REPORT - IGF 2025
Open Forum 72 — Digital Governance Reimagined: Youth Ambitions & Policy Vision

Introduction
The IGF 2025 Open Forum 72, Digital Governance Reimagined: Youth Ambitions & Policy Vision, brought together Members of the European Parliament and young leaders from across the globe in a high-level dialogue. The session aimed to bridge youth perspectives with long-term EU policy priorities on digital governance, focusing on trust, resilience, sovereignty, and the role of emerging technologies. Designed as a hybrid exchange, the discussion created space for both onsite and remote participants to engage, ensuring a diverse and inclusive debate on the future of the digital sphere.

Objectives vs. Outcomes

1. Governance & Youth Participation
Youth leaders raised concerns about AI’s impact on jobs, education, and digital rights. Policymakers acknowledged these challenges and pointed to initiatives like Youth Policy Dialogues as ways to integrate youth voices, though embedding them in formal policy remains a work in progress.

2. Trust, Resilience & Safe Online Spaces
The need to build trust in digital platforms was a recurring theme. Youth highlighted risks such as ransomware and misinformation, while EU representatives showcased measures like the Digital Services Act and NIS2 Directive. Speakers agreed that resilience will rely not only on regulation but also on digital literacy and transparency.

3. Digital Sovereignty & Future Technologies
The debate clarified sovereignty as freedom of choice, not isolation. The EU’s strategy includes fostering open source, developing 5G/6G, and supporting local providers. At the same time, Global South participants reminded the forum that in many regions, basic connectivity remains the more urgent challenge.

Overall Assessment
The Open Forum largely achieved its aims by facilitating a genuine exchange between youth and policymakers on the future of digital governance. It confirmed Europe’s ambition to lead on democratic and sovereign digital leadership, while also acknowledging gaps in translating youth input into binding frameworks and in addressing education reform at EU level. Contributions from the Global South enriched the dialogue, highlighting infrastructure and access gaps that must be addressed alongside European priorities. Overall, the session demonstrated progress but reinforced the need for continued youth engagement and global cooperation to achieve an inclusive and resilient digital future.
 

IGF2025 BPF - session summary report

The Best Practice Forum (BPF) is an IGF intersessional activity that provides a platform for community-driven discussion on Internet policy issues and the sharing of experiences. Its aim is to contribute to an understanding of global good practices and to inform policy discussions, standards development, business decisions, and public awareness. The 2025 BPF Securing Access to the Internet and Protecting Core Internet Resources in Contexts of Conflict and Crises builds on the thematic main session at IGF 2024 on Protecting Internet Infrastructure and General Access during times of crisis and conflict.

A video message was delivered on behalf of the UN Under-Secretary General and High Representative for the Office of Disarmament Affairs (ODA). It stressed that safeguarding the digital components that ensure the availability and integrity of the Internet across borders is essential for a shared digital future and recalled that international humanitarian law forbids deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure, and that states have committed to norms prohibiting ICT activities that damage or impair critical public infrastructure.

The BPF’s work is guided by a draft problem statement noting that ‘there is a clear and pressing need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the multistakeholder community - and the institutions within it - in securing core Internet resources and ensuring civilian access to the Internet during conflict and crises.’ The statement is open for written community feedback..

The discussion examined how armed conflict is increasingly weaponising the Internet, with Gaza, Sudan and Syria as examples. The loss of internet access during conflict arises from complex dynamics that make it extremely difficult for civil society to secure alternative connectivity. Armed conflict has become the leading driver of internet shutdowns globally, as warring parties deliberately target civilian infrastructure. 

In Gaza, deliberate blackouts, destruction of fibre and landline infrastructure, and bans on repair missions have left over two million people digitally cut off with serious consequences for medical aid coordination, access to emergency services, and left civilians unable to communicate or receive warnings. In Sudan, cell towers, fibre cables, data centres, and ISP facilities, as well as the crews that maintain them, have been attacked, destroyed, or occupied resulting in country-wide blackouts. Access is further weaponised by restricting spare parts, critical repair equipment, and even fuel. In Syria, years of conflict combined with international sanctions have left half of the country’s telecommunications infrastructure in ruins. Internet access is unreliable and fragmented, with some areas dependent on providers tied to warring parties. Sanctions further compound the crisis by preventing companies from importing the equipment necessary to repair and maintain what remains of the infrastructure.

Viewed from a different angle, Internet resilience is about institutions as much as physical cables. Regional Internet registries and governance bodies are vital to the stability of the global Internet, yet dysfunction, weak governance, or legal pressures can put them at risk. Non-interference alone cannot always protect these institutions and sometimes proactive support may be necessary to ensure stability.

Human rights law prohibits blanket shutdowns, while humanitarian law prohibits attacks on civilian objects but often treats telecoms as dual-use infrastructure, making proportionality assessments flexible. There is a need to integrate human rights concerns more systematically into humanitarian law. 

Since 2015, the notion of the Internet’s “public core” (the core Internet protocols and  infrastructure that must remain protected) has gained traction internationally. However, because it is formulated as a negative norm (‘thou shall not norm’), political commitment and implementation is hard. The protection of the public core requires action at three levels: the technical and physical level (infrastructure), the logical level (Internet protocols) and the organisational level (organisations ensuring the global coordination and management of core resources).

It was also noted that the multistakeholder community’s ability to cope with conflict and crises also depends on the people and organisations that sustain the public core of the Internet. Just as cybersecurity is no longer seen purely as a technical issue, the protection of the public core must be understood as a human and political process. The multistakeholder model needs to be more proactive in safeguarding the public core. If the model cannot function as intended in such circumstances, then it is necessary to openly acknowledge its limits and discuss what must change.

In closing reflections, it was noted that discussions on civilian Internet access and the protection of the public core are complex in the current environment, not strongly supportive of rule-based systems or international cooperation. The world and the multistakeholder community have changed, and it is essential to having difficult conversations and confront uncomfortable issues, rather than avoiding them as has too often been the case in the Internet community. The Internet is a critical lifeline and life-saving tool during conflict and crisis. There should be a multistakeholder mechanism that can raise the alarm with states, the private sector, and civil society, and foster concrete responses and actions. It is important to address the missing links between human rights and humanitarian law frameworks so that protections are coherent and enforceable.

More on the activities of the BPF Securing Access to the Internet and Protecting Core Internet Resources in Contexts of Conflict and Crises, including a detailed meeting summary, can be found on the BPF webpage .

Key Themes & Takeaways

1. Process and Timeline

• Yu Ping Chan (UNDP) outlined the WSIS+20 review process: a complex, multistage UN process with numerous agencies (ITU, UNDP, UNESCO) producing reports and gathering input. A formal outcome document is expected by the end of 2025.
• Speakers emphasized that the multistakeholder model is a foundational strength of WSIS and a priority to retain moving forward.

2. Government Engagement and Digital Divide

• Jarno Syrjälä (Finland) highlighted Finland’s strong support for the IGF, multistakeholderism, and digital inclusion.
• Discussion highlighted that bridging the digital divide—including issues of affordability, access, and skills—is critical. This includes support for women, rural communities, and human rights online.

3. Maintaining the Multistakeholder Model

• Fiona Alexander (American University) emphasized the need for civil society and all stakeholders to be meaningfully included in WSIS+20 decision-making.
• Cautioned against taking inclusivity for granted—stakeholders must "demand a seat and show up" in the process.
• Applauded current openness by WSIS+20 co-facilitators but stressed vigilance and active participation.

Key Achievements and Gaps

Successes
●    Kurtis Lindqvist, emphasized WSIS-driven success in areas such as:

• Domain Name System (DNS) security
• Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)
• Universal Acceptance (UA), supporting multilingualism online

●    ICANN, the technical community, and the IGF, including regional IGFs, have helped build robust, decentralized infrastructures like IXPs (Internet Exchange Points). 

Remaining Gaps
●    Lacina Koné outlined four policy gaps critical for Africa:

1. Meaningful Connectivity (including affordability and local relevance)
2. Regulatory Harmonization (interoperable legal frameworks)
3. Capacity Building (AI, cybersecurity, digital literacy)
4. Digital Sovereignty and Coordination

He called for significantly increased African leadership and ownership in the next phase of global internet governance.

Poll Results (Live Audience & Zoom)

Participants were asked which WSIS initiatives need greater support:
●    Top results:

• Digital capacity building (41%)
• Universal Acceptance and multilingual support (35%)

●    Lower results:

• IGF as a platform (8%)
• Cybersecurity collaboration (16%)
• Open technical standards (0%) – possibly because they’re more mature now.

Practical Actions & Final Messages

Recommendations for stakeholders before December 2025:

• Share success stories, data, and tangible results from WSIS-linked initiatives.
• Use clear and accessible language when engaging UN diplomats—terms like "sovereignty" can be misinterpreted.
• Engage in upcoming consultations, particularly through the WSIS+20 High-Level Event and stakeholder feedback groups.
• Support and strengthen the IGF, including calls for regular UN budget funding.

Key Quotes:

• "We must not bypass what works—we must double down on multistakeholderism." – Fiona Alexander
• "Smart Africa is building the bridge between WSIS commitments and real results." – Lacina Koné
• "Language clarity matters—fragmentation risks losing what we’ve gained." – Kurtis Lindqvist
   

The IGF Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF), created in 2022, raises awareness of risks to the Internet’s integrity and provides a framework covering fragmentation of the user experience, governance and coordination, the technical layer, and political/commercial developments. The Global Digital Compact commits states to preventing fragmentation and refraining from shutdowns (SDG16).

Marilia Maciel, Director of Digital Trade and Economic Security, Diplo Foundation, noted that geopolitical tensions, national security concerns, and protectionist policies are driving reterritorialisation and digital sovereignty, dismantling open markets and value chains—particularly impacting the Global South. She called for PNIF to examine economic fragmentation, effects on intermediary users, and mobilise companies as key actors.

Naim Gjokaj, State Secretary, Montenegro stressed regional alignment of laws and strategies, inclusive dialogue, and local capacity building, citing Montenegro’s cyberattack experience.

Michel Lambert, General Manager,  eQualitie, warned of the normalisation of censorship and shutdowns, absent from much of the IGF agenda, and urged stronger human rights mechanisms, sustained funding for Internet freedom tools, and political-level engagement to counter state-led fragmentation.

Dhruv Dhody, Internet Architecture Board (IAB), highlighted risks to interoperability at the technical layer from national regulations, urging trust and cooperation between governments and the technical community.

Joyce Chen, Senior Advisor Strategic Engagement, APNIC underlined the risk of coordination breakdown, citing ICANN’s RIR governance review and TCCM’s policy coordination role, and called for capacity building and inclusive cooperation. She noted funding cuts affecting anti-fragmentation work, especially in the Pacific, and the importance of PNIF’s voice in WSIS+20.

Discussion raised questions over who will champion interdependence amid sovereignty trends, the definition of fragmentation, and the need to clarify what openness means. Market fragmentation, polarisation, and closed trade negotiations were flagged as ongoing risks.

Next steps suggested for PNIF include mapping initiatives, strengthening local capacity, articulating technical risks, prioritising fragmentation types per work cycle, and addressing political drivers directly.

• Comprehensive summary of the session is available at https://intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/256/29911
• More information about the PNIF is available at https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/policy-network-on-internet-fragmentation

Workshop Summary Report: IGF 2025 WS #226 Strengthening Multistakeholder Participation in Technical Internet Governance (Thursday, June 26, 09:00 CEST)

Moderator: Anne-Rachel Inné, IGF MAG Member, Director General, Niger Information Society
Agency (ANSI)

Speakers:

• Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Director of UNESCO's Division for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation on UNESCO's Memory of the World Register
• Theresa Swinehart, SVP, Global Domains & Strategy, ICANN
• Valts Ernštreits, Director of the University of Latvia Livonian Institute / Representative of Latvia, Co-Chair of Ad-Ho Group IV on Digital Equality and Domains, Global Task Force, Member, International Decade of Indigenous Languages
• Elizabeth Bacon, Senior Director, Policy and Privacy at Public Interest Registry
• Amrita Choudhury, Director, Cybercafe Association of India (CCAOI)

Workshop Overview

Digital Cooperation and Empowerment: Strengthening Multistakeholder Participation in Technical Internet Governance 

Building effective digital cooperation requires a balanced and diverse representation from all sectors, including governments, international organizations, the private sector, civil society, academia, and the technical community. Fostering meaningful participation among diverse stakeholders goes beyond connectivity and skills development; it involves active participation in technical internet governance.

This session highlighted tangible opportunities to foster more active, balanced, and diverse participation in key elements of technical internet governance such as ICANN’s new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) Program, its Applicant Support Program (ASP), Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), and enabling users to engage online in their languages, scripts, and preferred digital identities via Universal Acceptance (UA). 

In line with the UNESCO 2003 Recommendation Concerning the Promotion and Use of Multilingualism and Universal Access to Cyberspace, fostering linguistic diversity in digital spaces is crucial to ensuring equitable access to information and knowledge. The workshop also explored how language technologies can address linguistic diversity in the digital space, referencing UNESCO's Roadmap on Language Technologies that aims to provide strategic guidance for stakeholders to collaboratively develop and use language technologies as a means to ensuring inclusivity and accessibility for all language communities. 

By exploring opportunities for stakeholder participation and global collaboration, workshop participants will engage in discussion on how technical internet governance –and efforts to ensure linguistic diversity– can offer underserved communities’ meaningful opportunities to contribute to digital cooperation, fostering more fulsome participation in the digital economy, governance, and society.

Key Themes and Insights:
1. Multilingualism as a Gateway to Inclusion:

• UNESCO underscored multilingualism as central to equitable digital participation and freedom of expression.
• UNESCO’s forthcoming Global Roadmap on Language Technologies will guide stakeholders in fostering linguistic diversity online.
• The role of linguistic representation in cyber governance was described as foundational for true digital cooperation.
• Valts Ernštreits reinforced that digital multilingualism is not just about translation—it requires infrastructure that reflects the full diversity of scripts and language systems, especially for indigenous and under-resourced languages.

2. Universal Acceptance (UA) and IDNs:

• Universal Acceptance ensures that domain names and email addresses in any valid script or format function seamlessly.
• ICANN and its community continue promoting UA across platforms and service providers, emphasizing inclusivity for users of all languages and scripts.
• Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) allow domain names to be registered in local scripts, expanding cultural and linguistic autonomy in digital spaces.

3. Practical Opportunities for Underrepresented Groups:

• Global-to-local impact: Participation in international forums led to local policy change in Latvia, where indigenous language – Livonian – is now being integrated into national digital infrastructure.
• Multistakeholder necessity: Language technology requires diverse participation—governments, linguists, technologists, academia, and communities must co-create inclusive solutions.
• Survey-led engagement: Global surveys on indigenous language use in digital spaces can catalyze reflection within communities, triggering local capacity-building and participation.
• Dedicated Platforms: There’s a need for tailored repositories, forums, and networking platforms to connect expertise and share resources for multilingual and indigenous digital innovation.
• Theresa Swinehart detailed upcoming opportunities in ICANN’s ecosystem that support participation:
• New gTLD Program: Next Round (launching April 2026) offers communities, nonprofits, and organizations a pathway to establish digital identities.
• Community-Based gTLDs and Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) prioritize qualified groups (e.g., cultural or linguistic communities) when multiple applicants compete for the same domain name.
• Applicant Support Program (ASP): A key instrument of digital cooperation, the ASP offers financial and technical support (similar to a scholarship model) to nonprofits, indigenous groups, small businesses, and NGOs seeking to participate in the New gTLD Program.

4. Bridging Technical and Non-Technical Communities:

• Panelists highlighted the importance of bridging gaps between technical experts, policy leaders, and grassroots users.
• Digital cooperation must be human-centered—emphasizing mentorship, inclusive language, and accessible frameworks to empower new voices.
• Diverse Skillsets Are Essential: Internet governance shouldn’t be limited to technical voices—policy, legal, and user perspectives are vital for balanced and effective governance.
• Non-technical “translation” and “Bridge Roles”: There is a pressing need for individuals who can interpret and mediate between the technical, policy, and end-user communities. Without this, policy risks being either ineffective or technically unworkable.

5. Grassroots and Regional Engagement: 

• Amrita Choudhury shared examples from Asia-Pacific, including youth engagement through local IGFs, WhatsApp communities, and sustained mentorship.
• Regional and community-led approaches are essential for building long-term capacity and surfacing local priorities in global governance.
• Mentorship and Fellowship Programs: Regional IGFs and ICANN fellowships (e.g., NextGen) help build local capacity and interest.
• Sustained Engagement through Peer Networks: Creating WhatsApp groups, newsletters, and peer mentorship models keeps alumni engaged and supported.
• Localized Awareness Tools: Community education modules on phishing, DNS security, and UA were developed to improve digital literacy and feedback loops in underrepresented areas.

Outcomes & Opportunities:

• Create Dedicated Spaces for Knowledge Exchange:

o    Establish structured platforms, forums, and repositories focused on indigenous language inclusion, language technology, and multilingual innovation. These should foster cross-sector collaboration and help underrepresented communities find relevant expertise and tools.

• Support Youth, Local Leaders, and Regional Forums: 

o    Foster intergenerational learning and locally grounded initiatives through fellowships, mentorship, community-led awareness campaigns, and inclusive digital literacy training tailored to local needs and languages.

• Promote Inclusive Digital Participation Through Multilingualism and Access to Technical Governance: 

o    Advance initiatives like Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Universal Acceptance (UA) to ensure users can access and engage with the internet in their native scripts and languages. At the same time, expand awareness of tangible participation pathways—such as ICANN’s upcoming New gTLD Program, Applicant Support Program (ASP), and Community Priority Evaluation (CPE)—to enable underrepresented groups to establish a meaningful digital presence and shape internet infrastructure in ways that reflect their linguistic and cultural identities.

• Support UNESCO’s Global Roadmap on Language Technologies:

o    Contribute to and implement the roadmap’s recommendations, ensuring linguistically diverse communities are at the center of digital transformation.

Conclusion
This session highlighted that meaningful participation in technical internet governance is not just a matter of infrastructure, but of collaboration and opportunity. By advancing multilingualism, expanding representation in technical programs, and strengthening global partnerships like that between ICANN and UNESCO, the internet governance community can foster a digital future that works for—and with—everyone.
 

The Open Forum “Building an International Al Cooperation Ecosystem”, hosted by the International Cooperation Bureau of the Cyberspace Administration of China, was held on June 24, 2025 in Lillestrøm, Norway. Nine speakers shared their insights regarding two topics: “Fostering a Favorable Policy Environment for AI Development” and “Building an AI Innovation and Cooperation Ecosystem”.

The following are the main viewpoints put forward by the panelists：

- It is important for us to stay focused on sustainable development and ensuring technology for good, to make proactive responses to risks and challenges and ensuring AI safety and controllability, and to foster consensus on AI governance and deepening collaborative governance.

- Tackling new challenges brought by AI requires joint efforts of governments, international organizations, enterprises and scientific institutions to develop open, fair, and efficient AI governing mechanisms, so as to minimize possible negative impacts while fully amplifying and accelerating the positive effects of AI.

- AI should be used for achieving SDGs, but we should also use SDGs to govern AI. We need bottom‑up AI. It is proposed to insist on the shared weights, and to insist that the UN develops opensource AI models for the UN activities.

- If AI is a global problem, we need all countries on the table, and only the United Nations offers this opportunity.

- The full potential of AI can only be unlocked if we create a framework that fosters innovation while promoting cooperation across borders, sectors, and disciplines.

- We believe that only by uniting all stakeholders, government, industry, universities, and civil society can we harness the potential of AI while managing these risks.

 - It's not whether we should cooperate. It's if we do it wisely enough to steer toward the greatest aspiration rather than the greater fears.

- Building a strong ecosystem involves three key pillars, including regulatory development, digital infrastructure and international cooperation.

- There are five key pathways to build an innovative ecosystem, including strengthening top‑level design, improving the AI industrial change and the innovation collaboration ecosystem, deepening industry-academia-research integration, driving AI innovation through industrial integration ecosystem development, deepening international cooperation.

- Al is driving a new wave of technological revolution and industrial transformation. Looking to the future, we need to uphold the principles of joint consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits.

Time and Date: Wednesday June 25 | 10:45 - 11:45CEST | Workshop Room 6
Session Speakers: 

• Melinda Claybaugh, Policy Privacy Director, Meta
• Larry Wade, Global Head of Compliance for PayPal's Blockchain, Crypto, & Digital Currencies, PayPal 
• Judith Okonkwo, Founder, Imisi 3D 

Session Description: Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) represents a global, multi trillion-dollar opportunity based on essential digital systems that allows users to participate in the digital economy and society.  As our future digital backbone, it is critical DPI protocols be future ready, interoperable, scalable and global. What is the best way to achieve this? Do the answers lie in open-source AI? If so, what does AI and other DPI products mean as a public good? What roles should the private and public sector play in advancing open-source AI? 

Session Structure
10:30 AM: Panellists arrive to Workshop Room 6 for introduction and preparatory briefing 
10:45 AM: Moderator introduces topic and sets context
10:47-11:20: Panel Discussion 

• Questions For Meta: 

o    How does Meta view open-source AI? 
    How does it view Ai integration across regionally- cross jurisdictionally? 
o    How do you see open-source AI contributing to the development of interoperable and scalable DPI protocols globally?
o    What is Meta’s vision for AI product/ service integration and scalable hardware? How will this change the future internet?

• Questions for PayPal:

o    As a leader in digital payments, how does PayPal envision AI transforming financial inclusion?
o    How does PayPal see AI integrated payment systems transforming value transfers through either centralized or decentralized currencies? 
o    Do you see a future where DPI enables seamless integration between public digital wallets and private financial services? 

• Question for Imisi 3D 

o    How does open-source AI enhance innovation for other emerging technologies like AR/VR? 
o    Are there any barriers to integrating open-source AI? How is interoperability affected? What kind of public support is needed for seamless and updated operating systems.
o    What can we do to avoid fragmented DPI protocols developing sub regionally? 

11:20- 11:40 AM: Q&A from audience 
11:40 – 11:45 AM: Wrap Up and Final Thoughts

Outcome Report:
Meta has developed an open source AI approach to promote innovation and support adoption. They underscore the importance of making technology that is useful and helpful and view AI as the future of solving tech issues. Similarly, PayPal sees AI as the means to supporting KYC and KYB solutions, while the global south benefits from open source AI integration as it removes various barriers to access and accelerates adoption and usage. Still challenges remain as scalable hardware is critical to adoption and privacy must be kept at the forefront of open source protocols to truly center the user. 
 

