Knowledge Café: WSIS+20 Consultation: Two Decades of WSIS: Advancing Digital Cooperation Through Action Lines

Summary

This discussion was a WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe focused on evaluating the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines after 20 years of implementation. The session was organized as a working lunch with multiple tables, each led by UN action line facilitators from organizations like WHO, FAO, UNESCO, and ITU, covering areas such as e-health, e-agriculture, e-learning, and e-government.

The discussion was structured around three main questions examined in 20-minute blocks. First, participants assessed how the WSIS action lines have evolved with technology and stood the test of time. There was broad consensus that the action lines remain relevant due to their technology-neutral design, allowing them to adapt to emerging technologies like AI and blockchain without requiring complete reformulation. However, participants noted the need to address new challenges such as digital divides, cybersecurity, and ethical considerations around AI implementation.

The second discussion focused on achievements and challenges of the action lines. Key achievements included bringing UN agencies together for collaborative implementation, expanding global connectivity, and establishing frameworks like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Participants highlighted significant progress in areas like digital government portals, with over 150 cities globally now having municipal digital services. However, persistent challenges were identified, including the digital divide, lack of digital skills, infrastructure gaps, and the need for better measurement frameworks to assess meaningful access rather than just connectivity statistics.

The final discussion examined the vision for action lines beyond 2025. Participants emphasized the need for better implementation rather than creating new action lines, focusing on accountability, reporting mechanisms, and ensuring inclusive participation from grassroots communities. There was strong emphasis on youth involvement, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the importance of digital literacy and ethical technology use. The session concluded with calls for enhanced cooperation, improved communication about the action lines, and the development of comprehensive measurement frameworks that capture social outcomes rather than just technical indicators.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This was a WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe focused on reviewing and evaluating the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) action lines after 20 years of implementation. The session aimed to gather stakeholder input on the performance of various action lines (e-health, e-agriculture, e-government, capacity building, etc.) and generate actionable recommendations for beyond 2025, culminating in a call to action for upcoming UN General Assembly discussions.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Evolution and Relevance of Action Lines**: Participants discussed how the WSIS action lines have stood the test of time since 2003/2005, with general consensus that they remain relevant due to their technology-neutral design. However, there’s need for updates to address emerging technologies like AI, cybersecurity concerns, and new digital divides while maintaining their foundational principles.

– **Achievements and Persistent Challenges**: Major achievements included increased global connectivity, development of digital government portals, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the creation of frameworks like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Key challenges identified were the persistent digital divide, lack of meaningful access, insufficient digital literacy (especially among vulnerable populations), and gaps in implementation at national/regional levels.

– **Measurement and Accountability Gaps**: A recurring theme was the difficulty in measuring the real-world impact of action lines beyond basic connectivity metrics. Participants called for better reporting mechanisms, clearer targets, and frameworks that capture social outcomes rather than just technical infrastructure deployment.

– **Future Vision and Implementation**: For post-2025, participants emphasized the need for enhanced international cooperation while allowing for tailored local solutions. Key priorities included digital inclusion, youth engagement, ethical AI governance, environmental sustainability, and stronger integration with other UN frameworks like the SDGs and Global Digital Compact.

– **Multi-stakeholder Inclusion and Communication**: Strong emphasis on improving awareness and understanding of action lines at grassroots levels, better communication strategies, and ensuring meaningful participation of underrepresented groups including youth, women, rural communities, and persons with disabilities in digital transformation processes.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout. It began with technical assessments and evolved into more passionate advocacy for inclusion and ethical considerations. The atmosphere was professional yet energetic, with participants from diverse backgrounds (UN agencies, academia, civil society, private sector, and notably many young people) contributing actively. The tone became increasingly forward-looking and action-oriented as the session progressed, culminating in enthusiastic calls for enhanced cooperation and concrete implementation strategies.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Event organizer, has capacity building responsibilities, works with UNBESA, involved in organizing WSIS process since 2009

– **Derrick Muneene** – Overall moderator, works for World Health Organization (WHO), facilitator for e-health action line, developing global strategy on digital health

– **Susan Teltscher** – Multiple speaking instances, works with ITU, involved in enabling environment discussions

– **Davide Storti** – UNESCO representative, facilitates multiple action lines (6 action lines including access to information, learning, science, media, ethics, cultural diversity)

– **Denis Suzar** – Table facilitator, discussed e-government and related action lines

– **Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1** – Facilitator for E-Agriculture Action Line C7, discussed farmers and agricultural digital solutions

– **Table 5** – Speaker representing capacity building discussions, mentioned youth perspectives and gender equality

– **Table 6** – Speaker discussing WSIS process alignment with SDGs and Global Digital Compact

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including students, researchers, and professionals from various organizations

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dennis** – Table facilitator (mentioned as “Dennis working” and later as facilitator)

– **Carla** – ITU representative, table facilitator

– **Cheryl Miller** – Vice President for Digital Policy from the U.S. Council of Nationals, affiliate to International Digital Forum

– **American University of Beirut representative** – Founder of United Engineering Initiative, works between Faculty of Health Sciences and Engineering Faculty on public health solutions

– **Chinese student** – College student discussing AI usage and accessibility challenges in China

– **Youth representatives** – Multiple young participants discussing digital ethics, AI impact, and neurological differences in children

– **UNHCR representative** – Discussed refugee-related digital challenges

– **Human rights representative** – Mentioned Geneva Declaration and human rights aspects of digital society

# WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

The WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe was organized as a working lunch session to evaluate the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines after two decades of implementation. The multi-stakeholder dialogue brought together UN agency representatives, civil society members, academics, private sector participants, and youth to assess the performance and future direction of digital governance frameworks.

Organized by Gitanjali Sah and moderated by Derek Muneene from the World Health Organisation, the session employed a structured discussion format with participants at different thematic tables, each facilitated by UN action line coordinators from organizations including WHO, FAO, UNESCO, and ITU.

## Session Structure and Methodology

The discussion was organized around three sequential question blocks, each with 11 minutes for table discussions followed by 9 minutes for table reports:

1. **Evolution Assessment**: How have WSIS action lines evolved with technology and stood the test of time?

2. **Achievement Evaluation**: What are the main achievements and challenges of action line implementation?

3. **Future Visioning**: What should be the vision for action lines beyond 2025, and are new action lines needed?

Table facilitators included:

– Angelique Uwimana (e-agriculture, Action Line C7)

– Davide Storti (UNESCO)

– Susan Teltscher (ITU)

– Derek Muneene (WHO, e-health)

## Key Discussion Findings

### Question 1: Evolution and Technological Adaptation

#### Technology-Neutral Framework Strength

Multiple table reports emphasized that WSIS action lines have successfully adapted to technological changes due to their technology-neutral design. As one table reported, “action lines are technology-neutral and flexible, making them adaptable to new technologies like AI.”

Davide Storti noted that action lines have “stood the test of time and remain relevant despite technological changes,” while another table highlighted that “digital transformation has become a path that different stakeholders are moving forward on.”

#### Need for Updated Terminology

Derek Muneene identified that “action lines need to be updated in nomenclature, such as moving from ‘e-health’ to ‘digital health'” to reflect current usage patterns. This sentiment was echoed across tables, with participants noting that while core principles remain sound, language needs refreshing.

### Question 2: Achievements and Challenges

#### Major Achievements

Table reports identified several key accomplishments:

**Multi-stakeholder Collaboration**: The multi-stakeholder model and Internet Governance Forum were consistently cited as major achievements bringing diverse voices together.

**Institutional Cooperation**: UN agencies have successfully collaborated through action lines, as demonstrated in initiatives like One Health.

**Innovation Support**: Action lines have enabled cutting-edge innovation across sectors, including AI and geospatial data applications in agriculture.

**Regulatory Development**: Regulatory expertise has improved at national, regional, and international levels.

#### Persistent Challenges

**Digital Divides**: Multiple tables reported that digital divides and lack of digital skills remain major barriers despite progress.

**Implementation Gaps**: There is a significant lack of understanding of action lines at grassroots level, requiring better communication strategies.

**Measurement Limitations**: Current measurement frameworks focus too heavily on connectivity indicators rather than meaningful outcomes.

**Communication and Awareness**: A fundamental challenge identified was that many stakeholders are simply unaware of the action lines and their potential applications.

### Question 3: Future Vision Beyond 2025

#### Framework Continuity Over New Creation

A strong consensus emerged that existing action lines should be enhanced rather than replaced. Table reports consistently indicated no need for new action lines, but emphasized making existing ones more agile and future-proof.

The focus should be on intersectional inclusion and strengthening multi-stakeholder participation within current frameworks.

#### Integration with Other Frameworks

Tables emphasized the need for greater alignment with other international frameworks like the SDGs and Global Digital Compact, while ensuring that international cooperation allows for tailor-made solutions meeting specific country needs.

## Youth Perspectives and Digital Ethics

### Critical Youth Insights

A particularly powerful contribution came from a college student who observed: “Like 90% of us use AI daily, but like a few of us get the chance to reflect what they actually did to us, and what they mean to us. Like to some degree, it kind of feel like AI is kind of manipulate our life instead of we use AI as a tool.”

This highlighted a critical gap between technology adoption and critical understanding, even among digital natives.

### Digital Literacy Needs

Participants emphasized the need to teach digital ethics and cybersecurity from early school grades, recognizing that technical skills alone are insufficient without critical thinking capabilities.

Gitanjali Sah noted that “youth perspective is missing from action lines and needs to be integrated,” highlighting a significant gap in current frameworks.

## Key Themes Across Discussions

### Communication and Cooperation

Derek Muneene identified cooperation and communication as essential themes across all discussions. Multiple participants noted that while frameworks exist, there are significant gaps in awareness and understanding at implementation levels.

One participant highlighted: “There is always a moment to re-communicate something back to the world… There is no other way. So it’s there, but people don’t know about it.”

### Measurement and Accountability

The need for better measurement frameworks was consistently raised. As one participant noted: “What are the ways that we can measure it? If we do that, I think it’s annual. Based on that, we could have had an understanding 10 years ago that we didn’t have anywhere.”

There was strong agreement that measurement should focus on meaningful outcomes rather than just technical metrics, with better reporting and accountability mechanisms at national and regional levels.

