Knowledge Café: WSIS+20 Consultation: Towards a Vision Beyond 2025

Summary

This transcript captures the final session of the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe, a week-long series of discussions examining the future of the World Summit on the Information Society beyond 2025. The session was moderated by William Lee from Australia, with support from three table facilitators who guided small group discussions among participants representing various stakeholder groups including government, private sector, academia, and civil society.

The discussion was structured around three key questions that participants explored in rotating table conversations. The first question focused on developing a collective vision for WSIS beyond 2025, with groups emphasizing the need for greater inclusivity, meaningful participation from underrepresented communities including youth and indigenous voices, and stronger connections between policy-level discussions and on-ground realities. Participants highlighted the importance of maintaining WSIS’s multi-stakeholder approach while addressing new challenges like artificial intelligence and digital sovereignty.

The second question examined how WSIS can continue supporting global development goals, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals. Groups stressed the importance of local implementation, capacity building at grassroots levels, and better integration between WSIS action lines and SDG frameworks. They emphasized the need for measurable impact, practical outcomes, and leveraging WSIS’s political visibility to drive development objectives.

The final question addressed strengthening WSIS implementation mechanisms, including UN agencies coordination, stock-taking processes, and the Internet Governance Forum. Participants identified challenges with UN system silos, funding constraints, and the need for better collaboration rather than competition among agencies. They called for more horizontal structures, regular performance reviews, and strategic partnerships to avoid duplication of efforts.

Throughout the discussions, recurring themes emerged including the need for better outreach and communication about WSIS processes, addressing digital divides, incorporating environmental considerations, and ensuring that affected communities are included in decision-making rather than merely being discussed. The session concluded with participants encouraged to contribute their ideas to the formal WSIS review process, demonstrating the collaborative spirit that has characterized the WSIS framework for two decades.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This was the final session of a week-long WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe, focused on developing a collective vision for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) beyond 2025. The discussion aimed to gather input for an outcome document that will feed into a UN General Assembly review in December 2025, with participants from multiple stakeholder groups discussing how to strengthen and evolve the WSIS process.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Expanding Participation and Inclusion**: Participants emphasized the need to broaden WSIS engagement beyond current attendees, particularly focusing on underrepresented communities, indigenous voices, youth, people with disabilities, and marginalized groups. There was discussion about creating more accessible participation mechanisms, including childcare facilities and sign language interpretation.

– **Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Implementation at Local Levels**: A key theme was moving WSIS implementation from high-level policy discussions to practical action at national, regional, and community levels. Participants advocated for strengthening Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) and National/Regional Initiatives (NRIs) to create sub-national and local-level implementation mechanisms.

– **Integration of Emerging Technologies and New Challenges**: Discussions centered on how WSIS can adapt to address new technological developments, particularly AI, while maintaining its foundational principles. Participants noted the disconnect between AI for Good summits (which attract large audiences) and WSIS processes, suggesting better integration of new technology streams into existing WSIS architecture.

– **Improving Coordination and Reducing Silos**: Significant attention was given to strengthening coordination among the 39 UN agencies involved in WSIS implementation, moving from competition to collaboration, establishing liaison mechanisms, and addressing sustainability challenges amid reduced funding and UN reform pressures.

– **Enhanced Measurement and Accountability**: Participants called for better metrics to measure WSIS impact, more transparent reporting on achievements and gaps, stronger links between WSIS action lines and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and engagement of top-level consultants to improve measurement methodologies.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating genuine engagement and expertise. While there were critical observations about current limitations (such as lack of visibility, funding challenges, and organizational silos), the tone remained solution-oriented and optimistic about WSIS’s potential. The atmosphere was informal yet professional, with facilitators encouraging open dialogue and emphasizing that there were “no wrong answers.” The energy remained consistently high across the two-hour session, with participants actively contributing ideas and building on each other’s suggestions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jennifer Chung** – ITU colleague, involved in organizing the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe

– **William Lee** – WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government, moderator from Australia

– **Jimson Olufuye** – From Abuja, Nigeria, private sector representative, table moderator

– **Joyce Chen** – From APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre), table moderator

– **Isabelle Lois** – Table moderator (specific role/organization not clearly mentioned)

– **Participant** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members with various backgrounds including government officers, academia, private sector, development agencies

**Additional speakers:**

– **Francesca** – Academia sector

– **Vera Bedard** – Government sector

– **Pamela** – From Malaysia, government officer

– **Kyle** – From California

– **Marcelo Martinez** – Works in support groups, has been following WSIS conversations for 10 years

– **Brian** – Background in information/libraries field

– **Nelia** – From Georgia

– Various other unnamed participants from different countries including Malaysia, South Africa, Czech Republic, and representing different sectors (government, private sector, academia, development agencies)

# WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe: Final Session Report

## Executive Summary

This report documents the final session of the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe, moderated by William Lee, WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government. The session brought together diverse stakeholders including government representatives, private sector participants, academia, and civil society members to discuss the future of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) beyond 2025. The discussion was structured around three key questions explored through rotating table conversations, with findings intended to inform the UN General Assembly review process.

The session highlighted both the continued relevance of WSIS’s multi-stakeholder architecture and key challenges requiring attention, including the need for greater inclusivity, enhanced local-level implementation, improved coordination among UN agencies, and better integration of emerging technologies into existing frameworks.

## Session Structure and Methodology

The session employed a rotating table format with participants moving between three discussion tables, each facilitated by experienced moderators: Jimson Olufuye from Nigeria representing the private sector, Joyce Chen from APNIC, and Isabelle Lois. This structure enabled participants to engage with multiple perspectives on each key question.

The discussion was organized around three fundamental questions:

1. What should be the collective vision for WSIS beyond 2025?

2. How can WSIS continue to support global development goals?

3. How can WSIS implementation mechanisms be strengthened?

Jennifer Chung from ITU provided organizational support, emphasizing that the session aimed to capture diverse viewpoints to feed into the broader WSIS review process.

## Key Discussion Themes and Findings

### Vision for WSIS Beyond 2025

Participants emphasized that WSIS’s multi-stakeholder architecture remains effective after two decades. However, they stressed the urgent need to integrate emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, data governance, and cybersecurity, into the existing framework rather than creating parallel processes.

Jimson Olufuye highlighted the importance of attracting “all categories of stakeholders including more private sector, youth, and people with special needs for meaningful participation.” Joyce Chen emphasized the need for “full participation by underrepresented and marginalized communities, including indigenous voices” while maintaining rights-based and human rights-centered approaches.

A significant concern emerged regarding WSIS’s visibility compared to newer initiatives. One participant asked, “Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS?” This observation sparked discussion about communication strategies and public engagement, with participants noting that despite WSIS being a foundational framework for digital governance, it lacks the visibility of more recent initiatives.

The concept of transitioning from “Homo sapiens to Homo digital” was discussed as part of the evolving digital landscape that WSIS must address.

### Supporting Global Development Goals

Participants advocated for leveraging the existing WSIS-SDG mapping framework while focusing implementation at national, sub-national, and community levels. The WSIS stock-taking database, containing 15,000 projects, was mentioned as a valuable resource for tracking implementation.

Jimson Olufuye proposed strengthening “IGF and National/Regional IGFs to move toward sub-national and local community engagement.” Joyce Chen emphasized the need for “train-the-trainers programmes and grassroots capacity building to connect policy level with on-ground realities.”

Due to the urgency of 2030 targets, Olufuye suggested establishing “quarterly engagement processes instead of annual ones.” Participants also discussed the fundamental need for electricity access as a prerequisite for digital access, highlighting infrastructure challenges in many regions.

### Strengthening Implementation Mechanisms

The most critical discussions centered on strengthening WSIS implementation mechanisms. Participants identified significant coordination problems among the 39 UN agencies involved in the UN Group on the Information Society (UNGIS), with Joyce Chen observing that there is “more competition than collaboration” among agencies amid reduced funding.

Participants proposed several concrete solutions:

– Creating liaison positions between different WSIS mechanisms (IGF, UNGIS, WSIS Forum)

– Engaging external consultants for measurement and evaluation rather than allowing agencies to assess their own work

– Updating UNGIS structures to include partners currently in observer status

– Implementing train-the-trainers programs for grassroots capacity building

The discussion also referenced the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines as relevant to improving participation mechanisms.

## Areas of Agreement and Key Challenges

### Strong Agreement Areas

Participants agreed on several fundamental issues:

– The urgent need for greater inclusion of underrepresented communities

– The necessity of focusing implementation at local, national, and community levels

– The importance of integrating new technologies like AI into existing WSIS architecture

– The need for better coordination among UN agencies and reduced competition between them

### Critical Challenges Identified

**Visibility and Awareness**: WSIS lacks public awareness despite being a foundational framework for digital governance, as highlighted by comparisons with the AI for Good summit’s popularity.

**Funding and Sustainability**: Joyce Chen highlighted “sustainability challenges due to reduced funding” and the impact of UN reform and budget cuts on maintaining human resources and institutional continuity.

**Inclusion Barriers**: Structural barriers prevent marginalized communities from participating in WSIS processes. Specific accessibility needs were discussed, including childcare facilities (referenced in the context of ICANN meetings) and sign language interpretation.

**Coordination Challenges**: The scale of coordinating among 40 agencies was questioned, with participants debating whether meaningful collaboration is realistic without structural changes.

## Practical Recommendations

Participants proposed several actionable solutions:

– Quarterly rather than annual engagement processes to meet 2030 targets

– Liaison positions between different WSIS mechanisms to improve coordination

– External measurement and evaluation to ensure objective assessment

– Enhanced train-the-trainers programs for grassroots capacity building

– Better integration of emerging technology discussions into existing WSIS frameworks

– Improved accessibility measures including sign language interpretation and childcare support

## Conclusion

The final session demonstrated both the continued relevance of the WSIS framework and the need for significant improvements in implementation and coordination. Participants showed commitment to preserving WSIS’s proven multi-stakeholder approach while adapting to contemporary challenges including emerging technologies, funding constraints, and inclusion barriers.

The discussion revealed a community willing to engage in honest assessment of current limitations while working toward practical solutions. The emphasis on local implementation, better coordination, and enhanced accessibility provides a foundation for WSIS’s continued evolution in addressing global digital governance challenges.

The outcomes of this session will contribute to the formal WSIS review process and inform discussions leading to the UN General Assembly review, building on the collaborative multi-stakeholder approach that has characterized WSIS for two decades.

William Lee: you should get in there, get data science in your belt, do this, get your car picture. Afternoon, everyone. My name is William. I’m from Australia. I’m moderating this session with our great ITU colleagues. Make sure you grab a box for lunch. I think there’s a few different varieties around, so if you haven’t got the one you’re looking for, there’s a couple spares at the back. We’ll actually kick start the discussion in about 10 minutes once everyone’s had a chance to eat. So dive in, and we’ll get started in about 10. Cheers.

