ITU’s Call for Input on WSIS+20

Summary

This discussion focused on the ITU’s call for input regarding the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, which will assess progress and determine the future of WSIS beyond 2025. Cynthia Lesufi, chairperson of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs, led the session alongside colleagues from ITU, Brazil, and Australia to gather stakeholder feedback on digital development progress over the past two decades.

Gitanjali Sah from ITU provided background on the WSIS process, which began in 1996 and has been coordinated by ITU with over 50 UN agencies to implement various action lines covering capacity building, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and enabling environments. The ITU maintains a stocktaking database and organizes annual WSIS prizes to showcase successful implementations. The Council Working Group has received 97 submissions from member states and stakeholders, which are being analyzed to identify both achievements and ongoing challenges in areas like connectivity, cybersecurity, and capacity building.

Participants raised several important concerns during the interactive session. A Canadian civil society representative expressed worry about decreased government engagement compared to earlier WSIS phases, while others discussed funding challenges facing the UN system and the need for greater private sector involvement. The discussion emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches at both national and international levels, with suggestions for encouraging voluntary participation and alternative funding mechanisms.

The session concluded with encouragement for continued participation in the input process, as all contributions will inform the UN General Assembly review scheduled for December 16-17, 2025, which will determine WSIS’s future direction.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review Process and ITU’s Role**: The discussion centered on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-year review process, with ITU serving as the lead coordinator. The ITU Council Working Group has issued a call for input, receiving 97 submissions from member states and stakeholders to assess progress and identify future challenges in digital development beyond 2025.

– **Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Government Participation**: Participants discussed the importance of maintaining strong multi-stakeholder participation, with specific concerns raised about declining government involvement (particularly Canada’s reduced presence compared to earlier years). The conversation emphasized the need for continued engagement from all sectors – government, private sector, and civil society.

– **Resource Mobilization and Funding Challenges**: A significant portion of the discussion addressed funding constraints facing UN processes, including the UN’s need to cut activities by 20-30%. Participants suggested solutions including increased private sector involvement, encouraging volunteerism, and creating member state contribution funds to support WSIS activities.

– **Implementation and Avoiding Duplication**: The conversation highlighted the need to use existing WSIS architecture to implement Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives rather than creating duplicate structures. Emphasis was placed on practical implementation of WSIS action lines to make real differences in people’s lives, not just producing reports.

– **National Reporting and Best Practices Sharing**: Discussion of the importance of country-level reports for the WSIS Plus 20 review, with templates available at wsis.org/review. Participants emphasized the need for comparative analysis of these reports to identify best practices, gaps, and areas needing improvement.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to gather stakeholder input and feedback on the ITU’s contribution to the WSIS Plus 20 review process, encourage continued participation in the call for input, and discuss challenges and opportunities for digital development cooperation beyond 2025.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was collaborative and constructive throughout, with participants showing appreciation for the WSIS process while acknowledging real challenges. The conversation maintained an encouraging and solution-oriented approach, with speakers building on each other’s points and offering practical suggestions. There was a sense of urgency about the December 2024 deadline for the UN General Assembly review, but this was balanced with optimism about the multi-stakeholder model’s resilience and adaptability.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Cynthia Lesufi** – Chairperson of the ITU Council Working Group on Nurses and SDGs

– **Gitanjali Sah** – ITU Secretariat member

– **Renata Santoyo** – Vice-chair of the ITU Council Working Group, from Brazil

– **Participant** – Representative from Australia, participant in the Council Working Group (appears to be William based on context)

– **Jennifer Corriero** – Works with an NGO based in Toronto, Canada; former part of Youth Caucus and used to be a key focal point in Canada from the government

– **Horst Kremers** – Chair of an international group of experts in risk information management, from Berlin, Germany

– **Mervi Kultamaa** – From Finland, representing ISOC Finland; former government representative and WSIS plus 10 coordinator at UNCTAD

– **Amali De Silva-Mitchell** – From the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies; participated at WSIS since PrepCom One

– **Wisdom Donkor** – Ghana IGF coordinator, speaking from Ghana

**Additional speakers:**

– **Professor Anki Goyal** – From India, Chairman of Association of Telecom IT (referred to as “Professor Gohel” at one point in the transcript)

# Comprehensive Report: ITU Council Working Group Discussion on WSIS Plus 20 Review Process

## Executive Summary

This discussion, led by Cynthia Lesufi, Chairperson of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs, focused on gathering stakeholder feedback for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The session brought together representatives from ITU, member states, civil society organisations, and technical experts to assess two decades of digital development progress and chart the course for WSIS beyond 2025.

## Background and Context

### WSIS Historical Framework

Gitanjali Sah from the ITU Secretariat provided comprehensive background on the WSIS process, which began in 1996 when Tunisia, a member state, proposed that there should be a framework for the WSIS process at ITU’s plenipotentiary conference. The summit was conducted in two phases – Geneva and Tunisia – with ITU serving as the natural lead coordinator due to its mandate and expertise in telecommunications and information and communication technologies.

The WSIS framework encompasses action lines covering critical areas including capacity building, cybersecurity, infrastructure development, and enabling environments. ITU coordinates implementation efforts with over 50 UN agencies, maintaining a comprehensive stocktaking database that demonstrates global-to-local implementation of digital development projects. The organisation also administers annual WSIS prizes to showcase successful implementations and organises the annual WSIS Forum, which has become a significant platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue.

### Current Review Process

The ITU Council Working Group has issued a comprehensive call for input to assess progress over the past two decades and explore the future of WSIS beyond 2025. This initiative has generated substantial engagement, with 97 submissions received from member states and stakeholders, published on the ITU website with some exceptions for stakeholders who requested non-publication.

The review process utilises structured templates available at wsis.org slash review, designed to capture achievements, identify gaps and challenges, and articulate future visions. A key deadline of 15th of July was mentioned for contributing to the elements paper. Gitanjali noted that the WSIS Forum did not initially appear in the elements paper, describing this as “a careless omission” that needed to be addressed in the review process.

## Key Discussion Points and Stakeholder Perspectives

### Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Government Participation

Renata Santoyo, Vice-chair of the ITU Council Working Group from Brazil, emphasised the evolution of multi-stakeholder engagement over the past two decades. She noted that the multi-stakeholder model has improved networking and communication compared to 20 years ago, creating more effective channels for collaboration between government, private sector, and civil society actors.

