Defending Our Voice: Global South Participation in Digital Governance

Summary

This panel discussion focused on identifying alternatives to overcome challenges for effective and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in global Internet governance spaces, particularly for Global South civil society organizations. The session was organized around the WSIS Plus 20 review and examined barriers to participation as well as recommendations for strengthening civil society engagement in digital governance processes.

The panelists emphasized a crucial distinction between mere presence at governance forums and meaningful participation that includes agenda-setting power and influence over outcomes. Nandini Chami from IT4Change highlighted how multi-stakeholder processes often confuse equal stakes dialogue with genuine bottom-up participation, noting that technical standards frequently become substitutes for political norms without addressing underlying power dynamics. Michel Oliveira de Souza from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights stressed that participation in public affairs is a fundamental human right and emphasized the importance of safe spaces, transparency, and access to decision-makers.

Paloma Lara Castro from Derechos Digitales pointed out specific barriers including visa problems, language barriers, and financial constraints that prevent meaningful participation, often resulting in tokenistic engagement. She emphasized the need for specific mechanisms and recognition of marginalized groups including LGBTQI communities, indigenous populations, and farmers affected by digital policies. Bia Barbosa, participating online from Brazil, discussed the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s work and highlighted the Sao Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines as a model for inclusive processes.

The panelists provided concrete recommendations for WSIS Plus 20, including stronger corporate accountability mechanisms, public financing for digital infrastructure, clearer participation criteria, financial support for civil society attendance, and robust human rights language in outcome documents. They emphasized the urgent need to move beyond formal participation toward implementation and accountability mechanisms that ensure civil society voices translate into concrete policy outcomes.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Barriers to meaningful participation for Global South civil society organizations in digital governance**: The panel identified structural obstacles including financial constraints, visa problems, language barriers, lack of safe spaces for participation, and transparency issues that prevent meaningful engagement beyond mere presence in governance forums.

– **Distinction between presence and meaningful participation in multi-stakeholder processes**: Speakers emphasized that simply having a “seat at the table” is insufficient – true meaningful participation requires agenda-setting power, follow-up mechanisms, and the ability to influence outcomes rather than tokenistic involvement.

– **Corporate accountability and human rights violations in digital spaces**: Discussion focused on the need for stronger mechanisms to hold big tech corporations accountable for human rights violations, data extractivism, and their role in perpetuating inequalities, particularly affecting Global South communities.

– **Recommendations for WSIS Plus 20 review process**: Panelists proposed concrete improvements including implementing the São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines, ensuring transparent processes, providing financial support for civil society participation, strengthening human rights language, and creating tracking mechanisms for civil society contributions.

– **Coordination challenges and fragmentation in digital governance**: The discussion addressed how multiple parallel processes addressing similar issues create difficulties for civil society participation, especially for Global South organizations with limited resources, emphasizing the need for better coordination and avoiding duplication.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to identify alternatives to overcome challenges for effective multi-stakeholder participation in global Internet governance, specifically focusing on how Global South civil society organizations can meaningfully engage in digital governance processes like WSIS Plus 20 review despite growing financial and political constraints.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was constructively critical and solution-oriented throughout. Speakers maintained a professional but urgent atmosphere, acknowledging serious systemic problems while offering concrete recommendations. The discussion remained collaborative and focused on practical improvements rather than becoming confrontational, with participants building on each other’s points and sharing experiences from different regional perspectives.

Speakers

– **Bia Barbosa** – Journalist and specialist in human rights from University of Sao Paulo; civil society representative at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br)

– **Nandini Chami** – From IT4Change; development practitioner working on rights and digital governance

– **Kemly Camacho** – From Costa Rica; President of Zulabatzu Cooperative and part of APC team; panel moderator

– **Paloma Lara Castro** – Public Policy Director at Derechos Digitales (Latin American organization with 20 years of experience working in the intersection of human rights and technology)

– **Michel Oliveira de Souza** – Human Rights Officer at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Jacqueline Pigato** – From Data Privacy Brazil, civil society organization

– **Anne McCormick** – From EY

# Report: Alternatives for Effective Multi-Stakeholder Participation in Global Internet Governance

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Kemly Camacho (President of Zulabatzu Cooperative and APC team member), examined barriers to meaningful civil society participation in global Internet governance and explored concrete alternatives for improvement. The session was structured in two rounds: first identifying barriers to participation, then discussing specific recommendations for the WSIS Plus 20 review process.

The discussion emphasized the critical distinction between mere presence at governance forums and meaningful participation that includes agenda-setting power and influence over outcomes. Panellists highlighted how current multi-stakeholder processes often fail to address underlying power dynamics and structural barriers that prevent Global South organizations from effectively participating in digital governance decisions.

## Key Participants

**Bia Barbosa** – Journalist and human rights specialist from the University of São Paulo, civil society representative on the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), participated online from Brazil

**Nandini Chami** – IT4Change, development practitioner focused on rights and digital governance

**Paloma Lara Castro** – Public Policy Director at Derechos Digitales, with 20 years of experience working at the intersection of human rights and technology

**Michel Oliveira de Souza** – Human Rights Officer at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The discussion also included interventions from audience members including Jacqueline Pigato (Data Privacy Brazil) and Anne McCormick (EY).

## Round 1: Barriers to Meaningful Participation

### Presence Versus Meaningful Participation

Nandini Chami established a key framework for the discussion: “When we are talking about meaningful participation and inclusion of historically marginalised groups in digital governance… presence does not always translate into meaningful participation, even if presence is achieved. Because it’s also about agenda setting power and whether the voices expressed translate into actual concerns that account for a digital justice and Southern perspective.”

### Structural and Practical Barriers

Paloma Lara Castro identified concrete obstacles including “visa problems, language barriers, and financial constraints” that prevent meaningful participation and often result in “tokenistic engagement.”

Michel Oliveira de Souza emphasized that “financial support and online participation mechanisms are essential for civil society engagement” while noting the importance of “safe spaces” for participation, acknowledging that engagement can pose risks in some contexts.

Bia Barbosa highlighted how “civil society faces difficulties following simultaneous and duplicative processes,” noting that multiple parallel governance processes create particular burdens for organizations with limited resources.

### Technicalization of Political Issues

Nandini Chami provided a critical analysis of how multi-stakeholder processes can depoliticize inherently political questions: “We confuse the idea of an equal stakes dialogue where there is an aggregation of different interests in the room with the same thing as bottom-up participation of a plurality of processes… technical standards start becoming stand-ins for political norms.”

She illustrated this with a concrete example: “It’s not the same thing as saying that instead of talking about democratic and accountable digital public infrastructure, it’s enough to talk about open and interoperable public infrastructure.”

## Round 2: Recommendations and Solutions

### Human Rights Framework

Michel Oliveira de Souza grounded recommendations in international human rights law, stating that “participation is a human right that must be respected in digital governance decisions” and emphasizing the need for “safe spaces, transparency, and access to decision-makers.”

