[WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation
sahmed at africa-digital.org
sahmed at africa-digital.org
Fri Jul 25 05:26:16 EDT 2025
Dear Anriette,
Thank you for the response.Kindly note the following:
(1) My email below does not state the DepHUB is a UN initiative, it
clearly states the DepHUB is involved in UN initiatives and other
multilateral organisations on JSD.
(2) My response is in reference to WG discussions based on your email on
23 Jul 2025, at 19:37, regarding the JSD and the WG strategy discussions
that mirror the CSTD. I further followed up with details that PNAI
(which is part of IGF) is already involved similar JSD initiatives.
Please see below for your reference, the email I sent at 2025-07-25
08:56:
_"Dear Colleagues,_
_Please find further information on the Policy Network on AI (PNAI).
[12]_
_I look forward to your actionable strategies to advance established
global multistakeholder efforts within IGF secretariat at the
climate-science-digital nexus, such as the existing PNAI Environment
Working Group._
_Particularly, mitigating duplication of efforts, your much needed
support, and co-creation with new stakeholders that have subject matter
expertise, as part of the WG-strategy discussion._
_Kind regards,_
_Shamira"_
(3) Regarding your feedback
"This is a discussion space that, based on a mandate of the IGF MAG,
considers proposals and ideas for strengthening the IGF. It is in the
context of the WSIS+20 process that mandates of the IGF and other
entities mentioned in the WSIS outcome documents, like the CSTD, is
being discussed."
With regards to the context mentioned in (1) and (2). This is the
appropriate platform as a stakeholder to highlight existing work related
to the discussions in your email on on 23 Jul 2025, at 19:37.
Kind regards,
Shamira
On 2025-07-25 10:37, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Shamira
>
> Thanks for sharing this.
>
> Is the Data Economy Policy Hub a UN initiative that the IGF
> Secretariat is involved in? I was not aware of that.
>
> This is a discussion space that, based on a mandate of the IGF MAG,
> considers proposals and ideas for strengthening the IGF. It is in the
> context of the WSIS+20 process that mandates of the IGF and other
> entities mentioned in the WSIS outcome documents, like the CSTD, is
> being discussed.
>
> If the IGF Secretariat is doing any work that is linked to the
> discussion in the MAG WG on IGF strategy it would be really good if
> they could share it here.
>
> Best regards
>
> Anriette
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
>
> On 2025/07/25 07:30, sahmed at africa-digital.org wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Kindly note there are already existing efforts within the UN that
>> the Data Economy Policy Hub [1 [1]] and many other organisations have
>> been working on "Just and Sustainable Digitalisation" (JSD) that
>> reference and mirror the CSTD.
>> In terms of IGF secretariat, I am the co-lead on the Environmental
>> working group as part of the PNAI.
>> As opposed to duplication of efforts, how will the WG champion
>> existing work within the IGF secretariat on JSD and frankly new
>> civil society expertise as part of the process?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Shamira
>>
>> On 2025-07-23 22:42, Ana Neves via WG-Strategy wrote: Hi Anriette,
>>
>> During my tenure as Chair of the CSTD, I had the opportunity to test
>> this idea of updating the CSTD mandate in both New York and Geneva.
>> Interestingly, there was no opposition from different stakeholders,
>> including the Chair ant that time of ECOSOC --only from within the
>> "system" itself. I find the Report particularly valuable, and I
>> believe it's time we begin leveraging such reports to drive the
>> implementation of concrete, actionable proposals.
>>
>> Ana
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2025, at 19:37, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I just revisited the report. Here is what they say about this
>> 'Commission':
>>
>> A climate movement would be inconceivable
>> without the reliable, timely, and objective
>> information provided through IPCC reports.
>> No similar effort exists to map the potential and
>> measure the harms of data and digital advances.
>> Without a clear understanding of the challenges,
>> risks, and opportunities -- regularly revisited
>> and updated -- the international community will
>> struggle to build a governance architecture fit for
>> the digital age.
