WSIS+20 Overall Review multistakeholder consultation with co-facilitators

Summary

This discussion was an interactive stakeholder consultation session for the WSIS+20 review process, featuring co-facilitators Ambassador Suela Janina and Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale, along with ECOSOC President Robert Ray. The session aimed to gather input from various stakeholders including government representatives, civil society, private sector, and technical community members on the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society review.

The co-facilitators emphasized their commitment to maintaining an open, transparent, and inclusive process throughout the WSIS+20 review. They outlined their roadmap, which includes extending the deadline for input submissions to July 25th, preparing a zero draft in August, and conducting both virtual and hybrid consultations to accommodate global participation challenges. Ambassador Janina stressed the importance of building on what has worked well over the past 20 years while addressing areas needing improvement.

Participants raised several key concerns and suggestions during the consultation. Multiple stakeholders emphasized the need for genuine multi-stakeholder participation throughout the process, particularly during intergovernmental negotiations. There were significant concerns about accessibility, with many noting that visa restrictions and travel costs create barriers for Global South participation in New York-based meetings. Several speakers called for the process to be forward-looking rather than revisiting settled debates, while others argued that some issues may need reopening due to technological and societal changes over the past two decades.

The discussion highlighted the importance of coordination between WSIS+20 and other ongoing UN processes, particularly the Global Digital Compact and Internet Governance Forum. Participants suggested strengthening regional and national IGFs to enable broader participation and better implementation monitoring. The co-facilitators acknowledged these challenges and committed to using technology creatively to enhance inclusion, while maintaining transparency through detailed summaries and documentation of all consultations on the dedicated UNDESA webpage.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS+20 Review Process and Timeline**: Extensive discussion about the roadmap for the World Summit on the Information Society 20-year review, including key dates, consultation phases, and the preparation of zero drafts. Participants sought clarification on specific timelines, particularly regarding consultations scheduled for August through December 2024.

– **Multi-stakeholder Participation and Inclusivity Challenges**: Significant focus on ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholder groups, with particular concern about barriers to participation in New York-based consultations due to visa restrictions, funding constraints, and geographic accessibility. Discussions included proposals for hybrid formats and virtual participation options.

– **Integration and Coordination with Other UN Processes**: Participants raised questions about how the WSIS+20 review would align with other ongoing UN initiatives, particularly the Global Digital Compact (GDC), IGF (Internet Governance Forum), and various AI governance processes to avoid duplication and fragmentation.

– **Future-focused vs. Historical Approach**: Debate about whether to focus on forward-looking solutions rather than revisiting settled language from previous agreements, while acknowledging that some issues may need updating to reflect technological and societal changes over the past 20 years.

– **Strengthening Implementation and Monitoring Mechanisms**: Discussion about improving the effectiveness of WSIS action lines, enhancing the role of IGF in monitoring progress, and creating better coordination between national, regional, and global levels of implementation.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion was an interactive consultation session between WSIS+20 co-facilitators (Ambassadors Janina and Lokaale) and multi-stakeholder participants to gather input on the review process of the World Summit on the Information Society after 20 years. The goal was to collect perspectives, expectations, and recommendations to inform the preparation of the review documents and ensure an inclusive, transparent process.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout. It began formally with introductory remarks but quickly became more interactive and engaging as participants raised practical concerns and suggestions. The co-facilitators demonstrated openness to feedback and flexibility in addressing stakeholder concerns, particularly around participation barriers. While some tensions emerged around procedural challenges and resource constraints, the overall atmosphere remained positive and solution-oriented, with all parties expressing commitment to making the process as inclusive and effective as possible.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Anita Gurumurthy** – Session moderator/facilitator

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Ambassador, WSIS+20 co-facilitator

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Session organizer/moderator

– **Online participant** – Dr. Lab Singh, Vice reporter on study group about digital skill framework, 35 years experience in IT and telecom sector in India

– **Panelist 1** – Kusaya Al-Shati from Kuwait, Private sector

– **Bruna Santos** – Works at Witness, a human rights organization based in New York that works on AI

– **Suela Janina** – Ambassador, WSIS+20 co-facilitator

– **Paloma Lara Castro** – Representing Derechos Digitales, part of the Global Digital Justice Forum in the WSIS Coalition

– **Panelist 3** – Chris Buckridge, Member of the IGF MAG for the technical community, member of the sounding board

– **Konstantinos Komaitis** – Session moderator/facilitator

– **Participant 1** – Canadian Ambassador, President of ECOSOC (Mr. Robert Ray)

– **Panelist 9** – (Role/expertise not specified)

– **Panelist 7** – Titi Casa, Works for Italian government

– **Panelist 8** – Ellie McDonald, Speaking on behalf of Global Partners Digital, member of the Global Digital Rights Coalition

– **Panelist 2** – Chris Adamson, UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology

– **Panelist 4** – Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Retired professor, MUG member, member of the sounding board

– **Panelist 5** – Sébastien Bachelet, Internet Society France, chair of EURALO (end user within ICANN from Europe)

– **Panelist 10** – William Lee, Australian Government

– **Panelist 6** – Anna Osterling, Works for Article 19, a local-to-global freedom of expression organization

– **Panelist 11** – Wearing Asia-Pacific regional IGF hat, from Nepal (LDC)

**Additional speakers:**

None – all speakers mentioned in the transcript were included in the provided speakers names list.

# WSIS+20 Interactive Stakeholder Consultation: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This interactive stakeholder consultation session for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-year review process brought together diverse participants including government representatives, civil society organizations, private sector entities, and technical community members. The session was facilitated by WSIS+20 co-facilitators Ambassador Suela Janina and Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale, alongside ECOSOC President, and included 40 remote participants joining virtually.

Gitanjali Sah opened the session emphasizing that WSIS has an “open format” and the interactive nature of the consultation. The discussion focused on procedural matters, participation challenges, and coordination with other UN processes, with co-facilitators demonstrating openness to stakeholder feedback throughout the consultation.

## Process Framework and Timeline

### Roadmap and Key Dates

Ambassador Janina announced the extension of the deadline for elements paper submissions to July 25th to accommodate stakeholder feedback and ensure broader participation. The zero draft preparation is scheduled for August, with co-facilitators committing to provide updated roadmap details by the end of July.

Ambassador Lokaale emphasized that the co-facilitators operate under delegated authority from the President of the General Assembly, with periodic meetings scheduled to update on progress and maintain alignment with UN priorities.

### Consultation Methodology

The co-facilitators outlined plans for hybrid consultation formats to address participation challenges, including accommodation of different time zones and virtual participation options. Ambassador Janina mentioned the potential use of artificial intelligence for discussion summaries.

The sounding board, comprising expert representatives from various stakeholder groups, was positioned as an important communication channel, though co-facilitators clarified that regional and thematic consultations through existing coalitions would be equally encouraged.

## Participation and Inclusivity Challenges

### Geographical and Structural Barriers

Multiple participants raised concerns about barriers to meaningful participation, particularly affecting Global South stakeholders. Anna Osterling from Article 19 highlighted how visa restrictions and travel costs create structural exclusions, noting these challenges extend beyond New York to other international meeting venues.

Ambassador Lokaale acknowledged these systemic barriers, stating: “It’s not just New York. I know New York now is much more difficult. We met groups in Norway who said many more people could not travel to the IGF because of the visa restrictions… So what does this mean? I think it’s a challenge for us to make these processes truly inclusive by finding ways of getting those who cannot travel to these capitals, to these venues, and I’m talking about people from Africa, people from most of the global south who are excluded by structural things that have nothing to do with WSIS or IGF or bad policies of governments.”

### Power Imbalances in Multi-stakeholderism

An Iranian representative highlighted how large technology companies possess significantly more resources and influence compared to small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries, questioning the effectiveness of multi-stakeholderism at the international level. The representative also raised concerns about unilateral coercive measures (UCM) affecting digital development.

Ambassador Lokaale acknowledged these concerns, recognizing that “big tech, big private sector companies hold certain leverage because of resources and the capacities that are available to them compared to the smaller ones.”

