Harnessing digital public goods and fostering digital cooperation: a multi-disciplinary contribution to WSIS+20 review

Summary

This UNESCO session focused on harnessing digital public goods and fostering digital collaboration as part of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. UNESCO’s Guilherme Canela opened by emphasizing that information must be truly accessible to all, highlighting the Windhoek Plus 30 declaration that establishes information as a public good. He outlined three essential pillars: empowering people with critical digital literacy skills, strengthening content producers like journalists and educators, and addressing the broader digital ecosystem including technology companies.

The panel featured five speakers addressing both past achievements and future recommendations. Andrea Millwood Hargrave from UNESCO’s Information Accessibility Working Group stressed that accessibility is the cornerstone of meaningful digital inclusion, noting that without it, all other efforts become meaningless. Maria De Brasdefer from IFLA presented their policy brief on empowering libraries for digital inclusion, highlighting how the global network of 2.8 million libraries has evolved beyond traditional roles to provide digital literacy training, e-government access, and entrepreneurship support.

Mary-Ruth Mendel from Australia discussed breaking literacy barriers through indigenous language platforms, presenting a five-point global plan to address language and literacy vulnerability gaps. Alexandre Barbosa from Brazil’s CETIC emphasized the critical need for reliable, disaggregated data and indicators to measure digital inclusion progress, introducing concepts like “meaningful connectivity” that reveal deeper inequalities than basic internet access statistics.

Onica Makwakwa from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership concluded by advocating for truly inclusive governance and meaningful connectivity, particularly for the 2.6 billion people still excluded from digital technologies. The discussion revealed that despite 20 years of WSIS progress, significant digital divides persist, requiring more sophisticated approaches that prioritize equity, accessibility, and community-centered solutions in the post-2025 digital development agenda.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Information as a Public Good and Digital Commons**: The discussion emphasized the importance of treating information as a public good, referencing UNESCO’s Windhoek+30 declaration. Speakers highlighted the need to address information asymmetries and ensure equitable access through three pillars: empowering people with digital literacy, supporting content producers, and regulating the ecosystem including tech companies.

– **Digital Inclusion and Meaningful Connectivity**: Multiple speakers stressed that basic internet access is insufficient – true digital inclusion requires “meaningful connectivity” including daily access, fast speeds (minimum 4G), device ownership, and requisite skills. The discussion revealed significant gaps when measuring inclusion through this lens, particularly affecting women and marginalized communities.

– **Role of Libraries and Community Infrastructure**: Libraries were presented as crucial digital public infrastructure, with over 2.8 million libraries globally serving as multipurpose spaces for digital literacy, e-government access, and community support. The discussion highlighted how libraries have evolved beyond traditional roles to become key facilitators of digital inclusion.

– **Language Barriers and Indigenous Communities**: Speakers addressed how illiteracy and language barriers perpetuate digital exclusion, particularly for indigenous communities. Solutions included platforms for preserving and digitizing first languages, with examples from Australia’s Living First Language Platform that enables communities to create their own language datasets.

– **Data-Driven Approaches and Measurement**: The importance of reliable, disaggregated indicators to track digital inclusion progress was emphasized. Speakers discussed the need for sophisticated metrics that reveal inequalities hidden in aggregate data, including socioeconomic, geographic, and gender disparities.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the WSIS+20 review process, focusing on how to harness digital public goods and foster digital collaboration to advance global digital inclusion beyond 2025.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, with speakers building on each other’s points constructively. While there was one critical intervention from a journalist questioning library inclusivity and UNESCO’s approach, the overall atmosphere remained respectful and solution-oriented. The tone was forward-looking and action-oriented, with speakers sharing concrete examples and recommendations rather than dwelling on problems alone.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Maria De Brasdefer** – Digital Affairs Policy and Advocacy Officer of IFLA (International Federation of Libraries and Archives), founding member of Dynamic Coalition on Digital Inclusion

– **Onica Makwakwa** – Executive Director of Global Digital Inclusion Partnership (GDIP), co-founder of Dynamic Coalition on Measuring Digital Inclusion and Gender Equality

– **Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave** – Member of UNESCO’s Information for All Program Working Group on Information Accessibility, leading author of IFAP issue brief on global challenges in information accessibility

– **Alexandre Barbosa** – Representative of Regional Centre for Studies and Development of the Information Society (CETIC.br) from Brazil

– **Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi** – UNESCO’s Director for Digital Inclusion Policy and Transformation, Secretary of IFAP (Information for All Program)

– **Mary-Ruth Mendel** – Vice Chair of the Information Working Group on Information Literacy, works with Living First Language Platform in Australia

– **Xianhong Hu** – Program Specialist in the Secretariat of UNESCO’s Information for All program, session moderator

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dorothy Gordon** – Former chair of IFAP, member of the IFAP Working Group on Information Literacy (participated online, asked questions in chat)

– **Yichen** – Colleague supporting online moderation (mentioned but did not speak)

# UNESCO Session on Digital Public Goods and Digital Collaboration: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This UNESCO session, conducted as part of the WSIS Plus 20 review process, brought together international experts to examine digital public goods and collaborative approaches for advancing global digital inclusion. The discussion featured five primary speakers representing UNESCO’s Information Accessibility Working Group, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA), Australia’s indigenous language preservation initiatives, Brazil’s digital inclusion research, and the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership.

Key themes included the need to move beyond basic connectivity to meaningful digital inclusion, the importance of accessibility and language barriers, the role of libraries as digital public infrastructure, and the necessity of improved measurement approaches. The session also featured a provocative audience intervention about potential exclusion within supposedly inclusive institutions.

## Opening Framework: Information as a Public Good

UNESCO’s Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi opened the session by establishing that “information must be really for all,” while acknowledging this is “easy to say but not that easy to do.” Drawing from UNESCO’s Windhoek Plus 30 declaration, which establishes information as a public good, he outlined three essential pillars for digital inclusion.

The first pillar focuses on empowering people with critical digital literacy skills to interact meaningfully with digital technologies. The second addresses strengthening content producers, including journalists, educators, and community leaders. The third tackles the broader digital ecosystem, including governance of technology companies, AI developers, and media organizations.

Canela emphasized the need to “reduce the asymmetries of information that we have” to guarantee the existence of public goods, framing digital inclusion as addressing fundamental power imbalances rather than merely technical solutions.

## Accessibility as Foundation

Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave from UNESCO’s Information Accessibility Working Group presented accessibility as the cornerstone of digital inclusion. She outlined five key principles: design that considers diverse user needs, connectivity that reaches all communities, equity in access and participation, inclusivity for all users regardless of ability, and transparency in information systems.

Hargrave provided a critical assessment of progress, noting that “despite 20 years since WSIS, many goals remain unachieved with persistent inequalities, suggesting we may be moving backwards.” She argued that artificial intelligence “must be approached as a global public good to address the digital divide and advance digital inclusion.”

## Libraries as Digital Public Infrastructure

Maria De Brasdefer from IFLA presented libraries as essential digital public infrastructure, highlighting the global network of 2.8 million libraries staffed by 1.6 million people and 500,000 volunteers. She explained that “libraries operate digital public infrastructure and manage repositories, making them integral to digital public goods.”

De Brasdefer demonstrated how libraries have evolved beyond traditional roles to provide internet access, digital literacy training, e-government services, entrepreneurship support, and open-source software education. She noted that “public and community libraries serve different purposes in urban versus rural areas, offering free resources to those unable to access them elsewhere.”

She mentioned that IFLA’s policy brief contains “56 tailored recommendations” for supporting libraries’ role in digital inclusion.