>>
>> This Commission must heed calls for new
>> forms of cooperation that go beyond traditional
>> interstate cooperation; that is, it must innovate
>> beyond traditional State-only membership. The
>> Commission on Just and Sustainable Digitalization
>> will bring together multiple endeavours in the
>> digital realm in a multi-stakeholder deliberative
>> forum for States, civil society, and the private
>> sector, building on and possibly integrating the
>> activities of the Internet Governance Forum. It
>> will address the shortcomings of some of these
>> forums, where civil society collaborates on a
>> rights agenda but does not have the authority
>> to implement it, or where States lag behind
>> developments at the cutting edge of digital rights.
>> It will consolidate and build on the work and
>> expertise of entities such as the International
>> Telecommunication Union, the United Nations
>> Development Programme, the United Nations
>> Conference on Trade and Development, and the
>> Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
>> The process of designing such a Commission
>> should draw on best practices in recent years.
>> Several initiatives offer useful insight into the
>> effectiveness of multi-stakeholder coalitions in
>> supporting inclusive institutional design.
>>
>> We call on Member States to support,
>> through the Global Digital Compact
>> and with the support and participation
>> of the UN Envoy for Technology, the
>> establishment of a multi-stakeholder task
>> force that will be responsible for developing
>> terms of reference of a global Commission
>> on Just and Sustainable Digitalization by
>> the meeting of the World Summit on the
>> Information Society Forum in 2025, which
>> clearly sets out the roles of decision-making
>> responsibilities of its constituent groups.
>>
>> <lmjBGRajuXIh3uvi.png>
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>> Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
>>
>> On 2025/07/23 20:30, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>
>> Dear Ana
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the reference to the Johnson Sirleaf and Lofven
>> report.
>>
>> Do you think it is realistic to propose that the CSTD's mandate be
>> expanded to play the role of their proposed "Global Commission on
>> Just and Sustainable Digitalization"?
>>
>> I like this idea a lot.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>> Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
>>
>> On 2025/07/23 18:36, Ana Neves via WG-Strategy wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Paul, for bringing up how the CSTD could be more effectively
>> leveraged. With that in mind, let me share a few reflections on its
>> role in the context of the WSIS+20 review:
>>
>> 4. The CSTD and the need for a modernized mandate
>>
>> The central role of the Commission on Science and Technology for
>> Development (CSTD) in the UN system should continue to be
>> reinforced. In light of rapidly evolving digital ecosystems and
>> geopolitical shifts, it is now timely and necessary to advocate for
>> a modernized and future-facing mandate for the CSTD. Such an updated
>> mandate should more effectively interface with new and emerging
>> digital policy arenas--specifically around Internet governance, AI,
>> data ecosystems, and digital development. A refreshed mandate would
>> not only reinforce the CSTD's legitimacy, but also help anchor a
>> 21st-century relevant governance architecture that balances science,
>> innovation, inclusion, digital international cooperation and
>> accountability.
>>
>> For reference, I would like to highlight the _Report from the
>> High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism - A
>> Breakthrough for People and Planet: Effective and Inclusive Global
>> Governance for Today and the Future [1 [2]]_, co-chaired by Ellen
>> Johnson Sirleaf (former President of Liberia) and Stefan Löfven
>> (former Prime Minister of Sweden). This report may offer valuable
>> insights for updating the CSTD mandate, particularly regarding the
>> proposal for a _Global Commission on Just and Sustainable
>> Digitalization_, which could be multistakeholder by nature, under
>> the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines [2 [3]].
>>
>> Ana
>>
>> Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves
>>
>> _Head, Internet Governance Office_
>>
>> _2025 IGF MAG Member___
>>
>> _Chair of the DNS.PT Advisory Board_
>>
>> FCT- FCCN
>>
>> Avenida do Brasil, n.º 101 | 1700-066 Lisboa
>>
>> T: +351 21 392 4498
>>
>> M: +351 912 397 371
>>
>> www.fccn.pt [2] [4 [3]] [3 [5]]
>>
>> www.governacaointernet.pt [4] [6 [5]] [4 [7]]
>>
>> https://www.intgovforum.org/en [5 [8]]
>>
>> Linkedin [6 [9]]
>>
>> I am sending this message at a time that works well for me. I
>> respect your choice of when and how to work, and I don't expect a
>> response outside of your working hours. Thank you!