### Proposed Solutions

Ellie McDonald from Global Partners Digital proposed leveraging existing coalitions and regional forums rather than creating new consultation mechanisms. The co-facilitators responded positively, with Ambassador Janina expressing openness to regional consultations and utilizing established networks.

## Methodological Approach and Scope

### Forward-Looking Versus Historical Perspectives

Chris Adamson from the UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology emphasized the need for a “future-focused, action-oriented” approach, arguing that limited time should not be spent on historic issues or previously agreed language.

Sébastien Bachelet from Internet Society France provided a counterpoint, noting that “life changed within these 20 years, and maybe there are some issues that need to be reopened… because, for example, the work done by NetMundial need to be taken into account.”

Ambassador Lokaale responded that “if, in the opinion of stakeholders, we need to revisit some of the discussions in order to bring them up to speed with the current or recent developments, as a matter of necessity, then we’ll have to do that,” while maintaining the principle of using agreed language from the Global Digital Compact and other consensual documents as starting points.

### Integration with Other UN Processes

Participants expressed concerns about fragmentation across different UN digital governance initiatives. Bruna Santos from Witness highlighted concerns about “mirroring debates across UNESCO, global panels, and GDC processes,” while Titi Casa from the Italian government suggested upgrading the Internet Governance Forum to monitor progress of WSIS Action Lines and Global Digital Compact objectives.

## Transparency and Accountability

### Documentation and Public Access

Multiple participants emphasized the importance of comprehensive transparency measures. Bruna Santos requested summaries of stakeholder consultations for accountability purposes, while Anna Osterling called for live streaming and detailed summaries of negotiations when full stakeholder participation is not possible.

Ambassador Janina committed to maintaining transparent documentation on the dedicated UNDESA webpage, including summaries of consultations and clear identification of areas of agreement and disagreement.

### Stakeholder Engagement During Negotiations

Wolfgang Kleinwächter raised questions about “how co-facilitators will cooperate with the President of the General Assembly to ensure stakeholder input impacts intergovernmental negotiations.” A suggestion was made to use the Cyber Crime Convention as a precedent for inclusive participation modalities.

## Substantive Issues and Priorities

### Vulnerable Groups and Corporate Accountability

Anna Osterling stressed the importance of including vulnerable groups and underserved communities, while Paloma Lara Castro from Derechos Digitales highlighted the need for corporate accountability mechanisms and application of UN guiding principles on business and human rights.

### Digital Literacy and Education

Dr. Lab Singh, participating online, contributed specific suggestions about “student-centric strategies for sustainable, resilient media literacy,” demonstrating the breadth of issues stakeholders consider relevant to the review process.

## Regional Engagement

### Asia-Pacific Perspectives

Representatives from the Asia-Pacific region expressed appreciation for efforts to accommodate regional participation. A representative from Nepal extended an invitation to participate in the Asia-Pacific regional IGF scheduled for October 11-14.

William Lee from the Australian Government and other regional representatives highlighted the importance of regional engagement and leveraging existing networks.

### Global Digital Rights Coalition

References were made to the Global Digital Rights Coalition and their letters containing process recommendations, indicating organized civil society input into the consultation process.

## Key Commitments and Next Steps

The co-facilitators committed to:

– Providing updated roadmap details by the end of July

– Beginning intensive work with the sounding board

– Preparing the zero draft during August following the extended deadline

– Maintaining transparency through comprehensive documentation on the UNDESA webpage

– Supporting hybrid consultation formats and regional consultations

– Periodic updates to the General Assembly President

## Conclusion

This consultation demonstrated both the opportunities and challenges of inclusive global digital governance. While participants showed agreement on the importance of transparent, inclusive processes, significant challenges remain around addressing structural barriers to participation and power imbalances within multi-stakeholder frameworks.

The co-facilitators’ openness to feedback and flexibility in addressing stakeholder concerns provides a foundation for the review process. The success of the WSIS+20 review will depend on translating these procedural commitments into meaningful participation opportunities and substantive outcomes that address both historical digital divide issues and emerging challenges in global digital governance.

Gitanjali Sah: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us for this session. And as you know that WSIS has always had a very open format, we had an interactive session with the GDC co-facilitators, and our WSIS plus 20 co-facilitators, Ambassadors Janina and Ambassador Lokaale were, of course, very open to this idea, and they were excited to be able to interact with all the stakeholder community present here. So this will really literally be an interaction between all stakeholders present in the room, so you can just raise your hand, and you can take the floor. We are helped by Konstantinos and Anita today, who will help us basically moderate this session. We are also joined by the President of ECOSOC, Mr. Robert Ray, so we are really privileged to have him here, because it is a UN process, and it will feed into the ECOSOC and the UNGA. So very, very quickly, those of you who are familiar or not familiar with the WSIS process, it’s a serious process. We have designed a preparatory process for the overall review. Everybody knows the Ambassadors by now, so they are here in front of us, in case those of you who haven’t met them. They have put together a roadmap, which you all have also seen, which they want to make sure leads to a very consultative process. So maybe I can first invite Ambassadors to say hello to everybody in the room. Ambassador Janina, over to you.

Suela Janina: Good afternoon to everyone. It’s a pleasure to be in this session of consultations, following the previous consultations we had in Paris a few weeks ago, and also at IGF in Oslo. It’s also a privilege to be together with our President of ECOSOC, dear Bob, and to share a common objective of this process of review of WSIS plus 20, which comes to a crucial moment for the Internet society would like to have for the next 20 years. It will be very important to emphasize that we are both together with my colleague, Ambassador Leo Kalle, very committed to have an open, transparent, and inclusive process. So for the time being, we’re very happy to hear from you. What are your perspectives, expectations from the overview process? We have also had some very useful inputs from Lillestrom. I’m not at this point trying to come over each of them, but they are really very important points on which we would like to build also today. So we encourage you to be active, participating in this process, which will continue for the next weeks. We have a roadmap, as you already mentioned, Gitanjali. We had also a call for inputs for the element paper that has been published a few days ago. We have also extended the deadline in order to accommodate many stakeholders and to really respect and uphold this multi-stakeholder model that WSIS inherits from its very start days of the beginning, and we hope to also enrich with this review process. So thank you very much for the discussions.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Janina. Ambassador Lokaale, please. Thank you very much, Gitanjali, and good afternoon, colleagues. First, I would like to thank you for having us. I’m very happy to have a colleague, Ambassador Ray, clearly seeing the three of us coming out of New York here for consultations, including the president of the ECOSOC, it’s clear testament that Geneva and New York are not that far, as sometimes we think to say, and particularly on an important agenda such as the one that we’re discussing. Second thing, we’ve benefited immensely from talking to many of you with whom we met at the IGF, and over the last couple of days, you know, the useful points which have come out of those interactions, for example, the future of the IGF, relationship between the WSIS Outcome Review and other related processes such as the GDC, you know, WSIS Outcome Review within the context of SDGs, place of emerging technologies, issues such as capacity building, particularly for countries of the Global South, financing mechanisms, whether or not we need to have targets for follow-up and measurement of progress, and so on. So these are some of the issues on which we’d like to hear, you know, your feedback this afternoon. So our role this afternoon is to listen to you, and we very much look forward to that, and yeah, to continue this conversation. Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Lokaale, we really appreciate your patience and your kindness. Thank you, Ambassadors. So could we please also invite the Canadian Ambassador, who is the president of the ECOSOC, to say a few words, and then we will start our interaction.

Participant 1: Very few words indeed. I’m delighted to be here with my colleagues. I think they were surprised to see me as probably as you all are. I am a regular participant in events as president of ECOSOC in New York, but also in Geneva and in other capitals where the UN is active because of so many critical issues. I just wanted to say that although we have a lot of processes going on at the UN all the time, this question around the digital economy, digital society, the digital divide, are really critically important to all of us, and this, I think, is one more opportunity to see what more we can do and engage with all of you as member states and also as members of civil society. And I’m just very glad to be able to sit here and listen and not have to say anything more. So that’s an advantage. It’s important to listen.

