WSIS Forum 2026 Inaugural session: High-Level Plenary: The Future We Choose: Leadership for an Inclusive Digital World

Baerbock argues that while multilateralism remains alive, it can no longer be taken for granted as the international order faces heavy attack. In these fragmented and challenging times, the commitment to building the future together through cooperation is more crucial than ever.

She noted that a few years ago affirming multilateralism would have been unnecessary, but today the international order and cooperation are not only under pressure but under heavy attack . She emphasised that the understanding of what ITU does on a daily basis in terms of connectivity is no longer a given .

Baerbock highlights the WSIS Plus 20 resolution as a significant achievement because it was adopted by consensus, which is increasingly rare in the current geopolitical climate. She argues this consensus should be leveraged as a source of power for advancing digital cooperation and governance.

She specifically referenced the joint resolution and WSIS Plus 20 adopted in consensus the previous winter, describing it as one of the few moments where the General Assembly reached consensus . She called this the power that should be used in the fields of technical cooperation, digital cooperation, and governance .

Baerbock argues that advanced digital governance structures such as AI frameworks are futile if large portions of the population lack basic internet access or even electricity. She stresses that connectivity must be addressed as a foundational prerequisite before higher-level digital solutions can have any meaningful impact.

She pointed out that if a fifth or even a quarter of the population does not have internet access, an AI model for e-health is useless if basic services are not in place . She specifically cited the African continent and sub-Saharan Africa, where millions are not connected to the internet or even to electricity, making AI health centres irrelevant .

Baerbock argues that internet access should be recognised as a formal right because the absence of digital access increasingly undermines other established human rights. She contends that as essential services move online, those without internet access are effectively excluded from exercising rights to housing, banking, and education.

She noted that in many countries it is now impossible to rent an apartment without a bank account, and digital banking is increasingly required to access banking services . She also referenced the COVID-19 pandemic, during which students without home internet access were denied their right to education, including in her own city near Berlin .

Baerbock argues that the immense power held by big tech companies in the AI era must be matched with legal accountability, drawing a parallel with how liability frameworks were established for nuclear technology. Without such accountability, fundamental human rights including human dignity are at risk.

She drew a direct analogy with nuclear technology, arguing that when revolutionary technological changes occurred in the past, societies ensured liability for those who held that power . She concluded that without equivalent liability for AI, human rights and human dignity are endangered .

Baerbock calls for individual leadership and cross-regional alliances as essential mechanisms for connecting the various WSIS action lines and ensuring that digital progress reaches those still excluded. She argues that without such coordinated leadership, the gains from international agreements will not translate into meaningful outcomes for the most vulnerable.

She cited concrete examples of successful WSIS action line implementation, including Action 9-2 on infrastructure in Peru and Action 9-7 on e-health in Tanzania, where almost 2 million people were connected to 20 to 60 health facilities . She called for leaders from different continents to form cross-regional alliances to connect these action lines .

Baerbock argues that digital governance cannot be siloed and must be understood in relation to all three pillars of the UN system: development, human rights, and peace and security. Failure to bridge these pillars will undermine the overall success of digital transformation efforts.

She highlighted the vulnerability of undersea internet cables as an example of the peace and security dimension of digital infrastructure, noting that without regulation, container ships could attack these cables with no protection in place . She concluded that bridging the digital divide across gender, the global north-south divide, and the three UN pillars is essential to success .

Karis acknowledges that the World Summit on Information Society raised the right questions about ensuring digital transformation serves people and supports development for all, and that these questions remain as relevant today as they were two decades ago. He argues that the focus must now move from articulating principles to delivering concrete results.

He noted that more than 20 years ago the World Summit on Information Society changed things profoundly, yet the central question of how digital transformation serves people and supports development for all remains the same . He stated that for Estonia, this is not an abstract question, as the country has built much of its modern state on a digital foundation .

Karis argues that the proliferation of global digital governance processes risks creating confusion and inefficiency if they do not actively reinforce one another. He calls for coherence between the WSIS process, the Global Digital Compact, and other international initiatives.

He explicitly stated as his fifth principle that the WSIS process and other initiatives should reinforce each other and not create duplication, and highlighted the important role of international organisations such as ITU in setting standards, building capacity, and supporting interoperability .

Karis contends that the internet's fundamental strength lies in not being controlled by any single state, company, or institution, and that fragmentation or excessive centralisation would undermine both innovation and democracy. He presents this as the first of five key principles for trusted digital public infrastructure.

He stated that fragmentation, excessive centralisation, and closed technology spheres would weaken innovation and the democratic potential of technology . He noted that the internet supports education, entrepreneurship, public debate, scientific cooperation, and freedom of expression .

