Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation
Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 [cid:b54d5039-cdbb-407d-8656-8b2572ce6bed] internetsociety.org | @internetsociety
Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement. I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected. I am of course always open to thoughts. -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 [cid:b54d5039-cdbb-407d-8656-8b2572ce6bed] internetsociety.org | @internetsociety ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://%20privacy@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.
Hi Nick I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams. Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding. Fiona ________________________________ From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement. I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected. I am of course always open to thoughts. -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 [cid:b54d5039-cdbb-407d-8656-8b2572ce6bed] internetsociety.org | @internetsociety ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia...> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_...> 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.
Dear Fiona, I take your point but in a paragraph about international cybersecurity I don’t see that it matters whether it has been used in WSIS or not. The agreement on what constitutes critical information infrastructure in the UN context postdates WSIS, as does AI and many other things that the review is referencing. It is also easy enough to make clear where this comes from in the text, though candidly anyone working in international cybersecurity policy in multilateral institutions will know what it means, which is the point. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 7:48 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi Nick I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams. Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding. Fiona ________________________________ From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement. I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected. I am of course always open to thoughts. -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 [cid:b54d5039-cdbb-407d-8656-8b2572ce6bed] internetsociety.org | @internetsociety ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia...> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_...> 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.
Hi Nick, all, I think there are at least two aspects to consider about this language. An interesting discussion is whether it strategically makes sense to incorporate these references into the WSIS framework. On the other side, I also wonder about the practical implications of trying to incorporate a term whose shared understanding may be open to different interpretations when negotiators are running out of time in this process. Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 at 9:35 AM To: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu>, Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Dear Fiona, I take your point but in a paragraph about international cybersecurity I don’t see that it matters whether it has been used in WSIS or not. The agreement on what constitutes critical information infrastructure in the UN context postdates WSIS, as does AI and many other things that the review is referencing. It is also easy enough to make clear where this comes from in the text, though candidly anyone working in international cybersecurity policy in multilateral institutions will know what it means, which is the point. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 7:48 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi Nick I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams. Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding. Fiona ________________________________ From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement. I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected. I am of course always open to thoughts. -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 [cid:b54d5039-cdbb-407d-8656-8b2572ce6bed] internetsociety.org | @internetsociety ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia...> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_...> 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.
Dear all, Thanks to Mona for sharing the Internet Society’s intervention, and to Nick, Fiona, and Israel for the thoughtful points. I just wanted to add my perspective in support of keeping the recommendation to delete the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure.” The Internet is, of course, critical infrastructure in every practical sense. But using “critical Internet infrastructure” as an official term in the WSIS+20 text feels risky because: - There’s no shared definition for it in the WSIS process. - It brings regulatory and security implications that differ widely across countries. - Adding it now could open the door to confusion or to interpretations that support more state control or fragmentation. - The draft already covers the need to protect Internet infrastructure without needing this new term. So in short: the Internet *is *critical, but *the WSIS+20 outcome document shouldn’t adopt terminology that isn’t agreed, defined, or fully understood.* Cheers, Pari On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 4:49 PM Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Nick, all,
I think there are at least two aspects to consider about this language. An interesting discussion is whether it strategically makes sense to incorporate these references into the WSIS framework. On the other side, I also wonder about the practical implications of trying to incorporate a term whose shared understanding may be open to different interpretations when negotiators are running out of time in this process.
Best, Isra
Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society *From: *Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Date: *Saturday, November 15, 2025 at 9:35 AM *To: *Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu>, Mona Gaballa < gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Subject: *[wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation
Dear Fiona,
I take your point but in a paragraph about international cybersecurity I don’t see that it matters whether it has been used in WSIS or not. The agreement on what constitutes critical information infrastructure in the UN context postdates WSIS, as does AI and many other things that the review is referencing. It is also easy enough to make clear where this comes from in the text, though candidly anyone working in international cybersecurity policy in multilateral institutions will know what it means, which is the point.
Best, Nick
-- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) + <+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com
*From: *Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> *Date: *Friday, November 14, 2025 at 7:48 PM *To: *Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> *Subject: *Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation
Hi Nick
I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams.
Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding.
Fiona ------------------------------ *From:* Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM *To:* Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org
*Subject:* [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation
*External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement.
I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health.
I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world.
I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected.
I am of course always open to thoughts.
-- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) + <+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com
*From: *Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM *To: *jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Subject: *[wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation
Hi everyone,
Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today.
- On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone.
Warm regards, *Mona Gaballa*, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 internetsociety.org | @internetsociety
------------------------------
DATA HANDLING
For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia...> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_...> 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.
-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
Dear Israel, On the first: Firstly this term and WSIS are not strangers. For example the General Assembly linked them explicitly as far back as 2004 and then again in 2009 and in fact makes clear that protecting CII is integral to delivery of WSIS’ objectives. See A/RES/64/211 and A/RES/58/199. CII has also been referenced in the subsequent work of the UN GGE and OEWG I and II. Secondly, we need more member-states to implement the norms of responsible state behavior because that would decrease global cyber insecurity, and addressing cyber insecurity is a global priority. The current resolution’s language on cybersecurity is very poor: the only thing it recognizes really is two processes which have extremely poor stakeholder modalities. These allow any single state to veto the participation of any single NGO (which Russia does routinely to almost all developed country voices from the private sector as well as human rights NGOs and many others. If that’s the only substantive element in this section then that section will be badly out of step with the whole rest of the document in stressing multistakeholderism. WSIS is meant to holistically address how ICTs can be leveraged for sustainable development. The confidence and security part of WSIS has had a troubled past, but this is a chance to do something constructive: 1. Call for implementation of UNGA consensus norms that would promote greater online security in the positive sense; 2. Continue to recognize CII, just correcting the term; 3. Bring back the CERT language as without a CERT countries are missing a key part of the very basic foundations of cybersecurity and many countries still don’t have one (FYI nobody was against keeping this language, it was dropped as part of streamlining the text overall). 4. And ideally, also call upon member-states to ensure that multistakeholder participation in the new cybersecurity mechanism is robust and congruent with the WSIS approach (where there are no vetoes). If anyone wants to talk more about this I’m glad to, and I can provide agreed text that could be used for these various purposes. Bottom line: I don’t believe the current treatment of cybersecurity is meaningful, or even congruent with the rest of the text. We should be advocating for meaningful improvements (for the avoidance of doubt, on the ground in New York, I am doing exactly that). -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 at 9:49 AM To: wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi Nick, all, I think there are at least two aspects to consider about this language. An interesting discussion is whether it strategically makes sense to incorporate these references into the WSIS framework. On the other side, I also wonder about the practical implications of trying to incorporate a term whose shared understanding may be open to different interpretations when negotiators are running out of time in this process. Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 at 9:35 AM To: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu>, Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Dear Fiona, I take your point but in a paragraph about international cybersecurity I don’t see that it matters whether it has been used in WSIS or not. The agreement on what constitutes critical information infrastructure in the UN context postdates WSIS, as does AI and many other things that the review is referencing. It is also easy enough to make clear where this comes from in the text, though candidly anyone working in international cybersecurity policy in multilateral institutions will know what it means, which is the point. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 7:48 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi Nick I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams. Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding. Fiona ________________________________ From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement. I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected. I am of course always open to thoughts. -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 [cid:b54d5039-cdbb-407d-8656-8b2572ce6bed] internetsociety.org | @internetsociety ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia...> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_...> 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.
Hi, the term "Criticial information infrastructure" is established language in the multilateral cybersecurity negotiations under the 1st UNGA Committee and within the OEWG (now the new "Global Mechanism") since years. It has even an own acronym: "CII". This isa differentz von "critical infrastructure" (CI), that is energy, water etc. It is rooted in one of the eleven GGE norms from 2015: "States should take appropriate measures to protect their critical infrastructure from ICT threats, taking into account General Assembly resolution 58/199 on the creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and the protection of critical information infrastructures, and other relevant resolutions;". The norm was more specified later, inter alia by the recommendations of the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace (GCSC) in 2019 which added the need "to protect the public core of the Internet". The GCSC Final Report from 2019 proposed as an additional norm "State and non-state actors should neither conduct nor knowingly allow activity that intentionally and substantially damages the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet, and therefore the stability of cyberspace.". The GCSC understanding of the public Internet core included both the "critical Internet ressources" (CIR) as domain names, Internet protocols, IP adresses, as discussed in the WSIS/IGF/ICANN context, as well as the whole underlying infrastructure of servers, (undersea) cables and satellites, as discussed in the various GGEs. A new element in the proposed GCSC norm was, that it calls on "state and non-state actors", that is, it went beyond the "narrow approach" of the GGEs/OEWG, which included only state actors, and supports the inclusion of non-govcernmental stakeholderrs in cybersecurity negotiations, an issue which is still unsettled in the new "Global Mechanism". Insofar it would make sense a. to avoid new language as "critical Internet infrastructure" and to go back to "critical information infrastrutcure" (CII) and b. to have stronger references to the UN cybersecurity negotiations and to call for the inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders in the new "Global Mechanism" . Wolfgang Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 15.11.2025 15:33 CET geschrieben:
Dear Fiona,
I take your point but in a paragraph about international cybersecurity I don’t see that it matters whether it has been used in WSIS or not. The agreement on what constitutes critical information infrastructure in the UN context postdates WSIS, as does AI and many other things that the review is referencing. It is also easy enough to make clear where this comes from in the text, though candidly anyone working in international cybersecurity policy in multilateral institutions will know what it means, which is the point.
