Hi S.,

It'd be interesting to see how the non-passive funding would work seeing that there is no successful case in history for any reference.

Cheers,

JO

On 08/11/2025 8:50 pm, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:

Dear Jimson,

My point was just that.  When a country has a poor local economic environment, worsened by persistent causative factors and often combined with inefficient, corrupt, or malignant governance, it provides a compelling reason for global processes to channel funding.  What you probably missed is that I did not imply passive, hands-off funding. 

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 4:21 PM Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng> wrote:

Hi Sivasubramanian,

Can you name a country in history whose local economic environment is bad for investment, and has benefited considerably from forced injection of funding?

In my opinion, any funding mobilised into areas where it is not desired will be wasted. As it is said, it takes two to tango.

Cheers,

Jimson

On 05/11/2025 3:53 pm, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:

"funding naturally goes to countries with a friendly, balanced investment environment that upholds the rule of law." [Jimson]

Those countries (non-specific) that don't have such environment happen to be the ones that may be in greater need of help. (In general) if a country is badly organized to handle an inflow of substantial help, or otherwise under some form of partial or self-serving dictatorial rule, funding can and must still be earmarked perhaps with a process to route it, administer it through two or three competent nations who will together  designate a suitable, empowered task force to ensure that the funds are carefully and optimally deployed, despite local conditions. 

Sivasubramanian M

Nameshop

India.

Internet@nameshop.in

On Wed, 5 Nov, 2025, 18:11 Anriette Esterhuysen via wsis20, <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Jimson

Thanks for responding :)

An enabling environment is absolutely fundamental. But the evidence shows that even when there the environment is relatively "enabling", investment flows towards areas/regions/activities that are likely to generate a decent ROI, in not too long a timeframe.

In contexts where there is very uneven existing infrastructure, human capacity and business activity this does mean that some people and places remain 'left behind'.  In countries dealing with massive debt burdens it becomes even harder to effect positive change.

One of the activities we suggest for a working group is precisely to look at what approaches to financing WSIS implementation have worked well, and what have not . We also know that all over the world even where there is healthy private sector investment, the need for public investment does not go away.  Also, we need an open and competitive enabling environment that creates opportunity for a variety of different initiatives - small, medium, large, national, local and international. We don't have nearly enough of that - particularly not in telecoms and internet access markets. And I am not even talking about demand-side investment which is an even grater challenge.  That is why Action Line C6 is so important.

But the importance of an enabling environment does not detract from the fact that financing has to be taken seriously -- by all stakeholder groups, but particularly by governments. Please note also that our proposal is not simply for 'rich' countries to give more money to so-called "poor" countries. We are simply saying that there is a need for a systematic look at financing WSIS implementation and doing this in the outcome document itself is just not realistic. That is why we suggest a working group.

By the way, I found this article a very good and easy read. It  is an empirical look at "blended finance" defined as the use of concessional public resources to mobilise private capital for development and shows that it just does not work all that well, even when the environment is kind of "enabling". Mind the Mission, Not the Gap:
Rethinking finance for public purpose by Mariana Mazzucato and Rogério Vieira de Sá, University College London Institute for Public Purpose  (2025).

Best 

Anriette

Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com
Senior advisor global and regional internet governance
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org//afrisig.org

On 2025/11/05 11:42, Jimson Olufuye wrote:

Hi Anriette et al,

There is a saying that "where your treasure is, is where your heart will be". From business perspective, those with the funds need to see the value in where their investment is going. 

I do not object to the call for a Working Group on Financing, but the reason the earlier call failed has not been addressed, and that is the need for necessary enabling environment at the national/subregional/regional levels that ensures the funding when deployed, delivers benefits, ROI, and is sustainable. 

The WSIS Action Line C6, Enabling Environment, states clearly:

38. An enabling environment at national and international levels is essential for the Information

Society. ICTs should be used as an important tool for good governance.

39. The rule of law, accompanied by a supportive, transparent, pro-competitive, technologically

neutral and predictable policy and regulatory framework reflecting national realities, is essential for

building a people-centred Information Society. Governments should intervene, as appropriate, to

correct market failures, to maintain fair competition, to attract investment, to enhance the

development of the ICT infrastructure and applications, to maximize economic and social benefits,

and to serve national priorities.

I can tell you that funding naturally goes to countries with a friendly, balanced investment environment that upholds the rule of law. If the Working Group would further stretch this, that would be great. But would the Working Group compel countries to implement sustainable investment policies?

A tweak recognising the above in your draft language may be necessary. 

The summary from my business perspective is that, much of what would drive investment lies with the investment policies of countries within their borders and in cooperation with others across their economic subregions/regions.

Thanks.