However, Jennifer Corriero from a Toronto-based NGO raised concerns about government participation, specifically noting that she did not see “any official government representative on the agenda” for the current week’s discussions. She observed that whilst Canada had over 50 people on its government delegation to WSIS in 2005, current official government representation appeared diminished.

In response to these concerns, it was noted that the ECOSOC president, who is the Canadian ambassador, had given a speech, indicating continued Canadian engagement at senior levels. Professor Anki Goyal also contributed supportive comments, describing WSIS as “the most wonderful platform for more than 20 years.”

### Resource Mobilisation and Financial Challenges

The discussion revealed concerns about funding constraints facing the UN system. Mervi Kultamaa from Finland, representing ISOC Finland, provided context by connecting the WSIS review to broader institutional realities. She highlighted that the UN faces financial constraints requiring delivery of more with less whilst maintaining effectiveness.

This financial reality prompted discussion about innovative resource mobilisation. Wisdom Donkor, Ghana IGF coordinator, advocated for greater private sector involvement in funding, arguing that private companies should contribute more as they benefit from global policy discussions and processes. He suggested that current UN funding policies may create barriers to private sector contribution and recommended examining these policies to increase engagement.

Amali De Silva-Mitchell from the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies, who mentioned participating “since the very initial PrepCom One,” offered a balanced perspective, emphasising that the spirit of volunteerism should remain important whilst encouraging private sector support for specific activities.

### Implementation Focus and Avoiding Duplication

A significant theme emerged around the need to focus on practical implementation rather than creating duplicate structures. Gitanjali Sah emphasised the importance of using existing WSIS architecture to implement Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives, avoiding duplication of efforts and maximising efficiency.

Renata Santoyo reinforced this perspective, arguing that WSIS action lines require broader interpretation and should focus on making real differences in people’s lives beyond just producing reports.

### Analytical Rigour and Best Practices

Horst Kremers, chair of an international group of experts in risk information management from Berlin, introduced methodological considerations. He argued that comprehensive reviews should include comparative analysis to identify what goals are positive, what goals are less successful, and where best practices can be identified. His intervention suggested that simply collecting reports without systematic comparison might not provide sufficient insights for meaningful policy development.

This prompted responses from both Cynthia Lesufi and Gitanjali Sah, who clarified that their templates do include sections for challenges and that analysis is planned.

## Areas of Consensus and Future Directions

### Leveraging Existing Architecture

Strong consensus emerged around the principle of leveraging existing WSIS structures rather than creating new mechanisms. Participants consistently emphasised that the established WSIS architecture should be utilised to implement new initiatives like the Global Digital Compact, particularly given resource constraints and the need for efficiency.

### Private Sector Engagement

Participants reached consensus on the need for increased private sector involvement, though they proposed different implementation approaches. There was agreement that private sector entities should contribute more to funding given their benefits from global policy discussions, whilst maintaining the inclusive character that has made WSIS successful.

## Recommendations and Action Items

### Immediate Actions

The discussion generated several concrete action items for stakeholders. Participants were encouraged to continue submitting contributions through the template available at wsis.org slash review and to submit national reports to strengthen ITU’s input to the UN General Assembly review scheduled for 16th and 17th of December.

### Engagement Strategies

Specific recommendations emerged for encouraging multi-stakeholder participation at domestic levels to sustain government engagement. The discussion also highlighted the importance of connecting civil society representatives with active government officials involved in WSIS processes.

### Analytical Enhancement

Participants agreed on the need to analyse received contributions to highlight successes, challenges, and recommendations for post-2025 implementation. This analysis should go beyond simple documentation to provide comparative insights and identify best practices.

## Conclusion and Future Outlook

The discussion demonstrated the continued relevance and adaptability of the WSIS process after two decades of implementation. Participants showed strong consensus on fundamental principles whilst engaging in constructive debate about optimisation strategies. The emphasis on practical implementation over mere documentation reflects growing sophistication in international digital cooperation.

Key challenges remain around resource mobilisation and sustaining government engagement across all member states. However, the multi-stakeholder model has proven adaptable and effective, with improvements in collaboration noted over the past two decades.

As the process moves towards the UN General Assembly review in December, the foundation laid by this discussion and similar stakeholder consultations will inform critical decisions about WSIS’s future direction. The discussion concluded with encouragement for continued participation in the input process, recognising that all contributions will inform the decisions about WSIS’s future role in global digital development cooperation.