>>
>> De: Blaker, Paul (DSIT) via WG-Strategy
>> <wg-strategy at intgovforum.org>
>> Enviada: 23 de julho de 2025 16:03
>> Para: wg-strategy at intgovforum.org
>> Assunto: Re: [WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation
>>
>> OFFICIAL
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm new to this group but I hope it's OK to throw in some
>> comments. "Enhanced cooperation" is in the Tunis Agenda, of
>> course, but I'd agree with Wolfgang that reopening this old debate
>> will really lead us nowhere. After so many fruitless discussions in
>> the past, I'm sorry to see so much energy being spent on this
>> phrase again.
>>
>> WSIS+20 needs to develop a more positive, future-focused agenda,
>> promoting greater global representation, particularly from
>> developing countries, and greater inclusion in policy-making
>> processes. We'd also like to see a discussion about more positive
>> ways of using the CSTD. But "enhanced cooperation" is not the
>> right tool for this - it just risks taking us backwards and
>> entrenching old positions.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul Blaker
>>
>> Head of ITU and Internet Governance
>>
>> Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
>>
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 7515 701352
>>
>> www.gov.uk/dsit [6] [10 [6]] [7
>> [10]] | https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk
>> [8 [11]]
>>
>> OFFICIAL
>>
>> From: parminder <parminder.js.work at gmail.com>
>> Sent: 23 July 2025 14:42
>> To: wg-strategy at intgovforum.org
>> Subject: Re: [WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation
>>
>> On 23/07/25 19:02, Veni Markovski wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Raul.
>> Since Tunisia there was the WSIS+10 process (with its outcome
>> document) and the GDC with the relevant texts about Internet
>> governance, and the work of the CSTD, ITU, and others in between.
>>
>> We have to remember (be reminded, and sometimes to remind our own
>> selves!) that the language from the Tunis Agenda was updated
>> (upgraded) in 2015, and again last year. WSIS+20 has the chance to
>> to some more upgrades, or if no agreement is reached, keep the old
>> language.
>>
>> Yes, Veni, that is the default,... Thanks for reminding us of it. I
>> do not think the language Valeria circulated here was much different
>> from the default (unless I missed something).... But our purpose
>> need not be the default preservation or promotion ... There is
>> nothing, digital society wise, that is default, or static, around us
>> (someone considered as a father of AI resigned his VP position at
>> google worried that nothing is default any more!) .... Should we not
>> be taking account of what people,and notables, and communities, and
>> (most) governments, actually think -- in fact a lot of CS groups,
>> thinktanks, even private sector players, outside this perhaps
>> charmed circle that may find the default status quo fine?
>>
>> best, parminder
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> v/
>>
>> From: Raúl Echeberría <raul at alai.lat>
>> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 at 22:46
>> To: wg-strategy <wg-strategy at intgovforum.org>
>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [WG-Strategy] Text on Enhanced Cooperation
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I very much agree with Wolfgang. Having been too in the room during
>> the night session in Tunis the last night before the summit, I can
>> ensure that the expression "enhanced cooperation" didn't aim
>> to have any other meaning that being a compromise text.
>>
>> After several months in which different groups of countries were
>> simply trying to strengthen their respective positions, the day
>> before the summit we all concluded that the most important thing was
>> to reach an agreement, which made us change our mindset.
>>
>> Uruguay (with me as the spokesperson) and Canada (represented by
>> Bill Graham) proposed the crazy idea of setting aside the text we
>> had been working on for months and starting from scratch to try to
>> find common ground.
>>
>> The suggestion was taken up by Ambassador Kahn of Pakistan (chair of
>> the Internet Governance negotiations), and we got to work hard.
>>
>> We reached a point where there were two positions that were
>> difficult to reconcile, even with the desire to reach agreements.
>>
>> On the one hand, there were those who argued that new governance
>> mechanisms had to be "created," and on the other, there were those
>> of us who accepted that existing mechanisms could "evolve," but
>> based on what already exists. "Create" and "Evolve" were difficult
>> verbs to put in the same sentence.
>>
>> We spent a long time experimenting with different options until, as
>> Wolfgang pointed out, David Hendron proposed the novel and friendly
>> expression "Enhanced cooperation," which neither affirmed nor
>> contradicted either of those two visions, which had been difficult
>> to reconcile.
