WSIS women and girls trendsetters and action plan

Gitanjali Sah argues that WSIS still has work to do to achieve gender parity and should use its flexible multistakeholder nature to build a practical action plan for women and girls. She stresses that the growing pool of nominees and the involvement of actors from civil society, the private sector, international organisations and grassroots communities should be channelled into collaborative next steps.

She recalled that the group was created to push for 50-50 parity in sessions and among speakers at the WSIS Forum, and said that this parity has still not been fully achieved . She also said the initiative had grown significantly, with many strong nominations, and suggested finding roles for more nominees while asking participants to propose ideas for the WSIS women and girls action plan . She further emphasised that WSIS is not tightly bound by rules, which allows stakeholders across sectors to draw up an action plan together, and illustrated this with the example of a participant from Chad working at village level who could take collaborations back to her communities .

Gitanjali Sah says that women’s participation in digital events has improved significantly over time, but equal representation has still not been reached. Her point is that visible progress should not reduce pressure to keep parity as an explicit goal.

She said that 15 to 20 years ago women were often the only women in the room at digital events, whereas now there are many more women present . At the same time, she explicitly stated that 50-50 parity in sessions and speakers has not yet been achieved, even if progress is being made .

Amélie Washington frames the session as a working discussion intended to generate practical contributions to the WSIS Women and Girls Action Plan. She identifies a set of core themes and asks participants to orient their interventions towards those areas.

She stated that the aim of the session was to contribute concrete inputs to the WSIS Women and Girls Action Plan . She then listed the themes that should guide the discussion, namely business, education, AI, digital safety, women and girls in digital security, digital finance and integrating women and girls into the action lines .

Sarah El Omari reinforces the session objective by urging participants to stay focused on actionable contributions for the WSIS Women and Girls Action Plan. Her intervention repeats and anchors the thematic structure of the discussion so the roundtable remains productive and output-oriented.

She repeated that the aim of the session was to contribute concrete inputs to the WSIS Women and Girls Action Plan . She also restated the priority themes for discussion, including business, education, AI, digital safety, women and girls in digital security, digital finance and integration into the action lines .

Giulia Massimetti argues that inclusion initiatives only create lasting change when they are built to spread, endure and be shared systematically. She proposes regular annual check-ins among trendsetter cohorts so participants can exchange what worked, what failed and how to improve over time.

She said that best practices only matter when they travel, because good work too often remains inside one company or silo and then gets reinvented elsewhere later . She drew on her own experience of founding a women in technology community that started locally and was later adopted across 25 countries, using this as evidence that good practice needs structure beyond the individual who initiates it . She also referred to grassroots work such as Color Dojo for Girls to show that closing the digital divide requires not only resources and infrastructure but also visible women role models . Finally, she proposed that trendsetter cohorts come together for an annual check-in to report what worked and what did not, arguing that building the discipline of sharing and staying connected year after year is the real action plan .

Giulia Massimetti emphasises that inclusion cannot depend on a single enthusiastic individual; it needs systems, routines and collective learning to scale. Her focus is on institutionalising knowledge-sharing so successful models can survive staff changes and move across local, national and international settings.

She said that inclusion initiatives only last when they are built to outlive the person who starts them . As evidence, she cited the women in technology community she founded, which evolved from a local support space into a model adopted across 25 countries . She also argued for annual cohort reporting and long-term connection so that lessons can be shared consistently and progress can be tracked over time .

Ana Gabriela Valdiviezo argues that real inclusion means women and girls shaping digital transformation at the level of leadership, design and agenda-setting. She rejects a model where women are passive users of technology and instead calls for them to become creators, innovators and decision-makers.

She said that the future of digital societies depends on who has the opportunity to design, lead and benefit from them, and that societies transform faster when women and girls are empowered to lead that transformation . She supported this with examples from her own career, including serving as the first woman in Ecuador’s history to chair the National Telecommunication Council, as well as working as a CEO, university professor, international mentor and gender equality advocate . She then argued that inclusion is not about giving women a bigger seat at someone else’s table, but about enabling them to design the table, define the agenda and build the future, because digital transformation is not inclusive if women are only users of technology rather than creators and decision-makers .