Audience: Hi. Oh, yes, because there are only three facilitators, but more tables than there are facilitators. I don’t know if you can see it but it is much thinner. So yes, thank you. Yeah, but it’s not true. I mean, you wouldn’t know what it does. So I hope to have family in the future. Yeah. So I’m going to give it to you. Are you going to give it to me? Is it your birthday? It’s my birthday. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It’s just wonderful to have you here. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much for joining us in this finale of the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe that we have organized for the whole week. And this Knowledge Cafe, particularly, is very important, I think, because it talks about the vision. And over the past few days, we have been engaging in focused discussions throughout several topics. On Monday, we began with the voices of youth. Hearing directly from the next generation about the vision and expectation. And then on Tuesday, we reflected on the two decades of WSIS, including the implementation of the WSIS action lines. On Wednesday, we highlighted the role of the multi-stakeholderism to sustain the WSIS process. And yesterday, we also heard the stories on the ground. So the success stories implemented by the WSIS stocktaking and prizes. And today, in our final cafe, we look ahead, of course, celebrating 20-year milestones. It is something that we are proud of. And we would like to hear more from you about what is the vision of the WSIS process beyond 2025. And I think this Knowledge Cafe will be really critical. And it will be captured as well, of course, the summary of this session in our outcome document. And it will be feed into the UNGA review in December 2025. And I hope your appetite has been filled up and you’re ready to engage with us. We have a few questions that we would like to ask with you and engage and having the conversations. So I have my colleague with me, William, from Australia, who will be moderating today’s session. And over to you, William. Thank you.

William Lee: Great. Thanks, everyone. And thanks for joining us. I’m just going to stand over here so I’m not getting blinded by the projector. And I think we have a slide that’s got some questions for today’s session. But first, let me introduce myself, my name is William Lee, I’m the WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government. So you will have seen me probably around either IGF or the WSIS Forum and I hope to have some really great conversations here today as well. We also have three excellent moderators who are sitting hidden in plain sight on your tables who will be helping me out in terms of today’s session. So we have Joyce, Joyce I don’t know if you want to put your hand up, excellent. We’ve got Isabel, Isabel’s there and I think Jimson, are you number three for us? Excellent, yeah fantastic. So if you’re sitting on a table that doesn’t have one of those three people on it and you’d like to join one of the facilitated conversations, you’re absolutely more than welcome to move up and I’ll be looking after this table, table right here, otherwise you’re more than welcome to participate as well at the back. As my colleagues from ITU have introduced, this session is really about the future of WSIS, which is fantastic to see, our collective vision beyond 2025 and the purpose of this session is really to unpick where we would like to see WSIS go forward. So we had lots of conversations this week about where WSIS is, all of the achievements to date, some of the areas where there are future opportunities or are future areas of focus and today is really about pulling all of that together and saying where do we collectively want to take that forward. I don’t know if we can get the slide with the questions on it, perhaps, I’m looking, excellent. So we’ve got three questions, we’re going to have about 10 minutes each for each. question and then after each question we’ll come back and hear from each of the groups as to what you think is the answer and outputs to each question. On your tables you’ll find some pens, you’ll find some pieces of paper, you’ll find some cool stickers which I think are pretty cool so if you haven’t collected a sticker I would encourage you to take that but really we’re looking for all ideas, all points of view, all different perspectives. There’s no right answer, there’s no wrong answer, there’s no answer that is silly, there’s no answer that shouldn’t be shared so take the opportunity to have some conversations amongst colleagues and through that dot down some of those key points and then after about 10 minutes we’ll regroup, hear from each of the groups as to kind of what is coming up to the surface for you. Our first question today is what is our collective vision for WSIS beyond 2025 and I know we have the WSIS vision itself for a people-centred inclusive and development orientated information society. I think this question is inviting us to kind of unpack that a little bit more, what is it that we want to see out of the WSIS process going forward. I will foreshadow the other two questions that are coming so you can start to think about them. The second question is around how WSIS can help to continue to achieve global development goals and the third is around the WSIS mechanisms that implement them. We will come back to those questions though as we go through the day but for now I would encourage you to continue to have lunch, continue to have some conversations. Focusing in on this first question, and then start to jot down some of those points. And at about half past 12, we’ll regroup and I’ll invite our facilitators, Joyce, Jimson, Isabelle to join, to take the microphone and to share what their groups have come up with as well as anyone else that wants to join before we move on to our next question. Does that sound like a good plan? Yes? Excellent, cool. I’ll leave you to it and come back to you in about 10 minutes. Enjoy their lunch and enjoy some great conversation.

Audience: That’s a team. That’s a team. Because that group is a team. Team. You can pull the chair over. I’ve got the angle. But this is my chair, I can find it for you. Oh, it’s cool. I’ll pull my chair for you, okay? Oh, okay. The first thing I would like to suggest that we should have is Kyle, okay? The one that we could look for. I think we have a lot of wonderful, very valuable volunteers that we’ve had. Just facilitating. So it’s really just a free conversation, a couple of questions, but I want to frame this question a little differently just to help guide our thinking a bit better. Let’s first get ourselves pointed out. I might start, I know we only have about 10 minutes, but I might start first just introducing ourselves and getting to know one another. And then we will go to the questions. We believe the world will still be amazing, 20, 30 years, 40, right? So how do we see? Let’s go. First, we’d like to start by introducing ourselves first. We still have ideas. We still have, hello everybody, my name is Brian. We still have new technology, blockchain, AI, we’ve got something new. So what is the vision about you? Would there be more and more participation at the World Bank, or old people participation? So what is your vision? My vision is that we should attract all categories of stakeholders, so more private sector can be represented in this crisis. And also, of course, youth, but also more representations and concrete actions from the various categories of the stakeholders. Okay, very good. So deepening multi-stakeholder participation. And effective partnership, really avoid duplication and involving this platform, all the stakeholders that are able to produce results in terms of what we want to achieve. Thank you. So meaningful participation and implementation of the vision. Okay, so any other ideas? I mean, I think maybe we can go from like a modeler to the modeler and the promoter to the information, meaning targeting all kinds of the population everywhere. Okay, the special population or the elderly, or even targeting the children, the younger children or the special group of population. Let me ask you a question. Targeting children. The moment you have one, so it’s not going to be… No, no, no, no, no. I think we can go for the information platform. Okay, that reminds me. You know, in ICANN, that’s Internet Corporation for Children and Young Adults, there was an agitation that, okay, there should be a place for babies so that their mothers can also come. And after the agitation, I found the tradition, every ICANN meeting, you have a baby section, so you have babies. Are you thinking directly, even here? So like, yeah, no, there’s no telling who they are. Are you thinking? No, no, no, no, no. Okay. No, no, no, no, no. Meaning? I think it’s just a history, and I’m contributing to the work that I’ve done. For her, for us, for me. But I am an individual. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Okay. And Luke, you didn’t mention what your background was, apart from, you know, being in the ITU. Is this? Yeah. So let me ask you a question. It’s an actual question. Apart from that, yes, you’re taking that. What is, in terms of education, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, oh, thank you. IP addresses, the accounts, the numbers, these are the things that allow your advisors to help. And we do that regionally. So across the entire Asia-Pacific region, that’s what you’re thinking. And as for my role in the UNFET, I am a Strategic Relations Senior Advisor. So that’s me. You will meet on the website, because I’m actually directed in the UNFET by Jennifer, but she’s already gone back. I think I will give you half an hour to get to the questions that you think I’ve answered. I think the question asks, what is our collective vision of visits beyond 2025? But I think to help frame our thoughts, we might want to tackle this question first from what is your vision of what visits might look like beyond the people who get to come home from that visit. So anything that you want to add to that? Yeah, because I think if this book is going to be published when we organize a visit, there will be a sign language translator for the visitors, next time for the staff, also they can join. So I think that’s a good idea. I don’t have a sign language at the moment, so I’m very concerned. Okay, Nelia from Gurdia, but not in Gursi. In Gursi, no. Okay, I think for the visitors, maybe we can start from Francesca. Okay, sorry, I will have to ask you to mention your name. My name is Francesca. Francesca, okay. I’m Bedard. Vera Bedard, okay. Yes. What do you do? I work for the government. The sector, are you government, private sector? No, I said academia. Academia. Private sector. Private sector, okay. I am in the development agency, German development agency. Okay. Oh, okay. I’m a government officer. Okay. Yeah, I’m a government officer. Yeah, I work for the government. Me too. Okay. I work for the government. We are from Malaysia. Oh, okay, wonderful. My name is Bedard. Bedard. I don’t know. Kyle. Kyle. Yeah, from California. Malaysia as well. Oh, wonderful. I’m Pamela. Pamela. Nice to meet you. Oh, nice to meet you. What was your first name? Sorry. My son. My son. My son. So, welcome. Thank you so much. Thank you. You too. Thank you. So, we can. Thank you. In fact, when that happened, it got far more than we knew. We didn’t know what to do with it. Now that we have, I think. It’s a shortcut. The main reason. We must reach all our obligations when we reach the 20th anniversary. We can say that. We’re kind of close to the 20th anniversary. Because we watched the 20th anniversary. Yes, exactly. And that’s a close call. That’s a good mark on us. And it’s on the world. 21% has reached the 20th anniversary. We have five years ahead. And we’re definitely 75% or more not to reach the 20th anniversary. We have thousands. This is close to what I’ve done. I think we’re close to the 20th anniversary. It was the general. But it was not the 20th anniversary. We have been talking about it for a long time. And that’s a long time. We have been there. But it’s easier to say that it’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. How do we bring the people with us? I would let you all echo our thoughts. You have to try a little! No. Ok? This might be a roundabout, but I know there will be some people who come here and I’ll let them around. I’m just saying because I did not terminate all of my digital work, I went to a public meeting that morning, but because that was all over, I wanted to seek a more interstitial sense of friendship that was still in place, especially in this space. I just happened to, almost by coincidence or happenstance, run across all of the Elysium sites and I thought, this sounds pretty good. So I think at least then I get a sense as to what is the Elysium process and what is the organizing entity from the UN or ITU, what is it that we’re focusing in on to help get this word out, the massive building in the moment. And it took me five days to figure that out. For instance, my dad had to go back in my generation, but we don’t know anything about all this stuff. The US is one of those countries that would be overflown. In one plenary they mentioned a very good point, that AI requires a lot of energy, and we also need to think about the marginalized groups. So it’s a lot of marginalized groups. A lot of gallery at levels of government. So from my generation, I think it’s important to get close and hear their voices. One voice that I do not see at all here is indigenous voices. So in the US you have a multitude of Native American tribes that are not hearing. And the reason I’ve been told is they’re not hearing as well as the work is done by the government. And if the government doesn’t get the word out, then they’re not participating. Canada, yeah. Right. Do you think, would you like to introduce yourself to the group? Sure. My name is Marcelo Martinez. I work in the support groups. I’ve been following this conversation for, you know, 10 years now. It is very hard to understand all this. The conflicts and everything that’s going on. And we have, at this moment, through domestic conversations, we have a very holistic model of work that the government has established. We walk the talk, I can say that. Not many countries do that. And we’re engaging in conversations right now, exactly, with a view to establish international relations. That’s a great name. What is the name again? So that I can credit you. We are trying to find some optimism and optimism around it. Thank you. And just on that, for those of you who might be quite new to this process, there are also sort of parallel processes that have happened in the Middle East. It was discussed when you were here. For example, there was a very, very great initiative that was met on the aisle last time. An initiative of which came out the Sao Paulo Multidimensional Guidelines. And I encourage you, as you are starting on this journey, to read that as well, because it does contain an approach towards how we align multidimensional and multistakeholder processes together. And it does give quite specific recommendations for how that can be done, in order to achieve that multistakeholder vision that we have in the WSIS, for example. So that’s one thing that I could highlight. And thank you very much to your community for convening the global community to do that as well. Go ahead. Sorry. Sorry, that was next on the aisle. Plus 10, because that’s 10 years after the original next Monday aisle. And then the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines. Sorry. My first time here in Geneva. I had a good conference. And what I realized, what I’m asking myself is, why is the one so detached from the other? Because if you’re not into the field, you won’t hear of the WSIS process. And it’s a very important process, because everyone uses ICTs, everyone uses AI right now, every child uses it, but no one knows that there’s a whole European process around it. It has been more than 20 years. It actually started in 2003. Yeah. So now they start counting from Tunis in 2005. So now it’s 20 years from Tunis. But in Geneva, the first WSIS was 2003. Yeah. And it was 98 when they called for it, so it’s even older. Yeah. But the effective big summit, you know, with all the heads of state, there were 3,000 people. Yeah. So I think that’s a missed opportunity, because the AI for Good summit, it’s somewhat better known, of course. It attracts all the public. So why is it not connected stronger to the UN process? Why is it so detached from each other? The AI for Good summit, yeah. It’s totally separated, also different style. Yeah. And no one over there talks about WSIS here at the center stage. Yeah, I know. So why don’t they do this? Because we are also complaining always about lack of multistakeholderism and so on. Rightly so. But if it’s not that known, I mean, everyone knows about the climate conferences, for instance. Like every child knows about them. It’s also a UN process. Why doesn’t everyone know about WSIS? Yeah. Yeah. It’s a valid question. That’s also one of my ambition. Like I’m wishing that everyone knows about WSIS and become engaged. Well, my interest being that, because following your concern and your question, WSIS is not so discussed at the national level, mostly. Most countries don’t discuss it, mostly. So I think there has to be something of a commitment or improvement in the WSIS policy reviews to enable government to encourage this, to discuss it at the national level. Because it’s so important, transparent and standard space. I don’t know if there’s a potential to change it, given the potential of many countries and boundaries that are starting to evolve, where the Internet could be different. So when you have major players that perhaps are interested in taking different boundaries, then the Internet becomes very important. And then, with the lack of indigenous voice, in South Africa, they report. And I’m telling you, all of Africa, 54 countries, all of them are the tribes. And I can tell you that they reach principally because they would have to be informed on digital sovereignty, as opposed to, in my country… I also share all the issues. In my country, we have to make them feel like we are the government. We need to close the borders. We’ve got to check on all of those things.

