WSIS Action Lines: Why they are still relevant?

29 May 2024 15:00h - 15:45h

Table of contents

Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.

Knowledge Graph of Debate

Session report

Full session report

WSIS forum reflects on action line facilitators’ role and calls for updated strategies in the digital age

At a recent WSIS forum, the discussion centred on the historical and future role of action line facilitators within the WSIS process. Paul Blaker from the UK government queried the historical role of action line facilitators, specifically whether they were appointed before or after the action lines were agreed upon. The conversation revealed that the facilitators were appointed after the Geneva Plan of Action was finalised, highlighting the deep commitment to multi-stakeholder collaboration during the WSIS.

The negotiations of the Geneva Action Plan were described as tough, resulting in a significant compromise that lacked concrete steps and financial commitments. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) was mentioned as not having been fully behind the process, which was seen as a missed opportunity. The lack of integration between the WSIS process and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was criticised, with a call for greater cooperation within the UN system.

A participant from Tanzania shared a success story, illustrating how the WSIS action lines have been implemented at the national level, particularly in connecting rural populations with communication services. There was consensus that the action lines needed to be updated and that stronger follow-up mechanisms were required to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness.

A more people-centred approach to the information society was advocated, one that prioritises addressing inequalities and development challenges through ICTs. The importance of continued multi-stakeholder participation, including that of NGOs, was emphasised, alongside the need for better metrics and evidence-based follow-up.

Concerns were raised about the repetition of issues over the years, with a call for more substantive progress and the integration of digitalisation with broader development goals. The environmental impact of digitalisation was highlighted as an area requiring urgent attention, particularly with the advent of AI and its implications for the climate and emissions, waste generation, and the overuse of scarce resources.

The conversation reflected optimism about the achievements of the WSIS action lines while also acknowledging the need for continued effort and innovation to address the evolving challenges of the digital world. The upcoming 20-year review of WSIS presents an opportunity to reflect on progress, update action lines, and strengthen the mechanisms for implementation and follow-up to ensure that the information society remains people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented.

Session transcript

Moderator:
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you at what states needed to invest in or the public sector and I think that what is really interesting is that you’ve mentioned financing mechanisms and really literally 20 years later we’re still discussing financing mechanisms in the context of the global digital compact hold your thought because I believe is this directly is it a comment Paul or is it a question for Henriette okay sorry can can we have the microphone down there and please introduce yourself

Paul Blaker:
thank you my name is Paul Blaker I work for the UK government and it’s the question maybe for David and Henriette I have often wondered what role the action line facilitators played while the action lines were being agreed were the action line facilitators agreed after the action lines or before what role did the various agencies play in the development of the action lines and I’m asking not only for historical interest but when we’re thinking about updating the action lines in the WSIS review it’s also good to think about what role the existing action line facilitators and maybe new action line facilitators should be should be playing in that process thank you thank you so

Moderator:
much Paul David oh Henriette I’m being told that your memory might be better

Speaker 1:
Paul I’m not actually a hundred percent sure I think it wasn’t part of member states did not identify action line facilitators I think what happened was that if there’s anyone here from the ITU remembers but the main UN agencies that organized WSIS were UNESCO UNDP and the ITU and I think that what happened was that the action lines facilitators were appointed after the the Geneva plan of action was finalized but not long after good I can see the Russian Federation will remember the one thing I will share which I think is oh sorry but one thing before I give you before Constantinus gives you the mic the one thing I do remember which I think is very significant is that the the commitment to working in a multi-stakeholder way was so deep during WSIS that that my organization was appointed as an action line facilitator we were a co-facilitator Association for progressive communication I think we were the only non-state actor we pulled out a few years later because we realized we didn’t even have the resources to attend the WSIS forum but the principle and at the time the intention was such that we were a co-facilitator do you have a