Cynthia Lesufi: Hello, everyone. My name is Cynthia Alesofi. I’m the chairperson of the ITU Council Working Group on Nurses and SDGs. And really, it’s an honor to welcome all of you in this session. And with me, I’m joined by my esteemed colleagues, Gitanjali from the ITU, Renata as a vice chair of the ITU Council Working Group, and my good friend from Australia as a good participant of the Council Working Group work around this particular issue. And I really want to say to all of you that this is an interactive session. We welcome the input and feel free to say whatever that you want to say with regards to the ITU’s call for input. With this, I want to give Gitanjali as the ITU secretariat to say something about this. Thanks.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Cynthia. So basically, we wanted to, hello, Professor Gohel. You can join us on the table since it’s a small place. Yeah. So as you all know, basically, the WSIS process started in 1996 when in ITU’s plenipotentiary conference, Tunisia, a member state, said that there should be a framework of the WSIS process. And it was then that we took it. to the UN General Assembly. And in the UN General Assembly, it was decided that the WSIS will be held in two phases, one in Geneva and the other one in Tunisia. So Geneva confirmed the Geneva Plan of Action, where we came up with the framework of the WSIS action lines. And in Tunisia, it was more about enhanced cooperation, internet governance, and that’s where IGF was born. So the ITU was a very natural lead coordinator since we work on issues of communication and technologies. We have been coordinating the implementation of the WSIS action lines with the different UN agencies. So we work with more than 50 UN agencies to implement the different action lines. We lead the coordination of the action line on capacity building, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and enabling environment. We coordinate the WSIS forum every year. And internally within the ITU, we also have a system for member states to advise us on what we should be doing through our council working group that Cynthia chairs, and the plenipotentiary conference where we have a resolution 140. So we also maintain a WSIS stocktaking database where all of you are invited to submit entries every year. And this stocktaking database is a really good practice of sharing information amongst all stakeholders, countries, getting to know what you all are doing to implement the WSIS action lines. It’s connected to the SDGs. And now we’ve also provided a framework connecting it to the GDC, showing how the WSIS action lines are clearly implementing the GDC objectives. We also have the WSIS prizes that we… organized every year that showcase real good implementation of these action lines on the ground. You saw that they were awarded on Monday. Many of you here have been prizes champions and winners. And the last point, Cynthia, is this WSIS is really UN Digital Cooperation in Action. We have this group called the United Nations Group on Information Society that has been leading this coordination with more than 50 UN entities to implement the WSIS process. Now, what we hear from all the stakeholders is that in implementing the GDC, we should avoid duplication. We have limited resources. We should use the structure and the WSIS architecture, which was coined at the CSTD, to implement the GDC objectives and the process. GDC was really a booster to the WSIS process. It was a great achievement in terms of digital technologies. But we should use the existing WSIS architecture to implement it. That’s the message we have got from all of you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Back to you, Cynthia. Thank you, Ketanjali, for that background. I think it’s very useful. Perhaps before I give Renata and William the floor, I just need to take the colleagues through why the ITUs call for input. The Council of the ITU has actually, through a resolution, mandated the Council Working Group to issue a call for input into the review process and looking at the outcomes and the future of WSIS process beyond 2025 with the intention to assess progress, identify challenges, explore emerging trends in digital development. And this call was meant for member states and all stakeholders. And if I were to report as to how far we are with that call is that we have received about 97 submissions. And those submissions are currently published in the ITU website. But there are those submissions which are not published as a result of the stakeholders indicating that. that they don’t need those contributions to be published. So the other work that we have done together with the ITU Secretariat is to go through the contributions, which is really painting a picture of really showing the work that the ITU, through the UNJIS framework, has done with other UN agencies. And they are also highlighting the progress that we have made since 2003 to date in terms of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes. The contributions are highlighting that there’s actually a good progress in terms of the connectivity, the infrastructure. But they are also highlighting the fact that there are so many issues that are still lacking behind in terms of implementing the action lines. And the other components that these contributions are highlighting is the issue of cybersecurity. They’re also touching on issues of capacity building and many other issues. And so the intention, really, is to take all those contributions to then submit them at the UN General Assembly later this year. So with this, I want to give the floor to then Australia, William, to then say a few words about this process. Thank you.

Participant: Thank you very much for giving me the floor, Cynthia. And let me first thank both ITU for the process that it ran to prepare its members for the WSIS Plus 20 review. And obviously, Cynthia Renato, our chair and vice chair of the Council Working Group on WSIS. As you’ve outlined, Cynthia, the process has been quite extensive in terms of the preparations by ITU for the WSIS Plus 20 process, which I think has really shown a best practice. in terms of how the action line facilitators can support the WSIS Plus 20 review. And the Secretary General’s report is an excellent read if you haven’t had a chance to read it about how some of the work is going forth through ITU and through other action line agencies as well. I think the other thing to mention, obviously you talked about the 97 inputs from member states and other stakeholders. I think that is an excellent resource package as well. If you’re wanting to see where individual member states see the WSIS Plus 20 process going, those inputs are a really useful resource in that regard. Both showing the achievements that have been delivered so far, but also areas where further work may need to be done. So I think that’s a really, really important resource. The WSIS Forum, which we are all here this week, I think is an excellent demonstration of ITU’s contribution to the WSIS process in general. And also another important input into the WSIS Plus 20 review. And I know at our next council working group meeting in September, we’ll have an excellent opportunity to reflect upon this conversation here this week in Geneva. The other thing I just wanted to kind of draw out is the stocktaking database. And I know probably we have all had an opportunity to familiarize ourselves with that stocktaking database that ITU has been compiling over the last 20 years and some of the awards and prizes that many worthwhile recipients have received. But I think that stocktaking database really shows the global to the local. And what I mean by that is the opportunity. opportunity for global action through the WSIS to really be implemented on the ground through local and regional projects, in some cases very hyper-local regional projects. And the work that ITU does in that respect is really, really, really important, and I think that has really set a foundation upon which the call for inputs that Cynthia talked about was able to build upon. I might pause there. Thanks very much, Cynthia.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you, William, for such an extensive intervention in terms of, you know, looking at the process that we’ve been following in order to support the WSIS Plus 20 review. And I would now want to give the floor to my vice-chair, Renata, from Brazil.

Renata Santoyo.: Hi. Good afternoon. I just would like to add to what Cynthia and William said before, the importance about WSIS action lines and reflect about them, if we need some, maybe, how we’re going to interpret this WSIS action lines, because it’s a broader concept now, and I think it’s very important to have that in mind. Also about all this process with WSIS, we need to avoid duplication. And I think during this last 20 years, we had the opportunity to see how WSIS have increased the importance in evolution and importance of ITU coordinating all this process. I think it’s crucial to have in mind. Also how the multi-stakeholder model make a lot of differences, because we could see, like in the beginning, we didn’t have all this network created, people didn’t used to talk to each other, and now we can see a lot of difference 20 years ago. So I think this reflection is very important to think about the next steps for the WSIS that are going to be decided in the end of the year. All the achievements we want to have, all the inclusiveness, inclusive and transparency we saw this year, I think it’s also very important to take in mind. And I think that’s my words, I give back to Cynthia, and we’re going to be very happy to hear all of you. Thank you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you, Renata, for sharing your perspective on the ITU’s call in relation to the WSIS review process that is due to take place in New York later this year. And with this, I want to now open the floor for interaction for any reaction to this great work that I believe the ITU is doing, and of course supported by many stakeholders including member states in ensuring that there’s an efficient way of implementing WSIS action lines for achieving sustainable development. I now open the floor for any reaction, any comments to this. I see a hand there. And really, if you can just introduce yourself. I’m known as Professor Anki Goyal from India. Chairman of Association of Telecom IT. I’m not commenting on the subject, but on the views given by Geetanjali. Yes, WSIS has been the most wonderful platform for more than 20 years or so. Multi-stakeholder, inviting everybody, putting their views together, and we are very happy to be a part of that thing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Prof, for that encouraging intervention and for supporting the WSIS process that we, me as a chair, really believe in that, is doing a great work in terms of implementing the action lines and ensuring that we are able to achieve the sustainable development by 2030. Any other reaction? Yes, ma’am.