Monika Magami argues that the deeper question is not numerical participation alone but whether women influence the values that technologies embody. She says inclusion must extend into policy, standards, research and governance spaces where the assumptions behind technology are set.

She explicitly said the real question is not how to bring more women to technology, but how women and girls help shape the values embedded in technology . She explained that technology is not value neutral and that every AI system and platform reflects the assumptions, priorities and values of those who design and govern it, so if women are absent, half of humanity is excluded from contributing . She added that meaningful inclusion requires public policy representation, apprenticeships, research participation and involvement in international decision-making and standards development, not just symbolic participation .

Monika Magami presents AI governance as a question of values as much as rules. She argues that women’s participation is necessary to ensure that compassion, justice, equality and human dignity are built into how technology is governed.

She stated that every AI system and platform reflects assumptions, priorities and values, rather than being neutral . She then argued that consultation and diverse participation matter because women can help bring values such as compassion, justice, equality between men and women and human dignity to the table in shaping technology . She concluded from her perspective as a lawyer and someone working in AI governance that the issue goes beyond regulation and compliance to deeper questions of human dignity .

Annarina Komljenovic argues that access, training and mentoring are insufficient unless women hold real authority in the institutions that govern technology. She calls for structural measures such as quotas, public disclosure of gender composition and better metrics focused on decision-making power rather than just overall workforce participation.

She opened with an example from a NATO meeting on emerging technologies and cloud governance where she was one of only five women in a room full of men, saying this is exactly what the action plan must name directly . She argued that digital sovereignty and gender inclusion both depend on the capacity to decide how systems are built, governed and deployed, and that outcomes depend on whether women hold power in standards bodies, AI governance frameworks and data policy . She cited independent research from firms such as Boston Consulting Group and Bain showing that many transformation initiatives fail because of people, process and change constraints, and linked this to predictable bias when women are underrepresented in design and standard-setting . She then recommended quotas for women in governance bodies, mandatory disclosure of gender composition in governance and design teams, and tracking of decision-making representation rather than relying on headline workforce numbers that can mask junior-level concentration of women .

Alice Paola Pomè argues that digital inclusion is not only about connectivity or literacy but also about power, representation and safety. Her core claim is that women must participate in governance and decision-making if digital transformation is to be genuinely inclusive.

She said the gender digital divide is no longer only about connectivity, but also about opportunity, representation, safety and power . She further argued that women and girls should not only learn to use digital technologies but also to create, govern, question and improve them, and concluded that women must be present where decisions are made because empowerment through technology must also include the power to govern technology .

Alice Paola Pomè argues that technological systems reflect the values and biases of their creators, which means exclusion becomes built into systems when women are absent. She does not call for slower innovation, but for better innovation that deliberately integrates inclusion across multiple interconnected dimensions.

She said that technology is one of the most powerful forces shaping society and that it is entering all areas of life and work . She then stated that technology is never neutral and reflects the values, priorities and biases of those who design, govern and deploy it, so when women and girls are absent inequality becomes embedded in the systems being built . She added that the answer is not to slow innovation but to build better innovation, linking universal access, future-ready skills, online safety, human rights, participation and economic empowerment as interconnected pillars of an inclusive digital society .

Carina Zehermeier argues that women can shape AI both through grassroots organising and through engagement in formal lawmaking and governance. She stresses that AI is interdisciplinary and that women from many backgrounds, not just technical ones, can contribute meaningfully to its development.

She described leaving diplomacy and then building a major grassroots movement in Austria, including founding an AI company and Women in AI Austria . She said this work quickly became a lobbying effort towards the European Union, influencing legal processes around the EU AI Act, Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, and later expanded into national initiatives such as She Goes AI in Austria . She concluded that every woman can play a role in AI development regardless of whether she studied informatics, mathematics, ethics or social science, or is simply working in the field to make an impact .

Carina Zehermeier argues that AI governance must ensure humans, including women, remain in control of technological development. She frames AI as a socio-technical domain that requires contributions from across disciplines, which makes inclusive governance essential.

She said she works on an AI governance platform and sees it as integral both to competence building and to making sure women and humans remain in the driving seat . She also stated that AI is not objective or neutral but a socio-technical field, and therefore must be shaped collectively so that it serves women and humanity . She reinforced this by saying that women from many professional backgrounds can contribute to developing AI .

