This session focused on how the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) process and the Global Digital Compact (GDC) can work together to support digital development and deliver practical benefits for people by 2035 . The moderator framed the discussion around three key questions: how the two processes can support each other, which WSIS mechanisms can help advance digital cooperation, and what simple steps stakeholders can take to collaborate more effectively .
Participants broadly agreed that WSIS and the GDC are complementary rather than competing frameworks. WSIS, established over 20 years ago, provides a well-tested multi-stakeholder platform with established action lines and forums , while the GDC, adopted in 2024, brings renewed political momentum and addresses modern challenges such as artificial intelligence, data governance, and online safety . Discussions were held at tables, where one table suggested that rather than focusing solely on overlaps, stakeholders should identify gaps between the two frameworks and address them through targeted projects .
Several tables highlighted the importance of avoiding duplication, with one reporter noting that GDC outcomes could be integrated into WSIS's existing frameworks to leverage its 20 years of experience . The WSIS Forum, action lines, and stock-taking database were cited as key mechanisms that already reference GDC objectives and SDG alignment . Concerns were also raised about insufficient integration of topics such as human rights and gender within the action lines .
On stakeholder engagement, multiple tables stressed the need to involve the private sector more meaningfully, noting that it operates on different metrics and may not recognise its alignment with UN goals . Adequate funding and the inclusion of young people were also identified as essential steps . One table recommended surveying private sector companies to demonstrate that their objectives already align with the UN system .
The discussion concluded with a call for continuous, multistakeholder engagement rather than relying solely on annual reporting cycles, with participants emphasising that momentum must be maintained and shared across all stakeholder groups to ensure coherent implementation through to 2035 .
Overall Purpose
- The discussion was convened as an interactive, table-based workshop session aimed at exploring how the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process and the Global Digital Compact (GDC) can work together coherently to support digital development and deliver practical benefits for people by 2035. Participants were organised into table groups to discuss three guiding questions, then report back their findings to the wider room. ---
Major Discussion Points
- The complementary relationship between WSIS and the GDC: Multiple tables identified that WSIS, with over 20 years of established mechanisms, provides the foundational infrastructure and multi-stakeholder forums, whilst the GDC - adopted in 2024 - brings renewed political momentum, higher-level backing, and more precise, modern objectives around issues such as AI, data, privacy, and online safety. The GDC was broadly seen as an enhancer of WSIS rather than a replacement, with the WSIS Plus 20 review explicitly referencing that further WSIS implementation until 2035 should be in coherence with GDC objectives. - Avoiding duplication and identifying gaps: Rather than focusing solely on overlaps, one table recommended identifying the differences and gaps between WSIS action lines and GDC objectives, then reconciling those gaps through targeted projects and intersessional work. The fast pace of technological development was noted as a driver of unnecessary duplication, with stakeholders urged to pause and reflect more deliberately on what is being done. - Strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly with the private sector and young people: Several tables highlighted that the private sector remains insufficiently engaged, partly because its goals and metrics differ from those of the UN system. A practical suggestion was to survey private sector companies and demonstrate that their existing objectives already align with SDGs and UN frameworks, effectively "translating" between different languages of engagement. The need to fund and include young people and broader civil society in these processes was also strongly emphasised.
- Utilising and strengthening existing WSIS mechanisms: Participants pointed to the WSIS Forum, the WSIS Action Lines, and the WSIS Stock Taking Database as key tools that should be better leveraged to implement GDC objectives, track indicators, and avoid parallel discussions. It was noted that the Stock Taking Database is already being updated to reflect coherence with GDC objectives, suggesting organic progress is underway.
- The need for continuous, inclusive, and locally grounded engagement: Rather than relying on annual reporting cycles or single large forums, participants called for more continuous showcasing of stakeholder contributions at local and regional levels. Simple practical steps proposed included better information sharing, joint sessions, mapping common priorities, and encouraging participation in regional tech forums beyond Geneva and New York.
- --
Overall Tone
- The overall tone of the discussion was constructive, collaborative, and solution-oriented. From the outset, the moderator set an inclusive and participatory atmosphere, explicitly discouraging lengthy presentations in favour of concrete ideas and lived experiences. The table reporters maintained this pragmatic spirit, offering candid observations - for instance, acknowledging that funding remains a persistent challenge and that the private sector is currently not well engaged - without becoming adversarial or pessimistic. There was a slight shift towards greater urgency and depth as the reporting phase progressed, with later tables raising more structural concerns such as the risk of reinventing frameworks and the insufficiency of once-a-year engagement cycles . The closing remarks returned to an optimistic and forward-looking tone, framing the current moment as one of renewed interest and momentum that must be sustained.
Expanded Summary: WSIS-GDC Coherence Interactive Session
#
Session Overview and Purpose
The session was convened as an interactive, table-based workshop designed to explore how the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process and the Global Digital Compact (GDC) can work together coherently to support digital development and deliver practical benefits for people by 2035 . The moderator set an inclusive and participatory tone from the outset, explicitly discouraging lengthy presentations in favour of concrete ideas, lived experiences, and actionable suggestions . Participants were organised into table groups to discuss three guiding questions in sequence - how the two processes can support each other, which WSIS mechanisms can help advance digital cooperation, and what simple steps stakeholders can take to collaborate more effectively - before reporting back their findings to the wider room . Each table was asked to designate a note-taker and a reporter, with fifteen minutes allocated to each question and a final fifteen-minute reporting phase .
#
The Complementary Relationship Between WSIS and the GDC
A foundational point of agreement across all reporting tables was that WSIS and the GDC are complementary rather than competing frameworks. The moderator framed this as the central question of the session: how the two processes can reinforce each other, avoid duplication, and help deliver concrete impact by 2035 . The WSIS process, established over twenty years ago, was described as having been created to build the physical networks and forums for digital development, providing established mechanisms including the WSIS Forum, the WSIS Action Lines, and the WSIS stock-taking process . The GDC was characterised as a more recently adopted agreement by world leaders addressing contemporary challenges such as artificial intelligence, data governance, privacy, and online safety .
The Table 1 reporter offered a particularly clear articulation of this relationship, noting that the GDC does not have its own staff or conferences but instead uses existing annual forums and meetings to get things done, while bringing higher political backing and funding to the modern era of digital cooperation . This framing - of the GDC as an enhancer of WSIS rather than a replacement - was echoed by Vladimir from Table 5, who noted that the GDC should be seen as an enhancer of various processes, and that the WSIS Plus 20 review had explicitly confirmed that further WSIS implementation until 2035 should be in coherence with GDC objectives . The Table 4 reporter similarly observed that the GDC offers more precise, contemporary objectives than the broader WSIS framework, and that this precision means the GDC can actively support the implementation of WSIS action lines .