### Capacity Building

Capacity building was identified as a cross-cutting theme requiring harmonized reporting mechanisms across all action lines rather than being confined to specific frameworks.

## Action Items and Next Steps

### Immediate Actions

**Documentation**: Digitize all handwritten notes and content generated during the discussion.

**Policy Integration**: Use recommendations to inform member states in ministries of health for WHO’s global strategy on digital health development.

**UN Engagement**: Take insights to the UN General Assembly for discussion of calls to action.

**WSIS Forum Integration**: Incorporate outcomes into the WSIS Forum outcome document and chair’s summary.

**Database Utilization**: Promote better use of the existing WSIS stocktaking database created in 2004.

### Implementation Priorities

**Enhanced Communication**: Develop better strategies to raise awareness about action lines at grassroots level.

**Youth Integration**: Integrate youth perspectives into action line implementation across all areas.

**Measurement Improvement**: Strengthen measurement frameworks focusing on meaningful outcomes.

**Stakeholder Inclusion**: Ensure vulnerable groups and rural communities are included in digital transformation processes.

## Unresolved Challenges

Several critical issues require continued attention:

– How to effectively measure meaningful outcomes rather than just connectivity indicators

– Balancing global frameworks with local implementation needs

– Addressing the communication gap between high-level policy and grassroots understanding

– Ensuring ethical AI development and data governance

– Determining optimal institutional coordination mechanisms

## Conclusion

The WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe revealed strong consensus that existing action lines remain relevant and should be enhanced rather than replaced. The technology-neutral design that has enabled adaptation over 20 years was consistently praised as a foundational strength.

The key challenges identified center on implementation rather than framework design: better communication, enhanced measurement, improved inclusion (particularly of youth voices), and stronger accountability mechanisms. The session emphasized that success should be measured by meaningful impact for all stakeholders rather than technical achievements alone.

Moving forward, the focus should be on making existing frameworks more responsive and inclusive while addressing the critical gaps in awareness, measurement, and implementation that currently limit their effectiveness. The youth perspectives shared during the discussion provide both urgency and direction for ensuring digital governance frameworks serve current and future generations effectively.

Gitanjali Sah: Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon. We’re about to start with our VISIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe on the VISIS Action Lines. Please take your seats. We are providing some snacks. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the VISIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe on the VISIS Action Lines. Please take your seats. We have WHO here in table one. We have FAO in table two. We have Carla from, you go there, Denise, that one. That one. Yes. Let me go to vegetarian. This is WHO. FAO. Thank you. Dessa, you and Dessa, e-government. Capacity building. Capacity building. And e-learning. Hi. Sure, please take one of them. Anyone. Hi, please sit in any of these. Yeah, we already have. So, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is a working knowledge cafe. It’s about the WSIS action lines. And we really want to finish the knowledge cafe with a call for action. This will be led by the UN action line facilitators. So ITU leads a few action lines, Derek from WHO leads e-health, I have capacity building, I have UNBESA. So we have UN action line facilitators who are going to lead you through this session. Derek is going to be the overall moderator. So Derek, I hand over to you to explain how it is going to run. And what is it that we want out of this session?

Derrick Muneene: All right, thank you so much, Gitanjali. My name is Derek Munene. I am trying to get to the front. Okay. I’m sorry, I’m going to have to speak in the middle. I wasn’t able to go to the front. But let me welcome everybody. My name is Derek Munene. I work for the World Health Organization, WHO. We are facilitators for the action line. Action line on e-health. Okay. That’s the action line that will facilitate us. And let me take advantage to just ask some more people to join our table here in front where we’re dealing with e-health. As Gitanjali mentioned, we have a moment in time where we can share knowledge in terms of the past performance of the different action lines. So this afternoon, this working lunch is really dedicated towards generating your insights in terms of the performance of the various action lines. And also looking forward, you know, to beyond 2025. And so we’ll be having three blocks of discussions, three blocks with three questions. and each table has a facilitator that will be reporting back from each of the groups. So just keep in mind that there’ll be three blocks of conversations based on three questions. And each of the tables has a facilitator that will guide the conversation based on the questions. And at the end of each of the three blocks, I will ask each table to come to the front or to the center, as I’m doing, to give a report out of the insights generated by each of the tables, okay? Keep in mind that the focus is really, welcome, one of the facilitators is just walking in. So the focus of the conversation is really to, you know, get your input on the performance of the action lines. I hope you’re all familiar with the action lines of WSIS, isn’t it? The different action lines from e-business, e-agriculture, e-health, and et cetera, okay? And using this time to make a reflection. At the end, as Gitanjali mentioned, we’d like to get a call to action. As you know, UNGA is coming. This year has been a year of review of WSIS for the past 20 years. At WHO, we’ve done extensive work to get the input from our stakeholders over the past 20 years. And so I’m actually quite excited to be participating with you. And we’ll be using the recommendations beyond UNGA for our sector. We’ll be taking these to inform our member states in the ministries of health. So we do have a global strategy on digital health being developed. And so each of the sectors, I’m just giving a use case on how we’re using our own results from here. So at WHO with our e-health action line, from here we get to UNGA, where our call to action will be discussed. At WHO from UNGA, next year we’ll be working with our member states to include some of the recommendations in the global strategy on digital health. And that’s just one practical use case. on how we’re taking this conversation. So hopefully you can also have similar discussions in terms of how the next step will look like, you know, different action lines. Okay, having set the scene, then I’ll maybe proceed further to just ask the different facilitators in the tables. I just want to make sure that the facilitators are here. I saw Dennis working just now. Could I ask Dennis to be upstanding? I’ll just read out the names of the table facilitators to make sure that each table has a facilitator. All right, so Dennis, I saw you working just now. I’m here. Are you here? Do you want to just stand up so that we’ll have a bit… Sorry, Dennis was on my left side. All right, then Angelique Fowle. All right, that’s Angelique from Fowle. Then we have David Stotti from UNESCO. Thank you. So I’ll be there. He’s behind me. All right, everybody’s behind me, right? All right, thanks. We actually met on Sunday, right? Could you just remain standing, please? Just remain standing. All right, all right. Then we have Carla, ITU. Okay, to my right. All right, did I miss out any of the facilitators? Okay, whilst they’re standing, so I’m just going to ask, so this will be eHealth. Do you mind to capture that table? Then I’ll cover the table. Do I have a facilitator here? All right. May I request, Gitanjali, your guidance? We need one more facilitator for that table there. Okay, okay. All right, all right. Thanks. All right. Or as I’m facilitating, eHealth is over here. Do you mind to facilitate the eHealth one? Yes. All right. Okay. Yes, that one. All right. At the beginning, we… All right. C6 over there. Thanks so much. Okay. Now that we have facilitators at each table, we’ll kick off. with the first conversation point. Each block, once again, will be 20 minutes. So of three questions, 20 minutes. Of that 20 minutes, 11 minutes is for the group discussion, and then nine minutes is for the group presentation. Just keep in mind, 20 minutes at the block of question, as when Switzerland. So this would be prompt to precision as Swiss timing. All right, Gitanjali, did I miss out anything before we start the group discussion that you’d like to emphasize? All right. All right, so perfect. Thank you very much. So colleagues, let’s maybe begin with the first point of discussion. All right, so what we’ll be discussing now is really looking at the evolution of the action lines. So question number one, I would ask each group to discuss the WSIS action lines, how they have stood the test of time, and how they have evolved with technology. So discuss the WSIS action lines, their evolution, and how technology has influenced the implementation. That’s the first point of discussion. And so we would maybe ask that we commence the conversation by table. You have 11 minutes of discussion, and then nine minutes of presentation. We’ll ask the facilitators to guide the distillation of this particular question. So once again, what you’re discussing is the evolution of the action lines, and the interplay of this evolution with technology. OK, all right. So please take action. And we’ll see you in about 11 minutes when we call the different groups to report out. All right, thank you so much.

