WSIS Action Lines Facilitators Meeting

Summary

This discussion was a session of WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) Action Line facilitators reporting on their achievements and progress over the past 20 years since the summit’s inception in 2003-2005. The session served as the foundational element of the WSIS Forum, where UN agencies responsible for implementing different action lines presented their roadmaps and future plans beyond 2025. Deputy Secretary General Thomas Lamanauskas opened by highlighting the dramatic growth in global connectivity, from under 800 million people connected in 2003 to 5.5 billion today, representing progress from 12.5% to two-thirds of the world’s population.

Each action line facilitator reported on their specific area of focus and evolution over two decades. UNESCO’s Davide Storti discussed progress in access to information laws, which expanded from 14 countries in the 1990s to 139 countries currently, and highlighted developments in open access models for scientific information. ITU’s Carla Licciardello addressed capacity building challenges, emphasizing the need for more inclusive approaches targeting vulnerable communities and adapting to emerging technologies like AI. Cybersecurity representative Preetam Maloor presented stark statistics showing cyber attacks increasing 80% year-over-year, with cybercrime costs rising from $400 billion to $8-11 trillion, while noting improved national cybersecurity strategies and incident response capabilities.

Other facilitators reported on regulatory frameworks, digital health transformation accelerated by COVID-19, e-commerce development through postal networks, and emerging ethical considerations around AI and neurotechnology. The session concluded with discussions about the need for better monitoring frameworks and data collection to measure action line effectiveness, as the WSIS community prepares for the 20-year review process and integration with the Global Digital Compact principles.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **20-Year Evolution of WSIS Action Lines**: Action line facilitators reported on significant progress across all areas since 2003-2005, including massive growth in global connectivity (from 800 million to 5.5 billion people connected), expansion of access to information laws (from 14 to 139 countries), and advancement in digital health, cybersecurity, and e-government services.

– **Emerging Technology Challenges and Opportunities**: Multiple facilitators highlighted how artificial intelligence, emerging technologies, and post-quantum computing are reshaping their respective action lines, requiring new approaches to regulation, ethics, capacity building, and cybersecurity while creating both opportunities and risks.

– **Need for Enhanced Monitoring and Data Collection**: A recurring theme was the lack of concrete monitoring frameworks and data collection mechanisms to measure the actual impact and progress of WSIS action lines, with calls for better reporting systems and alignment with SDG indicators.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Cross-cutting Issues**: Facilitators emphasized the increasing need for collaborative approaches across different sectors (health, education, agriculture) and stakeholder groups, moving beyond traditional silos to address complex digital transformation challenges.

– **Preparation for WSIS+20 Review**: The session served as preparation for the upcoming UN General Assembly review of WSIS, with discussions on integrating Global Digital Compact (GDC) principles, maintaining multi-stakeholder approaches, and strengthening frameworks like the Internet Governance Forum.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Action Lines’ achievements over the past 20 years, assess current challenges, and establish a vision for the future beyond 2025. This session served as the foundational reporting mechanism for WSIS Action Line facilitators, as mandated by the Tunis Agenda, and was specifically designed to inform the upcoming WSIS+20 review process at the UN General Assembly.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional and collaborative tone throughout. It began with ceremonial appreciation and congratulations for the work accomplished, evolved into detailed technical reporting from various UN agencies, and concluded with forward-looking strategic discussions. The tone was generally optimistic about progress made while acknowledging significant challenges ahead, particularly around emerging technologies and the need for better coordination and measurement frameworks.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Session moderator/facilitator for WSIS Action Line facilitators meeting

– **Tomas Lamanauskas** – Deputy Secretary General, ITU

– **Davide Storti** – UNESCO representative implementing multiple action lines (C3 Access to Information, C8 Cultural Diversity, C9 Media, C7 e-learning, C7 e-science)

– **Carla Licciardello** – ITU representative for Action Line C4 on capacity building and digital skills

– **Preetam Maloor** – ITU representative for Action Line C5 on cybersecurity

– **Sofie Maddens** – ITU representative coordinating Action Line C6 on enabling environment/regulation

– **Derrick Muneene** – World Health Organization, Head of capacity building and partnerships, focal point for Action Line C7 on eHealth

– **Scarlett Fondeur Gil de Barth** – UNCTAD representative, also representing CSTD and Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development

– **Radka Maxova** – UPU (Universal Postal Union) representative for Action Line C7 on e-business

– **Maria Prieto Berhouet** – ILO (International Labour Organization) representative for Action Line C7 on e-employment

– **Garam Bel** – Representative for Action Line C7 on e-environment (environmental aspects)

– **Tee Wee Ang** – UNESCO representative for Action Line C10 on ethics

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dennis/Denise** – UN-DESA representative implementing Action Lines C1, C11, and C7 e-governance (mentioned as both Dennis and Denise in transcript, likely same person)

– **Speaker** – Unidentified speaker discussing disaster risk management aspects of e-environment action line (likely Marielza based on context)

# WSIS Action Line Facilitators Meeting: 20 Years of Progress Report

## Executive Summary

The WSIS Action Line facilitators meeting provided a comprehensive review of achievements over the past two decades since the World Summit on the Information Society’s inception in 2003-2005. Representatives from multiple UN agencies reported on their roadmaps and progress across all action lines, highlighting remarkable growth in global connectivity from 800 million to 5.5 billion people connected worldwide. The session served as a foundational element for the WSIS+20 review process and demonstrated how WSIS has evolved into the digital arm of the sustainable development agenda.

## Opening Remarks and Context

Deputy Secretary General Tomas Lamanauskas opened the session by emphasizing the transformation in global connectivity over 20 years, with connectivity expanding from 12.5% to two-thirds of the world’s population. He noted that WSIS has evolved from a digital development framework to become integral to the sustainable development agenda.

Moderator Gitanjali Sah explained that this reporting session was mandated by Paragraph 109 of the Tunis Agenda and serves as the foundation of the WSIS Forum, having evolved from earlier cluster events. She highlighted a critical challenge: the absence of concrete monitoring and assessment frameworks for evaluating action line achievements after 20 years of implementation.

## Action Line Reports

### Access to Information and Knowledge (Action Lines C3, C8, C9)

UNESCO’s Davide Storti reported on multiple interconnected action lines, highlighting the expansion of access to information laws from 14 countries in the 1990s to 139 countries currently. He noted a fundamental shift from information scarcity in 2003-2005 to attention scarcity in today’s information-abundant environment.

Storti presented a striking comparison: projected artificial intelligence investment of $500 billion versus the $100 billion needed to close the global education financing gap. He emphasized the need to enable researchers worldwide to access infrastructure so scientists in developing countries can contribute to global scientific processes.

The report covered developments in open access models, including the emerging diamond open access model, and addressed how digital platforms have both threatened and preserved cultural diversity, requiring nuanced policy approaches.

### Capacity Building and Digital Skills (Action Line C4)

ITU’s Carla Licciardello provided a candid assessment, acknowledging that traditional capacity development programs are not working effectively on the ground. She emphasized the need for more inclusive approaches targeting vulnerable communities, including youth, women, girls, people with disabilities, and older people.

Licciardello highlighted the challenge of adapting to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence while ensuring basic digital literacy remains accessible. She noted that significant capacity building activities may be occurring at community levels that aren’t captured in formal reporting mechanisms.

### Cybersecurity (Action Line C5)

Preetam Maloor presented concerning statistics showing cybercrime costs increasing twenty-fold from $400 billion to $8-11 trillion, with attacks now occurring every 30 seconds. Despite these figures, he maintained optimism, noting that improved detection capabilities and better-organized stakeholders demonstrate progress since 2005.

He reported progress in national cybersecurity strategies, though acknowledged emerging challenges from post-quantum computing threats and increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks requiring continuous adaptation of security frameworks.

### Enabling Environment and Regulation (Action Line C6)

ITU’s Sofie Maddens described the evolution from traditional telecommunications liberalization to comprehensive digital ecosystem building. Modern regulators must address emerging technologies while maintaining market confidence through innovative approaches such as regulatory sandboxes and data-driven regulation.

Maddens identified the need for better coordination between ICT regulators and cross-sectoral regulators in health, education, and agriculture. She emphasized the importance of knowledge exchange platforms, noting that a regulators roundtable was being held for the first time at regulators’ request.

