ai

AI helps Everbloom create sustainable cashmere alternatives

Everbloom has developed Braid.AI, an AI system that transforms waste fibres into high-quality textiles. The process can use poultry feathers, wool, and other keratin-rich materials to replicate fabrics like cashmere.

The system works with standard textile machinery, combining chopped waste with proprietary compounds to produce biodegradable fibres. Everbloom aims to reduce environmental impact while maintaining material quality comparable to traditional cashmere.

Co-founder Sim Gulati said the startup aims to make materials economically accessible. Products are designed to offer both environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness, avoiding a ‘sustainable premium’ for consumers.

The AI can fine-tune fibre properties for multiple fabrics beyond cashmere, including polyester alternatives. Everbloom collects waste from farms, mills, and other sources to create a sustainable supply chain.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Armenian agritech startups use AI, drones and blockchain to empower small farms

In rural Armenia, small agritech startups are applying AI, drones and blockchain technologies to meet the needs of local farmers and producers.

At SkyAgro, drones are used for precision spraying and crop monitoring, allowing farmers to apply inputs with higher efficiency, use fewer chemicals and save water, enhancements critical in water-scarce regions like the Ararat Valley.

Another startup, BeeSync, employs machine-learning hardware attached to beehives that analyses photographic data and environmental sensors to alert beekeepers when colonies show signs of disease or stress, potentially boosting yields.

Blockchain is also being tested in the wool market by ArmWool, which creates immutable records of each step in the production process, from farmer to artisan, to build product traceability and add value for consumers.

While these technologies hold promise for improving productivity, startups face economic hurdles in a small domestic market and are encouraged to pitch solutions globally to sustain growth.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Local experts highlight AI’s potential for regional development

A panel of local business leaders, educators and policymakers in the Columbia Basin convened to discuss how AI can be harnessed to benefit the region’s economy, workforce and public services.

Participants highlighted AI’s potential to streamline government operations, enhance training programs and support small-business growth through data analysis and automation.

Speakers emphasised the importance of investing in workforce education and upskilling, so residents can capitalise on AI-related opportunities rather than being displaced by automation. Partnerships between local schools, employers and community organisations were cited as key to building ‘real-world readiness’ for AI integration across sectors such as agriculture, healthcare and manufacturing.

Panellists also emphasised ethical considerations and the need for community engagement in governance frameworks to ensure AI tools are adopted responsibly and equitably.

They argued that thoughtful regional planning can attract high-quality jobs and help the Columbia Basin carve out a competitive place in the broader digital economy.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI shows promise in scientific research tasks

FrontierScience, a new benchmark from OpenAI, evaluates AI capabilities for expert-level scientific reasoning across physics, chemistry, and biology.

The benchmark measures Olympiad-style reasoning and real-world research tasks, showing how AI can aid complex scientific workflows. Generative AI models like GPT‑5 are now used for literature searches, complex proofs, and tasks that once took days or weeks.

The benchmark consists of two tracks: FrontierScience-Olympiad, with 100 questions created by international Olympiad medalists to assess constrained scientific reasoning, and FrontierScience-Research, with 60 multi-step research tasks developed by PhD scientists.

Initial evaluations show GPT‑5.2 scoring 77% on the Olympiad set and 25% on the Research set, outperforming other frontier models. The results show AI can support structured scientific reasoning but still struggles with open-ended problem solving and hypothesis generation.

FrontierScience also introduces a grading system tailored to each track. The Olympiad set uses short-answer verification, while the Research set employs a 10-point rubric assessing both final answers and intermediate reasoning steps.

Model-based grading allows for scalable evaluation of complex tasks, although human expert oversight remains ideal. Analyses reveal that AI models still make logic, calculation, and factual errors, particularly with niche scientific concepts.

While FrontierScience does not capture every aspect of scientific work, it provides a high-resolution snapshot of AI performance on difficult, expert-level problems. OpenAI plans to refine the benchmark, extend it to new domains, and combine it with real-world tests to track AI’s impact on scientific discovery.