Jimson

Dr Jimson Olufuye, (fncs, ficma, CISA, CISM, CRISC, PRINCE2, PhD)
Principal Consultant, Kontemporary Konsulting Ltd,  www.kontemporary.net.ng
Founder, fmr Chair, & Chair of Advisory Council, AfICTA, www.aficta.africa

On 05/11/2025 8:17 am, Anriette Esterhuysen via wsis20 wrote:

Dear Isra, Nick and all

Financing is indeed a priority and APC.org has propose a simple way forward by proposing that a working group or task force to work on financing for fixed period of time post WSIS+20 be mandated in the outcome document. 

Nick you might remember that both  the ideas you share here were in the original report of the WSIS Task Force on Financing Mechanisms convened in Geneva in 2003 and presented in Tunis. Unfortunately these proposals were not accepted and member states did not give financing the attention it deserved. The rest is history -- and is reflected in Africa, 20 years later, having only 38 to 38% internet penetration.

I like Nick's ideas but I think they will only produce benefit alongside a mandated working group or task force.

How will these 'good ideas' be implemented and monitored? Who will be accountable for following up on these good ideas. How can there be certainty that these good ideas meet specific needs of specific regions or communities? And are they really that different from what is underway already? For example the ITU is already working towards the necessary reform in now Universal Service Funds operate.

On their own these good ideas will not have the impact that is needed to deal with a resource gap that is massive -- as huge as the digital inequality gap which is simply not shrinking for many people and parts of the world. In fact, as we move to faster and greater digitalisation those who do not have the basic connectivity, skills or devices become even more marginalised than they already are.

APC’s suggestion is to amend paragraph 72 of the outcome document to read as follows (new text in bold):

We recognise that harnessing ICTs for development and bridging digital divides will require further sustained investment in infrastructure and services, capacity-building, promotion of joint research and development and transfer of technology on mutually agreed terms, with public as well as private investment.

We call for the establishment of a dedicated working group or task force to explore and propose financing mechanisms to support implementation of the WSIS vision and goals, building on the outcome of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development and giving consideration to public finance, revision of the design and deployment of universal service funds, development bonds, tax revenue, and other forms of private investment and innovative and collaborative approaches.

We remain flexible on the exact wording of this proposal. What we feel is vital is clear and action-oriented recognition that a process is needed for taking financing WSIS implementation seriously.

Read more about this proposal in two recent blogs:  
The WSIS+20 review: Additional ideas to build on APC’s proposal for a dedicated focus on financing
By Anriette Esterhuysen, Valeria Betancourt and Carlos Rey Moreno (APC) with input from Konstantinos Komaitis (resident senior fellow, Democracy and Tech Initiative, Atlantic Council)

Financing digital equity at WSIS+20: A task force to turn commitments into action
By Konstantinos Komaitis, Valeria Betancourt and Anriette Esterhuysen

Also read about an October event organised  by APC with the UK government's FCDO and UNESCO and the T20 Task Force on Digital Transformation on financing locally driven and community-centred connectivity initiatives. We hope to launch an actual concrete initiative within the next two years which will complement ISOC's fantastic Co-funding Initiative. 

But remember too, and this is really important, that the financing needs of WSIS implementation is about much more than funding the IGF, or even bridging the connectivity gap --- it is about open and effective e-government and digital public services, using tech to improve people's access to education, to health  services, a free and independent media, human capacity to use and create digital tools and economies, and so  much more.   That is why we feel so strongly that it would be a failure if WSIS+20 repeated the oversights of 2003, 2005 and 2010 by  not taking financing seriously.

Anriette

Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com
Senior advisor global and regional internet governance
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org//afrisig.org

On 2025/11/03 16:16, Israel Rosas via wsis20 wrote:

Hi all,

To Alex’s points, our remarks and written contributions are located on a dedicated page on our website: https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/internet-governance/wsis/

I also concur with Nick’s points on the need for suggesting concrete solutions. As far as we understand, delegates need suggested language that can help bridge the different perspectives. However, focusing on principles may be good to brief government officials new to these topics. It’s up to local community members to identify the right approach and the right people to target, as expressed by Alex.

Best,

Isra

Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development
Internet Society

From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 at 10:50 AM
To: Angela Wibawa <angela.wibawa@icann.org>, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com>, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org>
Subject: [wsis20] Re: Stakeholder consultations at ICANN84 and next steps

Good morning all,

This is a good thread and an excellent set of action items.

As someone based in New York who is talking to delegates daily about the review, I can tell you that there is a particular need for two kinds of good ideas:

• How more financing can be attracted to delivering the action lines more quickly. It is widely understood that calling new funds to be started is basically not going to work but that doesn’t mean existing resources can’t be made more easily accessible to developing countries. We’ve suggested a portal connected to the action lines which provides connections to relevant programs from international financial institutions, regional development banks, and private foundations in particular. Some language on prioritizing the use of USFs to bridge divides leveraging best practices could be another addition. 
• Ideas for how existing institutions can work more effectively together without changing their mandates or objectives, particularly UNGIS, CSTD, IGF, and the WSIS Forum. The idea here would be to connect common threads across the four more effectively so that what happens at one has more value throughout the different processes. 

