This discussion centres on the role of regional commissions in advancing digital transformation and coordination within the UN system, with participants exploring how to strengthen interregional collaboration and assert the relevance of their work at the global level.
Speaker 1 opened by emphasising that partnership between commissions, regional offices, and other stakeholders is fundamental, noting that it sometimes takes time for new actors to understand that all parties work together . He highlighted the concept of a Regional Collaboration Platform (RCP), describing it as a successful mechanism in the Arab region where co-chairs coordinate joint goals and report collectively on initiatives such as the Arab Digital Agenda . He also raised concern that regional commissions have repeatedly faced pressure to justify their existence, arguing that the focus should shift from proving relevance to delivering more .
Speaker 3 called for regional commissions to develop a single common position, referencing a similar attempt in 2012, and suggested that joint flagship projects and shared development advice could strengthen collective impact . Speaker 4 highlighted ECE's intention to become more in the digital space , and drew attention to the UN CEFACT digital trade facilitation convention as a concrete example of cross-border digital cooperation , while also flagging the environment as a key area for interregional digital collaboration .
Speaker 6 stressed the importance of making existing regional digital structures visible and comprehensible to New York-based actors such as ECOSOC, arguing that a clear, documented overview of who leads digital coordination in each region would make the system far harder to challenge . Speaker 5 identified three key challenges: leveraging regional commissions as bridges between global and national realities, developing interregional projects, and collectively countering narratives that question the commissions' value . Several participants noted that comments dismissing the need for regional commissions had been made informally at recent meetings .
The discussion concluded with a proposal for a small strategic retreat of five regional commission leaders to align on digital futures and strengthen their collective narrative, with participants agreeing that coordinated messaging and documented structures would be essential to safeguarding the commissions' role .
Discussion Summary
- #
Overall Purpose
- The discussion brings together representatives from multiple UN regional commissions (including ESCWA, ECE, ECLAC, and others) alongside ITU to coordinate their approach to digital transformation, strengthen inter-regional collaboration, and address growing challenges to the relevance and mandate of regional commissions within the broader UN system. The meeting serves as a strategic planning session to align efforts around digital agendas, share best practices, and present a unified front at global forums such as the HLPF and WSIS.
- --
- #
Major Discussion Points
- Inter-regional collaboration and the Regional Collaboration Platform (RCP): Participants discussed the importance of moving beyond individual regional efforts towards a unified, coordinated approach. The concept of the RCP was highlighted as a successful model, particularly in the Arab States region, where co-chairing arrangements and joint reporting have proven effective. Speakers emphasised the need for comparable structures across all regions so that New York and global bodies can clearly understand who is leading digital coordination at the regional level. - Proving the relevance of regional commissions versus delivering results: A recurring theme was the pressure regional commissions face to justify their existence, with Speaker 1 arguing that the focus should shift from "proving relevance" to actual delivery. This was reinforced by Speaker 5, who noted that regional commissions were again "under attack" in conversations around the UN reform process and the role of resident coordinators, with member states questioning whether regional commissions were necessary at all. Speakers agreed that a clear, documented structure of what each regional commission does in the digital space would make it far harder to challenge their mandate. - Bridging global digital conversations and regional/national realities: Several speakers stressed the need for regional commissions to act more effectively as a bridge between high-level global processes (such as the HLPF, WSIS, and GDC) and the practical realities of member states. Speaker 6 proposed that each commission coordinate its digital policy contributions to the HLPF in a synchronised manner, ensuring digital components are consistently represented. Speaker 5 also noted that much of the work being done at the regional level in digital transformation lacks visibility at the global level. - Digital trade facilitation, environment, and cross-border digital solutions as areas for joint work: Speaker 4 from ECE highlighted concrete areas for interregional cooperation, including digital trade facilitation through the UN CEFACT convention and the use of digital and AI tools to address environmental challenges. Speaker 1 proposed developing a shared environmental monitoring model that could be adapted across regions and used as a basis for joint workshops. - Proposal for a dedicated strategic retreat for regional commission leaders: Towards the close of the discussion, Speaker 6 and others proposed organising a small, focused meeting - described as a "five-plus-one" gathering of regional commission leaders - to strategise collectively on the future of regional commissions in the digital space, potentially held in Geneva or around an existing event. This was seen as a low-cost, high-impact way to align positions and develop a shared narrative ahead of key global processes. ---
- #
Overall Tone
- The tone of the discussion is broadly collegial and constructive, reflecting long-standing professional relationships among the participants. There is a sense of shared purpose and mutual respect, with speakers building on each other's points and acknowledging each other's contributions. However, an undercurrent of concern and mild urgency runs throughout, particularly around the perceived threats to the mandate and relevance of regional commissions. This tension becomes more pronounced in the latter half of the discussion, when participants recount a challenging interagency meeting where the value of regional commissions was openly questioned. Speaker 2 attempts to moderate this anxiety, urging calm and cautioning against overreaction while acknowledging the need to remain vigilant. By the close of the meeting, the tone shifts back towards optimism and forward momentum, with concrete proposals on the table and a shared commitment to coordinated action.
Expanded Summary: Regional Commissions, Digital Transformation, and Interregional Coordination
#
Opening Remarks and the Regional Collaboration Platform
The discussion brought together representatives from multiple UN regional commissions - including ESCWA, ECE, and ECLAC - alongside ITU, to coordinate their approach to digital transformation, strengthen interregional collaboration, and address growing challenges to the relevance and mandate of regional commissions within the broader UN system. Speaker 1 opened by emphasising that partnership between commissions, regional offices, and other stakeholders is fundamental to the work of the UN system, noting that it sometimes takes time for new actors to understand that all parties work together rather than in competition . He drew on the history of collaboration in his own region, recounting how even experienced colleagues had initially struggled to understand the division of roles, before coming to appreciate the complementarity of the various actors involved .
Speaker 1 introduced the concept of the Regional Collaboration Platform (RCP) as a successful model for joint work, explaining that regional commissions handle upstream policy work - such as joining regional processes and setting standards - while ITU and other partners provide downstream technical solutions, workshops, and training . He described this as a "perfect complementarity," with each actor bringing a competitive advantage . In the Arab region, he noted, the RCP had proven particularly effective, with co-chairs coordinating joint goals and reporting collectively on major initiatives such as the Arab Digital Agenda . He also referenced the involvement of UNESCO and other UN bodies in this collaborative framework, describing the group as a "Regional Collaboration Platform" that had developed over recent years .
#
From Proving Relevance to Demonstrating Provision
A recurring and significant theme throughout the discussion was the pressure that regional commissions face to justify their existence. Speaker 1 acknowledged that regional commissions had been under pressure and attack several times over the past two decades, with periodic calls to abolish or restructure them . However, he argued forcefully that the time for simply proving relevance had passed: "I think it's enough with proving the relevance. It's really now think about more provision" . He suggested that regardless of what institutional changes might occur at the end of the year, there would remain a role for regional structures, and that the focus should be on delivering results rather than defending existence .
This perspective was reinforced by Speaker 5, who identified three key challenges for regional commissions: leveraging their role as a bridge between global conversations and regional and national realities; developing interregional projects and initiatives; and collectively countering narratives that question the commissions' value . Speaker 5 noted that much of the significant work being done at the regional level in digital transformation - such as the PILA initiative in Latin America and the Caribbean, which had been materialising the business process for over twenty years - lacked sufficient visibility both in New York and among resident coordinators . This gap between actual delivery and perceived contribution was identified as one of the central strategic challenges facing the group.
