Centering People and Planet in the WSIS+20 and beyond

Summary

This discussion focused on global digital justice and priorities for the WSIS Plus 20 review process, bringing together civil society organizations, government representatives, UN agencies, and technical community members. The session was organized by a diverse coalition of civil society stakeholders working on digital rights, sustainable development, and economic justice issues. Anita Gurumurthy opened by emphasizing the need for structural justice in the global digital economy and presented a call to action outlining four critical agendas: establishing adequate human rights frameworks for the digital age, reclaiming the Internet as a global communications commons, promoting digital non-alignment for international economic justice, and ensuring sustainable digital transitions.

Government representatives from Brazil, Switzerland, South Africa, and Australia shared their top three priorities for achieving global equity and inclusion in the digital sphere. Common themes emerged around the need for digital sovereignty while maintaining multilateral cooperation, closing digital divides through meaningful connectivity, and developing robust governance frameworks that balance innovation with human rights protection. Technical community representative Mallory Knodel emphasized the importance of cooperation beyond security concerns and improving multistakeholder processes through greater diversity and inclusion.

UN agency representatives from UNCTAD, ITU, and UNESCO highlighted the need to align WSIS implementation with the Global Digital Compact, enhance international cooperation, and address financing mechanisms for digital development. Several speakers stressed the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection, calling for genuine multistakeholder participation that includes marginalized voices. The discussion concluded with Ambassador Lokaale, co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process, affirming the continued relevance of the WSIS vision while emphasizing the need to address the 2.6 billion people still unconnected and ensure transparent, inclusive processes moving forward.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Justice and Structural Reform**: The discussion emphasized the need for a human rights-based approach to digital governance that addresses both individual and collective dimensions, including the right to public participation, consensual data representation, and algorithmic transparency to combat “techno-fascism.”

– **Bridging the Digital Divide**: Multiple speakers highlighted the urgent need to address the 2.6 billion people still not connected, focusing on meaningful connectivity, affordability, digital skills, and infrastructure investment, particularly for marginalized communities and the Global South.

– **Multistakeholder Governance and Inclusivity**: Participants stressed the importance of enhancing multistakeholder participation beyond just governments and big tech companies, ensuring diverse voices including civil society, academia, indigenous peoples, children, and developing countries are meaningfully included in digital governance processes.

– **Financing Mechanisms for Digital Development**: Several speakers called for new funding approaches, including a digital development tax, reformed taxation systems for virtualized businesses, and public financing mechanisms to support digital infrastructure and capabilities in developing countries.

– **Integration and Coherence Between WSIS and Global Digital Compact**: There was significant discussion about aligning the WSIS Plus 20 review process with the newly adopted Global Digital Compact to avoid duplication and ensure coherent implementation of digital governance frameworks.

## Overall Purpose:

This was a consultation session organized by civil society stakeholders to gather input from government representatives, UN agencies, and technical community members on priorities for the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The goal was to identify key principles and priorities for achieving global digital justice and equity, while also presenting civil society’s call to action on digital governance reform.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants showing mutual respect and shared commitment to the WSIS vision. There was a sense of urgency about addressing digital inequalities, but also optimism about the continued relevance of the WSIS framework. The tone was professional yet passionate, with speakers demonstrating deep expertise and long-term investment in the process. The atmosphere was inclusive and forward-looking, with participants building on each other’s points rather than expressing disagreement.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Anita Gurumurthy** – Appears to be from civil society/digital rights organization, involved in organizing the session and presenting on digital justice

– **Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota** – Representative from Brazil, discussing Brazil’s perspectives on digital governance and global south priorities

– **William Lee** – Assistant Director at the Department of Infrastructure, Technology, Regional Development and Communications, Australia

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Ambassador, Co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process from Kenyan Mission to the U.N.

– **Thomas Schneider** – Ambassador from Switzerland, discussing Switzerland’s priorities on digital governance

– **Guilherme Canela Godoi** – Director of UNESCO’s Division for Digital Inclusion, focusing on protection of free flow of information

– **Jim Paterson** – Director of ICT Multilateral Affairs, Department of Communications and Digital Technology, South Africa

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Strategy and Policy Coordinator for the ITU, conductor of the WSIS High Level Event

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Moderator of the session, experienced in WSIS processes

– **Liping Zhang** – Chief of Science, Technology and Innovation and Development at UNCTAD, involved in WSIS review process

– **Mallory Knodel** – Representative from the Social Web Foundation, representing the technical community (participated online)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Eugênio Vargas Garcia** – Referenced as being from Brazil, though appears to be the same person as Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota based on context

– **Ambassador Yanina** – Co-facilitator from Albania (mentioned by Ambassador Lokaale but did not speak directly)

# Comprehensive Report: Global Digital Justice and WSIS Plus 20 Priorities Discussion

## Executive Summary

This consultation session brought together diverse stakeholders to examine priorities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, focusing on achieving global digital justice and equity. The discussion featured representatives from civil society organisations, government delegations from Brazil, Switzerland, South Africa, Australia, and Kenya, UN agencies including UNESCO, ITU, and UNCTAD, and technical community representatives.

The session explored whether the WSIS vision remains relevant after 20 years and how to address persistent digital inequalities while adapting to emerging technological challenges. Participants demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles while offering varied perspectives on implementation approaches. The discussion maintained a collaborative tone throughout, with speakers building upon each other’s contributions.

Key themes included the urgent need to address digital divides affecting 2.6 billion unconnected people, the importance of strengthening multistakeholder participation, the continued relevance of the WSIS framework, and the necessity of robust financing mechanisms for digital development.

## Opening Framework: The Call for Structural Digital Justice

Anita Gurumurthy opened the session with a powerful metaphor from Mullah Nasruddin folklore about searching for lost items under streetlights rather than where they were actually lost, simply because the light makes searching easier. She applied this to digital governance, arguing that stakeholders often address visible symptoms rather than tackling difficult structural problems.

Gurumurthy outlined four critical agendas for digital justice, emphasising the need for human rights frameworks adequate to the digital age, reclaiming the Internet as a global communications commons, promoting digital non-alignment for international economic justice, and ensuring sustainable digital transitions that safeguard future generations’ rights.

She specifically highlighted the need for public financing mechanisms for Global South AI capabilities and digital self-determination, referencing the Aarhus Convention’s application to digital innovation participation rights. Gurumurthy also mentioned seven different proposals for fiscal justice, including measures to address tax evasion and support digital development.

## Government Perspectives: Balancing Sovereignty and Cooperation

### Brazil’s Vision for Inclusive Multilateralism

Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota from Brazil articulated three key priorities reflecting the Global South perspective. First, he emphasised multilateral and multistakeholder global governance frameworks that include all countries regardless of their technological capacity. Second, he called for a new universal declaration of human rights in the digital world, emphasising both individual sovereignty and digital sovereignty of countries. Third, he focused on establishing governance frameworks for emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, ensuring these technologies serve humanity rather than replacing human agency.

Patriota also referenced the BRICS declaration on AI governance, highlighting regional cooperation approaches to digital governance challenges.

### Switzerland’s Ecosystem Approach

Thomas Schneider from Switzerland provided a compelling historical analogy about how Switzerland in the 1840s didn’t simply purchase locomotives from the UK but “created a whole ecosystem that allowed them to use, to make a technology their own.” This included developing engineering expertise, infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks.

Schneider applied this lesson to digital transformation, arguing that countries need comprehensive ecosystems encompassing economic, political, and social dimensions. His three priorities reflected this holistic approach: enabling societies to make technology their own, fostering innovation while protecting people, and developing ecosystems that create more value than damage.

### Australia’s Focus on Meaningful Connectivity

William Lee from Australia brought a practical perspective focused on implementation challenges. His first priority addressed meaningful connectivity, citing estimates that achieving universal connectivity would cost approximately one trillion dollars but could generate nine trillion dollars in economic benefits. He emphasised local solutions and micro-targeting rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

Australia’s second priority focused on gender equality, highlighting the usage gap that needs closing to connect communities effectively. The third priority emphasised that no single stakeholder group can solve digital challenges alone, advocating for inclusive approaches that bring all voices to the table.

### South Africa’s Innovation and Participation Framework

Jim Paterson from South Africa offered three priorities balancing innovation promotion with inclusive participation. First, he focused on delivering meaningful connectivity while ensuring access to economic opportunities, education, health, and government services. Second, he emphasised that innovation occurs at every level of society, not just within large technology companies. Third, he called for strengthening participation from stakeholders across all countries and economies.

## UN Agency Perspectives: Integration and Implementation

### UNCTAD’s Focus on Governance and Cooperation

Liping Zhang from UNCTAD brought insights from extensive consultations conducted as part of the WSIS review process. Her three priorities included closing digital divides through investment in infrastructure, affordability, and digital skills development; establishing robust governance frameworks covering data governance, privacy protection, and technology company accountability; and enhancing international cooperation in the post-WSIS scenario while aligning with the Global Digital Compact.

