Report on WSIS+20 Open Consultations – 29 July 2025 (Test to be deleted – second version)

---

10 Key points from deliberation

1. Strengthened multi-stakeholder governance: The multi-stakeholder model is seen as essential and must be reinforced, not diluted, with calls for its consistent application across all digital governance processes.
2. Permanent mandate for the IGF: The Internet Governance Forum should be institutionalised as a permanent UN body with a stable, sustainable budget and a strengthened secretariat to enhance its impact.
3. Multidimensional digital divide: The focus must shift from basic connectivity to addressing the ‘usage gap’, which includes barriers of affordability, skills, relevant local content, and access to advanced technologies like AI.
4. Anchoring in human rights: The WSIS+20 outcome must be firmly grounded in international human rights law, referencing instruments like the UDHR and ICCPR, and reaffirm that rights offline also apply online.
5. Environmental sustainability of digitalisation: The environmental cost of digital technologies, from data centre energy use to e-waste, must be explicitly recognised and mitigated through ‘green-by-design’ principles and circular economy models.
6. Digital public infrastructure (DPI) as an equitable model: Open-source, interoperable DPI was highlighted as a successful model for inclusive digital transformation, particularly in the global south.
7. Integration with the Global Digital Compact (GDC): To avoid duplication, the implementation of the GDC should be integrated into the WSIS framework via a joint roadmap, ensuring coherence in UN digital processes.
8. Localised and community-driven solutions: Effective digital development requires hyper-local, decentralised models that are community-driven and tailored to local languages, cultures, and needs, moving away from one-size-fits-all solutions.
9. Corporate accountability and financing: There is a need for stronger mechanisms to hold technology corporations accountable for human rights violations and to explore innovative financing, such as digital development taxes, to bridge the digital divide.
10. Gender and youth as cross-cutting priorities: Gender equality and meaningful youth engagement must be mainstreamed across all action lines, with specific proposals for a standalone gender action line and dedicated metrics for youth participation.

---

Key points per speaker

Total number of speakers: 66

Suela Janina, Co-facilitator (Albania)

• Opening and process: Opened the consultation, emphasising its role in informing the zero draft of the WSIS+20 outcome document and urging speakers to be concise.
• Multi-stakeholder inclusion: Stressed the importance of bringing together member states and all stakeholder communities in a shared dialogue.
• Thematic structure: Noted the consultation was structured around the thematic areas of the elements paper to gather verbal feedback on written inputs.

Ekitela Lokaale, Co-facilitator (Kenya)

• Opportunity for joint dialogue: Highlighted the session as an opportunity for continued dialogue with both member states and stakeholders present.
• Informal guidance: Acknowledged the thematic structure but encouraged cross-cutting interventions, asking for concise remarks to directly inform the drafting process.
• Housekeeping: Handed over to the secretariat for practical announcements before commencing the substantive discussion.

Deniz Susar, Secretariat

• Logistical management: Outlined the session’s structure, speaking list order, and confirmed the meeting was being recorded for later publication.
• Flexibility on themes: Clarified that while speakers were listed under specific themes, interventions on other sections of the elements paper were welcome.

Arpita Kanjilal, Digital Empowerment Foundation

• Hyper-local digital models: Advocated for decentralised, community-driven digital development models tailored to local contexts, languages, and needs, arguing that top-down approaches often fail.
• Human-centric technology: Emphasised that technology must serve people and include a ‘human touch’ rather than being fully automated, to build trust and ensure relevance.
• Critique of tech-only policies: Warned that technology-centric policies are driving deeper exclusion and widening the digital divide for marginalised communities.
• Grassroots empowerment: Showcased a model of ‘information entrepreneurs’ (Suchana Praneurs) as local leaders enabling access to information and e-governance.

Socheata Sokhachan, NetMission.Asia

• Peace as a foundation: Spoke from Cambodia’s experience to stress that peace is the essential foundation for digital development and for ensuring no one is left behind.
• Beyond access to connectivity: Called for a rights-based and user-centred approach to ICT development that includes affordability, service quality, and fair competition, not just infrastructure rollout.
• Youth as co-creators: Urged for youth to be embedded as co-creators of ICT strategies, not just beneficiaries, and for support of youth-led digital literacy and innovation programmes.

Jin Tanaka, University Student Chamber International

• AI in education – pros and cons: Presented on the dual nature of AI in education, noting its potential for personalised learning while highlighting risks like misinformation and increased burden on teachers to verify AI-generated content.
• Multi-layered AI verification: Described a personal project using a three-AI system to generate ideas, check against official guidelines, and judge correctness, acknowledging it is still under development.
• Goal for 2030: Expressed a goal to expand such systems by 2030 to transform education and alleviate financial and logistical difficulties for students and teachers.

Cheryl Miller, United States Council for International Business (USCIB)

• Private sector challenges: Identified the digital divide, internet fragmentation, and inconsistent application of the multi-stakeholder model as key challenges for the digital economy.
• Barriers to connectivity: Cited that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected due to financial, technological, and regulatory barriers, a gap widened by advanced technologies like AI.
• Support for multi-stakeholderism: Pointed to the IGF as a successful example of the multi-stakeholder approach and called for policy environments that support innovation, investment, and cross-border data flows.
• Call for interoperable AI governance: Urged for AI governance based on interoperable, inclusive, and rights-based approaches to avoid fragmented regulatory regimes.

Jose Scandiucci, Permanent Mission of Brazil to the UN

• Stock-taking and alignment: Stressed the need for the WSIS+20 document to take stock of what has worked and align the framework with current demands to bridge digital divides and include developing countries.
• Integration with GDC: Proposed a joint WSIS-GDC roadmap to ensure budgetary efficiency and avoid duplication of efforts, integrating GDC implementation within the WSIS process.
• Strengthening digital governance: Advocated for the strengthening of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) with a permanent mandate and stable budget, suggesting a potential name change to ‘Digital Governance Forum’.

Aditya Vikram Dube, Center for Development of Advanced Computing (India)

• Broadening scope welcomed: Welcomed the elements paper’s inclusion of new themes like the digital economy, AI, and environmental sustainability, absent from earlier outcomes.
• Transformative potential of DPI: Highlighted Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) as a globally relevant model for inclusive digital transformation, emphasising its open-source, modular, and interoperable nature.
• Affordability and capacity building: Identified affordability of internet and the need for digital literacy campaigns as critical barriers to meaningful participation that must be addressed.

Shumaila Hussain, Tech Global Institute

• Remedying structural imbalances: Called for the zero draft to include provisions to remedy structural imbalances, asymmetric data flows, and value extraction from the global south.
• Corporate accountability and funding: Proposed a global fund, financed by levies on digital monopolies, to support DPI in developing countries and called for connectivity to be recognised as a human right.
• Breaking big tech dominance: Recommended requiring interoperability, allocating resources for community-led platforms, and ensuring digital growth advances gender-responsive and climate-just transitions.