### Brazilian Multi-Stakeholder Experience

Bia Barbosa highlighted Brazil’s experience with multi-stakeholder governance, noting that CGI.br has been operating for 30 years and that “multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation.” She promoted the “São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines as a model for inclusive processes” and mentioned Brazil’s support for various IGF forums including Brazilian, Latin American and Caribbean, and Lusophone forums.

She also referenced the NetMundial Plus 10 event held “last year” as an example of inclusive processes organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee.

### Corporate Accountability

Nandini Chami argued that “big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations” and highlighted issues of “data extractivism” and corporate roles in “perpetuating inequalities, particularly affecting Global South communities.”

She also advocated for “public financing for inclusive digital infrastructure development,” referencing the “digital development tax proposed by the Secretary-General in the Our Common Agenda report.”

### Specific WSIS Plus 20 Recommendations

**Strengthening Human Rights Language**: Paloma Lara Castro noted that “human rights language in WSIS Plus 20 elements paper is weaker than in Global Digital Compact” and called for strengthening human rights language in outcome documents with “specific references to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.”

**Explicit Recognition of Marginalized Groups**: Rather than generic terms, speakers emphasized the need for “explicit recognition of specific groups like LGBTQI communities and indigenous populations” in WSIS Plus 20 texts.

**IGF Mandate**: Paloma Lara Castro recommended that the “IGF mandate should be made permanent in the review process.”

**Procedural Improvements**: Michel Oliveira de Souza called for “clear, transparent, and fair participation processes with access to documents” and emphasized the need to “provide financial support for civil society participation.”

## Implementation Challenges

### Coordination Between Processes

Bia Barbosa emphasized that “coordination between governance spaces is essential to avoid fragmentation” and called for “new working methods and allocate financial/human resources for better coordination between governance processes.”

### Accountability Mechanisms

The discussion identified the ongoing challenge of “holding stakeholders accountable for commitments” even when meaningful participation is achieved. Speakers recommended creating tracking mechanisms to monitor how civil society contributions are incorporated into final outcomes.

## Audience Engagement

During the Q&A session, Jacqueline Pigato raised questions about “how to effectively connect global governance decisions with local implementation and accountability.” Anne McCormick emphasized urgency, asking “What can we do in the next 12 months because we don’t have three years?”

Michel Oliveira de Souza acknowledged that “civil society plays a strong role in bringing global agreements to regional and local environments” while recognizing the ongoing challenges in ensuring effective implementation.

## Key Frameworks and References

The discussion referenced several important frameworks:

– São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines as a model for inclusive processes

– UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights for corporate accountability

– The Transnational Institute review of 21 global multi-stakeholder initiatives

– UN Special Rapporteur’s report on corporation’s complicity in genocide

## Conclusion

The panel demonstrated that meaningful civil society participation in digital governance requires addressing structural barriers, ensuring adequate resources and safe spaces, and moving beyond technical solutions to engage with the political dimensions of digital governance. The speakers provided concrete recommendations for improving the WSIS Plus 20 process while acknowledging the ongoing challenges of implementation and accountability in multi-stakeholder governance models.

Michel Oliveira de Souza concluded by inviting participants to another session on “standard setting and human rights and the role of the private sector,” indicating the continuation of these important discussions throughout the IGF.

Kemly Camacho: This is a really interesting panel that focuses on identifying alternatives to overcome multiple existing challenges for effective and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in global Internet governance spaces. Multicultural participation has multiple challenges, even more and more, especially for the global South and for the civil society organization, including the dismantling of established global governance regimes and coordinated attacks against those who defend human rights and social justice values, including in the context of digital governance. This session is going to address how civil society, particularly the global South and within the current geopolitical landscapes, can meaningfully participate in global digital governance and sustain that engagement amidst growing financial and political constraints. Civil society holds a key role since it represents the voices and demands of historically marginalized groups and digital governance scenarios. This is what we are going to talk about in these 45 minutes. And for that, we have here our wonderful speakers, wonderful panelists. I’m not going to hold their view, it’s on the website because of the time. But we have here with us Nandini Chami from IT4Change. We have Michel Oliveira de Souza. Olivera de Souza as a Human Rights Officer at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. And we have online Bia Barbosa, a journalist and a specialist in human rights from University of Sao Paulo. And we have Paloma Lara, which is a Public Policy Director at Derechos Digitales. Nice to meet you. My name is Kemly Camacho from Costa Rica, President of Zulabatzu Cooperative and also part of APC team. Then we are going to organize this session in two rounds. In the first round, we are going to discuss about the main barriers for meaningful participation from the Global South Independent Civil Society Organization having the digital governance arena. Then the focus is going to be more in the barriers and how this WSIS Plus 20 review can integrate better participation and more voices from organized civil society. And also how we can connect Global Digital Compact with WSIS Plus 20, taking into account in Global Digital Compact was developed, yes, with the participatory process. We are going to begin with this first part, identifying challenges and also good practices. And in the second part, we are going to focus on recommendation for WSIS Plus 20 for strengthening civil society from the Global South participation as part of this. multi-stakeholder approach. Then I’m going to pass the word first to Nandini, yes, for the first part of the discussion. If all of you will have four to five minutes, then please go to the right points, taking into account the time. I know it’s a few times, but go ahead.

Nandini Chami: Thank you, Kemly. And thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion, Paloma. I just wanted to say that when we are talking about meaningful participation. Can you put more your microphone closer? This should be fine? Yeah, thanks. So when we are talking about meaningful participation and inclusion of historically marginalized groups in digital governance, including in the WSIS Plus 20 review and other digital cooperation processes, I think we are talking about two things. One is the question of presence and who is in the room. And as all the reports from the Internet Governance Forum, the breakdown of participation statistics show, we know how inaccessibility of particular spaces and structural barriers will also play a role in affecting an inclusive politics of presence itself. But as we all recognize as development practitioners and people working on rights, that presence does not always translate into meaningful participation, even if presence is achieved. Because it’s also about agenda setting power and whether the voices expressed translate into actual concerns that account for a digital justice and Southern perspective and the most marginalized and furthest from the first agenda being front and center at the table. And here, I just want to make a couple of like a. you know reflections on the way we do digital multi-stakeholderism which has not always led to deepening democracy. The first point is that oftentimes in multi-stakeholder decision making we confuse the idea of an equal stakes dialogue where there is an aggregation of different interests in the room with the same thing as bottom-up participation of a plurality of processes. We know that in a public policy process it’s not just about expressing different interests and stakes, it’s also about how those stakes are mediated in order to produce a public policy consensus that is accountable and inclusive. And even the NetMundial 2014 statement actually points this part out when it says that in an institutional process the respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should only be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. And the question is how legitimacy is achieved in a process of standard setting in internet institutions that cannot be treated as a default institutional mechanism, a format or principle which you will apply to every internet related public policy issue as the gold standard. Where we are not, I mean of course it’s important to have multi-constituency engagement, it’s important to have plurality and diversity of participation and different stakeholder perspectives, but how do we mediate these stakes and we are not really able to resolve this. The second point is that if we look at the historical data of how different norm-setting multi-stakeholder initiatives have worked, there happens to be a public trust deficit in the way consortium processes of governance standards creation and soft guidelines are working. So two years ago the Transnational Institute did a review of 21 global multi-stakeholder initiatives that have been created in different digital policy arenas such as AI, cyber security, trade and e-commerce, human rights, the whole gamut of haunted us from the time of the visas 20 years ago, which is that we tend to technicalize political issues of public interest, which tends to depoliticize them. For instance, we’ve all seen the magic bullet thinking around ICTs for development and its limitations. But then we see big data and UN global pulse type of thinking, and then we see AI for good thinking. And what happens in these processes is technical standards start becoming stand-ins for political norms, where it’s not the same thing as saying that instead of talking about democratic and accountable digital public infrastructure, it’s enough to talk about open and interoperable public infrastructure, because the openness towards what and under what conditions. These types of issues, like you know, the slippages, that we don’t seem to have learned so much from the past. And in this area, I think we need to be doing more. I’ll just stop here. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you very much, Nandini. Thank you so much for all these insights. Very wonderful insights. Michel, how about you? Which are your reflections in terms of the challenges in these 20 years?