#
Calls for a Common Position and Joint Flagship Projects
Speaker 3 called for regional commissions to consolidate their individual positions into a single, unified stance for high-level forums, referencing a similar attempt made in 2012 . He argued that working together to produce one common position - particularly for forums such as the HLPF - would significantly strengthen the collective voice of regional commissions . He also highlighted the potential for joint flagship projects, suggesting that shared initiatives in areas such as digital transformation could be developed across regions . Speaker 3 further proposed that regional commissions work together to map out the business support needed to implement their shared agenda, and that a common development plan could be produced collectively .
Speaker 4, representing ECE, acknowledged that his commission had been lagging in the pure digital space but expressed a clear commitment from management to become much more strongly involved . He welcomed the collegial nature of the discussion and recognised the value of learning from more experienced regional commissions . He also noted that ECE's work with regions in Central Asia, including collaboration with ESCAP, provided a useful model for cross-regional engagement . Speaker 4 expressed particular interest in learning from other regional commissions' experiences with organising dedicated digital forums and sessions, and suggested that ECE might partner with ITU or join existing forums rather than creating entirely new ones .
#
Digital Trade Facilitation and Environmental Collaboration as Areas for Joint Work
Speaker 4 drew attention to two concrete thematic areas where interregional digital collaboration could be developed. The first was digital trade facilitation, specifically through the UN CEFACT convention, which provides digital data models to companies and customs authorities to enable cross-border trade across multiple transport modes . He described how the UN CEFACT forum had been held in Senegal the previous year, bringing ECE into contact with new stakeholders in the African region , and emphasised that digital trade is inherently cross-border and requires collaboration rather than isolated national solutions . Speaker 1 responded with interest, asking directly how the model works in practice and how it could be applied in the Arab region , signalling a clear appetite for replication.
The second area highlighted by Speaker 4 was the environment, which he described as a very important part of the global economy that cannot be addressed within a single region . He expressed interest in understanding how regional commissions are using AI tools, smart city technologies, and other digital tools to address environmental challenges, noting that the ultimate impact of such work can only be global . Speaker 1 responded by describing plans in his region to monitor specific environmental areas annually and produce a guide for all countries, effectively creating a scoreboard on environmental performance . He invited other regions to collaborate on this model, suggesting that a workshop could be organised during the year to share the methodology and explore how it might be adopted more broadly .
#
Engaging New York, ECOSOC, and the Broader UN System
Speaker 4 introduced an important observation about the absence of key stakeholders from the discussion, noting that people from ECOSOC and New York-based regional formations - which are formally supposed to be under ECOSOC - are rarely involved in digital discussions . He acknowledged that he was present partly as a newcomer seeking to better understand the landscape and learn from the experience of others . Speaker 1 immediately acknowledged this gap, noting that ESCAP was not present and that reaching out to them would bring the group to near-full representation of regional commissions . He mentioned a specific individual who had worked with them for twenty years and could potentially be engaged .
Speaker 6 developed this theme at length, arguing that there is a fundamental lack of understanding in New York about the existing regional digital coordination structures . He proposed that each regional commission document clearly who leads digital coordination in their region, who the members are, and how the structures connect to the broader UN development system . He argued that presenting this information clearly to New York - particularly in the context of the regional reset - would allow the group to say definitively that "on the digital, we are set," making it very difficult for others to challenge or duplicate their work . He also referenced a specific UN resolution - which he described as paragraph 108 of a resolution he referred to as "8170," though the exact reference was unclear in the discussion - arguing that this mandate should be built upon and clearly communicated .
#
Capacity Building for Resident Coordinators and Country Teams
Speaker 6 described a concrete model developed in the ECE region for building digital capacity among resident coordinators and country teams. Every two months, AI and cybersecurity training is co-created with UNDP and ITU, with content developed collaboratively to reflect regional context and focus . He argued that this is a space where regional commissions could and should take the lead, providing the regional context and coordination that global agencies cannot easily replicate . He also noted that country teams had explicitly requested more capacity building on digital issues, creating a clear demand that regional commissions are well placed to meet .
Speaker 6 further proposed that regional commissions develop an annual plan for their RCP activities, including twice-yearly meetings and KPI reporting, to provide a clear and accountable structure . He argued that once such a structure is in place, it becomes very difficult for outside actors to dismiss or challenge the contributions of regional commissions, because the work is visible, measurable, and clearly attributed . He also suggested that the group coordinate its digital policy contributions to the HLPF in a synchronised manner each year, ensuring that digital components are consistently represented at the highest UN policy level .
#
Defending the 'Information Society' Concept
Speaker 1 raised a broader conceptual concern about the framing of digital transformation within the UN system. He described an narrative suggesting that the notion of the "information society" - the foundational concept underpinning the WSIS framework - has become outdated . He argued strongly against this view, contending that the concept is in fact encompassing, renewing, and remains the overarching framework for digital transformation . He expressed particular frustration that people in the broader UN system tend to see digital and ICT work as merely a technical sector - "the IT guys" - rather than recognising it as the locomotive of all future transformations. He framed this as an important battle that needed to be fought within the WSIS and GNDC processes, noting that he had been actively making this argument in various forums . He also noted that in recent years, voices including those from the business sector had been driving a narrative against the multilateral framework, though a broader coalition had since coalesced in response.
Speaker 6 offered a pragmatic response to this concern, suggesting that once proper structures are in place, the group can allow others to debate the concept while continuing to do the work . This implicitly affirmed the ongoing relevance of the framework while redirecting energy towards practical delivery. Both speakers converged on the view that the conceptual framing of their work is strategically important, not merely a semantic debate, and that regional commissions have a role to play in defending and reinvigorating the foundational concepts that underpin their mandate.
#
Challenges to Regional Commissions and the Response
The discussion took a more urgent turn when Speaker 3 recounted a direct challenge to the relevance of regional commissions that had occurred at a recent meeting. A participant had stated explicitly that regional commissions are not needed, arguing that member states can work directly with UN agencies without the intermediary layer of regional commissions . Speaker 3 noted that this comment had been made informally and off the record , and declined to put it in writing despite explicit requests from Speaker 4 and Speaker 5 , reflecting a strategic calculation about the risks of formalising politically sensitive statements.
Speaker 5 described a similarly challenging interagency meeting on AI where resident coordinators had questioned the lack of coordination between global conversations and national realities, and had questioned the role of regional commissions . He argued that this represented a renewed and threat - "we were under attack again" - and called for coordinated messaging and collective advocacy to counter it . Speaker 6 offered a political interpretation of these challenges, suggesting that they may reflect strategic probing rather than genuine opposition, and that presenting clear, documented structures would make it very difficult to sustain such criticism .
Speaker 2 offered a moderating perspective, acknowledging that challenges to regional commissions are a recurring and even somewhat healthy feature of UN institutional life, as they prevent complacency and rigidity . He counselled the group to assess carefully whether the criticism reflects genuine strategic shifts or merely individual interests before deciding how strongly to respond, recommending a calm and measured approach rather than overreaction . He noted that the group should let the criticism give them energy to stay active, without allowing it to distort their strategic priorities .
#
Proposal for a Strategic Leaders' Retreat
Towards the close of the discussion, Speaker 1 put forward a concrete, actionable proposal: a small, focused meeting of the five regional commission leaders - described as a "five-plus-one" format - to strategise collectively on the future of regional commissions in the digital space . He envisaged a gathering of approximately ten to twelve people, sitting together for one to two days to develop a shared vision and align on key priorities . He noted that this would not require significant resources, as it would involve only the leaders of the five regional commissions plus one additional participant .