### ICT Applications (Action Line C7)

#### Digital Health

WHO’s Derrick Muneene reported significant progress in digital health integration, with member states adopting resolutions in 2005, 2013, and 2018. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital health adoption, making digital tools essential rather than optional in healthcare delivery. He suggested rebranding “eHealth” as “digital health” to reflect the broader scope of current applications.

#### E-Employment

ILO’s Maria Prieto Berhouet addressed how digitalization and artificial intelligence are influencing all levels of the labor market, affecting both formal and informal economies. She highlighted challenges in adapting international labor standards to regulate platform work and current digital labor markets.

#### E-Business

Universal Postal Union’s Radka Maxova reported that 71% of post offices worldwide now provide e-commerce services, demonstrating successful integration of traditional infrastructure with digital commerce, particularly important for bridging the digital divide in rural areas.

#### E-Environment

Garam Bel highlighted that greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector now equal those of the transportation sector, yet regulatory responsibility remains unclear. The discussion also covered disaster risk management applications, where early warning systems use satellites to send alerts directly to mobile phones.

### E-Government

UN-DESA’s Dennis reported on e-governance developments, noting integration with broader sustainable development objectives. He apologized for being late and briefly outlined the WSIS+20 review process, mentioning upcoming virtual stakeholder consultations.

### Ethical Dimensions (Action Line C10)

UNESCO’s Tee Wee Ang, attending the forum for the first time, presented a forward-looking perspective on ethics in digital transformation. She argued that ethics must be embedded throughout the entire technology lifecycle and introduced the concept of “agile self-governance” as a complement to formal legal systems.

Ang discussed emerging ethical challenges in artificial intelligence, neurotechnology, and biotechnology, noting that UNESCO member states are expected to adopt recommendations on neurotechnology ethics by year’s end.

## Cross-Cutting Themes

### Monitoring and Assessment Challenges

Multiple speakers acknowledged the fundamental gap in monitoring frameworks for WSIS action lines. Scarlett Fondeur Gil de Barth from UNCTAD announced that the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development would conduct a mapping exercise to improve monitoring, taking into account Global Digital Compact outcomes.

### Emerging Technologies Impact

All action line facilitators highlighted how emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, are reshaping their respective domains. These technologies create both opportunities for accelerated development and new risks that existing governance frameworks struggle to address.

### Inclusive Approaches

Speakers consistently emphasized the need for more inclusive approaches to digital transformation, focusing on vulnerable populations who may be left behind by rapid technological change. This represents an evolution from earlier assumptions that digital technologies would automatically benefit all populations equally.

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

The importance of maintaining multi-stakeholder approaches was emphasized throughout, with speakers noting that current digital challenges require collaboration across traditional sector boundaries.

## WSIS+20 Preparations

Several speakers addressed preparations for the WSIS+20 review, including the need to integrate Global Digital Compact principles while maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach central to WSIS success. Tomas Lamanauskas noted that the WSIS Forum is recognized in the “J-modality solution” for the WSIS review process.

Dennis from UN-DESA outlined the review timeline and mentioned upcoming virtual stakeholder consultations as part of the preparatory process.

## Key Initiatives and Next Steps

Concrete initiatives mentioned included:

– The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development’s mapping exercise

– UN-DESA’s virtual stakeholder consultations for WSIS+20

– UNESCO’s upcoming neurotechnology ethics recommendations

– ITU’s continued leadership of the Early Warning for All initiative

– The first-time regulators roundtable responding to regulator requests

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated both significant achievements over 20 years and substantial challenges ahead. The transformation in global connectivity represents unprecedented progress, while the expansion of access to information laws shows concrete policy impact of WSIS frameworks.

However, fundamental gaps in monitoring systems, implementation approaches, and governance frameworks must be addressed for WSIS to remain effective in the next phase of digital transformation. The emergence of artificial intelligence and other transformative technologies requires more sophisticated and agile governance approaches than current frameworks provide.

The high level of collaboration among action line facilitators and their commitment to address challenges through multi-stakeholder processes provides a solid foundation for the WSIS+20 review process and continued relevance in promoting equitable digital development globally.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you for being here with us. Your dedication towards the implementation of the WSIS Action Line is really showing that you are here to listen to the WSIS Action Line facilitators right after lunch, so thank you very much. So, ladies and gentlemen, this session of the WSIS Action Line facilitators actually was the foundation of the WSIS Forum because initially, before 2009, we had the cluster of WSIS-related events which was converted and rebranded into the WSIS Forum. Essentially, the reporting of the WSIS Action Lines, presenting their roadmaps and presenting their future plans of what they would be doing beyond that year. So, since it’s been 20 years, today in this session we are going to focus on what the WSIS Action Line facilitators have achieved in the 20 years, how the context of their Action Line has evolved, what were the challenges and what is the vision of their specific Action Line beyond 2025. So, the mandate that we have is in accordance to Para 109 of the Tunis Agenda, which mandates the WSIS Action Line facilitators to meet every year and to report and to form an action plan about their work. So, as you all know, we have a beautiful framework. We have different UN agencies, based on their mandate, that implement the different WSIS Action Lines and we have them here with us today. We also have our Deputy Secretary General, Mr. Thomas Lamanauskas, who has joined us to encourage the Action Line facilitators and to congratulate them for their good work. Thomas, the floor is yours.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you, thank you very much Gitanjali and thank everyone here. Of course, Action Line facilitators, but also everyone here in the audience. 2 p.m. on the last day of this very busy week, you know, so I still, of course, we still have to go today, but it’s really, you know, kudos to all of you to really bring in that energy for the whole week, bringing your ideas and bringing contributions to making digital development in the world really impactful. So, indeed, it’s an honor to welcome for me here also all the, you know, business action line facilitators here to report. I think I really like how you framed. So, for me, this is the session, no, because this is the origins of WSIS Forum. This is a session without which WSIS Forum couldn’t exist, no, because if we didn’t have that session, it wouldn’t be WSIS Forum. It would be just gathering on digital development. So, indeed, this, for me, super important session and it’s great to have you here. So, indeed, you know, just a bit of a context for, I mean, a lot of people here would know WSIS, but it’s always good to remind the context. Of course, in 2003 and then in 2005 framework, you know, WSIS was established as this really all-encompassing digital development framework for the world, you know, that includes all the governments, but also, importantly, includes all the stakeholders that deliver together, you know, private sector, together with the governments, of course, academia, civil society, technical community, and others. And, of course, since 2015, we made sure that WSIS basically became what they call digital arm of sustainable development agenda, because to really make sure that this broad agenda is implemented through the digital tools. So, WSIS actualized here, as we already said, is actually this operational backbone. This makes sure that we not just come once a year to the meeting, we actually deliver. And we deliver the change in connectivity, you know, and we’ve been quoting these numbers over this week. You know, in 2003, we had under 800 million people connected in 2005, around 1 billion, now 5.5 billion, you know. So, basically, from 12.5% to two-thirds of the population, good job, you know, but not enough, you know. And the same thing is, of course, in all the action line areas, and if we hear from our colleagues, through which that digital impact is really felt. So really, that is the mechanism for it, to turn these high-level commitments into a concrete action, and in different areas that I mentioned already. It’s also about that community to really making sure that we have reference points so we can share experiences. So this, for example, with this stock taking, plays an important role because it allows people, and now we have around 15,000 different examples here, how digital development can help with all these action lines. We have more than 2 million people signing up to that. So that indeed helps us all to understand how to make digital development from political statements into reality on the ground. And I kept quoting, kept saying today here this example of my feelings sitting there in that seat and watching the WSIS Prize winners coming on the stage in these short videos. That, for me, was that moment when what is this all about? About these digital identities in remote areas, about digital health in remote areas, about people using these tools for actually making the big change. So of course, it’s usually a crowd of our own role as an action line facility, and I hear from my colleagues as well. C2 on infrastructure, C4 on capacity building, C5 on cybersecurity, C6 on enabling environment. I think it’s very important as well to make sure that a lot of our action lines is infrastructure, so we build the roads. But those roads are not very useful if there’s no cars on them, and also if there’s no destinations to travel to, so I’m thinking those cities there. So it’s the same here, content, agriculture, health, government, decent work and decent jobs. All these areas are super important for that to really be happening. So I really hope that today’s meeting, again, will allow us to really take a stock of how far we’ve come, but also allow us to assess where now we need to be going, especially in the context of WSIS Plus 20 review that will happen in General Assembly. I think I’m very proud that WSIS Forum is the only… the process recognized in the J-modality solution for the WSIS review. So we need to deliver something here. They didn’t recognize us for recognition sake. They recognize us because they expect us to deliver some results and this session will be key for that. So then in December, in the United Nations General Assembly, we can really then put this all together and set the stage, a very strong stage, for the next stage of WSIS, the next stage of digital development for all. Thank you very much. I’m glad the great reporting, I should say, not a discussion, Angelina. You, please continue. Thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Tomas, and thank you for setting the scene. I do see some action line facilitators. I know, was that you, Maria? Also there. Is anyone else in the audience, any action line facilitator? Okay, so Maria, we will take you in once a person finishes. You can take their seat and come here. Thank you so much. So as Tomas put the context out there, we are basically, this is the meeting where we hear from the action line facilitators. We want to hear from all of you, so we have a timer here for the speakers. Please do try to stick on time. I wanted to start with C1, but Dennis from UNDESA is not here with us yet, but when he joins, we will pose him a question. We can then move on to C2. Sophie is implementing the action line on. Okay, so C2 is not here as well. Okay, so we move on to access, which is Davide from UNESCO. So Davide, UNESCO has a huge job because you look at the entire knowledge society part of the versus, you know, and we often say that we have rebranded versus information and knowledge societies, not only information. So, can you share, Davide, what you have been doing in order to, how the action line on access has evolved in these 20 years?