Audience: You can, like, agree to go around at any time. But I understand. Just so we know who we are. Yeah. We’re going to start? OK. Go ahead. So I’m going to sit by the side. Just name and organization. I didn’t share mine. And I’m the American University of Beirut. I’m the founder of the United Engineering Initiative, which is an initiative between the Faculty of Health Sciences and the Engineering Faculty, and we work on developing solutions for public health. So Cheryl Miller, and I’m Vice President for Digital Policy from the U.S. Council of Nationals. We’re the affiliate to the International Digital Forum. Yeah, it just added me. It’s okay. It was last minute. It’s okay, it’s okay. If I understand correctly, there aren’t any SSACs in place today. Not necessarily SSACs, but in general. So in 2003 and 2005, there were two summits. And then there are 11 active ones that came out of this. And my major is horticulture, and I study how I can adjust to the influence of the technology, that’s why I degree. That’s what’s happening in Dublin, called the Horticulture Research Center. And I’m just interested in how it will be used. Yeah, I guess I’ll suggest you, I mean, there are different sectors, so e-government, UNDESA, e-business, UNICAT, e-learning unit, e-health, WHO, e-employment, ILO, e-environment, WMO, e-educator, SAO, e-science unit. We have a really great number of e-services that we have access to, and we have government, so it’s really nice. So the first precedent that I want to open up is how they’ve done this all the time. I don’t know anything. For example, yesterday, they put out a really interesting thing, it’s called diversity of information, and there’s a number of ways to rank there. So just the percentage is 16 billion years ago. And that is now, as we’ve done it, a week ago. So from 15% to 68%. So it’s always interesting, because I know we don’t have everything that is available, but that shows that we have diversity of information. And at the time when these are agreed, there were no sustainable development goals. So that’s something, at that time we had millennium goals, something to keep in mind. And what can we do to make sure that these are still relevant? That’s the question to us. I think I’ll go first. So in my view, absolutely, the SDGs are still relevant. They’ve been around for many years. They’re very much under test of time. As you just said, the SDGs, I love that we use low and maximum line, very similar to the objectives and goals in the SDGs. What about the SDGs perspective? So there is something that’s called the target. That’s involved in facilitating and identifying. However, in this API, I believe we need the data, how we can find progress in our API. So at the moment, I think it’s possible that we should address any sort of really interesting technologies. There is a future. So how do you think it will be important? I would personally argue that it will be important by taking down and expanding our supply. What are the ways that we can measure it? If we do that, I think it’s annual. Based on that, we could have had an understanding 10 years ago that we didn’t have anywhere. So keeping in mind the technical aspects, how many core types of data, how many core are you using? 79% of the data. As I say, there’s new UN bodies. UNHCR has a role in that. There are some ways of how we can actually see all of that. Importantly, you know, we have that strength. Just to tell you quickly, if you get to know my role within facilitation, what’s the biggest challenge for the UN refugees? Well, many of us have spent a fair amount of time, for five years, six, five years, actually. They’ve been around for 30 years. They do couches. So, I think, no changes to their own lives in terms of what they think that they are. I think, maybe, that’s not always too obvious later. Even then, all of us, if I should go back to any of them, actually, I don’t think it’s too obvious. And I think they’ve spent a fair amount of time in the United States as well. And I think that this would be a discussion, perhaps, of seeing if there is a need for an upgrade or an upgrade, what we’ve been hearing from many stakeholders that, you know, maybe, we could be a little bit excessive. I think we’re not scared of that. I trust people better. And we’ll see how the review will go. But, at least, from the perspective of the UN, it’s a very good idea. So, I think that’s all we have to say. Everyone will see. Ten years ago, we had the same situation. We adopted the table, and it was kind of unsettling. However, if you read the description of the description of e-learning, it’s because a lot of them, for each extra month, they were able to spend that time, which, unfortunately, they could not really know. After ten years, still, they didn’t know. Still, then, they didn’t know that. All they could take, all of them, were verified. So, as a student, what do you think? So, I’m basically in the scientific area, so I think now we are using AI for biological biology. If you have heard of gene editing, we might use AI to predict some of the elements that we can use in this system to modify the system for animals or organisms, like yeast. But I think it’s not enough data for this analysis. So, we need to still do those lab works to verify it. So, I think AI could improve this, maybe other interferences. Also, AI using in China, because I’m from China, we need to use BPS to use AI. So, AI is not that much affordable for our students because of the price. We have some other AIs, mainly China, but it’s also kind of targeted for vendoring. So, I think that’s also a good point. Thank you. What are your thoughts? It’s more on AI. We should have few gaps and many gaps, but I think it’s also the opening for AI so much. It was very interesting. So, access to this digital access has its risks. This access is mandated by different APIs. So, languages that are used, literacy, the capacity of the generation, and especially maybe the digital literacy of older population. Young people are now very well-versed in digital health and the older population. We live in a world where increasingly older population have this kind of needs. I think that’s a great question, and that’s a great focus, but did you also want to comment on that? I would like to talk about a project that we have developed regarding neurophysiological aids for African-Polish children once. The children, the project that we have developed, we have children of Leo who are neurophysiologically impaired, and that we are speaking only about in this project, I mean only about the ones who are not intellectual. I think it’s another need. So, we have to consider that a study has said that now there are two out of them, which is actually, maybe you can give some examples, but I have another question. If these children did not exist, and this is very high, wouldn’t we consider that this is a similar development? It’s not a handicap, but we consider it a handicap. It’s another problem. It’s a handicap. It’s not a handicap. But we are considering it. I would like to make a quick reminder, you have three minutes, three minutes to consolidate the insights before we start the report out. They are running out of time. We have to take them. It’s another insight. There is no AI. There is no data governance. How can we also continue with them without data governance? Because a lot of them can ask for a necromarital test. Why are the others not writing? Just because they are not comfortable with it. So they are changing education sometimes, and it’s also important to keep us safe. And they can be a leader in this solution. Thank you so much. I know that you joined us a little bit. Did you want to tell us who you are? The first question we’re looking at is action lines and how they’ve been set. One minute, one minute, one minute to go. Do you have any thoughts on how we can achieve better quality buildings? I think what you said resonates, and I feel like the action lines versus the issues you’re mentioning, is not only a question of capacity, but also the ethical aspect. I mean, being AI, we don’t want to go on the ethical dimension. It feels like it’s a process of time. And then, of course, if the times have changed, action lines are still relevant. I think that’s what we need to do.

Derrick Muneene: All right. Thanks, everybody. Quick announcements. If you could ensure that everything that will be reported out is documented so that we don’t lose track of the intelligence that’s been captured. Let’s have a nine minutes discussion on the question in front of us and as you are standing, shall I ask you to go first or to appoint whoever needs to go first?

Davide Storti: But first if there’s a volunteer to want to summarize. But anyway, so thank you. So we’ve been discussing quickly some action lines which are pertaining to UNESCO’s mandate as facilitators, which are many, which are access to information, learning, science, media, ethics, cultural diversity, etc. So we had a few comments which are, let’s say, first of all, action lines need probably to be more better explained, probably probably not well understood, at least this was the comment. Flexibility of action lines as we’ve seen as a strength, making them easy to be transposed, but at the same time the lack of measurable targets is also giving us time to assess the progress and see where are we at now, so also to respond to the question of technology. And action lines should also be linked to concrete reality, to concrete things, so also to have them, to see them in action maybe. There were also, we saw that during the 20 years, we saw the emergence of new divides which are also impacting the way action lines are implemented. We mentioned some of these divides like affordability of devices or maybe the emergence of new needs like media literacy, information literacy, et cetera. So the technology has blurred also some edges and this was a comment made, for example, in the sense of the need to have old categories involved in the actual implementation, such as, for example, media and journalists that are not seen as present enough or not present in the WSIS process. And the technology evolution has made some blurring between professional journalism and what is a citizen of people use of media and social media. So these are all new challenges that are actually impacting the way we look at election lines. And I think some of these comments may be also a point for reflection as we go on.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much. A big hand for that. Okay. That was a test run. So a minute and a half for everybody. That was a test run. So a minute and a half. And thanks for that, Rich. So Ma’am, you have a minute and a half.

Susan Teltscher: Thank you. I’ll take a minute. So we talked about C6, which is an enabling environment. And the general sensation was that there’s no need for complete reformulation of the action line because since it’s tech neutral, that is good. We do need to add a new dimensions. So how to make the action line future proof. And one word that came up was agility because technology is moving so fast that we need to be able to agile. What came up as well is that although the language is good, the implementation is lacking. So that is what we need to focus on. So obviously training, awareness raising in communities as was indeed initially defined in the action line. But what came up as well was accountability. We need to focus on better. reporting by countries on better reporting back on how the action line is being implemented because that’s how we’ll get there. Thank you. All right. Thanks for your time. A big hand for that. Over here. A minute and a half, ma’am. Well, a nice segue to what Sophie was mentioning. I think three points more or less that emerged from our discussion is, A, the action line is very broad enough so that the general principles are still applicable and valid as of today. But there is a need to integrate the action line with some issues such as cybersecurity, AI, and emerging technologies. So there is really a need to have a special emphasis on that front because, of course, capacity development and digital skills come with safety at the core, at the centre of the overall discussion. There is a need also to strengthen measurements. So we are measuring quite a lot the action line through reporting, under-reporting from all of us, I think. But there needs to be a measurement more at the national – so this is why I was referring to Sophie’s discussion – and regional level. And there are already mechanisms such as the IGF that can really strengthen and improve that level of measurement. And I would say a great example and a great, I think, addition that is something that is missing as of today is youth. So it’s the perspective of youth. So integrating young people and young perspectives in every action line. I feel that it is not – we think, sorry – but this is not there yet. And this is why we have three amazing representatives here from 18, if I can say, 18 years old and above, that are really taking the necessary steps on the ground to actually improve the young perspective into the capacity development field. So a big thanks.

Derrick Muneene: And keep those notes handy over here, a minute and a half. Just a minute. Okay, thank you so much. We are here as the E-Agriculture Action Line C7.

Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1: So for us, we started with a positive response, yes. With a big, big yes. And then we discussed on how normally, not only in this action line, but also in general, these have been stood as a time of involvement of this one. And then we give example of how the UN agencies have been working together to successfully implement this one. And then we give some example, or like One Health whereby FRO, WHO, and more other UN agents have been put together to implement this initiative. But also to set this digital system that is supporting to connect this one. Again, we mentioned that this is supported, started by supporting MDGs and now SDGs. But as we are having now more development goals on the climate actions, there is a need of adapting the action line to this need, taking into consideration the experience when in 2015, SDG was approved, whereby we have been adapted with this to respond to the SDG need. And again, we mentioned the collaboration of E-Agriculture Guide that was supporting the country to develop the participatory strategies, which is normally a positive solution. But of course, with this involvement, we mentioned the AI and the more other emerging. and technologies that bring opportunities, but also some risk that need this action plan, action lines to be aligned with the, so that they can also respond to the risk, including like data and more others that could bring some mistakes in terms of taking action. We also mentioned as the last, the overlap that are among these action lines that need to be also discussed and see how they can maybe well interconnected and respond to each other. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much. A big hand. Okay. Lastly, but by all means, not the least, please digitize the contents. If you’ve written by hand, please digitize them so that we can receive them. Thank you.

Susan Teltscher: Thank you so much. I think the short answer to the question, whether or not the action lines and have they stood the test of time, the group believe the answer is yes. Although we noted back in 2000, one example, there were almost no schools that were connected. And now we’re sort of heading into a new phase where we’re really looking at AI. We talked about the WSIS targets and the fact that we need to understand a little bit more about how we can actually really measure the action lines moving forward. We also discussed whether or not we need to update or add something. For example, now we’re just having more discussions on gender and other items that perhaps the action lines don’t cover. Also talked about the action lines and whether or not we can really measure their impact on digital health since this round table was focused more on health. So I thought that was a good question that was left there. And then we mentioned there’s a real challenge in terms of linking the action lines to real life on the ground situations and case studies. As we move forward, things are constantly changing within our own environments, just across regions and local communities. So how are we able to really take the action lines and link it to those real case studies as we move forward? Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: Give a big hands in. Thank you very much. I’ll specifically be a bit biased on this table since I’m moderating. One of the things that we’ll be calling for enhancements is the whole idea. So our action line began as e-health and that organization will move to digital health. And so one of the things that we would want to adjust is a nomenclature. And that’s the thing that we’ve discussed with ITU. So our member states are no longer talking about e-health, but they’re talking about digital health. So that’s one item that we’ll be adding to the notes. All right. Thank you so much. Oh my goodness. My goodness. Yes. Okay.