### UNESCO’s Challenge to False Dichotomies

Guilherme Canela Godoi from UNESCO challenged the “false dichotomy between innovation and the protection of human rights.” He argued that “the international human rights system, the international rule of law system that was created eighty years ago and of which WSIS is part of, actually is what promoted and permitted this innovation that these companies are able to do in the first place.”

His second priority emphasised deeper multistakeholder debate acknowledging enormous diversity within each stakeholder group. His third priority directly addressed financing mechanisms, arguing that stakeholders cannot be naive about protection needs without discussing funding sources.

### ITU’s Process and Momentum Perspective

Gitanjali Sah from ITU, as conductor of the WSIS High Level Event, provided perspective on maintaining process momentum. She noted the participation of 64 ministers and 60 regulators in the broader WSIS process, emphasising the success of maintaining momentum over 20 years while adapting to technological changes. Her priorities focused on strengthening multilateral and multistakeholder engagement for emerging digital economy issues.

## Technical Community Perspective: Cooperation Beyond Securitisation

Mallory Knodel from the Social Web Foundation, participating online, advocated for returning to the cooperative approach that characterised early Internet development. She argued that current cooperation focuses too heavily on securitisation rather than the knowledge sharing and diverse approaches that originally built global connectivity.

Her priorities emphasised cooperation beyond security concerns, improving multistakeholder processes through greater diversity and inclusion, and ensuring more input from most affected communities.

## Process Leadership: Balancing Continuity and Innovation

Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale from Kenya, serving as co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process alongside Ambassador Yanina from Albania, posed fundamental questions about whether the WSIS vision remains relevant and whether it is working effectively. He emphasised the challenge of addressing 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected while governments increasingly migrate services to digital platforms.

Lokaale stressed the need to ensure equity and inclusion both in the process and in final outcomes, demonstrating commitment to transparent multistakeholder processes and addressing coherence between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact.

## Areas of Strong Consensus

### Multistakeholder Participation and Inclusivity

Strong consensus emerged around strengthening multistakeholder participation through greater diversity and inclusion. Multiple speakers emphasised that current processes inadequately represent most affected communities, developing countries, and marginalised groups. Speakers consistently argued that no single stakeholder group can solve digital challenges alone, requiring genuine collaboration across sectors and regions.

### Urgent Need to Address Digital Divides

Participants demonstrated unanimous concern about the 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected. The consensus extended beyond simple access to include affordability, digital skills, relevant content, and applications that provide genuine value to users. Speakers consistently rejected simplistic solutions in favour of locally appropriate, culturally sensitive approaches.

### Continued Relevance of WSIS Framework

Despite acknowledging shortcomings, speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the continued relevance of the WSIS vision. Participants consistently argued for enhancing rather than replacing existing frameworks, recognising the value of proven institutional mechanisms while acknowledging the need for continuous adaptation.

### Human Rights and Governance Frameworks

Speakers converged on the need for updated governance frameworks that protect human rights in the digital age while ensuring accountability from technology companies. The consensus explicitly rejected false choices between innovation and rights protection, instead arguing that robust rights frameworks enable rather than hinder innovation.

## Critical Implementation Challenges

### Financing Mechanisms and Resource Mobilisation

The discussion revealed significant consensus on the need for financing mechanisms while acknowledging this area has been neglected despite being part of the original WSIS agenda. Speakers proposed various approaches including digital development taxes, reformed taxation systems, and public financing mechanisms for developing countries.

### Integration with Global Digital Compact

Multiple speakers emphasised the need to align WSIS implementation with the Global Digital Compact to avoid duplication and ensure coherent approaches. Suggestions included integrating the Global Digital Compact into WSIS action lines rather than creating separate processes.

### Meaningful Participation from Unconnected Populations

The discussion highlighted the fundamental challenge of ensuring meaningful participation from the 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected while governments increasingly migrate services to digital platforms. This requires innovative approaches to consultation and participation beyond traditional digital engagement methods.

## Key Insights and Reframings

### The Mullah Nasruddin Metaphor

Gurumurthy’s opening metaphor about searching under streetlights provided a powerful framework for understanding why digital governance discussions often fail to address root causes. This encouraged participants to examine structural issues rather than focusing on easily visible symptoms.

### The False Innovation-Rights Dichotomy

Canela Godoi’s challenge to the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection provided crucial reframing that influenced the discussion. By arguing that the international human rights system actually enabled current innovation, he legitimised advocacy for stronger governance frameworks.

### The Swiss Railway Analogy

Schneider’s historical analogy about Switzerland’s approach to railway technology provided a concrete model for digital transformation, demonstrating how countries can become active shapers rather than passive consumers of technology through comprehensive ecosystem development.

### The Securitisation Critique

Knodel’s critique of current securitisation trends introduced a perspective that challenged dominant policy assumptions, suggesting that early Internet success came from prioritising cooperation and knowledge sharing over security concerns.

## Conclusion: Foundations for Collaborative Action

This consultation session demonstrated remarkable consensus among diverse stakeholders on fundamental principles for digital governance while revealing nuanced differences in implementation approaches. The high level of agreement on core challenges and the continued relevance of the WSIS vision provides a solid foundation for the Plus 20 review process.

The discussion’s strength lay in combining principled vision with practical implementation focus. Speakers consistently demonstrated sophisticated understanding of governance challenges while maintaining commitment to inclusive, rights-based approaches to digital development.

Moving forward, the challenge will be translating this consensus into concrete action and adequate financing while maintaining the collaborative spirit that characterised this discussion. The session ultimately affirmed that the WSIS vision of a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented information society remains essential for addressing contemporary digital governance challenges, but achieving this vision requires renewed commitment to structural justice, adequate financing, and genuine multistakeholder participation.

Anita Gurumurthy: and esteemed delegates for making the time to be with us. We are a diverse array of civil society stakeholders including organizations working for sustainable development, digital rights networks, feminist groups, corporate watchdogs, I think I shouldn’t have said that because it’s dangerous in these times, communication rights campaigners, trade unions and cooperatives and academics. So we are a mix of organizations working for economic and social justice like a network of networks in a world of proliferating alliances. We’d like to believe that we distinguish ourselves for our focus on structural justice, mainly rules for the digital economy, the global digital economy so that we can live in a world of interdependence and peace. For some of us who were at WSIS Geneva and Tunis, the global digital economy seems somewhat like the stories of Mullah Nasruddin. These are those humorous folk tales from West Asia and Central Asia and the Mullah was known as this wise fool, if the contradiction in terms is allowed, and oftentimes these stories teach you, you know, that there is a profound layer of truth, you know, below the surface. So in one particular story, the Mullah is searching for something under a streetlight and someone asks him, what is it that you’re looking for? And the Mullah says, I lost my ring. So then a lot of people gather to search along with him under the streetlight. So finally, someone asks him, are you sure Mullah that you lost it here? He said, no, I know where I lost it. I lost it in my house. So then they ask him, then why are you looking for it here? So he says, because it’s very dark where I lost it and the light is out here. So also the digital economy, we know what is lost, what is being lost, and we look elsewhere, trying hard not to cast the spotlight at the right place. Pretending to fix things, gathering more and more people to look away from the real problems. What would it take to bring to fruition the vision of an equitable, just and development-oriented international digital order in the current conjuncture? And since all of us know the truth and the reality, can we act in concert in order for us to be sure that posterity will be glad we existed? So just to tell you that today is partly an occasion to get a response from all of you on what you think are the most important abiding principles that are needed for the global digital economy, for global digital justice. And in that regard, also to give you a little bit of a flavor into our call to action, and we’ve left a copy of that on the desk for each of you. Our call to action outlines the imperatives for global digital cooperation to deliver on four critical agendas. The first one is on a human rights paradigm that’s adequate to the current digital conjuncture. Of course, all of us know that digital rights are human rights, but we believe that we need to look both at the individual and collective dimensions so that there is no right to public participation without the right to belong in the digital public sphere, no right to privacy in the absence of the right to consensual representation, which basically means that in all of the use cases of aggregate data that are downstream, you really need to have a voice about how your data is being used, no right to knowledge sans the epistemic rights of communities to innovate from their shared data resources, and no right to equality without algorithmic transparency. So this is really an international global governance framework that strikes at the heart of techno-fascism so that the right to communicate is for all. We also believe in building bridges with so many of our predecessors in the and many others who have stood up for global justice, be they from civil society or from academia or from the government and other stakeholders, also fighting for a legally binding instrument on transnational corporations, which, as we all realize in this room, cannot be delayed. The second agenda for us is that the Internet be seen and reclaimed as a global communications commons. I was one of those people with gray hair now that went to Tunis, and there was really this contestation around the Internet as a global public facility, and some government said, You can’t use the word public. You just have to call it the global facility. And it was such a saddening moment because it is a global public facility. It is for everybody, like a public park. So I think this global communications commons needs to be reclaimed today, and the Internet’s walled gardens must make way for an inclusive, pluralistic, decentralized, and vibrant transnational communications agora. Our third agenda is that a just international economic order must be based on the principle of digital non-alignment, which means that we really do need to give this idea at all for a group of countries that can give moral leadership to look for the mullah’s ring in the right place. So the mullah needs to find the ring in his home. To know that the AI arms race is a road downhill, to claim the idea of international data solidarity, and for urgent reform of digital trade, taxation, intellectual property regimes that entrench inequality between countries, because digital inequality, after all, is a reflection of and reinforces other forms of global inequality. Here is why we therefore call for tax justice. We call for fiscal justice, and we have a special campaign that we launched in just the previous few days on fiscal justice. And we’ve got some seven different proposals outlined. And if you find some slightly unstrategic, pick up the ones that you find strategic. And the final agenda is about a sustainable digital transition that safeguards the human rights of future generations so that the future generation remembers us for really being, you know, super brave, you know, for being those courageous voices that needed to speak up when we did need to. And here is where we want to borrow from the precautionary principle from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. And add to it the wonderful European Convention on Arhus, the Arhus Convention, which talks about the right of the public to access information and participate in matters relating to the environment, only that in this context, we want to transpose that right on digital innovation, that the public must inherently, intrinsically have the right to participate in everything that is about digital innovation and it’s not only for opaque sandboxes. So I would like to come back in the end, maybe if I could have a minute or two and our moderator, Andrea, will join us shortly. She’s in another session and we are expecting that the co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process, Ambassador Locali will join us. So at which point we’d like to present the forum’s requests and submissions on the elements paper. So at this point, what I will do is, Valeria, could I call on you to… I didn’t get that. Could you try again? Happily, I can try again. Yes. So we thank you all for taking the time to join us at this point and participate in the day-long, in this hour-long dialogue on this very elusive, but critical idea of digital justice. I think history teaches us that economic interests have always been key drivers of coloniality, but we don’t want that anymore. We want to rewrite history. So thank you for joining us and over to you, Andrea.