Ekitela Lokaale:

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much. I’m going to take your notes and take the vision of this room to the ECOSOC in New York. Thank you very much. I’d like to hand over to our colleagues Konstantinos and Anita to continue the moderation with all the stakeholders present in the room. Over to you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Gitanjali. Hi, everyone. Thank you very much. Gitanjali, I don’t need to say anything. I believe that the ambassadors put a very good context of what this conversation is about. I’m very glad to see a full room, and we can start with questions, I mean, this is a – or comments about the process. So, please, over to you. This is – Yes. Thank you very much. I’m going to take your notes and take the vision of this room to the ECOSOC in New York. Thank you very much. I’d like to hand over to our colleagues Konstantinos and Anita to continue the moderation with all the stakeholders present in the room. Over to you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So, please, over to you.

Panelist 1: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet with the co-facilitators of the World System Plus 20. This is Kusaya Al-Shati from Kuwait. Obviously, in the roadmap, I’m seeing many steps coming, and I just have some clarification – I would like to have some clarification about some of the steps. After August, obviously, there is an open consultation – there’s a consultation with the stakeholders that will be held virtually, and there is another consultation in November with the stakeholders and member states at the UN headquarter. And yet, in mid-October, there is a second preparatory meeting and stock-taking session at the UN headquarter. That’s in New York, if I am not mistaken. So talking about the process after the zero draft, which is in mid-October, and after the draft outcome in November, are these multi-stakeholder, or will it be purely governmental? Are we – and there will be a process to submit our input – that’s one. According to the high-level meeting and the General Assembly in December 16 to 17, will be the – as there will be, like what happened, the future summit, a side event for multi-stakeholder organizations. So we just wonder if we can – and there are some people who can be there at present in New York when it is the stock-taking sessions, whether mid-October or November, and 16th and 17th of December.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Can you also please tell us which organization you’re working for or you’re a fan?

Panelist 1: I’m a private sector.

Konstantinos Komaitis: That’s it. Okay. Do we have any other question or comment? Please, go ahead.

Panelist 2: Thank you very much. My name is Chris Adamson. I’m from the UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology. I’d first just like to say a huge thank you to the co-facilitators for being so open and transparent and available throughout this process so far. It’s really appreciated, it’s recognized by all as well. So, I’d like to start with that. Thank you. I do have one point I want to stress before I have a question. Time is quite short, of course. We all recognize that the window for these discussions is shorter than probably we would normally like to have. I would just like to say that this WSIS review does need to be as future-focused, action-oriented as possible to address the opportunities and challenges around digital development that we all face. I’d just like to stress the point that we should avoid as much as possible spending time discussing issues that are historic, language that’s been agreed in other texts and things like that. So, I just want the co-facilitators to take note of that and really emphasize that discussions that we have should be on future-focused agenda, rather than looking backwards. The question I do have is, when will the co-facilitators be releasing specific details on the dates and timings of the informal discussions and negotiations during the autumn? I think the key point here is this is essential for planning purposes, particularly for stakeholders in getting to New York as well as the global majority and making sure that they can be fully inclusive in this world. Early planning is usually something that is something that we would obviously like to prefer to have. So, thank you very much.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thanks, Greg. We have another question and then we can go back to you, Chris, please.

Panelist 3: There we go. My name is Chris Buckridge. I’m a member of the IGF MAG for the technical community. And I’m very pleased also to be part of the sounding board that was announced this week. So, this is pre-empting a bit some of the discussions that I’m sure we will have, but I think in a sort of more public venue, I was just wanting to ask maybe a bit about your vision for that sounding board and how you see it contributing to developing the resolution and moving towards the WSIS review.

Suela Janina: Thank you very much for this very useful and direct questions. When it comes to the process, this is true that we need also to reflect with flexibility, but also with concrete dates that all stakeholders are prepared for their engagement, for future engagement. So, because we have heard some requests, we have extended the deadline for the WSIS review the deadline for inputs for the elements paper. It has been initially 15 of July. Now it’s 25 of July. And by the end of July, we’ll update also the next steps. We foresee that after we receive all inputs by the end of July to prepare the zero draft during the month of August. By the end of August, you’ll be possible that you have this zero draft and you’ll have a period of time that you can reflect on concrete language on what we are going to propose as the zero draft. Then we understand a little bit also the difficulties of traveling to New York. So, our aim is to put on this consultation also the hybrid element or to get use of the technology. We are speaking of technology. So, how we can make it more useful in terms of inclusion and participation. So, by the end of July, we’ll have very clear and more focused roadmap on exact dates that everyone that will be able to join us in New York can plan for the trip. Those that have not possibilities to come to New York to have this opportunity to connect online. So, the multistakeholder approach will be respected very rigorously throughout the process. The other question was about the sounding board. Congratulations for being a member and congratulations to everyone that has been selected by us as co-facilitators on some… We try to respect the criteria that we have put for fair representation based on regional representation, experience, but also gender. I mean, for us, it’s also important because if we speak also about digital divide, this is an element that we also have to reflect in the representation of the sounding board. But the sounding board, we have repeated that several times. It’s not the only channel of communication with us as co-facilitators because if we are committed to very open process, that is the invitation for everyone throughout this roadmap that we have presented, but in a very informal way to approach us, to send us your inputs, or just if you would like to have some more regional consultation, we are really very eager to follow and to participate in all the discussions that you may have asked us or just put to our attention that something has happened regionally, a kind of discussion on which the process can benefit. So, in that regard, we are very much open and would like to start working very closely and intensified way with the sounding board. So, bear with us. If we are not going to have summer vacations, sounding board, prepare not to have yourself some vacations during this period. We’ll start tomorrow. Let’s be transparent. We’ll have a meeting with all of you tomorrow and we’ll build jointly a plan of how to tackle all these upcoming weeks with just as someone mentioned, that seems to be some weeks, but needs to be intensive because really we are not the luxury of losing time and also reflecting the importance of the process and the high expectations that we are very much aware everyone is putting on this process.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. Well, you didn’t forget much. Yeah, thank you, Chris, from the UK. I think there’s general agreement that we need to conduct the current review in a forward-looking manner and not to revisit some of the debates that we’ve had in the past, where those have been settled or where there is consensus or general agreement that they are not extremely useful anymore to have. So we’ll try as much as possible not to unnecessarily resurrect those debates. Second is, yeah, our understanding is that we will use the agreed language, including in the GDC and other consensual documents as a starting point and that we’ll not try to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. So unless concepts or ideas have not been agreed in a language, then we’ll not have a reason to give new meaning or come up with a new language, unless absolutely necessary. Thank you.

Anita Gurumurthy: Apologies for that, and thank you so much. We just wanted to suggest that if you would like to sit behind, maybe you could use those, but I mean, that’s not a guarantee of comfortable seating, but this is an overwhelming response. So we can take another set of questions, maybe a couple more, yeah. Yeah, Professor Wolfgang.

Panelist 4: Thank you very much. My name is Wolfgang Kleinwächter. I’m a retired professor, MUG member, and also now a member of the sounding board. You know, the modalities resolution gives the president of the General Assembly a special role in convening the stakeholder consultations in New York, and the president should collect input from these consultations. So my question is, how do, as co-facilitators, want to cooperate with the president of the General Assembly to guarantee that the input which is collected by the president has an impact into the intergovernmental negotiations? Thank you very much.

Anita Gurumurthy: Any other? Yeah.

