This session, held under WSIS Action Line C6 on Enabling Environment, focused on how policy benchmarking can support better digital governance, with particular attention to the ITU Digital Readiness Framework as a practical tool for regulators and policymakers worldwide .
Opening remarks delivered on behalf of ITU-BDT Director Cosmas Zavazava highlighted that the Digital Readiness Framework integrates two reform tracks - sectoral ICT essentials and cross-sectoral digital foundations - into a unified benchmark assessing national readiness across digital law, policy, and governance . The framework builds on ITU's Generations of Regulation model, with Generation 5 representing the gold standard of agile, collaborative digital regulation . Presenter Youlia Lozanova clarified that the framework covers 194 countries across 117 indicators and is designed not to rank countries but to help them identify strengths, gaps, and reform priorities .
Panellists from Georgia, Namibia, Jordan, and Brazil shared practical experiences. Georgia's regulator uses benchmarking across market analysis, spectrum policy, and organisational assessment . Namibia emphasised that benchmarking serves as "a compass, not a prescription," combining international benchmarks with a domestic regulatory gap assessment to reflect unique national circumstances . Jordan highlighted the importance of examining both advanced markets and peer countries, iterating policies over time rather than seeking perfection from the outset . Brazil's ANATEL identified eight pillars where benchmarking supports digital transformation, including establishing baselines, identifying reform priorities, and mobilising investment .
Participants also raised the importance of tailoring benchmarking to the specific needs of small island developing states and developing countries . Regional associations were identified as key vehicles for translating benchmarking evidence into collaborative action, reducing duplication, and accelerating implementation of shared frameworks .
The session concluded with broad agreement that benchmarking is most valuable not as an end in itself, but as a catalyst for dialogue, institutional learning, and concrete reform - with the ultimate measure of success being whether digital policies genuinely improve citizens' lives and address national development needs .
Overall Purpose
- The session, held under WSIS Action Line C6 (Enabling Environment), aimed to explore how policy benchmarking - particularly ITU's Digital Readiness Framework - can support evidence-based digital policymaking, regulatory reform, and international cooperation. Practitioners from Georgia, Brazil, Jordan, Namibia, and Colombia shared practical experiences of applying benchmarking tools to improve digital governance and connectivity outcomes.
- --
Major Discussion Points
- The role and value of benchmarking as an evidence-based policy tool. Multiple speakers emphasised that benchmarking transforms regulatory decisions from assumption-driven to evidence-driven. It helps identify where a country stands, what gaps exist, and what reforms should be prioritised. Brazil's ANATEL described itself as a "benchmarking heavy user," citing eight pillars through which benchmarking supports digital transformation, including establishing baselines, identifying reform priorities, and tracking progress over time. - The ITU Digital Readiness Framework as a practical benchmarking instrument. The framework was presented as a fusion of the ICT Regulatory Tracker and the G5 Benchmark, structured around nine thematic benchmarks covering digital law, policy, and governance across 194 countries. It is grounded in ITU's Generations of Regulation model, with Generation 5 representing the gold standard of agile, collaborative digital regulation. Crucially, speakers stressed that the framework is not about rankings but about enabling constructive reflection and actionable reform roadmaps.
- Adapting benchmarking to national and regional contexts rather than applying it prescriptively. A recurring theme was that benchmarking must serve as a compass, not a prescription. Namibia highlighted how its vast geography means geographic coverage targets may be inappropriate, requiring a focus on population coverage instead. Jordan described a two-stage approach: first examining the most developed markets, then drilling into countries with similar circumstances. The audience representative from Cape Verde raised the specific challenge of ensuring benchmarking reflects the realities of small island developing states and promotes digital inclusion rather than merely measuring against advanced-market standards. - Regional cooperation and regulatory associations as vehicles for collaborative benchmarking. Several speakers highlighted how regional bodies amplify the value of benchmarking by enabling shared learning, reducing duplication, and accelerating reform implementation. Brazil noted the role of the Portuguese-speaking countries association (ARCTEL) in exchanging regulatory information and running capacity-building programmes, including a gender equality leadership initiative. Namibia emphasised that regional associations can consolidate responses to common challenges such as cybersecurity governance or digital identity, making reform faster and more cost-effective. The ITU's Digital Regulation Network (DRN) was identified as a key mechanism for connecting regional associations globally.
- Balancing international benchmarking standards with country ownership and developmental priorities. A critical point raised, particularly by Namibia and the Cape Verde audience member, was that the ultimate measure of success is not a high benchmark score but whether digital policies genuinely improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals. Emilia Nghikembua warned that pursuing ranks rather than addressing actual developmental needs risks undermining the true purpose of benchmarking. Colombia's Javier Gutierrez reinforced this by arguing that digital government should be measured by citizens' real ability to access, understand, trust, and use digital services - not merely by the number of services available online.
- --
Overall Tone
- The overall tone of the discussion was constructive, collegial, and professionally optimistic. From the outset, speakers adopted a collaborative register, with the moderator and panellists expressing mutual appreciation and a shared commitment to practical outcomes. The tone remained consistently positive throughout, with no significant tension or disagreement. There was a slight shift towards greater urgency and nuance in the latter half of the session, particularly when the Cape Verde representative raised the challenge of contextualising benchmarking for smaller and less-developed nations , and when Namibia's CEO offered a more cautionary note about the risks of prioritising rankings over genuine developmental impact. These contributions added depth without disrupting the session's fundamentally cooperative spirit. The closing remarks reinforced the session's central message: that collaboration and dialogue are the most valuable outcomes of benchmarking exercises.
Expanded Summary: WSIS Action Line C6 Session - Benchmarking for Better Digital Policies
#
Session Overview and Context
This session was convened under WSIS Action Line C6 on Enabling Environment, with the stated aim of exploring how policy benchmarking can support evidence-based digital governance, regulatory reform, and international cooperation . Moderated by Ms. Carmen Prado-Wagner of the Regulatory and Market Environment Division at ITU's Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT), the session brought together regulators and policymakers from Georgia, Brazil, Jordan, Namibia, and Colombia, alongside ITU representatives and audience participants from Cape Verde, Algeria, and Colombia . The moderator noted at the outset that the session had only 45 minutes for discussion, underscoring the need for focused and time-conscious exchanges .
Ms. Prado-Wagner opened by situating the session within the broader mandate of Action Line C6, reminding participants that digital transformation depends not only on infrastructure, connectivity, and technology, but also on the strength and quality of policy, legal, regulatory, and governance frameworks . This framing established the intellectual context for the discussions that followed, positioning benchmarking as a tool for strengthening precisely those enabling frameworks.
---
#
Opening Remarks: The ITU Digital Readiness Framework
Opening remarks were delivered by Ms. Sophie Maddams, Chief of the Digital Knowledge Hub Department, on behalf of the Director of ITU's Telecommunication Development Bureau, whose name was not clearly captured in the transcript . Ms. Maddams framed the session around the continuing evolution of ICT regulators into digital ecosystem builders, describing ITU's core mandate as bridging the digital divide and ensuring that technology benefits everyone, everywhere . She noted that this mandate is fully aligned with the C6 goal of building an enabling environment, and that the next phase for C6 involves promoting innovative technology and technology development - though this phrasing appeared as a transcription artefact and should be read accordingly .
Central to Ms. Maddams' remarks was the ITU Digital Readiness Framework, which she described as a practical policy benchmarking tool designed to support evidence-based decision-making . She explained that the framework integrates two main tracks of reform - sectoral ICT-focused essentials and cross-sectoral digital foundations - into one unified benchmark, providing a consolidated structure to assess national readiness across three critical dimensions: ICT and digital law, digital policy, and digital governance . The framework is strategically designed upon ITU's established Generations of Regulation model, which describes how regulatory frameworks evolve from foundational rule-setting towards more adaptive, collaborative, and innovation-enabling approaches . Whilst Generations 1 to 4 track the maturity of telecom markets, Generation 5 encompasses the broader evolution of national digital markets and is described as the gold standard for digital regulation, framed around collaboration across sectors, across borders, and across stakeholders .
Ms. Maddams was explicit that benchmarking must not be treated as an end in itself, but rather as the basis for institutional learning, regional cooperation, and reform planning . She called on policymakers, regulators, and industry stakeholders to translate benchmarking evidence into concrete policy action, urging them to use the readiness framework to develop customised national blueprints that reflect specific national objectives and implementation capacity . She described the framework as a tool that tells countries what they should change, who should lead, how to sequence reforms, and how to track progress .
---
#
Presentation: The Digital Readiness Framework in Practice
Ms. Youlia Lozanova provided a more detailed technical presentation of the Digital Readiness Framework, grounding her remarks in the practical perspective of regulators and policymakers facing complex challenges . She opened with a characteristically accessible framing: one of the most powerful questions a regulator can ask is who has been successful at what they have not yet achieved, and what can be learnt from them - and this, she argued, is precisely what policy benchmarking enables .
Ms. Lozanova defined benchmarking as a systemic, standardised process of comparing policies, regulatory frameworks, and government practices across organisations, countries, and regions to identify good practices and opportunities for improvement . She was careful to distinguish benchmarking from imitation, emphasising that it is about systemic analysis that helps practitioners understand why certain models work, adapt them to any context, and use evidence to make better decisions . For regulators and policymakers, she argued, benchmarking provides the clarity needed to solve problems and move towards data-driven, transparent, and evidence-informed governance .