Summary Report 09.07.2025
Open Forum #15: Building bridges for WSIS Plus: a multistakeholder dialogue 

Moderator: Isabelle Lois, Online Moderator: Luisa Lendi
Speakers: Anita Gurumurthy, Flávio Rech Wagner, Maria Fernanda Garza, Min Jiang, Juan Fernandez, Olaf Kolkman, Eugenio V. Garcia
The Open Forum focused on the WSIS+20 review process and how to strengthen the digital governance architecture beyond 2025. It brought together diverse stakeholders, both geographically and across stakeholder groups, to discuss improvements to the WSIS framework and priorities for the WSIS+20 review. The basis for discussion was the (Swiss) WSIS non-paper, which outlines concrete ideas for a strengthened and updated WSIS framework. The paper reflects inputs gathered from numerous multistakeholder discussions over the past year.
In the first part, each speaker responded to a personalized question, drawing on their individual experiences as stakeholders. In the second part, the floor was opened to allow for a fruitful and open exchange between panelists and participants. The conversation was solution-oriented, with speakers building on each other’s ideas rather than engaging in conflict. As moderator, Isabelle Lois ensured a balanced discussion and provided space for all participants to contribute on equal footing. The tone remained optimistic and forward-looking, with speakers expressing hope for meaningful outcomes by the December 2025 deadline despite acknowledging the challenging geopolitical context and time constraints.
The relatively high number of in-person participants, including the presence of the WSIS+20 Review Co-Facilitators, Suela Janina (Albania) and Ekitela Lokaale (Kenya), was very much appreciated and underscored the strong interest in this forum.
Key themes emerged around meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence governance, data sovereignty, and the need for better coordination between WSIS and the GDC, for example, by using a joint implementation roadmap to avoid duplication. Panelists emphasized the critical importance of including Global South perspectives and ensuring equitable participation in digital governance processes. The discussion also highlighted major concerns about the lack of sufficient public financing for WSIS implementation and the need for improved metrics to measure progress on digital inclusion and equity. With regard to the IGF, there was strong consensus on making it permanent with sustainable funding, while also expanding its scope beyond internet governance to address broader digital policy issues. Some participants debated whether a rebranding of the IGF might be needed to reflect its evolving role, while others argued that the current name remains relevant, as digital technologies remain fundamentally internet-based. The conversation also addressed structural gaps in the current system and proposed stronger institutional linkages between the IGF, the CSTD, the WSIS Forum, and the UN General Assembly. WSIS was described as a proven "toolbox," one that is flexible and technology-neutral, capable of addressing new and emerging challenges.
Isabelle Lois concluded by thanking all participants for the rich and forward-looking discussion, expressing optimism about achieving a “fair deal for all” through the WSIS+20 review. She emphasized the importance of inclusive participation and meaningful stakeholder engagement in shaping a just and sustainable digital future.

Date & Time: 26 June 2025, 11:30 - 1:00pm, Norway,  Plenary Hall
Location: Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Norway
Key Theme: The Role of IGF in a People-Centered Digital Future

Executive Summary
This Main Session explored the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)’s impact as a multistakeholder platform and its role in fostering inclusive, transparent and people-centered digital governance since 2006. The discussion reflected on how the IGF and its ecosystem, comprising National and Regional IGFs (NRIs), Dynamic Coalitions (DCs), Policy Networks (PNs) and Best Practice Forums (BPFs), have contributed to shaping global and local digital policy dialogues.

Participants emphasized the IGF’s success as a key outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and its evolving role within the broader context of digital governance, particularly in relation to the Global Digital Compact (GDC). They also highlighted the need for its institutionalization, the establishment of a permanent mandate, and stronger integration with other global and regional digital governance frameworks. Stakeholders called for enhancing IGF’s output implementation capacity at local and regional levels, sustaining bottom-up engagement, and reinforcing human rights and inclusion as core principles of digital policy.

Key Takeaway 1: IGF as an Evolving Ecosystem, Not Just an Annual Event
Speakers emphasized that the IGF has grown into a year-round, dynamic platform bringing together diverse actors, from civil society and governments to the technical community, the private sector, and the youth. Through NRIs, DCs, BPFs, and PNs, the IGF enables meaningful exchange, capacity development, and knowledge transfer on pressing digital issues.

Key Takeaway 2: IGF’s Role in Infrastructure, Capacity Development & Digital Inclusion
Notable panelists such as Prof. Bitange Ndemo and Ms. Funke Opeke highlighted IGF’s contribution to infrastructure development and inclusive access in Africa. Early IGF forums were instrumental in sharing best practices that empowered underserved regions with strategies for closing the digital divide and driving equitable connectivity.

Key Takeaway 3: A Permanent Mandate Is Critical to IGF’s Sustainability
Participants expressed a strong consensus on the need for a permanent mandate and sustainable funding model for the IGF. This would ensure its continuity and legitimacy as a platform that supports global, regional, and national processes, including the GDC and WSIS follow-up mechanisms.

Key Takeaway 4: IGF as a Proven Model for Multistakeholder Digital Governance
Speakers underscored that the IGF remains one of the most successful mechanisms born from the WSIS process. It is widely recognized for enabling inclusive governance, empowering marginalized voices, and reciprocally supporting national digital policy development such as Brazil’s Civil Rights Framework and its Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI), community connectivity in Kenya, and digital inclusion efforts in West Africa.

Key Takeaway 5: IGF Must Be More Action-Oriented
Stakeholders highlighted the need for outputs from IGF sessions, NRIs, and DCs to inform concrete, localized actions. The IGF’s value lies not only in convening dialogue but also in enabling technical capacity-building and implementation of community-driven digital policies.

Session Call to Action 1: Institutionalize and Fund the IGF Permanently
To ensure its long-term relevance, the IGF should be granted a permanent mandate within the UN system, alongside consistent funding, in order to enhance its contributions to digital governance and support follow-up activities at all levels.

Session Call to Action 2: Strengthen Local-Global Feedback Loops
Support national and regional IGFs as platforms that connect grassroots perspectives with global policy processes. Ensure their insights are reflected in IGF outputs and in follow-up mechanisms for WSIS and the GDC.

Session Call to Action 3: Integrate IGF Outcomes into WSIS and GDC Processes
Develop formal mechanisms to link IGF insights with implementation of the WSIS Action Lines and the Global Digital Compact. This includes feeding recommendations from BPFs, NRIs, PNs and DCs into intergovernmental processes.

Session Call to Action 4: Translate IGF Dialogue into Actionable Implementation
Encourage country-level application of IGF outcomes, particularly in areas such as cybersecurity, digital rights, shutdown mitigation, and policy harmonization. Support the formation of technical working groups to help realize this.

Session Call to Action 5: Uphold People-Centered, Rights-Based Digital Governance
Ensure that IGF conversations prioritize human rights, equity, inclusion, and sustainability. Avoid tech-centric narratives by placing people’s needs and agency at the center of Internet governance discourse.

Session Call to Action 6: Promote IGF Visibility and Accessibility
Enhance communication around IGF outputs, success stories, and community contributions. Make reports and outcomes more accessible and user-friendly to ensure wider uptake across stakeholders and countries.

Session Call to Action 7: Prevent Internet Governance Fragmentation
Strengthen cooperation between IGF, WSIS, CSTD and other digital policy forums through the embrace of the Sao Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines to ensure synergy, avoid duplication, and maintain a coherent global governance landscape.

Session Call to Action 8: Recognize the Internet as a Public Good
Position IGF discussions around the principle of the Internet as a public good that serves humanity, fosters innovation, and accelerates the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Session Call to Action 9: Channel IGF Support Toward Cybersecurity Capacity in Developing Regions
Leverage the IGF ecosystem, including NRIs, DCs, PNs and BPFs, to support the development of cybersecurity and digital forensics capabilities in Africa and other underserved regions. This includes promoting multistakeholder collaboration on cyber resilience, training, digital safety frameworks, and fostering regional cooperation on emerging threats.
 

Co -Hosts: African ICT Alliance  & Sustainable and Interoperable Digital Identity  (SIDI) HUB  
Key Theme: Digital Trust and Resilience

Time: Wednesday, 25 June 2025 from 9:00 - 10:30 am Lillestrøm time 
Location: NOVA Spektrum, Workshop Room 6, Hall C

Executive Summary 

Key Takeaway 1: Multistakeholder Efforts Help Bridge the Digital Divide
Digital identity is foundational for inclusion and development, serving as a gateway to essential services such as banking, education, healthcare, and mobility. Without recognized identities, individuals remain digitally invisible and economically marginalized. By enabling early enrollment such as Nigeria’s issuance of NIN at birth, countries can ensure long-term inclusion and establish robust citizen registries. Identity is also central to bridging Africa’s digital divide and achieving inclusive digital transformation across sectors.  Successes in digital identity are not evenly distributed across countries or regions, so sharing best practices from leading countries, leading regions, and leading multistakeholder projects like the Sustainable and Interoperable Digital Identity (SIDI) Hub can help close the gaps so all jurisdictions and their residents benefit.

Key Takeaway 2: Interoperability is Vital, but not Inevitable
For the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to succeed, cross-border interoperability of digital identities is vital. Seamless identity verification across borders will facilitate the free movement of people, goods, and services, which are key to digital trade. Digital identity systems must therefore be embedded in AfCFTA’s digital trade protocols. Successful national models like Nigeria’s integrated NIN ecosystem and Benin’s “It’s Me” biometric ID card, which is interoperable within the ECOWAS region, demonstrate what is possible and should be adapted and scaled regionally. Similarly, lessons can also be gleaned from outside Africa, such as from the Nordic and Baltic states’ collaboration (Nobid project), the EU’s eIDAS 2.0 (the European Digital Identity Wallet), and Japan’s bilateral relationships within and beyond Asia. Interoperability of digital identity within a country, region, or globally is not inevitable. It will require consistent, concentrated effort by stakeholders within jurisdictions and across jurisdictions to realize sustainable, and scalable outcomes. 

Key Takeaway 3: Collaboration to Enable Digital Sovereignty
Digital identity systems must preserve national sovereignty. Countries must retain data sovereignty through strong data protection laws, trust frameworks, and regulatory alignment. Political will and institutional commitment, such as Nigeria’s high-level support for universal enrollment, are essential to sustain momentum and implementation. However, disparities in digital readiness across African countries mean that support must be tailored to each state’s level of infrastructure and policy maturity. Cybersecurity and digital monitoring infrastructure (such as certification capabilities) must be prioritized to ensure resilience. Sustained progress will rely on multistakeholder collaboration among governments, private sector actors, civil society, technical community, and international partners. This collaboration can be achieved through mechanisms like ECOWAS, the African Union, Smart Africa, and multistakeholder projects like SIDI Hub.

Session Call to Action #1: Regional Pilots for Interoperability
To accelerate cross-border digital identity integration in Africa, countries should begin by implementing regional interoperability pilots between states with advanced systems, such as the pilots between Nigeria and Cameroon or Benin and Ghana. These pilots will provide practical insights into cross-border functionality and help identify legal, technical, or user-experience gaps. Pragmatic proof of concepts (POCs) can help ensure champion use cases are delivered that empower people and deliver playbooks for expansion within and across regions. 

Session Call to Action #2: Aligning Policies and Technical Standards
African governments must also develop national policies that leverage international standards to enable interoperability while respecting national sovereignty. This includes mapping trust frameworks (or legal and policy stacks) and ensuring compatibility with regional and global identity protocols. In parallel, investments in cryptographic infrastructure are critical to maintaining the integrity, privacy, and authenticity of digital credentials. To ensure the technical backbone of digital identity systems is robust, states should support technical workstreams focused on the development of open standards, digital wallet systems, and trusted identity frameworks that can work across borders.

Session Call to Action #3: Adopt a Public-Private and Whole-of-Society Approach
Lastly, driving success in digital identity adoption requires strong collaboration between public and private sector stakeholders to localize solutions and test innovations through practical pilots. Public trust and engagement are equally vital, so governments should promote awareness through education campaigns, explaining the benefits, rights, and protections associated with digital IDs. Finally, to encourage widespread use, link digital identity to real-life incentives, such as access to student transport discounts (e.g. Japan), health services (e.g. Nigeria), or mobile banking (e.g. SIDI Hub Champion use case to “open a bank account”), making digital ID a valuable and relevant tool in citizens’ daily lives.

For the Full Rapporteur Notes See here: https://openid.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/290-Sovereignty-and-Inter…

For the Presentation See here: https://openid.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Workshop-6_2506_Sovreignt…

Key objectives of the session:

1. Identify good practices and recommendations on embedding risk-based human rights due diligence into existing and emerging efforts to govern AI.

2. Explore potential mechanisms and incentives to better integrate human rights considerations into corporate AI risk management frameworks.

3. Consider different approaches to establishing accountability for human rights impacts of AI- driven products and services.

Good practices and recommendations on embedding risk-based human rights due diligence into existing and emerging efforts to govern AI:

Companies and organizations are increasingly embedding human rights due diligence (HRDD) into AI governance by aligning their internal principles with international standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Global Network Initiative (GNI) Principles. Companies like Google and Telenor demonstrate good practices by setting human rights commitments at the highest levels of governance, with board-level oversight and operational integration into AI development and commitment to the GNI Principles. They have established dedicated processes and cross-functional teams to assess and mitigate risks related to content, bias, privacy, and discrimination. These practices are supported by multistakeholder efforts like GNI, which foster shared learning, accountability, and advocacy around how companies respond to government demands and manage human rights impacts of AI. B-Tech’s guidance, including its taxonomy of risks for generative AI, further supports these efforts by helping companies interpret human rights responsibilities within the context of rapidly evolving technologies.

To effectively embed risk-based HRDD into AI governance, stakeholders should prioritize legally mandating impact assessments for high-risk AI systems across jurisdictions, moving beyond voluntary compliance. Civil society organizations advocate for stronger transparency, such as publicly disclosing how HRDD processes are implemented, and recommend using international human rights law as a foundational framework rather than relying solely on ethical principles. Policymakers should develop clear, context-sensitive benchmarks—especially for Global South contexts—by engaging regional experts and civil society in defining local risks and harms. Governments are encouraged to guide and regulate both public and private AI deployments, incentivize rights-respecting innovation, and shape technical standards through a human rights lens. Additionally, fostering a shared vocabulary among technologists, companies, and regulators is essential to bridge understanding and ensure that AI governance efforts are inclusive, effective, and grounded in human rights principles.

Potential mechanisms and incentives to better integrate human rights considerations into corporate AI risk management frameworks:

To better integrate human rights considerations into corporate AI risk management frameworks, a combination of regulatory, financial, and operational mechanisms is essential. Regulatory approaches—such as the EU AI Act and South Korea’s AI Basic Act—signal a shift toward mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) for high-risk AI systems. Furthermore, technical standards that incorporate human rights safeguards, supported by government guidance and multilateral initiatives like the UN B-Tech project, can offer practical benchmarks for implementation. These mechanisms ensure that companies not only identify and mitigate risks but also embed rights-based approaches into their design, deployment, and governance of AI systems. Investor pressure—both public and private—is another powerful incentive, encouraging companies to demonstrate alignment with international human rights standards as part of their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. Public transparency on HRDD practices, impact assessments, and mitigation strategies can serve as both a trust-building tool and a differentiator in competitive markets. Companies that commit to governance structures with board-level oversight of human rights risks, integrate multidisciplinary perspectives into AI development, and engage with multistakeholder initiatives like GNI are more likely surpass regulatory trends and societal expectations. These practices create a culture of accountability and continuous improvement that strengthens the overall integrity and effectiveness of AI risk management frameworks.

Approaches to establishing accountability for human rights impacts of AI-driven products and services

Accountability for the human rights impacts of AI-driven products and services is being pursued through multiple, interrelated approaches – both internally and externally to companies.

Internally, companies like Google and Telenor are establishing strong governance mechanisms that integrate human rights at the highest levels, including board oversight. These commitments are operationalized through dedicated teams and processes that conduct human rights due diligence (HRDD) on AI systems. Alignment with international standards like the UN Guiding Principles and the GNI Principles help build internal accountability structures that guide product and service decisions more generally, and for AI specifically.

Externally, multistakeholder initiatives such as the Global Network Initiative (GNI) offer frameworks that promote accountability through shared learning, multistakeholder assessment, and collective advocacy. These initiatives help companies respond to government mandates and ensure that freedom of expression and privacy are upheld in AI service delivery. Legal and regulatory measures, including the EU AI Act and South Korea’s AI Basic Act, are increasingly requiring more formal accountability by requiring risk-based impact assessments, especially for high-risk applications. Civil society plays a critical role in this space, both by advocating for mandatory assessments and by developing independent benchmarks and evaluation tools—like the ones led by Women at the Table—to assess AI systems’ alignment with human rights standards. Finally, transparency and public disclosure of HRDD practices remain essential but underdeveloped aspects of accountability. Multilateral efforts like the B-Tech project emphasize the importance of clearer expectations around what companies should disclose, reinforcing accountability through visibility and public trust.

IGF 2025 Session Summary: Strengthening Multistakeholder Digital Cooperation

IGF 2025 | Lillestrøm, Norway | 25 June (14:45 – 15:30)
Organized by: Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE)

Speakers: 

• Moderator: Klara Marland, Advisor, GFCE
• Kenneth Pugh, Senator of Chile
• David Fairchild, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Canada, Global Affairs Canada
• Rose Payne, Policy and Advocacy Lead, Global Partners Digital (GPD)
• Francesca Bosco, Chief Strategy Officer, CyberPeace Institute (CPI)

Session Overview

This session explored how diverse stakeholder groups — including civil society, academia, the technical community, and the private sector — can be meaningfully involved in shaping the future UN Permanent Mechanism on ICT Security. Discussions focused on operationalising inclusion, ensuring continuity of engagement, and building sustainable structures for stakeholder participation beyond symbolic involvement.

Guiding Questions

• What role should nonprofits and civil society play in the future UN Permanent Mechanism, and what would that look like in practice?
• How can underrepresented voices be meaningfully included?
• What strategies can ensure that multistakeholder input is continuous and not ad hoc?
• Are there international processes that offer good models for stakeholder engagement?

Key Themes and Insights

Government Perspectives: Enabling Structural Inclusion

• Examples from Chile highlighted efforts to institutionalise trust and multistakeholder collaboration through national frameworks:

o    A permanent public-private advisory committee.
o    Legal protections for ethical hackers.
o    A national Cybersecurity Month to raise awareness and foster dialogue.

• Canadian approaches reflected sustained advocacy for stakeholder inclusion in UN-level cyber processes. This includes:

o    Co-authored proposals for inclusive modalities in future mechanisms.
o    Support for multistakeholder participation through sustained partnerships and funding.
o    Recognition of cyberspace’s inherently multistakeholder “DNA”, reinforcing the need for diverse inputs to strengthen norm implementation and capacity-building efforts.

Civil Society Contributions: Operational Value and Practical Challenges

• Stakeholders were recognised as critical to enhancing legitimacy, bridging geopolitical divides, and ensuring cyber policies are relevant and locally informed.
• Tools and initiatives developed by civil society — such as cyber incident tracking platforms and nonprofit cybersecurity providers — demonstrate tangible impact.
• Challenges persist, including:

o    Restrictive accreditation processes.
o    Inadequate and unsustainable funding.
o    Barriers to ECOSOC accreditation for technically proficient organisations.

Reflections on Inclusion

• There was wide agreement that stakeholder participation must go beyond thematic or symbolic consultation. Key recommendations included:

o    Transparency in decision-making processes, especially around accreditation and objections.
o    Public visibility of stakeholder inputs and traceability of their impact.
o    Rolling, asynchronous opportunities to contribute — enabling meaningful engagement beyond rigid time slots.

Q&A and Interactive Discussion Highlights

•    Youth representatives questioned whether stakeholder models are inclusive or self-selecting. The discussion acknowledged structural inequities, such as accreditation restrictions and high participation costs that disproportionately affect less-resourced actors.
•    Examples from practice illustrated how hybrid participation models, early sharing of agendas, and inclusive funding mechanisms can help counterbalance power imbalances — especially at national levels where governmental dominance is often more pronounced.
•    A civil society tool addressing non-consensual image sharing (StopNCII.org) was presented as an example of a survivor-centric initiative that could be integrated into broader cyber policy frameworks.
•    Questions on power imbalances and stakeholder influence sparked calls for capacity-building to be prioritised alongside participation, ensuring both presence and capability.

Emerging Recommendations

1. Institutional Reforms: Move from invitation-based models to inclusive, structural mechanisms for stakeholder involvement.
2. Hybrid Participation: Enable meaningful engagement through virtual access, rolling interventions, and early release of documents.
3. Funding and Accessibility: Support underrepresented groups through travel funding, remote access, and long-term capacity-building support.
4. Transparency: Improve clarity around accreditation, objections, and the use of stakeholder contributions in decision-making processes.
5. Coalition Building: Encourage stakeholder coalitions—by theme or region—to strengthen coordination and amplify diverse voices in global cyber diplomacy.

Conclusion

The session underscored the need for a more equitable, transparent, and sustainable multistakeholder approach to digital cooperation, one that recognises stakeholders not merely as contributors, but as essential partners in building a secure and inclusive cyberspace.

The PDF of the Summary Report is available here.

The Open Forum #79: “Regulation of Autonomous Weapon Systems: Navigating the Legal and Ethical Imperative” addressed the pressing global policy and governance challenges posed by Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS). This pivotal discussion, hosted by Austria, brought together representatives from governments, industry, civil society, academia, and the technical community to examine the legal, ethical, and strategic implications of AWS. Recognizing the rapid convergence of artificial intelligence and military applications, participants agreed that the discussions at this event have laid a strong foundation for continued multi-stakeholder engagement and action on this pressing issue.

Keynote Perspectives

Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter opened the session, framing AWS as a critical and emerging issue within the broader Internet governance landscape. Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet” and Chair of the IGF Leadership Panel, emphasized the historical role of computing in warfare and highlighted today’s urgent need to balance automation with human oversight in targeting systems.

Ambassador Stefan Pehringer, Austrian Ambassador to the Kingdom of Norway, outlined Austria’s leading role in pushing for international regulation in this area. He stressed the importance of "meaningful human control" and warned of an accelerating arms race that could outpace the development of appropriate norms. Austria and a cross-regional group of states so far introduced two resolutions on AWS in the UN General Assembly, the latest of which established open informal consultations in New York to address so far underdeveloped legal, technological, security and also ethical aspects of AWS. Austria also strongly supports the joint call by the UN Secretary-General and the ICRC President to conclude negotiations on a legally binding instrument on AWS by 2026.

