Digital Cooperation for Inclusive Development: Brazil–South Africa Synergies in the G20 and the WSIS Framework

Summary

This discussion focused on the collaboration between Brazil and South Africa as leading Global South nations in shaping digital policy agendas through their consecutive G20 presidencies, with Brazil holding the presidency in 2024 and South Africa taking over in 2025. The session explored how these partnerships can drive progress in digital inclusion, infrastructure development, and equitable access to information and communication technologies.

Marcelo Martinez from Brazil reflected on their G20 presidency experience, describing it as both an opportunity and a contradiction – providing a platform to lead the world’s 20 largest economies while maintaining diplomatic balance to avoid imposing their vision on non-G20 countries. Brazil’s presidency was particularly challenging for a developing country, requiring extensive coordination involving over 50 people from 15 organizations and resulting in 11 different documents. Brazil introduced groundbreaking discussions on information integrity, which had never been addressed in G20 before, and helped mainstream the concept of meaningful connectivity beyond ITU circles.

Jim Paterson from South Africa outlined their presidency priorities, building on the foundation laid by previous developing country presidencies including Indonesia, India, and Brazil. South Africa focused on four key areas: digital inclusion through universal and meaningful connectivity, integrated governance systems for digital public infrastructure, support for SMEs and innovation ecosystems, and artificial intelligence governance with emphasis on equality and data access. They continued Brazil’s work on information integrity while addressing new challenges like deepfakes and generative AI.

Both representatives acknowledged the significant resource constraints developing countries face when organizing such complex international processes, but emphasized the domestic benefits including strengthened institutional capacity and enhanced bilateral relationships. The discussion highlighted the importance of continuity between developing country presidencies in advancing pro-development agendas within forums traditionally dominated by developed nations. The conversation concluded with recognition that this sequence of developing country G20 presidencies represents a unique opportunity to influence global digital governance frameworks.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **G20 Digital Governance Leadership by Global South Countries**: The discussion centered on how Brazil’s 2024 G20 presidency and South Africa’s 2025 presidency represent a unique opportunity for developing nations to shape global digital policy, particularly around digital inclusion, infrastructure development, and equitable ICT access.

– **Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and Meaningful Connectivity**: Both countries emphasized advancing digital public infrastructure as a tool for inclusion, with South Africa building on Brazil’s work to develop integrated governance systems and measure public value, while addressing the gap between basic connectivity and meaningful connectivity.

– **Information Integrity and AI Governance**: Brazil successfully introduced information integrity discussions to the G20 for the first time, addressing disinformation and misinformation concerns. Both countries also worked on AI governance frameworks, with BRICS producing what they claim is the first comprehensive AI governance document from the Global South.

– **Financing Challenges for Digital Development**: A significant discussion emerged around the persistent lack of adequate financing mechanisms for digital development initiatives, with participants noting that financing remains the “unfinished business” from the original WSIS process despite being a critical barrier to progress.

– **WSIS+20 Process and Multilateral Cooperation**: The speakers addressed the upcoming WSIS+20 review process, expressing both opportunities and concerns about strengthening multilateral governance mechanisms while noting pessimism within the G77 group about advancing beyond defending existing achievements.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how Brazil and South Africa, as leading Global South nations, can leverage their consecutive G20 presidencies to drive meaningful progress in global digital governance, share experiences and lessons learned, and identify opportunities for continued cooperation in advancing digital inclusion and equitable access to ICTs on the global stage.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by mutual respect and shared vision between the Brazilian and South African representatives. While there was evident pride in achievements and optimism about cooperation opportunities, the tone also reflected realistic acknowledgment of challenges, particularly around resource constraints, financing difficulties, and geopolitical complexities. The conversation remained diplomatic and professional, with speakers showing genuine interest in learning from each other’s experiences and building on shared priorities for future collaboration.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator**: Role – Session moderator facilitating the discussion between Brazil and South Africa representatives

– **Marcelo Martinez**: Role – Brazilian diplomat; Area of expertise – International relations, G20 presidency coordination, digital governance, BRICS cooperation, WSIS processes

– **Jim Paterson**: Role – South African representative; Area of expertise – G20 presidency, digital inclusion, digital public infrastructure, artificial intelligence governance

– **Annette Esterhuizen**: Role – South African participant following the G20 process; Area of expertise – Digital policy, financing for digital development

– **Speaker**: Role – ITU G20 Sherpa (7th G20 participation); Area of expertise – International telecommunications, G20 coordination, digital infrastructure, AI governance

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members who asked questions and made comments during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Alison** (mentioned by Jim Paterson): Role – Knowledge partner who helped South Africa with G20 focus; Area of expertise – Digital inclusion, data governance, think tank work across Global South

– **Jackie** (mentioned by Alison): Role – Brazilian T20 member; Area of expertise – Think tank engagement, G20 processes

– **Isabel** (mentioned by Marcelo Martinez): Role – Works on sustainable development; Area of expertise – Development financing, 2030 agenda negotiations

# Brazil-South Africa G20 Digital Governance Collaboration: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This discussion examined the collaboration between Brazil and South Africa as consecutive Global South G20 presidencies, focusing on their efforts to advance digital governance frameworks. The session brought together diplomatic representatives and policy experts to analyze how these developing nations used their leadership positions to promote digital inclusion, meaningful connectivity, and equitable access to information and communication technologies.

Brazil’s 2024 G20 presidency and South Africa’s 2025 presidency created opportunities to mainstream development-focused agendas in international discussions, though both countries faced significant resource constraints and diplomatic challenges in their leadership roles.

## Key Participants

**Marcelo Martinez** represented Brazil’s diplomatic perspective, providing insights into organizing a G20 presidency as a developing nation and Brazil’s role in introducing topics like information integrity to the G20 agenda.

**Jim Paterson** represented South Africa’s approach to building upon Brazil’s foundation, focusing on South Africa’s four priority areas and the strategic decision to continue Brazil’s initiatives.

**Annette Esterhuizen** highlighted persistent financing challenges in digital development, while the **ITU G20 Sherpa** provided context about developing country presidencies. Audience members including **Alison Gillwald** contributed insights about knowledge partnerships and regional approaches.

## Major Themes and Key Discussions

### G20 Leadership Challenges for Developing Countries

Martinez described Brazil’s presidency as requiring coordination of more than 50 people from more than 15 organizations, ultimately producing 11 separate documents. He characterized this as both “an opportunity and a contradiction” – providing a platform to influence major economies while requiring careful diplomatic balance.

Paterson acknowledged similar challenges for South Africa, noting how they benefited from Brazil’s willingness to share experiences through 13 coordination meetings. This experience-sharing between consecutive developing country presidencies proved crucial for maximizing effectiveness.

### Digital Inclusion and Meaningful Connectivity

Martinez revealed a significant finding about Brazil’s connectivity: while 90% of Brazil’s population appears connected according to traditional metrics, internal analysis showed only 20% possess meaningful connectivity. This disparity highlighted how global digital divide statistics may be misleading.

