News archive

WSIS+20: Why a “Small” Agreement Still Matters for Our Digital Future

As Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor Emeritus at the University of Aarhus explains in his opinion piece, this moment may not look historic, but it matters more than it seems.

A Document Few Loved, but All Accepted

The WSIS+20 talks brought together governments with very different views on the digital world. Some wanted stronger language on funding and government control. Others rejected references to climate, gender, or development goals. Many countries felt the text did not go far enough. Some felt it went too far.

Still, something important happened: no country stopped the process.

In today’s tense global climate, that alone is a success. Kleinwächter reminds us that “consensus” does not mean full agreement. It means choosing cooperation over collapse. At a time when global dialogue is fragile, keeping the conversation alive is already a win.

Why a “Weak” Text Can Be a Strong Result

The WSIS vision from 2005 was once again confirmed: a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, based on human rights and international law. This core idea survived.

Most importantly, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was made permanent.

This decision keeps open one of the few global spaces where governments, companies, civil society, and the technical community meet as equals. As it is pointed out, the WSIS+20 document is not a breakthrough, but rather a bridge. It connects the past to the future and keeps the process moving toward WSIS+30 in 2035.

Sometimes, progress means not breaking the chain.

Learning from History: Geneva, Tunis, and Today

Going back to the early days of WSIS, in 2003 and 2005, the world already struggled with two hard questions:

• How do we close the digital divide?
• Who should govern the Internet?

Twenty years later, these questions remain - but the world has changed. The Internet is no longer just technical infrastructure. It is political, economic, and social. That makes solutions harder, not easier.

The WSIS+20 talks showed this clearly. Once again, no one challenged the IGF. Once again, financing and government roles caused tension. But unlike before, there was a shared understanding: there is no simple, top-down solution.

Financing the Digital Future: Partnership Over Promises

Many developing countries were clear. They are not asking for handouts. They want fair access, skills, jobs, and a real role in shaping the digital economy.

The compromise solution, a new task force within the ITU, may be modest. But it reflects an important shift. Closing the digital divide is not just about money. It is about incentives, investment, education, and local innovation.

As the author notes, real progress will come from equal partnerships, not old-style aid models.

Internet Governance: Networks, Not Hierarchies

One of the most important themes in the article is the tension between multilateralism and multistakeholderism.

Some governments still think in hierarchies, with states at the top. Others see the digital world as a network, where governments, companies, civil society, and experts share responsibility.

WSIS+20 did not solve this debate, but it still moved it forward. The outcome document clearly strengthens the multistakeholder approach, while inviting governments to engage more actively, not more dominantly.

As the author highlights, this balance is not a weakness. It is the reality of a connected world.

Human Rights and AI: Keeping People at the Center

WSIS+20 also reaffirmed a simple but powerful idea: human rights apply online just as they do offline.

The document links digital policy more clearly to human rights institutions and places AI and data governance within broader UN processes. It avoids duplication and keeps WSIS connected to newer frameworks like the Global Digital Compact.

This careful coordination may not be dramatic, but it is necessary. In a world of “cyber interdependence,” nothing stands alone.

A Wake-Up Call and a Source of Hope

One striking moment described by the author is the late role of the United States. Despite deep concerns, the US chose not to force a vote and reaffirmed its support for multistakeholder cooperation. That decision helped save the process.

Equally important was the strong mobilization of non-governmental actors. Civil society, the technical community, and business groups spoke with clearer, more coordinated voices than ever before. This is one of WSIS+20’s quiet successes: it reminded the world that digital governance is not just about governments. It is about people.

The Work Starts Now

As the author and civil society leaders wisely conclude, WSIS+20 is not an ending. It is a transition point.

The real test will be implementation. Will governments follow through? Will the IGF become more effective? Will human rights commitments turn into action?

The door is open. The framework is alive. What happens next depends on sustained engagement, accountability, and cooperation.

In uncertain times, WSIS+20 offers something rare: a small light of hope. It shows that even when the world disagrees, it can still choose dialogue, and keep building the digital future together.