#
Avoiding Duplication and Identifying Gaps
Closely related to the question of complementarity was the shared concern about avoiding duplication of frameworks and mechanisms. The Table 2 reporter argued that GDC outcomes should be integrated into the existing WSIS framework, leveraging its twenty years of experience and its established multi-stakeholder model, rather than creating parallel structures . The Table 4 reporter contextualised this concern within the broader dynamics of rapid technological change, observing that there is a race to be first in everything which unfortunately results in everybody trying to reinvent things and creating overlaps . This speaker called for stakeholders to find a way to pause and think more carefully about what is being done, even acknowledging the difficulty of doing so amid competitive pressures .
One of the most methodologically distinctive contributions came from the Table 3 reporter, who explicitly challenged the session's framing around identifying commonalities. Rather than focusing solely on overlaps, this speaker recommended taking a different approach and identifying where there are differences or gaps between WSIS action lines and GDC objectives, then reconciling those gaps through targeted projects and special work . This counter-proposal - to invert the analytical lens from alignment to divergence - was presented as a more productive route to actionable outcomes . The same speaker also made a practical, forward-looking procedural recommendation about the discussion format itself, noting that not all participants know the WSIS action lines by memory and requesting that action lines and GDC objectives be displayed visibly during future comparative exercises to enable more focused and informed discussion .
#
Utilising Existing WSIS Mechanisms
Several tables pointed to specific WSIS mechanisms as key tools that should be better leveraged to implement GDC objectives. Vladimir from Table 5 highlighted the WSIS Forum as a place where the multi-stakeholder community comes together to share experiences and discuss the implementation of the WSIS Action Lines, and the WSIS Stock Taking Database as a mechanism already collecting data referencing not only the WSIS Action Lines and the Sustainable Development Goals, but also coherence with GDC objectives . Vladimir also noted that collaboration has extended within the UN system through the UNGES mechanism, suggesting that institutional groundwork for coherence is already in place. This indicated that organic progress towards alignment is already underway within existing institutional structures .
The Table 2 reporter drew attention to the WSIS Action Lines as established roadmaps for using ICT to accomplish development goals, rooted in the Geneva Plan of Action, and argued that these can serve as vehicles for implementing GDC digital cooperation objectives . The Table 2 reporter also made a notable historical observation: WSIS predates the Sustainable Development Goals, meaning its action lines were established before the SDG framework was published, underscoring the depth of its institutional foundations. This reporter further highlighted the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a relevant existing mechanism, noting that it has almost fifteen years of experience bringing in civil society and other multi-stakeholder engagements - a form of inclusive participation that the GDC still needs to develop more fully. The Table 2 reporter also distinguished between WSIS as member-led and state-led and the GDC, where member states similarly drive the results, a nuance that speaks to the governance structures underpinning both frameworks.
However, the Table 2 reporter also raised a substantive concern about the depth of engagement with cross-cutting themes, noting that dimensions such as human rights and gender are constantly discussed within WSIS but tend to get washed down in practice . The challenge, as articulated, is how to integrate these large legal, political, and policy orientations into specific sectoral action lines - such as healthcare ICT - in a way that produces concrete policy integration and measurable indicators, rather than remaining at the level of broad aspiration . The Table 3 reporter complemented this by recommending that action lines covering topics with a common purpose be supported by intersessional work, so that by the time forums convene, discussions are more focused and purposeful rather than broadly thematic .
#
Multi-Stakeholder Engagement: The Private Sector Challenge
The question of private sector engagement emerged as one of the most substantive and recurring themes across multiple table reports. The Table 2 reporter was direct in observing that the private sector currently does not engage well in these processes , and argued that participation must extend beyond technology companies to include broader industry, given the significant power that wider industry actors hold . This speaker also raised the structural challenge of government engagement, noting that decision-makers involved in these processes should go beyond ministers - who change frequently depending on electoral cycles - to include heads of state and more stable senior leadership, in order to ensure continuity and more impactful implementation .
The Table 3 reporter offered the most creative and concrete proposal for addressing private sector disengagement, suggesting that a survey of private sector companies - perhaps fifty to one hundred companies - be conducted to map their existing objectives against the SDGs . The argument was that this exercise would demonstrate to companies that they are already working within the UN system without knowing it, and that the fundamental challenge is one of speaking different languages that can be translated . This reframing of private sector disengagement as a communication and translation problem, rather than a fundamental conflict of interests, was a notably constructive and pragmatic contribution to the discussion.
The Table 4 reporter approached the same challenge from a different angle, arguing that regaining private sector interest requires demonstrating continuous and meaningful contributions to the WSIS process, and that this responsibility should be shared among all stakeholders - by design - rather than resting solely with UN lead agencies or action line facilitators . Together, these three distinct diagnoses - structural barriers and language gaps (Table 2), communication and translation (Table 3), and distributed responsibility and continuity (Table 4) - reflected a shared recognition of the problem while proposing different strategic pathways to address it.
#
Inclusive Participation: Youth, Civil Society, and Funding
Alongside the private sector, several tables emphasised the need to broaden and deepen participation among other stakeholder groups, particularly young people and civil society. The Table 2 reporter was explicit that young people need financial and structural support to participate in digital governance forums, and that without such support their voices will not be heard in shaping digital cooperation . This speaker identified funding as a fundamental prerequisite for meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement, acknowledging that while it may feel like a common word in these circles, money is necessary to enable participation .
The Table 4 reporter reinforced this theme by calling for more continuous showcasing of stakeholder contributions at local and regional levels, including by young people, rather than relying on once-a-year reporting to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) - a cycle now extended to three years - or once-a-year forums, a frequency described as simply not enough . This speaker noted that the current moment represents a renewed interest in digital cooperation that must be maintained as a continuous process, with efforts shared among all stakeholders rather than driven solely by UN agencies . The Table 1 reporter similarly recommended expanding engagement beyond UN meetings in Geneva or New York to include local and regional tech forums, and proposed that labelling current technology projects using official UN goals would help ensure all actors are speaking the same language - a concrete and distinctive suggestion for building shared understanding across communities .
#
Practical Steps Towards 2035
The moderator invited participants to identify simple, realistic steps that stakeholders can take to work more closely together towards 2035, including better information sharing, joint sessions, mapping common priorities, avoiding parallel discussions, and creating more spaces for collaboration . The table reports responded with a range of concrete suggestions spanning institutional, procedural, and financial dimensions.
The Table 1 reporter emphasised knowledge sharing, the use of common UN language across projects, and collaboration with regional tech forums as practical starting points . The Table 2 reporter identified funding as the most critical simple step, alongside stronger engagement with a wider range of government and private sector stakeholders, and pointed to the IGF's multi-stakeholder experience as a model worth drawing upon . The Table 3 reporter proposed the private sector survey methodology as a concrete action item, alongside the practical improvement of displaying action lines and GDC objectives during workshops to enable more informed comparative discussion . The Table 4 reporter called for more continuous, locally grounded engagement, a shift towards distributed stakeholder responsibility, and recognition that the extended CSTD review cycle makes sustained interim engagement all the more necessary . Vladimir from Table 5 offered a more optimistic assessment, suggesting that simple steps are already being taken through existing platforms - including the WSIS Forum, the Stock Taking Database, and the UNGES mechanism - and that the process should organically evolve to help member states, civil society, and the private sector collaborate without being overburdened by duplicative mechanisms .