Speaker 3 immediately endorsed the idea, suggesting Geneva as a natural central meeting point and proposing that the agenda focus on the regional digital area and related coordination challenges . Speaker 6 identified the next dialogue in May as an opportunity for joint activity, and suggested that the group use the proposed meeting to identify key flagship projects to develop together and determine which projects to pursue collectively . Speaker 1 framed the proposal as a way to bring together the five regional commission leaders to engage with the digital futures agenda and anchor it firmly within the information society framework . The proposal was broadly welcomed as a low-cost, high-impact way to align positions and develop a shared narrative ahead of key global processes.
#
Closing Observations and Overall Tone
The discussion was characterised throughout by a collegial and constructive tone, reflecting long-standing professional relationships among the participants . Speakers consistently built on each other's contributions, acknowledged each other's expertise, and expressed mutual respect. However, an undercurrent of concern and mild urgency ran throughout, particularly around the perceived threats to the mandate and relevance of regional commissions . This tension became more pronounced in the latter half of the discussion, when participants recounted challenging interagency meetings where the value of regional commissions was openly questioned .
By the close of the meeting, the tone shifted back towards optimism and forward momentum, with concrete proposals on the table - including the strategic leaders' retreat, joint flagship projects, environmental monitoring collaboration, and coordinated HLPF engagement - and a shared commitment to coordinated action . Speaker 2 proposed that the group take a photograph together before the next meeting , a gesture that reflected the collegial spirit that had characterised the discussion, even as participants acknowledged the serious institutional challenges that lay ahead. The overall consensus was clear: regional commissions must move from defending their existence to demonstrating their impact, and they must do so together, with clear structures, measurable outcomes, and a unified voice at the global level.
Regional commissions have a long history of working together, and the Regional Collaboration Platform (RCP) has been a successful model for joint work, particularly in the Arab region - Regional collaboration history (Speaker 1)
Arg. 1Speaker 1 describes how regional commissions have developed a habit of meeting regularly, including during WSIS, and how the Regional Collaboration Platform (RCP) has become a successful mechanism for joint work. In the Arab region, the commission and the ITU regional office co-chair the RCP and jointly report on shared goals such as the Arab Digital Agenda. This model of collaboration is presented as something that can be shared with and replicated by other regions.
Speaker 1 explains that meetings between regional commissions and ITU have become a legendary and habitual gathering , and that in the Arab region, the RCP has been very successful, with agreed goals and joint reporting on initiatives like the Arab Digital Agenda and Arab Business World . The complementarity between upstream policy work done by regional commissions and downstream technical solutions provided by ITU is highlighted as a key strength of the RCP model .
Challenges to the relevance of regional commissions arise periodically, and rather than simply defending relevance, the focus should shift to demonstrating provision and impact - From proving relevance to demonstrating provision (Speaker 1)
Arg. 2Speaker 1 notes that regional commissions have repeatedly faced pressure and attacks on their relevance over the past 20 years, requiring significant effort to justify their existence. Rather than continuing to prove relevance, Speaker 1 argues it is time to focus on demonstrating actual provision and impact. This shift in approach is presented as more productive and forward-looking.
Speaker 1 states that regional commissions have been under pressure and attack several times in the last 20 years, with periodic calls to eliminate them , and that a great deal of effort has been spent proving relevance . Speaker 1 argues it is now time to think about more provision rather than continued justification .
People from ECOSOC and New York-based regional formations are not sufficiently involved in digital discussions, and efforts should be made to include them - ECOSOC engagement gap (Speaker 4)
Arg. 3Speaker 1 agrees with the point raised about ECOSOC engagement and notes that ESCAP, one of the regional commissions, was not present at the meeting, though efforts were made to reach out. Speaker 1 highlights that four of the five regional commissions were present, representing 80% coverage, and suggests further outreach to ESCAP. The absence of key actors from New York and other regional formations is seen as a gap that needs to be addressed.
Speaker 1 confirms that four regional commissions were gathered, representing approximately 80% of the group, and expresses the intention to reach out to ESCAP . Speaker 1 mentions a specific contact at ESCAP, Ellen Martin, who has worked in the field for 20 years and was previously very .
The notion of the 'information society' is being portrayed as outdated, but it is in fact an evolving and encompassing concept that underpins digital transformation - Defending the information society concept (Speaker 1)
Arg. 4Speaker 1 raises concern about a narrative suggesting that the concept of the 'information society' has become outdated, and argues strongly against this view. Speaker 1 contends that the concept is in fact evolving, encompassing, and renewing itself, and that it remains the overarching framework for digital transformation going forward. This is presented as an important battle to fight within the broader UN system.
Speaker 1 notes that there is a narrative saying the notion of information society became outdated , and argues that it is not outdated but rather encompassing and renewing . Speaker 1 frames this as part of a broader fight within the WSIS and GDC processes, noting that the regional commission's mandate is not merely to follow fashion but to uphold this foundational concept .
The Regional Collaboration Platform brings together ITU, UNESCO, and other agencies, and this complementarity between upstream policy work and downstream technical solutions is a key strength - Complementarity of RCP partners (Speaker 1)
Arg. 5Speaker 1 explains that the RCP model works because regional commissions handle upstream policy and standard-setting work, while ITU and other agencies provide downstream technical solutions, standards, workshops, and training. This division of labour creates a complementarity that makes the partnership effective. The group of agencies involved, including ITU, UNESCO, and UNB, is described as a Regional Collaboration Platform.
Speaker 1 describes the upstream role of regional commissions in policy and the downstream role of ITU in standards and technical training, noting that together they make a perfect complementarity . Speaker 1 lists the agencies involved in the RCP, including UNESCO, ITU, and UNB, and notes that this group has been functioning as a Regional Collaboration Platform in recent years .
ITU is often seen only as a technical or IT body, and its strategic and policy role as a locomotive of digital transformation is not sufficiently recognised by other parts of the UN system - ITU's strategic role underrecognised (Speaker 1)
Arg. 6Speaker 1 expresses frustration that ITU and the digital sector are often perceived by other parts of the UN system as merely technical or IT-focused, without recognition of their strategic and policy dimensions. Speaker 1 argues that the digital sector is in fact the locomotive of all future transformations and should be understood as such. This misperception is seen as a barrier to effective collaboration and recognition within the broader UN system.
Speaker 1 notes that people in other parts of the UN system say 'ah, the guys, the IT guys' and do not see the policy or strategic nature of the sector . Speaker 1 argues that the digital sector is the locomotive of all the transformations of the future .
The Arab Digital Agenda and similar regional frameworks demonstrate how regional commissions and ITU can co-chair and co-deliver on shared digital goals - Arab Digital Agenda as model (Speaker 1)
Arg. 7Speaker 1 presents the Arab Digital Agenda as a concrete example of how a regional commission and ITU can work together as co-chairs of the RCP to deliver on shared digital goals. The joint reporting and co-delivery model is highlighted as a success that can be replicated in other regions. This is offered as a practical model for interregional collaboration.
Speaker 1 describes how in the Arab region, the commission and ITU's regional office agreed on goals and letters, and jointly work on technology initiatives such as the Arab Digital Agenda and Arab Business World, reporting on these as joint achievements . Speaker 1 notes that they are co-chairs of the RCP and passes this model on to other regions .
Environmental monitoring and digitalisation of environmental data is an area where regional commissions can collaborate, with one region potentially developing a model that others can adopt - Environment and digital collaboration (Speaker 1)
Arg. 8Speaker 1 describes an initiative to monitor environmental areas annually and produce a guide for all countries in the region, which could serve as a model for other regions. Speaker 1 invites collaboration on this initiative and suggests that a workshop could be organised during the year to review and share the methodology. This is presented as a practical area for interregional cooperation.
Speaker 1 describes plans to monitor certain environmental areas annually and produce a guide for all countries , and expresses willingness to work with other regions on the model and methodology . Speaker 1 suggests organising a workshop during the year to review and share this approach .