William Lee: So let’s finish up the last of the bits. the conversations that you’ve been having about this first question, and I hope, and what I’ve heard, wondering, hearing, listening into bits of conversations around the room, is that there’s been some really, really good conversations so far. I’m going to stand at the back here this time to hear from all of our tables as we go through. So, gather your thoughts. I’ll give you 30 seconds to think about what you’re going to say, moderators, and then we’ll turn to the groups. Let’s turn first to this table over here, and Jimson, I don’t know if you want to kick us off in terms of updating. I think there’s a button on the microphone that will, just sort of up here next to the, Jimson, up the top somewhere. Yep. Okay, great. All right, thank you, Williams,

Jimson Olufuye: and I recognize the member of my team here. It has been a very robust discussion on the question, what is our collective vision of WSIS beyond 2025? My name, again, is Jimson Olufoye from Abuja, Nigeria, private sector. Well, everybody contributed, as mentioned. Firstly, it says that we hope that WSIS, going forward, will be able to attract all stakeholders, more stakeholders, so even youth, so that they can mainly participate in the process and also be involved in the implementation of all the action lines and targets. In particular, there was an emphasis that it should be borderless, that is, we should open it up much more, even to children, such in a way that we can encourage maybe in next WSIS meeting, mothers with their babies can come. So WSIS can prepare a care center, okay, so that those that are just giving birth, they can also come and their baby will be here, and the baby will be getting to hearing the vibe gradually. So they know the future. And then also we look at the youths that should be engaged in terms of solid education from 12 years old, in some countries 18 years, 16 years, but the suggestion was made that from 12 years old, we should really begin to groom young ones for WSIS activity or the ICT activity, and also give opportunity to people of special needs and produce tools for them. It was observed that in WSIS this year, there was no support for people with disabilities so much, like those with hearing issues, although we saw something in AI for Good, you know, but here it was lacking in WSIS. And then WSIS should continue, okay, so that we can continue to push to reach our goal. We have not reached the goal yet, because even SDG, according to U.N. reports, is about 21 percent achievement right now, and we are targeting 2030. And so we need to bridge the divide, make an effort. Then reaffirm the commitment to Geneva and Tunisia documents, okay, we need to reaffirm it. And then there is an interesting one that, you know, we are the Homo sapiens, and we don’t know what will happen in 20 years, 30 years, 50 years’ time. Maybe we’ll become Homo digital, okay? So maybe some chips will be embedded, and we’ll be able to… transmit, talk more at advanced stage. But however, it is said that as we build capacity, connectivity, we should not lose our sense of creativity, our sense of agility, such that we can even continue to use our brain. When you go to a gym, you exercise your leg and leg. But brain need to be exercised. So we need to ensure that whatever solution, however it is down the line, we must not lose our ability for reasonability, to think and to be engaged. Not that you just go to AI immediately for everything. And so that sensibility needs to be there. Many of our people still lack electricity. It’s important we need to work on it, even climate issue. And education need to be transformed for positive use of technology to preserve, yes, creativity, as I mentioned. Then there was a fundamental question raised. Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS? Actually, I went to AI for good. The place is massive. Oh, my. It’s massive. If you haven’t been there, you have to be. It’s massive, this one. So why is it so? Because WSIS is the grandfather. WSIS is the main, main superset. And AI for good just came. And yet it’s, you know. So what do we need to do? And we got a good language here that maybe in part of the WSIS Plus 20 review, there should be a line to give more visibility to WSIS, even at the country level. Because of course, there was a reference to South Africa. They produced a report, 20-year report. But you know what? Out of the 54 countries in Africa, only South Africa produced a report. So that underscored the need for that kind of visibility if we want to really achieve something. We have our scribe. who kind of fill in the gap where I’ve missed something. Yes, ascribe. Okay, to the left, to the center. Thank you.

William Lee: Thank you. What a great, what a great group and what a powerful statement. I love the idea of getting kids involved early and like keeping them involved. Well, what’s that? In a few generations, we’ll just have like a WSIS generation. I don’t know, that sounds really good. I love the idea of engagement. Obviously, Geneva, TUNE is really, really important and obviously reducing barriers to participation, very powerful as well. I’m gonna turn to Isabel now, who’s gonna read out the outcomes from this next group. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thanks, Will. So we had a lot of discussions based on trying to first understand what does collective vision mean in a sense that we are different stakeholders here around the table. So we have different maybe thoughts, priorities, or visions of what WSIS is, what it’s delivering and then what it could deliver after the review. So after 2025. So that was the first part of our conversation, but we did come to sort of a few agreements or a few thoughts that I can share with all of you. So the baseline is that the WSIS architecture, so more than just the WSIS Forum, but all of the parts of the architecture is quite robust, it functions quite well and it has delivered in a good manner, in a good fashion for the past 20 years, but there’s still a lot of work that remains and we have new challenges. So the thing that we hope, or at least around this table, our small collective vision is that the WSIS architecture could integrate the new challenges, be that subject matter challenges in the sense of AI, data, cyber, information integrity, working on digital device or things like that, that’s one part, but then also working. on how they can be implemented throughout the structure, so these are sort of the two points that we raised. And then we had a few questions. How can we make sure that that process of delivering on these new challenges functions in a good way? Do we need to have indicators to be able to measure how far we’ve gotten in those implementations? How can we make sure that we are able to have a snapshot of seeing everything that is going on, seeing what has been done, what remains to be done, what should we focus on next? So that was one of the sort of questions we raised here. The other part is including the multi-stakeholder perspective and elements throughout the system and throughout implementation as well, and that goes with also using and utilizing every single aspect of the WSIS family or architecture, so that means using the IGF, using the NRIs, and making sure that all of the local regional elements are also included within the WSIS sort of architecture, because we have principles, we have ideas at a higher level, UN level, but then the work needs to be done in local communities, in regional aspects, and we have to make sure that these two parts are connected in a good way. We discussed as well sort of the questions of the GDC. How are we dealing with the GDC, the new political commitments we have there within the WSIS architecture? Should we have a joint implementation? How are we thinking about sort of fitting those two potential systems together? I think nobody wants a duplication, but it still remains a bit unclear on how we can fit them in the best way together. I mean, Switzerland has many ideas, but I don’t want to impose them as ideas from the table, so I will refrain, but please come and talk to me if you want to hear them. And then maybe the last point that I want to emphasize is the point on inclusion. We also had a good start of a discussion there. I think we could have gotten much further, but that inclusion is something that we should keep in mind and bear in mind now for the review, but also moving forward. I mean, the people-centered aspect of WSIS is very relevant, is something that we want to highlight and want to focus on, but making sure that we have inclusion, be it by the different countries, the regional groups, be it by having multi-stakeholder inclusion. So I think that, and also inclusion then within each topic. So I think that’s the last point I want to emphasize, and I hope I wasn’t too long.

William Lee: Excellent. Thanks, Isabelle, and to this group as well. Some really interesting kind of linkages already emerging around kind of taking action, still, still, WSIS is still relevant, inclusion, people-centred, finding ways to break down barriers to participation. I wonder what we’re going to hear from this group. And I see you have a microphone, Joyce, so go ahead.

