IGF 2025 - Day 1 - Workshop Room 6 - WS #231 Address Digital Funding Gaps in the Developing World

>> NEETI BIYANI: Good afternoon. Everyone joining us in Oslo. Good afternoon or good morning if you're joining us online. I'm Neeti Biyani. I'm going to be hosting this session today, which is titled Address Digital Funding Gaps in the Developing World.

We do have the scope for a roundtable setup here. I request if anyone wants to join us on stage, so we can have a more candid, informal conversation, I would like you to be as big a part of it as we are. If anyone wants to, please come on stage and join us here. Please feel free.

All right. Let me just start out by introducing the APNIC foundation. A little bit of what we do. We are an internet foundation. We serve 56 countries in the Asia Pacific region. We invest in challenges toward building technical and human capabilities.

We help drive digital innovation. And we enable digital transformation across the region. Working with a host of different stakeholders and partners. I am privileged to be hosting this conversation on addressing gaps in funding for additional development at the IGF 2025 in Oslo today, this afternoon.

As we all know, we've seen quite a rapid decline in Official Development Assistance, ODA. Philanthropic giving, corporate giving. All of which, together, have gaps in funding for internet and additional development. Or ICT for development in the global majority especially.

In this context, I hope that as various stakeholders are present in the room today, we can discuss funding models, partnerships and collective impact. To ensure we are impacting sustainable progress and outcomes across the various regions in the developing world. I am joined today by a remarkable panel.

I will start from my absolute left. I have Sabhanaz Rashid Diya. She is executive director at Tech Global Institute. Working at the intersection of government, businesses as well as civil society.

To my left is Rémy Friedmann. Who is senior adviser, Human Security and Business at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. I am joined online by Maarten Botterman. Who is the director on the board of directors at ICANN.

On my right, I am joined by Franz von Weizsäecker. Did I completely murder your last name? Who is responsible for economic development and digital transformation at GIZ. And to my absolute right is Raj Singh, CEO of the APNIC Foundation.

And I'm Neeti, your moderator today. I merely want to start out by asking Diya, how do you understand digital development efforts across the global majority, across the developing regions so far? Maybe in the last couple of decades? How do we, you know ‑‑ for establishing of a common understanding of digital development, how do we understand that collectively?

>> SABHANAZ RASHID DIYA: Thank you, Neeti. Very privileged and excited to be on this panel. Diving right into it, in the last ‑‑ I would say if you take the last 20 years, perhaps. Starting with the original commitments of the WSIS process. And how there was a real global understanding of bringing the unconnected online.

Supporting digital transformation. Particularly an important (?) issues in digital divide, gender. Creating a more equitable world that is digitally transformative. We've seen tremendous progress. We've seen more countries coming online. Communities coming online.

There has been a huge push to create jobs. Create development outcomes. You know, tackle some of the more pressing issues in society using technology. But at the same time, I think 20 years later, we are still at a point where 32% of the world's population still remains unconnected.

That continues to be a challenge. And the Global North/South disparity is still quite prevalent. In the Global North, we have 90% of the people online. In the south we have 20% of people online.

People who are most disproportionately affected are women, girls, marginalized populations. Minority groups, et cetera. Who are just not able to come online with device affordability. Whether that's because of lack of infrastructure, being able to reach certain parts of the world. A number of challenges. Also structural challenges.

I think there's still a lot of need for the push for that to happen. Also in the last 10 years, I would say, there have been trends of not just people not having the resources to come online. But also people who are online ‑‑ disconnect. There's also a tendency of disconnecting populations through forced shutdowns or network (?). That's also a huge concern.

Based on the report, last year alone, there were 296 shutdowns in 54 countries. Right? That's an extraordinary number. So, even when there's this push in the broader development agenda to get more people online. There's also this counter, I would say, trend. To where people are getting disconnected.

In that sort of situation, I think there's ‑‑ we're at a moment where more and more people, especially the Global South, they feel the need to catch up in the global technology race. They're seeing huge amounts of some countries moving very fast. Some countries slowing down.

So I think at this point ‑‑ especially in line with the discussion we're going to have today ‑‑ the funding reductions we see around the world is a really concerning trend. In many ways, that's going to set back years of progress that has been made. And now, more than ever, we need that to happen.

Because that disparity between the Global North and south is ‑‑ whatever progress we've made is probably going to widen a lot more. It's going to put an entire part of the world ‑‑ perhaps a majority part of the world in a position. Where they're completely left out of any technological progress. And any kind of opportunities to see the benefits of digital in their countries.

I think this broad connection between resource availability, the country's aspirations for development and progress are more prominent today. Happy to speak more about it.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thanks, Diya. Bouncing off what was said so far, let me turn to Raj. If you could speak on behalf of the APAC region. Which is one of the largest regions in the world with the bulk of the unconnected, unserved, remote, dispersed populations, right? How do you understand Diya's reference to the changes we've seen in the funding landscape quite recently?

[ Speaker off mic ]

>> RAJ SINGH: You're quite right to say Asia Pacific is very diverse. Just before this session, I was speaking in the parliamentary session. What I said there I will repeat here. The fact that the Asia Pacific is an example.