A small strategic meeting of five regional commission leaders, possibly held in Geneva or another central location, should be organised to plan joint work and strengthen interregional coordination - Proposal for strategic leaders' meeting (Speaker 1)
Arg. 9Speaker 1 proposes organising a small, focused meeting of the five regional commission leaders, possibly in Geneva, to strategise on shared priorities and strengthen interregional coordination. The meeting is envisioned as a one or two day gathering of approximately eight to ten people, without large delegations. This is presented as a cost-effective way to advance the interregional agenda.
Speaker 1 proposes a small meeting of five plus one regional commission leaders, sitting with ten to twelve people to strategise on regional commissions and digital futures . Speaker 1 notes it would not cost a lot, as it would involve only minus one region, roughly eight to ten people , and suggests it could take place any time during the year .
A common position from all regional commissions should be developed, particularly for high-level forums, building on past attempts such as in 2012 - Common position proposal (Speaker 3)
Arg. 1Speaker 3 calls on the commission to develop a single, common position for all regional commissions, particularly for high-level forums such as the GPC. Speaker 3 references a previous attempt to do this in 2012 and argues that the dynamic of working together should be continued and strengthened. Joint positions are seen as essential for maximising the collective impact of regional commissions.
Speaker 3 references an attempt in 2012 to come up with one common position for National Highlanders' Commission for the GPC , and argues that this dynamic of working together needs to continue . Speaker 3 notes that while individual positions exist, what is needed are joint positions .
There are voices, including from member states, suggesting that regional commissions are unnecessary and that direct engagement with UN agencies is sufficient - Direct challenge to regional commissions (Speaker 3)
Arg. 2Speaker 3 recounts an incident where a representative from a member state publicly stated that regional commissions are not needed, arguing that direct engagement with UN agencies is sufficient. This challenge was made in a formal setting and was noted by several regional commission representatives. Speaker 3 uses this as evidence that the fight to defend regional commissions must continue.
Speaker 3 describes a situation where someone said 'we don't need regional commissions, we work directly with us and the agencies and so on, and that's enough' . Speaker 3 notes that several regional commission representatives were present informally when this comment was made .
Comments questioning the relevance of regional commissions may reflect individual interests or local agendas rather than a genuine strategic shift, and the response should be measured rather than reactive - Measured response to criticism (Speaker 2)
Arg. 1Speaker 2 acknowledges that challenges to the role of regional commissions are a recurring feature of UN life and argues that this can actually be healthy, preventing complacency. However, Speaker 2 cautions against overreacting, suggesting that the group should assess whether the criticism reflects genuine strategic shifts or merely individual interests before deciding how strongly to respond. A calm, measured approach is recommended.
Speaker 2 notes that they have been part of the UN system for 11 years and have always seen actions at the global or regional level being challenged , and argues that this is somewhat healthy as it avoids rigidity . Speaker 2 advises the group to determine whether the criticism comes from individuals with local interests or reflects real strategic shifts, and to calibrate the response accordingly .
ECE has been lagging in the digital space but is now committed to stronger involvement and sees value in learning from other regional commissions' experiences - ECE commitment to digital collaboration (Speaker 4)
Arg. 1Speaker 4 acknowledges that ECE has not been sufficiently in the digital space and that this is now being addressed by management, with a commitment to stronger involvement. Speaker 4 expresses enthusiasm for learning from other regional commissions that have more experience in organising digital forums and sessions. ECE is positioned as a willing learner and potential contributor to the interregional digital agenda.
Speaker 4 acknowledges that ECE has been lagging in the pure digital space and that it is now the intention of management to be much more strongly involved . Speaker 4 notes that ECE has not yet organised dedicated forums or sessions on digital transformation, unlike other regional commissions, and is reaching out to management with this idea .
Digital trade facilitation, such as the UN CEFACT convention, is an example of a cross-border digital solution that can bring regional commissions together around a common practical initiative - Digital trade facilitation as joint initiative (Speaker 4)
Arg. 2Speaker 4 presents the UN CEFACT digital trade facilitation convention as a concrete example of a cross-border digital solution that ECE has developed and that can serve as a basis for interregional collaboration. The convention provides digital data models to companies and customs authorities to facilitate multimodal trade across borders. Speaker 4 suggests this could be a practical area for joint work with other regional commissions.
Speaker 4 describes the UN CEFACT convention on digital trade, which provides appropriate data models to companies and customs authorities so that they can trade across countries, including for landlocked and sea countries . Speaker 4 notes that the UN CEFACT forum was held in Senegal, which was in the ECA region, allowing ECE to reach new stakeholders in Africa .
Forums and sessions on digital transformation organised by regional commissions are a model that ECE has not yet adopted but is keen to learn from and potentially replicate - Learning from regional commission forums (Speaker 4)
Arg. 3Speaker 4 notes that other regional commissions have dedicated forums or sessions on digital transformation and legal transformation, which ECE has not yet organised. Speaker 4 expresses interest in learning from these experiences and potentially partnering with ITU or other regional commissions to develop similar forums. This is framed as an opportunity for ECE to strengthen its digital engagement.
Speaker 4 acknowledges that ECE has not yet organised dedicated forums or sessions on digital saving or legal transformation, unlike other regional commissions , and is reaching out to management with this idea . Speaker 4 suggests learning from the experience of other regional commissions and potentially partnering with ITU or joining regional commission events .
Regional commissions serve as a critical bridge between global conversations and regional and national realities, and this role needs greater visibility - Bridge role of regional commissions (Speaker 5)
Arg. 1Speaker 5 argues that one of the key challenges for regional commissions is to better leverage their role as a bridge between global policy conversations and regional and national realities. While significant work is being done on digital transformation in regions such as Latin America and the Caribbean, this work lacks sufficient visibility. Greater visibility is needed both in New York and among resident coordinators in the regions.
Speaker 5 notes that regional commissions need to see how they can leverage their role as a bridge between global conversations and regional and national realities , and that in Latin America and the Caribbean, there is a very strong digital agenda, including the PILA initiative which has been materialising business processes for over 20 years . Speaker 5 argues that one of the challenges is how to give much more visibility to what is being done in digital transformation .
There is significant potential for interregional projects and initiatives, and regional commissions should identify and develop joint flagship projects - Interregional project potential (Speaker 5)
Arg. 2Speaker 5 identifies the development of interregional projects and initiatives as a key challenge and opportunity for regional commissions. Speaker 5 argues that there is space to think about joint work that goes beyond individual regional agendas. This is presented as one of three main challenges that regional commissions should address collectively.
Speaker 5 explicitly lists interregional projects or initiatives as the second of three key challenges for regional commissions to address , building on points already raised by other speakers in the discussion.
The role of regional commissions is being questioned in interagency discussions, including by resident coordinators who do not fully understand what regional commissions do - Misunderstanding of regional commission roles (Speaker 5)
Arg. 3Speaker 5 describes a recent interagency discussion on AI where resident coordinators questioned the lack of coordination between global conversations and national realities, and challenged the role of regional commissions. This is presented as evidence that the misunderstanding of regional commissions' roles is not just a theoretical concern but is actively manifesting in high-level discussions. Speaker 5 argues that this reinforces the need for regional commissions to coordinate their messages and fight this battle together.
Speaker 5 describes a tough conversation in an interagency meeting on AI where resident coordinators were present and questioned the lack of coordination between global conversations and national realities, and the role of regional commissions . Speaker 5 argues that this goes back to the first challenge of visibility and that there is a lot of misunderstanding of what regional commissions are doing .