Brazil brought the concept of meaningful connectivity from ITU discussions in Geneva, where “not many people were discussing it,” to broader G20 recognition. South Africa built upon this foundation by making digital inclusion the central theme of their presidency, approaching it through universal and meaningful connectivity as the foundation for digital public infrastructure.

### Information Integrity and AI Governance

Brazil successfully introduced information integrity discussions to the G20, despite concerns about potential backlash. Martinez noted this contributed to the topic’s subsequent incorporation into the Global Digital Compact. South Africa continued this work with focus on emerging challenges like generative artificial intelligence and deepfakes.

Both countries worked to shift AI governance discussions from purely risk-focused approaches toward including development perspectives. Martinez highlighted that BRICS produced a seven-page AI governance document from a Global South perspective, emphasizing development benefits rather than focusing exclusively on risks.

### Digital Public Infrastructure and Public Value

Both countries recognized digital public infrastructure (DPI) as fundamental to digital inclusion goals. Brazil continued India’s work on DPI, treating it as a basic tool with horizontal dimensions benefiting multiple sectors.

South Africa focused on developing integrated governance systems for DPI and introducing public value measurement concepts. Paterson explained this approach ensures DPI design maximizes potential for public value creation, going beyond technical implementation to consider broader societal impact.

## Key Agreements and Differences

### Areas of Consensus

Both representatives agreed on the resource-intensive nature of G20 presidencies for developing countries and the value of experience sharing. They aligned on prioritizing digital inclusion and meaningful connectivity, recognizing traditional connectivity statistics as misleading.

Both supported shifting technology governance discussions to include development perspectives and emphasized the importance of building upon each other’s work rather than starting fresh initiatives.

### Tactical Differences

While all participants agreed on the critical importance of financing for digital development, they differed on approaches. Martinez focused on working within existing constraints and finding alternative mechanisms, while Esterhuizen advocated for putting financing more prominently on the WSIS+20 agenda.

Martinez expressed pessimism about current multilateral negotiations, particularly within the G77 plus China group, while Paterson maintained focus on building upon existing work and continuing momentum.

## Financing Challenges and Institutional Barriers

Esterhuizen characterized financing as the “big unfinished business” from the original World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process. Martinez explained how institutional barriers arise when digital agendas are placed within development frameworks, with financing discussions automatically redirected to Conferences on Financing for Development.

The G20’s mandate limitations prevent direct financing discussions, forcing alternative approaches such as UNESCO fund creation. Martinez mentioned launching a global initiative on information integrity and climate change at UNESCO as one such alternative mechanism.

## Knowledge Partnerships and Regional Approaches

Both countries emphasized working with knowledge partners. Martinez specifically mentioned collaboration with ITU, UNESCO, and OECD. South Africa’s approach emphasized African leadership and continental organization involvement, with Paterson acknowledging contributions from Research ICT Africa and University of Pretoria.

The discussion revealed how developing country presidencies transformed knowledge partnerships within G20 engagement groups, shifting toward meaningful Global South participation.

## WSIS+20 and Future Multilateral Processes

Both countries expressed mixed feelings about the upcoming WSIS+20 review process. Martinez noted limited energy within the G77 plus China group, with concerns that negotiations might focus on defending past achievements rather than advancing new agendas.

The challenge of converging Global Digital Compact and WSIS processes emerged as requiring strategic attention. Despite challenges, both countries committed to continued collaboration within the G77 framework.

## Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

### Data and Measurement Gaps

The discussion highlighted critical gaps in global data about meaningful connectivity rates. While Brazil’s analysis revealed disparities between basic and meaningful connectivity, participants acknowledged uncertainty about the true global extent of the digital divide.

### Financing Mechanisms

No clear pathway emerged for addressing the persistent lack of dedicated financing mechanisms for digital development, with structural and bureaucratic barriers requiring creative solutions within existing institutional frameworks.

### Sustaining Progress

Concerns emerged about maintaining development-focused agendas when G20 presidencies return to developed countries, given the ITU representative’s observation that this sequence of developing country presidencies was unique.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated both opportunities and challenges facing developing countries in global digital governance leadership. Brazil and South Africa’s consecutive presidencies created opportunities to mainstream development-focused digital agendas, with notable consensus on priorities including digital inclusion, meaningful connectivity, and development-focused technology governance.

Key achievements included introducing information integrity to G20 discussions, advancing meaningful connectivity concepts, and developing Global South perspectives on AI governance. However, persistent challenges remain around financing mechanisms, data gaps, and sustaining progress across different presidencies.

The conversation highlighted the importance of continued collaboration between developing countries in advancing equitable approaches to global digital governance, while acknowledging significant resource constraints and structural barriers that must be addressed to achieve these goals.

Moderator: Hello, everyone. I just want to start the session. I would just do a very brief introduction about our moment and then I’m going to have a debate between Brazil and South Africa. At two leader leading nations of the global south and members of G20, Brazil and South Africa play pivotal roles in shaping inclusive global digital policy agendas. So, in 2024, Brazil… shared the G20 and in 2025 South Africa is in charge of it. The partnership is especially significant in advancing digital inclusion, infrastructure development and equitable access to ICTs, objectives that resonate with both the G20 digital economy working group and with these action lines. This session explores how cooperation between Brazil and South Africa can drive tangible progress and while leveraging their positions in G20 to influence global digital governance. So I’m going to start inviting Brazil to talk a little bit about G20, the experience, challenges, and Marcel, please. Thank you.