We've got some of the most advanced economies in the world. And we've got some of the most least-developed economies in the world. That becomes a challenge. The overlay on top of that is you see parts of the world leaping ahead in various types of new technologies.

Be it the government itself either invested in it. Or they've got very mature industries. Or the private sector, who are taking the lead in moving forward. Then you have these other economies that are nowhere near that level of development.

For example, you go to an event like the IGF or to various other multi‑lectural meetings or conferences around the world. You hear people say, we think this. We think that. The next IoT iteration will be this. This is what you need to do.

Suddenly you have here an economy that probably doesn't have a fully fledged policy‑making unit that can actually develop policies. And shape what things should look like. Most of the time they're working off a reactive basis. Right? Something happens. And they react off that.

That's what I call reactive policy making not proactive policy making. That's to lay the foundation of why I think this is a problem. Right? Then you have different levels of development that exist.

Asia Pacific is pretty much a poster child. South Asia, which is one of the (?) regions ‑‑ half of that region is still undeveloped. Which is a very stark statistic, right? There are various challenges on why that remains. But it remains that half that region is unconnected.

If you heard me speak before, you've heard me bring up one thing. That is that we seem to be creating new digital divides constantly. We're not stopping. I've been in this sector, this industry for pretty much all of my career. Going on close to 30 years now.

We were talking about stuff 30, 20 years ago. In a slightly different context. We're still talking about the same issues. Some of those issues have not been solved. Last year we did a couple of panels at the IGF. We brought up these issues again.

Given it's only been six odd months since the last IGF. The fact is, nothing has changed all that much. On top of all that, what you've seen in the front end, there have been changes made globally in how things have been funded. ODA, for example.

So, that's one. The pot of money has shrunk. If you look at the private sector, even their pots of money are shrinking. There's a lot of pressure. There was a time the private sector would go and fund things for different reasons.

What we're seeing now, that's shrinking very rapidly. Governments themselves have their own priorities. Do they invest in healthcare or infrastructure? That's a hard decision to make. I'm going to let that hang there.

Because what I came to see ‑‑ and Franz, within the last year, we had some interesting discussions on which we should get to. Work together. Collaborate. Came to understand, in six months, have we gone any step forward or not? I don't know.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thanks, Raj. We'll definitely come to that in the course of this conversation. At this point, let me return to Maarten. Maarten, you are online. Hopefully, you can hear me. Even though I can't see you at the moment.

You're here, representing ICANN. I see you. Hi, Maarten. You're here, representing ICANN. Wearing a few more hats, I'm very sure.

ICANN has had a particularly focused approach to supporting countries across the world. You want a globally interoperable internet. I want to ask you, bouncing off what we heard from Raj and the particular challenges. Either being unconnected. Or not having meaningful connectivity or meaningful access.

How do you interpret those in terms of ICANN's mission? The role they can play. As well as how you envision ICANN's impact across the landscape, across the sector?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thanks, Neeti, for the question. As you say, it's (?) internet. ICANN is there to serve the world. Representing the APAC region. Most of the users live in the APAC region. 25 years ago, most of them lived in North America.

You see a shift in the world. That also means there's a shift in the world in terms of experience where the markets are. And we're very much aware that we are there to support the world.

That means in countries where advancement of internet is less, there's more. We actively reach out to support that. An example is the continent of Africa. The continent of Africa is where, percentage‑wise, there's most growth happening over the years to come.

In terms of people also getting connected. That is where we see many of the next (?) in the world, including APAC. But in Africa, for instance, we are actively engaged in the capacity building initiative. It's called Coalition for Digital Africa. Which is really to support all kinds of transformative projects that aim at housing, internet infrastructure, digital inclusivity, and the governments.

So, initiatives we have there is engaging with about 41 African governments, countries. But also, for instance, the African University Collaboration Group. And things we've been doing there, together with internet society. For instance, setting up new connection points for the internet.

Installing new route server from the ICANN, the L route we refer to. Which resolves now most of the traffic in the region. And also an example, the top level monetary performance in Africa. All this to help Africa to also step up and grab the opportunities.

Also supporting, for instance, ICANN, as you know, is a stable organization. In which different groups have their place. And also for governments. We do capacity development.

We help them to get on board. Become aware of online practices. And people from over 19 countries on the technical function of the internet.

Next to that, of course, this is just a regional example. And we have regional outreach throughout the world. Because we are very much aware that we are here to serve the world. Now, with that, a very clear example of that would be the next round.

There will be an opening for new initiatives at the top level domain. That serves, specifically also, regions around the world. For instance, in their own character sets, in their own languages. Languages are important. Culture.

Also, not everybody in the world is able or should be expected to communicate in English. So it's good that we also support that. And we also do, of language and character sets. As you well know.