Panellists pointed out that the rapid evolution of AI has outpaced our ability to comprehend and control its potential consequences. They painted a complex picture of technological innovation that promises efficiency but carries unprecedented risks. Benjamin Tallis, representing European defence AI company Helsing, presented an industry perspective. He framed AWS as a technological evolution in command and control, arguing for accountable, explainable AI systems that uphold democratic values. He warned of the dangers of falling behind authoritarian regimes in the AI arms race, while emphasizing the need to strengthen—not undermine—human rights through responsible innovation.

Anja Kaspersen of IEEE offered a nuanced critique from the technical and ethical standpoint. She questioned the assumption that AI can reliably emulate human judgment, particularly in high-stakes military contexts. Citing recent research, she underscored the systemic fragility and unpredictability of AI systems, warning against overreliance on abstract promises of precision. Kaspersen advocated for infrastructure-level governance and rigorous procurement standards.

Olga Cavalli from the Military Academy in Buenos Aires presented a Latin American perspective, underscoring the need for ethical frameworks and educational programs to understand the implications of AWS, particularly in regions with fragile institutions. She emphasized Argentina’s advocacy for a robust international legal instrument regulating AWS.

Prof. Peixi Xu of Beijing University highlighted the importance of inclusive multilateral dialogue. He referenced China’s conditional support for restrictions on AWS and warned against simplistic geopolitical narratives. Xu called for differentiated, collaborative frameworks acknowledging distinct national perspectives.

Gerald Folkvord of Amnesty International Norway stressed the human rights implications of delegating lethal decisions to machines. He argued that true accountability and human dignity are incompatible with fully autonomous weapons, which could obscure responsibility and enable invisible warfare.

Chris Painter, former Chair of the Global Forum for Cyberexpertise, reflected on the challenges of achieving consensus within the UN system. Drawing parallels with negotiations on cyber security within the UN context, he highlighted the need for enforceable accountability mechanisms and persistent multistakeholder engagement despite geopolitical hurdles.

Conclusion

The session underscored the urgency of regulating AWS before their widespread deployment becomes irreversible. While diverging in emphasis and outlook, all panelists agreed that AWS pose unprecedented governance challenges that cut across legal, ethical, technological, and geopolitical domains. Geopolitical tensions, technological complexity, and a lack of unified understanding have created a dangerous regulatory vacuum, which the UN Secretary General Guterres already pointed out urging for legal rules on AWS.

A consensus emerged around the necessity of maintaining human agency in lethal decision-making, fostering multistakeholder dialogue, and advancing international legal frameworks. As articulated by multiple speakers, this may be a defining moment—an "Oppenheimer moment"—demanding proactive and inclusive governance before technological determinism overtakes democratic deliberation.

Key Recommendations

Drawing from the insights shared by experts across sectors, the following key recommendations emerged for guiding further action in the governance of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS):

1. Establish Legally Binding International Regulations on AWS

Many speakers emphasized the urgent need for a global legal framework that ensures meaningful human control over AWS. This includes:

• Prohibiting fully autonomous lethal systems without human oversight.
• Setting enforceable norms and safeguards to protect international humanitarian law and human rights.
• Concluding negotiations on a legally binding instrument by 2026, as called for by the UN Secretary-General and the ICRC and supported by a number of UN Member States.

2. Strengthen Multistakeholder Involvement and Transparency

There was broad consensus that the discussion on the governance of AWS must extend beyond diplomats and military experts. Contributors from academia, civil society, and the technical community called for:

• An inclusive, multistakeholder dialogue involving engineers, ethicists, human rights experts, and affected communities.
• Greater transparency in procurement, testing, and deployment of AI-powered systems.
• Cross-regional education and awareness initiatives, especially in the Global South.

3. Prioritize Accountability, Human Oversight, and Ethical Design

Experts like Anja Kaspersen and Gerald Folkvord highlighted the risks of unexplainable and unaccountable AI systems in warfare. To mitigate this:

• AI used in military settings must be explainable, predictable, and subject to human override.
• Institutions should adopt ethical procurement standards (e.g., IEEE’s P3119) to evaluate AI tools before deployment.
• international norms must define clear lines of legal accountability for decisions involving the use of force.

These recommendations reflect the interdisciplinary and global nature of the challenge, and the shared concern that action must precede widespread deployment.

IGF 2025 Open Forum #29 Report: Advancing Digital Inclusion through Segmented Monitoring

Introduction and background                                                                                               

The session addressed how improved data segmentation can strengthen digital inclusion policy and implementation. Current national-level, supply-side metrics obscure exclusion patterns and fail to reflect the lived realities of marginalised groups. Participants called for more disaggregated, qualitative, and user-centred data to improve targeting and effectiveness of interventions.

Despite global efforts, one-third of the population remains offline. Even among the connected, meaningful use is limited by affordability, literacy, safety, and social norms. Existing frameworks do not sufficiently capture these issues. The forum aimed to spotlight segmented, demand-driven data approaches to inform inclusive digital policies.

Discussion

• Limitations of current metrics: National statistics and aggregate indicators mask inequalities within populations. For example, women and persons with disabilities may be “connected” but lack safe, meaningful access.
• Need for segmentation: Data should be disaggregated by gender, age, income, geography, disability, and education to identify specific exclusion barriers. Metrics should include affordability, trust, safety, time constraints, and digital skills.
• Examples of improved policy through segmentation, e.g.: In one country, women’s computer and wifi centres were underused due to location and timing—data-led redesign improved uptake; In Brazil, NIC.br’s multi-stakeholder model funds national data collection sustainably via domain name fees; In South Africa, shared device use revealed that access indicators alone were insufficient to reflect actual usage patterns.
• Ethical data governance: Data collection must prioritise rights, consent, and protection from harm. Risks of re-identification through data layering were flagged. Community involvement in design and analysis was emphasised.
• Community-generated and local data: Integrating participatory and qualitative methods enriches insights. Local researchers, universities, and civil society play a key role in capturing lived realities.
• UNESCO’s frameworks: Tools like the Internet Universality Indicators, multilingualism metrics, and disability-inclusion frameworks were cited as valuable for guiding policy across diverse contexts.
• Priority segments for data collection: Gender esp. women and girls; Age groups incl. youth and seniors; Socio-economic segments, incl. low-income households; Educational attainment levels; Rural, urban but also peri-urban populations and different socio-economic neighbourhoods and areas; People with disabilities; Linguistic minorities; Informal sector workers; Layer with type of activities online (e.g. banking, shopping, access government services, entertainment, education, health, content creation); Etc.
• Recommended methods and partnerships: Use mixed-methods such as  quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, participatory research, and sensor-based measurements key; Embed digital inclusion indicators into national statistical systems important; Engage local universities, community and organisations in co-design and analysis; Foster partnerships with telecom operators under transparent, rights-based data-sharing models; Establish standardised data classification and taxonomies for cross-country comparability.

Key takeaways

• A segmented, demand-driven approach is essential: Traditional supply-side metrics fail to capture exclusion. Disaggregated and contextual data is critical.
• Contextual and qualitative insights are critical: Statistical data must be combined with local narratives to shape responsive, impactful policies.
• High-quality and reliable data is a prerequisite: Data must be collected and governed ethically, respecting privacy and community trust.

Calls to action

• Improve segmentation and user-centred metrics: Go beyond access and measure affordability, skills, safety, and meaningful use.
• Forge new partnerships: Collaborate across governments, private sector, academia, and communities for sustainable, inclusive data ecosystems.
• Forge multi-stakeholder partnerships and enhance synergies with IGF Dynamic Coalition-Measuring Digital Inclusion: Collaborate across governments, international organisations, private sector, academia, civil society, and communities for sustainable, inclusive data ecosystems.

IGF 2025 Workshop Report

Title: Bridging the Digital Divide: Language Inclusion as a Pillar for Universal Access
Date: June 26, 2025
Time: 11:00–12:15
Location: Workshop Room 6, Hall C
Session Type: Workshop

Organized by: Coalition on Digital Impact (CODI), in collaboration with experts from civil society, academia, and the technical community

Moderator: Ram Mohan, Chair, CODI
 

Panelists

• Toral Cowieson, CEO, Unicode Consortium
• Theresa Swinehart, SVP Global Domains and Strategy, ICANN
• Sophie Mitchell, Chief Communications Officer, auDA
• Jennifer Chung, VP, Policy, DotAsia Organisation
• Manal Ismail, Chief Expert, Internet Policies, Egypt NTRA (remote)
• Christian Dawson, Executive Director, i2Coalition
   

Session Summary

This workshop addressed how language accessibility is essential to achieving universal digital access. While digital infrastructure expands globally, linguistic diversity remains an overlooked barrier—excluding billions from full participation online. The session explored policy, technical, and cultural dimensions of digital language inclusion through expert insights and multistakeholder dialogue.
 

Key Takeaways

1. Language inclusion is essential to meaningful connectivity. Technical access is insufficient if users cannot engage in their native or preferred language.
    
2. Multilingualism must be built in from the start. Language access should be foundational—not a retrofit—across infrastructure, content, and governance systems.
    
3. Sustained, multistakeholder coordination is needed. Technical standards, civil society advocacy, industry tools, and government policies must align to close the language gap.
    

Highlights from the Discussion

The Scope of the Problem:

Speakers emphasized that over 7,000 languages exist, yet the vast majority of online content is in just a handful. Jennifer Chung highlighted projections that 90% of languages may disappear by the end of the century without intervention. Sophie Mitchell illustrated how exclusion plays out in Indigenous Australian communities.

Technical and Policy Barriers:

Toral Cowieson noted that while most scripts are encoded in Unicode, the real challenge lies in lack of tooling, number formats, and language-aware UI/UX design. Theresa Swinehart and Manal Ismail cited gaps in adoption of Universal Acceptance (UA) and the absence of robust policy incentives.

AI and Open Data Risks & Opportunities:

Speakers explored how AI can both widen and bridge linguistic gaps. Open data is critical, but community-centered stewardship is needed to prevent exploitation. Christian Dawson and participants from Wikimedia stressed the importance of culturally relevant, ethically sourced datasets.

Collaboration & Incentives:

Proposals included embedding multilingual requirements into public procurement, creating funding incentives, and making UA-readiness a standard for public digital services. Manal Ismail described Egypt’s strategy of treating language access as a core element of Internet infrastructure.

Audience Engagement

Contributions from Bangladesh, Norway, and civil society participants offered tangible case studies and called for better coordination between IGF National/Regional Initiatives (NRIs) and the UA community. Questions also addressed the ethics of licensing, support for low-resource languages, and funding models.

Closing Reflections

Each panelist offered a brief closing insight:

• “We can only be successful together.”
   
• “Multilingual by design—not an afterthought.”
   
• “Language justice is digital justice.”
   
• “Lead by example and connect the dots.”
   

Outcomes and Next Steps

• CODI will develop a working document based on this session, summarizing recommendations, case studies, and tools to guide future digital language inclusion strategies.
   
• Follow-up engagement will include cross-sector consultation and public calls to action around multilingual readiness, open-source language tooling, and inclusive policy frameworks.
   
• This session’s outcomes will contribute to IGF outputs and be shared with WSIS+20, G77, and other relevant digital governance fora.

Session Report: WS #335 “Global Perspectives on Network Fees and Net Neutrality”

Introduction
The session focused on the contentious issue of network fees and their implications for Internet governance, net neutrality, and the broader digital ecosystem. Participants from various sectors, including academia, regulatory bodies, and industry, engaged in a robust discussion on the potential impacts of network fees on Internet accessibility, innovation, and market dynamics.

Main Takeaways
1. Network Fees and Economic Implications
The session underscored the ongoing debate surrounding network fees, which are proposed by telecommunications companies as a means to finance the growing demands on infrastructure. However, participants highlighted that these fees could lead to increased costs for consumers and potentially stifle innovation. The economic model of the Internet, which has historically promoted lower prices and efficiency through competitive traffic exchange, could be disrupted by the introduction of network fees. The discussion emphasized the need for a balanced approach that considers the interests of all stakeholders, including consumers, content providers, and ISPs.

2. Impact on Net Neutrality and Market Dynamics
A significant concern raised during the session was the potential threat network fees pose to net neutrality. By allowing ISPs to prioritize traffic from certain content providers who can afford to pay, network fees could undermine the principle of equal access to all Internet content, jeopardizing the open nature of the network. This could lead to a fragmented Internet where smaller players are disadvantaged, and consumer choice is limited. Participants stressed the importance of maintaining net neutrality to ensure a fair and open network that fosters innovation and competition.

3. Regional Perspectives and Regulatory Challenges
The session provided insights into how different regions are approaching the issue of network fees. While some countries have implemented or considered network fees, others have rejected them due to concerns about market distortion and lack of evidence for market failure. The discussion highlighted the need for region-specific analyses and solutions, taking into account local market conditions and regulatory frameworks. Participants called for greater transparency and evidence-based policymaking to address the challenges posed by network fees.

Call-to-Actions
1. Raise Public Awareness
Participants emphasized the need to launch public awareness campaigns to educate consumers and policymakers about the potential negative impacts of network fees. These campaigns should focus on how such fees could increase costs for consumers, limit access to diverse content, and threaten net neutrality.
2. Strengthen Advocacy Efforts
There was a strong call to mobilize civil society organizations, consumer rights groups, and industry stakeholders to advocate against the implementation of network fees. These groups should present evidence and case studies demonstrating the adverse effects of network fees in regions where they have been implemented, highlighting the importance of maintaining an open and equitable internet.
3. Engage in Policy Dialogues
The session concluded with a call for open dialogues between regulators, telcos, and Internet service providers to discuss the broader implications of network fees. Participants encouraged the exploration of alternative funding models that do not compromise the open nature of the Internet, ensuring that all voices are heard in the decision-making process.

Conclusion
The session provided a comprehensive overview of the challenges and implications associated with network fees. It highlighted the need for a collaborative approach to Internet governance that prioritizes consumer interests, fosters innovation, and maintains net neutrality. By raising awareness, strengthening advocacy efforts, and engaging in policy dialogues, stakeholders can work towards sustainable solutions that support the continued growth and accessibility of the network.

Open Forum #71: Advancing Rights Respecting AI-Governance and Digital Inclusion through G7 and G20

The workshop examined collaborative approaches between the G7 and G20 to address shared challenges in digital governance, with particular emphasis on reducing global digital inequalities and ensuring equitable access to the benefits of data-driven technologies. The discussions highlighted the urgent need for coordinated international action to bridge the growing digital divide between developed and developing nations whilst establishing robust governance frameworks for artificial intelligence.
The current global landscape is characterised by significant geopolitical changes and widening gaps between Global North and South countries. This context creates both challenges and opportunities for international cooperation on digital governance. There is an urgent need to establish clear boundaries around data ownership and develop shared principles for AI governance based on human rights frameworks.
The role of the public sector has emerged as crucial, moving beyond traditional regulatory functions to become active market shapers. Democratic oversight mechanisms are essential to ensure that technological development serves broader societal interests rather than narrow commercial objectives.

Addressing Digital Inequalities
Digital inequality extends far beyond infrastructure limitations to encompass demand-side constraints including education, income disparities, digital literacy gaps, and device accessibility costs. Current approaches to cross-border data flows have been criticised for focusing too heavily on individual rights whilst neglecting systemic injustices and environmental concerns.
The principle of universal and meaningful connectivity has been identified as fundamental, but achieving this requires addressing the complex interplay of social, economic, and educational factors that determine digital participation. Simply ensuring the free flow of data under current conditions will not create a trustworthy, equitable, or inclusive digital environment.

AI Governance and Equity Considerations
The discussion emphasised the need to move beyond individual privacy protections towards addressing collective and systemic harms in AI development and deployment. This includes ensuring representative datasets to mitigate bias, recognising data as a public good, and expanding access for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and innovators.
AI governance frameworks must be inclusive and accountable, with particular attention to the needs of developing countries that may be at different stages of AI development. There is a critical need to shift from exploitative to collaborative, community-controlled data models, addressing labour practices across AI value chains and managing the environmental impact of AI technologies.

Implementation Challenges and Solutions
Policy-to-Practice Translation
The workshop identified challenges in translating policy frameworks into practical implementation. Multistakeholder approaches have been highlighted as essential for determining agenda priorities and creating effective implementation mechanisms. Community engagement is crucial for ensuring that policies translate into meaningful practice at local levels.

Continuity and Cooperation
Successful cooperation between consecutive G20 presidencies, particularly those from the Global South, has been identified as crucial for maintaining momentum on developing nation perspectives. The troika model between emerging economies and democracies has proven effective in ensuring smooth transitions and shared experiences.

Balancing Innovation and Legacy
Governments face significant pressure to create distinctive presidential legacies whilst ensuring continuity with previous initiatives. This balance requires careful coordination and shared commitment to long-term objectives beyond individual presidential terms.

Recommendations and Future Directions
Strengthening International Cooperation
Joint initiatives between G7 and G20 are essential to avoid duplicating efforts whilst ensuring comprehensive coverage of global challenges. Civil society organisations can play a crucial bridging role across different processes, leveraging multistakeholder mechanisms to ensure continuity and effectiveness.
Rights-Based Governance Frameworks
AI governance must be grounded in human rights principles that consider systemic inequalities rather than focusing solely on individual protections. This requires developing frameworks that address collective harms and ensure equitable access to technological benefits.
Addressing Demand-Side Barriers
Digital inclusion strategies must move beyond infrastructure provision to address fundamental barriers including education, income, digital literacy, and device costs. This holistic approach is essential for creating genuinely inclusive digital environments.
Environmental Considerations
The environmental impact of AI technologies must be central to governance discussions, including both the energy demands of AI systems and their potential contributions to climate solutions.

Conclusions
The workshop underscored the critical importance of strengthened cooperation between G7 and G20 to address challenges that transcend national boundaries. Success will require sustained political will to move beyond forum discussions toward concrete implementation, with particular attention to maintaining the momentum generated by Global South presidencies.
The path forward demands a fundamental shift from viewing digital governance as primarily a technical challenge to recognising it as a comprehensive framework for ensuring equitable access to the benefits of technological advancement. This requires unprecedented levels of international cooperation, multistakeholder engagement, and commitment to rights-based approaches that prioritise global equity alongside technological innovation.

Policy Network on AI (PNAI) Session for IGF 2025: Global AI Governance: Reimagining IGF’s Role & Impact

Format: Plenary Session | Hybrid 
Organizer: IGF Policy Network on AI (PNAI)
Rapporteurs: Sana Nisar (Lead), Yasir Zunair, Murillo Romano Salvador, Patrick Bell, Umut Pajaro Velasquez

Overview
This session, convened by the Policy Network on AI (PNAI), explored the evolving role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in global AI governance. It contributed directly to PNAI’s 2025 work in developing recommendations and shaping an action plan on how IGF can maximize its impact as a central platform for inclusive and bottom-up multistakeholder discussions on AI governance. Positioned within the broader context of the WSIS+20 review, Global Digital Compact (GDC), and ongoing global AI governance dialogues and processes, the session aimed to gather insights that reflect regional realities, identify governance gaps, and co-create solutions rooted in equity, trust, and human rights. This session aimed to foster inclusive, multistakeholder dialogue, gather insights from both onsite and online participants, and generate actionable input that will inform PNAI’s 2025 Policy. As IGF’s dedicated Policy Network with focus on on AI, PNAI plays a key role in connecting grassroots perspectives to global governance frameworks.

GF 2025 - WS #190

Judging in the Digital Age: Cybersecurity & Digital Evidence 

https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2025-ws-190-judging-in-the-digital-age-cybersecurity-digital-evidence

27 Jun 2025 10:15h - 11:30h UTC+2

Main discussion points:

This discussion focused on “Judging in the Digital Age: Cybersecurity and Digital Evidence,” examining how courts worldwide are adapting to function as digital ecosystems where evidence, records, and hearings increasingly exist online. Dr. Nazar Nicholas from Tanzania’s Internet Society opened the session by explaining the initiative’s goal to bridge the gap between judiciary systems and internet governance spaces, building on previous efforts since 2022 to bring judges into digital rights discussions.

Judge Eliamani Laltaika from Tanzania’s High Court outlined the five key considerations courts use when evaluating digital evidence: relevance, authenticity, system integrity, chain of custody, and statutory compliance. He emphasized that these principles apply regardless of whether evidence originates domestically or internationally. He noted that everyone creates digital evidence through daily activities, such as taking photos or using messaging apps.

Professor Peter Swire from Georgia Tech highlighted three critical areas where digital evidence differs from traditional evidence: authentication challenges in verifying identity, maintaining chain of custody through digital signatures and hash functions, and addressing AI hallucinations where artificial intelligence systems may generate false citations or information. He recommended implementing two-factor authentication and systematic verification of AI-generated content.

The discussion addressed significant challenges, including spyware surveillance, with Dr. Jacqueline Pegato from Data Privacy Brazil citing cases where surveillance tools were used against activists and even Supreme Court justices. Advocate Umar Khan from Pakistan emphasized the need for balanced surveillance that protects both security and privacy rights. At the same time, Marin Ashraf from IT4Change discussed specific challenges in prosecuting online gender-based violence cases, particularly regarding evidence authentication and platform cooperation.

Participants identified critical gaps, including outdated legislation, insufficient judicial training in cybersecurity, and the need for better international cooperation frameworks. The session concluded with calls for continued capacity building, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and systemic reforms to ensure courts can effectively handle digital evidence while protecting fundamental rights in an increasingly connected world.

The session successfully brought together diverse stakeholders to address common challenges courts face in adapting to digital evidence and cybersecurity threats. While speakers represented different legal traditions and perspectives, they shared recognition of the urgent need for judicial capacity building, proper digital evidence procedures, and balanced approaches to surveillance and privacy rights.

The discussion established a foundation for ongoing collaboration between traditionally separate communities, demonstrating that technological challenges create opportunities for judicial reform across diverse legal systems. The commitment to continued dialogue and capacity building provides a pathway for ensuring justice systems can effectively serve populations in an increasingly digital world while protecting fundamental rights.

Key Takeaways:

• Speakers emphasized the challenges of verifying digital evidence, especially when it originates from different jurisdictions or involves AI-generated content. Five key considerations are important for admitting digital evidence in courts: relevance, authenticity, system integrity, chain of custody, and statutory compliance.
• Courts are facing specific challenges when dealing with online gender-based violence cases, including difficulties in obtaining digital evidence from platforms, ensuring survivor privacy, and addressing algorithmic amplification of harm.
• The panel identified concrete steps for addressing these challenges. Continuing dialogue between multi-stakeholder communities and the judiciary through IGF sessions and beyond was seen as essential. Developing technical and legal standards for digital chain of custody, including metadata preservation and authentication layers, emerged as a priority.