One thing in particular I would strongly advise: we need to move beyond talking about multistakeholderism and why it is the right approach generally to proposing more specific examples of how it can be used to deliver development outcomes faster. 

Best, Nick

-- 

Nick Ashton-Hart
APCO
(m) +1 202 779 1072
nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com

From: Angela Wibawa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 at 8:45 PM
To: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com>, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org>
Subject: [wsis20] Re: Stakeholder consultations at ICANN84 and next steps

Dear Alejandro and Olivier,

 

Thank you for summarising the discussions that took place at ICANN84 and for proposing the action items.

 

In terms of the list/ schedule of events, the UN DESA roadmap webpage (here) provides a useful insight on some of the key activities for WSIS+20.

 

In terms of written materials, there are several useful information on the WSIS+20 Outreach Network webpage (here) – specifically under the “Resources” and “Knowledge Hub” tabs at the lower part of the webpage. You might also find information on our past contributions to the WSIS+20 related processes (here) useful.

 

My colleagues might add further insights once they get a chance to.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Angela Wibawa

Director APAC, Government and IGO Engagement

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +65 9661 6009

 

From: Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
Reply to: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 2 November 2025 at 11:40
To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com>
Cc: "wsis20@icann.org" <wsis20@icann.org>
Subject: [wsis20] Re: Stakeholder consultations at ICANN84 and next steps

 

Dear Olivier,

 

thanks for the summary and especially thanks for the heads-up. There is little time left and we must work hard and at speed. "issue-trading" is too close to "horse-trading" and that usually happens way above our heads, and behind doors only government representatives can cross. Also, we do know that there are many governments, and many individual representatives, whose positions are already adverse and will harden for something like the UN GA. Some are lost cases and probably trying to communicate with them will only harden their positions even further and do more damage than good. Each one of us knows of a few so we can triage relatively fast. 

 

Let's use all possible fora left before the fateful dates. One forum for sure is LACIGF, coming this week November 5 and 6. It takes place in Cordoba, Argentina, and online. There may be other international meetings and some NRIs (National and Regional Internet Governance Forums) upcoming, some ot them with a good chance of being powerful before their own governments and beyond borders. Let me propose the following action items: 

 

1. Craft a briefing paper that highlights the important issues and the damage they can bring if done wrong;

 

2. Caucus among the participants in LACIGF and other upcoming venues and plan a solid intervention. Since in LACIGF and likely any other meeting in the coming few weeks the programs are already solidified, let's 

    a. talk to all scheduled participants and see that they convey the messages in their interventions and other discussions; 

    b. take the microphone (and written participations as well) in all possible relevant panels and discussions. 

 

I* staff - can you come up with a list/schedule of events, from your own files and plans, and share it? can you share the briefing texts you have already written and maybe fine-tuned for the alarm Olivier is sounding? 

 

Let's meet in small groups and push this work forward. 

 

Yours,

 

Alejandro Pisanty

 

On Sat, Nov 1, 2025 at 6:11 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

those of you attending ICANN84 will have been aware of the stakeholder consultations that His Excellency Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale (Kenya) held throughout the week, both in open, large assemblies and in small groups.
Ambassador Lokaale is one of the two Co-Facilitators of the WSIS+20 review process, the other being Her Excellency Suela Janina (Albania), who was not present in Dublin.

I was very pleased with the extent to which Ambassador Lokaale was open to full dialogue and to listening to all parts of ICANN's community. It was also very interesting to obtain some feedback as to what topics to be included in the Paper will have a chance to remain there and what topics are already flagged as receiving significant opposition by some member States.

Of course, the next big steps will be the virtual stakeholder consultations to be held on 14 November. Instructions on how to participate are given on: https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20 [publicadministration.desa.un.org] and https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/rev1consultation [publicadministration.desa.un.org]

But then, the final meeting in the process will be that of the UN High Level Event on 16 and 17 December 2025: https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/GA%20High-Level-Meeting [publicadministration.desa.un.org]

And this is where one particularly concerning bit of information troubled me: that there might be some "issue trading" at this high level, with issues that are not related in any way with the WSIS+20 process, traded for geopolitical reasons. And therefore, I heard that we, in our communities, should make sure that our countries' respective Ambassadors and Delegations at the UNGA be fully briefed about the importance of the WSIS+20 process, of our multistakeholder values, of the importance of the WSIS principles to the Internet and its repercussions beyond the Internet.

This is a job for each and everyone of us, with our respective national delegations.

Kindest regards,

Olivier Crépin-Leblond

_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 [go.icann.org]

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

--

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com [pisanty.blogspot.com]
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty [linkedin.com]
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 [linkedin.com]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty [twitter.com]
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org [isoc.org]
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

---

DATA HANDLING

For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com with any inquiries.

CONFIDENTIALITY

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

--

Sivasubramanian M

Nameshop

India.

Internet@nameshop.in

_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.