And also being aware of particular regions that aren't (?) yet actually support (?) program put in place for those who are less aware at the moment. To help them to get up to speed with appropriate applications and good business plans. So, with that, we truly believe the internet will happen. And ICANN is standing by to support them effectively.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thanks, Maarten. Franz, if I can come to you, we've heard from Maarten that, you know, their support starts with squarely solving the mission of a single, open, interoperable internet. Correct me if I'm wrong. I feel like GIZ has a slightly different approach. Where you support bettering and furthering social‑economic progress across the regions you work in.

Since 2018 you mainstreamed solutions across the projects that you do support. Wherein you're trying to make sure every project has additional solution or structure component that can then be mainstreamed, replicated or scaled. What's your experience been look working on very real‑world issues, if I may call them that? But squarely mainstreamed digital solutions.

>> FRANZ von WEIZSÄECKER: Thank you very much. Neeti, let me get something straight. It should not come online safety across that I was not in favor of free and open internet for everybody. So that definitely is part of our agenda.

The general trends in development funding. You've been describing it initially. The Official Development Assistance tendencies, looking at USAID and so on, are going down. At the same time, philanthropic funding is coming with the (?) foundation. Trying to compensate some of those clients.

Just today we got the draft budget of the general development. We have about a 10% decline in the general development funding budget of the (?) ministry. Which is not as disruptive as in some other context.

So, indeed, what you mentioned is digital transformation is indeed, the mainstream, main topic across our entire portfolio of achieving all these development goals or all the goals of the African 2063 agenda or various developmental agendas. Just like there are some mainstreaming topics that development actors are working on.

Gender mainstreaming. Human rights mainstreaming. And digital mainstreaming. To be honest, digital mainstreaming is possibly the most successful one of those.

Knowing that no (?) ministry, no healthcare initiative, education initiative throughout all the sectors, the internet became a key enabler to be achieving these sustainable development goals. And the sectors for economic growth. For trade. And for all the other goals that you have there.

At the same time, some of the goals are conflicting. So look at the climate goals. Of course, we have a huge energy consumption and corresponding carbon emissions, resulting from AI. From data centers. From digital infrastructures.

If you compare how much carbon emissions from carbon connectivity you have in the digital sector, that is much less than you have in traditional industries. In mining. In manufacturing. And all these common activities.

So still you can say the bang for your buck ‑‑ the GDP per carbon emission is still quite good in the digital economy in comparison. And we do try to achieve these sustainable development goals. In the context where our funding governments from Germany, from Europe ‑‑ there are some political shifts we have to deal with.

If you look at the European Union, the major initiative is called the Global Gateway. And that is the attempt to leverage, also, private capital. Private capital of European investors in the achievement of development goals in infrastructure. For energy. For digital. Data centers. ISPs.

That is part of what we are doing, is trying to leverage these private capital for the achievement of the development goals. Knowing that we cannot entirely rely on public ODA funding all the time. That is maybe the big trend going forward. Of course, at the same time, any private capital depends on the regulatory and investment environment. Be ready for that.

I cannot say this is the case in all the countries we work with. Where any European investors might be very hesitant to come in and invest in some countries. Where the general investment environment doesn't seem to be ready. That is part of the risk.

We are losing out, potentially, on some of the security‑wise. Like those countries where the security situation or the general investment environment is not good. So, that is, indeed, a big open question of how we best deal with that.

For the Asian region, a very large part of it is ready for private investment. However, not all the places, especially in Africa, many investors would be concerned to be putting their money in. It's about de‑risking. From using development bank mechanisms (?) investments.

And using ODA where it's needed. Where there's not a tentative ‑‑ with this, for example, Global Gateway initiative.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thanks, Franz. Having spoken to EU governments, we happen to have a representative on our panel. Rémy, if I can turn to you last. But not least of all.

How do you see the role of the government in the debate of digital development? Building the digital narrative. Contributing to this ongoing conversation of more and more people having access. What kind of access, et cetera?

While there is infrastructure and connectivity and access question? There is also a quality of access question. Right? Would you like to comment on that from the Swiss government's perspective?

>> RÉMY FRIEDMANN: Thank you, Neeti. Thank you for inviting me to this conversation. You put me in an awkward position. Swiss is in an EU member.

But Switzerland International Cooperation is guided by similar principles. Including promoting system development, reducing poverty, fostering peace and human rights. This is embedded in our international cooperation strategy. Which is currently be renewed.

We really emphasize partnership, inclusiveness (?) orientation in our cooperation efforts. Swiss company tries to strengthen digital capacities of its partner countries, to improve public services and civil society. But still risks like the digital divide (?) where certain inequalities must be addressed. We are, as Switzerland, permitted to establish frameworks, aligned with international law, processes to ensuring fair and secure data use and protecting individual dignity and safety.

We are committed to advancing digital inclusion. To open rights and sustainable approaches. But we must recognize that the declining landscape of ODA philanthropic capital poses a serious challenge. Urgent cooperation and coordination also is the way we work. But we ‑‑ it's really...

[ Speaker muted ]

Democratic participation and community resilience. Switzerland is a member of the freedom online coalition. And in line with those principles of human rights in the digital age that the coalition published in 2023. We support efforts that are transparent, locally grounded and aligned with development goals.