Denis Suzar: Let me also summarize what we just discussed. First of all, we also agree with Cheryl. I think this is action lines stood its presence for the last 20 years. When the WSIS action lines, we noted that were adopted 20 years ago, that they were specifically technology nonspecific. So they were not, they didn’t include any specific technology at that time. So we briefly discussed, for example, now we have AI and then 10 years ago we had blockchain, but we could put AI under capacity building or under C5 security or under infrastructure. So we don’t need to update action lines. So this is our strong message from the table. We also mentioned that we need to give more attention to digital device still exists. So that was one other message, but strong messages not to change the WSIS action lines, but maybe improve them with some new players today in the field. For example, UNHCR, they could be given maybe more role in one of the WSIS action lines. some description of the business action lines could be further elaborated to include the new issues, but the action lines should stay as they are. If I missed anything?

Derrick Muneene: All right, a big hand for that. Thanks, Dennis. All right, thank you so much for this conversation. And once again, please do digitize the content you’ve generated. We’ll go to the second question, if we could ask the team to give us a second question. So in the second round of conversations, what we’ll be asking you to actually focus on is the main achievements and challenges of the WSIS action lines. 11 minutes of discussions and nine minutes of report out. Okay, all the best. So the action lines, once again, the action lines that you’ve been looking at, for example, the e-education. So the action lines that you’ve been reviewing, the discussion point now is the main achievements of those action lines. And at the same time, the challenges that have been documented or witnessed. Okay, 11 minutes for discussion, and then we’ll come back for a nine-minute presentation. and there is a system of TDRs and data brought.

Audience: So it’s been there since 2000. In a way, it has 15,000 in the world. It’s good and best practice. I hear a lot of people say, there’s not a lot of data about people on the ground. There are 15,000 people on the ground. They can talk about the odds and everything else on the wall. And a part of that database can be used by anyone. Not only as the data, but actually as a tool to collect. I hear the question. You said in 2004. Is it updated? OK. I think it’s mostly a nice thing. This is the work that I’m still taking. I’m getting my ideas online. So I think then one challenge is how? I’ve been working with WHO 10 years ago on a joint database. Then we worked with FAO. Then we had GCOA, the Global Coalition on Aging, with whom we also worked on a database, Healthy Aging, Using Digits. So it’s about partners outside recognizing database, using it, collecting it, and bringing it back to me. Again, that’s something that we can all do. But again, we are going back to the challenges. And the challenges are, are these terms? Are they too complex for people who actually go and delve into it and understand? That is quite fine. But I think we need to kind of re-communicate. I really love that idea of the table saying that, this is actually my concern. I’m not submitting it well enough. These kinds of offerings are very confusing. But going back to this, we’ve seen some good examples of national and regional IGFs. So you go with your national IGF, you go to your regional IGF, you bring all these things to the global IGF. Maybe these discussions on implementation and intersectionality are happening at the global IGF. But also, you know, I have some people from the national and regional business cattle bank, where they are actually discussing it even more. But about, you know, something like, physically we are all now using technology for everything. But at the same time, it’s creating addictions now. For me, that’s a big challenge, like addictions. And with the AI now, I think we are thinking less. So, and then you mentioned AI. This is the biggest challenge. Is it required, ethical, design, engineering, and SQL? And then there are two points, you know, people who are using it in terms of communication. I think major, you know, 2015, I think everyone mentioned all those huge campaigns, communicating on that. Maybe, you know, there is always a moment to re-communicate something back to the world. I just spoke to a person from the human rights and she was saying that, you know, first sentence of the Geneva Declaration discusses the importance of human rights. And she’s then, you know, then the idea is to go and tell everyone that the Vicious Summit actually discusses, you know, deals, you know, the topic of human rights as part of the French society. There is no other way. So it’s there, but people don’t know about it. The only people who are really, you know, looking into this is, and in human rights, actually, it’s like, maybe, you know, really going back. It’s a stakeholder, it could be necessarily national or regional, it could be by topic, by action, why? And I think this is something that’s great. That’s a good starting point. Skills. Of course, it’s not enough. Sorry, no, no. I thought you could have said it very well. Like race, like, again, achievements. It might sound controversial, but Victoria was one of the therapists, and I found it, like, I’m looking into it. Before I was in this, like, I was at a global level, but I’m at a country level now, here. Like, there are so many global initiatives, like, I don’t know about in the country, and I find a lot of them are sort of, like, slow to evolve. Like, with W2, we do a lot of innovations, and a lot of, like, traction, and so on. But I feel like it’s difficult to be calm on the Vicious track. We have a problem with this, so… Few minutes, two minutes to wrap up. I don’t know how it’s organised now, probably it’s by problems, and maybe now with all these AI whatever, like AI agents can organise, but I find that like when I was in the country I wanted like, I have problems that I have pressure to solve, and I was told by professors at the university that you know where you can learn to do it, and like the UN agency was like, oh we’re programmed for the next two years, so you have it included in your act, and your country co-operation strategy will help you in the next two years. Thank you for that. In 2003, not all the countries had portals. What exactly were the major achievements? I think all 193 national portals in 2018 or 2019, but today if you look at the most populous cities in each country, out of 193 cities, only around 100 cities also have a city portal, because there are still some cities, most populous cities in the country around the world, do not have a city portal. And I think it doesn’t come out of the region, one of the contributions of the white democratization movement. Price war. Bigger business drastically. What else? I would just say, it’s your first time as president of the United Nations, I saw the challenges, you know, I was included in the government. Price war. Everybody’s been over everything. I see we have a new technology, and everywhere it’s been that way. Big change. And sometimes we have new technology. And quite right. 10 years ago, it was fine. What would you guys think, with respect to IT? I mean, ITU’s done a lot, and partners, too. So we’ve got to add to that. We’re at the top of the number. We’ve got to get involved. I mean, there’s so much conversation going on.

Derrick Muneene: So much conversation is going on. If I could ask everybody to come back to the main floor. Keep the conversations noted as we discuss as a group. Okay, okay. Encouraging everybody to just pause for a moment. Thank you so much for all the energy. We do have to progress. And so let’s have people to the report out on the question. So we’ll start with this table here and we’ll go in reverse. Shall we?

Susan Teltscher: Well, I always like to end on a positive note. So we started with the challenges first. And so one of the things we discussed was the lack of understanding of the national and regional level for the action lines and how we sort of tackle that moving forward. It was mentioned that actually, how many people by show of hands have gone into the database that was created 2004 on the stock taking report? Okay, only ITU staff. So in 2004, our table learned that there was a stock taking report. This report is continuously updated and it focuses on different joint projects and has a lot of information. And so I think that as a community, this is something, this is a resource that maybe we haven’t been using that we need to refocus on. It was also mentioned that having partners outside of the ITU that can help to use this database and spread the information could perhaps help that national regional issue that we think that we’re seeing. Also, we asked, are the terms too difficult? One of the other tables raised the issue of communication. And so perhaps we need to take a few steps back and think about re-communicating. We have good examples of local and regional IGFs and there is talk about, well, should we do something locally and regionally that’s similar with a specific focus on the action lines. Need to flip things over to being. more problem-based and looking, as countries see their problems, being able to focus on that and find the information to help them solve their specific problems rather than having just a broad bit of information. And then the achievements. The first question was an achievement. We’ve agreed they’ve stood the test of time, so that clearly is an achievement. We’re all still here, right? There was a discussion about, is the GDC an achievement of WSIS? Just all the discussions that have led up to where we are with that. And then partners to connect all the efforts that have gone into that program with respect to expanding connectivity and the support behind that. So thank you.

Derrick Muneene: Great. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. A minute and a half. Okay. Thank you so much.

Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1: Here, we’re discussing about the farmers, because when we talk about agriculture mainly, we are focusing to the farmers. And from the beginning of this action line, normally the farmers are the people whom we are thinking as if they could not know how to write, how to read. So engaging them in this digital era could be somehow difficult. So the action line was even focusing to promote how this solution could be also engaged. But along this journey, we have achieved a lot, because from this basic use of application of ICT in agricultural sector, we have gone beyond and even enabling cutting edge innovation, covering AI, geospatial data, and also automated agriculture with even digital public good. Having this also agricultural community practices that I mentioned, initiative like Digital Village Initiative and Global Network for Digital Agricultural Innovation Hub demonstrated that if we can develop solutions with these farmers at the center, we bring something that they need, and then they start to jump in and use them. in impactful, in the impact, it bring impact and then it engage them in using these at the centers. We are talking about also the guide that I mentioned before. And so far over that countries are having these agriculture strategies which I’m not going to continue because I mentioned this before. We also among this achievement, we have been part of as a file have been part of Digital Public Good Alliance. Now we are promoting open source, open tool and open data including AI models whereby we develop 15 new digital public good that eight are now certified but also some are also on the way. And for this I can mention two that have been win as a prize of champion award in WSIS last year and also this year. One is data service portfolio that we’re discussing on this table but also another one on food losses. As challenges, let me go jump immediately to the challenge. Well, of course, even though this implemented we still have some data divide remaining as a major barrier including the lacking of digital skills, connectivity, affordability and access to this solution that we are talking about but also as AI and big data is gaining power it is a need of ethical guidance, data governance and sustainability framework. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much. A big hand for that. Okay. A minute and a half, please. Okay.