Davide Storti: Thank you, Gitanjali, and hello everybody. So, I mean, there’s so many things, I mean, it’s an action line which is wide, so I would like to focus maybe on the, telling about the evolution that, so the access to information in terms of legislation, what is this called, the access to information laws, I think we have seen during the period of the 20 years, an encouraging progress, and in, first of all, in the way that, how we managed to get member states to report on what is the progress on access to information laws, and also on the adoption of access to information law, which was, like, as little as 14 in 20, sorry, not in 20, in the 90s, let’s say, to 139 countries nowadays, so there is still a lot of work to do, but we can see there, which is, there is a huge progress. And this is also some, part of the work that we do for the WSIS, but it’s very much linked to the Sustainable Development Goals, because, why, because UNESCO is the Australian agency for the SDG 1610.2, and so we provide the strategic support to member states to be able to implement national decision reforms in order to implement access to information laws. And this is done also with the community, through the celebration of the Universal Access to Information Day, that it’s every year on the 28th of September, which is, enables not only the countries, but all the actors that I would like also to give a couple of words on the evolution of the way information is being accessed. So, this is tremendous changes in the last 20 years, of course, and then even the role of it, everyone has been changing. Let’s think about the libraries now, of course, the internet dimension, this is still evolving a lot. And so, we have, we had to rethink how the whole society actually use access information and how this is, how this is interacted. And also, there is the way how the information is accessed in terms of knowledge, and I would like to mention particularly the access to scientific information with the different open access models that through the years have been, let’s say, democratized, but they have seen a number of evolutions, the latest of one, it’s the diamond open access model that we discussed in this session this year, which needs, of course, a key engagement from all the stakeholders to make it possible. And so, we look forward to continuing to work with the entire community for that.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Davide. Action 9C4 on capacity building, Carla, ITU is leading this with many stakeholders involved, including several human agencies. Throughout the week, we heard capacity building, digital skills, so crucial, and especially with the evolution of technology, you know, you need to keep pace with it. So, of course, a lot has evolved, a lot of changes have happened since 2003 and 2005, so please share your views on that.

Carla Licciardello: Hello? Yes, hello. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for this panel, sorry for being a bit late. I was a bit late, I was stuck in another meeting, but okay, so, well, what we have discussed over the past days, you know, in the, not only, of course, yesterday, sorry, Wednesday, as part of the WSIS Digital Skills Track, but also in the Knowledge Café, what we have realized is that if we look a little bit back, of course, 20 years ago, the main text and the main principles, of course, of the Action Line C4 are still valid, so we still need to continue on that route, though we need to put a little bit more emphasis on the way how we report, on the way how now we implement, so definitely over the past years we have achieved a lot, meaning in terms of more partnerships, more cross-cutting collaboration among the different, you know, areas and topics related to digital skills, you know, from cyber security, of course, to healthcare, you know, to education, but there is still a need to have a more inclusive approach, and in our discussions, the need to be youth-centric, to really look at the vulnerable communities, so women, girls, but also, of course, people with disabilities, older people, as came, you know, across the discussions many, many times. There is now, of course, with emerging technologies, of course, from AI, you know, to other type of technologies, there is a need to think a bit in a different way on how we deliver digital skills and capacity development programs. Sometimes when we look at the national and maybe local context, we need to see also, we need to think a bit out of the box, and that is something that also, you know, many stakeholders have realized over the past, let’s say, four days, and because, again, the traditional way, the traditional means on how we are delivering a capacity development program sometimes are really not working on the ground, and we really need to understand that. We really need to understand the national, you know, the local needs. will be able to then address the targeted digital skills that are useful for that community. So the overall, again, the overall assessment that we have seen is that we are in the good direction, though, as I was saying, we need different ways on how we report, and we need to capture that reporting starting from the community, because there might be a lot happening, but again, we are not really capturing at the actual line level. So I think that this is a bit of the, what I took from the different discussions, and yeah, I would be happy to elaborate more in the future. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Carla, and the other thing we also heard was that currently there’s no real monitoring and assessment framework for the evaluation of these action lines. So if someone was to tell us that what has capacity building achieved in these 20 years, we can’t really give concrete figures. So we do hope that the review this time will have a thought about that as well. Though we have the WSIS targets, but they are not aligned with each WSIS action lines, which would make our job easy to kind of, you know, get that data collected and to ensure that we have some monitoring frameworks. Thank you, Carla. I’ll move on to Pritam Action Line C5. It’s cybersecurity, and of course, Pritam, in this area, there’s been so much evolution. With the evolution of technologies, we heard so much about AI security as well. And as there is progress in technology, you have new challenges that come in this area. We also heard in some sessions that, you know, protecting children online, we did have those guidelines. Those should be updated and revised as well. So there is a lot that we started doing, a lot of good work, but I think there’s a lot more that we need to do to catch up with the changes in technology. Over to you.

Preetam Maloor: Thanks, Gitanjali. You posed the question, you also answered it. In fact, I’m fine. But let me provide some stats to illustrate these points. So in 2005, it’s obvious the digital landscape was very different. The DSG also highlighted some of this, you know, only 1 billion people online. The cost of cybercrime to the global economy was around 400 billion, which is still a large number for that time. The threat vectors at that time, while they were sophisticated, is nothing compared to what we have today. You know, I have stats from 2024, because the current one we haven’t compiled. But anyway, I know, right now we have 5.6 billion people online. Cyber attacks have increased 80% year by year, which also seems like a conservative estimate. I think it’s more. The cost of cybercrime, you know, from 400 billion has increased 20 times to about 8 to 11 trillion dollars. An attack happens every 30 seconds, 39 seconds, somewhere on the web. You know, and clearly issues related to privacy, related to cyber security have intensified. There’s no doubt about that. And as Gitanjali just said, you know, many of these attacks include AI driven attacks. We also need to prepare for post quantum world. But the good news in the story is, you know, and the stats kind of show that, for example, placing a lot of emphasis on holistic resilience of infrastructure, because, you know, the resilience of physical infrastructure also includes now submarine cables, you know, satellite, terrestrial, along with cyber resilience. And then there are very impactful initiatives in each of these that seem to work. We also see Good morning. We are seeing accelerated efforts from member states in improving cyber security. You know, our global cyber security index numbers show that, just as a recent example, you know, in 2017, 110 countries lacked a national cyber security strategy, by 24, 67 countries were without one, which is still a big chunk. But, you know, it could have been worse. In 2017, 85 countries lacked a national CERT, a computer incident response team, and by 24, this number has reduced to 68. So also on child online protection that Gitanjali mentioned, you know, we have a global effort, we have guidelines, we have, you know, countries that are being assisted in developing a national cyber security strategy that has a child online protection component integral to it. So you know, there is a lot happening. So, you know, what does it tell us? Well, these numbers indicate that the risks are increasing in complexity, targets, technologies, you know, numbers also offer some hope. It shows that stakeholders are better organized and more resilient than they were in 2005. And we believe that the Action Line C5 framework that WSIS has provided has played a positive role in kind of bringing, you know, stakeholders together, forging multi-stakeholder partnerships that are helping this effort. And that’s what we’ve heard across the WSIS forum, including the AI for Good, you know, where we had an entire session on AI and trust yesterday. And it was all about, you know, what we can do. It wasn’t all doom and gloom. So I think, you know, I hope this message is conveyed to the WSIS Plus 20 review process, and the role of the WSIS framework and the Action Line C5 is reinforced. Thanks, Geetanjali.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Preetam. We’ll move on to Action Line C6. Sophie, ITU. coordinates this action line. And we had a regulators roundtable this year for the first time at their request. And I do see some regulators here. Thank you, ma’am, for joining us, the regulator of Georgia. So we have, you know, the main two points that came out of that, in my opinion, was one, there should be a lot of more this kind of stuff happening where they can learn from each other. Best practice sharing, and they can learn from each other because they are at various stages of development. Second one was that there are so many cross-sectoral regulators that have come up now, regulators for health, for education, for agriculture. How does the ICT regulator, you know, kind of converge all of that and work with all of them? Over to you, Sophie.