The ultimate measure of success remains the novel insights and discoveries AI can help generate for the scientific community.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

UNGA High-level meeting on WSIS+20 review – Day 1

Dear readers,

Welcome to our overview of statements delivered during Day 1 at UNGA’s high-level meeting on the WSIS+20 review. 

Throughout the day, ICTs were framed as indispensable enablers of sustainable development and as core elements of economic participation and social inclusion. Speakers highlighted the transformative role of digital technologies across sectors such as education, health, agriculture, public administration, and disaster risk reduction, while underscoring the growing importance of digital public infrastructure and digital public goods as shared foundations for inclusive and resilient development. At the same time, advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), were described as reshaping economies and societies, offering new development opportunities while also introducing governance, capacity, and equity challenges that require coordinated international responses.

Discussions also returned repeatedly to the persistence of deep and multidimensional digital divides, spanning connectivity, affordability, skills, gender, geography, and access to emerging technologies. Speakers stressed that access alone is insufficient without trust, safety, institutional capacity, and respect for human rights. 

Internet governance featured prominently, with support for an open, free, global, interoperable, and secure internet grounded in human rights and multistakeholder cooperation. The Internet Governance Forum was widely recognised as a central platform for inclusive dialogue, with many calling for its strengthening through a permanent mandate, sustainable funding, and broader participation, particularly from developing countries and underrepresented groups. 

Across interventions, a shared message emerged that effective digital governance, strengthened international cooperation, and coherent implementation of WSIS commitments remain essential to ensuring that digital transformation leaves no one behind .

Our summary is structured around the thematic areas of the draft outcome document, which is expected to be adopted at the end of the high-level meeting, later today. 

DW team

Information and communication technologies for development

ICTs were consistently framed as indispensable and critical enablers of sustainable development and no longer peripheral but at the heart of development strategies (Slovakia, Azerbaijan, Timor-Leste). They increasingly shape how societies govern, learn, innovate, and connect, and are essential tools to advance economic growth, social inclusion, and quality of life (Azerbaijan, Chile). 

ICTs, including AI, were also described as tools to bring people closer together and collectively address sustainable development challenges, while boosting education and health, supporting climate adaptation and mitigation, and contributing to economic growth (Senegal, Israel). They were further framed as essential for transforming key sectors such as agriculture, health, education, and public administration (Uganda). The role of ICTs in disaster risk reduction and early warning systems was also highlighted, with emphasis on international cooperation through existing UN mechanisms (Japan).

Digital public infrastructure and digital public goods were highlighted as foundational backbones for inclusive and resilient development (India, Indonesia, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana). Shared digital foundations such as digital identity, payment systems, and data systems were described as transforming service delivery, expanding opportunities, and strengthening citizen engagement when built in ways that respect human rights and promote inclusion (Under-Secretary-General). 

Emerging technologies, including AI, big data, and cloud computing, were described as reshaping economies, transforming modes of production, and creating new opportunities for innovation. For developing countries, these technologies were seen as holding significant potential to accelerate structural transformation, expand access to services, enhance productivity, and support the achievement of the SDGs (Tunisia). Emerging technologies were also framed as creating opportunities for development and innovation and helping to address major global challenges (Norway). 

Several speakers stressed that digital transformation cannot be limited to the rollout of technology alone and must remain people-centred (Peru), while others emphasised its role in improving quality of life (Chile). However, it was emphasised that those without connectivity remain excluded from the opportunities that ICTs can give (President of the General Assembly).

Closing all digital divides

As highlighted during the entire WSIS+20 review process, persistent and multidimensional digital divides remain a central challenge that must be addressed if the WSIS vision of a truly inclusive information society is to be fully achieved. The divide was characterised as a ‘digital canyon’, reflecting stark disparities in access between and within countries, as well as a continuing gender gap in internet use (President of the General Assembly). 