Joyce Chen: Hello everyone. I’m Joyce from APNIC. Nice to meet all of you. And yes, we had a lot of very similar ideas. I loved Jimson’s energy, but I can only aspire to it. So I think this group started off, you know, sort of talking about actually who is not in this room. And we talked about, you know, that there needs to be a lot more capacity building, there needs to be a more outreach for people to know more about WSIS, just the fact that it’s even happening, I think the word is not exactly out there for a lot of the underrepresented communities. So the people who have been doing this work and have done it for many, many years, those who have followed WSIS from the beginning, it’s kind of become almost our livelihood. But there are so many other underrepresented communities who are out there who are not even aware that there are decisions and policy discussions that are being made on their behalf that they may not be aware of. So that was how we started off. And so we went into really thinking about, well, there needs to be full participation by all, particularly those who are underrepresented or marginalized communities. We talked a little bit about indigenous voices and how they could be better heard. And then we also talked another point about inclusion of all voices. So one is about participation, but the other one is about inclusion. And that really also looks at digital equity slash equality, depending on how you want to see it. that the WSIS needs to continue being rights-based, needs to be human rights-centered. And I fully appreciate that my table is actually a microcosm of multi-stakeholderism itself. Everybody has a different sort of stakeholder group and very, very nicely bringing all these issues to the fore. And then because of that, we then also talked about the fact that the WSIS needs to continue its nature of multi-stakeholderism. And how we could use, for example, the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines to complement, to understand the approach that complements multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism. We also talked about the WSIS needing to be open, transparent, all these very good values that it has had all these years, and to continue having these values. We did also talk about other issues that were not just directly on this question, but kind of touching other questions. I will just very quickly run through. One was about how we would contribute to the GDC and how to make the GDC more coherent and easy to understand. The other was, where should AI sit? And our table felt that it would be very important for the AI to be included into the WSIS, and that it should be covered by WSIS as well. We also did start talking about growing geopolitical tensions and the creation of boundaries. As we know, the internet is boundary-less. And so there is a huge potential for internet fragmentation because of these tensions that have been growing in terms of digital sovereignty, for example. That’s my summary, but if I had missed anything out.

William Lee: Great. Thanks, Joyce. And thanks to this whole group as well for some really insightful reflections around capacity building, human rights, the challenge of AI, I think that ties in really nicely with Jimson’s point and this group’s point about how AI is. so much bigger than WSIS, and WSIS being the grandfather of all digital tech, which I think is a great kind of linkage here, multilingualism, sorry, multistakeholderism, and the São Paulo Guidelines as well. Just quickly, because I think a lot of the points that have our kind of group talked about have also been raised by other tables, but our group also talked a little bit about bridging digital divides, having meaningful connectivity, ensuring that there is a universal level of connectivity, addressing things like unilateral coercive measures, managing community-led development in the public interest with resources that support that, and with a shared commitment and understanding. Supporting digital literacy was seen as really, really important through both leaders and through education, and building digital leadership and strong digital governance, and we had a really great example of sort of a train-the-trainers type model going on in Singapore and the Philippines, which was a really interesting piece. We talked a little bit about the opportunity that WSIS could bring and the opportunity to leverage regional organisations to help take forward some of the WSIS vision, the need for it to continue to have a broad mandate and to implement the GDC’s commitments through the WSIS process, to mainstream ethics across the digital landscape. We talked a little bit about this and kind of the need to have holistic thinking, not to think in silos, and also to kind of bring in the issue around the impacts of big tech and the responsibility there. And then finally, we talked a little bit about the importance of kind of linking ethics and impact, and having really clear impacts as to what WSIS is delivering and what WSIS still needs to deliver. and that WSIS is just another angle to tackle some of these really complex digital challenges. So I think that really ties well and neatly with kind of all of the comments that we’ve heard from all of the tables. I’ve got lots of notes, so that’s really great. We might turn now to our next question, which is how can WSIS continue to help achieve the global development goals? And you can read that as the SDGs, or you could read that as broader global development objectives or regional development objectives. We’ll try and keep this one a little bit shorter, because I think this is kind of a little bit of a, what we would say in Australia, a rabbit hole. Basically like we could spend hours talking about this topic and not get to the conclusion. But have a think about perhaps what are some of those, maybe the top three, top three things that WSIS can do to help achieve the global development goals as you see it. Let’s give us about seven to ten minutes and then we’ll regroup and we’ll hear the top three from each group. So we’ll pause there, get the conversations going, continue to have lunch and we’ll regroup shortly. Cheers.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you. Even though I’m not a learning specialist, but I’ve heard a lot of things about WSIS, so what’s your view on it? I’ll be actually the architect of the team, not me, because this is what it’s all about. So as I was saying, my field is information, so I always believe, I’m always an advocate for libraries, so they deal with information. I believe that WSIS is more information, but that’s a small area. It deals with the broader aspect of it, so I think like WSIS is really relevant in all aspects, especially right now, navigating an information divide. The only trickery there is how to connect in their specialized field or research to understand what the public wants to find, whether it’s science, citizen science comes in, and one of those things that actually what we’re doing right now is speaking of people passing something, and it’s the bad news. We were saying that you should not just be good at research, but you should be good at science, so that’s kind of the core of our work, which I thought, I can’t really point out on global development goals, although I’m in humanities, but I think that information encompasses everything, so it’s there everywhere. It’s nice to be here at the international level, so I think an organization like WSIS is kind of playing together like this, so I can have them on board, so I think it’s nice to be here. That kind of ties in as well with the point we were talking about in the previous question, and perhaps an area of opportunity, is that by understanding, is that kind of open door that we can support. I wanted to emphasize on the how, about a lot of things that we’re talking about, is that how WSIS can actually bridge the researchers, the policy makers, to the general public, because our goal is to reach everyone, not only inclusivity, but all the diversities I can mention. This probably would be a platform, imagine being open to work. WSIS could be a platform to reach out to other communities. I like that, and WSIS is a good one. I think one of the strengths of WSIS really is brand recognition, right? It’s a good strategy to kind of showcase. It could mean SDGs, or it could mean a broader framework, so it’s a generic term. But I think the question is really saying, how can WSIS help to achieve development goals outside WSIS? It’s not going to help develop a goal in a general way. And so, in terms of where the conversation is going to go from here, we’ve talked about with the model of the whole climate, between people-centred, community-centred, business-centred, business stakeholders. Probably not relevant much. Thank you. We’ve talked about the measurement, measurable impact of how great practices, we’ve talked about with it being a platform to break down barriers, make it easier for people that are interested in development. So, yeah, I think that was typical. How many of you have come here? Are you aware where we’ve got to? Yeah, okay. I haven’t got to add anything on the wrong note. So, let’s throw him in the deep end. Oh, yeah, exactly. Well, of course we know the answers now. We’re just waiting to hear what you think about it. On a regional or a country level, I’m going to throw the question to you. How do you think, you see, I’m fairly new and I’m not really focusing on it, but how do you think we move forward to help achieve the global development goals, whether it’s SDGs or whatever? What WSIS does is very well known, what WSIS is perhaps very unknown, in the sense of everyone understands digital, everyone understands, and as a professional to provide for success is also to self-diagnose a threat of digital venture capital. The fact of the matter is that WSIS is quite enabling of that action, I think, in the ventures towards video output, not the kind of framing behind it, and so I think this is, in a sense, people like us that are interested in this type of framework and in searching the output and that’s where politicians and other people get interested with evolving those new computers down the school, whatever they’ve already invented, and they get access to knowledge that they might not have had, the skill of a technician, those are the types of projects and I think, for me, the opportunities for those in the digital context and on a digital level, and we need to develop together, and hopefully they are concentrated in every area, so we can go down, we can develop, we have this chance to develop, I hope that it will ignite WSIS’s discussion on some of these kind of, I don’t know, that’s my thing, it’s on the level of the… Yeah, because looking into the role of the strategies and how WSIS can achieve the global development goals is also, actually, also is important to look into the essence that there’s always a challenge within WSIS to be able to achieve their goals, to achieve how to strategize in order to fulfill their roles in global development. Just a thought, I was thinking that, like, yeah, I’m thinking, yeah, the first question I have in mind is, like, I’m doing this from my perspective, it’s not really very knowledgeable, like, I knew what had passed them, but the next thing that I do is, like, there are probably some challenges inside, so I like the idea of how we would pull down the fence, and so what I’m trying to do, with no, basically, bearing in mind that WSIS, I mean, I support, so I’m trying to teach myself as much as I can now, so that I can pass that on to some of the other groups, and these terms can educate their groups, these are more as citizens, we’re not talking about techie people, we’re talking about everyday people, yeah, but we can’t ask for things if you don’t know what they’re like, right, so like everyone, you need to know it first, so that I already, like, three months ago, I was doing a workshop, and this day, I’m basically in the Czech Republic, but the Czech Republic, but I knew more than they did, and that’s all we need to know, so, but actually, our, the scholars, we are a research institute, the scholars compose the resources of this institute are studying Middle Eastern and European languages, so that covers languages, history, and what not, international relations, and so forth, so this is my smile, it’s interesting, but it isn’t when you tell them, but they don’t understand that, so that’s what I’m trying to do now, but you need to know, yeah, I’m thinking, so that the word that comes up here is Czech Republic, you know, so, because I’m also trying to, I’m trying to say, you don’t have to know all of it, but we can think of our own processes, but we can play that role in the other things around, especially in the UN and other international organizations that have the gas, so, and yeah, so what happens is that there’s still elements of hallucination, but again, it might change, it could be changing, as I was saying right now, I did a study six months ago, and I don’t know if I can do it again, but it’s a center of differential intelligence, learning of itself, so, but yeah, that was the initial study, so, really, I mean, I’ve heard some people say, oh, I’m familiar with this process, but I can do this, I can do this, so, you know, I think, oh, speaking, identifying, oh, speaking, identifying, so, I think, oh, so, I suppose, I think, simplify is going to be a key word, I don’t know that, it’s not very accurate, I did, I think we spoke to say AI before, and it was not yet very accurate, but yeah, it retrieves information and subjects and summarizes, gives you the picture, so, it’s useful, but not accurate all the time, there’s a discrepancy between it, in a Latinized text, than in a non-Latinized script. And how is that, so maybe training, but on, I don’t think, where are you from, which one, I’m thinking, if my colleagues, some of my colleagues are studying about Iran, no, I don’t think so. Last 30 seconds. start to gather your thoughts and we’ll regroup shortly.

Joyce Chen: Okay, I don’t want to interrupt the conversation which is going really, really well, but we might regroup on this question now. Hear what people have to say. Hear what their top three ideas are. We might first turn to Joyce’s table since we’ll go in the reverse order than the last question. So Joyce, top three for this group. We might just regroup and hear from this first group here. So Joyce, go ahead. Thanks Will. So I think we had a lot of ideas. I think our top three was one, how to make WSIS more connected between the policy level and layer and on-ground realities. So making that connection. We had one idea which was train the trainers program, capacity building, which brought us to the second point which is that there should be more capacity building at the grassroots level. The third one was to have much better public outreach and communications. We had some very good, sort of very encouraging feedback on the WSIS website. That’s a, you know, yes, very constructive feedback on that, that the i2 WSIS team have agreed to take away and improve next year. And then we, so these are the top three, but some other points that I think are worth just also bringing up was that, of course, continued support for the SDGs. Unfortunately, we know that that’s not a very good term these days, so how to still speak about the SDGs, but in a more nuanced way. We also talked about, you know, what is the model of development that we’re talking about? When you have development goals, but first of all, you have to first unpack what is development. Who is it for? Should it be people-centered or policy-driven, etc., etc.? So those were some of the sub points that we also discussed.