Panelist 5: Thank you very much, Sébastien Bachelet, Internet Society France, and chair of EURALO, the end user within ICANN from Europe. I heard the discussion about not changing something who are already been agree upon, but life changed within these 20 years, and maybe there are some issues that need to be reopened, because, or open, I will say, because, for example, the work done by NetMundial need to be taken into account, and I am not sure that the wording made 20 years ago will be or could be the same. That’s what we need today. My second point, it’s… Please, please, don’t multiply the place where we need to discuss something or where the topic we need to discuss, because we can’t do that. We can’t afford to be everywhere in New York, in Geneva, and some other places in this world. And we spend a lot of time already just trying to find a way to allow the multistakeholder and particularly end-user and civil society to be present and not ask us to be split into ten or twenty places different. Thank you very much.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Ekitela Lokaale: Professor, indeed, the Modalities Resolution says that the President of the General Assembly will facilitate consultations. Actually, the two of us are acting under delegated authority from the President of the General Assembly. So what we are doing here is on behalf of and with the authority of the President. There are no parallel consultations that the PGA is conducting. These are the consultations, okay? And if it will give you comfort, we periodically have meetings with the PGA to update the President of the General Assembly on the progress of the process. So we do this every couple of weeks, and it’s something that we’ve built into our own program of work. Sorry, I missed your name, because we are consulting here a little bit. Like we said, where there is no need to reopen, then we will not reopen the language. But if, in the opinion of stakeholders, we need to revisit some of the discussions in order to bring them up to speed with the current or recent developments, as a matter of necessity, then we’ll have to do that. We’re not saying no to everything, including, for example, to just give an example, and I don’t want to open the debate at this stage on the action lines. That’s one of the things people are saying. There are those who say action lines are good enough. There are others who say let’s update them. So that’s a discussion we’re going to have and then come to some form of agreement. On the forums, the reason why we’ve placed them openly is for colleagues to know, those who are able to plan to be in New York can then have time and space to plan to be there. But for stakeholders, we are trying to make them virtual, because then in that way, many people are able to participate remotely. And then we’ve also tried to, in putting the time slots, take cognizance of the different time zones. And this is something we did, for example, during the informal consultations on the 9th and 10th of June. We had one consultation late into the night for us in New York in order to make time, I think, for the Pacific or one of the regions. And then the other day, we had it quite early to take care of the other side of the globe. So that’s how we are trying to accommodate. Thank you.

Suela Janina: Thank you, but there is not much to be added on both points that my colleague already explained very well. But just to add the point of the full support that we have also from the Office of the President of the General Assembly. We have met with him and we have had really meaningful discussion on the topic and also continuously coordinating on the process. So there is full alignment in everything we are doing. And we are also fortunate to have the support of the Secretariat of UNDESA and other agencies. If I may just recall something that Gitanjali said to me from the start, that there is a WSIS community. And this is really very much helpful, because we see everyone very much engaged to give ideas, proposals. This leads me to the second point of the request not to multiply also initiatives, also forums. And here we come to a very specific part of our consultation and negotiations that we really need concrete ideas and what really works for you. What is effective? What is something that during these 20 years has functioned well and we need to preserve, to protect and to enrich? And what is something that really needs to be addressed in a way of improving it? And if we start on this kind of approach, there are a lot of elements to discuss here. If you are discussing, for example, for WSIS architecture, how we can improve IGF or how to better connect IGF with WSIS forum. These are some of the questions or the elements that we have heard very often. But we’ll really, if we want to have a deep dive on that, we really need this kind of concrete inputs from you, from the community. What are really the instruments that have proved to be successful on which we can build upon this new architecture or improved architecture of WSIS that we would like to have for the next 20 years?

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Ambassador. Oh, excellent. Three hands. Bruna? Sorry. Let’s start with Bruna. Please.

Bruna Santos: Thanks for making me the favorite. Thank you, Ambassadors, for the conversation and for the openness as well. My name is Bruna Santos, I work at Witness, a human rights organization based in New York that works on AI. So my question is going to be about that part. I do appreciate the acknowledgments about the set so-called power imbalances on AI governance discussions and the need for fostering new technologies on that. But we do have seen, we have indeed seen some level of fragmentation or mirroring of the debates on AI governance from, you know, from UN agencies, UNESCO, the creation of the global panel and the scientific, the global fund, the scientific panel and everything that emerged from the GDC. So my question to you guys is whether there is a clear idea already on how you’re going to integrate all of those debates or promote a bit more of alignment between what’s going on in the different agencies. And if I may just make a point about the consultations, I think the main point that was missing from the GDC consultations was a bit more time for stakeholders to be heard because at some point they would just be cut off. And I don’t want to suggest any more work to you guys by no means, but if you could work on perhaps summaries of how the stakeholder consultations went, I think it would be a great point on accountability and transparency for the whole process. So thanks.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Bruna. Thank you, Bruna. Let’s take the other two. Thank you. Anna, please go ahead.

Panelist 6: Thank you so much. My name is Anna Osterling and I work for Article 19, a local-to-global freedom of expression organization. And I had the wonderful opportunity to speak to both ambassadors multiple times in Dillström, so I’ll keep this very brief because I’ve given you my substantive inputs. There’s just one substantive point and one procedural point I’d like to make. In terms of substance, one thing that I would really like to emphasize is the need for inclusion in terms of what will go into to make sure that the WSIS framework really results in an inclusive information society, just to make sure that we include all vulnerable groups, communities, hard-to-reach, underserved, far-away communities, migrants, refugees, and so forth. So that’s just one point I would like to reiterate, to be as inclusive as we can. In terms of the process, we are also a member of the Global Digital Rights Coalition on WSIS, and I know you’ve seen our letters with process recommendations. I’m just looking at the roadmap, and since you’re suggesting you will update it, if I might just question or maybe make a suggestion. In terms of, I’m really happy to see the consultations that you are planning with stakeholders. If they are in New York, then I can tell you that for a lot of stakeholders, especially from civil society, especially from global majority, but equally from Global North, it will be very, very difficult to come to New York in these current circumstances, both due to funding restrictions, but also concerns around visa and immigration. And this is an extreme concern for everyone in the community. So just to make sure that if you’re doing it in New York, we probably won’t be able to attend. So it’s great that you’re doing it virtually. I would love to, though, make sure that the consultations are joined, because it is great to be there and to talk, but we want member states to hear us. We want them to hear what we have to say. So it would be really important for all stakeholders, civil society, technical community, academia, private sector, and the member states to talk together. And then the other question I would have in terms of procedure, it’s wonderful to have these consultations and it’s wonderful that you’re so open, but once member states go into negotiations and the intergovernmental process happens, please still consider the input from stakeholders and make them as open as possible. There is obviously the maximalist solution, like at the Human Rights Council, where actually stakeholders are in the room and able to take the floor, which I’m happy to suggest. I know New York is not Geneva, but why not? But if not, then at least live stream on UN Web TV, offer summaries afterwards, something so we can stay in touch with what’s happening and remain included in the process. So it would be wonderful if you could reflect some of that in your roadmap. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Anna. Please go ahead, introduce yourself as well.

Panelist 7: Thank you. My name is Titi Casa. I work for Italian government. So I want to share just general consideration, because I think that the WSIS, the Global Digital Compact, also the IGF, are important initiatives, and each of them has significant strengths but also some weakness. And the enhancing cooperation among these initiatives could help to reinforce each one’s strengths and address their respective gaps. And so I think the key word here is the cooperation, the cooperation among all these three initiatives that could help to drive the implementation of the WSIS vision and the achievement also of the GDC objectives. The WSIS is an important and robust framework that has played an important and critical role in all this year-in-advance digital transformation across all UN member states. But at the same time, even if every year there is an important assessment that is conducted to monitor progress, despite all these efforts, it’s quite challenging to capture the comprehensive snapshot of the implementation of the WSIS Action Line at national, regional, and global level. At the same time also, I mean, the Global Digital Compact is making an important effort to try to implement this dashboard to collect inputs and to understand the status of the five objectives. Also there are some things that are in common. So I think that in all this process to monitor and to progress the status of the Action Line and also to achieve the GDC objectives, an important role could be played by the IGF. So I think the IGF should remain a platform, a debate platform, but it should be upgraded in order to have also the important role to monitor the progress of the Action Line. Because the IGF is an important network that includes 177 NRIs, but also several dynamic coalitions, all the intersessional activities. So they could contribute to understand what progress has been made on the Action Line, but also on the GDC. So I think in this context, this should be considered, I mean, in the evolution of the IGF and the evolution of the WSIS framework. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you so much. Any reflections, Ambassadors?

