Measuring ICT for development: the importance of data and statistics in the implementation of the WSIS and the Global Digital Compact

Summary

This discussion focused on the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development’s efforts to assess and improve data collection for monitoring digital development goals, particularly in relation to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review, Universal and Meaningful Connectivity, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Esperanza Magpantay from ITU introduced the partnership, which comprises 14 international and regional organizations working together to develop methodologies and build capacity for ICT indicator collection. The partnership has established a core list of over 50 ICT indicators covering infrastructure, access, enterprise use, education, government services, and e-waste, which has been endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission.

The session highlighted ongoing mapping exercises to align these indicators with WSIS action lines, GDC objectives, and meaningful connectivity frameworks. Despite having extensive indicators, significant gaps remain in areas such as employment, health, security, and governance. Representatives from various organizations presented their contributions: UNDESA discussed e-government indicators, ECLAC shared their Digital Development Observatory and Regional AI Index, ESCWA outlined their 85 indicators for measuring digital development, and ILO presented new employment-related ICT indicators focusing on the ICT sector workforce.

Key challenges identified included insufficient funding for data collection, particularly in developing countries, limited technical capacity in national statistical offices, and the need for more disaggregated data to understand digital inequalities. Participants emphasized the importance of incorporating alternative data sources like big data and satellite imagery while maintaining international comparability standards. The partnership aims to finalize its mapping matrix, publish data through ITU’s data hub, and continue building capacity in countries most in need of support for evidence-based digital policymaking.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Mapping ICT indicators to global frameworks**: The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development is conducting a comprehensive mapping exercise to align their 50+ core ICT indicators with WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity goals to identify measurement gaps and areas needing new indicators.

– **Expanding indicator coverage beyond traditional ICT metrics**: Participants identified significant gaps in current indicators, particularly in areas like employment (with ILO proposing new ICT sector employment indicators), health, security, governance, AI usage, and digital platform work that require new measurement approaches.

– **Funding and capacity challenges for data collection**: Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need for sustainable funding mechanisms to support national statistical offices and data collection efforts, particularly in developing countries where the need for data is greatest but resources are most limited.

– **Integration of alternative data sources**: Discussion focused on incorporating innovative data sources like big data, mobile phone data, and satellite imagery to complement traditional surveys, while maintaining international comparability standards through official statistical channels.

– **Strengthening multi-stakeholder coordination**: Emphasis on improving collaboration between national statistical offices, international organizations, regional commissions, civil society, and other stakeholders to enhance data availability, quality, and policy relevance at both national and international levels.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to assess the current state of ICT measurement frameworks and identify how to strengthen data collection and indicator development to support monitoring of major global digital initiatives (WSIS+20, Global Digital Compact, Universal Meaningful Connectivity) while addressing persistent data gaps and capacity challenges.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants demonstrating strong commitment to the partnership’s mission. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges around funding, data gaps, and capacity constraints, the overall atmosphere was solution-oriented and forward-looking, with organizations offering concrete contributions and expressing readiness to take on expanded roles in addressing measurement needs.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Esperanza Magpantay** – Senior statistician at ITU, steering committee member of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development

– **Alexandre Barbosa** – Head of CETIC (research center linked to the Brazilian Networking Information Center, NIC.br and CGI.br)

– **Marco Llinas** – Representative from UN ECLAC (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean)

– **Scarlett Fondeur** – Works with the e-commerce and digital economy branch of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

– **Participant** – Gembly Camacho, senior monitoring and evaluation specialist at APC (international civil society network)

– **Deniz Susar** – Representative from UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs)

– **Ayman El Sherbiny** – Chief of digital cooperation and digital development in UNESCO (regional commission)

– **Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava** – Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau of the ITU

– **Alison Gillwald** – Representative from Research ICT Africa

– **Michael Frosch** – Works at the Department of Statistics within the ILO (International Labour Organization)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Titi Casa** – Works for the AGI (Agency for Digital Italy) for the Italian government

# Comprehensive Report: Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development Discussion

## Executive Summary

This discussion focused on the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development’s efforts to strengthen global ICT measurement frameworks and address critical data gaps. The session brought together representatives from 14 international organisations to discuss three main themes: mapping existing indicators against major international frameworks (WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity goals), addressing significant data gaps particularly in employment, health, security and governance areas, and showcasing regional innovations in data collection methodologies. Key outcomes included commitments to complete the mapping exercise, launch an enhanced ITU data hub, and explore new employment-related indicators using existing microdata.

## Partnership Structure and Current Framework

### Organisational Foundation

Esperanza Magpantay from ITU introduced the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development as a collaborative response to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) call for comprehensive ICT indicators. The partnership comprises 14 international and regional organisations, with a steering committee led by ITU, UNCTAD, and UNDESA.

The partnership has developed a core list of over 50 ICT indicators that received endorsement from the UN Statistical Commission. These indicators cover infrastructure development, household and individual access, enterprise usage, educational applications, government services, and electronic waste management. Despite this comprehensive framework, significant gaps remain in areas such as employment, health, security, and governance applications of ICT.

### Current Data Availability

ITU’s 2024 stocktaking exercise revealed that while internet access at home and usage indicators are widely collected globally, significant gaps exist in ICT skills indicators, mobile ownership data, ICT expenditure measurements, and barriers to internet use. This assessment provides the foundation for prioritising future indicator development and capacity building efforts.

## Key Questions and Framework Alignment

### Guiding Questions for Strengthening Measurement

Cosmas Zavazava from ITU posed four critical questions that framed the discussion:

1. How to strengthen national statistical offices and improve international coordination

2. The role of alternative data sources including big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data

3. Better mapping of ICT indicators against international frameworks

4. Translating data into actionable insights for national digital strategies

### Mapping Exercise Initiative

A central focus was the partnership’s ongoing mapping exercise to align existing indicators with three major international frameworks: WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity goals. This systematic alignment aims to identify measurement gaps and guide future indicator development priorities.

Magpantay explained that this mapping process involves detailed analysis of each indicator’s relevance to specific action lines and objectives, creating a comprehensive matrix to guide future development. The exercise is particularly important given the recent adoption of the Global Digital Compact and the ongoing WSIS Plus 20 review process.

### WSIS Plus 20 Review Context

Deniz Susar from UNDESA highlighted the significance of the WSIS Plus 20 review, noting that it acknowledges the lack of established targets for many action lines and requests proposals for comprehensive monitoring frameworks. The review process has created momentum for strengthening measurement frameworks, with documents like the Compromiso de Sevilla explicitly recognising the importance of financing data availability for evidence-based policymaking.

## Regional Contributions and Innovations

### Latin American Leadership

Marco Llinas from UN ECLAC presented their Digital Development Observatory, which incorporates over 100 indicators following partnership standards. ECLAC has developed a Regional AI Index called “ILIA” covering 19 countries, demonstrating innovative approaches to measuring emerging technology adoption. This regional framework serves as a model for combining global standards with regional priorities.

### Middle Eastern and African Approaches

Ayman El Sherbiny from ESCWA outlined their framework of 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states, emphasising primary data collection capabilities through direct country engagement.

Alison Gillwald from Research ICT Africa highlighted critical insights from their household and enterprise surveys, revealing that despite 95-99% coverage in many African countries, less than 20% uptake occurs due to usage barriers not captured in current indicators. This demonstrates the crucial distinction between technical availability and meaningful access. However, she noted concerning funding sustainability challenges, with digital inequality funding being diverted to newer areas, significantly reducing their survey coverage from previously covering 20 African countries.

### Brazilian Innovation and Capacity Building

Alexandre Barbosa from CETIC presented Brazil’s comprehensive approach, including training programmes, capacity building initiatives, and adoption of innovative technologies such as machine learning and big data for official statistics production. Brazil’s digital transformation school and survey methodology workshops demonstrate how countries with advanced capabilities can support regional development.

Brazil is already implementing AI usage indicators in national surveys, positioning them at the forefront of measuring emerging technology adoption. Their multi-stakeholder funding model involves regulators, ministries, and internet registry agencies supplementing national statistical office budgets.

## Critical Data Gaps and Measurement Challenges

### Employment Indicators Gap

Michael Frosch from ILO addressed the employment measurement gap, proposing development of ICT sector employment indicators using existing microdata. His analysis suggested coverage possibilities for 55 countries using 3-digit ISIC level data (2022-2024) and 90 countries using 2-digit level data, demonstrating how existing data infrastructure can address identified gaps without requiring entirely new collection mechanisms.