Anriette Esterhuysen: That’s a challenge not to consult. and Mr. Anish Mahbubani. I’m going to start with the script. If I go off script, Anita, it’s on you. Thanks very much. Apologies for being late. You can give it to the ambassador. As soon as I’m done. I’m late because we just had a really exciting breakfast with regulators from Africa, Asia and Latin America that are going to be a bit late. But what we wanted to do, as Anita would have said already, is to ask those governments represented here to give us, really, in three minutes, the top three priorities on global equity and inclusion for WSIS. What do you think we should prioritize? We’ve heard a lot about priorities that are reflected in the global digital compact. We have the WSIS action line priorities, we have the vision. But if we’re really going to get things done, we need some kind of sequencing. We need some kind of prioritization of the priorities. So, Guilherme, I’m asking you to start. Mr. Eugênio Vargas Garcia, are you over there? Excellent. Please, from the perspective of Brazil, what are your top priorities?

Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota: This microphone, maybe? Yes. Thanks. I don’t know. Is this working? Thank you. That’s quite a blunt question. The priorities for Brazil at this point in time, I think, would be to preserve, I think, a lot of the perspectives and opportunities for developing countries, the global south, and this radical transition that we are going through for the last decades towards a digital economy, and all that that implies. I think Brazil has done a lot domestically to sort of evolve a framework that provides a degree of equity in terms of the benefits of this transition. It’s a multi-pronged transition. It involves almost cross-cutting. touches upon all elements of civil life in countries, from economy to education, to health, to ethics, to politics, to everything. So I think this is a new paradigm in terms of governance at all levels. So I think we’re looking for some sort of common global rules, a framework, a regulatory framework for members, for countries that is multilateral in nature. We also accept the need for it to be multi-stakeholder, but not just for the big techs and private sectors, but also for civil society, academia, and others. So I think there’s a need for balanced representation of different types of actors and all countries, inclusives of all countries, irrespective of their military power or capacity or infrastructure capacity in terms of digital infrastructure. So I think that’s what we’re looking for, a way forward to speak of global governance. But global governance is not enough. It’s global, it’s national, it’s subnational, and it’s also individual. I think in the opening we spoke of a human rights perspective. So the BRICS summit in Rio this weekend just launched a declaration on AI and AI governance. It’s quite extensive and multifaceted. So I think you should all look at it. It’s the first such declaration coming out of the BRICS country. But I think going beyond that, it touches upon sovereignty, digital sovereignty of countries. So digital sovereignty is important, but I would go beyond. I think we need individual sovereignty from a human rights perspective. So maybe what we really need beyond all that is a new sort of human rights, universal declaration of human rights in the digital world, because I think that’s what’s being least protected at this point. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much, Mr. Eugênio Vargas Garcia. Next, if she’s online. Joining us, representing the technical community, is Mallory Knodel from the Social Web Foundation. Mallory, are you with us? I haven’t had a chance to log in, so…

Mallory Knodel: Yeah, I’m here. If you can hear me okay? Mallory. I’m not sure if you can hear me or not, but… We can hear you. Oh, good. I’m so glad. Hi, everyone. And thanks so much for inviting me. I wish I could be with you here, with you there in Geneva. But I really appreciate the points that you’ve put forward already, Anita. I want to try to weave them together into my three points, but I’ve got limited time. So let me go ahead and get started. I feel like I would start with something that has, to me, since the early 2000s, become a somewhat unfashionable thing to do, which is to look back at that time and be very nostalgic for the way in which everyone cooperated on the Internet to make connectivity happen. And that it was a really important time, actually. And I’m not necessarily cynical about it. I think we probably should be a little bit more impressed with ourselves than we were. And the reason I’ve changed my mind recently is because I think that there’s a real critique for most of the things that we’re cooperating on these days are really focused on and center very much securitization. And I think the Internet, we famously also… I used to tell this story as well, like many other people, with a bit of judgment that the Internet didn’t consider security in the beginning. Enough, right? And that was the sort of… Enough was the operative word there. But in fact, I think it’s a wonderful thing that it did not come and factor in as the central figure, that there were many, many other things about building global connectivity. and Mr. Mallory Knodel. And I think that is the first thing I think we should focus on. And some of those things are in the Elements Paper. Some of those things are in what others are proposing that I want to support. And they are things like caring a lot about knowledge sharing, a diverse political economy. Other things we can continue to cooperate on are human rights, including privacy. If we look at developing out AI, I think there are other ways of doing it rather than thinking through a fully securitized model. So that’s the first one. I think we should cooperate more. And remember that there are values beyond just that of security that matter. The second is, of course, I’m going to talk about multistakeholderism, but I want to give it some nuance, like how and in what ways should it be different than it has so far. And I think this dovetails with things that folks have already mentioned. Things like regulation. Also human rights. There are some elements there. The main nugget that I think we should think of going forward with respect to multistakeholderism is how technology will continue to shape all global governance conversations. And if not just on substance, but process when it comes to multistakeholder conversations about other aspects of governance that are not squarely Internet related, I think that would be a wonderful thing. So in other words, if global governance can itself be more multistakeholder in the way that the Internet has shown us and taught us how to be, I think that would be an excellent development and it goes beyond then just the global governance of the Internet. And then lastly, yes, we have multistakeholderism already. It isn’t perfect. So in the ways in which we feel it should change and evolve is really an effort in diversity, equity and inclusion. And it’s so critical then to imagine. I imagine we need, especially I’m speaking in the technical community, we need a lot more input from most affected communities. And how do you get people who are building technology to speak with those who are using the technology? That loop is not really tight in my view and in my experience. We need to make these conversations more accessible. We need to be a lot more welcoming. And so multi-stakeholderism can improve in a lot of very key ways. Thanks so much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much for that, Mallory. And thanks also for keeping to time. Next I’d like to invite Li-Ping Zhang. Li-Ping is the Chief of Science, Technology and Innovation and Development at UNCTAD and very deeply involved in the WSIS review process, Li-Ping.

