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