William Lee: Yeah, great. Wow. This table’s been really hard at work and on fire. I’m really loving this kind of policy versus on ground kind of concept. And obviously, you know, the capacity building piece is really, really important as well. And I think that’s kind of come through in a number of interventions so far. And I feel sorry for our ITU colleagues who have got constructive feedback. But I think no doubt every year we improve the WSIS Forum. So I think that sounds really good. I’m going to hand over to this table now. Isabel, what have you got for us?

Isabelle Lois: Many things. Many, many things. No, so we had very, very rich conversations on this question. I think it’s a great question. Maybe I can start with sort of a first answer that’s an overarching, I think, answer to the question, which is if we continue to really implement and work on the action lines, then we will be able to achieve at least part of the global development goals. So I think that’s sort of the main message. But then we went off. of course, into many more details, but I think that’s a core idea. So one of the things that we have to keep in mind when trying to implement the WSIS action lines is new ideas or new risks. I mean, the pace and the rhythm that AI is entering our world, it is changing how the action lines can be implemented, how they affect different communities. So I think that’s one of the points. Maybe that would go into trying to regulate or have a safer use of AI. Another point is sort of how can we make sure that the digital divides are not growing even larger, but working on reducing them and keeping that in mind as one of the central points. We also had some discussions on environment and climate with the fact that, yes, this is also one of the WSIS goals, but we could do more work. And throughout the entire implementation of the WSIS action lines and commitments, we should think also about the environmental aspect. We talked about monitoring or being able to sort of evaluate how we’re advancing on these goals to see what have we done, what changes do we need to make, has what we have done so far been useful or not, and have a stronger link with the SDGs. I think that’s one of the questions we raise a bit around the table on the SDGs go in one direction and how WSIS goals were created or placed before. How could we have a better integration between both? So there is a mapping, but there’s not really a thought of a joint implementation. So this is maybe something we could think about. And then we had a few great points focusing also on thinking about the local communities that are actually affected by the work we’re doing. So one part would be learning from what is happening in the different countries, maybe having a transparent reporting on what is happening in one country and that being able to be shared with the others. And also in that reporting, not only consulting the authorities or the governments from the country, but actually the affected communities and bring that perspective into our discussions. And then we questioned a bit, is it enough for us to sit around the table and talk about those who are concerned or should we include them into the conversation? And the answer is yes, we should include them into the conversation and not just talk about them. So I think that was one of the main points. We also talked very briefly on the distinctions or the difficulty of being able to talk about connectivity or internet access or the digital questions when some don’t even have access to electricity because if there’s no access to the bases, then we can’t even work on the rest. So I think we have to remember to start at the bottom and assure that and then we can continue to evolve. I hope I have summarized the points well enough, but it was a very interesting conversation.

William Lee: Great. Thank you. Some really interesting points there as well, the challenge of new technology. I think it’s been a common theme so far. Environment being a new thing that I think we’ve heard so far today, but I think really obviously really, really important as well as technology evolves. I hate to see the power bill from that AI for Good conference, I think, all those robots. Monitoring and evaluation really important as well, links to the sustainable development goals, and I like the point about getting the basics right and how we can use digital to help close those gaps. Jimson, what’s your table come up with?

Jimson Olufuye: I’d like to spread my legs. I have to exercise. All right. Thank you, Willem. Yes, three key points on how WSIS can continue to help with the global development goals. So number one is that we have a matrix already, a very good mapping, WSIS to SDG, WSIS action lines and targets to SDG. We need to use this framework very well, and in fact, maybe there should be some form of note on it, a recommendation that there should be reference to it. But the question is, where will it be achieved? Because you cannot just have a mapping. Yes, you have a mapping, but where would the actual implementation take place? So we all agree at the national level, at the sub-national level, local level, communities level. And that takes us to response number two, and that IGF as a forum where stakeholders come together to do note-taking reports and exchange ideas, should be strengthened along with these NRIs, the national regional IGFs, and let them move to sub-national IGFs, maybe at the state of performance. level, at the local level, at even small community level, okay? So you need to be nosedive to that level so that we can have results-oriented processes. Because we are talking here in Geneva, so will it end here? So if you want results, it must be at that local level. Then number three, we recognize that our development organization like ITU, they’re doing a lot of work, truly doing a lot of work. UNESCO, UNDP, UNIDO, UNECA, they’re doing a lot of work. So we want them to strengthen their engagement, okay, their effort, okay, involving all stakeholders. Actually, personally, I was impressed with Dr. Gelasi the other day, who was talking about how they achieved the UNESCO latest policy documentation, where all stakeholders, big things were out there, and everybody was happy at the end. So something like that needs to continue to happen, bringing all stakeholders towards the achievement of the sustainable development goal.

William Lee: Thank you very much. Great, thank you. Some really important, powerful points. I really liked the idea of local implementation, local action, strengthening the UN system, strengthening the engagement with stakeholders, really, really important as well. And how we actually turn kind of ideas into actions, both through WSIS and the SDG process, I think really, really, really powerful, and ties in well with the points that the other tables have made as well. As customary, I will now come to my table. And I think, as per the last question, a lot of the points that we talked about also came up on our table. Our first point was around buy-in. WSIS has a lot of buy-in and political will, a lot of visibility, and I think we’ve had about 60 ministers or something around here today. So how do we leverage that? How do we leverage this open door with everyone and take that forward into supporting other development objectives? Like some of the other groups talked about, we talked about measurable impact. How do we turn words into action? How do we create those practical opportunities? And that using the WSIS framework is a really important way of doing that. And then finally, how do we use WSIS as a platform to break down barriers? How do we use people’s interest in digital technology to translate that into practical development solutions? And I think that ties in really well with the points here around how do we get the basics right and use digital as a way of connecting people basic needs into digital needs. Cool, let’s move to the third question. Third question, how can the WSIS implementation mechanisms like UNGASS, which is a body of all the different UN agencies involved in WSIS, WSIS Stock Taking, that’s the 15,000 projects that the ITU has been handing out certificates for this week if you’ve been to one of the prize ceremonies, the WSIS Forum, that’s where we are today, the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, which met a couple of weeks ago in Oslo. And if you haven’t called past the IGF booth, I would encourage you to do so. Partnership or measuring ICT for development be strengthened. So in effect, this question is asking how do we take the implementation mechanisms that we have in WSIS and make them stronger? Perhaps let’s have another sort of seven to 10 minute chat about this question. Maybe let’s stick. with this theme of top three. I think this is kind of working pretty well for us. So let’s stay there. Let’s see where we get to, and we’ll regroup in about seven or 10 minutes, see where we are, and then we’ll regroup about the whole conversation from today, which has been excellent so far. Cool, let’s start the conversation.