Liping Zhang: Thank you, Moderator. Well, UNCTAD is the Secretary of the UN Commission on Science, Technology and Development, which is in short called CSED. And CSED is mandated to carry out WSIS Plus Trending Review. It has just completed its work on WSIS Plus Trending Review at CSED in April. So here today, I would like to share with you some outcomes of these discussions at CSED concluded in April. As a result of the 28th session of the CSED, the discussion on WSIS Plus Trending resulted in some resolutions, resulting in some provisions in the WSIS resolutions. And there are about 20 paragraphs surrounding WSIS Plus Trending, but I just want to summarize them into the three, the number that is given by the organizer that has been shown in the resolution. The first is considering, and now there is also the Global Digital Compact, which has a big impact on digital governance, a topic that is of very much interest to this organization and global digital justice. There is a need to align the implementation of these two processes, and there is also some suggestion about integrating the Global Digital Compact into the WSIS action lines. And the second is that there is a need for enhancing international cooperation in terms of post-WSIS scenario, and this element should be also emphasized in the WSIS Plus Gender Review that’s going to take place in the GA in December this year, because all these matters like addressing digital divide, climate change, digital governance, and other matters, they all require international cooperation, so definitely this should be emphasized more. The third element is to strengthen the role of CSED as an intergovernmental platform for discussion on the impact and opportunities of technologies for the SDGs, and these technologies, of course, include digital technologies and data governance and other issues. And for your information, the CSED has established under the Global Digital Compact a working group on data governance. The working group is now working to carry out its work that is mandated by the Global Digital Compact. At the same time, I would also like to share with you what the Secretary has identified through its one-year-and-a-half consultations. Of course, the Secretary’s report is used as a background paper for the discussion in April for WSIS Plus 20, and the report is It’s called Implementing the WSIS Outcomes, a 20-year review. And through the consultations, we have gathered some points, which are also very much aligned with what the member states have emphasized through the WSIS resolution. The first central priority we have identified through consultations is that there is an urgent need to close digital divides, including the gender digital divide, not just in connectivity but also in device access, affordability and digital skills necessary for meaningful participation. And there’s need to invest in infrastructure, better utilizing existing networks, target actions to improve access and affordability for marginalized groups, and initiatives to enhance digital skills and literacy. The second priority is to develop robust governance frameworks to manage the growing complexity of digital ecosystems, improve data governance, privacy protection, and inclusive governance of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, protecting human rights online, address issues of information integrity, and ensure greater accountability from technology companies and digital platforms. All these issues have been raised during the discussions on consultations. The third element is enhanced international cooperation through inclusive multilateralism and greater participation by developing countries in global digital policymaking. And the current multi-stakeholder approach in the WSIS process should be enhanced. At the same time, there’s also a need to avoid duplication and resource inefficiencies, especially within broader UN processes, and that also concerns the implementation of GDC and WSIS. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks a lot, Li-Ping. And just a note on that, I think people are often not aware that CSTD does not just present the annual report. and host the resolution. The regional consultations that CSTD conducts in all UN regions are really in depth and specific, and I think I’m glad you mentioned that, and I’ve had the privilege of participating in the African consultations. Next, because she has to leave, we have Gitanjali Sah, Strategy and Policy Coordinator for the ITU. She’s also the conductor of this mega symphony orchestra called the WSIS High Level Event. So, Gitanjali, you are next.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Anriette. Good morning, Ambassador. So, thanks a lot for being here. This is a very important consultation, and we look forward to receiving the outcomes, Anita and Anriette, because we’ll be consolidating all of these, perhaps a call for action as well. So, you know, when we heard the moderator, you, asking people yesterday how many have been associated with the process since 2003, we had very few people who raised their hand. So, really, this, I think you also mentioned, was a big success for us. It’s a huge success that the community has evolved over the years, you know. So, not only the process, because we’ve been able to keep the momentum in terms of the implementation of the WSIS action lines, and this is a huge success for a process which is 20 years old. All of us who are working in the implementation of the WSIS process will understand any UN process to be, to maintain this momentum, that the momentum the WSIS process has today, what we saw yesterday, today, we saw at IGF, we see the UN in action, UN agencies implementing the different WSIS action lines. It’s really a momentum that has to be cherished, captured, and we need to move forward with it. So, all of you who are here today, we really expect that we have some calls for actions coming out of these different workshops, which we are able to capture in the chair’s summary, and forward to the UNGA overall review. In terms of the UN system, we are ready. Leping mentioned CSTD. We have the United Nations Group on Information Society. It’s a group of more than 50 UN entities that get together to ensure that the UN is working together. It’s digital cooperation in action. From our side, ITU is the permanent secretariat of UNGIS, but we have rotational chairpersonship between UNESCO, UNDP, ITU and UNCTAD. We also have the regional commissions very involved because if you look at the WSIS outcome document, it has made sure that this doesn’t remain at a global level. But the UN regional commissions have a mandate to implement WSIS at the regional level. And then at the country level, you see the interest from ministers. We had more than 64 ministers here. We will have a ministerial roundtable tomorrow where they will also come out with a call for action. Today, we have a regulatory roundtable with more than 60 regulators. So, I mean, it’s really wonderful to see that the momentum of WSIS has been just growing since 2003. We have been able to do that. Very few UN processes are able to evolve over time and, you know, also adapt with the technological changes. The WSIS action lines have provided a beautiful framework where they have adapted to technological changes of the years. So, from my side, I would just like to emphasize that the key UN agencies involved in the UN process, along with the 50 others we work with, we are ready for the next phase. We do not expect any duplication and we do hope that we can continue to provide you with a service, with a platform where all voices can be heard. Thanks very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: We understand if you need to go. Ambassador Schneider, Switzerland’s top three priorities when it comes to those important topics of global equity and inclusion for WSIS Plus 20. Your top three priorities, please. Yes, hello, I’m very good to see you again.

Thomas Schneider: You can also call me Thomas. I will. It’s just the first, you know, I’m trying to show that I’m not just a civil society. We know that you do this very well, so good morning everyone. Well, I think one thing that is important for us is that every society, every country, every culture need to appropriate, you need to make technology your own, you need to know what do you want with it, what can you do with it, what negative impacts can the technology have on you, and that also goes whether you use it or not. It’s not that if you don’t use it that your world will stay the same. There’s a bunch of Swiss people that emigrated, left Switzerland in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, they went to the U.S., they’re called Amish people, then they still ride around with horses and carts and so on, somewhere in a closed environment, but all around them there’s the modern world, and in particular the young people of this culture are not all necessarily happy, so there’s also quite some alcohol problems and so on and so forth, so this is something that there are developments that you cannot stop, but you can shape them, you can give them your own meaning and your own sense, and I think this is important also with new technologies, that you know what you want to use them for, what do you need, what are things that you may not need, and that of course requires a whole set of ideas and strategy and knowledge about your culture, about your economy, about the technology, about what other people do with this, what impact that this may have, so a little bit of strategic thinking and in-depth discussion with all of your society, of our societies, is fundamental, and that helps on the one hand, that is point number two, to create in a regulatory governance environment that is fostering innovation, but at the same time is protecting people, is protecting societies, is also helping people to protect themselves, because you may not be able to protect them from everything, because to some extent it’s also whatever you do, there’s a risk, but create a regulatory environment. And the third point, and this is something that I just realized recently when I saw a documentary about the end of Credit Suisse of this bank, that was actually created by the guy that brought railways to Switzerland. And that struck me in the sense that in the 1840s, 1850s, Switzerland was lagging behind compared to England and others that already had railways and so on. We still had our horses and carts in the mountains. And then there was one person with a few other people that basically, they didn’t just buy engines and locomotives from the UK. They realized, OK, we need to be able to maintain them. We maybe try to build our own. We need an infrastructure. They started to build tunnels and bridges. They started the ETH because they needed engineers to run the technology. And they also started a bank that was Credit Suisse because they needed an environment of investors. Somebody needed to pay for all of this. So they created, and this is my learning, they created a whole ecosystem that allowed them to use, to make a technology their own. They became very good engineers and so on. We are like the country of railways still today. But that was not just by buying something and then think that’s it. But you need to develop a whole ecosystem that allows you economically, politically, the society to use something in a way that creates more value added than it creates

Anriette Esterhuysen: damage. Thank you. Thanks very much. And I like that. You own the tech. Don’t let the tech own you. I like that. We should put it on a sticker for Anita. Thanks very much for that, Thomas. Next, we have Jim Patterson, Director of ICT Multilateral Affairs, Department of Communications and Digital Technology, South Africa. Jim, South Africa’s priorities on inclusion and equity. And I know also South Africa’s hosting the G20. And in fact, I think this is also a priority for South Africa for the G20 process. But for WSIS, what are your top three priorities?