Call to actions:

• There is a need to balance between legitimate law enforcement for digital surveillance and cybersecurity measures, versus protecting individual privacy rights and ensuring fair trials. The Brazilian spyware case and Pakistani digital rights experiences were highlighted as examples of this ongoing challenge.
• There is an urgent need for specialized training for judges and legal professionals in cybersecurity, digital forensics, AI literacy, and data protection to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology and emerging forms of digital crime.
• With the complexities of handling digital evidence that crosses international boundaries, there is a need for legal harmonization, mutual legal assistance treaties, and standardized procedures for accessing data from foreign jurisdictions while respecting data protection laws.

  GF 2025 - WS #190

  Judging in the Digital Age: Cybersecurity & Digital Evidence 

  https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2025-ws-190-judging-in-the-digital-age-cybersecurity-digital-evidence

  27 Jun 2025 10:15h - 11:30h UTC+2

   

  Main discussion points:

  This discussion focused on “Judging in the Digital Age: Cybersecurity and Digital Evidence,” examining how courts worldwide are adapting to function as digital ecosystems where evidence, records, and hearings increasingly exist online. Dr. Nazar Nicholas from Tanzania’s Internet Society opened the session by explaining the initiative’s goal to bridge the gap between judiciary systems and internet governance spaces, building on previous efforts since 2022 to bring judges into digital rights discussions.

  
  

  Judge Eliamani Laltaika from Tanzania’s High Court outlined the five key considerations courts use when evaluating digital evidence: relevance, authenticity, system integrity, chain of custody, and statutory compliance. He emphasized that these principles apply regardless of whether evidence originates domestically or internationally. He noted that everyone creates digital evidence through daily activities, such as taking photos or using messaging apps.

   

  Professor Peter Swire from Georgia Tech highlighted three critical areas where digital evidence differs from traditional evidence: authentication challenges in verifying identity, maintaining chain of custody through digital signatures and hash functions, and addressing AI hallucinations where artificial intelligence systems may generate false citations or information. He recommended implementing two-factor authentication and systematic verification of AI-generated content.

   

  The discussion addressed significant challenges, including spyware surveillance, with Dr. Jacqueline Pegato from Data Privacy Brazil citing cases where surveillance tools were used against activists and even Supreme Court justices. Advocate Umar Khan from Pakistan emphasized the need for balanced surveillance that protects both security and privacy rights. At the same time, Marin Ashraf from IT4Change discussed specific challenges in prosecuting online gender-based violence cases, particularly regarding evidence authentication and platform cooperation.

   

  Participants identified critical gaps, including outdated legislation, insufficient judicial training in cybersecurity, and the need for better international cooperation frameworks. The session concluded with calls for continued capacity building, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and systemic reforms to ensure courts can effectively handle digital evidence while protecting fundamental rights in an increasingly connected world.

  
  

  The session successfully brought together diverse stakeholders to address common challenges courts face in adapting to digital evidence and cybersecurity threats. While speakers represented different legal traditions and perspectives, they shared recognition of the urgent need for judicial capacity building, proper digital evidence procedures, and balanced approaches to surveillance and privacy rights.

   

  The discussion established a foundation for ongoing collaboration between traditionally separate communities, demonstrating that technological challenges create opportunities for judicial reform across diverse legal systems. The commitment to continued dialogue and capacity building provides a pathway for ensuring justice systems can effectively serve populations in an increasingly digital world while protecting fundamental rights.

   

  Key Takeaways:

• Speakers emphasized the challenges of verifying digital evidence, especially when it originates from different jurisdictions or involves AI-generated content. Five key considerations are important for admitting digital evidence in courts: relevance, authenticity, system integrity, chain of custody, and statutory compliance.
• Courts are facing specific challenges when dealing with online gender-based violence cases, including difficulties in obtaining digital evidence from platforms, ensuring survivor privacy, and addressing algorithmic amplification of harm.
• The panel identified concrete steps for addressing these challenges. Continuing dialogue between multi-stakeholder communities and the judiciary through IGF sessions and beyond was seen as essential. Developing technical and legal standards for digital chain of custody, including metadata preservation and authentication layers, emerged as a priority.

• Call to actions:

• There is a need to balance between legitimate law enforcement for digital surveillance and cybersecurity measures, versus protecting individual privacy rights and ensuring fair trials. The Brazilian spyware case and Pakistani digital rights experiences were highlighted as examples of this ongoing challenge.
• There is an urgent need for specialized training for judges and legal professionals in cybersecurity, digital forensics, AI literacy, and data protection to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology and emerging forms of digital crime.
• With the complexities of handling digital evidence that crosses international boundaries, there is a need for legal harmonization, mutual legal assistance treaties, and standardized procedures for accessing data from foreign jurisdictions while respecting data protection laws.

Open Forum #80 titled “Mix & Fix – Tech-driven Solutions to Societal Challenges” brought together a diverse group of participants from the public sector, academia, private enterprises, and civil society to collaboratively explore the practical application of emerging technologies in solving pressing public challenges. With digital transformation becoming both an opportunity and a necessity, this interactive workshop emphasized co-creation, experimentation, and cross-sector collaboration to drive forward GovTech innovation.

Opening speeches by Lithuania’s Ambassador for Technology and Digitalisation Lina Viltrakienė and Chief Procurement Officer in Norway Dag Strømsnes emphasized the critical importance of digitalization in the public sector. It was noted that while the public sector plays a central role in addressing complex societal problems, it often remains risk-averse and hesitant to embrace innovation.

Speeches highlighted a significant gap: even when governments pilot solutions with startups or innovators, these collaborations often lack structure and long-term commitment. The systemic shift is in need: encouraging startups, academia, and entrepreneurs to actively contribute to the GovTech ecosystem, supported by meaningful partnerships and opportunities for growth.

It was stressed that:

• Digitalization is essential for efficient service delivery, transparency, and trust in public institutions.

• Culture change is needed in the public sector to embrace agile methodologies and a tolerance for experimentation.

• People are the drivers of innovation, and thus equipping public servants with digital skills is foundational.

The Mix & Fix workshop provided a dynamic, hands-on environment where participants were encouraged to tackle real-life public sector problems through a creative and collaborative lens. Structured as a practical innovation lab, the session focused on:

• Identifying societal challenges such as digital exclusion, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and environmental sustainability.

• Matching these challenges with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, IoT, blockchain, and big data.

• Developing early-stage prototypes that could inform future public sector innovation efforts.

Facilitated by GovTech Lab Lithuania and DFØ, the session allowed interdisciplinary teams to dive deep into public challenges, apply design thinking, and test their assumptions in a supportive and constructive setting.

Participants gained insight into: How to apply agile methodologies to public challenges; Ways to enhance cross-sector collaboration for more inclusive innovation; Building viable technology prototypes tailored to the needs of citizens and institution.

Key takeaways: Innovation in the public sector is most effective when rooted in collaboration and real-world application. Equipping public servants with the tools and mindset for digital transformation is critical for long-term success

Report: Privacy Preserving Interoperability and the Fediverse

IGF 2025 – Day 1, Workshop 3

The workshop “Privacy Preserving Interoperability and the Fediverse” brought together developers, policy experts, and community organizers to explore the growing importance—and complexity—of privacy in decentralized social platforms from Meta, the Data Transfer Initiative and the Social Web Foundation. As adoption of the Fediverse expands globally, this session focused on how interoperability can be achieved without compromising the privacy and autonomy of its users.

At the heart of the discussion was ActivityPub, the W3C standard that underpins most Fediverse platforms, enabling users to communicate across services such as Mastodon, PeerTube, and Lemmy. While this interoperability is foundational to the Fediverse’s decentralized vision, it also introduces new challenges: how to maintain user control and confidentiality when posts, profiles, and interactions can be federated across hundreds or even thousands of independently governed servers. Other protocols mentioned that ideally aim for Fediverse interoperability include Bluesky’s ATproto and DSNP.

Speakers acknowledged the fundamental tension between decentralization and privacy. In traditional centralized platforms, privacy controls are embedded within a single governance structure. In the Fediverse, each server can adopt its own privacy and moderation policies, which now includes whether to interoperate, or “federate,” with other platforms.

Several panelists emphasized the need for privacy by design at both the protocol and application level. This includes clearer visibility into where data travels, options to restrict federated visibility of posts, and default behaviors that favor user protection. End-to-end encryption was discussed as a promising but underdeveloped feature in the current Fediverse stack, with particular relevance for direct messages and private groups.

The session also highlighted emerging approaches to user agency and consent. Some platforms are experimenting with metadata labels that define intended audience or restrict visibility beyond a specific domain. Others are developing tools to make moderation decisions more transparent and portable—enabling users and communities to coalesce around shared trust models without imposing top-down controls.

Another major theme was moderation and governance in an interoperable system. Server administrators often rely on blocklists and reputation signals to manage exposure to spam, harassment, or misinformation. However, there remains a lack of shared standards or interoperable tooling for coordinating these decisions across networks. Speakers urged further exploration of decentralized trust models and cooperative moderation strategies that are transparent, auditable, and adaptable to local community norms.

The session also touched on the evolving regulatory landscape, particularly the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Digital Services Act (DSA), and Digital Markets Act (DMA). Participants noted that while GDPR offers a strong foundation for individual data rights, its application in decentralized systems remains complex—especially when determining the role of data controllers across federated services. In particular, participants noted that the objectives of ensuring data openness and portability is often in direct conflict with the objectives of providing end-to-end data privacy and security. As a result, there are many open questions about how to deploy federated services within existing data protection frameworks.

Several recent laws in Europe both present opportunities and challenges for federation and interoperability. The DSA’s emphasis on transparency, content moderation, and systemic risk assessments was seen as both a challenge and an opportunity for the Fediverse to differentiate itself through community-led governance. Additionally, several participants lauded DMA’s interoperability mandates as a way to ensure a way to encourage gatekeepers to provide more open interfaces, but participants also noted risks to privacy, particularly if security, safety, and consent are not central to implementation. The Fediverse, by contrast, offers a living example of how interoperability can coexist with decentralization and rights-respecting design.

In summary, while the Fediverse promises a radical departure from walled-garden platforms, participants agreed that privacy and consent need to be an important part of Fediverse infrastructure, both at the technical layer and the governance layer. Without that, it may be difficult to reconcile traditional data subject privacy rights with federation. The conversation underscored that privacy and interoperability are not mutually exclusive—but realizing both requires thoughtful design, collaborative experimentation, and sustained investment in tooling.

Action Points for Future Work

1. Develop Federated Privacy/Bot Labels
   Create standard metadata fields within ActivityPub to indicate content visibility, consent preferences, and sharing restrictions across servers.
2. Advance Encryption for Direct Communication
   Prioritize implementation of end-to-end encryption for private messaging and groups in major Fediverse platforms.
3. Design User-Centric Privacy Controls
   Build intuitive interfaces that allow users to control how their data federates and who can interact with their content.
4. Create Moderation Portability Tools
   Develop interoperable mechanisms for server admins and users to share blocklists, trust scores, and moderation decisions transparently.
5. Establish Cross-Community Governance Frameworks
   Convene working groups across Fediverse communities to co-design norms and policies that align privacy, interoperability, and accountability.
6. Fund Research and Infrastructure Development
   Support grants and fellowships for open-source developers working on privacy-preserving protocols and infrastructure in the decentralized web.
7. Ensure Clear and Consistent Regulatory Standards
   Monitor and respond to regulatory developments such as the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which mandates interoperability for gatekeeper platforms. Use this regulatory momentum to advocate for clarity around how privacy and interoperability frameworks work together to improve decentralization without undermining user consent.

This session laid the groundwork for a vital and ongoing conversation about how to embed human rights—especially privacy and autonomy—into the technical architecture of a federated future. As the Fediverse evolves, it has the opportunity to model new paradigms of platform governance—ones that empower users and safeguard communities without relying on centralized control. The work begins now.

The full session can be viewed online at IGF 2025 - Day 1 - WS 3 - Privacy Preserving Interoperability and the Fediverse

The session covered four main areas: DPI; access; SDGs; and the ecosystem of collaboration.

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI): DPIs should be based on open, non-commercial solutions, and the principles of digital sovereignty. Open solutions foster catalytic funding for DPIs, avoid duplication and bridge the gap between government, business and international actors.

DPIs provide elements for independent solutions and grassroots organisations. The lack of access, being a fundamental part of the DPIs, during the pandemic has had serious consequences, with schools in developing economies being closed completely for about two years, leaving children and young people without an adequate learning environment. The effects are visible today.

Recommendations: 

a) Development agencies have great potential to address how digital technology can be used to engage the whole of society, including «every single human». 

b) Every involved entity should ensure that solutions are not developed in isolation, which can be achieved through established partnerships and promote long-term stability.

c) Include capacity building, strengthening institutional frameworks, and arenas for new solutions: «Youth have good ideas but lack the funds to convert them into reality.»

d) We need affordable solutions that are scalable, not high-end solutions that are not.

Access: With 2.6 billion people not connected, efforts need to focus on connectivity of strategic development entities (SDEs), such as schools, health stations, government properties and community centres. The majority of people without access are in the African regions, thus we need to strengthen the African voice in the global arena. A variety of access solutions are required, including connected schools, community learning and living labs (CL3), community networks, and commercial connectivity solutions by ISPs, mobile network operators, and satellite network operators.

The success factor from the experience of more than 200 connected schools in Tanzania is community integration and using schools as gateways to enhance the digital opportunities of communities.

Recommendations:

a) There is a need for digital solutions that can be scaled up to have an impact, such as transferring ownership to communities, integrating of access into local systems, and sharing knowledge within the communities.

b) Digital solutions are the priority as they are scalable and universal, and can drive socio-economic change. Policies are needed to implement this, e.g. competitive pricing for community networks and affordable access for schools and CL3s.

SDGs: With only 17% of SDG targets currently on track (ITU, Sep2024), there is an urgent need for scalable solutions, increased investment and strong public–private partnerships. Digital transformation creating the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is one of the pillars for achieving the SDGs, with Access and Digital Public Goods (DPGs) as key components of DPIs. A functioning DPI is based on affordable access for SDEs, will facilitate the transition and contribute to the shift from vertical sectors (health, education, agriculture, etc.) to horizontal services.

A universal accessible DPI will allow students to join lectures and meetings on their phones, individuals to see opportunities, and entrepreneurs to create and adopt to market needs. Development agencies, universities and ministries of (higher) education have the responsibility to provide accessibility to digital education, including policies, infrastructure and training.

Recommendations:

a) Leapfrog the SDGs through DPIs, including the access to an open, affordable and inclusive internet. Establish with evidence-based actions and solutions on «what works».

b) With billions being unconnected due to the lack of infrastructure and access, drive PPP partnerships to solve the challenges of access, while demanding equity and inclusion.

c) Foster soft capital by implementing hands-on development projects in the Global South.

d) Harmonise policies and provide evidence that interventions are driving the change. The three Os: open science, open innovation and open the world are more important than ever.

An ecosystem of collaborations with governments, the public sector, young people, local communities and private companies following the three Os (Open science, open innovation and open the world). ICT is the basis for transition, as demonstrated every day by the UiO's health system DHIS2. Neglected groups include the 123 million displaced people worldwide (end-2024, UNHCR) who are left aside to pursue higher education.

Universities can utilise the power of research to remain at the forefront of technology, though must ensure that technology is being used. Academia and youth need to challenge the current 'state of the art', for example by demanding affordable access to SDEs. 

Capacity limitations require cross-sectoral developments, institution strengthening and public sector transformation.

Recommendations: 

a) Ensure that nobody is left behind when it comes to access and opportunities for education.

b) Multistakeholder partnerships require inclusive policies (policy consulting) and solutions that foster the civil society. 

c) Break the silos, and foster knowledge-based implementation that can scale.

d) Universities are gateways, and should contribute actively to DPIs by training instructors, improve access, and enable digital educational solutions.

Key Take-aways

1. Establishing Digital Public Infrastructures (DPIs) is mandatory for achieving the SDGs. 
2. Affordable Access to an open Internet is a key pilar of the DPIs, and needs a collaborative approach through the ecosystem of all actors.
3. Multistakeholder partnerships require inclusive policies (policy consulting) and solutions that foster the civil society. 

Call-to-action

1. With billions being unconnected due to the lack of infrastructure and access, drive PPP partnerships to solve the challenges of access, while demanding equity and inclusion.
2. Policies are needed to implement open, scalable and universal digital solutions, e.g. affordable prices for the access through community networks, for schools and for Community Learning and Living Labs (CL3).
3. Establish evidence for affordable solutions that are scalable, driven by open science, open innovation and open the world (the three Os).

This OECD Open Forum brought together international experts to discuss two critical aspects of AI governance and ongoing OECD initiatives: implementing AI principles through a practical toolkit (Toolkit to implement the OECD AI Principles, currently under development) and deploying AI in government services (a forthcoming OECD report, Governing with AI). Accordingly, the discussion was structured into two segments.

1. OECD AI Principles Implementation Toolkit

Yoichi Iida, the moderator, began by highlighting Japan’s role in proposing the OECD AI Principles in 2016 and their importance in shaping recent AI governance initiatives, such as the Hiroshima AI Process Reporting Framework for the Code of Conduct for Advanced AI systems.

Marlon Avalos explained that the OECD AI Policy Toolkit was inspired by Costa Rica’s experience in developing its national AI strategy. Despite political stability and a technically skilled workforce, Costa Rica faced significant challenges in crafting actionable policies to promote trustworthy AI.

Lucia Russo outlined the Toolkit’s key features:

• A self-assessment tool for countries to evaluate their AI governance status and priorities
• Region-specific guidance tailored to different developmental contexts
• A repository of best practices from comparable countries, drawing on resources from the OECD AI Policy Observatory (OECD.AI)

She noted that the Toolkit is being developed through co-creation workshops in several world regions, also aimed at fostering knowledge-sharing networks among participating countries.

Jibu Elias showcased grassroots AI initiatives in India, including accessibility tools developed by students. He emphasized that responsible AI must be inclusive, accessible, and grounded in local values, with a focus on communities most affected yet least represented in AI development.

Anne Rachel underscored both the opportunities and the significant barriers to AI adoption in Africa. She highlighted potential applications in healthcare, agriculture, and education, while also noting critical infrastructure challenges: only 22% of Africans have broadband access, and 16 African countries are landlocked. Furthermore, only 2% of African-generated data is used locally, and AI systems often perform poorly on African populations. Despite these challenges, she advocated for culturally-grounded, context-appropriate solutions, stressing that taking the time to develop these properly is more important than rushing to implement AI without sufficient understanding.

The discussion underscored the need for inclusive, context-aware, and collaborative approaches to ensure that AI governance and deployment truly serve diverse societies worldwide.

2. Spotlight on AI in Government

This segment explored how governments are deploying AI to enhance public service delivery policymaking, internal operations, and accountability, drawing on OECD research and country experiences. 

Seong Ju Park opened with findings from the forthcoming OECD report Governing with AI, which analyses over 200 AI use cases across 11 government functions. She highlighted that AI is increasingly used to automate and personalise services, enhance decision-making, and improve accountability. However, governments face challenges in scaling pilots, navigating regulatory constraints, and addressing risks such as incorrect or skewed data or public resistance. The OECD’s evolving framework for AI in government focuses on three pillars: enablers (e.g. data, skills, infrastructure), guardrails and stakeholder engagement.

Katarina de Brisis shared Norway’s experience, noting that AI is already delivering tangible benefits in sectors such as healthcare, taxation, and policing. For example, AI-assisted X-ray analysis reduced patient wait times by 79 days, and tax fraud detection improved from 12% to 85%, generating significant public revenue. A 2025 survey found that 70% of state agencies use AI, mostly for tasks like drafting job ads or case processing. However, municipalities lag behind. She emphasised the need for better tools to assess AI’s impact and for strong leadership and competence within public agencies. Norway is implementing the EU AI Act and investing in national infrastructure, including high-performance computing and foundational models in Norwegian and Sami languages. A regulatory sandbox and the new “AI Norway” initiative will support safe experimentation and compliance.

Jungwook Kim outlined Korea’s approach, structured around three pillars: innovation, inclusion, and investment. Innovation requires transforming data, infrastructure, and service design. Inclusion addresses digital divides by gender, region, and income, and calls for training both civil servants and citizens. Investment is essential to support these efforts. On trustworthy AI, he stressed the importance of securing personal data, building consensus on data use, and establishing agile governance systems to manage evolving risks. Korea’s experience shows that AI safety must be embedded in both technical design and institutional frameworks.

The segment concluded with a shared recognition that while AI offers transformative potential for government, realising this requires strategic investment, inclusive design, and robust safeguards to ensure trust and accountability.

Speakers:

• Hosted by Dr. Ismaila Ceesay, Minister of Information, The Republic of The Gambia
• Milan Marinović, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, Serbia
• Meri Sheroyan, Co-Founder Digital Armenia, Armenia
• Folake Olagunju, Ag. Director, Digital Economy & Post, ECOWAS Commission
• Olga Kyryliuk, Chair of Executive Committee at SEEDIG
• Tattu Mambetalieva, Director, Civil Initiatives on Internet Policy, Kyrgyzstan

Moderators

• Wairagala Wakabi, Executive Director Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)

Session Goal
The session Advancing Data Governance together – Across Regions brought together notable speakers from across regions to discuss data governance in line with the IGF sub-theme “Building Digital Cooperation”. By engaging policymakers, civil society actors and regional experts, the session identified opportunities for regional and interregional cooperation, fostering governance models that promote responsible data sharing and sustainable digital development. The session was moderated by Wairagala Wakabi from CIPESA and hosted by Dr. Ismaila Ceesay, Minister of Information from The Gambia.

From West Africa, the Eastern Partnership, the Western Balkans, and Central Asia common challenges, from regulatory fragmentation, privacy protection and regional frameworks, were presented. Together, actionable steps were identified which could contribute to enhancing cross-border trust, economic development, and convergence among frameworks. Beyond individual national policies, the session discussed strategies to balance innovation, security, and fundamental digital and civic rights (incl. freedom of information and expression) while enabling seamless and fair data exchanges. The session thus explored pathways for collaborative and future-ready data governance that reinforce trust in cross-border data flows while safeguarding data sovereignty and user rights.

