WSIS Action Line C1: WSIS+20 in Action: Implementation, Cooperation and Review – Part I
The discussion focused on how to develop stronger WSIS action line roadmaps, especially for C1 on the role of governments and all stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development. The session addressed questions on how to improve reporting to the CSTD to be more useful for implementation and policy guidance . Angel González Sanz explained that the Secretariat should produce a short synthetic report from action line inputs. The challenge is in the uneven quality of submissions, prompting a new emphasis from member states on targeted, result-oriented roadmaps linked to SDG targets, GDC commitments, and measurable indicators . He said contributors should provide three types of input: evidence of implementation, analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy recommendations, with more candid and less formulaic reporting on what is and is not working . He also urged stronger use of indicators and engagement with the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development to support evidence-based reporting .
Anriette Esterhuysen argued that C1 sits at the heart of WSIS’s collaborative multistakeholder model, but participation should go beyond simply having representatives from each stakeholder group present . She called for more targeted and collaborative planning at action line level, especially at national and regional levels, and stressed that gender must be explicitly included in roadmaps and participation design . She also suggested that CSTD reporting could become more focused and granular, possibly alternating synthetic reports with issue-specific ones, using examples such as meaningful connectivity to generate more actionable evidence .
Carl Gahnberg described roadmaps as essential because WSIS has many commitments about what should be done but less clarity on how to achieve them . He proposed breaking broad action lines such as C1 into manageable subcomponents, then using metrics, targets, country categories, and maturity models to show current status, desired outcomes, and pathways to progress . He added that roadmaps could help shift WSIS from retrospective reporting towards forward planning, and noted that his organisation had already published a sample roadmap for a C2 subcomponent on Internet Exchange Points . Deniz Susar clarified that no action-line roadmaps yet exist for C1-C11, that facilitators are still developing them, and that submissions are expected by mid-November .
Other speakers broadened the discussion by stressing implementation conditions, local participation, and institutional linkages. Janis Karklins argued that any roadmap must rest on preserving the Internet as a single, open, secure, resilient, and interoperable global network through technically informed multistakeholder cooperation . Jennifer Chung suggested using the IGF, MAG, and over 180 national and regional initiatives to gather granular local input and translate global commitments into practical action, while noting that the challenge is not a lack of recommendations but weak implementation . Questions from the floor highlighted the roles of local government, civil society, and Global South perspectives in inclusive national planning , and speakers closed by stressing the need for holistic, inclusive, and time-bound follow-up through future sessions and the current IGF cycle .
- The overall purpose of the discussion was to shape what a future WSIS Action Line C1 roadmap and related reporting should look like, so that inputs to the CSTD become more evidence-based, actionable, and useful for implementation, policy guidance, and alignment with SDGs and the Global Digital Compact.
- Participants stressed that current CSTD/WSIS reporting needs to improve in quality, structure, and usefulness, with a stronger emphasis on evidence, gaps, and concrete policy recommendations. Angel González Sanz explained that reports are constrained in size and often cannot reflect the full breadth of action-line work, while also noting that input quality is sometimes weak. He said contributors should provide evidence of implementation, clear analysis of gaps and needs, identification of emerging challenges, and practical policy suggestions to support CSTD negotiations.
- A central theme was that WSIS roadmaps should become a core organising tool for future work, shifting the process from broad commitments and retrospective reporting towards planning and implementation. Carl Gahnberg argued that WSIS has strong commitments about what to do, but not enough clarity on how to do it. He described roadmaps as tools to define the current situation, desired future state, and steps to bridge the gap, and suggested they could focus discussion and make reporting more forward-looking.
- Speakers argued that Action Line C1 is very broad and may need to be broken into more manageable components, supported by metrics, categorisation, and sub-roadmaps. Carl noted that C1 covers many disparate issues, from national e-strategies to financing and indigenous-community dialogue, making implementation difficult unless grouped into coherent clusters. He proposed measurable baselines, ambitious targets, and differentiated pathways for countries depending on whether they lack, need to update, or need to implement e-strategies. He also pointed to a sample C2 sub-roadmap as a possible model.
- There was strong support for deeper, more meaningful multistakeholder participation, especially at national and regional level, rather than simply having nominal representation from stakeholder groups. Anriette Esterhuysen emphasised substantive collaboration, targeted planning, and ensuring the right participants are involved, with particular attention to gender and meaningful inclusion. Jennifer Chung added that the IGF ecosystem and its 180+ national, regional, and youth initiatives could supply the granular local input needed to translate global commitments into practical action. Questions from the floor also highlighted inclusion of local government and civil society, especially in the Global South.
- Several interventions underlined the need to update C1 to reflect current digital realities while preserving a holistic WSIS approach, including Internet governance, AI, digital inclusion, and cross-cutting institutions such as libraries. Janis Karklins stressed that all roadmaps depend on preserving an open, stable, secure, resilient, and interoperable Internet through technically informed, multistakeholder cooperation. Howard Wachtel raised AI-related workforce and skills implications, recommending partnerships that build trusted local capability. Deniz and Anriette both noted that C1 language is outdated, but Anriette cautioned that updates should not lose the holistic strength of WSIS. Carl also used libraries as an example of why structured roadmaps are needed to reveal cross-cutting roles in access and capacity-building.
- The overall tone was constructive, policy-focused, and collaborative throughout. Early on, it was candid and somewhat critical, especially regarding weak reporting quality and the need for less “politically correct” feedback. As the discussion progressed, the tone became more solution-oriented and forward-looking, with participants offering practical ideas on roadmap design, multistakeholder engagement, metrics, and institutional collaboration. By the end, it took on a mild sense of urgency because of time constraints and the mid-November roadmap deadline, while still remaining cooperative and action-oriented.
The session focused on what a future WSIS Action Line C1 roadmap should contain, how reporting to the CSTD could be improved, and how broad WSIS commitments could be translated into more actionable implementation guidance . Much of the discussion centred on making reporting more useful for implementation, linking future work more clearly to the SDGs and the Global Digital Compact, and helping action line facilitators provide inputs that the CSTD can actually use .
Angel González Sanz began by outlining the practical constraints facing the CSTD Secretariat. Each year it receives inputs from action line facilitators and other contributors and must condense them into a short synthetic report for member states . Because of documentation limits and resource pressures, that report cannot capture everything in detail, which makes the quality and structure of incoming contributions especially important . He said member states had recognised weaknesses in the current process and that the WSIS+20 outcome document now gives clearer guidance on what they want to see in future reporting .
Angel explained that the expectation is no longer for broad narrative updates, but for roadmaps with targeted, result-oriented implementation goals linked to relevant SDG targets and GDC commitments . He stressed the importance of targets, indicators and metrics for monitoring progress, and argued that reporting needs to become more evidence-based . He said the Secretariat particularly wants three kinds of input: evidence of implementation efforts rather than statements of intent , analysis of gaps and needs , and concrete suggestions and policy recommendations that the CSTD can use . He also criticised the “inertia” in some reporting, where familiar points are repeated without showing what has changed or what new trends and challenges have emerged .
A further point from Angel was the need for more candid reporting. He called for “less politically correct reporting” and more direct assessment of what is and is not working, including where progress is lagging, why obstacles persist, what capacity needs remain unmet, and what successful practices could be replicated . He linked this to the Commission’s limited meeting time, arguing that the CSTD needs concentrated and practical inputs if it is to support useful negotiations and policy guidance . He also gave examples of the type of evidence member states increasingly want: many countries have digital strategies and institutional reforms, but there is too little follow-up on how those arrangements work in practice two or three years later . For C1 specifically, he suggested focusing on whole-of-government digital strategies, digital public services, inclusion in policymaking, institutional capacity and international cooperation . He also encouraged stronger engagement with the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development to improve indicator work . Angel closed by saying he was keen to hear participants’ suggestions on how the Secretariat could better use the information they are able to provide .
Anriette Esterhuysen shifted the discussion towards the quality of multistakeholder participation behind Action Line C1. She argued that C1 sits at the core of WSIS because it concerns the role of public authorities and all stakeholders in promoting ICTs for development . However, she warned that multistakeholderism is too often treated as a matter of simply having different stakeholder groups present, rather than ensuring meaningful collaboration and selecting participants according to the issue being addressed . She argued for a more targeted and collaborative planning process for each action line, with particular attention to national and regional participation, since effective global engagement depends on participation closer to the point of implementation .
Anriette also highlighted gender as a missing element in the draft roadmap she had seen and argued that it should be built explicitly into goals, methods and participation choices . Referring to the NetMundial São Paulo guidelines, she argued that evidence-based policy and inclusive participation need to go together . On reporting design, she accepted the CSTD Secretariat’s synthesis constraints but suggested redesigning the reporting process itself. Since the CSTD now works on a two-year reporting cycle, she proposed alternating more granular, issue-specific reporting with more synthetic reporting . She suggested that reporting forms could be made more focused so that contributors provide deeper evidence on selected themes rather than broad generic updates . As an example, she proposed meaningful connectivity as a topic for dedicated granular reporting, looked at from infrastructure, demand, capacity and user-group perspectives, including indigenous communities and women .