Jim Paterson: Thank you very much, Henriette. And good morning, colleagues. I think the comments from this morning so far They resonate very strongly with us, so that’s much appreciated. I think, firstly, when it comes to WSIS, I think we all have a very deep appreciation of what WSIS brought to the world, and we would like that to continue. We think this is a very, very important forum. It’s an important forum for multilateralism and for multistakeholder engagement, and it’s certainly a way of making sure that we stay abreast of the most relevant and emerging issues in the digital economy and digital society that we need to be thinking about, certainly from our point of view as governments, but I think for everybody it’s very important. So I think, firstly, we would want to see the WSIS process maintained, and I think we should also then reflect on that and think about how do we strengthen WSIS going forward. And I’m not going to talk about the threats to multilateralism. That’s too complicated for me. But I think we’re all committed to the global multilateral system, and we see the importance of that. I’ll focus more on the multistakeholder side. And I think for us, one of the things is that many of our discussions center around digital inclusion and greater participation, and at the same time, in most of our meetings, we acknowledge a large portion of the world is not actually connected. I think it’s terribly important for us that we look for ways to strengthen the participation of stakeholders from all of the world’s countries and economies. And I know that’s not an easy ask, but I think there are ways we can look at greater representation if we put our minds to it. So I think that would be one of the first things, that if we have these conversations, I think it’s really important that everybody is in the room thinking not only about their current situations, but also about the future challenges. Because I think also one of the things that tends to happen is that for developing countries especially, we tend to think about our current problems, and we think the future ones are not really for us. But in fact, what happens is the governance of future technology is being dealt with today, and it’s going to affect you soon. We will then have a similar set of problems arising, like, for example, on data governance and access to data. These are becoming very real problems in the developing world. So these are things that we should have probably been thinking about sooner, but we didn’t. Well, I can’t speak for everybody, but I think for many countries that’s the case. So I think that will be the first major part, is to make sure big and small countries are involved and engaged with different stakeholders across the board. And then the next thing would be to focus on issues like digital inclusion. I think that is absolutely critical. We need to make sure that we deliver meaningful connectivity, and we make sure that then that everybody in the international community, everyone around the world, has access to the benefits of that, such as the economic opportunities that follow, education, health, government services, ways in which your life can be made better and more efficient, use of time for people and opportunities to innovate, because innovation happens at every level. We shouldn’t be seduced into thinking that this is something that belongs to big tech. It’s not at all the case. I don’t think it happens at every level. I think what does happen is that big tech adopts policies of, they adopt innovations early on, which are very, very successful, and thereafter, they’re more interested in protecting their business models. So they’re not necessarily the lead innovators for social good all the time. So we should allow that kind of competitive spirit of innovation at every level. I think that leads to my third point, which is to make sure then that you have in place frameworks for allowing for empowerment and access to technology and access to data for everybody. I think there are a lot of discussions within the global system about this, things like data policies and access to technology, data.

Anriette Esterhuysen: I’m giving the floor to Guilherme Canela-Cordoi from UNESCO, the Director of UNESCO’s Division for Digital Inclusion. And Guilherme, you’ve worked on this in so many different ways. It’s really a privilege to have you here. And for UNESCO, it’s been part of this process from the outset.

Guilherme Canela Godoi: What are your current top three priorities? Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Anriette. Thank you for that. I think it will be dangerous for me to claim I’m speaking on the entire ecosystem of UNESCO, because probably my colleagues from education would have different priorities. So maybe I will concentrate on this particular area that is the protection of the free flow of information. That is what I’m in charge of. Right. So very quickly, the three things. If you look throughout this year, starting with the AI Summit in Paris, and then the CSW, and then the World Press Freedom Day and the UNESCO WISES event, and then IGF, there is a very dangerous conversation going on. And I noticed that is repeated more and more, trying to create a false dichotomy between innovation and the protection of human rights. Like if we choose one, we need to deny the other. So first priority, we need to stop this. We need to be very clear in this process that this is a false dichotomy. We need to make clear, and to be honest, I think this part is our fault for not being able to demonstrate that the international human rights system, the international rule of law system that was created eight years ago and of which WSIS is part of, actually is what promoted and permitted this innovation that these companies are able to do in the first place. The circulation of scientists, the circulation of ideas, this is a creation of the United Nations system. So there is no dichotomy there. This was only possible because we did what we did during these last eight years. So this is the first thing. We need to stop this idea that there is a dichotomy and say that the real innovation is to leave no one behind. This is innovate, and we need to seek that, and at the same time, the business and whatever. Second thing that was already mentioned, we need to go deeper in the multistakeholder debate. Of course, we need to reinforce all what we already know, but we need to acknowledge that within each multistakeholder group, the governments, the civil society, the diversity is enormous, and we haven’t been able yet to deliver that diversity. So we talk about children’s rights without listening a single child or an adolescent. So it’s all us adults. We talk about multilingualism for indigenous people, and it’s me, a white man, talking about that is absolutely ridiculous, and we need to put these in a serious way. It’s not only say we need to listen to them, it’s to put the means for this to happen, and this is real multistakeholderism in different places. And the third priority, we need to talk about money. When we take $38 billion out of the cooperation system, only one single agency that was closed, and when countries are deciding to shift their ODA money to defense, we need to talk about money, how we are going to fund all of this. So the WSIS process will need to make calls about what you guys are discussing here. Maybe it’s different taxes stories, maybe it’s to request countries to use different their funds for the universalization of telecommunications and so on. But we can’t be naive that this talk is only about, well, we need to protect this and that. We need to say where the money is going to come from to protect what is different in the global south and so on. So in a nutshell, stop the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights, being serious about multistakeholderism and let’s

Anriette Esterhuysen: talk about money. Thanks. Thank you, Guillermo. I’m really glad to hear a bit about money because I think we so often forget that the Tunis agenda had a section on financial mechanisms. There was, we all remember the Working Group on Internet Governance, who remembers the Task Force on Financing Mechanisms that was also convened in 2003. I was a member of that task force. We did a report, but no one wanted to talk about money. So we’ve been forgotten. And our last speaker, and definitely not the least, because they’ve put so much thought in their preparation for this process, which I want to commend them for, is Australia. So we have William Lee, Assistant Director at the Department of Infrastructure, Technology, Regional Development and Communications,

William Lee: Australia. We need to, I need to steal this one, I’m sorry. Thanks very much and thanks for having us. I just wanted to, I guess, firstly pick up on Ambassador Schneider’s analogy, talking about the Swiss railways. And I really think we are talking about trying to operate a railway through the Swiss here. We have, over the last 20 years, laid down the tracks. But if anyone has tried to drive a train engine, particularly one that’s 20 years old, you’ll find that there’s lots of levers, lots of buttons, lots of dials and knobs. And I think that the challenge is pulling all of those together in the right… seguents to move forward. A couple of top priorities, I think, for us. The first is the question about meaningful connectivity, that I know some of us have already talked about. Some of the estimates estimate that the cost of achieving meaningful connectivity rivals about a trillion dollars, so about a third of the UN budget or about the GDP ratio. It is going to be something that is really valuable if we get right. Some estimates are around $9 trillion of economic benefit. But as some of my other speakers have talked about, we really need to understand what the local priorities are, what local solutions are, and micro-target those solutions through the WSIS. And while the WSIS is a normative framework, it can help to turn those knobs and dials in ways that help local communities to move forward, whether that’s through new technologies, whether that’s through achieving regulatory frameworks that support existing technologies, whether that’s achieving trust in the Internet, whether that’s achieving multilingual content, or whether that’s empowering youth and innovators and entrepreneurs to create micro and small businesses that drive people online in ways that work for them. The second is around gender equality. There’s a usage gap of about 8%, and so closing that gap is essential to connecting communities, connecting people online, and achieving the outcomes that we’re looking forward through WSIS Plus 20. And then finally, making sure we hear from all voices, and we’ve heard kind of challenges of financing, challenges of making sure all stakeholders are able to participate. But I think that the sum of the challenge is that it’s not something that governments alone can solve. It’s not something that big tech can solve. It’s not something that civil society alone can solve. It’s actually something that everyone pulling at their lever in the right direction will solve. So I think ensuring that we get all voices to the table in a positive, inclusion-orientated agenda is what we need to see out of the process. And I think if we can get that right, then we’ve really set ourselves up for the next 20 years of success. I’ll pause there. Thanks very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much for that, William. Anita, before I give the floor to our extremely overworked co-facilitator, from the Kenyan Mission to the U.N. Did you want to just share some reflections on the Elements paper?