The Digital Readiness Framework was presented as distinct from other benchmarking tools because it is not standalone but is integrated into the Generations of Regulation model, which underpins ITU's development work in policy and regulation . Ms. Lozanova described the framework as the fusion of two previously established ITU benchmarks - the ICT Regulatory Tracker and the G5 Benchmark - offering the advantage of 360-degree visibility on all the most important issues countries need to address to build thriving digital economies and inclusive digital societies . The framework is structured around nine thematic benchmarks and one overall readiness benchmark, covering a mix of ICT-sector-specific instruments and cross-cutting governance practices, reflecting the difficulty of separating the two in contemporary digital governance . Countries' readiness is assessed across digital law, policy, and governance, divided into four thresholds: low, intermediate, high, and very high . Notably, Ms. Lozanova highlighted that the framework's data is available on a public platform covering 194 countries, making it accessible to regulators and policymakers worldwide .
Crucially, Ms. Lozanova stressed that ITU frameworks do not focus on scoring and ranks, describing such an approach as contrary to the whole spirit of benchmarking, which is to enable improvement and constructive reflection on priorities . She acknowledged that many countries may not recognise themselves in the tier they find themselves assigned to, noting that tiers represent a standardised comparison with other countries and do not reflect a country's ambition or the effort invested in a given area . The framework covers 117 targets and indicators, and she emphasised that not every identified gap is necessarily something a country needs to address; prioritisation based on relevance, feasibility, and political momentum is essential to creating actionable roadmaps . The ultimate objective, she concluded, is to compare readiness across benchmarks towards the outcomes a country desires - whether universal connectivity, innovation, or investment - and to be deliberate and specific about priorities rather than attempting to address everything at once .
---
#
Panel Discussion: How Benchmarking Supports Better Policy Decisions
The first panel question - how benchmarking evidence can support better policy decisions - drew substantive responses from all four panellists, each offering distinct national perspectives whilst converging on a shared appreciation of benchmarking's value.
Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze, Commissioner at the Georgian National Communications Commission (COMCOM) and representative of the Eastern Partnership Electronic Communication Regulators Network (EAPREC), affirmed that benchmarking is a valuable exercise that tells regulators not only where they stand but where they need to move . She described how COMCOM uses benchmarking across every decision it makes, from basic market analysis to competition assessment, regulatory remedy design, and spectrum policy . She gave the concrete example of comparing market shares - if a player holds more than 40 per cent market share, COMCOM compares this against other markets to assess whether Georgia's market is open and competitive . She noted that regulatory remedies frameworks are internationally comparable, and that Georgia uses the EU framework, making its remedies legible to international players entering the market . Beyond market and spectrum benchmarks, she highlighted the importance of organisational benchmarks - assessing the independence of a regulatory body, the quality of stakeholder engagement, and the breadth of stakeholders involved in digital policy - as essential for understanding a regulator's institutional standing .
Ms. Emilia Nghikembua, Chief Executive Officer of the Communication Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN), introduced what became the session's most memorable formulation: that benchmarking is not a prescription but a compass . She described CRAN's approach as combining international and regional benchmark outcomes with a domestic regulatory gap assessment, asking how Namibia fares given its unique national setup . She was emphatic that combining these two elements produces decisions based on the unique needs of the market, rather than simply following benchmarks word for word . She illustrated this with a concrete geographic example: whilst the transcript records her as saying Namibia is "densely populated," this appears to be a transcription error, as Namibia is in fact a vast and sparsely populated country - and her broader point was that standard benchmarks calling for geographic coverage may be entirely inappropriate for a country that can realistically only achieve population coverage . She also described cross-sector collaboration as integral to Namibia's approach, noting that CRAN and the central bank had to come together to align universal service fund targets with digital payment solution targets, ensuring that all investments serve the overarching national digital transformation agenda .
Ms. Lara EL Khateeb, CEO and Chair of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Jordan (TRC), described benchmarking as a cornerstone of policy planning, essential whenever Jordan launches new services or policies . She emphasised the importance of evidence-based rather than assumption-driven policymaking, whilst acknowledging the need to account for the nature of the country, its existing services, and its legal framework . Jordan's approach involves looking not only at the majority of how other countries have done something, but specifically at markets similar to Jordan's in terms of geography, financial inclusion, and political context . She described examining the iterations of policies in other countries to understand why they were amended over time, enabling Jordan to avoid past mistakes and seize new opportunities . She also noted Jordan's role as a regional leader - established in 1995 as the first regulator in the region - and its responsibility to help neighbouring countries, including those emerging from conflict, to develop appropriate regulatory environments . Jordan participates in ITU study groups, GSMA, and maintains bilateral agreements and MOUs with other regulators to enable peer-to-peer learning .
Ms. Andrea Grippa, Head of International Affairs at Brazil's National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL), described ANATEL as a benchmarking heavy user, arguing that benchmarking turns digital transformation from a discussion driven by assumptions into one guided by measurable facts, comparative analysis, and actionable insights . She identified eight pillars through which benchmarking supports digital transformation, particularly for developing and underdeveloped countries: establishing a clear baseline; identifying reform priorities; learning from peers and good practices; promoting evidence-based policymaking; strengthening accountability and transparency; supporting coordination across government; tracking progress over time; and mobilising investment and international cooperation .
---
#
Contribution from Colombia: People-Centred Digital Government
Mr. Javier Gutierrez, Commissioner of Colombia's Comisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones (CRC), offered a contribution that broadened the discussion beyond regulatory frameworks to encompass citizen-level outcomes. He argued that digital government should not be measured only by the number of public services available online, but by the real ability of citizens to access, understand, trust, and use those services effectively . He identified two conditions as essential for meaningful digital public services: meaningful connectivity - noting that by the end of 2025, fibre is reported to represent more than 55 per cent of fixed internet accesses in Colombia, though it is unclear from the transcript whether this is a current figure or a projection - and territorial inclusion, recognising that digital government depends on an ecosystem capable of innovating beyond large urban centres . He concluded that people-centred digital government requires much more than a platform, encompassing meaningful connectivity, affordability, accessibility, digital skills, trust, competition, investment, and coordination among government, regulators, industry, and civil society . This contribution implicitly challenged the sufficiency of framework-level benchmarking, suggesting that readiness metrics must ultimately be validated against lived citizen experience.
---
#
Audience Intervention: The Challenge of Small Island Developing States
The most structurally significant turning point in the discussion came from an audience intervention by Mr. Leonel Santos, Chair of the Board of Directors of Cape Verde's Multisectoral Economic Regulator. He affirmed the value of regulatory benchmarking as a tool for guiding reforms and identifying best practices, but argued that its real value lies in its ability to recognise different development contexts and support policies adapted to the needs of each country . He raised the specific challenge facing small island developing states such as Cabo Verde, which need a regulatory environment that encourages innovation and competitiveness whilst accounting for specific circumstances, promoting digital inclusion, and helping to reduce social, geographic, and gender inequalities . His central question - how international regulatory benchmarking can reflect the realities of small island developing states whilst incorporating digital inclusion and gender equality objectives, so that regulation becomes a true instrument of inclusion and resilience rather than merely a comparison against the standards of more advanced markets - effectively redirected the remainder of the discussion .
---
#
Panel Responses: Contextualisation, Regional Cooperation, and Country Ownership
The Cape Verde intervention prompted a rich exchange on how benchmarking can be adapted to diverse national and regional contexts. Ms. EL Khateeb described a two-stage approach: first examining how the most developed countries have implemented policies to set a scene, and then drilling into countries that are similar in terms of geography, financial inclusion, and political context . She acknowledged that no two countries are exactly the same, and that even when examining a comparable island country, circumstances may differ significantly in terms of finances, political context, or technological advancement . She advised against striving for a perfect policy from day one, recommending instead that countries start somewhere small and build incrementally, using good-enough policies as building blocks . She also encouraged countries that are advanced in specific fields to proactively volunteer their time and expertise to help neighbouring countries with similar circumstances .
Ms. Imedadze echoed this approach, describing how Georgia first benchmarks against the most developed countries and then looks at its regional neighbours to understand where it stands in both global and local context . She offered a particularly instructive example from the Digital Regulation Network (DRN): when the GEMS platform was developed, Eastern Partnership countries were given the opportunity to add regional specificities - such as the use of satellite connectivity for universal service - ensuring that the benchmarks reflected the realities of smaller countries rather than only those of the most advanced economies . She encouraged participation in platforms such as TRM and the Connectivity Planning Platform (CPP) as mechanisms for smaller countries to contribute their perspectives and expand the specificities reflected in global tools .
Ms. Prado-Wagner clarified for the audience that the DRN is the Digital Regulation Network, guided by regional regulatory associations, and that GEMS - as she explained - stands for Global Economic Model and Study, a tool being developed within her division to help countries assess investment decisions . She described the collaboration between ITU and regional regulatory associations as a two-way process of disseminating both ITU products and the products of regional associations, enabling a global exchange .
Ms. Grippa highlighted the Portuguese-speaking countries association - referred to in the transcript as "Architel" and commonly known as ARCTEL-CPLP - as a practical model of regional benchmarking cooperation, noting that Brazil, Cape Verde, and Mozambique share regulatory information within this framework . She described the association's formation centre providing capacity building across member countries, and announced that a gender equality leadership programme for Portuguese-speaking countries was currently under way - a model she suggested could be shared with other regional associations .
Ms. Nghikembua elaborated on the role of regional associations in amplifying the value of benchmarking, explaining that when benchmarks reveal common challenges - such as limited uptake of digital services in rural communities, or shared gaps in cybersecurity governance or digital identity - regional associations can develop consolidated frameworks, guidelines, and capacity-building programmes that reduce duplication and accelerate implementation . Rather than each country developing its own cybersecurity governance framework independently, a consolidated regional approach is faster and more cost-effective . She returned to her central theme in her closing contribution, arguing that the ultimate question a country or regional association must ask is whether digital policies improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals . She warned explicitly that benchmarking must not be the sole driver of reform, as countries risk pursuing ranks rather than addressing actual developmental needs . Her most powerful formulation came at the close: the true measure of success is not the level at which a country has benchmarked well, but the level at which it has implemented reforms that speak to its developmental needs and that it is able to take ownership of .