Digital divides were widely described as multidimensional, spanning connectivity, affordability, skills, institutions, data, and emerging technologies, including AI (Kenya, Pakistan). Particular concern was expressed that gaps are deepening both between and within countries, and increasingly between those who shape technology and those who are shaped by it (Türkiye, Norway). The persistence of divides along gender, age, rural–urban, and disability lines was repeatedly highlighted, with warnings that uneven access to digital public services, skills, and meaningful connectivity risks reinforcing existing inequalities (Slovenia, Luxembourg, Mongolia).

More than a quarter of the world’s population remains offline, and affordability remains a significant barrier (Secretary-General). However, a recurring message was that digital inclusion requires more than connectivity. Skills, affordability, trust, safety, institutional capacity, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms online were repeatedly highlighted as essential components of meaningful access (Albania, Slovakia, Finland).

The inclusion of women and girls was identified as a critical priority for closing digital divides, with calls for targeted digital literacy, skills development, empowerment initiatives, and protection from online harms (President of the General Assembly, Israel, Finland, Belgium, Saudi Arabia). 

Attention was also drawn to intersecting forms of exclusion, including those affecting rural communities, persons with disabilities, older persons, and marginalised groups, with warnings that digital transformation risks reinforcing existing inequalities if these dimensions are not addressed systematically (Belgium, Luxembourg, Uganda, CANZ, Mongolia).

The emergence of an AI divide, linked to the concentration of infrastructure, data, and computing power, was also highlighted as a growing risk with far-reaching implications (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia). Concerns were raised that as global attention increasingly shifts toward AI and advanced technologies, many countries risk falling into perpetual catch-up without foundational investments in affordable and resilient broadband and in digital skills (Timor-Leste, Saudi Arabia, Philippines).

Developing countries highlighted structural constraints. The digital divide was described as a daily barrier to education, health care, and governance, with warnings that inequalities could deepen as global attention shifts toward AI and advanced technologies (Timor-Leste). 

Strong calls were made for enhanced international cooperation, financing, and technology transfer to close all dimensions of the digital divide. Adequate, predictable, and affordable financing was described as indispensable for extending digital infrastructure, promoting universal and meaningful connectivity, and strengthening skills and capacities, particularly in developing countries (Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Egypt, Senegal, Algeria, Tunisia). Speakers emphasised that no country can address digital divides alone and stressed the importance of coordinated global action, inclusive partnerships, and knowledge sharing (Singapore, Mongolia, Latvia).

More broadly, speakers emphasised that the WSIS process remains of vital importance for developing countries and must prioritise the closure of all digital divides through concrete, actionable measures and inclusive, multistakeholder cooperation (Iraq on behalf of G77 and China, CANZ, Tonga).

The digital economy

Speakers repeatedly linked digitalisation to economic participation, productivity, and inclusion, while cautioning that unequal access risks excluding many countries and communities from emerging digital economic opportunities. Digital technologies were framed as enablers of entrepreneurship, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, and access to markets, particularly when supported by digital public infrastructure and digital public services (Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Ghana).

Several delegations stressed that participation in the digital economy depends not only on connectivity but also on access to digital identity, digital payments, and interoperable platforms that enable transactions between governments, businesses, and citizens. Digital public infrastructure was described as a foundation for economic activity, transparency, and efficiency, helping to integrate citizens and businesses into formal economic systems (India, Ghana, Indonesia).

Developing countries highlighted that structural digital divides constrain their ability to benefit from the digital economy. These constraints were described as affecting access to education, finance, employment opportunities, and innovation ecosystems, with warnings that attention to advanced technologies, such as AI, could widen economic gaps if foundational issues remain unaddressed (Timor-Leste, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Egypt, and Senegal).

Several speakers explicitly connected digital economy participation to global inequities. It was argued that without enhanced international cooperation, financing, and technology transfer, developing countries risk remaining marginalised in global digital value chains and digital governance processes (Bangladesh, Egypt, Algeria, CANZ).

At the same time, some interventions emphasised national strategies to modernise legal and regulatory frameworks governing the digital economy, including updates to legislation related to digital services, AI, and electronic transactions, as part of broader economic transformation agendas (Ghana, Kyrgyzstan).