Carl Gahnberg then set out a clearer conceptual framework for roadmaps. He said he and his colleagues were excited by the inclusion of roadmaps in the WSIS+20 outcome document because they saw them as critical to improving the WSIS process . In his view, WSIS has many strong commitments about what should be done, but much less clarity about how to do it . He said a roadmap should identify where we are today, where we want to be tomorrow, and how to bridge that gap . He also said the action lines are broad and “a little bit blurry”, and illustrated this with C1, which covers issues ranging from national e-strategies and public-private partnerships to indigenous-community dialogue, international organisation strategies and financing . Because of this breadth, he suggested that facilitators should not try to address C1 all at once, but should instead group commitments into more coherent clusters and develop sub-roadmaps .
Carl used e-strategies as an example. A roadmap should begin with a baseline, such as how many countries currently have an e-strategy . It should then set an ambition for the coming years, and he suggested that universal national e-strategies ought to be achievable after two decades of WSIS . He then distinguished between countries with no e-strategy, countries with outdated strategies, and countries with sound strategies on paper but weak implementation . He mentioned artificial intelligence as one reason older strategies may need updating . To deal with these different situations, he proposed a maturity-model approach that shows where countries stand and what steps they need to take next . He also said roadmaps could help shift WSIS from a mainly retrospective reporting exercise towards a more forward-looking planning process . Later, he said his organisation had published a paper on the value of roadmaps and, within it, had developed an example roadmap for one subcomponent of Action Line C2, namely Internet Exchange Points, as a model that might inspire facilitators working on other action lines .
Deniz Susar then clarified that there is not yet any completed roadmap for C1 to C11 . She explained that some confusion arose because a separate UNGIS joint implementation roadmap, referred to in paragraph 22 of the outcome document, had already been presented to the CSTD . The action-line-specific roadmaps are still being developed, and later she stressed that facilitators are expected to provide them by mid-November at the latest .
Janis Karklins added that all such planning depends on one basic condition: the Internet must continue to function as a single global ecosystem . He argued that any roadmap should include the need to preserve the Internet as open, stable, secure, resilient and interoperable . He explained that this depends on many actors voluntarily coordinating the technical functions that allow the Internet to operate as one network, and pointed to ICANN’s role in coordinating unique identifiers, including the domain name system . He said avoiding fragmentation requires continued coordination, respect for existing roles, open standards, interoperable technologies and meaningful multistakeholder participation . As practical examples, he referred to work on universal acceptance and internationalised domain names, where governments, industry, the technical community, civil society and academia all have roles to play . He added that the IGF remains an important forum for dialogue and also encouraged participation in ICANN’s own multistakeholder processes .
Howard Wachtel’s brief intervention, as captured in the transcript, focused on looking at AI through the lens of tasks associated with occupations, distinguishing between tasks AI may replace, tasks where it augments human judgement, and tasks where human judgement remains necessary . He said this perspective can help identify the skills people need to use AI with agency and judgement, and he concluded with one practical recommendation for the C1 roadmap: prioritise partnerships that build trusted local capability and capacity . Following interventions from the technical community and Microsoft, Deniz observed that the language of C1 now appears outdated and may need to be refreshed in light of AI and current needs .
Jennifer Chung, speaking in part as MAG Chair, focused on how global commitments could be turned into national, regional and local implementation. She noted that C1 and many other action lines are broad, and asked how the IGF, the MAG and the wider network of National and Regional Initiatives could help translate WSIS+20 commitments into action . She stressed the value of candid and granular input, and argued that the more than 180 national, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives are especially useful because they are rooted in local realities and can provide grounded evidence about implementation . She also said the IGF should be seen not only as an annual event but as a wider ecosystem with intersessional work that can feed into the WSIS process . In her view, the MAG has a bridging role in connecting IGF outputs more directly to the action lines, and one practical step would be to review existing IGF outputs through that lens and target them more intentionally towards implementation needs . She concluded that the problem is not a lack of recommendations or commitments, but implementation and clarity about what actually happens in practice . Deniz strongly supported the idea of using the IGF network and NRIs as input channels for action line roadmaps .
Questions from the floor pushed the discussion towards delivery actors and inclusion. Stephen Wyber from the International Federation of Library Associations asked how national plans would account for local governments, which often control important levers for digital inclusion . He also referred to OECD work on effective digital plans and asked how such frameworks could be adapted beyond OECD and Global North contexts . Another audience member asked how to ensure that the C1 implementation roadmap genuinely reaches civil society, particularly in relation to the Global South, rather than merely reaffirming inclusion on paper . These questions pushed the discussion towards the role of local authorities, the design of effective national plans, and the challenge of adapting planning frameworks across different contexts .
In response, Anriette returned to the issue of fragmentation. She said digital transformation is increasingly split across silos such as AI, digital public infrastructure and cybersecurity, whereas one of WSIS’s strengths is its holistic approach . She argued for holistic and inclusive national spaces that bring together local government, academia, gender inclusion, meaningful access, AI and cybersecurity within one framework . She also argued that C1 should be updated, but in a way that preserves the holistic character she sees as one of WSIS’s main strengths . Carl added, in response to Stephen Wyber’s question, that libraries are an example of a cross-cutting institution that roadmaps can make more visible; if an e-strategy does not recognise libraries, it misses important implementation opportunities in access and capacity-building .
The session also highlighted two complementary channels for gathering multistakeholder input. Jennifer and Deniz stressed the value of the IGF network and NRIs for grounded, local evidence , while Vladimir from ITU reminded participants that the WSIS Forum has long served as a platform for multistakeholder dialogue and input into international reporting processes . He said ITU was keen to continue collaborating on the roadmaps and on the outcomes of the session .
In the closing exchanges, Jennifer emphasised that there is limited time and that the community needs to produce something useful in the current cycle . Deniz then added a practical reminder that post offices are also important delivery actors for e-strategies and noted that there would be a 4 p.m. session on that topic . She also said this discussion was part of a series and pointed participants to another related session on Friday, session 3.14, from 10:00 to 10:45 in Palexpo .
Overall, participants agreed that CSTD reporting needs to be more candid, evidence-based and useful for implementation; that roadmaps should help move from broad commitments to practical next steps; and that C1 will need clearer metrics, some internal structuring, and updated treatment of current issues such as AI . They also stressed that implementation depends on meaningful multistakeholder participation, local and regional input, and technical conditions that keep the Internet open, stable, secure, resilient and interoperable . The immediate next step was that action line facilitators would need to produce usable roadmaps by mid-November, with the wider WSIS and IGF communities helping to provide evidence, priorities and practical ideas .
The knowledge base confirms that the CSTD has had, since 2005, the mandate to serve as the focal point for system-wide follow-up to implementation of the WSIS outcomes [S15]. It also notes that the WSIS implementation progress reporting chain runs through the CSTD and ECOSOC [S108].
This is supported by the WSIS+20 outcome summary, which states that action line facilitators are requested to develop targeted implementation roadmaps linking WSIS action lines with relevant SDG targets and GDC commitments, showing clearer expectations for future reporting and follow-up [S108].
The knowledge base directly corroborates this. It says the WSIS+20 outcome document requests action line facilitators to develop targeted implementation roadmaps linking WSIS action lines with relevant SDG targets and Global Digital Compact commitments [S108].
The knowledge base adds useful context that this emphasis on measurable indicators is consistent with broader UN practice: [S69] calls for concise, robust, actionable metrics, while [S111] explains that effective monitoring should select relevant indicators and report results clearly so they can inform policy and implementation. The WSIS field has also previously highlighted the need for appropriate indicators to assess Internet and digital development [S99].
The knowledge base supports these as established themes around WSIS Action Line C1 and related lines. A WSIS action line facilitators meeting reported that C1 work covered e-government strategies, transparency, clearer language for non-specialists, inclusion of different stakeholders, public-private partnerships, and setting clear development targets [S53]. Broader WSIS material also stresses meaningful participation and institutional capacity development for smaller and developing countries [S35].
This is corroborated by reporting from the WSIS 2018 action line facilitators meeting, which noted that the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development was focused on measuring ICT for the SDGs [S53] and [S100].
The knowledge base confirms that alignment between WSIS and the GDC became a major theme in the WSIS+20 process [S15]. It further states that the outcome document includes provisions for implementation roadmaps linking WSIS action lines with SDG targets and GDC commitments, as well as a joint UNGIS roadmap to strengthen WSIS-GDC coherence [S108].
The knowledge base does not directly verify the specific reference to documentation limits, but it does provide relevant context on resource constraints in UN reporting and mandate work. For example, [S107] describes UN mandates as operating with inadequate human and financial resources, which can limit impact in practice. This supports the plausibility of the Secretariat constraint described in the report, though not the exact procedural detail.
The knowledge base adds that this kind of candid, policy-useful reporting aligns with recognised monitoring practice. [S111] stresses that reporting should communicate salient results clearly so they can inform policy, programmes, and practice. [S106] likewise notes that weak follow-up and insufficient monitoring are common problems in review systems, underscoring the value of frank assessments and replicable lessons.
Need for stronger, more structured inputs - The CSTD Secretariat needs concise but higher-quality action line inputs, with evidence of implementation, analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy recommendations rather than repetitive or weak reporting.
Arg. 1Angel argues that the CSTD Secretariat has to prepare short synthetic reports under tight documentation and resource constraints, so the quality and structure of action line inputs matter greatly. He says contributions should move beyond repetitive or weak reporting and instead provide evidence of implementation, clear analysis of gaps and needs, and usable policy recommendations.