#
Closing Reflections and Overall Assessment
The session concluded with the moderator thanking participants for their participation and noting that the discussion had helped to identify practical ways to strengthen coherence between WSIS and the GDC . The overall tone throughout was constructive, collaborative, and solution-oriented, with a notable shift towards greater depth and structural critique as the reporting phase progressed. The discussion revealed a high degree of consensus on the foundational questions - that WSIS and the GDC are complementary, that duplication should be avoided, and that multi-stakeholder engagement must be broader and more continuous - while surfacing meaningful differences in the specific strategies proposed for achieving these goals, particularly around private sector engagement and the adequacy of existing mechanisms.
Among the more analytically distinctive contributions were Table 3's recommendation to focus on gaps rather than overlaps , the proposal to reverse-map private sector goals onto SDG frameworks , and Table 4's critique of the insufficiency of annual engagement cycles and the implications of the extended CSTD review period . These contributions moved the conversation beyond institutional description towards systemic analysis and creative problem-solving, reflecting a maturing of multi-stakeholder dialogue around WSIS-GDC coherence as the 2035 horizon approaches.
WSIS as foundational infrastructure, GDC as modern complement
Arg. 1WSIS was established over 20 years ago to build the physical networks and forums necessary for digital development, while the GDC is a newer agreement by world leaders that addresses contemporary issues such as AI, data, privacy, and online safety. The two frameworks are now seen as fused together, with the GDC complementing the foundation laid by WSIS. This complementarity means they are not in competition but rather work in tandem.
The reporter noted that WSIS was created over 20 years ago with the goal of building physical networks and forums for globalisation and digital technology, while the GDC came as a brand new agreement to complement WSIS's foundation, made by world leaders to handle modern technologies like AI, data, privacy, and online safety . The reporter concluded that they are now fused together .
on: WSIS and GDC are complementary frameworks, not competing structures
on: Whether to focus on overlaps/commonalities or gaps/differences between WSIS and GDC
Knowledge sharing and use of common UN language
Arg. 2Stakeholders can collaborate more effectively by sharing knowledge and labelling current technology projects using official UN goals, ensuring that all actors speak the same language. This common framework of reference would facilitate coordination and mutual understanding across different organisations and regions.
The reporter suggested that people can collaborate by sharing knowledge, labelling current tech projects using official UN goals to guarantee that everyone is speaking the same language, sharing data, and collaborating with partners .
on: Common language and shared frameworks are necessary for effective cooperation
Expanding engagement to regional and local forums
Arg. 3Collaboration should not be confined to UN meetings in Geneva or New York; encouraging participation in local and regional technology forums would broaden the reach and relevance of digital cooperation efforts. This decentralised approach would help ensure that more diverse voices and contexts are included in the global digital governance conversation.
The reporter explicitly recommended collaborating with regional tech forums and encouraged going to local and regional tech forums rather than only attending UN meetings in Geneva or New York .
GDC as enhancer of existing WSIS processes
Arg. 1The GDC should be understood as an enhancer of the existing WSIS framework rather than a replacement or parallel structure. The WSIS Plus 20 review confirmed that further WSIS implementation until 2035 should be in coherence with GDC objectives, reinforcing the complementary relationship between the two.
Vladimir stated that the GDC is seen as an enhancer of various processes, and referenced the WSIS Plus 20 review, which confirmed that further implementation of WSIS until 2035 is to be in coherence with GDC objectives .
on: WSIS and GDC are complementary frameworks, not competing structures
WSIS Forum and Stock Taking Database as key mechanisms
Arg. 2The WSIS Forum and the WSIS Stock Taking Database are existing mechanisms that bring together multi-stakeholder communities and collect data referencing both WSIS action lines and GDC objectives, thereby supporting coherent implementation. These platforms already serve as vehicles for aligning the two frameworks in practice.
Vladimir highlighted the WSIS Forum as a place where the multi-stakeholder community comes together to share experiences and discuss the implementation of WSIS action lines , and noted that the WSIS Stock Taking Database already collects data referencing the implementation of WSIS action lines, the SDGs, and how they are in coherence with GDC objectives .
on: Common language and shared frameworks are necessary for effective cooperation
Organic evolution of collaboration through existing platforms
Arg. 3Simple steps towards greater coherence are already being taken through existing platforms, and the process should evolve organically to help member states, civil society, and the private sector collaborate without being overburdened by duplicative mechanisms. The focus should be on using established platforms effectively rather than creating new ones.
Vladimir stated that simple steps are already being taken and will organically move forward as challenges are understood, with the aim of shaping collaboration in a direction that helps member states, civil society, and the private sector avoid duplication of mechanisms and collaborate using existing platforms .
on: Multi-stakeholder engagement must be broader, more inclusive, and more continuous
on: Whether existing mechanisms are sufficient or whether new steps are needed
Avoiding duplication of frameworks
Arg. 1Rather than creating parallel structures, GDC outcomes should be integrated into the existing WSIS framework, which benefits from 20 years of experience and an established multi-stakeholder model. The GDC, being only two years old, can leverage WSIS's institutional maturity to achieve more impactful implementation outcomes.
The reporter noted that WSIS has been around for 20 years with established settings and the ability to engage in a multi-stakeholder forum, while the GDC has only been around for two years . They argued that GDC outcomes can be taken into an existing framework that WSIS already does well, avoiding duplicate frameworks .
on: Avoiding duplication of mechanisms and integrating GDC outcomes into existing WSIS structures
on: Whether to focus on overlaps/commonalities or gaps/differences between WSIS and GDC
WSIS action lines as established roadmaps for ICT development
Arg. 2The WSIS action lines, rooted in the Geneva Plan of Action, already provide established roadmaps for using ICT to achieve development goals and can serve as vehicles for implementing GDC digital cooperation objectives. These existing roadmaps offer a proven structure that can absorb and operationalise the newer GDC commitments.
The reporter referenced the WSIS action lines, which were established back in the Geneva Plan of Action, as already providing roadmaps for using ICT to accomplish development goals, and suggested these can help cover dimensions needed for GDC digital cooperation objectives .
Integrating human rights and gender into action lines
Arg. 3WSIS mechanisms need to better incorporate dimensions such as human rights and gender into specific action lines, such as healthcare, moving beyond broad discussion to concrete policy integration and measurable indicators. These topics are frequently discussed but tend to get diluted, and there is a need to translate them into actionable, sector-specific outcomes.
The reporter noted that WSIS mechanisms need to cover dimensions not often spoken about, such as human rights and gender, which are constantly discussed but get 'washed down', and called for integrating these into specific action lines like healthcare, with trackable indicators for financial mechanisms .