Baratang Miya, Girl Hype and Women Who Code

• Digital economic inclusion for women and youth: Identified significant disparities for women and youth in access, skills, and economic participation in the digital economy.
• Barriers cited: Cited statistics: 3.7 billion offline (with women disproportionately affected), 60% of African youth lack basic digital competencies, and women-led startups receive less than 2% of venture capital.
• Actionable solutions: Proposed gender-responsive funding, digital skills programmes, policy reforms, and investment in last-mile connectivity to ensure the digital economy becomes a force for equality.

Giacomo Mazzone, IGF Policy Network for Meaningful Access

• Meaningful access defined: Focused on promoting access that is in local languages, useful for communities (e-governance, health, education), safe, secure, and affordable.
• Breaking down silos: Emphasised that the WSIS process has been useful for allowing different communities to work together and break down barriers, a practice that must continue for GDC implementation.

Ana María Suárez Franco, Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN)

• Corporate accountability deficit: Argued that exhorting tech corporations to respect the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights has not been successful, leaving a gap in accountability for cross-border harms.
• State obligations to protect: Called for the zero draft to urge states to protect against human rights abuses by their digital businesses in global value chains, including obligations to regulate, monitor, and punish abusers.
• Information integrity and epistemic rights: Urged the zero draft to direct UNESCO to further work on guarantees for epistemic rights, disclosure of AI guidelines, and human rights-based regulatory frameworks for platforms.

Sophia Longwe, Wikimedia

• Erosion of multi-stakeholder approach: Expressed concern that the social and cultural development section of the elements paper primarily emphasises governments and national strategies, marginalising other stakeholders.
• Open knowledge as central: Called for Action Line C3 to be improved to an action line on ‘access to information, knowledge and the digital commons’, recognising the central role of open knowledge and volunteer work like Wikipedia.
• Embedding accountability: Recommended the WSIS+20 outcome embed accountability mechanisms, a clear timeline, secure funding for the IGF, and establish stronger links between WSIS, the GDC, and the SDGs.

Shradhanjali Sarma, Cyber Cafe Association of India

• Environmental cost of AI: Highlighted the often-overlooked carbon footprint of AI, noting that a single AI query can use up to 10 times more electricity than a standard web search.
• Uneven environmental burden: Pointed out that the environmental burdens of AI are disproportionately felt in developing countries, creating a sustainability and equity gap.
• Green AI measures: Proposed five measures: promoting energy-efficient servers and algorithms, prioritising efficiency in AI training, mandating e-waste management, and shifting to renewable energy sources for AI infrastructure.

María Soledad Vogliano, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group)

• Challenging the ‘green tech’ narrative: Challenged the dominant narrative that digital tech is dematerialised and inherently green, pointing to severe material, environmental, and social costs from semiconductor supply chains to data centres.
• Six priorities for sustainability: Offered six forward-looking priorities: right to repair, regulating data centre expansion, rebalancing energy priorities in developing countries, avoiding harmful energy sources, acknowledging environmental costs, and advancing a meaningful circular economy.
• Democratic governance and accountability: Stated that a sustainable digital future requires democratic governance, corporate accountability, and respect for affected communities and ecosystems.

Jasmine Yee man Ko, Hong Kong Youth IGF

• Youth perspective on environment: Shared the youth perspective that reducing the digital sector’s environmental footprint is a moral imperative for their generation.
• Grassroots action: Highlighted work by grassroots organisations in her region, like Carbon Care InnoLab, which catalyse climate action and responsible energy use.
• Call for concrete commitments: Urged the WSIS+20 to strongly emphasise a commitment to a truly circular economy, innovation in greener ICT, and embedding environmental considerations in all digital policy making.

Koudy Wanee, Ministry of Communication and Telecommunications, Digital Affairs of Senegal

• Digital divide as a chasm: Framed the digital divide as a growing chasm threatening to leave entire nations and generations behind, encompassing connectivity, skills, and innovation divides.
• Bold, forward-looking action lines: Argued that updating the WSIS action lines requires a transformation, not an adjustment, embedding digital inclusion at the core of every action line from e-government to AI ethics.
• Multi-stakeholder governance for the global south: Emphasised the need for multi-stakeholder governance models that give the global south a seat at the table.

Soumya Nair, Permanent Mission of India to the UN

• Multidimensional digital divide: Emphasised that the divide persists not only across regions but within societies, affecting rural communities, women, persons with disabilities, and linguistic minorities.
• Technology capacity gap: Highlighted a growing concentration of control over semiconductor manufacturing and high-performance computing in a few countries and firms, deepening the technology gap for the global south.
• AI for Indian languages: Noted India’s progress in advancing AI technology for Indian languages through open-source contributions as a way to address language barriers.

Roddy McGlynn, Global Systems for Mobile Communication Association (GSMA)

• The usage gap: Presented data that while broadband networks reach 96% of the global population, only 57% use mobile internet, meaning the usage gap (3 billion people) is nine times the size of the coverage gap.
• Barriers to adoption: Identified key barriers to adoption as affordability of handsets, literacy and digital skills, and safety and security concerns.
• Gender digital divide: Cited that women in low and middle income countries are 14% less likely to use mobile internet than men, resulting in 235 million fewer women online.

James Kunle Olorundare, Internet Society Nigeria Chapter

• Digital divide beyond connectivity: Defined the digital divide as encompassing disparities in access to emerging technologies like AI and data systems, not just connectivity.
• Role of the IGF: Argued that the IGF’s multi-stakeholder model is critical for sustained progress and must be strengthened, with its scope evolving to include broader digital governance.
• Alignment with action lines and GDC: Proposed aligning efforts with WSIS Action Lines C2, C7, C11 and the GDC’s objectives to drive equitable digital ecosystems and avoid digital colonialism.

Paul Blaker, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (United Kingdom)

• Enabling environment agenda: Welcomed the focus on the enabling environment and hoped its different elements would be developed more in the zero draft, including effective use of universal service funds and competition.
• Stronger human rights language: Called for stronger and clearer human rights language fully based on the ICCPR and against internet shutdowns.
• Permanent IGF mandate: Supported a new ongoing mandate for the IGF without a time limitation and recognition of local and regional IGFs.
• Avoiding ‘enhanced cooperation’ debates: Urged the zero draft to reflect agreed GDC language and not reopen fruitless debates about the phrase ‘enhanced cooperation’.

Timea Suto, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

• Defining the enabling environment: Argued the zero draft should more clearly define an enabling environment, providing legal stability, regulatory clarity, and openness (especially for cross-border data flows).
• Whole-of-government approach: Stated that a whole-of-government approach is necessary due to digital transformation affecting every sector, ensuring policy coherence.
• Multi-stakeholder engagement: Emphasised that multi-stakeholder engagement is key to effective policy design, ensuring policies are grounded in practical realities and local needs.