Susan Teltscher: Yeah, so, well, unfortunately we focused a lot about the challenges and not really about the achievement but let’s start from the positive just to have a different perspective. So the… Achievement, we can say that digital transformation is now a path that different stakeholders are actually moving forward and that we can say that in any case collaboration overall you know has improved generally speaking. Achievements are quite a lot, the digital divide is still there and the lack of IT skills of digital skills is still especially again looking more at the young people now is still a major problem in many countries. We are also looking at infrastructure because it seems that again and that goes a bit with another point which is digital inclusion. So infrastructure is the fact that connectivity still has not reached the you know many basically underserved you know communities and that goes a bit that you know in this overall digital transformation digital inclusion still remains as a big barrier. We know that many vulnerable groups are still left behind and I think that then you know that again is still a challenge. And then the last point which I think that is also very important to highlight is the need of having a meaningful access and responsible use of ICTs again because this is the lack of having also relevant content translated into national you know local languages is also you know a barrier that again that the actual line is still needs to face and focus. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: Right thank you so much, a big hand. And Dennis I wanted to make sure I don’t forget. Okay a minute and a half ma’am. Absolutely thank you very much with great respect to the

Susan Teltscher: breadth of the question. We have also started with a lot of the challenges that tables before have already mentioned including the digital divide and remaining challenges not only in connectivity but also in in terms of meaningful access and also these sort of social outcomes that can be achieved through the current limited infrastructures. Let me come back to you. consult my notes quickly so that I am relevant to the discussion. We have also mentioned the pace of innovation as one of the remaining challenges, particularly when it comes to the governance efforts, as well as concerns around addiction or dependency. Oftentimes, also, this is what we’re seeing in our work at UNDP, where local communities are often getting standards or infrastructures prescribed and have concerns about retaining their own agency. In terms of the achievements that we have mentioned, indeed, as was already said, the sustained efforts and attentions to this topic can be noted among the achievements of this agenda. However, we also noted some of the promising domain applications in this area, including, for example, digital government portals for cities and municipal governments that are active in over 150 cities globally. Big achievements have also been made in terms of affordability of connectivity and technologies, as well as the availability of information and participating in the information economy, which is something that we highlighted as well as important. Thank you so much.

Derrick Muneene: Big hand for the team. All right. Yes, a minute and a half, sir.

Denis Suzar: I thought you would forget us. So, thanks. So, yeah, we also have identified a number of challenges, but we also have some achievements, which is good. So, one of the achievements, I’m very happy to hear that, is that the national alliance, at least the good thing is bringing the UN together. So, that’s an achievement, I should say. So, it’s a good way to see how the UN was brought into all these dimensions that this framework brings us. But that’s also evolved over time with, of course, other introduction of new agencies, the UN Women, for example, was a site. etc. But of course, we also mentioned the problems linked to all these things, which is networking, which is the reporting, the ownership, targets, etc. So that’s a challenge. Other achievement which was mentioned is coming from the youth, it’s networking. So bringing the youth together, it is an achievement actually. This was shared at the table, giving the opportunity to share. So uniting the youth on these issues, I think this was important. And lastly, the IGF was mentioned as one of the biggest achievements as a multi-stakeholder process, free non-decision making platform, bringing international and national dimensions, and the values of WSIS are integrated in the IGF, of course. So that’s an achievement which was mentioned. Among the challenges, there may be a more clear link between actual lines and other frameworks of the UN like the SDGs. And now, of course, the GDC was mentioned as still remaining challenges. So there’s work to be done there. And echoing the other tables as well, digital inclusion. So hear everyone’s voices. There was a strong call for increasing inclusion. Do not let anyone out. Bring more attention on vulnerable groups and also from rural areas. And this was another, we discussed before about the divides, etc. So there are still challenges linked with infrastructure, accessibility for the ability of devices. But a strong call for increasing multi-stakeholderism.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much. A big hand. Okay. Lastly, by all means,

Susan Teltscher: is not the least. I tried to get somebody else to report out but they voluntarily told me. So we also focused on the challenges but also the achievements and the multi-stakeholder model. We saw it that although great advances have been made, it’s still something that we need to do a lot of work on. We saw some examples of success of the multi-stakeholder model. The IGF was mentioned but also our global symposium for regulators of ITU where we see a greater involvement of all kinds of stakeholders. What was also mentioned is that we do see new risks and the potential for harm. So we need global partnerships and collaboration. We’ve seen that regulatory expertise on national but also regional and international level has improved. But given these new risks and potential for harm, we need to keep on working on that expertise on the knowledge. So the capacity building, knowledge exchange and data is key. And last but not least, before I forget, the multi-stakeholderism also needs to be inclusive geographically because especially on AI we still see a divide there. And if emerging economies are not at the table, their needs will not be known and AI will just continue to develop without taking into consideration those needs. All right. Big hand. Thank you so much.

Derrick Muneene: All right. Final and last conversation. Question number three. You have looked at the status of the action lines. You have looked at the achievements and challenges. What we’re now dealing with is looking at the future. And so we would be now taking this as the last round of conversations. Keep in mind, after this, we’ll be then asking for wrap-up thoughts from the facilitators after this round and a call to action. And so what you’ll be discussing is really looking at beyond 2025. So we’re at the 20-year reflection now. And so the question really is looking at the vision of action lines beyond 2025. So this year is a year of stock taking, 20 years into the action lines. And so what you’ll be discussing is what should be the vision beyond 2025. And then adding to this question is whether we should have some new action lines and what measurement frameworks should be put in place. Okay, so last question. And as we are looking at this as the last question, please, we’ll be asking the facilitators also to also get ready to condense the conversation on the table across the three questions. So we do that at the same time. So we deal with this question, but also reflect about everything that you’ve heard today. And then we’re going to go to action. Okay, so 11 minutes of discussion. Nine minutes of reflections. And then we’ll have another good discussion. Okay, we’ll start right now.

Audience: Those are all connectivity indicators coming from IQ, that number of really connected to internet. Because we use a lot of money. Under the SDG indication, what is going to be indicated is the number of connections to internet. So there are 4 million indicated, but only 6.6% Yes, there are a lot of different budgets. For example, eBay is good, I think. So we have people from eBay, like Russia, for example. Yeah, but there are a lot of people who use it. Yeah, for the visitation, for visitation. Expensive. Exactly, yeah. Just take care of the corporate. Yeah, yeah. But for visitation… Let’s go the other way. Let’s take eGovernment. What is the indicator? And we don’t even indicate it. And what I was telling you is that you have to respond to some indicators. So what will we offer? It depends on the profession. I think the best thing to do is to go and check it out. So, you know, each of all the facilitators, one together with their own peers, looking at the guidance of the facilitators on what these indicators could be. So, one new action site will be down in the village. So building all of these established action sites, there is an issue of what sorts of companies are in the village of the clients, to the accountability of digitization. It seems to be missing from the actions. It’s not just agriculture. Correct me if I’m wrong. Will you open the ethical dimension? Which one? Which one? The ethical dimensions of the information. Maybe you can do that. have seen. I’m saying that a lot of things have been discussed. So, of course, as we move on and things change politically, economically, technologically, maybe we can rethink certain things. But I think the action lines that we are are probably covering now. What does it mean, even if they are covered? Are we really taking action? That’s it. Any other issue with law is there. I think what we could do here, I would rather like to talk about measuring and understanding. Action is also taken. Who is measuring that? Often we are lacking capacity to do both things. I’m always for that thing of rather take action than report on action. Rather take two actions, then take one action, and secondly report on that action. Because this is the world that actually we are in. There’s a lack of reporting. We can talk about connecting hospitals. How meaningful is this? Is the learning improved because the schools are connected? Is the health care service better? Is there a way to measure this? I think that as they are, this is my issue, because this is how I see it. For the action lines to be adopted in two years, heads of states, prime ministers, and all stakeholders get together. This is why it was called TAP. This event, although it has services in its name, the services event is formal. Discussions on how the outcomes of summits are being implemented. Maybe UNGA can change this. I don’t know. Until the 2000s, UNGA can present suggestions based on all those examples. And in the past, if you understand, summits were very rare. Summits are the highest body of events, super rare. Now, these days, a lot of summits are happening. Every year, there’s a summit. This is great. Do we need a summit? We don’t. We shouldn’t ask them to prepare a summit. I see. That’s exactly how I see it. There are all kinds of different frameworks. You can see what’s up. To replace something that was not already there. It was there. The action lines are there. Did it suggest giving some additional guidance on how… One minute. Checkpoint. Two minutes checkpoints Like, you know, there’ll be something about, like, taking it as being an integrated approach, like something very integrated in our public policy. Thank you. Point about trust infrastructure.

Derrick Muneene: All right. All right. Lots of energy in the room, great conversations, but we do have to move on. Thank you so much once again for the intelligence being being gathered. Again, just to remind everybody to digitize the knowledge that is being created. We’ll go into the discussion again, a minute and a half for facilitators. We’ll start from the middle now. And so we’ll start with this table.

Table 5: I knew that. Even a tuning was like this when I was not prepared. OK, just as a summary. Well, the main point is that we don’t think that the action line needs to be changed. Maybe the text can be should be a little bit slightly revised. to get in long, let’s say, negotiation processes, is the way maybe that we implement the actual action line and the way how we measure the progress of the action line that needs to integrate and embed major perspectives, such as, again, youth. We also, again, spoke a bit about gender equality that is, again, mentioned maybe somewhere in the text, but it’s not in the reporting. We are not, let’s say, emphasizing it. And that may be mainly looking more at the national regional perspective, again, because at the action line level every year we are reporting, but again, this is not really reflected at the national regional level, again, using the tools that we have already mentioned over the past hour. And that goes in this implementation phase, that goes a bit in the fact that we looking a little bit ahead, we need to work more on the promotion of the action line, because it’s true that when we look at the local context against subnational context, the action lines are not very well known. And in the implementation, if we want the action line very well known, we need to team up with the local, again, authorities and especially NGOs in case, again, the government is not present. So thank you very much.

Derrick Muneene: You can end. Good points there, all right. OK, again.

Table 6: Yes, so we started by sort of emphasizing that the visas process should be or should sort of be broadly aware and aligned with many of the other processes, including the SDGs and the GDC, the Global Digital Compact. For those unfamiliar, though I doubt there would be any in this room. Yes, so alignment is needed. And sort of we then discussed some of the matrices that already exist in this process and emphasized how, though there is over 200 of them, only a minimum is actually focused on connectivity. a lot of them are focused on connectivity per se, so material concerns as opposed to some of the more broader social outcomes we’ve been talking about today, which is something that should be reflected. To address this, we talked about the various approaches that we think might currently be missing, including how to capture skills, for example, trying to look at maybe the number of graduates or other measurements that might be captured in other platforms, let’s say, including the ITU yearly measurements or the UNDP Digital Development Compass. And we talked about the Visas Forum upcoming in July, 2026 as a good opportunity to sort of propose some of these indices and do further work on measurement and evaluation. Have you begun? Okay, we have a volunteer, right? Okay. You need to hit the add button. Oh, no, I’ll be very quick. So we also agreed that there’s no need to create new action lines, but then we need to basically think about or elaborate on some of the new risks that have emerged, which include, for example, cybersecurity, information integrity, and it came up, so I’m not going to list everything, but I think AI and existing digital divides came up very strongly because now with the AI, it’s just a gap is becoming further and further. We have involvement of community as an important piece in building trust with different stakeholders. So that really went into the point around multi-stakeholderism and yeah, digital rights, digital literacy also being very important for folks to be able to navigate, translating the action lines into national, regional levels and how they’re implemented. So there’s no need. again, to have new action lines, but to make them agile and future-proof, and also focus on implementation, which includes better reporting back from countries. And that’s the accountability piece, which we found very important. And looking forward, I mean, beyond 2025, we really, I think we agreed on the keyword, which is intersectional inclusion, which is both in making sure intersectionality of digital aspects, you know, that digital really affects everything we have, the agricultural health, but also all sort, you know, dimensions of our lives. But also that means we need all stakeholders at the table. So again, back to multi-stakeholderism. Thank you.

