[NCUC-DISCUSS] IGP comment on WSIS+20

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Dear Milton and team

Thanks for writing this and  thanks for sharing it. I support much of 
it, perhaps even most, but not all :)

Some reactions, inline, below, preceded by my initials (AE) and in 
italics. I also have some questions for  IGP.

Anriette


      *1. What are the most important achievements arising from WSIS
      that should be highlighted in  the Zero Draft? *

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.

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 /Elements/ 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.

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.

A/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./

/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.
/


      *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?*

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.

/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./

/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. /


      *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? *


        Internet Governance

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.

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:

  * Creating stronger integration with National and Regional IGFs (NRIGFs)
  * Ensuring IGF programming integrates bottom-up proposals from NRIGFs
    and other members of the public.

/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 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 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.
/

/Agree with you on the  bottom up process./

/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. /


        Human Rights and the Information Society

The /Elements/ 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.

Problematic elements include:

  * Vague calls for “actions against abusive uses of ICTs”, which risk
    legitimizing censorship.
  * Overemphasis on permissible restrictions (e.g., for “national
    security” or “public morals”), framing rights as conditional rather
    than fundamental.
  * Conflating ethics with repression, enabling governments to weaponize
    “integrity” narratives to justify surveillance and suppression.

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:

  * Unambiguously center freedom of expression as non-negotiable.
  * Address digital rights threats (e.g., censorship, mass surveillance)
    without legitimizing them under the guise of “ethics.”

/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.
/

/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/s.


      *4, What additional themes/issues, if any, should be included in
      the Elements Paper?*

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:

  * Private sector investments in connectivity (e.g., broadband
    expansion, cloud services) have driven accessibility.
  * E-commerce, digital banking, and cryptocurrencies have
    revolutionized payment systems.
  * Cross-border flows of capital and knowledge have accelerated
    innovation, including in AI and other transformative technologies.

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:

 1. Explicitly recognize the digital economy as a cross-cutting
    priority, central to achieving WSIS goals.
 2. Reject digital sovereignty frameworks that undermine global
    interoperability and economic development.

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.

/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. /


      *5. Do you wish to comment on particular themes/issues/paragraphs
      in the Elements Paper? *

The WSIS+20 review represents a critical opportunity to ensure coherence 
between WSIS implementation and the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

We emphasize three key points:

 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.
 2. 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).
 3. 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.

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.

/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./


      *6. What suggestions do you have to support the development of the
      WSIS framework?*

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.

/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./

/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.
/

/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.
/

/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 /"securing 50% from non-UN 
entities within three years" /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./


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20250717/28cf0dc0/attachment.htm>