Engaging young people in digital governance discussions
Arg. 4Young people need financial and structural support to participate in digital governance forums; without such support, their voices will not be heard in shaping digital cooperation. Ensuring youth inclusion is presented as both a matter of equity and a practical necessity for the legitimacy and relevance of these processes.
The reporter stated that funding is needed to support young people to come into these types of conversations, as otherwise they will not be able to make their voices heard .
on: Multi-stakeholder engagement must be broader, more inclusive, and more continuous
Strengthening government engagement beyond ministerial level
Arg. 5Decision-makers engaged in these processes should go beyond ministers, who change frequently depending on elections and government changes, to include heads of state and more stable senior leadership. This would ensure greater continuity and more impactful implementation of digital cooperation commitments.
The reporter argued that decision-makers should not just be ministers, but also heads of member states or other leadership, because ministers come in and out every year depending on who is elected and which government is in power, making continuity difficult .
on: Multi-stakeholder engagement must be broader, more inclusive, and more continuous
on: The level at which government decision-makers should be engaged
Private sector engagement beyond technology companies
Arg. 6Private sector participation in WSIS and GDC processes must extend beyond technology firms to include broader industry, as these actors hold significant power and currently do not engage well. Widening the definition of the private sector stakeholder group is essential for achieving meaningful and representative digital governance.
The reporter stated that the private sector must be beyond technology companies and must involve industry because they also have a lot of power, and noted that currently the private sector does not engage well .
on: Private sector engagement is currently insufficient and must be broadened and deepened
on: How to achieve meaningful private sector engagement
Funding as a prerequisite for meaningful participation
Arg. 7Adequate funding is essential to enable multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly for young people and civil society, who cannot participate without financial support. Funding is described not merely as a common concern but as a structural prerequisite for inclusive and effective digital governance.
The reporter acknowledged that funding feels like a common word in these circles but emphasised that money is necessary because it enables multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly for young people who need support to participate .
on: Funding is a critical prerequisite for meaningful multi-stakeholder participation
on: Whether existing mechanisms are sufficient or whether new steps are needed
Identifying gaps rather than only overlaps
Arg. 1Instead of focusing solely on commonalities between WSIS and the GDC, it is more productive to identify differences and gaps between WSIS action lines and GDC objectives and address them through targeted projects and special work. This alternative approach would yield more actionable and specific outcomes than simply mapping areas of agreement.
The reporter recommended taking a different approach from looking at overlap and commonality, suggesting instead that gaps be identified and reconciled through projects and special work .
on: Whether to focus on overlaps/commonalities or gaps/differences between WSIS and GDC
Intersessional work to align common topics
Arg. 2Action lines covering topics with a common purpose should be supported by intersessional work, so that by the time forums convene, discussions are more focused and purposeful rather than broadly thematic. This would improve the quality and efficiency of forum deliberations.
The reporter suggested that topics with a common purpose should be covered by intersessional work so that by the time forums are held, there is a better idea of purpose and not just broad topics .
Need to display action lines during exercises
Arg. 3When conducting comparative thought exercises between WSIS action lines and GDC objectives, it would be practically helpful to display the action lines and objectives visibly, enabling more focused and informed discussion. This is a simple procedural improvement that could significantly enhance the quality of outputs from such sessions.
The reporter noted that not all participants know the action lines by memory and requested that when comparative thought exercises are conducted, the action lines and objectives be displayed visibly to enable more focused answers .
Translating private sector goals into UN framework language
Arg. 4Surveying private sector companies to map their objectives against the SDGs could demonstrate that they are already working within the UN system without realising it, thereby encouraging deeper engagement through shared language. This approach reframes the challenge of private sector engagement as a translation problem rather than a fundamental misalignment of interests.
The reporter proposed surveying a sample of private sector companies, such as 50 to 100 companies, and asking them where they would put their goals versus the SDGs, with the aim of demonstrating back to them that they are already working within the UN system without knowing it, framing it as a language translation challenge .
on: Common language and shared frameworks are necessary for effective cooperation
on: How to achieve meaningful private sector engagement
GDC providing more precise, contemporary objectives
Arg. 1The GDC offers more concrete and targeted objectives than the broader WSIS framework, and can therefore support the implementation of WSIS action lines in more specific ways. This precision is seen as a strength of the GDC that complements the broader, more established WSIS structure.
The reporter noted that the GDC gives more contemporary objectives targeting very concrete issues, which are more precise than the WSIS framework, and suggested that the GDC can actually support the implementation of WSIS action lines in different ways .
on: Avoiding duplication of mechanisms and integrating GDC outcomes into existing WSIS structures
on: Whether to focus on overlaps/commonalities or gaps/differences between WSIS and GDC
Slowing down to reflect amid fast technological change
Arg. 2Given the rapid pace of technological development and the tendency for actors to reinvent frameworks, stakeholders should periodically pause to assess what is being done and ensure efforts are not duplicated. This reflective pause is acknowledged as difficult but necessary to avoid the confusion and overlap that characterises the current environment.
The reporter described the current context as one of fast technological developments and a race to be first, which results in everybody trying to reinvent things and creating overlaps . They suggested finding a way to stop and think more about what is being done, while acknowledging this is very difficult .
Need for broader and more continuous stakeholder involvement
Arg. 3Multi-stakeholder involvement must be built into the process by design, and should not be limited to annual reporting cycles; continuous showcasing of contributions at local and regional levels is essential to maintain momentum. The current frequency of engagement, such as once-a-year reporting to CSTD, is insufficient to sustain meaningful participation.
The reporter argued that all stakeholders must be involved by design and that once-a-year reporting to CSTD or once-a-year forums, now extended to three years for CSTD, is not enough . They called for more continuous showcasing of involvement locally and regionally by stakeholder groups, including young people, to maintain momentum .
on: Funding is a critical prerequisite for meaningful multi-stakeholder participation
on: The level at which government decision-makers should be engaged
Continuous private sector involvement as a shared responsibility
Arg. 4Regaining private sector interest requires demonstrating continuous and meaningful contributions to the WSIS process, and this responsibility should be shared among all stakeholders rather than led solely by UN agencies. A sustained, distributed effort is more likely to attract and retain private sector engagement than top-down UN-led initiatives.
The reporter suggested that if there is a continuous interest and continuous contribution to the WSIS process, this may be a way to regain the private sector stakeholder group, and emphasised that these efforts should not only come from UN lead agencies or action line facilitators but should be shared among all stakeholders .
on: Private sector engagement is currently insufficient and must be broadened and deepened
on: How to achieve meaningful private sector engagement
Session framing: coherence as the central goal
Arg. 1The objective of the session is to reflect on how WSIS and the GDC can work together to support digital development and deliver practical benefits for people by 2035. The session is framed as an interactive exchange focused on concrete ideas and experiences rather than formal presentations.
The moderator stated that the objective of the discussion is to reflect together on how the business process and the Global Digital Compact can work together to support digital development and deliver practical benefits for people by 2035 , and emphasised that the session is intended to be an interactive exchange focused on ideas and experiences rather than long presentations .