Best, Nick
-- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) + tel:+9715595486711 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com
From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 7:48 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation
Hi Nick
I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams.
Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding.
Fiona
--------------------------------------------- From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement.
I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health.
I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world.
I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected.
I am of course always open to thoughts.
-- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) + tel:+9715595486711 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com
From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation
Hi everyone,
Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft.
The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone.
On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused.
The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy.
Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment.
Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.”
Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure.
Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section.
Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building.
As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments.
However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum.
Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication.
As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages.
Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone.
Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 internetsociety.org | @internetsociety
--------------------------------------------- DATA HANDLING
For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia... or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_... 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.
Thank you Wolfgang for all the helpful background and Nick for your perspectives. I think though it helps reinforce my point. These terms have a long fought history in the NY based cybersecurity silo, but they are not broadly used, agreed or even perhaps understood outside of that, even in the expert technical UN agencies in places like Geneva. WSIS and all that goes with it are not creatures of the NY processes generally speaking and it is why the heading of this section is “building confidence and security in the use of ICTs” - the 2000 language which predates OEWG and I believe even the GGE cyber norms work. Also to point out the GCSC public core norm wasn’t accepted in GGE, at least that is my recollection. i am not sure this resolution and associated modalities provide the space to bring about a shared and agreed understanding of a what can be a loaded term. Fiona ________________________________ From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 11:24 AM To: Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com>; Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu>; Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Hi, the term "Criticial information infrastructure" is established language in the multilateral cybersecurity negotiations under the 1st UNGA Committee and within the OEWG (now the new "Global Mechanism") since years. It has even an own acronym: "CII". This isa differentz von "critical infrastructure" (CI), that is energy, water etc. It is rooted in one of the eleven GGE norms from 2015: "States should take appropriate measures to protect their critical infrastructure from ICT threats, taking into account General Assembly resolution 58/199 on the creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and the protection of critical information infrastructures, and other relevant resolutions;". The norm was more specified later, inter alia by the recommendations of the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace (GCSC) in 2019 which added the need "to protect the public core of the Internet". The GCSC Final Report from 2019 proposed as an additional norm "State and non-state actors should neither conduct nor knowingly allow activity that intentionally and substantially damages the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet, and therefore the stability of cyberspace.". The GCSC understanding of the public Internet core included both the "critical Internet ressources" (CIR) as domain names, Internet protocols, IP adresses, as discussed in the WSIS/IGF/ICANN context, as well as the whole underlying infrastructure of servers, (undersea) cables and satellites, as discussed in the various GGEs. A new element in the proposed GCSC norm was, that it calls on "state and non-state actors", that is, it went beyond the "narrow approach" of the GGEs/OEWG, which included only state actors, and supports the inclusion of non-govcernmental stakeholderrs in cybersecurity negotiations, an issue which is still unsettled in the new "Global Mechanism". Insofar it would make sense a. to avoid new language as "critical Internet infrastructure" and to go back to "critical information infrastrutcure" (CII) and b. to have stronger references to the UN cybersecurity negotiations and to call for the inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders in the new "Global Mechanism" . Wolfgang Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 15.11.2025 15:33 CET geschrieben: Dear Fiona, I take your point but in a paragraph about international cybersecurity I don’t see that it matters whether it has been used in WSIS or not. The agreement on what constitutes critical information infrastructure in the UN context postdates WSIS, as does AI and many other things that the review is referencing. It is also easy enough to make clear where this comes from in the text, though candidly anyone working in international cybersecurity policy in multilateral institutions will know what it means, which is the point. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971559548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 7:48 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi Nick I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams. Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding. Fiona ________________________________ From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement. I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected. I am of course always open to thoughts. -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971559548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 [cid:b54d5039-cdbb-407d-8656-8b2572ce6bed] internetsociety.org | @internetsociety ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia...> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_...> 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.