Fiona Alexander, American University

• Meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement: Commended the co-facilitators for efforts to create avenues for stakeholder involvement but expressed disappointment that only 15% of the 91 scheduled speakers were governments.
• Fact-based and forward-looking: Recommended the outcome be fact-based, recognise progress, and not simply restate past disputes, building on WSIS+10 and GDC language.
• Embrace the IGF: Stated it is past time for the UN system to fully embrace the IGF, renew it with a permanent mandate, and allocate resources.
• Avoid duplication and unclear phrases: Advised that GDC implementation should move into the existing WSIS framework and to avoid recycling unclear phrases like ‘enhanced cooperation’.

Elonnai Hickok, Global Network Initiative (GNI)

• Human rights-based enabling environment: Stated that to be enabling, regulatory environments must be grounded in and aligned with international human rights frameworks, including the UDHR, ICCPR, and UNGPs.
• IGF strengthening: Called for the promotion of the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance, a permanent and funded IGF mandate, and recognition of the role of national and regional IGFs.
• Role of OHCHR: Stressed the role of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in digital governance should be recognised.

Mrinalini Dayal, Alliance for Universal Digital Rights

• Standalone gender action line: Proposed the establishment of a standalone WSIS action line on gender with defined goals, measurable targets, and dedicated resources.
• Key barriers: Identified lack of a gender perspective across action lines, technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), unaccountable tech corporations, and digital colonialism as critical barriers.
• Gender-just digital governance: Recommended mandatory gender impact assessments, 50% women’s representation in governance bodies, and public financing for meaningful access.

Carlos Baca Feldman, Rhizomatica

• Community-led connectivity: Argued that indigenous and rural communities remain excluded from direct access to resources and decision-making, despite creating their own connectivity solutions.
• Direct and flexible funding: Called for direct, flexible, and culturally grounded funding to support communities, alongside strategies for capacity building in financial management and governance.
• Legal recognition of collectives: Emphasised the need for the legal recognition of collective actors so they can receive funds and manage their own connectivity solutions.

Sadhana Sanjay, Global Digital Justice Forum / IT for Change

• Public financing deficit: Argued that stark digital inequalities are traced to a failure of market-led approaches and anachronistic tax regimes that deprive countries of resources for digital infrastructure.
• Digital development tax: Recommended a digital development tax whereby dominant tech corporations contribute to connectivity and a safer digital world.
• Global task force on financing: Proposed a global task force on financing for inclusive digital transformation to enable coordinated fiscal reform.

Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

• Five critical challenges: Highlighted digital inequality, insufficient financing, erosion of the public interest, gaps in human rights integration, and environmental harms as key challenges.
• Five priorities for action: Prioritised diversifying access markets, establishing a task force for blended financing, reclaiming the public interest through regulation, strengthening human rights language, and mainstreaming environmental sustainability.
• Strengthening the WSIS framework: Recommended integrating GDC language, gender equality, making the IGF mandate permanent, and recognising the relevance of enhanced cooperation for the global south.

Elina Volksone, Microsoft

• Balanced human rights framing: Encouraged a reaffirmation of human rights while also expanding the narrative to recognise technology’s constructive role in upholding and advancing these values.
• Technology as a driver of equity: Argued technology should be understood as a driver of equity, dignity, and societal resilience, not solely viewed as a risk.
• Explicit reference to UDHR: Expressed concern over the omission of explicit references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in the human rights section of the elements paper.

Ellie McDonald, Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS

• Anchoring in international law: On behalf of a coalition, recommended the zero draft be anchored in international human rights law, reaffirm state obligations, and clarify that limitations on rights must meet principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
• Formal role for OHCHR: Proposed assigning the OHCHR the responsibility to ensure human rights are protected in the context of the WSIS framework.
• Operationalising multi-stakeholderism: Recommended considering proposals to operationalise the multi-stakeholder approach, building on initiatives like the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines.

Jutta Croll, Digital Opportunities Foundation

• Children’s rights in the digital environment: Spoke from a child rights perspective, welcoming references in the elements paper but suggesting amendments to ensure a balanced approach that respects children’s rights to protection, provision, and participation equally.
• Incorporating General Comment 25: Underlined the need to uphold the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and incorporate its General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights in the digital environment.
• Children’s representation: Suggested amending the text to ensure children’s perspectives are presented by themselves or advocates and given due weight in internet governance.

Laura Becana Ball, Global Forum for Media Development

• Independent journalism as essential: Argued that independent journalism and public interest media are essential to a people-centred information society and key to ensuring access to reliable information.
• Strengthening media systems: Stated that strengthening journalism independence and sustainability must be a key priority, supported with safeguards against online harassment and sustained funding.
• Reinforce multi-stakeholder model: Echoed calls to reinforce the multi-stakeholder governance model, institutionalise the IGF, and implement the GDC within the WSIS framework.

Kim Ringmar Sylwander, Digital Futures for Children’s Center, LSE

• Inadequate reflection of children’s rights: Argued that despite international law, children’s rights remain inadequately reflected in global policy, leading to routine violations in the digital environment.
• Five priorities from expert consultation: Drew on a global expert consultation to list priorities: streamlining recognition of children as distinct rights holders, focusing on unequal access, embedding child rights by design, enforcing through binding regulation, and ensuring UN independence from tech interests.
• Systematic integration: Concluded that children’s rights must be systematically integrated and enforced, not just acknowledged, in the WSIS+20 process.

Roman Zimin, Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN

• WSIS as key bridging process: Stated that WSIS remains the key UN process for bridging the digital gap through ICT capacity building, technology transfer, and training.
• Harmonisation and avoiding duplication: Emphasised the need to harmonise WSIS implementation with other digital initiatives to avoid duplication and opposed adding ‘disputable concepts’ like information integrity.
• ICT security in specialised formats: Called for discussing ICT security issues within specialised UN formats (e.g., the OEWG) and preferred terms like ‘ICT security’ over ‘cyber’ terminology, which is non-consensus.

Lucien Castex, Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération (AFNIC)

• Multistakeholder cooperation for trust: Strongly believed that implementing WSIS outcomes and reinforcing trust has been greatly facilitated by multistakeholder cooperation in developing standards and policy.
• Key role of technical bodies: Highlighted the work of ICANN and the IETF as key to shaping the internet’s future through continuous improvement and consensus-driven processes.
• Explicit identification of technical community: Stressed the need to explicitly identify and mention the technical community and academia as key stakeholders in the zero draft.