---
#
Further Audience Contributions and Unresolved Questions
In the closing minutes of the session, a representative of Mozambique thanked the BDT for accepting the Portuguese-speaking countries association into the DRN and highlighted the role of Southern African regional associations - including one whose name was not clearly stated in the transcript, though Mozambique was noted as currently holding its chair - as vehicles for sharing regulatory experiences and benchmarking at the regional level . This contribution reinforced the session's broader theme of regional collaboration as a multiplier for benchmarking's impact.
Two further audience questions were then raised, both of which could not be fully addressed due to time constraints. Ms. Andrea Munoz from Colombia's CRC asked how regulators can be brought closer to digital regulation given the asymmetry with global platforms, noting that this requires collaboration and potentially a stronger ITU role . The moderator acknowledged the DRN as the primary mechanism for addressing this gap . Ms. Esma from Algeria's Regulatory Authority asked how the real impact of policies based on benchmarking data can be measured . The moderator indicated that Ms. Lozanova would be put in contact with the Algerian representative to address this question directly .
---
#
Conclusions and Key Themes
The session closed with Ms. Prado-Wagner summarising its central message: that collaboration and dialogue are the most valuable outcomes of benchmarking exercises . Her earlier synthesis had captured the panel's consensus well: benchmarking can provide an evidence base for policymaking, support regulatory prioritisation, and strengthen alignment and collaboration, but is most valuable when it becomes a catalyst for dialogue, learning, and concrete action .
Several cross-cutting themes emerged across the discussion. First, there was unanimous agreement that benchmarking transforms regulatory decision-making from assumption-driven to evidence-based, with all panellists affirming its value as a foundational tool for digital governance . Second, there was equally strong consensus that benchmarks must be adapted to national and regional realities rather than applied uniformly, with Namibia's geographic coverage example and Jordan's two-stage methodology both illustrating the practical necessity of contextualisation . Third, the session produced a notable and somewhat unexpected consensus - from both ITU framework developers and national regulators - that benchmarking should not drive rank-seeking behaviour, and that the framework's tiered structure is not intended to create a hierarchy of aspiration but to enable constructive self-reflection . Fourth, regional associations were consistently identified as essential vehicles for translating benchmarking evidence into collaborative action, reducing duplication, and ensuring that the voices of smaller and developing countries are reflected in global tools . Finally, the contributions from Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Santos introduced a citizen-centred and equity-oriented dimension that challenged the panel to consider whether framework-level benchmarking is sufficient to capture the lived realities of digital transformation - a question that remained productively unresolved at the session's close .
Benchmarking as evidence-based decision-making tool - Benchmarking transforms regulatory decisions from assumptions into evidence-based conclusions, supporting market analysis, competition assessment, and spectrum policy (Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze)
Arg. 1Benchmarking is a valuable exercise that not only shows where a regulator stands but also indicates where it needs to move. It transforms regulatory decisions from mere assumptions into evidence-based conclusions, supporting a wide range of regulatory activities including market analysis, competition assessment, and spectrum policy planning.
Ms. Imedadze gave the example of market share analysis, noting that if a player holds more than 40% market share, Georgia compares this against other markets to assess competitiveness . She also highlighted the use of benchmarking in designing regulatory remedies, such as tariff caps and VACC benchmarks, and in spectrum policy planning, where ITU decisions guide how spectrum should be used .
on: Benchmarking is a valuable tool for evidence-based policymaking, not merely a comparison exercise
Regional specificity within global tools - Participation in platforms such as GEMS allowed Eastern Partnership countries to add regional specificities, ensuring that benchmarks reflect the realities of smaller and developing countries (Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze)
Arg. 2Global benchmarking platforms can be adapted to reflect the specific circumstances of smaller and developing countries when those countries are given the opportunity to contribute their regional context. The GEMS platform, for example, was initially built for general economic and investment benchmarking but was expanded to include specificities relevant to Eastern Partnership countries.
Ms. Imedadze explained that participant countries in the Digital Regulation Network were given the opportunity to add regional specificities to the GEMS platform, such as whether a country uses satellite for universal connectivity or other network types . She also mentioned Georgia's participation in the Connectivity Planning Platform (CPP), which similarly allowed the country to contribute its perspective .
on: Benchmarking must be adapted to national and local contexts rather than applied uniformly
Regional networks enable voice for developing countries - Participation in networks such as the DRN and platforms such as GEMS allows smaller and developing countries to contribute their specificities and ensure their contexts are reflected in global benchmarking tools (Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze)
Arg. 3Smaller and developing countries can use regional and global networks to ensure their unique circumstances are incorporated into international benchmarking tools. By actively participating in platforms like GEMS and CPP, these countries can shape the tools that assess them, making the benchmarks more relevant and accurate for their contexts.
Ms. Imedadze noted that Eastern Partnership countries were able to voice the need for specificities in the GEMS platform, such as satellite connectivity options, and that this allowed them to calculate the same benchmarks as more developed countries while reflecting their own realities . She encouraged the use of platforms like the ICT Regulatory Tracker (TRM) and CPP for similar purposes .
on: Regional cooperation and associations amplify the value of benchmarking
Benchmarking as a compass, not a prescription - Benchmarking provides a baseline that must be combined with a regulatory gap assessment to reflect the unique needs of each country's market (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Arg. 1CRAN considers benchmarking critical but treats it as a compass rather than a prescription. The organisation first examines international and regional benchmarks to establish a baseline, then conducts a regulatory gap assessment to understand how the benchmark outcomes align with the unique setup of Namibia as a country.
Ms. Nghikembua gave the example of Namibia's vast but sparsely populated geography, explaining that geographic coverage targets may be inappropriate for Namibia and that population coverage is more relevant given the country's unique nature . She also described cross-sector collaboration between CRAN and the central bank on aligning universal service fund targets with digital payment solution targets to serve the national digital transformation agenda .
on: Benchmarking is a valuable tool for evidence-based policymaking, not merely a comparison exercise
on: Starting reference point for benchmarking: most developed countries first versus similar-context countries first
Unique national circumstances must guide final decisions - Namibia's vast but sparsely populated geography means geographic coverage targets may be inappropriate; population coverage is more relevant, illustrating that benchmarks must be adapted to local realities (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Arg. 2Benchmarks must be adapted to the specific realities of each country rather than applied uniformly. Namibia's geographic characteristics mean that standard geographic coverage targets are not appropriate, and population coverage is a more meaningful metric for the country's digital development needs.
Ms. Nghikembua explained that Namibia is quite vast but densely populated, and that following a benchmark prescribing geographic coverage would be unrealistic given the country's unique nature . She noted that this is how Namibia uses benchmarks to inform policy as well as infrastructure and investment decisions .
on: Benchmarking must be adapted to national and local contexts rather than applied uniformly
Regional associations accelerate reform and reduce duplication - When benchmarks reveal common challenges across a region, associations can develop shared frameworks, guidelines, and capacity-building programmes, reducing duplication and cutting costs (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Arg. 3Regional associations add significant value to benchmarking by enabling collaborative responses to shared challenges identified across member countries. When a benchmark reveals common issues such as limited digital service uptake, cybersecurity gaps, or digital identity challenges, regional associations can develop consolidated frameworks and capacity-building programmes rather than each country working in isolation.
Ms. Nghikembua noted that if a benchmark reveals that Southern African countries face similar challenges in digital identity or cybersecurity, the regional association can focus on developing shared frameworks, guidelines, or capacity-building programmes to address those challenges . She emphasised that this reduces duplication, accelerates implementation, and results in cost savings compared to each country developing its own frameworks independently .
on: Regional cooperation and associations amplify the value of benchmarking
Country ownership as the true measure of success - The ultimate measure of success is not a high benchmark ranking but whether digital policy reforms improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Arg. 4The true measure of success for benchmarking-driven reform is not achieving a high rank but whether the resulting policies genuinely improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals. Countries must strike the right balance between international benchmarking standards and country ownership of their reform agendas.
Ms. Nghikembua argued that the first question a country or regional association needs to ask is whether digital policies improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals . She stressed that the true measure of success is the level at which a country has implemented reforms that speak to its developmental needs and that it can take ownership of .
on: Country ownership and developmental relevance are the true measures of benchmarking success
on: Rank-seeking behaviour versus genuine developmental reform
Benchmarking should not drive rank-seeking behaviour - Countries risk pursuing ranks rather than addressing actual developmental needs if benchmarking becomes the sole driver of reform, rather than a guide for context-specific action (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Arg. 5If benchmarking becomes the sole driver of reform, countries may end up pursuing high rankings rather than addressing their actual developmental needs. Benchmarking should serve as a guide that informs context-specific action, not as an end goal in itself.
Ms. Nghikembua explicitly warned that benchmarking must not be the sole driver of reform because countries would then end up pursuing ranks rather than addressing actual developmental needs . She emphasised that the purpose of benchmarking is for countries to understand where they are and use that opportunity to learn from others, while ensuring reforms are tailored to their unique context and needs .
on: Benchmarking should serve as a catalyst for action and reform, not as an end in itself
on: Rank-seeking behaviour versus genuine developmental reform
Cross-sector collaboration aligned to national digital transformation - Investment decisions, such as those for universal service funds and digital payment systems, must be aligned across sectors and institutions to serve the overarching national digital transformation agenda (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Arg. 6Effective digital transformation requires cross-sector collaboration to ensure that investment decisions across different institutions are aligned with the national digital transformation agenda. Siloed decision-making risks misalignment between complementary initiatives.