## Language Barriers and Indigenous Digital Rights

Mary-Ruth Mendel from Australia’s Living First Language Platform, joining from evening hours in Australia, addressed how language barriers perpetuate digital exclusion for indigenous communities. She argued that “chronic marginalisation from digital technology participation is perpetuated by entrenched illiteracy,” emphasizing that “equitable access to information begins with first language literacy.”

The Living First Language Platform creates community-owned language and literacy datasets with authentic pronunciation, empowering indigenous communities to preserve languages while preparing speakers for digital participation. Mendel proposed a Global Five-Point Plan involving systematic mapping of affected communities, identification of barriers, deployment of appropriate technologies, establishment of progress benchmarks, and creation of sustainable support systems.

When asked by Dorothy Gordon about training requirements, Mendel explained the platform’s approach to community-based capacity building.

## Data-Driven Measurement Approaches

Alexandre Barbosa from Brazil’s CETIC, established in 2005 and a UNESCO Category 2 center since 2012, emphasized the importance of reliable, disaggregated data for understanding digital inclusion challenges. He introduced the concept of “meaningful connectivity,” which requires daily access, minimum 4G speed, device ownership, and requisite skills.

Barbosa’s research in Brazil revealed that while gender equality appears achieved when measuring basic internet use, significant disparities emerge when applying meaningful connectivity indicators. He argued that “reliable, disaggregated indicators and monitoring data are essential for tracking digital inclusion progress and understanding complex challenges.”

## Meaningful Connectivity and Governance

Onica Makwakwa from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership concluded with a critique of current approaches to digital inclusion. She challenged existing affordability benchmarks, asking: “affordable access is considered to be one gig of data for no more than 2% of average monthly income. One gig of data per month? Hello, what are you doing? Definitely not meaningfully connected.”

Makwakwa emphasized that “connectivity alone is not inclusion” and stressed the need for meaningful connectivity that enables genuine participation. She noted that “the most disconnected populations are absent from governance conversations and must be included beyond checkbox consultations.”

She announced a new protocol aimed at impacting 100 million women and girls, highlighting the need for alternative financial models and community networks to reach marginalized populations.

## Critical Audience Interventions

The discussion was significantly enriched by a provocative challenge from a journalist who questioned the assumed inclusivity of libraries. The journalist asked “Who are the excluded ones from the library even in Geneva?” and shared an anecdote about political polarization in library services, specifically mentioning the removal of right-wing magazines and resulting user conflicts.

This intervention created productive tension, forcing speakers to examine assumptions about institutional neutrality. Maria De Brasdefer defended libraries while acknowledging the need for continuous community engagement and self-examination.

Dorothy Gordon also asked specific questions about training requirements for digital platforms and implementation challenges, while other audience members addressed content development for multilingual communities and ethical considerations in digital public goods development.

## Key Themes and Takeaways

The session revealed several critical insights for digital inclusion efforts:

**Beyond Basic Access**: Multiple speakers emphasized that meaningful digital inclusion requires more than basic internet connectivity, demanding adequate speed, device ownership, digital skills, and true affordability for regular use.

**Language and Cultural Barriers**: Indigenous and minority language communities face particular challenges that require community-centered solutions and recognition of first language literacy as fundamental to digital participation.

**Institutional Infrastructure**: Existing institutions like libraries represent valuable digital public infrastructure that should be supported and leveraged rather than replaced by new technological solutions.

**Measurement Challenges**: Current indicators for digital inclusion are inadequate, requiring more sophisticated approaches that reveal hidden inequalities across demographic and geographic lines.

**Governance Gaps**: The most marginalized populations are often excluded from decisions about digital inclusion initiatives, creating a fundamental paradox in current approaches.

## Conclusion

This UNESCO session demonstrated both progress and persistent challenges in achieving global digital inclusion. While significant infrastructure development has occurred since the original WSIS, fundamental questions about equity, accessibility, and meaningful participation remain unresolved.

The discussion’s strength lay in its multidisciplinary approach, bringing together policy, research, community practice, and advocacy perspectives. The speakers’ shared commitment to treating digital technologies as public goods provides a foundation for collaborative action, but implementation requires addressing systemic inequalities and governance challenges.

The session highlighted that achieving meaningful digital inclusion demands not only technological innovation but also fundamental changes in how digital resources are developed, governed, and distributed globally. The path forward requires sustained commitment to addressing the complex, interconnected barriers that prevent full participation in digital society.

Xianhong Hu: Okay, great. I think we are still two minutes too, but I’d like to start to gain some time. So bonjour, hello everyone, welcome to everyone in Geneva and also online to this interesting session on Harnessing Digital Public Goods and Fostering Digital Collaboration. We aim to provide multidisciplinary recommendations and contributions to this very important review of OASIS Plus 20. My name is Xianhong Hu, as you can see from my screen, the program specialist in the Secretariat of UNESCO’s Information for All program. And I’m very honored to introduce my colleague, Mr. Guilherme Canela, who is in the room. He’s the UNESCO’s Director for Digital Inclusion Policy and Transformation, as well as a Secretary of IFAP. I mean, Guilherme, you are head as an IFAP Secretary, it’s very important for this session because we have some peers and working group members present in this session, also online. And I would like to give the floor to address some welcome remarks and also share your vision and views. I mean, given your long-term involvement in the global internet governance and also digital issues. So Guilherme, could you please take the floor?