He explains that the Secretariat must condense inputs from action line facilitators into a very limited UN report and cannot capture all underlying work, which makes poor-quality submissions especially problematic . He cites the WSIS+20 outcome document as setting expectations for targeted, results-oriented roadmaps linked to SDGs and GDC commitments, with targets, indicators and metrics for evidence-based reporting . He then specifies the three kinds of input needed: strong evidence of implementation, solid analysis of gaps and needs, and suggestions for policy recommendations, while criticising inertia and weak identification of new challenges in current reporting .
on: Broad action lines such as C1 should be made more practical through targets, indicators, categories and updated design
on: Whether broad action line reporting should stay synthetic and standardised or become more granular and issue-specific
Governments often present plans without showing results - Many member states report strategies and institutional changes, but provide too little evidence on whether plans are working in practice or improving digital public services, inclusion, capacity and cooperation.
Arg. 2Angel argues that many governments speak about strategies and institutional reforms, but do not provide enough practical evidence about implementation outcomes. He wants reporting to show whether plans are actually improving public services, inclusiveness, institutional capacity and international cooperation.
He observes that many countries now have digital strategies and changed institutional arrangements, but member states often do not know how these arrangements are functioning in practice . He adds that ministers frequently speak about plans, yet there are few follow-up statements on what happened after those plans were announced and very little information on indicators tied to action line objectives . As examples of the missing evidence, he points to all-of-government digital strategies, digital public services, inclusiveness in policymaking, institutional capacity and international cooperation .
Reporting should be more focused and granular - CSTD input forms and reporting cycles could be redesigned to gather deeper, issue-specific evidence, including more vertical analysis on topics such as meaningful connectivity.
Arg. 1Anriette argues that if the CSTD wants better evidence, it may need to redesign how it asks for inputs. She suggests more focused input forms and a reporting cycle that alternates synthetic reporting with deeper issue-specific work so that policymakers receive more granular evidence.
She suggests that the CSTD input form may need to be much more focused and notes that the new two-year reporting cycle could allow alternation between granular sectoral or issue-specific reports and more synthetic reports . As a concrete example, she proposes a report focused on meaningful connectivity, examined from infrastructure, demand-side, capacity and user-group perspectives, including indigenous communities and women, to generate the kind of detailed evidence policymakers can use .
on: WSIS action line reporting and roadmap inputs need to become more evidence-based, structured and useful for implementation
on: Whether broad action line reporting should stay synthetic and standardised or become more granular and issue-specific
Roadmaps must remain holistic and inclusive - Updating C1 should not lose the broad WSIS perspective; national processes should connect fragmented issues such as AI, cybersecurity, gender and access within one inclusive framework.
Arg. 2Anriette argues that while C1 and the WSIS framework need updating, they should retain the holistic character that is one of WSIS's strengths. She says national implementation should create inclusive spaces that connect fragmented policy areas rather than treating them separately.
In response to questions, she says digital transformation has become fragmented across issues such as AI, DPI and cybersecurity, whereas WSIS offers a holistic framework . She calls for national spaces that bring together local government, academia, AI, cybersecurity, gender inclusion and meaningful access, and says the IGF infrastructure and WSIS framework should be used together without losing that holistic approach when updating C1 language .
on: The Internet's openness, stability and interoperability are foundational conditions for all digital strategies and roadmaps
on: Whether C1 should be updated to reflect current issues such as AI or preserved primarily as a holistic framework
Participation must go beyond symbolic representation - Multistakeholder processes should involve the right actors for the issue at hand and be based on substantive collaboration, especially at national and regional levels.
Arg. 3Anriette argues that multistakeholder participation should be substantive rather than tokenistic. She says action lines need collaborative planning that identifies the right people and institutions for the issue being addressed, with particular emphasis on effective participation at national and regional levels.
She says this action line is central to WSIS's collaborative multistakeholder approach, but current practice often stops at having representatives from different stakeholder groups around the table without meaningful engagement . She therefore calls for more targeted collaborative planning per action line, ensuring the right actors participate, especially at national and regional levels, because effective global participation depends on effective participation at those levels . She also refers to the NetMundial+10 São Paulo Guidelines as useful guidance on participation .
on: National and local implementation realities should shape global WSIS work
Gender must be explicitly integrated - The roadmap approach should include gender in goals, participation and implementation design rather than omitting it.
Arg. 4Anriette argues that gender is a missing element in the draft roadmap and should be built directly into objectives, methods and participation. For her, gender inclusion is not an optional add-on but part of meaningful implementation design.
She explicitly notes that the draft roadmap she has seen does not include gender and says this is a very important consideration . She adds that gender should be factored into what is being done, how it is being done, and who should be at the table .
IGF outputs can supply actionable evidence - The IGF, MAG and NRIs can help generate grounded, local and regional evidence that can be channelled into WSIS action line reporting and implementation discussions.
Arg. 1Jennifer argues that the IGF ecosystem is well placed to produce the kind of grounded evidence that WSIS reporting and implementation need. She emphasises that the MAG and especially the network of NRIs can collect local and regional feedback and translate it into actionable material for global discussions.
She says that for broad action lines such as C1, the IGF, MAG and NRIs can help turn WSIS+20 global commitments into practical action at national, regional and local levels . She points to the 180-plus national, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives as channels for gathering feedback, testing what implementation means in local realities, and bringing that evidence back into the global conversation . She further notes that the IGF is a year-round ecosystem with valuable intersessional work that can be more deliberately linked to action line needs .
on: National and local implementation realities should shape global WSIS work
on: Whether the most practical channel for inclusive implementation input is the IGF/NRI ecosystem or established WSIS Forum processes
There is urgency to produce practical roadmap outputs - The current IGF cycle should be used to build usable roadmap material quickly, because the deadline for action line facilitators is close.
Arg. 2Jennifer argues that the present IGF cycle should be used immediately to shape practical roadmap outputs. She stresses that there is little time and that current planning needs to generate usable results quickly.
She frames her intervention as a call to action and says it is important to construct the roadmap-related work correctly in this cycle . She notes that there is not much luxury of time and that the team is trying to build this into the IGF planning so that something tangible comes out by the end of the cycle .
on: Roadmaps are needed to move WSIS from broad commitments to practical implementation planning
NRIs are a practical channel for inclusive input - The network of national, regional and youth IGF initiatives can gather local feedback, test implementation realities and feed them back into global WSIS processes.
Arg. 3Jennifer argues that the NRIs are one of the most practical mechanisms for making WSIS implementation more inclusive and grounded. They can collect evidence from communities directly affected by action lines and connect those realities back to the global policy process.
She says that the 180-plus national, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives are on the ground and can gather input, gather feedback and test what implementation means in local realities . She also says the IGF is an ecosystem that operates throughout the year and can bridge local and regional realities back into the global conversation through intersessional work and MAG coordination .
on: Implementation depends on practical capacity-building and trusted local institutions and partnerships
on: Whether the most practical channel for inclusive implementation input is the IGF/NRI ecosystem or established WSIS Forum processes
Practical implementation needs trusted local capacity - Roadmaps should prioritise partnerships that build local capability and skills, especially in relation to AI and changing work tasks.
Arg. 1Howard argues that roadmap implementation should focus on trusted local capability, particularly as AI reshapes work. He suggests looking at jobs through the tasks AI may replace, augment or leave to human judgement, so that people can build the right skills and agency.
He describes analysing occupations by separating tasks that AI could replace, tasks where AI would augment human judgement, and tasks where human judgement remains essential . He says this approach helps people understand what new skills are needed to use AI with agency and judgement, and concludes that the practical recommendation for the C1 roadmap is to prioritise partnerships that build trusted local capability and capacity .
on: Implementation depends on practical capacity-building and trusted local institutions and partnerships
Roadmaps are essential to move from commitments to implementation - WSIS has strong commitments but weak guidance on how to act; roadmaps should define the current situation, desired future state and steps to bridge the gap.
Arg. 1Carl argues that roadmaps are the missing link in WSIS because the process has many commitments but limited guidance on implementation. In his view, a roadmap should identify where things stand now, where they should go next, and how to bridge that gap, making it the organising principle for future work.
He says he was excited by the WSIS+20 outcome document's reference to roadmaps because they are critical to improving the WSIS process going forward . He argues that WSIS has strong commitments about what to do but not how to do it, and defines the basic idea of a roadmap as describing where we are today, where we should be tomorrow, and how to get between those two points . He also says roadmaps should become the organising principle for action line discussions and help move the process from reporting what has been done to planning what should happen next .
on: Roadmaps are needed to move WSIS from broad commitments to practical implementation planning
on: Whether roadmap design should begin from implementation planning within action lines or from preserving the Internet's technical integrity as a precondition
Roadmaps should use targets, indicators and categories of progress - For broad action lines such as C1, facilitators should break themes into manageable parts, assess country maturity levels and set ambitious measurable goals such as universal e-strategies.
Arg. 2Carl argues that broad action lines like C1 need to be broken into workable components if roadmaps are to be practical. He proposes using metrics, maturity categories and ambitious targets so that facilitators can assess where countries stand and what each category needs to do next.
He notes that C1 is broad and blurry, covering issues from national e-strategies and public-private partnerships to indigenous dialogue, international organisation strategies and financing, so one approach is to group commitments into coherent subsets rather than trying to roadmap the whole line at once . He then gives the example of e-strategies: facilitators should measure how many countries have one today, set a target that all governments should have one within the next couple of years, and distinguish between countries with no strategy, outdated strategies and strategies lacking implementation . He says this requires a maturity model and a roadmap that sets the starting point, the ambition and the path to get there .
on: Broad action lines such as C1 should be made more practical through targets, indicators, categories and updated design
Roadmaps can reveal cross-cutting actors such as libraries - Better structured planning would make visible the role of institutions like libraries in e-strategies, access and capacity building.