### Capacity and Resource Constraints

Alexandre Barbosa highlighted the fundamental challenge facing many countries: increasing pressure to produce data across diverse areas while facing technical and skill capacity gaps in implementing required methodologies. This tension between growing demand and limited capacity represents a critical bottleneck in global measurement efforts.

The capacity challenges extend beyond technical skills to include institutional coordination, with many countries lacking effective mechanisms for coordinating data collection across different government agencies and stakeholders.

### Emerging Measurement Areas

The discussion identified several areas requiring new measurement approaches:

– Artificial intelligence usage and impact across different sectors

– Meaningful connectivity beyond basic access measures

– Environmental sustainability aspects of digital development

– Information integrity and digital security measures

## Innovation in Data Sources and Methodologies

### Alternative Data Integration

Cosmas Zavazava emphasised the potential of alternative data sources including big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data to complement traditional survey methods. This approach recognises both the limitations of traditional data collection and opportunities presented by new data sources, particularly in contexts where traditional statistical capacity is limited.

### Technological Advancement in Official Statistics

Brazil’s experience incorporating machine learning and big data into official statistics production provides a concrete example of how traditional statistical offices can evolve while maintaining rigour and international comparability standards.

## Stakeholder Engagement and Participation

### Civil Society Participation

Gembly Camacho from APC asked about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes. Scarlett Fondeur from UNCTAD’s e-commerce and digital economy branch explained that the partnership works primarily with official statistics producers to ensure international comparability, while acknowledging the importance of broader stakeholder engagement in measurement processes.

### Questions on Measurement Scope

Titi Casa from Italy’s Agency for Digital Italy asked about measurements beyond meaningful access, highlighting the need for indicators that capture the full spectrum of digital experiences and outcomes. Online participants also raised questions about supporting countries facing data collection difficulties.

## Data Platform Development and Access

### ITU Data Hub Launch

Esperanza Magpantay announced the development of an ITU data hub that will host compiled data from all partnership organisations. The platform will feature country dashboards launching in 2025, with upgrades in 2026 including an AI-powered chatbot for enhanced user interaction. A GDC monitoring dashboard is expected soon after the main platform launch.

This centralised platform addresses fragmentation across multiple data sources and will support more comprehensive analysis while reducing the burden on users to navigate multiple platforms.

### Data Quality and Transparency

The partnership’s commitment to publishing available data while conducting quantitative risk assessments demonstrates attention to data quality and transparency. This approach recognises that perfect data should not prevent access to useful data, while maintaining standards for international comparability.

## Future Directions and Commitments

### Immediate Deliverables

The partnership committed to several concrete deliverables:

– Finalising the mapping matrix of indicators against international frameworks

– Launching the ITU data hub with enhanced user features

– ILO’s further exploration of employment-related ICT indicators using existing microdata

### Strategic Priorities

Longer-term priorities include developing sustainable funding mechanisms for regular ICT surveys in developing countries and enhancing coordination between national statistical offices and international organisations. The partnership also aims to develop an indicator framework mandate for the WSIS Plus 20 review to secure political support and resources for enhanced measurement efforts.

### Addressing Sustainability Challenges

The discussion highlighted the need for innovative approaches to resource mobilisation that recognise the public good nature of statistical information while addressing practical funding constraints, particularly in developing countries where data needs are greatest but resources most limited.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated strong collaborative commitment among partnership organisations to improving ICT measurement capabilities globally. While significant challenges remain regarding funding sustainability and capacity constraints, the partnership shows clear potential for addressing critical measurement gaps through coordinated action and innovative approaches.

The commitment to concrete deliverables including the mapping exercise completion and data hub launch provides a foundation for continued progress. The identification of specific gaps in employment, AI usage, and meaningful connectivity offers a clear roadmap for future indicator development. Success will require sustained attention to both technical measurement improvements and the broader resource and capacity challenges that affect measurement capabilities globally.

The partnership’s evolution from basic ICT measurement to addressing complex questions of digital inclusion, emerging technologies, and sustainable development reflects the growing sophistication required in digital development measurement frameworks.

Esperanza Magpantay: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the session organized by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. We are going to start the session, and I’m going to share with you a presentation that will talk about measurement progress relating to the ICT indicators that are needed for the WSIS for the Universal and Meaningful Connectivity and the Global Digital Compact. My name is Esperanza Magpantay, and I’m from the ITU. I’m the senior statistician and one of the steering committee members of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. So those of you who are not familiar with the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, let me introduce to you the partnership, which was initiated in a direct call from WSIS with regards to improving availability and quality of ICT indicators. And I just saw Mr. Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava entering the room, so we will welcome him for his opening remarks. Mr. Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava is the director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau of the ITU. Over to you, Cosmas.

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize for coming a bit late. I was speaking at another event. Thank you very much for inviting me. It is always a pleasure. I see a lot of friends here, familiar faces, and I would like to welcome you all at Palexpo, and I think we’ll be seeing each other very soon when we have the World Telecommunications Indicators Symposium and also the two expert groups. Over the past decades, the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development has been growing and growing from strength to strength, and this session builds on these achievements. As we enter the second decade of WSIS, in tandem with the outcomes of the Summit of the Future and the broader WSIS Plus initiative, I would like to welcome you to the World Telecommunications 20 review, reliable data and robust statistics have never been more critical. So we wanted to work with a double effort to make sure that we reinforce our efforts towards this, and also that’s why we have started measuring the information, the universal meaningful connectivity, which we thank, of course, the European Union for partnering with us. Crucially, they enable us to gauge progress on the WSIS Action Lines from infrastructure to inclusion, capacity building to e-applications and cyber security, and on the commitments of the global digital compact. Every strategy depends on high quality, timely and comparable data, this you know already. That includes Action Line C2 when ensuring affordable internet access, as well as Action Line C7 on empowering communities through e-services. Without data, we cannot identify where the digital divide exists, nor can we design evidence-based policies to close it. With it, we can have a positive and measurable impact on people’s lives. Today, our discussion must also reflect the SDG imperatives, enabling Goal 4 on education, Goal 5 on gender equality, and I’m pleased to say that there are some regions that are doing very well, they’ve reached parity. The Caribbean, for example, the CIS region, and Europe is doing very well. There are some other regions that need hand-holding and we are ready to do that. We thank also many of our partners, including the ILO, who participated in our global skills development in Bahrain, where together we launched the skills toolkit. Goal 8 on decent work and growth, and Goal 9 on resilient infrastructure, Goal 13 on climate action, and we just recently launched our greening digital report, and we thank the private sector for contributing to this effort, and Goal 17 on partnerships, and I think this partnership is made in heaven. We are doing a… Thank you very much, Dr. Zavazava, and thank you to all of you for joining us today. We have a lot together, and we should continue to sustain it. First, how can we strengthen national statistical offices and international coordination so we improve the frequency, quality, and granularity of ICT data? And second, what role can alternatives like big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data play in complementing traditional data sources? And thirdly, how can we better map core ICT indicators against international development frameworks, including the WSIS Action Lines, the Global Digital Compact, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity, which I referred to earlier on? And fourthly, how do we translate the data into action, ensuring it directly informs national digital strategies and embeds accountability and inclusivity in digital transformation? If we can consider these questions, we can embed data-driven accountability at the heart of the Global Digital Compact and WSIS process. We need all stakeholders to commit to strengthening national statistical systems, including through appropriate financing, to integrating innovative data sources ethically and responsibly, and to ensure data is disaggregated by gender, location, and income in order to design effective targeted interventions for digital inclusion. I invite each of you to contribute your insights and expertise, and I wish you a productive and engaging session. And it is important, of course, for us to recognize that at the base or the foundation of artificial intelligence is data. Without connecting everyone or certain regions or certain groups of countries, like least developed countries, landlocked developing states, and small island developing states, we are limited in terms of the availability of data. So it is important for us to join hands and make sure that together with industry and ITU as over 8,000 private sector industry and academic members, we should join our hands and make sure that we move forward together and make data available so that we can embrace the benefits of artificial intelligence while we effectively confront the ills that come with artificial intelligence. Thank you very much.