Marcela Mogilska argues that women’s advancement in technology depends not only on women’s preparation but also on workplace cultures that actively support them. She says men must be part of the solution by learning to recognise bias and becoming inclusive leaders who help women thrive.

She explained that through Radia, a large female tech network in Germany, her organisation helps women succeed in the tech industry and supports organisations in attracting, retaining and empowering women at work . She said this is done through practical education and guidance, as well as gender equity audits and DEI training . She stressed that bias education matters because gender inequality is not a problem for women to solve alone; men need to become allies who recognise unconscious biases, support female talent and create inclusive workplaces so women can become creators, founders, researchers and decision-makers .

Marcela Mogilska argues that the key challenge is no longer identifying the problem but implementing solutions and holding organisations accountable. She advocates practical tools that can diagnose inequality and train leaders to build more inclusive workplaces.

She said that through her work she has learned that what matters now is not only awareness but implementation, because the necessary changes are already known and what is needed are practical tools, actions and accountability . She gave concrete examples from Radia’s work, including gender equity audits that show organisations their current status and required changes, as well as innovative DEI training focused on unconscious bias and inclusive leadership . She also connected this to starting early by inspiring girls and teaching boys empathy, kindness and collaboration .

Dragana Babic argues that inclusion must go beyond participation and help women and girls internalise that they belong in leadership roles. She highlights disability inclusion specifically, showing that leadership identity can be strengthened through small but meaningful acts of affirmation.

She shared a best-practice story from a cybersecurity workshop for children with developmental challenges where one of the presenters was a girl with Down syndrome, which she described as unusual because the girl was included as a presenter rather than just a participant . She noticed the girl lacked confidence compared with the others and, after the session, encouraged her to adopt the posture of a leader; the girl copied her and smiled, which Dragana interpreted as giving her a sense of belonging to the role . She concluded that this sense of belonging is crucial for women’s leadership .

Carrine Teoh Chooi Shi argues that cybersecurity awareness and education are now essential for protecting women and girls online, and that structural support is also needed to address women’s attrition from leadership pathways in technology. She links safety, skills and organisational reform as part of the same challenge.

She said she had worked in cybersecurity for over 15 years and that the urgency of protecting women and girls in cyberspace has escalated, making cyber safety a critical pillar rather than something optional . She argued that women and girls need knowledge, awareness, know-how and recognition of warning signs and vulnerabilities so they can better protect themselves online . She also provided workforce figures from the digital sector, saying women are around 50 per cent at entry level, 39 per cent in middle management and only 29 per cent in senior leadership, and used this to argue for structural and cultural interventions, mentoring and sponsorship to build women digital leaders and improve representation on boards and advisory bodies .

Carrine Teoh Chooi Shi argues that cyber safety should be treated as a core requirement for women’s digital participation. She emphasises practical education that helps women and girls understand online risks, warning signs and vulnerabilities before harm occurs.

She said that in cybersecurity the need and urgency to protect women and girls have escalated and that cyber safety is no longer merely good to have but must be considered a critical pillar . She further explained that education should equip girls and women with the right knowledge, know-how, awareness and understanding of telltale signs and loopholes that may expose them to harm in cyberspace .

Carrine Teoh Chooi Shi suggests that digital tools are only useful for reducing gender inequality if women are actually able to meet, access and use them in ways that are relevant to their needs and participation. The argument points to meaningful use rather than mere availability.

In her initial intervention, she said she wanted to address how digital tools can help mitigate inequalities between men and women, adding that for the tools to be relevant and for women to contribute content, women first need to meet and use the tools themselves .

Ladé Araba argues that the scale and youthfulness of Africa’s future workforce require a far more ambitious skills agenda for girls and women. She says basic digital literacy is only the floor, and future readiness must include AI fluency so girls can interrogate, build and apply technology to local and global problems.

She said that by 2050 one in five members of the global workforce will be African and that 60 per cent of Africans are under the age of 30 . She also noted that in Nigeria about 30 per cent of youth are not in education, employment or training and that three out of five of them are women . From this, she argued that for girls across countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana and Uganda, future readiness can no longer mean basic digital literacy alone, because basic literacy is only the floor and not the ceiling . She defined future readiness as AI fluency that equips girls and women not just to use technology but to interrogate it, code it and build algorithms that solve challenges in agriculture, health and climate change .