The fight against challenges to regional commissions must be coordinated and collective, with all regional commissions presenting unified messages - Coordinated defence of regional commissions (Speaker 5)
Arg. 4Speaker 5 argues that the challenges facing regional commissions, including from within the UN system, must be addressed collectively and with coordinated messaging. Speaker 5 stresses that regional commissions are not alone in facing these challenges and that a unified approach is essential to mitigate the risk of their role being diminished. This is framed as an ongoing battle that requires sustained collective effort.
Speaker 5 argues that anything that can be done to address and mitigate the new risk to regional commissions should be worth it , and stresses that regional commissions need to coordinate messages and fight the battle together . Speaker 5 emphasises that the group will need to continue stressing the importance of the role of regional commissions as a bridge between global conversations and national realities .
Regional commissions should coordinate their digital-related activities and present a clear, unified structure to New York and ECOSOC, demonstrating that digital coordination is already well established - Structured coordination proposal (Speaker 6)
Arg. 1Speaker 6 argues that regional commissions need to present a clear, documented structure of their digital coordination activities to New York and ECOSOC, demonstrating that the digital space is already well organised at the regional level. This would make it difficult for others to dismiss or duplicate the work being done. Speaker 6 suggests that putting this structure on paper, with clear leadership and membership for each region, would be a revolutionary step.
Speaker 6 notes that in discussions with New York, there is no understanding that regional digital coordination groups exist , and argues that a clear structure showing who is the leader and who are the members in each region should be documented . Speaker 6 argues that once this structure is clearly presented, it would be very difficult to dismiss the contributions of regional commissions .
The High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) should consistently include a digital component, and regional commissions should coordinate to ensure this happens systematically - Digital component in HLPF (Speaker 6)
Arg. 2Speaker 6 argues that regional commissions should coordinate to ensure that the HLPF consistently includes a digital component, and that this should be done in a systematic and planned way. Speaker 6 suggests that the group should agree on which commission will address digital issues at the policy level in which weeks, making it easier to advocate for digital inclusion in the HLPF agenda. This is presented as a practical coordination mechanism.
Speaker 6 suggests that the group should coordinate so that each commission addresses digital issues at the policy level in specific weeks, making it easier to advocate for digital components in the HLPF . Speaker 6 notes that the mechanism of championing the digital component is already in place and should be used to draw attention to the digital component of the HLPF .
There is a lack of understanding in New York about the existing regional digital coordination structures, and this needs to be addressed by clearly documenting and communicating these structures - Lack of New York awareness (Speaker 6)
Arg. 3Speaker 6 highlights that New York-based actors, including those involved in the regional reset process, do not understand that regional digital coordination groups already exist and are functioning. Speaker 6 argues that this lack of awareness is a significant problem that needs to be addressed by clearly documenting and communicating the structures, mechanisms, and outcomes of regional digital coordination. This documentation would also serve as a defence against attempts to create new, duplicative coordination mechanisms.
Speaker 6 notes that in discussions with New York, there is no understanding that regional digital coordination groups exist , and that New York needs to understand, particularly in the context of the regional reset, that digital coordination is already well established . Speaker 6 argues that once the structure is clearly presented, it would be very clear that there is no need for additional coordination mechanisms .
Resident coordinators and country teams need more capacity building on digital issues, and regional commissions are well placed to lead this through co-created training programmes - Capacity building for country teams (Speaker 6)
Arg. 4Speaker 6 argues that resident coordinators and country teams have expressed a need for more capacity building on digital issues, and that regional commissions are ideally placed to lead this work. Speaker 6 describes a model used in the ECE region where AI and cybersecurity training is co-created with UNDP, ITU, and other partners and delivered to resident coordinators and country teams every two months. This model is presented as something that could be replicated across regions.
Speaker 6 notes that in a meeting with five designated resident coordinators, they expressed a desire for more capacity building on digital issues , and argues that this is a space where regional commissions could take the lead . Speaker 6 describes a model in the ECE region where AI and cyber training is co-created with UNDP and ITU and delivered to resident coordinators and country teams every two months .
Regional commissions should respond to criticism by presenting clear, documented structures and measurable outcomes, making it difficult to dismiss their contributions - Documentation as defence strategy (Speaker 6)
Arg. 5Speaker 6 argues that the best defence against criticism of regional commissions is to present clear, documented structures with measurable outcomes and key performance indicators. Speaker 6 suggests that once the structure is properly documented and the work is shown to be accountable and measurable, it becomes very difficult for critics to dismiss the contributions of regional commissions. An annual plan for the RCP is proposed as a practical tool for this purpose.
Speaker 6 describes a meeting with Amin al-Hamed where they were very clear that for digital, the work is well set, deliverable, accountable, and measurable , and argues that it is very difficult to dismiss contributions once the structure is clear . Speaker 6 also proposes that regional commissions should have an annual plan with KPIs, so that the implications of their actions are visible .
Regional commissions should leverage their unique coordination mandate, which is formally recognised in UN resolutions, to assert leadership in digital policy coordination - Formal mandate for coordination (Speaker 6)
Arg. 6Speaker 6 argues that regional commissions have a unique and formally recognised mandate for coordination in the digital space, as set out in UN resolutions, and should use this mandate to assert leadership. Speaker 6 notes that this mandate is not always well known or understood, even within the UN system, and that it needs to be more actively communicated. The formal mandate is presented as a key asset that distinguishes regional commissions from other actors.
Speaker 6 references a specific UN resolution, paragraph 108 of resolution 8170, which formally recognises the coordination mandate of regional commissions , and argues that this mandate should be clearly communicated and built upon . Speaker 6 notes that regional commissions are the only ones mandated to coordinate digital-related processes at the regional level .
Opportunities exist to do something jointly during the next dialogue in May, and a focused gathering of regional commission leaders could help strategise on shared priorities - Joint activity at upcoming dialogue (Speaker 6)
Arg. 7Speaker 6 supports the idea of organising a joint activity during the next dialogue in May, and also endorses the proposal for a small strategic meeting of regional commission leaders. Speaker 6 frames this as an opportunity to identify key flagship projects and coordinate on shared priorities. The proposal is presented as a practical next step for the group.
Speaker 6 notes that there are two opportunities: doing something together during the next dialogue in May, and organising a small meeting in Zambia or another location to strengthen interregional coordination . Speaker 6 also mentions working to identify key flagship projects that can be shared and developed together .
Session Knowledge Graph
Speakers · Topics · Arguments · Relationships
All three speakers converge on the view that New York-based actors, including ECOSOC and resident coordinators, do not sufficiently understand what regional commissions are doing in the digital space. Speaker 1 highlights that it takes time for new actors to understand that all stakeholders play together , and that the RCP model has been successful in the Arab region . Speaker 5 describes a tough interagency conversation on AI where resident coordinators questioned the lack of coordination and the role of regional commissions . Speaker 6 explicitly states that in discussions with New York, there is no understanding that regional digital coordination groups exist , and argues that putting the structure clearly on paper would be revolutionary . All three agree that this gap in awareness must be urgently addressed.
Regional collaboration history (Speaker 1)
Bridge role of regional commissions (Speaker 5)
Structured coordination proposal (Speaker 6)
Lack of New York awareness (Speaker 6)
All four speakers acknowledge that regional commissions face ongoing and challenges to their relevance. Speaker 1 notes that regional commissions have been under pressure and attack several times in the last 20 years and argues it is time to move from proving relevance to demonstrating provision . Speaker 3 recounts a direct public statement that regional commissions are not needed . Speaker 5 describes a recent interagency meeting where resident coordinators questioned the role of regional commissions and argues that the fight must be coordinated and collective . Speaker 6 argues that presenting clear, documented structures with measurable outcomes makes it very difficult to dismiss contributions .