Thanks Fiona, we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. In particular on the assertion that WSIS is not a creature of NY processes generally speaking given the opposite is true. WSIS was adopted in NY, it is reviewed in NY - not just every 10 years, but annually - and its concepts have been mainstreamed in the work coming out of NY since it was adopted by UNGA in the first instance. The technical follow up has traditionally largely taken place at an operational level particularly in Geneva, but nobody should be in any doubt that there is no WSIS without the UN in New York. The issues that were once siloed in WSIS have not been for many years as the resolutions I reference are only two of many, many examples. As to your point about the public core to my way of thinking that’s neither here nor there: the discussion has been about whether the existing and recognized term, since 2004, of “critical information infrastructure” should be referenced by WSIS. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 at 1:09 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com>, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Thank you Wolfgang for all the helpful background and Nick for your perspectives. I think though it helps reinforce my point. These terms have a long fought history in the NY based cybersecurity silo, but they are not broadly used, agreed or even perhaps understood outside of that, even in the expert technical UN agencies in places like Geneva. WSIS and all that goes with it are not creatures of the NY processes generally speaking and it is why the heading of this section is “building confidence and security in the use of ICTs” - the 2000 language which predates OEWG and I believe even the GGE cyber norms work. Also to point out the GCSC public core norm wasn’t accepted in GGE, at least that is my recollection. i am not sure this resolution and associated modalities provide the space to bring about a shared and agreed understanding of a what can be a loaded term. Fiona ________________________________ From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 11:24 AM To: Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com>; Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu>; Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Hi, the term "Criticial information infrastructure" is established language in the multilateral cybersecurity negotiations under the 1st UNGA Committee and within the OEWG (now the new "Global Mechanism") since years. It has even an own acronym: "CII". This isa differentz von "critical infrastructure" (CI), that is energy, water etc. It is rooted in one of the eleven GGE norms from 2015: "States should take appropriate measures to protect their critical infrastructure from ICT threats, taking into account General Assembly resolution 58/199 on the creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and the protection of critical information infrastructures, and other relevant resolutions;". The norm was more specified later, inter alia by the recommendations of the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace (GCSC) in 2019 which added the need "to protect the public core of the Internet". The GCSC Final Report from 2019 proposed as an additional norm "State and non-state actors should neither conduct nor knowingly allow activity that intentionally and substantially damages the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet, and therefore the stability of cyberspace.". The GCSC understanding of the public Internet core included both the "critical Internet ressources" (CIR) as domain names, Internet protocols, IP adresses, as discussed in the WSIS/IGF/ICANN context, as well as the whole underlying infrastructure of servers, (undersea) cables and satellites, as discussed in the various GGEs. A new element in the proposed GCSC norm was, that it calls on "state and non-state actors", that is, it went beyond the "narrow approach" of the GGEs/OEWG, which included only state actors, and supports the inclusion of non-govcernmental stakeholderrs in cybersecurity negotiations, an issue which is still unsettled in the new "Global Mechanism". Insofar it would make sense a. to avoid new language as "critical Internet infrastructure" and to go back to "critical information infrastrutcure" (CII) and b. to have stronger references to the UN cybersecurity negotiations and to call for the inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders in the new "Global Mechanism" . Wolfgang Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 15.11.2025 15:33 CET geschrieben: Dear Fiona, I take your point but in a paragraph about international cybersecurity I don’t see that it matters whether it has been used in WSIS or not. The agreement on what constitutes critical information infrastructure in the UN context postdates WSIS, as does AI and many other things that the review is referencing. It is also easy enough to make clear where this comes from in the text, though candidly anyone working in international cybersecurity policy in multilateral institutions will know what it means, which is the point. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971559548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 7:48 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi Nick I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams. Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding. Fiona ________________________________ From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement. I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected. I am of course always open to thoughts. -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971559548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 [cid:b54d5039-cdbb-407d-8656-8b2572ce6bed] internetsociety.org | @internetsociety ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia...> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_...> 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.