Audience: Oh, thank you. Yeah, just curious to know how many UN agencies are involved in WSIS, and UNGIS, it stands for what? I can answer the second. Yeah. Sure, I can try and answer, and maybe other colleagues who know more can also put up their hands. But UNGIS is the United Nations Group on the Information Society. So in 2005, part of the Tunis Agenda, everyone agreed that this body would be created. It’s a fairly informal body. It brings together all of the UN agencies responsible for the WSIS, so the action line leads, the co-facilitators of the action lines, and now I believe a whole bunch of other agencies that are just interested in supporting the objectives of the WSIS. I want to say 50 UN agencies, I’m looking, 30, 30, 39, there we go, we got the right number. 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS. So basically, for the purposes of the question, how do we strengthen, this is kind of the coordinating mechanism. So how do we strengthen coordination among all the UN agencies? Through this body or other parts of the system as well. Great, no, no worries. I look forward to some really exciting answers ahead. Let’s go. So when we talk about measuring IPC with development teams, we need to use data in order to measure what it is that we’re achieving. How do we measure accomplishing whatever goals we set for a given day? Is it a number of classes you need to hold? Is it grades to hold your classes? How long are those classes? Or is it the skill that people have developed as a result of going through this? I don’t think that’s the gist of the question. Sorry to interrupt. But isn’t it more about the UN system and how people can work better together? But part of that is also asking the question of how are we measuring our success in what way? I think the point is that it’s a long time to make. If we can’t measure what the message is that all these processes have, how do we know what’s strengthened? How do we know what’s weakened? So I think part of the problem is the measurement problem. More because we’re all talking about the policy impact on both projects and development. So if you don’t have high-level commerce to that effect, you still have to be able to measure. Okay. So isn’t the answer then clear-cut the eyes for each process? Like where do WSIS want to be? Where does the GDC want to be in five or ten years’ time? So yet there needs to be regular assessment and review processes, right? There are some measurements, for example, that are existing but may not be on the east map. They’re actually on the south side. So, for example, GSA may not have internet penetration or mobile penetration. How robust that information is, I’m not sure the data accurately says that. The ITU also has a lot of indexes, which may or may not be used. But I know governments reference the ITU indexes a lot. So, for example, they have to audit us on, I can’t remember the exact date, but it has to do with resilience. Measuring the digital resilience is important. There is something that’s like that. So I think the broader problem is that all these mechanisms don’t know how to communicate the outcomes of their work very well. I think there is a lot of overlap and I think there is a working in silence. So everybody does their own thing. And it is a little bit of protectionism of each agency. They’re funded by donors and they have to show that they are doing more than everybody else. So there’s more competition and collaboration, like industry in a way. So they’re fighting for survival. I mean, when you think about 40 agencies involved, my God. Can you imagine 40 agencies talking to each other in a meaningful way? You know, I asked that question a few months ago. I mean, I think it’s wonderful. I think, you know, the whole process to really fundamentally decide to make the right work is the right work that we want to do. And I’m hearing voices in my environment. And I think it should be everybody. That’s me, as opposed to everybody else. But I don’t know if there’s a standard agreement on that. You know, perhaps the question on how we can strengthen WSIS implementation also ties in with UN reform as such. Like you can’t really separate one from the other. It’s really, it’s above my pay grade, right? But there are discussions that perhaps… There are discussions being had about merging, for example, IOM, International Organization of Migration, and UNHCR, humanitarian stuff. So there’s a lot of things, working with refugees or something. So there is a case bill to be made for the cuts to merge or similar mandates. I mean, they probably would not be happy with that. They are doing that. Yes. Right now, for IOM and UNHCR, they are drafting the report on in-state conflict zones together. We share the insight that we had previously working for UNHCR. So as a start, we can receive the information from both IOM, UNHCR, and all the UNRWA staff who are offering every morning and every few hours if there’s an emergency. So right now, we are sharing the information and we try to align our messages, but it’s still… My point being that there probably is similar people doing a similar job in the two organizations. So sharing is not enough. Yes. And you need to get a part of them and give that work to one group of people. We don’t need two sets of people doing the same thing. It’s great. And also, I wanted to pick up on that point about the idea of sustainability. I think the sustainability of the mechanisms themselves in an environment where there is… greatly reduce funding, especially to fund them from, you know, country to country contributions. And our friend America putting out everything. But we don’t talk about it. We don’t talk about it very much. I know, specific to the IGF, the internet government, again, if you have not yet, that familiar with that, go and look back at the recording. So we have talked a lot about the IGF in terms of how we could strengthen accessibility. Like the WSIS Forum that we’re in now, it is actually about free enrollment. And it’s kind of always at the brink of collapse. But the community bands together to make sure it’s always happy. So there is talk about, for example, the government benefits of the IGF and the outcome of the WSIS Forum. And the community is also now discussing, well, what do we mean when we say 100 million ratings? How will it affect the funding? How will it affect the bottom-up agenda setting nature of the IGF, et cetera? And so, I would imagine that we would have very similar questions. Obamacare, for example, it is a body of coordination amongst the UN agencies. But if all the UN agencies are getting funding cut, then is there going to be much time dedicated then to work on Obamacare, et cetera, et cetera, right? There’s a sustainability problem that the UN is facing. We’re not going to have an effect on all these things from what’s going on at the top. So the UN is celebrating 80 years next year. But this celebration is really a cost-cutting exercise. So we’re now, yeah, so it’s two ways of looking at it. But yeah, so they’re using it as a way to inform, because we have a lot of criticism for the way it functions, the purpose, blah, blah, blah, a lot of overlap. But yeah, sustainability is key. I mean, how many of these agencies can do something? And even you’re turning a lot to even donors. You’re getting donor fatigue. And even the people on the street where you’re rattling tins and getting, you know, all the time, you know, this, this, and this. Even, you know, I find I’m getting annoyed with it because they can’t get it from above. They’re coming down now to you. So you’re getting taxed all the time. It’s a ripple effect for levels, and it’s going to affect everything. So it’ll be interesting to what happens with these reforms. That will be key to a lot of things. I think when we talk about, at least as an organizational organization, I think we always, when we start talking about reforms and changes, we then also have to talk about agility. So agility to me is code word for, we have that budget that we need to do more. How can we do better? How can we do better? Being agile, nimble, being able to adapt. Use AI. Oh! Oh! Maybe you’ll disappear from the table. Yeah. You’ll be replaced by bots. Exactly. I’ll just go to the toilet real quick. Okay. Yeah, it’s just having that ripple effect. Yeah. And maybe more horizontal structure. Because a lot of UN works fall down. You tell the person under you. You tell the person under you. They don’t talk. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So. So. Yeah. Information sharing is important. Avoiding duplication. Streamlining. A lot of them do work on similar things. Somehow bringing, coordinating, building coherent thread that brings different inputs together. I mean, the US has done it a lot. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the UN does it as reverse of the work of civil society. UN doesn’t want to deal with a houndred thousand NGOs. It wants you to form a coalition, fight it out amongst yourself, organise your thoughts, and just give us one more. That’s what they want. So in some ways, we’re asking for the same the other way around. That someone how to bring all that together, coalesce, filter it all through, distill it, and come up with the key nuggets we really need. I mean, I’m being really critical in a way. There are so many assistant director generals in the UN system. And I have no idea what most of them do, who they are, what they do. And there are more assistant director generals than there are departments. I mean, who are they? There’s a whole questionnaire structure, which has worked nicely when they give lots of money. I think a lot of them are now gone. So there’s a lot of different issues. And I’ll pick up your point on rewriting. Because I think the UN, as a system, suffers from the weight of its predecessor, because it doesn’t like to let things go. Like when a process has been started, then there are new processes being started, but they won’t contact the ones that you have updated or anything like that. And so the UN is kind of burgeoning from… Constantly making new processes. But not actually making more reductions. This whole AI stream that’s just flourished in the last five years, it wasn’t like that before? But why whoever did that didn’t think, well, the YCIS architecture has been working for 20 years, so let’s build on that, let’s expand that, let’s think, why do we have to go in different streams? And I wasn’t involved in the 20 years. I’ve only just discovered YCIS by accident, as I said to you, because I was coming for the AI summit. And I just happened to… At the same time, oh, I wonder what this is. But I see now, from my point of view, it’s really, really important. And we have not been part of it, because we don’t know about it. Relating to what you mentioned, is there not a different kind of discourse that you want to work on? I mean, from the IT unit, you could say it’s working, but I don’t think it’s working.

William Lee: now on this final on this final question. I’ve heard lots of good points, lots of good conversation. Perhaps we look to kick off now and then we can maybe finish a few minutes early today so that everyone can get on with their afternoons. But I might turn to to Isabel and and this table here to hear thoughts

Isabelle Lois: on question three. Many thoughts. No, so we discussed a bit. First we discussed what is WSIS implementation and all of these mechanisms. I think maybe I will add something that we didn’t discuss but I find that it’s a context that maybe will be useful for also the summaries of the other tables. I think in the WSIS sort of architecture there’s part of it that’s implementing the action lines and the commitments we’ve made and then we also have the review process. So I think these different sort of initiatives and mechanisms that are here on the question are looking at the sort of day-to-day implementation. Who’s doing what? Where are we working? How are we highlighting what is being done? But then we also have the implementation part where it’s reviewing how these processes are actually delivering on their work and this is one of the questions that came up time and time again in in our discussions is we’re trying to implement WSIS in the best way but we have to make sure that the mechanisms that we’re using are efficient and for that we have the CSTD which is one of the spaces where we can review how is implementation going? Is it going in the right direction or not? And I think it might it is a part of the WSIS family that is not used well enough and this is my opinion. This was not discussed but I just wanted to add that as one of the sort of points that we can we can think of. And now with the WSIS 2020 review we can look at the whole system. So what we discussed more importantly in the group was looking at how these different mechanisms are working together or not, how much of the work being done in UNGIS or the WSIS stock taking are like fitting into each other, how much are we using the IGF for example and the WSIS forum in the best way, how much are we complementing the works done in one part of the system and the other, and that there is there absolutely room for improvement and there should be more of a performance review of these different mechanisms to maybe question how they’re working, re-looking at the structure etc. One of the points we raised is on UNGIS and maybe updating UNGIS to fit with sort of the new realities, having a strong role for some of the partners that may be part of UNGIS but in a observer status or that are not part of it at all and maybe should be included. I’m also looking at the other points, we once again went back to our point of inclusion which is one of the messages I’ve sort of come up with on the three questions of making sure that even in the implementation mechanisms that we have, that we’re also including the target sort of communities and the targets of who are we doing all of this work for and how are we making sure that within UNGIS or within the stock taking or the WSIS forum, the people at the table, the people who are speaking are the affected communities that we are trying to deliver these goals for or these principles for. And so this was one of the questions that was also raised in when we are looking at the performance sort of review of all these mechanisms, can we also look at who is being part of them and making sure that we are inclusive

William Lee: on that level as well. Great, I love that. I’m going to summarize that as build back better which I think is great, updating UNGIS, who’s part of it, inclusion. and using all of the elements of the WSIS family to get the outcomes that we’re looking for. Jimson, what do you got on for us?

Jimson Olufuye: All right. It’s been very thought provoking session. Lot of ideas. We first said plus one to our ideas, earlier ideas about need to focus the implementation at the national, the regional, sub-regional, sub-national, state, provisional, local, or community level. We need to push it, focus more to that end. Yes. Then number two, that there should be a quarterly engagement process for all these stakeholders listed. Quarterly, instead of annual. Because of the urgency of 2030 targets. Then we need to ensure that stronger visibility. This is connected to the earlier message in any way. The visibility here needs to be possibly documented so that it can, government, especially from developing countries, can see it in the document and say, oh, this is part of our responsibility. And we stakeholder as well, it will empower us to be able to say, okay, government see paragraph, something that said we should need to be doing this thing more regularly. And then there is need to establish liaison from each of these mechanism, liaison, so that without liaison, there can be a focal group of all the liaisons. Okay, maybe IGF, for example, we have a head like Chengetai, who always be at Hungi’s meeting, or maybe he’s a representative, or be at Wisi’s, vice versa. When IGF-2 Mark is meeting, we must have somebody for measurement of social partnership in liaison, in what they are meeting. And then these liaisons can also be constituted as say, some of our committee or something to exchange notes, and then take back again to their constituencies. So as well, that’s way to strengthen the process. Then also, that’s lastly now, when it comes to measuring, because if you cannot measure something, you cannot manage it according to management principle. You need to be able to measure properly. And I got the feedback yesterday, because there was a meeting of the measurement group and I was seeing that, wow, there wasn’t really a lot of measurement going on, really sound measurement in terms of, say, this relate to this, that relate to this. And there was a challenge on how to go about many things. I was just looking at it. Look, you can get top-level consultants. Let them budget, get top-level consultants. So that’s what we are recommending, that in terms of measuring on specific areas, get consultants, top-level consultants to work on this thing, instead of the agency themselves trying to do it themselves. So though the agency can do it, they can serve as a review. They can actually review, again, what they’ve done. But let top consultant be engaged as part of the partnership in the process. Thank you.

William Lee: Right, really good point there as well. The quality of engagement, documenting things, being transparent about what’s going on, having liaison offices and encouraging a two-way street. And I really liked the point about making sure we have the right experts offering the right solutions. Joyce, what do you have for us?

Joyce Chen: Yes, so we talked about how the different mechanisms could measure data and success indicators a lot better. And basically trying to understand how the different agencies are meeting their targets and how we could improve the way that successes are being communicated. Because a lot of the time, there’s so much work being done that all these thousands of projects that are happening, but then once we get to the end of the exercise, we don’t communicate back. What those outcomes were. So we had a bit of discussion around that. We also talked about how. So, a lot of the UN agencies are working in silos and, you know, there is, there tends to be protectionism within the agencies itself. And so, we wanted to see more collaboration instead of competition between the agencies and as well more horizontal structures, such as the UNGASS, I think, is a good example of that. And we spent a lot of time talking about UN reform because of the current environment, you know, budgets are being cut, there is a lot of, there is reduced funding from voluntary contributions and how that has really hurt the system in a way, but at the same time, it is an opportunity because the UN can now be more creative, it can be more agile, it can think about how to be more fit for purpose and streamline its work, as opposed to trying to do everything for everyone. And so, we spent a lot of time talking about sustainability and, you know, especially as funding is drying up, and the need to build human resources. So, we have friends from the ITU with this team here. We would hate to see them being replaced by AI, for example, or by an algorithm. And so, the UN really needs to invest in building its human resources. And so, basically, just all these things in summary is how the UN and its different mechanisms can coalesce all these different efforts and amalgamate. And then finally, why not just use the WSIS architecture, the existing one, for new work streams like AI that has come to the fore in recent years, instead of having a proliferation of work streams and then having this reluctance to reduce the ones that are outdated or no longer relevant. So, yeah. Great.