Suela Janina: The first general reflection, thank you very much for all the points. And the first general reflection would be that all these points are very carefully taken note. Because I suppose that everyone understands that at this point, when still the consultation is open, we are still waiting for inputs. We cannot take, let’s say, side in terms of trying to understand from this very point which is the most favorable one. So the richness of the process and the effectiveness is that we hear as many. Many of the ideas that you are putting converge. We have heard them in IGF. We are hearing it. And it’s not that it’s bad repetition. In this way, it’s positive. Because it emphasizes really what are the expectations that you have. And all these elements are crucial. Inclusivity. We have discussed it. You pointed out very strongly the fact that there are constraints for participating in the consultation and negotiation process. That’s why we have been flexible also to accommodate different time zones. We’ll do it in the future as well. Also including the fact of hybrid formats or online participation. If you have any other concrete idea or how to use the new technologies. We have had also ideas of how to use AI in terms also of summaries of discussions. When it comes to the point of the discussion summaries raised by Bruna as well. We have already started to do that. I don’t know if you have had the chance. DESA has set up a specific dedicated webpage on which every activity that we are doing is being reflected. And this has started also with the summary of the consultation with member states. The summary of consultation with stakeholders during the two days. It has also a reflection of main takeouts that we have had from IGF. It will continue with this forum. All your inputs will be transparently put to the webpage. So it will continue like that and we hope that you will support us also in this kind of engagement that is based on the transparent way that we would like to conduct the negotiation and the consultation process. Another point that you, Bruna, raised and is very important in the discussion we are doing is how to link and how to find this kind of synergies and alignment with the process that are taking place already at the UN. Sometimes we need also to agree on something that we are not able to stop the processes that have already started. What we need to do is to find the synergies between them and to align them under an umbrella that covers everything but also having in mind that we have existing mechanism in place that we can use and just to try to be also very much aware on the process that we are going and the president of ECOSOC can also support the idea that we are hearing more and more and more engaged on the initiative UN80. So anyone is not feeling the appetite to have new instruments or to put more money on the scarce resources that we have. The role of IGF is also linked with the point that the delegate from Italy made and the fact that we need also to put the products that we have at the national level and their eyes are very important at the regional level and also how to use the same discussion, GDC aligned with WSIS and use the same instruments that we can find to be effective and helpful in both processes.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you Ambassador. Nothing much to add except I think on the issue of inclusion, particularly these constraints that geographical locations of consultations have on participation. It’s not just New York. I know New York now is much more difficult. We met groups in Norway who said many more people could not travel to the IGF because of the visa restrictions. They couldn’t get the Schengen visa. I’m sure there are many more people who would have wanted to be in this room here in Geneva but are not able to come because they can’t get the visa. So what does this mean? I think it’s a challenge for us to make these processes truly inclusive by finding ways of getting those who cannot travel to these capitals, to these venues, and I’m talking about people from Africa, people from most of the global south who are excluded by structural things that have nothing to do with WSIS or IGF or bad policies of governments and so on. So that’s a challenge on all of us. But also secondly, if we were to migrate to virtual consultations, very good, it’s inclusive in that sense for those who are able to log in, you know, still. So there are different levels of exclusion which thankfully forms the subject matter of WSIS, right, to bridge the digital divide and so on and so forth. But on the specifics, I’m not competent enough to really say because we can migrate it from New York and then bring it to Geneva perhaps, well, maybe more inclusive, but then that those who will have, still find Geneva inaccessible because they can’t get the Schengen visa, you know. So what do we do? But there’s been a very interesting suggestion around strengthening the IGF, people saying, you know, strengthen the regional IGFs, strengthen the national IGFs so that more and more of these conversations can take place at levels where people would ordinarily find themselves. And then, you know, even the expense of the cost of hosting an IGF, for instance, make it affordable for countries of the global south. host so that it’s not prohibitive and so on and so forth. So I guess that’s what I would say but the rest of the comments are welcome. We’ve taken very good note of them and we will process them together with others that will come through in the next couple of weeks. Thank you. Well that’s all I have to say at this point. I think I don’t know whether we’ve left out any but we can always.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you Ambassadors. We’d like to inform the room that there is remote participation and around 40 of our participants are joining remotely. If they would like to take the floor they can raise their hand and the remote participation moderator will tell us. Thank you very much.

Anita Gurumurthy: For another point of information I think we have just about 17 minutes left at this point and unless we can go over the hour is it possible that I wouldn’t know? Sorry. Yes but there are others in the queue I would certainly was that all right. So let’s start here and then the delegate there and Paloma and yourself. Thank you.

Panelist 8: Thank you so much. My name is Ellie McDonald and I’m speaking on behalf of Global Partners Digital. We’re also a member of the Global Digital Rights Coalition that my colleague Anna mentioned earlier. I really appreciate this opportunity to speak as well as all of the comments you’ve just made Ambassadors about the measures you’re taking to ensure an inclusive process. I can be quite brief but I just had two follow-ups. I wanted to ask particularly about the consolidation of the inputs received and to make a suggestion that if it would be possible to make visible the areas where there are agreement as well as those where there is not yet agreement. That could be really helpful for our community to be able to target the interventions that we wish to make most effectively to inform your work. The second point is that we really welcome the creation of the Sounding Board and it’s a really useful measure and you have some really excellent experts on board. I also really appreciate the acknowledgement you made earlier that this will not be the only channel to engage the stakeholder community. I wanted to ask what measures you have in mind beyond the October consultation to engage the broader set of stakeholders and if you don’t mind to make a suggestion that you make use of some of the coalitions and forums that we already have. I already mentioned the Global Digital Rights Coalition. I know there are a number of stakeholder coalitions represented here today. Also regional forums and spaces and perhaps an approach that leverages them as well as providing space for thematic and regional consultation could be really helpful.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thanks for the time to speak. There is a participant online, Dr. Lab Singh. So I call on Dr. Singh to please take the floor and if you could kindly keep your comments to about two minutes. Thank you.

Online participant: Yes, thank you. Thank you so much. Actually, my name is Dr. Lab Singh and I’m basically a vice reporter on the study group about digital skill framework, you know. I have put in something like 35 years in IT and telecom sector in India. So I have been going through, I mean from last two days I’m attending the proceeding. My points are already in the chat box. Will it be possible to just read it out and then get the, you know, response from that? Could you just see that?

Anita Gurumurthy: We’ll try to convey that to the ambassadors. Meanwhile, we will move on to the next delegate. There’s Paloma and then there’s Willem. Thank you so much.

Panelist 9: Thank you. Thank you, all facilitators and ambassadors. Actually, something I have, I want to raise, I mean, three points. The first is about multi-stakeholderism. When we talk about multi-stakeholderism in national level, it is a, I mean, a good approach to, I mean, to let all stakeholders give opinion about different issues that are related to digital and AI or, I mean, internet affairs. But when we are talking at the international level, stakeholders, especially big, I mean, tech companies, they are not in the same, I mean, position. Some of them are very strengths. They are powerful and, I mean, they can have dominant role in the digital area. And so, regarding this, I mean, issue, I believe that it is very important that in review of VCs, we address this kind of, I mean, this kind of things, because small and medium-sized companies in developing countries cannot, I mean, have equal participation in the international area. Another point is about the UCM, because the unilateral coercive measures is, I mean, this kind of measures are very important and big assets for having inclusive and development-oriented information societies. And some developing countries are suffering these issues. Then my last point is about digital divide. In some, let’s say, paragraphs of documents of VCs in 2003 and 2005, especially paragraph like 61 and 66, are directly on digital divide. As we see, the digital divide, I mean, haven’t, I mean, digital divide exists, and there is a need to focus on this problem in VCs review. Very, I mean, especially we should pay attention to this problem. Thank you.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you very much. I just wanted to read out what Mr. Singh wanted to contribute. It is just a suggestion to have student-centric strategies for sustainable, resilient media literacy. So he is keen to input that. I request Paloma and others to keep your input to as short as possible, so that we have a chance to hear from the ambassadors.