Sofie Maddens: Thank you, Gitanjali. And indeed, it was very interesting to have the regulators roundtable and to have the preparation for our global symposium for regulators, which we have every year. And the regulators roundtable there this year, it will be in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from the 31st of August till the 3rd of September. So I hear Carla saying, I hear Pritam saying, for us as well, that inclusiveness, the holistic approach, the need for data and reporting came out in our action line as well. But let me rewind. If we go back to the early 2000s, it was just after the WTO reference paper and on basic telecoms. And we were really looking at principles to guide liberalization and regulation of telecoms and focusing on competitive markets, fair access, preventing anti-competitive practices, and of course, the establishment of the independent regulators who we brought together. Then in the mid 2000s, we were looking at broadband, we were looking at NGNs, we were looking at regulatory strategies like infrastructure sharing. Fast forward to the mid 2010s. There, we started looking at the, and that addresses the. Thank you. So, on the first point, the rise of the digital ecosystem, we were starting to see more and more money, e-education, e-health, e-agriculture. And so we started looking at collaborative regulation. And then, of course, came COVID in 2020. And digital was not just on the agenda, but became the agenda because without digital, health, education, agriculture, government could not work. And today, we’re at advanced regulatory frontiers. So, we’re looking at regulators as digital ecosystem builders, again, to come to your point, and get to Anjali. So, we need to address new challenges, emerging and fast-moving technologies, opportunities, new players. And there is that need for inclusive frameworks, but also for adaptability and flexibility while maintaining the sustainability and the confidence in the markets, because investors need to invest in these new technologies, and that needs that confidence in the markets and the tools and the regulatory tools. From some of the regulators, we heard about data-driven regulation, so data is key. But we also need innovative regulatory approaches. So, we heard about regulatory sandboxes as well, in which we experiment. One of the regulators said, we have data-driven regulations so that we can put that data out in the market before imposing regulations. So, I think that is what we’re hearing. So, in the action line, we focused in these 20 years on knowledge exchange, as you say, sharing best practices, knowledge exchange platforms like our Global Symposium for Regulators at this year’s 25th anniversary, sharing tools, research, data, analysis, our study groups, bringing that out by our members, for our members. We have the Data Hub, we have the ICT regulatory tracker, and what we call the G5 benchmark, the fifth generation of regulation, where it’s not just about… Remember I started with it was about telecoms. Now it’s not just about telecoms, it’s about digital. So the future is get our hands around these challenges, remain versatile, make sure we have the necessary resources to collect that data and to act upon that data, be inclusive and really work with a multi-stakeholder environment to get those solutions. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Sophie. I’ll move on to WHO, eHealth. So C7 ICT applications has several action lines together. And the way health is kind of encapsulated in the action lines is eHealth. And Derek keeps reminding us that we may have to rebrand and start calling it digital health because it’s much wider now. So Derek, of course, a lot has changed, especially since COVID as well. The health community understood the importance of digital. So what are your views, Derek,

Derrick Muneene: and what’s the vision beyond 2025? Thank you so much, Gitanjali. Thank you so much, fellow panelists. Just to congratulate the ITU for really keeping us coordinated on the implementation of the action lines. So I’m Derek Munene from the World Health Organization. I’m head of capacity building and partnerships, but the focal point on the action line on C7 on eHealth together with the ITU. Just to maybe point out that we have seen tremendous progress amongst our member states and our partners in the inclusion of ICTs in health. And so the past 20 years has seen tremendous progress. And indeed, I’ll speak about how the future looks like. We actually began in 2005, shortly after the YCS framework was put in place, where our member state gave us the first mandate to coordinate the introduction of ICTs in health. We call that the eHealth resolution of 2005. And shortly after that, we saw tremendous uptake of digital solutions. By then, those digital eHealth solutions and the other presentations were involved mostly around the data collection, aggregation, reporting, you know, health events at high levels. And so we saw a lot of introduction, especially in the HIV, malaria, and TB space. This led to the notion of interoperability. So in 2013, our member states put together a framework called a Resolution on Data Standardization and Interoperability that we are also fast tracking with the ITU. And from 2013, we saw the evolution of ICTs, the evolution of technology, really take a heightened elevation. And so in 2018, our member states, recognizing the emergence of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, put together a resolution on digital health, and that’s what Gitajat is talking about. And so with that resolution on digital health in 2018, we’ve been working with our member states to sort of like introduce emerging technologies into health. We are thankful for our member states that have really taken up, you know, digital health as a means to achieve universal health coverage and better health outcomes. Almost each region has examples. From South Africa, who I would actually point out, given that they’re taking the chair, MomConnect has been a great example. We had a winner at the WSIS prizes, you know, Zanzibar, on a DPI for health. In the Emerald Eastern Mediterranean region, I’ll give an example of Saudi Arabia that established virtual hospitals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In the Western Pacific region, you know, Australia has continued to deploy patient-centric tools, the digital patient-facing record that enables patients to carry their own records. In the European region, Estonia, in the digital health platform, the X-Road, is a great example. In the, you know, region of the Americans, Brazil, with a digital health platform. And so there are many examples, these are just a few, but just to point out that looking at the future, we’re looking to working Tamanishi. I’m going to discuss a few points. It’s very important to understand that we’re working with our member states through a framework of putting place. It’s called the Global Initiative on Digital Health. It’s intended to really ensure that all actors contributing to this transformation agenda have an inclusive contribution, a meaningful contribution towards the transformation. AI for Health is a key area, together with the whole issue of digital public infrastructure for health, a subject that we’re involved with the ITU. I neglected to mention India’s work in telemedicine with Sanjini. That’s a great example from the Southeast Asia, the Blue Sea region. So I’m quite excited with the extension of the Global Strategy on Digital Health, which is a mechanism that we’re using to also first track our action line. So health and universal health coverage is key, is cost-cutting, and this action line will help us take us further. Thank you so much.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Derek. So I have IPU and UNCTAD for action line on e-business, and perhaps you could share your time, let’s just call it. Is this okay? Yes.

Scarlett Fondeur Gil de Barth: No, actually, I would like to defer to UPU for reporting on the action line itself and put instead of that the hat of the CSTD and the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development if you don’t mind.

Gitanjali Sah: So please do share your time, over to you.

Radka Maxova: Thank you. Thank you so much, Gitanjali, for bringing us together. Good afternoon. So the UPU together with UNCTAD and the ITC, we have been focusing on facilitating the action line C7 on e-business. In the case of the UPU, our focus was really on trying to achieve the digital inclusion through the wide network of post offices, many of which are in remote areas and rural areas, especially in developing countries. And oftentimes, the post offices already serve as trusted anchor institutions in their And we are just now coming up with a flagship digital panorama report that was done through a survey and we received answers from more than 100 postal operators, so from more than 100 countries. And actually 71% of post offices worldwide are already providing some kind of e-commerce services to their communities, which means that, for instance, small businesses, MSMEs, women entrepreneurs, artisans can already benefit from this kind of service. And we had had a session earlier this week, together with ITC and UNCTAD, where we were sharing also some of the examples of how e-commerce action line is helping, especially, you know, small businesses, women entrepreneurs. In case of the UPU, we do recognize that there is a strong link with the capacity of, you know, those services being digitalized so that people can access them better. So our institution tries to provide technical support, advisory services, and different capacity building tools. We have notably two projects, one is connect.post, so the post offices can only do this type of work when they are properly digitalized. So our aim is to help with the digital transformation of countries so that they can enable post offices to serve better the communities. And our second big project is trade post, which is trying precisely to, you know, create that space for small entrepreneurs who are in remote areas to try to get online, try to discover new markets, doing export, import through various digital services that the post offices can offer. Thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah: Scarlett?