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you very much, and thanks to everybody for their remarks, you know, making it such a reflective first session. From the forum, we are still in the process of aggregating, collecting, and thinking through what our comments should be for the Elements paper, but we have some initial ideas. I think we’ve constantly talked about digital public infrastructure and the corridors of so many different fora, and I think that AI capabilities and any claim to self-determination in the digital society will mean that the Global South needs public financing. I think market mechanisms in the past 25 years have proven to be limited in their ability to deliver, and I think the shortfalls in official development assistance pose a very, very grim future, and so we would really like to look at appropriate financing mechanisms, and I echo Anriette’s, you know, underlining the need for re-looking at this and perhaps to mandate at the end of the Plus20 review a new working group on financing, something similar to the Digital Solidarity Fund, perhaps, because, you know, it should be a public mechanism and not just limited, I think, to market mechanisms. So there has been a call in the Our Common Agenda from the Secretary General for a digital development tax, and the argument is that companies have benefited for decades from a free and open internet, and they must contribute to the connectivity of the people and for a safer digital world, and, of course, I think from the forum we’d want a commitment towards stronger international action to tackle tax evasion in the context of virtualized businesses. The facilitated report is going to be tabled at the 81st General Assembly, and work should be carried forward. You know, that’s really just perhaps part of what’s been happening in the past 10 years in the field, and work should be carried forward from the 81st General Assembly. Further in the PADA, 68 of the elements paper, it’s important to refer to the term equitable governance. We already have responsible and interoperable governance, but I think interoperability is very, very heavily technicalized, you know. So what we really want is the outcome of openness and interoperability to result in a safer world and an equitable world. And so this is also in keeping with PADA 48 of the UN Global Digital Compact, to use the word equitable. So further, we should actually, and this is my last comment, on acknowledging within the enabling environment the idea that international norms and rules across several traditional areas, non-digital areas, from trade to intellectual property, to health and food systems data, and taxation, competition, and climate, all of these are interconnected and need to be updated in the context of the digital. We thank you very much for your time.

Anriette Esterhuysen: And thank you very much, Anita. Ambassador Lokala, I wasn’t joking when I said you are overworked. And thank you very much for being with us. We know how intense your schedule has been. I mean, based on what you’ve heard and, you know, any closing remarks from you, and what do you feel you would take away from this process and from listening to these inputs?

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you very much, Andrea. Thank you everyone for those very insightful comments. First, let me thank you for having me in this conversation because the purpose why my co-facilitator and I came was precisely to be able to listen to what stakeholders have to say on how we should conduct the outcome review as well as what they want to see in the process. Now, when we started undertaking this task on behalf of the General Assembly, one question which I’ve always kept at the top of my mind is, is the WSIS vision still relevant? Is it working? Is it working well? So in all the conversations that we have and all that we’ve had so far, I always try to listen and see if people still think that the WSIS vision is relevant, if it’s working, if it’s working well, and how we can make it better. So, and I’ve been privileged, you know, to have co-facilitated the modality stage of this and now the main outcome review. I was here in April during the CSTD 28th session. And since then, we’ve tried to follow, you know, all the major conversations. And what’s coming out clearly is an affirmation that indeed the WSIS vision is relevant today as it was 20 years ago. And it’s so beautiful, you know, how, you know, Andrea, you and the others who are there at the time, I wasn’t lucky enough to have been in that space then, to couch it, you know, in the words that you did, people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented. I think it captures, you know, the essence of what all of us, government, civil society, and everyone else is trying to do in making the world a better place. Now, when we talk about about global equity and inclusion. I think for us, and I’m grateful again to have a co-facilitator with whom, you know, we seem to have a similar worldview. Both of us are from a human rights background and so on. I think it’s important that we have equity and inclusion both in the process as well as in the final outcome, because that’s what the human rights-based approach is about, isn’t it? So, we have deliberately tried to create spaces where meaningful stakeholder participation happens. Much as we represent member states, for example, when a proposal was made to create a multi-stakeholder sounding board, we readily, you know, acceded to that request. And in putting it together, we’re looking at parameters such as geographical representation, you know, gender representation, and making sure that everybody’s at the table. Although, keeping in mind that it’s not the only avenue through which stakeholders would provide or channel their views. So, equity in terms of both the process and outcome is very important. Second, I know we are pressed for time. You know, in deliberate ways, we should try to seek out those who are often left behind. In a very dynamic field such as this, where technology moves very fast and, you know, things happen quickly, it’s easy to paint a rosy picture of the things that have worked, to say, you know, from 2003 to date, you know, we’ve moved so far. And then we forget, you know, the 2.6 billion that are still not connected. So, as we move onwards and further towards the digitalization, migrating government services to the digital platforms and so on. So, we need to stop for a moment and say, what happens with those 2.6 billion who are not connected? Which brings me to what I consider to be one of the important priorities. I think we just need to get back to the basics and try to bridge in concrete ways the digital divide. for us to achieve a bit more coherence, avoid duplication, and so on and so forth. And listening again this morning to colleagues in the room, I sense that desire again. But I think in a concrete way, we need to just see how to address this, the WSIS, as well as the Global Digital Compact. We need to eventually place our finger there. If not, you know, we’ll say all the nice things and then at the point of actually implementing it, then that’s when we start to encounter a lot. Finally, we are trying, we are committed to running a genuinely transparent multi-stakeholder process. Yeah, you know, of course, you understand yesterday there was an interesting conversation from 2003 about how it began and how we’ve since made progress and so on. So we are looking, for example, at the possibility of getting all the stakeholders in one space at the same time, if possible, civil society, technical community, member states, private sector and everyone else to have a conversation, hopefully before we come up with the zero draft. Or if it’s not possible to do that, at the same time to just have a back-to-back consultation where member states can, you know, consult and then soon thereafter, civil society and the other stakeholders can make their input. So the whole idea is, you know, and I’m not making any conclusions just yet, that the WSIS vision, I think, is celebrated by everyone across the board, all the, you know, member states we’ve had an occasion to speak to, everybody thinks it’s a good idea which needs to be strengthened and going forward. So let me give on behalf of my co-facilitator, Ambassador Yanina of Albania, our commitment to work with all stakeholders. in bringing this. And we are counting on your support, quite frankly, because everybody reminds us, you know, they say all these nice things, then they say, OK, good luck. Then at that point, I’m like, OK, why do I need luck? I thought everybody agrees on almost everything. So we’ll need a bit of their luck. But more importantly, I think the support of all of you. I thank you very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much, Ambassador. And I think you can count on the support. And I think what the session reflects is the commonality between Global North and Global South countries, developed and developing countries, UN agencies, civil society. So you can count on our support. We might become a little bit annoying at times because everyone here is so invested in this process. But thank you for your time, for being with us. And thanks so much to Anita and her team and Valeria for organizing this. And to all of our excellencies and ambassadors and experts from the UN and from governments for being with us. Thanks a lot. I certainly enjoyed listening to you and I felt inspired. Thanks, everyone.

Agreement points

Need for strengthened multistakeholder participation with greater diversity and inclusion

Speakers

– Mallory Knodel
– Guilherme Canela Godoi
– Jim Paterson
– William Lee
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Need for greater diversity, equity and inclusion in multistakeholder processes, with more input from most affected communities

Requirement for deeper multistakeholder debate acknowledging enormous diversity within each stakeholder group

Importance of strengthening participation of stakeholders from all world’s countries and economies, ensuring big and small countries are engaged

Need for all voices at the table in positive, inclusion-oriented agenda since no single group can solve challenges alone

Commitment to transparent multi-stakeholder process and addressing coherence between WSIS and Global Digital Compact

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the need to improve multistakeholder processes by ensuring greater diversity, inclusion of marginalized voices, representation from all countries regardless of size, and recognition that no single stakeholder group can solve digital challenges alone.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Urgent need to address digital divide and ensure meaningful connectivity for all

Speakers

– Liping Zhang
– Jim Paterson
– William Lee
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Urgent need to close digital divides including gender digital divide, requiring investment in infrastructure, affordability, and digital skills

Emphasis on delivering meaningful connectivity and ensuring access to economic opportunities, education, health, and government services

Focus on meaningful connectivity with estimates of trillion-dollar cost but $9 trillion economic benefit, requiring local solutions and micro-targeting

Need to address 2.6 billion people still not connected and ensure they aren’t left behind in digitalization process

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasized the critical importance of closing digital divides through meaningful connectivity, with specific attention to the 2.6 billion people still unconnected and the need for substantial investment in infrastructure and digital skills.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Human rights

Importance of maintaining and strengthening WSIS process momentum

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Importance of maintaining WSIS momentum and strengthening multilateral and multistakeholder engagement for emerging digital economy issues

Commitment to transparent multi-stakeholder process and addressing coherence between WSIS and Global Digital Compact

Emphasis on commonality between different stakeholder groups and regions supporting the WSIS process

Summary

Speakers agreed on the continued relevance and success of the WSIS process over 20 years, emphasizing the need to maintain its momentum while adapting to new challenges and ensuring coherence with other processes like the Global Digital Compact.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Need for comprehensive governance frameworks addressing human rights and technology accountability

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Liping Zhang
– Anita Gurumurthy
– Guilherme Canela Godoi

Arguments

Need for new universal declaration of human rights in the digital world, emphasizing individual sovereignty and digital sovereignty of countries

Importance of robust governance frameworks for data governance, privacy protection, and accountability from technology companies

Call for human rights paradigm adequate to digital conjuncture, including individual and collective dimensions with rights to public participation, consensual representation, and algorithmic transparency

Rejection of false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection, emphasizing that international human rights system enabled current innovation

Summary

Speakers converged on the need for updated and comprehensive governance frameworks that protect human rights in the digital age, ensure accountability from technology companies, and reject the false choice between innovation and rights protection.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Recognition that technology appropriation requires local ownership and comprehensive ecosystem development

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Jim Paterson
– William Lee

Arguments

Need to develop whole ecosystems that allow economic, political, and social use of technology in ways that create more value than damage

Recognition that innovation happens at every level, not just big tech, and need to allow competitive innovation for social good

Focus on meaningful connectivity with estimates of trillion-dollar cost but $9 trillion economic benefit, requiring local solutions and micro-targeting

Summary

Speakers agreed that successful technology adoption requires comprehensive ecosystem development, local solutions, and recognition that innovation occurs at all levels of society, not just within big tech companies.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical need to address financing mechanisms for digital development, noting that funding discussions have been neglected despite being part of the original WSIS agenda, and calling for new approaches including taxation of digital companies.