Esperanza Magpantay: Thank you very much Mr. Zavazava and with those words I’d like to continue presenting the partnership. So some of you may not be here in previous sessions that we organized during WSIS so I was just describing the partnership on measuring ICT for development which is an initiative that is a direct response to the call of WSIS to produce ICT indicators and data, improve data availability and quality of those ICT indicators. It’s our way of coordinating the work that different international organizations is doing with regards to ICT indicators. Currently we have 14 members comprising of international organizations as well as regional organizations working together to develop methodologies and build capacities in countries. Currently the partnership is led by three agencies through a steering committee ITU, UNCTAD and UNDESA. We have developed the core list of ICT indicators covering many areas and this core list of ICT indicators were endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission so it is recognized by national statistical offices as a list where they can start their data collections. We had conducted a number of workshops and trainings to help countries build their capacity with regards to the collection of those indicators. So you’ll see on the screen the different organizations that are working together in this partnership. So what are included in the core list? ICT indicators. So we have from the ITU, ICT infrastructure and access indicators, and ICT access and use by households and individuals. We have from UNCTAD, ICT access and use by enterprises, ICT sector and trade in ICT goods indicators, UNESCO Institute of Statistics on ICT in education, UNDESA for ICT in government indicators, and UNITAR on e-waste indicators. So this work also on e-waste indicators is in collaboration with the ITU. So currently, there are more than 50 indicators in this core list of indicators. So in today’s session, we would like to explore whether these 50 indicators are enough to measure different goals and targets and global monitoring with regards to, for example, universal and meaningful connectivity, the WSIS action lines, as well as the global digital compact, which all require measurements and data to make sure they can monitor the implementation, as well as monitor progress, identify gaps, and guide policymaking. So currently, the partnership is undergoing a mapping exercise of those 50 indicators, where we are listing each and every indicator that I mentioned earlier against the WSIS targets that was initially defined in the very first events of WSIS, as well as WSIS action lines, and the GDC objectives, as well as universal and meaningful connectivity. So this work, we are hoping to achieve and complete very soon. And the idea here is to basically look at the different goals and targets, as well as make an assessment. on whether these indicators are sufficient to measure and identify all the areas that need to be measured. And so far, what we found out is that although we have more than 50 indicators, there are still a number of areas that need indicators or measurement, particularly on employment, on health, on security, on governance, for example. There’s strong coverage, of course, on ICT access and use, and thanks to colleagues who are around on this table, and we will hear from them with regards to the updates that are happening on those areas. From the ITU side, we continue to collect data and help countries improve data availability with regards to ICT, household and access and use indicators for individuals. And currently, what we found out is that from the stocktaking exercise that we initiated in 2024, that most of the countries that responded to the stocktaking exercise, that internet access at home and internet usage indicators are particularly collected in many countries. However, there’s still a lot of gaps with regards to data availability, particularly for ICT skills indicators disaggregated by type of the activity, as well as indicators that relates to mobile ownership and ICT expenditure, as well as indicators on ICT on internet use barriers. So, those indicators are very important to identify why certain proportion of population is still not using the internet, for example. So, internet barriers is an important indicator. So, the partnership is also working on towards third objective. So the third objective is about dissemination of the data that are collected for those core ICT indicators. And so just recently the ITU and also the different partners who are here agreed to compile the data in a single point where users can see all the data that pertains to the core ICT indicators. It will be hosted in the ITU data hub and the idea here is the indicators will be accessible via a data catalog where they can select the indicators and countries that they want to explore. And country dashboards will also be launched in 2025 and upgraded in 2026. So again the idea here is to help monitor the different goals and targets including the GDC objectives and next year and in the coming months we hope that another dashboard will come and become available to reflect the indicators that will be needed to monitor the GDC. An AI-powered chatbot on the data hub is also expected to be launched very soon that will facilitate the availability and interaction with regards to the different outputs and ICT indicators that will be hosted in the ITU data hub. So this is something that I invite you to look forward to and check as soon as this gets available. In terms of the way forward so we hope to finalize the mapping matrix that will be made available in the partnership website and to identify indicators that are needed to be included in the current core list. We also would like to publish available data as I mentioned in the data hub and conduct a quantitative assessment of the risk and my colleague, Dennis, will talk about this particular point in detail, as well as, of course, the first objective of the partnership. We remain committed to improving data availability, and I’d like to point to the recently concluded financing for development conference that happened in Seville, Spain, where the Compromiso de Sevilla explicitly included different mentions about data and the importance of financing the data availability, improving data availability to help policymaking. So I invite you to check the Compromiso de Sevilla, where you will find several mentions of data and different initiatives that needs to be put in place to make sure data are available. And of course, there’s a lot of new data sources. The ITU and partners has been very active in exploring new data sources, particularly on the use of mobile phone data for the indicators that we are responsible for, and also in other areas where applications of mobile phone big data were proven to be very helpful. There’s a lot of information that I’m not able to cover in this presentation, but I invite you to look at the partnership website and also to listen to the rest of the presentation during this session. Thank you very much, and over to you, Deniz.

Deniz Susar: Thank you very much, Esperanza. Good morning. This is Deniz Susar from UNDESA. I will first raise the paragraphs, the section monitoring and measurement in the elements paper of the WSIS plus 20 overall review by the UNGA. We are serving as the secretariat, and as you know, UN General Assembly is reviewing the progress in the WSIS implementation in the last 20 years, and it will conclude with a high-level meeting in December. If you look at the elements paper, the paragraphs from 82 to 84 is monitoring and measurement. uh the co-facilitators acknowledged that WSIS plus 20 uh WSIS plus 10 10 years ago review didn’t establish targets for the uh for the WSIS however they also acknowledged that there are different uh target indicators available in different fora and now they are asking in paragraph 84 proposals concerning monitoring and measurement which Esperanza mentioned it could be the WSIS action lines but then the co-facilitators as we know based on the UNCTAD resolution trying to integrate GDC and WSIS so maybe it could be a set of indicated action lines that Esperanza showed in the spreadsheet earlier so I think one one idea that could go from here and as partnership we can propose to them is maybe to give the mandate of coming up with this indicators in the resolution that will be adopted end of the year with some timeline ahead because I think the partnership is well positioned to undertake this task of course with the involvement of all agencies and my second point is about our work on ICT in government indicators we will be updating the indicators as instructed by the partnership in the in the spreadsheet our indicators are related to e-government so we look at how national governments and also the cities use technology to deliver public services so this is all part of the UN e-government survey and for the cities we have the local online service index so these will be our contribution from this over to you

Marco Llinas: thank you Deniz Thank you, Esperanza. I introduce myself quickly, Marco Ginaz from UN ECLAC. It’s my pleasure to be attending once again this meeting of the partnership at the WSIS meeting. At ECLAC, we firmly believe that sound, timely, and comparable ICT statistics are foundational to effective policymaking and to measuring progress on digital transformation. So today, let me quickly share two concrete regional initiatives that exemplify our commitment to measurement. First, the ECLAC’s Digital Development Observatory. This is an online open access platform, including ICT-related indicators across Latin America and the Caribbean. The observatory offers up-to-date statistics on connectivity, access, usage, and digital skills, desegregated whenever possible by gender, age, income, and geography. We already have over 100 indicators. We are particularly interested in deepening efforts on measuring usage, and especially digital technology adoption by the productive sector, where initial measurements suggest we have huge gaps. It is worthwhile mentioning that the observatory’s methodology follows international standards set by the partnership, ensuring regional data comparability with global frameworks. And the second initiative is the Regional AI Index, also known as ILIA, which is prepared in conjunction with CENIA, AI National Center of Chile. The ILIA, and we are now preparing its third edition, complements traditional ICT is a professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is a professor of statistics by measuring key aspects of AI ecosystems in 19 countries of the region. Ilia covers three critical dimensions. The first, enabling factors, including infrastructure, connectivity, and human capital. Second, research, development, and adoption, which includes national AI strategies, regulatory frameworks, ethics, and sustainability. Importantly, for ILIA 2025, we are emphasizing the production of innovative indicators that capture emerging and actionable dimensions of AI readiness and adoption. Just to finish, ECLAC reaffirms its commitment to the partnership and to the strengthening of the AI ecosystem. And it looks forward to continuing participating in the partnership. Thank you, Esperanza, and over to Ayman. Ayman.