Marcelo Martinez: Good morning, everybody. It’s a pleasure to be here. I was asked to provide some reflections on synergies and alignments between Brazil and South Africa regarding both our G20 presidencies and the WSIS process. I’m going to add a little bit on the bricks, which we just ended a week ago, not even a week ago, but that’s what I wanted to bring to this conversation, which I really hope is going to be a conversation. I think that we have in this room mostly Brazilians and South Africans, so it would be nice because anticipating what I’m going to say, we have a lot in common in terms of synergies, alignments, positions, but in bilateral terms, we could do a lot more than we do now. So going to what I’m going to present today, the way I planned it was to look back to our G20 presidency last year. and also to the experience that we had in the BRICS, and then in the very end to look forward to what we can see ahead for the WSIS process. Looking back and starting with the G20 in chronological terms I think that what unites us, and Jin be free to disagree with me in the future, but what I saw, first of all, I’m not here I think to, of course, list everything that Brazil did in its presidency. We all know what will happen then. Maybe I will do some of it since I’m a diplomat and I have to do some propaganda of my own country and what we did, but that’s not the main intent here, of course. What I wanted to share with you was maybe a little bit of a back office vision of what we did and why we did it and why it went the way it did. And I wanted to begin by saying that for us, the G20, as I believe is very similar for South Africa, was at the same time an opportunity and a contradiction. An opportunity because the chance to lead, of course, the 20 largest economies in the world is very significant, of course. And of course, if we mention also the BRICS, a very significant group of countries and of the so-called global South, in both cases, the first thing that you do is of course you put yourself out there, both for the good and for the bad, but it’s a bit of a window, of a shop window in which you have a chance, your own minute of celebrity and all the world is looking at you. And you have to show them what you do best, of course. But that puts us, especially diplomats, in a contradiction, because both Brazil and, I think, South Africa, we’re both staunch defenders of multilateralism. So we have, then, an opportunity to send messages to the 20 largest economies or to the BRICS But at the same time, we have to do it in a very careful way so that we make it clear that we’re not trying to convert our own vision in messages or trying to impose our vision to the rest of the world. Most of the countries are not at the table, at the G20 or at the BRICS. So this, as a Brazilian diplomat, this is a very hard balancing act. It’s not easy to produce relevant deliverables and, at the same time, be able to do it in a way that we share our vision, that we do not impose any positions or visions. This is not – imposing is not really a diplomatic tradition. So finally, in terms of the G20, I wanted to point out something that is very obvious, but it’s – since it happens in the back office, not many people see it. For a developing country to engage in such an exercise – of course, we all know it in this room, I believe – it is a very stressful exercise. It drives us to our own limits in terms of human resources, in terms of financial resources, too. And I was actually very surprised to see a very large South African delegation here since we have a DWG meeting next Monday. It’s going to last for three days, so it’s going to be huge. It’s a negotiation meeting, and it is really very hard to do all this with the teams that we know we have and the resources that we know we have. That being said, when we did our own presidency and we tried to share our experience with South Africa, we had a whole of government exercise. I can say that we involved more than 50 people, more than 15 organizations in Brazil to organize the work of the DEWG. We began work about a year before our presidency, and we held 13 coordination meetings in order to make sure that we would achieve our results. That was the basic Brazil team for the DEWG, but we also had extra meetings in terms of the core group of organizations that were responsible for the work streams and the development of the deliverables that we planned to. It was also an interesting experience from the point of view of what we produced in the end. Again, I’m not going over the list of products, but we had 11 different documents. One of them was a G20 product. We can see how difficult it is to negotiate and to achieve consensus in this group. We also had seven different events, workshops. We were the working group of all G20 in Brazil that had the largest number of deliverables in all. We are very proud of this result, and we know how much it took us. Of course, we had the help of the ITU, UNESCO, and the OECD. the job, which was precious. We wouldn’t be able to do it without them, but still a very hard exercise. It is also very challenging very often to work with international organizations and knowledge partners. As a rule, of course, we all have our agendas and we, of course, we try to couple our agendas in a way that it makes sense for both partners. It is a partnership, but it is also very hard in the beginning to make it clear what we want as a country to achieve is leading the G20 and, of course, marry these objectives with what international organizations have in their portfolio that could match these interests. So it is also challenging. In terms of what we had planned of priority areas, we had, of course, you know what we worked with, but I think that the most challenging experience was the one with the integrity of information because it had never been discussed before in the G20 and it is a very diverse group, of course. The political window then, we saw it as a possibility to have this, but we were afraid that even in terms of the mandate of the group, whether countries would accept that we had this discussion in the DEWG, it ended up working well and I think that our work in the G20 in the end was an important ingredient to have this global discussion because we had the OECD already pushing this agenda as did the Secretariat for Global Communications of the United Nations pushing also this agenda with Melissa Fleming. Our work at the G20, I think, was important to make sure that this agenda actually made the GDC in the end, and of course that we still have this discussion at this very event. We had several sessions touching on disinformation, misinformation, trust in the digital ecosystem, and integrity of information online. So we’re very proud of this work. In terms of meaningful connectivity, I’d also like to add how it was, in our view, important that we also bring this discussion, which was in a way limited to the ITU, limited to Geneva. It wasn’t a lot when we started talking about it. Our guys in New York asked us, what is this? What are you talking about? We don’t know what this is. And we were also very proud to, in a way, make sure that the ITU work in this area could be broadly known and recognized. And it also made the GDC, and now it’s mainstream, finally, as it should be. So I think that our G20, I like to believe that we give a contribution also in this way. Of course, we also continue the Indian work in terms of DPIs, which we find is really a very basic tool for digital inclusion, which was our horizontal dimension that we explored in our declaration in Maceo. And of course, AI, which when we began this work, I remember that we went to the AI summit in Bletchley Park. It was October, perhaps, 2023. And what we had there was basically a conversation on risks, and there was also, of course, the conversation on risks. ethics. But that was not the perspective of development as part of the global conversation then. And that’s why we decided we would have this conversation in the DWG to make sure that this narrative in terms of the distribution of benefits of the technological evolution could be also in the agenda. And I also believe that this is now mainstream and we see it in the IFEGOOD. It was already there but not many people were maybe discussing it in diplomatic form. But now we see it very strong everywhere. Of course we have a continuity again with the South African presidency in terms of our own priority areas. And this is I think very important. Every time that we planned in every meeting that we planned our presidency we were concerned and worried about what can we leave behind in terms of this succession of developing countries in the G20 presidency. And it’s nice that we could in a way continue the work from Indonesia, from India, and now that we see that South Africa also has given continuity so that we could leave a mark there. Looking at the BRICS now, I think that it is in many ways an easier exercise, a diplomatic exercise, but not as easy as you might think. The group is still very diverse. We have a larger BRICS than we used to have, so agreements are not as easy. And working with the BRICS within this geopolitical scenario that we have these days is never easy. Anything that you say, any message that the BRICS send to the world will be necessarily interpreted as a message of the group. And well, we are seeing what we are seeing these last couple of days, and many people interpret what that might be a consequence of the BRICS. So in our own domain, in the BRICS, we had two main work streams. One of them was the very working group on cooperation on ICTs. Which actually had a very interesting work this year. We worked on meaningful connectivity on space sustainability for the first time, which is also an ITU agenda. And we had the support in both lines of work. We worked on environmental sustainability, which is very interesting also. And we did a mapping of the digital ecosystems in all BRICS countries. So it was a very interesting exercise for us. And we were also glad that we could have an annex to the ministerial declaration that touched on specifically on space sustainability. And Anatel, which is sitting by my side, will be able to continue this work still this year. We also had as a second work stream, the work on the leaders declaration on artificial intelligence, or the governance of artificial intelligence. It is, if you’re here, you didn’t have a chance to read it, I’m sure, because it’s seven pages long. But we should think that we believe that this is the first document. And South Africa was there with us, of course, negotiating very constructively. And this is the first document that comes from the global South with this kind of content, which is very concrete and very well-structured. So we’re very proud of the work that we did together there too. Finally, moving to the. process, and I’ll be brief. We’ve been discussing with this for a while this week, but what I wanted to say is that we work together, Brazil and South Africa, within the G77. I’m not really optimistic in terms of what we see in New York these days. We are going to be discussing with the co-facilitators this afternoon. I think we have a session to discuss the elements paper and the prospects for the negotiation itself, but we don’t see the group, the G77 plus China, really energized around the discussion. There’s a lot of pessimism and I’m afraid that we may have to, you know, keep defending what we achieved in the last 20 years and that we do not advance much in terms of, you know, what we see as an opportunity, which is, in a way, to have an agenda update, to discuss governance mechanisms so as to make them less complex and more effective. Also, we think that we should explore the possible ways to converge the GDC and the WSIS processes, but if there’s a message I’d like to leave behind today, I think that we see the WSIS plus 20 as an opportunity to strengthen both the most stakeholder and the multilateral channels of governance. We don’t think they’re contradictory and we see, I see from my own position, there’s a strong demand from governments in terms of how they will be able to fulfill their own roles and responsibilities. So, we have to be able to steer their societies to the future and be able to create a concrete value for citizens. We believe, above all, that this status quo may not be ideal and that we may have to engage in exercises, leaving dogmas behind, as a wise speaker said in the very first session that I participated in this event today. So that’s what I wanted to tell you this morning, and I’m open for a rich conversation if that’s your wish. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Marcelo. Now I give the word for South Africa, please.