Scarlett Fondeur Gil de Barth: I won’t do it in eight seconds, but if you will allow me 30, I think I can do it. So I would just like to say a few words on behalf of the Partnership on Measuring Affective Development because you have addressed the monitoring framework for the Action Lines and let everyone know that at the session, at this OASIS event, we announced a mapping exercise that we will be conducting. We did a similar exercise in the occasion of the OASIS Plus 10 review, where we looked at mapping targets and the available indicators on ICT for development. And we are going to be doing the same or similar exercise for OASIS Plus 20, except that this time we are also taking into account the outcomes of the GDC and try to improve the vision over how can we monitor the Action Lines, which we didn’t really talk about 10 years ago and a lot has happened since 10 years ago. And in that spirit, ONCTAD is also serving as secretariat to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, which many of you know, is charged with the follow-up of implementation of OASIS outcomes. And just nine days ago, we published online a report that resorts from the consultation of implementation. So I invite you to visit the webpage of ONCTAD and look at this report. And I did print out a couple of copies there, but it’s a hefty report. In any case, chapter two of that report refers specifically to the different Action Lines under different themes and does conclude that much has changed as a result of the consultation, much has changed since 2005 in terms of the Action Lines and it is the perfect time. to think how to either reformulate or expand action lines. And we look forward to the results of the discussion at the end of this year. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you so much, Radka, and thank you so much, Scarlett, also for pointing out the work done by the partnership, which is really important work. It’s a group of statisticians who are looking at how we can measure the WSIS process better. And the Commission on Science and Technology for Development that meets annually to adopt a resolution on WSIS that goes to ECOSOC. So thank you so much for bringing those perspectives as well. I’ll now move on to Davide from UNESCO. He’s holding several hats today. Davide, if you can also talk to us about e-science and e-learning, two additional action lines that UNESCO implements.

Davide Storti: Thank you. So let’s start with the e-learning. So much happened. I mean, I think it was major shift. We all know major shifts on integrating the digital technologies into education, including widespread option of digital learning platform, educational resources, and digital open schools. I just want to remind that the OER, the Open Educational Resources, was started in 2022. So really at the time of the WSIS. And allowed the more access to quality information, quality educational material, and also to the use of quality educational material adapted in terms of also localized material. And inclusivity and equity was also something which has changed a lot, making education system more inclusive and addressing the barriers faced by marginalized group. Also, of course, now we talk about the new things, which are the AI and emerging technologies. is in education, and UNESCO is providing policy guidance on AI in education, providing frameworks that emphasize the need for frameworks for ethical use of education, AI in education, teacher training and curricula, and how to prepare and learn from machine, human-machine interaction. And so these are some of the things, of the aspects, but I would like also to give a, provide a shift, because you spoke about information and knowledge, but now we see a shift also between the focus from information to attention, where information was a scarce resource in 2020, in 2003, 2005, and now we have an abundance of information. And what we have, actually, scarcity is in two, the attention, so there is quite a reflection on how to react to this unwanted, or consequences of adoption of technologies into the educational system. And lastly, I would like to mention the fact that although there is a, we know there is a projected investment in artificial intelligence of $500 billion, I think we have to mention that with another 100 billion would be needed to close the global financing gap for education, for maybe reaching the goals of SDG4. So there’s a matter of scale, which is important to note, in terms of the investment, which is. is being devoted to one or the other. This is, I mean, very summarized for education, but for learning. But on e-science, would you like me to go also from science? Let me take some notes, sorry. And so, e-science. So, e-science is reshaping the way scientific knowledge is created and applied through global connected research infrastructure, open access data, we mentioned data, digital collaboration platform, et cetera. And there is more attention now, maybe how to get every researcher to be able to access infrastructure. So, there was some attention also dedicated this morning there was a session on that, on the remote infrastructure access to make sure that every scientist in developing countries may contribute to the benefit of government scientific process. And again, there is a need for investment in digital infrastructure, capacity building and institutional support, which is essential to continue delivering on this action line. And I think, yeah, I may have made too much details. After that, I don’t know if I have more time or not.

Gitanjali Sah: Yes, please, Davide, just to do justice to your action line on e-science.

Davide Storti: No, I just mentioned that, again, we need to really realize, the message was that to realize the full potential of e-science, we need more investment in digital infrastructure. We need to coordinate the policy frameworks for the equitable access, ensuring responsible data and… Artificial Intelligence and bridging the digital divide in line with the action lines and SDGs. These action lines offer a pathway to promote scientific innovation, accelerating knowledge based solutions and strengthening science as a global public good. So that’s the message from the action line.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much Davide and thanks for covering both the action lines. So this year for the first time we also had a digital skills track that ITU did with ILO and thanks to ILO that it was really so vibrant the track we covered different aspects of digital skills and capacity building. So we merged the action lines of C4 and C7 e-employment together to be more impactful. So Maria, how has this action line evolved especially with the coming of AI and emerging technologies, the discussions that we hear nowadays and what is the future that you see of e-employment? Over to you.

Maria Prieto Berhouet: Thank you Gitanjali. So e-employment or the impact of technology on employment in general has always always been very important over the past 100 years. So the introduction of electricity impacted the labour market incredibly and every change has impacted the labour market. Now the past 20 years we have seen an exponential growth in the evolution of employment and lately also with artificial intelligence. And it is important to mention here that all levels of The labor market are being influenced, be it low, high, middle level jobs, but also jobs in the formal and the informal economy, which is why the ILO has introduced recently an observatory to measure those impacts, to see where we’re going, and try to grasp through different types of information sources and how to respond to these issues through better capacity building. And indeed, we had a really nice collaboration with ITU on this issue on Wednesday, several sessions that dealt with digitalization, capacity building, and employment. And also, I wanted to mention, and it was mentioned earlier, also the impact that COVID had on sort of accelerating even more the impact of digitalization on employment. Now, the ILO is a normative organization that makes international labor standards to regulate employment. And so, one of the main challenges for the organization is how to adapt those to the current labor market, including platform work, and this is an ongoing discussion. When it comes to the action line itself, e-employment, we have a growing demand, and I’m sure the other action lines are experiencing a similar thing, from constituents asking for more support on the issue of digitalization in the future. and that one that we can do in close collaboration with the other action lines because we are definitely all extremely related. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Maria. We’ll now move on to the action line on e-environment. The action line is also divided into two components. One is a part that we do with a lot to do with WMO and ITU and the other part is a lot to do with UNEP and ITU. So, Marielza, I invite you to talk more about the work that you’re doing with disaster risk management and those climate change aspects. And, Garam, I invite you here. If you could join me, Garam, please. Marielza, you can start and if you could both share your time, please.

Speaker: Okay, thank you very much, Gitanjali. So, as you know, this has three goals. One is on the environment. Two of them are on the environmental side and the third one is on using technologies for disaster risk reduction. So, I’m going to focus on the second one. And we see that over the past 20 years, we have seen an evolution of the use of technologies for disaster management. And we have seen how these technologies have shifted from being only optional tools to becoming essential enablers for life and for saving lives. So, under the umbrella of Action Line C7 on the Environment, we have focused on using these technologies for disaster risk reduction with the aim of building more resilient countries and more resilient communities, and ensuring, and the most important is to ensure that no one is left behind. So today, we have seen the evolution of technologies, and now we have seen how satellites are capable of sending early warning alerts directly to mobile phones without passing through the land networks. So this has been an evolution, and this is something that helps to bridge the digital gap and the digital connectivity, particularly in the most remote areas and with the most remote communities which are at risk. We also seen how artificial intelligence is being used in our daily life, and especially for disaster risk reduction, and the AI is helping to forecast a wide range of hazards and also to identify connectivity gaps. And they enhance to speed up the preparedness and also the response activities when a disaster strikes. But at the same time, we have also IoT networks that support real-time monitoring, and the monitoring and the data are essential for sending early warning alerts, analyzing the data, and to save lives of people. But one of the most important examples that we have seen recently is the launch of the early warning for all initiative that some of you have heard, or many of you have heard. And this is a global commitment to ensure that everyone is safe. We are still in the process of launching this early warning initiative. And ITU is the lead of the early warning dissemination and communication and we are working very closely with other UN entities to facilitate the implementation of this initiative. So we are still in the process of launching this early warning initiative. So we are still in the process of launching this early warning initiative worldwide. So we look forward to the future. Our challenge and opportunity is to continue building on this momentum that we have. The technology is there. But it’s not only about technology. We also need to see that we need to have regulatory frameworks to use technologies in the best way to save lives. So I’m sorry if this is a long introduction, but as most of the discussion has proved corny, we also have a topics for discussion, which includes the development of environmental technologies, technology technologies.