Ms. Nghikembua described how CRAN and the central bank had to come together to align their respective targets for the universal service fund and the digital payment solution system, asking how these aligned with the national digital transformation agenda and how to ensure investments served the ultimate goal .
Digital Readiness Framework as a unified benchmark - The framework integrates ICT-focused essentials and cross-sectoral digital foundations into one tool, assessing national readiness across digital law, policy, and governance (Ms. Sophie Maddams)
Arg. 1The ITU Digital Readiness Framework is a practical policy benchmarking tool that integrates two main tracks of reform — sectoral ICT-focused essentials and cross-sectoral digital foundations — into a single unified benchmark. It provides a consolidated structure to assess national readiness across three critical dimensions: ICT and digital law, digital policy, and digital governance.
Ms. Maddams explained that the framework integrates two main tracks of reform into one unified benchmark and provides a consolidated practical structure to assess national readiness across digital law, policy, and governance . She noted that national, regional, and global readiness assessments based on the framework help clarify what is in place, what is missing, and what must be prioritised .
on: Scope of digital government measurement: technical metrics versus citizen-centred outcomes
Benchmarking must translate into concrete action - Benchmarking is not an end in itself; it must serve as the basis for institutional learning, regional cooperation, reform planning, and the development of customised national blueprints (Ms. Sophie Maddams)
Arg. 2Benchmarking should not be treated as a goal in itself but rather as a foundation for action. It must drive institutional learning, regional cooperation, and reform planning, and should be used to develop customised national blueprints that reflect specific national objectives and implementation capacity.
Ms. Maddams called on policymakers, regulators, and industry stakeholders to translate benchmarking evidence into concrete policy action . She urged the use of the readiness framework to develop customised national blueprints that reflect specific national objectives and implementation capacity, noting that it tells countries what to change, who should lead, how to sequence reforms, and how to track progress .
on: Benchmarking should serve as a catalyst for action and reform, not as an end in itself
on: Benchmarking as a directive tool versus a contextual compass
People-centred digital government beyond connectivity metrics - Digital government should be measured by citizens' real ability to access, understand, trust, and use digital public services, requiring meaningful connectivity, affordability, digital skills, and multi-stakeholder coordination (Mr. Javier Gutierrez)
Arg. 1Digital government should not be measured solely by the number of public services available online, but by citizens' real ability to access, understand, trust, and use those services effectively. This requires a broader ecosystem encompassing meaningful connectivity, affordability, accessibility, digital skills, trust, competition, investment, and coordination among government, regulators, industry, and civil society.
Mr. Gutierrez noted that Colombia had made important progress, with fibre already representing more than 55% of fixed internet accesses by the end of 2025 . He argued that people-centred digital government requires much more than a platform, including meaningful connectivity, affordability, accessibility, digital skills, trust, competition, investment, relevant content, and coordination among government, regulators, industry, and civil society .
on: Scope of digital government measurement: technical metrics versus citizen-centred outcomes
Systemic comparative analysis for better governance - Policy benchmarking is a systematic, standardised process of comparing policies and regulatory frameworks to identify good practices and opportunities for improvement, enabling data-driven and transparent governance (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
Arg. 1Policy benchmarking is a systematic and standardised process of comparing policies, regulatory frameworks, and government practices across organisations, countries, and regions. Its purpose is not to copy what others have done but to enable systemic analysis that helps understand why certain models work, adapt them to different contexts, and use evidence to make better decisions.
Ms. Lozanova explained that benchmarking is not about copying what others have done but about systemic analysis that helps understand why certain models work and how to adapt them to any context . She noted that for regulators and policymakers, benchmarking provides the clarity needed to solve problems and move towards data-driven, transparent, and evidence-informed governance .
on: Benchmarking is a valuable tool for evidence-based policymaking, not merely a comparison exercise
on: Scope of digital government measurement: technical metrics versus citizen-centred outcomes
Framework structured around nine thematic benchmarks - The Digital Readiness Framework covers 117 targets and indicators across nine thematic benchmarks, providing 360-degree visibility on issues needed to build digital economies and inclusive societies (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
Arg. 2The Digital Readiness Framework is structured around nine thematic benchmarks and one overall readiness benchmark, covering 117 targets and indicators. The nine thematic benchmarks include a mix of instruments from both the ICT sector and cross-cutting areas, reflecting the difficulty of separating the two in today's digital environment.
Ms. Lozanova described the framework as structured around nine thematic benchmarks and one overall readiness benchmark, with a mix of ICT-sector-specific and cross-cutting instruments . She noted that there are 117 targets and indicators in the framework , and that the framework allows countries to determine their level of national readiness across digital law, policy, and governance, divided into low, intermediate, high, and very high thresholds .
on: Rank-seeking behaviour versus genuine developmental reform
Framework built on the Generations of Regulation model - The Digital Readiness Framework is the fusion of the ICT Regulatory Tracker and the G5 Benchmark, underpinned by the Generations of Regulation model, with Generation 5 as the gold standard for agile, collaborative digital regulation (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
Arg. 3The Digital Readiness Framework is not a standalone tool but is integrated into ITU's Generations of Regulation model, which describes the evolution of policy and regulatory frameworks from telecom to ICT to digital governance. It is the fusion of the previously established ICT Regulatory Tracker and the G5 Benchmark, with Generation 5 — agile, collaborative digital regulation — as the target.
Ms. Lozanova explained that the Digital Readiness Framework is integrated into the Generations of Regulation model, which is the underlying model for ITU's development work in policy and regulation . She noted that the framework is the fusion of the ICT Regulatory Tracker and the G5 Benchmark, and that having a single framework provides 360-degree visibility on all the most important issues .
Prioritisation over comprehensiveness - Not every gap identified in the framework requires immediate action; policymakers must prioritise based on relevance, feasibility, and political momentum to create actionable roadmaps (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
Arg. 4The Digital Readiness Framework identifies gaps across 117 indicators, but not every gap necessarily requires action. Policymakers must prioritise based on what is most relevant in their context, what is feasible, and where there is political momentum, in order to create actionable roadmaps rather than attempting to address everything at once.
Ms. Lozanova specified that not every gap on the framework is necessarily something that needs to be done, and that identifying gaps leads to a process of prioritisation and checking what is most relevant in the given context at that point in time . She noted that this prioritisation process, combined with assessing feasibility and political momentum, is how actionable roadmaps are created .
on: Country ownership and developmental relevance are the true measures of benchmarking success
on: Benchmarking as a directive tool versus a contextual compass
Eight pillars of benchmarking utility - Benchmarking supports digital transformation through establishing baselines, identifying reform priorities, learning from peers, promoting evidence-based policymaking, strengthening accountability, supporting cross-government coordination, tracking progress, and mobilising investment (Ms. Andrea Grippa)
Arg. 1ANATEL, the Brazilian regulator, is a heavy user of benchmarking and believes it can support better policy decisions by turning digital transformation from a discussion driven by assumptions into one guided by measurable facts, comparative analysis, and actionable insights. Ms. Grippa identified eight specific pillars through which benchmarking is useful, particularly for developing and underdeveloped countries.
Ms. Grippa listed eight pillars of benchmarking utility: establishing a clear baseline, identifying reform priorities, learning from peers and good practices, promoting evidence-based policymaking, strengthening accountability and transparency, supporting coordination across government, tracking progress over time, and mobilising investment and international cooperation .
on: Benchmarking is a valuable tool for evidence-based policymaking, not merely a comparison exercise
Portuguese-speaking countries association as a model - The ARCTEL association facilitates regulatory information exchange, capacity building, and a gender equality leadership programme among Portuguese-speaking countries, serving as a practical example of regional benchmarking cooperation (Ms. Andrea Grippa)
Arg. 2The ARCTEL association of Portuguese-speaking countries serves as a practical model for regional benchmarking cooperation, facilitating regulatory information exchange, capacity building through a formation centre, and a gender equality leadership programme. This demonstrates how regional associations can translate benchmarking insights into concrete collaborative action.
Ms. Grippa noted that Brazil, Cape Verde, and Mozambique share information within the ARCTEL framework, including regulatory information exchange and capacity building through an formation centre . She also highlighted that ARCTEL is currently running a gender equality leadership programme for Portuguese-speaking countries as a good example that can be shared with other associations .
on: Regional cooperation and associations amplify the value of benchmarking
Benchmarking must reflect small island developing states' realities - International regulatory benchmarking should incorporate the specific circumstances of small island developing states, including digital inclusion, gender equality, and geographic and social inequalities (Audience)
Arg. 1International regulatory benchmarking has real value in guiding reforms and identifying best practices, but it must also recognise different development contexts and support policies adapted to the needs of each country. For small island developing states such as Cabo Verde, benchmarking must reflect specific circumstances including digital inclusion, gender equality, and geographic and social inequalities.
The speaker from Cabo Verde noted that his country needs a regulatory environment that encourages innovation and competitiveness while taking into account specific circumstances, promoting digital inclusion, and helping to reduce social, geographic, and gender inequalities . He posed the question of how international regulatory benchmarking can reflect the realities of small island developing states while incorporating digital inclusion and gender equality objectives .
on: Benchmarking must be adapted to national and local contexts rather than applied uniformly
Digital Regulation Network as a vehicle for regional collaboration - The DRN enables regional regulatory associations to share views and experiences globally, with associations such as ARCTEL and CRASA contributing to the network's collaborative framework (Audience)
Arg. 2The Digital Regulation Network (DRN) serves as an important vehicle for regional regulatory associations to share their views and experiences at a global level. Associations such as ARCTEL and CRASA have joined the DRN, enabling Portuguese-speaking and Southern African countries to contribute their perspectives to the global benchmarking and regulatory cooperation framework.