William Lee: Another really good set of examples, talking about the issues of silos. I really like collaboration, not competition, as kind of a concept. Sustainability, really important, and reusing what we have and making it work better, which I think ties in really nicely with some of the points the other groups have made. Just briefly for this table, we talked again about reusing projects. We focused just a little bit on the stock-taking database, not wanting to reinvent the wheel, but actually using the projects in that and connecting people to areas where there are projects and there are success stories. Why AI for Good and the WSIS Forum are together, we kind of mused about that a little bit, and that there needs to be kind of a strategic partnership or a strategic vision to take that forward. We must strengthen outreach to other groups that aren’t part of the WSIS, and we talked about the fact that perhaps a little bit of anarchy is not a bad thing. We don’t need to kind of structure everything, and perhaps ideas do come from places that are perhaps unexpected, but that we need to capture all of that energy and enthusiasm. And then finally around kind of the challenge of new technologies. In our case, we talked a little bit about quantum, but I think that could apply to a range of technologies, how we bring in new players, new relationships, new areas of interest and focus. So that has been a marathon, nearly two hours of great conversation. So first of all, a round of applause to everyone who has joined us today. I’m not gonna try and attempt to summarize that really extensive conversation. My notes look like I’ve been at the doctor’s office, but it has been really, really good, and I know our colleagues from the ITU have been capturing all of these thoughts and essences, which has been really good. I would encourage. you all to take all of these great ideas and conversations out into that wider WSIS world, to participate in the review process this year, to share these ideas and other ideas you might have had to the review process as well. We have on the screen, if you want to share further thoughts, please do send an email to our ITU colleagues. I wanna thank our three table moderators, Joyce, Isabel and Jimson, and obviously wanna thank our ITU hosts as well. I’ll hand over the floor to you in case there’s any closing remarks you wanna make, but thank you very much, everyone.

Participant: So it was wonderful, it was a wonderful experience. We had these knowledge cafes for five days for the entire school. Hello, yeah. Okay, so I would like to thank all of you, and it was a wonderful experience here. We had these knowledge cafes for the entire week, and we had great inputs from all the participants, and if you can, you can send us your inputs, whatever you collected from here to these mail IDs. Otherwise, if you have written it on a paper, you can submit it to me, I’ll collect it, and yeah, it was great. It was fun having all of you here, and thank you, see you next year, and see you around.

Jennifer Chung: We welcome all of you to join us at the closing at four in room C, and thank you so much for supporting VERSUS. We are still gonna be working harder and harder next year, and yeah, we will bring more digital collaboration to all of us, thank you.

William Lee: Thanks very much. A couple of housekeeping on the way out. you could grab one of the boxes and put them at the back. That will just help our colleagues a lot. And for the moderators, if you wanna come up and let’s get a bit of a happy snap from the session, that would be great, along with our ITU colleagues. I don’t know. I’m just gonna change it. Excellent. Okay, thank you. Ooh. Yay! It’s my own smile, and that kept me calm. I think, hey, there’s my name, I did it again. Uh-huh. I did it again. Ah. Okay. So that was just my question. There’s a lot of questions in the Q&A. There’s a whole lot of questions. I know. Okay. I’m with both the state employee and the municipal employee. Making it work. I can speak. So I, like, you know, thank you all for coming and this all has been great things. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so thank you. And thank you. Right. Thank you, but they emerged out. Oh, is thatamento, that’s right. That’s it, thank you. All right, thank you. Excuse me, yeah. Excuse me. We’re gonna have a final call. Please stand by. All right, one final photo. One final group photo. All right, let’s look at, please look at the official photographer, she for this session. Oh, yeah, please. Maybe if we turn it off, it’s better. All right. So, thank you.

Agreement points

Need for greater inclusion and participation of underrepresented communities

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen
– Participant

Arguments

Need to attract all categories of stakeholders including more private sector, youth, and people with special needs for meaningful participation

Include affected communities in conversations rather than just talking about them, with transparent reporting from countries

Importance of full participation by underrepresented and marginalized communities, including indigenous voices

WSIS should provide childcare facilities to enable broader participation

Summary

All speakers agreed that WSIS needs to dramatically expand participation beyond current attendees to include marginalized communities, people with disabilities, indigenous voices, parents with children, and other underrepresented groups through concrete accessibility measures and direct inclusion in conversations.

Topics

Human rights | Development

WSIS implementation must focus on local, national, and community levels rather than just international forums

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Use existing WSIS-SDG mapping framework but focus implementation at national, sub-national, and community levels

Need for train-the-trainers programs and grassroots capacity building to connect policy level with on-ground realities

Summary

Both speakers emphasized that WSIS discussions at international level are insufficient and that real implementation and impact must happen at grassroots, community, and national levels through capacity building and local engagement.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Need to integrate new technologies like AI into existing WSIS architecture rather than creating separate processes

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

WSIS architecture is robust and functions well but needs to integrate new challenges like AI, data, cyber security, and information integrity

Use existing WSIS architecture for new work streams like AI instead of creating separate processes

Summary

Both speakers agreed that rather than proliferating new processes, emerging technologies like AI should be integrated into the proven WSIS framework to avoid duplication and leverage existing structures.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

UN agencies need better coordination and less competition/silos

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen
– Audience

Arguments

Create liaison positions between different mechanisms (IGF, UNGIS, WSIS Forum) to improve coordination

Update UNGIS to fit new realities and include partners currently in observer status or not included

Need more collaboration instead of competition between UN agencies, with horizontal structures and reduced silos

Address overlap and duplication among the 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS

Summary

All speakers identified the need to break down silos between UN agencies and WSIS mechanisms, improve coordination through liaison positions and updated structures, and reduce competition in favor of collaboration.

Topics

Development

Need for better measurement, monitoring and evaluation of WSIS outcomes

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Engage top-level consultants for proper measurement and evaluation rather than agencies doing it themselves

Perform regular reviews of implementation mechanisms to ensure efficiency and inclusivity

Need for better measurement of data and success indicators with improved communication of outcomes

Summary

All speakers agreed that WSIS lacks adequate measurement and evaluation systems, requiring external expertise, regular performance reviews, and better communication of results to demonstrate impact and guide improvements.

Topics

Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder approaches while ensuring UN agencies remain engaged and that human rights principles remain central to WSIS processes.

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Need to strengthen engagement of UN development organizations while involving all stakeholders

WSIS should continue being rights-based and human rights-centered while maintaining multi-stakeholder nature

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers identified the critical need to increase WSIS visibility and awareness, particularly at national and regional levels, through enhanced outreach and capacity building efforts.

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– William Lee

Arguments

Need for more capacity building, outreach, and public awareness about WSIS processes

WSIS Plus 20 review should include provisions for greater visibility at country and regional levels

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognized the need to address fundamental infrastructure and resource challenges before advancing to more complex digital solutions, acknowledging current funding constraints while emphasizing the importance of human capacity.

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Address basic infrastructure needs like electricity access before advancing to digital connectivity

Address sustainability challenges due to reduced funding while maintaining human resources investment

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected consensus

Criticism of UN system inefficiencies and need for reform

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Audience

Arguments

Address sustainability challenges due to reduced funding while maintaining human resources investment

Address overlap and duplication among the 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS

Explanation

Despite being participants in a UN-organized forum, speakers openly criticized UN system inefficiencies, funding challenges, and excessive bureaucracy. This frank acknowledgment of systemic problems from within the system itself was unexpected and suggests genuine commitment to reform rather than defensive posturing.

Topics

Development | Economic

WSIS visibility problem compared to newer initiatives

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Audience
– William Lee

Arguments

Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS?

WSIS lacks visibility compared to AI for Good summit despite being the ‘grandfather’ of digital processes

WSIS Plus 20 review should include provisions for greater visibility at country and regional levels

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus among speakers that WSIS, despite being the foundational digital governance process, has poor visibility compared to newer initiatives like AI for Good. This self-critical assessment from WSIS participants themselves was surprising and indicates genuine concern about the process’s relevance and impact.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Need for practical childcare and accessibility support

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Participant

Arguments

Provide support for people with disabilities including sign language translation and childcare facilities

WSIS should provide childcare facilities to enable broader participation

Explanation

The specific focus on practical barriers like childcare and disability support was unexpected in a high-level policy forum, showing that speakers recognized the need to address basic participation barriers rather than just policy-level issues.

Topics

Human rights | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

There was strong consensus on the need for greater inclusion, local implementation, better coordination among UN agencies, improved measurement systems, and integration of new technologies into existing WSIS structures. Speakers also agreed on the need for increased visibility and capacity building.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive criticism. The agreement was particularly strong on structural and procedural improvements, suggesting that while speakers support WSIS’s mission, they recognize significant implementation challenges that need addressing. The consensus indicates a mature, self-reflective community willing to acknowledge problems and work toward solutions, which bodes well for meaningful reform of the WSIS process.

Different viewpoints

Approach to UN agency coordination – reform vs. strengthening existing structures

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Isabelle Lois

Arguments

Need more collaboration instead of competition between UN agencies, with horizontal structures and reduced silos

Update UNGIS to fit new realities and include partners currently in observer status or not included

Summary

Joyce Chen advocates for fundamental restructuring to reduce silos and competition between agencies, while Isabelle Lois focuses on updating existing structures like UNGIS to include more partners. Joyce emphasizes the need to break down competitive barriers, while Isabelle suggests working within current frameworks but expanding participation.

Topics

Development

Implementation measurement approach – external consultants vs. internal capacity building

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Engage top-level consultants for proper measurement and evaluation rather than agencies doing it themselves

Need for train-the-trainers programs and grassroots capacity building to connect policy level with on-ground realities

Summary

Jimson advocates for hiring external top-level consultants to handle measurement and evaluation, believing agencies shouldn’t measure their own work. Joyce emphasizes building internal capacity through train-the-trainers programs and grassroots approaches. This represents different philosophies about whether expertise should be external or internally developed.

Topics

Development

Unexpected differences

Frequency of engagement processes

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

Establish quarterly engagement processes instead of annual ones due to urgency of 2030 targets

Explanation

This was an unexpected specific disagreement with current practice. While other speakers discussed improving coordination and engagement, only Jimson specifically challenged the annual meeting cycle, proposing quarterly meetings. This represents a more radical departure from established WSIS rhythms than other speakers suggested, and no other speaker directly addressed meeting frequency.