Karis argues that while governments have a crucial role in setting rules and protecting rights, they cannot govern the digital world alone and must work alongside the private sector, civil society, the technical community, and academia. He presents inclusive multi-stakeholder governance as the second of his five key principles.

He stated that governments have a crucial role in setting rules and protecting rights but cannot govern the digital world alone, and that the private sector, civil society, the technical community, and academia all have a central role to play . He also referenced the Digital Inclusion and Governance Forum as a body that brings stakeholders together as equals .

Karis presents the protection of human rights online as his third key principle, arguing that this is especially critical in the age of artificial intelligence. He stresses that AI must be developed and deployed in a manner that is human-centred, rights-based, and accountable to ensure it strengthens rather than undermines democratic societies.

He referenced Estonia's participation in the Freedom Online Coalition in 2025, where Estonia stood for an internet that supports democracy, transparency, and trust . He stated that AI must remain human-centred, rights-based, and accountable, and that digital transformation can strengthen societies only when it allows for civic space and democratic accountability .

Karis argues that education has been and remains the cornerstone of Estonia's digital transformation journey, from the early provision of internet access in all schools to the current integration of AI literacy. He presents this as the key lesson from Estonia's experience that other countries should adopt.

He described Estonia's 'tiger leap' initiative from 20 years ago, which provided internet access to all schools across the country, not just in big cities, creating the foundation for the current 'AI leap' . He noted that in the second year of Estonia's AI education programme, 100% of teachers and 100% of students are involved .

Madiyev presents Kazakhstan's e-government achievements as evidence that sustained investment in digital public infrastructure can deliver tangible, people-centred results. He argues that services built around life situations and accessible online represent the kind of inclusive digital transformation that other nations should aspire to.

He stated that Kazakhstan has entered the list of top leading nations on e-government development, with more than 90% of over 1,300 public services available online . He provided concrete examples such as buying or selling a car in two to three minutes with home delivery of the car plate, applying for a mortgage and receiving approval within a day, and automatic government registration upon the birth of a child .

Madiyev highlights Kazakhstan's constitutional amendment protecting digital rights and personal data as a landmark step in creating a comprehensive legal framework for digitalisation. He argues that this legislative approach, alongside a new AI law and digital code, reflects the depth of Kazakhstan's commitment to building a trusted digital society.

He stated that Kazakhstan amended its constitution to preserve digital rights and personal data protection within it . He also noted the approval of a law on AI, a digital code, and upgrades to the law on telecommunications and data centres, including cloud-first policies .

Madiyev argues that AI should be elevated to the status of essential infrastructure, comparable to water and electricity, to ensure it is universally accessible and does not exacerbate existing inequalities. He contends that treating AI as base infrastructure is the key to ensuring it delivers productivity gains and efficiencies for all.

He stated that AI should be the base infrastructure for people going forward, like water supply, electricity, and internet, because it will allow societies to avoid gaps by providing productivity gains and efficiencies .

Madiyev presents Kazakhstan's large-scale AI skills programme as evidence of the ambition and investment required to build the human capital necessary for a digital nation. He argues that human capital development must cover all population groups, from school children to government employees.

He stated that last year Kazakhstan covered one million people with AI skills , and that an AI University is to be launched in September of the current year . He also described the ALAM AI International AI Centre as a platform covering broad population groups, big tech companies, startups, school children, and students .

Madiyev argues that a cultural shift in how young people view their career aspirations is as important as technical skills development for building a truly digital and innovative nation. He calls for merging the innovation startup ecosystem with universities so that students are incentivised to become founders rather than public sector employees.

He stated that Kazakhstan is planning to merge its innovation startup ecosystem with universities so that students can receive academic credit for acceleration and incubation programmes . He expressed the aspiration that everyone should dream of building a unicorn company in their lifetime .

Satyarthi argues that AI systems are not neutral tools but reflect the minds, purposes, and values of those who create them, making it imperative that leaders ensure these systems serve and protect the most vulnerable members of society. He frames this as a fundamental moral responsibility of those who build and deploy AI.

He used the analogy of a bridge, arguing that those who build a bridge have a moral responsibility to ensure it is safe for people to walk on, and that the same principle applies to those who build AI systems . He stated that technology carries the minds, purposes, intentions, and values of those who create it , and asked whether AI systems will protect the last child of society or exploit them further .

Satyarthi calls for compassion to be understood not as a soft emotion but as a disruptive, dynamic, and transformative force that must be embedded in the technical development and deployment of AI. He argues that compassion, encompassing justice, equality, peace, and sustainability, must be built into AI algorithms and digital systems.

