Information Society debate needs much more input from Global Majority

Global Partners Digital

The World Summit on the Information Society 20-year review process (WSIS+20) is picking up pace, with the contours of a shifting global landscape beginning to emerge. Governments and other stakeholders have begun to signal their positions – through written submissions, bilateral diplomacy, and exchanges at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the WSIS+20 High-Level Event.

The WSIS) is a unique two-phase United Nations summit initiated in order to create an evolving multistakeholder platform aimed at addressing the issues raised by information and communication technologies (ICTs) through a structured and inclusive approach at the national, regional and international levels.

The goal of WSIS is to achieve a common vision, desire and commitment to build a people-centric, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society where everyone can create, access, utilise and share information. The UN General Assembly Resolution 56/183 (21 December 2001) endorsed the holding of the WSIS. – Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform

But for all the activity, the debate continues to be shaped by a narrow set of voices. Perspectives from the Global Majority – especially on questions dominating the process – remain underexplored, misunderstood or absent altogether.

That’s a problem. Because the WSIS+20 outcome won’t just determine the future of the WSIS framework. It will also influence broader digital governance dynamics – what norms take hold, what institutions endure and how power is distributed. To engage effectively, stakeholders need a fuller view of the landscape.

To help fill this gap, Global Digital Partners (GPD) has partnered with the Global Network Initiative (GNI) and others to publish The Road to WSIS+20: Key Country Perspectives, a new report drawing on the views of 16 governments across regions.

It offers insights into where governments stand – and where they don’t – on some of the process’s most contested issues.

Three themes stand out.

First, the underlying models of governance remain deeply contested

• A number of governments from the Global Majority – including Brazil, Chile and Colombia – have reaffirmed their commitment to inclusive, rights-based and multistakeholder digital governance, even if public statements of support haven’t necessarily been backed by robust engagement on a national level
• They are joined by governments such as the UK and Switzerland, as well as regional blocs like the EU, which have also advocated for open, participatory models grounded in human rights
• Others – including India and Saudi Arabia – have focused more on strengthening intergovernmental coordination and addressing structural inequalities faced by developing countries
• Meanwhile, Russia and China continue to promote more state-centric approaches, emphasising national sovereignty, security and development over rights-based or multistakeholder frameworks

Second, institutional questions – like the future of the IGF and the relationship between WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact – reveal both alignment and ambiguity

• There’s broad support across stakeholder groups for preserving the IGF, with proposals to strengthen its mandate and resourcing backed by civil society, technical community and some governments (including Ghana and South Africa)
• GPD’s comparative mapping of stakeholder positions on the IGF confirms this convergence while also pointing to areas of lingering uncertainty around implementation and reform
• Similarly, there is a high level of support across governments and non-governmental stakeholders for alignment between WSIS and GDC, with many countries expressing concern about duplicative structures which might take away from successes of the existing UN architecture (e.g. IGF)
• However, there is less certainty about precisely how this interaction should take place and whether proposals like the GDC–WSIS ‘joint roadmap’ – championed by Switzerland and Australia and supported by the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS (GDRC-WSIS) – will gain traction.

Third, calls for equity are widespread, but point in different directions

• While many governments call for a more inclusive and balanced system, what that means in practice varies. Some prioritise state-led development cooperation; others emphasise enabling meaningful participation from stakeholders in under-resourced contexts
• Without concerted action, there’s a risk that equity, participation and concentration of power become empty rhetoric while calls for intergovernmental cooperation dominate
• Understanding these dynamics is key – not only to shaping WSIS+20 outcomes, but to strengthening multistakeholder and rights-based governance more broadly

GPD is actively engaging in the process, including through a joint submission on behalf of GDRC-WSIS in response to an Elements Paper. With the next informal consultation scheduled for 29 July and a zero draft expected shortly after, now is the moment to engage

The joint submission, authored by GPD and 17 other organisations, makes recommendations to anchor the WSIS review process and outcomes in human rights and meaningful multistakeholder engagement

The submission responds to the Elements Paper published by the co-facilitators last month as a starting point for the ultimate outcome document of the process. A more detailed roadmap for the process is expected to be published in the coming weeks.

We welcome the Elements Paper as a positive first step in the process. We particularly appreciate the introduction which grounds the Elements Paper in multistakeholder cooperation and provides clear analysis of changes in the digital landscape since the original WSIS Summits.

At the same time, we recommend the following elements be better reflected to respond to the priorities raised by the GDRC-WSIS and other stakeholders during the consultations.

We recommend that the zero draft:

• Ensures a human rights-based and gender-responsive approach, avoiding overly punitive or security-oriented language and anchoring the language in international human rights law and frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This includes recognising the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the UN human rights mechanisms as central to Internet and digital policymaking
• Guarantees protection against restrictions on access to and use of the Internet and digital technologies, such as Internet shutdowns, online censorship, surveillance or harassment, and reinforces the obligations of all stakeholders to stop using technologies that are fundamentally incompatible with human rights
• Recognises the structural barriers and risks that hinder meaningful connectivity and disproportionately impact specific rights-holders
• Establishes a clear pathway for integrating the GDC commitments through the WSIS framework, taking into account the proposal by Switzerland to develop a joint implementation roadmap and establish a multistakeholder advisory body to support their combined implementation
• Endorses a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance and establishes the IGF as a permanent structure with adequate and dedicated funding. This includes referring to existing definitions of multistakeholder Internet governance, explicitly acknowledging all stakeholder groups, and incorporating a reference to the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines, adopted at NETmundial+10 in 2024

Convened in São Paulo, Brazil, in April 2024, NETmundial+10 included stakeholders from academia, civil society, governments and international organisations, the private sector and the technical community, who and which asserted the need for improvements to Internet governance and digital policy processes.

The event spelled out how to bring all stakeholders, people, cultures, countries and distinct economies together to solve the common challenges we face. These transcend our divisions and can only be resolved by harnessing the energy of our disagreements, arguments, and hopes to shape a better future for all. – NETmundial

The joint submission is submitted by

• Access Now
• ARTICLE 19
• Association for Progressive Communications
• Centre for Communication Governance
• National Law University Delhi
• CyberPeace Institute
• Data Privacy Brasil
• European Center for Not for Profit Law
• Derechos Digitales
• Digital Rights Foundation
• Fundación Multitudes
• the Global Forum for Media Development
• the Global Network Initiative
• Global Partners Digital
• the International Center for Not for Profit Law
• Media Foundation for West Africa
• Paradigm Initiative
• the Tech Global Institute, and
• the World Association for Christian Communication

Together, our organisations formed the GDRC-WSIS to promote a human rights-based, people-centric and multistakeholder approach to the WSIS+20 review process.

For more information about the coalition or to submit a membership request, visit here.

For help understanding the complex digital governance landscape and keeping track of key events and processes, visit GPD’s Digital Governance Hub.

• Read more here