Jennifer Corriero: Thank you. My name is Jennifer Corriero. I work with an NGO based in Toronto, Canada. And in 2005, there was over 50 people on the Canadian government delegation to WSIS. And in 2003, I was part of the Youth Caucus and the government of Canada was very, very involved in the process. But I’ve noticed this week, I haven’t seen any official government representative on the agenda. And I want to know what I can do to encourage my government to be more involved. And I would love to see a report by the government of Canada, highlighting our progress in the last 20 years and also looking at our priorities into the future. I just, I used to be a key focal point in Canada from the government. They used to ask me for inputs. We had national campaigns all around the world and I know the challenges, like I know maybe some of the reasons why, but at the end of the day, like commitments are commitments and we have a lot to also be proud of. So it’s, I don’t want countries like Canada to fall off the map because we have a lot of value to add. And I’d say like in the early 2000s, we were leading in investing in these areas. So I just, it hit me now, like I don’t think some civil society people are here and I did meet with them. There are Canadians, a few Canadians here, but I don’t think there was an official speech at all. So that’s my question. What can I do to urge my country?

Cynthia Lesufi: Yes, I’m going to give the floor to Kitanjali as the IT Secretary to respond to those.

Gitanjali Sah: No, thank you so much. for your passion and it’s really nice to know that you were involved right from the beginning. We also heard your passionate speech about education and about children being involved in the process. I can reassure you that the Canadian government is very involved in the WSIS process, especially even within the ITU. They are very active. They attend our council working groups and here at the WSIS Forum, we even had the ECOSOC president who is the Canadian ambassador. So he very, and I was informed that he studied in Geneva. He’s very close to the WSIS process as well. So he gave a very nice speech highlighting the importance of the WSIS action lines, the WSIS process, and I do hope that he, as the president of ECOSOC, has also taken it back to New York, which is very important, colleagues. We really need all of you to be active in New York. It’s okay to say that WSIS is important, but all the decisions will be taken in New York on the 16th and 17th of December. There is an elements paper that the WSIS Plus 20 COFAQs have come up with, and I’m not sure if you’ve read it, but WSIS Forum does not appear in the elements paper. So when we asked, we were informed that as co-organizers, ITU, UNESCO, UNDP made an inquiry and we were informed that it was just a careless omission, but we definitely need to be more alert and ensure that we contribute to the elements paper. The deadline is, I think, 15th of July. It was extended. It was extended, right? Yeah, but we must really appreciate the COFAQs, the ambassador of Albania and the ambassador of Kenya. They were here all throughout the week, patiently listening to all of us, to all the stakeholders. So we really appreciate their kindness and their patience that they’ve been around. is we can put you in touch with the Canadian government officials who are very active right now because we have called for action the WSIS plus 20 reports. So we have country reports, we have stakeholder reports, so you should also submit one. We encourage everyone to submit WSIS plus 20 reports. South Africa was one of the first ones to submit their report. We have one from Saudi Arabia. I know William that Australia will submit one. So we encourage you to submit these. They don’t have a deadline because we really want you to contribute to showcase what we’ve done in these 20 years. So I’ll take, I have your email address

Cynthia Lesufi: and I’ll connect you to the Canadian government. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Kitanjali for that. I see William also want to take the floor. Just very briefly, so from the Australian

Participant: perspective where we’re working very closely with our Canadian colleagues, I think you’re right, Canada has a really strong story to tell and I don’t want to speak for my Canadian colleagues, but just to say you obviously have some really important and difficult connectivity challenges in terms of remote and rural areas. You have cultural and linguistic diversity. You’ve got a range of really interesting and really positive stories to tell and certainly from an Australian government perspective, Canada has been a really strong partner in the review process with us and as Kitanjali said, I’m sure we can make the connection to your government as needed.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you William for that and as a chairperson of the Council Working Group, I can also attest to what Kitanjali and William are saying. Canada is actually active and yes, and I think the same challenges that William has highlighted about what Canada is experiencing, I think it’s the same thing that South Africa is experiencing, but not only South Africa, but Africa as a region. So, I think we have common challenges. So, can I give the floor? Yes, please introduce yourself.

Horst Kremers: My name is Horst Kramers, Berlin, Germany. I’m chair of an international group of experts in risk information management, and I have a suggestion or a question on these national reports. As far as I understood here, it’s more or less a report on the state of the art, what have we done, as we thought. In a review, in a complete review, there also should be some part of comparison, where are we, what goals are positive, what goals are not so positive. Governments sometimes are a little bit reluctant with this, so it’s good to have stakeholder private or public stakeholder additional reports. But what I see from a different process I observed in another program of United Nations was that it’s absolutely difficult to make analysis and comparison analysis of these reports. This is a list of reports, nice, you can read them. It would be better if some whosoever, person or institution or something, gets a task of seeing the difference, seeing the best practice, seeing, you see this management-oriented thing, not just what you have done. This is very important, no question. But nevertheless, even society is much more interested in is it positive or is it negative, what could be done, where it should be faster, where should it be deeper, where should it be broader, whatsoever. So just as a suggestion, I know it’s hard work if you would do it. society would appreciate.