The audience speaker highlighted and thanked the BDT for accepting ARCTEL into the DRN, where Portuguese-speaking countries can share their views and experiences . The speaker also mentioned Mozambique's role in chairing a relevant body at the CRASA level in Zimbabwe, indicating participation in Southern African regional associations .
on: Regional cooperation and associations amplify the value of benchmarking
Addressing asymmetry with global platforms - A key challenge for regulators is how to bring digital regulation closer to addressing the asymmetry with global platforms, requiring collaboration and potentially a stronger ITU role (Audience)
Arg. 3A significant challenge for national regulators is the asymmetry between their regulatory capacity and the power of global digital platforms. Addressing this asymmetry requires collaboration among regulators and potentially a stronger role for the ITU in facilitating convergence between national digital regulations and the realities of global platform governance.
The speaker from the CRC Colombia asked how regulators can be brought closer to digital regulations given the asymmetry with global platforms, directing the question to the ITU . The moderator responded that the DRN is the main vehicle to fill this gap .
Benchmarking as a cornerstone for policy planning - Benchmarking is essential when launching new services or policies, enabling evidence-based decisions rather than assumption-driven ones (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Arg. 1Benchmarking is a cornerstone of policy planning for Jordan's Telecommunications Regulatory Commission. Whenever a new service or policy is being considered, the first step is to examine how others have done it, ensuring that decisions are evidence-based rather than built on assumptions, while also taking into account the specific national context.
Ms. EL Khateeb noted that Jordan looks not only at how the majority of countries have done something, but specifically at markets similar to Jordan's in terms of geography, financial inclusion, and political context . She also mentioned that Jordan examines the iterations of policies over time to understand why they were amended, in order to avoid past mistakes and seize new opportunities .
on: Benchmarking is a valuable tool for evidence-based policymaking, not merely a comparison exercise
Two-stage benchmarking approach - Jordan first examines how the most developed countries have implemented policies, then drills into countries with similar geography, financial inclusion, and political contexts before tailoring findings to national needs (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Arg. 2Jordan employs a two-stage benchmarking approach: first examining how the most developed countries have implemented policies to set the scene, and then drilling into countries with similar characteristics to understand what has worked in comparable contexts. The findings are then tailored to Jordan's specific national needs.
Ms. EL Khateeb explained that Jordan first looks at how the most developed countries have done something and then looks at countries that are similar in terms of geography, financial inclusion, and political scene . She noted that even when looking at similar countries, tailoring is still necessary because no two countries are exactly the same, particularly regarding finances, political scenes, or technological advances .
on: Benchmarking must be adapted to national and local contexts rather than applied uniformly
on: Starting reference point for benchmarking: most developed countries first versus similar-context countries first
Sharing expertise with neighbouring countries - Countries that are advanced in specific policy areas should proactively volunteer their expertise to help neighbouring countries with similar circumstances develop their own regulatory frameworks (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Arg. 3Countries that have developed advanced policies in specific areas have a responsibility to proactively share their expertise with neighbouring countries, particularly those emerging from conflict or with underdeveloped regulatory environments. This voluntary sharing of expertise strengthens the broader regional regulatory ecosystem.
Ms. EL Khateeb noted that Jordan, as the first regulator established in the region in 1995, has played a leading role in many policies and makes sure to help other countries in the region - particularly those coming out of wars without a proper regulatory environment - to have similar policies implemented . She encouraged any country that excels in a specific field to volunteer its time and expertise to help others with similar circumstances .
on: Regional cooperation and associations amplify the value of benchmarking
Iterative policy development over perfection - Countries should not strive for a perfect policy from day one; starting with a good-enough policy and building on it incrementally is a practical and effective approach (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Arg. 4Rather than waiting for a perfect policy, countries should start with a policy that is good enough and build on it incrementally over time. This iterative approach is practical and effective, allowing countries to make progress even when circumstances are not ideal.
Ms. EL Khateeb advised that countries should not strive for something perfect but rather start somewhere small and enhance it as they go along, acknowledging that sometimes a good-enough policy on day one is what is achievable . She noted that once a good building block is in place, it becomes easier to build on it over time .
on: Country ownership and developmental relevance are the true measures of benchmarking success
Session Knowledge Graph
Speakers · Topics · Arguments · Relationships
All panellists agreed that benchmarking transforms regulatory decision-making from assumption-driven to evidence-based. Ms. Imedadze noted that benchmarking 'transforms our regulatory decisions into the assumptions and evidence-based assumptions' . Ms. Nghikembua described it as 'critical to the work that we do' . Ms. EL Khateeb stated that 'we want to have policies that are evidence-based rather than built on assumptions' . Ms. Grippa described ANATEL as 'a benchmarking heavy user' that turns digital transformation 'from a discussion driven by assumptions into one guided by measurable facts, comparative analysis, and actionable insights' . Ms. Lozanova explained that benchmarking helps regulators 'get the clarity you need to solve the problems of the day and move forward towards data-driven, transparent, and evidence-informed governance' .
Benchmarking as evidence-based decision-making tool - Benchmarking transforms regulatory decisions from assumptions into evidence-based conclusions, supporting market analysis, competition assessment, and spectrum policy (Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze)
Benchmarking as a compass, not a prescription - Benchmarking provides a baseline that must be combined with a regulatory gap assessment to reflect the unique needs of each country's market (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Benchmarking as a cornerstone for policy planning - Benchmarking is essential when launching new services or policies, enabling evidence-based decisions rather than assumption-driven ones (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Eight pillars of benchmarking utility - Benchmarking supports digital transformation through establishing baselines, identifying reform priorities, learning from peers, promoting evidence-based policymaking, strengthening accountability, supporting cross-government coordination, tracking progress, and mobilising investment (Ms. Andrea Grippa)
Systemic comparative analysis for better governance - Policy benchmarking is a systematic, standardised process of comparing policies and regulatory frameworks to identify good practices and opportunities for improvement, enabling data-driven and transparent governance (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
There was strong consensus that benchmarks cannot be applied uniformly and must be tailored to national realities. Ms. Nghikembua gave the concrete example of Namibia's geography, explaining that 'the unique needs of Namibia as a country is actually that we focus only on population coverage because we will never reach geographic coverage because of the unique nature of our country' . Ms. EL Khateeb described a two-stage process, first looking at developed countries and then at 'countries that are similar to our market' in terms of 'geography, financial inclusion, political scene' , noting that 'there are no two countries that are exactly the same' . Ms. Imedadze highlighted how Eastern Partnership countries were able to add regional specificities to the GEMS platform . The Cabo Verde audience member reinforced this, asking how benchmarking can 'reflect the realities of small island development states' .
Unique national circumstances must guide final decisions - Namibia's vast but sparsely populated geography means geographic coverage targets may be inappropriate; population coverage is more relevant, illustrating that benchmarks must be adapted to local realities (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Two-stage benchmarking approach - Jordan first examines how the most developed countries have implemented policies, then drills into countries with similar geography, financial inclusion, and political contexts before tailoring findings to national needs (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Regional specificity within global tools - Participation in platforms such as GEMS allowed Eastern Partnership countries to add regional specificities, ensuring that benchmarks reflect the realities of smaller and developing countries (Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze)
Benchmarking must reflect small island developing states' realities - International regulatory benchmarking should incorporate the specific circumstances of small island developing states, including digital inclusion, gender equality, and geographic and social inequalities (Audience)
Multiple speakers emphasised that benchmarking is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Ms. Maddams stated explicitly that 'benchmarking is not an end in itself' and 'must serve as the basis for institutional learning, regional cooperation, and reform planning' . Ms. Lozanova noted that 'not every gap on the framework is necessarily something that you need to do' and that prioritisation based on relevance, feasibility, and political momentum is essential . Ms. Nghikembua warned that 'benchmarking must not be the sole driver of reform because then as a country you end up pursuing ranks rather than addressing the actual developmental needs' . Ms. Prado-Wagner summarised that 'benchmarking is most valuable when it becomes a catalyst for dialogue, learning, and concrete action' .
Benchmarking must translate into concrete action - Benchmarking is not an end in itself; it must serve as the basis for institutional learning, regional cooperation, reform planning, and the development of customised national blueprints (Ms. Sophie Maddams)
Prioritisation over comprehensiveness - Not every gap identified in the framework requires immediate action; policymakers must prioritise based on relevance, feasibility, and political momentum to create actionable roadmaps (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
Benchmarking should not drive rank-seeking behaviour - Countries risk pursuing ranks rather than addressing actual developmental needs if benchmarking becomes the sole driver of reform, rather than a guide for context-specific action (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
All speakers agreed that regional cooperation significantly enhances the value of benchmarking. Ms. Nghikembua explained that when benchmarks reveal common challenges, regional associations can develop 'shared frameworks, guidelines, or capacity-building programs', reducing duplication and accelerating implementation . Ms. Grippa highlighted ARCTEL as a practical model where 'we are always exchanging regulatory information' and providing capacity building . Ms. Imedadze described how the DRN gave Eastern Partnership countries the opportunity to 'voice over that we need this specificity' in global tools . Ms. EL Khateeb encouraged countries to 'volunteer your time, volunteer your expertise, and help other countries who have similar circumstances' . The audience member from Mozambique thanked the BDT for accepting ARCTEL into the DRN .