To this end, we see value in putting resources include calculated funding, investment mechanism or blended finance in order to unlock scalable and context‑sensitive solutions. We need really, most importantly, to ensure these are solutions are community driven, inclusive and capable of certain local digital assistance rather than dependency. This session is an opportunity to see how we work together. Not just how we fund.

Let's see how we can construct and collect an impacted framework on knowledge. Centers local actors. Bringing together funders, implementers and communities into strategic alignment. These are great sentiments. But it's a big question.

Let's see how we can more effectively to close the digital divide. And ensure communities are not left behind in this digital transformation. It's a question for all of us. How can we collectively address this growing gap and ensure progress benefits everyone? Not just a few. Thank you.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thank you, Rémy. I think you did my job there. That was going to be my next question, actually. So, maybe before I just go back to some of the speakers, I wanted to open up the question to the audience.

And ask if you wanted to step in at this point. And share any ideas. Any reflections you had. About how we bridge the gaps we see in internet development, digital development at the moment.

Rémy brought in a key element of what the rest of the conversation is hopefully going to focus on. Establishing a collective impact framework or ways of thinking. Where we are not competing. But we are sharing space. And we're working with one another to hopefully make change and impact more sustainable.

Where we're not reinventing the wheel ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ but we're replicating and scaling solutions where we can. The floor is open. The mic's all yours, if you want to jump in. Share your ideas. Share your thoughts.

>> PARTICIPANT: Yes. I work for a Norwegian company within law enforcement. We currently sell to police all across the world. What we see is it's difficult to sell to countries that are used to getting funding. Even though they have support from the U.N. system.

There is a lot of skepticism on how this can be done. This zero trust is difficult to handle. There are ways this works in the current setup. We are happy to offer a low‑cost version of our tools to these regions. But it's difficult to find the way.

I think that is ‑‑ there are options of using current setups that we're using in every other country. It's the zero trust and the lack of solutions and ways to work around this that is difficult, I would say. How to get in. How to be able to market or talk about the solution. Because nobody wants to talk about who they're collaborating with, if it's a private company.

So, there's a lot of skepticism around private companies. I think this say challenge that could have an easy solution. If there was kind of a marketplace or another way of dealing with these challenges. So I don't know if anybody has any experience with this. Or, yeah, can help.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Okay. Maybe we can ‑‑ yeah, Maarten, before I come to you. Maybe we can take one more reflection before we go back to the panel. I see someone already at the mic there. Please go ahead.

>> PARTICIPANT: I have my headphones in. So I can't hear. Shall I go for it? Thank you. I'm with digital health and rights project. And I just released a research report looking at seven ODA donors in Europe alongside the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and looking at digital health.

We found it very difficult to understand when investments were being made. Who to talk to. Different collaborating partners. And I'm really interested in this idea of collaboration and how we can work together as funders and other stakeholders.

But transparency in those investment amounts. Where they're being invested. And who we're working with. Is really important. I wonder if the speakers have any comments on transparency. And tracking M & E for investment portfolios. Thank you.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Great question. Thank you. Maarten, if I could go to you for the first reflection, if you had any responses. Before checking in with the rest of the panel.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thanks for that. It's a very good question. What you see is there is a lot of effort, willingness to help. How do we get that help to where it's most needed?

There are organizations who focus on that. I think the crucial element is that if you talk about digital inclusion ‑‑ if you really want to serve the world with the internet ‑‑ if you want the world to access the internet, you also need local capacity building. And without local understanding of what's needed and what can help, it's very difficult to lend anything there successfully.

There is initiatives that really help, ranging from youth training programs to, for instance, the global gateway has capacity‑building workshops in diverse regions. Where they bring in global knowledge together with local knowledge and local stakeholders. To match what's needed today. How good practice looks like. How to implement it. From the global insight to local needs.

And work together. The action plan. What actions could we draw from here that could help us? Many of the problem we have in different regions are already solved somewhere in the world.

And also I think strategically, very much in the ICANN strategic plan. If it's about inclusion, you need to work with locals. You need to make sure you reach out. And also Internet Society is very active in reaching out to the regions in that way.

So with help and contact in the local community, how can you successfully land a global (?)? Indeed, it's the (?). And transparency is limited. I realize that we had a conference in Ghana, where somebody from the U.N. presented all the different funds available to stimulate something of the internet.

There were 60 different ones. Impossible to see how they overlap. Where they connect, et cetera. So we need to work with GFC. But also Internet Society, global alliance. They can be very helpful. They understand it's about linking the global to what's needed local.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thanks, Maarten. Do any of my other panelists have responses from what we've heard so far from the audience? Franz?

>> FRANZ von WEIZSÄECKER: I would like to respond to the intervention from the Norwegian company trying to sell digital government solution worldwide. I do see a major gap. I do see there is an unhealthy tendency sometimes. Some of the aid projects that come basically saying here is your solution.

We bring it. This what we want to bring. It's very much a supply‑oriented approach. And then not looking about how does the government procure these services in their local, national, legal system. And not looking about how this is going to be how the operational cost of it will be covered.