Moderator:
comment before I go to David please

Audience 1:
thank you can I present myself my name is mark for I’m the former general director of the Federal Office of Communication and I was 20 years ago the one who negotiated let the discussion to the negotiations of this Geneva action plan because Switzerland is the host country so I had the pleasure for days and nights to to negotiate this action plan and it was those who were with me remember it was very very tough discussions but at the end I think we had the result and I’m very glad that you said it’s good and of course you’re right saying it was probably not substantial enough not concrete enough not step by step what are the next steps but and that there was no money involved thank God I must say otherwise it would have been even more difficult but we must see that even a result as we had this which is full of compromises was difficult to get the main discussions we had that was not artificial intelligence didn’t exist as you said also the internet or something completely different than now but then we had basically two things we had one was the development a point that was very very north-south that was very different UNDP as you said played an important role and the digital gap of course all these things they were that was a essential and a very important topic and the other one was of course the question of internet regulation and I remember very well China Brazil India were for internet regulations and other countries were less for this regulation but all in all I think what is what is very good is that and I’m pleased to see that that there was a follow-up process because there was always the fear that nothing would happen and one thing I have to say here is also and I think that was a pity ITU was not really behind the process and that depended very much on the directors general Utsumi and I we had many discussions with him and of course ITU had an incredible chance then and didn’t use it and if you have the UN organization which basically does the summit and doesn’t take on the topics the substance then that’s difficult so that’s another difficulty we had but anyway so that’s a bit the thing concerning the money yes there was not an action plan concerning who pays how much but I must say if we would have that and we discuss that of course we will never have a result and the thing is that in the follow-up conferences you would have discussed who pays what whom and so on and this was not the case. Thank you. Just very quickly because you know to go back to the panel. Thank you very much. I’d like to answer the question of gentlemen not like a Swiss delegation I am from Russia and at that time I was chairman of the council and chairman of council working group of this is preparation so I see from both side and you’re totally right in fact who will be responsible and who will be facilitator it was decided in Tunisia in the last minute and it was like okay we need to add this organization or we forgot about this organization let’s add them so to be honest it was not grassroots process but it was let’s not make somebody unhappy and it’s a reason why from my point of view it’s my personal point of view UNDP was never active part of this process unfortunately which is explained a lot why it’s still without budgeting so I can’t speak a lot but I was limited by chairman thank you very much. Thank you so much.

Moderator:
David please there are a couple of comments there and also you know where

Speaker 2:
where do you see do you agree with what was stated so far? So that’s also very much my recollection of the process by which the action line facilitators were developed and I suspect there were some cases where facilitators were reluctant in the process. It’s also worth I think remembering that the the first two years after that there were there wasn’t this forum of the kind that we are now at there were meetings of clusters of action line facilitators which were much more amorphous than what we have today and it was because they weren’t working that the ITU created the WSIS forum structure which was more like the IGF. To go back to the earlier kind of issue about why the eight action the eight C7 action lines are so weak I think I mean I wrote a lot of the time about the paradigm gap between the digital world and the development world and that really there was far too little discourse between the two it’s something which I think is actually in many ways still the case but I think the the development components of the discussions in Geneva were filtered through the delegations who were there and the delegations that were there were principally people who came from the from the telecoms and digital sectors so what you ended up with was their sort of understanding of it. If you look at the C7 it refers to applications ICT applications in these different areas like health education employment environment and so on and to me that is the wrong way around that what one should be starting with is the development issue and so development ICT challenges or development challenges to be addressed by ICTs that’s really the point at which it should be coming from. I think maybe the other point I’d make is that if the SDGs had existed at the time of WSIS then clearly the action lines would have been the SDGs and in a sense that sort of the opportunity to do that was missed in 2015 when the establishment of the 2030 agenda came in the same year as the as the 10-year review of WSIS. Really if you you want a single coherent UN approach to all of these issues and so if one were doing those action lines now I think that’s how we would articulate them. Thank you very much and I actually