From proving relevance to demonstrating provision (Speaker 1)
Direct challenge to regional commissions (Speaker 3)
Coordinated defence of regional commissions (Speaker 5)
Documentation as defence strategy (Speaker 6)
Multiple speakers agree that developing concrete interregional projects is a key priority. Speaker 1 proposes an environmental monitoring initiative as a model that other regions could adopt and suggests a workshop to share the methodology . Speaker 4 presents the UN CEFACT digital trade facilitation convention as a practical basis for cross-border collaboration . Speaker 5 explicitly lists interregional projects or initiatives as the second of three key challenges for regional commissions . Speaker 6 supports doing something jointly during the next dialogue in May and mentions identifying key flagship projects to share and develop together .
Environment and digital collaboration (Speaker 1)
Digital trade facilitation as joint initiative (Speaker 4)
Interregional project potential (Speaker 5)
Joint activity at upcoming dialogue (Speaker 6)
Speakers 1, 3, and 6 all support the idea of a focused gathering of regional commission leaders. Speaker 1 proposes a small meeting of five plus one regional commission leaders, sitting with ten to twelve people to strategise on digital futures , noting it would not cost a lot and could take place any time during the year . Speaker 3 supports the idea of Geneva as a central meeting point and suggests having an agenda focused on the regional area . Speaker 6 endorses the proposal and frames it as an opportunity to identify key flagship projects and coordinate on shared priorities .
Proposal for strategic leaders' meeting (Speaker 1)
Common position proposal (Speaker 3)
Joint activity at upcoming dialogue (Speaker 6)
Both Speaker 1 and Speaker 6 affirm the value of the RCP model. Speaker 1 explains that regional commissions handle upstream policy work while ITU provides downstream technical solutions, creating a perfect complementarity , and describes the Arab region's RCP as very successful . Speaker 6 references the Digital Transformation Group under the RCP of Europe and Central Asia and argues that the RCP structure should be clearly documented and communicated to New York, showing that digital coordination is already well set .
Complementarity of RCP partners (Speaker 1)
Regional collaboration history (Speaker 1)
Structured coordination proposal (Speaker 6)
Both Speaker 1 and Speaker 5 share the view that regional commissions must shift their focus from defending their existence to demonstrating concrete impact and visibility. Speaker 1 argues it is time to think about more provision rather than continued justification of relevance . Speaker 5 similarly argues that one of the key challenges is how to give much more visibility to what regional commissions are actually doing in digital transformation , noting that significant work is being done but lacks sufficient visibility both in New York and among resident coordinators . Both Speaker 4 and Speaker 6 acknowledge gaps in their respective commissions' digital engagement and express commitment to learning from more experienced regional commissions. Speaker 4 acknowledges that ECE has been lagging in the pure digital space and that management is now committed to stronger involvement , and expresses interest in learning from other regional commissions' experiences with digital forums . Speaker 6 similarly describes how the ECE region has developed a model of co-created AI and cybersecurity training for resident coordinators and country teams , presenting this as something that could be shared and replicated. Both Speaker 1 and Speaker 6 share the view that regional commissions have a unique and formally grounded mandate that must be actively asserted. Speaker 1 argues that the concept of the information society is not outdated but encompassing and renewing , and that the regional commission's mandate is not merely to follow fashion but to uphold this foundational concept . Speaker 6 references a specific UN resolution, paragraph 108 of resolution 8170, which formally recognises the coordination mandate of regional commissions , and argues that regional commissions are the only ones mandated to coordinate digital-related processes at the regional level , urging that this mandate be clearly communicated and built upon . Both Speaker 2 and Speaker 5 agree that challenges to regional commissions must be taken seriously but handled carefully. Speaker 2 advises the group to assess whether criticism reflects genuine strategic shifts or merely individual interests before deciding how strongly to respond, recommending a calm and measured approach . Speaker 5 similarly argues that anything that can be done to address and mitigate the new risk should be worth it , while also stressing the need for coordinated messaging rather than reactive responses . Both agree that the group should stay alert without overreacting. Both Speaker 3 and Speaker 6 argue that regional commissions need to develop and present unified, documented positions and structures. Speaker 3 calls for a single common position for all regional commissions, particularly for high-level forums, referencing a previous attempt in 2012 , and argues that joint positions are essential . Speaker 6 similarly argues that putting the structure on paper, with clear leadership and membership for each region, would be revolutionary , and proposes that regional commissions develop an annual plan with KPIs to demonstrate accountability . Both Speaker 1 and Speaker 4 share the view that the strategic and policy dimensions of the digital sector are not sufficiently recognised by other parts of the UN system. Speaker 1 expresses frustration that ITU and the digital sector are seen merely as technical or IT-focused, without recognition of their strategic role as the locomotive of all future transformations . Speaker 4 acknowledges that ECE has been lagging in the digital space and recognises the collegial nature of the work, noting the value of very senior and experienced people to guide regional collaboration .
It is somewhat unexpected that both Speaker 1 and Speaker 6 converge on the importance of defending the 'information society' concept, given that this might be seen as a semantic or historical debate rather than a practical operational concern. Speaker 1 raises concern about a narrative suggesting the concept has become outdated and argues strongly that it is in fact encompassing and renewing , framing this as an important battle within the WSIS and GDC processes . Speaker 6 supports this by arguing that once proper structures are in place, the group can let others debate the concept while continuing to do the work , implicitly affirming the ongoing relevance of the framework. This consensus is unexpected because it suggests that even operationally focused participants see the conceptual framing as strategically important.
It is somewhat unexpected that both Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 acknowledge a degree of value in the challenges facing regional commissions, even as they argue for a stronger response. Speaker 2 explicitly states that challenges are somewhat healthy as they avoid rigidity and complacency . Speaker 1, while arguing that it is time to stop proving relevance and focus on provision , implicitly acknowledges that the pressure has driven the commissions to demonstrate their value. This nuanced consensus is unexpected in a discussion where most participants are focused on defending regional commissions, and suggests a shared underlying pragmatism about institutional accountability.
It is somewhat unexpected that both Speaker 1 and Speaker 4 independently converge on environment as a practical area for interregional digital collaboration, given that the main focus of the discussion is on institutional coordination and governance. Speaker 1 describes plans to monitor environmental areas annually and produce a guide for all countries , inviting other regions to collaborate on the model . Speaker 4 explicitly highlights environment as a very important part of the global economy and expresses interest in understanding how regions are digitalising environmental data, using AI tools, and applying smart city solutions , noting that the impact can only be global . This convergence on a substantive thematic area amid a largely procedural discussion is noteworthy.
It is somewhat unexpected that both Speaker 5 and Speaker 6 converge on capacity building for resident coordinators and country teams as a key priority, given that the discussion is primarily focused on institutional positioning and coordination. Speaker 5 describes a tough interagency conversation on AI where resident coordinators questioned the lack of coordination and the role of regional commissions , implicitly highlighting the need for better understanding and capacity at the country level. Speaker 6 explicitly describes a model in the ECE region where AI and cybersecurity training is co-created with UNDP and ITU and delivered to resident coordinators and country teams every two months , and argues that this is a space where regional commissions could take the lead . The consensus on this practical capacity-building role is unexpected given the predominantly strategic and political tone of the broader discussion.
The discussion reveals a strong and broad consensus among all speakers on several interconnected themes: the need for regional commissions to present clear, documented structures to New York and ECOSOC; the importance of developing interregional projects and joint flagship initiatives; the ongoing and nature of challenges to regional commissions' relevance; and the value of a small strategic meeting of regional commission leaders. There is also significant agreement on the complementarity of the RCP model, the need for coordinated messaging in defence of regional commissions, and the importance of capacity building for resident coordinators and country teams. Speakers differ somewhat in their emphasis, with Speaker 1 and Speaker 6 focusing more on structural documentation and mandate assertion, Speaker 5 on visibility and bridge-building, Speaker 3 on common positions, Speaker 4 on learning from others, and Speaker 2 on measured responses to criticism. However, these differences are largely complementary rather than contradictory.