Arg. 3Carl argues that roadmaps do more than organise planning; they also help reveal actors and linkages that broad discussions may overlook. He uses libraries as an example of how structured roadmapping can show the role of institutions across multiple action areas.
Responding to Stephen Wyber, he says libraries are a perfect example because their importance becomes visible through e-strategies, and without an e-strategy that acknowledges them, countries miss their contributions . He adds that roadmaps can also show cross-cutting roles for libraries in capacity building and access questions, and that structured mapping helps illuminate such issues more clearly .
on: Implementation depends on practical capacity-building and trusted local institutions and partnerships
National plans must account for local government roles and planning models - Effective roadmaps should recognise that local governments often hold the levers for digital inclusion, and broader planning frameworks may need adaptation beyond OECD contexts.
Arg. 1Stephen argues that national planning for digital inclusion should not overlook the role of local government, which often controls practical delivery levers. He also asks whether planning approaches such as OECD work on digital policy can be adapted into broader frameworks that work for all countries, not only OECD members.
He asks how the development of national plans will take account of local governments, noting that while plans speak about local needs, local governments often hold many of the levers for ensuring digital inclusion . He also refers to OECD work on digital planning and asks how its parameters for an effective plan, including trade-offs, might be adapted beyond a primarily Global North context into broader ideas for all countries .
on: National and local implementation realities should shape global WSIS work
Local public institutions are important for delivery - Libraries, and by extension other local institutions, are important actors for digital inclusion and implementation of e-strategies.
Arg. 2Stephen argues that implementation depends not only on national policy but also on local delivery institutions. By highlighting libraries, he points to the broader role of public institutions in making digital inclusion real on the ground.
He introduces himself from the International Federation of Library Associations and links his question on planning directly to local delivery, stressing that local governments hold levers for digital inclusion . His intervention implies that institutions connected to local governance and community access, such as libraries, are central to implementation even if they are not always foregrounded in national planning .
on: Implementation depends on practical capacity-building and trusted local institutions and partnerships
Roadmaps should make inclusion real for civil society and the Global South - Implementation must reach stakeholders such as civil society in practice and not remain only a paper commitment.
Arg. 1The audience speaker argues that roadmap implementation must genuinely reach civil society, particularly in the Global South, rather than simply reaffirm inclusion in formal documents. The concern is about practical uptake and meaningful stakeholder participation in implementation.
The speaker says the discussion resonates in terms of bridging with the Global South and asks how the C1 implementation roadmap can actually reach civil society as a stakeholder instead of merely being reaffirmed on paper .
on: Meaningful multistakeholder participation must go beyond token representation and be rooted in substantive, inclusive engagement
ITU offers an established platform for multistakeholder dialogue - The WSIS Forum has served as a venue for gathering stakeholder input and linking it to broader reporting and international processes, and ITU is ready to continue collaborating.
Arg. 2The audience intervention from ITU argues that ITU already provides a practical multistakeholder platform through the WSIS Forum and related mechanisms. It presents ITU as willing to continue collaborating and feeding stakeholder input into wider reporting and international processes.
Speaking on behalf of ITU, the speaker says the organisation has hosted the WSIS Forum since 2009 as a platform for multistakeholder dialogue, receiving input and feeding it into other international processes and reporting mechanisms . He adds that ITU has received positive feedback from CSTD members and the wider international community and is ready to collaborate with everyone on the outcomes of the session and future work .
on: Meaningful multistakeholder participation must go beyond token representation and be rooted in substantive, inclusive engagement
on: Whether the most practical channel for inclusive implementation input is the IGF/NRI ecosystem or established WSIS Forum processes
Technical coordination depends on inclusive multistakeholder governance - Preserving an open, stable, secure, resilient and interoperable Internet requires cooperation among governments, industry, civil society, academia, the technical community and international organisations.
Arg. 1Janis argues that the technical functioning of the Internet depends on continuous coordination across stakeholder groups, not just governmental action. He presents inclusive multistakeholder governance as essential to preserving the Internet's openness, stability, security, resilience and interoperability.
He says keeping the Internet open, stable, secure, resilient and interoperable is a shared responsibility of all stakeholders and that the network works because many actors voluntarily coordinate the technical functions that allow it to operate as one global network . He further states that implementation of WSIS+20 outcomes should be technically informed, inclusive and grounded in the multistakeholder model, with cooperation among governments, business, civil society, academia, the technical community and international organisations because each contributes expertise others cannot provide alone .
on: Meaningful multistakeholder participation must go beyond token representation and be rooted in substantive, inclusive engagement
Internet stability is a precondition for any roadmap - No digital plan can succeed unless stakeholders preserve the Internet as one global ecosystem.
Arg. 2Janis argues that all digital roadmaps depend on a prior condition: the continued functioning of the Internet as a single global ecosystem. Without that technical foundation, implementation of any plan becomes difficult regardless of how good the roadmap looks on paper.
He says that from the technical community perspective, stakeholders may build whatever plans they want, but there is an underlying condition for implementation: making sure the Internet is working . He then states that one roadmap element should be the premise that governments and all stakeholders continue working together to preserve the Internet as one global ecosystem, adding that without this, implementation of roadmaps may be difficult .
on: The Internet's openness, stability and interoperability are foundational conditions for all digital strategies and roadmaps
on: Whether roadmap design should begin from implementation planning within action lines or from preserving the Internet's technical integrity as a precondition
Avoiding fragmentation requires respect for existing roles and standards - Continued coordination, open standards, interoperable technologies and multistakeholder governance are necessary to prevent fragmentation.
Arg. 3Janis argues that preventing fragmentation of the Internet requires preserving established technical and governance arrangements. He stresses the need for continued coordination, respect for existing international roles, open standards and interoperable technologies within a multistakeholder model.
He notes that ICANN has coordinated the Internet unique identifier system for nearly 30 years, helping keep the domain name system stable, secure and globally interoperable . He then says preserving or preventing fragmentation requires continuing coordination, respect for existing international roles, open standards, interoperable technologies and meaningful multistakeholder participation .
on: The Internet's openness, stability and interoperability are foundational conditions for all digital strategies and roadmaps
Universal acceptance shows how cooperation delivers inclusion - Work on internationalised domain names illustrates how governments, industry, the technical community, civil society and academia can jointly expand access across languages and scripts.
Arg. 4Janis uses universal acceptance and internationalised domain names as a concrete example of how multistakeholder cooperation can produce more inclusive Internet access. The example shows how different actors contribute complementary roles to support access across languages and scripts.
He presents universal acceptance and internationalised domain names as a practical example of cooperation, saying they demonstrate how technical work supports access to Internet services in all languages and scripts . He then explains the division of labour: governments create an enabling policy environment, industry updates systems and services, the technical community provides implementation support, and civil society and academia identify user needs and barriers .
There is no action-line-specific roadmap yet, and facilitators are now in the process of developing them alongside the broader UNGIS joint implementation roadmap
Arg. 1Deniz clarifies an important procedural point: the roadmaps being discussed for Action Lines C1 to C11 do not yet exist in final form and still have to be developed by the action line facilitators. She distinguishes these future action-line roadmaps from the separate joint implementation roadmap requested in the WSIS+20 outcome document to strengthen coherence between WSIS and the GDC.
In response to confusion in the chat, Deniz states that 'the roadmap doesn't exist for Action Line facilitators' and that for C1 to C11 'there is no roadmap yet' because 'we are developing' them . She then explains that the confusion likely comes from paragraph 22, which asks UNGIS to prepare a joint implementation roadmap to strengthen coherence between WSIS and the GDC, and notes that this separate roadmap had already been presented to the CSTD at its twenty-ninth session and could be found online .
on: Roadmaps are needed to move WSIS from broad commitments to practical implementation planning
The language of Action Line C1 is outdated and should be updated to reflect current issues such as AI and contemporary implementation needs
Arg. 2Deniz argues that the existing wording of C1 no longer fully reflects present-day digital policy realities. Drawing on the preceding interventions, she suggests that the roadmap process should modernise C1 by incorporating newer issues, especially artificial intelligence and the practical needs of the current period.
After Howard Wachtel's intervention on AI, Deniz says that what she is hearing from the last two speakers is that 'the language of C1 is really outdated' and that it needs to be updated 'with AI' and with the needs of the present time . This comment directly frames the roadmap exercise as an opportunity to revise C1 so that it better reflects current technological and policy developments .
on: Broad action lines such as C1 should be made more practical through targets, indicators, categories and updated design
on: Whether C1 should be updated to reflect current issues such as AI or preserved primarily as a holistic framework
The IGF network and NRIs can be used as input channels for action line roadmaps
Arg. 3Deniz argues that the WSIS roadmap process should make practical use of the existing IGF ecosystem, especially the National and Regional Initiatives. She presents NRIs as a useful mechanism through which action line facilitators, including business action line facilitators, can gather inputs for their roadmaps.