Key takeaways
1. National data ecosystems are diverse, and there is no one-glove-fits-all approach to regulate them. While we should strive to harmonize across borders, this should not be understood as homogenization across borders. Nuances among sovereign ecosystems exist and national priorities and data governance approaches differ. Across the board, the session underscored the importance of context-sensitive, multistakeholder strategies that consider aspects such as data localization, capacity requirements, and stakeholder ecosystems.

2. Regional actors play a critical role in creating favourable and cooperative environments for cross-border data flows. Organizations such as the African Union/ECOWAS, and European Union/SEEDIG play a critical role in setting norms, facilitating interregional dialogue and promoting cross-border data governance. Countries that exist outside of these regional organisations risk being left behind and thus unable to leverage data for sustainable
development. Inclusive and participatory global mechanisms are therefore essential to close the capacity gap and minimize cross-border disparities.

3. Civil society actors are essential intermediaries in aligning civic tech voices with governmental bodies. CSOs play a crucial role as watchdogs in identifying misuse, barriers and ethical issues of data as well as in addressing public mistrust towards the use of data for service delivery. Their role is therefore clear in contributing to closing the communication gap. Outreach and education campaigns should consider creating awareness on the increasing role and importance of data in everyday life. Civil society thereby plays a key role in increasing governance principles such as participation, transparency and accountability in the data governance lifecycle.

Call to Action
1. Strengthen harmonization among continental data governance frameworks. Ensuring meaningful participation of underrepresented and marginalized stakeholders is essential. Dominant frameworks tend to benefit well-positioned actors, while others lack access to data holders. Their participation is crucial to close the digital and data divide. Regional peer-learning platforms could facilitate a structured exchange between policymakers, regulators, technology companies and civil society actors, and be scaled for impact.

2. Conduct a global mapping of regulatory bottlenecks in cross-border data sharing to identify persistent challenges related to legal frameworks, infrastructure, and interoperability. The results should guide coordinated efforts by Data Protection Authorities and other data stakeholders.

3. Set up and invest in data sharing initiatives that are tested in controlled environments. Smaller initiatives can trial interoperable data systems for specific sectors and create use-cases for scaling. Multistakeholder and multisectoral approaches for smaller data sharing initiatives would contribute to trust-building on specific policy issues. Testing paired with capacity-building would in turn increase the institutional, legal, and technical expertise of stakeholders.

Objective

This follow-up to IGF 2024’s “Balancing Acts: Encryption, Privacy, and Public Safety” aimed to move the conversation from ideological confrontation to practical cooperation. The workshop explored whether encryption and safety—particularly child protection—can truly co-exist, and what governance, regulatory, and technical measures are needed to enable this balance.

Speakers represented a cross-section of government, civil society, industry, and international organisations. Together, they examined how encryption affects law enforcement investigations, what safeguards are needed to uphold privacy and human rights, and where compromise is possible to protect the most vulnerable users.

Key Themes & Discussion Highlights

1. Encryption and Safety Must Co-Exist

Katie Noyes (FBI) grounded the session with a clear assertion: “encryption and safety have to co-exist.” She cited over 17,000 stalled investigations across FBI field offices due to encrypted platforms. While affirming privacy as a human right, she also highlighted its qualified nature when unlawful activity is involved.

2. Context Matters: Global South Inclusion

Honey Makola (ICASA) stressed that policy frameworks must reflect local realities: “Policy will not work if it doesn’t reflect the Global South.” Limited technical infrastructure, economic capacity, and trust in institutions mean universal models are unlikely to work without adaptation.

3. From Ideology to Innovation and Implementation

Lloyd Richardson (Protect Children) reminded attendees that “this is not about banning encryption,” but about developing safeguards that uphold privacy while enabling protective responses. New and emerging technologies—such as client-side scanning, homomorphic encryption, and differential privacy—were referenced as possible areas for innovation, with appropriate safeguards and transparency.

4. Barriers in Standards Bodies and Technical Governance

Andrew Campling highlighted the lack of child safety representation and diversity in technical standards forums such as the IETF, contributing to an imbalance in perspectives. Discussion included examples of interoperability challenges in parental controls and the need for open protocols to enable safety tools to function securely.

5. Judicial Oversight and Legal Frameworks

There was consensus on the importance of judicial authorisation, proportionality, and transparent oversight when considering lawful access requests. Examples from South Africa and other jurisdictions illustrated diverse legal approaches.

6. Audience Reflections: The Debate Keeps Cycling

A notable intervention from the floor questioned why the same arguments recur in multiple venues without resolution. Panelists agreed and proposed focusing on areas where compromise is most viable, including improving endpoint safety, investing in privacy-preserving technologies, and widening stakeholder engagement.

Call to Action

Governments & Regulators

• Support initiatives that develop and pilot regulatory or technical models allowing targeted, rights-respecting access without undermining encryption’s integrity.

Technical Standards Bodies

• Proactively reduce barriers to entry for underrepresented groups, including civil society, regulators, and the Global South, in standards development processes.

Industry & Civil Society

• Co-invest in privacy-preserving technologies that can detect and prevent harm—particularly against children—without instituting surveillance infrastructure.

Conclusion & Next Steps

The panel made clear that the status quo is not sustainable. There was no single agreed solution, but there was shared recognition that a more inclusive, compromise-focused approach is urgently required. Balancing encryption and safety is not just possible—it is essential to maintain public trust, prevent harm, and safeguard rights.

The IGF remains an important forum to surface these tensions and work collaboratively on paths forward. The organisers and panelists welcome further engagement on these issues and stand ready to contribute to the development of global solutions.

"This is the most substantive intersessional activity that I think IGF undertakes... we can give concrete feedback to local and regional actors about how well the Internet is performing for those users in those locales."

Vint Cerf at the 2025 PNMA Main Session 

2025 Call to action:

1. With the close assistance of the IGF Secretariat and the Leadership Panel, debut a permanent dialogue between the PNMA community and regional and global actors (such as the EU, the AU, the OAS or other similar institutions) to encourage projects’ replication and scaling up. The PN activities shall continue throughout the year until the publication of the output report scheduled for end November 2025.

2. The PNMA’s unique value proposition (UVP) within the WSIS+20 process and the GDC implementation: define the benefits of the policy network in a clear manner, UVP knowledge and community practices that could become “proof of concepts” for Meaningful Access policies.

3. Publication of a PNMA Roadmap towards the 2025 Output Report and the WSIS+20 High Level Meeting.

“AI for Sustainable Development: Country Insights and Strategies” 

 Event Report | IGF Open Forum 53 | 24 June 2025 | Lillestrøm, Norway 

Overview:

Open Forum 53, titled AI for Sustainable Development: Country Insights and Strategies, convened on Day 1 of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2025 to explore the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital equity with a focus on country-level action to leverage AI for development. Held in a hybrid format co-organized by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Co-Creation Hub Africa (CcHUB), the session brought together global experts across academia, civil society, government, and the private sector.  

Purpose:  

This session aimed at examining how AI can be leveraged for sustainable development at the country level, while mitigating growing global inequalities. At present, only 2% of global data centers are located in Africa and just 5% of African AI innovators have the necessary computational resources. These gaps illustrate a stark imbalance that threatens to widen unless inclusive strategies are actively pursued. As such, participants examined how country-level strategies can be designed to harness AI's potential, while addressing structural imbalances and reinforcing human-centered, inclusive governance models against the backdrop of alignment with broader global processes such as the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS+20 Review. 

Panelists: 

• Aubra Anthony (Carnegie Endowment) 
• Armando Guio-Español (Network of Centers) 
• Oluwaseun Adepoju (CcHUB) 
• Anshul Sonak (Intel) 
• Abhishek Singh (Ministry of Electronics & IT, Government of India) 
• Moderated by Yu Ping Chan, Head of UNDP’s Digital Partnerships & Engagement 

Key Themes & Discussion Highlights: 

This panel discussion emphasized a clear and pressing reality: while AI can enhance development progress , the benefits are not guaranteed to reach all communities equally. Left unaddressed, current trends risk further concentrating AI development and power in a small set of actors and regions, leaving behind entire populations. Speakers pointed to multiple systemic barriers, including the dominance of large multinational tech firms, diminishing international development aid, and a lack of localized infrastructure to support evolving digital ecosystems. As a result, the conversation centered around a need to reframe AI development, not as something imposed “from above,” but rather as a collaborative, context-aware process built from the ground up. 

Audience participation through Slido helped frame and reinforce the session’s direction. When asked what themes they most wanted to hear in the discussion, participants highlighted AI in media, capacity building, inclusion, and AI regulation, signaling the importance of practical, policy-oriented dialogue. A second question measuring optimism around AI’s role in accelerating inclusive sustainable development over the next five years produced an average score of 5.8 out of 10, reflecting cautious optimism about AI’s potential when paired with inclusive strategies and intentional design.  Further highlighted was the fact that many communities in the Global South often serve as primary data providers, yet have little input in defining problems, building solutions, or evaluating impact. To shift this paradigm, the session advocated for a new approach- one where AI ecosystems are co-created with communities, drawing on regional expertise, linguistic diversity, and cultural knowledge. For AI to serve as a meaningful development tool, local populations must be engaged at every level: From shaping problem statements to co-building and evaluating tools that reflect the community’s true needs and aspirations. 

However, given the nature of the current international climate, funding emerged as another critical dimension to be addressed. Traditional top-down models have been widely criticized as extractive and unsustainable. Thus, the panel instead urged stakeholders to design participatory and multi-stakeholder funding mechanisms that are responsive to local priorities and capable of becoming self-sustaining. Beyond capital, capacity building was also identified as a core enabler, from digital infrastructure and local language models to behavioral science expertise and AI literacy. 

A final Slido question invited participants to name the top priority for building an inclusive AI ecosystem. Their responses- access, knowledge and skills, sustainability, transparency, AI literacy, capacity building, and responsible AI- closely mirrored the core themes discussed throughout the panel. These responses underscored broad alignment between the speakers and audience on what’s most needed to ensure AI systems serve all communities, not just a few. Throughout the discussion, the importance of responsible and sustainable AI practices was repeatedly emphasized. Environmental concerns, especially the high energy consumption of large-scale AI systems, raised further questions about how to balance technological innovation with climate-conscious development. At the same time, panelists expressed cautious optimism. With the right structures in place, AI can still become a powerful equalizer, rather than an amplifier of global inequality. 

Integrated Insights and Takeaways 
Three key insights emerged across the discussion. First, the widening digital and AI equity gap poses a direct risk to sustainable development, especially in the Global South. Without urgent interventions, the technological divide will deepen, excluding millions from the benefits of AI-driven growth. Second, the panel underscored the need for human-centered and inclusive AI systems that are embedded in local contexts. This means designing technologies that reflect local languages, cultures, and challenges, not simply repurposing tools created elsewhere. Finally, there was a strong call for rethinking responsibility. From energy consumption to the ethics of data use, from public transparency to algorithmic fairness. AI must be deployed sustainably and in a way that centers, rather than sidelines, the communities it seeks to serve.  

Embedded Calls to Action 
To realize this vision, participants called for intentional and sustained investment in local capacity. This includes not only technical infrastructure, but also education, linguistic inclusion, and the development of AI literacy programs that empower local leaders, innovators, and citizens alike. Equally important is the creation of non-extractive, collaborative funding models that support long-term ecosystem growth. These models should be co-designed with local actors and tailored to regional needs, shifting away from the “helicopter” approach of externally driven aid. Lastly, inclusive governance frameworks must be prioritized, particularly ones that foster broad participation, community oversight, and trust. Building equitable AI is not simply a technical challenge; it is a governance imperative, rooted in principles of justice, access, and accountability. 

Conclusion 
IGF Open Forum 53 served as a powerful reminder that AI’s promise can only be realized through inclusive, responsible, and locally rooted strategies. Importantly, the session not only emphasized these values in theory, but it also embodied them through active audience participation. The use of live Slido engagement ensured that a diverse range of voices helped shape the discussion in real time, surfacing both shared concerns and collective aspirations. The potential exists for economic resilience, public service delivery, and transformational change. But whether AI becomes a bridge or a barrier to sustainable development will depend on the decisions made today. As the session demonstrated, the tools, knowledge, and drive are already present in communities across the Global South. What’s needed now is collective, long-term commitment to equity, inclusion, and co-creation in the global AI agenda. 

The session titled “Enhancing Multistakeholder Participation in Global Digital Governance Beyond 2025” brought together stakeholders from diverse regions and sectors to discuss actionable strategies for inclusive and participatory digital governance. At the heart of the discussion were the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines, WSIS+20 review and the Global Digital Compact, viewed as pivotal moments to redefine participation frameworks and ensure sustainability.

Byron Holland, representing the Canada IGF, discussed the ways in which multistakeholder approach can be strengthened within the UN led processes. Further, he highlighted certain pivotal points pertaining to transparency, comprehensibility, accessibility and the actionable role of distinct stakeholders to make significant difference.

Hon. Minister Nthati Moorosi presented Lesotho’s model of embedding multistakeholder practices into national strategies. The annual Lesotho IGF exemplifies grassroots engagement and cross-sector collaboration. She urged for global mechanisms to follow suit and not treat participation as symbolic.

Declan McDermott shared the journey of the Island IGF, which despite being new, has already seen meaningful engagement. His emphasis on the different scaling approaches offers a roadmap for other NRIs.

Agustina Ordoñez stressed the importance of learning from Latin America’s local experiences and called for more youth and political actors in IGF spaces. Joyce Chen articulated the psychological and historical barriers to entry, particularly for newcomers, and advocated for contextual onboarding and storytelling tools.

Joyce Chen pointed out certain historical context and usage of complex language(s) in IG spaces often alienate newcomers while proposing novel approaches including storytelling, community onboarding, and government openness in including non-governmental advisors, to leverage NRIs and other community-led initiatives.

SIDS representative Sarai Tevita emphasized the role of multistakeholderism in overcoming vulnerabilities and building climate-smart, inclusive digital systems. She called for localized solutions and emphasized capacity building for sustainable participation.

Ahmed Farag, speaking from the Middle East perspective, proposed a fresh start in consultations that connects stakeholders from the beginning and balances inclusivity with regulatory firmness.

The discussion was enriched by inputs, questions and comments from members, including Mamud (Bangladesh IGF) and Nazza Kurama (Tanzania IGF), who underscored the importance of linguistic and financial inclusivity.

Key Takeaways and Action Items

Participants agreed that while the multistakeholder model has strong support, its impact depends on real, consistent, and context-aware implementation. There is an urgent need to:

• Scale existing NRI models to new territories.
• Translate grassroots input into high-level policy influence.
• Equip new participants with accessible resources and institutional backing.
• Develop trust funds and digital education programs that reflect local realities.
• Mainstream the multistakeholder model across all UN-led and national processes.

The session concluded with a shared commitment to sustaining and amplifying inclusive practices that bring digital governance closer to the people it serves.

Background: 
As a key advocate for networked multilateralism, the DCO is actively contributing to the implementation of the GDC objectives, including bridging digital divides, fostering responsible data governance, and promoting AI for the benefit of humanity. This session, led by the Digital Cooperation Organization (DCO), explored how governments, international organizations, businesses, and civil society can work together to advance the implementation of the United Nations Global Digital Compact (GDC)—ensuring an open, free, secure, and human-centered digital future for all. 

The session highlighted DCO’s 4-year Agenda adopt4ed in February 2025, as well as the Digital Economy Navigator (DEN)—an innovative tool designed to assess, prioritize, and design digital transformation across economies, enabling evidence-based policymaking and strategic investments. By showcasing successful cooperation models, actionable insights, and emerging digital solutions, this discussion emphasized how coordinated global action can foster inclusive and sustainable economic growth and strengthen digital resilience in an era of transformative technologies. 

Participants:
1.    Hassan Nasser, DCO Special Envoy for Multilateral Affairs.
2.    Ryszard Frelek, Counsellor, WIPO.
3.    Dr. Wariowei Dimie, Director of Corporate Planning and Strategy at the National IT Development Agency of Nigeria (NITDA).
4.    Giulia Ajmone Marsan, Head of Startup and Digital Inclusion, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
5.    Concettina Cassa, Head of International Affairs, AgID.
6.    Torbjorn Fredriksson, Head, E-commerce and Digital Economy Branch, UNCTAD (VIRTUAL).
7.    Prof. Luca Belli, PhD, Professor, FGV Law School, Coordinator, Center for Technology & Society 
8.    Liz Kiehner, Chief Growth Officer North America, Nortal (VIRTUAL).

Moderator: 
Sameem Gaffar, Multilateral Engagement Senior Manager, DCO.

Outcomes: 
Take away 1: Avoid overlap or fragmentation of mandates and ensure synergies. Today’s dialogue reflected the multiplicity of stakeholders and perspective. From Asia to Latin America, private sector to government, UN system to regional organization. Based on the deliberations, we can see consensus on the fact that in a world facing fragmentation and polarization, digital cooperation is a necessity to ensure we harness the potential of digital transformation while addressing and mitigating the risk and making sure that no one is left behind. 
Take away 2: Reflecting on the adoption of the UN GDC and the WSIS process, panelists underlined that digital cooperation will benefit from these strong commitments and existing mechanisms. However, the specific requirements and peculiarities of the Global South, Developing Countries, and marginalized populations should be embedded in revised and new mechanisms.
Take away 3: Efficient and impact-driven cooperation requires several elements to ensure alignment, prioritization and efficiency. However, there should be extra focus on expanding cooperation beyond the UN system to reflect the regional and NRIs in line with strong networked multilateralism to share knowledge, solutions, and resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call to Action 1
Engage in structured action-oriented: DCO reiterated its focus on multistakeholder action aligned with the GDC to support Member States in their efforts to accelerate the inclusive, sustainable, and resilient growth of the digital economy to enable prosperity for all, and to reflect on ways to avoid fragmentation.
Call to Action 2
Emphasize data-based policy making and action: To foster digital cooperation, DCO calls all stakeholders and participants of the DCO to consider the Digital Economy Navigator (published in Sept 2024) to streamline assessment of domestic economies, align on prioritization, and coordinate efforts and investments for impact.
Call to Action 3
DCO calls for greater synergy between local and regional actions with the broader framework of WSIS, IGF and GDC.

25 June 2025 | 11:30h - 13:00h local time in Norway
Lillestrøm, Norway and online

Session Overview

The session, moderated by Kathleen Ziemann (GIZ, Fair Forward) and Guilherme Canela (UNESCO), brought together a diverse panel representing the private sector, civil society, governments, and academia to reflect on the fast-evolving and increasingly complex landscape of AI governance.

The panel included:

• Melinda Claybaugh, Director of Privacy Policy at Meta
• Mlindi Mashologu, Deputy Director General at South Africa’s Ministry of Communications and Digital Technology
• Jhalak Kakkar, Executive Director of the Centre for Communication Governance (India)
• Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director of Diplo Foundation

The discussion built on global efforts, such as the OECD AI Principles, UNESCO’s recommendations, the EU AI Act, and various regional declarations, recognizing both opportunities and challenges of an increasingly fragmented AI governance environment.

Rapporteur: Ms. Afi Edoh, West African IGF

Key Notes and Insights

1. AI governance: a blooming yet fragmented landscape

The panel highlighted the fast proliferation of AI governance frameworks, principles, and voluntary commitments. While this shows momentum, it also risks fragmentation and confusion. The challenge ahead is to harmonize diverse approaches and ensure that AI governance remains inclusive and globally coherent.

2. Balancing innovation and risk

• Melinda Claybaugh (Meta) emphasized the need to avoid an overly narrow focus on risks, which could overshadow AI’s transformative potential. She called for a more holistic conversation that equally weighs opportunities for innovation and societal benefits.
• Jhalak Kakkar argued that governance and innovation are not mutually exclusive. Instead, responsible governance, including AI impact assessments and audits, helps build trust and anticipate harms that may otherwise appear years later.

3. Local relevance and global coordination

Mlindi Mashologu explained South Africa’s approach, rooted in human rights and data justice, emphasizing:

• The need for context-specific regulatory tools (e.g., sectoral policies, explainability requirements)
• Ensuring AI governance does not amplify historical inequalities
• The importance of integrating African regional strategies, like the African Union’s AI framework, into the global dialogue

4. The return of ‘knowledge’

Jovan Kurbalija argued for bringing knowledge back into AI governance discussions, beyond just data:

• AI is ultimately about producing, sharing, and preserving knowledge.
• Governance frameworks should protect collective knowledge, especially for developing countries, and avoid centralization or monopolization.

5. Multi-stakeholderism and  meaningful participation

The panel stressed that inclusive governance must go beyond symbolic participation:

Engage civil society, academia, and especially voices from the Global South, not just as observers but as co-creators.

Strengthen mechanisms to translate principles into concrete action, ensuring representation across contexts and communities.

6. Existing laws vs. new frameworks

There was agreement that while many existing legal tools (e.g., data protection, consumer protection, antitrust) can be adapted to AI, entirely new frameworks may still be needed to address emerging risks, especially where AI brings qualitatively new challenges.

7. Avoiding governance fragmentation

Several participants warned of a potential ‘race to the bottom’ if countries only compete for innovation leadership. Suggestions included:

• Joint standardization (e.g., AI weights, explainability)
• Strengthening the IGF’s role in harmonizing global, regional, and national efforts
• Building on universal human rights frameworks as a shared baseline

Audience Contributions

Participants raised thoughtful questions, including:

• How to ensure inclusive data gathering and address biases inherent in training data
• The environmental impact of AI, particularly hyperscale data centers
• The need for independent oversight, such as social offset reporting for AI systems
• Concerns about self-regulation by large companies vs. external accountability

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

• AI governance must remain human-centered, rooted in human rights, equity, and sustainability.
• It is not about choosing between innovation and regulation but designing responsible innovation frameworks.
• Ensuring that AI’s benefits are shared equitably requires both global coordination and local adaptation.
• The IGF and similar multi-stakeholder platforms have a critical role in bridging gaps and driving inclusive, actionable governance.

As summarized by the moderators: the real innovation is leaving no one behind, ensuring that governance frameworks reflect collective values, protect fundamental rights, and include everyone, not just the most powerful stakeholders.

Session Report
Open Forum #10: Multistakeholder Governance & International Law in Cyberspace
Date: Wednesday, 25 June 2025
Time: 15:45–17:00 CEST

1. Session Overview

Open Forum #10 examined the intricate relationship between multistakeholder governance and international law in cyberspace. The session underscored the critical role that legal norms play in enhancing trust and promoting stability within the global digital ecosystem. It explored how international law can act as a confidence-building measure among states, the private sector, civil society, and technical communities. Particular attention was paid to the alignment of international legal frameworks with existing and emerging models of Internet governance, as well as the challenges this alignment presents in practice.