Speaker 1 argues that the era of proving relevance is over and the focus should shift to demonstrating provision and impact , suggesting the attacks are a recurring but manageable feature. Speaker 5, by contrast, treats the challenge as an and serious threat, describing a 'tough conversation' with resident coordinators who questioned the role of regional commissions , and arguing that anything that can be done to mitigate this 'new risk' should be pursued . Speaker 2 takes a more measured position, acknowledging that challenges are a recurring and even healthy feature of UN life , but cautioning against overreacting and suggesting the group should first assess whether the criticism reflects genuine strategic shifts or merely individual interests . This creates a spectrum of urgency: Speaker 5 sees an battle requiring coordinated defence, Speaker 1 sees a need to move beyond justification, and Speaker 2 urges calm and proportionality.
From proving relevance to demonstrating provision (Speaker 1)
Measured response to criticism (Speaker 2)
Coordinated defence of regional commissions (Speaker 5)
Speaker 5 explicitly requests that the criticism of regional commissions heard in recent meetings be put in writing, arguing that if it remains only oral, it may be subject to interpretation, emotion, or retraction . Speaker 4 also supports this, asking for something in writing . However, Speaker 3, who was present when the critical comments were made, explicitly declines to put the matter in writing, stating a preference not to do so , while still affirming the need for coordinated action. This reflects a genuine strategic disagreement about how to handle sensitive political dynamics within the UN system.
Coordinated defence of regional commissions (Speaker 5)
Direct challenge to regional commissions (Speaker 3)
Speaker 1 describes an narrative within the UN system suggesting that the notion of the 'information society' has become outdated , and argues strongly against this view, contending that the concept is encompassing, renewing, and remains the overarching framework for digital transformation . While no other speaker in this discussion explicitly defends the opposing view, Speaker 1 is clearly responding to a real position held by others outside the room, framing it as a battle that needs to be fought . This reflects a broader disagreement within the UN system about the continued relevance of the WSIS framework and its foundational concepts.
Defending the information society concept (Speaker 1)
Speaker 3 argues that the primary mechanism should be the development of a single, common position from all regional commissions for high-level forums, referencing a previous attempt in 2012 , and emphasising the need for joint positions . Speaker 6, by contrast, focuses on the need to document and communicate the existing structures and mechanisms of regional digital coordination to New York and ECOSOC, arguing that putting the structure on paper with clear leadership and membership for each region would be a 'revolution' . While both approaches are complementary, they reflect different emphases: Speaker 3 prioritises political alignment through common positions, while Speaker 6 prioritises structural visibility and accountability through documentation and annual plans with KPIs .
Common position proposal (Speaker 3)
Structured coordination proposal (Speaker 6)
Given the otherwise highly collaborative and consensus-oriented tone of the discussion, it is unexpected that Speaker 3 explicitly declines to put the criticism of regional commissions in writing , even after Speaker 5 and Speaker 4 specifically request this. Speaker 3 was present when the critical comments were made and recounts them in detail , but states a clear preference not to document them formally. This suggests a strategic calculation about the risks of formalising politically sensitive statements, which is at odds with the group's broader stated goal of coordinating and strengthening their collective defence. The disagreement reveals a tension between transparency and political caution that was not anticipated given the collaborative framing of the meeting.
Speaker 1 expresses frustration that ITU and the digital sector are perceived by other parts of the UN system as merely technical, without recognition of their strategic and policy dimensions , arguing that the digital sector is 'the locomotive of all the transformations of the future' . This concern is raised in a meeting of regional commission representatives who are ostensibly already aligned on the importance of digital policy. The fact that Speaker 1 feels the need to make this argument within this group, rather than only externally, suggests an unexpected degree of residual misalignment even among sympathetic actors. No other speaker directly contests this point, but neither do they affirm it, suggesting a subtle divergence in how the group perceives the strategic framing of their own work.
The discussion is characterised by a high degree of consensus on broad goals - strengthening regional commission collaboration, improving engagement with New York and ECOSOC, defending the role of regional commissions, and developing interregional projects - but reveals meaningful disagreements on strategy, urgency, and method. The most substantive disagreements concern: (1) how urgently and seriously to treat the challenges to regional commissions' relevance, with Speaker 5 treating it as an and serious threat , Speaker 1 arguing it is time to move beyond justification , and Speaker 2 counselling calm and proportionality ; (2) whether to document criticism in writing, with Speaker 3 explicitly refusing despite requests from Speakers 4 and 5 ; (3) the preferred mechanism for asserting leadership, with Speaker 3 favouring common positions and Speaker 6 favouring structured documentation and KPIs ; and (4) the continued validity of the 'information society' concept, which Speaker 1 defends vigorously against an external narrative of obsolescence .
All speakers agree that regional commissions need to collaborate more effectively and present a stronger, more unified front. However, they differ on the mechanism: Speaker 1 emphasises the RCP model and co-chairmanship with ITU , Speaker 4 focuses on ECE learning from other commissions and potentially partnering with ITU , Speaker 5 stresses the need for greater visibility of existing work , and Speaker 6 argues for documented structures with measurable KPIs . The shared goal of stronger collaboration is clear, but the preferred instruments vary significantly.
Regional collaboration history (Speaker 1) ECE commitment to digital collaboration (Speaker 4) Bridge role of regional commissions (Speaker 5) Structured coordination proposal (Speaker 6)
All speakers agree that engagement with New York-based actors, including ECOSOC and resident coordinators, is insufficient and that there is a significant lack of awareness in New York about what regional commissions are doing in the digital space . However, they differ on how to address this: Speaker 6 proposes systematic documentation and structured communication of existing mechanisms , Speaker 5 emphasises coordinating messages and fighting the battle collectively , Speaker 1 focuses on outreach to specific actors such as ESCAP , and Speaker 6 also proposes co-created capacity building for resident coordinators and country teams . The diagnosis is shared but the prescriptions differ.
ECOSOC engagement gap (Speaker 1) Digital component in HLPF (Speaker 6) Misunderstanding of regional commission roles (Speaker 5) Lack of New York awareness (Speaker 6)
Speakers 1, 5, and 6 all agree that interregional projects and joint initiatives are important and that some form of joint gathering or activity should be organised. Speaker 1 proposes a small strategic meeting of five regional commission leaders, possibly in Geneva, for one to two days . Speaker 6 supports this and also identifies the next dialogue in May as an opportunity for joint activity . Speaker 5 identifies interregional projects as one of three key challenges but does not specify a preferred format. The agreement on the goal of joint action is clear, but the specific format, timing, and scope remain to be determined.
A small strategic meeting of five regional commission leaders, possibly held in Geneva or another central location, should be organised to plan joint work and strengthen interregional coordination - Proposal for strategic leaders' meeting (Speaker 1) Interregional project potential (Speaker 5) Joint activity at upcoming dialogue (Speaker 6)
- Regional commissions have a well-established history of collaboration, particularly through the Regional Collaboration Platform (RCP), which has proven successful in the Arab region and serves as a model for other regions.
- There is a strong consensus that regional commissions must move beyond simply defending their relevance and instead focus on demonstrating concrete provision, measurable outcomes, and tangible impact.
- A unified, documented structure of regional digital coordination mechanisms needs to be clearly communicated to New York and ECOSOC, as there is a significant lack of awareness in those bodies about what already exists at the regional level.