Michel Oliveira de Souza: Hello, good morning, all. Thank you, Kamili, and thank you to the Italians for the invitation for this panel. I think that this is such an utmost important. an important topic to discuss participation from civil society and mostly with a global south perspective. I think that this is one of the most important topics to be discussed and I think that the WSIS plus 20 reveal is an important time to understand what happened in these 20 years and how can we go forward in this topic. I first would like to say that we have a human rights to participate in public affairs and I think that this is something important to state here because civil society also has to participate in the decisions that are made that are concerning them and I think that from the office of the human rights the perspective is that people should participate in the decisions, in the political decisions that are taken and I think that this is something important and sometimes, as Nandini was saying, was not that much respected. So we have places that we don’t have participation at all in terms of process, in terms of be open to participate. We have states and we have some cases that we have we do not have a safe space for participation. Just participating in one specific public policy is a risk for the person and for the community that’s participating and we have problems of transparency, problems of access to documents, access to decision makers and so on. So I think that we have a full list of problems regarding to participation and I think that regarding the WSIS and all that have been done during these 20 years, I think that this is a very important model for mood stakeholder participation, allowing participation from the from Civil Society, from the Global South. We have the IGF, we have the national IGFs and all the participation that we have in these spaces. And I think that this is important to bring human rights to the table. We have seen in these 20 years the participation from Civil Society, from the Global South. We bring the topics, the risks, the problems to the table, to be discussed together with stakeholders, to be discussed together with technical community, to be discussed together with governments. So I think that the WSIS model was very important to have human rights at the table, to have the voice from the unheard, because sometimes not to be heard is not to fulfill their own human rights. So I think that for now, I would like to stop here and I’m happy to discuss further, but my main concern is that we are talking about participation, we are talking about human rights, we are talking about the internet, we are talking about human rights.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much, Michelle. Paloma, the same approach, which are from your perspective and the perspective of Derechos Digitales, the most important challenges for real participation.

Paloma Lara Castro: Thank you, Kemli, and thank you all for joining us. I’m Paloma from Derechos Digitales. We are a Latin American organization with 20 years of experience working in the intersection of human rights and technology. In this process, we have been, I mean, in this area of work, we have been very active regarding international, regional, and local advocacy, trying to bring the voices specifically of Latin America and the global south to these discussions. What we see in the field… The field is reflected in what has been already expressed by Nandini and Michel. I don’t want to be duplicative of what they said, but I do want to highlight some of the points that were mentioned. So first of all, there is a need to consider the linkage that Michel was mentioning between multi-stakeholder and human rights. So participation at the same time that is a human right, it’s a political and civic social human right, at the same time is key for inclusion. Participation is at the core of the WSIS vision, and when we think about the PLOS 20 review, we do really need to focus on how to contextualize the WSIS vision into the diverse experiences of local and marginalized communities that are more affected for the policies or lack of policies regarding internet and digital policies. So when we think in that perspective, what we are seeing in different processes, and to put a concrete example within the GDC, we are seeing that maybe there is some participation, and as Nandini mentioned, that’s not enough for meaningful participation, it’s not enough to get a seat on the table. And then again, when we think about who actually gets a seat on the table, there are very few organizations that actually get to participate in this discussion. We have to consider there visa problems, language barriers, financial constraints that actually impede these groups to actually participate, and when they do participate, or when we do participate, there is no actual mechanism for follow-up, so our participation sometimes becomes tokenistic. And this is heightened or deepened within the geopolitical sphere that we’re living right now, the geopolitical problems and issues that we’re living with right now that tend to push back on human rights. We are at a moment right now where there is a strong pushback on human rights, specifically when we see, for example, on gender-related issues. which is a specific example. So when we link it back to the discussions right now, trying to think about how, looking forward as Michel said, how are we thinking about how to actually include these groups, there are many things we need to consider. First of all, specific mechanisms. The Sao Paulo guidelines are very useful for that and OBS is going to touch base on that. Second of all, there’s a need to include specific groups within the recognition of rights. This is not only to say relevant stakeholders, as is mentioned for example in the elements paper which will serve as a basis for negotiations of the WSIS plus 20. We actually need to recognize who are these people, who are these communities that need to be specifically included to actually benefit from the digital and internet policies but also to ensure their participation within these debates. If we don’t ensure their participation with these specific events and discussions, we are risking deepening the structural inequalities that Nandini Chami already touched base on. So when we’re thinking about looking forward, inclusion is not only to advance on multi-stakeholder and actually considering the, not only as I mentioned the geopolitical shifts, but also considering that right now all of the discussions regarding human rights and technology are being centered in New York which deepens the barriers that I already mentioned and touched base upon. So when we’re thinking about this geopolitical sphere and the challenges regarding that, we really do need to contextualize the WSIS plus 20 vision into the challenges facing today and this is a crucial time for us to do that and multi-stakeholder participation is key to actually advance on rights, not only as a formality. So I’m going to leave it at that, but happy to continue this conversation. Thank you. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you very much, Paloma. And now, Bea, the word to you. Are you online?

Bia Barbosa: Yes, Kimmy. Can you hear me?

Kemly Camacho: Yes, we hear you very well. Thank you, Bea. Thank you for being here. Thank you.