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you, Xianhong. Good afternoon for everyone in this time zone. But if you are joining us from other time zones, I guess I’m seeing Mary Ruth from Australia. which is bravely join us. I don’t know what time in the evening, that’s it. So in a very cold weather, my daughter told me this morning. So welcome, good evening and good morning if someone is in the other side of the pond. Pleasure to be here opening another session in a way or another co-organized by IFAP. And I say that not only because we in UNESCO are in charge of the information for all program but because I think more important than that is the message within the UISIS context that we need to keep underlining the importance that information must be really for all. And this is easy to say but not that easy to do. So the particular topic of this session that is the idea of digital public goods and the digital cooperation is one of those important things that has evolved in the recent years in a very positive manner in my opinion. And the first important thing is that we are talking more and more about public goods and common goods in this space. If you do a bit of archaeological history of the idea of common goods or public goods was very often used on the topics of environment or clean air or even before that the tragedy of the commons was about land and of course those things are relevant I’m not saying that they are not but it was quite unusual or it’s not the trend that we were using those expressions for information, for information as a public good, for the digital commons as public goods. And this helps us in many ways including because the theory behind the public goods in general and how they should be governed is something well developed in the theory of economy, the economic theory, the theory of governance of public sector and so on. So a lot of our challenge is how we take advantage of these now some decades or even almost a century of different conceptualization of what are the challenges in protecting and promoting public goods and how we translate these or we transfer these or we tailor made these for the specific discussion of information as a public good or the digital sphere and elements as public goods. And here allow me before concluding and reminding that UNESCO a few years ago, all our 193 member states approved this Windhoek plus 30 declaration that says that information is a public good and in a nutshell the declaration is articulating this idea through three pillars. The first one is if we really want to promote information as a public good we need to empower the people, everyone to have a critical interaction with the digital ecosystem. So this means education, this means media information literacy, this means a lot of things, right? Meaningful connectivity my friend. But of course this is a necessary condition but it’s not a necessary and sufficient condition for the system because it’s unfair to put all the weight on the shoulders of the society when on the other side you have governments eventually misusing the space or you have trillion dollar companies or whatever it is, right? So you need to empower the people so this is the demand side but we need you need more than that. And the other side is the the fly site, the content site. So then you need to empower the content producers, the journalists, the influencers, the scientists, the teachers, the librarians and so on and so forth. So this is important, but again, this is a necessary condition but it’s not a necessary and sufficient condition. Because you can empower, you can qualify the demand, you can qualify the supply, but you also need to discuss the ecosystem together, the transmission chain, so the tech companies, the AI companies, the media or whatever it is, right? So this is particularly relevant for our discussion here because in order to guarantee the existence of public goods in all areas, including in our area, one of the issues that we needed to deal with is to reduce the asymmetries of information that we have. Because when you have strong asymmetries of information, for example, a few companies dominating the entire data space, then you have problems to actually guaranteeing public goods and common goods. So there aren’t silver bullets to solve this problem. There is not one size fits all. Unfortunately for complex problems, we need to find complex solutions. And I finish with this. This is a bit of what we want to discuss here, right? What are the different angles we can offer to this conversation to actually guarantee that these things, these many things we want to protect, they can actually be protected as public goods? Thank you, Xianghong, back to you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you so much, Guillermo, for sharing your insights on the information as public goods. I will also post a link to the 30 years window for declarations, a very important milestone document for our reference and reflections, particularly relevant for today’s discussion. And also thank you, Guilherme, for setting such a wonderful scene for today’s discussion. Now I’d like to move to our five wonderful panelists to share their views. I mean, given the time limit, everyone will have five minutes maximum to intervene. I will then proceed to the Q&A, so can we have more people, more voices to be heard in the room and online. I would encourage you, our speakers, with your five minutes, if you can, possibly tackle two dimensions. One is to look into the past to share your major work, achievement, success stories of your organization or yourself in harnessing digital public goods and fostering digital collaborations. And the second dimension is about the future. We are at the WSIS Platform Review. What’s your views, major recommendations, suggestions on tackling the emerging challenges and gaps and what do you perceive the future directions, future areas for the collaboration for beyond 2025? I also encourage those online participants to introduce yourself, share your work and comments, questions in the chat. My colleague Yichen is here to support the online moderation. We are able to engage you properly with the room so we can really have a hybrid discussion. So the first speaker I’m very pleased to introduce is from online, Miss Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave. You are the member of our Information for All Program Working Group on Information Accessibility. You are also a leading author of one of our IFAP issue brief on the global challenges in the information accessibility. So Andrea, we look forward to hearing from you.

Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave: Thank you very much indeed. And I’m scared to, will I keep within my time? I came in at the end of the previous meeting and indeed this welcome that we’ve just had talks about information as a fundamental right and I want to start from there. But also I wanted to, there was a quote from last month by Professor Fang from Zhejiang University, apologies if I’ve mispronounced that, and he said AI must be approached as a global public good. So he talked about AI as a public good. It’s now time for us to take concrete action to address the digital divide, thereby advancing the process of digital inclusion, which is what we’re here to talk about. And as you have already said, I’m part of the UNESCO working group which is on information accessibility and the whole purpose of this group is to bring together a number of different perspectives, all of which are looking at the public goods as you have defined here, open software, inclusion, things like that, but also infrastructure and what that means. And it’s absolutely the cornerstone of the work that we have done and I would argue that information accessibility is the cornerstone of IFAP and that program, because without accessibility, all the work we do means nothing and that’s what we’re trying to encourage. I’m not going to talk about my personal bio, I’m sure people can look it up or ask me, but as you said, we have produced a document which will be produced and it talks about certain principles for the adoption of good practice for truly inclusive information accessibility. We’re not being naive, we recognize also that there’s no magic solution, but the principles which also draw on work by UNESCO in other parts and other colleagues, recognizes that the principle of design, connectivity, and Mr. Stanislas Tregulli. We know that equity, inclusivity, transparency must sit alongside information integrity, flexibility, efficiency and legal tools. Only in that way can we enable our communities to have equitable access to information that can empower them and make their lives better. The Working Group, I know I am running up against time, also meets annually for a conference which is hosted online. Importantly, the purpose of that conference is to bring together different perspectives and very, very diverse perspectives. It’s held on September the 28th every year, we’re into our sixth year now, which is the day for Universal Access, the International Day for Universal Access, or Declaration of Universal Access, and we invite people to tell their story, share their expertise and try and move the discussion forward. So this year, the meeting has as its theme, the question of trust. That’s a very broad overview of the work that we do within the Working Group. You did also ask me to talk about where I saw WSIS review going, and I think I, two things really, today sees the start of the AI for Good Summit, and of course, one of its key foci is to advance partnership and to solve global challenges, and this is exactly what you’re doing with this programme. This is why this programme is so very important, I think. But I have a downbeat observation. I was involved with WSIS at a distance 20 years ago, and it seems to me, we believed then that many of the goals that we set could and should have been achievable, but we still live in a world of inequalities, and that is why IFAP exists, part of the reason it exists, and why what might have been called meaningful access to the opportunities of the digital world could and should offer have not been met. And I think one might argue that we’re going backwards in and Dr. Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, Mr. Cordel Green, Ms. Mary-Ruth Mendal, Mr. Alexandre Barbosa, Dr. Xianhong Hu and Dr. Xianhong Hu. So I think on that, I just about made it in time. I think I’d like to stop and I look forward to the questions and answers.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Andrea, for your excellent remarks and for being so time cautious. I trust that in the Q&A, we still have time to really throw away your actions suggested. Thank you again for your remarks. And now I’d like to introduce our second speaker, Ms. Maria De Brasdefer, the Digital Affairs Policy and Advocacy Officer of IFLA, meaning International Federation of Libraries and Archives. And IFLA is also one of the founding members of our Dynamic Coalition on Digital Inclusion. We have done a lot of collaboration, including also another IFLA issue brief on empowering libraries for digital inclusion. So, Maria, please take the floor.

Maria De Brasdefer: Thank you so much, Xianhong, and also thank you for the invitation to this panel. Could you please put up the slides? Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: You want me to show it for you?

Maria De Brasdefer: No, no, they have them here, so they will put them up. Thank you. OK, great. Thank you. Thank you. OK, so, well, as you can see, I’m going to talk a little bit about another brief that we are also co-authoring. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay, well, as you can see, I’m going to talk a little bit about another policy brief that we are also, well, IFLA is also co-authoring in collaboration with UNESCO-IFAB. And as you can see, this brief is called Empowering Libraries for Advancing Digital Inclusion. It is also going to be part of the IFAB policy brief series. And I’m just, well, just to give you a bit of introduction on why we decided to do this. And this is not the first publication or collaboration that we have with UNESCO in this sense. But we also decided to do it because we know that sometimes it is not very straightforward perhaps for some member states, stakeholders, or other organizations, how to leverage the power of the library network and how to also collaborate with us in digital related matters. So this is why we decided to do the policy brief paper. And of course, we also see a big topic, especially because we believe that libraries or what libraries do, the work that they do is very intertwined with digital public goods.

Xianhong Hu: Maria, sorry to interrupt you, your slidedidn’t move. Did you move your slide already?