>>
>> To make the ambiguity even clearer, Enhanced cooperation is not
>> described as a single process or series of processes. Rather,
>> paragraph 71 itself, in an intentionally contradictory manner, on
>> the one hand calls on the UN Secretary-General to initiate a process
>> toward Enhanced cooperation, and on the other hand assigns the same
>> responsibility to the (plural) relevant organizations.
>>
>> Attempting to assign a meaning to the expression "Enhanced
>> cooperation" or to identify, design, or implement an Enhanced
>> cooperation process simply distorts the spirit of the Tunis Agenda.
>>
>> Most of the time, reaching agreements involves concessions and
>> sacrifices from all parties involved.
>>
>> The ambiguity and intentional lack of clarity in paragraph 71 is
>> something we should really highlight and value as an example of the
>> compromises made by all to achieve the WSIS 2005 Tunis agreement.
>>
>> I don't think is a good idea to continue with this discussion
>> around Enhanced Cooperation.
>>
>> I know that this story can be told in many different ways. This is
>> simply one version of somebody who was heavily involved in the WSIS
>> preparatory work and WSIS negotiations, as many others in this
>> group.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Raúl
>>
>> El 22 jul. 2025, a las 5:06 p. m., Wolfgang Kleinwächter
>> <wolfgang at kleinwaechter.info> escribió:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> to be frank, I am not happy with the proposal. "Enhanced
>> cooperation" is "coded", or better "polluted" language. In 2005, it
>> tried to combine "fire and water" in a critical moment of history.
>> This was good and helpful. But as we have seen in the last 20 years,
>> the concept did not constitute a basis for progress. Different
>> parties continued with their differences (see below). To reopen the
>> debate is in my eyes a waste of time and ressources and will lead to
>> nowhere. Furthermore, it has the potential to open another
>> Pandora´s Box.
>>
>> I understand, that the issue is on the table for WSIS+20 and will
>> not disappear (which would be the best solution). I understand also,
>> that a substantial number of governments from the Global South,
>> which are not satisfied with the present mechanisms, have developed
>> their own understanding of EC in the last 20 years (which often has
>> little to do with the original problem). For them "enhanced
>> cooperation " stands for more equality and fairness in Internet
>> related intergovernmental negotiations and for more equal
>> participation of non-state actors from the Global South in
>> multistakeholder processes.
>>
>> This is fair and has to be adressed. Insofar it is good, as proposed
>> in the new text, the CSTD could be the best venue to reach
>> progress. The CSTD is an intergovernmental body, where all
>> governments are on equal footing. Furthermore, the CSTD has
>> demonstrated that it can accomodate meaningful participation of
>> non-governmental stakeholders, as the various CSTD WGs and also the
>> Interessional CSTD Meetings have demonstrated.
>>
>> The best way forward would be to introduce new language and to get
>> rid of the "poisened" EC language from 2005. For some governments,
>> EC is just a starting point to create intergovernmental oversight
>> mechanism, inter alia, to change ICANN´s GAC into a GOC
>> (Governmental Oversight Committee).
>>
>> What about "enhanced, fair and equal collaboration" (EFEC)?
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> PS: Here is my view of the history, which is needed to understand
>> the complexity of the problem. Juan made a very good statement in
>> Geneva last week when he explained once again, how the language
>> emerged and did find its way into the Tunis Agenda.
>>
>> Here is my report from the history books (as a WGIG member, who was
>> also sitting in the room during the night session in Tunis, where
>> the final language was adopted:
>>
>> WGIG did have a mandate to make recommendations to the Tunis summit.
>> WGIG discussed two main areas: The "Oversight Function" (this was
>> mainly ICANN) and the "Forum Function" (this were the broader
>> Internet related public policy issues). In its Final Report WGIG
>> could agree on the "Forum Function" and proposed the IGF. But it
>> could not agree on the "oversight function".