Bia Barbosa: Thank you very much and thank you to Direitos Digitales for this invitation. It’s a pleasure to be here with you all, even if it’s 4 a.m. in the morning here in Brazil, it’s pretty cold. So thank you so much for having me. I would like to share with you a little bit the contributions we have made on this topic within the scope of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which is a multi-stakeholder body that for 30 years has been fundamental in formulating guidelines for the use and development of the internet in our country. I’m one of the civil society representatives at the CGI.br and expanding the meaningful participation of the Global South in internet governance forums and arenas is one of our main missions. That’s why CGI not only supports and actively builds the Internet Governance Forum, but also holds annually one of the largest national governance forums, the Brazilian Internet Forum, and supports IGF, the Latin American and the Caribbean one, and the Lusophone Forum as well, which brings together Portuguese-speaking countries. We know that the rapid digital transformation and the spread of multiple internet-based technologies and applications present us with opportunities and challenges impacting economic, political, and civic spheres, and these need to be addressed in governance of the internet and digital policies process, which more than ever requires precedent coordination and cooperation among stakeholders to effectively unlock the benefits of this massive transformation for everyone everywhere. I totally agree with the points brought by Nadine and Paloma, and when we say that no stakeholder can handle these challenges alone, we think that in all the difficulty to civil society to be at this space, but we believe that each stakeholder has different roles and responsibilities depending on the issues and stages of specific stakeholder process. We know that there are persistent concerns that too many government processes are failing to properly guarantee a meaningful participation, and this is especially due to the lack of inclusive participation of all relevant stakeholders on a genuinely equal footing. multistakeholder approaches to internet governance and digital policies work better when they are inclusive and when a stakeholder can identify their own interest in an issue and participate in the process to address it. They succeed when there is a mindset of openness to new ideas and a willingness to understand other points of view and make compromises to find a consensus. That said, a vital component of protecting and improving such a process is to make sure they incorporate the relevant forms of expertise and experience that are required at different stages of discussing a particular issue. Capacity building, for example, is essential to improve stakeholders’ understanding and ability to participate on an equal footing. This also implies a realistic analysis of and response to power asymmetries between and within stakeholders in a discussion. Another point I would like to raise regards to coordination. Coordination of governance spaces is essential. Numerous initiatives and processes have emerged to address the broad diversity of issues raised by the digital transformation. And sometimes multiple processes address the same issue in parallel. This has both positive and negative impacts. Distributing initiatives on a particular issue can help cover the diversity of approaches and perspectives. But at the same time, there is a risk that separated discussion on a specific issue may create incompatible and even conflicting outcomes. There are also difficulties posed for stakeholders, especially for the civil society, to follow simultaneous and duplicative processes, especially for those from the Global South as us. It’s important to avoid fragmentation and duplication of fora to make sure that internet governance and digital policy processes can be effective. Instead, better coordination between processes dealing with overlapping issues is strongly needed. I finish just with a final point that we believe that to deliver an expectation for coordination and information sharing, new working methods may need to be developed. And new financial and human resources would be essential. This could be designed to deliver what we mentioned before, which is genuinely improved coordination and information sharing, and also to generate improved outcome deliberation and insight. They could also drive stronger connections between governance process and implementation of outcomes that would strengthen the overall effectiveness of Internet governance and digital policies process. So I leave it here and so we can move forward for the second round that I think it would be more interesting.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much, Bia. Okay, we finished this first round. I’m going to take five specific points, maybe to go later to the discussion around the recommendation for WSIS. Yes, maybe first, it’s not the same to be present that having meaningful participation. If we study the public digital agenda, we see how big tech is defined in this agenda based on concrete examples. We have passed by ICT4D, data for development, IEA for good, and we are almost in the same point discussing more inclusive digital policies. We cannot, it’s urgent to have a human rights approach in terms of the development of the… Digital Public Policies and the policies in the digital in general. There are really difficulties to have safe spaces for all the participants in some countries or some processes and there are problems of transparency also. There is a really need to put inclusion in the core and we need to understand that having a multi-stakeholder is not exactly the same than inclusion. Civil society organizations have specific problems and constraints to really participate, to have a meaningful participation in the process like WSIS, IGF and others. We have to contextualize WSIS plus 20 in the geopolitical context and also be very specific about how we coordinate this governance, how to follow up, how we share information and the urgency to develop capacity building to the different stakeholders to have really a meaningful participation. Just mentioning a few points on the discussion at the moment to pass then to our next session around which are the recommendations we have for WSIS plus 20 from now to the next years. Then Nandini, your time. Thank you very much.

Nandini Chami: Yeah, when we look at the concrete recommendations that we want to see out of the WSIS plus 20 process, I would just like to talk about two agenda which I think must find mention in a concrete way in the outcome document. So the first point is something that has come up a lot of times in the first round, which is about the accountability of big tech corporations for human rights violations, civic political rights, economic, social, cultural rights violations in data value chains, and even the right to development violations stemming from their data extractivism and natural resource extractivism, especially in the Global South. And I just wanted to mention that this report released last week recently, which everyone would have seen about the United Nations Special Rapporteur’s comments on the corporation’s complicity in genocide, for instance, that just proves the point how we do not have a viable mechanism to hold them to account effectively. The second point is that when we look at the positive agenda of forging equal digital economies where the majority world can participate in inclusive and equitable ways, lessons from the WSIS show us that if we don’t invest in public financing, inclusive digital infrastructures cannot be developed. The market has not been able to close the connectivity gap for those last hundreds for whom there is no viable market case to close the access trap. That’s what the statistics are telling us. And the same thing will also happen in terms of building data and AI infrastructural capabilities where we do not want citizens of the Global South to be just included as passive consumers of data and AI products, right? We want them to be meaningfully included in ways they are producers and they are able to make gains in data and AI value chains. And in a global context where sovereign debt of majority world countries are at an all-time high, how is public financing deficit going to be solved unless we have mechanisms like the digital development tax proposed by the Secretary-General? in the Our Common Agenda report, and we also support the right of countries to tax digital corporations operating in their territories and don’t attempt to thwart that right through trade agreements. Those are the points, yeah.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much Nandini. Michel, the same question for you, which are the recommendations? Thank you.

Michel Oliveira de Souza: Well, I think that we have some topics that were mentioned by all the speakers that I would like to highlight. I think that the first is we need to have better processes, and I think that the Sao Paulo guidelines are important documents to be seen, not only because of how it was built in a multi-stakeholder environment in Sao Paulo, but also because it brings concrete things, concrete examples to go forward. And as we have seen, the process also is important. We have to have access to documents, to have access to criteria about participation, we have to have access about who is going to participate, who is going to be on the table. And I think that this is something that we should highlight. We have to have clear, transparent and fair ways so civil society can participate, and to know in advance what’s going to be the agenda, to be able to influence the agenda, to give inputs to this agenda, because as I said, the agenda set is how we frame the question, how we frame what is going to be discussed. It’s always important, because we can have different views, we can have different perspectives. One thing that I also would like to highlight, it’s about the financial support from civil society to participate. We know it’s not easy to travel to Geneva. to Geneva, to New York, to different places. And I think that this is something that really civil society struggles to participate. And also online participation, as Bia is doing right now, it’s very important to have this possibility to participate online and to follow online and to have meaningful participation online. It’s important not only to see after what happened, but also to be in the discussion, to have their arguments in the discussion. So I think that this is something very important. I think that also information about relevant decision making processes and events proactively made available is something important. So civil society can program themselves to participate and to know what’s going to happen, what’s going to be discussed, and decide if they’re going to participate or not and how they’re going to participate. And I think that just to highlight that any restrictions on civil society engagement can be contexted and promptly revealed. I think that restrictions to participation should be revealed because we need like independent accountability mechanisms to be communicated to these concerned parties. I think that this is something important. Also during the events, because we know that it can happen and we have to have mechanisms to deal with that and to deal with the risks. And I think that this is something important. Participation should be easy and should be safe. Otherwise, we can have problems regarding the independence of the participation. And my last point regarding WSIS, I think that it’s important to acknowledge the multi-stakeholder model and to bring civil society to the table. I think that we should allow participation. Thank you very much for your participation and think about the participation not only here in this high-level events in Geneva and New York, but also during the work of the WSIS, during the action lines. So all the co-facilitators should also take account the voice from civil society, the voice from different stakeholders throughout their works. So I think that this is important and bringing guidelines, bringing concrete guidelines and examples, it’s a great way to go forward. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you. Thank you very much, Michel. Paloma?