Resulting in quite a few of solutions that come there. And then as soon as the project is over, they're gone. And that is a very unhealthy tendency. Therefore I believe the solution to the challenge you're describing, this is a government solution. It needs to go through the national government procurement process.

It needs to be a conscious decision. Which part of the solution can we do and maintain locally through our ministry or staff? What part of the solution do we need to buy? What's the mode of purchase?

Is this software a service? Do we purchase hardware? And that requires quite some more capacity and procurement than is present in many of our partner countries. So, I definitely am a great advocate in supporting ‑‑ even though it's not a sexy topic ‑‑ but supporting public procurement for digital solutions.

That is really at the core of it. To achieving the development goals in the ministry in the security sector, as the example you mentioned.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thank you. Thanks, Franz. Diya, you wanted to respond as well?

>> SABHANAZ RASHID DIYA: Yeah, thank you. I think target to the second question. But also tied to the first one. One of the challenges we also see in the broader digital transformation narrative ‑‑ not really by design, but over the years. Sort of this unhealthy design between digital development and human rights.

That in itself is the reason why we don't see the kind of transparency, see the kind of ownership or, I would say, clarity from particularly in the Global South. Right? That tension between where transformation comes at the cost of human rights. That narrative, in many ways, has been quite challenging to navigate. In particular in digital development space.

But at the same time has created this other tension. Which is what we call the norm shapers versus norm takers. The Global North is shaping the norms. Look around. There's so few to help us out.

Whether it's government, civil society, or the private sector. Because of that tension, I think, even more, there's also this culture of imposition that has come over the years. Where the norm shapers are also deciding what gets done in some of the Global South countries. To Franz's point, in some ways, ODA, while having meaningful transformation and meaningful impact in many parts of the world, has also permeated that situation or tension between norm shapers and norm takers. Where you have other countries saying how you should be thinking about development and your economy.

That continues to be a challenge. Trying to tackle that, which goes into Rémy's point, how do we work collectively together is recognizing that digital transformation and human rights can actually work hand‑in‑hand. And people in the non‑receiving parts of the world are able to start defining the conditions in which they're going to take something or reject something. They have the rights to decide, make those choices.

They may see a little bit more of that negotiation. A little bit more of that empowerment and that ownership happening.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thanks, Diya. That's a great perspective. And, you know, one that we should try and unpack more, depending on if we have the time. I know we have a question online.

My colleague, Omar, is with us here, as online moderator. Omar, do you want to come in with the question that you have?

>> ANSARI OMAR: Sure. Thank you, Neeti. So, we have an insight. One of the participants says in our work at the UNU‑EGOV with governments and stakeholders globally, we often observe the following in relation to internet auctions and digital government investments, including those with donor contributions. First, licensing auctions often end up with a focus on profit optimization.

This often leads to slower rollout of the infrastructure by Telco's. Who, once license is issued, sub‑par infrastructure in remote or less profitable areas and or increase relative cost to end user. While government naturally want to profit maximize, it often becomes counterproductive to digital inclusion, affordable access.

This dilemma is seen in both developed and emerging economies. Second point he mentions is that many government ICT investments are not focusing on post‑project benefit realization. Cost benefit, productivity gains are generally not monitored or measured. This often leads to envisioned resource relocation is not ‑‑ okay.

This often leads to envisioned resource where relocation is not happening in practice. Including to reinvest new service and new solutions. This was Morten. I have a question from Robert. Hold on. He has got two questions.

The first is, I would like to know what the panelists have to say about very low digital knowledge in Global South. Investing in digital infrastructure is fine. But we need to go hand‑in‑hand with global skilling.

The second question he asks is thank you, moderator, for pointing out the access and quality of access. Internet down here in Africa is still very slow and expensive. I would like to know what the panelists have to say. Thank you.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thank you, Omar. Thank you. And thank you to the audience, who is joining us online. And for your wonderful thoughts and useful questions.

I think for both of the questions we heard, let me first maybe turn to Raj. The APNIC Foundation had quite experience with skilling across various different groups. I know the APNIC Foundation also has quite a bit of work they're doing on meaningful access, quality of access, bringing about affordability of connectivity.

Would you want to step in here?

>> RAJ SINGH: Yes. Just a couple of things, though. One, there was a question about submarine cables. There was a reference to submarine cables in one of the comments. There's a lot of submarine cables being deployed all across the world.

The problem is, it's the cables being deployed. There's no supporting ecosystem that's being set up at the same time. In particular, I'm talking about regions such as the Pacific Islands. But also other parts of the world.

But in some cases, these submarine cables are being deployed as geopolitical in nature. I think we recognize that. Some are private sector driven. The fact is cables are being landed in economies.

When you ask the locals, what are you doing? Has it improved capacity? They have a big fat internet pipe coming in. But there is no system that can leverage that. There is no system creating new industries that could leverage that.

You could try to retrofit old industries in using whatever capacity is there. But how about the new economy that we want to build using digital connectivity? So that's one issue. I've raised this multiple times. Including with some of the governments funding these cables for various developing economies.

There's no clear answer yet. I'll also say that. On why that focus is not there yet.