Moderator:
find it so far from hearing both of you and also people from the audience I find it quite impressive that it’s still this feeling of optimism and excitement about the WSIS action lines right and that what they have managed to do I don’t believe that anyone here claims that they were perfect but there is still great support of what they laid down in terms of a vision and of where the information society should go. I think so I guess what I would like to ask is that you know 20 years later we have the global digital compact right and in many ways the issues in the thematic areas identified within the GDC are very similar to the WSIS action lines. What do you think about that I mean is it is it what does it tell us better yet what does that indicate the fact that 20 years later we are still trying to identify some of those issues is it because we have failed or is it because actually we have done a lot of progress there’s still a lot of work to be done but meeting those targets is a really really difficult task. Andrietta. Well you can spin it any way you want

Speaker 1:
Konstantinos and I think it is for me it’s a I mean I’m glad that there is that content there I don’t think there’s enough of it but I think it is a failure I think I think the point that you made about UNDP it’s an absolutely vital point. Remember ITU it’s the oldest UN agency but it’s also the UN agency that probably did list less work with other UN agencies prior to WSIS than than any other I mean UNESCO, UNDP, UNICEF they all collaborate, country offices. ITU was always a little bit separate doing its work as ITU. It predates the UN as we know it. So the WSIS was really revolutionary for the ITU and personally I think the fact that the ITU did as good a job as it did in in in working with with with Switzerland I think Switzerland was absolutely vital in in the fact that you know that the Geneva was such a success is quite extraordinary and I think what we see now is there is insufficient cooperation within the UN system. I think the SDGs and the fact that the SDG process did not integrate with the WSIS process is an oversight. It’s an oversight that I think UN agencies and maybe member states should be held accountable for and I think the WSIS process tried very hard to integrate the Millennium Development Goals. I think there was an orientation there was a commitment commitment David even if it’s done imperfectly I think there was an intention to integrate with with development not just focus on technology but I think what really sidetracked that was that UNDP more or less withdrew from the process after the Geneva phase and then that the SDG process started as a new process without actually paying any attention to what came out of WSIS and I think this is a lesson we should really keep in mind with the GDC. We have to be honest and frank about the differences between New York and Geneva and how the UN operates in these two different places and the different currents and and trends that shape UN outcomes in Geneva. They’re very different from that in New York and I think the GDC is an opportunity to strengthen collaboration but it is also a risk to repeat that kind of fragmentation that created that that resulted from the SDG process. David do you see the GDC as an opportunity to

Moderator:
perhaps even strengthen the WSIS action lines or as a huge risk?

Speaker 2:
I don’t see discussing these… issues as a risk. I think the more discussion around them, the better. I think with the GDC, and I was at a consultation meeting in the Arab region last week discussing this particular issue. With the GDC, I think you can look at it, or people do look at it, in two different directions. So within the digital community, not surprisingly, people look at the GDC as something that is about the digital environment, the digital future, the digital ecosystem, about themselves, about things that affect their ways of working and doing. But the GDC is also one component of the Summit of the Future and the Pact for the Future that will emerge from that. And that is a very different project, which is about the future of the UN and the multilateral arrangements and of the overall issues that the UN seeks to address through its work in conflict prevention, in poverty reduction, in climate change and other environmental issues as well. So you can look at the GDC from a sectoral perspective, or you can look at it from that universal perspective. I think its place is in between the two. So reaching towards both of those things is where the potential strengths can and should be drawn. And it’s clearly very important for the UN system as a whole to be looking at that revitalization of the United Nations system and what it can achieve. Thank you. Before I go on, because I’m conscious of time, that we have almost ten minutes,

Moderator:
are there any questions? Or comments, for that matter, yes?

Audience 1:
Can I ask, is there anyone here from a Global South country to talk a little bit about what WSIS has meant for you and how WSIS is used at a national level? I have my own experiences, but not as someone who’s in government. Is there anyone who can comment on that? Let’s go first to the gentleman here who has a comment, and then, please, yes, if there’s someone from also the Global South, please. Yes.