Regional associations accelerate reform and reduce duplication - When benchmarks reveal common challenges across a region, associations can develop shared frameworks, guidelines, and capacity-building programmes, reducing duplication and cutting costs (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Portuguese-speaking countries association as a model - The ARCTEL association facilitates regulatory information exchange, capacity building, and a gender equality leadership programme among Portuguese-speaking countries, serving as a practical example of regional benchmarking cooperation (Ms. Andrea Grippa)
Regional networks enable voice for developing countries - Participation in networks such as the DRN and platforms such as GEMS allows smaller and developing countries to contribute their specificities and ensure their contexts are reflected in global benchmarking tools (Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze)
Sharing expertise with neighbouring countries - Countries that are advanced in specific policy areas should proactively volunteer their expertise to help neighbouring countries with similar circumstances develop their own regulatory frameworks (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Digital Regulation Network as a vehicle for regional collaboration - The DRN enables regional regulatory associations to share views and experiences globally, with associations such as ARCTEL and CRASA contributing to the network's collaborative framework (Audience)
Several speakers converged on the view that the ultimate measure of success is not benchmark performance but real-world developmental impact. Ms. Nghikembua argued that 'the true measure of success will not be the level at which you have benchmarked well, but it will be the level at which you have implemented reforms that speak to the developmental needs of your country' . Ms. EL Khateeb advised that countries 'should not try and start strive for something perfect rather start somewhere small and you can enhance this as you go along' . Ms. Lozanova emphasised that the ultimate objective is to 'compare your readiness across different benchmarks and the overall readiness towards the outcomes that you desire to achieve' and to 'really be very deliberate and very specific about priorities' .
Country ownership as the true measure of success - The ultimate measure of success is not a high benchmark ranking but whether digital policy reforms improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Iterative policy development over perfection - Countries should not strive for a perfect policy from day one; starting with a good-enough policy and building on it incrementally is a practical and effective approach (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Prioritisation over comprehensiveness - Not every gap identified in the framework requires immediate action; policymakers must prioritise based on relevance, feasibility, and political momentum to create actionable roadmaps (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
Both Ms. Nghikembua and Ms. EL Khateeb described a structured, multi-stage approach to benchmarking that begins with international or advanced-country comparisons and then narrows to contextually similar countries before tailoring findings to national needs. Ms. Nghikembua described CRAN's process of first examining 'what do the international benchmarks say' and then conducting 'a regulatory gap assessment' to understand how outcomes align with Namibia's 'unique setup as a country' . Ms. EL Khateeb similarly described looking first at 'the most developed countries' to 'set a scene' and then drilling into 'countries that are similar to our market' in terms of 'geography, financial inclusion, political scene' . Both explicitly rejected a one-size-fits-all application of benchmarks . Both Ms. Maddams and Ms. Lozanova presented complementary and consistent descriptions of the ITU Digital Readiness Framework as a unified, integrated tool built upon the Generations of Regulation model. Ms. Maddams described the framework as integrating 'two main tracks of reform' — sectoral ICT-focused essentials and cross-sectoral digital foundations — 'into one unified benchmark' , and noted it is 'strategically designed upon ITU's established Generations of Regulation model' . Ms. Lozanova elaborated that the framework 'is the fusion of' the ICT Regulatory Tracker and the G5 Benchmark , and that 'having a single framework is that you have a 360-degree visibility on all the most important issues' . Both emphasised Generation 5 as the target for agile, collaborative digital regulation . Both Ms. Imedadze and Ms. EL Khateeb emphasised the importance of participation in regional and international networks to both shape global tools and share expertise with neighbouring countries. Ms. Imedadze described how Eastern Partnership countries were 'given opportunity to voice over that we need this specificity' in global platforms like GEMS , and encouraged the use of platforms like the ICT Regulatory Tracker and CPP . Ms. EL Khateeb noted that Jordan, as the first regulator established in the region in 1995 , makes sure to 'help other countries also to have similar policies in their markets, especially in the region' , and encouraged any country that excels to 'volunteer your time, volunteer your expertise' . Both Ms. Nghikembua and Mr. Gutierrez emphasised that effective digital development requires cross-sector collaboration and cannot be measured by technical metrics alone. Ms. Nghikembua described how CRAN and the central bank 'had to come together' to align universal service fund targets with digital payment solution targets to serve 'the ultimate goal' of national digital transformation . Mr. Gutierrez argued that 'people-centred digital government requires much more than a platform' and requires 'meaningful connectivity, affordability, accessibility, digital skill, trust, competition, investment, relative content and coordination among government, regulators, industry, communication, and civil society' . Ms. Lozanova, Ms. Nghikembua, and Ms. Maddams all converged on the view that benchmarking must be purposeful and action-oriented rather than a scoring or ranking exercise. Ms. Lozanova noted that ITU frameworks 'do not focus on scoring and ranks' as this is 'against the whole spirit of benchmarking' , and that not every gap 'is necessarily something that you need to do' . Ms. Nghikembua warned that 'benchmarking must not be the sole driver of reform' as countries would 'end up pursuing ranks rather than addressing the actual developmental needs' . Ms. Maddams called on stakeholders to 'translate this evidence into concrete policy action' and develop 'customised national blueprints' .
It is somewhat unexpected that regulators and policymakers who are themselves assessed and ranked by international benchmarking tools would so unanimously and explicitly caution against rank-seeking behaviour. Rather than advocating for higher scores, all speakers emphasised that benchmarking should serve developmental goals. Ms. Nghikembua explicitly warned that 'benchmarking must not be the sole driver of reform because then as a country you end up pursuing ranks rather than addressing the actual developmental needs' . Ms. Lozanova, representing the ITU itself, noted that ITU frameworks 'do not focus on scoring and ranks' as this is 'against the whole spirit of benchmarking' . Ms. EL Khateeb advised that countries 'should not try and start strive for something perfect rather start somewhere small' . This consensus is notable because it reflects a mature, self-critical understanding of benchmarking's limitations from the very practitioners being benchmarked.
It is somewhat unexpected that telecommunications regulators, whose traditional mandate is sector-specific, would so strongly advocate for cross-sector collaboration as a core principle of digital governance. Ms. Nghikembua described how CRAN had to collaborate with the central bank to align universal service fund targets with digital payment solutions . Mr. Gutierrez argued that digital government requires 'coordination among government, regulators, industry, communication, and civil society' . Ms. Maddams noted that the Digital Readiness Framework integrates 'cross-sectoral digital foundations' alongside ICT-focused essentials . Ms. Lozanova explained that the framework includes 'instruments which are more cross-cutting and enabling many other sectors' because 'it's very difficult today to separate the two' . This consensus reflects a significant evolution in how telecommunications regulators understand their own role.
It is notable that Ms. Lozanova, as the ITU representative presenting the Digital Readiness Framework, herself acknowledged the limitations of standardised tiers, stating that 'many of you may not recognise yourselves in the tier that you would find yourself' and that 'the tiers do not represent your ambition they do not represent the effort that has been invested in that area' . This candid acknowledgement aligned closely with the concerns raised by national regulators. Ms. Nghikembua described how Namibia's unique geography makes standard geographic coverage targets inappropriate , and Ms. Imedadze described how Eastern Partnership countries needed to add regional specificities to global tools . The fact that the framework's own developer acknowledged these limitations, rather than defending the tool's comprehensiveness, represents an unexpected degree of intellectual honesty and consensus with the practitioners.
The discussion revealed a remarkably high level of consensus across all speakers on five core themes: (1) benchmarking is a valuable but context-dependent tool for evidence-based policymaking; (2) benchmarks must be adapted to national and regional realities rather than applied uniformly; (3) benchmarking should drive concrete action and reform, not rank-seeking behaviour; (4) regional cooperation and associations significantly amplify the value of benchmarking; and (5) the ultimate measure of success is whether digital policies improve citizens' lives and support national development goals, not benchmark scores. These points of agreement were shared across ITU representatives, national regulators from four different regions (Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle East, and Africa), and audience participants from developing countries including Cabo Verde and Colombia. The consensus was reinforced by the moderator's closing summary that 'the main message from this session is collaboration, dialogue' .
Ms. Maddams presents the Digital Readiness Framework as a tool that tells countries 'what you should change, who should lead, as well as how to sequence reforms and how to implement them' , implying a relatively directive role for the benchmarking tool. Ms. Lozanova similarly describes how policymakers can use the framework to create actionable roadmaps , though she acknowledges that not every gap requires action . By contrast, Ms. Nghikembua explicitly rejects a prescriptive role for benchmarking, stating that 'benchmarking for us is not a prescription, it's rather a compass' , and insisting that the benchmark outcome is only a baseline that must be combined with a regulatory gap assessment reflecting the unique national setup . She further warns that 'benchmarking must not be the sole driver of reform' , a caution not voiced by the ITU presenters.
Benchmarking must translate into concrete action - Benchmarking is not an end in itself; it must serve as the basis for institutional learning, regional cooperation, reform planning, and the development of customised national blueprints (Ms. Sophie Maddams)
Prioritisation over comprehensiveness - Not every gap identified in the framework requires immediate action; policymakers must prioritise based on relevance, feasibility, and political momentum to create actionable roadmaps (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
Benchmarking as a compass, not a prescription - Benchmarking provides a baseline that must be combined with a regulatory gap assessment to reflect the unique needs of each country's market (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
The ITU presenters structure the Digital Readiness Framework around tiered readiness levels (low, intermediate, high, very high) and 117 targets and indicators , and Ms. Maddams urges countries to use the framework to track progress . While Ms. Lozanova notes that ITU frameworks 'do not focus on scoring and ranks' , the framework's tiered structure still creates an implicit hierarchy. Ms. Nghikembua directly challenges this orientation, warning that 'countries end up pursuing ranks rather than addressing the actual developmental needs' when benchmarking becomes the sole driver of reform, and arguing that 'the true measure of success will not be the level at which you have benchmarked well, but it will be the level at which you have implemented reforms that speak to the developmental needs of your country' .