Jim Paterson: Thank you very much, and good morning. Yes, I think a lot of what you’ve said has resonated a lot with us. I think your experiences around organizing the G20, we had many similar experiences. We were also a bit fortunate, I must say, because Brazil was very keen to come and share their experiences in organizing such a momentous series of activities. So we had some dialogue between our respective governments before we took up the responsibility. So we had an inkling about what was coming, and it is a big progress. There’s an awful lot of coordination-type meetings. It seems almost to be a non-stop series of meetings, in fact. I think the other thing where we were a little bit fortunate at one level was that you indicated the challenge, I think, within the G20 about introducing issues that are really pro-development. and relevant for developing countries, because the forum is not really that well designed for that. And I think that has always been a challenge, because often under different countries presidencies, they’re not very receptive to to development, developing country issues. But we, South Africa, fortunately came in after a sequence of developing countries. So we’d had Indonesia, India, yourselves as Brazil. So there was something we could build on that was really focused more towards developing countries. And of course, it might be a while before that happens again. So we kind of felt that it would be important to do what we could in during our presidency. And so we picked up on a number of the key issues, I think, that had been discussed in the previous presidencies to see how we could advance those. And I think for us, what was really important, I think we had quite a few good discussions, we have one of our knowledge partners here with us, Alison. So she helped us quite a lot to get a good focus, I think. And one of the most important things was to prioritise digital inclusion. So we built directly on universal and meaningful connectivity and looked at what that can mean. And I think for us, we use that as a kind of way of trying to set the scene around the need to have digital inclusion across all aspects that you need to look at the impact of different technologies in terms of what it means for inclusion and development. So I think that was a very key part for us to kick off. And then we looked at digital public infrastructure, of course, he did some work on this in Brazil, and it was introduced for the first time by India. And there we were looking at, I think the main focus for us was to look at an integrated governance system around that to pick up on some of that had been quite a lot of discussions, as you would expect within the G20 around governance issues, but I think we felt that we needed to try and put that into some sort of structure. So that’s what we’ve attempted to do. And we’ve also looked at the idea around public value. I think we’ve presented it as measuring, but it’s a bit more than that. It’s about trying to ensure that the design of DPI maximizes the potential for public value so that you don’t lose those kind of dynamic effects that can happen from digital public infrastructure. As an infrastructure, there’s a lot of different ways in which it can impact across the economy and across society. And I think our starting point for that discussion was the realization, I think, from a UK academic, actually, that most infrastructure projects do not really consider the full value of all impact of what they do. They just look at a single use case and then decide, which is a rather strange approach when you consider public investment, because there should be a much deeper reflection about the overall impact that public infrastructure can have on the economy and on society. So those were two key elements for us. And of course, they relate completely, because one of the most important things we emphasized right from the time in India was that you need to make sure that you have universal and meaningful connectivity for digital public infrastructure, so everybody can benefit from those services. And in fact, DPI itself can be a demand driver for digital inclusion, and it can be part of delivering those benefits to everybody in terms of having and services that are relevant to all citizens. So I think that was also very important for us. We looked also at the SME sector and they themselves are drivers for digital inclusion, but we were looking then at how do you enable them and include them in the digital inclusion policies and prescripts, but we were also looking at innovation ecosystems and how to, we have so many young, talented innovators in the country, but it’s very difficult to kind of convert all these good ideas and all this positive energy into successful businesses. So we were trying to look at how we can intervene to encourage and enable innovators in this way. And then lastly, we were looking at artificial intelligence, which is something you also did in Brazil. And it’s not been something that’s been discussed as much as you would expect within the G20, but I think there’s also a tendency for countries to sit back and see how technologies unfold before intervening, which is not always the best approach, I don’t think. So we were looking around the impact of artificial intelligence, the potential impact through design, through poor data, that can have on equality. And then we were looking at some other aspects, especially access to data for researchers and small, medium and micro enterprises, because that’s also a major challenge. Then how are they gonna get the data they need to be able to deliver? And I think one of the things that we had from Research ICT Africa was, and from the University of Pretoria, in fact, was around language modeling and the fact that you have a lot of data. in South Africa from the public broadcaster that can be used to develop language modelling in South Africa in indigenous languages. So that could be a very valuable tool for public services, it could be a valuable tool for the broadcaster itself, and it could be for right across society very useful. So that was also one of the other things. And then we did pick up on information integrity from Brazil. I think that was a big success of the Brazilian presidency because it wasn’t a subject that would obviously be accepted by member states. I think it was something that could have easily been rejected. So I think there were some good skillful presentations by the Brazilian presidency and negotiations around that. And I think also it was that moment because a lot of countries were having elections and they were really worried about what was going on. And I think you yourselves had a few big spats going on with certain social media companies as well. So there was a spirit, I think, that was driving us towards adopting something around information integrity. So we’ve continued with that work, looking at generative AI and the potential, the ability to produce deepfakes and what happens around that. Because obviously, the impact can be huge. We don’t always know how extensive, but we were looking at measures to try and control that. So we did get together a very interesting set of ideas. And I think like you, we’ve had quite a lot of potential documents that have flowed from that. I think we’ve tried to link everything that we’re doing to our own national situation so that we can translate, I think, everything into to projects that we can do at home in South Africa. So I think that’s our hope, that the discussion and the investment we made in these discussions doesn’t end here and now, that we try and take something forward that will help us. So I think those were most of the comments I have at this stage. So maybe we can open it up a bit. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much.

Annette Esterhuizen: Annette Esraeus and I’m from South Africa, trying to follow the G20 process. So two questions, one specifically for South Africa and one for both of you. And Jim, you said Brazil will be remembered, the G20 chairperson for the information integrity. I think Japan will remember, but data flows, I think. So what do you want South Africa to do? What do you want South Africa’s presidency to be remembered for? Is it going to be digital equality? What would you like us to give to the world as something that they’ll remember as a priority? And then to both of you, the G20 financial work is focusing, from what I can see, very much on financial, international financial architecture, reform, financial inclusion as a priority. We’re also in the WSIS renewal, where financing is actually, we all talk about, should we talk about enhanced cooperation or should we not? No one talks about, why are we not talking about financing? Financing is the big unfinished business from the WSIS process, delegated in 2003 to 2005, and now hardly even gets more than a paragraph in any official UN outcome report. Is there a possibility here, perhaps, to, with the G20 work, this focus on digital public infrastructure, which also raises the need for financing, and would countries like South Africa? Brazil be able to actually help us put financing seriously on the agenda of the WSIS plus 20 outcome?