Social and economic development

Several interventions described digitalisation as enabling more inclusive economic participation, particularly through support for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and by widening access to markets and services in developing country contexts (Indonesia, Zimbabwe). In this sense, digital technologies were presented as tools for integrating more people and businesses into economic activity, rather than simply increasing efficiency.

Digitalisation was also linked to the functioning of the state and public institutions, with references to digital government and digital public services as ways to improve access, responsiveness, and service delivery for citizens (Belgium, Senegal, Timor-Leste, Morocco). 

Beyond economic participation and public administration, digital technologies were associated with human development outcomes, including education, health, and social services. Several speakers referred to digital tools as supporting learning, healthcare delivery, and social inclusion, particularly where physical access to services remains limited (Egypt, Indonesia, Ghana). Digitalisation was also connected to livelihoods and rural development, including in agriculture, highlighting its relevance for poverty reduction and local economic resilience (Zimbabwe, Senegal).

Environmental impacts

Environmental dimensions of digitalisation were highlighted as a growing concern. The environmental footprint of digitalisation must be addressed, including energy use, critical minerals, and e-waste, calling for global standards and greener infrastructure (Secretary-General). Concerns were raised about the risk of e-waste and the importance of climate-resilient and sustainable digital infrastructure (Timor-Leste). The environmental impact of data centres and AI, and the need for circular economy approaches and responsible management of critical minerals, were also emphasised (Morocco). The role of governments and the private sector in ensuring sustainable and durable digital infrastructure, including opportunities to advance clean energy, was underlined (France).

The enabling environment for digital development

The importance of predictable policies, investment, and international cooperation featured prominently. Financing, technology transfer, and capacity-building were identified as prerequisites for inclusive digital development, particularly for developing countries (Algeria, Egypt, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Kenya). The need for a coherent UN digital governance architecture that builds on existing processes and avoids fragmentation was emphasised (Switzerland, Germany).

Concerns were raised that unilateral economic measures and unilateral coercive measures undermine the enabling environment for digital development by restricting access to technologies, digital infrastructure, financing, and capacity-building opportunities. Such measures were described as distorting the global supply chains and market order (Venezuela), exacerbating digital divides and disproportionately affecting developing countries, limiting their ability to participate meaningfully in the global digital economy and to implement WSIS commitments (Iraq on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, Venezuela on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter, Nicaragua).

Financial mechanisms

Financing was raised as a condition for implementation of the WSIS vision, with calls for adequate, predictable, and affordable financing to expand digital infrastructure and close persistent digital divides, particularly in developing countries (Iraq on behalf of the G77 and China, Algeria). It was stressed that political ambition cannot be realised without financing, alongside calls for sustained investment in digital public infrastructure and targeted financing for last-mile connectivity to reach underserved populations (Kenya, Timor-Leste).

Several interventions called for concessional and innovative financing to support digital development in developing countries. References were made to the Task Force for Financial Mechanisms as a platform for sharing best practices and strengthening financing approaches for digital development and universal connectivity, alongside calls to expand concessional financing to enable investment in digital infrastructure and services (Bangladesh, United Kingdom, Côte d’Ivoire).

Some delegations also described national financing efforts and instruments, including large-scale investments in fibre infrastructure, digital public services, and cybersecurity, as well as the use of universal service mechanisms and dedicated digital investment tools.  And a proposal was made to create a working group to examine financial mechanisms and present recommendations in 2027, prioritising financing on favourable terms and North-South, South-South and triangular partnerships (Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Morocco).

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs was discussed through concrete governance and security measures at both national and international levels. National cybersecurity frameworks, legislation, and institutional arrangements were highlighted as essential for protecting digital infrastructure, data, and citizens, and for fostering trust in digital systems (Senegal, Morocco, Ghana). Capacity gaps in cybersecurity and technical expertise were identified as a major challenge, particularly for developing countries seeking to expand digital services while managing growing cyber risks (Uganda). The protection of critical infrastructure and citizens from cyber threats was emphasised as digitalisation deepens across public services and essential sectors (Timor-Leste, Zimbabwe).