Allow me to add my thoughts on this, from the point of view of the EU - In the Network and Information Security Directive 2 (NIS2 Directive), the Internet is considered an essential part of critical infrastructure within the European Union. NIS2—the Second Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems—broadens the scope of what is recognized as critical infrastructure, extending beyond traditional sectors to explicitly cover digital service providers such as internet and telecommunications operators, digital platforms, and essential service providers linked to digital communications and internet operations. The directive recognizes that dependence on digital infrastructures, including the Internet, is vital for modern society and that any significant disruption can have cross-sector consequences for both economic and social stability. Therefore, entities delivering essential digital communications infrastructure—including network and internet service operators—are now classified as critical entities and are subject to rigorous cybersecurity, incident reporting, and continuity of operations requirements. In this way, under NIS2, the Internet and its key service providers hold a central role in the resilience and protection of European critical infrastructure. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/nis2-directive What is NIS2? - The NIS2 Directive https://nis2directive.eu/what-is-nis2/ Cybersecurity of Critical Sectors - ENISA - European Union https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/cybersecurity-of-critical-sectors EU NIS 2 and RCE Directives for EU Critical Infrastructures https://www.openkritis.de/eu/eu-nis-2-rce-directive.html Moreover, the NIS2 Directive explicitly includes the DNS and its providers as essential components of that infrastructure. The directive requires DNS service providers, top-level domain registries, and entities registering domain names to implement strict cybersecurity and risk management measures, guaranteeing the availability, integrity, and reliability of their services. Under NIS2, safeguarding DNS is central to maintaining the overall resilience and security of the Internet, as a disruption or attack on DNS can impact the stability and continuity of countless other critical sectors that depend on digital infrastructure. Entities involved must report incidents, maintain accurate registration data, and cooperate with authorities to ensure a secure and trustworthy domain environment. In doing so, NIS2 strengthens the capacity of the Internet—through its DNS backbone—to serve effectively as a critical infrastructure underpinning European digital society and economy. Best, Ana Enviado do meu iPad No dia 15/11/2025, às 21:35, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> escreveu: Thanks Fiona, we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. In particular on the assertion that WSIS is not a creature of NY processes generally speaking given the opposite is true. WSIS was adopted in NY, it is reviewed in NY - not just every 10 years, but annually - and its concepts have been mainstreamed in the work coming out of NY since it was adopted by UNGA in the first instance. The technical follow up has traditionally largely taken place at an operational level particularly in Geneva, but nobody should be in any doubt that there is no WSIS without the UN in New York. The issues that were once siloed in WSIS have not been for many years as the resolutions I reference are only two of many, many examples. As to your point about the public core to my way of thinking that’s neither here nor there: the discussion has been about whether the existing and recognized term, since 2004, of “critical information infrastructure” should be referenced by WSIS. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 at 1:09 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com>, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Thank you Wolfgang for all the helpful background and Nick for your perspectives. I think though it helps reinforce my point. These terms have a long fought history in the NY based cybersecurity silo, but they are not broadly used, agreed or even perhaps understood outside of that, even in the expert technical UN agencies in places like Geneva. WSIS and all that goes with it are not creatures of the NY processes generally speaking and it is why the heading of this section is “building confidence and security in the use of ICTs” - the 2000 language which predates OEWG and I believe even the GGE cyber norms work. Also to point out the GCSC public core norm wasn’t accepted in GGE, at least that is my recollection. i am not sure this resolution and associated modalities provide the space to bring about a shared and agreed understanding of a what can be a loaded term. Fiona ________________________________ From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 11:24 AM To: Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com>; Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu>; Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Hi, the term "Criticial information infrastructure" is established language in the multilateral cybersecurity negotiations under the 1st UNGA Committee and within the OEWG (now the new "Global Mechanism") since years. It has even an own acronym: "CII". This isa differentz von "critical infrastructure" (CI), that is energy, water etc. It is rooted in one of the eleven GGE norms from 2015: "States should take appropriate measures to protect their critical infrastructure from ICT threats, taking into account General Assembly resolution 58/199 on the creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and the protection of critical information infrastructures, and other relevant resolutions;". The norm was more specified later, inter alia by the recommendations of