Moderator's call for concrete, realistic steps
Arg. 2Participants are encouraged to identify simple, realistic steps such as better information sharing, joint sessions, mapping common priorities, and creating more spaces for collaboration to advance coherence by 2035. The moderator frames this as a practical exercise aimed at generating actionable outcomes rather than abstract recommendations.
The moderator invited participants to think about simple, realistic steps such as better information sharing, joint sessions, mapping common priorities, avoiding parallel discussions, or creating more spaces for collaboration, and asked them to consider what simple steps stakeholders can take to work more closely together towards 2035 .
Request for clarification on what the GDC is
Arg. 1Speaker 2 briefly intervened to request a definition or explanation of the Global Digital Compact before the group discussions began. This suggests that not all participants were familiar with the GDC and that a brief introduction would be helpful for informed participation.
Speaker 2 interjected briefly to ask for a clarification of what the GDC is , prompting the moderator to provide a simplified explanation of the Global Digital Compact as an agreement directing member states towards common goals concerning connectivity .
GDC as a political agreement directing member states towards shared digital goals
Arg. 1When asked to clarify what the GDC is, Speaker 1 described it in simplified terms as an agreement that directs all member states towards the same direction concerning connectivity. This framing positions the GDC as a politically binding or politically significant instrument for aligning national digital agendas.
Speaker 1 explained the GDC as an agreement that makes all member states go towards the same direction concerning connectivity, offering this as a simplified definition in response to a participant's request for clarification .
WSIS as a long-standing central platform for digital development
Arg. 2Speaker 1 contextualised the discussion by noting that the WSIS process has been a central platform for digital development for more than 20 years, providing established mechanisms including the WSIS Forum, the WSIS action lines, and the WSIS stock taking. This historical grounding was offered to help participants understand the institutional weight of WSIS before discussing its relationship with the GDC.
Speaker 1 noted that the WSIS process has been a central platform for digital development for more than 20 years and provides established mechanisms including the WSIS Forum, the WSIS action lines, and the WSIS stock taking .
GDC brings renewed political momentum to digital cooperation
Arg. 3Speaker 1 highlighted that while WSIS provides established mechanisms, the GDC brings renewed political momentum around digital cooperation and shared digital priorities. The central question for the session was therefore how these two processes can reinforce each other, avoid duplication, and deliver concrete impact by 2035.
Speaker 1 stated that the Global Digital Compact brings renewed political momentum around digital cooperation and shared digital priorities, and posed the question of how the two processes can reinforce each other, avoid duplication, and help deliver concrete impact by 2035 .
on: WSIS and GDC are complementary frameworks, not competing structures
Identifying common priorities between WSIS and GDC as a starting point for coherence
Arg. 4Speaker 1 invited participants to reflect on how WSIS and the GDC can best support each other by thinking about common priorities, shared goals, and areas where both processes can work in the same direction, including inclusion, connectivity, capacity building, digital skills, trust, and safety. This framing encouraged a constructive, collaborative approach to identifying synergies.
Speaker 1 invited participants to reflect on how WSIS and the GDC can best support each other, suggesting they consider common priorities, shared goals, and areas such as inclusion, connectivity, capacity building, digital skills, trust, and safety .
on: Whether to focus on overlaps/commonalities or gaps/differences between WSIS and GDC
Awareness of an upcoming directorial engagement
Arg. 1Sarah briefly noted that a director was expected to join the session imminently, suggesting an awareness of the institutional context and the significance of high-level participation in the forum. This comment, while informal, reflects the importance placed on senior-level engagement in these discussions.
Sarah mentioned that in approximately five minutes they were going to receive the director , indicating awareness of an imminent high-level participant joining the session.
Session Knowledge Graph
Speakers · Topics · Arguments · Relationships
All reporting speakers agreed that WSIS and the GDC serve distinct but mutually reinforcing roles. WSIS was established over 20 years ago to build physical networks and forums for digital development , while the GDC is a newer agreement addressing contemporary issues such as AI, data, privacy, and online safety . The GDC is seen as an enhancer of existing WSIS processes , bringing renewed political momentum and more precise, contemporary objectives , rather than replacing or duplicating the established WSIS framework . The WSIS Plus 20 review confirmed that further WSIS implementation until 2035 should be in coherence with GDC objectives .
WSIS as foundational infrastructure, GDC as modern complement
Avoiding duplication of frameworks
GDC providing more precise, contemporary objectives
GDC as enhancer of existing WSIS processes
GDC brings renewed political momentum to digital cooperation
There was broad consensus that creating parallel or duplicative structures should be avoided. The GDC does not have its own staff or conferences and uses existing annual forums and meetings to get things done . GDC outcomes should be taken into the existing WSIS framework, which benefits from 20 years of experience . The fast pace of technological development results in everybody trying to reinvent things and creating overlaps , and simple steps are already being taken organically through existing platforms to help stakeholders avoid duplication .
Avoiding duplication of frameworks
Organic evolution of collaboration through existing platforms
GDC providing more precise, contemporary objectives
Knowledge sharing and use of common UN language
Multiple tables identified the private sector as a key stakeholder group that currently does not engage well . Private sector participation must extend beyond technology companies to include broader industry . Speaker 7 proposed surveying private sector companies to map their objectives against the SDGs, demonstrating that they are already working within the UN system without realising it, framing the challenge as a language translation problem . Speaker 8 argued that regaining private sector interest requires demonstrating continuous and meaningful contributions to the WSIS process, with responsibility shared among all stakeholders rather than led solely by UN agencies .
Private sector engagement beyond technology companies
Translating private sector goals into UN framework language
Continuous private sector involvement as a shared responsibility
There was strong agreement that current engagement mechanisms are insufficient in both breadth and continuity. Young people need financial and structural support to participate in digital governance forums . Once-a-year reporting to CSTD or once-a-year forums is not enough, and there should be more continuous showcasing of involvement locally and regionally by stakeholder groups . Decision-makers engaged in these processes should go beyond ministers, who change frequently, to include heads of state and more stable senior leadership . Collaboration should use existing platforms to help member states, civil society, and the private sector avoid being overburdened by duplication .
Engaging young people in digital governance discussions
Need for broader and more continuous stakeholder involvement
Strengthening government engagement beyond ministerial level
Organic evolution of collaboration through existing platforms
There was clear agreement that adequate funding is essential to enable multi-stakeholder engagement. Funding is necessary because it enables multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly for young people who need support to participate . Without financial support, young people will not be able to make their voices heard . The need for continuous involvement at local and regional levels also implies sustained financial commitment .
Funding as a prerequisite for meaningful participation
Need for broader and more continuous stakeholder involvement
Several speakers emphasised the importance of ensuring all actors speak the same language. Labelling current technology projects using official UN goals guarantees that everyone is speaking the same language . The challenge of private sector engagement is framed as a language translation problem rather than a fundamental misalignment of interests . The WSIS Stock Taking Database already collects data referencing WSIS action lines, SDGs, and GDC objectives in a coherent manner , providing a common reference framework.