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Guilherme Canela Godoi
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Call for public financing mechanisms for Global South AI capabilities and digital self-determination, including digital development tax and stronger action against tax evasion

Need to discuss funding sources for digital cooperation and protection, including different tax approaches and telecommunications fund utilization

Recognition that Tunis agenda included financing mechanisms that were forgotten over time

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers advocated for inclusive global governance approaches that don’t favor powerful countries and emphasized the need for alternative models to current power structures in digital governance.

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Need for multilateral and multi-stakeholder global governance framework that includes all countries regardless of military or infrastructure capacity

Principle of digital non-alignment for just international economic order, with moral leadership to address AI arms race and promote international data solidarity

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both speakers specifically highlighted gender digital divide as a priority area requiring targeted attention and investment to achieve meaningful digital inclusion.

Speakers

– William Lee
– Liping Zhang

Arguments

Gender equality priority with 8% usage gap that needs closing to connect communities effectively

Urgent need to close digital divides including gender digital divide, requiring investment in infrastructure, affordability, and digital skills

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

Rejection of security-first approach to digital governance

Speakers

– Mallory Knodel
– Guilherme Canela Godoi

Arguments

Need for cooperative approach beyond securitization, focusing on knowledge sharing, diverse political economy, and human rights

Rejection of false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection, emphasizing that international human rights system enabled current innovation

Explanation

It’s unexpected to see both technical community and UN agency representatives explicitly criticizing the securitization trend in digital governance, advocating instead for approaches that prioritize human rights and cooperation over security concerns.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Strong emphasis on local ownership and ecosystem development over technology transfer

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Jim Paterson
– William Lee

Arguments

Importance of societies making technology their own, understanding its impacts, and creating regulatory environments that foster innovation while protecting people

Recognition that innovation happens at every level, not just big tech, and need to allow competitive innovation for social good

Focus on meaningful connectivity with estimates of trillion-dollar cost but $9 trillion economic benefit, requiring local solutions and micro-targeting

Explanation

The consensus among developed country representatives (Switzerland, South Africa, Australia) on the importance of local ownership and ecosystem development rather than simple technology transfer represents a shift from traditional development approaches.

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Universal agreement on need for financing mechanisms despite traditional reluctance

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Guilherme Canela Godoi
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Call for public financing mechanisms for Global South AI capabilities and digital self-determination, including digital development tax and stronger action against tax evasion

Need to discuss funding sources for digital cooperation and protection, including different tax approaches and telecommunications fund utilization

Recognition that Tunis agenda included financing mechanisms that were forgotten over time

Explanation

The strong consensus on discussing financing mechanisms is unexpected given the historical reluctance to address funding in digital governance discussions, as noted by the moderator’s reference to the forgotten Task Force on Financing Mechanisms.

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus across diverse stakeholders on key priorities including strengthening multistakeholder participation, addressing digital divides, maintaining WSIS momentum, developing comprehensive governance frameworks, and recognizing the need for local technology ownership. Speakers consistently emphasized human rights protection, the importance of inclusion, and the need for sustainable financing mechanisms.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with strong alignment on fundamental principles and priorities. The agreement spans across different stakeholder groups (governments, UN agencies, civil society, technical community) and regions (Global North and South), indicating broad support for the WSIS process and shared understanding of key challenges. This consensus provides a solid foundation for moving forward with WSIS Plus 20 implementation, though the challenge will be translating this agreement into concrete action and adequate financing.

Different viewpoints

Approach to multistakeholder governance – emphasis on government multilateralism vs. technical community cooperation

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Mallory Knodel

Arguments

Need for multilateral and multi-stakeholder global governance framework that includes all countries regardless of military or infrastructure capacity

Need for cooperative approach beyond securitization, focusing on knowledge sharing, diverse political economy, and human rights

Summary

Brazil emphasizes the need for formal multilateral frameworks with balanced government representation, while Mallory advocates for returning to the cooperative, less securitized approach of early Internet development with focus on technical cooperation and human rights

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Focus on individual vs. collective rights in digital governance

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Need for new universal declaration of human rights in the digital world, emphasizing individual sovereignty and digital sovereignty of countries

Call for human rights paradigm adequate to digital conjuncture, including individual and collective dimensions with rights to public participation, consensual representation, and algorithmic transparency

Summary

Brazil emphasizes individual sovereignty and digital sovereignty of countries, while Anita advocates for a framework that explicitly balances both individual and collective dimensions of digital rights

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Tension between innovation and human rights protection

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela Godoi

Arguments

Rejection of false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection, emphasizing that international human rights system enabled current innovation

Explanation

While not directly contradicted by other speakers, Guilherme’s strong emphasis on rejecting the innovation vs. human rights dichotomy suggests this is a contentious issue in broader digital governance discussions, though other speakers in this session didn’t explicitly take opposing positions

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus among speakers on core principles (digital inclusion, multistakeholder participation, human rights protection) with disagreements primarily on implementation approaches and emphasis rather than fundamental goals

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most differences are complementary rather than contradictory, focusing on different aspects of the same challenges. The strongest consensus exists around the need for inclusive digital governance, addressing digital divides, and maintaining WSIS momentum. This high level of agreement suggests strong foundation for collaborative action on WSIS Plus 20 implementation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical need to address financing mechanisms for digital development, noting that funding discussions have been neglected despite being part of the original WSIS agenda, and calling for new approaches including taxation of digital companies.

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Guilherme Canela Godoi
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Call for public financing mechanisms for Global South AI capabilities and digital self-determination, including digital development tax and stronger action against tax evasion

Need to discuss funding sources for digital cooperation and protection, including different tax approaches and telecommunications fund utilization

Recognition that Tunis agenda included financing mechanisms that were forgotten over time

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers advocated for inclusive global governance approaches that don’t favor powerful countries and emphasized the need for alternative models to current power structures in digital governance.

Speakers

– Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Need for multilateral and multi-stakeholder global governance framework that includes all countries regardless of military or infrastructure capacity

Principle of digital non-alignment for just international economic order, with moral leadership to address AI arms race and promote international data solidarity

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both speakers specifically highlighted gender digital divide as a priority area requiring targeted attention and investment to achieve meaningful digital inclusion.

Speakers

– William Lee
– Liping Zhang

Arguments

Gender equality priority with 8% usage gap that needs closing to connect communities effectively

Urgent need to close digital divides including gender digital divide, requiring investment in infrastructure, affordability, and digital skills

Topics

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

The WSIS vision remains relevant 20 years later and should be strengthened rather than replaced, with broad consensus among all stakeholders on its people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented approach

There is urgent need to address the digital divide, particularly the 2.6 billion people still not connected, requiring significant investment (estimated at $1 trillion) but potentially generating $9 trillion in economic benefits

A false dichotomy exists between innovation and human rights protection that must be rejected – the international human rights system actually enabled current digital innovation

Multistakeholder processes need deeper diversity and inclusion, ensuring meaningful participation from most affected communities, developing countries, and marginalized groups

Digital governance requires both multilateral frameworks and local ownership, where societies can appropriate technology according to their own needs and values

Financing mechanisms are critical and underaddressed, with calls for public financing, digital development taxes, and stronger action against tax evasion

The Internet should be reclaimed as a global communications commons rather than dominated by walled gardens

Integration and coherence between WSIS and Global Digital Compact processes is essential to avoid duplication and resource inefficiencies

Resolutions and action items

Civil society forum to aggregate and submit formal comments on the WSIS+20 Elements paper

Proposal to mandate a new working group on financing mechanisms similar to the Digital Solidarity Fund at the end of the Plus20 review

Co-facilitators committed to organizing multi-stakeholder consultations, potentially bringing all stakeholders together before the zero draft

Establishment of a multi-stakeholder sounding board with geographical and gender representation parameters

Call for incorporating ‘equitable governance’ terminology in paragraph 68 of the elements paper

Request to acknowledge interconnectedness of digital and non-digital international norms across trade, IP, health, taxation, and climate in the enabling environment section

Ministers and regulators to produce separate calls for action from their respective roundtables