Davide Storti: So, yeah, so we discussed about, of course, new technologies. This was a big topic here. I think, of course, AI, emerging technologies, nobody knew 20 years ago what was going to be there. So we had the discussion on how these should be, or how could, should be integrated in the new ways, or not. Also making a comment about the fact that the action lines maybe are a bit broad, and that’s problematic for, again, for measurement. So I think, again, here we have discussed the need to maybe expand the implementation. So at implementation level of the action lines to make sure these are measurable, we mentioned in particular issues linked to environmental issues, climate change, youth, and the need to maybe perhaps establish some targets or give… some periods for reporting. So to be a little bit more concrete in terms of measurement of the progress. And the other question which came on was the, would be great, it was said at the table to maybe make sure that UN, all these UN frameworks that come together in a more holistic way so that there is more coherence maybe in the implementation process of law.

Derrick Muneene: All right, a big hand there. Okay, over here, a minute and a half. It’s now on.

Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1: Okay, thank you. On the vision, as far as we are, we eager to increase the load of this action line to the transforming agri-food system through inclusive, ethical, and sustainable data agriculture or data innovation. And then the use of technologies such as AI, big data and geo-special and data public good would be enhanced. Again, we have to develop a comprehensive taxonomy and a shared framework for innovation in data agriculture so that we can understand who is having what to ensure this scalability but also sustainability and even avoiding duplication of the efforts. We are now focusing in the investment of early stage data innovation so that we can increase this ideation and also the prototype that need to be connected to what we are calling, what we mentioned as the open data, open source, and the open model. And within our discussion, we’re also mentioning the promotion of public money and the public code with my colleague who is part of developers, software engineer, because he was mentioning the fact that if we are engaging the private sector in… development of a solution it have to be also at the end being also accessible in open, in the open model. The last one in the vision was the build ecosystem that is supporting the local digital innovation ecosystem and all of these have to be to serve as part of what we have normally as in the framework of inclusivity, human-centered and sustainable model. In terms of if we may have to have a new action line we are thinking of aligning and interlink existing one to better reflect emerging priorities. Here we can give example of agriculture and the capacity building that have some interconnectivity but also an example for C7 on e-government and C11 on intergovernmental cooperation that could also be have some kind of linkage but also we discussed on having one that could also talk about the decentralization of power destroying monopoly. Maybe you understand that more than me and again we have mentioned how we may have to clarify these action lines more so that how we we can clarify how the leading institution are working with the other key actors in this in the same area. In terms of measurement framework we mentioned having this in four pillars access and infrastructure for tracking the local connectivity availability of data solution and data public good adoption and use for measuring uptake and data tools by the farmers and segregated by gender and age of course and youth and then impact and the outcome for assessing productivity gain market access and resilience. improvement in our sector, but also governance and ecosystem for evaluating national strategies, partnership and innovation hubs. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much.

Derrick Muneene: Lastly, but by all means, not the least.

Susan Teltscher: Thank you. So vision for the WSIS action lines beyond 2025, should there be new action lines, and what would a measurement framework look like? We think there’s big potential for the next phase, we need to mobilize capacity to solve concrete problems, need to organize initiatives via data spaces and create new AI solutions to move faster. We think we need a bigger exchange of both expertise and financial support, and under financial support, there’s two buckets, new resources, and then also rebalancing the current financial resources that we have. With respect to new action lines, we had a conversation via yes and via no. So yes, maybe new action lines for AI potential, and we discussed whether or not accountability going down that thread would be the focus, or does the current action line that covers ethical dimensions of information society already cover that? We just started the discussion, no specific answer there. We mentioned we need greater global cooperation. Under the no line for action lines, we think the action lines are probably covering the subject matter, but the question is, are we really taking action? The bigger question is measuring, who’s measuring and what are we measuring? With respect to, for example, connectivity, how meaningful is it? With respect to healthcare, are we making healthcare better? Then we asked a really big question, get ready, we said, do we need another summit? Do we need another summit with the highest level of UN officials on this, given the high level of importance? We talked about the role of the Global Digital Compact, the fact that it reflects current day issues and enhances the current framework, discuss an integrated approach and the need for trust infrastructure, and I think our table just wanted to end by thanking all the ITU staff for bringing us all together. We really valued the conversation, and special shout out to the youth who are in the room as well, and as well as our table. We really appreciate your contribution.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much. Thank you so much. I think we’ve covered all the tables. Now we sort of like, would like to gracefully get to the later part of this conversation. I’ll be inviting the facilitators to stand with me momentarily, but just checking everything that you’ve heard across the six tables. I would like to just pause a little bit to get any reflections that came out of these conversations that you’d want to bring to the table. So this is a moment where we have any synthesis conversations, any reflections from what has been discussed. And once again, you have the digital, the emails to send your digital content right in front there. Okay. It’s an open conversation. And then after this, I’ll just ask the facilitators to just say a few points that came as a result of facilitating the three questions. So point A, any conversations that are pending that came to your mind as we discussed throughout the three questions. Would anybody want to kick off? Okay. This is actually Mike, by the way,

Susan Teltscher: I’ve been handing over. Do you want to try that? Does it work? Hello? Oh, I didn’t even know there was one here. I’m sorry. So I think one theme that I heard throughout all the tables was definitely the need for cooperation. And as we raise and we talk about all of these challenges, I don’t necessarily think that any one group can fix any of this alone. And so I would say, number one, cooperation, and then number two, communication, making sure that we’re on the same page and making sure that we’re working together as we try to tackle things and achieve all the answers to the questions.

Derrick Muneene: Good point. Cooperation, right? That’s a good point. Okay. Communication. Anybody else? Do you want to expand on that? Yeah. And one thing that’s common

Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1: to us all, whether obvious or not completely obvious, is that aspect of inclusion. So as regulations are being made and, of course, we talked about enabling environment, we realized that those at the grassroots, who are recipients eventually of these regulations, are mostly not involved at the table. So we need to find a way to ensure that they are part of decision making. Yeah, thank you.

Derrick Muneene: Very good point. All right. Over here is a mic. No? It’s all ours.

Table 5: So I think one of the points that, again, it came across all the discussions is what we know, but capacity building and capacity development is cross-cutting. And I think that is just the way. And I feel that we are all doing a lot here in the room. It’s just a way of really reporting in a very harmonized way, again, using the tools that we have available. And that would really show a bit better, in a better way, the progress. And, of course, inclusion coming, again, back to the youth perspective, which I think was mentioned already several times. Thank you very much.

Derrick Muneene: I like the point on awareness, actually. Yes, good point. I like the question of awareness that you raised. We actually did have a good discussion, just as we were standing there, in terms of awareness of the action lines, who’s doing what. We also heard about the database that not many of us have actually used that. So that feeds into the communication dimension. All right, over here.

Davide Storti: Yes, thank you. Let me draw attention, maybe for something beyond 2025, for future, to speak about a new generation that’s coming. the most important, what we have now, because looking for migrants, I could see it’s gadget generation. Maybe next step will be digital generation, if you have something inside and so on, but we should draw attention what our people, our young people will do with these new possibilities. They shouldn’t forget how think themselves without some support from that. We should skill them for that. Other point is, what we will do if it switch off of energy? No one provide explanation what we will do. We should prepare them to not to forget how to think themselves and work themselves. This is my understanding for that that I share with you my difficulty. All right, good points, good points. Thank you very much. I think we need more organization in terms of awareness. We need more organizations to target the school level actually. If we need the world to be more digital in ethics way, then we have to start from the schools. And I think we don’t target this level of environment. We don’t look at the school’s level from very early grades in order to change the future in more digital and more, I know they know digital more than what we know in fact, but not in ethical way. So we need to teach them how to be in ethical way in using, and in a safe mode also, in using the cybersecurity issues and the AI in a proper way. That’s what I’m looking for. Thank you. Right. Thank you so much. There’s some applause coming for you. All right, maybe because it’s connected to this one. Maybe we need less Digitalization, so let me bring it like to this. It’s about human bias Learning really at school What kind of relations do it’s important also racial relations and connections to nature so therefore you have the grounding for respecting nature and

Derrick Muneene: Acting sustainable sustainable. So maybe this is more important than digitalization because the digitalization comes So, yeah, okay. Good points again. Thank you so much. Yes The light I

Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1: Think is great that we are growing through this conversation and the fact that we have all over the world voices together around the table Well, it seems to me that we are moving to a new phase of the digital transformation With a big potential with also some important risks and these a talk today was important for us to assess Do you have the right kind of guidelines? Action lines. Do you have the right kind of global governance structures? well We will never have the perfect solution, but we have something we can build on We just concluded this in our discussion I will underline particularly the recently adopted global digital compact, which is the the last effort of updating action lines and governance but the idea like really to underline is that We are in a phase where we need on one hand much higher Cooperation international cooperation, but on the other hand to allow tailor-made solutions Meeting the needs of each country and of each region and these two things are not in contradiction. We need both international cooperation, but also tailor-made solutions. This is the idea I’d like to underline. Thank you.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much. Okay, big hands, big hands. All right, over here.