Ladé Araba argues that skills-building alone will fail if women and girls are driven out of digital spaces by violence and abuse. She calls for a holistic approach in which safety and inclusion are treated as equally necessary conditions for future readiness.

After outlining the need for future-ready skills, she warned that pathways cannot be scaled unless other pillars are addressed as well . She said that at the Visiola Foundation they see brilliant girls with strong technical ability who are still forced offline by technology-facilitated violence, and used this to argue for a more holistic agenda that tackles these gaps and shortcomings together .

Ladé Araba argues that policy frameworks should be matched by practical initiatives that visibly empower girls and inspire others. She presents role-model-based programmes as a way to turn broad commitments into community-level impact.

She said that, although policy support is necessary, action plans should also ask what practical actions each person can take . As evidence, she highlighted Smart Africa’s Miss Geek Africa initiative, describing it as similar to a beauty pageant but focused on innovation, and said that girls who participate return to their communities and inspire other girls, creating a ripple effect .

Ladé Araba argues that digital exclusion in low-income settings starts at the very first level of access, before higher-level skills or innovation can even be discussed. Her point is that structural exclusion must be addressed if girls are to participate in the digital future at all.

She stated that an estimated 230 million jobs in Africa will require ICT skills by 2030 . She contrasted this with the fact that in low-income countries more than 90 per cent of young girls do not use the internet and often do not even know what it is, describing this as exclusion from the outset .

Nermin Selim argues that women’s and girls’ empowerment starts with education from an early age, not only access to devices. She advocates a school-based model that combines digital literacy, ethical AI education and cybersecurity awareness for whole learning communities.

She said that empowering women and girls begins in the classroom and that digital inclusion is not only about access to technology but also about equipping future generations with knowledge, ethical values and digital skills to thrive safely and confidently . She provided the example of the Sustainable Digital Schools initiative, an educational framework for students from grade 1 to grade 12 built on climate awareness and innovation, responsible and ethical use of AI, and digital citizenship and cybersecurity awareness for students, teachers and parents . She added that the model had been presented at the World Summit for Social Development in Qatar as a practical model for preparing future generations for a sustainable digital society .

Abiola Laseinde argues that women without technical backgrounds should not be excluded from technology spaces. She says reducing fear and intimidation and creating entry pathways for non-technical women will broaden participation and strengthen women’s ability to advocate for digital change.

She introduced herself as the founder of several women-in-tech and leadership networks and said that she herself came from a law and governance background rather than a technical one . She explained that entering the tech ecosystem opened her eyes to new possibilities and led her to become an advocate for 'non-tech for tech' . She argued that women with strong tech backgrounds should help those who feel intimidated by technology settle into the ecosystem, because this will make it easier to advance broader goals and help women sponsor younger girls without being held back by their own fear .

Prof. Margherita Pillan argues that ageing women are often overlooked in AI capacity-building, despite having strong practical reasons to benefit from it. She frames AI education for older women as important for employment, civic participation and everyday wellbeing.

She said her focus was on the digital divide affecting ageing women who often do not have access to AI training opportunities . She identified three reasons to invest in their AI capabilities: avoiding anticipated obsolescence in the workplace, understanding AI’s role in structural systems and infrastructures in order to participate in public debate, and managing daily life chores more effectively . As evidence, she referenced a study at the Polytechnic in Milano on AI use by patients, saying it shows that when used correctly AI tools can help patients manage their conditions . She added that AI can also help people use public and private services and deal with regulations, taxes, finance and work opportunities, and proposed reverse mentoring by younger women as a civil society response .

Prof. Margherita Pillan broadens the inclusion agenda by insisting that older women must not be left out of digital transformation. Her intervention implies that inclusive digital development should account for groups that are often overlooked in mainstream tech-focused discussions.

She specifically focused on ageing women and said they very often do not have access to AI training opportunities . She argued that ageing people are an important part of society in countries such as Italy and should not be left out, framing accessible AI education for older women as an issue of equity, justice and even economic convenience .

Saci Assala argues that a major barrier for girls is not their ability to learn technology but fear of entering the field. She recommends direct support, visible women role models and early exposure so girls grow up seeing technology as a place where they belong.