At the international level, references were made to the UN Convention against Cybercrime (Uruguay, Venezuela, Russian Federation) and to the establishment of a permanent intergovernmental mechanism under UN auspices in the context of international information security and cooperation (Russian Federation).

Capacity development

Capacity development was presented as a prerequisite for inclusive digital transformation and for closing persistent digital divides. Several speakers emphasised that meaningful participation in the information society requires digital literacy, technical skills, institutional capacity, and policy expertise, particularly in developing countries and least developed countries (Albania, Egypt, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Uganda, Timor-Leste, Lesotho).

A recurring message was that access alone is insufficient without the skills and capabilities needed to use digital technologies safely, productively, and effectively. Digital skills development was linked to education, employability, participation in the digital economy, and confidence in digital public services (Albania, Egypt, Israel, South Africa).

Capacity gaps were highlighted in specific technical and governance areas, notably cybersecurity and emerging technologies, with warnings that skills shortages expose developing countries to heightened risks as they expand digital services and digitise public institutions (Timor-Leste, Uganda, Senegal).

International cooperation was framed as essential for capacity development, with references to the need for technology transfer, technical assistance, and sustained capacity-building support, particularly for developing countries and least developed countries. Strengthened North–South, South–South, and triangular cooperation was highlighted as a means to support skills development, knowledge sharing, hands-on training, and institutional and cybersecurity capacities aligned with national priorities and vulnerabilities (Cambodia, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Timor-Leste). Capacity building in emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, was also linked to international support, financing, and technology transfer (Nepal, Algeria).

Human rights and the ethical dimensions of the information society

Human rights were consistently framed as foundational to the information society and as a central reference point for digital governance. Numerous delegations reaffirmed that the same rights apply online and offline, with explicit references to international human rights law, including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, access to information, and non-discrimination (Estonia, Spain, Belgium, Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Finland, France). 

Several interventions stressed that digital technologies must respect and promote human dignity, with human dignity presented as a guiding value of the information society and a core ethical reference for digital transformation. Technological development, including artificial intelligence, was framed as needing to advance development and inclusion while enhancing dignity, autonomy, accountability, and respect for the individual, rather than treating people merely as data points or objects of automation (Estonia, Belgium, Lithuania, India, Türkiye, Slovenia).

Concerns were repeatedly raised about the misuse of digital technologies in ways that undermine fundamental rights. These included references to censorship, digital repression, surveillance practices that infringe on privacy, and restrictions on freedom of expression and civic space online (Belgium, Spain, Poland, Finland, France). Particular attention was drawn to risks faced by vulnerable groups, underscoring the need for safeguards, oversight, and accountability in the design and deployment of digital technologies (Belgium, Finland).

Artificial intelligence was explicitly cited as amplifying existing human rights challenges. Several interventions warned that AI systems, if not governed in line with human rights principles, could facilitate surveillance, enable censorship, or reinforce discrimination and exclusion, reinforcing calls to integrate human rights considerations throughout the lifecycle of emerging technologies (Belgium, Spain, France, Lithuania).

Data governance

Data governance was mentioned as an emerging governance concern, with broader implications for trust, ethics, and development. References were made to the establishment of national data governance frameworks, including efforts to build secure and interoperable data systems as part of digital transformation and public sector modernisation strategies (Morocco). Data governance was also identified as an outstanding challenge alongside data protection and digital capacity-building, particularly in relation to the deployment of AI (Chile). Several interventions framed data governance in terms of responsible and ethical data use, highlighting concerns about data concentration, data gaps, and the societal implications of data-driven technologies, while also linking data protection frameworks to trust in digital ecosystems and the effective functioning of digital government (Senegal, Saudi Arabia, Ghana). More broadly, data governance was framed through the lens of digital sovereignty and national authority over data, particularly from developing-country perspectives (Iraq on behalf of the G77 and China).

Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence featured prominently as both a development accelerator and a source of new risks. Ethical, human-centred, and rights-based approaches to AI governance were repeatedly emphasised, with references to human dignity, accountability, transparency, and the application of existing human rights obligations in AI-enabled systems (Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Albania, Lithuania, Indonesia, Israel, Senegal, Zimbabwe). Several speakers stressed that the rapid deployment of AI, particularly in public services, requires governance approaches that safeguard trust, inclusion, and democratic values (Albania, Lithuania, Türkiye).