Digital Readiness Framework as a unified benchmark - The framework integrates ICT-focused essentials and cross-sectoral digital foundations into one tool, assessing national readiness across digital law, policy, and governance (Ms. Sophie Maddams)
Framework structured around nine thematic benchmarks - The Digital Readiness Framework covers 117 targets and indicators across nine thematic benchmarks, providing 360-degree visibility on issues needed to build digital economies and inclusive societies (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
Benchmarking should not drive rank-seeking behaviour - Countries risk pursuing ranks rather than addressing actual developmental needs if benchmarking becomes the sole driver of reform, rather than a guide for context-specific action (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
Country ownership as the true measure of success - The ultimate measure of success is not a high benchmark ranking but whether digital policy reforms improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
The ITU presenters frame benchmarking primarily around policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks, with the Digital Readiness Framework assessing national readiness across digital law, policy, and governance . Mr. Gutierrez, however, argues that 'digital government should not be measured only by the number of public services online' but by 'the real ability of citizens to address, understand them, trust them, and use them in an effective manner' . He contends that people-centred digital government requires 'meaningful connectivity, affordability, accessibility, digital skill, trust, competition, investment, relative content and coordination among government, regulators, industry, communication, and civil society' , suggesting that the ITU's framework-focused benchmarking may not fully capture the citizen-level outcomes that matter most.
Digital Readiness Framework as a unified benchmark - The framework integrates ICT-focused essentials and cross-sectoral digital foundations into one tool, assessing national readiness across digital law, policy, and governance (Ms. Sophie Maddams)
Systemic comparative analysis for better governance - Policy benchmarking is a systematic, standardised process of comparing policies and regulatory frameworks to identify good practices and opportunities for improvement, enabling data-driven and transparent governance (Ms. Youlia Lozanova)
People-centred digital government beyond connectivity metrics - Digital government should be measured by citizens' real ability to access, understand, trust, and use digital public services, requiring meaningful connectivity, affordability, digital skills, and multi-stakeholder coordination (Mr. Javier Gutierrez)
Ms. EL Khateeb describes a two-stage approach in which Jordan first looks at how the most developed countries have done something 'just to set a scene' , and then drills into countries that are similar in terms of geography, financial inclusion, and political context . This implies that the most developed countries serve as the primary aspirational reference point. Ms. Nghikembua, by contrast, does not describe a similar two-stage hierarchy; instead, she emphasises combining international and regional benchmarks with a regulatory gap assessment that foregrounds the unique national setup , suggesting that the unique national context is the primary lens rather than an aspirational developed-country standard.
Two-stage benchmarking approach - Jordan first examines how the most developed countries have implemented policies, then drills into countries with similar geography, financial inclusion, and political contexts before tailoring findings to national needs (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Benchmarking as a compass, not a prescription - Benchmarking provides a baseline that must be combined with a regulatory gap assessment to reflect the unique needs of each country's market (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
It is unexpected that Mr. Gutierrez, as a fellow regulator participating in a session promoting the ITU's Digital Readiness Framework, implicitly challenged the framework's scope. While the ITU presenters focus on assessing policy, legal, and governance frameworks , Mr. Gutierrez argued that digital government should be measured by 'the real ability of citizens to address, understand them, trust them, and use them in an effective manner' , and that it requires 'much more than a platform' including affordability, digital skills, trust, and civil society coordination . This suggests a gap between the framework-level benchmarking promoted by ITU and the citizen-outcome-level measurement that at least one practitioner considers essential, a tension that was not directly addressed or resolved during the session.
The Cabo Verde audience member raised an unexpected challenge to the universality of the ITU's benchmarking approach, questioning 'how can we ensure that international regulatory benchmarking reflects the realities of small island development states while also incorporating digital inclusion, gender equalities, objectives' . This was unexpected in a session designed to promote the Digital Readiness Framework, as it implicitly questioned whether the framework's 117 indicators and tiered readiness thresholds are genuinely applicable to small island developing states with specific geographic, social, and financial constraints . The ITU presenters did not directly respond to this challenge during the session, and the moderator redirected the question to the panellists .
It is somewhat unexpected that even within the ITU's own presentation, there is a tension between Ms. Maddams' assertion that the framework 'tells you what you should change, who should lead, as well as how to sequence reforms and how to implement them' , and Ms. Lozanova's more cautious framing that 'not every gap on the framework is necessarily something that you need to do' and that prioritisation depends on context, feasibility, and political momentum . This internal tension within the ITU's own messaging was then amplified by practitioners: Ms. Nghikembua's 'compass not prescription' framing and Ms. EL Khateeb's advice to 'start somewhere small' suggest that practitioners experience the framework as more directive than the ITU intends, or alternatively that the ITU's messaging on this point is inconsistent.
The session was broadly collaborative and consensus-oriented, with all speakers affirming the value of benchmarking for evidence-based digital policymaking. However, meaningful tensions emerged around four main areas: (1) the degree to which benchmarking should be directive versus contextually adaptive ; (2) the risk of rank-seeking behaviour displacing genuine developmental reform ; (3) the adequacy of framework-level benchmarking for capturing citizen-level outcomes ; and (4) the applicability of universal benchmarking tools to small island developing states and other specific national contexts . These tensions were largely implicit rather than openly debated, as the session format did not encourage direct challenge between speakers.
All speakers agree that benchmarking is a valuable and necessary tool for evidence-based policymaking. Ms. Maddams states it 'must serve as the basis for institutional learning, regional cooperation, and reform planning' , Ms. Imedadze affirms it 'transforms our regulatory decisions into the assumptions and evidence-based assumptions' , Ms. EL Khateeb calls it 'a cornerstone' , and Ms. Grippa describes ANATEL as 'a benchmarking heavy user' . However, they disagree on the degree to which benchmarking should be directive versus contextually adapted. Ms. Nghikembua and Ms. EL Khateeb both emphasise the need to tailor benchmarking findings to national realities , while the ITU presenters present the framework as providing more specific guidance on what to change and how .
Benchmarking must translate into concrete action - Benchmarking is not an end in itself; it must serve as the basis for institutional learning, regional cooperation, reform planning, and the development of customised national blueprints (Ms. Sophie Maddams) Benchmarking as evidence-based decision-making tool - Benchmarking transforms regulatory decisions from assumptions into evidence-based conclusions, supporting market analysis, competition assessment, and spectrum policy (Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze) Benchmarking as a compass, not a prescription - Benchmarking provides a baseline that must be combined with a regulatory gap assessment to reflect the unique needs of each country's market (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua) Benchmarking as a cornerstone for policy planning - Benchmarking is essential when launching new services or policies, enabling evidence-based decisions rather than assumption-driven ones (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb) Eight pillars of benchmarking utility - Benchmarking supports digital transformation through establishing baselines, identifying reform priorities, learning from peers, promoting evidence-based policymaking, strengthening accountability, supporting cross-government coordination, tracking progress, and mobilising investment (Ms. Andrea Grippa)
All speakers agree that benchmarking must be adapted to national and regional contexts rather than applied uniformly. Ms. Lozanova acknowledges that 'not every gap on the framework is necessarily something that you need to do' and that prioritisation must reflect what is 'most relevant in your context' . Ms. Nghikembua illustrates this with Namibia's geographic coverage example , and Ms. EL Khateeb describes tailoring findings to Jordan's specific needs . The Cabo Verde audience member raises the same concern for small island developing states . However, they differ on how this adaptation should be structured: Ms. Lozanova presents a systematic framework-based approach , while practitioners describe more organic, context-driven processes .
Prioritisation over comprehensiveness - Not every gap identified in the framework requires immediate action; policymakers must prioritise based on relevance, feasibility, and political momentum to create actionable roadmaps (Ms. Youlia Lozanova) Unique national circumstances must guide final decisions - Namibia's vast but sparsely populated geography means geographic coverage targets may be inappropriate; population coverage is more relevant, illustrating that benchmarks must be adapted to local realities (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua) Two-stage benchmarking approach - Jordan first examines how the most developed countries have implemented policies, then drills into countries with similar geography, financial inclusion, and political contexts before tailoring findings to national needs (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb) Benchmarking must reflect small island developing states' realities - International regulatory benchmarking should incorporate the specific circumstances of small island developing states, including digital inclusion, gender equality, and geographic and social inequalities (Audience)
All panellists agree that regional cooperation is essential for effective benchmarking and reform. Ms. Imedadze highlights the value of the DRN and GEMS for Eastern Partnership countries , Ms. Nghikembua emphasises how regional associations reduce duplication and accelerate implementation , Ms. Grippa points to ARCTEL as a model , and Ms. EL Khateeb encourages proactive sharing of expertise . However, they differ in emphasis: Ms. Imedadze focuses on ensuring smaller countries can shape global tools , Ms. Nghikembua focuses on regional associations as vehicles for consolidated frameworks , and Ms. EL Khateeb focuses on bilateral and voluntary knowledge-sharing .