Unresolved issues

How to effectively integrate WSIS and Global Digital Compact implementation without duplication

Specific mechanisms and funding sources for achieving meaningful connectivity for 2.6 billion unconnected people

How to ensure genuine participation from developing countries and marginalized communities in global digital governance

Balancing digital sovereignty of countries with need for global cooperation and standards

Addressing the governance gap between rapid technological development and slower policy/regulatory responses

How to make multistakeholder processes truly representative beyond current limitations

Specific implementation mechanisms for digital non-alignment principle and international data solidarity

How to operationalize the precautionary principle and public participation rights in digital innovation

Suggested compromises

Multi-stakeholder sounding board as one avenue for input while maintaining other channels for stakeholder participation

Back-to-back consultations if simultaneous multi-stakeholder meetings prove impossible to organize

Selective adoption of financing proposals – ‘pick up the ones that you find strategic’ from the seven outlined options

Gradual approach to technology appropriation – societies can choose what they need and don’t need while acknowledging unstoppable technological developments

Enhanced rather than replaced WSIS action lines framework to adapt to technological changes while maintaining proven structure

Balanced representation approach ensuring both big and small countries, developed and developing nations have meaningful participation

Integration of Global Digital Compact into WSIS action lines rather than creating entirely separate processes

The Mullah Nasruddin story about searching for a lost ring under a streetlight instead of where it was actually lost (in the dark house), applied to the digital economy: ‘we know what is lost, what is being lost, and we look elsewhere, trying hard not to cast the spotlight at the right place. Pretending to fix things, gathering more and more people to look away from the real problems.’

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This metaphor brilliantly captures the fundamental problem with current approaches to digital governance – that stakeholders are addressing symptoms rather than root causes because it’s easier to work on visible, well-lit problems than to tackle the difficult structural issues. It reframes the entire discussion around the need for courage to examine uncomfortable truths.

Impact

This opening metaphor set the philosophical tone for the entire discussion, with multiple speakers later referencing the need to address ‘real problems’ and structural issues. It established a framework that encouraged deeper, more honest analysis rather than surface-level solutions.

The critique of creating ‘a false dichotomy between innovation and the protection of human rights. Like if we choose one, we need to deny the other… the international human rights system, the international rule of law system that was created eight years ago and of which WSIS is part of, actually is what promoted and permitted this innovation that these companies are able to do in the first place.’

Speaker

Guilherme Canela Godoi (UNESCO)

Reason

This comment challenges a fundamental assumption that pervades tech policy discussions – that human rights protections somehow hinder innovation. By arguing that the UN system actually enabled innovation, he flips the narrative and provides a powerful counter-argument to tech industry claims about regulatory burden.

Impact

This reframing influenced the discussion by legitimizing stronger regulatory approaches and human rights protections as pro-innovation rather than anti-innovation, giving other speakers confidence to advocate for more robust governance frameworks.

The Swiss railway analogy: describing how Switzerland in the 1840s didn’t just buy locomotives from the UK but ‘created a whole ecosystem that allowed them to use, to make a technology their own. They became very good engineers… But that was not just by buying something and then think that’s it. But you need to develop a whole ecosystem that allows you economically, politically, the society to use something in a way that creates more value added than it creates damage.’

Speaker

Thomas Schneider (Switzerland)

Reason

This historical analogy provides a concrete model for how countries can approach digital transformation – not as passive consumers of technology but as active shapers who build comprehensive ecosystems. It offers a practical framework for digital sovereignty that goes beyond rhetoric.

Impact

Multiple speakers referenced this analogy later, with William Lee from Australia explicitly building on it. It shifted the conversation from abstract principles to concrete strategies for technology appropriation and helped frame digital sovereignty in practical terms.

The observation about nostalgia for early internet cooperation: ‘I think that there’s a real critique for most of the things that we’re cooperating on these days are really focused on and center very much securitization… I think it’s a wonderful thing that it did not come and factor in as the central figure, that there were many, many other things about building global connectivity.’

Speaker

Mallory Knodel

Reason

This comment challenges the current security-first approach to internet governance by arguing that the early internet’s success came precisely from NOT prioritizing security above all else. It’s a counterintuitive argument that questions dominant policy assumptions.

Impact

This perspective introduced a critical lens on current governance approaches and encouraged other speakers to consider whether security-focused frameworks might be limiting more collaborative and innovative approaches to digital governance.

The call to ‘talk about money’ and the observation that ‘we can’t be naive that this talk is only about, well, we need to protect this and that. We need to say where the money is going to come from to protect what is different in the global south and so on.’

Speaker

Guilherme Canela Godoi (UNESCO)

Reason

This comment cut through the idealistic rhetoric to address the practical reality that digital justice requires funding mechanisms. It challenged the tendency to make grand declarations without addressing implementation costs.

Impact

This prompted Anriette Esterhuysen to recall the forgotten Task Force on Financing Mechanisms from 2003 and led Anita Gurumurthy to propose concrete financing mechanisms including a digital development tax. It grounded the discussion in practical implementation challenges.

The question posed by Ambassador Lokaale: ‘is the WSIS vision still relevant? Is it working? Is it working well?’ and his reflection on ensuring ‘equity and inclusion both in the process as well as in the final outcome.’

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Kenya, Co-facilitator)

Reason

This fundamental questioning of WSIS’s continued relevance, coming from a co-facilitator, demonstrated intellectual honesty and opened space for critical evaluation rather than automatic endorsement. The process-outcome distinction also showed sophisticated thinking about governance.

Impact

This legitimized critical assessment of WSIS and encouraged speakers to be more honest about shortcomings while also affirming the vision’s continued relevance. It helped frame the discussion as genuine evaluation rather than ceremonial endorsement.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing frameworks for deeper analysis rather than surface-level policy recommendations. The Mullah Nasruddin metaphor set an expectation for honest examination of structural problems, while the false dichotomy critique and Swiss railway analogy provided concrete alternative frameworks for thinking about innovation and technology appropriation. The call to ‘talk about money’ grounded idealistic visions in practical implementation realities, and the co-facilitator’s fundamental questioning legitimized critical evaluation. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from routine policy talking points to genuine intellectual engagement with the challenges of digital governance, creating space for both criticism and constructive alternatives. The result was a more nuanced, honest, and practically-oriented dialogue that acknowledged both achievements and shortcomings while pointing toward concrete next steps.

How to align the implementation of WSIS and the Global Digital Compact to avoid duplication and achieve coherence?

Speaker

Liping Zhang and Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Both speakers emphasized the need to integrate these two processes effectively, with Zhang mentioning suggestions about integrating the Global Digital Compact into WSIS action lines, and Lokaale noting the need to ‘place our finger there’ on this issue to avoid saying ‘nice things’ without concrete implementation

How to establish a new working group on financing mechanisms for digital development?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

She suggested mandating a new working group on financing similar to the Digital Solidarity Fund at the end of the Plus20 review, building on the Secretary General’s call for a digital development tax and addressing the limitations of market mechanisms

How to achieve meaningful participation from the 2.6 billion people who are still not connected?

Speaker

Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

He emphasized the need to address what happens to those who remain unconnected as governments migrate services to digital platforms, calling this a fundamental priority that requires getting ‘back to the basics’

How to strengthen multistakeholder representation to include more diverse voices, particularly from marginalized communities?

Speaker

Mallory Knodel, Guilherme Canela Godoi, and Jim Paterson

Explanation

Multiple speakers highlighted the need for better inclusion of most affected communities, with Canela Godoi specifically noting the absurdity of discussing children’s rights without children present, and indigenous issues without indigenous voices

How to develop robust governance frameworks for managing the complexity of digital ecosystems, particularly AI governance?

Speaker

Liping Zhang

Explanation

She identified this as a priority emerging from UNCTAD consultations, emphasizing the need for improved data governance, privacy protection, and inclusive governance of emerging technologies

How to create whole ecosystems that allow countries to ‘own’ technology rather than just consume it?

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

Using the Swiss railway analogy, he emphasized the need for countries to develop comprehensive ecosystems including infrastructure, education, financing, and regulatory frameworks to truly benefit from technology

How to address the false dichotomy between innovation and human rights protection?

Speaker

Guilherme Canela Godoi

Explanation

He identified this as a dangerous conversation trend that needs to be stopped, arguing that the international human rights system actually enabled the innovation that companies benefit from today

How to achieve the estimated trillion dollars needed for meaningful connectivity while capturing the potential $9 trillion in economic benefits?

Speaker

William Lee

Explanation

He highlighted the massive financing challenge and the need to understand local priorities and micro-target solutions through the WSIS framework

How to update international norms across traditional non-digital areas (trade, IP, health, taxation, competition, climate) in the context of digitalization?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

She emphasized that these interconnected areas all need updating for the digital context, representing a comprehensive governance challenge beyond just digital-specific regulations