Speaking from her experience as a network and telecommunication engineering student, she said that for girls the main issue is not learning technology but fear of learning it, which she observes when speaking with them . She said she personally helps girls with simple digital skills and final graduate projects to show that they can work in technology like others . She recommended more workshops where girls can learn directly from women working in technology, early outreach so they grow up knowing technology is their place, and trusted support for older women as well .

Saima Malik argues that support for women and girls must move beyond basic AI literacy towards practical adoption and acceleration. She focuses on helping women understand how automation and agentic AI will change their jobs so they can redesign their roles and participate actively in the transition.

She introduced her background as a long-time corporate executive in enterprise technology and as the founder of Amana, a global platform on AI for humanity focused on women and girls . She said this work comes from her lived experience of digital and AI transformation and a desire to ensure women and girls are not left behind . She proposed a three-pillar approach of access, adoption and acceleration . She explained that the workplace has moved beyond AI literacy into agentic AI, and described a programme called Work Reimagined that helps women understand how their current roles will be changed by automation and AI and empowers them to redesign their work rather than have change imposed on them .

Saima Malik argues for practical transition programmes that do not leave women reacting passively to technological change. Instead, she proposes structured support so women can understand the impact of automation and agentic AI and take part in shaping new forms of work.

She said that part of what she wants to share through Amana’s adoption and acceleration pillars is how to help women understand how their work will be impacted so that AI is not something done to them . She gave the concrete example of the Work Reimagined programme, which helps women assess their current role, understand how automation and agentic AI will change it, and come back to work prepared to lead that shift .

Speaker 4 argues that digital safety for women and girls needs stronger regulation rather than fragmented, voluntary approaches. The speaker calls for enforceable, human-rights-based policies and legislation at national, regional and international levels, with safety by design embedded as a binding standard.

The speaker said they work extensively on law and policy relating to women’s and girls’ digital safety and called for a comprehensive and unified approach to regulation that centres safety by design and is human-rights-based . They argued that current regulatory efforts are fragmented and patchy, and that policy development is needed not only among private actors but also through legislation at national, regional and international levels . They also said that too many attempts at regulation in this area are pushed into soft-law and good-practice territory rather than obligation, which they described as a missed opportunity . Finally, they noted that while the language of safety by design is becoming more common, legal obligations still treat it as selective good practice rather than a default enforceable standard .

Speaker 4 argues that AI is already affecting women through biased recruitment and salary recommendations, potential job displacement and underrepresentation in the AI labour force itself. The point is that these are not abstract future risks but documented and measurable problems requiring action.

The speaker said there is a threefold issue concerning women and AI in the workplace . First, they stated that AI tools used in recruitment reproduce gender and intersectional discrimination and said there is research that clearly documents this . They added that AI tools may recommend lower salaries to women than to men for comparable jobs, undermining efforts to close the gender pay gap . Second, they cited research from their centre and the Fawcett Society in the UK estimating that by 2030 automation and AI could replace up to 40 per cent of the women workforce in some industries . Third, they said women make up only 22 per cent of the AI workforce in the UK, raising concerns about inclusion .

Speaker 1 argues that AI chatbots are becoming the main entry point to AI for many people, which makes their embedded biases especially dangerous. To prevent harmful stereotypes from being automated and scaled, the speaker proposes open audited training datasets and transparent standardised bias testing before public deployment.

The speaker said that for many internet users, AI chatbots will be the first point of entry into artificial intelligence, but that these systems repeatedly reinforce negative stereotypes about women . They argued that when models are biased, they do not merely reflect inequality but automate and scale it, which directly undermines gender equality . As practical solutions, they proposed creating open-source audited datasets for model training to minimise historical bias, and introducing a standardised testing and scoring framework so AI applications are assessed for gender neutrality and bias mitigation before reaching the public . They concluded that such protections would help ensure women and girls can act as innovators and decision-makers in digital development .

This argument concerns the practical conditions needed for inclusive participation in the discussion itself. It implies that technical facilitation and responsive moderation matter because people cannot contribute to action-planning if they cannot be heard.

Speaker 5 intervened briefly to confirm that Abiola Laseinde’s audio had improved, saying that it was now better . This exchange came directly after moderators reported that they could not hear the speaker well, illustrating the importance of technical support and facilitation for participation .