Garam Bel: I would like to summarize some of the key areas. So we have electronic waste. We have greenhouse gas emissions. We have critical raw materials that we have in the technologies that we use today to power our devices. So these themes are themes that we have been focusing on, this action line has been focusing on from a regulatory standpoint, from a data standpoint, and also from a regulatory standpoint. I would like to refer back to what Sophie was talking about, the evolution of the environment, the evolution of the environment, and how that has evolved over the last 20, 30 years. And then I would like to refer back to what Sophie was talking about, the evolution of the environment and how that has evolved the regulatory space is greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector equates are equivalent to those of the communications, sorry the transportation sector and there is a sort of unclarity there around who is actually regulating this space. So there’s a lot of important questions with this action line going forward. So back to you Gitanjali, thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much Gaurab. We also have Denise who I started with but you were not in the room. So Denise, UN-DESA implements three action lines in collaboration with different UN agencies co-isolating with many of us. Denise, action line C1, C11 and C7E governance, over to you.

Davide Storti: Thank you so much and I apologize for being late. I was stuck in another meeting. For C7E I think I can start with that one. We publish UN survey every other year. We published the 2024 edition in September. We are working right now in preparation for the 2026 edition. We send a questionnaire to all 193 UN member states and the most populous city in each country. So the next survey will be available in 2026 where we look at the e-government development of 193 UN member states and the most populous city in each country. But we are also creating lots of partnerships with government and non-government entities on applying our methodology to several cities in a single country. So if any of the stakeholders here are interested in collaborating with UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs we are very much open to that. We did some partnership with Brazil, India, Greece and an application of our methodology is happening right now in the UK. Uzbekistan and a few other countries. So if you google for UN e-government survey you can see all our work in our e-government knowledge base. And very quickly about the other two action lines C1 promotion of ICTs and C11 international cooperation. As the secretariat for the 20-year review of the WSIS by the UN General Assembly. We organized two sessions here, one on WSIS and GDC and the other one was a contentious issue on enhanced cooperation. So I will just briefly summarize what we heard and first reinforcing the multi-stakeholder model. There was strong consensus to maintain and enhance the multi-stakeholder approach and I think the WSIS forum here was an excellent example of that for the co-facilitators which you will see hear from them after this meeting. And also integrating and implementing the GDC principles into the WSIS architecture. We have heard this again and again from many stakeholders. This is something I think you will also see in the Zero Draft. And strengthening the IGF and also continuation of the WSIS forum. These were the two elements that we heard. About the human rights language, there were a lot of inputs as well to make sure that we use the latest version in the Zero Draft. And other things included to have more inclusive transparent processes and I think UNRESA helped the co-facilitators to organize other virtual stakeholder consultations involving all stakeholders in coming months, in coming days actually after We got the feedback on the elements paper on 25th of July, there will be some further consultations. I stop here and give it back to you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Dennis. I know you’re very busy, so I’m glad you could make it. We also have Tee from UNESCO, who’s moderating, implementing the action line on ethics. Tee, so of course the ethical dimension is completely evolving and changing. We heard from most of the action line facilitators on this, but let’s hear from you as well. Over to you, UNESCO.

Tee Wee Ang: Thank you so much. And actually, it’s actually quite fitting that we have the last one, because as you can hear, the rapid changing digital landscape over the last 20 years has an impact across all areas, and embedded within that are key ethical considerations that needs to be reflected upon and needs to be acted upon. And I think through this action line, we have been working very closely with a wide network of experts and UN partners and also other partners to make sure that ethical reflection keep pace with the challenges that we keep seeing emerging again and again. So, for example, we have been advancing with the work on ethics of artificial intelligence. We have been working very closely with member states to help them with the assessment, on the readiness assessment for adopting AI embedded within which is the fundamental ethical considerations that they need to take into account, helping them also with capacity building, with ethics, ethical impact assessment itself, and also we’ve created wide networks such as the AI ethics experts without borders. to help to provide concrete capacity building to member states. I think one of the key things that we also need to, through this action line, we’re also seeing that a lot of these ethical considerations are now tied very much to the ethical implications of the technology itself, but not only digital technology, but the digitalization of technology in areas which is not maybe conventionally conceived as digital, such as neurotechnology, such as quantum, which is more hardware related. But in neurotechnology, we’re also advancing on ethics of neurotechnology. In fact, member states at the end of the year will be adopting a set of recommendations on concrete policy recommendations in this area. But maybe what I want to say is that through this work, I think it will be very important to reaffirm that ethics must be a foundational and cross-cutting pillar of digital transformation, especially in the context of rapidly evolving and converging technologies such as AI, neurotechnology, and quantum computing. And lessons learned and moving forward is that we really need to mainstream ethics as a cross-cutting framing in the design, deployment, and regulation of digital tech, ensuring that it is embedded across the entire technology lifecycle. It’s not only at the beginning, but also when you are moving technology out of service. There are also ethical considerations there. We are going to have to continue promoting interdisciplinary and inclusive governance models that leverage anticipatory ethics. And this is very important because we talk about adaptive governance, but we also need to then build in anticipatory governance. And we need to also leverage public trust and stakeholder dialogue for sure. We need to also start to recognize that ethics as a form of agile self-governance that is capable of complementing formal legal and regulatory systems in real time.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Ti, and welcome to the Business Forum. I think it’s your first time here. We have actually even Radka joining us for the first time as a high-level track, as an Action Line Facilitator, Carla joining C4, and Ti with us for ethics. So our community is growing, so thank you very much. We’d like to end with Davide. Davide, real quickly, two minutes for your Action Line on C8, cultural diversity. It’s a very important one, so please go ahead.

Davide Storti: That’s not to say that there are too many Action Lines, on the contrary, but just quickly, I think it’s worth mentioning that, of course, the huge impact of the evolution of digital technologies into culture, in terms of, of course, access, in terms of the production, in terms of the new form of expression, and so there is a lot of impact to mention there. And one significant thing is that there is, in 2025, the model 2025, which is a ministerial meeting, which is happening in 2023 as well, and it is, it was like 40 years that the Ministries of Culture didn’t bring together to discuss about this issue. So culture is indeed an important part of the WSIS. We had mainly a discussion this week about the multilingualism and the impact as well on that, for the representation of multilingual content in the world. And lastly, just a few seconds to mention, of course, we didn’t mention C9 media, the Action Line on media, and of course, There are major concerns, major evolution linked to the digital transformation of media, the expansions of internet, and we have reminded a few times during the week about the work, for example, for the digital platforms and the guidelines and the work, the importance of the work on safety of journalists and everything that goes around the media landscape to ensure media pluralism, independence, etc. And also, one other thing which is mentioned by these other colleagues is the information literacy, which is also taking into account the need for the public as producer and consumer of information to be adequately trained, conscious of the consequences of clicking for the internet. Lastly, I would like to end by mentioning the work that we’ve been doing all together in the last many years on the internet universality indicators that are a tool which is providing a way to assess and guide policies for rights-based open accessible multistakeholder internet governance, and this is one of the frameworks UNESCO is promoting as a possible tool for the wishes to come, to be able to measure also the progress to at least some of the action lines. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Davide. Thank you to all the UN agencies present here today implementing the different action lines. We’ll do a very quick photograph and then we are going on to a very interesting dialogue with the co-facilitators, so please stay in the room while I invite everybody to take a quick photograph. Graham and Denise, please join us so that we can start with the dialogue. The very interesting dialogue we’ve been waiting for with the COFAGS and I can see them in the room Thank you for being here ambassadors