Jim Paterson: That’s a difficult question. It sounds simple, but it’s not, because we made four priorities, so they’re all priorities in our view. But I think we would want to be remembered for all of them. But I think in particular, we want to, I think, put some, I think it’s maybe a little bit nationalistic in a way, but we would like to put energy from this into what we do domestically. But I think we’ve moved the debate a little bit in terms of digital inclusion, and I think that was important. And I think we’ve helped with digital public infrastructure. So that was also important. On digital innovation ecosystems, it was more really, I don’t think it’s a controversial subject. It’s not a difficult subject in that sense. So I would say probably more digital inclusion would be the bigger message. But also maybe on artificial intelligence and around access to data and data issues, generally, it’s not easy to discuss these things. So we have pushed that discussion more. And maybe the focus also maybe a little bit more on data as a public good. We’ve tried to introduce language around that. I don’t know how it’s going to go. And so those type of things. But I think we’re trying to build that concept of the need to be able to have an enabling environment for developing countries really try to advance that. That’s not a very clear answer, but maybe I’ll give you a clearer answer when we’ve been through the process and concluded it. I think on financing. I don’t think we can really introduce it at this stage in G20. It’s probably late, but I don’t believe the world begins and ends with a presidency of the G20. I think the issue can easily go beyond that. I would agree with you. They’ve just had the financing for development in Spain now. So I think that’s probably something we should look at very urgently. There’s not much focus on digital. So that’s probably something we should try and advance. But I do agree with you. It’s really important. I think there were some problems from our side with the original outcomes on financing, and probably that’s why we didn’t ourselves push it as much. But it’s definitely a priority for us.

Marcelo Martinez: Let me just add to what Jim already said. In a year away from what we did in our G20, we are able, Jim, to see that there is definitely a domestic legacy to what we do. We see our internal institutions or domestic institutions really with a better sense of what happens in the world. They are really a lot more involved in international meetings. They respond more and with more quality with all the consultations that we submit. And they are really, especially I would say, strengthening bilateral ties with other countries, both G20 and non-G20 countries, but mostly G20 countries. So I see a great benefit there from our presidency, and I think that was worth the investment that we did. On financing, this is a very deep question, of course. I think that if we wanted to simplify it, I would say that… There is a bureaucratic explanation for that and there is a strategic explanation to that. The bureaucratic one would be that, well, since 20 years ago, the first WSIS, we have the digital agenda in a way under the development agenda. It was first the MDGs and now the SDGs. When you read the documents, you actually read them. When you read the GDC, for instance, you kind of get a doubt, is this going to end in 2030 or not, perhaps? But in a way, it bothers me a little bit, of course, that we want the digital to be under this development narrative. This is actually one of the greatest achievements that we had in the original WSIS. And I can say it really with a peace of mind that that would not be possible today, to achieve what we achieved 20 years ago. And that’s why we defend it with all our power and strength. But I think that when you frame it this way, of course, you have in New York, when we negotiate any digital matter, it falls under the development, the Commission for Development. We are at the G77 negotiating together. We do not negotiate on a national basis. This is also, this is a strength in a way. This is actually quite difficult and most often. But that’s the way it is. That’s the way it’s framed. And we, of course, if you talk about financing, it immediately is directed to the Conferences on Financing for Development. I also met Isabel when we last met. I used to work for Sustainable Development then. We negotiated the 2030 agenda then. and with all its, you know, complexities. And then I left at Isabela with a clear impression that we had achieved nothing at all. I saw the people at the final session in the conference room, everybody applauding, and I kept asking myself, what are these people applauding? And once I joined the digital track back in Brasilia a couple of years later, I could see how this is not really happening, and how the digital, well, financing is way more difficult than it used to be these days. And the digital track being under the development larger track, it is a bureaucratic explanation for that not to happen. At the G20 in particular, when we tried to talk about financing of our infrastructure, immediately several countries say, and now there’s the strategic maybe consideration there, that we should not be talking about it there, that this is not the mandate of the group in the SHRPAS track. So it doesn’t happen. And several countries still try to do it. Like Saudi Arabia tried to create a fund. It ended up being an organization that they have, a very regional organization, DCA, I think, or something like that. Exactly. And then India tried to do the same thing, and they practically gave it up. So we actually launched in our presidency a global initiative on information integrity and climate change. We launched it at the summit. This ended up being a fund at UNESCO, but of course it was never framed as a G20 initiative, and that’s why it is working in the end. We have several countries that joined. Only Brazil made a contribution to this point, but we expect to. more to come, because we just had our first open call and we received more than 500 projects to finance and now there’s the finance aspect there, so maybe we can do that there and other countries can do that in their own limited group of countries that have the same objective, but it’s never easy.

Audience: Sorry I just wanted to flag for Jeremy perhaps, but just to say I think reasonably and controversially one of the items on the digital inclusion is actually the funding of digital public statistics, so also another project with ITU, obviously something we’ve been struggling for forever on, we did try to include it in the global digital compact, so we got the commitment to data, of course now it’s easy to get the commitment to public statistics and stuff as the basis of that data, but funding that, and yeah, I mean we’ve drawn on the CETIC experience and model and had proposed that we try and get a portion of domain name fund at an international level and hoping to be able to pursue that, but we’ll have to see about that, but I think one has to start any kind of solidarity funding, because that’s the only way it works, I mean most African countries wouldn’t be able to, that mechanism wouldn’t work, they wouldn’t have enough fees from, and they’ve got other priorities for those fees, so it would have to be a kind of global solidarity kind of thing, and I think those are just a big challenge, so they, often in the first round of some of these documents, but as soon as it’s, you’re talking about the money, put the money to the principal, and they tend to drop off. I just wanted to also just comment very briefly as Jim had mentioned or asked in the beginning, and also because Jackie is there from Brazil T20. But just to speak about the T20 legacy, and I think sure there are other engagement groups of the Brazilian Troika leadership, but as you’re starting with India, which began to draw on Global South knowledge partners, and also on the think tanks, which had traditionally been dominated very much by the Ivy Leagues and Global North institutions. And then, of course, Brazil really opened that up. So under data privacy, I think there were six of the task forces, and I think five of us were women from Global South, only one Brazilian. And then, of course, we’ve now got that coming through from India. So there’s really a strong cohort that’s been working on now on DPI, on AI, digital inclusion, of course, has come through in all three strands. And very strongly, the data governance legacy from the Brazilian G20 and from the T and C20 is really cutting all of the themes that we’ve got. And our themes, basically, shadow or mirror, or hopefully push the South African agenda. And perhaps just also to say, having the privilege of working across both groups, but not speaking on behalf of the G20 of all, of course, is that as my organisation, we’ve also worked extensively on the continent for two decades now. And I think what has been very strong, Jim, I would say out of this has been the presidency’s commitment to this being an African G20. And so a lot of the working groups within these things are being led by the African Union. and with a lot of support of new organizations that haven’t traditionally been allowed. So ADET from the UN is also a knowledge partners that I think haven’t been used as much previously, but obviously now’s the time. And just to say, and I think Jackie might want to just pick up with that, but there have been discussions about, especially because of the situation we’re in and the situation that we’re in, about what you do around supporting young people and new T20 members that are going to come in. And one doesn’t know what that’s going to look like. I know some of us have been working with the Canadian C, whatever, Canadian T20, C7, to do joint things in trying to get some of the, what I think is quite positive from Canada’s side, to get some of these issues taken forward. So we’ll see what that delivers. And then also because this floating nature of the G20 and therefore all the engagement groups as well, trying to create some sort of permanent repository. Because I mean, I think Brazil’s done a great job of putting up a lot of those documents there, but as things move and time moves and that sort of thing. So to try and get a kind of repository of some kind that can be kind of updated repository. So not just publications, because of course we will all do that, but get some of that. So I don’t know if Jackie just wanted to also just comment on anything on that, but I think it’s been a strong legacy from the three, from the trip.