Gitanjali Sah: I must say that the template in the, and I’m, and I’m, you will correct me if I’m gonna say something that is wrong here. The report that, I mean, the template that was published by the ITU in relation to this 20 year review reports, it does actually give all stakeholders, member states, not only member states, but also the private sector, the civil society, to make contribution, but in that template, they also are giving space for challenges, you know, the issues that you are raising, to highlight them. The report is not necessary to talk about the good things, but it also gives you an opportunity to highlight those challenges and to then also give recommendations as to how, you know, can we deal with those challenges. And I know that the Secretariat of the ITU, working with myself, we are in the process of actually analyzing, if possible, you know, because it’s quite a huge, you know, information that is contained in this report. You know, we are in the process of actually analyzing and the analysis, the intention of the analysis is to, of course, highlight the successes, but also highlight the challenges. And what is it that can be done to then address those challenges beyond 2025? Thanks. Gitanjali, do you wanna add on what I’ve said? Cynthia, you’ve covered most of it. I just want to give you all the web address of where you can find these templates. It’s wsis.org slash review. Very simple. So instead of forum, just replace it with and this plus 20 reports. You can also see samples of what we received. in 2014 and 2015. We received them for 10 years of WSIS as well, quite a few of them. And 20 years of WSIS, we should have more of them. And as Cynthia mentioned, the templates has various sections. What have you achieved? What are the main gaps and challenges? And what is the vision that you see for the future? So once we have all this information, maybe we can do a nice analysis of that as well. But for that, we need as many of you submitting the report as well. We can put them into nice covers and we can also promote them on your behalf. We can promote your work as well.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thanks, Kitanjali, for that. Anyone asking for the floor? Yes, ma’am.

Mervi Kultamaa: Yes, thank you. My name is Mervi Kultamaa, I’m from Finland. I’m representing here ISOC Finland, but I have also been government representative as well as the WSIS plus 10 coordinator at UNCTAD. I think there was a very valid point on how to sustain government’s interest in WSIS. And one of the approaches that could be taken would be to encourage governments to submit multi-stakeholder contributions to the review. I think that’s what we did as Finland 10 years ago. And that would be one possibility to try to get your government more engaged to show that there is lots of interest in the non-governmental side for this kind of activity. The second point that I wanted to make is the geopolitical situation and the sort of the financial crisis that UN faces at the moment. And I’m just wondering as at the same time when the governments are negotiating about the 20 year review, there is also negotiations on the UN 80 reform. And we all know that the UN needs to cut its activities by 20, 30%. And I’m just wondering how, when we think about all these gaps what more needs to be done, how we actually take into account that the UN might actually look a bit different next year, with reduced capacity, mergers and changes that will need to take place. And it’s kind of a challenge when all this happens during the same year. But it would be nice to know your reflections about it.

Cynthia Lesufi: Yes, yes, indeed. That’s quite a very useful reflection to look at. And I believe that the review process itself will take that into consideration. And as Kitanjali has suggested, perhaps it will also be useful if you go to the website and then you include this, you know, you get the template and then you submit. Because submission, as Kitanjali has said, it’s going to assist us, or the ITU, rather, to receive this information so that it then forms part of the issues that the ITU will be then submitting to the UNGA review process. And again, as Kitanjali has mentioned, it’s also going to be helpful if, you know, most of you and your governments, your organizations, you also form part of the discussions that will be happening in New York with regard to the review itself. Any? Yes? Yes, take the floor. Is there anyone asking for the floor? Oh, yes, Yuna. Do you have any words you’d like to say?

Participant: Just in response to your excellent questions, I think your point about multi-stakeholder engagement at the domestic level in terms of supporting governments, I think, really, really important. It’s a process we have adopted in Australia, and I’m glad to hear that. We’re perhaps stealing from our Finnish friends in terms of that, and I think it would be incumbent on all of us to encourage governments to take forward a multi-stakeholder approach. I know South Africa’s doing similar, I know a number of other countries doing similar. On your question about the geopolitical situation, the kind of financial constraints that the UN finds itself in, I can only echo my colleague Cynthia’s comments around that being taken into account. But I think WSIS is one of those frameworks that has shown its ability to adapt to different circumstances over time, and the multi-stakeholder approach I think gives it a lot more resiliency than processes that are just tied to the regular UN budget, which is really the core challenge at the moment. And there is, I think, a significant opportunity through the WSIS Plus 20 review to work out how we deliver more with less, how we continue to drive efficiencies, how we continue to deploy the resources that we have in the most effective way, and how we continue to attract new resources, whether that be from the private sector, whether that be from civil society, the technical community, governments, other resources to closing the digital divides and building those digital transformation and digital development gaps. And I would say that’s probably a real strength of the ITU. Potentially it’s not there, so I can praise her. But I think that’s a real strength of the ITU, being able to work through and prioritise where resources can be best deployed across the world to close some of those digital development gaps. And I know once we have an outcome at WSIS Plus 20, then it’ll be an opportunity for for ITU members, through the working group, through other places, to work through how we can best deliver on the agreement that’s achieved in December.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thanks, William, and indeed, the issue of the resource, resource mobilisation is one of the issues that is coming out in terms of the analysis of the contributions that we have received to date, you know, through this process, the resource mobilisation is key to really close those gaps that we are identifying in, you know, in different regions, in different countries. This is what the member states and other stakeholders are also raising, William. Yes. Any, okay, I see there’s a hand online. Please come through and introduce yourself.

Wisdom Donkor: Thank you very much. My name is Wisdom Donkor. I’m speaking from Ghana. And then a motion for… No, we can see the hand online. Can you please unmute yourself and take the floor? Of course, I’ll unmute myself. Can you hear me? Okay. Then… Hello? Okay. Can you hear me? I’ve got a hand. Any other person wanting to make a comment on the issues we are… Okay. Mr. Moderator, can you hear me? Are they speaking? Yeah, because Wisdom’s hand is up. Okay. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Wisdom. I’m speaking from Ghana, and then I’m the Ghana IGF coordinator. Yes, I just want to contribute to the UN funding. Yes, I will say that I think there is much funding if we try to involve… and we try to involve everyone. Over the years, I’ve been on the map before and then it looks like UN has policies on funding. And at most time, those kind of policies, I think makes it difficult for private sector to even come in and say, okay, they want to also contribute to whatever processes that is going on within the UN. So we need to look at that and if possible, open up to the private sector for them also to come in. I’m saying this because all that we are discussing at a global level, whatever forum or whatever meeting goes to the benefit of this private sector. So we need to open up for them to also come in, whatever benefit that they are looking for, whatever policies that we are discussing and then putting together. They need to also contribute somehow. And also, we also need to open up to the community. We have civil societies. There are more organizations that are willing to come in and support. And finally, I think the UN can also take it upon itself to engage the member states. And if there is an agreement, a member state can contribute towards a fund that can be utilized whenever we want to have any such event, activities or global, so that this issue of lack of funding and all of that should be behind us. Because there are issues that we need to be solved. We’ve progressed, we’ve done much more, but much more needs to be done. And then we all need to come together and then put in effort and solve these problems once and for all. And I’m just hoping that by 2030, I mean, we should be able to address. some of the issues and make progress before the 2030. Thank you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you Wisdom for this useful intervention in terms of resource mobilization. How was it? You know, the suggestions that you’re making in terms of how we can actually use the very same process or approach that we are advocating for multi-stakeholder approach to solve the issue of resource mobilization and something that my colleague William here has actually touched on. Your intervention is quite useful. Can I now give the floor to Amali?

