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
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 InformationSociety. ICTs should be used as an important tool for good governance.39. The rule of law, accompanied by a supportive, transparent, pro-competitive, technologicallyneutral and predictable policy and regulatory framework reflecting national realities, is essential forbuilding a people-centred Information Society. Governments should intervene, as appropriate, tocorrect market failures, to maintain fair competition, to attract investment, to enhance thedevelopment 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 EsterhuysenAlso 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.orgOn 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,IsraIsra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development
Internet Society
_______________________________________________ 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.