In terms of capacity building ‑‑ and there was a comment about building skills is as necessary as building connectivity. I absolutely agree. The APNIC Foundation, we have a strategic plan. We are going to start speaking about capacity building in a very different way. It's no longer, for us ‑‑ and I would suggest for the rest of the world.

It's no longer about building capacity. It's about building capabilities. When you have capabilities, you can do things. We've been using capacity building for probably three decades, if not more, in this sector. I think enough of that.

Now we need to build capabilities. When I talked about the submarine cable, for example. The capability does not exist. The connectivity capability exists. But not leveraging a capability out of that have capable. Or what it could do to the economy.

There was ‑‑ I'm sorry if I ‑‑ give me one moment. The comment we had from my right. The person talked about M & E and transparency and so on. A quick comment on that. That's something we also have been looking very hard at the foundation in particular.

Part of our remedy is also grant making. We've got Asia Pacific's longest renovation funding. It's supported great technologies and developments over the years. I am no longer interested in the output that those projects create.

I want to see outcomes. That goes to what Rémy said at the beginning. When you talked about the ecosystem that needs to be built. That's structural in nature. Right?

Sometimes we get so carried away with trying to do little things at the granular level. We don't recognize that if we don't build a supporting ecosystem, if we don't make the structural changes, all that is one (?) Franz said something about dropping, and then you go. And that's it. Right?

The need for that structural change is very, very important. And more so to focus on outcomes. And that goes to things like M & E. Which the person also mentioned. Right?

If I look at metrics that have been used. Metrics are very output related. They're not outcome related. That's something else we're trying to focus on.

So, Maarten, some advice to you and your grant making. Happy to have a chat with you and your team on how we can make that better. Thanks, Neeti.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thanks, Raj. And thank you to everyone who intervened. Maybe we can come back for a final round of reflections, once we've discovered a few more things with the panel. I think we heard a lot of thoughts about how to make sure that impact and transformation is more outcome oriented.

How it should really help human beings, societies at large better their social and economic outcomes. Their lives really. How there are still, you know, significant structural challenges that we're experiencing. And finally, because this panel is about the global majority, it is about the developing regions.

How do we, therefore, form our own development goals? And our own development outcomes? And transformation pathways? So maybe, Franz, if I can start by picking your brain. How does the GIZ understand and approach digital transformation?

I would like to caveat that by saying there is no commonly understood and accepted definition of digital globalization at the moment. It's a whole of society and whole of government approach to really using communication technologies, internet, everything digital and tech to better our lives.

To better our quality of lives. And to further social‑economic outcomes. Franz, over to you.

>> FRANZ von WEIZSÄECKER: Yeah.

>> ANSARI OMAR: Maarten also has his hand raised. Later on, maybe you could give him a chance.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thank you, Omar. Sorry, Maarten. I will come to you.

>> FRANZ von WEIZSÄECKER: Yes, absolutely. Digital transformation goes across all the sectors. We don't talk any more about this is a health project. We say it's a health project. But it has become a health in the digital age project. Or education in a digital age project. And so on and so on.

That is for all the sectors. Of course, then you have the underlying digital transformation enablists across the sectors. Internet access, the most prominent one. May I pick up the question from the online participant on, why is internet so little available and so unaffordable in many parts of Africa?

It's the regulatory environment for that. It's the investment environment for it. And it's also, in some parts, it's just that the GDP density. Like in some rural parts of Africa, there's no economic incentive to build infrastructure.

That merely leads me to another point. We are about to waste a huge global public good. Which is the lower earth orbit and the medium earth orbit by the scramble for space that is happening. Driven by a couple of companies that compete in allocating their satellites in the lower and medium earth orbit.

In a way where it's not like an open ecosystem, where anybody can engage with. But it falls into the hand of a few very powerful either private companies or governments to occupy that space. So it will not be used ‑‑ this resource will not be put to the best possible use.

I have some slight hope ‑‑ I don't know where it's leading to. I have some slight hope that the European Union or other players are trying to set up with the I Squared initiative. This will result in a more open economic approach on satellite connectivity. Which allows these orbits automatically flies over the Earth, also flies over Africa, south orbit, likewise north orbit.

You will have an investment that is fostered by the very high‑developed economies. Automatically, you're building an infrastructure that is available for the very low GDP per square kilometer parts of the world. It will make it much more economically feasible to connect these areas as well. If we are able to establish a framework in which there is good competition.

That's the second answer to the question. Sometimes lack of competition in the telecommunications markets. If there's one incumbent. And then there's competition from the sky. That is also effective to lower the prices. To answer the question.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thanks, Franz. Is your comment, Maarten, to do with digital transformation?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: I think so.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Go ahead.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: It connects also to Franz's comment about, for instance, networks. Accessibility is key. If you want to participate in digital transformation. As the dear colleague asked online in this question.

It's not only accessibility. But it's also affordability for people with access and quality. And part of the answer is what Franz gave. It's completing infrastructures.

For lower networks, it would be very difficult competitive offer. If there's some kind of competition between networks, be it Starlink, 5G, 4G, 3G networks. Or even making good use of (?). That would be best in connection with the (?).