Amali De Silva-Mitchell: Thank you so much. Amali De Silva Mitchell. I’m from the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies. I actually have participated at WSIS since the very initial PrepCom One. I just want to say during those times, we really were voluntary based. And I just want to stress that, that, you know, we go through pockets of lack of funding through the decades, but you know, that spirit of volunteerism is very, very important. And I really think people really should promote that spirit of volunteerism. And I know it’s very strong in the UK and other places as well. And I know originally the civil society was just completely volunteer based. And even now the IGF, people are donating their time there. There are of course, lots of paid people. But I think if the private sector can be open to providing a little bit of funding to places like IGF and so forth, and various nonprofit groups for WSIS, I think that would be really good. But I think the main thing is to have that great spirit of volunteerism. It’s very inclusive bottom up. Thank you so much.

Cynthia Lesufi: Thank you so much for that. Also interesting, I would say, suggestion in terms of how we can address the issue of funding by actually encouraging the private sector in particular to volunteer in terms of putting, I would say, resources on the table to address these challenges. This is quite an interesting one and very useful intervention. Any other intervention or question in terms of? of the issues raised here. I see no one asking for the floor. Perhaps this is time where I would then ask my colleague, William, to then provide closing or parting words in terms of the experience and the issues that are raised here and how do we then can move forward with regard to the ITU’s call for input process. Thanks.

Participant: Thanks very much, Cynthia, and what a really good conversation that’s kind of touched on a number of issues in terms of participation of countries, in terms of multi-stakeholder participation, in terms of resourcing and capabilities. I think all issues that have been raised in the ITU call for input process and in the Secretary General’s report, which is an input to the co-facilitators as well. So I think all really positive and I think some of the challenges that we’ve got to tackle over the next five months between now and the 16th of December. I think from an ITU perspective, there’s an opportunity to continue to have these conversations within the ITU context for both governments and the ITU sector members, but there’s also an opportunity for ITU to take the outputs of the conversations and look at meaningful actions it can do to continue to deliver on the WSIS vision in the way as an action line facilitator, as a coordinator of UNGASS and in its other many roles that we have ahead. So probably as a closing remark, I would only encourage everyone to continue to have those conversations. continue to express your ideas and views, whether that’s to your government, whether that’s to the ITU directly. I’m sure Cynthia won’t mind if you express those ideas through to her and Renata as the Council Working Group on WSIS as well. So I’d only just encourage the more voices that are heard, the better and the stronger the process is going to be, and the better and the stronger the outcome is going to be. And I think ITU continues to have a good role in ensuring that outcome that we receive in December is an outcome that we all want to see. Thanks very much,

Cynthia Lesufi: Cynthia. Thank you, William. Yes, indeed, the call for input is still open. So as William has said, can we, you know, we encourage all of you to continue to make the input, I mean, to respond to the call. And as William has said, to then continue the conversation, even at the UN level.

Renata Santoyo.: Renata? Thank you, Cynthia. For the future of the WSIS, I just, I hope that we can bring everybody to the table more and more and speak the same language, because sometimes I think different sectors doesn’t like speak the same language between each other. So I think it’s very important. And from ITU perspectives, I hope to see another WSIS next year. And the WSIS Action Line is implemented in a proper way to really make some difference in people’s life, not only making reports, because I think that’s the real thing that we want to see, some efficient implementation of WSIS Action Line. And thank you, the presence of everybody here. And thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Cynthia Lesufi: Yes, thank you very much for Renata and William for those closing remarks. And from my side, I really want to thank you for your active participation and for the, I would say, useful points that you have raised. And I’m also hoping that we can receive them in writing, some of the intervention that you’ve made here, because it can only make the ITU’s contribution to this review process more stronger only if you raise your voice and you keep on submitting this contribution. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you for watching!

Agreement points

WSIS architecture should be leveraged to avoid duplication and maximize efficiency

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Mervi Kultamaa
– Participant

Arguments

Need to avoid duplication and use existing WSIS architecture to implement Global Digital Compact objectives

UN faces financial constraints requiring delivery of more with less while maintaining effectiveness

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Summary

All speakers agree that existing WSIS structures and processes should be utilized rather than creating new mechanisms, especially given resource constraints and the need for efficiency

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential and has proven effective

Speakers

– Renata Santoyo.
– Mervi Kultamaa
– Participant

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model has significantly improved networking and communication compared to 20 years ago

Multi-stakeholder contributions at domestic level can help sustain government interest in WSIS process

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize the value and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder engagement in WSIS processes, noting improvements in collaboration and recommending its expansion

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Private sector should contribute more to funding and resource mobilization

Speakers

– Wisdom Donkor
– Amali De Silva-Mitchell
– Participant

Arguments

Private sector should be more involved in funding as they benefit from global policy discussions and processes

Spirit of volunteerism remains important foundation, with private sector encouraged to provide funding support

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Summary

There is consensus that private sector should increase financial contributions to WSIS processes, given their benefits from the outcomes and the ongoing resource challenges

Topics

Economic | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of comprehensive analysis that goes beyond just documenting achievements to include challenges and comparative assessment for meaningful insights

Speakers

– Cynthia Lesufi
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Template for reports includes sections on achievements, gaps/challenges, and future vision to enable comprehensive analysis

Analysis and comparison of national reports needed to identify best practices and areas requiring improvement

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlight ITU’s effective coordination role and comprehensive approach to WSIS implementation as exemplary practices

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Participant

Arguments

ITU coordinates implementation with over 50 UN agencies and maintains stocktaking database, WSIS prizes, and annual forum

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers are concerned about maintaining government engagement and suggest strategies to encourage continued participation in WSIS processes