Pablo Hinojosa, Consultant

• From norms to practical implementation: Urged that international norms and frameworks must translate into practical implementation that responds to operational needs.
• Equitable capacity building: Committed to equitable and efficient capacity building without new budgets by empowering local solutions and leveraging peer-to-peer learning, citing the Women in Cyber Fellowship as a model.
• Resilience as bedrock of trust: Argued that confidence and security must be understood through the lens of resilience (technical, institutional, human), where multistakeholderism is a necessity.

Desiree Milosevic, RIPE NCC

• Persistent digital divide: Noted that despite progress, the digital divide remains a pressing challenge, particularly for women and girls, requiring scaled-up investment.
• Lack of implementation mechanisms: Identified a lack of clear implementation and follow-up mechanisms as a challenge, as many states have not integrated WSIS action lines into national strategies.
• Safeguarding the open internet: Stated that the open, interoperable, and secure internet must be safeguarded as it is essential for meeting the SDGs.

Rosalia Morales, Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism

• Permanent IGF mandate: On behalf of a technical community coalition, urged member states to support a permanent mandate for the IGF to allow for investment in its improvement and development.
• Diversified funding: Advocated for a diversified funding approach to ensure sustainable, robust funding and appropriate multi-stakeholder support.
• Leveraging existing infrastructure: Argued that the existing WSIS infrastructure (WSIS Forum, IGF) are the logical venues for centering implementation and follow-up of digital policy outputs.

Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong, House of Africa

• Capacity building and reduced cost: Focused on breaking the digital divide through digital capacity building, reducing the cost of internet access, and promoting local content in local languages.
• Supporting environmental sustainability: Called for supporting environmental and sustainable digital growth and addressing social and cultural barriers.
• Key role of IGF and NRIs: Emphasised the key role of the IGF, its permanent mandate, sustainable funding, and the role of national and regional initiatives (NRIs).

Meline Svadjian, Permanent Mission of Canada to the UN (on behalf of Canada and Australia)

• Multistakeholder internet governance: Reaffirmed that internet governance should be global and multistakeholder in nature, referencing the practical São Paulo multistakeholder guidelines.
• Strong IGF mandate: Supported reaffirming a strong and enduring mandate for the IGF and its national and regional initiatives.
• Dedicated human rights section: Recommended a dedicated section on human rights, explicitly recognising human rights as a cross-cutting issue grounded in international law, and a formal role for OHCHR.
• Avoiding duplication on AI: Acknowledged AI significance but advised avoiding duplicating work of the GDC and related initiatives, reinforcing existing commitments.

Konstantinos Komaitis, Atlantic Council

• Internet-development link is foundational: Argued the link between the internet and development is no longer aspirational but foundational, and closing the digital divide is a development imperative.
• Multistakeholder model as the engine: Stated the multistakeholder model is the engine that empowers a healthy internet and Paragraph 34 of the Tunis Agenda must stand.
• Strengthen, don’t just renew, the IGF: Argued we don’t just need to renew the IGF, but strengthen it, make it permanent, funded, and support its iterations, as it is a frontline for contesting visions of the internet.

Daphné Barbotte, EU Delegation to the UN

• EU proposals to strengthen IGF: On behalf of the EU, proposed strengthening the IGF through permanent institutionalisation, sustainable UN funding, a dedicated Secretariat director, and greater inclusion of developing countries.
• Enhancing policy impact: Proposed reinforcing multi-year thematic tracks and ensuring IGF conclusions are linked to WSIS Action Lines to create a feedback loop.
• Multi-stakeholder governance labs: Proposed creating multi-stakeholder governance labs within the IGF to explore implications of emerging technologies and co-create innovative solutions.

Nick Ashton-Hart, APCO Worldwide

• Improving coordination between WSIS pillars: Recommended improving coordination between the three main WSIS pillars (IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD) to leverage their complementary strengths and create a positive feedback loop.
• Engaging development financiers: Proposed the zero draft should endorse greater participation by Bretton Woods Institutions and regional development banks in the WSIS process to help countries access resources.
• Leveraging universal service funds: Recommended recognising how deployment of universal service funds can be leveraged using best practices to connect the unconnected.

Titti Cassa, Agency for Digital Italy

• Digital governance fragmentation: Noted that digital governance remains fragmented with key initiatives like WSIS, GDC, and SDGs operating in parallel with limited coordination.
• IGF as a bridge: Argued the IGF ecosystem is well positioned to act as a bridge across these processes and proposed concrete steps: establishing it as permanent, greater integration, ensuring inclusivity, and introducing robust monitoring for WSIS.
• Strategic role for IGF: Proposed the IGF should assume a more strategic role in shaping the global digital agenda, serving as a space for promoting outcome implementation.

William Drake, Columbia Institute for Teleinformation

• Risks of ‘enhanced cooperation’: Expressed concern that foregrounding the ambiguous term ‘enhanced cooperation’ could lead to division and deadlock, given today’s hyper-polarised environment.
• Clarity on intent: Suggested a solution would be for governments to make clear that a new intergovernmental organisation is not what they have in mind by ‘enhanced cooperation’, to avoid a breakdown.
• Call for interactivity: Recalled useful government-stakeholder dialogues from the original WSIS process and urged for anything to approximate that level of interactivity in this review.

Claire Sophie Patzig, Youth IGF Germany

• NRIs as a core pillar: Delivered a joint statement endorsing the essential role of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) as a core pillar of global internet governance.
• Strength of multistakeholder model: Argued that NRIs embody the multistakeholder spirit and their work bridges global vision with local realities, which is the true strength of the model.
• Calls to action: The statement called for recognition of NRIs, continued strengthening of the multistakeholder model, a permanent IGF mandate, and safeguarding technological neutrality.

Pascal Bekono, Cameroon Ministry of Justice

• Regulatory lag in LDCs: Noted that regulatory mechanisms for data governance are being adopted globally, but least developed countries are lagging behind in implementation.
• Common data governance policies: Maintained that the WSIS multi-stakeholder approach and the IGF should continue to facilitate inclusive dialogue towards the adoption of common data governance policies.
• Global data regulatory body: Believed it is important to establish a global data regulatory body to guarantee equitable access and fair protection for citizens against violation and abuse.

Jacqueline Pigatto, Data Privacy Brazil

• Data justice lens: Advocated for approaching data governance through a ‘data justice’ lens, looking beyond privacy to consider broader human rights implications on social protection, work, education, and health.
• Balancing security and rights: Called for a better balance between security (e.g., surveillance) and the protection of human rights, suggesting a human rights-based approach can help reconcile these tensions.
• Role of OHCHR: Called attention to the valuable role the OHCHR could play in the CSTD Working Group on Data Governance regarding human rights impacts.

Gabriel Delsol, Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA)

• AI through existing mechanisms: Recommended the WSIS review engage on AI through existing action lines and mechanisms to avoid duplication and potential friction.
• Support existing UN efforts: Argued the process should support and defer to outcomes under the Global Digital Compact (e.g., the scientific panel, global dialogue on AI).
• UN as a convening forum: Viewed the UN’s role as a facilitating agent for convening and information sharing on AI, rather than prescribing specific governance mechanisms.