I think then we talk about enabling something. Let me take you back to 1996 when I worked with European Coalition, INET. I had the honor and pleasure of running European telework agenda. I got to one of the outskirts of Europe. I mean, within Europe.

There were areas that were less connected. This specific area was the Western Isles, in the very north of Scotland. By that time, they had one big line to those islands for telecom. To get access, to get bits that telecom could provide us and make sure it was good quality, the local council took it upon them to define a strategy.

For how they would want to do this digital transformation over there. How they would commit to supporting and promoting digital transformation. By their own requirement of products, of access. And also stimulation of their local community in what I call telework commitment.

That led to much higher connectivity. That's why it's so important that it's understood locally what digital transformation can bring for you. If you don't create the pool from that location, what you will get is what the big companies want to push. That may not always serve you well.

So, back to really the matter of making sure you understand what is needed. And that you get it. To the last point that was made by this gentleman on slow and expensive networks in Africa. This is where governments can also make a difference. And a very good example there is India.

What one can see in India is internet access and participation is a priority in the digital India plan. And one of the key conditions that helps is ensure access to the internet to people is affordable. And government can play a role there. Either by ensuring infrastructures or if there's competition by imposing lower, reasonable rates. I hope (?)

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thank you, Maarten. I think on that note, I want to come to Rémy. We heard some interesting perspectives from the panel itself, from our participants online, as well as the audience we have here today. Where we've talked about digital transformation. The key role.

The very unique role, that, indeed, only governments can play in determining what national strategies can look like. What those developmental outcomes look like. How do we know we've gotten to a place where we can claim we have benefited many, many of our citizens and our people.

On the other hand, we've also heard some key questions about, you know, meaningful digital transformation. Where we're factoring in accessibility, affordability. Where we're talking about sharing infrastructure. I would like to ask your thoughts on these. And a follow‑up question.

What is the role that you think government interventions can play here? Vis‑a‑vis, what is the role that market and competition can play here?

>> RÉMY FRIEDMANN: Thank you for the question, Neeti. Digital transformation is not only ensuring equitable access to the internet worldwide. This comes with a responsibility. Digital transformation is everything that comes with access.

Do we have the capacity to deal with the other side of the coin? And be responsible in using the internet. And governments have the role, of course, of protecting human rights. Setting standards. The necessary safeguards.

That's why governments are coming together, as was mentioned online coalition. The industry must be a rights respecting workforce. The rights of the workforce need to be respected as well. So, it's an industry revolution.

It's a transition. When we speak about a transition in the fair, I would say, energy transition, climate action that needs to respect human rights. The same thing happens with digital transformation. And the fact that it comes with responsibility.

Companies need to respect human rights. Individuals need to have access to effective remedy when their rights are not respected. And everything we're discussing here at the IGF and in other spaces about respecting human rights in the digital space. Everything becomes relevant when we have digital access.

Do we have the capacity? Capacity building is an element. And cooperation must come together with capacity building on cyber resilience, for example. How cyber development comes with cyber capability or capacity building as well.

So that's why I was saying, we need to enforce it across different disciplines. Not just in commerce. But governments have an important role to play. But needless to say that.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Diya, on to you with a similar question of digital transformation. What role does the government have to play here? I know that some bit of your context is also formed by when governments cannot fulfill that role.

I know this is bit of a stretch. Probably not what we're here to debate. Because the government has a key role here, maybe a short reflection from you on a scenario like that.

>> SABHANAZ RASHID DIYA: Thank you for that. I think Rémy talked about it very well. I think what we talk about is the role of governments. Not just to tackle the digital divide.

I think Raj eloquently talked about we see the divide being cleared every day. It's not just being connected and unconnected. It's also connected and disconnected. It is also some having rights. Some not having rights.

It's about being norm shapers versus norm takers. There's some many layers and layers of divide that we see across the board. In the question we talked about what role can government play to ensure that transformation is meaningful? We say meaningful, that it actually takes into consideration some of the unique social and political context. That it's not coming at the cost of an imposition. And at the cost of people's rights.

The perspective that I would perhaps take here ‑‑ we heard from governments. We heard from APNIC. Maybe the actual communities that we serve. For whom we're doing all of this.

From the community's perspective, oftentimes, I guess, people start having seen the distance from digital. Or seeing themselves removed from transformation. When they're unable to exercise their voices. They don't feel empowered by it. I think empowerment is quite critical to a meaningful transformation agenda.

Where it's not just about rights. It's also about redress. It's about being able to shape it in a way that makes sense for them. It's about being able to tackle some real problems for them.

And I think connectivity or access is the first step to a broader conversation. How do we think about transformation in a way that actually serves the people it's intended for?

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thank you, Diya. I think we do have some time to go into one final round of reflections, thoughts or comments from our audience. Would anyone like to participate? The mic's all yours.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: I'm always willing to reflect. I see a lot coming together here. Digital transformation is ongoing. And we want it to be for the world. We want it to be for all.