Agreement points

Need for enhanced monitoring and measurement frameworks for WSIS Action Lines

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Scarlett Fondeur Gil de Barth
– Davide Storti

Arguments

There is no real monitoring and assessment framework for evaluating WSIS action lines, making it difficult to provide concrete achievement figures

A mapping exercise will be conducted to improve monitoring of Action Lines, taking into account GDC outcomes

UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators provide a framework for measuring progress on rights-based, open, accessible, multi-stakeholder internet governance

Summary

Multiple speakers acknowledge the critical gap in monitoring WSIS progress and propose solutions including mapping exercises and new measurement frameworks

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder approach must be maintained and strengthened

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Davide Storti

Arguments

WSIS has evolved from a digital development framework to the digital arm of the sustainable development agenda

The WSIS Plus 20 review should integrate GDC principles, strengthen IGF, continue WSIS forum, and maintain the multi-stakeholder approach

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of preserving and enhancing the multi-stakeholder governance model that has been central to WSIS success

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Need for more inclusive approaches in digital transformation

Speakers

– Carla Licciardello
– Sofie Maddens

Arguments

Digital skills and capacity building require more inclusive approaches focusing on youth, women, girls, people with disabilities, and older people

Regulators need more knowledge exchange platforms and must work with cross-sectoral regulators across health, education, and agriculture

Summary

Both speakers advocate for more inclusive and collaborative approaches, whether in capacity building or regulatory frameworks

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Traditional approaches need fundamental rethinking

Speakers

– Carla Licciardello
– Davide Storti

Arguments

Traditional capacity development programs are not working effectively on the ground, requiring new approaches

The shift from information scarcity to attention scarcity requires new educational approaches, with AI investment at $500 billion while education financing gap needs only $100 billion

Summary

Both speakers recognize that conventional methods are inadequate for current challenges and require innovative approaches

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight how digital transformation has created massive new challenges that require urgent regulatory attention – cybersecurity threats and environmental impacts

Speakers

– Preetam Maloor
– Garam Bel

Arguments

Cybercrime costs increased 20-fold from $400 billion to $8-11 trillion, with attacks occurring every 30 seconds

Greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector now equal those of the transportation sector with unclear regulatory responsibility

Topics

Cybersecurity | Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers demonstrate how traditional institutions (health systems and postal services) have successfully integrated digital technologies to serve communities

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Radka Maxova

Arguments

Digital health has seen tremendous progress with member states adopting resolutions in 2005, 2013, and 2018 to advance ICT integration in health

71% of post offices worldwide now provide e-commerce services to their communities

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the comprehensive, cross-cutting nature of digital transformation impacts that require holistic policy responses

Speakers

– Maria Prieto Berhouet
– Tee Wee Ang

Arguments

All levels of the labor market are being influenced by digitalization and AI, affecting both formal and informal economies

Ethics must be a foundational and cross-cutting pillar of digital transformation, embedded across the entire technology lifecycle

Topics

Economic | Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

Investment priority misalignment between AI and education

Speakers

– Davide Storti

Arguments

The shift from information scarcity to attention scarcity requires new educational approaches, with AI investment at $500 billion while education financing gap needs only $100 billion

Explanation

Unexpected consensus on the stark disparity in investment priorities, where AI receives 5 times more funding than what’s needed to close the global education gap

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Regulatory uncertainty in emerging sectors

Speakers

– Garam Bel
– Sofie Maddens

Arguments

Greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector now equal those of the transportation sector with unclear regulatory responsibility

Regulators have evolved from focusing on telecoms liberalization to becoming digital ecosystem builders addressing emerging technologies

Explanation

Unexpected consensus on the complexity of modern regulatory challenges where traditional sector boundaries no longer apply

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on the need for enhanced monitoring frameworks, maintaining multi-stakeholder governance, adopting more inclusive approaches, and rethinking traditional methods. Speakers also agree on the transformative impact of digital technologies across all sectors.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with speakers consistently identifying similar challenges and solutions across different action lines. This suggests a mature understanding of digital transformation challenges and readiness for coordinated action in the WSIS Plus 20 review process.

Different viewpoints

Investment priorities between AI development and education funding

Speakers

– Davide Storti

Arguments

The shift from information scarcity to attention scarcity requires new educational approaches, with AI investment at $500 billion while education financing gap needs only $100 billion

Summary

Storti implicitly criticizes the massive investment in AI ($500 billion) compared to the relatively small amount needed to close the global education financing gap ($100 billion), suggesting misaligned priorities in resource allocation

Topics

Economic | Development | Sociocultural

Regulatory responsibility for ICT sector environmental impact

Speakers

– Garam Bel

Arguments

Greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector now equal those of the transportation sector with unclear regulatory responsibility

Summary

Bel identifies a fundamental disagreement in the regulatory community about who should be responsible for governing ICT sector emissions, highlighting institutional gaps and jurisdictional disputes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | E-waste

Unexpected differences

Lack of explicit disagreement in a policy review context

Speakers

– All speakers

Arguments

All arguments presented were largely complementary rather than contradictory

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there were very few direct disagreements among speakers in what was essentially a collaborative reporting session. The most significant tensions were implicit criticisms of resource allocation priorities and identification of regulatory gaps rather than direct policy disputes

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The session showed remarkably little disagreement, with most speakers presenting complementary perspectives on different aspects of WSIS implementation. The main areas of tension were around resource allocation priorities (AI vs. education funding) and regulatory gaps (environmental governance of ICT sector)

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement with high consensus on challenges and general directions. This suggests strong alignment among WSIS action line facilitators but may also indicate insufficient critical examination of fundamental assumptions and trade-offs in digital development policy

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight how digital transformation has created massive new challenges that require urgent regulatory attention – cybersecurity threats and environmental impacts

Speakers

– Preetam Maloor
– Garam Bel

Arguments

Cybercrime costs increased 20-fold from $400 billion to $8-11 trillion, with attacks occurring every 30 seconds

Greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector now equal those of the transportation sector with unclear regulatory responsibility

Topics

Cybersecurity | Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers demonstrate how traditional institutions (health systems and postal services) have successfully integrated digital technologies to serve communities

Speakers

– Derrick Muneene
– Radka Maxova

Arguments

Digital health has seen tremendous progress with member states adopting resolutions in 2005, 2013, and 2018 to advance ICT integration in health

71% of post offices worldwide now provide e-commerce services to their communities

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the comprehensive, cross-cutting nature of digital transformation impacts that require holistic policy responses

Speakers

– Maria Prieto Berhouet
– Tee Wee Ang

Arguments

All levels of the labor market are being influenced by digitalization and AI, affecting both formal and informal economies

Ethics must be a foundational and cross-cutting pillar of digital transformation, embedded across the entire technology lifecycle

Topics

Economic | Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

WSIS Action Lines have achieved significant progress over 20 years, with global connectivity increasing from 800 million to 5.5 billion people and access to information laws expanding from 14 to 139 countries

The digital landscape has fundamentally transformed, requiring evolution from traditional approaches to addressing emerging technologies like AI, quantum computing, and neurotechnology

All Action Lines face common challenges including the need for more inclusive approaches, better data collection and monitoring frameworks, and adaptation to rapidly changing technologies

COVID-19 accelerated digital transformation across all sectors, making digital tools essential rather than optional

Cross-sectoral collaboration and multi-stakeholder approaches remain crucial for effective implementation of WSIS Action Lines

The WSIS framework has successfully evolved from a digital development framework to become the digital arm of the sustainable development agenda

Ethics must be embedded as a foundational and cross-cutting pillar across all digital transformation initiatives

Resolutions and action items

Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development will conduct a mapping exercise to improve monitoring of Action Lines, incorporating GDC outcomes

UNCTAD published a consultation report on WSIS implementation with recommendations for reformulating or expanding Action Lines

UN-DESA will organize virtual stakeholder consultations for the WSIS Plus 20 review process following feedback on the elements paper

UNESCO member states will adopt recommendations on neurotechnology ethics by the end of the year

ITU will continue leading the Early Warning for All initiative in collaboration with other UN entities