Audience: Okay, I would like to say something as a young people, from my own perspective, like now I’m currently a college student, and like 90% of us use AI daily, but like a few of us get the chance to reflect what they actually did to us, and what they mean to us. Like to some degree, it kind of feel like AI is kind of manipulate our life instead of we use AI as a tool. So I think it’s a great chance for us to be here and to listen to all this session and evolving this kind of discussion and really reflect on what’s AI’s relationship with us. Yeah. A few more hands and I’ll be preparing Gitanjali to prepare for the final remarks as we are getting this conversation to a standstill. Yes, oh, you have a mic. Yes, just following to what we just heard, I’m very happy to be here because I represent the children rights and the youth rights. So it’s very important to have this connection with a digital environment, working on a government base and also on the international organization, developing a project about the population of children and youth who are the most representative of the digital world, because they are going to this world. I’m speaking about the neurological difference, the children and youth. They are the ones who are more behind the screen. and understanding also how it works, and they are maybe tomorrow the leaders of this change, because they are the ones who are really willing to develop it and to enter into this world. Thank you very much.

Derrick Muneene: Thank you so much for those comments. Two more hands.

Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1: Good afternoon, very nice conversations. I’m very happy to see that there are more conversations about sustainability and building capacity for the environment in conversations and forums that is focused on digital and global as it concerns tech. My recommendation is the winners or champions from the high-level prizes, some of the solutions should be put in a repository where others can go to and take learnings, because those solutions to me look very interesting. So something that we can take as use cases for our classes as teachers or working with young people. That is my recommendation as we go forward.

Derrick Muneene: All right, I don’t see any more hands, and I just want to check with the facilitators. Let’s have the facilitators stand, actually, so we can applause them, we can appreciate them. All right. Okay. So thank you so much. Okay, we have one. Thank you. All right.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you so much. Thank you so much. And I think we should have a group photo after Gitanjali finishes, right? All right. So Gitanjali, you’ll be helping us to start the conversation. Thank you so much, Derek. A huge round of applause for Derek. Thank you. Really, as the organizer of this event, and as a person who, with my other colleagues, the UN, like Denise, Derek, who have been putting this whole WSIS process together, it’s a pride moment for us because when we look around the table, you know, when we started the WSIS Forum in 2009, We did not have so many women in the room. We did not have so many young people in the room. We did not have so many civil society actors, private sector actors, especially people, engineers who are developing applications. So we really feel proud that the momentum has been really strong for the WSIS process. And today, when I look around the room, I really see new faces. So it’s really about evolution. It’s not the same old people who have been following the process since 2003, but really new faces. Of course, we need people like Professor Minkade to guide us through the process. It’s also a lot of institutional memory because it keeps us grounded on why we started it. We started it because we wanted to bring technology to the people. This was the core of the WSIS process, that how are all the voices, communities included to bring technology to the people and how can people benefit from technology? So thank you so much. All these outcomes are gonna be part of our outcome document, and we are going to put it also in the chair’s summary. And just to let you know that the action lines that we spoke about today, they actually set up the WSIS forum. We used to have something called the cluster of WSIS related events, which was rebranded into the WSIS forum in 2009. So the forum has a huge importance in implementing the WSIS action lines, taking stock of it, and also to plan a vision on how together we are going to implement these. So WSIS forum has a very important part in the future of WSIS, in the vision of WSIS. So Derek, one call for action from your side, what you thought that this, and of course Davide, our very close partner from UNESCO, he has been implementing what, seven action lines? Six action lines, six action lines. So thank you so much, Davide. Derek, one call for action. My call to action is collaboration and focus on digital public infrastructure for the sustainability of digital transformation in health. Thank you very much. And see you tomorrow at the same time in this room to talk about multi-stakeholderism. All right, thanks, everybody. We’ll now get a photo over there. So maybe a selfie. Also for those of you who will be there at six, we will have a yoga session by the Indian Mission. Please join us in the open space for the yoga session.

Agreement points

WSIS Action Lines have stood the test of time and remain relevant

Speakers

– Davide Storti
– Denis Suzar
– Susan Teltscher
– Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1

Arguments

Action lines have stood the test of time and remain relevant despite technological changes

Action lines are technology-neutral and flexible, making them adaptable to new technologies like AI

Digital transformation has become a path that different stakeholders are moving forward on

Action lines successfully supported MDGs and now SDGs, demonstrating adaptability

Summary

Multiple speakers agreed that the WSIS action lines have proven their durability and continued relevance over 20 years, with their technology-neutral design allowing adaptation to new technologies while maintaining core principles

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

No need for completely new action lines, but existing ones need improvement

Speakers

– Denis Suzar
– Susan Teltscher
– Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1

Arguments

No need for new action lines but existing ones should be made more agile and future-proof

Focus should be on intersectional inclusion and multi-stakeholderism

Need for comprehensive taxonomy and shared frameworks for innovation in digital agriculture

Summary

Speakers consensus was that rather than creating new action lines, the focus should be on making existing ones more responsive, agile, and inclusive while improving implementation frameworks

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Digital divides and inclusion challenges persist as major barriers

Speakers

– Susan Teltscher
– Davide Storti
– Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1

Arguments

Digital divides and lack of digital skills remain major barriers despite progress

There’s a lack of understanding of action lines at grassroots level requiring better communication

UN agencies have successfully collaborated through action lines, as seen in One Health initiatives

Summary

Multiple speakers identified persistent digital divides, lack of digital skills, and insufficient grassroots understanding as ongoing challenges that need addressing through better communication and collaboration

Topics

Development | Human rights

Need for better measurement frameworks and accountability mechanisms

Speakers

– Susan Teltscher
– Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1
– Table 5

Arguments

Better reporting and accountability mechanisms are needed at national and regional levels

Measurement frameworks should focus on meaningful outcomes rather than just connectivity indicators

Need for comprehensive taxonomy and shared frameworks for innovation in digital agriculture

Capacity building is cross-cutting and needs harmonized reporting mechanisms

Summary

Speakers agreed that current measurement approaches are inadequate and need to focus on meaningful outcomes rather than technical metrics, with better reporting and accountability at national/regional levels

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Youth perspectives need stronger integration in digital governance

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Audience
– Susan Teltscher

Arguments

Youth perspective is missing from action lines and needs to be integrated

Young people use AI daily but lack reflection on its impact on their lives

Need to teach digital ethics and cybersecurity from early school grades

Focus should be on intersectional inclusion and multi-stakeholderism

Summary

There was strong agreement that youth voices are underrepresented in digital governance and that young people need better support for ethical technology use and digital literacy education

Topics

Human rights | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the success of multi-stakeholder approaches and improvements in regulatory capacity, while acknowledging ongoing challenges in governance structures

Speakers

– Denis Suzar
– Susan Teltscher

Arguments

The multi-stakeholder model and IGF are major achievements bringing diverse voices together

Regulatory expertise has improved at national, regional, and international levels

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognized that while action lines remain fundamentally sound, they need updating in terminology and approach to reflect current technological capabilities and usage patterns

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1

Arguments

Action lines need to be updated in nomenclature, such as moving from ‘e-health’ to ‘digital health’

Action lines have enabled cutting-edge innovation in agriculture, including AI and geospatial data

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both emphasized the need to balance global cooperation with local adaptation, ensuring international frameworks support rather than constrain country-specific solutions

Speakers

– Table 6
– Davide Storti

Arguments

International cooperation must allow for tailor-made solutions meeting specific country needs

Need for greater global cooperation and alignment with other frameworks like SDGs and GDC

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technology-neutral approach as a strength rather than limitation

Speakers

– Denis Suzar
– Susan Teltscher
– Davide Storti

Arguments

Action lines are technology-neutral and flexible, making them adaptable to new technologies like AI

Digital transformation has become a path that different stakeholders are moving forward on

Action lines have stood the test of time and remain relevant despite technological changes

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers viewed the broad, technology-neutral nature of action lines as a strength rather than a weakness, arguing it allows for adaptation to emerging technologies without requiring fundamental framework changes

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Strong agreement on not creating new action lines despite technological evolution

Speakers

– Denis Suzar
– Susan Teltscher
– Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1

Arguments

No need for new action lines but existing ones should be made more agile and future-proof

Better reporting and accountability mechanisms are needed at national and regional levels

Action lines successfully supported MDGs and now SDGs, demonstrating adaptability

Explanation

Despite significant technological changes over 20 years, there was unexpected consensus that the existing framework is sufficient and that efforts should focus on implementation rather than structural changes

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Youth digital literacy concerns transcending generational assumptions

Speakers

– Audience
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Young people use AI daily but lack reflection on its impact on their lives

Need to teach digital ethics and cybersecurity from early school grades

Youth perspective is missing from action lines and needs to be integrated

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both young participants and organizers agreed that despite being digital natives, young people need more guidance on ethical technology use and critical reflection on digital impacts

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the continued relevance of WSIS action lines, the need for better implementation rather than structural changes, persistent digital divide challenges, and the importance of youth inclusion in digital governance

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for WSIS future direction – speakers agreed on maintaining existing framework while focusing on improved implementation, measurement, and inclusion mechanisms. This suggests a mature understanding of the framework’s strengths and a practical approach to addressing current challenges through enhanced execution rather than fundamental restructuring.