But we can't stuff it down the throat of the world. We need to enable the world to come to the table. To participate. To make sure they know what they get. What they want. How they can benefit from all these things that the new technologies are offering, the internet is offering.

So, I'm really very much inspired by the many young people who have engaged in programs like the youth (?) program. The AP Youth program. And other programs. Because it shows that new generations will be even making more of a difference than we've done.

We've been building the internet in the old days. From the online safety outset. So start young with capacity building. Take your responsibility as say stakeholder. Whether you're a government, NGO, or a company.

Take your responsibility. And empower people. Make sure they know what to ask for. And help them to get it. Help to create the circumstances.

I think there's no way back for digital transformation. But we could do it in a way to make sure it's fair, inclusive, and serves the world as a whole.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thanks, Maarten. I think you've brought us to almost the close of the session on a very inspiring note. I think I'm just going to turn back to my panelists. Any final thoughts on everything we've heard today? Everything we discussed today?

What would you leave the audience with, finally, if I may start with Raj?

>> RAJ SINGH: Thanks, Neeti. Thanks to the panelists for joining us today. We've covered a lot of ground. I'm not sure how well we answered that question we had for today's panel.

But what I would say very quickly is that, you know, we're back to that same situation. Where funding is shrinking. Issues keep on popping up. Digital divides keep on widening.

There are multiple organizations, whether government or nongovernmental sector, philanthropic organizations and whatnot. Each time I look at what everybody is doing ‑‑ including my own organization. We're talking about collaboration. We're a little off of it.

Everyone has their specific objectives to have, to do something. They go out and try to do it. Is there some discussion and collaboration at some level perhaps. There is still a lot of duplication out there. I think that's something we really need to address. Knowing that funding levels are shrinking.

If we keep duplicating someone else's work, we're not achieving much in the end. I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Franz?

>> FRANZ von WEIZSÄECKER: All right. Let me try to leave us with a positive note. In times of shrinking funding, it's a time for reckoning as well. And it's a time for maybe reinventing the way, how the international development community used to operate.

Maybe it's a time to really build on the sovereignty of governments. The sovereignty to determine their own digital future. To get away from the traditional donor and receiver model. And to build on what really matters for the individual economies to merge.

Good regulatory systems. Good public procurement. Good rule of law. A system that doesn't rely on telecommunications. Making internet very expensive.

That, as a basis to encourage also investments from private sector. To become sovereign in many ways. And less dependent on international development. So ideally, I would wish that our role as GIZ at some point may not be needed anymore. At least not in that form.

And we're switching from traditional development to international mode of cooperation.

>> NEETI BIYANI: We're all trying to work ourselves out of a job. Rémy?

>> RÉMY FRIEDMANN: Thank you. Maybe pointing to the fact that digital inclusion is a development issue, as was already mentioned. And that we need to help break the silence. And integrate mainstream digital inclusion within different streams.

For example, climate resilience, gender equity education (?). Rather than treating this as a separate infrastructure challenge. This could be maybe a way to move into ‑‑ because it has to be mainstreamed. It's not a separate thing that is only related to infrastructure and access.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thank you. Diya?

>> SABHANAZ RASHID DIYA: Well, I guess I get the last word. Unless Maarten wants to comment. One thing I always develop inspiration from, I come from development sector. I worked for digital, old IC 4 D.

I think about the polio movement of the world. It was an impossible problem to solve many years ago. It's similar. Infrastructure gaps. Funding gaps. Collaboration gaps.

And I think the problem got really, truly solved when all the different actors began to come together. And realized this is how we're going to solve polio. We're going to innovate around vaccines. We're going to go out to the most rural parts of the world and solve this disease.

In many ways, the world has eradicated polio. There are a few cases popping up. But by and large, we eradicated polio. So, I think if we can solve something as drastic as that, it is possible for the digital transformation and connectivity community to come together.

Where our funding is shrinking, it seems we're back to square one. I hope this is a moment of reckoning to realize we can really solve tough problems better when we come together. My hope for the community is that this isn't just a cry for help or something. But also a real moment to see the value coming together as a community.

>> NEETI BIYANI: Thank you. Thank you. Maarten, just in the interest of time, I am going to wrap up this here, wearing my moderator's hat. I quickly want to say thank you to all of our panelists who joined us today. Especially Maarten, who joins us virtually.

Thank you for attending this session, hosted by the APNIC Foundation. To everyone in person and online as well. I want to leave everyone on the note in saying I agree with a lot of the sentiments we heard today. I think we are stronger together.

I think we need to have very informed conversations about exactly how we determine our own transformation. How we collaborate between various stakeholder groups. And how we make sure we're holding space for different voices to be heard. As we develop our own futures.

Having said that, in the Asia Pacific, with the region as large and diverse as it is, unlike any other region in the world. The APNIC Foundation has the unique privilege of working across 50, 60 countries. Hopefully having some amount of impact across the course of our work. Touching life. And making sure we're leaving communities a bit better than how we found them.

We're very open to having more conversations with the different stakeholders, different groups, different communities. You know where to find us. And, once again, thank you for being part of this conversation.

Hopefully, we will see you next year as well.