He explicitly called for compassion as a disruptive, dynamic, and transformative force with its four elements of justice, equality, peace, and sustainability to be embedded in the development and deployment of AI algorithms and digital systems . He framed this as 'compassionate AI' that reaches out to the last person in society .

Satyarthi proposes that industry send their engineers to spend one month with marginalised children in mines, factories, war zones, and remote villages, arguing that this direct human experience would fundamentally change how they approach their work. He contends that when developers connect with and feel the realities of those affected by their code, they will return to their labs as different individuals who design with greater compassion.

He drew on his own experience of the Global March Against Child Labour, which crossed 103 countries and involved 7.2 million people, leading to the unanimous adoption of the ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour . He invited engineers to walk with him in villages where children live with uncertainty and hopelessness, promising that this one month could shape the future of humankind .

Battsengel argues that simply providing connectivity is insufficient for true digital inclusion; what matters is ensuring that people can use that connectivity to learn, create opportunities, and develop skills. She stresses that digital inclusion means access to digital platforms for learning and AI tools, not merely access to social media.

She shared the story of a girl from a nomadic family living 2,000 kilometres from the city who, through the Girls' Code NGO, gained access to education and eventually graduated from an Ivy League school with a full scholarship . She stated that digital inclusion does not mean using social media like Instagram or TikTok, but using connectivity to get more opportunities to learn and embrace technology .

Battsengel argues that the nature of AI skills development has fundamentally changed the purpose of education, shifting from the accumulation of knowledge to the development of practical skills. She contends that AI skilling is now an economic imperative that drives competitiveness and creates opportunities.

She argued that traditional education systems built people with wide or specific knowledge, but AI has changed this because what is now needed is people with skills rather than generic knowledge . She stated that building AI skills means building an economic engine, creating competitiveness, and filling gaps .

Battsengel argues from direct experience that training teachers is the most effective strategy for scaling AI education, as teachers act as multipliers who can reach far more children than direct student training programmes. She presents this as a key lesson for government leaders designing AI education strategies.

She described how AI Academy Asia trained 1,000 teachers from public schools in 330 villages in Mongolia, and those teachers subsequently trained 50,000 children . She noted that these 50,000 children, many from rural backgrounds, were able to build their own AI agents and use AI to solve problems in their communities .

Battsengel frames the lack of access to digital skills and internet connectivity not merely as a development gap but as a violation of fundamental human rights, specifically the right to equal education. She argues that the 2.2 billion people without access to digital skills and internet are being actively blocked from exercising their rights.

She referenced ITU reports indicating that 2.2 billion people around the world have not been able to access digital skills or the internet . She stated explicitly that this is not only about giving them connectivity but that blocking access violates their human rights to learn and receive equal education .

Battsengel argues that the private sector, particularly tech and AI companies, must be actively engaged in discussions about AI education, inclusion, and human rights, as their current absence from these conversations is a significant gap. She calls for industry to collaborate more effectively and be involved in these critical topics.

She stated that many tech companies and AI companies are not taking part in AI education, AI human rights, and AI inclusion discussions, and called for them to be brought to the table and involved in these topics .

Gabriel argues that the WSIS framework has stood the test of time, with its architecture, action lines, and multi-stakeholder processes all remaining valid and effective. She further contends that the Global Digital Compact has extended WSIS's function as an implementation engine rather than replacing it.

She noted that last December the General Assembly adopted the WSIS Plus 20 outcome resolution, and that the international community looked at what had been built and affirmed that the architecture, action lines, and multi-stakeholder processes hold . She stated that with the Global Digital Compact adopted in between, WSIS has extended its function as an implementation engine .

Gabriel argues that UNESCO's facilitation of five WSIS action lines is not a matter of institutional habit but reflects the inseparable nature of access, education, sciences, cultural diversity, media freedom, and AI ethics in building truly inclusive knowledge societies. She contends that these pillars cannot be addressed in isolation.

She stated that UNESCO facilitates five WSIS action lines because access, education, sciences, cultural diversity, media freedom, and the ethics of new technologies including AI are inseparable . She argued that one cannot build inclusive knowledge societies that leave out women, speak only dominant languages, or ignore young people .

Gabriel highlights UNESCO's practical investments in tools and frameworks designed specifically for contexts where resources are limited, including AI solutions that function without large data centres and digital competency frameworks tailored for teachers globally. She presents these as concrete expressions of UNESCO's commitment to inclusive digital development.

She stated that UNESCO invests in low-resource AI, in edge computing that works without data centres, and in digital competency frameworks designed for teachers everywhere . She also referenced UNESCO's work in classrooms, newsrooms, national AI policies in small island states, and youth parliaments as examples of where global ambitions become real for real people .