2. Key Themes and Discussions

• Interfacing Legal Norms with Multistakeholder Processes:
  Participants agreed that effective Internet governance must bridge the normative frameworks of international law with the participatory processes of multistakeholderism. Legal norms should not be developed in isolation but must evolve in active dialogue with governments, civil society, academia, the private sector, and technical experts to ensure their legitimacy, inclusiveness, and enforceability.
• The WSIS+20 Review as a Strategic Inflection Point:
  The upcoming WSIS+20 review process was highlighted as a significant opportunity to reassess and recalibrate the intersection of law and governance in the digital realm. It was noted that while multistakeholder models have progressed in recent years, their coherence with international legal norms remains incomplete and requires greater integration.
• Legal Interoperability and International Cooperation:
  A recurrent theme was the need for harmonization of legal standards across jurisdictions. Legal interoperability was framed as essential for addressing transboundary cyber threats, safeguarding human rights, and maintaining digital trust globally.
• The Declaration of Common Understanding on International Law in Cyberspace:
  The Declaration was presented as an important benchmark that reveals both convergence and divergence among states in their interpretation of international legal principles. This plurality underscores the necessity for sustained, interdisciplinary engagement and mutual understanding among stakeholders.

3. Speakers and Institutional Representation

The session featured a diverse panel of experts from government, academia, intergovernmental organizations, and the technical community:

• Mr. Maciej Groń – Regulatory and Scientific Cooperation Expert, NASK, Poland
• Ms. Anna Podgorska-Buompane – Telecom WP Chair, Horizontal WP on Cyber Issues Vice-Chair, Permanent Representation of Poland to the EU
• Ms. Elena Plexida – Vice President for Government and IGO Engagement, ICANN
• Ms. Helen Popp – Policy Advisor, Hybrid Threats & Cyber Division, EEAS
• Mr. Lukasz Kulaga – Professor, Legal-Treaty Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Poland

4. Key Takeaways

• Normative and Institutional Synergy: Effective Internet governance necessitates an iterative and collaborative relationship between legal and multistakeholder frameworks.
• Strategic Opportunity: The WSIS+20 review offers a timely platform for strengthening the synergy between legal and governance instruments.
• Urgency of Coordination: The Declaration of Common Understanding highlights the importance of ongoing dialogue to reconcile divergent interpretations of international law in cyberspace.

5. Call to Action

• Foster Multistakeholder Dialogue: Establish inclusive venues for interaction among legal, technical, and societal stakeholders to shape coherent cyber norms.
• Advance Legal Interoperability: Promote cross-border legal cooperation to enhance the harmonization of national laws and practices.
• Engage in Global Processes: Actively participate in WSIS+20 and related forums to ensure that international law remains integral to global Internet governance discourse.

6. Session Co-Organisers and Moderators

• Dr. Joanna Kulesza, Assistant Professor of International Law, University of Lodz; Executive Director, Lodz Cyber Hub Research Centre
• Mr. Wiktor Skwarek, International Cooperation Department, Ministry of Digital Affairs, Poland

Session Overview

This IGF 2025 open forum session explored how open-source AI can serve as a transformative force for Africa’s digital future. Panellists from the African Union, civil society, development partners, and the private sector discussed the value of open data, shared infrastructure, and collaborative governance in enabling AI innovation across the continent.

Participants shared experiences from grassroots labs, startups, and donor-supported initiatives to highlight how open-source AI models, tools, and datasets, particularly in African languages, are driving inclusive development. Discussions also tackled barriers such as a lack of digital infrastructure, fragmented data ecosystems, and limited access to compute resources.

The session emphasised the importance of integrating open-source principles into national and continental strategies, promoting local ownership, and ensuring that African voices are represented in global AI governance debates.

Notable Contributions

• Barbara Glover (AUDA-NEPAD) emphasised the need for trust, effective data harmonisation, and stronger involvement of local innovators and data scientists.
• Dr. Tobias Thiel (GIZ African Union) highlighted GIZ’s role through FAIR Forward, the Lacuna Fund, and Common Voice, supporting the co-creation of open datasets, capacity building, and shared infrastructure for SMEs and youth entrepreneurs.
• Adil Sulieman (African Union Commission) discussed how open-source AI supports ethical and inclusive development aligned with the AU AI Strategy.
• Kojo Boakye (Meta) spoke about Meta’s efforts to empower African developers through open initiatives like LLaMA and Akili AI, and the challenges faced in scaling such tools.

Key Takeaways

1. Open-source AI empowers local innovation by providing African researchers, developers, and SMEs with access to adaptable tools, models, and infrastructure rooted in African realities.
2. Localised datasets and inclusive policies are essential to ensure trust, relevance, and equitable development, especially in underrepresented languages and communities.
3. Collaboration and capacity-building across governments, academia, civil society, and the private sector are vital to scale sustainable, inclusive open-source AI ecosystems across Africa.

Call to Action

1. Invest in localised, high-quality datasets and shared infrastructure to make AI more inclusive and usable for African contexts.
2. Support multi-stakeholder partnerships that align with continental strategies like the AU’s AI Framework and promote co-creation of solutions.
3. Integrate open-source AI into national digital policies and treat it as a strategic development asset.

This workshop discussion focused on the urgent need to strike a balance between forward-looking, ethical governance of AI and the practical challenges of regulatory design in a fragmented international landscape. The session brought together diverse perspectives to explore how to embed ethical foresight into governance frameworks while avoiding the pitfalls of rigid or reactive regulation. The session was moderated by Tayyaba Iftikhar (on-site), Muhammad Umair, and Harisa Shahid (online) and featured speakers from diverse regions, including representatives from the private sector, civil society, the technical community, and government.

Speakers emphasized that responsible AI governance demands more than high-level principles; it requires operational, inclusive, and context-aware mechanisms that anticipate harms, enable accountability, and promote international cooperation.

Key Discussion Points

• Alexandra Krastins (Brazil) emphasized that ethical foresight must be an ongoing, operational process embedded into AI governance structures. This includes tools like ethics committees, impact assessments, and internal accountability mechanisms. She warned against importing Global North assumptions into Global South contexts and advocated for flexible, risk-based approaches, voluntary codes of conduct, and international cooperation platforms that respect local realities while harmonizing safety and accountability standards.
• Moritz Von Knebel (UK) critiqued the notion of clear “regulatory gaps,” likening the current landscape to isolated “knowledge islands” amidst vast uncertainty. He highlighted the lack of technical expertise and the reactive nature of existing frameworks, noting the risks of regulatory arbitrage in a patchwork global system. He advocated for adaptive regulatory architectures, regulatory sandboxes, and capacity-building including independent technical advisory bodies—and called for a shared vocabulary to foster international coordination.
• Vance Lockten (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada) argued that regulators need more influence over the design and deployment of AI systems, not just their aftermath. Referencing anticipatory governance models, he stressed the importance of agile regulation, international cooperation, and cultural knowledge sharing among regulators. He highlighted disparities in institutional capacity, noting that while some countries have dedicated AI expertise, others operate with minimal resources, raising concerns about equitable and effective oversight.
• Phumzile Van Damme (South Africa) called for the creation of international AI law, ideally through a UN-led process that incorporates diverse ethical systems and voices. She identified two key inclusion challenges: the absence of AI policy in many African countries due to competing priorities, and the myth of AI’s democratization. She advocated for democratization across the entire AI lifecycle—from design to governance to profit distribution—and urged both the Global South to assert itself and global institutions to proactively include underrepresented voices.
• Yasmin Al-Douri (Germany) stressed the need for infrastructure as a foundation for democratizing AI access. She proposed a use-case-based regulatory framework (rather than risk categories), which considers how AI is deployed across sectors. Regulations, she argued, must be implementable and understandable by developers, and multistakeholder approaches must include youth meaningfully—not just symbolically. She emphasized co-creation spaces where diverse disciplines and generations work together on policy and technical solutions.

Audience Engagement:

The audience actively engaged with the panel through pointed and timely questions that reflected both conceptual and practical concerns. One participant asked whether we are entering an era of AI fragmentation, akin to internet fragmentation, due to the absence of consensus-based definitions and a shared global language.  Another audience member asked whether any exemplary AI policy frameworks currently exist that successfully balance innovation and ethical oversight.  A third question addressed the pushback from tech companies against what they frame as excessive regulation, raising concerns about whether the AI space is headed toward a confrontation similar to the one seen between governments and social media platforms.

Conclusion:

The session emphasized the need for anticipatory and inclusive AI governance that balances innovation with accountability. Speakers called for adaptive regulatory frameworks, international coordination, and meaningful inclusion of underrepresented voices, particularly from low income countries and youth communities. While challenges like regulatory fragmentation and limited capacity persist, the discussion highlighted promising approaches such as use-case-based models and co-creation spaces. The workshop concluded with a call for proactive, flexible, and context-sensitive governance rooted in ethical foresight.

The birth of a project: how the GIIICC is a response to today’s challenges

Among the multiple reasons to prioritize information integrity about climate change lies the urgency derived from an increase in devastating extreme weather events. Recent examples from Brazil were presented by Mr. Eugênio Garcia, such as the historic drought of 2023 in the Amazon rainforest or the floodings in the south of the country. The Brazilian presidency of the G-20 thus identified the need to tackle the spread of misinformation in contexts of natural disaster and introduced information integrity as a priority within G-20’s Digital Economy Working Group. It was a pioneering step in this multilateral forum which crystalized in the Maceió Ministerial Declaration on Digital Inclusion for All of 2024. The incorporation of UNDGC and UNESCO strengthened the global scale of the initiative, through the operationalization of the partnership thanks to an initial pledge of 1 million dollars into its newly created Fund.

Diagnosing the present risks in the information ecosystem

Restrictions on freedom of expression and hate speech against journalists and communicators were identified as a growing risk by all panelists present, who noted with concern the rise of violent episodes fueled by narratives of misinformation. Ms. Charlotte Scaddan. Explained how the fossil fuel industry as well as state actors weaponize climate change as a wedge issue to generate instability through the information ecosystem. Both traditional and social media platforms act as a vehicle for these processes, yet emerging technologies such as generative AI are already subject to manipulation as well. Conspiracy theories, denialist narratives or anti-elite discourse are among the frequent strategies identified. This situation, with tangible ramifications on human rights, indirectly affects peace and security, international law or sustainable development among other impact areas presented.

The interventions of Mr. Guilherme Canela built upon the importance of considering information as a public good and recalibrating past strategies to communicate about climate change at the light of this belief. While focusing on supply and demand of information is still needed – through citizen empowerment, media literacy capacity-building or journalist training –, information intermediaries must be brought into the conversation as well. Therefore, an information ecosystem approach naturally emerged from the discussion among speakers as the adequate path forward to be included in the GIIICC.

In this line, Ms. Harriet Kingaby characterized the perverse structure of incentives that the platform business model implies for information integrity, dragging some advertisers into problematic practices. Nevertheless, fueling misinformation also harms overall trust levels in information, which ultimately increases prices for advertisers. Therefore, forcing a more transparent business model with fewer intermediaries becomes increasingly salient. These reflections were consistent with Mr. Frederick Ogenga’s research findings from the climate information environment, where platforms are the vehicle of actors such as fossil fuel companies, political figures, governments and nation states alongside traditional media. Policymakers are salient targets of misinformation, since influencing their perception of facts means affecting the policy pipeline as a whole.

Multistakeholder collaboration for a resilient global movement

A direct consequence of approaching the issue at hand from an information ecosystem perspective is the idea that initiatives that engage governments, scientists, media, advertisers, influencers, and other key professionals provide more effective and sustainable responses to information integrity threats. Rather than focusing on isolated actors, the entire information ecosystem must be addressed, redirecting it toward reliable, science-based content that supports public awareness and informed policymaking.

Consequently, the creation of a global movement for information integrity lies at the heart of the vision of the project from its inception, bringing to life the spirit of the Global Digital Compact of 2024 as well as the WSIS+20 process. Stemming from this commitment, multiple lines of work demand a multistakeholder approach and the COP30 in Brazil is seen as a relevant milestone in this context. The UN Global Principles on Information Integrity, with five recommendations – societal trust and resilience, healthy incentives, public empowerment, independent, free and pluralistic media as well as transparency and research – targeting different stakeholders – states, tech companies, media, advertisers, etc. – exemplify this outreach effort.

An action-oriented agenda and proposals

The session gave place to numerous ideas to be developed in the path forward: fostering media sustainability, supporting environmental journalists, activists and communicators, promoting scientific data on climate change, promoting transparency and accountability in digital advertising, fostering media and information literacy, etc. In addition, the need to proactively fill any information voids that may exist was underlined, since missing information leaves space for misinformation-driven narratives to thrive. Furthermore, effective action requires a profound understanding of the information ecosystem, which actors are involved, what funding channels are used to fuel misinformation and what mechanisms can be the most effective. The Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change takes all of these aspects into consideration in formulating proposals, while accounting for the existing gap when it comes to Global South.

Beyond this, three concrete engagement mechanisms are within reach today:

1. Apply to the Call for Partnerships – Open until 6 July 2025

UNESCO, together with the Government of Brazil and the United Nations, invites not-for-profit entities to submit proposals for projects that strengthen information integrity on climate change. More information at https://www.unesco.org/en/information-integrity-climate-change/call-partnerships-2025

2. Align with the Call to Action (“Mutirão”) for Information Integrity on Climate before COP-30

COP30 will provide a key opportunity to elevate information integrity as a pillar of climate action. Governments, youth, local communities, vulnerable populations, and the private sector must unite across the digital and environmental fronts to secure a fair and resilient future for all.

3. Expand national engagement in the global initiative

Governments from low and lower-middle income economies are especially encouraged to join the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change; joining Brazil, Chile, Denmark, France, Morocco, Sweden, and the UK. High-income countries are also invited to support the initiative and additionally, become donors, enabling greater investment in impactful research and action.

IGF 2025 Workshop Report

WS #139 – Internet Resilience: Securing a Stronger Supply Chain

Organized by: The Marconi Society

Overview

Workshop #139 was convened by the Marconi Society as part of its ongoing efforts to advance Internet Resilience through cross-sector collaboration. The session drew a strong turnout. Designed as an open roundtable, it encouraged active dialogue among technical experts, policymakers, civil society leaders, and industry stakeholders. The atmosphere was dynamic and constructive, with participants frequently returning to one central message: Internet resilience is a shared responsibility.

Key Themes and Speaker Insights

1. The Internet’s Fragility is a Societal Risk

Vint Cerf (Google and Marconi Society) set the tone for the session, observing that “We’ve become so dependent on the Internet that when the power goes out—or the roads are blocked, or your mobile doesn’t work—everything else stops too.” He emphasized that resilience is no longer a technical luxury but a societal necessity, underpinning everything from emergency response to economic stability.

Ram Mohan (Marconi Society) noted that “Without resilience, even minor cyberattacks or glitches can have disproportionately severe consequences,” he said, explaining how cascading failures across critical infrastructure can erode trust and economic stability.

2. Complex Interdependencies and Hidden Vulnerabilities

Olaf Kolkman (Internet Society) illustrated the real-world risks of systemic fragility through an analogy: “One of those blocks fails, and your bread will not be delivered.” He highlighted how seemingly routine services like grocery delivery depend on an elaborate mesh of digital and physical infrastructure. “This is the type of thing that can go wrong if you don’t think through your system. Main question for resilience: what can possibly go wrong, and what can possibly be broken?”

3. From Silos to Shared Responsibility: Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation

Manal Ismail (Egyptian regulator and former ICANN GAC Chair) emphasized the dual role of governments and other stakeholders: “The Internet is part of a nations’ critical infrastructure, the backbone of digital economies, and a fundamental need for society’s development.” She advocated for national digital resilience strategies, capacity-building, and multi-stakeholder processes based on principles like those from the São Paulo Guidelines (NetMundial+10). Governments, she said, should “promote conscious investment in resilient networks” and shift from simple awareness to enforceable policies that reflect the Internet’s centrality to modern life.

4. Engineering for Failure and Learning from It

Mark Nottingham (Cloudflare) brought a hands-on technical perspective: “Nothing guarantees that a packet will reach its destination.” He described a recent 36-hour service degradation triggered by cascading datacenter failures. While these systems were designed using resilience techniques such as failovers, they weren't able to handle this combination of issues. “We resolved to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” he said, outlining the company’s re-engineering of centralized systems and recommitment to best practice to improve resilience. He also underscored the broader challenge: “Unfortunately, Internet resilience is not just an issue that happens within one company. It is a systemic issue.”

Mark stressed the need for greater cooperation across businesses and sectors, pointing to efforts like Cloudflare Radar and routing security via RPKI as examples of proactive engagement.

5. A Call to Action: Resilience as Prevention

The session highlights the disconnect between the importance of resilience and the underinvestment it receives. Resilience, several speakers noted, is not a reactive fix but a design principle: an upstream investment in system integrity, continuity, and trust.

The Marconi Society’s Internet Resilience (IR) Institute, including its Hyperscalers Working Group and IR Mapping Working Group, aims to address these challenges by facilitating global cooperation and research. A draft Internet Resilience map, tracing a data packet from user action through power, software, networks, and governance, will be shared for community feedback later this year.

Conclusion

This workshop demonstrated that the Internet needs increased security measures and that building a resilient Internet is both a technical and political project, one that must be co-owned by governments, private companies, technical communities, and end users. As Olaf Kolkman noted: “The previous failure is always prevented.” To prevent the next one, we must collectively anticipate vulnerabilities, collaborate across boundaries, and make the long-term investments that true resilience requires.

The Marconi Society remains committed to articulating both the why and the how of Internet resilience and looks forward to continuing this conversation at its Internet Resilience Forum in November 2025 in Los Angeles.

UNICEF’s two-part Open Forum on “Building a Child-Rights Respecting & Inclusive Digital Future” featured a broad variety of speakers and perspectives. 

Part 1: Child rights and safety in relation to the digital environment

Four speakers from different sectors and continents discussed how to make the digital world safer for children: Caroline Eriksen, Norges Bank Investment Management; Alexander Galt, Inter IKEA Group; Makhosazana Lindhorst, South Africa Film and Publications Board; and Ms. Zhao Hui, China Federation of Internet Societies. Each brought a distinct view, but all agreed on one thing: protecting children online is urgent, complex, and requires action from multiple parts of society.

The session began by framing the digital environment as both a source of opportunity and risk. Children use digital services to learn, play, and connect, but they can also face bullying, exploitation, and other harms online. These harms are not theoretical. Research published by UNICEF Innocenti this year found that children who experience online sexual abuse or online bullying have significantly higher levels of anxiety, more suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and are more likely to self-harm. Through the perspectives of four speakers, the panel explored the various roles of different actors in creating a child rights-respecting digital future.

Speakers discussed the importance of law and policy. Other examples including public campaigns and school programs to teach digital skills were shared. These efforts show that governments can shape online spaces through rules, oversight, and education. But laws alone are not enough. They must be enforced, updated, and supported.
The private sector also has a significant impact, as well as a responsibility to respect children’s rights. Beyond individual technology companies or platforms, investors have an important role in pushing companies to prioritize action on child rights, not just as a moral issue but as a business risk. Companies that ignore these risks may face lawsuits, fines, or public backlash. Meanwhile, brands need to rethink how they design digital products/services, advertise online, and other instances of deploying digital technologies. 

A key message to emerge from the session is that no single actor can create a child rights-respecting digital future. Protecting children online requires cooperation across borders and sectors. It means listening to children, learning from research, understanding impacts across entire value chains, and sharing lessons learned. 

Part 2: Improving outcomes for women & girls with open source FemTech

Four speakers discussed how building open source FemTech products, including FemTech Digital Public Goods (DPGs), can provide a service layer to national and regional Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) that improves outcomes for women and girls: Lisa Sivertsen, Norad; Silje Dahl, Embassy of Sweden, Pretoria; Tawhida Shiropa, Moner Bondhu; and Annina Wersun, OpenCRVS.

This part of the session was divided into three themes. The first theme highlighted how current research, design, product development and investment practices result in technology largely failing to meet the needs of women and girls. Equity gaps we see in financing, research, as well the use of proprietary technologies and exclusion of youth in design processes result in digital solutions not being accessible, not locally owned and not meeting the needs of or empowering women and girls. Themes two and three focused on providing concrete examples of designing with and for women and girls – highlighting specifically the link to safety, data privacy – and their value in DPI at national level. They also discussed the value of open source in inclusivity and safety of solutions.
Four speakers represented various types of stakeholders, thus providing a holistic insight: from the perspective of a social impact tech entrepreneur; from an owner of a mature social impact platform; and from digital solution funders and digital policymakers.

All speakers – leaders in the FemTech space in their respective stakeholder categories – agreed that solutions for women and girls, as well as by women and girls, must see exponentially higher levels of funding, mentoring, and systemic support to meet the SDG Agenda goals. It was noted that relevant models and processes are already available, including UNICEF Venture Fund, the Global Digital Compact, donor financing instruments, and public and private partnerships.

Speakers also underlined the value of, and their commitment to, open-source solutions, including DPGs, in principle and in practice. DPGs ensure that solutions are more easily adaptable, interoperable, and verifiable in terms of their transparency and safety. Open-source digital public infrastructure provides the most solid return of investment in terms of scaling the digital transformation from niche approaches to shifting systems.
Key messages from the discussion included a call for inclusive design and product development to make digital solutions inclusive and safe; the need to engage a range of financing modalities and shape the actions of funders and financers to deliberately shape the development and deployment of inclusive digital solutions; and invitation to explore the DPG Standard to align with a globally endorsed approach to respecting human rights, transparency, accountability, openness and scalability for software, standards, data, AI systems, and content.

The panel discussed structural challenges that prevent people - especially in the developing regions - from having meaningful connectivity and access. Notably, these include existing and emerging digital divides that not only impact the unconnected, but also deliberately disconnect marginalised sections of the population. 

Panelists discussed specific trends at national and regional levels, especially among the DAC, and what these political shifts mean for development.

The panel discussed various development initiatives, especially in LDCs and SIDS, that are geopolitically motivated or driven by market interests, that are further fragmenting efforts, as they lack considerations of middle-mile and last-mile connectivity, infrastructure, and access. Panelists were also in agreement about how human capability building needs to go hand-in-hand with efforts to further connectivity and access. 