Paloma Lara Castro, Derechos Digitales

• AI and new colonialism: Argued that the concentration of AI development in a few global north countries and corporations is generating new forms of digital colonialism through data extraction and bias.
• Gender-based and decolonial approaches: Urged WSIS+20 to promote gender-based and decolonial approaches to data and AI governance that prioritize collective rights and community stewardship.
• Mandatory gender impact assessments: Instituted that mandatory gender impact assessments must be conducted before deployment of all AI systems.

Laura O’Brien, Access Now

• Human rights risks of AI: Highlighted that deploying AI without safeguards can facilitate human rights violations, exacerbate social power imbalances, and create new risks like AI-powered surveillance.
• Grounded in international law: Recommended the zero draft be grounded in international human rights law, reaffirm that any interference with privacy must be necessary and proportionate, and reassert private sector responsibilities to conduct human rights due diligence.
• Avoid duplication on AI governance: Underscored the need to avoid duplication, particularly on AI governance, and echoed calls to institutionalise the IGF as a permanent structure.

Christian Schlaepfer, Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the UN

• Gratitude for process: Expressed gratitude for the co-facilitators’ leadership, transparency, and inclusivity, exemplified by the Multistakeholder Sounding Board.
• Build on established consensus: Underscored the importance of building on established consensus, reaffirming foundational outcomes, and prioritising discussions on emerging challenges not fully addressed before.
• Implementation as shared priority: Stated that strengthening the WSIS framework requires revitalised mechanisms like an updated ANeGIS, a more strategic role for CSTD and IGF, and exploring tools like a WSIS helpdesk.

Kayode Oyeyemi, Africa ICT Alliance (AFICTA)

• Capacity building for Africa’s transformation: Focused on capacity building as a critical enabler for Africa’s digital transformation, citing a World Bank figure that 230 million jobs in SSA will require digital skills by 2030.
• Scalable and inclusive programmes: Advocated for scalable, industry-aligned training in emerging technologies, prioritising women and underserved communities, and delivered through public-private partnerships.
• Support for MSMEs: Noted that 40% of Africa’s 100 million MSMEs have little digital integration and called for targeted training to help them leverage e-commerce and digital finance.

Dheeraj Rajput, Indian Ministry of Electronics and IT

• Capacity building as a central pillar: Proposed that capacity building and digital literacy must be treated as a central pillar of WSIS action lines, not a complementary activity.
• Structured programmes for future leaders: Recommended nurturing structured internship and fellowship programmes to create a pipeline of future leaders to guide WSIS action lines.
• Open knowledge and measurable outcomes: Believed open knowledge-based datasets and multi-stakeholder platforms can democratise expertise, and called for scalable models linked to measurable outcomes.

Bea Guevarra, NetMission.Asia

• Capacity building beyond training: Argued that for youth in the APAC region, capacity building is about opening doors to opportunity, leadership, and long-term inclusion, not just digital literacy.
• Localised and multilingual: Called for capacity building that is localised and multilingual so people see themselves in the digital world, including investing in local language AI models.
• Resourced participation: Emphasised that meaningful capacity building must be properly resourced through fellowships, mentorships, and paid opportunities so participation leads to empowerment, not burnout.

Alexey Trepykhalin, ICANN

• Reflecting evolution of internet governance: Encouraged the zero draft to reflect the evolution of the internet and the multi-stakeholder model since WSIS, recognising its achievements, rather than reverting to legacy language.
• Leverage the IGF: Stated that the WSIS implementation beyond 2025 should leverage the existing and mature IGF assembly, which requires sustainable resources and a strengthened mandate.
• Role of UN agencies: Recognised the role of UN agencies like ITU and UNESCO in implementing WSIS action lines, citing a recent UNESCO-ICANN agreement to enhance linguistic diversity.

Judith Hellerstein, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disabilities

• Tangential mention of disability: Stated that despite years of advocacy, the digital divide facing persons with disabilities is only mentioned tangentially in the elements paper.
• Changing mindsets for inclusion: Argued that changing the mindset of event organisers and knowledge producers is needed to ensure accessibility for people who access knowledge differently.
• Concrete actions for inclusion: Called for funding accessible training materials co-created with people with disability, setting diversity targets, creating mentorship pathways, and integrating disability indicators into monitoring frameworks.

Winnie Kamau, Association of Freelance Journalists

• Localised and context-driven capacity building: Recommended that capacity building needs to be localised, context-driven, and incorporate local languages and cultural values.
• Inclusion of overlooked groups: Urged for explicit inclusion of media, civil society, youth, women, and indigenous groups who are critical in building resilient digital ecosystems.
• Three recommendations: Called for long-term sustainable investment, prioritising governance capacity (data governance, AI ethics), and empowering independent media and grassroots innovators with resources.

Tinuade Oguntuyi, Information Connectivity Solutions Limited

• Rethinking capacity building: Argued that capacity building should be rethought beyond technical assistance and donor-recipient relationships, seeing Africans as co-creators, not just consumers.
• Framing digital literacy: Critiqued that digital literacy is framed in the elements paper from a reliability lens, rather than from the uniqueness of the global south bringing itself into leadership.
• Grounding in creativity and ethics: Recommended that capacity building should be grounded in creativity, ethics, and community resilience, not just technical know-how, and should also target political norms.

Rashi Gupta, Center for Development of Advanced Computing (India)

• Lack of specificity in targets: Noted with concern that the articulation of post-2015 targets has lacked specificity and urged the zero draft to include a consolidated mapping of these targets.
• Inadequacy of data mechanisms: Identified a persistent challenge in the inadequacy of robust, harmonised mechanisms for data collection, reporting, and progress assessment for WSIS.
• Domain-specific indicators: Emphasised the importance of creating a transparent, participatory global framework that includes domain-specific quantifiable indicators for areas like AI readiness and digital inclusion.

Israel Rosas, Internet Society

• WSIS framework’s adaptability: Argued that the WSIS framework and action lines have proven remarkably adaptable and remain the foundation for ongoing development, accommodating vast technological change.
• Multistakeholder model at heart: Stated that at the heart of WSIS achievements lies the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, which is vital for the zero draft to ensure an ongoing commitment to.
• No need for new action lines: Asserted there is no need to reinvent the wheel or create new action lines; new challenges should be addressed by strengthening the implementation of existing WSIS action lines.

Dana Cramer, Young Digital Leaders of Canada

• Measuring youth engagement: Proposed that youth participation and engagement should become a metric tracked along each WSIS action line to create an incentive for agencies to include youth meaningfully.
• Defining ‘youth’: Advocated for separating ‘young people’ into ‘children’ (under 18) and ‘youth’ (18-35) in the zero draft to parallel other UN language and avoid liability issues.
• Incentivising meaningful inclusion: Argued that tracking youth engagement would help design digital initiatives that safeguard infrastructure for future generations.