Regional networks enable voice for developing countries - Participation in networks such as the DRN and platforms such as GEMS allows smaller and developing countries to contribute their specificities and ensure their contexts are reflected in global benchmarking tools (Ms. Ekaterine Imedadze) Regional associations accelerate reform and reduce duplication - When benchmarks reveal common challenges across a region, associations can develop shared frameworks, guidelines, and capacity-building programmes, reducing duplication and cutting costs (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua) Portuguese-speaking countries association as a model - The ARCTEL association facilitates regulatory information exchange, capacity building, and a gender equality leadership programme among Portuguese-speaking countries, serving as a practical example of regional benchmarking cooperation (Ms. Andrea Grippa) Sharing expertise with neighbouring countries - Countries that are advanced in specific policy areas should proactively volunteer their expertise to help neighbouring countries with similar circumstances develop their own regulatory frameworks (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb)
Both Ms. EL Khateeb and Ms. Nghikembua agree that the ultimate goal of benchmarking-driven reform is not achieving a high score or a perfect policy, but rather delivering real-world outcomes. Ms. EL Khateeb advises that countries 'should not try and start strive for something perfect rather start somewhere small and you can enhance this as you go along' , while Ms. Nghikembua argues that 'the true measure of success will not be the level at which you have benchmarked well, but it will be the level at which you have implemented reforms that speak to the developmental needs of your country' . However, they frame this differently: Ms. EL Khateeb focuses on the pragmatics of policy design and iteration , while Ms. Nghikembua frames it as a structural concern about the risk of rank-seeking behaviour distorting reform priorities .
Iterative policy development over perfection - Countries should not strive for a perfect policy from day one; starting with a good-enough policy and building on it incrementally is a practical and effective approach (Ms. Lara EL Khateeb) Country ownership as the true measure of success - The ultimate measure of success is not a high benchmark ranking but whether digital policy reforms improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals (Ms. Emilia Nghikembua)
- Benchmarking is a systemic, standardised process of comparing policies and regulatory frameworks across countries and regions to identify good practices and opportunities for improvement, enabling data-driven and transparent governance.
- The ITU Digital Readiness Framework integrates ICT-focused essentials and cross-sectoral digital foundations into a single unified tool, assessing national readiness across digital law, policy, and governance through nine thematic benchmarks and 117 targets and indicators.
- The Digital Readiness Framework is built upon the Generations of Regulation model, with Generation 5 representing the gold standard for agile, collaborative digital regulation, and serves as the fusion of the ICT Regulatory Tracker and the G5 Benchmark.
- Benchmarking must serve as a compass rather than a prescription; its value lies in providing a baseline that must be combined with a regulatory gap assessment to reflect the unique circumstances of each country's market.
- A two-stage benchmarking approach is recommended: first examining how the most developed countries have implemented policies, then analysing countries with similar geography, financial inclusion, and political contexts before tailoring findings to national needs.
- Not every gap identified in a benchmarking framework requires immediate action; policymakers must prioritise based on relevance, feasibility, and political momentum to create actionable roadmaps.
- Benchmarking is not an end in itself; it must serve as the basis for institutional learning, regional cooperation, reform planning, and the development of customised national blueprints.
- Regional regulatory associations accelerate reform and reduce duplication by developing shared frameworks, guidelines, and capacity-building programmes in response to common challenges identified through benchmarking.
- The Digital Regulation Network (DRN) enables regional regulatory associations to share views and experiences globally, allowing smaller and developing countries to contribute their specificities and ensure their contexts are reflected in global benchmarking tools.
- The ultimate measure of success is not a high benchmark ranking but whether digital policy reforms improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals; countries risk pursuing ranks rather than addressing actual developmental needs if benchmarking becomes the sole driver of reform.
- International regulatory benchmarking should incorporate the specific circumstances of small island developing states, including digital inclusion, gender equality, and geographic and social inequalities.
- Cross-sector collaboration is essential; investment decisions across institutions must be aligned to serve the overarching national digital transformation agenda.
- Digital government should be measured by citizens' real ability to access, understand, trust, and use digital public services, requiring meaningful connectivity, affordability, digital skills, and multi-stakeholder coordination.
- Countries that are advanced in specific policy areas should proactively share their expertise with neighbouring countries facing similar circumstances, and iterative policy development is preferable to waiting for a perfect policy from the outset.
“Benchmarking is not a prescription, it's rather a compass. We do what we call a regulatory gap assessment where we say yes, the benchmark outcome is our baseline, but how do we fare as far as our unique setup as a country is concerned? It doesn't help that we strictly follow the benchmarks and then we get on top of the charts, but when we look at the happenings on the ground within the market and within a country, we are very far from the digital needs of our country and of our people.”
“How can we ensure that international regulatory benchmarking reflects the realities of small island development states while also incorporating digital inclusion, gender equality objectives, so that regulation becomes a true instrument of inclusion and resilience and sustainable development rather than merely a comparison against the standard of more advanced markets?”
“When regulators and policymakers face complex challenges, one of the most powerful questions you can ask yourselves is: who has been successful so far at what I haven't been successful yet? Who's doing this well? What have they done concretely? And what can I learn from them? This is what policy benchmarking helps with.”
“Digital government should not be measured only by the number of public services online. It should be measured by the real ability of citizens to address, understand them, trust them, and use them in an effective manner... People-centred digital government requires much more than a platform. It requires meaningful connectivity, affordability, accessibility, digital skills, trust, competition, investment, and coordination among government, regulators, industry, communication, and civil society.”
“We first took the most developed countries, but also then looked into our region and read the benchmarks of our neighbours and understand where we stand compared to most developed and our real context... We've been given opportunity to add the specificities of our region or small countries — for example, whether someone wants to use a satellite for universal connectivity or other types of networks. So we've been able to voice that we need this specificity to calculate the same benchmarks as the most developed countries.”
“The true measure of success is not the level at which you have benchmarked well, but it will be the level at which you have implemented reforms that speak to the developmental needs of your country and that you are able to take ownership of as a country. How do you strike the right balance between international benchmarking and country ownership?”
How can international regulatory benchmarking reflect the realities of small island developing states (SIDS) while also incorporating digital inclusion and gender equality objectives, so that regulation becomes a true instrument of inclusion and resilience rather than merely a comparison against standards of more advanced markets?
This question is critical because standard benchmarking frameworks are often designed with more developed or larger economies in mind. Small island developing states face unique geographic, financial, and infrastructural constraints that may not be captured in universal benchmarks, risking the imposition of inappropriate policy targets that do not reflect their developmental realities.
How can regulators be brought closer to digital regulation given the asymmetry with global platforms?
Global digital platforms operate across borders and often outside the direct regulatory reach of national authorities. This asymmetry creates significant governance challenges, and understanding how benchmarking tools and international cooperation mechanisms such as the Digital Regulation Network (DRN) can help bridge this gap is an important area for further exploration.
How can the real impact of policies based on benchmarking data be measured?
Benchmarking tools help identify gaps and priorities, but translating benchmarking outcomes into measurable policy impact remains a challenge. Understanding how to assess whether policies informed by benchmarking data actually improve citizens' lives, strengthen businesses, and support national development goals is a key area requiring further methodological development.
How can regional regulatory associations best leverage benchmarking evidence to foster collaboration, reduce duplication, and accelerate the implementation of shared frameworks such as those for cybersecurity governance and digital identity?
Regional associations can play a pivotal role in translating benchmarking findings into collective action, but the mechanisms for doing so effectively — particularly in terms of developing shared frameworks and capacity-building programmes — require further investigation to ensure that regional collaboration genuinely accelerates reform rather than adding another layer of complexity.
How can benchmarking frameworks be expanded or adapted to incorporate the specificities of smaller or developing countries, such as the use of satellite connectivity for universal service or unique geographic and demographic characteristics?
Current benchmarking tools may not fully account for the unique circumstances of smaller or developing nations. There is a need to explore how platforms such as GEMS and the Connectivity Planning Platform (CPP) can be further developed to allow countries to input their specific contexts, ensuring that benchmarks remain relevant and actionable across diverse national settings.
How should countries strike the right balance between following international benchmarking standards and maintaining country ownership of their reform agendas, ensuring that reforms address actual developmental needs rather than simply improving benchmark rankings?
There is a risk that countries pursue higher benchmark scores as an end in themselves rather than as a means to improve citizens' lives. Further research is needed into governance models and policy design approaches that keep benchmarking as a compass rather than a prescription, ensuring that national priorities and local contexts remain central to reform planning.
How can the Digital Readiness Framework's 117 targets and indicators be effectively prioritised by countries with limited capacity, so that they focus on the most contextually relevant and feasible reforms rather than attempting to address all gaps simultaneously?
With 117 indicators across nine thematic benchmarks, the Digital Readiness Framework presents a comprehensive but potentially overwhelming set of reform areas. Further guidance and research on prioritisation methodologies — particularly for countries with limited institutional capacity or political momentum — would help ensure that the framework leads to actionable and achievable roadmaps.
How can Portuguese-speaking countries and other linguistic or regional groupings further leverage their shared association frameworks to exchange regulatory information, build capacity, and develop gender equality leadership programmes that can serve as models for other regional associations?
The experience of the Portuguese-speaking countries association (Architel) in sharing regulatory information and running gender equality leadership programmes offers a potentially replicable model. Further research into how such association-based benchmarking and capacity-building initiatives can be scaled or adapted for other regional groupings would be valuable.
How can people-centred digital government be more comprehensively measured beyond the number of public services available online, to include citizens' ability to access, understand, trust, and effectively use digital services, particularly in territories with limited connectivity or digital skills?
Current benchmarking approaches may overemphasise the availability of digital services without adequately capturing whether citizens can meaningfully benefit from them. Developing more nuanced measurement frameworks that account for affordability, accessibility, digital literacy, trust, and territorial inclusion is an important area for further research.