Ayman El Sherbiny: Thank you so much, Mike. So thank you so much. I will follow up to my colleague, Marco, from ECLAC, and my name is Ayman Elshirbeh. I am the chief of digital cooperation and digital development in UNESCO, another regional commission working with the partnership on measurement since its inception. And we have been some time also active on the steering committee. It is not, I mean, this time is historical challenge for our partnership, especially with the new elements introduced in the GDC. And I’m very glad that it is part of the roadmap that we have to continue our role, especially as regional commissions, in, like, bringing the information and the data from the countries to complement the data that are sent by NSOs. We can have also direct, let us say, primary sources of data through our connections with multiple sectors in our countries. And I’m very glad that it is part of the roadmap that we have to continue our role, especially as regional commissions in, like, bringing the information and the data from the countries to complement the data that are sent by NSOs. And I’m very glad that it is part of the roadmap that we have to continue our role, especially as regional commissions in, like, bringing the information and the data from multiple sectors in our countries. And therefore, we can also contribute to this evolution of whether measuring the GDC objectives or certain elements of it, or measuring the rest of the elements of the WSIS that has been, let us say, not left behind, but put aside for its complexity. So we know the core indicators. We know the, let us say, advancement in them and the evolution of the WSIS. And we still have something to offer. Regarding the digital economy in our region. We have 85 indicators that we use for Measuring digital development across the 22 member states and these 85 indicators Some of them are Row data primary data directly for of countries through reviews. We want to share with you the methodology and Metadata and so on maybe they can become comparable and we can benefit Out of them all of us and of course some of them are part of what you produce so the measurement paradigm itself that we use is we have made like a kind of intersection between all the wishes action lines and All the SDGs in under like five holistic clusters the state the ICT sector Digital economy or the economy and the society The government and and this kind of constellation are five We have underneath them as I said about 85 indicators some of them are going to be measured for the first time and We would like to revise with you the metadata and everything and then we might also work on them globally I’ll give an example for example Issues related to FDI in ICT sector is not measured at all It is difficult, but Torbjorn told me there are solutions for it. So he was working with UNCTAD Also, we can find the the job like And also employment related things Simple things like zero or one like using a common statistical manual for classifying the ICT sector Isaac four for example or whatever in each country. We just need to know zero one. Yes, it is The same manual or not and so on and so forth many things we can fill gaps in digital economy also in certain simple boolean parameters like Strategies existing or not these sectors bla bla bla e x or e y or e z These let us say thematic strategies. We need to know who has what. Other examples also related to this AI index, we need to take it from you now and also to implement it in other regions. So we have a lot to do in the next few months, not a lot, because we need to reflect some kind of convictions in the drafts, not zero of course, but maybe in subsequent ones. So I think we can declare our readiness and our will to undertake as regional commissions the part of the burden of measurement with you and with all the partners for 20 plus or 2026 and beyond. And that is my two cents I have to leave now because we have a meeting in room E for regional commissions on AI governance. And I will leave, of course, Marco, he has committed to stay, but he will also come a little bit earlier to catch up with us. Thank you so much and I have to leave. Thank you. Thank you for giving me the time.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you very much, Eamon, for giving, expressing once more the support of the regional commissions to the measurement work. We’re going to hear now from the International Labour Organization, ILO, who’s one of the more recent members of the partnership and is advancing work in terms of measurement of employment by digital platforms.