Paloma Lara Castro: Hi, thank you. I’m Paloma Lara Castro, representing Derechos Digitales, and also part of the Global Digital Justice Forum in the WSIS Coalition. I’m going to be very brief, because I know I’ve spoken a lot of times, so two points. One substantive point has to do with the need to address corporate accountability, especially the need to make sure that the UN guiding principles on business and human rights are applied and are actually being effective within this process, especially considering how strategic is logistics and corporate massive extraction is being affected specifically on Global South. So this is a problem that needs to be addressed. And then on the second point, just to process, you asked on how other processes could serve as a basis or as an example of more inclusive participation, and I think that we can point to the Cyber Crime Convention, that although it needs a lot of improvement, it’s not perfect at all, but still it gave us a chance to be in the same room while states were negotiating, and we could see not only the proposals, but the track of changes. So that made it more possible for us to engage more directly and to have more participation and to be aware of what the discussions were, and at least point to know where the discussions were in the agreement and disagreements. So I think that that could also serve as a precedent for future implementation in this process. Thank you.

Panelist 10: Thank you, Ambassadors, for being here, and thank you for giving me the floor. My name is William Lee from the Australian Government. I firstly just wanted to thank you on the way that the process has been run. I think it has been an excellent process so far, and your commitment to even simply spending three weeks in Europe, having conversations with stakeholders, I think has been well noted. The other thing I would note as a country from the Asia-Pacific, your recognition of the challenge of time zones has been strongly heard in our region, and we have certainly heard feedback from our stakeholders that your recognition of that has been really appreciated. I wanted to touch on the question of how we as UN member states can support you in terms of the process going forward. I think it is a true service that you are both doing to the WSIS community to lead this review, both on behalf of the community but also on behalf of all members of the UN General Assembly. And I suppose my question is simply how can we as member states, as governments across the world help support you in the process that lies ahead. Thank you very much.

Anita Gurumurthy: We have our last participant.

Panelist 11: Thank you so much. I will not repeat most of the points William said, many things which I wanted to say. And I would be wearing my Asia-Pacific regional IGF hat at this point. Thank you for recognizing and acknowledging that having regional discussions or at national levels would help. In that context, I would like to invite the co-facilitators to the Asia-Pacific regional IGF, which would be from 11th to 14th in October. There would be a lot of maturity in the discussions. Please come and hear the voices of Asia-Pacific. Nepal is an LDC, so we would have an amalgamation of all kinds of APAC voices. So please do come. Thank you.

Ekitela Lokaale: All right. Thank you. First, again, let me thank all of you for the very useful comments. A lot of them will definitely go a long way in helping us to clarify this. The first comment that I would make is I would encourage all of us, including those following online, to just visit the UNDESA page and see, for example, what we’ve done with the summaries on the IGF consultations. So there you’ll see under each of the issues, areas where – and I’m trying to respond to the colleague who spoke first – areas where there seems to be some general agreement on what needs to be done. So we intend to keep it that way as much as possible, and to the extent that the rules and procedures and so on, as we all understand, will permit. But it’s our intention to be as transparent as we possibly can. Dr. Singh, I think your suggestion to have student-centric strategies is well noted. In one of the virtual consultations, there was a young person – actually, it was a teen – who said that teenagers need to be recognized as one of the stakeholders. So comments such as those actually enrich the discussion and broaden the horizons of some of these concepts. So that point is well noted. Multistakeholderism – sorry, I didn’t get the name of the colleague. We know that big tech, big private sector companies hold certain leverage because of resources and the capacities that are available to them compared to the smaller ones. I think that’s a point that we are aware of. UCM – this point has been raised in the past – from Iran, thank you. This point has been raised by a number of member states. We’ve taken note of it, and we’ll find how to address it in the document. Thank you, William, for that encouragement. How you can support us as member states, I think, is for us to have constructive conversations because the WSIS vision, the WSIS discussion, is in the interest of all of us, all stakeholders, all member states. So whatever we can do to make the negotiations as less difficult as possible, even where we don’t agree, we find a way of bridging those divides. And if Ambassador Yanina and I can co-facilitate a process that leads to a consensual outcome, I think that would be a big achievement. As you know, that is becoming increasingly difficult of late, but we hope that with the support of all of you and member states, we’ll be able to achieve that. Asia Pacific, thank you again for the very kind invitation. We’ve made ourselves available to participate as much as we can. But you know, as ambassadors in New York, we handle everything, you know, from nuclear and proliferation to peace and security to all this, but we take this task very seriously. Where we’re able to physically come, we’ll happily do so. But if because of exigencies of work, we’re not able to, we’ll try to participate remotely. But again, thank you for inviting us to your beautiful region. I’ll be particularly happy to come if I’m able to. Thank you.

Suela Janina: Thank you, Ambassador. I think it’s, on the short time that we have at the disposal, it’s not very easy to touch on everything. But rest assured that everything is being taken note, and it will also be combined with the written inputs that you have been invited to address to us, and also will be of relevance for the future discussions that we’ll have. So I don’t think it will take a lot of time to go one by one. You, Ambassador, mentioned many of them. But an element that has been raised often is this kind of sometimes misunderstanding on the concept of multi-stakeholderism at the national level and vis-a-vis the international level. So there is no doubt on the international level, sometimes we have been said that governments understand it in a different way in the national level, not giving the full kind of cooperation and space that is needed. So let’s understand a little bit more on that if there is really some examples or a way how to foster also this element of multi-stakeholderism at the national level. And of course the fact that MS, MS have different position to participate, so we know this kind of constraints and how to make small and medium enterprises to be more involved, it’s also another challenge. And I wanted also to conclude with the question, very pertinent question made by the colleague of Australia, how you can help us member states. But I would put it in more broader terms of how we can help each other in this process, because I believe that the major mindset we should have is that let’s take ownership of the process all together. Sometimes we have this use of words within our roles and responsibilities, but really it’s important that each of us can be also a little bit open-minded, because we know that sometimes we are seen like different islands focusing on our particular interests. So more concretely, if there is this request from stakeholders to have this joint kind of consultations, you as member states can have a say on it, because sometimes we are not on the same line of thinking with everyone. So if you really would like or are able to support some initiatives coming from stakeholders, that would be very great and good message that we really are aiming to the same objective and we are putting the same efforts to it. So I mean, that is the thing that I would like to conclude. Let’s keep alive the spirit of OASIS and let’s enrich it to make it fit for the future. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Ambassador Janina, Ambassador Lokaale, thank you so very much for being here, for listening, for participating, and thank you all very, very much for also asking all the questions. And I believe that Gitanjali, would you like to say? Okay. So thank you all very much and have a good evening.

Agreement points

Need for inclusive and transparent multi-stakeholder process

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Panelist 6
– Panelist 8

Arguments

Emphasis on open, transparent, and inclusive process throughout

Accommodation of different time zones in virtual consultations

Need for joint consultations between stakeholders and member states

Encouragement for leveraging existing coalitions and regional forums

Summary

All speakers agreed on the fundamental importance of maintaining an inclusive, transparent process that accommodates all stakeholders through various means including hybrid formats, time zone considerations, and leveraging existing networks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Challenges of geographical accessibility and visa restrictions

Speakers

– Panelist 6
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Panelist 5

Arguments

Concerns about visa restrictions and travel costs limiting participation

Recognition of structural exclusion challenges for Global South participants

Request to avoid multiplying discussion venues and forums

Summary

Multiple speakers acknowledged the practical barriers to participation, particularly for Global South participants, due to visa restrictions, travel costs, and the burden of multiple venues.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Need for transparency and documentation throughout the process

Speakers

– Bruna Santos
– Panelist 6
– Panelist 8
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Request for summaries of stakeholder consultations for accountability

Request for live streaming and summaries of negotiations

Suggestion to make visible areas of agreement and disagreement

Commitment to transparent documentation on UNDESA webpage

Summary

There was strong consensus on the need for comprehensive documentation, transparency measures, and accountability mechanisms throughout the consultation and negotiation process.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Importance of forward-looking approach while being selective about reopening settled issues

Speakers

– Panelist 2
– Panelist 5
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Emphasis on forward-looking, action-oriented discussions

Recognition that some issues may need reopening due to technological changes

Flexibility to update discussions where necessary for current developments

Summary

Speakers agreed on balancing forward-looking discussions with selective reopening of issues where technological and societal changes necessitate updates, while avoiding unnecessary revisiting of settled matters.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers expressed concern about fragmentation across different UN processes and emphasized the need for better coordination and alignment between WSIS, GDC, IGF, and other related initiatives rather than creating new mechanisms.