Knowledge sharing and use of common UN language
Translating private sector goals into UN framework language
WSIS Forum and Stock Taking Database as key mechanisms
These three speakers shared the view that WSIS provides the institutional foundation and established mechanisms upon which the GDC builds. WSIS was created over 20 years ago with the goal of building physical networks and forums , and has established settings and the ability to engage in a multi-stakeholder forum . The GDC is seen as an enhancer of these existing processes , and the WSIS Forum and Stock Taking Database already serve as vehicles for aligning the two frameworks . The GDC's outcomes should be integrated into the existing WSIS framework rather than creating new parallel structures . Both speakers identified the private sector as a stakeholder group that operates with different measurements and yardsticks , making engagement challenging. Speaker 6 argued that private sector participation must extend beyond technology companies to include broader industry , while Speaker 7 proposed a practical solution of surveying private sector companies to demonstrate that their goals already align with the UN system, framing it as a language translation challenge . Both recognised that the current disconnect is partly a matter of different frameworks and vocabularies rather than fundamentally opposed interests. Both speakers advocated for a more reflective and structured approach to the WSIS-GDC relationship. Speaker 7 recommended identifying differences and gaps between WSIS action lines and GDC objectives rather than focusing solely on commonalities , and called for intersessional work to ensure more focused forum discussions . Speaker 8 similarly argued that stakeholders should periodically pause to assess what is being done amid the fast race of technological development . Both implicitly critiqued the tendency towards broad, unfocused discussions and called for more deliberate, targeted engagement. Both speakers emphasised the need for more inclusive and continuous multi-stakeholder engagement, with particular attention to youth. Speaker 6 stated that funding is needed to support young people to come into these conversations, as otherwise they will not be able to make their voices heard . Speaker 8 called for more continuous showcasing of involvement locally and regionally by stakeholder groups, including young people, to maintain momentum . Both agreed that the current frequency and scope of engagement is insufficient to sustain meaningful participation. Both speakers agreed that digital cooperation efforts should extend beyond formal UN meetings in Geneva or New York to reach broader and more diverse audiences. Speaker 5 explicitly recommended collaborating with regional tech forums and encouraging participation in local and regional tech forums . Speaker 6 similarly argued for supporting young people to participate and for engaging a wider range of government and private sector stakeholders . Both recognised that the current geographic and demographic scope of engagement is too narrow. These speakers shared the view that existing WSIS mechanisms, particularly the action lines and established forums, provide the most effective vehicle for implementing GDC objectives. The WSIS action lines already provide roadmaps for using ICT to accomplish development goals . Simple steps towards greater coherence are already being taken through existing platforms and should evolve organically . All stakeholders must be involved by design in this continuous process, and efforts should not only come from UN lead agencies but should be shared among all stakeholders .
It was unexpected that multiple tables converged on the idea that private sector disengagement stems largely from a mismatch of language and measurement frameworks rather than a fundamental opposition of interests. Speaker 7 proposed surveying private sector companies to demonstrate that they are already working within the UN system without knowing it, framing it explicitly as a language translation challenge . Speaker 6 noted that the private sector has the most difficulty relating to the SDGs simply because they exist with different measurements and yardsticks , and Speaker 8 suggested that demonstrating continuous and meaningful contributions to the WSIS process may be a way to regain the private sector stakeholder group . This convergence on a constructive, bridge-building framing of private sector engagement was notably optimistic and practical given the typically adversarial framing of this issue in digital governance discussions.
In a context typically characterised by urgency and the pressure to keep pace with technological developments, it was unexpected that speakers from different tables converged on the value of pausing and reflecting more carefully. Speaker 8 explicitly described the current environment as a race to be first that results in everybody trying to reinvent things and creating overlaps , and called for finding a way to stop and think more about what is being done . Speaker 7 similarly recommended a more deliberate approach of identifying gaps rather than simply mapping overlaps , and called for intersessional work to ensure discussions are more focused . Both speakers implicitly critiqued the tendency towards reactive, fast-paced engagement and advocated for more structured reflection.
Speaker 7 made the unexpected but widely resonant observation that not all participants know the WSIS action lines by memory, and requested that when comparative thought exercises are conducted, the action lines and objectives be displayed visibly to enable more focused answers . This practical, procedural suggestion aligned with the moderator's broader call for simple, realistic steps such as better information sharing and mapping common priorities . The consensus around this seemingly minor procedural point reflects a deeper agreement that the quality of multi-stakeholder deliberation depends on ensuring all participants have equal access to the foundational information needed for informed discussion.
The discussion revealed a high degree of consensus across all five reporting tables on the fundamental questions of the WSIS-GDC relationship, the need to avoid duplication, the importance of inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement, and the value of existing mechanisms. All speakers agreed that WSIS and the GDC are complementary rather than competing frameworks , that GDC outcomes should be integrated into existing WSIS structures rather than creating parallel mechanisms , and that private sector engagement is currently insufficient and needs to be broadened and deepened . There was also broad agreement on the need for more continuous, localised, and inclusive stakeholder engagement , and on the importance of adequate funding as a structural prerequisite for meaningful participation . The main areas of divergence were in the specific strategies proposed for achieving these goals, particularly regarding private sector engagement, where Speaker 7's survey-based approach differed from Speaker 6's emphasis on funding and structural inclusion and Speaker 8's focus on demonstrating continuous contributions .
The moderator framed the session around identifying common priorities, shared goals, and areas where both processes can work in the same direction . Tables 1, 2, and 4 broadly followed this framing, focusing on how WSIS and GDC complement each other and share overlapping goals . However, Table 3 explicitly recommended taking a different approach, arguing that it is more productive to identify differences and gaps between WSIS action lines and GDC objectives and address them through targeted projects and special work, rather than simply mapping areas of agreement . This represents a methodological disagreement about the most productive analytical starting point for achieving coherence.
Identifying gaps rather than only overlaps
WSIS as foundational infrastructure, GDC as modern complement
Avoiding duplication of frameworks
GDC providing more precise, contemporary objectives
Identifying common priorities between WSIS and GDC as a starting point for coherence
All three tables agreed that private sector engagement is insufficient, but proposed different solutions. Table 2 argued that the private sector must extend beyond technology companies to include broader industry, and that stronger engagement requires financial support and more stable government interlocutors . Table 3 proposed a survey-based approach to demonstrate to private sector companies that their existing goals already align with the SDGs, framing the challenge as a language translation problem rather than a fundamental misalignment . Table 4 argued that regaining private sector interest requires demonstrating continuous and meaningful contributions to the WSIS process, with responsibility shared among all stakeholders rather than led solely by UN agencies . These represent three distinct strategic approaches to the same problem.