Different viewpoints

Whether new action lines are needed or existing ones should be modified

Speakers

– Denis Suzar
– Susan Teltscher
– Derrick Muneene

Arguments

No need for new action lines but existing ones should be made more agile and future-proof

Focus should be on intersectional inclusion and multi-stakeholderism

Action lines need to be updated in nomenclature, such as moving from ‘e-health’ to ‘digital health’

Summary

Denis Suzar strongly argued against creating new action lines, advocating for keeping existing framework unchanged but improving implementation. Susan Teltscher focused on enhancing inclusivity and stakeholder participation within current framework. Derrick Muneene specifically called for updating terminology and nomenclature to reflect current usage.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Approach to measuring action line effectiveness

Speakers

– Susan Teltscher
– Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1

Arguments

Measurement frameworks should focus on meaningful outcomes rather than just connectivity indicators

Need for comprehensive taxonomy and shared frameworks for innovation in digital agriculture

Summary

Teltscher emphasized moving beyond technical connectivity metrics to broader social outcomes across all action lines. Uwimana focused specifically on developing standardized frameworks for agricultural innovation measurement. Different sectoral priorities led to different measurement approaches.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Role of AI and emerging technologies in action lines

Speakers

– Denis Suzar
– Audience

Arguments

Action lines are technology-neutral and flexible, making them adaptable to new technologies like AI

Young people use AI daily but lack reflection on its impact on their lives

Explanation

Unexpectedly, while Denis Suzar viewed AI as easily accommodated within existing technology-neutral frameworks, audience members (particularly youth) expressed concerns about AI’s manipulative potential and lack of ethical reflection. This revealed a generational divide on AI integration approaches that wasn’t anticipated in policy discussions.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on core principles – action lines remain relevant, digital inclusion is essential, and cooperation is needed. Main disagreements centered on implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most conflicts were about methods and emphasis rather than fundamental opposition. The strongest disagreement was on whether to modify action lines (terminology updates vs. keeping unchanged), but even this was relatively minor. The unexpected youth perspective on AI ethics suggests potential future disagreements as generational views on technology governance may diverge from current policy approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the success of multi-stakeholder approaches and improvements in regulatory capacity, while acknowledging ongoing challenges in governance structures

Speakers

– Denis Suzar
– Susan Teltscher

Arguments

The multi-stakeholder model and IGF are major achievements bringing diverse voices together

Regulatory expertise has improved at national, regional, and international levels

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognized that while action lines remain fundamentally sound, they need updating in terminology and approach to reflect current technological capabilities and usage patterns

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Angelique Uwimana – Moderator Table 1

Arguments

Action lines need to be updated in nomenclature, such as moving from ‘e-health’ to ‘digital health’

Action lines have enabled cutting-edge innovation in agriculture, including AI and geospatial data

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both emphasized the need to balance global cooperation with local adaptation, ensuring international frameworks support rather than constrain country-specific solutions

Speakers

– Table 6
– Davide Storti

Arguments

International cooperation must allow for tailor-made solutions meeting specific country needs

Need for greater global cooperation and alignment with other frameworks like SDGs and GDC

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

WSIS Action Lines have successfully stood the test of time over 20 years and remain relevant due to their technology-neutral and flexible design

The multi-stakeholder model and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) are considered major achievements of the WSIS process

Digital divides and lack of digital skills remain persistent challenges despite technological progress

There is no need for new action lines, but existing ones should be made more agile, future-proof, and better implemented

Better communication, reporting, and accountability mechanisms are needed at national and regional levels

Youth perspectives and digital ethics education need to be better integrated into the action lines framework

Cooperation and collaboration are essential for addressing digital transformation challenges

Action lines should focus on intersectional inclusion and meaningful access rather than just connectivity metrics

The nomenclature of some action lines needs updating (e.g., from ‘e-health’ to ‘digital health’)

International cooperation must allow for tailor-made solutions that meet specific country and regional needs

Resolutions and action items

Digitize all handwritten notes and content generated during the discussion for documentation

Use recommendations from this session to inform member states in ministries of health for WHO’s global strategy on digital health

Take insights to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for discussion of calls to action

Incorporate outcomes into the WSIS Forum outcome document and chair’s summary

Focus on digital public infrastructure for sustainability of digital transformation in health

Promote better use of the existing WSIS stocktaking database created in 2004

Strengthen measurement frameworks at national and regional levels using existing mechanisms like IGF

Integrate youth perspectives into every action line implementation

Unresolved issues

How to effectively measure meaningful outcomes rather than just connectivity indicators

Whether accountability should be a new action line or is already covered under existing ethical dimensions

How to better communicate and raise awareness about action lines at grassroots level

Whether another high-level UN summit is needed given the importance of digital issues

How to address the overlap between different action lines and better interconnect them

How to ensure vulnerable groups and rural communities are not left behind in digital transformation

How to balance AI development with ethical considerations and data governance

How to make action lines more problem-based rather than broadly informational

Suggested compromises

Rather than creating new action lines, enhance existing ones with new dimensions like cybersecurity, AI, and emerging technologies

Maintain technology-neutral language in action lines while improving implementation guidance

Use existing frameworks like national and regional IGFs to strengthen action line implementation rather than creating new mechanisms

Align WSIS action lines with other UN frameworks (SDGs, Global Digital Compact) without complete reformulation

Focus on both international cooperation and tailor-made local solutions simultaneously

Combine global reporting with strengthened national and regional measurement mechanisms

Integrate new stakeholders like UNHCR into existing action lines rather than restructuring the entire framework

I would personally argue that it will be important by taking down and expanding our supply. What are the ways that we can measure it? If we do that, I think it’s annual. Based on that, we could have had an understanding 10 years ago that we didn’t have anywhere.

Speaker

Audience member (unidentified)

Reason

This comment introduced a critical perspective on measurement and evaluation of WSIS action lines, highlighting the gap between having frameworks and actually measuring their effectiveness. It challenged the group to think beyond theoretical frameworks to practical implementation metrics.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion toward concrete measurement challenges and sparked conversations about accountability and reporting mechanisms. Multiple tables later picked up on the theme of needing better measurement frameworks and indicators.

I think major, you know, 2015, I think everyone mentioned all those huge campaigns, communicating on that. Maybe, you know, there is always a moment to re-communicate something back to the world… There is no other way. So it’s there, but people don’t know about it.

Speaker

Audience member (unidentified)

Reason

This insight identified a fundamental problem with the WSIS process – lack of awareness and communication about the action lines themselves. It highlighted the disconnect between high-level policy frameworks and ground-level understanding.

Impact

This observation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple tables later emphasizing the need for better communication, awareness-raising, and making action lines more accessible to national and regional stakeholders.

Rather take action than report on action. Rather take two actions, then take one action, and secondly report on that action. Because this is the world that actually we are in. There’s a lack of reporting.

Speaker

Audience member (unidentified)

Reason

This comment challenged the balance between implementation and reporting, suggesting that too much focus on documentation might be hindering actual progress. It introduced a provocative perspective on bureaucratic processes versus real-world impact.

Impact

This comment reframed the discussion around priorities and effectiveness, leading to deeper conversations about meaningful implementation versus administrative compliance. It influenced later discussions about accountability and practical outcomes.

Do we need a summit? We don’t. We shouldn’t ask them to prepare a summit… There are all kinds of different frameworks. You can see what’s up. To replace something that was not already there.

Speaker

Audience member (unidentified)

Reason

This was a bold challenge to the entire summit structure and proliferation of frameworks, questioning whether more high-level meetings are the solution or part of the problem. It introduced critical thinking about institutional effectiveness.

Impact

This comment sparked debate about the value of existing processes and whether new frameworks (like the Global Digital Compact) were necessary or duplicative. It led to discussions about streamlining rather than expanding institutional mechanisms.

Like 90% of us use AI daily, but like a few of us get the chance to reflect what they actually did to us, and what they mean to us. Like to some degree, it kind of feel like AI is kind of manipulate our life instead of we use AI as a tool.

Speaker

Young participant (college student)

Reason

This comment provided a powerful generational perspective on AI adoption, highlighting the gap between usage and understanding. It introduced the concept of AI manipulation versus empowerment from a user’s lived experience.

Impact

This youth voice shifted the conversation toward more human-centered concerns about technology adoption and the need for digital literacy and ethical frameworks. It reinforced discussions about inclusion and the importance of involving young people in policy discussions.

We are in a phase where we need on one hand much higher cooperation international cooperation, but on the other hand to allow tailor-made solutions meeting the needs of each country and of each region and these two things are not in contradiction.

Speaker

Angelique Uwimana

Reason

This comment elegantly resolved a tension that had been implicit throughout the discussion – the balance between global frameworks and local implementation. It reframed what seemed like competing priorities as complementary approaches.

Impact

This synthesis helped participants see how global action lines could coexist with localized solutions, influencing the final discussions about flexibility and adaptation of frameworks rather than wholesale replacement.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and perspectives that moved the conversation beyond surface-level assessments. The measurement and communication challenges raised early in the discussion became central themes that influenced all subsequent conversations. The youth perspective on AI provided authentic user experience that grounded abstract policy discussions in real-world impact. The challenge to institutional proliferation forced participants to think critically about effectiveness versus activity. Together, these comments created a more nuanced dialogue that balanced appreciation for existing frameworks with honest assessment of implementation gaps, ultimately leading to more actionable recommendations focused on communication, inclusion, and practical implementation rather than structural overhaul.

How can we better measure the meaningful impact of action lines beyond connectivity metrics?

Speaker

Multiple participants across tables

Explanation

Participants noted that current measurements focus heavily on connectivity rather than social outcomes like improved healthcare or education quality

How can action lines be better communicated and made known at national and regional levels?

Speaker

Multiple participants and facilitators

Explanation

There was widespread concern that action lines are not well understood or known outside of global forums, limiting their implementation

Should there be a new action line specifically focused on AI and emerging technologies?

Speaker

Various table discussions

Explanation

Participants debated whether AI requires its own action line or can be integrated into existing ones, given its transformative impact

How can we better integrate ethical dimensions and data governance into action line implementation?

Speaker

Multiple participants

Explanation

Concerns were raised about AI ethics, data governance, and the need for responsible technology use

What role should the WSIS stocktaking database play and how can it be better utilized?

Speaker

Susan Teltscher and table participants

Explanation

It was revealed that a database exists since 2004 but is underutilized, raising questions about its potential value

How can we better measure digital skills and capacity building outcomes?

Speaker

Table discussions

Explanation

Participants noted the need for better indicators to measure skills development and capacity building progress

Should there be another high-level summit on WSIS given the importance of digital transformation?

Speaker

Table participants

Explanation

One table raised the question of whether current governance structures are sufficient or if a new summit is needed

How can action lines better address digital inclusion for vulnerable groups and rural communities?

Speaker

Multiple participants across tables

Explanation

Digital divides and exclusion of vulnerable populations were identified as ongoing challenges requiring attention

How can we better align WSIS action lines with other UN frameworks like SDGs and the Global Digital Compact?

Speaker

Multiple participants

Explanation

Participants noted the need for better coherence and integration between different international frameworks

What measurement framework should be established for action lines beyond 2025?

Speaker

Derek Muneene and table discussions

Explanation

This was posed as one of the three main discussion questions, seeking concrete proposals for future evaluation

How can youth perspectives be better integrated into all action lines?

Speaker

Multiple participants

Explanation

Youth inclusion was identified as missing from current action line implementation and reporting

How can we address technology addiction and dependency issues in digital transformation?

Speaker

Table participants

Explanation

Concerns were raised about negative impacts of technology use, particularly among young people