Speakers

– Jennifer Corriero
– Mervi Kultamaa

Arguments

Canada was heavily involved in early WSIS but current government participation appears reduced, requiring encouragement for continued engagement

Multi-stakeholder contributions at domestic level can help sustain government interest in WSIS process

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Volunteerism as a sustainable foundation despite funding challenges

Speakers

– Amali De Silva-Mitchell
– Wisdom Donkor

Arguments

Spirit of volunteerism remains important foundation, with private sector encouraged to provide funding support

Private sector should be more involved in funding as they benefit from global policy discussions and processes

Explanation

Despite discussing funding challenges, there’s unexpected consensus that volunteerism should remain central while simultaneously advocating for increased private sector funding – showing a balanced approach to resource mobilization

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Need for practical implementation over reporting

Speakers

– Renata Santoyo.
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

WSIS action lines require broader interpretation and should focus on making real difference in people’s lives beyond just reporting

Analysis and comparison of national reports needed to identify best practices and areas requiring improvement

Explanation

Both speakers, from different perspectives, converge on the need to move beyond documentation to meaningful analysis and real-world impact, showing unexpected alignment on implementation effectiveness

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on leveraging existing WSIS architecture, maintaining multi-stakeholder approaches, increasing private sector funding, and focusing on practical implementation over mere reporting

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment on key issues. The agreement spans structural, procedural, and resource-related aspects of WSIS, indicating mature understanding of challenges and shared vision for solutions. This consensus strengthens the foundation for the WSIS Plus 20 review process and suggests good prospects for collaborative implementation of outcomes.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing UN funding constraints and resource mobilization

Speakers

– Mervi Kultamaa
– Wisdom Donkor
– Amali De Silva-Mitchell

Arguments

UN faces financial constraints requiring delivery of more with less while maintaining effectiveness

Private sector should be more involved in funding as they benefit from global policy discussions and processes

Spirit of volunteerism remains important foundation, with private sector encouraged to provide funding support

Summary

While all speakers acknowledge funding challenges, they propose different solutions: Kultamaa focuses on working within reduced UN capacity, Donkor advocates for changing UN policies to allow more private sector funding, and De Silva-Mitchell emphasizes maintaining volunteerism while seeking private sector support for specific activities.

Topics

Economic | Development

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current reporting and analysis mechanisms

Speakers

– Cynthia Lesufi
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Template for reports includes sections on achievements, gaps/challenges, and future vision to enable comprehensive analysis

Analysis and comparison of national reports needed to identify best practices and areas requiring improvement

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are discussing the same reporting process, yet they have different assessments of its adequacy. Lesufi, as the Working Group chair, defends the current template and analysis process, while Kremers, as an external expert, questions whether the current approach provides sufficient comparative analysis for meaningful insights.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows minimal direct disagreement, with most differences centered on approaches to resource mobilization and the adequacy of current analysis mechanisms. The main areas of disagreement involve funding strategies and the effectiveness of current reporting processes.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with constructive differences on implementation approaches. The disagreements are primarily about methods rather than fundamental goals, suggesting a collaborative environment where speakers build on each other’s ideas rather than opposing them. This indicates strong consensus on WSIS objectives with healthy debate on optimization strategies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of comprehensive analysis that goes beyond just documenting achievements to include challenges and comparative assessment for meaningful insights

Speakers

– Cynthia Lesufi
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Template for reports includes sections on achievements, gaps/challenges, and future vision to enable comprehensive analysis

Analysis and comparison of national reports needed to identify best practices and areas requiring improvement

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlight ITU’s effective coordination role and comprehensive approach to WSIS implementation as exemplary practices

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Participant

Arguments

ITU coordinates implementation with over 50 UN agencies and maintains stocktaking database, WSIS prizes, and annual forum

ITU’s preparation process for WSIS Plus 20 review demonstrates best practice for action line facilitators

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers are concerned about maintaining government engagement and suggest strategies to encourage continued participation in WSIS processes

Speakers

– Jennifer Corriero
– Mervi Kultamaa

Arguments

Canada was heavily involved in early WSIS but current government participation appears reduced, requiring encouragement for continued engagement

Multi-stakeholder contributions at domestic level can help sustain government interest in WSIS process

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The ITU has successfully coordinated WSIS implementation with over 50 UN agencies for 20 years, demonstrating effective multi-stakeholder collaboration

97 submissions were received for the WSIS Plus 20 review, showing good progress in connectivity and infrastructure but highlighting remaining gaps in cybersecurity and capacity building

The existing WSIS architecture should be used to implement Global Digital Compact objectives to avoid duplication of efforts

Multi-stakeholder engagement has significantly improved over the past 20 years, creating better networks and communication channels

Resource mobilization is a critical challenge that requires innovative approaches including greater private sector involvement and volunteerism

The WSIS stocktaking database effectively demonstrates global-to-local implementation of digital development projects

National reports should include comprehensive analysis comparing achievements, challenges, and best practices rather than just listing accomplishments

Resolutions and action items

Continue accepting submissions for the WSIS Plus 20 review process through the template available at wsis.org/review

Submit contributions and national reports to strengthen ITU’s input to the UN General Assembly review in December 2025

Encourage multi-stakeholder participation at domestic levels to sustain government engagement

Connect Canadian civil society representatives with active Canadian government officials involved in WSIS processes

Promote the call for input process and encourage broader stakeholder participation in the review

Continue conversations and express views to governments, ITU, and the Council Working Group on WSIS

Analyze received contributions to highlight successes, challenges, and recommendations for post-2025 implementation

Unresolved issues

How to sustain consistent government participation across all member states in WSIS processes

How to address UN financial constraints and 20-30% budget cuts while maintaining WSIS effectiveness

How to better integrate private sector funding and overcome UN policy barriers to private sector contributions

How to ensure WSIS Forum and processes are properly represented in UN negotiations and elements papers

How to conduct meaningful comparative analysis of the growing number of national reports and submissions

How to ensure different sectors ‘speak the same language’ and improve cross-sector communication

How to balance the need for more resources with the founding spirit of volunteerism in WSIS processes

Suggested compromises

Use existing WSIS architecture to implement Global Digital Compact objectives rather than creating new parallel structures

Combine government and stakeholder contributions into multi-stakeholder national reports to increase engagement

Leverage both paid resources and volunteer contributions to address funding challenges

Focus on delivering more with less through improved efficiency and resource deployment while seeking new funding sources

Encourage private sector funding support while maintaining the inclusive, bottom-up volunteer spirit of WSIS

Provide templates and frameworks that allow for both achievement reporting and honest assessment of challenges and gaps

Jennifer Corriero’s observation about Canada’s declining participation: ‘In 2005, there was over 50 people on the Canadian government delegation to WSIS… But I’ve noticed this week, I haven’t seen any official government representative on the agenda… I don’t want countries like Canada to fall off the map because we have a lot of value to add.’