The WSIS Plus 20 review should integrate GDC principles into the WSIS architecture and strengthen both IGF and WSIS Forum continuation

Unresolved issues

Lack of concrete monitoring and assessment frameworks for evaluating WSIS Action Lines achievements, making it difficult to provide measurable impact data

Unclear regulatory responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector, which now equals transportation sector emissions

Traditional capacity development programs are not working effectively on the ground, requiring new approaches that are not yet fully defined

Need for better coordination between ICT regulators and cross-sectoral regulators in health, education, and agriculture

Gap between AI investment ($500 billion) and education financing needs ($100 billion) remains unaddressed

Challenge of adapting international labor standards to current digital labor market including platform work

Suggested compromises

Merging related Action Lines (such as C4 capacity building and C7 e-employment) to create more impactful collaborative tracks

Rebranding terminology to reflect current realities (e.g., changing ‘eHealth’ to ‘digital health’ and ‘information society’ to ‘information and knowledge societies’)

Developing anticipatory and adaptive governance models that can complement formal legal and regulatory systems in real-time

Creating regulatory sandboxes and data-driven regulation approaches to balance innovation with market confidence

Establishing more knowledge exchange platforms and best practice sharing mechanisms among regulators at different development stages

We need to think a bit out of the box… the traditional way, the traditional means on how we are delivering a capacity development program sometimes are really not working on the ground, and we really need to understand that. We really need to understand the national, you know, the local needs.

Speaker

Carla Licciardello

Reason

This comment challenges the fundamental approach to digital capacity building by questioning established methodologies. It shifts focus from top-down, standardized approaches to bottom-up, community-driven solutions, which is particularly insightful given the 20-year retrospective context.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical self-reflection theme that resonated throughout subsequent presentations. It established the need for adaptive, localized approaches rather than one-size-fits-all solutions, influencing how other speakers framed their challenges and future visions.

There’s no real monitoring and assessment framework for the evaluation of these action lines. So if someone was to tell us that what has capacity building achieved in these 20 years, we can’t really give concrete figures.

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Reason

This observation exposes a fundamental gap in the WSIS framework – the inability to measure impact after 20 years of implementation. It’s particularly thought-provoking because it questions the accountability and effectiveness of the entire action line system.

Impact

This comment created a turning point in the discussion, shifting focus from celebrating achievements to acknowledging systemic weaknesses. It prompted Scarlett Fondeur Gil de Barth to highlight the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development’s mapping exercise, directly addressing this gap.

Information was a scarce resource in 2003, 2005, and now we have an abundance of information. And what we have, actually, scarcity is in… the attention… there is quite a reflection on how to react to this unwanted, or consequences of adoption of technologies into the educational system.

Speaker

Davide Storti

Reason

This insight reframes the fundamental challenge from information access to attention management, representing a paradigm shift in how we understand digital transformation’s impact on learning and society. It’s philosophically profound and practically relevant.

Impact

This comment introduced a new conceptual framework that elevated the discussion beyond technical implementation to cognitive and social implications. It demonstrated how the digital landscape has fundamentally transformed, requiring new approaches to education and information management.

Ethics must be a foundational and cross-cutting pillar of digital transformation… We need to also start to recognize that ethics as a form of agile self-governance that is capable of complementing formal legal and regulatory systems in real time.

Speaker

Tee Wee Ang

Reason

This comment redefines ethics from a peripheral consideration to a core operational principle, proposing ‘agile self-governance’ as a new regulatory paradigm. It’s innovative in suggesting ethics as a dynamic, adaptive system rather than static guidelines.

Impact

Coming at the end of the session, this comment provided a unifying framework for all the challenges discussed earlier. It suggested that ethical considerations should be embedded throughout the technology lifecycle, offering a solution to many of the governance and regulatory challenges mentioned by other speakers.

The cost of cybercrime, you know, from 400 billion has increased 20 times to about 8 to 11 trillion dollars… But the good news in the story is… these numbers indicate that the risks are increasing in complexity… but numbers also offer some hope. It shows that stakeholders are better organized and more resilient than they were in 2005.

Speaker

Preetam Maloor

Reason

This comment provides a nuanced perspective on cybersecurity challenges, acknowledging massive scale increases in threats while maintaining optimism about improved resilience. The juxtaposition of alarming statistics with positive interpretation is thought-provoking.

Impact

This balanced perspective influenced the tone of the discussion, demonstrating how to present challenges without creating despair. It showed other speakers how to frame problems constructively, contributing to a solution-oriented rather than problem-focused dialogue.

There is a projected investment in artificial intelligence of $500 billion, I think we have to mention that with another 100 billion would be needed to close the global financing gap for education… So there’s a matter of scale, which is important to note, in terms of the investment.

Speaker

Davide Storti

Reason

This stark comparison of AI investment versus education funding gap reveals profound misalignment in global priorities. It’s a powerful critique of resource allocation that challenges the audience to consider equity in digital transformation.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical equity dimension to the discussion, highlighting how technological advancement might be exacerbating rather than solving fundamental development challenges. It added moral urgency to the technical discussions and influenced the framing of future priorities.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical self-reflection, systemic analysis, and forward-thinking perspectives. They transformed what could have been a routine progress report into a deeper examination of the WSIS framework’s effectiveness and future relevance. The comments created a progression from identifying implementation gaps (monitoring frameworks) to questioning methodological approaches (capacity building), to reframing fundamental challenges (information vs. attention), and finally to proposing new governance paradigms (agile ethics). This intellectual journey elevated the discussion from operational reporting to strategic visioning, setting the stage for meaningful reform in the WSIS+20 review process. The speakers’ willingness to acknowledge limitations while proposing innovative solutions created a constructive tension that made the session more valuable for future policy development.

How can we develop concrete monitoring and assessment frameworks for evaluating WSIS Action Lines achievements?

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

Currently there’s no real monitoring and assessment framework for the evaluation of action lines, making it impossible to provide concrete figures on what has been achieved in 20 years

How can WSIS targets be better aligned with each WSIS Action Line for improved data collection?

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

The current WSIS targets are not aligned with individual action lines, which would make data collection and monitoring frameworks more effective

How should child online protection guidelines be updated and revised to address new technological challenges?

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

Existing guidelines need updating to keep pace with technological evolution and new security challenges

How can ICT regulators better converge and work with cross-sectoral regulators in health, education, and agriculture?

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

There’s a need for coordination between ICT regulators and the many cross-sectoral regulators that have emerged

Should eHealth be rebranded as ‘digital health’ to reflect its broader scope?

Speaker

Derek Muneene (referenced by Gitanjali Sah)

Explanation

The health community has recognized that digital health encompasses much more than the original eHealth concept

How can we better capture and report capacity development activities happening at the community level?

Speaker

Carla Licciardello

Explanation

There may be significant capacity building activities occurring that are not being captured at the action line level

What new regulatory approaches are needed for emerging technologies while maintaining market confidence?

Speaker

Sofie Maddens

Explanation

Regulators need innovative approaches like regulatory sandboxes and data-driven regulation to address fast-moving technologies

How can we ensure equitable access to remote research infrastructure for scientists in developing countries?

Speaker

Davide Storti

Explanation

There’s a need to enable every researcher to access infrastructure so scientists in developing countries can contribute to global scientific processes

How should international labor standards be adapted to regulate platform work and the current digital labor market?

Speaker

Maria Prieto Berhouet

Explanation

The ILO faces challenges in adapting normative standards to address platform work and digitalization impacts on employment

Who should regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the ICT sector?

Speaker

Garam Bel

Explanation

There’s uncertainty about regulatory responsibility for ICT sector emissions, which are equivalent to those of the transportation sector

How can ethics be mainstreamed as a cross-cutting framework throughout the entire technology lifecycle?

Speaker

Tee Wee Ang

Explanation

Ethics must be embedded from design through deployment to decommissioning of digital technologies, not just at the beginning

How can anticipatory governance models be developed to complement formal legal and regulatory systems?

Speaker

Tee Wee Ang

Explanation

There’s a need for agile self-governance that can respond to rapidly evolving technologies in real time

How can the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development improve monitoring of Action Lines through their mapping exercise?

Speaker

Scarlett Fondeur Gil de Barth

Explanation

A mapping exercise is being conducted to improve the vision of how Action Lines can be monitored, taking into account GDC outcomes