Attention was drawn to structural AI divides. Unequal access to computing capacity, algorithms, data, and linguistic resources was identified as a growing concern, with the risk that lack of access to AI capabilities translates into exclusion from future employment, education, and economic opportunities (Saudi Arabia). Concerns were also expressed that disparities in AI infrastructure, skills, and institutional capacity could reinforce existing inequalities, particularly for the least developed and small developing countries. Without targeted international support, AI was seen as likely to widen development gaps rather than close them (Timor-Leste, Bangladesh, Lesotho).

The need to strengthen capacity within public institutions was underlined, extending beyond technical expertise to include policymakers, regulators, and civil servants responsible for oversight and implementation. National AI strategies were presented as tools to anchor AI use in public value and ethical governance rather than purely market-driven deployment (Kenya, Ghana).

The international governance of AI was discussed primarily in terms of coherence, coordination, and institutional continuity. Several interventions stressed the importance of building on existing international processes and initiatives, particularly within the UN system, and warned against fragmentation or duplication in global AI governance efforts (Japan, Estonia). AI governance was also situated within broader international challenges related to information manipulation, disinformation, and democratic resilience, reinforcing calls for approaches that strengthen trust and information integrity as part of global digital cooperation frameworks (France, Lithuania). More generally, AI governance was framed as needing to serve humanity and to be embedded within a strengthened global digital governance architecture grounded in human rights and multistakeholder cooperation, without reference to specific institutional mechanisms (Switzerland, European Union). 

Internet governance

Many speakers reaffirmed the multistakeholder model as a core principle of internet governance. They emphasised the importance of inclusive participation by governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia, and users, and stressed that no single actor or group of actors should control the internet or global internet governance processes. The multistakeholder approach was framed as essential for transparency, trust, legitimacy, and effective governance of the internet (President of the General Assembly, Estonia, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Ireland, Israel, Nigeria, Finland).

Several statements highlighted support for an internet that is open, free, global, interoperable, secure, and inclusive, and rooted in respect for human rights. This vision was linked to economic development, democratic participation, access to knowledge, and the protection of fundamental freedoms (European Union, President of the General Assembly, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Finland, Norway). Some speakers warned that fragmentation, excessive centralisation, or restrictive approaches to internet governance could undermine this vision and weaken the global nature of the Internet (Germany, Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Norway). There were also references to an ongoing process of fragmentation of the digital space and what was described as the lack of practical action to preserve a unified global network (Russian Federation). 

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was widely referenced as a central space for multistakeholder dialogue on internet-related public policy issues, with several speakers also pointing to its role as an inclusive platform for broader digital governance discussions, including emerging technologies and cross-cutting digital policy challenges (Under-Secretary-General, Japan, Estonia). Many expressed support for strengthening the IGF, including through elements such as a permanent mandate, predictable and sustainable funding, a strengthened Secretariat, enhanced intersessional work, and broader participation, particularly from developing countries and underrepresented groups. Concrete expressions of support included financial contributions to reinforce the IGF’s work and sustainability (Germany).

At the same time, some speakers questioned whether the IGF’s non-decision-making nature enables governments to participate on an equal footing in addressing international public policy issues related to the internet, as envisaged in the Tunis Agenda (Iran, Venezuela). There were also arguments according to which current internet governance arrangements remain unjust or incomplete; these were accompanied by calls for stronger intergovernmental cooperation, including legally binding frameworks and a more central role for the United Nations and its specialised bodies in addressing international internet public policy issues (Russian Federation, Venezuela). The mandate for enhanced cooperation, as set out in the Tunis Agenda, was described as unfinished in a few statements, which pointed out that progress in operationalising this mandate has been limited or blocked, and that existing arrangements do not allow governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities on an equal footing in international internet public policy discussions (Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua). 