- Regional commissions serve as a critical and unique bridge between global policy conversations and regional and national realities, a role that is formally recognised in UN resolutions but is frequently misunderstood or undervalued by other parts of the UN system.
- The role of regional commissions is under renewed pressure, with voices from member states and interagency discussions questioning their necessity and suggesting that direct engagement with UN agencies is sufficient.
- The response to criticism of regional commissions should be measured and coordinated rather than reactive, with all regional commissions presenting unified messages and clear documentation of their structures and contributions.
- There is significant untapped potential for interregional projects and joint flagship initiatives, including in areas such as digital trade facilitation, environmental monitoring, and capacity building for resident coordinators and country teams.
- ECE acknowledges it has been lagging in the digital space and is now committed to stronger involvement, seeing value in learning from the experiences of other regional commissions.
- The High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) should consistently include a digital component, and regional commissions should coordinate systematically to ensure this happens each year.
- The concept of the 'information society' is being portrayed as outdated by some actors, but participants argue it is an evolving and encompassing framework that underpins digital transformation and should be defended.
- ITU's strategic and policy role as a driver of digital transformation is insufficiently recognised by other parts of the UN system, which tends to view it primarily as a technical or IT body.
- Capacity building for resident coordinators and country teams on digital issues is an area where regional commissions are well placed to lead, through co-created training programmes developed jointly with ITU and other partners.
“I think it's enough with proving the relevance. It's really now think about more provision. Regardless of what will happen at the end of the year, there will be something for the regional reserve.”
“We should also think about people who are not around this table. So these are people from New York, ECOSOC, all regional formations are supposed to be under ECOSOC. But it's not often that I see people from ECOSOC being involved in our space.”
“New York has to understand that in particular in the context of the regional reset, to say that on the digital, we are set. You have the other UN agencies at the regional level working with you, you are leading, and there is no need to target. Because you are advocating for the only digital-related processes at the regional level.”
“I think we need to see how we leverage much more the regional commissions as a bridge between the global conversations and the regional realities and national realities... But I think probably one of the challenges there is how to give much more visibility about what we're really treating the principle of digital transformation.”
“Somebody said, we are from the national side. Member states? No, no, national. And he said, we don't need regional commissions. We work directly with us and the agencies and so on. And that's enough.”
“I think somehow it's also healthy. It avoids for us to kind of get sleepy, to kind of rigid, but to understand that it also creates stress. And I think we need to stay calm and to see if it's only some individual people who are trying to kind of poke or to have some local interest, or if there are some real, strategic shifts behind, in which case we should react much more strongly.”
“Why don't we do a small thing to strengthen you, one plus one, the principle plus some other. All the five leaders come here, who is the five-plus-one, and we sit with ten to twelve people and strategise on the regional commissions and that's the point.”
How can regional commissions develop a single, common position for all National Commissions to present at high-level forums such as the HLPF?
Speaker 3 explicitly raised the need to consolidate individual positions into one unified stance, referencing a 2012 attempt. A common position would strengthen the collective voice of regional commissions at global policy forums and reduce fragmentation.
How can regional commissions gain better access to and representation at the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) in New York?
Both speakers discussed the difficulty of accessing the HLPF and the need to present a clear plan of action. Understanding the pathway to meaningful participation at the HLPF is critical for ensuring digital transformation issues are represented at the highest UN policy level.
How can ECOSOC and New York-based regional formations be more actively involved in the digital space discussions led by regional commissions?
Speaker 4 noted that ECOSOC stakeholders are rarely present in these discussions despite regional commissions formally falling under ECOSOC. Greater involvement would improve coherence between global governance structures and regional digital agendas.
How can ESCAP be better integrated into the interregional digital collaboration platform, given its absence from current discussions?
Speaker 1 noted that ESCAP was not present and that reaching out to them would bring the group to near-full representation of regional commissions. Understanding how to engage ESCAP is important for achieving truly interregional coordination.
What interregional projects or initiatives could be jointly developed by regional commissions to address shared digital transformation challenges?
Speaker 5 raised the idea of interregional projects as a key challenge, and Speaker 4 followed up by requesting specific suggestions. Identifying concrete joint projects would move collaboration from concept to action and demonstrate the added value of interregional cooperation.
How can the UN CEFACT digital trade facilitation model be replicated or adapted for use in other regions, such as the Arab States region?
Speaker 1 directly asked Speaker 4 how the UN CEFACT model works and how it could be applied in their region. Understanding the replication mechanism is important for expanding successful digital trade solutions to new contexts.
How are regional commissions using AI tools, smart city technologies, and other digital tools to address environmental challenges, and how can this be coordinated globally?
Speaker 4 explicitly raised this as an open topic for further exploration, noting that environmental impact is inherently global and requires cross-regional digital coordination. This area requires further research to map existing tools and identify gaps.
How can regional commissions better document and communicate their existing digital coordination structures (e.g., Regional Collaboration Platforms) to New York and global stakeholders?
Speaker 6 highlighted that New York stakeholders are unaware of existing regional digital structures, and Speaker 5 echoed the need to coordinate messaging. Putting these structures clearly on paper would help counter misunderstandings and protect the role of regional commissions.
How can regional commissions develop an annual plan with measurable KPIs for their digital coordination activities to demonstrate accountability and relevance?
Speaker 6 suggested that having a structured annual plan with KPIs would make the work of regional commissions more visible and defensible, particularly in the context of the regional reset and scrutiny from New York.
What is the nature and strategic intent behind recent challenges to the relevance of regional commissions, and how should the group respond collectively?
Multiple speakers discussed comments made in a recent interagency meeting questioning the need for regional commissions. Understanding whether these represent individual opinions or a broader strategic shift is critical for formulating an appropriate collective response.
How can the concept of the 'information society' be revitalised and defended as a relevant, overarching framework for digital transformation, rather than being seen as outdated?
Speaker 1 raised concern that the notion of the information society is being dismissed as outdated, and argued it is in fact evolving and encompassing. Further research and advocacy are needed to reframe this concept for contemporary digital governance discussions.
How can regional commissions organise dedicated forums or sessions on digital transformation, learning from each other's experiences and potentially partnering with ITU?
Speaker 4 noted that ECE has not yet organised such forums and expressed interest in learning from other regional commissions. Identifying best practices and partnership models would help ECE and others establish effective digital transformation forums.
Could a small, focused strategic meeting of five regional commission leaders (plus one) be organised during the year to develop a shared vision and strategy for regional commissions in the digital space?
Speaker 1 proposed a one-to-two-day meeting of regional commission leaders to strategise on digital futures and the role of regional commissions. This requires follow-up on logistics, agenda-setting, and securing participation from all five regional commissions.
How can capacity-building programmes on AI and cybersecurity, co-created with ITU and UNDP, be scaled and shared across all regional commissions and their country teams?
Speaker 6 described a successful model in their region where AI and cyber training is co-created and delivered to resident coordinators and country teams every two months. Exploring how this model can be replicated interregionally would strengthen the UN development system's digital capacity.
How can the coordination mandate of regional commissions in the digital space (as referenced in resolution 8170, paragraph 108) be better formalised and communicated to prevent duplication and marginalisation by other UN entities?
Speaker 6 referenced a specific resolution paragraph that mandates regional commissions to coordinate digital activities, but noted this is not widely known or enforced. Clarifying and publicising this mandate is essential for protecting the institutional role of regional commissions.
How can the visibility of regional digital transformation work, such as the PILA initiative in Latin America and the Caribbean, be increased at both the global and national levels?
Speaker 5 noted that despite significant work being done, there is insufficient visibility of regional digital transformation efforts among New York stakeholders and resident coordinators. Identifying communication and advocacy strategies to address this gap is a priority.