Paloma Lara Castro: Yeah, thanks. I think what Michel said is key. We really do need to look forward and not just focused on this process, but actually how civil society and stakeholders will be actually and meaningfully involved in the implementation of the WSIS plus 20. In that sense, it’s important to highlight two main points, although there are many others. First of all, thinking about human rights, we really do need to make sure or states need to make sure that the human rights language is a great language. What we’re seeing in the elements paper is very weak language that is not even, that doesn’t even comply with recent agreed language such as the GDC. And I want to be clear that the GDC doesn’t even have enough language, but I’m civil society so I get to say that. But it’s not even strong language, but it does have two specific points that are standalone principles on human rights and on gender equality, which are not reproduced in the elements paper. That is on the one hand. Then on the multi-stakeholder approach. First of all, we do need to strengthen the language again, thinking about actual mechanism participations and thinking about if we think about other processes and what we can learn from other processes. The main thing is that, as I mentioned, the participation is tokenistic, and this also means that we have three minutes to intervene on a several number of chapters, and then we are not even, we don’t have the same position as states, we are not in the same place, so joint consultations are also key in these processes. So, not only for us to hear states, but also for states to hear us, and that we can still be in the same place as the multistakeholder, as the Sao Paulo guidelines that Bia mentioned regarding process were very useful for that. But also to think about how we track the contributions made by civil society, just not, yeah, civil society participated in this and this space, but how do we actually track the changes, what was actually put within, and what was not included, and why? How can we track these processes? And then finally, when we’re thinking about inclusion, we do need to make sure that groups are specifically and explicitly recognized within these texts. Not only thinking about gender, and this is very important, when we’re thinking about social and structural asymmetries, it’s not only about women and girls, it’s also about LGBTQI communities, we need to include those. We need to include indigenous populations, we need to include farmers’ populations that, as Nandini mentioned, are very much affected from data centers or from extraction policies, not only from state, but also corporate. So we do need to think about how the challenges today need to take into account the diverse experiences of these communities and actually include them specifically in the text and also in participation mechanisms. Finally, and this is a connected element, although not specific to multistakeholder, but a connected element, there’s a very troubling trend that we’re seeing worldwide that is being reflected in the Cybercrime Convention, also in the GDC, but now very strongly within the Elements paper, that has to do with a punitive vision regarding ICT abuse. There is a specific para in the elements paper which puts in the same level terrorism, disinformation and TFGBV, which is not the same and have different structural difficulties that need to be addressed specifically and especially from a human rights perspective. And when we think about the cybercrime convention that lacks total safeguards on how to actually protect people and affected communities from ICT abuse and that actually pushes for surveillance and criminalization of defenders and security researchers, this document, the WSIS plus 20, thinking about how its core vision is people centered is an opportunity to bring a balanced position to these discussions that are being advanced global wide. So I’m going to leave it at that for the time, but thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much, Paloma. Bia, you have the few minutes. Yes, because I want to take at least five minutes to open the floor a little bit, okay? Thank you, Bia.

Bia Barbosa: Sure, sure. So I’m going to wrap up just to mention regarding NetMundial plus STEM that I think that everybody has already mentioned. The idea of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee organized it first in 2014, and then 10 years ago last year in Sao Paulo was due to the goal to reaffirm the need to build an effective and functioning multi-stakeholder government architecture that facilitates an informed participatory and transparent engagement between sectors. But I would like to mention a point that NetMundial plus STEM declaration, it goes beyond the idea of defending the multi-stakeholderism as a model for decision-making process regarding the future of internet with all the limitations that we know that multi-stakeholderism has, and this panel is about it, right? NetMundial plus STEM final declaration proposed guidelines and recommendations in such a way that… Community voices have an impact also on multilateral and other decision-making processes so that effective solutions to the challenges we face can be found and implemented. We believe in the spirit of this declaration, multilateral process should evolve and governments have a key responsibility to guarantee the conditions for securing diversity and achieving robust multilateral process. And the fact that the entire process, as you mentioned, of Sao Paolo Mood Stakeholder Guidelines was Mood Stakeholder, it was fundamental to the result we achieved. I invite everyone to read the document if you don’t know, it’s available in all the six UN languages and many others, and it’s a document with 13 guidelines and 12 process step-oriented guidelines, so recommended process step for an open and inclusive Mood Stakeholder process, steps like identifying stakeholders to include all the groups, organisations and communities affected by the decision, respect and value the linguistic diversity of participants, share information, facilitate dialogue, encourage respectful communication, submit final outcomes to the consideration of the wider community, and establish a mechanism for implementing decisions and holding stakeholders accountable for their commitments among others. So we are pretty happy with the results of the Sao Paolo Stakeholders Guidelines, and at the final part of the document, the declaration brings a specific message to several other processes underway in the UN context, including the WISES plus 20 review, so we believe that renewed commitment and innovative strategy for achieving digital inclusion and protecting human rights online is needed, and the Mood Stakeholder model is fundamental in ensuring that WISES remains a dynamic process. based on the development of a global standards and cooperation mechanism around key digital issues. So I leave it there. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you. Thank you, Bia. We have five, six minutes and I wanted to open the floor to see if there are questions, specific questions or comments or follow-up to the conversation. Go ahead. I’m going to take two, three and to pass to the table, okay?

Audience: Thank you so much. My name is Jacqueline Pigato. I’m from Data Privacy Brazil, civil society organization. And first, congratulations on the panel. I think this is a very important discussion. I have some comments regarding especially what Bia was mentioning about the NetMundial, how Brazil did this 11 years ago and now today to discuss the multistakeholders, but also this innovation that it needs to happen on multilateral processes. And I’m hearing some discussions two weeks ago at the IGF and now here again about how we should have a hybrid governance model, because we need to have this multistakeholder participation, but also the implementation that multilateralism usually brings to the processes, like to actually put in practice the decisions. And this is not something new. I think President Dilma Rousseff said that in the first NetMundial in 2014 how we need to put together multistakeholderism and multilateralism. So my question is how can we secure implementation and connection between what is being decided in the global level with the local action, like how local governance… should also be multi-stakeholder and should implement the decisions of global governance, like how we can connect these two governance models and put in practice these decisions. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much. I’m going to take another question. Bia, I think you can answer this one in a minute, okay?