Audience 2:
Yes, thank you, Vladimir Minkin, Russia. We speak now about action lines. We’re not touching the Internet here. Action lines, as we agreed, firstly in Geneva, mainly, and in Tunisia we only, as was mentioned, colleagues agreed what agency to be responsible for. For ITU, where I work, initially we received two action lines, C2 and C5, and then other organizations asked us to take C6 and then C4 also. And in ITU, we work very carefully with that. We receive, each year we receive full information, what it’s doing. We propose, and this is for a grid, for metrics, between action line and SDGs, I think it’s very useful. And if you look to action lines, we could see the infrastructure, applications, and higher, more political level of media, ethic, and so on. And I suppose what we really need to see where we are. Ten years ago, we provide such analysis. Now, I see none, unfortunately. And say for future, not to realize what we achieved, what are the difficulties, and how we could see beyond the more difficult. We have one year concerning GDC, my personal point, no problem, but not that. That’s most point, because everything is money. If you create some new company, we need money for that. Do we really waste money for that? Maybe money for developing countries under these action lines, for instance. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much. Going back to Henriette’s point, the gentleman down there, can we please pass the microphone on how the action lines have facilitated and how they have been implemented, if at all, within national level, that would be, yes. Thank you so much.

Audience 3:
Thank you. My name is Albert Richard from the United Republic of Tanzania. Basically, I’m working with the Universal Communication Service Access Fund under the Minister of Information. So, I can say the way the action line were formed, they are really supporting, for instance, our main task is to ensure that people in rural areas are connected. So, through action line number two, we are doing that job, and since its establishment, we have managed to connect almost, I can say, 23 million people through subsidizing infrastructure with mobile operators who are rolling out network in rural areas. So, you can see that through these action lines, at least now, we are trying to connect, and maybe through those initiatives, we are reaching that effort to connect the remaining 2.6 billion people. But also, through other initiatives in the government, you will see that through EGAR, let’s say, they are increasing confidence in accessing application or security, or even accessing the government applications and services. All those are coming through those action lines. I know other people are working with other action lines, but at least they are so useful, and I believe after review, we will still have something to do for the benefit of our people. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, and Andrea just sat next to me. That’s my experience as well, and I think that this is something, A, that we don’t hear often enough, and we need to hear more about this, and B, it is so very important, because this is where the impact of those action lines are coming in, and where it’s actually being felt, right? In fora like this, we’re having an intellectual conversation about the action lines, but it’s really at the national level where we actually feel that those action lines have some sort of an impact, and they’re able to change lives. Given the fact that we literally have seven minutes, and I cannot believe that time has flown so fast, this is a question to the both of you. Next year, it is the 20-year review. It is another big milestone for WSIS, for the international community, as well as for the development community. Where shall we focus? What are the top three things, perhaps, or top five, that you believe the international community should come around and really work together in order to be able to advance those action lines, and make them relevant, and make them relatable, and make them a success? I’ll start with you, David, this time around.

Speaker 2:
I thought you might. Okay, so I’d recall the opening line of the Geneva Declaration, that the goal is a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, which is engaged with human rights and sustainable development. And what that is saying is that the goal is to shape the information society according to something that we might call the common good, or whatever, that it is not simply about maximizing digitalization. It is about optimizing digitalization in pursuit of those internationally-agreed objectives, and nationally-agreed objectives. So I think that’s an important issue about what we’re trying to achieve. The second, I think, is that to do that we need much more substantial and equal discourse between the digital sector and those sectors of economy, society, and culture that are impacted by it, which is in effect nowadays everything. So I want to see the issues that we are dealing with dealt with from the demand side of the economy, from those who are impacted at least as much as it is from the supply side, that is, those who are providing technology. And a personal thing of mine, because it’s another area in which I work, is environmental. So I think we have a critical set of issues to deal with around the environmental impact of digitalization, particularly with AI coming about. And those are environmental issues to do not just with climate and emissions, but also to do with waste generation and with the overuse of scarce resources. So those are actually critical to making sustainability. So something that is not an information society, that is not environmentally sustainable, isn’t going to be economically sustainable either. And we need to address that. So I flag up UNCTAD’s, or UN Trade and Development’s, forthcoming digital economy report on that subject.

Moderator:
Thanks, David. And Reet?