Following Jennifer Chung's intervention, Deniz says that the group can 'definitely make use of IGF network and NRIs' and adds that one thing participants can do is encourage business action line facilitators to use the NRIs for their inputs to the roadmaps . Her statement explicitly connects the roadmap drafting process with established IGF-linked multistakeholder input channels .
on: Meaningful multistakeholder participation must go beyond token representation and be rooted in substantive, inclusive engagement
on: Whether the most practical channel for inclusive implementation input is the IGF/NRI ecosystem or established WSIS Forum processes
Action line facilitators are working under a tight timetable, with roadmap submissions expected by mid-November at the latest
Arg. 4Deniz underlines the urgency of the roadmap process by pointing to a near-term deadline for submissions. This frames the discussion not only as conceptual but as a time-bound implementation exercise that requires rapid coordination and input gathering.
She states that action line facilitators are requested to provide their roadmaps 'latest by mid-November' and stresses that this would be 'really latest' . This scheduling detail is presented immediately after discussing how to mobilise inputs, reinforcing the message that roadmap development is already underway under significant time pressure .
Delivery actors beyond the usual digital policy institutions, such as post offices, are important for implementing e-strategies
Arg. 5Deniz argues that implementation of national digital strategies depends on practical delivery institutions that are sometimes overlooked in higher-level policy discussions. By highlighting post offices, she broadens the conversation about who matters for execution on the ground.
In her closing remarks, Deniz says that 'not only libraries but post offices are also very important in delivering e-strategies' and immediately points to a later session on the role of post offices . This places post offices alongside libraries as concrete, locally embedded institutions that can support implementation of digital strategies .
on: Implementation depends on practical capacity-building and trusted local institutions and partnerships
The WSIS community is having parallel discussions on similar roadmap issues and needs continued sessions to consolidate them
Arg. 6Deniz suggests that conversations on roadmaps and implementation are occurring across multiple sessions, often covering overlapping themes in limited time. Her point implies a need for continuity and better consolidation of discussion across the WSIS/IGF ecosystem.
She says that the series of sessions will continue, including another session before the IGF meeting on Friday, describing it as 'a continuation of this conversation' that had already started earlier in another IGF session . She then observes that participants are 'all discussing similar things in different sessions within 45 minutes', indicating fragmentation of dialogue and the need for continued engagement .
Session Knowledge Graph
Speakers · Topics · Arguments · Relationships
There was clear agreement that current reporting is often too weak, repetitive or insufficiently practical, and that future inputs should be more evidence-based, structured and implementation-oriented. Angel asked for strong evidence of implementation, solid analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy suggestions, while criticising inertia and poor-quality reporting . Anriette agreed on the need for more focused and granular reporting, suggesting more targeted input forms and issue-specific reporting such as on meaningful connectivity . Jennifer likewise argued that the IGF ecosystem, especially NRIs, can generate grounded local and regional evidence to feed into WSIS reporting and implementation .
Need for stronger, more structured inputs - The CSTD Secretariat needs concise but higher-quality action line inputs, with evidence of implementation, analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy recommendations rather than repetitive or weak reporting.
Reporting should be more focused and granular - CSTD input forms and reporting cycles could be redesigned to gather deeper, issue-specific evidence, including more vertical analysis on topics such as meaningful connectivity.
IGF outputs can supply actionable evidence - The IGF, MAG and NRIs can help generate grounded, local and regional evidence that can be channelled into WSIS action line reporting and implementation discussions.
This aligns directly with the Tunis Agenda’s call for periodic evaluation using agreed methodologies, indicators, benchmarking, national stocktaking, and strengthened statistical capacity [S71]. It is also reinforced by the WSIS+20 roadmap, which foresees templates for action-line, national, and stakeholder reporting to improve comparability and usefulness [S74]. Broader UN policy thinking likewise stresses concise but robust indicator frameworks and national capacity-building for actionable reporting [S69].
Speakers broadly converged on the idea that roadmaps are now a key instrument for WSIS implementation. Carl argued that WSIS has many commitments about what to do but insufficient guidance on how to do it, and that roadmaps should define where things stand now, where they should go, and how to bridge the gap . Angel linked this to the WSIS+20 expectation for targeted, results-oriented roadmaps with goals, indicators and metrics . Deniz clarified that action-line-specific roadmaps are still being developed and underlined the procedural importance of this work , while Jennifer stressed the need to use the current cycle to produce something practical quickly .
Roadmaps are essential to move from commitments to implementation - WSIS has strong commitments but weak guidance on how to act; roadmaps should define the current situation, desired future state and steps to bridge the gap.
Need for stronger, more structured inputs - The CSTD Secretariat needs concise but higher-quality action line inputs, with evidence of implementation, analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy recommendations rather than repetitive or weak reporting.
There is no action-line-specific roadmap yet, and facilitators are now in the process of developing them alongside the broader UNGIS joint implementation roadmap
There is urgency to produce practical roadmap outputs - The current IGF cycle should be used to build usable roadmap material quickly, because the deadline for action line facilitators is close.
This is consistent with the UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, which framed digital cooperation through practical action tracks and implementation-oriented commitments [S75]. It also has direct WSIS precedent in the Secretary-General’s WSIS+20 roadmap, which set out sequenced preparatory steps, reporting templates, and institutional processes towards implementation and review [S74].
Several speakers agreed that C1 is too broad in its current form and needs to be translated into more manageable, updated and measurable components. Carl said C1 is wide and blurry and should be broken into coherent subsets, with metrics, targets and maturity categories such as whether countries have no e-strategy, outdated strategies or implementation gaps . Angel similarly stressed the need for targeted and results-oriented roadmaps with indicators and evidence . Anriette agreed that while WSIS should remain holistic, fragmented issues such as AI, cybersecurity, gender and access need to be connected in an updated framework . Deniz explicitly stated that the language of C1 is outdated and should be updated for AI and present-day needs .
Roadmaps should use targets, indicators and categories of progress - For broad action lines such as C1, facilitators should break themes into manageable parts, assess country maturity levels and set ambitious measurable goals such as universal e-strategies.
Need for stronger, more structured inputs - The CSTD Secretariat needs concise but higher-quality action line inputs, with evidence of implementation, analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy recommendations rather than repetitive or weak reporting.
Roadmaps must remain holistic and inclusive - Updating C1 should not lose the broad WSIS perspective; national processes should connect fragmented issues such as AI, cybersecurity, gender and access within one inclusive framework.
The language of Action Line C1 is outdated and should be updated to reflect current issues such as AI and contemporary implementation needs
This reflects longstanding WSIS policy language: the Tunis Agenda explicitly calls for indicators, benchmarking, and evaluation methodologies, while stressing that indicators should reflect national circumstances and support implementation tracking [S71]. Historical WSIS texts also linked action lines to specific targets and practical national strategies, including structured multistakeholder dialogue and partnerships under C1 [S72]. Recent WSIS+20 consultations similarly noted that action lines need clearer explanation, measurable targets, and stronger links to concrete realities [S70].
A strong area of agreement was that WSIS implementation and roadmap development must be genuinely multistakeholder and inclusive, not merely representative in form. Anriette said participation often stops at having stakeholder representatives around the table and called for substantive collaboration with the right actors, especially at national and regional levels . Janis argued that preserving the Internet depends on cooperation among governments, business, civil society, academia, the technical community and international organisations . Jennifer and Deniz both highlighted NRIs and the wider IGF network as practical channels for gathering inclusive inputs . This aligned with the audience concern that civil society and the Global South should be reached in practice rather than only on paper , and with ITU's statement that the WSIS Forum already serves as a multistakeholder input platform .
Participation must go beyond symbolic representation - Multistakeholder processes should involve the right actors for the issue at hand and be based on substantive collaboration, especially at national and regional levels.
Technical coordination depends on inclusive multistakeholder governance - Preserving an open, stable, secure, resilient and interoperable Internet requires cooperation among governments, industry, civil society, academia, the technical community and international organisations.
NRIs are a practical channel for inclusive input - The network of national, regional and youth IGF initiatives can gather local feedback, test implementation realities and feed them back into global WSIS processes.
The IGF network and NRIs can be used as input channels for action line roadmaps
Roadmaps should make inclusion real for civil society and the Global South - Implementation must reach stakeholders such as civil society in practice and not remain only a paper commitment.
ITU offers an established platform for multistakeholder dialogue - The WSIS Forum has served as a venue for gathering stakeholder input and linking it to broader reporting and international processes, and ITU is ready to continue collaborating.
This is strongly grounded in WSIS and IGF practice. The WSIS Forum has been presented as an inclusive multistakeholder mechanism built through open consultations and broad stakeholder participation [S57]. Retrospective WSIS analysis emphasises that inclusion must mean meaningful and impactful participation, including bringing missing actors into processes from local to global levels [S58]. IGF reform debates also stress that legitimacy depends on bottom-up, transparent, non-hierarchical participation rather than top-down or closed-door approaches [S59].
There was agreement that implementation cannot be driven only from global discussions and must reflect national, regional and local realities. Jennifer said NRIs can gather local feedback, test implementation in practice and bridge it back into global conversations . Anriette likewise emphasised that effective global participation depends on effective participation at national and regional level . Stephen raised the need to account for local governments because they hold many of the levers for digital inclusion , and Carl responded by showing how roadmaps can make local institutions such as libraries more visible in e-strategies, capacity-building and access .
IGF outputs can supply actionable evidence - The IGF, MAG and NRIs can help generate grounded, local and regional evidence that can be channelled into WSIS action line reporting and implementation discussions.
Participation must go beyond symbolic representation - Multistakeholder processes should involve the right actors for the issue at hand and be based on substantive collaboration, especially at national and regional levels.
National plans must account for local government roles and planning models - Effective roadmaps should recognise that local governments often hold the levers for digital inclusion, and broader planning frameworks may need adaptation beyond OECD contexts.
