<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Dear Milton and team</p>
<p>Thanks for writing this and thanks for sharing it. I support
much of it, perhaps even most, but not all :)</p>
<p>Some reactions, inline, below, preceded by my initials (AE) and
in italics. I also have some questions for IGP.<br>
</p>
<p>Anriette</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3><b>1. What are the most important achievements arising from
WSIS that should be highlighted in the Zero Draft? </b></h3>
<p>The most significant and enduring achievement of WSIS is the
establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). As a
cornerstone of the WSIS vision, the IGF has played a pivotal
role in advancing multistakeholder cooperation on critical
technology and policy issues central to the Information Society.
By operationalizing the principles outlined in the Geneva
Declaration and Tunis Agenda, the IGF has fostered inclusive,
global dialogue for over two decades.</p>
<p>Its success is evident in the sustained participation of
diverse stakeholders worldwide and the proliferation of national
and regional IGFs—now exceeding 175 initiatives—demonstrating
its far-reaching impact. Contrary to the characterization in the
<i>Elements</i> paper as merely an annual event, the IGF
sustains a dynamic, year-round ecosystem of collaboration
through intersessional programs (such as Dynamic Coalitions,
Best Practice Forums, and Policy Networks) and a robust network
of local, youth, and regional Internet governance efforts.</p>
<p>This model of multistakeholder governance, pioneered by the
IGF, remains one of WSIS’s most transformative outcomes and
should be prominently recognized in the Zero Draft.</p>
<p>A<i>E: Agree that IGF is a very important outcome, as is the
multistakeholoder approach. Agree also that the Elements paper
does not do the IGF ecosystems, including NRIs justice.</i></p>
<p><i>However, I do think there are other important outcomes of
the WSIS, such as governments realising the value of the
internet and increased investment in access to infrastructure
and capacity building - even though not nearly enough.
Implementing the WSIS action lines has not been a perfect
process but it has brought benefits to millions of people.
Without WSIS this process would have started much later in
many places and not progressed to the extent it has.<br>
</i></p>
<h3><b>2. What are the most important challenges to the
achievement of WSIS outcomes to date and in the future that
need to be addressed in the Zero Draft?</b></h3>
<p>We see the absence of a permanent mandate for IGF as a critical
challenge that should be addressed in the zero draft. We also
view the disconnect between the WSIS Forum and the discussions
that happen at IGF as another challenge.</p>
<p><i>AE: Agree that the IGF not having a renewed long term or
permanent mandate is a huge challenge. But I would say that
lack of commitment to financing digital inclusion is an even
greater challenge. Added to this is the lack of sequencing.
Digital inclusion as in "meaningful connectivity" is not just
one priority among many. Internet use and penetration is
actually shrinking in some parts of the world and the divide
is growing bigger as people need more, better, faster access
and smarter devices to meaningfully connect.</i></p>
<p><i>Another huge challenges which is not addressed is the
concentration of power in the hands of a few big tech
companies, and when it comes to access, most people's
dependency on a still relatively uncompetitive mobile telecoms
sector. </i><br>
</p>
<h3><b>3. What are the most important priorities for action to
achieve the WSIS vision of a ‘people-centred, inclusive and
development-oriented Information Society’ in the future,
taking into account emerging trends? </b></h3>
<h4>Internet Governance</h4>
<p>The IGF remains vital but must evolve to reflect its broader
role in digital governance, not just Internet governance. Its
structure should shift toward a true multistakeholder
partnership, reducing unilateral UN control and fostering
equitable collaboration among governments, civil society, the
private sector, and technical communities.</p>
<p>The WSIS process should move beyond “enhanced cooperation”—a
term that, in 2005, served as diplomatic cover for
intergovernmental disputes over DNS root oversight. The 2016
IANA transition resolved that debate by ending U.S. control,
making the term obsolete. Instead, prioritization should be
given to:</p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">Creating stronger integration with National
and Regional IGFs (NRIGFs)</li>
<li aria-level="1">Ensuring IGF programming integrates bottom-up
proposals from NRIGFs and other members of the public.</li>
</ul>
<p><i>AE: I don't see the UN as having 'unilateral control' over
the IGF. What about the MAG, the host country, the
Secretariat, organisers of DCs and Policy Networks and Best
Practice Forums and of course NRIs. I believe that the link
to the UN remains important and creates an incentive for
governments to participate in national and regional IGFs.