Moreno argues that while the world is experiencing an unprecedented investment boom in AI and digital infrastructure, the benefits are highly concentrated geographically, leaving least developed and lower middle-income countries largely excluded. He contends that this narrow geography of investment is a fundamental challenge to equitable digital development.

He stated that the world will spend $800 billion on AI infrastructure in the current year alone, and that projections to 2030 may make this the biggest capital expenditure in modern history . He noted that strategic sectors like AI, semiconductors, and clean energy attract half of all new investments worldwide, but that least developed and lower middle-income countries capture only 10% of strategic sector investments .

Moreno argues that the mismatch between the rapid pace of AI development and the much longer timelines required to build physical and educational infrastructure in developing countries means that most of the world will arrive too late to shape the rules of the digital economy. He contends that global cooperation is the only mechanism that can bridge this time gap.

He outlined the contrasting timelines: a data centre takes three years to build, a power plant five years, a grid ten years, and an education system a generation, while the AI frontier runs on quarterly cycles and is accelerating . He warned that even with the right investments and policies, building alone gets most countries to the table after the rules are already written .

Moreno presents UNCTAD's institutional contributions to bridging the digital investment gap, including chairing the UN Group on the Information Society and launching a dedicated task force on financing for digital development. He frames these as concrete actions to align WSIS and the Global Digital Compact and address the financing challenges facing developing countries.

He stated that UNCTAD had the honour of chairing the UN Group on the Information Society, which delivered a joint implementation roadmap to align WSIS and the Global Digital Compact . He also noted the launch of a task force on financing for digital development aimed at the investment gap he described .

Opp argues that the WSIS Plus 20 review reaffirmed a vision that has been remarkably prescient for two decades, but that the current moment demands a decisive shift from dialogue and reflection to concrete implementation. He stresses that the next decade must be focused on delivering results together.

He stated that the WSIS Plus 20 review reaffirmed the WSIS vision of an inclusive, people-centred, and development-oriented digital future . He explicitly stated that today has to be more than reflection and must be about implementation, with the next decade focused on delivering results together .

Opp argues that multi-stakeholder partnership is not simply a supporting mechanism for implementation but is the implementation model itself, as no single institution possesses all the capabilities needed to deliver on the WSIS vision. He presents this as the bedrock of the WSIS process.

He stated that multi-stakeholder partnership is not simply support for implementation but is the implementation model itself, requiring government, the UN system, the private sector, academia, civil society, the technical community, and young innovators, each bringing something no single institution can possess .

Opp argues that the framing of AI readiness is insufficient and that the more important question is whether countries are developing the institutional capability to direct AI towards public value. He presents UNDP's research and country-level work as evidence for this reframing.

He referenced a UNDP report based on work across 26 countries on AI transformation, which found that the question is not whether countries are AI-ready but whether they are building the capability to steer AI toward public value . He cited concrete examples from Zimbabwe and Ghana, where UNDP's support for national AI strategies was paired with training for policymakers to move from strategy to implementation , and from Trinidad and Tobago, where public procurement was used as a governance lever for managing AI adoption .

Bogdan-Martin opens the forum by framing its central question as one of leadership — specifically, the kind of leadership that can inspire action, build trust, and deliver tangible results for a more inclusive digital world. She argues that this people-centred approach to technology must remain at the centre of everything the international community does.

She stated that the question before the forum is one of leadership that inspires action, builds trust, and delivers results for a more inclusive digital world, and that it is a determining factor of the future with stakes that could not be higher . She noted that as digital transformation accelerates, many divides persist and risk widening, making a people-centred approach essential .

Abdullah frames the core challenge of the forum as achieving universal meaningful connectivity in a way that ensures no person is excluded. She presents this not merely as a technical goal but as a standard of genuine digital inclusion that all panellists should address.

In posing the rapid-fire question to all panellists, she asked what single change they would make to accelerate universal meaningful connectivity and ensure true digital inclusion, explicitly defining this as meaning no one is left behind .

Abdullah argues that the forum's people-centred vision must serve as the reference point as the international community moves beyond discussion towards concrete implementation. She frames this shift as a progression from the information society to what the ITU Secretary General has called the intelligence society.

In her closing remarks, she stated that the people-centred WSIS vision remains the reference point and invoked the Secretary General's framing of the transition from the information society to the intelligence society, emphasising the move from dialogue to delivery .

Abdullah highlights that the WSIS Forum is jointly organised by four major UN entities — ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, and UNCTAD — and that this co-organiser structure has been in place for many years. She presents this institutional partnership as a defining feature of the forum's legitimacy and reach.

She introduced the closing segment by explicitly naming ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, and UNCTAD as co-organisers of the forum, noting that they have been co-organisers for many years, and invited representatives of each to take the stage .