Roadmaps can reveal cross-cutting actors such as libraries - Better structured planning would make visible the role of institutions like libraries in e-strategies, access and capacity building.
This aligns with WSIS texts that stress national circumstances, country-owned processes, and national-level information gathering involving all stakeholders [S71]. The amended WSIS policy text also frames digital targets as national strategies adapted to local, regional, and national needs, with sustainability and practical implementation in mind [S72]. Further, Global South-focused discussion around WSIS+20 explicitly centres implementation gaps, future priorities, and framework development from the perspective of developing countries [S73].
Speakers agreed that effective implementation requires more than high-level planning: it depends on local capability, partnerships and delivery institutions. Howard's practical recommendation for C1 was to prioritise partnerships that build trusted local capability and capacity, especially as AI reshapes skills needs . Jennifer's emphasis on NRIs as channels close to on-the-ground realities complemented this focus on local implementation capacity . Stephen highlighted local institutions and governance levers for digital inclusion , Carl underlined how roadmaps can reveal the roles of libraries in e-strategies, access and capacity building , and Deniz added post offices as another important delivery actor .
Practical implementation needs trusted local capacity - Roadmaps should prioritise partnerships that build local capability and skills, especially in relation to AI and changing work tasks.
NRIs are a practical channel for inclusive input - The network of national, regional and youth IGF initiatives can gather local feedback, test implementation realities and feed them back into global WSIS processes.
Local public institutions are important for delivery - Libraries, and by extension other local institutions, are important actors for digital inclusion and implementation of e-strategies.
Roadmaps can reveal cross-cutting actors such as libraries - Better structured planning would make visible the role of institutions like libraries in e-strategies, access and capacity building.
Delivery actors beyond the usual digital policy institutions, such as post offices, are important for implementing e-strategies
This is supported by WSIS and UN policy frameworks that repeatedly tie implementation to capacity-building, especially in developing countries [S71]. The UN Digital Roadmap also called for a joint ITU-UNDP digital capacity development facility and broader inclusion efforts [S75]. Practical evidence on trusted local institutions comes from analysis showing that libraries and post offices function as effective anchor institutions for digital inclusion because they already have community trust, staff, and infrastructure [S60].
There was convergence around the view that roadmap implementation rests on preserving a functioning, non-fragmented Internet. Janis said all plans depend on the underlying condition that the Internet works and remains one global ecosystem, with openness, stability, security, resilience and interoperability preserved through coordination and respect for existing roles and standards . Anriette's warning against fragmented digital transformation and her defence of the holistic WSIS framework complemented this by stressing the need to connect issues rather than split them into isolated silos .
Internet stability is a precondition for any roadmap - No digital plan can succeed unless stakeholders preserve the Internet as one global ecosystem.
Avoiding fragmentation requires respect for existing roles and standards - Continued coordination, open standards, interoperable technologies and multistakeholder governance are necessary to prevent fragmentation.
Roadmaps must remain holistic and inclusive - Updating C1 should not lose the broad WSIS perspective; national processes should connect fragmented issues such as AI, cybersecurity, gender and access within one inclusive framework.
This is consistent with broader UN digital cooperation framing, which re-emphasises openness as a core principle across digital policy and public goods [S75]. Historical WSIS+10 analysis also highlighted the growing prominence of open Internet concepts, including net neutrality, and the need to align policy language with Internet-based realities [S78]. Technical-policy discussions further warn that fragmentation, shutdowns, and poorly adapted infrastructure undermine stability and accessibility, especially in the Global South [S76].
Both argued that reporting to the CSTD needs significant improvement in structure and substance. Angel called for evidence of implementation, analysis of gaps and policy recommendations, and complained about inertia and weak-quality submissions . Anriette agreed with the diagnosis and proposed more focused input forms and more granular, issue-specific reporting to obtain stronger evidence . These speakers shared a practical implementation-oriented view of roadmaps. Carl framed roadmaps as the missing bridge from commitments to action and as an organising principle for future work . Deniz clarified that the action-line roadmaps are now being developed and that facilitators face a real deadline . Jennifer echoed the urgency and called for producing usable outputs in the current cycle . All three saw existing multistakeholder structures, especially at national and regional level, as essential to making implementation more meaningful. Anriette stressed that participation must involve the right actors and happen effectively at national and regional levels . Jennifer argued that the IGF, MAG and particularly the 180-plus NRIs can collect local evidence and channel it into global processes . Deniz endorsed this directly by saying the IGF network and NRIs should be used for roadmap inputs . Although they approached the issue from different angles, both argued against fragmentation and in favour of inclusive coordination. Janis focused on preserving one global, interoperable Internet through multistakeholder technical and policy coordination . Anriette focused on preserving the holistic WSIS approach against fragmentation across AI, cybersecurity and other issue areas . These speakers shared the view that implementation relies on often-overlooked local delivery actors. Stephen raised local governments and implied the importance of institutions such as libraries for digital inclusion . Carl responded that roadmaps can make the contribution of libraries visible across e-strategies, access and capacity building . Deniz broadened the same logic by adding post offices as important delivery actors for e-strategies . All three accepted that the roadmap discussion must address current technological realities, especially AI. Howard linked implementation to AI-related skills and trusted local capability . Deniz explicitly concluded that C1's language is outdated and should be updated with AI and current needs . Anriette similarly argued that fragmented newer issues such as AI must be incorporated while preserving a holistic framework .
An unexpected area of consensus was the relatively concrete endorsement of NRIs and the IGF ecosystem as a channel for roadmap inputs. Rather than treating IGF and WSIS as parallel spaces, Jennifer presented NRIs as on-the-ground mechanisms for gathering implementation evidence , Deniz directly encouraged action line facilitators to use NRIs for roadmap inputs , and Anriette's emphasis on effective national and regional participation strongly aligned with this approach .
A notable and somewhat unexpected consensus emerged around practical delivery actors that are not always central in digital governance debates. Stephen drew attention to local governments and, by implication, local institutions tied to digital inclusion . Carl embraced this by using libraries as an example of cross-cutting institutions whose roles become visible through roadmaps . Deniz then expanded the point by adding post offices as important implementers of e-strategies .
It was striking that speakers from different angles converged on the need to modernise C1. Howard's intervention on AI and skills prompted Deniz to say openly that C1's language is outdated and needs updating . Anriette agreed that issues such as AI and cybersecurity now shape digital transformation and should be integrated holistically . Carl's argument that C1 is broad and blurry, and should be broken into manageable components with measurable goals, reinforced the same conclusion from a structural perspective .
The discussion showed broad agreement on four central points: first, that WSIS/CSTD reporting needs stronger evidence, metrics and more candid analysis; second, that action-line roadmaps are necessary to convert broad WSIS commitments into practical implementation tools; third, that multistakeholder participation must be meaningful and anchored in national, regional and local realities; and fourth, that implementation should draw on practical actors, capacities and institutions, from NRIs to libraries and post offices .
Angel frames the central problem as the quality of inputs received by the CSTD Secretariat, stressing the need for concise, evidence-based reporting with implementation evidence, analysis of gaps, and concrete policy recommendations . Carl agrees that measurement matters, but places the main emphasis on roadmaps as the missing organising principle for WSIS, arguing that the core weakness is not only reporting quality but the lack of a structured mechanism for planning how to move from the current situation to the desired future state .
Need for stronger, more structured inputs - The CSTD Secretariat needs concise but higher-quality action line inputs, with evidence of implementation, analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy recommendations rather than repetitive or weak reporting.
Roadmaps are essential to move from commitments to implementation - WSIS has strong commitments but weak guidance on how to act; roadmaps should define the current situation, desired future state and steps to bridge the gap.
This tension mirrors two established strands in UN policy. One emphasises evidence, indicators, methodologies, stocktaking, and statistical capacity as the basis for implementation review [S71]; another emphasises roadmaps as instruments for organising coordinated follow-up and practical action [S74] [S75]. The debate is therefore not novel, but reflects an existing policy balance between measurement and implementation planning.
Angel repeatedly stresses that the Secretariat must produce a very synthetic report because of UN documentation limits and resource constraints, so contributors need to provide information in a concise, structured form that can be synthesised efficiently . Anriette instead suggests adjusting the reporting approach itself, including more focused input forms and possibly alternating synthetic reports with more granular issue-specific reporting in the two-year cycle, so that policymakers receive deeper evidence on particular topics such as meaningful connectivity . This is a disagreement over reporting design rather than over the value of evidence itself.
Need for stronger, more structured inputs - The CSTD Secretariat needs concise but higher-quality action line inputs, with evidence of implementation, analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy recommendations rather than repetitive or weak reporting.
Reporting should be more focused and granular - CSTD input forms and reporting cycles could be redesigned to gather deeper, issue-specific evidence, including more vertical analysis on topics such as meaningful connectivity.
Relevant UN measurement debates show this trade-off clearly. The Tunis Agenda supports common indicators and comparable methodologies while also recognising different national circumstances [S71]. The UN policy brief on going beyond GDP similarly argues for concise, widely accepted core metrics, but not a single over-compressed indicator, favouring a limited dashboard that still captures multidimensional realities [S69]. This provides authoritative context for the standardisation-versus-granularity dilemma.