Without a strong UN link I fear that many NRIs will die, even
if slowly.</i></p>
<p><i>I also don't agree fully on enhanced cooperation. Yes, the
IANA transition resolved one aspect of that debate, but for
G77 countries, many of them anyway, the concern that they have
less opportunity and influence in internet-related public
policy shaping and making remains.</i></p>
<p><i>I do agree with the prioritisation of 'stronger integration'
with NRIs but I think this is easier said than done. It has
been tried.. and is still not working well enough. I would
like to hear how you think it can be made more effective. <br>
</i></p>
<p><i>Agree with you on the bottom up process.</i></p>
<p><i>I am curious to hear how IGP feels about a more 'focused'
IGF agenda? That is a concern the MAG faces every year, based
on input from the community. </i><br>
</p>
<h4>Human Rights and the Information Society</h4>
<p>The <i>Elements</i> paper’s approach to human rights is deeply
flawed, prioritizing state control over individual empowerment.
While it correctly affirms that offline rights must apply
online—including freedoms of expression and assembly—its
operational language undermines these principles.</p>
<p>Problematic elements include:</p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">Vague calls for “actions against abusive uses
of ICTs”, which risk legitimizing censorship.</li>
<li aria-level="1">Overemphasis on permissible restrictions
(e.g., for “national security” or “public morals”), framing
rights as conditional rather than fundamental.</li>
<li aria-level="1">Conflating ethics with repression, enabling
governments to weaponize “integrity” narratives to justify
surveillance and suppression.</li>
</ul>
<p>This approach contradicts WSIS’s people-centered vision. Human
rights frameworks exist to constrain state power, not to justify
its expansion. The WSIS+20 review must reject this regressive
rhetoric and instead:</p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">Unambiguously center freedom of expression as
non-negotiable.</li>
<li aria-level="1">Address digital rights threats (e.g.,
censorship, mass surveillance) without legitimizing them under
the guise of “ethics.”</li>
</ul>
<p><i>AE: Agree that human rights not given nearly enough
priority. But, when you say freedom of expression should be
non-negotiable, are you saying there should be no measures to
address hate speech or online harms? I agree that 'integrity'
narratives are weaponised to justify repression, but the
monetisation of false, fake, extremist content by platforms is
equally problematic.<br>
</i></p>
<p><i>I agree very strongly with your points on ethics. The
Action Line on ethics should be amended to explicitly refer to
human rights law and standard</i>s.<br>
</p>
<h3><b>4, What additional themes/issues, if any, should be
included in the Elements Paper?</b></h3>
<p>The Digital Economy deserves greater emphasis in the WSIS+20
review, as it serves as the foundation for many critical issues
currently addressed in isolation. A thriving global digital
economy depends on the cooperative, multistakeholder frameworks
that the UN and IGF are uniquely positioned to advance. Key
sub-themes—such as ICT for development, social and cultural
progress, bridging digital divides, data governance, and
financial inclusion—are intrinsically linked to the growth of a
digital economy built on Internet-based infrastructure. For
example:</p>
<ul>
<li aria-level="1">Private sector investments in connectivity
(e.g., broadband expansion, cloud services) have driven
accessibility.</li>
<li aria-level="1">E-commerce, digital banking, and
cryptocurrencies have revolutionized payment systems.</li>
<li aria-level="1">Cross-border flows of capital and knowledge
have accelerated innovation, including in AI and other
transformative technologies.</li>
</ul>
<p>However, the rise of digital sovereignty policies threatens
this progress by imposing fragmented, territorial restrictions
on data, services, hardware (e.g., semiconductors), and digital
trade. Such measures risk stifling the very cooperation needed
to sustain inclusive growth. The Elements Paper should:</p>
<ol>
<li aria-level="1">Explicitly recognize the digital economy as a
cross-cutting priority, central to achieving WSIS goals.</li>
<li aria-level="1">Reject digital sovereignty frameworks that
undermine global interoperability and economic development.</li>
</ol>
<p>By anchoring these issues in the broader digital economy
narrative, the WSIS+20 review can better align its objectives
with today’s technological and economic realities.</p>
<p><i>AE: I agree that digital economy, and that includes data and
trade, should get more attention. I don't agree that blanket
rejection of any kind of digital sovereignty frameworks should
be foundational - I think it depends on the issue and context,
but I definitely agree that the development of a digital
economy that benefits all countries more equally as opposed to
the status quo where the benefits and power are concentrated
in the hands of a few countries with existing power and
resources in terms of their capability in the sector. </i><br>
</p>
<h3><b>5. Do you wish to comment on particular
themes/issues/paragraphs in the Elements Paper? </b></h3>
<p>The WSIS+20 review represents a critical opportunity to ensure