Maria De Brasdefer: No, not yet. I’m going to start now. Perfect. And so we do believe that this topic is also very, well, libraries are also very intertwined with the topic of digital public goods because they run digital public infrastructure. And as some of the other speakers mentioned, well, we manage, libraries manage a lot of repositories and a lot of information. So we also think it’s a, for us, it’s also a topic that is close to our hearts. And so I’m just going to present this policy brief very briefly. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask them at the end. Thank you. And so as I said, well, what is in the policy brief is mainly a series of library and policy recommendations from the states on digital inclusion and also how to rely on the global library expertise and infrastructure. And we also wanted to call it an entry point for policymakers and other stakeholders to begin or to deepen engagement with relevant library system. And so, as I said, it’s also an opportunity to leverage on the power of the library network and also just to give a brief introduction on that, because perhaps I know a lot of people are not aware that while it is true that the original purpose of the libraries is still kept today, the reality is that libraries do a lot of well, much more than holding books and collections today. And so the nature of the library network has changed very rapidly. Now it has extended to what we have mapped so far to over 2.8 million libraries globally that we can call functional or active and is staffed by over 1.6 million people. And we have also half a million volunteers across the world that work with the staff. And so, as I said, in a way, libraries have redefined their spaces and also approaches for the digital era. So they’re more multipurpose spaces for digital things. And so this slide, I always put it here because while I know there’s a lot of things that perhaps we see there that we relate to libraries like digital literacy skills building, access to research databases, the reality is there’s a lot of things that libraries are also doing that perhaps we don’t necessarily relate to them. And libraries are doing a lot of capacity building for entrepreneurs, for example, or facilitating access to e-government services, doing a lot of access and training. for Open Source Software, so many, many other things that are very related to access to information and of course also to the fulfillment of many WSIS action lines. And these are just some examples, for example, or how some library digitization centers have provided training and employment for people with special needs or perhaps in Tunisia, for example, in the case of women, promoting opportunities for women in a library. And now going back to the policy brief, this is why we have used this, we have used this to base the policy brief on six core policy areas. So we are using the areas that you see in there and we also have also tailored, 56 tailored recommendations and also actions for member states in the policy brief. And so a part of the brief is in each of these thematic areas, you will find some recommendations for those different groups. And we also have some recommendations, for example, in this case for library partners also on how to engage the other way around. Because as we said, we know sometimes this collaboration is not always straightforward, but we want to make it more clear and easy for member states and other stakeholders to understand how it is possible to collaborate with these networks on all of these themes that libraries are also working on right now. And as I say, just before finishing up, beyond the commendations, we have also these tailored actions like for governments and also policymakers, library partners. We have also included some case studies like the one I’m showing in the photo about a library giving rural farmers access to ICT skills and support. So this is also part of the policy brief so you can see how this plays out in practice. And so just to finalize now, the policy brief has been finalized and is going through a final approval phase. And of course, upon publication, what we want to do is a more targeted dissemination outreach for it. And of course, one of our goals is also to make a connection with the stakeholders and the people that would be interested also in leveraging the power of this network, also for digital inclusion. And so this is also a call to action from our sides. If you see, for example, a potential for partnering with us upon reading the brief, please feel free to reach out to us. And with this, I’m going to conclude. So if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask in the end. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you, Maria, for this wonderful presentation on the issue of brief and also broadly tackling the issues of libraries. I trust that one of the recommendation for our session would be that the library should continue to be a vital vehicle to foster the digital inclusion after 2025. And also, I’d like to recall that the IFA Council has endorsed two e-fly manifesto in supporting public library and also the school libraries. We will also share some more information in the chat. With that, I’d like to move to our third speaker, Ms. Mary-Ruth Mando, the Vice Chair of the Information Working Group on Information Literacy from ONLINE. Hi, Mary-Ruth, good evening. And thank you again for making big efforts to connect us online from the cold Australia and also very late now. Please go ahead with your presentation. I can see your PPT. Thank you. Hello, Mary-Ruth. I cannot hear you. Did you unmute yourself?

Mary-Ruth Mendel: Hello, everybody. Now you can hear me. This is the topic I’d like to address tonight. And it’s about. chronic marginalisation from digital technology participation is perpetuated by entrenched illiteracy and talk about how to break through the illiteracy barrier by empowering communities to read, write, comprehend and collate data sets. And, wait a minute, hold on, now it’s right. So illiteracy or low literacy is a key determinant of persistent vulnerability that impedes participation in multiple life skills, clearly including digital technology opportunities. Equitable access to information begins with first language literacy. There’s an Australian case study that I’d like to draw your attention to. It’s the Living First Language Platform and it showcases a process about how digital technology serves communities to create their own language and literacy data sets and digital technology interface solutions. Here’s the article link and I’d encourage you to go and have a look and I can put that link in the chat as well. But for us, we need to quickly close the literacy gap and the LFLP does that. It quickly connects language and literacy elements across data sets that can be used then for a variety of activities such as education curriculum content, literacy teaching learning resources for adults and children or exporting to other programs such as reading programs and translation apps and AI. This building of the bridge by collating first language… elements starts with what we call Coding Aboriginal Languages for Indigenous Literacy, short name CALIL, and that processes and records authentic pronunciation, which is key. An example in English is this. The letter A has four main pronunciation options, as in at, A as in lady, R as in father, O as in watch. From there, we need to then make sure that multi-sensory content is auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic, with algorithms that populate the data sets. That creates, for example, phonics in home language with the authentic speech sounds that I was talking about, vocabulary lists with authentic speech, with illustrative photos and sentences, and of course, a library of supporting stories, songs, lyrics, content. So, providing data sets of spoken language to text, and text to spoken language, is what removes the initial barriers. The conduit to the information superhighway is that first languages are revitalized in a fit-for-purpose format that instantly can interface with modern digital technologies, and that equals authentic cultural well-being and knowledge sharing. All of the LFLP data sets is community curated, approved, managed and owned, and most importantly, community members are the architects of those data sets. So, we would like to put forward the next steps, which is the Global Five-Point Plan. The objective is to close the language and literacy vulnerability gap, with a deliberate focus on mediating vulnerable people’s literacy learning needs, utilising platforms such as the Living First Language Platform and the KLIL process, suggesting it should be across the UNESCO programs and build into support for governments and NGOs and education and research facilities. The map has got the five points, I mean, the plan has got the five points. Firstly, to map the location of these language and literacy vulnerable communities. Secondly, to identify any barriers that would impede interaction with the LFLP or KLIL, such as a lack of access to devices or connectivity. Deploy the LFLP process and collate, display and use those data sets. Identify interface opportunities with current and emerging digital technologies. And then of course, establish benchmarks for reviews and reportings and iterative improvement. That’s the end of my presentation. I’d be happy to accept any questions and I’d welcome any ongoing conversations and my email address is here. Thank you, Xianhong. That’s the end of my presentation.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you, Mary-Ruth, for your marvellous sharing. And it’s so exciting to hear that wonderful example on the indigenous language platform, which is definitely a good practice should be recorded in the WSIS implementation. And also I like your action plan for the future as well. And do please stop sharing your screen now so I can see other speakers. Thank you. So now I’d like to move to the next speaker, Mr. Mr. Alexandre Barbosa, representing the Regional Centre for Studies and Development of the Information Society, CITIC.br from Brazil, to give your views. and remarks from the room. Fabio, the floor is yours.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you Xianhong. Thank you very much for the invitation. Thank you UNESCO and all the participants. So I’d like to, my contribution here today, I’d like to stress that to address these complex problems and challenges that we have in the face of the future needs, including the WSIS review and other discussion. We do need to have reliable and disaggregated indicators, monitoring and data to really track these changes and understand how we are moving in this scenario. So that’s more or less the mission of CETIC.PR, which is a part of the multi-stakeholder governance, internet governance model that we have in Brazil. CETIC is a department of the Brazilian Network Information Center, the NIC.BR, and linked to the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, this CGI.BR. And we were established 20 years ago in 2005 to produce highly quality international comparable indicators on digital technology access, use and also digital skills, which is a very important topic covered here. And since 2012, CETIC is also a UNESCO Category 2 center that supports other countries to develop and implement such type of projects. So our projects are primarily focused on conducting surveys and studies to measure the socio-economic impacts of the ICTs and the internet, covering a wide range of sectors, including households, enterprises, education, health, culture. So a very different range of topics that we cover through these projects. And all of these type of indicators can… and Dr. Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, Mr. Cordel Green, Ms. Mary-Ruth Mendal, Ms. Onica Makwakwa, nine different indicators from each individual in Brazil and to qualify each individual according to this level of meaningful connectivity. And although, for instance, we had no gender differences when we cover the Internet use, for instance, when the rates of Internet use has no gender differences, when it comes to meaningful connectivity, we solve huge inequalities, gender inequalities and other inequalities by having better data and more informed data in this field. And this model was supported and informed the discussion on G20 by the Brazilian presidency of G20 and also the BRICS this year, so it has also an international discussion on this topic. Another project that I think is relevant is the implementation of the ROMAX indicators from UNESCO in Brazil. Brazil was the first country that implemented the model back in 2019. And then we also revised. and Dr. Guilherme Canela De Sousa Godoi, Mr. Cordel Green, Ms. Maria De Brasdefer, Dr. And we do need more disaggregated and sophisticated indicators to know where there are other problems and how to track differences. So for instance, we participated recently in a BRICS paper that suggested to countries the need for more disaggregated data in terms of socioeconomic disparities, indicators on geographic disparities such as urban, rural, community disparities. So the level of the disaggregation and the quality of the data can really impact all of the discussion, the complexity of the discussion that we are having here. So this is my first intervention and thank you very much.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you, Fabia, for so well highlighting the importance of evidence, data, indicator-based approach to measure. I mean, the elephant in the room, which is the digital inclusion we are now tackling. That’s exactly why UNESCO-IFAF has co-founded with NASA. GDIP, with CIDIC, with you, with many others on the Dynamic Coalition on Measuring Digital Inclusion and also Gender Equality. With that, I think I’m so happy to invite our last speaker, but really not least, Ms. Onica Makwakwa, the Executive Director of Global Digital Inclusion Partnership GDIP, as a co-founder of the Dynamic Coalition. I also just read so wonderful news from you that you are initiating the new protocol to impact 100 million women and girls in digital inclusion. So, Onica, please take the floor.