Deniz states directly that the language of C1 is 'really outdated' and needs to be updated with AI and contemporary needs, indicating a stronger push for modernisation of the action line text . Anriette also accepts that C1 should be updated, but warns that this should not undermine the holistic nature of WSIS; for her, AI, cybersecurity, gender and access should be integrated without losing the broad inclusive framework . The disagreement is about the emphasis of reform: updating the language versus safeguarding the existing holistic structure.
The language of Action Line C1 is outdated and should be updated to reflect current issues such as AI and contemporary implementation needs
Roadmaps must remain holistic and inclusive - Updating C1 should not lose the broad WSIS perspective; national processes should connect fragmented issues such as AI, cybersecurity, gender and access within one inclusive framework.
This reflects a genuine historical-policy tension. Recent WSIS+20 consultations noted that action lines remain relevant but need agility, better implementation, and adaptation to new issues and divides [S70]. Broader analysis of WSIS’s evolution also points to emerging technologies such as AI creating new divides and requiring updated mapping and policy attention [S58]. At the same time, WSIS continuity has value because action lines were originally designed as broad, cross-cutting frameworks linked to national strategies and development goals [S72].
Carl presents roadmaps as the main vehicle for moving WSIS from commitments to implementation, focusing on identifying current status, targets and steps for areas such as e-strategies . Janis does not reject roadmaps, but argues that any such planning rests on a prior condition: the Internet must remain open, stable, secure, resilient and interoperable as one global ecosystem, otherwise implementation of any roadmap becomes difficult . This creates a difference in starting point between governance planning and technical preconditions.
Roadmaps are essential to move from commitments to implementation - WSIS has strong commitments but weak guidance on how to act; roadmaps should define the current situation, desired future state and steps to bridge the gap.
Internet stability is a precondition for any roadmap - No digital plan can succeed unless stakeholders preserve the Internet as one global ecosystem.
This disagreement is illuminated by two policy traditions: WSIS implementation frameworks rooted in action lines, reporting, and development planning [S71] [S74], and Internet governance thinking that treats openness, interoperability, and resistance to fragmentation as preconditions for digital development [S75] [S76]. The issue is therefore about sequencing and framing rather than incompatible goals.
Jennifer argues strongly that the IGF ecosystem, especially the 180-plus NRIs and intersessional work, is the best route for turning broad WSIS commitments into grounded national, regional and local input and actionable evidence . Deniz explicitly supports using the IGF network and NRIs as input channels for roadmap development . By contrast, the ITU representative highlights the WSIS Forum, hosted since 2009, as an existing multistakeholder platform already gathering input and feeding it into reporting and international processes, implying a different institutional centre of gravity for consultation and coordination .
IGF outputs can supply actionable evidence - The IGF, MAG and NRIs can help generate grounded, local and regional evidence that can be channelled into WSIS action line reporting and implementation discussions.
NRIs are a practical channel for inclusive input - The network of national, regional and youth IGF initiatives can gather local feedback, test implementation realities and feed them back into global WSIS processes.
The IGF network and NRIs can be used as input channels for action line roadmaps
ITU offers an established platform for multistakeholder dialogue - The WSIS Forum has served as a venue for gathering stakeholder input and linking it to broader reporting and international processes, and ITU is ready to continue collaborating.
Both channels have authoritative grounding. The WSIS Forum is formally presented as an efficient multistakeholder coordination and input mechanism, including for WSIS+20 review preparations [S57] [S74]. In parallel, IGF-related debates and IGF+ proposals position the IGF ecosystem as a bottom-up, inclusive, practical venue for broader digital cooperation input and follow-up [S59] [S77].
An unexpected point of divergence is not over goals but over which existing institution should be the main channel for inclusive input. Jennifer and Deniz emphasise the IGF, MAG and NRIs as the practical ecosystem for collecting local and regional evidence for roadmaps . The ITU intervention instead foregrounds the WSIS Forum as the long-standing multistakeholder platform already performing that role and feeding into reporting and international processes . This is unexpected because both sides support multistakeholder input, yet they imply different hubs for coordination.
This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers broadly support reform. Deniz openly characterises C1 language as outdated and calls for updating it with AI and current needs . Anriette does not resist updating, but cautions that the holistic WSIS approach is a strength and should not be lost in the process of modernisation . The divergence is subtle but important: one side stresses revision, the other continuity through integration.
The discussion showed relatively low to moderate disagreement. Speakers largely shared the same broad goals: stronger implementation, better evidence, meaningful multistakeholder participation, and more effective WSIS action line roadmaps . Most differences concerned emphasis and method: synthetic versus granular reporting , roadmap-centred planning versus reporting-centred improvement , updating C1 for AI versus preserving WSIS holism , and whether the IGF/NRI ecosystem or the WSIS Forum should be the main vehicle for consultation .
All three support evidence-based policymaking and better inputs for WSIS/CSTD work. Angel wants concise, candid and structured evidence with implementation proof, gap analysis and recommendations . Anriette agrees on the need for better evidence but thinks this requires more focused and granular reporting design, possibly through issue-specific reports . Jennifer also supports stronger evidence, but emphasises generating it through the IGF, MAG and NRI ecosystem as a bridge from local realities to global processes . They agree on the goal of better evidence, but differ on the mechanism for producing and organising it.
Need for stronger, more structured inputs - The CSTD Secretariat needs concise but higher-quality action line inputs, with evidence of implementation, analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy recommendations rather than repetitive or weak reporting. Reporting should be more focused and granular - CSTD input forms and reporting cycles could be redesigned to gather deeper, issue-specific evidence, including more vertical analysis on topics such as meaningful connectivity. IGF outputs can supply actionable evidence - The IGF, MAG and NRIs can help generate grounded, local and regional evidence that can be channelled into WSIS action line reporting and implementation discussions.
All three accept that current digital realities, particularly AI, must be reflected in roadmap work. Howard frames AI as changing work tasks and skill needs and therefore calls for partnerships that build trusted local capability . Deniz responds by saying this shows that C1 language is outdated and should be updated with AI and current needs . Anriette likewise accepts the need for updating, but insists it must be done without losing the holistic WSIS framework and by keeping fragmented issues connected in inclusive national processes . The shared goal is updating C1 for present realities; the disagreement concerns whether the emphasis should be textual modernisation, holistic integration, or capacity-building practice.
The language of Action Line C1 is outdated and should be updated to reflect current issues such as AI and contemporary implementation needs Roadmaps must remain holistic and inclusive - Updating C1 should not lose the broad WSIS perspective; national processes should connect fragmented issues such as AI, cybersecurity, gender and access within one inclusive framework. Practical implementation needs trusted local capacity - Roadmaps should prioritise partnerships that build local capability and skills, especially in relation to AI and changing work tasks.
There is broad agreement that multistakeholder participation must be meaningful and inclusive. Anriette criticises tokenistic representation and argues for substantive collaboration with the right actors, especially at national and regional level . Jennifer sees NRIs and the IGF ecosystem as the practical way to gather grounded input and connect local realities to global processes . The audience intervention raises concern that implementation must genuinely reach civil society and the Global South rather than remain on paper . Janis also endorses inclusive multistakeholder governance, but from the perspective of preserving the Internet's technical functioning through cooperation among all stakeholder groups . They agree on inclusion as a goal but differ in emphasis: process design, institutional channels, social reach, or technical coordination.
Participation must go beyond symbolic representation - Multistakeholder processes should involve the right actors for the issue at hand and be based on substantive collaboration, especially at national and regional levels. NRIs are a practical channel for inclusive input - The network of national, regional and youth IGF initiatives can gather local feedback, test implementation realities and feed them back into global WSIS processes. Roadmaps should make inclusion real for civil society and the Global South - Implementation must reach stakeholders such as civil society in practice and not remain only a paper commitment. Technical coordination depends on inclusive multistakeholder governance - Preserving an open, stable, secure, resilient and interoperable Internet requires cooperation among governments, industry, civil society, academia, the technical community and international organisations.
These speakers agree that implementation depends on ground-level delivery actors often overlooked in high-level strategy. Stephen asks how national plans will account for local governments, which often hold the levers for digital inclusion . Carl responds that roadmaps can make visible the cross-cutting role of libraries in e-strategies, access and capacity building . Deniz extends this point by adding post offices as another important delivery actor in e-strategies . They share the goal of more grounded implementation, but approach it through different institutional examples and planning tools.
National plans must account for local government roles and planning models - Effective roadmaps should recognise that local governments often hold the levers for digital inclusion, and broader planning frameworks may need adaptation beyond OECD contexts. Roadmaps can reveal cross-cutting actors such as libraries - Better structured planning would make visible the role of institutions like libraries in e-strategies, access and capacity building. Delivery actors beyond the usual digital policy institutions, such as post offices, are important for implementing e-strategies
- The CSTD Secretariat needs much stronger, more structured inputs from WSIS action line facilitators: concise evidence of implementation, candid analysis of gaps and needs, and concrete policy recommendations rather than repetitive or weak reporting.
- Future WSIS/CSTD reporting should be evidence-based and linked to targeted implementation goals, SDG targets and GDC commitments, using indicators, metrics and measurable results.
- Roadmaps were seen as a critical tool for moving WSIS from broad commitments to practical implementation by showing the current state, desired future state and the steps needed to bridge the gap.
- Because Action Line C1 is broad and somewhat outdated, participants suggested breaking it into manageable subcomponents, using maturity categories for countries, and updating it to reflect current issues such as AI while keeping the broader WSIS perspective.
- Roadmaps and reporting should remain holistic and inclusive, connecting fragmented policy areas such as AI, cybersecurity, digital inclusion, gender and access rather than treating them in isolation.