Moderator: Sure.

Marcelo Martinez: Just wanted to react to your first comment, Alison. I think that it really strikes me really, especially the fact that we are in this conference, this is the first time I come to this conference and we’ve always been. you know, dealing with the numbers during, as we structure the discourse or narratives for the G20 and then for the BRICS, and we always work with this number that one third of humanity is not connected. And you were the first one to mention something that I’ve been thinking a lot lately. Since we began working with meaningful connectivity yesterday, you mentioned that this problem is a lot worse. As we did this exercise in Brazil, where over 90% of the population is connected, we got to the conclusion that only 20% has meaningful connectivity, meaning has the connection, the quality and conditions that we all have in this room. So if you look at the other way, it’s 80% of the population doesn’t have it. So if Brazil is the world’s average, my God, this number is much worse. So we should be working with a different number, but I really want to know what that number is. Because we are here at the most, maybe most important event in this area, and we don’t know it. No one has this number, and we have to keep working on it. I don’t know how close we are to the SDG targets, because we don’t have the data. Same exercise in the BRICS, within the BRICS. But since, of course, there are sensitive disease, we only circulated results within the BRICS countries. But we are now proposing to do the very same exercise again with CITIC for Mercosur countries and expanded Mercosur perhaps. So this is a message that we really think that every country in the world should embrace and try to measure that.

Moderator: Unfortunately, we are very on time and we need to… to finish the session. Just if Britain can just give us short, very short words to close the because he was there. And so thank you very much. And then we need to close maybe

Speaker: very quickly. You know, this is I’m the ITU Sherpa G20 Sherpa. So this was my 7th G20, the South African one. Honestly, you know, for us, the ITU, this was a very unique window because you know, we had three large developing countries, India’s, you know, Brazil and South Africa, assuming presidencies one after the other, probably Indonesia, if you count the one before. So and we saw that the topics and these are all been landmark presidencies because it was also very difficult geopolitically during all these three presidencies. And it’s been a very landmark set of presidencies primarily because you know, you have topics such as AI to some extent, but it’s maturing here, you know, digital infrastructure, investment financing, which was actually launched during your presidency. You know, so there are many of these pieces of information integrity. Typically, G20 presidencies in the past have been very conservative, you know, you’d you go back to existing text, not in these three, you know, been very bold. And thanks to the growing influence of all three countries geopolitically, you’ve pushed through the agenda, you know, so that’s something to be very proud of. And again, in topics such as DPI, I started in the Indian presidency, the conversations kind of develop during your presidency. In the South African presidency, I can see that they’re maturing because there are frameworks that are being spoken about on all three topics, I could say the same, you know, so I think it’s extremely important that and the next one again goes back to a developed country. So we don’t know what will happen there. But I think it’s extremely important that, you know, this cycle of the G20 be viewed very optimistically because because you’ve achieved a lot. And tying it to the WSIS framework, I think when you invited us as knowledge partners of the ITU, most of the programs that we’ve supported you on, most of the priorities, these have all been part of programs at the ITU where the WSIS framework has driven these programs in every topic you can think of. So I think for us as UN agencies, there is a direct tie between the action lines, between the activities we’ve done and what you’ve achieved and what we’ve supported you for. So again, we are very grateful for the opportunities. I have my, you know, the G20 bag that Jim has given us, Jim and the team has given us, but also my mother, my father-in-law, they all carry G20 bags back in India. So we are very grateful for that also and for the opportunity, honestly.

Moderator: Yeah. Thank you very much for everybody. Thank you. Recording stopped.

Agreement points

G20 presidency is extremely resource-intensive and challenging for developing countries

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

Organizing G20 is extremely resource-intensive for developing countries, requiring whole-of-government coordination with 50+ people and 15+ organizations

South Africa benefited from Brazil’s experience sharing and built upon the sequence of developing country presidencies

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that organizing G20 presidency requires massive coordination efforts, extensive human and financial resources, and creates significant stress for developing countries. They emphasize the value of experience sharing between presidencies.

Topics

Development

Sequence of developing country presidencies created unique opportunity for development-focused agendas

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson
– Speaker

Arguments

G20 presidency presents both opportunities and contradictions for developing countries, requiring careful balance between leadership and multilateral diplomacy

Three consecutive developing country presidencies (Indonesia, India, Brazil) created unprecedented opportunity to advance development-focused agendas

ITU recognizes three consecutive developing country presidencies as landmark period achieving bold agenda advancement

Summary

All speakers recognize that the consecutive developing country presidencies (Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa) represented a unique and landmark period that allowed for bold advancement of development-focused agendas, which may not occur again for some time.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Digital inclusion should be central priority with meaningful connectivity as foundation

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

Brazil successfully brought meaningful connectivity discussion from ITU/Geneva to mainstream G20 agenda, making it globally recognized

Current connectivity statistics are misleading – while 90% of Brazil’s population is connected, only 20% has meaningful connectivity

South Africa prioritized digital inclusion as central theme, building on universal and meaningful connectivity work

Summary

Both countries prioritized digital inclusion and meaningful connectivity, with Brazil mainstreaming the concept globally and South Africa building upon this work. They share concern that current connectivity statistics are misleading and that meaningful connectivity is the real measure of digital inclusion.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Information integrity successfully introduced and continued across presidencies

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

Brazil introduced information integrity as new topic in G20 despite risks, contributing to its inclusion in Global Digital Compact

South Africa continued information integrity work, focusing on generative AI and deepfakes control measures

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge Brazil’s successful introduction of information integrity as a new G20 topic and South Africa’s continuation of this work, particularly focusing on emerging challenges like generative AI and deepfakes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Digital Public Infrastructure requires integrated approach linking to digital inclusion

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

Brazil continued India’s DPI work as basic tool for digital inclusion with horizontal dimension approach

South Africa focused on integrated governance systems for DPI and measuring public value to maximize impact

Digital public infrastructure can serve as both beneficiary and driver of digital inclusion

Summary

Both countries view DPI as fundamental for digital inclusion, with Brazil treating it as a basic tool with horizontal dimensions and South Africa focusing on integrated governance and public value measurement. They agree on the symbiotic relationship between DPI and digital inclusion.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both countries emphasize the need to shift AI discussions from purely risk-focused approaches to include development perspectives, particularly addressing challenges faced by developing countries in accessing data and participating in AI innovation.