Sebastien Bachollet, Internet Society France

• Multistakeholder, not multilateral: Expressed the firm belief that internet governance should be multistakeholder, not multilateral, to ensure the inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders.
• Significant strengthening of IGF: Argued that the IGF needs significant strengthening, international recognition, and solid funding, and its purpose should not be put in competition with other bodies.
• Multilingual participation: Noted it was strange that a UN consultation was held only in English and advocated for future discussions to be open to various languages.

Elizabeth Bacon, Public Interest Registry / Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism

• Measuring IGF participation and impact: Recommended diligent measurement of participation, funding, outcomes, and impact of the IGF and its components (NRIs, dynamic coalitions) to enable data-driven analysis and efficiency.
• Strategic engagement between IGFs: Proposed a more strategic approach to engagement between the yearly IGFs to encourage continuous progress towards identified goals and maximise investment.
• IGF for digital governance: Stated that the IGF is key for discussing internet governance issues and identifying emerging themes, and its organisational aspects should be reviewed for continuous work flow.

Avri Doria, Technicalities

• Resolve enhanced cooperation: Urged to resolve the ‘enhanced cooperation’ conundrum without disruption, noting that successful efforts to enhance cooperation between multilateral and multistakeholder processes already exist and need nurturing.
• Concrete capacity building: Stressed the global necessity for capacity building and the need to do something concrete about it, noting the IGF is adept at this through its policy networks and dynamic coalitions.
• Use of internet for participation: Recommended continued move towards greater use of internet-based communication and hybrid models for consultations to become more inclusive and accommodate everyone.

Swati Lall, International Internet Exchange of India

• More frequent reviews: Argued that a 10-year review cycle is inadequate given the speed of technological change, proposing a multi-layer mechanism: annual progress tracking and a formal mid-term review (e.g., WSIS+25) aligned with the SDG review.
• Structured role for IGF and WSIS Forum: Recommended that the IGF and WSIS Forum play a more structured role in informing formal reviews, and that continuous multi-stakeholder dialogue must meaningfully inform the process.
• Evolving evaluation metrics: Stated that evaluating connectivity must now encompass skills, device affordability, bandwidth, and digital literacy, and include emerging priorities like responsible AI and green ICT.

Jenna Fung, NetMission.Asia

• Data justice for youth: Called for a rights-based, community-centred data governance with ethical protocols for youth data, which is used opaquely for AI training, deepening trust deficits.
• Meaningful defined connectivity: Argued that connectivity must be meaningfully defined beyond broadband access to include digital literacy, affordability, safety, and agency.
• Broader metrics suite: Advocated for a broader suite of metrics beyond connectivity rates, including access to digital skills, safe online spaces, youth representation in policy, and measures of empowerment.

Pari Esfandiai, Global Technopolitics Forum

• AI as strategic infrastructure: Framed AI as a strategic infrastructure of global power, not just a technical development challenge, facing systemic asymmetries in who shapes the rules.
• Normative weaknesses: Critiqued the paper for invoking ethics but avoiding binding commitment to human rights-based governance and for avoiding naming surveillance as a systemic risk.
• Missing geopolitical context: Argued the paper fails to examine the geopolitical context, including the rise of a ‘global compute oligarchy’, regulatory fragmentation, and how AI may suppress cultural and linguistic pluralism.

Sarah Nicole, Project Liberty

• AI amplifies current structures: Argued that AI amplifies the current centralised structure of the web that streams user control over data, further strengthening a handful of dominant companies.
• Embedding data agency: Proposed that data agency (citizen control over personal data) must be embedded at the core of digital infrastructure to ensure true empowerment.
• Mandating open protocols: Called for mandating the use of open-source, interoperable, and decentralised protocols to foster trust and resilience in the digital infrastructure that contributes to AI.

---

Main themes

1. Digital divide and inclusion: This was the most prominent theme, evolving from a focus on basic connectivity to a multidimensional ‘usage gap’. Key points included addressing barriers of affordability, skills, relevant local content, linguistic diversity, and access to devices and advanced technologies. Speakers like Roddy McGlynn (GSMA), Soumya Nair (India), and Baratang Miya provided critical data and perspectives.
2. Internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model: There was strong consensus on the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach, with extensive discussion on strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Key proposals were giving it a permanent mandate, sustainable funding, and a more impactful role. Fiona Alexander, Daphné Barbotte (EU), and Israel Rosas (ISOC) were key contributors.
3. Human rights and ethics: A major theme was the call to anchor the WSIS+20 outcome firmly in international human rights law, apply rights offline to online, and ensure corporate accountability. Elonnai Hickok (GNI), Ellie McDonald (Global Digital Rights Coalition), and Ana María Suárez Franco (FIAN) drove this discussion.
4. Environmental sustainability: The environmental cost of digitalisation, from AI’s energy use to e-waste, was highlighted as a critical and often overlooked issue. Speakers called for ‘green-by-design’ principles and a circular economy. Shradhanjali Sarma, María Soledad Vogliano (ETC Group), and Jasmine Ko (Hong Kong Youth IGF) were central to this theme.
5. Artificial intelligence (AI) governance: Discussions focused on the opportunities and risks of AI, the concentration of power in a few corporations and countries, and the need for governance that prevents harm and promotes equity. Paloma Lara Castro (Derechos Digitales), Gabriel Delsol (CCIA), and Pari Esfandiai offered diverse perspectives.
6. Digital public infrastructure (DPI) and innovation: DPI was presented as a transformative, equitable model for digital transformation, particularly in the global south. Aditya Vikram Dube (India) and Shumaila Hussain were key proponents.
7. Capacity building and skills: Moving beyond basic digital literacy to advanced skills for the future economy, particularly for youth, women, and marginalised communities, was a recurring need. Kayode Oyeyemi (AFICTA), Dheeraj Rajput (India), and Bea Guevarra (NetMission) emphasised this.
8. Financing and economic models: Concerns were raised about market-led approaches failing to bridge divides. Proposals included a digital development tax, reforming tax regimes, and innovative financing mechanisms. Sadhana Sanjay (IT for Change) and Anriette Esterhuysen (APC) contributed significantly.
9. Gender equality and youth engagement: The need to mainstream gender and youth across all action lines was emphasised, with specific calls for a standalone gender action line and metrics for youth participation. Mrinalini Dayal and Dana Cramer were vocal on this theme.
10. Follow-up, review, and implementation: Speakers critiqued the lack of robust monitoring mechanisms for WSIS and proposed more frequent reviews, better indicators, and stronger links between implementation fora like the IGF and WSIS Forum. Swati Lall and Rashi Gupta (India) provided detailed recommendations.

