they fit in the framework, and described Gitanjali Sah's input as important for orienting stakeholders on where to go next .

Desiree Miloshevic Evans emphasises that the session is deliberately structured to bring together voices from the private sector, civil society, government, the technical community, and academia, as well as from different geographic regions. This cross-sectoral and multi-regional approach is presented as essential for identifying the full range of trends, challenges, and achievements in implementing the action lines.

She outlined that one of the session's objectives was to have experience from different regions and cross-sectoral discussion from private sector, civil society, government, technical community, and academia, and to explore different approaches .

Desiree Miloshevic Evans reflects on the increasing awareness being built around global UN initiatives, noting that even the technical community is becoming more conscious of how their work relates to these frameworks. This observation follows Hisham Ibrahim's presentation on mapping technical community work to the SDGs.

She remarked that there is a lot of awareness being built around global UN initiatives, even for the technical community, following Hisham Ibrahim's presentation on how RIPE NCC's work maps to the Sustainable Development Goals .