Onica Makwakwa: Great, thank you so much for this opportunity to participate in this session. So, I’ll get right to it because I realize we’re almost out of time. At GDIP, we’re a multi-stakeholder partnership that is focused solely on advancing meaningful connectivity for the global majority. We are committed to equitable and inclusive digital development that is rights-based and focuses on a real transformation of the use of digital technologies. So, when we look at digital public goods, we really view these as an opportunity for us to – and a challenge, rather, to make sure that we are serving a public interest, indeed, by making sure that emerging technologies are inclusive and not necessarily feathering the divides that we know very well exist at the moment. In order to unlock the full potential of emerging digital technologies as a digital public good, we must center inclusion, accessibility, and equity across the value chain. From data and design to governance and accountability, we can’t leave those behind. Our work at GDIP focuses on – I’m going to look at and Dr. Yolanda Gaviria. So I think there are three priorities that we are looking at at the moment. One is promoting meaningful connectivity as the foundation for digital public goods. You know, as highlighted in our Connected Resilience Report, which looks at gendered experiences of women through meaningful connectivity, marginalized groups are disparately impacted when we look at inclusion from a meaningful connectivity point of view. As my colleague just said here, when you look at just access, it may seem like we’ve reached equity. Women are online. Women are using digital technologies. But when you look at it from the lens of meaningful connectivity, and at the moment we define that as being able to have access on a daily basis when you wish to, having access to fast speed connectivity at minimum 4G, and owning a device at minimum entry level smartphone would be what we consider, you know, appropriate device for meaningful connectivity, as well as having the requisite skills to be able to engage in digital technologies. You know, however, access remains limited when we look at it from that point of view. It continues to also be quite unaffordable and unsafe, especially for women. The issue of safety cannot be left behind. We therefore advocate for policies that prioritize affordability benchmarks, and a benchmark that needs to be improved. At the moment, affordable access is considered to be one gig of data for no more than 2% of average monthly income. One gig of data per month? Hello, what are you doing? Definitely not meaningfully connected in the context of the conversations that are taking place 20 years post, you know, into WSIS. So, you know, we want to also support public access and community networks in the same way that we told communities we didn’t have access to water that they can learn how to build a well and breathe. and Dr. Andrea Mabuse. We have to have a similar approach to connectivity as well, where we need to begin to open not only to different technologies for connecting the unconnected, but also be open to a different financial model. And in this climate, with few companies owning everything, it’s really important for us to accept that there are communities where affordability may not come as easily, and therefore we need to look at a different financial model to connect everyone. And the second area is inclusive governance and multi-stakeholder participation. The people who are most disconnected at the moment are not in these conversations. It’s really important that we build with them and alongside them, and that they are included in the multi-stakeholder processes as well as in the governance thinking that we are espousing in these kinds of forums. And that needs to go beyond just a checkbox, multi-stakeholder consultation format that we’ve seen. We need to really, truly be inclusive. And I will just conclude by saying that, you know, as we approach WSIS plus 20, we must recognize that connectivity alone is not inclusion. Despite progress, and I know the gaps still exist around affordability, governance structures, and emerging technology systems, and digital public goods that are often developed without local context or inclusive design. You know, let us seize this moment, not just to build back better, but to build more justly, inclusively, and collaboratively, especially with the 2.6 billion people who are not yet included in digital technologies. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you, Monica, for sharing the valuable work from TDIP. I mean, you have been standing in the front line to connect, and actually meaningful connect the women and girls into this global digital society. and I trust that we should really have that in the post-2025 actions of WSIS. And now I’m so happy, thanks to all of you, we still have maybe at least 10 minutes for discussions. And before that, I’d like to, I’m very happy to recognize the online participation of Madame Dorothy Gordon, the former chair of IFAB, and also, I mean, Dorothy, could you please turn on your camera? I’d like to see you. You are still a member of the IFAB Working Group on Information Literacy. You already posted a question on the chat. I’m going to read it before I hand the floor to my colleague Guilherme to continue the moderation of the Q&A with the persons in the room. So Dorothy has raised a question to Mary-Ruth about that language platform you presented. So how is it that the people have the skills to manage that platform? How long did the training take? Was it done by the already literate or you were able to take people from illiteracy to managing the platforms? Hi, Dorothy, we saw you. Thank you. I like your smile. So now I’d like to give the floor to my colleague Guilherme to continue to collect questions and then we can go back to the speakers together. So Guilherme, please.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you, Xianghong. So we have a first question from Dorothy to Mary-Ruth. Let’s collect at least two more here or three from the room and then we can have a first round of responses and if we have more time we can collect more. Do you have a question, gentlemen?