>>
>> It proposed four models (1. a new UN Internet Organisation/Status
>> Quo plus plus, 2. an Intergovernmental Internet Council, where
>> governments will be responsible for decision on the "level of
>> principle", but would leave decisions on day-to-day-operations in
>> the hands of the Internet community (Status quo plus), 3. Keep the
>> system as it s (if it isn´t broken, do not fix it/status quo) and
>> 4. remove US oversight of the A root server of ICANN (status quo
>> minus).
>>
>> In Tunis, governments could not agree on one of the four proposal.
>> The EU wanted option 2. This was opposed by the US government, which
>> supported option 3. Developing countries wanted option 1.
>> Non-governmental stakeholders were in favour of option 4.
>>
>> It was David Hendon from the UK government (the UK did have the
>> rotating EU presidency in fall 2005) who came with compromise
>> lanaguage. The compromise was "agree to disagree" and to postpone a
>> final decision by starting a process with a number of options for
>> future arrangements. Within the EU "enhanced cooperation" is used as
>> a terminologie for processes, where a limited number of member
>> states agree to go beyond the existing regulations. The "Schengen
>> Agreement" or "the EURO" are two examples for enhanced cooperation
>> within EU.
>>
>> Within the last 20 years, no group was able to make an arrangement
>> for Internet Governance which went beyond the WSIS framework and its
>> mechanisms (as the IGF). The only thing which we have seen was the
>> removal of US oversight over the A-Root Server (2016) and the
>> emergence of regional and national arrangements, in particular
>> around national and regional IGFs (NRIs). More or les, with regard
>> to ICANN we have now "Status Quo Minus".
>>
>> But what we did see also was, that the discussion of a number if
>> "internet related public policy issues", as cybersecurity, digital
>> trade, human rights or new emerging technologies moved out of the
>> WSIS process to other institutions, mainly to intergovernmental
>> organisations of the UN system.
>>
>> Cybersecurity is good example. In Geneva during WSIS 1 - this was
>> just a couple of months after the adoption of the Budapest
>> Convention (November 2001) - cybersecurity was discussed at length.
>> The call was for a "new culture of cybersecurity" in the Geneva
>> Declaration (2003). And cybersecurity was a corner stone also in one
>> of the Action Linies in the 2003 "WSIS Plan of Action" (ITU as the
>> facilitatir). It is intersting to re-read the text of the WSIS
>> Action line. It proposed "cooperation among the governments at the
>> UN and with all stakeholders at other appropriate fora for enhance
>> user confidence, build trust etc....
>>
>> 12. Confidence and security are among the main pillars of the
>> Information Society.
>>
>> * Promote cooperation among the governments at the United Nations
>> and with all stakeholders at other appropriate fora to enhance user
>> confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network
>> integrity; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs; and
>> address other information security and network security issues.
>>
>> * Governments, in cooperation with the private sector, should
>> prevent, detect and respond to cyber-crime and misuse of ICTs by:
>> developing guidelines that take into account ongoing efforts in
>> these areas; considering legislation that allows for effective
>> investigation and prosecution of misuse; promoting effective mutual
>> assistance efforts; strengthening institutional support at the
>> international level for preventing, detecting and recovering from
>> such incidents; and encouraging education and raising awareness.
>>
>> * Governments, and other stakeholders, should actively promote
>> user education and awareness about online privacy and the means of
>> protecting privacy.
>>
>> * Take appropriate action on spam at national and international
>> levels.
>>
>> * Encourage the domestic assessment of national law with a view to
>> overcoming any obstacles to the effective use of electronic
>> documents and transactions including electronic means of
>> authentication.
>>
>> * Further strengthen the trust and security framework with
>> complementary and mutually reinforcing initiatives in the fields of
>> security in the use of ICTs, with initiatives or guidelines with
>> respect to rights to privacy, data and consumer protection.
>>
>> * Share good practices in the field of information security and
>> network security and encourage their use by all parties concerned.
>>
>> * Invite interested countries to set up focal points for real-time
>> incident handling and response, and develop a cooperative network
>> between these focal points for sharing information and technologies
>> on incident response.
>>
>> * Encourage further development of secure and reliable
>> applications to facilitate online transactions.
>>
>> * Encourage interested countries to contribute actively to the
>> ongoing United Nations activities to build confidence and security
>> in the use of ICTs.