Speakers

– Panelist 7
– Bruna Santos
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Need for alignment between WSIS, GDC, and IGF initiatives

Concerns about fragmentation across UN agencies on AI governance

Finding synergies between existing processes rather than creating new ones

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Asia-Pacific representatives appreciated the co-facilitators’ efforts to accommodate regional participation challenges and emphasized the importance of regional engagement in the process.

Speakers

– Panelist 10
– Panelist 11
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Appreciation for recognition of Asia-Pacific time zone challenges

Invitation to participate in Asia-Pacific regional IGF in Nepal

Accommodation of different time zones in virtual consultations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need to address power imbalances and ensure protection of vulnerable groups, whether through inclusive frameworks or corporate accountability mechanisms.

Speakers

– Panelist 6
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Need for inclusion of vulnerable groups and underserved communities

Importance of addressing corporate accountability and UN guiding principles

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

Use of AI and technology for process improvement

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Suggestion to use AI for discussion summaries

Zero draft preparation during August with hybrid consultation options

Explanation

It was somewhat unexpected that the co-facilitators themselves suggested using AI technology for improving the consultation process, showing openness to innovative approaches in a traditionally formal UN setting.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Recognition of power imbalances in multi-stakeholderism

Speakers

– Panelist 9
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Power imbalances between large tech companies and smaller entities in multi-stakeholderism

Recognition of structural exclusion challenges for Global South participants

Explanation

There was unexpected acknowledgment from both a developing country representative and a co-facilitator about the inherent power imbalances in the multi-stakeholder model, which is typically promoted as an equitable approach.

Topics

Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on procedural matters including the need for inclusive, transparent processes, accommodation of participation barriers, and comprehensive documentation. There was also agreement on balancing forward-looking approaches with selective updates to existing frameworks, and on the need for better coordination between related UN processes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on procedural and process-related issues, with constructive alignment between co-facilitators and stakeholders on how to conduct the review. The consensus suggests a collaborative approach that could facilitate successful negotiations, though substantive policy disagreements were not extensively explored in this session.

Different viewpoints

Whether to reopen settled language and agreements from previous WSIS processes

Speakers

– Panelist 2
– Panelist 5

Arguments

Avoiding revisiting settled debates from the past

Recognition that some issues may need reopening due to technological changes

Summary

Panelist 2 emphasized avoiding discussions of historic issues and language already agreed in other texts to focus on future-oriented agenda, while Panelist 5 argued that life has changed significantly in 20 years and some issues may need to be reopened, specifically mentioning NetMundial work that needs to be taken into account.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Approach to multi-stakeholderism at international vs national levels

Speakers

– Panelist 9
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Power imbalances between large tech companies and smaller entities in multi-stakeholderism

Emphasis on open, transparent, and inclusive process throughout

Summary

Panelist 9 highlighted significant power imbalances at the international level where big tech companies dominate while small and medium-sized companies in developing countries cannot participate equally, while the co-facilitators emphasized maintaining inclusive multi-stakeholder processes without directly addressing the power imbalance concerns.

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role and scope of the sounding board as communication channel

Speakers

– Panelist 3
– Panelist 8
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Question about vision for sounding board contribution to resolution development

Encouragement for leveraging existing coalitions and regional forums

Emphasis that sounding board is not the only communication channel

Explanation

While there was general appreciation for the sounding board creation, there was subtle disagreement about its role and exclusivity. Some stakeholders seemed concerned about it becoming the primary channel for engagement, while co-facilitators had to clarify it wouldn’t be the only communication avenue.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The consultation showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being procedural rather than substantive. Main areas of disagreement included whether to revisit settled language from previous processes, how to address power imbalances in multi-stakeholderism, and practical concerns about participation accessibility.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most participants shared common goals of inclusive, transparent, and effective WSIS review process, but differed on specific approaches and mechanisms. The disagreements were constructive and focused on process improvements rather than fundamental opposition to the review itself. This suggests good potential for consensus-building, though attention will be needed to address participation barriers and power imbalances raised by stakeholders.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers expressed concern about fragmentation across different UN processes and emphasized the need for better coordination and alignment between WSIS, GDC, IGF, and other related initiatives rather than creating new mechanisms.

Speakers

– Panelist 7
– Bruna Santos
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Need for alignment between WSIS, GDC, and IGF initiatives

Concerns about fragmentation across UN agencies on AI governance

Finding synergies between existing processes rather than creating new ones

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Asia-Pacific representatives appreciated the co-facilitators’ efforts to accommodate regional participation challenges and emphasized the importance of regional engagement in the process.

Speakers

– Panelist 10
– Panelist 11
– Ekitela Lokaale

Arguments

Appreciation for recognition of Asia-Pacific time zone challenges

Invitation to participate in Asia-Pacific regional IGF in Nepal

Accommodation of different time zones in virtual consultations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need to address power imbalances and ensure protection of vulnerable groups, whether through inclusive frameworks or corporate accountability mechanisms.

Speakers

– Panelist 6
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Need for inclusion of vulnerable groups and underserved communities

Importance of addressing corporate accountability and UN guiding principles

Topics

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

The WSIS Plus 20 review process will be conducted with an open, transparent, and inclusive multi-stakeholder approach, with co-facilitators acting under delegated authority from the UN General Assembly President

The process will be future-focused and action-oriented, avoiding revisiting settled historical debates while using agreed language from GDC and other consensual documents as starting points

Hybrid consultation formats will be implemented to address participation barriers, including visa restrictions, travel costs, and time zone differences that particularly affect Global South stakeholders

The deadline for elements paper inputs has been extended to July 25th, with zero draft preparation during August and updated roadmap details to be provided by end of July

There is recognition of power imbalances in multi-stakeholderism between large tech companies and smaller entities, particularly affecting developing countries

Integration and alignment between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes is needed to avoid fragmentation and leverage existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones

Transparency will be maintained through documentation on UNDESA webpage, including summaries of consultations and areas of agreement/disagreement

The sounding board will work intensively but is not the only communication channel – regional and thematic consultations through existing coalitions are encouraged

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators will provide updated roadmap with specific dates by end of July 2024 for autumn negotiations planning

Zero draft will be prepared during August 2024 after receiving all inputs by July 25th deadline

Hybrid consultation formats will be implemented to accommodate different time zones and remote participation

Sounding board meeting scheduled to begin immediately (tomorrow) with intensive work schedule

All inputs and consultation summaries will be transparently documented on dedicated UNDESA webpage

Co-facilitators will continue periodic meetings with UN General Assembly President to update on process progress

Regional consultations will be supported, with invitation extended to participate in Asia-Pacific regional IGF in Nepal (October 11-14)

Unresolved issues

Specific modalities for stakeholder participation during intergovernmental negotiations remain unclear

How to effectively address power imbalances between large tech companies and smaller entities in multi-stakeholder processes

Integration mechanisms between WSIS review, GDC implementation, and IGF evolution are not yet defined

Whether WSIS Action Lines need updating or are sufficient as currently structured

How to ensure meaningful participation from Global South stakeholders facing structural barriers (visas, funding)

Specific role and enhanced functions for IGF in monitoring Action Lines progress

How to address unilateral coercive measures impact on developing countries’ digital development

Corporate accountability mechanisms and application of UN guiding principles on business and human rights

Suggested compromises

Use hybrid formats (in-person and virtual) for consultations to balance inclusivity with meaningful participation

Leverage existing coalitions and regional forums rather than creating new consultation mechanisms

Focus on areas needing updates due to technological changes while preserving agreed language where consensus exists

Strengthen regional and national IGFs to enable more accessible participation for those unable to travel to major capitals

Provide live streaming and detailed summaries of negotiations when full stakeholder participation in rooms is not possible

Use technology (including AI) for discussion summaries and documentation to improve transparency and accessibility

Coordinate timing and content between WSIS review and other UN digital processes to avoid duplication while maintaining distinct roles

Time is quite short, of course. We all recognize that the window for these discussions is shorter than probably we would normally like to have. I would just like to say that this WSIS review does need to be as future-focused, action-oriented as possible to address the opportunities and challenges around digital development that we all face. I’d just like to stress the point that we should avoid as much as possible spending time discussing issues that are historic, language that’s been agreed in other texts and things like that.