the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace (GCSC) in 2019 which added the need "to protect the public core of the Internet". The GCSC Final Report from 2019 proposed as an additional norm "State and non-state actors should neither conduct nor knowingly allow activity that intentionally and substantially damages the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet, and therefore the stability of cyberspace.". The GCSC understanding of the public Internet core included both the "critical Internet ressources" (CIR) as domain names, Internet protocols, IP adresses, as discussed in the WSIS/IGF/ICANN context, as well as the whole underlying infrastructure of servers, (undersea) cables and satellites, as discussed in the various GGEs. A new element in the proposed GCSC norm was, that it calls on "state and non-state actors", that is, it went beyond the "narrow approach" of the GGEs/OEWG, which included only state actors, and supports the inclusion of non-govcernmental stakeholderrs in cybersecurity negotiations, an issue which is still unsettled in the new "Global Mechanism". Insofar it would make sense a. to avoid new language as "critical Internet infrastructure" and to go back to "critical information infrastrutcure" (CII) and b. to have stronger references to the UN cybersecurity negotiations and to call for the inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders in the new "Global Mechanism" . Wolfgang Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 15.11.2025 15:33 CET geschrieben: Dear Fiona, I take your point but in a paragraph about international cybersecurity I don’t see that it matters whether it has been used in WSIS or not. The agreement on what constitutes critical information infrastructure in the UN context postdates WSIS, as does AI and many other things that the review is referencing. It is also easy enough to make clear where this comes from in the text, though candidly anyone working in international cybersecurity policy in multilateral institutions will know what it means, which is the point. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971559548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 7:48 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi Nick I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams. Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding. Fiona ________________________________ From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement. I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected. I am of course always open to thoughts. -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971559548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 [Outlook-4s5kixou.png] internetsociety.org | @internetsociety ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia...> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_...> 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.
Thanks, everyone, for paying attention to this important issue. Agree with Mona and Fiona, and one should read para 53 of the WSIS+20 rev. 1, in its entirety, “We commend the significant efforts that have been taken by governments, the private sector, civil society and the technical community to build confidence and security and protect infrastructure, including critical Internet infrastructure, services, transactions and other digital activity, from the rising threat of malicious cyber activities and physical risks to infrastructure.” The first mentioning of infrastructure includes all infrastructure, so one could question why there’s a need to stress on one particular infrastructure, which (as Wolfgang mentioned) has no definition in other UN documents. When a new term, which is not defined, is included, it may cause more problems than provide solutions, and in this particular case it’s not even clear what the solution is, and to which problem. Wolfgang, you are right about the critical information infrastructure, but the norm from the GGE was not “more specified later” by the GCSC, because the two bodies were not even similar; one is under the UN umbrella, the other is not. GCSC may have specified whatever they want, but it doesn’t mean the UN will take their specification and use it in the UNGA resolutions. Nick, not sure what you mean that WSIS is “reviewed in NY… annually”. WSIS is noted in each ICT resolution, but that’s different from “reviewed”. The reviews are two - in 2015 and this year. Hope this is helpful. Best regards, Veni On Nov 15, 2025, at 16:35, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: Thanks Fiona, we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. In particular on the assertion that WSIS is not a creature of NY processes generally speaking given the opposite is true. WSIS was adopted in NY, it is reviewed in NY - not just every 10 years, but annually - and its concepts have been mainstreamed in the work coming out of NY since it was adopted by UNGA in the first instance. The technical follow up has traditionally largely taken place at an operational level particularly in Geneva, but nobody should be in any doubt that there is no WSIS without the UN in New York. The issues that were once siloed in WSIS have not been for many years as the resolutions I reference are only two of many, many examples. As to your point about the public core to my way of thinking that’s neither here nor there: the discussion has been about whether the existing and recognized term, since 2004, of “critical information infrastructure” should be referenced by WSIS. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971%2055%209548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 at 1:09 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com>, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Thank you Wolfgang for all the helpful background and Nick for your perspectives. I think though it helps reinforce my point. These terms have a long fought history in the NY based cybersecurity silo, but they are not broadly used, agreed or even perhaps understood outside of that, even in the expert technical UN agencies in places like Geneva. WSIS and all that goes with it are not creatures of the NY processes generally speaking and it is why the heading of this section is “building confidence and security in the use of ICTs” - the 2000 language which predates OEWG and I believe even the GGE cyber norms work. Also to point out the GCSC public core norm wasn’t accepted in GGE, at least that is my recollection. i am not sure this resolution and associated modalities provide the space to bring about a shared and agreed understanding of a what can be a loaded term. Fiona ________________________________ From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 11:24 AM To: Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com>; Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu>; Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Hi, the term "Criticial information infrastructure" is established language in the multilateral cybersecurity negotiations under the 1st UNGA Committee and within the OEWG (now the new "Global Mechanism") since years. It has even an own acronym: "CII". This isa differentz von "critical infrastructure" (CI), that is energy, water etc. It is rooted in one of the eleven GGE norms from 2015: "States should take appropriate measures to protect their critical infrastructure from ICT threats, taking into account General Assembly resolution 58/199 on the creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and the protection of critical information infrastructures, and other relevant resolutions;". The norm was more specified later, inter alia by the recommendations of the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace (GCSC) in 2019 which added the need "to protect the public core of the Internet". The GCSC Final Report from 2019 proposed as an additional norm "State and non-state actors should neither conduct nor knowingly allow activity that intentionally and substantially damages the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet, and therefore the stability of cyberspace.". The GCSC understanding of the public Internet core included both the "critical Internet ressources" (CIR) as domain names, Internet protocols, IP adresses, as discussed in the WSIS/IGF/ICANN context, as well as the whole underlying infrastructure of servers, (undersea) cables and satellites, as discussed in the various GGEs. A new element in the proposed GCSC norm was, that it calls on "state and non-state actors", that is, it went beyond the "narrow approach" of the GGEs/OEWG, which included only state actors, and supports the inclusion of non-govcernmental stakeholderrs in cybersecurity negotiations, an issue which is still unsettled in the new "Global Mechanism". Insofar it would make sense a. to avoid new language as "critical Internet infrastructure" and to go back to "critical information infrastrutcure" (CII) and b. to have stronger references to the UN cybersecurity negotiations and to call for the inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders in the new "Global Mechanism" . Wolfgang Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 15.11.2025 15:33 CET geschrieben: Dear Fiona, I take your point but in a paragraph about international cybersecurity I don’t see that it matters whether it has been used in WSIS or not. The agreement on what constitutes critical information infrastructure in the UN context postdates WSIS, as does AI and many other things that the review is referencing. It is also easy enough to make clear where this comes from in the text, though candidly anyone working in international cybersecurity policy in multilateral institutions will know what it means, which is the point. Best, Nick -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971559548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 7:48 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>, jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi Nick I would actually agree with Mona in the context of WSIS +20. Neither the wording critical Internet infrastcture nor critical information infrastructure are commonly used phrasing in the context of WSIS. Perhaps it might be more common in the various New York based cybersecurity workstreams. Designating something as “critical” irrespective of the additional words can carry a variety of domestic regulatory obligations depending on the national jurisdiction. At the international level it’s not something I’ve seen used in regards to the Internet in this cluster, so as Mona’s comment highlights it doesn’t have an agreed definition, scope or shared understanding. Fiona ________________________________ From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:07 PM To: Mona Gaballa <gaballa@isoc.org>; jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement. I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected. I am of course always open to thoughts. -- Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +<tel:+971559548671>1 202 779 1072 nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> From: Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM To: jen--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation Hi everyone, Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. * On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933 <Outlook-4s5kixou.png> internetsociety.org | @internetsociety ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/__;!!Ia...> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://*20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/__;JQ!!IaT_...> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!PtGJab4!9GNUZMzy... [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.