Michael Frosch: Yes, thank you. There we go. Thank you very much. I had some slides, I don’t know, are they, they should be there. OK, let’s see. Oh. Yes, but let me introduce myself to begin with. So, yes. Michael Frosch working at the Department of Statistics within the ILO and as you heard we have recently joined the partnership and I think already now we start to see how fruitful this collaboration is for all of us including the ILO. So I will spend some short time to talk a little bit about the ILO stat and the possibility to create employment related ICT indicators. But first of all a few words about the Department of Statistics within the ILO. So we are working in different areas but all related to the labor market of course. One of the core areas in which we are engaged is in relation to developing statistical standards related to labor statistics and in addition to that developing and providing technical tools and recommendations for data collection which can support countries in the implementation of the labor standards. But beyond that we are also the focal point to the UN in relation to labor statistics and this includes developing and maintaining and updating the ILO stat which is the labor statistical database in which we produce and collect labor market indicators and make them available for users. So the ILO stat is draws from different statistical sources. Household surveys particularly labor force surveys is the key source for us in order to produce our indicators but beyond that we are also using official estimates, administrative sources, establishment based surveys and also statistics from the national accounts and we collect this data through different means. We have automated processes that collect the data from the websites of the statistical offices if they publish them. But beyond that, and that’s probably our most important way of collect data, is that countries are sharing their microdata with us and then we can process it in order to produce our indicators. And finally, for those countries that don’t share data or which we are unable to collect it through automated means, then we are also collecting it through sending out an Excel questionnaire to the countries. So looking into the ILO stat, well, then it covers a wide range of different topics, again, of course, all related to the labor market and labor statistics. The core focus is typically on the labor supply, so that would include indicators relating to the population and labor force, employment and unemployment, and labor underutilization. But beyond that, we are also covering areas such as working conditions, competitiveness, poverty and inequality, industrial relations, as well as other key topics, such as the SDGs that the ILO is host for, as well as child labor and unpaid work. And we are also producing indicators for some selected groups, such as labor migrants, youth, women and volunteers. So the ILO stat includes a broad, broad range of different indicators, and in addition, it also includes the possibility to disseminate these indicators by the use of different characteristics. So this includes demographic characteristics, as well as employment-specific characteristics and other characteristics as well. So the ILO stat is really a flexible tool, I would say. It includes a broad range of indicators for users to use. They can produce their own tables, looking at countries, looking at regions. looking at global estimates and on top of that there’s also the possibility to disseminate these indicators based on on the need of the user. But the ILO stat also includes the possibility due to that we have all this underlying data to create new indicators as well and this would also include the possibility to create employment related ICT indicators and by that maybe fill some of the gaps in the core list of the ICT indicators which was pointed out in the introductory presentation. So in other words based on the available data in the ILO stat it would be a possibility to create employment related ICT indicators and this could for example include an indicator on the proportion of the employed persons in the ICT sector where we define the ICT sector based on the definition already provided in the handbook for the collection of administrative data on telecommunications. So this could be a core indicator that really would reflect well the importance of the ICT sector from the point of view of employment and employment creation and also allow to track the development in terms of trends development over time as well as also enabling cross-country comparison and then in addition it would be possible to do further disaggregation and also to also reflect the characteristics and the structures of the persons and the types of jobs within this sector. So this could include disaggregation by sex, occupation, institutional sector and so on. So one way in which this could be done is to base definition of the indicator on a 3-digit ISIC level which so this would be an indicator that would be in a complete alignment with the definition of the ICT sector as provided in the handbook and it would really capture the proportion of employed persons in the ICT sector out of total employment. Now to create this indicator would require that we would have access to countries three digit level ISIC and it would also require us to produce these indicators based on the microdata that we have received from countries. So if we’re looking at the number of countries for which we would be able to produce these indicators and if we’re looking at it in the period of 2022 to 2024, well then currently we would be able to produce this indicator for 55 countries globally, 12 countries from Africa, 14 in the Americas, three in the Arab states, 20 in Asia and Pacific and six in Europe and Central Asia. And then we could produce these indicators for example twice per year and again we would also be able to disseminate this indicator with additional characteristics. However in addition and as an approach to increase the number of countries for which we could produce an indicator for, it could also be relevant to as well include a kind of a complementary supplementary indicator that has a bit broader definition but that would include an increased number of countries. So that could be a two digit ISIC level based definition. It would of course be less precise but it could still give valuable insights on the size and development of the ICT sectors in terms of employment and this would be an indicator that actually is already available in the ILO stat and then we would be able to produce this indicator for 90 countries globally. So this would really increase the number of countries. So we would then have 24 countries in Africa, 17 in the Americas, 4 in the Arab states, 24 in Asia and the Pacific and 20 in Europe and Central Asia. And of course if we are removing this time limit because this is really just looking back at the two last year but if we’re looking at countries with any available data well then obviously we would increase the number of countries for which we can produce this indicator for so on a two-digit level we would be able to provide the indicator for 155 countries and on the three-digit level we would be able to provide this indicator for 100 countries. So to summarize the idea here is really that well because the data is already available in the ILOs that an employment related ICT indicator could relatively be easy produced so it’s in a sense a low-hanging fruit here and a possibility is to use an indicator based on this more precise definition that would be in alignment to the boundaries of the ICT sector but then potentially complement this indicator with a slightly broader an indicator with based on a slightly broader definition in order to be able to increase the number of countries for which the data can be produced and these indicators well they would provide valuable insights in terms of the development and importance of the ICT sector from the perspective of employment so it could be contribute to the understanding of the role of the ICT sector within countries labor markets. So a next step for us would be in collaboration to further explore these two different indicators to see how they relate to each other how they correlate to each other as well as assess the possibilities for dissemination look at more closely what is actually feasible in order to still ensure that we are producing indicators with a robust estimation as well as working more on providing more detailed definitions about these indicators as well as its methodology. So I will stop there yeah but of course happy to discuss further later thanks.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you thank you very much Michael and Ailo and Marco. from ECLEC. We’ll leave a good good luck with your regional commission, Sibel. Thank you again for your support of the partnership. So in the case of, I’m Scarlet Fonder by the way, I’m with the e-commerce and digital economy branch of the UN Conference on Trade and Development. Maybe can we put back the slide that Esperanza presented with the table that shows the mapping for the indicators, please? In the meantime, just to let you know, UNCTAD as well as DESA and ITU is part, has been a long-standing member of the steering committee of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. UNCTAD in particular focuses on the indicators on ICT used by enterprises. Until now, we’re still collecting or trying, attempting to collect the indicator unemployment in the ICT sector. We cover also value-added of the ICT sector and international trade in ICT goods, ICT services and digitally deliverable services. Now, in addition, UNCTAD is currently in the process of developing methodological guidelines on measuring e-commerce value, which we hope will lead to comparable statistics in this area in a few years. Despite limited availability of official statistics on use of digital technologies by businesses and enterprises, the core indicators under UNCTAD’s aegis are already due for a review that would reflect the evolution in the digital economy over the past decade. review is coming at the same time as was already evoked by some of our speakers as the convergence of both the WSIS plus 20 review and figuring out how the international community and countries will monitor GDC commitments. So UNCTAD is contributing to the partnerships mapping presented by Esperanza earlier that you can see here in the slide, but also we expect to use this mapping to inform the review of our own core indicators so that we are able to make some comeback with a new core indicators list that is useful for the future and forward looking. The review of the core indicators under our mandate will be done through a consultation with national statistical offices and other producers of official statistics because in the case of e-commerce and the digital economy, producers of official statistics may include also central banks, customs authorities, ministries of trade and technology. We will need to eliminate probably some core indicators that have become less important for digital policymaking. We might also relinquish indicators like we will probably do with the employment in the ICT sector to ILO. We will probably develop new ones like the e-commerce value indicators and maybe others that could be gathered through the review process that we will launch in the second half of this year. We hope to have a completed reviewed core indicators list by next year and at that time we also will need to both raise awareness and build capacity among producers of official statistics as widely as possible, but particularly in developing countries so that we can ensure the indicators will be produced and do not remain a theoretical exercise. So we hope that, I don’t know how many national statistical offices or producers of official statistics are sitting down here, but we hope to have your support in conducting this review and also in providing inputs to the mapping that we have here because we’re still at a very low level of official statistics in information society and digital economy for developing countries and this needs to be remedied in order to guide policy making that will help place the developing world in a better position. So I would like now to open the floor for questions and answers. And I would like to ask the remote moderator if there are any remote participant questions to please let us know. Thank you. I would like to give the floor to our old friend Alexander.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you Scarlett and good morning everyone. For us it’s a pleasure to be here in this session since Brazil is following the partnership since the very beginning, since its inception that it was in Brazil in 2004. I’m Alexandre Barbosa, head of CETIC, which is a research center linked to the Brazilian Networking Information Center, NIC.br and CGI.br. I guess that what we have seen in this presentation today was a summary of this very hard working being conducted by the partnership which are very strategic alliance that really is providing proper guidance to member states in the field of measurement and of course data collection in standard setting, data compilation and dissemination. But I think that despite the great effort we still have to face many challenges because countries are being pressured to have more and more data in a very different areas that it’s difficult to really keep up to date with the requirements of data for evidence policymaking and I think that the data gap that we still face in many regions like in my region Latin America we are advancing in data production in many countries. Brazil is a good example of that but we are still facing difficulties in funding surveys so National Statistical Office are not always able to fund national surveys and also in some countries we still have technical and skill capacity gap in terms of implementing the methodologies that are being set by those organizations. So I think that we need really to force a new institutional arrangement where NSOs can cooperate with other organizations and also of course as I guess it was a Marco Linas from Sepau has mentioned to use new alternative data sources. We have been making a great exercise in an effort in Brazil in adopting new data sources in using new technologies like machine learning and big data. to produce official statistics and I think that one good example that Brazil is giving is also providing training and capacity building programs not only for Brazil but also for the region. One of our partners is UNECLAC, CEPAL, we have been running for 12 years digital transformation school in which we invite not only national statistical office but policy makers and regulators to discuss this new data ecosystem and also the NIC.br annual workshop on survey methodologies that we have in this room many partners including UNCTAD, ITU, OSD, UNDESA that has been coming to Brazil to help improve the dialogue with these different stakeholders. But not to talk too much I would like just to make a reflection that the partnership has to look ahead and try to advance in developing new indicators. We have now new agendas like the global digital compact now with the WSIS plus 20 review and I think that we could prioritize topics that include like meaningful connectivity and ITU has already made a very important contribution in proposing a framework for measurement and Brazil was one of the first countries that adopted last year and during the G20 under the Brazilian presidency ITU was the knowledge partner of the Brazilian government and also CETIC was one of the organizations that helped ITU and the Brazilian government to set a toolkit a framework for the G20 member states and it was adopted. So, I think that we have to promote this framework to allow countries to really provide indicators on meaningful connectivity. Also artificial intelligence issues, ITU is now working on the household survey to include some indicators on the use of AI by individuals. In Brazil, we have already adopted the IRISTAT set of indicators that is already on the field right now being collected. We are going to provide very soon released data on the use of AI by individuals. Also information integrity is something that we have to think in the context of the mandate of the partnership, how to measure information integrity. And also other topics such as DPI and environmental sustainability in the digital age. So those are areas that we should move ahead because there is a real pressure to have indicators to design proper and effective policies in these new areas and we have to follow up these new data ecosystems, not only NSOs but also other organizations. They are very relevant, providing relevant data sources that we should take advantage of. Thank you very much.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Aleksandar. We also have a question from Alison.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you. Like Aleksandar, I suppose it’s also some by way of comment, but hopefully there’s some feedback on it as well. I’m Alison Gilbert from Research ICT Africa. We have been conducting surveys, household, individual, and microenterprise informal sector surveys together alongside CETIQ for over 20 years. Unfortunately not adequately funded like CETIQ. far more irregularly. And perhaps just to make the point that in the heyday of these surveys, we were supported to be able to cover 20 African countries. Of course, we were looking at much smaller surveys, just looking at telecom and mobile and early internet penetration. Now, because it costs so much to go into the field, we pack in a survey that looks extensively at some of these usage issues that have been raised here as not covered in currently by the indicators, including digital inclusion, including platform work, some of the demand side data that’s obviously not available in the administrative data or in big data for that matter. But it’s absolutely critical to getting the disaggregated data that we need on the exact points of policy intervention. And even, you know, masked by some of the disaggregated high level statistics we have, for example, on gender, that is informing some of the discourse and some of the inappropriate responses to some of these intersectional inequalities. You know, these are really challenges around intersections around poverty and gender and multiple other things, geographic location, not women as a homogenous group that are, you know, inexplicably affected by this. So gender is just one of them. But I think the ability to model this data and really identify, you know, where the challenges are and where the barriers are, you know, it’s absolutely critical that we get funding for this. And just to make the point that together with ITU as knowledge partners of the G20 under South Africa’s presidency, one of the objectives, hopefully we’ll see this come through in final declarations, is the finding funding for the support of this. You know, it keeps coming up. It’s in the GDC. It’s been longstanding and, you know, underpinning of the WSIS process. But actually the sustainable funding for this is just not there. digital inequality, which we like to describe not just digital divide funding, has dried up. That funding’s all been diverted to data governance now, DPI, and artificial intelligence. And of course, unless we address these underpinning inequalities, you don’t get transformative DPI or equitable AI, all those sorts of things. So just to make an appeal, that while at the very high level, one might see enormous progress over the last 20 years, for the majority of Africans, for example, people are as inequitably excluded, the bulk of people. And if we apply those meaningful connectivity work done under the Brazilian G20 and the ITU, under the Brazilian G20, on a global level, as we’ve tried to do, and on a continental level for the work that we’re doing within the G20, then those figures of 2.6 billion are actually more like double that in terms of meaningful connectivity. And further to extend the scope of the meaningful connectivity to look at equitable digital inclusion, which would look at some of those things that are out of scope for the meaningful connectivity, but are absolutely critical to understanding why with 95, 99% coverage in many African countries, many of the least developed countries, they’ve got a signal, and yet we have less than 20%, less than critical mass. uptake of these services, and therefore we don’t see the correlations with GDP and growth and other developmental aspects of that. So just an appeal for us to absolutely extend those indicators to look at the usage factors, the cost of the device, of course, absolutely critical, but even where in our micro enterprise and our informal sector surveys, for example, done with the World Bank, even where people have access to a device, they are very often not using it for anything at all, but if anything at all for WhatsApp. And again, just to say again, the importance of getting this data at more than the just very high level that you either get from the labour survey or from the census or something like that. We see equity in many countries in the informal sector around very poor, but equity or parity, I should say, around internet access. But in fact, as soon as you unpack that a little bit between men and women, parity, as soon as you unpack that a bit, you see that women become unable to use it. They don’t have the education, the skills, the affordability to use these devices. So just a appeal that we continue.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you, Alison. Sorry, it’s just we have just a few more minutes to go before we have to give up the room. We had one hand raised here and another one over there. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Participant: My name is Gembly Camacho. I’m the senior monitoring and evaluation specialist at APC. APC is an international civil society network. Yes, we are based in a membership of network all over the world, especially in the global south. But I have just a specific question. I really wanted to know how much the civil society is participating in the design of the indicators, in the design of the data collection processes, and how much the civil society organization is participating in the analysis of the data to analyze the results and how the indicators are behaving and how they are connected with the policymaking. Then I just wanted to know how much the civil society is participating and also how much importance do you think the civil society have in the participation of the civil society, how much importance you think it has, and I’m talking about that because of the right of the population to create the data they need to really reflect on their own realities. Then I wanted to know that part. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. We’ll answer that question, I think, at the end. Okay, thank you. My name is Titi Casa. I work for the AGI, the Agency for Digital Italy, for the Italian government. I am also AGF magma. So thank you so much for your great presentation. And as far as I understand, I mean, most of the measurements you are doing are related to the meaningful access. So I wonder if, in relation to the other 11 action lines, there are other kinds of measurements that you are doing, that you are collecting. And the second question is referring also to the source that you are using to collect this data. As, for instance, in Italy, are you using just the National Statistic Institute or are you using also other…