Monitoring and measurement

References to monitoring and measurement were limited. While some statements noted a need for WSIS action lines to be applied in more measurable and dynamic ways (South Africa, Switzerland), there were no substantive discussions on indicators, metrics, data collection, or monitoring frameworks for assessing WSIS implementation.

WSIS framework & Follow-up and review

There was strong and consistent support for the WSIS framework and its continued relevance. Several speakers reaffirmed the original WSIS outcome documents – in particular the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda – as enduring foundations of a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. The WSIS+20 outcome document – yet to be adopted – was welcomed as reaffirming the WSIS vision, while recognising the need for the framework to adapt to changes in the digital landscape. Such adaptation should preserve the foundations of WSIS and its multistakeholder character (South Africa, Switzerland, Lesotho).

The relevance of the WSIS action lines was also reaffirmed, alongside calls to apply them in more agile, measurable, and context-responsive ways. Some delegations argued that the action lines should be operationalised more dynamically, to reflect emerging technologies such as AI while maintaining consistency with the Geneva Declaration and Tunis Agenda and with broader sustainable development objectives (South Africa, Poland, Switzerland).

Speakers also referred to institutional arrangements supporting WSIS implementation and follow-up. In addition to the repeated support for the IGF, several interventions noted the WSIS Forum, for instance in the context of its preparatory contributions to the WSIS+20 review and its continued annual convening (South Africa, Bangladesh, Russian Federation, UAE, ITU, Switzerland). References were also made to the United Nations Group on the Information Society as a coordination mechanism within the UN system, with speakers highlighting its role in facilitating coordination and increased efficiency across UN digital processes, including through the joint WSIS-GDC implementation roadmap that the draft outcome document tasks it with producing (Morocco, Republic of Korea).

Speakers repeatedly referred to the relationship between WSIS, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the Global Digital Compact. Several emphasised the importance of ensuring coherence and alignment among these processes, noting that WSIS remains closely linked to the implementation of the SDGs. The GDC was referenced as a related and complementary process that should reinforce and build upon existing WSIS frameworks rather than duplicate them. Calls were made for coordinated implementation, clear guidance, and avoidance of fragmentation across UN digital processes in order to ensure consistency and convergence in advancing sustainable development objectives (Albania, Spain, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Ireland, France, Under-Secretary-General).

For a detailed summary of the discussions, including session transcripts and data statistics from the WSIS+20 High-Level meeting, visit our dedicated web page, where we are following the event. To explore the WSIS+20 review process in more depth, including its objectives and ongoing developments, see the dedicated WSIS+20 web page.
.

WSIS20 banner 4 final

UN General Assembly High-level meeting on WSIS+20 review

Twenty years after the WSIS, the WSIS+20 review assesses progress, identifies ICT gaps, and highlights challenges such as bridging the digital divide and leveraging ICTs for development. The review will conclude with a two-day UNGA high-level meeting on 16–17 December 2025, featuring plenary sessions and the adoption of the draft outcome document.

wsis

WSIS+20 Process

This page keeps track of the process leading to the UNGA meeting in December 2025. It also provides background information about WSIS and related activities and processes since 1998.

AI governance talks deepen as BRICS aligns national approaches

BRICS countries are working to harmonise their approaches to AI, though it remains too early to speak of a unified AI framework for the bloc, according to Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.

Speaking as Russia’s BRICS sherpa, Ryabkov said discussions are focused on aligning national positions and shared principles rather than establishing binding standards, noting that no common BRICS AI rules have yet taken shape.

He highlighted the adoption of a standalone leaders’ declaration on global AI governance at the Rio de Janeiro summit, describing it as a milestone for the organisation and a first for the grouping.

BRICS members, including Russia, view cooperation on AI as a way to manage emerging risks, build capacity and help narrow the digital divide, particularly for developing countries.

Ryabkov added that the group supports a central coordinating role for the United Nations, with AI governance anchored in national legislation, respect for sovereignty, data protection and human rights.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Generative AI use grows across the EU

In 2025, nearly a third of people aged 16–74 across the European Union reported using generative AI tools, according to Eurostat. Most respondents used AI for personal tasks, while fewer applied it for work or education.