Bia Barbosa: Do you want me to answer right now or are you going to collect the second one?

Kemly Camacho: I’m going to collect the two, three, and then you will answer.

Bia Barbosa: Yes. Okay.

Audience: Yeah, I was going to say, it’s not a question, but just to what you were saying about corporate accountability being important to include both in the Elements paper and the Zero Draft. At least what we’ve been asking for is like specific reference to the UNGPs. So just wanted to share that that’s an ask that we’ve been putting in our submissions.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, thank you very much. Yes, go ahead.

Audience: Thank you. Anne McCormick from EY. Thank you for what’s been shared. It’s extremely insightful and helpful. A comment and a question. Comment is that the private sector has many facets and has also its own challenges with some of the international and very powerful, currently dominant developers of critical technologies. And from a pure business point of view, if you were to leave all the other more important reasons, being able to trust the technology, being able to deploy it responsibly, is fundamental from reputation, sustainability, legal responsibility. I mean, I talk in a really hard mindset. It makes business sense, right? I think the question for us is, and we participate in some of the standard setting. We’re very aware of the limitations of inclusion, and that needs to be improved. I think what we’re interested in hearing from all of you and those outside the room is, business is really good at testing, at evaluating, at monitoring, at learning and improving. That’s what you need to do in business to succeed. Where can we partner in an inclusive, respectful and balanced way to advance that? We want to discuss this concretely and urgently. We know that India is hosting the next kind of Bletchley Summit and is talking about impact monitoring. What can we do in the next 12 months because we don’t have three years? I’ve only heard urgency once mentioned in this conversation. This is beyond urgent. What is a priority? What do we pick in the next 12 months? Where can businesses, small and big, with their limitations but also their strength, partner on these particular concrete actions that can then be measured and pulled into learning and improvement? If it’s not today in this room, we’d be really interested in getting it offline, but we need those because we cannot be accused of just talking. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you very much. Bia, I’m going to leave you the word first, yes? To answer the question, OK?

Bia Barbosa: Yeah, but pretty quickly because I’m so sorry, but I don’t have the $1 million answer. But thank you, Jacqueline, for bringing that. I totally agree with you that one of the key aspects regarding stakeholderism, meaningful participation has to do with implementing decisions. And as I mentioned, holding stakeholders accountable for the commitments that they have. We here in Brazil, we have a very important history regarding social participation. And we know that during some governments, not all of them, civil society inputs are really taken into account for developing public policies, not only on the digital topics, but in different areas of the public policy in general. But we know that when it comes to holding stakeholders accountable for the commitments that they have made in the past, it’s not the same thing. So I don’t have an answer for that. But I think that it’s important to take advantage of initiatives as the WSIS Plus 20 review and also the NetMundial Plus 10 forum and guidelines to try to reinforce the commitments that the states made there. There were many governments present to NetMundial Plus 10. And I think that is an opportunity to have the declaration on our hands all the time to say, you committed to that. So, please establish that and implement that in your country.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you. Thank you, Bia. I don’t know in the last minute if you have some comments to the question around the private sector. Some of you? Yes, Nandini?

Nandini Chami: Yeah, just to quickly respond. I think that from a private sector standpoint, how can we ensure that the standards we comply are the best in the world and we don’t do like, you know, lowest common denominator jurisdiction shopping? That could be a very important concrete action.

Kemly Camacho: Thank you, Nandini, Michel.

Michel Oliveira de Souza: Thank you. I’m gonna take the opportunity also to invite you all to a session that we’re doing today to discuss standard setting and human rights and the role of the private sector. And I think that we can continue this conversation over there. I can share the link and the invitation. And just to highlight something that Jacqueline was telling us and how do we deal with the global, regional and national discussions. And I think that the civil society has a strong role over there, like participation in global discussions and bringing these discussions, bringing the agreement to the regional and to the local environments is something that really happens. And it’s important to hold also the regional actors and the local actors accountable to what they agreed in the global discussions, in the global agreements and treaties. So I think that this is something that the role of the civil society and it’s important to acknowledge that. Thank you.

Paloma Lara Castro: Just 30 seconds, following back on what Michel mentioned. on the importance of the IGF to make sure to really achieve bottom-up strategies for policies and especially consider the national and regional IGFs. And in that sense, we really do need to make sure that the mandate of the IGF is made permanent in the review. Thank you.

Kemly Camacho: It is a shame we have only 45 minutes for all this discussion. We have arrived to the time to close. Thank you very much, Nandini, Michel, Paloma, Bia, and all of you for being in this room and outside also. Thank you very much. I hope this conversation continues. It’s a very, very important one. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Presence does not equal meaningful participation in digital governance

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Presence doesn’t equal meaningful participation; agenda-setting power is crucial for digital justice

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that simply having civil society representatives in governance spaces is insufficient. True meaningful participation requires agenda-setting power, follow-up mechanisms, and the ability to influence outcomes rather than just being present.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Financial and structural barriers prevent Global South participation

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Paloma Lara Castro
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Financial support and online participation mechanisms are essential for civil society engagement

Visa problems, language barriers, and financial constraints prevent Global South participation

Civil society faces difficulties following simultaneous and duplicative processes

Summary

All three speakers identify concrete barriers including travel costs, visa issues, language barriers, and the burden of following multiple parallel processes that particularly affect Global South civil society organizations.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Multi-stakeholder processes need improvement and better coordination

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Bia Barbosa
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder dialogue often confuses equal stakes with bottom-up participation

Multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Summary

Speakers agree that current multi-stakeholder models have significant flaws, including confusion between equal representation and meaningful participation, lack of capacity building, and insufficient follow-up mechanisms.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

São Paulo Guidelines provide concrete framework for better participation

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Clear, transparent, and fair participation processes with access to documents are essential

São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines provide concrete examples for better processes

Summary

Both speakers reference the São Paulo Guidelines as a concrete framework that provides practical steps for improving multi-stakeholder processes, including transparency, access to documents, and clear participation criteria.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Human rights approach is essential for digital governance

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Paloma Lara Castro
– Kemly Camacho

Arguments

Participation is a human right that must be respected in digital governance decisions

Human rights language in WSIS Plus 20 elements paper is weaker than in Global Digital Compact

Human rights approach is urgent for digital public policies development

Summary

All speakers emphasize that human rights must be at the center of digital governance processes, with stronger language and concrete protections for participation rights.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers critique how multi-stakeholder processes can become superficial exercises that avoid addressing underlying political and power issues, turning substantive policy questions into technical matters.