Audience: I’m not a gentleman. I heard some of you saying, alluding to questions close to our heart. What about the people, the heartless people like me? Are they allowed to ask a question? Yeah, okay. So I am a journalist, journalist freelance. Who are the left behind? the ones we need to include in libraries. The other day I was in Geneva, the most democratic equalitarian city on earth, at a debate at the library. And after some time when there was enough confidence between us to ask the difficult question and believe the answer would be right, I asked how many people in our group, 50 people or 100, have voted right-wing. And not a single one. They were all left-wingers, red, green, possibly pink. So who are the excluded ones from the library even in Geneva? Then, one month back, there was a workshop, a symposium, a whole morning symposium at the University of Geneva, staged by the university library. And the main topic is we must purge libraries because there are magazines, right-wing magazines, which can intoxicate the public. We have to remove them and objectivity is a lie. And now we want our motto is fight objectivity. So for me, when I want to look for information, I don’t go to the library anymore. I go to the flea market. And there I discover a lot of people about the aboriginal culture because in the heyday of the study of aboriginal culture, this was made by priests. Of course, they were biased, but it is not necessarily the history of lines written by the hunters. And this is the treasure of knowledge we have about traditional societies. Those of today, they are just looking for jobs with UNESCO. So that’s basically what I had to say. And you may understand that I will start loving UNESCO when it starts changing a bit.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you very much. And we will, so maybe you can take this question, sir.

Audience: Chair, thank you, and thanks to all those who have spoken earlier on. Listening to all the speakers, I note that one of the major issues is multilingualism. How do we promote content development for those who have been left out? Multilingualism, and in addition, the ethical issues surrounding the use of information. These two areas, I think, might be probed into a lot of extensive discussion. Thank you very much.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you. So we have a question straight forward to Mary-Ruth, then another question about libraries, and then one on multilingualism. Let’s try to take those three, because I think we have five minutes. So unfortunately, we need to be concise, and then we can conclude. So Mary-Ruth, why don’t you start?

Mary-Ruth Mendel: I put the answer to Dorothy in the chat, and you could all read that in the interest of time. And to the multilingualism question, you’re absolutely and entirely right. The most vulnerable people are those who are being left out of digital opportunities because their language isn’t being represented, or there isn’t space being made for their language. And that’s something that’s happening here in Australia with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, and that is exactly why the Living First Language platform was devised and is being used very successfully in Australia. So we feel that it has a significant contribution to really go towards empowering people who are speaking languages other than the dominant languages and being left behind as a consequence. I’m happy to show you, if you want to email me, I can then take you through on a Zoom link, the Living First Language platform, and I’d be happy to do that. Anybody who’d like to join me.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you very much, Mary-Ruth.

Maria De Brasdefer: Yes, well to address the question on the libraries I would just like to say that yeah I think I fully agree the issue of exclusion is a big one and that is also why from the side of IFLA we really always try to advocate on the side of saying okay the library is what is closest to what the communities need usually the libraries are in close contact with the public and they know what they need not just in general terms but also in terms they can offer that information in their own language in based on their daily in the context of their daily lives so we also agree on that and I think the libraries that have the power to address the the people that are most excluded in this case for example from connectivity from access or meaningful access or connectivity for outside the public and the community libraries so we see a lot of potential in working with them because we are also aware there’s it’s very different to work with libraries in urban areas and in rural areas we think they also serve very different purposes and so we also try to emphasize a lot of work with public and community libraries because we know that those are the ones that also offer content resources and services free of cost and also to people who would perhaps not be able to access those resources and so I hope that helps answer the question and if not feel free to also ask after the session.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: I’m sorry to hear that your experience with this particular library in Geneva was kind of reproducing a particular echo chamber or a particular bubble of people, but she mentioned they have 2.8 million libraries spread out of the world, so I think you shouldn’t take your particular experience with one library and extrapolate that this happens in every other of the 2.8 million libraries in the world. 70 million libraries around the world. So maybe it’s a good journalistic investigation to check if maybe libraries are spaces for more democratic conversations between right, left, middle, and so on. Maybe they are not, but that’s maybe is an interesting journalistic question, but so thank you for that. So thank you so much.

Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave: I think it’s very important not to forget industry. I know I said that earlier. Industry is frightened of regulation. They think it will stifle it. And certainly in work that I do elsewhere on social media and young people, we find working with designers and developers trying to allow industry into their bodies is very important. And I think UNESCO actually has an image that allows that in a way that perhaps regulators don’t. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you, Andrea. And I’m sorry I didn’t offer you the time for your final reflections. It’s these hybrids thing that sometimes has these kind of inconsistencies. Thank you very much. Fascinating discussion. Obviously, something we need to continue, but we got interesting points here that my colleagues are, of course, summarizing and we will share with the WSIS coordination because to make sure that what you have raised will also be food for thought for the co-facilitators of the WSIS plus 20 process. Thank you very much. Thank you for those online and continue enjoying the WSIS and the AI for Good this time. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thanks to everyone. Bye.

Agreement points

Information and digital technologies must serve as public goods accessible to all

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Information must be truly accessible to all, requiring empowerment of people for critical digital interaction, content producers, and ecosystem governance

AI must be approached as a global public good to address the digital divide and advance digital inclusion

Digital public goods must serve public interest by ensuring emerging technologies are inclusive rather than widening existing divides

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that information and digital technologies should function as public goods that serve the broader public interest rather than exacerbating existing inequalities. They agree on the fundamental principle that digital resources must be accessible to all populations.

Topics

Human rights principles | Digital access | Sustainable development

Complex, multifaceted approaches are needed to address digital inclusion challenges

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Complex problems require complex solutions without silver bullets, necessitating reduction of information asymmetries

Reliable, disaggregated indicators and monitoring data are essential for tracking digital inclusion progress and understanding complex challenges

Post-2025 WSIS actions must recognize that connectivity alone is not inclusion, requiring focus on affordability, governance, and inclusive design

Summary

These speakers agree that digital inclusion cannot be achieved through simple solutions but requires comprehensive, multi-dimensional approaches that address various aspects of access, measurement, and governance simultaneously.

Topics

Digital access | Sustainable development | Human rights principles

Meaningful connectivity requires more than basic internet access

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Meaningful connectivity requires daily access, minimum 4G speed, device ownership, and requisite skills – revealing greater inequalities than basic internet access

Current affordability benchmarks are inadequate – one gigabyte per month at 2% of income is insufficient for meaningful participation

Summary

Both speakers agree that traditional measures of internet access are insufficient and that meaningful connectivity requires multiple components including adequate speed, device ownership, skills, and true affordability for regular use.

Topics

Digital access | Telecommunications infrastructure | Inclusive finance

Language and literacy barriers are fundamental obstacles to digital inclusion

Speakers

– Mary-Ruth Mendel
– Audience

Arguments

Chronic marginalization from digital participation is perpetuated by entrenched illiteracy, requiring first language literacy as foundation

Multilingualism and content development for excluded populations are major challenges requiring extensive discussion

Summary

Both speakers recognize that language barriers and literacy challenges are core issues that must be addressed for effective digital inclusion, particularly for marginalized communities whose languages are underrepresented in digital spaces.

Topics

Multilingualism | Digital access | Cultural diversity

Libraries serve as crucial infrastructure for digital inclusion

Speakers

– Maria De Brasdefer
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

Libraries operate digital public infrastructure and manage repositories, making them integral to digital public goods

Libraries should continue to be a vital vehicle to foster digital inclusion after 2025

Summary

Both speakers agree on the essential role of libraries as digital public infrastructure and their continued importance in fostering digital inclusion beyond 2025.

Topics

Digital access | Telecommunications infrastructure | Capacity development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about the lack of progress in digital inclusion despite decades of effort, and emphasize the need for more genuine inclusion of marginalized populations in governance processes.

Speakers

– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Despite 20 years since WSIS, many goals remain unachieved with persistent inequalities, suggesting we may be moving backwards

The most disconnected populations are absent from governance conversations and must be included beyond checkbox consultations

Topics

Human rights principles | Digital access | Sustainable development

Both speakers emphasize community-centered approaches that recognize local contexts and needs, whether through libraries serving specific community requirements or platforms enabling communities to preserve and develop their own languages.