Private sector engagement beyond technology companies
Translating private sector goals into UN framework language
Continuous private sector involvement as a shared responsibility
Vladimir from Table 5 argued that simple steps towards greater coherence are already being taken through existing platforms and that the process should evolve organically, emphasising the use of established platforms rather than creating new ones . By contrast, Table 2 stressed that funding is a structural prerequisite that is currently lacking, without which multi-stakeholder engagement cannot be meaningful . Table 4 argued that once-a-year reporting to CSTD or once-a-year forums is not enough and called for more continuous showcasing of involvement locally and regionally . These positions reflect a tension between satisfaction with the existing institutional architecture and calls for more substantive structural change.
Organic evolution of collaboration through existing platforms
Funding as a prerequisite for meaningful participation
Need for broader and more continuous stakeholder involvement
Table 2 specifically argued that decision-makers engaged in these processes should go beyond ministers, who change frequently depending on elections and government changes, to include heads of state and more stable senior leadership, in order to ensure continuity and more impactful implementation . Table 4, while also calling for broader stakeholder involvement, framed the issue differently, emphasising that all stakeholders must be involved by design and that the burden should not fall solely on UN agencies . Table 2's argument implies a need for higher-level political commitment, while Table 4's argument focuses on distributed responsibility across all stakeholder groups rather than specifically elevating the governmental tier.
Strengthening government engagement beyond ministerial level
Need for broader and more continuous stakeholder involvement
Given that the session was explicitly framed by the moderator around identifying common priorities, shared goals, and areas where both processes can work in the same direction , it was unexpected that Table 3 directly challenged this framing by recommending that participants take a different approach and identify differences and gaps rather than overlaps and commonalities . In a session designed for collaborative reflection and consensus-building, this methodological counter-proposal represented a notable departure from the expected direction of discussion. Table 3 argued that focusing on gaps would yield more actionable and specific outcomes , implicitly suggesting that the moderator's framing might lead to less productive results.
In a session focused on institutional coherence between WSIS and the GDC, it was unexpected that a significant divergence emerged around the diagnosis of why the private sector does not engage well . Table 3 framed the problem as one of language and communication, arguing that private sector companies are already working within the UN system without knowing it and that the solution is to demonstrate this alignment through surveys . Table 2 framed it as a structural problem requiring broader representation beyond technology companies and more stable government interlocutors . Table 4 framed it as a problem of insufficient continuity and distributed responsibility . These three distinct diagnoses imply very different solutions and were not reconciled during the session, representing an unexpected depth of disagreement on what appeared to be a shared concern.
Vladimir's closing statement that simple steps are already being taken and will organically move forward stood in unexpected contrast to the more critical assessments offered by Tables 2 and 4. Table 2 explicitly stated that funding is a structural prerequisite that is currently lacking and that once-a-year reporting is insufficient . Table 4 similarly argued that current engagement frequencies are not enough and called for more continuous involvement . Given that Vladimir appeared to represent a more institutional or UN-system perspective, this tension between institutional satisfaction and civil society or multi-stakeholder calls for more substantive change was notable, though it was not directly addressed or debated during the session.
The discussion revealed a broadly collaborative atmosphere with shared goals around WSIS-GDC coherence, avoidance of duplication, and multi-stakeholder engagement. However, meaningful disagreements emerged on four key dimensions: (1) whether to focus on commonalities or gaps between WSIS and GDC ; (2) how to achieve private sector engagement, with three distinct diagnoses offered ; (3) whether existing mechanisms are sufficient or whether structural changes such as new funding and more continuous engagement are needed ; and (4) the appropriate level of government decision-maker engagement . These disagreements were largely methodological and strategic rather than fundamental, as all speakers endorsed the overarching goal of coherence by 2035 .
All four tables agreed that WSIS and the GDC are complementary rather than competing frameworks, and that duplication should be avoided. Table 1 described them as 'fused together' , Table 2 argued that GDC outcomes should be integrated into the existing WSIS framework , Table 4 stated that the GDC can support the implementation of WSIS action lines , and Table 5 described the GDC as an 'enhancer' of existing processes . However, they differed on the precise nature of this complementarity: Table 1 emphasised the GDC's role in addressing modern technologies , Table 2 stressed WSIS's institutional maturity and multi-stakeholder model , Table 4 highlighted the GDC's greater precision , and Table 5 focused on the formal coherence mandated by the WSIS Plus 20 review . They shared the goal of coherence but emphasised different dimensions of the relationship.
WSIS as foundational infrastructure, GDC as modern complement Avoiding duplication of frameworks GDC providing more precise, contemporary objectives GDC as enhancer of existing WSIS processes
Tables 2, 3, and 4 all agreed that current engagement practices are insufficient and that improvements are needed to make participation more inclusive and effective. Table 2 specifically highlighted the need to support young people financially to participate . Table 4 called for more continuous showcasing of involvement locally and regionally, including young people . Table 3 raised a more procedural concern, noting that not all participants know the action lines by memory and requesting that they be displayed during comparative exercises . All three identified gaps in current engagement, but focused on different dimensions: financial barriers (Table 2), frequency and continuity of engagement (Table 4), and informational accessibility (Table 3).
Engaging young people in digital governance discussions Need to display action lines during exercises Need for broader and more continuous stakeholder involvement
Both Tables 2 and 3 agreed that the WSIS action lines provide a valuable structural framework that should be better utilised to advance digital cooperation objectives. Table 2 argued that the action lines already provide established roadmaps for using ICT to achieve development goals and can serve as vehicles for implementing GDC commitments . Table 3 agreed that action lines covering topics with a common purpose should be supported by intersessional work to make forum discussions more focused and purposeful . However, they differed in emphasis: Table 2 focused on the substantive content of the action lines and the need to integrate human rights and gender dimensions , while Table 3 focused on the procedural improvement of intersessional preparation and the practical accessibility of the action lines during discussions .
WSIS action lines as established roadmaps for ICT development Intersessional work to align common topics
All speakers agreed that the central goal is to achieve coherence between WSIS and the GDC and to avoid duplication of mechanisms by 2035 . The moderator framed this as the session's core objective , and all table reporters endorsed this goal in their reports. However, they disagreed on the methods, pace, and priorities for achieving it, ranging from organic evolution through existing platforms to calls for new funding mechanisms , more continuous engagement , and a gap-focused analytical approach .
Session framing: coherence as the central goal Knowledge sharing and use of common UN language Avoiding duplication of frameworks Identifying gaps rather than only overlaps Need for broader and more continuous stakeholder involvement Organic evolution of collaboration through existing platforms
- WSIS and the GDC are complementary rather than competing frameworks: WSIS provides a 20-year-old foundational infrastructure and multi-stakeholder model, while the GDC offers renewed political momentum and more precise, contemporary objectives addressing AI, data, privacy, and online safety.
- The GDC should be treated as an enhancer of existing WSIS processes, not a replacement; the WSIS Plus 20 review confirmed that WSIS implementation until 2035 should be in coherence with GDC objectives.