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you very much and we had one question online which I’ll add to the list and then maybe we can attempt to respond within five minutes so that we can leave the room for the next session. We were asked online, the countries which are in most need are usually those where there is most difficulty in obtaining reliable data and what measures will be made to support them. So maybe I would like to just mention that the issue of funding for data collection that was raised by Alexander and by Alison is one that is definitely difficult but the interlocutors for the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development have to be producers of official statistics because one of the main objectives of the partnership is to make available and improve the availability of comparable, internationally comparable statistics and in order for them to be internationally comparable, official statisticians or producers of official statistics have to agree on what are the parameters of comparability. So there is scope at the national level to use other sources of data and I think that’s part of the work that Alexander pointed to of how can national statistical offices or other producers of official statistics can incorporate innovative sources of data but they have a critical role in giving a stamp of approval in so far as the methodologies are and how that data is used and disseminated. Maybe you would like to add something?

Esperanza Magpantay: Thank you so much for the question. So just to add to what Scarlett had mentioned. But that part of the work is still ongoing at the national level, but it will be indirectly sent to the national statistical offices so that international organizations such as ITU, for example, will be able to get them from the national statistics office. So the point of contact is really the national statistics office. In terms of the question from our colleague with regards to other data collections, so the core indicators are mainly selected indicators that pertain to specific areas. So from the ITU where I came from, there are probably not more than 30 indicators in the core list that’s coming from our big data collection. From the ITU, we have two big questionnaires that we send to national statistical offices and regulators and ministries, and it includes a number of indicators, more than 100 indicators that are available for data users to get more information on areas that are not necessarily covered by the core list. So the quick reply is yes, there’s a lot more data that are available and are collected directly from countries. On the online participants, I think the quick answer there is that, from the ITU, we have conducted a number of workshops and events that are related to indicators on meaningful Universal and Meaningful Connectivity, and particularly engaging all the stakeholders for countries that are coming and those that have challenges in producing the data to help them understand the methodologies that we have, that we use in our data collections, and also to improve national coordination in the country. We always believe that national coordination among the different stakeholders in the country is the most important starting point, like the case of Brazil. I think the other stakeholders in the country facilitated availability, high availability of the data, because funding was identified and there are other stakeholders helping the NSO or the agency collecting the data to produce those statistics. So those are not necessarily budgets that are coming from the national statistics regular operation, but resources that are coming either from the regulators or the ministries or, for the case of Brazil, the Internet Registry Agency that facilitates the collection and improving data availability. Over to you, Scarlet. Thank you, Espy. Just one more point. I think

Scarlett Fondeur: the question coming from Italy also asked about other action lines and how we might measure or whether there are indicators for that, and that is part of the mapping process that we presented now, because we do recognize that the partnership has limits. We have the international organizations in the partnership have a mandate, cover a specific area according to their mandate, and where there are gaps, this mapping exercise is an attempt to identify them and hopefully point out that maybe, I don’t know, in health there might be a gap in data and hopefully have new partners that will help us remedy that gap. Our colleague from DESA would like to add something.

Deniz Susar: Yeah, just something quick. For example, we have e-government indicators, which is in response to WSIS Action Line C7 e-government. But let’s just remember that these are proxy indicators because WSIS has GDC as principles, WSIS has targets. So these are proxy indicators. Within the e-government indicators, we have 200 sub-indicators. So maybe some of those could be proxy to certain WSIS or GDC indicators.

Scarlett Fondeur: And finally, just one more comment regarding the mapping. I think there is also scope. Once we have finished this exercise, we will try to convey what work might be done, what support might be needed to help fill in gaps in the mapping, but also to help national statistical offices and producers of official statistics produce that data in a sustainable manner. That is not something that can be put on a table. That is something that needs to be articulated as accompanying such a mapping. But Partnership has been able to provide its inputs throughout the past 20 years to high-level political processes in the UN and to the UN Statistical Commission. So we hope to convey all of these needs, including the things that have been raised in this session. Thank you very much. Any other questions? No, I think we’re out of time now. Yeah. Thank you so much for joining us, and we encourage you to take a look at the session outcome that should be made available tomorrow, hopefully, and continue giving us your feedback. Thank you. Thank you so much. Recording stopped.

Agreement points

Need for comprehensive data collection and measurement frameworks

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Michael Frosch
– Marco Llinas
– Scarlett Fondeur
– Ayman El Sherbiny
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

Partnership initiated as direct response to WSIS call for ICT indicators with 14 member organizations coordinating measurement work

ILO recently joined partnership and collaboration is proving fruitful for all members

ECLAC operates Digital Development Observatory with 100+ indicators following partnership standards and Regional AI Index covering 19 countries

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

ESCWA has 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states with primary data collection

Brazil adopting new technologies like machine learning and big data to produce official statistics

Research ICT Africa conducts household and enterprise surveys covering usage issues and digital inclusion barriers

Summary

All speakers agree on the fundamental importance of robust data collection and measurement frameworks for ICT development, with each organization contributing specialized indicators and methodologies to create comprehensive coverage

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Recognition of significant data gaps and measurement challenges

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Alison Gillwald
– Participant

Arguments

Current 50+ indicators insufficient for measuring all areas, particularly employment, health, security, and governance

Countries face funding difficulties for national surveys and technical capacity gaps in implementing methodologies

Despite 95-99% coverage in many African countries, less than 20% uptake due to usage barriers not captured in current indicators

Most needed countries are often those with greatest difficulty obtaining reliable data

Summary

Speakers acknowledge that despite extensive indicator frameworks, significant gaps remain in data coverage and collection capabilities, particularly in developing countries and for measuring actual usage versus access

Topics

Development | Digital access

Importance of funding and sustainable financing for data collection

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

Compromiso de Sevilla explicitly mentions importance of financing data availability for policymaking