Speakers

– Maria De Brasdefer
– Mary-Ruth Mendel

Arguments

Public and community libraries serve different purposes in urban versus rural areas, offering free resources to those unable to access them elsewhere

The Living First Language Platform demonstrates how communities can create their own language and literacy datasets with authentic pronunciation

Topics

Digital access | Cultural diversity | Multilingualism

Both speakers advocate for systematic, data-driven approaches to understanding and measuring digital inclusion, emphasizing the need for sophisticated indicators that can capture various forms of inequality.

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

More sophisticated indicators are needed covering socioeconomic, geographic, and community disparities

Evidence-based approaches with data and indicators are essential for measuring digital inclusion progress

Topics

Digital access | Sustainable development | Gender rights online

Unexpected consensus

Industry engagement in digital governance

Speakers

– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Arguments

Industry engagement is crucial as they fear regulation will stifle innovation, requiring collaborative approaches

Complex problems require complex solutions without silver bullets, necessitating reduction of information asymmetries

Explanation

It’s somewhat unexpected that speakers focused on accessibility and public goods would emphasize the importance of engaging industry stakeholders collaboratively rather than through regulation alone. This suggests a pragmatic recognition that achieving digital inclusion requires working with rather than against private sector interests.

Topics

Digital business models | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Alternative connectivity models and community networks

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Maria De Brasdefer

Arguments

Community networks and alternative financial models are needed where traditional affordability approaches fail

Libraries have evolved into multipurpose digital spaces with 2.8 million active libraries globally staffed by 1.6 million people

Explanation

The convergence on community-based solutions from both a digital inclusion advocate and a library representative suggests unexpected consensus around decentralized, community-driven approaches to connectivity and digital access, moving beyond traditional market-based models.

Topics

Telecommunications infrastructure | Digital access | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles including information as a public good, the need for multifaceted approaches to digital inclusion, the importance of meaningful rather than basic connectivity, and the critical role of community-centered solutions. There was also agreement on the persistent challenges facing digital inclusion efforts and the need for more sophisticated measurement approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles and challenges, with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The speakers represented different sectors (UNESCO, libraries, digital inclusion organizations, research institutions) but shared similar values and approaches to digital inclusion. This strong consensus suggests a mature understanding of digital inclusion challenges and potential solutions, which could facilitate coordinated action in post-2025 WSIS implementation. The agreement across diverse stakeholders indicates that there is a solid foundation for collaborative efforts in advancing digital public goods and fostering digital collaboration.

Different viewpoints

Adequacy of current affordability benchmarks for meaningful connectivity

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

Current affordability benchmarks are inadequate – one gigabyte per month at 2% of income is insufficient for meaningful participation

Meaningful connectivity requires daily access, minimum 4G speed, device ownership, and requisite skills – revealing greater inequalities than basic internet access

Summary

While both speakers discuss meaningful connectivity, Onica explicitly criticizes current affordability benchmarks as completely inadequate, whereas Alexandre presents the meaningful connectivity framework more neutrally as a measurement tool without directly challenging existing affordability standards

Topics

Digital access | Inclusive finance | Telecommunications infrastructure

Assessment of progress since original WSIS

Speakers

– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

Despite 20 years since WSIS, many goals remain unachieved with persistent inequalities, suggesting we may be moving backwards

Reliable, disaggregated indicators and monitoring data are essential for tracking digital inclusion progress and understanding complex challenges

Summary

Andrea expresses pessimism about WSIS progress, suggesting regression in some areas, while Alexandre focuses on the need for better measurement tools to track progress, implying that improved data collection can lead to better outcomes

Topics

Digital access | Sustainable development | Human rights principles

Unexpected differences

Role and neutrality of libraries in information provision

Speakers

– Audience member (journalist)
– Maria De Brasdefer

Arguments

Criticism of libraries becoming politically biased and excluding certain viewpoints

Public and community libraries serve different purposes in urban versus rural areas, offering free resources to those unable to access them elsewhere

Explanation

The journalist’s critique of libraries as politically biased spaces that exclude certain viewpoints was unexpected in a session focused on digital inclusion. This challenged the assumed neutrality and inclusiveness of libraries as presented by Maria, creating tension around whether libraries truly serve all community members equally

Topics

Content policy | Digital access | Freedom of expression

Overall assessment

Summary

The session showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement among panelists, with most conflicts being subtle differences in emphasis or approach rather than fundamental opposition. The main areas of disagreement centered on the adequacy of current standards and progress assessment, while most speakers shared common goals around inclusion and accessibility.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The implications suggest that while there is broad consensus on the need for digital inclusion and public goods, there are significant differences in how to measure progress, set standards, and implement solutions. The unexpected challenge from the audience about library neutrality highlights potential blind spots in assumptions about institutional inclusiveness that could affect implementation of digital inclusion strategies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about the lack of progress in digital inclusion despite decades of effort, and emphasize the need for more genuine inclusion of marginalized populations in governance processes.

Speakers

– Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Despite 20 years since WSIS, many goals remain unachieved with persistent inequalities, suggesting we may be moving backwards

The most disconnected populations are absent from governance conversations and must be included beyond checkbox consultations

Topics

Human rights principles | Digital access | Sustainable development

Both speakers emphasize community-centered approaches that recognize local contexts and needs, whether through libraries serving specific community requirements or platforms enabling communities to preserve and develop their own languages.

Speakers

– Maria De Brasdefer
– Mary-Ruth Mendel

Arguments

Public and community libraries serve different purposes in urban versus rural areas, offering free resources to those unable to access them elsewhere

The Living First Language Platform demonstrates how communities can create their own language and literacy datasets with authentic pronunciation

Topics

Digital access | Cultural diversity | Multilingualism

Both speakers advocate for systematic, data-driven approaches to understanding and measuring digital inclusion, emphasizing the need for sophisticated indicators that can capture various forms of inequality.

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Xianhong Hu

Arguments

More sophisticated indicators are needed covering socioeconomic, geographic, and community disparities

Evidence-based approaches with data and indicators are essential for measuring digital inclusion progress

Topics

Digital access | Sustainable development | Gender rights online

Key takeaways

Information must be treated as a public good requiring three pillars: empowering people for critical digital interaction, empowering content producers, and governing the ecosystem to reduce information asymmetries

Digital public goods and meaningful connectivity are foundational to digital inclusion, but current measures are inadequate – meaningful connectivity requires daily access, minimum 4G speed, device ownership, and requisite skills

Libraries serve as crucial digital public infrastructure with 2.8 million active libraries globally, evolving beyond traditional roles to provide digital literacy, e-government access, and community-specific services

Language barriers and illiteracy are major obstacles to digital inclusion, with first language literacy being essential for equitable access to information

Current affordability benchmarks (1GB data for 2% of monthly income) are insufficient for meaningful digital participation in the modern context

Reliable, disaggregated data and indicators are essential for tracking digital inclusion progress and revealing hidden inequalities that basic access statistics miss

The most disconnected populations are absent from governance conversations and must be meaningfully included in multi-stakeholder processes beyond token consultations

Resolutions and action items

IFLA policy brief ‘Empowering Libraries for Advancing Digital Inclusion’ to be published and disseminated with targeted outreach to stakeholders

Global Five-Point Plan proposed to close language and literacy vulnerability gaps through mapping communities, identifying barriers, deploying platforms, and establishing benchmarks

Call for collaboration with library networks for digital inclusion initiatives, with invitation for stakeholders to reach out upon publication of policy brief

Recommendations from the session to be shared with WSIS coordination and co-facilitators for the WSIS+20 process