Topics

Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high levels of agreement on fundamental goals (inclusion, better coordination, local implementation) with disagreements primarily focused on implementation methods and approaches rather than objectives. The main tensions were between reform-oriented vs. evolution-oriented approaches to improving WSIS mechanisms.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on goals but different preferred pathways. The disagreements are constructive and complementary rather than conflicting, suggesting potential for synthesis of approaches. The implications are positive for WSIS development as the shared vision provides a strong foundation for moving forward, with the different approaches offering multiple pathways that could be pursued simultaneously rather than requiring choice between alternatives.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder approaches while ensuring UN agencies remain engaged and that human rights principles remain central to WSIS processes.

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Need to strengthen engagement of UN development organizations while involving all stakeholders

WSIS should continue being rights-based and human rights-centered while maintaining multi-stakeholder nature

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers identified the critical need to increase WSIS visibility and awareness, particularly at national and regional levels, through enhanced outreach and capacity building efforts.

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– William Lee

Arguments

Need for more capacity building, outreach, and public awareness about WSIS processes

WSIS Plus 20 review should include provisions for greater visibility at country and regional levels

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognized the need to address fundamental infrastructure and resource challenges before advancing to more complex digital solutions, acknowledging current funding constraints while emphasizing the importance of human capacity.

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Address basic infrastructure needs like electricity access before advancing to digital connectivity

Address sustainability challenges due to reduced funding while maintaining human resources investment

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Key takeaways

WSIS architecture is robust and has functioned well for 20 years but needs to integrate new challenges like AI, data governance, cybersecurity, and information integrity

There is urgent need for greater inclusion of underrepresented communities, including indigenous voices, people with disabilities, and marginalized groups in WSIS processes

Implementation must shift from high-level policy discussions to practical action at national, sub-national, and community levels to achieve meaningful impact

WSIS lacks visibility compared to newer initiatives like AI for Good summit despite being the foundational framework for digital governance

The existing WSIS-SDG mapping framework should be leveraged but requires focused implementation at local levels with measurable outcomes

UN agencies involved in WSIS (39 total) suffer from silos, competition rather than collaboration, and sustainability challenges due to reduced funding

Capacity building, outreach, and public awareness about WSIS processes need significant strengthening to engage broader stakeholder participation

The multi-stakeholder nature of WSIS should be maintained and strengthened while ensuring rights-based, human rights-centered approaches

Resolutions and action items

Participants encouraged to share additional thoughts via email to ITU colleagues for inclusion in outcome document

Feedback and discussions to be captured in summary for UNGA review in December 2025

Constructive feedback on WSIS website to be taken by ITU team for improvements next year

Establish quarterly engagement processes instead of annual ones due to urgency of 2030 targets

Create liaison positions between different WSIS mechanisms (IGF, UNGIS, WSIS Forum) to improve coordination

Engage top-level consultants for proper measurement and evaluation of WSIS implementation

Develop train-the-trainers programs and grassroots capacity building initiatives

Update UNGIS structure to fit new realities and include currently excluded partners

Unresolved issues

How to effectively integrate Global Digital Compact (GDC) commitments with WSIS architecture without duplication

Lack of clear indicators and measurement systems to assess WSIS implementation progress and impact

Sustainability challenges for WSIS mechanisms due to reduced UN funding and donor fatigue

How to address the visibility gap between WSIS and newer initiatives like AI for Good summit

Coordination challenges among 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS with overlapping mandates

How to ensure meaningful participation of affected communities rather than just talking about them

Integration of new technologies like quantum computing into existing WSIS framework

Addressing basic infrastructure needs (electricity access) before advancing digital connectivity goals

Suggested compromises

Use existing WSIS architecture for new work streams like AI instead of creating separate processes to avoid proliferation

Combine policy-level discussions with on-ground implementation through strengthened IGF and National/Regional IGFs

Balance the need for structure with allowing some ‘anarchy’ for unexpected ideas and innovation to emerge

Leverage WSIS political buy-in and visibility to support broader development objectives beyond just digital goals

Create joint implementation approaches between WSIS and SDG processes using existing mapping frameworks

Establish horizontal collaboration structures between UN agencies while maintaining their distinct mandates

Provide childcare facilities and accessibility support to reduce barriers to participation while maintaining professional focus

Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS? Actually, I went to AI for good. The place is massive. Oh, my. It’s massive, this one. If you haven’t been there, you have to be. It’s massive, this one. So why is it so? Because WSIS is the grandfather. WSIS is the main, main superset. And AI for good just came.

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Reason

This comment exposed a fundamental visibility and relevance problem with WSIS despite its foundational role in digital governance. It highlighted the paradox that newer initiatives can overshadow established frameworks, raising questions about communication, engagement strategies, and institutional effectiveness.

Impact

This observation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple tables picking up on the visibility challenge. It led to deeper conversations about outreach, public awareness, and how WSIS could better communicate its relevance. The comment also sparked discussions about leveraging existing architecture rather than creating parallel processes.

Why is the one so detached from the other? Because if you’re not into the field, you won’t hear of the WSIS process. And it’s a very important process, because everyone uses ICTs, everyone uses AI right now, every child uses it, but no one knows that there’s a whole European process around it.

Speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

Reason

This comment crystallized the disconnect between the ubiquity of digital technology in daily life and public awareness of the governance processes that shape these technologies. It highlighted a critical gap between policy-making and public engagement.

Impact

This observation reinforced and expanded on Jimson’s earlier point, leading to sustained discussions across multiple tables about capacity building, grassroots engagement, and the need for better communication strategies. It helped frame the conversation around making WSIS more accessible and relevant to broader communities.

One voice that I do not see at all here is indigenous voices. So in the US you have a multitude of Native American tribes that are not hearing. And the reason I’ve been told is they’re not hearing as well as the work is done by the government. And if the government doesn’t get the word out, then they’re not participating.

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Reason

This comment brought attention to a specific and often overlooked gap in representation, highlighting how structural barriers prevent marginalized communities from participating in processes that affect them. It moved beyond general calls for inclusion to identify concrete missing voices.

Impact

This intervention shifted the conversation toward more specific discussions about inclusion and representation. It led to broader conversations about who is missing from WSIS processes and how to address structural barriers to participation, influencing discussions about capacity building and outreach strategies.

Can you imagine 40 agencies talking to each other in a meaningful way? You know, I asked that question a few months ago… So there’s more competition and collaboration, like industry in a way. So they’re fighting for survival.

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Reason

This comment exposed the structural challenges within the UN system itself, revealing how institutional competition undermines the collaborative goals of WSIS. It provided insider insight into why coordination mechanisms struggle despite good intentions.

Impact

This observation led to extensive discussions about UN reform, sustainability challenges, and the need for ‘collaboration not competition.’ It helped participants understand systemic barriers to effective implementation and sparked conversations about how to restructure mechanisms for better coordination.

We are the Homo sapiens, and we don’t know what will happen in 20 years, 30 years, 50 years’ time. Maybe we’ll become Homo digital… But however, it is said that as we build capacity, connectivity, we should not lose our sense of creativity, our sense of agility, such that we can even continue to use our brain.

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Reason

This comment introduced a philosophical dimension to the technical discussion, raising fundamental questions about human agency and creativity in an increasingly digital world. It challenged participants to think beyond technical solutions to consider human values and capabilities.

Impact

This intervention elevated the conversation from practical implementation issues to deeper questions about the purpose and values underlying digital development. It influenced discussions about education, human-centered approaches, and the need to preserve human creativity and critical thinking in digital transformation.

The question is, where will it be achieved? Because you cannot just have a mapping. Yes, you have a mapping, but where would the actual implementation take place? So we all agree at the national level, at the sub-national level, local level, communities level.

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Reason

This comment cut through abstract policy discussions to focus on the practical challenge of implementation. It highlighted the gap between high-level frameworks and ground-level action, pushing the conversation toward concrete solutions.

Impact

This intervention became central to discussions about strengthening implementation mechanisms. It led to sustained conversations about local engagement, the role of national and regional IGFs, and the need to move beyond Geneva-based discussions to community-level action.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and challenges that participants hadn’t fully articulated. Jimson Olufuye’s observations about AI for Good’s popularity and the future of human-digital interaction provided bookends that framed the entire conversation around relevance and purpose. The unnamed participant’s question about WSIS visibility and Marcelo Martinez’s point about indigenous voices shifted the focus toward inclusion and accessibility challenges. Joyce Chen’s insight about UN agency competition exposed systemic barriers that explained many of the implementation challenges discussed. Together, these comments moved the conversation from celebratory reflection on WSIS achievements toward honest assessment of structural problems and future challenges. They created a more nuanced understanding of why WSIS struggles with visibility and implementation despite its foundational importance, and helped participants develop more concrete recommendations for addressing these challenges through better coordination, inclusion, and local engagement.

Why is AI for Good summit more popular and well-known than WSIS despite WSIS being the ‘grandfather’ process that has been running for over 20 years?

Speaker

Participant at Joyce’s table

Explanation

This highlights a fundamental visibility and outreach challenge for WSIS, suggesting need for research into communication strategies and public engagement approaches

How can WSIS and AI for Good summit be better connected and integrated rather than operating as separate, detached processes?

Speaker

Participant at Joyce’s table

Explanation

This points to potential structural inefficiencies and missed opportunities for synergy between related UN processes

How can we ensure meaningful participation of indigenous voices in WSIS processes, particularly given their absence from current discussions?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez and other participants

Explanation

This identifies a significant gap in representation that requires targeted outreach and inclusion strategies

What is the most effective model of development that WSIS should pursue – people-centered, policy-driven, or community-centered?

Speaker

Joyce’s table participants

Explanation

This fundamental question about development philosophy needs clarification to guide future WSIS implementation

How can the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS architecture be integrated without duplication of efforts?

Speaker

Isabelle Lois and her table

Explanation

This addresses potential overlap and coordination challenges between major digital governance frameworks

How can we establish clear, measurable indicators and success metrics for WSIS implementation mechanisms?

Speaker

Multiple participants across tables

Explanation

The lack of robust measurement systems hampers the ability to assess progress and effectiveness of WSIS initiatives

What specific reforms are needed to address the sustainability challenges facing UN agencies involved in WSIS due to reduced funding?

Speaker

Joyce’s table participants

Explanation

Funding cuts threaten the continuity of WSIS mechanisms and require strategic solutions for long-term sustainability

How can WSIS processes be strengthened at national, sub-national, and local community levels rather than remaining primarily at international level?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye and participants

Explanation

This addresses the implementation gap between high-level policy discussions and on-ground impact

How can the 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS coordinate more effectively to avoid duplication and competition?

Speaker

Multiple participants

Explanation

The large number of agencies creates coordination challenges that may reduce overall effectiveness

What role should top-level external consultants play in measuring and evaluating WSIS implementation rather than agencies self-assessing?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

This suggests potential bias in current evaluation methods and need for independent assessment mechanisms