Countries face funding difficulties for national surveys and technical capacity gaps in implementing methodologies

Digital inequality funding has dried up and been diverted to data governance, DPI, and AI despite persistent inequalities

Summary

All speakers emphasize the critical need for adequate and sustainable funding mechanisms to support data collection efforts, noting that funding challenges are a major barrier to comprehensive measurement

Topics

Development | Economic

Need to incorporate innovative data sources and methodologies

Speakers

– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Need to explore alternative data sources like big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data to complement traditional sources

Brazil adopting new technologies like machine learning and big data to produce official statistics

Partnership committed to publishing available data and conducting quantitative risk assessments

Summary

Speakers agree on the necessity of complementing traditional data collection methods with innovative approaches including big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data to improve data quality and coverage

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Regional organizations are developing comprehensive measurement frameworks that complement global efforts while providing capacity building and training to support other countries in their regions

Speakers

– Marco Llinas
– Ayman El Sherbiny
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

ECLAC operates Digital Development Observatory with 100+ indicators following partnership standards and Regional AI Index covering 19 countries

ESCWA has 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states with primary data collection

Brazil provides training programs and capacity building for the region through digital transformation school and survey methodology workshops

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of aligning existing indicators with major international frameworks and conducting systematic reviews to ensure relevance and eliminate outdated measures

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Scarlett Fondeur

Arguments

Partnership conducting mapping of 50 indicators against WSIS action lines, GDC objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

Topics

Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding measurement into emerging areas while emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder coordination and innovative funding approaches for sustainable data collection

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Need for indicators on meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence use, information integrity, and environmental sustainability

National coordination and multi-stakeholder funding models like Brazil’s approach are essential for sustainable data collection

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Civil society participation in data processes

Speakers

– Scarlett Fondeur
– Participant

Arguments

Partnership primarily works with national statistical offices as official data producers while recognizing need for broader stakeholder engagement

Question raised about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes

Explanation

While a participant raised concerns about limited civil society participation, there was unexpected consensus that broader stakeholder engagement is important, even though the partnership must maintain focus on official statistics for comparability

Topics

Development | Human rights

Transfer of indicators between organizations

Speakers

– Scarlett Fondeur
– Michael Frosch

Arguments

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

ILO can create employment-related ICT indicators using existing microdata for 55-155 countries depending on precision level

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the practical approach of transferring responsibility for specific indicators (like employment in ICT sector) from UNCTAD to ILO based on organizational expertise and data availability

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus among speakers on the fundamental importance of comprehensive ICT measurement frameworks, the need for sustainable funding, recognition of significant data gaps, and the value of incorporating innovative data sources. Regional organizations demonstrated alignment in their approaches to capacity building and complementary measurement initiatives.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with collaborative spirit – speakers consistently built upon each other’s points rather than disagreeing, indicating a mature partnership with shared understanding of challenges and solutions. The implications are positive for continued cooperation and coordinated efforts to address measurement gaps in ICT development.

Different viewpoints

Role of civil society in data collection and indicator development

Speakers

– Participant
– Scarlett Fondeur
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Question raised about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes

Partnership primarily works with national statistical offices as official data producers while recognizing need for broader stakeholder engagement

Summary

A participant questioned the extent of civil society involvement in all stages of indicator development, emphasizing populations’ right to create data reflecting their realities. Partnership representatives responded that they must work primarily through official statistical offices for international comparability, though they acknowledge broader stakeholder needs.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Funding priorities and resource allocation for data collection

Speakers

– Alison Gillwald
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

Digital inequality funding has dried up and been diverted to data governance, DPI, and AI despite persistent inequalities

Countries face funding difficulties for national surveys and technical capacity gaps in implementing methodologies

Summary

Alison Gillwald argues that funding has been inappropriately diverted from addressing basic digital inequalities to newer areas like AI and data governance, while Alexandre Barbosa focuses on the general funding difficulties countries face for surveys and capacity building.

Topics

Development | Economic

Unexpected differences

Tension between standardization and local relevance in data collection

Speakers

– Participant
– Scarlett Fondeur

Arguments

Question raised about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes

Partnership primarily works with national statistical offices as official data producers while recognizing need for broader stakeholder engagement

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement emerged about whether the partnership’s focus on official statistics and international comparability might exclude important local perspectives and civil society contributions. This tension between standardization needs and inclusive participation was not anticipated as a major discussion point.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed limited but significant disagreements around funding priorities, stakeholder inclusion, and measurement approaches. Most speakers agreed on fundamental needs but differed on implementation strategies and priorities.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely shared common goals of improving ICT measurement and data availability, but showed different perspectives on how to achieve these goals, particularly regarding civil society participation, funding allocation, and the balance between standardization and local needs. These disagreements reflect broader tensions in international development work between top-down standardization and bottom-up participation, but did not prevent collaborative progress on the partnership’s objectives.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Regional organizations are developing comprehensive measurement frameworks that complement global efforts while providing capacity building and training to support other countries in their regions

Speakers

– Marco Llinas
– Ayman El Sherbiny
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

ECLAC operates Digital Development Observatory with 100+ indicators following partnership standards and Regional AI Index covering 19 countries

ESCWA has 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states with primary data collection

Brazil provides training programs and capacity building for the region through digital transformation school and survey methodology workshops

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of aligning existing indicators with major international frameworks and conducting systematic reviews to ensure relevance and eliminate outdated measures

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Scarlett Fondeur

Arguments

Partnership conducting mapping of 50 indicators against WSIS action lines, GDC objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

Topics

Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding measurement into emerging areas while emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder coordination and innovative funding approaches for sustainable data collection

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Need for indicators on meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence use, information integrity, and environmental sustainability

National coordination and multi-stakeholder funding models like Brazil’s approach are essential for sustainable data collection

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development has grown to 14 member organizations with 50+ core indicators, but significant gaps remain in measuring employment, health, security, and governance aspects of digital development

A comprehensive mapping exercise is underway to align existing indicators with WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity frameworks to identify measurement gaps

Funding constraints and technical capacity gaps are major barriers preventing countries, especially in the Global South, from conducting regular ICT surveys and producing comparable statistics

New data sources including big data, mobile phone data, and satellite imagery offer potential to complement traditional survey methods, with several countries like Brazil already implementing innovative approaches

Regional organizations are making significant contributions with ECLAC’s Digital Development Observatory, ESCWA’s 85-indicator framework, and various AI measurement initiatives across regions

The partnership is evolving to address emerging areas like artificial intelligence use, meaningful connectivity, information integrity, and environmental sustainability in the digital age

A centralized data hub hosted by ITU will launch in 2025-2026 to provide unified access to all partnership indicators with AI-powered tools for enhanced user interaction

Resolutions and action items

Finalize the mapping matrix of indicators against WSIS, GDC, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity frameworks to be published on the partnership website

Launch the ITU data hub with country dashboards in 2025 and upgrade in 2026, including an AI-powered chatbot for data interaction

ILO to further explore and develop employment-related ICT indicators using existing microdata, potentially covering 55-155 countries depending on precision level

UNCTAD to conduct a comprehensive review of core indicators through consultation with national statistical offices in the second half of the year

Partnership to propose indicator framework mandate to WSIS plus 20 review co-facilitators for inclusion in end-of-year resolution

Regional commissions (ECLAC, ESCWA) to continue contributing primary data and methodologies to complement national statistical office data

Conduct quantitative risk assessment of current indicator coverage and data availability gaps

Unresolved issues

Sustainable funding mechanisms for regular ICT surveys in developing countries remain unclear, with digital inequality funding being diverted to other priorities

The extent and methodology for incorporating civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes needs clarification

How to effectively measure meaningful connectivity beyond basic access, particularly addressing usage barriers that prevent transformative digital inclusion

Standardization challenges for new data sources like big data and mobile phone data to ensure international comparability while maintaining official statistics standards

Capacity building needs for national statistical offices to implement new methodologies and incorporate alternative data sources

Coordination mechanisms between national statistical offices and other data producers (regulators, ministries, private sector) for comprehensive data collection

Suggested compromises

ILO proposed using both 3-digit ISIC level indicators (more precise, fewer countries) and 2-digit ISIC level indicators (broader definition, more countries) to balance precision with coverage for employment indicators

Partnership to work with proxy indicators for complex areas like WSIS action lines and GDC objectives while acknowledging they may not capture all dimensions

UNCTAD suggested eliminating less important core indicators while developing new ones like e-commerce value indicators to keep the framework manageable and relevant

Use of multi-stakeholder funding models like Brazil’s approach where regulators, ministries, and internet registry agencies supplement national statistical office budgets

Regional organizations to provide complementary data collection through direct country engagement to fill gaps in official statistics while maintaining coordination with national statistical offices

Without data, we cannot identify where the digital divide exists, nor can we design evidence-based policies to close it. With it, we can have a positive and measurable impact on people’s lives… it is important for us to recognize that at the base or foundation of artificial intelligence is data. Without connecting everyone or certain regions or certain groups of countries, like least developed countries, landlocked developing states, and small island developing states, we are limited in terms of the availability of data.