---

Analysis of (dis)agreements

Agreements

• Strengthening the multi-stakeholder model: There was broad consensus that the multi-stakeholder model is essential and must be reinforced. Speakers in agreement: Fiona Alexander, Timea Suto (ICC), Lucien Castex (AFNIC), Israel Rosas (ISOC), Claire Sophie Patzig (Youth IGF), and many others.
• Institutionalising the IGF: A large majority of speakers supported renewing the IGF’s mandate, making it permanent, and providing it with sustainable funding and a strengthened secretariat. Speakers in agreement: Jose Scandiucci (Brazil), Paul Blaker (UK), Fiona Alexander, Daphné Barbotte (EU), Anriette Esterhuysen (APC), and numerous civil society and technical community representatives.
• Addressing the multidimensional digital divide: There was unanimous agreement that the digital divide is now about more than connectivity and includes affordability, skills, content, and access to technology. Speakers in agreement: Roddy McGlynn (GSMA), Soumya Nair (India), James Kunle Olorundare (ISOC Nigeria), and virtually all speakers from the global south.
• Anchoring the outcome in human rights: Most speakers agreed that the WSIS+20 outcome must be grounded in international human rights law and reaffirm that rights offline apply online. Speakers in agreement: Elonnai Hickok (GNI), Ellie McDonald (Global Digital Rights Coalition), Laura O’Brien (Access Now), and a wide range of civil society organisations.
• Integrating the GDC with WSIS: There was strong support for creating a joint implementation roadmap to harmonise GDC commitments within the WSIS framework to avoid duplication. Speakers in agreement: Jose Scandiucci (Brazil), Christian Schlaepfer (Switzerland), and Laura Becana Ball (GFMD).

---

Disagreements

• Interpretation of ‘Enhanced Cooperation’: Views differed significantly on this term from the Tunis Agenda. Some warned against reopening contentious debates and saw it as a potential obstacle, while others from the global south maintained it remains relevant for ensuring equitable participation of governments.
  • Side A (Cautious): Paul Blaker (UK) and Fiona Alexander urged avoiding the phrase to prevent deadlock, arguing it has led to fruitless discussions. William Drake highlighted the deep geopolitical differences embedded in the term.
  • Side B (Supportive): Anriette Esterhuysen (APC) stated that effective equitable participation of governments (enhanced cooperation) remains relevant for the global south.
• Balance between market-led and public intervention: There were divergent views on the role of the private sector and the need for public intervention.
  • Side A (Market-led): Cheryl Miller (USCIB) and Timea Suto (ICC) emphasised creating policy environments that support private investment, innovation, and cross-border data flows.
  • Side B (Public intervention): Shumaila Hussain, Sadhana Sanjay (IT for Change), and Ana María Suárez Franco (FIAN) criticised market-led approaches, called for corporate accountability, and proposed public financing mechanisms like taxes on digital monopolies.
• Approach to ICT security: A clear disagreement emerged on the appropriate forum and terminology for discussing security issues.
  • Side A (Specialised formats): Roman Zimin (Russia) argued that ICT security should be discussed in specialised UN formats like the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) and preferred terms like ‘ICT security’ over ‘cyber’.
  • Side B (Broader inclusion): The prevailing view among other speakers was for a broader multi-stakeholder discussion on security within the WSIS and IGF contexts, without specifying terminology.

---

---

Follow-up actions

• Develop a joint WSIS-GDC implementation roadmap: Proposed by Jose Scandiucci (Brazil) and supported by Christian Schlaepfer (Switzerland) and Anriette Esterhuysen (APC) to ensure coherence and avoid duplication.
• Establish a global task force on financing for inclusive digital transformation: Proposed by Sadhana Sanjay (Global Digital Justice Forum) to explore innovative and blended financing mechanisms.
• Institute a digital development tax: Proposed by Sadhana Sanjay (Global Digital Justice Forum) whereby dominant tech corporations contribute to connecting the unconnected.
• Create multi-stakeholder governance labs within the IGF: Proposed by Daphné Barbotte (EU) to serve as collaborative spaces for exploring emerging tech implications.
• Launch a process to develop concrete goals for action from IGF messages: Proposed by Titti Cassa (Agency for Digital Italy) to enhance the IGF’s policy impact.
• Conduct a WSIS+25 mid-term review in 2030: Proposed by Swati Lall (NIXI) to align with the SDG review process and assess progress.
• Embed ‘green AI-by-design’ principles: Proposed by Shradhanjali Sarma (CCAOI) to integrate environmental considerations from the development stage.
• Establish a standalone WSIS action line on gender: Proposed by Mrinalini Dayal (Alliance for Universal Digital Rights) with defined goals and dedicated resources.
• Mandate the use of open-source, interoperable protocols for data agency: Proposed by Sarah Nicole (Project Liberty) to foster trust and resilience in digital infrastructure.
• Set diversity targets for disability representation in IGF structures: Proposed by Judith Hellerstein (DCAD) to ensure meaningful inclusion.

Statistics and data

• 2.6 billion people still unconnected from the internet today. (Cheryl Miller, USCIB)
• A single AI query can use up to 10 times more electricity than a standard web search. (Shradhanjali Sarma, Cyber Cafe Association of India)
• 3.7 billion people remain offline, with women disproportionately affected. (Baratang Miya)
• By 2030, 90% of jobs will require digital skills, yet 60% of African youth lack basic digital competencies. (Baratang Miya)
• Women-led startups receive less than 2% of global venture capital funding. (Baratang Miya)
• Broadband networks reach 96% of the global population, but only 57% use mobile internet. The usage gap is nine times the size of the coverage gap. (Roddy McGlynn, GSMA)
• Women across low and middle-income countries are 14% less likely to use mobile internet than men, resulting in 235 million fewer women online. (Roddy McGlynn, GSMA)
• 230 million jobs in sub-Saharan Africa will require digital skills by 2030. (Kayode Oyeyemi, AFICTA)
• 40% of Africa’s 100 million MSMEs have little or no digital integration. (Kayode Oyeyemi, AFICTA)
• 37% internet penetration in sub-Saharan Africa vs. 90% in North America. (James Kunle Olorundare, ISOC Nigeria)

---

Language analysis

Linguistic devices

• Appeal to emotion: “Think of the children if we don’t act now!” – Jutta Croll, invoking vulnerability in digital rights.
• Metaphor: “Digital divide as a growing chasm” – Koudy Wanee, portraying exclusion as a deepening threat.
• Anaphora: “We must… We must… We must…” – Cheryl Miller, repeating for emphasis on connectivity and cooperation.
• Rhetorical question: “Are we building the capacities in the right manner?” – Judith Hellerstein, questioning inclusion approaches.