>>
>> At this time cybersecurity was seen more as "cybercrime" and less as
>> "national security". Inspired by the WSIS discussion, the UNGA
>> started in 2004 a cybersecurity debate in the 1st Committee of the
>> UNGA and established first a number of GGEs for cybersecurity, later
>> two OEWGs for national cybersecurity and an AHC for Cybercrime.
>>
>> I see both the new UN Cybercrime Convention as well as the new UN
>> permanent mechanism with the POC mechanism as a CMB and the round
>> table on capacity building as well as the LAWS negotiations as an
>> direct outcome from WSIS Geneva/Tunis and an example for "enhanced
>> cooperation" for "Internet related public policy issues", as called
>> for in para.69 of the Tunis Agenda.
>>
>> We do have similar outcomes in the HRC, the WTO and other
>> organisations, where governments are "on equal footing" and have all
>> opportunities to exersize their "rights and responsibilities". The
>> same in the UNCSTD. Also in ICANN, all governments are now on a
>> equal level. Iran and the US have the same vote in ICANN´s
>> governmental advisory committee (GAC).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WG-Strategy mailing list
>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
>> [9 [12]]
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> WG-Strategy mailing list
>>
>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
>>
>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WG-Strategy mailing list
>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WG-Strategy mailing list
>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WG-Strategy mailing list
>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1 [1]]
> https://unu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-03/highleveladvisoryboard_breakthrough_fullreport.pdf
>
>> [2 [7]]
> https://netmundial.br/pdf/NETmundial10-MultistakeholderStatement-2024.pdf
>
>> [3] http://www.fccn.pt/
>> [4] http://www.governacaointernet.pt/
>> [5] https://www.intgovforum.org/en
>> [6] https://www.linkedin.com/in/anacristinaamorosoneves/
>> [7] http://www.gov.uk/dsit
>> [8] https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk
>> [9 [5]]
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> WG-Strategy mailing list
>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
>
> --
> Shamira Ahmed
> Executive Director
> Data Economy Policy Hub (DepHUB)
> W:www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org [8] [13 [8]]
> E: sahmed at africa-digital.org
> M: +27 78 129 4783
>
> [14 [9]] [15 [10]] [16 [11]]
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org/
> [2]
> https://unu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-03/highleveladvisoryboard_breakthrough_fullreport.pdf
> [3]
> https://netmundial.br/pdf/NETmundial10-MultistakeholderStatement-2024.pdf
> [4] http://www.fccn.pt
> [5] http://www.fccn.pt/
> [6] http://www.governacaointernet.pt
> [7] http://www.governacaointernet.pt/
> [8] https://www.intgovforum.org/en
> [9] https://www.linkedin.com/in/anacristinaamorosoneves/
> [10] http://www.gov.uk/dsit
> [11] https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk
> [12]
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
> [13] http://www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org
> [14] https://www.linkedin.com/in/mssmahmed/
> [15] https://twitter.com/dep_hub
> [16] https://shamiraahmed.medium.com/
--
Shamira Ahmed
Executive Director
Data Economy Policy Hub (DepHUB)
W:www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org [8]
E: sahmed at africa-digital.org
M: +27 78 129 4783
[9] [10] [11]
Links:
------
[1] https://www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org/
[2] http://www.fccn.pt
[3] http://www.governacaointernet.pt/
[4] http://www.governacaointernet.pt
[5] https://www.linkedin.com/in/anacristinaamorosoneves/
[6] http://www.gov.uk/dsit
[7]
https://unu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-03/highleveladvisoryboard_breakthrough_fullreport.pdf
[8] http://www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org
[9] https://www.linkedin.com/in/mssmahmed/
[10] https://twitter.com/dep_hub
[11] https://shamiraahmed.medium.com/
[12] https://www.intgovforum.org/en/pnai
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/16169c30/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 30c453b7.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/16169c30/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13ae5c83.png
Type: image/png
Size: 24392 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/16169c30/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: b545741d.png
Type: image/png
Size: 50347 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/16169c30/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8187c2a4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 42273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/16169c30/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 5a73b6c0.png
Type: image/png
Size: 34834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/16169c30/attachment-0009.png>
More information about the WG-Strategy
mailing list