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes tend to technicalize and depoliticize political issues

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers, drawing from Brazilian experience, view the WSIS multi-stakeholder model as fundamentally valuable while acknowledging it needs improvements in implementation and capacity building.

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

WSIS model has been important for bringing human rights and Global South voices to discussions

Multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the need for concrete accountability measures and explicit recognition of marginalized groups rather than vague references to stakeholders or general human rights principles.

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations

Specific groups like LGBTQI communities and indigenous populations must be explicitly recognized

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Private sector partnership potential for technology accountability

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Audience (EY representative)

Arguments

Big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations

Private sector faces challenges with powerful technology developers and needs inclusive partnerships

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was alignment between a civil society advocate calling for corporate accountability and a private sector representative acknowledging the need for responsible technology deployment and partnerships. This suggests potential common ground for collaborative approaches to technology governance.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Implementation challenges across governance levels

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa
– Audience (Data Privacy Brazil)

Arguments

Civil society plays a strong role in bringing global agreements to regional and local environments

Holding stakeholders accountable for commitments remains a significant challenge

Implementation of global decisions at local levels requires connecting governance models

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different speakers about the fundamental challenge of translating global digital governance decisions into local implementation, suggesting this is a universal concern that transcends organizational perspectives.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental challenges facing civil society participation in digital governance, including structural barriers, the need for human rights-centered approaches, and the limitations of current multi-stakeholder models. They agreed on concrete solutions like the São Paulo Guidelines and the importance of accountability mechanisms.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among civil society speakers with constructive engagement from other stakeholders. The agreement suggests a mature understanding of systemic issues and potential pathways forward, which could facilitate more effective advocacy and policy development in the WSIS Plus 20 process and beyond.

Different viewpoints

Effectiveness of multi-stakeholder model versus need for multilateral implementation

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder dialogue often confuses equal stakes with bottom-up participation

WSIS model has been important for bringing human rights and Global South voices to discussions

Multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation

Summary

Nandini is more critical of multi-stakeholder processes, arguing they confuse equal stakes with genuine participation and tend to technicalize political issues. Michel and Bia are more supportive of the WSIS multi-stakeholder model, viewing it as important for inclusion, though Bia acknowledges implementation challenges.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Role of technical standards in governance

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes tend to technicalize and depoliticize political issues

São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines provide concrete examples for better processes

Explanation

While both speakers support better multi-stakeholder processes, Nandini warns against technicalization of political issues, while Bia promotes technical guidelines as solutions. This represents a subtle but significant disagreement about whether technical frameworks can adequately address political governance challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show remarkable consensus on identifying problems (barriers to participation, need for human rights approaches, corporate accountability) but differ on solutions and the fundamental effectiveness of current multi-stakeholder models.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers are largely aligned on goals but differ on approaches and the degree of systemic change needed. This suggests potential for collaborative solutions while highlighting the need to address different perspectives on implementation strategies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers critique how multi-stakeholder processes can become superficial exercises that avoid addressing underlying political and power issues, turning substantive policy questions into technical matters.

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes tend to technicalize and depoliticize political issues

Tokenistic participation occurs when there are no follow-up mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers, drawing from Brazilian experience, view the WSIS multi-stakeholder model as fundamentally valuable while acknowledging it needs improvements in implementation and capacity building.

Speakers

– Michel Oliveira de Souza
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

WSIS model has been important for bringing human rights and Global South voices to discussions

Multi-stakeholder approaches work better when inclusive with capacity building for equal participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the need for concrete accountability measures and explicit recognition of marginalized groups rather than vague references to stakeholders or general human rights principles.

Speakers

– Nandini Chami
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Big tech corporations need accountability mechanisms for human rights violations

Specific groups like LGBTQI communities and indigenous populations must be explicitly recognized

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Meaningful participation in digital governance requires more than just presence – it demands agenda-setting power and the ability to influence outcomes from a digital justice perspective

Multi-stakeholder processes often confuse equal stakes dialogue with genuine bottom-up participation, leading to technicalization of political issues

Participation in digital governance is a fundamental human right that must be protected, especially for marginalized communities from the Global South

Significant barriers prevent meaningful Global South participation including visa problems, language barriers, financial constraints, and lack of safe spaces

Corporate accountability mechanisms are urgently needed to address human rights violations by big tech companies in data value chains

Public financing is essential for inclusive digital infrastructure development, as markets have failed to close connectivity gaps for the most marginalized

The São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines provide concrete examples and processes for improving inclusive participation

Coordination between governance spaces is crucial to avoid fragmentation and duplication that burdens civil society organizations

Implementation and accountability remain major challenges – global agreements must be effectively translated to local action

Resolutions and action items

Strengthen human rights language in WSIS Plus 20 outcome documents to at least match Global Digital Compact standards

Include specific references to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in Elements paper and Zero Draft

Explicitly recognize specific marginalized groups (LGBTQI communities, indigenous populations, farmers) in WSIS Plus 20 texts

Establish clear, transparent participation processes with advance access to documents and decision-makers

Provide financial support and robust online participation mechanisms for Global South civil society

Create tracking mechanisms to monitor how civil society contributions are incorporated into final outcomes

Make the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) mandate permanent in the WSIS Plus 20 review

Develop new working methods and allocate financial/human resources for better coordination between governance processes

Support countries’ rights to tax digital corporations operating in their territories

Implement capacity building programs to enable stakeholders to participate on equal footing

Unresolved issues

How to effectively connect global governance decisions with local implementation and accountability

Concrete mechanisms for holding stakeholders accountable for their commitments over time

How to balance multi-stakeholder approaches with multilateral implementation needs

Specific partnership models between private sector and civil society for urgent technology impact monitoring

How to address power asymmetries between and within different stakeholder groups

Methods for preventing jurisdiction shopping by corporations seeking lowest common denominator standards

How to ensure meaningful participation in WSIS action line implementation, not just high-level events

Addressing the troubling trend toward punitive approaches to ICT abuse that conflate different issues

How to maintain human rights focus amid current geopolitical pushback on rights-based approaches

Suggested compromises

Hybrid governance model combining multi-stakeholder participation with multilateral implementation mechanisms

Joint consultations where civil society and states can engage on equal footing rather than separate interventions

Flexible interpretation of stakeholder roles and responsibilities depending on specific issues under discussion

Balanced approach to ICT abuse that addresses different structural challenges (terrorism, disinformation, gender-based violence) with appropriate human rights safeguards rather than treating them as equivalent

Recognition that different stakeholders have different roles and responsibilities at various stages of governance processes

Compromise between technical standards and political norms that doesn’t depoliticize issues of public interest

When we are talking about meaningful participation and inclusion of historically marginalized groups in digital governance… I think we are talking about two things. One is the question of presence and who is in the room… But as we all recognize as development practitioners and people working on rights, that presence does not always translate into meaningful participation, even if presence is achieved. Because it’s also about agenda setting power and whether the voices expressed translate into actual concerns that account for a digital justice and Southern perspective.