- Avoiding duplication of frameworks is a priority; GDC outcomes should be integrated into the existing WSIS framework to leverage its established mechanisms rather than creating parallel structures.
- Rather than focusing solely on overlaps between WSIS action lines and GDC objectives, participants recommended identifying gaps and differences, then addressing these through targeted projects and intersessional work.
- Existing WSIS mechanisms — particularly the WSIS Forum and the WSIS Stock Taking Database — are already collecting data referencing both WSIS action lines and GDC objectives, and should be utilised more effectively.
- WSIS action lines need to better incorporate cross-cutting dimensions such as human rights and gender into specific thematic areas, moving beyond broad discussion to concrete policy integration and measurable indicators.
- Multi-stakeholder involvement must be built into the process by design and maintained continuously, not limited to annual reporting cycles; local and regional showcasing of contributions is essential.
- Engaging young people requires dedicated financial and structural support to ensure their voices are heard in digital governance discussions.
- Government engagement should extend beyond ministerial level to include heads of state and more stable senior leadership, given the frequent turnover of ministers.
- Private sector participation must broaden beyond technology companies to include wider industry, and their engagement should be encouraged by demonstrating that their existing objectives already align with the UN framework and SDGs.
- Funding is identified as a fundamental prerequisite for meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, particularly for young people and civil society.
- Knowledge sharing, use of common UN language, and participation in regional and local tech forums — not just UN meetings in Geneva or New York — are practical steps towards greater coherence by 2035.
“The GDC doesn't have its own staff or conferences. It uses existing annual forums and meetings to actually get things done. But the GDC gives with its power because it brings it into the modern era with fresh goals, and it gets much higher political backing and funding.”
“The WSIS mechanisms need to be able to help cover dimensions that are not often spoken about in WSIS like human rights and gender — we constantly talk about these two topics a lot but it gets washed down. Like, how do we actually integrate these very big concepts... into, say, healthcare?”
“We need to get the decision makers actually on board, meaning not just ministers, but also heads of member states or other leadership... because ministers come in and out every year depending on who's elected and who isn't and which government is in power.”
“Lots of people look at overlap and commonality. What we recommend is perhaps taking a different approach and identify where there are differences or gaps, and how once we identify those gaps, how can we reconcile them through projects and special work.”
“To survey the private sector — choose a chunk, could be 50 companies, 100 companies — and ask them where they would put their goals versus the SDGs... Because what could happen then is you would find out that you are working within the UN system, you just don't know it. It's a question of speaking different languages, and languages can be translated.”
“There's a race to be the first in everything, which unfortunately results in everybody trying to reinvent things all over the time... GDC is giving more nowadays objectives targeting very concrete issues which are of course more precise than the WSIS framework, so that's a way to say that GDC can actually support the implementation of the WSIS action lines.”
“Once a year reporting to CSTD or once a year forum, now three years for the CSTD, is not enough. There should be a way to more continuously showcase this involvement — locally, regionally, by stakeholder groups.”
How can human rights and gender dimensions be meaningfully integrated into specific WSIS action lines (e.g., healthcare ICT) rather than remaining broad, abstract concepts?
The speaker noted that human rights and gender are constantly discussed but tend to get 'washed down' in practice. Understanding how to embed these dimensions concretely into sectoral action lines is critical for ensuring that digital cooperation frameworks produce equitable outcomes.
How can the private sector be more effectively engaged in WSIS and GDC processes, given that its objectives and measurement frameworks differ significantly from those of the UN system?
Multiple tables raised the difficulty of engaging the private sector meaningfully. Without broader private-sector participation, implementation of digital cooperation goals risks being incomplete. Identifying shared language and incentives is essential for bridging this gap.
Could a survey of private-sector companies be conducted to map their existing corporate objectives against the SDGs, in order to demonstrate that they are already working within the UN system without realising it?
This proposed research method could provide empirical evidence that the private sector's goals align with UN frameworks, potentially lowering barriers to engagement and making the case for deeper participation in WSIS and GDC processes.
Where are the gaps and differences between WSIS action lines and GDC objectives, and how can those gaps be reconciled through targeted projects or special working groups?
Most discussions focus on overlaps and commonalities, but identifying divergences is equally important. Understanding where the two frameworks do not align could reveal unaddressed areas of digital development that require dedicated attention.
How can intersessional work between WSIS forums be structured around topics of common purpose, so that annual meetings produce more focused and actionable outcomes?
The current annual forum model may not provide sufficient continuity for complex, multi-year digital cooperation goals. Researching effective intersessional mechanisms could improve the quality and specificity of outcomes by the time participants convene.
How can stakeholder involvement in WSIS and GDC processes be made more continuous and visible at local and regional levels, rather than being limited to annual reporting cycles (e.g., once-a-year CSTD reporting)?
Annual or triennial reporting is considered insufficient to maintain momentum and demonstrate relevance. Exploring models for ongoing, multi-level stakeholder engagement could help sustain political will and practical contributions between formal meetings.
How can sustainable funding mechanisms be established to enable broader multi-stakeholder participation, particularly for young people and civil society, in WSIS and GDC processes?
Lack of funding was identified as a fundamental barrier to inclusive participation. Without dedicated financial support, marginalised voices — especially youth — cannot meaningfully contribute to shaping digital cooperation frameworks.
How can engagement with senior government decision-makers (beyond ministers, who change with electoral cycles) be strengthened to ensure more stable and impactful political commitment to WSIS and GDC objectives?
Ministerial turnover creates discontinuity in government engagement. Identifying which levels of government leadership provide the most durable commitment, and how to institutionalise their involvement, is important for long-term implementation.
How can regional and local tech forums be better integrated into the WSIS and GDC ecosystem, so that implementation is not concentrated solely in Geneva or New York?
Decentralising digital cooperation discussions to regional and local forums could improve inclusivity and contextual relevance. Research into how regional bodies can be formally linked to global frameworks would support more geographically balanced implementation.
Should the WSIS action lines and GDC objectives be displayed side by side during structured discussion exercises, to enable more focused comparative analysis by participants?
Participants noted that not everyone knows the action lines from memory, which limits the depth of comparative discussions. Developing accessible reference materials for use in workshops and knowledge cafés would improve the quality of deliberation and recommendations.
How can the WSIS Stock Taking Database be further developed to track coherence between WSIS action lines, SDGs, and GDC objectives in a systematic and comparable way?
The database already collects some coherence data, but as GDC objectives are relatively new, further research is needed to establish robust indicators and reporting frameworks that capture progress across all three frameworks simultaneously.
How can the responsibility for maintaining momentum in WSIS and GDC implementation be shared more equitably among all stakeholder groups, rather than resting primarily with UN lead agencies and action line facilitators?
Over-reliance on UN agencies to drive implementation risks creating bottlenecks and reducing ownership among non-governmental stakeholders. Exploring governance models that distribute leadership more broadly could improve resilience and buy-in across the multi-stakeholder community.