Speaker 1:
Thanks, Konstantinos. I think we have to put inequality front and centre. I think we have digital inequality, which is a manifestation of broader inequalities. And I think we know that if you digitalize an existing unequal world, you don’t make it more equal. You actually make it unequal. I think during the WSIS we had the debate about the silver bullet, leapfrogging, all these nonsense ideas that often private sector companies convinced governments of. We have to build development from the bottom up. Obviously what we do in WSIS is focus on the technological ICT dimension of that. I think putting the people-centred approach of WSIS back on the table I think is very important. I find it quite disturbing that for the last five years we’ve talked about digital cooperation, a global digital compact. It’s as if we assume that the digital comes first and the people will follow. And I think we need to revise, merge, update the action lines. I think Paul Blecker’s point about looking at the facilitation of the action lines and rejuvenating that and maybe doing it in a different way is very important. I think your point about metrics, about using evidence, absolutely important. We do need to look at data. And it’s not that the data doesn’t exist. We do have data. We need to use it. And then I think we need to strengthen existing processes rather than create new processes, but invest more in follow-up. WSIS follow-up was under-resourced. It was given to the CSTD at the last minute without really adequate country-level reporting requirements. I think at the moment we have voluntary reporting, but I think a little bit more investment in follow-up and reporting would be really good. And built on the multi-stakeholder collaboration, built on the IJF, I think it’s also important to, and the WSIS Forum, to recognize we need two types of follow-up. We need the interactive public participation component, which is provided by the WSIS Forum and the IJF, but we also need something a little bit more rigorous, where we actually look at targets and governments investing in those and reporting on whether they’re achieving them or not. Thank you, Henriette. And I know that my role as the moderator is really not me to take

Moderator:
a position or make any comments, but I would just like to add, especially on the basis of what you just mentioned, I think that we are having an opportunity perhaps next year to look at the WSIS process and also the mechanisms that emerged out of this process. A little bit less monolithic, right? And trying to make a better integration of the conversations that would happen with the mechanisms that we set and how we can have those conversations. I really appreciate the distinction that you made, you know, on the fact that follow-up is not one thing. It can be many, many things, and I think we need to be creative and take advantage of all those things in order to be able and move forward so we don’t again find ourselves in 20 years hopefully discussing the same things, which to me, you know, I was 20-something year old during WSIS. The fact that right now we’re still discussing some of those issues is frankly a little bit concerning and worrying. Any last comment or any last questions? We literally have a couple of minutes more, so if there is any last question for our panelists, I am willing to take it. Otherwise, perhaps we can wrap things up. Anyone? Yes. Thank you. I think it’s very important that you do a follow-up, not only a follow-up of WSIS, but to see how relevant the action plan is and to basically discuss and also negotiate

Audience 3:
a new action plan. I think that’s very important because that’s clearly a field where this is necessary. Probably one thing which was also rather remarkable is it was the first UN summit with a very active participation of NGOs. That was before not the case. It made our work much more difficult, but it also made it much more relevant. Nowadays, this is logical, obvious that they are involved, but at the time it wasn’t, and I would encourage you very much not just to do it with the governments, with the regress, but also with the NGOs. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you so very much, everyone. I would like to thank David, I would like to thank Henriette, and of course I would like to thank every single one of you for making the comments and participating. I would like to wish everyone good luck, and there is a lot of work between now and next year, so please let’s all collaborate. Thank you so very much. Transcription by ESO. Translation by —

Speakers

A1

Audience 1

Speech speed

158 words per minute

Speech length

767 words

Speech time

292 secs

A2

Audience 2

Speech speed

101 words per minute

Speech length

248 words

Speech time

147 secs

A3

Audience 3

Speech speed

164 words per minute

Speech length

333 words

Speech time

122 secs

M

Moderator

Speech speed

155 words per minute

Speech length

1062 words

Speech time

412 secs

PB

Paul Blaker

Speech speed

133 words per minute

Speech length

128 words

Speech time

58 secs

S1

Speaker 1

Speech speed

164 words per minute

Speech length

1076 words

Speech time

394 secs

S2

Speaker 2

Speech speed

160 words per minute

Speech length

1038 words

Speech time

389 secs