Tech dichotomies

Dichotomy name	Definition & tension	Supporting quote from text
Global vs Local	Tension between standardised, top-down technological solutions and community-driven models tailored to specific cultural, linguistic, and contextual needs.	“Centralized one-size-fits-all solutions often miss the mark… we advocate for hyper-local decentralized models.” (Arpita Kanjilal)
Access vs Meaningful Use	Tension between providing basic network coverage and ensuring people can actually use the internet affordably, safely, skillfully, and with relevant content.	“broadband networks now reach 96% of the global population, but only 57% use mobile internet.” (Roddy McGlynn)
Empowerment vs Control	Tension between technology that enhances individual agency and democratic participation versus technology used for surveillance, social control, and entrenching power imbalances (digital colonialism).	“The current market-led paradigm entrenched digital colonialism with extractive data flows and infrastructure dependency.” (Shumaila Hussain)
Universal Benefits vs Asymmetric Harms	Tension between the promise that tech advancement benefits everyone and the reality that its negative environmental and social impacts are disproportionately borne by the Global South.	“The environmental burdens are much more on the developing countries. This not only creates a sustainability gap, but also an equity gap.” (Shradhanjali Sarma)
Innovation vs Regulation	Tension between the rapid pace of technological innovation and the need for governance, accountability, and safeguards to prevent harm.	“Policies and regulations still allow internet fragmentation and increase the risk of fragmentation.” (Cheryl Miller)
Human-Centred vs Tech-Centred	Tension between designing technology for human values, inclusion, and well-being versus designing for pure efficiency, automation, and profit.	“we must shift from tech only policies towards an approach where technology serves people rather than exasperating this exclusion.” (Arpita Kanjilal)

Summary: The transcript reveals a discourse dominated by critical tensions inherent in digital development. The most prominent dichotomies centre on equity and power: who benefits from technology versus who bears its costs (Universal Benefits vs Asymmetric Harms), who controls its development and governance (Empowerment vs Control), and whether solutions are imposed globally or emerge locally (Global vs Local). The overall perspective leans towards a critique of the current digital paradigm, arguing that it often fails to deliver on its promises of universal benefit and instead risks reinforcing historical inequalities and creating new forms of exclusion and environmental damage. The proposed solutions consistently advocate for a reorientation towards justice, equity, and multi-stakeholder inclusivity.

Word frequency

Word/Phrase	Frequency
digital	287
WSIS	185
internet	127
stakeholders	112
governance	109
multi-stakeholder	97
access	93
IGF	91
human rights	78
development	75
capacity building	68
inclusive	65
global	64
forum	59
review	58
process	57
cooperation	56
community	55
must	54
need	53
model	52
technologies	51
implementation	50
countries	49
framework	48
youth	47
support	46
ensure	45
action	44
people	43
line	42
draft	41
zero	40
environmental	39
stakeholders	38
including	37
local	36
economy	35
women	34
skills	33
infrastructure	32
data	31
AI	30
connectivity	29
gap	28
building	27
element	26
paper	25
climate	24
change	23
security	22
sustainable	21
use	20
public	19
private	18
sector	17
need	16
also	15
new	14
time	13
today	12
thank	11
very	10
much	9
opportunity	8
contribute	7
consultation	6
session	5
please	4
floor	3
online	2
hear	1

---

Summary report

Context
The WSIS+20 Informal Stakeholder Consultation was a virtual meeting held on 29 July 2025, from 14:00 to 17:00 UTC. It was co-facilitated by Ambassador Suela Janina of Albania and Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale of Kenya, with support from the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). This session was a critical step in the preparatory process for the 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which will culminate in a high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly in December 2025. The consultation was designed to gather verbal feedback on the ‘elements paper’, a foundational document that will guide the drafting of the ‘zero draft’ outcome document. Unusually for a UN New York-based process, it featured a joint dialogue with both member states and all stakeholder groups (civil society, private sector, technical community, academia) participating on equal footing.

Why it matters
This consultation is significant because it represents a concerted effort to inject genuine multi-stakeholderism into an intergovernmentally-led review process. The WSIS+20 outcome will set the global agenda for digital cooperation for the next decade, influencing how we address challenges like AI, digital divides, and cybersecurity. The insights gathered here will directly shape the zero draft, making this a pivotal opportunity for non-government voices to influence high-level digital policy. The novelty lay in the format itself—a hybrid, open dialogue—which many participants praised as a model for how UN digital processes should operate.

What was discussed
The discussion was structured around the themes of the elements paper. Key arguments emerged across all sessions:

• Digital divides: Speakers universally agreed the focus must shift from basic connectivity to ‘meaningful connectivity’. Roddy McGlynn (GSMA) provided crucial data illustrating the ‘usage gap’: 96% of people are covered by networks, but only 57% are online, meaning 3 billion people cannot afford or lack the skills to use the internet.
• Internet governance: There was overwhelming consensus on strengthening the multi-stakeholder model and making the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) a permanent UN institution with sustainable funding. Fiona Alexander (American University) noted, however, that only 15% of speakers were governments, questioning if the UN system can truly embrace shared decision-making.
• Human rights: Civil society organisations, including Ellie McDonald (Global Digital Rights Coalition), insisted the outcome must be firmly anchored in international human rights law and include a formal role for the UN human rights office (OHCHR).
• Environmental sustainability: The ecological cost of digitalisation was a major theme. Shradhanjali Sarma (CCAOI) highlighted that an AI query can use 10x more energy than a web search, with burdens falling disproportionately on the global south.
• Power asymmetries: Many speakers from the global south, like Shumaila Hussain (Tech Global Institute), critiqued ‘digital colonialism’ and called for structural changes, such as a digital development tax on tech giants, to rebalance the digital economy.

Unique and non-expected insights
Several insights challenged conventional narratives. Arpita Kanjilal (Digital Empowerment Foundation) argued compellingly for ‘hyperlocal’ digital models that are not fully automated but retain a ‘human anchor’ to build community trust. Tinuade Oguntuyi (Information Connectivity Solutions) reframed capacity building, stating, “Capacity is not a gap to be filled, but a force to be unleashed,” advocating for Africans to be seen as co-creators, not consumers. Perhaps the most unexpected tension was around the term ‘enhanced cooperation’. William Drake (Columbia University) warned it is a ‘lightning rod for geopolitical differences’ that could derail the entire process if not clearly defined, revealing the underlying political fractures that still exist.

Follow-up and next steps
The co-facilitators will now analyse this input, along with over 114 written submissions, to produce the ‘zero draft’ of the outcome document, expected in approximately one month. Subsequent negotiations among member states will take place, with stakeholders advocating for the inclusive spirit of this consultation to continue. Key proposed next steps embedded in the discussion include creating a joint implementation roadmap for the WSIS and Global Digital Compact, establishing a task force on digital financing, and planning a WSIS+25 review in 2030. Participants were urged to remain engaged through the formal negotiations and the WSIS and IGF forums.

---