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

AI discussions need to include development perspective, not just focus on risks and ethics

Data access for researchers and SMEs presents major challenge for AI development in developing countries

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Multiple speakers identify financing as a critical unfinished business from WSIS, with structural and bureaucratic barriers preventing adequate attention to digital financing needs. They agree that current frameworks limit direct financing discussions.

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Annette Esterhuizen
– Audience

Arguments

Digital agenda’s placement under development framework creates bureaucratic barriers to dedicated financing discussions

G20 mandate limitations prevent direct financing discussions, forcing alternative approaches like UNESCO fund creation

Financing remains major unfinished business from original WSIS process, relegated to development agenda framework

Digital public statistics funding requires global solidarity mechanisms rather than national fee-based approaches

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers highlight South Africa’s distinctive approach of emphasizing African leadership, continental involvement, and support for local innovation ecosystems, particularly for young innovators.

Speakers

– Jim Paterson
– Audience

Arguments

South Africa emphasized enabling young innovators to convert ideas into successful businesses through supportive ecosystems

South African presidency emphasized African G20 approach with African Union leadership and continental organization involvement

Topics

Development | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Global South knowledge partnership transformation in G20 engagement groups

Speakers

– Audience
– Speaker

Arguments

T20 engagement groups shifted toward Global South knowledge partners and think tanks under developing country presidencies

ITU recognizes three consecutive developing country presidencies as landmark period achieving bold agenda advancement

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on how the developing country presidencies fundamentally transformed the knowledge partnership landscape in G20, moving away from traditional Ivy League and Global North dominance toward meaningful Global South participation. This represents a structural shift in how global digital governance discussions are informed.

Topics

Development

BRICS as effective platform for Global South digital governance despite geopolitical challenges

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

BRICS produced first comprehensive AI governance document from Global South perspective

BRICS cooperation included ICT working groups, space sustainability, and environmental sustainability mapping

Explanation

Despite acknowledging BRICS as a challenging diplomatic exercise in current geopolitical context, both speakers found unexpected consensus on its effectiveness as a platform for Global South digital governance, particularly in producing substantive outcomes like the first comprehensive AI governance document from Global South perspective.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus among speakers on key issues including the transformative impact of consecutive developing country G20 presidencies, the importance of digital inclusion and meaningful connectivity, the need for development-focused approaches to emerging technologies like AI, and the ongoing challenges with financing mechanisms for digital development. There was also agreement on the resource-intensive nature of G20 presidencies for developing countries and the value of experience sharing.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for global digital governance. The agreement among Global South representatives suggests a coordinated approach to advancing development-focused digital agendas in international forums. The consensus on financing challenges indicates a shared priority for addressing structural barriers in international digital development funding. The unexpected consensus on knowledge partnership transformation suggests lasting institutional changes in how global digital governance discussions are informed and conducted.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Measurement and scope of connectivity challenges

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez

Arguments

Current connectivity statistics are misleading – while 90% of Brazil’s population is connected, only 20% has meaningful connectivity

Explanation

While not a direct disagreement between speakers, Martinez challenges the commonly accepted narrative about global connectivity that other speakers seem to accept. His revelation that Brazil’s internal analysis shows only 20% meaningful connectivity despite 90% basic connectivity suggests the global digital divide is far worse than commonly understood. This represents an unexpected challenge to conventional wisdom that could have significant implications for policy approaches.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high levels of agreement among speakers, with most disagreements being tactical rather than strategic. The main areas of difference center on approaches to financing digital initiatives and the current state of multilateral negotiations.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers demonstrate strong alignment on priorities (digital inclusion, meaningful connectivity, DPI, information integrity) and challenges (resource constraints, geopolitical difficulties). The disagreements that exist are primarily about implementation approaches and timing rather than fundamental goals. This high level of consensus among Global South representatives suggests strong potential for continued collaboration, though the financing challenge remains a significant obstacle that requires creative solutions beyond traditional frameworks.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both countries emphasize the need to shift AI discussions from purely risk-focused approaches to include development perspectives, particularly addressing challenges faced by developing countries in accessing data and participating in AI innovation.

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

AI discussions need to include development perspective, not just focus on risks and ethics

Data access for researchers and SMEs presents major challenge for AI development in developing countries

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Multiple speakers identify financing as a critical unfinished business from WSIS, with structural and bureaucratic barriers preventing adequate attention to digital financing needs. They agree that current frameworks limit direct financing discussions.

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Annette Esterhuizen
– Audience

Arguments

Digital agenda’s placement under development framework creates bureaucratic barriers to dedicated financing discussions

G20 mandate limitations prevent direct financing discussions, forcing alternative approaches like UNESCO fund creation

Financing remains major unfinished business from original WSIS process, relegated to development agenda framework

Digital public statistics funding requires global solidarity mechanisms rather than national fee-based approaches

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers highlight South Africa’s distinctive approach of emphasizing African leadership, continental involvement, and support for local innovation ecosystems, particularly for young innovators.

Speakers

– Jim Paterson
– Audience

Arguments

South Africa emphasized enabling young innovators to convert ideas into successful businesses through supportive ecosystems

South African presidency emphasized African G20 approach with African Union leadership and continental organization involvement

Topics

Development | Economic

Key takeaways

G20 presidency by developing countries (Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa) created unprecedented opportunity to advance development-focused digital agendas, with each presidency building on previous work

Meaningful connectivity statistics are misleading – while connectivity rates appear high (90% in Brazil), only 20% have truly meaningful connectivity, suggesting global digital divide is much worse than reported

Brazil successfully mainstreamed previously niche topics like information integrity and meaningful connectivity from specialized forums (ITU/Geneva) to global G20 agenda and Global Digital Compact

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) requires integrated governance systems and public value measurement to maximize impact, with universal meaningful connectivity as prerequisite

BRICS produced first comprehensive AI governance document from Global South perspective, emphasizing development benefits rather than just risks and ethics

Financing remains the major unfinished business from original WSIS process, with bureaucratic and strategic barriers preventing dedicated digital financing discussions in current frameworks

Domestic legacy of G20 presidencies includes strengthened institutional capacity, better international engagement, and enhanced bilateral cooperation for organizing countries

Resolutions and action items

Brazil proposed conducting meaningful connectivity measurement exercises with CETIC for Mercosur countries and expanded Mercosur

South Africa committed to translating G20 discussions into domestic projects and national implementation

Anatel (Brazil) will continue space sustainability work initiated in BRICS throughout the year

Co-facilitators session scheduled to discuss WSIS+20 elements paper and negotiation prospects

T20 engagement groups exploring creation of permanent repository for G20 documents and knowledge products

Continued collaboration between Brazil and South Africa within G77 framework for WSIS+20 negotiations

Unresolved issues

Lack of accurate global data on meaningful connectivity rates – participants acknowledged not knowing the true extent of digital divide

WSIS+20 negotiations showing limited energy and pessimism within G77+China group with unclear prospects for advancement

Financing mechanisms for digital development remain unresolved, with no clear pathway identified for dedicated digital financing discussions

How to converge Global Digital Compact and WSIS processes remains unclear

Uncertainty about maintaining development-focused agenda when G20 presidency returns to developed countries

Challenge of sustaining Global South knowledge partnerships and think tank engagement in future G20 cycles

Unresolved governance mechanisms for making digital governance less complex and more effective

Suggested compromises

Leaving dogmas behind in WSIS+20 discussions to enable progress beyond defending existing achievements

Strengthening both multistakeholder and multilateral governance channels as complementary rather than contradictory approaches

Using alternative funding mechanisms (like UNESCO fund) when direct G20 financing discussions face mandate limitations

Exploring global solidarity funding mechanisms for digital public statistics rather than relying on national fee-based approaches

Framing digital issues within existing development agenda framework while working to advance dedicated digital financing through Financing for Development conferences

For a developing country to engage in such an exercise [G20 presidency] – it is a very stressful exercise. It drives us to our own limits in terms of human resources, in terms of financial resources, too… But both Brazil and South Africa, we’re both staunch defenders of multilateralism. So we have, then, an opportunity to send messages to the 20 largest economies… But at the same time, we have to do it in a very careful way so that we make it clear that we’re not trying to convert our own vision in messages or trying to impose our vision to the rest of the world.