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between mere presence and meaningful participation. It introduces the critical concept of ‘agenda setting power’ and challenges the assumption that having diverse voices in the room automatically leads to inclusive outcomes. This insight exposes a deeper structural issue in multi-stakeholder governance.

Impact

This comment established the conceptual foundation for the entire panel discussion. It shifted the conversation from simply discussing barriers to participation toward examining the quality and effectiveness of participation. All subsequent speakers built upon this distinction, with Michel emphasizing human rights to participate in decisions that affect communities, and Paloma discussing tokenistic participation.

We confuse the idea of an equal stakes dialogue where there is an aggregation of different interests in the room with the same thing as bottom-up participation of a plurality of processes… technical standards start becoming stand-ins for political norms, where it’s not the same thing as saying that instead of talking about democratic and accountable digital public infrastructure, it’s enough to talk about open and interoperable public infrastructure.

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Reason

This observation reveals a fundamental flaw in how multi-stakeholder processes operate – the tendency to technicalize inherently political issues, thereby depoliticizing them. The concrete example of ‘open and interoperable’ versus ‘democratic and accountable’ infrastructure illustrates how technical language can obscure power dynamics and democratic values.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical analytical lens that influenced how other panelists framed their contributions. It helped explain why multi-stakeholder processes often fail to achieve meaningful change despite broad participation, and provided a framework for understanding the limitations of technical solutions to political problems.

We have a human rights to participate in public affairs and I think that this is something important to state here because civil society also has to participate in the decisions that are made that are concerning them… sometimes, as Nandini was saying, was not that much respected.

Speaker

Michel Oliveira de Souza

Reason

This comment grounds the entire discussion in international human rights law, elevating participation from a procedural nicety to a fundamental right. By explicitly connecting civil society participation to human rights obligations, it provides legal and moral weight to the arguments for inclusion.

Impact

This human rights framing became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with other speakers referencing human rights approaches and the need for rights-based language in outcome documents. It shifted the conversation from technical governance issues to fundamental questions of democratic participation and state obligations.

Participation is at the core of the WSIS vision, and when we think about the PLOS 20 review, we do really need to focus on how to contextualize the WSIS vision into the diverse experiences of local and marginalized communities that are more affected for the policies or lack of policies regarding internet and digital policies.

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Reason

This comment bridges the gap between global governance processes and local realities, emphasizing that those most affected by digital policies are often least represented in their creation. It challenges the universality assumptions of global governance and calls for contextualization based on lived experiences.

Impact

This observation redirected the discussion toward the practical implications of exclusion and the need for specific mechanisms to include marginalized communities. It influenced the recommendations phase, where speakers emphasized the need to explicitly recognize specific groups rather than using generic terms like ‘relevant stakeholders.’

We believe that each stakeholder has different roles and responsibilities depending on the issues and stages of specific stakeholder process… multistakeholder approaches to internet governance and digital policies work better when they are inclusive and when a stakeholder can identify their own interest in an issue and participate in the process to address it.

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Reason

This comment introduces nuance to multi-stakeholder governance by acknowledging that roles and responsibilities should be flexible and context-dependent, rather than fixed. It suggests a more sophisticated understanding of how different stakeholders can contribute at different stages of policy processes.

Impact

This perspective helped move the discussion beyond binary critiques of multi-stakeholderism toward a more constructive vision of how it could work better. It influenced the recommendations section where speakers discussed specific mechanisms and processes rather than rejecting multi-stakeholder approaches entirely.

Where can we partner in an inclusive, respectful and balanced way to advance that? We want to discuss this concretely and urgently… What can we do in the next 12 months because we don’t have three years? I’ve only heard urgency once mentioned in this conversation. This is beyond urgent.

Speaker

Anne McCormick (Audience)

Reason

This intervention from the private sector challenged the panel’s focus on structural critique by demanding concrete, immediate action steps. It introduced a sense of urgency and practical business perspective that had been largely absent from the academic and advocacy-focused discussion.

Impact

This comment created a notable shift in the room’s energy and forced panelists to move beyond critique toward actionable recommendations. It highlighted the tension between the time needed for meaningful structural change and the rapid pace of technological development, though the limited time prevented full exploration of this tension.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing a sophisticated analytical framework that moved beyond surface-level participation issues to examine deeper structural problems in global digital governance. Nandini’s distinction between presence and meaningful participation became the conceptual anchor for the entire conversation, while Michel’s human rights framing provided moral and legal grounding. The comments collectively revealed how multi-stakeholder processes can inadvertently perpetuate exclusion through technicalization of political issues, tokenistic participation, and failure to address power asymmetries. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing solutions, with the private sector intervention adding urgency and practical considerations. The overall flow demonstrated how critical analysis of existing systems can lead to more nuanced and actionable recommendations for reform, though the time constraints prevented deeper exploration of the tensions between immediate needs and long-term structural change.

How do we mediate different stakes in multi-stakeholder processes to produce accountable and inclusive public policy consensus?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge in multi-stakeholder governance where simply having different interests in the room doesn’t automatically lead to legitimate decision-making processes

How can we develop viable mechanisms to hold big tech corporations accountable for human rights violations effectively?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

Current accountability mechanisms are insufficient, as evidenced by recent UN Special Rapporteur reports on corporate complicity in serious violations

How can public financing deficits for digital infrastructure be solved in majority world countries with high sovereign debt?

Speaker

Nandini Chami

Explanation

This is critical for enabling meaningful participation of Global South countries in digital economies rather than just as passive consumers

How can we ensure safe spaces for participation in digital governance processes?

Speaker

Michel Oliveira de Souza

Explanation

Participation in public policy can pose risks to individuals and communities in some contexts, requiring protective mechanisms

How can we track contributions made by civil society and what changes were actually implemented based on their input?

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

This addresses the need for accountability mechanisms to ensure civil society participation is meaningful rather than tokenistic

How can we connect global governance decisions with local implementation and action?

Speaker

Jacqueline Pigato (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses the gap between global multi-stakeholder decisions and their practical implementation at local levels

How can we combine multi-stakeholderism with multilateralism to ensure both participation and implementation?

Speaker

Jacqueline Pigato (audience member)

Explanation

This explores hybrid governance models that leverage the strengths of both approaches for more effective digital governance

What concrete actions can private sector partners take in the next 12 months to advance inclusive digital governance?

Speaker

Anne McCormick (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses the urgency of implementing concrete, measurable actions rather than just discussing principles

How can we ensure better coordination between multiple governance processes addressing overlapping digital issues?

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

Multiple parallel processes create fragmentation and burden stakeholders, especially those from the Global South with limited resources

What new working methods and resources are needed to deliver improved coordination and information sharing between governance processes?

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

This addresses the practical mechanisms needed to reduce duplication and improve effectiveness of digital governance processes

How can we hold stakeholders accountable for commitments made in global digital governance processes?

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

Implementation and accountability for commitments remains a significant challenge even when meaningful participation is achieved