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Reason

This comment is insightful because it establishes the fundamental connection between data availability and AI development, while highlighting how digital exclusion creates a vicious cycle that limits both connectivity and AI advancement for vulnerable populations. It reframes the discussion from technical measurement to equity and inclusion.

Impact

This opening comment set the tone for the entire session by establishing data as foundational to both policy-making and emerging technologies like AI. It influenced subsequent speakers to address gaps and inequalities in their presentations, and established the urgency of the measurement work being discussed.

So far, what we found out is that although we have more than 50 indicators, there are still a number of areas that need indicators or measurement, particularly on employment, on health, on security, on governance, for example.

Speaker

Esperanza Magpantay

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reveals a critical gap between the perceived comprehensiveness of existing measurement frameworks and the actual coverage needed for holistic digital development assessment. It challenges the assumption that 50+ indicators are sufficient.

Impact

This observation directly led to concrete responses from other organizations. Michael Frosch from ILO immediately addressed the employment gap by proposing specific ICT employment indicators, and other speakers began identifying how their organizations could fill identified gaps.

But I think the ILO stat also includes the possibility due to that we have all this underlying data to create new indicators as well and this would also include the possibility to create employment related ICT indicators and by that maybe fill some of the gaps in the core list of the ICT indicators… So in other words based on the available data in the ILO stat it would be a possibility to create employment related ICT indicators

Speaker

Michael Frosch

Reason

This comment is insightful because it demonstrates how existing data infrastructure can be leveraged to address identified gaps without requiring entirely new data collection mechanisms. It shows practical problem-solving and resource optimization.

Impact

This response directly addressed the employment gap identified by Esperanza and provided a concrete solution with specific country coverage numbers. It shifted the discussion from identifying problems to proposing actionable solutions and demonstrated how partnership collaboration can work effectively.

But I think that despite the great effort we still have to face many challenges because countries are being pressured to have more and more data in a very different areas that it’s difficult to really keep up to date with the requirements of data for evidence policymaking… we still have technical and skill capacity gap in terms of implementing the methodologies that are being set by those organizations.

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it introduces the critical tension between the growing demand for data and the practical limitations countries face in producing it. It challenges the assumption that more indicators automatically lead to better outcomes.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from technical measurement issues to practical implementation challenges. It prompted subsequent speakers like Alison Gillwald to elaborate on funding challenges and led to discussions about alternative data sources and capacity building needs.

And just to make the point that in the heyday of these surveys, we were supported to be able to cover 20 African countries… Now, because it costs so much to go into the field, we pack in a survey that looks extensively at some of these usage issues… But it’s absolutely critical to getting the disaggregated data that we need on the exact points of policy intervention… digital inequality funding has dried up. That funding’s all been diverted to data governance now, DPI, and artificial intelligence.

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it exposes a fundamental contradiction in development priorities: while there’s increased focus on advanced digital technologies, funding for basic measurement of digital inequalities has decreased. It reveals how funding trends may be undermining the foundational work needed for equitable digital development.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical reality check about resource allocation and sustainability. It connected the technical discussion to broader development funding patterns and highlighted how policy attention to emerging technologies might be inadvertently undermining basic measurement infrastructure needed for inclusive development.

I really wanted to know how much the civil society is participating in the design of the indicators, in the design of the data collection processes, and how much the civil society organization is participating in the analysis of the data… I’m talking about that because of the right of the population to create the data they need to really reflect on their own realities.

Speaker

Gembly Camacho

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it challenges the top-down approach to indicator development and raises fundamental questions about data sovereignty and participatory measurement. It introduces the concept of communities’ rights to shape how they are measured and represented in data.

Impact

This question introduced a new dimension to the discussion about governance and participation in measurement frameworks. While it came near the end and wasn’t fully addressed due to time constraints, it highlighted a significant gap in the partnership’s approach and raised questions about legitimacy and representation in international measurement efforts.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond technical measurement issues to address systemic challenges in digital development measurement. The conversation evolved from a presentation of existing frameworks to a critical examination of gaps, resource constraints, and governance issues. Zavazava’s opening established the stakes and urgency, Magpantay’s gap analysis prompted concrete responses from partners, and the later interventions by Barbosa, Gillwald, and Camacho introduced increasingly complex challenges around implementation, funding, and participation. The discussion demonstrated both the collaborative potential of the partnership (as seen in ILO’s immediate response to identified gaps) and the deeper structural challenges that technical solutions alone cannot address. The flow moved from optimistic collaboration to sobering realism about resource constraints and power dynamics in global measurement frameworks.

How can we strengthen national statistical offices and international coordination so we improve the frequency, quality, and granularity of ICT data?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This is a fundamental question about improving the institutional capacity and coordination mechanisms needed to enhance ICT data collection and quality globally.

What role can alternatives like big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data play in complementing traditional data sources?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This addresses the need to explore innovative data sources to fill gaps in traditional statistical collection methods, particularly important for developing countries with limited statistical capacity.

How can we better map core ICT indicators against international development frameworks, including the WSIS Action Lines, the Global Digital Compact, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that measurement efforts align with and support monitoring of key international digital development commitments and frameworks.

How do we translate the data into action, ensuring it directly informs national digital strategies and embeds accountability and inclusivity in digital transformation?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between data collection and policy implementation, ensuring that statistics lead to meaningful policy changes.

Whether these 50 indicators are enough to measure different goals and targets and global monitoring with regards to universal and meaningful connectivity, the WSIS action lines, as well as the global digital compact

Speaker

Esperanza Magpantay

Explanation

This is a fundamental assessment question about the adequacy of current measurement frameworks for monitoring key digital development objectives.

How much the civil society is participating in the design of the indicators, in the design of the data collection processes, and how much the civil society organization is participating in the analysis of the data

Speaker

Gembly Camacho (APC)

Explanation

This addresses the important question of stakeholder participation and the right of populations to participate in creating data that reflects their realities.

In relation to the other 11 action lines, are there other kinds of measurements that you are doing beyond meaningful access?

Speaker

Titi Casa (Agency for Digital Italy)

Explanation

This seeks to understand the scope of measurement beyond connectivity and access indicators to cover other aspects of digital development.

What measures will be made to support countries which are in most need but where there is most difficulty in obtaining reliable data?

Speaker

Online participant

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of data collection in the most vulnerable countries that often have the greatest need for support but face the most barriers to data collection.

How to measure information integrity in the context of the mandate of the partnership

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Explanation

This identifies a new area requiring measurement frameworks as information integrity becomes increasingly important in the digital age.

How to develop indicators for artificial intelligence usage by individuals and enterprises

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Explanation

This addresses the need for new measurement frameworks to capture the adoption and impact of AI technologies across different sectors.

How to measure environmental sustainability in the digital age

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Explanation

This identifies the need for indicators that capture the environmental impact and sustainability aspects of digital transformation.

How to measure e-commerce value and develop comparable statistics in this area

Speaker

Scarlett Fondeur (UNCTAD)

Explanation

This addresses a significant gap in measuring the economic value and impact of digital commerce activities.

How to measure employment by digital platforms and platform work

Speaker

Michael Frosch (ILO)

Explanation

This addresses the need to capture new forms of employment and work arrangements enabled by digital platforms.

How to extend meaningful connectivity indicators to look at equitable digital inclusion, including usage factors and barriers

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Explanation

This seeks to develop more comprehensive measures that go beyond basic connectivity to understand actual usage patterns and barriers to digital inclusion.

How to secure sustainable funding for regular data collection, particularly in developing countries

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa and Alison Gillwald

Explanation

This addresses a critical operational challenge where funding constraints limit the ability to collect regular, comprehensive data needed for policy making.