- Meaningful multistakeholder participation must go beyond symbolic representation and involve the right actors for the specific issue, particularly at national and regional levels.
- Gender was identified as insufficiently reflected in the current roadmap approach and should be explicitly integrated into goals, participation and implementation design.
- The IGF ecosystem, including the MAG and NRIs, was highlighted as a practical source of granular local and regional evidence that can feed into WSIS action line roadmaps and CSTD reporting.
- Preserving the Internet as an open, stable, secure, resilient, interoperable and global network was presented as a foundational precondition for any digital strategy or roadmap to succeed.
- Avoiding Internet fragmentation requires continued technical coordination, respect for existing roles, open standards, interoperable technologies and inclusive multistakeholder governance.
- Cross-cutting and often overlooked delivery actors such as libraries, local governments and other local public institutions play an important role in digital inclusion, access, capacity building and implementation of e-strategies.
- A recurring concern was that governments often present plans and institutional reforms but provide too little evidence about implementation results, impact on public services, inclusion, capacity and cooperation.
“Angel González Sanz argued that reporting to the CSTD needs to move beyond routine summaries towards evidence-based, candid, results-oriented inputs: strong evidence of implementation, honest analysis of gaps and needs, identification of new trends rather than 'inertia', and concrete policy recommendations linked to SDG targets and GDC commitments.”
“Anriette Esterhuysen said that multi-stakeholder practice often stops at merely having representatives from different groups 'around the table', and called instead for substantive collaboration, meaningful participation, national and regional grounding, and gender inclusion in both planning and reporting.”
“Anriette Esterhuysen suggested that instead of relying only on broad synthetic reporting, the process might alternate with more granular, issue-specific reporting, for example on meaningful connectivity, looking at infrastructure, demand, capacity and the experiences of particular groups such as indigenous communities and women.”
“Carl Gahnberg described roadmaps as critical because WSIS has strong commitments about what to do, but not enough about how to do it. He defined a roadmap as showing where we are today, where we want to be tomorrow, and how to bridge that gap, including metrics, categories of countries, and a maturity model.”
“Carl Gahnberg noted that action lines such as C1 are broad and 'a little bit blurry', and therefore may need to be broken into more digestible subcomponents rather than addressed in their totality.”
“Janis Karklins argued that before any roadmap can succeed, there is an underlying condition: the Internet itself must continue to function as one global ecosystem. He stressed that preserving an open, stable, secure, resilient and interoperable Internet is a shared responsibility, and that without this foundation 'you can write whatever roadmaps you want' but implementation may fail.”
“Howard Wachtel suggested looking at AI through the lens of tasks within occupations: what AI may replace, what it may augment, and where human judgement remains essential, leading to the practical recommendation that the C1 roadmap should prioritise partnerships that build trusted local capability and capacity.”
“Jennifer Chung argued that the IGF should be seen not as a single annual event but as an ecosystem, and that the 180-plus national, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives are ideal channels for gathering candid, granular, evidence-based input on implementation realities.”
“Jennifer Chung concluded that 'we do not have a problem of recommendations' or commitments, but 'we do have a problem with actual implementation and what actually happens'.”
“In response to questions, Anriette Esterhuysen warned that digital transformation has become fragmented across AI, DPI, cybersecurity and other silos, and argued that the strength of WSIS is its holistic nature; national spaces should therefore be holistic and inclusive, bringing together local government, academia, access, gender, AI and cybersecurity.”
“Carl Gahnberg used libraries as an example to show that roadmaps can reveal cross-cutting institutional roles: unless an e-strategy acknowledges libraries, it misses opportunities, and structured mapping can also show their relevance to capacity-building and access.”
How can the quality and structure of action line inputs to the CSTD be improved so reports are more evidence-based, candid, concise and useful for policy negotiations?
This is important because the CSTD relies on short synthetic reports, and weak or repetitive inputs make it difficult to identify implementation progress, gaps, emerging trends and actionable policy recommendations.
What concrete roadmaps should action line facilitators develop, with targeted goals, indicators, metrics and links to SDG targets and GDC commitments?
This matters because the WSIS Plus 20 outcome calls for result-oriented roadmaps, and participants saw them as a key mechanism for turning broad commitments into practical implementation and monitoring tools.
How can reporting better identify new challenges, emerging trends and changes from year to year rather than repeating static information?
This is important for keeping WSIS implementation relevant and responsive, especially as digital policy evolves quickly and older reporting patterns may miss new risks, needs and opportunities.
What practical indicators should be used to measure implementation of digital strategies, digital public services, inclusive participation in policymaking, institutional capacity and international cooperation?
This is important because member states need measurable evidence of whether plans are producing results, not just announcements of new strategies or institutional reforms.
How should action lines engage with the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development to strengthen indicator work?
This is important because stronger measurement frameworks would support comparable evidence, more credible reporting and better monitoring of ICT for development commitments.
How can substantive and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation be ensured, beyond simply having representatives from each stakeholder group present?
This is important because effective implementation depends on involving the right people and institutions with real expertise and lived experience, especially at national and regional level.
How can national and regional processes be strengthened so that global WSIS participation is grounded in effective local participation?
This matters because meaningful implementation and evidence gathering happen on the ground, and weak national or regional processes limit the value of global discussions.
How should gender be integrated into the C1 roadmap and implementation process?
This is important because gender was identified as insufficiently reflected in the draft roadmap, and inclusive digital governance requires gender to be built into goals, participation and evaluation.
Could CSTD reporting alternate between more granular issue-specific reports and more synthetic reports, and could input forms be redesigned to elicit better evidence?
This is important because current reporting may be too broad and shallow, whereas more focused data collection could generate usable evidence for targeted policy action.
Should specific under-emphasised issues such as meaningful connectivity be examined through dedicated, granular reporting across infrastructure, demand, capacity and user groups?
This is important because cross-cutting issues may be overlooked in broad reporting, and targeted analysis could help policymakers design more effective interventions.
How can broad action lines such as C1 be broken into coherent subcomponents for roadmap development?
This matters because the action lines are wide and blurry, and workable roadmaps require more manageable clusters of commitments that can be measured and acted upon.
What is the current state of national e-strategies worldwide, and how should countries be categorised according to whether they lack a strategy, have an outdated one, or have implementation gaps?
This is important because a roadmap needs a baseline and differentiated pathways for progress, rather than assuming all countries face the same challenges.
What maturity model or theory of change could guide countries from their current status towards well-functioning e-strategies?
This is important because roadmaps should not only state goals but also describe plausible steps for reaching them.
How can roadmaps be used to shift WSIS from retrospective reporting towards forward planning?
This matters because participants saw a gap between documenting past activities and using that information to organise future implementation efforts.
How can WSIS roadmaps preserve the Internet as one global, open, stable, secure, resilient and interoperable network?
This is important because all digital strategies depend on a functioning global Internet, and fragmentation or poorly informed policy choices could undermine implementation across all action lines.
How can implementation remain technically informed, inclusive and grounded in the multi-stakeholder model, including issues such as open standards, interoperable technologies and universal acceptance?
This matters because Internet governance and technical coordination are foundational conditions for effective digital development and inclusive access.
How should C1 and related WSIS language be updated to reflect AI and current digital realities?
This is important because participants considered parts of C1 outdated, and newer issues such as AI are reshaping skills, labour, governance and implementation needs.
How can AI's impact on work be assessed through tasks and functions rather than occupations alone, and what new skills are needed for people to use AI with agency and judgement?
This is important because a task-based approach may produce more practical guidance for capability-building and workforce adaptation in digital strategies.
How can partnerships be prioritised to build trusted local capability and capacity?
This matters because local implementation requires trusted institutions and skills, not just high-level commitments or imported solutions.
How can the IGF, MAG and NRIs help translate WSIS Plus 20 global commitments into practical national, regional and local action?
This is important because the IGF ecosystem offers continuous, distributed channels for gathering evidence, testing implementation and feeding grounded input into roadmap development.
How can outputs from IGF intersessional work be more directly aligned with WSIS action lines and used for roadmap inputs?
This matters because substantial relevant work already exists, but participants suggested it could be better targeted and connected to action line implementation.
How can implementation be improved, given that there is no shortage of recommendations or commitments?
This is important because several speakers noted a persistent gap between policy declarations and real-world execution.
How should national digital plans account for the role of local governments in achieving digital inclusion?
This is important because local governments often control key delivery mechanisms and are essential for turning national strategies into local outcomes.
How can the OECD's work on what makes an effective digital plan be adapted beyond Global North contexts into broader guidance for all countries?
This matters because many countries need practical frameworks for coherent and inclusive national planning, but existing models may not fully fit diverse development contexts.
How can the C1 implementation roadmap ensure that civil society, especially youth, is meaningfully included rather than merely acknowledged on paper?
This is important because inclusive governance depends on real participation and accountability, not only formal references to stakeholder groups.
How can holistic national spaces be created to overcome fragmentation across AI, DPI, cybersecurity, access, gender inclusion and other digital policy areas?
This matters because fragmented governance structures make inclusive participation and coherent implementation much harder.
How can cross-cutting contributors such as libraries be properly recognised in e-strategies and in related areas such as capacity building and access?
This is important because roadmaps can reveal overlooked actors that play practical roles across multiple implementation domains.
What role should post offices play in delivering e-strategies?
This is important because post offices were identified as another practical implementation actor that could support national digital strategies and inclusion efforts.