The survey data illustrate how generative AI is becoming a part of daily life for millions of Europeans, offering new ways to interact with technology and access creative tools that were once limited to specialists.

Generative AI tools are capable of producing new content, including text, images, videos, programming code, or other forms of data, based on patterns learned from existing examples. Users provide input or prompts, such as instructions or questions, which the AI then uses to generate tailored outputs.

This accessibility is helping people across the EU experiment with technology for both practical and recreational purposes, from drafting documents to designing visuals or exploring creative ideas, demonstrating the growing influence of AI on digital culture and personal productivity.

Adoption of generative AI varies significantly across the EU. Denmark, Estonia, and Malta recorded the highest usage, with nearly half of residents actively engaging with these tools, while Romania, Italy, and Bulgaria showed the lowest uptake, with fewer than a quarter of the population using AI.

These differences may reflect variations in digital infrastructure, education, and public awareness, as well as cultural attitudes toward emerging technologies.

Overall, the Eurostat data provide a snapshot of a digital landscape in transition, reflecting how Europeans are adapting to a new era of intelligent technology.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

OpenAI’s GPT-5 shows a breakthrough in wet lab biology

New research has been published by OpenAI, examining whether advanced AI models can accelerate biological research within the wet lab, rather than just supporting theoretical science.

Working with biosecurity firm Red Queen Bio, researchers tested GPT-5 within a tightly controlled molecular cloning system designed to measure practical laboratory improvements.

Across multiple experimental rounds, GPT-5 independently proposed protocol modifications, analysed results and refined its approach using experimental feedback.

The model introduced a previously unexplored enzymatic mechanism that combines RecA and gp32 proteins, along with adjustments to reaction timing and temperature, resulting in a 79-fold increase in cloning efficiency compared to the baseline protocol.

OpenAI emphasises that all experiments were carried out under strict biosecurity safeguards and still relied on human scientists to execute laboratory work.

Even so, the findings suggest AI systems could work alongside researchers to reduce costs, accelerate experimentation and improve scientific productivity while informing future safety and governance frameworks.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Denmark pushes digital identity beyond authentication

Digital identity has long focused on proving that the same person returns each time they log in. The function still matters, yet online representation increasingly happens through faces, voices and mannerisms embedded in media rather than credentials alone.

As synthetic media becomes easier to generate and remix, identity shifts from an access problem to a problem of media authenticity.

The ‘Own Your Face’ proposal by Denmark reflects the shift by treating personal likeness as something that should be controllable in the same way accounts are controlled.

Digital systems already verify who is requesting access, yet lack a trusted middle layer to manage what is being shown when media claims to represent a real person. The proxy model illustrates how an intermediary layer can bring structure, consistency and trust to otherwise unmanageable flows.

Efforts around content provenance point toward a practical path forward. By attaching machine-verifiable history to media at creation and preserving it as content moves, identity extends beyond login to representation.

Broad adoption would not eliminate deception, yet it would raise the baseline of trust by replacing visual guesswork with evidence, helping digital identity evolve for an era shaped by synthetic media.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI and crypto reshape holiday shopping this year

Visa survey data points to a significant shift in holiday shopping behaviour, with AI now embedded in everyday purchasing decisions. Nearly half of US consumers report using AI tools, mainly to discover gift ideas and compare prices more efficiently.

Digital currencies are also moving closer to the mainstream. More than one in four respondents would welcome cryptocurrency as a gift, while interest among Gen Z rises sharply. Expectations surrounding stablecoins are growing, with many consumers anticipating their wider adoption over the next decade.

Gen Z continues to lead adoption of digital-first commerce, favouring biometrics, social media shopping, overseas purchases and crypto payments.

Digital wallets are gaining parity with physical cards among younger shoppers, signalling a shift in payment method preferences.

Despite enthusiasm for new technologies, trust remains a central concern. Consumers still value human customer service and want clearer insight into how AI uses personal data, while concerns about online scams remain widespread during the holiday season.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!