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Reason

This comment reveals the fundamental tension developing countries face when leading global forums – having the opportunity to influence global agendas while being constrained by limited resources and the need to maintain diplomatic balance. It exposes the structural inequalities in global governance.

Impact

This set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing the core challenge both countries faced. It led Jim Paterson to acknowledge similar experiences and shaped the conversation around how developing countries can effectively use their leadership positions despite constraints.

Since we began working with meaningful connectivity yesterday, you mentioned that this problem is a lot worse. As we did this exercise in Brazil, where over 90% of the population is connected, we got to the conclusion that only 20% has meaningful connectivity… So if you look at the other way, it’s 80% of the population doesn’t have it. So if Brazil is the world’s average, my God, this number is much worse.

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the conventional narrative about digital connectivity by revealing that traditional connection statistics mask a much deeper problem. It suggests that the global digital divide is far more severe than commonly understood.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from celebrating connectivity achievements to recognizing the inadequacy of current metrics. It reinforced the importance of meaningful connectivity as a policy priority and highlighted the need for better data collection methods.

There is a bureaucratic explanation for that and there is a strategic explanation to that… when you frame it [digital agenda] this way, of course, you have in New York, when we negotiate any digital matter, it falls under the development… And we, of course, if you talk about financing, it immediately is directed to the Conferences on Financing for Development.

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Reason

This comment provides crucial insight into why digital financing remains underdeveloped in international forums. It reveals how institutional structures and bureaucratic categorizations can inadvertently limit policy effectiveness by compartmentalizing interconnected issues.

Impact

This explanation helped contextualize Annette’s earlier question about financing and provided a framework for understanding systemic barriers to digital development funding. It moved the conversation from ‘what should be done’ to ‘why it’s not being done.’

I think we felt that we needed to try and put that [DPI governance] into some sort of structure… And we’ve also looked at the idea around public value. I think we’ve presented it as measuring, but it’s a bit more than that. It’s about trying to ensure that the design of DPI maximizes the potential for public value so that you don’t lose those kind of dynamic effects that can happen from digital public infrastructure.

Speaker

Jim Paterson

Reason

This comment introduces a sophisticated approach to digital public infrastructure that goes beyond technical implementation to consider broader societal impact. It challenges the tendency to focus on single use cases rather than systemic value creation.

Impact

This shifted the discussion toward more holistic thinking about digital infrastructure and influenced the conversation about how developing countries can maximize returns on digital investments. It connected technical infrastructure to broader development outcomes.

Typically, G20 presidencies in the past have been very conservative, you know, you’d you go back to existing text, not in these three, you know, been very bold. And thanks to the growing influence of all three countries geopolitically, you’ve pushed through the agenda… And the next one again goes back to a developed country. So we don’t know what will happen there.

Speaker

ITU representative

Reason

This comment provides historical context that frames the recent developing country presidencies as exceptional and potentially transformative. It also introduces uncertainty about continuity, highlighting the fragility of progress in international forums.

Impact

This observation validated the significance of the work done by Brazil and South Africa while introducing urgency about preserving gains. It reinforced the importance of the current moment and the need for strategic thinking about legacy and continuity.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond surface-level policy descriptions to deeper structural analysis. Martinez’s opening remarks about the contradictions facing developing countries in global leadership roles established a framework for understanding the entire conversation. His revelation about meaningful connectivity challenged conventional wisdom and highlighted data gaps that affect policy effectiveness. The bureaucratic explanation for financing difficulties provided crucial institutional context that helped explain persistent challenges. Paterson’s focus on public value and systematic approaches to DPI demonstrated sophisticated policy thinking, while the ITU representative’s historical perspective validated the significance of recent developing country leadership while highlighting the precarious nature of progress. Together, these comments created a multi-layered discussion that addressed not just what these countries accomplished, but why certain approaches worked, what barriers remain, and how progress might be sustained. The conversation evolved from a simple comparison of experiences to a nuanced analysis of global governance dynamics, structural inequalities, and strategic opportunities for developing countries in digital policy leadership.

What is the actual number/percentage of people globally who have meaningful connectivity (not just basic connectivity)?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Explanation

Martinez highlighted that while they work with the statistic that one-third of humanity is not connected, when Brazil measured meaningful connectivity, only 20% had quality connections despite 90% being connected. He emphasized the need to know the real global numbers for meaningful connectivity to properly assess progress toward SDG targets.

How can financing be effectively integrated into the WSIS+20 process and digital development agenda?

Speaker

Annette Esterhuizen

Explanation

Esterhuizen pointed out that financing is the ‘big unfinished business’ from the WSIS process and questioned whether G20 work on digital public infrastructure could help put financing seriously on the WSIS+20 agenda, as it currently receives minimal attention in UN outcome reports.

How can a global solidarity funding mechanism be established for digital public statistics?

Speaker

Alison Gillwald (Audience member)

Explanation

Gillwald mentioned exploring the possibility of using a portion of domain name funds at an international level for funding digital public statistics, noting that most African countries wouldn’t be able to fund this independently and would need a global solidarity mechanism.

How can a permanent repository be created for G20 engagement group documents and knowledge?

Speaker

Alison Gillwald (Audience member)

Explanation

Due to the floating nature of G20 presidencies, there’s a need for a permanent repository that can serve as an updated knowledge base beyond just publications, to preserve the institutional memory and progress made across different presidencies.

How can the BRICS meaningful connectivity measurement exercise be expanded to other regional groups?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Explanation

Martinez mentioned proposing to conduct the same meaningful connectivity measurement exercise with CETIC for Mercosur countries and expanded Mercosur, suggesting this methodology should be embraced by every country globally.

How can the G77 plus China group be energized around WSIS+20 discussions?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Explanation

Martinez expressed concern about the lack of energy and pessimism within the G77 plus China group regarding WSIS+20 negotiations, indicating a need to find ways to engage this important negotiating bloc more effectively.

How can WSIS and GDC processes be converged effectively?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Explanation

Martinez mentioned the need to explore possible ways to converge the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS processes, suggesting this as an area requiring further investigation and strategic planning.