coherence between WSIS implementation and the Global Digital
Compact (GDC).</p>
<p>We emphasize three key points:</p>
<ol>
<li aria-level="1">Avoid Parallel Processes: The GDC must not
develop as a competing or duplicative multilateral framework,
but rather as a complementary initiative reinforcing WSIS
principles. The GDC’s 70 commitments span critical areas: from
closing digital divides, promoting and protecting human
rights, connecting schools and hospitals, to facilitating data
flows with trust, and misinformation and disinformation,
intersecting with the WSIS Action Lines at many points.</li>
<li aria-level="1">Institutional Alignment: Should the UN Office
for Development and Technology (UN ODET) assume GDC
implementation responsibilities, its mandate must explicitly
support and enhance existing WSIS mechanisms, particularly the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF).</li>
<li aria-level="1">Operational Synergy: All GDC implementation
activities should be designed to strengthen rather than
duplicate WSIS implementation structures, maintaining the
IGF’s central role in multistakeholder digital governance.</li>
</ol>
<p>This approach will prevent fragmentation of global digital
governance efforts while preserving two decades of institutional
knowledge and stakeholder engagement developed through the WSIS
process.</p>
<p><i>AE: I agree with all this in principle but I would privilege
integration of the GDC into the existing WSIS framework
because it exists at country and regional level which has
enabled more meaningful participation for non-state actors
than is possible at global level.</i></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3><b>6. What suggestions do you have to support the development
of the WSIS framework?</b></h3>
<p>To strengthen the WSIS framework, we propose that the UN Office
for Digital and Emerging Technology (UN ODET) establish
structured multistakeholder dialogues to develop consensus on
digital governance norms, focusing on pol that have maticy
issuesured within IGF discussions. However, any such mechanism
must address the historical exclusion of non-state actors in
UN-led processes. Critical reforms should include implementing
robust metrics to evaluate WSIS Action Line outcomes and ensure
greater accountability. For the IGF specifically, we recommend
rebalancing the MAG’s composition to ensure equitable
stakeholder representation while allowing communities to
directly appoint their representatives. The Leadership Panel
should be eliminated to reduce hierarchies, and parliamentary
participants should be better integrated into core programming.
Financially, the IGF should diversify its funding sources with a
target of securing 50% from non-UN entities within three years.
Finally, oversight of the IGF’s mandate should shift from the UN
General Assembly to the IGF itself, with the CSTD retaining an
advisory role to maintain member state input while reducing
bureaucratic burdens. These changes would modernize the WSIS
framework while preserving its multistakeholder foundation.</p>
<p><i>AE: Here I don't agree fully. While strengthening its
ability to have structured multistakeholder dialogues is a
good idea I am not sure why ODET should lead the process of
developing consensus on the huge range of digital governance
norms that are discussed at the IGF. Why not embed this in the
existing WSIS architecture through a strengthened IGF and the
existing UN agencies that have specialised capacity in key
areas, such as the Office of the High Commission on Human
Rights, UNESCO, UNDP and the ITU? And others that are not
sufficiently part of the process, such as UNIDIR for example.
When it comes to norms there is so much that has been done
already -- by OHCHR/ HRC, UNESCO, ITU, WIPO, what is needed
is to consolidate this into some kind of framework of internet
governance principles - an activity that is part of the IGF's
mandate.</i></p>
<p><i>Also don't forget that human rights norms, laws and
standards that are part of the international human rights are
enforceable and the UN framework provides a framework for
this. It is not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than
having no accountability framework at all.<br>
</i></p>
<p><i>Your idea of shifting oversight of the IGF's mandate away
from the General Assembly is interesting - but also
complicated. If it rests on delinking the IGF from the WSIS
process I think it would in the long run turn the IGF into
just a conference and one that is mostly relevant to
developing countries, excluding those that are still
struggling with building digital infrastructure and capacity.
Also keep in mind that CSTD falls under ECOSOC which falls
under the General Assembly.. so I am not sure your proposal
really changes the current arrangement.<br>
</i></p>
<p><i>As for the IGF diversifying its funding sources.. that is
always a good thing. But the contribution from UN entities is
way, way below 50% already so I am not sure what the target of
</i>"securing 50% from non-UN entities within three years" <i>means.
Many people are in fact saying the opposite.. that the IGF
should be getting more predictable funding from the UN rather
than relying more or less completely on voluntary
contributions from outside the UN.</i> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>