Speaker

Chris Adamson (UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology)

Reason

This comment was insightful because it directly addressed a fundamental tension in international negotiations – the balance between building on existing agreements versus getting bogged down in rehashing old debates. It provided strategic guidance for how to use limited time effectively.

Impact

This comment significantly influenced the co-facilitators’ approach, with Ambassador Lokaale directly responding that there was ‘general agreement that we need to conduct the current review in a forward-looking manner’ and that they would use ‘agreed language, including in the GDC and other consensual documents as a starting point.’ It established a key principle that guided subsequent discussions about methodology.

I heard the discussion about not changing something who are already been agree upon, but life changed within these 20 years, and maybe there are some issues that need to be reopened, because, or open, I will say, because, for example, the work done by NetMundial need to be taken into account, and I am not sure that the wording made 20 years ago will be or could be the same.

Speaker

Sébastien Bachelet (Internet Society France, chair of EURALO)

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it directly challenged the previous speaker’s position about not reopening settled issues, introducing nuance about when revisiting agreements might be necessary due to technological and social evolution over 20 years.

Impact

This created a productive tension in the discussion, forcing the co-facilitators to clarify their position. Ambassador Lokaale responded by acknowledging that ‘if, in the opinion of stakeholders, we need to revisit some of the discussions in order to bring them up to speed with the current or recent developments, as a matter of necessity, then we’ll have to do that,’ showing how the comment helped refine the approach to balancing continuity with necessary updates.

When we talk about multi-stakeholderism in national level, it is a, I mean, a good approach… But when we are talking at the international level, stakeholders, especially big, I mean, tech companies, they are not in the same, I mean, position. Some of them are very strengths. They are powerful and, I mean, they can have dominant role in the digital area… small and medium-sized companies in developing countries cannot, I mean, have equal participation in the international area.

Speaker

Paloma (representing developing country perspective)

Reason

This comment was deeply insightful because it exposed a fundamental flaw in the idealized notion of multi-stakeholderism – that power imbalances between different types of stakeholders can undermine the principle of equal participation, particularly affecting Global South actors.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical perspective that reframed the entire discussion about inclusivity. It moved beyond procedural concerns about participation to substantive questions about power dynamics. Ambassador Lokaale acknowledged this point, stating ‘We know that big tech, big private sector companies hold certain leverage because of resources and the capacities that are available to them compared to the smaller ones,’ showing how the comment elevated the discussion to address structural inequalities.

It’s not just New York. I know New York now is much more difficult. We met groups in Norway who said many more people could not travel to the IGF because of the visa restrictions… So what does this mean? I think it’s a challenge for us to make these processes truly inclusive by finding ways of getting those who cannot travel to these capitals, to these venues, and I’m talking about people from Africa, people from most of the global south who are excluded by structural things that have nothing to do with WSIS or IGF or bad policies of governments.

Speaker

Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale

Reason

This was a remarkably candid acknowledgment from a co-facilitator about systemic barriers to participation that go beyond the scope of the WSIS process itself, showing sophisticated understanding of how global inequalities affect international governance processes.

Impact

This comment transformed the discussion from focusing on logistical solutions to acknowledging deeper structural problems. It validated concerns raised by multiple stakeholders about accessibility and shifted the conversation toward more creative solutions like strengthening regional IGFs and national-level processes, fundamentally reframing how to think about inclusive participation.

I wanted to ask what measures you have in mind beyond the October consultation to engage the broader set of stakeholders and if you don’t mind to make a suggestion that you make use of some of the coalitions and forums that we already have… Also regional forums and spaces and perhaps an approach that leverages them as well as providing space for thematic and regional consultation could be really helpful.

Speaker

Ellie McDonald (Global Partners Digital)

Reason

This comment was strategically insightful because it offered concrete solutions for enhancing participation by building on existing networks rather than creating new mechanisms, addressing the concern about multiplying forums while maximizing outreach.

Impact

This comment helped bridge the tension between the need for broad consultation and the constraint of limited resources and time. It influenced the co-facilitators’ thinking about leveraging existing structures, with Ambassador Janina responding positively about being ‘very much open’ to regional consultations and using established networks.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and nuances that forced deeper examination of core assumptions. The exchange between Chris Adamson and Sébastien Bachelet established the methodological framework for balancing continuity with necessary updates. Paloma’s intervention about power imbalances elevated the conversation from procedural to substantive concerns about equity in global governance. Ambassador Lokaale’s candid acknowledgment of structural barriers validated stakeholder concerns and reframed the inclusion challenge. Ellie McDonald’s suggestion about leveraging existing networks provided a practical path forward. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a routine consultation into a more sophisticated discussion about the fundamental challenges of inclusive, effective global digital governance in an unequal world.

Are the consultations after the zero draft (mid-October stock-taking session and November consultation) multi-stakeholder or purely governmental?

Speaker

Kusaya Al-Shati (Kuwait, private sector)

Explanation

This clarification is important for stakeholders to understand their level of participation in later stages of the process and plan accordingly.

Will there be side events for multi-stakeholder organizations during the high-level meeting at the General Assembly (December 16-17)?

Speaker

Kusaya Al-Shati (Kuwait, private sector)

Explanation

This affects how stakeholders can participate in the final stages of the WSIS review process.

When will specific details on dates and timings of informal discussions and negotiations during autumn be released?

Speaker

Chris Adamson (UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology)

Explanation

Early planning is essential for stakeholders, especially from the global majority, to secure funding and visas for participation in New York.

What is the vision for the sounding board and how will it contribute to developing the resolution?

Speaker

Chris Buckridge (IGF MAG, technical community)

Explanation

Understanding the role and function of the sounding board is important for effective participation and coordination.

How will co-facilitators cooperate with the President of the General Assembly to ensure stakeholder input impacts intergovernmental negotiations?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwächter (retired professor, MAG member, sounding board member)

Explanation

This addresses the critical link between stakeholder consultations and the formal negotiation process.

How will AI governance discussions be integrated across different UN agencies and processes to avoid fragmentation?

Speaker

Bruna Santos (Witness)

Explanation

There is concern about mirroring debates across UNESCO, global panels, and GDC processes, requiring better coordination.

What measures beyond the October consultation will engage the broader stakeholder community?

Speaker

Ellie McDonald (Global Partners Digital)

Explanation

This seeks to understand how stakeholders can remain engaged throughout the negotiation process beyond formal consultations.

How can existing coalitions and regional forums be leveraged for thematic and regional consultations?

Speaker

Ellie McDonald (Global Partners Digital)

Explanation

This could make the consultation process more efficient and inclusive by using established networks.

How can small and medium-sized companies in developing countries achieve more equal participation at the international level?

Speaker

Unnamed participant (Iran)

Explanation

This addresses power imbalances in multi-stakeholderism where big tech companies have dominant roles compared to smaller entities.

How can multi-stakeholderism be better fostered at the national level?

Speaker

Suela Janina (co-facilitator, responding to various inputs)

Explanation

There appears to be a gap between how multi-stakeholderism works internationally versus nationally, requiring better understanding and examples.

How can the IGF be upgraded to monitor progress of WSIS Action Lines and GDC objectives?

Speaker

Titi Casa (Italian government)

Explanation

This explores how to enhance cooperation between WSIS, GDC, and IGF to address their respective gaps and strengthen their collective impact.

How can consultation processes be made truly inclusive given visa restrictions and travel constraints for Global South participants?

Speaker

Multiple participants (Anna Osterling, Ekitela Lokaale, others)

Explanation

This addresses structural barriers to participation that affect the legitimacy and inclusiveness of the consultation process.