Continued advocacy for improved affordability benchmarks and support for community networks and alternative financial models

Promotion of meaningful connectivity indicators and disaggregated data collection across countries and organizations

Unresolved issues

How to effectively include the most marginalized and disconnected populations in governance processes and technology design

Addressing the challenge of political polarization and echo chambers in information spaces, including libraries

Scaling successful local initiatives like the Living First Language Platform to global implementation

Balancing industry innovation concerns with necessary regulation for inclusive digital development

Developing sustainable financial models for connecting communities where traditional affordability approaches fail

Creating truly multilingual and culturally appropriate digital content and services at scale

Measuring and addressing safety concerns, particularly for women, in digital spaces

Suggested compromises

Recognition that complex digital inclusion problems require complex solutions without silver bullets, necessitating multi-faceted approaches

Acknowledgment that while empowering individuals is necessary, it’s insufficient without also addressing systemic issues in governance and industry practices

Acceptance that different communities (urban vs rural, different linguistic groups) require tailored approaches rather than one-size-fits-all solutions

Understanding that meaningful connectivity standards must evolve beyond basic access metrics while remaining practically achievable

Balancing the need for regulation with industry concerns about stifling innovation through collaborative engagement approaches

Information must be really for all. And this is easy to say but not that easy to do… we need to keep underlining the importance that information must be really for all… we need to discuss the ecosystem together, the transmission chain, so the tech companies, the AI companies, the media or whatever it is, right? So this is particularly relevant for our discussion here because in order to guarantee the existence of public goods in all areas, including in our area, one of the issues that we needed to deal with is to reduce the asymmetries of information that we have.

Speaker

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by identifying the core challenge: information asymmetries as the fundamental barrier to digital public goods. It moves beyond surface-level access issues to systemic power imbalances and introduces the three-pillar framework (empowering people, content producers, and ecosystem governance) that becomes a recurring theme.

Impact

This opening comment established the theoretical foundation for the entire session, with subsequent speakers referencing back to concepts of asymmetry, ecosystem thinking, and the complexity of achieving true inclusion. It shifted the discussion from technical solutions to systemic governance challenges.

Equitable access to information begins with first language literacy… chronic marginalisation from digital technology participation is perpetuated by entrenched illiteracy… The conduit to the information superhighway is that first languages are revitalized in a fit-for-purpose format that instantly can interface with modern digital technologies.

Speaker

Mary-Ruth Mendel

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the assumption that digital inclusion is primarily about connectivity or devices. It identifies literacy in one’s native language as the foundational barrier and presents a concrete solution through the Living First Language Platform, addressing indigenous and marginalized language communities.

Impact

This intervention shifted the conversation from infrastructure and policy to fundamental human capabilities and cultural preservation. It prompted follow-up questions about implementation and training, and reinforced the multilingualism theme that emerged as a key concern throughout the session.

Connectivity alone is not inclusion… affordable access is considered to be one gig of data for no more than 2% of average monthly income. One gig of data per month? Hello, what are you doing? Definitely not meaningfully connected… We have to have a similar approach to connectivity as well, where we need to begin to open not only to different technologies for connecting the unconnected, but also be open to a different financial model.

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Reason

This comment powerfully challenges existing metrics and assumptions about digital inclusion by exposing the inadequacy of current affordability benchmarks. The rhetorical question ‘One gig of data per month? Hello, what are you doing?’ effectively demonstrates how disconnected policy metrics are from real-world meaningful connectivity needs.

Impact

This intervention introduced a critical perspective on measurement and policy effectiveness, building on Alexandre Barbosa’s emphasis on better indicators. It challenged the room to think beyond traditional access metrics and consider alternative economic models for connectivity, particularly for marginalized communities.

Who are the excluded ones from the library even in Geneva?… after some time when there was enough confidence between us to ask the difficult question… I asked how many people in our group, 50 people or 100, have voted right-wing. And not a single one… So for me, when I want to look for information, I don’t go to the library anymore. I go to the flea market.

Speaker

Audience member (journalist)

Reason

This provocative comment challenges the assumption that libraries are truly inclusive spaces by highlighting ideological exclusion. It forces the discussion to confront uncomfortable questions about who is actually being served by digital inclusion initiatives and whether these efforts create their own forms of exclusion.

Impact

This comment created a moment of tension and forced speakers to defend and clarify their positions on inclusion. It shifted the conversation from celebrating libraries as inclusive spaces to examining the complex reality of who actually participates in these initiatives and why some groups might feel excluded.

We do need more disaggregated and sophisticated indicators to know where there are other problems and how to track differences… when it comes to meaningful connectivity, we solve huge inequalities, gender inequalities and other inequalities by having better data and more informed data in this field.

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Reason

This comment introduces the critical insight that measurement methodology fundamentally shapes our understanding of digital inclusion. By showing how gender equality appears achieved in basic internet use but reveals significant gaps when measured through meaningful connectivity, it demonstrates how inadequate metrics can mask persistent inequalities.

Impact

This intervention provided empirical support for other speakers’ arguments about the inadequacy of current approaches. It reinforced Onica’s critique of existing metrics and provided concrete evidence for why the field needs to move beyond simple access measurements to more sophisticated indicators of digital inclusion.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a more critical examination of fundamental assumptions about digital inclusion. Guilherme’s opening established the systemic nature of the challenge, moving beyond technical fixes to governance and power structures. Mary-Ruth’s intervention on language and literacy challenged the technological determinism often present in digital inclusion discussions, while Onica’s critique of connectivity metrics exposed the inadequacy of current policy frameworks. The journalist’s provocative question about ideological exclusion forced participants to confront uncomfortable truths about who these initiatives actually serve. Alexandre’s emphasis on measurement provided the empirical foundation showing how better data reveals hidden inequalities. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from celebrating progress to critically examining whether current approaches are truly achieving inclusive outcomes, ultimately pushing the conversation toward more nuanced and systemic solutions for the post-2025 WSIS framework.

How is it that the people have the skills to manage that platform? How long did the training take? Was it done by the already literate or you were able to take people from illiteracy to managing the platforms?

Speaker

Dorothy Gordon

Explanation

This question seeks to understand the practical implementation and training requirements for the Living First Language Platform, particularly how communities transition from illiteracy to managing digital platforms

How do we promote content development for those who have been left out, particularly regarding multilingualism?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap in multilingual content development and the need to include marginalized language communities in digital public goods

What are the ethical issues surrounding the use of information in digital public goods?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This highlights the need for further exploration of ethical frameworks and considerations when developing and implementing digital public goods

Who are the excluded ones from libraries and how can libraries address different political perspectives and avoid echo chambers?

Speaker

Journalist audience member

Explanation

This raises concerns about political bias and exclusion in library services, questioning whether libraries truly serve all community members regardless of political affiliation

How can we better engage industry in digital public goods development while addressing their concerns about regulation?

Speaker

Andrea Gita Millwood Hargrave

Explanation

This suggests the need for research on effective industry engagement strategies that balance innovation with regulatory compliance in digital public goods

How can we improve affordability benchmarks for meaningful connectivity beyond the current 2% of monthly income for 1GB of data?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

This challenges current affordability standards and calls for research into more realistic benchmarks that enable true meaningful connectivity

How can we develop alternative financial models for connecting underserved communities where traditional market approaches fail?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

This identifies the need for innovative financing mechanisms to achieve universal connectivity, particularly for marginalized communities

How can we ensure meaningful participation of the most disconnected populations in multi-stakeholder governance processes?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of inclusive governance and the need for research on effective methods to engage marginalized communities in digital policy-making