Summary

In her opening remarks, Anita Gurumurthy, IT for Change noted that a just and sustainable digital transition requires confronting the unequal distribution of AI capabilities alongside mounting ecological pressures, by rethinking scale and prioritizing decentralized, local approaches to AI. Current trends favor energy-intensive, homogenizing models that sideline cultural diversity and environmental limits—underscoring the urgent need to democratize innovation and reclaiming context-specific, multilingual and culturally grounded knowledge systems.

Speaking to the dimension of inclusivity, Wai Kit (Jackie) Si Tou, representative of UN Trade and Development highlighted key insights from the UNCTAD’s Technology and Innovation Report 2025 on Inclusive AI for Development, on a framework for inclusive AI grounded in three pillars:

1. Infrastructure framework that adapts to local infrastructure and supports AI applications that can also work offline, without assuming high-end connectivity or compute availability.

2. A data framework that underscores the importance of community-generated data and indigenous knowledge for socially relevant AI innovation.

3. A comprehensive skills development framework that spans investments in digital literacy to advanced AI capabilities.

At the global level, from the report, Jackie stressed the following imperatives: the need for a public disclosure mechanism modelled after the ESG (Environmental Social Governance) framework for AI accountability; a CERN-like globally coordinated, shared compute facility for all stakeholders; open and democratic innovation ecosystems; and capacity-building initiatives for developing countries.

Speaking to the dimension of indigeneity, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India and CEO, India AI Mission, drew from India’s experience, to highlight four pillars essential to advancing inclusive and sustainable AI: (i) shared compute infrastructure supported by public funding, (ii) community-driven data collection to build diverse and contextual datasets, (iii) widespread AI skill development and (iv) a global repository of shareable use cases across critical sectors. India's initiatives—like subsidized GPU access and crowdsourced linguistic data—demonstrate scalable models for democratizing AI. A coordinated global effort across these pillars could help ensure AI serves all communities while aligning with sustainable development goals.

Continuing the discussion on indigeneity, Sarah Nicole of the Project Liberty Institute, argued that true transformation must come from re-imagining digital infrastructure to give people control over their data—through open protocols like Distributed Social Networking Protocol and collective models such as data cooperatives. These approaches aim to shift power away from Big Tech and toward a more equitable, user-centric digital economy, where individuals have a voice, a choice and a stake.

Speaking to the dimension of intentionality, Amb. Thomas Schneider, Government of Switzerland, emphasized that small countries or actors can thrive in a tech-dominated world by building their own supportive ecosystems rather than trying to mimic large-scale players. Drawing on Switzerland’s historical response to the Industrial Revolution, where strategic investment in education, infrastructure and cooperative models enabled the country in harnessing innovation dividends effectively, he stressed the need for every country to find its own pathways to building AI ecosystems successfully and exploring win-win collaborations globally. 

Continuing the discussion on intentionality, Nandini Chami of IT for Change, called for moving beyond the dominant, private-value-driven AI paradigm to one centered on public interest, accountability and equity. She argued for stronger governance frameworks rooted in the precautionary principle, updated liability regimes and meaningful public participation in AI decision-making. She also emphasized that alternative models—like community AI and commons-based approaches—need policy support through public procurement, shared infrastructure and regulatory space, especially for developing countries.

The Q&A session that followed surfaced an important question on intellectual property rights and how natural persons can retain rights and agency in an AI ecosystem dominated by corporations and developers. Responding to the question, the panelists emphasized the limitations of individual data ownership, advocating instead for collective frameworks such as cooperatives and societal data commons. Abhishek Singh highlighted the importance of open-source models and fair compensation mechanisms for data contributors, including gig workers. The Ambassador of Switzerland and Sarah Nicole stressed the need to shift from personal to collective data governance, ensuring fair benefit-sharing and protecting against privatization of essential public resources like health data. Anita Gurumurthy underscored the urgency of rethinking intellectual property laws to prevent free-riding and called for global cooperation to counter monopolistic dynamics emerging from the “economy of prompts.”

Key takeaways

Local AI development requires addressing three critical dimensions: inclusivity, indigeneity and intentionality to ensure AI serves the common good rather than perpetuating existing inequalities.

On inclusivity: Inclusive AI innovation requires adapting to existing infrastructure realities such as building AI that works offline or with low compute power and working with community-generated data. Local communities must be engaged not only as users but as co-creators, with investments in digital literacy, skill-building and user-friendly tools. Public institutions can also play a catalytic role in supporting open infrastructure, reducing costs and ensuring that AI benefits are distributed equitably across different geographies and social groups. Cooperative models and shared infrastructure approaches can democratize AI access, as demonstrated by India’s subsidized compute infrastructure and Switzerland’s supercomputer sharing initiatives.

On indigeneity: There is a need to move beyond generalized and centralized AI systems that reinforce epistemic injustice. Locally grounded models such as those that support minoritized languages or indigenous knowledge are essential to resisting the cultural erasure embedded in dominant AI architectures. This requires not only diverse datasets but also rethinking computational grammars and governance structures to align with pluralistic, decolonial approaches to knowledge.

On intentionality: It is important to reject the inevitability narrative of AI and instead steer development toward collective benefit through governance and accountability mechanisms. Intentionality means applying the precautionary principle, supporting alternative models like cooperatives and commons, and embedding democratic oversight into infrastructure choices. It also involves shifting public policy—through procurement, funding and international cooperation—toward values of equity, sustainability and societal well-being rather than private profit alone.

Panelists also emphasized that data governance must shift from individual to collective approaches, with data cooperatives providing better bargaining power and quality incentives than individual data monetization. There was also a discussion on how intellectual property frameworks need fundamental reform to prevent the use of trade secrets protection for enclosing valuable data resources needed by public institutions while also preventing free-riding and cannibalization of the commons from free-riding by commercial AI models.

Recommendations

1. Establish a global framework for equitable AI governance by promoting public disclosure accountability mechanisms; ensuring equitable access to AI infrastructure by drawing on the CERN model; supporting open innovation, particularly open data and open-source tools, to democratize access to AI knowledge and capabilities; and creating a global network of AI-focused centers network , inspired by the UN Climate Technology Center, and Network to build technical capacity in developing countries.

2. Create a global repository of AI applications which can be shareable across geographies, and promote federated, task-specific and community-oriented AI models (as they represent scalable, democratic alternatives to centralized AI) through appropriate policy frameworks and public funding.

3. Update current legal frameworks, especially liability regimes, to effectively address systemic harms in AI innovation ecosystems. Given the opaque, black-box nature of AI systems, it is important to ensure that affected parties are not unduly burdened with proving harm. To bolster accountability, it is important to enshrine the precautionary principle in AI development and a societal right to information and participation in AI decision-making, drawing on frameworks such as the Rio Declaration and Aarhus Convention. 

Introduction

This report summarizes the main discussions and insights from a workshop focused on the concept of ‘duty of care’ in digital platform governance. The workshop brought together experts from various regions to explore the concept’s application in different legal and cultural contexts, and the challenges and solutions associated with its implementation. Discussions highlighted a growing international trend towards incorporating some form of duty of care into the regulation of digital platforms, while acknowledging the need to pay attention to freedom of expression and democratic processes, considering the importance of multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Regional Perspectives

The workshop discussed recent regulatory efforts that aim to hold platforms to account. In the European Union, the Digital Services Act (DSA) introduced more specific duties against illegal content and regulates the role of trusted flaggers. Certification by a governmental body and rapid verification by platforms before content removal were highlighted as key features. Trusted flaggers are a crucial part of the DSA's strategy to combat illegal content online. This system builds on years of voluntary cooperation between online platforms and trusted partners. However, the discussion revolved around how to assess the role of private actors and organizations that focus primarily on private interests, such as copyright. Thus, to ensure the effectiveness of this system, trusted flaggers exist through a certification process by a governmental body and a fast verification by platforms that then decide on removal.

The workshop also examined how trust in government can impact on platform governance frameworks. Participants discussed results from a survey from four Asian countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand), where the majority of respondents expressed distrust in governmental regulatory structures. This demonstrates the need for a multi-stakeholder approach. Additionally, the need to ensure the rule of law and due process when governments legislate on content moderation was cited, focusing on various forms of threats when initiatives are solely led by governments, including misinformation and politically motivated content.

A specific example in the Asian context was the history of using defamation laws against online speech in the Philippines, with vague government approaches to identifying misinformation often having chilling effects in freedom of expression. The country is currently seeking to update its laws and policies for digital platforms, requiring a review of the cybercrime law, as well as the creation of new, specific legislation for digital platforms. A House committee report released in June 2025 now signals a potential turning point: Lawmakers acknowledge that platforms carry a duty of care and must be held directly accountable for their role in spreading false and malicious content. While this shift is welcome, some proposals, most notably requiring social media franchises granted by Congress, risk politicizing access and undercutting free expression.

Regarding the Brazilian scenario, it is noted that the government played a central role in a draft law on the duty of care in 2023 and its relation to illegal content, hate speech, and misinformation. The draft law aims to mitigate systemic risks. However, there are concerns about the potential for a shift in the liability regime, leading to strict liability and the risk of censorship, particularly among civil society and journalists. Brazil does not have a governmental body, such as a regulator, with authority over content moderation, nor specific platform regulation law. The current regime governing platform liability for third-party content is being reviewed by the Supreme Federal Court, as it examines the constitutionality of Article 19 of Marco Civil da Internet. At this point, the workshop addressed a typology of application providers created by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, distinguishing providers according to the interference in third-party content to assign appropriate responsibility.

Key Conclusions

The workshop identified that while the concept of ‘duty of care’ could be useful in countering harmful online content and holding platforms to account, there are several challenges in implementing the duty of care in the regulation of digital platforms, including distrust in governmental regulatory structures (which varies depending on the specific local context), questions about the role and independence of trusted flaggers in the European context, the need to protect freedom of expression, and the risk of censorship due to strict liability regimes. To address these challenges, solutions discussed included governmental certification of trusted flaggers, adoption of pluralistic and multi-stakeholder approaches, citizen fact-checking, and the creation of democratic legislative frameworks that clearly defines the roles of providers and intermediaries. Participants agreed on the importance of incorporating the duty of care, recognizing that its applications may vary according to legal and cultural contexts, and highlighted the preference for inclusive and multi-sectoral approaches. In terms of action points, it was recommended to promote pluralistic strategies, clarify responsibilities, and advance safeguards for freedom of expression. In conclusion, the workshop underscored the need to balance online safety and platform accountability with democratic values through specific regulatory frameworks for digital platforms.

• Meaningful connectivity is the goal; Discussants moved past basic coverage to stress affordability, reliability, adequate speed, safety and the skills, devices and content that let people benefit meaningfully. 
• Universal Acceptance (UA) underpins an inclusive internet; UA is the technical expectation that every valid domain name and email address—regardless of script, diacritics or top-level domain—works across all software and devices. It is a supply-side prerequisite for linguistic diversity online.
• Bridging divides means addressing specific groups; For example, Indigenous communities seek spectrum rights, data sovereignty and sustained support for community-owned networks. Women and rural youth benefit when AI tools, training materials and local e-commerce run in their own dialects. Low-income urban residents gain when free or low-cost broadband is paired with strong safety features.
• Multistakeholder, bottom-up cooperation is vital; Effective solutions depend on regulators, technical community members, community networks, right-holders and civil society co-designing measures so that no single actor dominates and local priorities lead.

Th 
Nigeria’s Open Forum Report 2025
Theme: Digital Literacy as a Pre-condition for Achieving Universal Access
Introduction
Nigeria’s Open Forum at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) brought together a diverse group of national and international experts, government officials, academics, and digital rights advocates to discuss the urgent need to accelerate digital literacy and transformation across the country. With a population of over 250 million people, 70 percent of whom are youth, and 70 percent of the population living in rural areas with significantly lower literacy/infrastructure levels, Nigeria has both the challenge and opportunity to shape a digitally inclusive future. The conversation highlighted urgent areas of action and proposed strategies to ensure that Nigeria’s growing digital population is not only connected but meaningfully empowered economically and socially, using digital literacy as a step to achieving an inclusive, yet universal access.
Speakers and organization:
All the speakers listed for participation were physically present with an online audience of 34 participating across the globe. 
Mr. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi CCIE (Director General, National Information Technology Development Agency NITDA) was the lead speaker.  Ms. Judith Hellerstein, Mr. Yomi Arowosafe, Mr. Kagyah Osei, Mr. Poncelet Illeleji, and representative from the Liberia IGF all took up speaking roles. 
Dr. Wariowei, DS, (the Chairperson of NIGF-MAG) was the organizer, while Dr. Ibiso Kingsley-George and Engr. Kunle Olorundare were onsite and online moderators respectively. The rapporteurs were Ms. Martha Negedu and Mrs. Uchechi Kalu. 
Main Discussion.
Mr. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, delivered the lead paper titled "Nigeria’s Digital Literacy Journey," chronicling the key milestones in Nigeria’s digital policy evolution from 2001 till date. He highlighted the Federal Government's commitment to efficient service delivery through a systematic, layered set of policies, frameworks and initiatives through the Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy and it's agencies and culminating in NITDA's Strategic Roadmap and Action Plan (SRAP 2.0).
These efforts and strategy target the upskilling of millions of Nigerians, including the grassroots. A cornerstone of SRAP 2.0, the Digital Literacy for All (DL4ALL) initiative focuses on three major competencies: basic digital skills, intermediate professional-level skills, and advanced tech innovation capabilities. It  also addresses three platforms for delivery including: Informal Sector Program, Formal Sector Program, Workforce Readiness Program. 
He also highlighted inter-agency efforts, pointing to the Nigerian Communications Commission’s (NCC) digital literacy projects such as the ADEPTI (Advanced Digital Empowerment Programme for Tertiary Institutions), NCC / Nokia 4G-5G Training hands-on labs. The 3 Million Technical Talent (3MTT) program aimed at building a robust digital talent pipeline across Nigeria, with special emphasis on software development, cloud computing, and cybersecurity, was also x-rayed.
In addition to the three key takeaways and action points submitted earlier, the aggregation of the contribution of other online/onsite speakers are highlighted:
a) the need for data sharing and collaboration among agencies to build a synchronized governance and operational consistency. This encompasses use of uniform curricular and frameworks to ensure transparency and help in aligning digital goals across sectors.
b) a call for open licensing models to enable the development of alternative community networks and encourage breaking institutional silos to foster cost-effective access.
c) a call to policy makers to adopt a tiered policy approach that accounts for varying levels of digital readiness across Nigeria. By this, national strategies could better serve marginalized and underserved groups including women, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and rural communities.
d) the use of social media platforms which resonate with the youth for effective engagement and deliver educational content. 
e) strategies for provision for affordable devices and its distribution  
f) tackle the menace of disinformation and misinformation and the growing challenge of regulating digital spaces where national laws are often disregarded, the inclusion of parliamentarians and lawmakers from the UN and regional blocs to share experiences and explore legislation to hold tech platforms accountable. 
g) in order to address similar challenges with access, affordability, and public awareness, they emphasized the value of cross-border collaboration to harmonize West African digital literacy strategies. 
h) connectivity must become a cornerstone of Nigeria’s digital development strategy.

The session explored how to move from theory to practice in aligning Internet and AI governance, highlighting the tension between centralised AI models and Core Internet Values. Speakers emphasised transparency, accountability, safety, and inclusive multi-stakeholder collaboration - underscoring the need for aligned principles and technical standards in AI regulation. The session concluded with a call for multi-stakeholder collaboration and technical standards to ensure safe and inclusive AI development.

Action Items (are somehow a repeat of the short reporting)

• Explore layered safeguards and transparency requirements for AI algorithms, rather than requiring full model openness.
• Establish oversight, agency, and regulation mechanisms to transform Internet governance principles into technical AI standards.
• Develop a matrix mapping Internet properties and values to the AI space.
• Investigate how the principle of non-discrimination and openness in net neutrality can be extended to AI infrastructure, models, and content curation.

Introduction and Session Setup

• Olivier Crépin-Leblond initiated the session, welcoming participants and introducing the co-chairs Luca Belli and Pari Esfandiari
• Olivier outlined the session's structure, including speaker introductions: Vint Cerf, Renata Mielli, Sandrine Elmi Hersi, and additional commenters William Drake, Roxanna Radu, and Shuyan Wu.

Theoretical Framework and AI's Impact on Internet Governance

• Pari Esfandiari outlined the session's focus on bridging Internet and AI governance from theory to practice.
• Pari discussed the shift from open Internet protocols to centralised AI models and the implications for digital governance.
• She emphasised the need for updated policies and cross-sector commitment to preserve user agency and democratic oversight.
• Luca Belli highlighted the differences between the open, decentralised Internet and the centralised AI architecture, stressing the importance of intergenerativity, which allows the Internet to evolve through user contributions, and contrasts it with the proprietary and opaque nature of AI.

Speaker Presentations: Vint Cerf and Sandrine Elmi Hersi

• Vint Cerf discussed the accessibility of AI and the importance of personalising interactions with large language models.
• Vint introduced the concept of agentic generative AI and the standards A2A (Agent to Agent) and MCP (Model Context Protocol), which aim to ensure interoperability among AI agents - which could be integrated as Core AI values. He also spoke of the importance of provenance of the information that is used by the AI agents available for critical thinking and critical evaluation of what we get back.
• Sandrine Elmi Hersi highlighted the increasing use of generative AI tools and the need for transparency and openness in AI governance.
• Sandrine outlined three main areas for action: accelerating AI transparency, preserving the intelligence of the network, and ensuring non-discrimination in AI infrastructure.
• She emphasised the importance of openness and neutrality in AI markets and the need for diverse content creators and innovators.

Speaker Presentations: Renata Mielli and Hadia El Miniawi

• Renata Mielli discussed the principles of the Decalogue of CGI.BR and the need for transparency and explainability in AI governance.
• Renata identified principles that aligned with AI governance, such as freedom, human rights, and democratic governance, and those that may not, like net neutrality.
• She highlighted the need for legal and regulatory environments for AI systems and the importance of interoperability.
• Hadia El Miniawi emphasised the similarities between AI and the Internet, particularly in their impact on economic growth and productivity.
• Hadia discussed the challenges and opportunities for AI development in Africa, including the endorsement of the African Union's Continental AI Strategy.
• She raised ethical and security concerns about unrestricted access to AI algorithms and suggested alternative solutions for ensuring responsible use.

Community Comments and Discussions

• Roxana Radu emphasised the need for maturity in AI governance discussions and the integration of values into technical, policy, and legal standards.
• Roxana identified four key areas for attention: market concentration, diversity and equity, personal data collection, and technical standards.
• William Drake highlighted the challenges of applying Internet governance principles to AI, including the material interests of private actors and states.
• William emphasised the need to carefully identify for which issues there is really a clear functional need and  market demand to supply international governance and the importance of understanding the specificities of the AI space.
• Shuyan Wu highlighted China Mobile’s commitment to promoting fairness, transparency, and inclusiveness in both Internet and AI governance through efforts such as universal 5G access, user rights protections, and tailored digital services. 
• Shuyan emphasised adapting their infrastructure, data resources, and AI technologies - like smart healthcare, education platforms, and content governance - to ensure the benefits of digital innovation are equitably shared across all communities.

Discussion and Comments from the Floor

• Alejandro Pisanty emphasised the importance of defining the scope of AI governance and applying existing regulations where possible.
• Alejandro highlighted the need for a clear understanding of the benefits and risks of AI governance and the involvement of all relevant stakeholders.
• Vint Cerf reiterated the importance of risk management and liability in AI governance, and the need for provenance and explainability in AI models.
• Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C) suggested focusing on the intersection of AI and the Internet and the importance of understanding existing governance expectations.
• Andrew Campling suggested starting with principles like duty of care and the precautionary principle, drawing lessons from the failures of social media governance.

Concluding Remarks and Final Thoughts

• Yik Chan Chin emphasised the importance of risk, safety, and liability in AI governance and the role of standards in regulation.
• Yik Chan highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach and the lessons learned from previous governance efforts.
• William Drake called for a realistic approach to AI governance, emphasising the need for clear functional demand and the challenges of global collaboration, especially in intergovernmental settings
• Shuyan Wu expressed hope for continued collaboration and the importance of understanding the intersections between AI and the Internet.
• Hadia El Miniawi mentioned that regional, international, and national strategies should align and support each other, working collaboratively in parallel to strengthen shared goals without undermining national sovereignty.
• Sandra Elmi Hersi concluded that AI and Internet governance must converge, applying Core Internet Principles to AI to safeguard the Internet’s openness through a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach - starting now.
• Renala Mielli added that transforming principles into technical standards requires oversight, agency, and regulation - recognizing governance and regulation as distinct, with both multi-stakeholder processes and national AI laws essential.
• Roxana Radu declared that we need to walk the talk, turning discussion into action, building on Internet governance lessons to shape AI governance collaboratively - without reinventing the wheel but adapting what already works.
• Vint Cerf concluded that building safe systems for all users demands a collective, focused effort - ensuring safety is a foundational priority throughout the development process.

This workshop discussion focused on the urgency of e-waste management and its policy implications, exploring global frameworks and sustainable solutions. The session was moderated by Saba Tiku Beyene and Athanase Bahizire and featured speakers from diverse regions, including representatives from the private sector, civil society, technical community, ITU, and Smart Africa. 

Speakers emphasized that while e-waste represents a significant environmental and health challenge, with over 62 million tons generated annually and only around 20% formerly recycled, it also presents economic opportunities, particularly for developing countries, through job creation, circular economy principles, and creation of bankable projects that can contribute to multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Key discussion points : 

Hossam Elgamal highlighted Egypt’s situation as a major e-waste producer in Africa, generating around 370,000 tons annually, with most waste handled by the informal sector using unsafe methods. He stressed the need for strengthened Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks for comprehensive regulations focusing on strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility with clear mandates for manufacturers, importers and retailers. He also highlighted the need for capacity building and proper legislation enforcement. He cited Egypt’s Law passed in 2020, which treats e-waste as hazardous waste with specific collection, recycling and disposal guidelines through authorized facilities, and noted Egypt’s membership in the Basel Convention.

Jasmine Ko from Hong Kong discussed the importance of consumer behavior change and local adaptation of global solutions, sharing examples of mobile recycling stations used in Hong Kong to address logistical challenges in urban environments. This example illustrates how policies can fail without consideration of local contexts and user behaviors, demonstrating the need for flexible implementation of global standards. She emphasized that multi-stakeholder initiatives involving industry, government and civil society are crucial for effective e-waste management.

Emmanuel Niyikora from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) provided an international perspective, explaining the organization’s work on EPR frameworks, helping countries to implement EPR frameworks. He also emphasized the need for international knowledge exchange and South-South cooperation. He mentioned ITU’s work facilitating collaboration between countries, including Nigeria, South Africa, Colombia, and India. He emphasized that effective e-waste policies require consultative approaches involving both public and private sectors, including supporting youth innovation and open source implementations to ensure accessibility for smaller organizations.