HI Mona, Thanks so much for sharing ISOC’s intervention. It makes very interesting and important points. I also wanted to share with you and with others on this list serve DCAD’s comments on Rev1. We could not attend the virtual stakeholder consultation yesterday as we had clashes, but wanted to share it with all of you. The comment below was authored by Dr. Shabbir, my fellow Coordinator, DCAD proposes the following revisions to the WSIS+20 outcome document, Rev-1. These changes are proposed with an aim of ensuring the rights, leadership, and lived experience of persons with disabilities are embedded across implementation, measurement, and governance. The proposed changes include: 1. Original paragraph (para 22): "We call for concerted action by all stakeholders to promote accessibility and equal access to the Internet and digital resources as a priority, including through the availability of accessible and assistive technologies." Proposed revision: "We call for concerted action by all stakeholders to promote accessibility and equal access to the Internet and digital resources as a priority, including through the adoption and enforcement of international accessibility standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2) or any such recognized international standards, and the mandatory procurement and integration of assistive technologies across all public digital platforms and ICT initiatives." 2. Original paragraph (para 114): "We are committed to the further development and strengthening of internationally agreed targets, indicators and metrics for universal meaningful and affordable connectivity and digital development." Proposed revision (new clause added at the end): "We are committed to the further development and strengthening of internationally agreed targets, indicators and metrics for universal meaningful and affordable connectivity and digital development, including the systematic collection and reporting of disability-disaggregated data on digital access, usage, accessibility, and affordability, in line with CRPD obligations." 3. Original paragraph (para 88): "Measures are needed to ensure more effective participation by stakeholders from developing countries and underrepresented groups..." Proposed revision: "Measures are needed to ensure more effective participation by stakeholders from developing countries and underrepresented groups, including persons with disabilities, particularly those with lived experience, not only as beneficiaries but as equal contributors and leaders in Internet governance and standard-setting bodies." 4. Original paragraph (para 39): “We recognise that ICTs have helped governments and other stakeholders to address risks associated with natural disasters and facilitated humanitarian assistance at times of crisis through more consistent and remote monitoring of environmental and other hazards, enhancing and developing early warning systems and improving preparedness, response, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.” Proposed revision: “We recognise that ICTs have helped governments and other stakeholders to address risks associated with natural disasters and facilitated humanitarian assistance at times of crisis through more consistent and remote monitoring of environmental and other hazards, enhancing and developing early‑warning systems and improving preparedness, response, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. We further commit to ensuring that such systems and interventions are also accessible, inclusive and responsive to the needs of persons with disabilities; and that early warning communications, evacuation processes, recovery tools and digital information channels adhere to accessibility standards and assistive technology compatibility.” 5. Original paragraph (para 27): “We reiterate the need for the development of local content and services in a variety of languages and formats that are accessible to all people…” Proposed revision: “We reiterate the need for the development of local content and services in a variety of languages and formats that are accessible to all people, and ensure that these are delivered in formats compatible with accessible technologies (e.g., screen readers, captions, sign language, simplified language) to also meet the needs of persons with disabilities.” Some specific Additions: 6. Add to paragraph 12 (vulnerable groups): "...persons with disabilities, with attention to the leadership of people with lived experience..." 7. Add to paragraph 17 (digital public infrastructure): "...inclusive and interoperable digital public infrastructure that adheres to international accessibility standards by default..." 8. Add to paragraph 57 (capacity building): "...to build expertise in technical aspects of digitalisation, with special programs co-designed with organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs)..." 9. Addition of New Sentence at End of Paragraph 88 (Internet Governance Section): Particular attention should also be given to ensuring the participation and leadership of persons with disabilities, including through appointment to decision-making roles within Internet governance structures at global, regional, and national levels. 10. Addition of New Sentence in Paragraph 58 (Digital Skills & Learning) Suggested Insert (after 1st sentence): Special efforts should be made to co-design and deliver digital capacity building and leadership development programs for persons with disabilities, ensuring that their lived experience informs policymaking, especially in emerging areas like AI, cybersecurity, and data governance. 11. Addition of New Sentence at End of Paragraph 84 (AI Capacity Building): This should include the participation of persons with disabilities, both as beneficiaries and contributors, and establish leadership pathways for experts with lived experience of disability to shape inclusive and ethical AI governance frameworks. Thanks for allowing us to share these remarks Best, Judith Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com Mobile: +1202333517
On Nov 14, 2025, at 2:45 PM, Mona Gaballa via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Please find the Internet Society's intervention during the WSIS+20 Virtual Stakeholder Consultation on Rev1 earlier today. On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft. The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone. On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused. The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment. Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.” Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure. Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section. Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building. As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments. However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum. Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication. As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages. Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone. Warm regards, Mona Gaballa, Senior Advisor, Institutional Relations gaballa@isoc.org | +19082799933
internetsociety.org | @internetsociety _______________________________________________
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.
participants (9)
-
Ana Neves -
Ashton-Hart, Nick -
Fiona Alexander -
Israel Rosas -
Judith Hellerstein -
Mona Gaballa -
Pari Esfandiari -
Veni Markovski -
Wolfgang Kleinwächter