Speaker

Jennifer Corriero

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it highlighted a critical trend of diminishing government engagement over time, despite initial strong participation. It brought a concrete, personal perspective to the abstract discussion of stakeholder participation and raised concerns about sustaining momentum in international processes.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from theoretical frameworks to practical challenges of maintaining government engagement. It prompted immediate responses from both Gitanjali and William, who provided reassurances about Canada’s continued involvement and offered concrete solutions. The comment also led to a broader conversation about how to encourage multi-stakeholder participation at the national level.

Horst Kremers’ critique of the review process: ‘In a review, in a complete review, there also should be some part of comparison, where are we, what goals are positive, what goals are not so positive… It would be better if some whosoever, person or institution or something, gets a task of seeing the difference, seeing the best practice, seeing, you see this management-oriented thing, not just what you have done.’

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it challenged the methodology of the entire review process, suggesting that simply collecting reports wasn’t sufficient for meaningful evaluation. It introduced a critical analytical perspective that questioned whether the current approach would actually lead to actionable insights.

Impact

This intervention elevated the discussion from process mechanics to evaluation methodology. It forced the organizers to defend and explain their analytical approach, with both Cynthia and Gitanjali responding to clarify that their templates do include sections for challenges and that analysis is planned. The comment introduced a more critical, academic perspective to the discussion.

Mervi Kultamaa’s connection between geopolitical realities and WSIS planning: ‘The geopolitical situation and the sort of the financial crisis that UN faces at the moment… when the governments are negotiating about the 20 year review, there is also negotiations on the UN 80 reform. And we all know that the UN needs to cut its activities by 20, 30%… it’s kind of a challenge when all this happens during the same year.’

Speaker

Mervi Kultamaa

Reason

This comment was exceptionally insightful because it connected the WSIS review to broader institutional and financial realities facing the UN system. It introduced a sobering external context that the discussion had not previously acknowledged, forcing participants to consider how their idealistic goals might be constrained by harsh budgetary realities.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the tone of the discussion from optimistic planning to realistic constraint acknowledgment. It prompted William to respond with thoughts about ‘delivering more with less’ and leveraging the multi-stakeholder approach for resilience. The comment introduced a strategic planning dimension that hadn’t been present before.

Wisdom Donkor’s systemic critique of UN funding policies: ‘I think there is much funding if we try to involve… everyone… UN has policies on funding. And at most time, those kind of policies, I think makes it difficult for private sector to even come in and say, okay, they want to also contribute… whatever benefit that they are looking for, whatever policies that we are discussing and then putting together. They need to also contribute somehow.’

Speaker

Wisdom Donkor

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified structural barriers within UN policies that may be inadvertently limiting funding opportunities. Rather than simply calling for more resources, it diagnosed why resources might not be flowing effectively, suggesting that the UN’s own policies could be part of the problem.

Impact

This comment deepened the funding discussion by moving beyond resource scarcity to examine systemic barriers. It prompted Amali De Silva-Mitchell to respond with reflections on volunteerism and private sector engagement, creating a more nuanced conversation about different models of resource mobilization and participation.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what began as a procedural briefing about the ITU’s call for input into a much more substantive discussion about the fundamental challenges facing international digital cooperation. Jennifer Corriero’s personal observation about declining participation opened the door to discussing sustainability of engagement. Horst Kremers’ methodological critique elevated the analytical rigor of the conversation. Mervi Kultamaa’s geopolitical context-setting forced realistic constraint acknowledgment, while Wisdom Donkor’s systemic analysis of funding barriers provided concrete diagnostic insights. Together, these interventions moved the discussion from celebrating achievements and describing processes to critically examining structural challenges, methodological limitations, and external constraints. The comments created a more honest, complex, and strategically-oriented dialogue that better prepared participants for the real challenges ahead in the WSIS+20 review process.

How can individual stakeholders encourage their governments to be more involved in the WSIS process and submit national reports?

Speaker

Jennifer Corriero

Explanation

She specifically asked what she could do to encourage the Canadian government to be more involved after noticing reduced official participation compared to previous years

How can comparative analysis and management-oriented evaluation be incorporated into the national reports to identify best practices and areas needing improvement?

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Explanation

He suggested that reports should go beyond listing achievements to include comparative analysis, identifying what works well and what needs improvement, which would be more valuable for society and decision-making

How will the UN’s financial crisis and potential 20-30% budget cuts affect WSIS activities and the implementation of the 20-year review outcomes?

Speaker

Mervi Kultamaa

Explanation

She raised concerns about how simultaneous UN reform negotiations and budget constraints might impact WSIS capacity and activities, especially given the timing coinciding with the review process

How can UN policies be modified to better enable private sector funding and participation in WSIS processes?

Speaker

Wisdom Donkor

Explanation

He suggested that current UN funding policies may be barriers to private sector contribution and recommended examining these policies to increase private sector engagement

What specific mechanisms can be established to create a sustainable funding model involving member states, private sector, and civil society organizations?

Speaker

Wisdom Donkor

Explanation

He proposed that member states could contribute to a dedicated fund and that there should be better engagement with private sector and civil society for sustainable financing

How can the multi-stakeholder approach be strengthened to ensure different sectors communicate more effectively and ‘speak the same language’?

Speaker

Renata Santoyo

Explanation

She identified communication barriers between different sectors as an area needing improvement for more effective collaboration

How can WSIS action lines be implemented more effectively to create tangible differences in people’s lives rather than just producing reports?

Speaker

Renata Santoyo

Explanation

She emphasized the need to move beyond reporting to actual implementation that creates real impact for people