Thelma Quaye from Smart Africa supported this perspective, highlighting that e-waste management can create value and drive innovation. She mentioned the effort of SmartAfrica building a single digital market in Africa through public and private sector collaboration. She explained how recycling, repair and reuse practices are crucial in promoting circular approaches in the digital economy. One good example is bringing refurbished devices to the official market, as it will create jobs and contribute to inclusivity and sustainability. Talking about policies, she highlighted the example of the East African Community, which has a cross-border e-waste strategy which adapts the EPR framework and localizes it to be effective. She emphasized that if we need to have prosperous digital economies, we need to embed sustainability by design, think of e-waste from the start production process, build locally grounded products for continuity and focus on citizen awareness.

Oussama Elmerrahi, a Youth Ambassador from the Internet Society, presented statistics about the global e-waste crisis, with millions of metric tonnes of e-waste generated annually, yet only around 30% formally collected and recycled. He explored how data-driven technologies like AI, IoT and Digital Product Passports (DPP) are essential tools for effective e-waste management and can support monitoring and enforcement of e-waste policies, noting that we can’t manage what we can’t measure. He emphasized that digital infrastructure investment is needed beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable and accountable.

Audience engagement : 

Alejandro Navarro from the audience discussed ongoing work by ITU study group five to develop open-source implementations of digital passports for electronics, specifically mentioning the use of GitHub repositories. He emphasized that without open source implementations, smaller organizations cannot effectively participate in innovation for the circular economy. He highlighted the work of the ITU-T in developing standards, noting that we have some standards available online with recommendations on e-waste and the circular economy as a whole. Explaining that standards help have harmonization since the device producing chain is global, it also needs global and local solutions to deal with it. 

Nicolas Fiumarelli from the online participants pointed that with the rapid progress in post-quantum cryptography and the reality that many existing IoT devices cannot be updated due to firmware or hardware limitations; asking how should governments and regulators prepare for the imminent wave of cryptographically obsolete devices, especially to ensure secure end-of-life handling and enforcement under EPR frameworks. 

Conclusion : 

The discussion demonstrated broad agreement on fundamental approaches to e-waste management, including the importance of EPR frameworks, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and technology-driven solutions. The conversation successfully reframed e-waste from purely an environmental burden to an economic opportunity requiring coordinated policy, technology, and behavioral interventions.

This session addressed the persistent financial divide that prevents community networks from accessing adequate funding. Organized by the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity, the discussion brought together researchers, investors, development finance professionals, and practitioners to examine how community connectivity initiatives can transition from grant-dependent organizations to financially sustainable enterprises. There was strong consensus on the need for blended finance mechanisms and recognition of community networks as social enterprises that generate measurable social returns alongside connectivity services.

The discussion opened with Luca Belli, who set the stage by highlighting the coalition’s extensive work in producing reports and policy recommendations. He emphasized the importance of grounding the conversation in empirical evidence, noting that the day’s presentations would contextualize the various types of community networks, regulatory hurdles, and potential solutions.

Chris Locke of the Internet Society Foundation underscored a recurring issue: the tendency to create “grantrepreneurs” rather than true entrepreneurs. He revealed that the Foundation is committing approximately $30 million in capital through a co-fund dedicated to community-centered connectivity, with the explicit goal of transforming these initiatives into financially sustainable ventures.

Marie Lisa Dacanay contributed insights from her research, describing community-centered connectivity initiatives as social enterprises that deliver a spectrum of services—transactional, social inclusion, and transformational. She shared that studies consistently found Social Return on Investment (SROI) ratios above one, with these values increasing over time, demonstrating both cost-effectiveness and growing social value.

Claude Dorion addressed the significant financial constraints most community networks face, particularly regarding capital expenditures and operational costs. He advocated for blended finance mechanisms, combining grants, loans, and flexible refundable products to meet the diverse needs of these organizations. This approach, he argued, is essential for moving beyond the limitations of traditional grant funding.

Brian Vo and Nathalia Foditsch from Connect Humanity echoed the sentiment that demand for connectivity is robust, with many networks achieving take rates between 30 and 50 percent. Their cross-sectional analysis of nine community-centred connectivity initiatives identified access to capital for infrastructure and the development of business planning skills as primary barriers to scaling these efforts.

Carl Elmstam from Sida provided insights into development finance institution perspectives. He pointed out the considerable difficulties involved in integrating development assistance with commercial investments, emphasizing that grants are not intended to produce profits. This restriction complicates the design of blended finance structures, as it limits the ways in which public and private funding can be combined effectively.

Alessandra Lustrati described FCDO’s commitment to advancing last-mile connectivity by supporting both policy and regulatory initiatives, as well as piloting business models at the community level. She stressed that development finance should prioritize fostering more enabling business environments for social enterprises and community networks.

Throughout the session, there was broad consensus on several key points. All speakers agreed that blended finance—mixing grants, loans, and flexible financing—is crucial for the sector’s sustainability. The aggregation of multiple community networks into investment portfolios was highlighted as a strategy for managing risk and scaling impact. Additionally, the conversation reflected a shift from advocacy to rigorous, quantitative research as the foundation for building investment cases.

The need for standardized methods to measure and communicate social impact to the financial sector was identified as an ongoing challenge.

A critical operational issue that emerged throughout the discussion was energy supply. After a question from the online audience about energy availability, several speakers acknowledged this as fundamental to network sustainability. Community networks in underserved areas often lack access to grid electricity, making renewable energy solutions essential for sustainable operations.

Gustaff iskandar from Common Room, who was in the audience, briefly mentioned their experience with micro-hydro power in Indonesia, highlighting practical approaches to addressing energy challenges in community network deployments.

The session demonstrated a maturing understanding of community network financing, with a strong foundation for moving beyond traditional grant-based models. The recognition of community networks as infrastructure investments with measurable social returns, combined with concrete funding commitments, suggests positive momentum for bridging the financial divide in digital inclusion. Continued coordination and innovation in financing mechanisms are required to achieve sustainable community connectivity at scale

Cybersecurity Odyssey: Securing Digital Sovereignty and TrusT

Introduction

Speakers opened by noting how rapid advances in AI, quantum computing, and pervasive cyberattacks (for example the 2025 “Salt Typhoon” telecom breach) have exposed the fragility of critical infrastructure worldwide .  In this climate, the IGF 2025 workshop set out to balance national digital sovereignty with the need for global cooperation.  The session description aptly framed this “cybersecurity odyssey” as a search for governance frameworks built on “security-by-design, resilience, and digital sovereignty” .  Moderator  (Ernest) Mafuta of Zambia underscored the stakes, declaring that “in a digital age where trust is the currency and sovereignty the fortress, the challenge lies in building resilient, interoperable systems that uphold both security and individual rights” . 

The panel drawn from Africa. America  and Asia aligned these ideas with broader initiatives like the UN’s Global Digital Compact, examining how to harmonize standards internationally without undermining local control .  This session report highlights the key insights and policy recommendations that emerged.

Trust and Human-Centric Security

A central theme was that people are allies, not obstacles, in cybersecurity.  Lily Edinam Botsyoe (Ghana, technical community) illustrated this with a compelling “spider story.”  She described a scenario where a researcher repaired a broken cobweb without consulting the spider only to have the spider destroy the entire web when it returned .  The lesson was clear: policies must involve people from the start, not as an afterthought.  As Botsyoe emphasized, “trust is not a byproduct of strong policy. It is a foundation of it” .  Likewise, Samaila Atsen Bako (Nigeria, Code for Africa) rejected the notion of end-users as the “weakest link.”  Instead, he insisted that a well-equipped and informed person becomes “your first line of defence… your literal human shield” .Other panelists reinforced this human-centric view.  Boutife (“Bolu”) Adisa (Nigeria, ICANN) put it bluntly: “security and trust go hand in hand” – secure systems breed genuine public confidence .  Osei Keija (Ghana Youth IGF) framed the insight powerfully: “Security without rights is brittle” .  All agreed that transparency, accountability, and civic participation are as important as any technical fix.  In practice, this means embedding multi‑stakeholder processes throughout policy development so that diverse communities have a say.

Sovereignty and Regional Cooperation

Panelists explored how countries can assert sovereignty over their networks while still cooperating internationally.  Ihita Gangavarapu (India) noted a clear “shift from free flow of data to regional control and localisation” in digital policy worldwide .  Yet she argued that this trend need not fragment the Internet.  Instead, regional cooperation can create “trusted data flows, shared security principles, and joint R&D on resilient infrastructure” .  For example, India’s emerging Trusted Telecom Center and Kenya’s multistakeholder digital ID consultations show how national initiatives can align with global standards.  Gangavarapu even highlighted content and cultural sovereignty: countries should manage content moderation “in ways that reflect their cultural and linguistic norms,” or risk digital “colonialism” where global platforms override local values .

From a military perspective, Dr. Monojit Das (India, Ministry of Defence) cautioned that cyberspace is now “a frontier of warfare” on par with land, sea, air, and space .  He therefore urged a whole‑of‑nation defense posture, engaging not just the government but tech companies, civil society, and citizens.  Dr. Das recommended starting cooperation on universally agreed threats for example, by creating an international “collaborative portal for tackling fake news similar to Wikipedia’s model” .  He also stressed the need for clear norms: defining thresholds for cyber conflict and coordinated response mechanisms, lest traditional institutions like the UN fall out of step.  Together these insights suggest that digital sovereignty is best protected through alliances on shared challenges, not isolation.

Policy Recommendation

Based on the discussion, the following policy approaches emerged as essential:

• Embed Security-by-Design:  Mandate that new technologies (from AI systems to telecom networks) be built with security from the outset.  Speakers urged adopting a zero-trust architecture (“never trust, always verify”), requiring features like multi-factor authentication, continuous threat modeling, and automated compliance checks .  Governments were advised to accelerate implementation of post-quantum cryptography and sandbox innovations (as done in the UK and Singapore) to stay ahead of emerging threats .
• Cultivate Inclusive Governance:  Cybersecurity policies should be co-created with all stakeholders.  As Botsyoe and Bako stressed, regulations must involve affected communities “proactively rather than reactively” .  This means embedding multi-stakeholder processes (with women, youth, and marginalized groups) in drafting cyber laws, and including sunset clauses to regularly review and update rules .  In practice, this could extend to culturally aware content policies – for instance, allowing countries to enforce moderation aligned with local norms – and ensuring that rights (privacy, free expression) are safeguarded in any security design.
• Harmonize Standards and Share Intelligence:  The workshop highlighted the importance of cross-border cooperation.  Panelists recommended using international forums (like the Global Digital Compact) to align cybersecurity and AI standards across regions .  Proposals included multilateral treaties embedding human‑rights safeguards (Dr. Khouzeifi) and shared threat‑intelligence networks.  Monojit Das’s idea of cooperating first on common threats (fake news, disinformation, supply-chain security) can serve as a practical starting point .  In short, regions should harmonize frameworks and recognize mutual certifications for trusted vendors and infrastructure.
• Invest in Capacity and Literacy:  Technical solutions must be backed by education and institutional capacity.  The panel recommended expanding civic digital literacy programs so that citizens understand cyber risks and rights .  Governments and NGOs should fund training for SMEs and community groups.  Parallel efforts include building threat‑intelligence partnerships (even across continents) and supporting R&D cooperation.  As several speakers emphasized, an informed public and skilled workforce are critical to building enduring trust in digital systems .

Key Takeaways

• Trust Must Lead:  Participants agreed that trust is the foundation of cybersecurity, not a byproduct.  Effective protection emerges when users are seen as partners – “your first line of defence” – rather than threats .  Cyber policies should therefore be transparent, rights-respecting, and designed to earn public confidence from day one.
• Build on What Works, Together:  There is no need to “reinvent the wheel” by creating entirely new frameworks .  Instead, the focus should be on better implementing existing standards (NIST, OWASP, etc.) and harmonizing them internationally.  Regional coalitions can adapt these proven tools to local contexts while maintaining interoperability .
• Human-Centric, Multi-Stakeholder Approach:  Effective cyber defense requires a multi-sector alliance.  Governments, the tech industry, and civil society must collaborate from the start.  Solutions that ignore human factors or community voices (as Botsyoe’s spider story dramatized) will fail.  When policies are co-created and inclusive, societal buy-in improves and security measures are more resilient in practice .

Calls to Action

1. Mandate Secure-by-Design Practices:  Policymakers should require that critical systems adopt zero-trust principles and forward-looking encryption.  National regulations could mandate multi-factor authentication, continuous red‑teaming, and post-quantum cryptography (as advocated by Adisa) .  These measures must be backed by legislation and international standards to ensure baseline security.
2. Champion Participation and Rights:  Governments and industry must institutionalize participatory governance in cybersecurity.  This means holding regular multi-stakeholder consultations, building mechanisms for public feedback, and protecting civil liberties even as defenses are strengthened .  Citizens and youth organizations (echoing Oseig Kaygah activism) should be empowered to scrutinize surveillance policies and demand accountability.
3. Invest in People and Collaboration:  All stakeholders should bolster digital literacy and cross-border cooperation.  This includes funding education programs so citizens understand cyber hygiene and privacy rights .  At the same time, states and companies should set up shared threat-intelligence platforms and regional standards bodies to pool resources.  We must also respect local contexts  for example, by aligning content moderation with cultural norms  to ensure communities trust and adopt the solutions.

By heeding these lessons and acting on these recommendations, the IGF community can move closer to a world where digital sovereignty and trust reinforce rather than undermine each other. The workshop underscored that building resilient, inclusive cybersecurity is a collective journey  one that requires vision, cooperation, and above all a steadfast commitment to putting people at the center of the Internet’s future

The session was hosted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and focused on highlighting the important link between IP, alternative dispute resolutions and esports. It also provided an opportunity to discuss the upcoming WIPO guide on esports and the International Games and Esports Tribunal.

The experts from WIPO and Video Games Europe, and legal practitioners examined:

• IP rights across the complex network of stakeholders in competitive video gameplay, including developers and publishers, tournament organizers, players and teams. 
• Different licensing policies that vary among companies, games, and territories.
• Key strategies for safeguarding game assets, team logos, streaming content, and digital innovations, through trademarks, copyrights, and contracts.
• Common IP-related conflicts in esports, such as unauthorized use of content, contract breaches, and intellectual property disputes, and how to proactively address them through mediation and arbitration.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the discussions:  

• Innovators, creators and entrepreneurs, including in the video games and esports industry, need to understand how intellectual property works.
• The growing esports sector is very much based on intellectual property rights from different stakeholders.  From video game publishers to players, the management of IP rights is crucial to seize the opportunities in the field and have successful careers, teams and competitions.
• As the sector grows in complexity, disputes related to IP, contracts, and fair play are likely to increase. ADR mechanisms can offer flexible, cost-efficient and confidential tools for resolving these disputes and supporting sustainable growth.

A PDF version of this report is available at https://csit.tk.

1. Introduction
This workshop convened global stakeholders to examine the growing threat of AI-generated sexual deepfakes, particularly those targeting children and adolescents. Drawing on case studies from Brazil, the Netherlands, Morocco, Tunisia, South Korea, and others, the discussion underscored the need for legal reform, technical safeguards, cultural education, and cross-sectoral collaboration. The speakers emphasized that the misuse of generative AI to produce non-consensual sexual imagery reflects deeper systemic issues of gender-based violence, privacy erosion, and platform accountability.

2. Prevalence and Nature of Sexual Deepfakes
Sexual deepfakes, including altered photos or videos that simulate nudity or sexual activity, are increasing globally. In South Korea, a spike in reports of AI-generated fake nudes of classmates was observed in 2023, particularly via messaging apps like Telegram. Similar incidents were also reported in Tunisia, Morocco, and Brazil.

3. Barriers to Reporting and Enforcement
A recurring theme was the difficulty of reporting, especially in conservative societies where victims fear humiliation. In countries like Morocco and Tunisia, cultural stigma prevents many victims from coming forward.

Furthermore, enforcement is often limited by legal loopholes. Many laws do not yet address synthetic media adequately, and platforms often avoid liability by deleting content without supporting legal investigations.

4. Platform Accountability
Speakers raised serious concerns about platforms that facilitate or ignore the spread of CSAM and deepfake tools. Some platforms have started to take limited action, such as META banning advertisers of nudifying apps.

Participants stressed that platforms and app developers must be held accountable through legal and technical mechanisms, especially when they are based outside local jurisdictions.

5. Detection and Technological Responses
Several panelists discussed the technical challenges of detection. Many generative AI tools operate offline (e.g., Stable Diffusion), making it difficult to monitor their outputs. Detection efforts should focus on:

Developing localized detection datasets

Enhancing NGO-led image classification and blocklisting, such as through the Internet Watch Foundation

There were also calls to pressure search engines and app stores to remove or demote nudify apps and related content.

6. Legal and Regulatory Reform
Several jurisdictions are in the process of updating their criminal codes.

Legal clarity is needed to:

Recognize synthetic sexual content as a form of abuse

Extend responsibility to the developers and distributors of harmful tools

Balance encryption rights with the need to detect illegal content, particularly in end-to-end encrypted services

Participants cautioned against laws that could be misused by authoritarian governments, and stressed the importance of ensuring child protection laws are not weaponized against free speech.

7. Education and Psychological Support
The role of education was central throughout the workshop. Several countries, including the Netherlands, Brazil, and South Korea, are experimenting with school-based programs and campaigns. Examples include:

Trauma-informed co-creation workshops with victims and youth

National educational materials (e.g., SaferNet-UNICEF guides)

Digital literacy modules integrated into sexual education weeks

Anonymous recovery programs for victims of online abuse

Awareness efforts should target both youth and government officials, including ministries of education, to ensure policies are not only bottom-up but also top-down.

8. Youth Perspectives
Youth participants called for a shift away from punitive-only responses toward empathetic and restorative approaches. They emphasized:

The need to educate adults as well as children

The importance of listening to survivors’ own voices in policy design

The potential role of peer influencers and youth-led awareness programs

9. Key Takeaways
Sexual deepfakes are a global and escalating issue, especially among youth, and reflect deep-rooted gender-based violence.

Legal, educational, and technical systems are lagging, often leaving victims without recourse.

Cross-sectoral coordination is essential, but current efforts are fragmented and reactive.

Victim support, cultural change, and digital literacy must be prioritized over solely punitive responses.

10. Recommendations
Strengthen platform accountability, including obligations for app stores, search engines, and encrypted messaging services to prevent the spread of CSAM and deepfake apps.

Invest in detection and prevention tools, including localized datasets, immutable watermarking, and NGO-driven reporting platforms.

Expand digital citizenship education from early childhood, including both students and decision-makers.

Ensure survivor-centered support systems, with trauma-informed resources and restorative justice models.

Promote international collaboration through aligned standards, shared datasets, and joint campaigns across jurisdictions.

Summary

The Universal Postal Union (UPU) Open Forum on Strengthening Cyber Resilience in Global Posts & Logistics, moderated by Mayssam Sabra of the UPU's .POST Business Management Unit, brought together several experts to address the escalating cyber threats facing the global postal sector as it increasingly relies on digital technologies. The session highlighted that the global postal network is a critical infrastructure for trade, communication, and economic development, but its growing reliance on digital technologies exposes it to severe cyber threats like ransomware, phishing, data breaches, and supply chain attacks, which can disrupt operations, compromise sensitive data, damage reputation, and erode public trust.

Kevin Hernandez, Digital Inclusion Expert at the UPU, presented findings from a forthcoming Digital Panorama Report based on a survey of UPU member countries. The survey revealed that posts are offering far more digital services than anticipated, extending well beyond traditional postal services into multiple sectors. For instance, 71% of posts promote economic inclusion through e-commerce, 58% facilitate financial inclusion via digital financial services, and 51% offer e-government services. Many posts (34%) are evolving into "one-stop shops" for economic, financial, social, and digital inclusion, especially benefiting less connected users in rural areas by providing services through digitally equipped post office counters and mobile delivery staff. However, this expansion has not been matched by adequate cybersecurity. The current state of cyber hygiene practices in the postal sector needs significant improvement, with suboptimal implementation rates across all surveyed practices. Only secure websites were implemented by at least two-thirds of posts, while critical practices like cybersecurity training (less than half) and incident response plans (around 40%) lagged significantly. Furthermore, Hernandez noted a drastic regional difference, with developing regions, particularly Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, and Africa, showing the lowest implementation rates of cyber hygiene best practices. A major concern is the mismatch between cybersecurity workloads and budgets: about 70% of posts saw an increase in workload, but less than half increased their budget allocations, especially in developing regions.

Nigel Cassimire, Deputy Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU), acknowledged that digital transformation in Caribbean postal services is not very advanced, which contributes to lower cybersecurity implementation rates in the region. He highlighted the CTU's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the UPU, signed in 2023, to promote digital transformation and enhance cybersecurity capabilities through initiatives like the UPU's digital readiness for e-commerce assessments, the adoption of the secure .POST top level domain, and the CONNECT.POST initiative.

Floreta Faber, Deputy Director General at the Albanian National Cyber Security Authority, shared Albania's experience with a strong state-sponsored cyber attack in mid-2022 that affected over 1,200 e-government services, leading to significant cybersecurity reforms, including new laws aligned with EU-NIST directives. She presented data showing that over 15% of cyber attacks in Albania target the postal system, primarily through domain impersonation and phishing campaigns, which exploit public trust in postal brands and can erode confidence in public services. In response, Albania has implemented proactive measures such as targeted cybersecurity training, early detection systems, real-time monitoring, and joint incident response simulations with the Albanian Post Office. Floreta Faber stressed that the human layer remains the weakest link in cybersecurity attacks, necessitating both technical hardening and widespread awareness raising among citizens and postal employees.

Mats Lillesund, Director of Governance and Communication at Posten Bring AS (Norwegian Post), confirmed that Norway faces similar global threat challenges, including fraud campaigns utilising postal logos in phishing attacks and more aggressive computer attacks. He emphasised the critical importance of collaboration between postal organizations and industry stakeholders. Norway has fostered a culture of openness regarding security incidents, and he cited the Nordic Financial CERT as a successful model for sector-specific information sharing and leveraging collective knowledge.

Tracy Hackshaw, Head of the .POST Business Management Unit at the UPU, outlined the UPU's comprehensive cyber resilience programme. He mentioned numerous public reports of cyber attacks in the postal sector globally, not limited to developing countries. Key initiatives include: