 Executive Summary
The Revision 1 (Rev1) text of the WSIS+20 outcome document represents a clear and mature evolution from the initial Zero Draft (ZD). While preserving the foundational WSIS vision of a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, Rev1 refines the language, modernises the substance, and strengthens the document’s operational focus. It remains grounded in the principles of human rights, inclusivity, equal participation, multistakeholder governance, and an open Internet, while demonstrating greater responsiveness to the inputs of Member States. The result is a more balanced and implementation-oriented text. 1. Evolution in Substance and Tone Rev1 marks a shift from broad reaffirmation to concrete implementation. Where the Zero Draft often relied on formulaic expressions of commitment, Rev1 adopts more assertive and purposeful language—phrases such as “we emphasise,” “we strongly urge,” and “we commit” replace the softer “we recognise” and “we reaffirm.” This subtle but consistent change signals a collective determination to move from vision to action. The substance of the text has also been modernised. Rev1 incorporates current policy priorities and technological developmentsbringing the WSIS agenda into alignment with today’s digital landscape. It thus transitions from a general reaffirmation of ICT for development to a practical roadmap for implementation and accountability. Equally significant is the expansion of inclusivity. The Zero Draft referred broadly to “marginalised communities” and “persons with disabilities.” Rev1 expands this to name youth, older persons, Indigenous Peoples, migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons, and those in vulnerable situations. The effect is to humanise and particularise inclusion, shifting the tone from symbolic recognition to concrete representation. Overall, Rev1 reads as a confident and contemporary diplomatic text—less rhetorical and more grounded in policy realities. 2. Implications for the Open Internet and Multistakeholder Governance One of the most notable strengths of Rev1 is its consistent reaffirmation of the multistakeholder model at the heart of WSIS. The text explicitly recognises the indispensable roles of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical and academic communities, and youth in shaping the Information Society. It calls for “full and effective participation by all stakeholders in governance and standardisation processes,” a direct reinforcement of the open and distributed governance approach that underpins the global Internet. This inclusive framing ensures that the open Internet remains central to the WSIS vision. Rev1 encourages cooperation across sectors and countries, promotes open and non-discriminatory digital environments, and discourages unilateral restrictive measures that could fragment the Internet. It also emphasises the importance of interoperability, openness, and fairness as preconditions for digital transformation. Taken together, these developments confirm that Rev1 does not retreat from the WSIS commitment to an open, interoperable, and people-centred Internet. On the contrary, it reinforces it through a more precise articulation of shared responsibilities and mechanisms for cooperation. 3. Integration of Member State Inputs and Protection of Rights Rev1 clearly reflects the extensive input of Member States and stakeholders. It places greater emphasis on development finance, capacity-building, and digital inclusion—responding to calls for more tangible mechanisms of support for developing countries. The addition of references to blended finance, community networks, and investment partnerships demonstrates a pragmatic shift toward operational detail. At the same time, the revised text preserves and, in some areas, strengthens the WSIS commitment to human rights and democratic principles. References to freedom of expression, privacy, equality, and human dignity remain integral. These are now framed within broader discussions of security, trust, and emerging technologies, highlighting that technological advancement must respect and uphold human rights online and offline. Rev1 thus balances national policy space with global normative commitments. It acknowledges state responsibilities and diverse development paths without compromising the universality of human rights or the participatory spirit of WSIS. The result is a text that is politically inclusive yet normatively robust. 4. Overall Assessment The WSIS+20 Rev1 text stands as a more advanced and coherent document than the Zero Draft. It is technically sophisticated, politically balanced, and normatively consistent. Its strengthened operational focus, updated policy vocabulary, and expanded inclusivity make it a forward-looking instrument for digital cooperation. From the perspective of open Internet principles and democratic digital governance, Rev1 represents a positive evolution. It reinforces multistakeholder engagement, sustains a strong rights-based framework, and integrates Member State priorities without diluting foundational WSIS values. Rev1’s evolution demonstrates that the WSIS process continues to serve as an effective platform for consensus-building on global digital policy—one capable of integrating state, private, civil society, and technical perspectives into a coherent, inclusive, and rights-respecting vision for the future of the Information Society. Conclusion In sum, the progression from the Zero Draft to Rev1 reflects maturity, inclusivity, and practical ambition. The revised text successfully balances the developmental imperatives of Member States with the universal principles of human rights and democratic participation. It is a constructive and advanced text—modern in content, balanced in tone, and forward-looking in vision. Rev1 not only consolidates the achievements of the past two decades of WSIS but also reaffirms the open, multistakeholder, and rights-based model that remains essential for a sustainable and inclusive digital future. Section by Section analysis
In contrast, Revision 1 streamlines the text while keeping its core content. Each lettered paragraph is shorter, presenting one main idea per section, which improves readability. References to resolutions and agreements are maintained but are less detailed; the text assumes the reader can consult the full resolutions if needed. Contributions from stakeholders are summarized more generally, without singling out youth, and challenges like ICT gaps are not explicitly mentioned, making the text broader and more formal. References to reports and forums are preserved but phrased more smoothly; multiple sources are merged in some sentences to reduce repetition. The result is a preamble that reads more clearly and concisely, adhering to a typical UN style, while still acknowledging the historical context, preparatory processes, and key documents that inform the twenty-year review. Overall, the key difference lies in focus and readability. The zero draft is exhaustive, process-heavy, and highly specific, whereas Revision 1 emphasizes clarity and narrative flow, presenting the information in a structured, concise manner suitable for formal adoption. While some granularity and specific mentions are lost, the preamble gains a smoother, more professional tone that makes it easier to scan and understand.
The zero draft Introduction opened with a broad reaffirmation of the global commitment to a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society. It emphasized the ability of everyone to create, access, utilize, and share information and knowledge to achieve their full potential, promoting sustainable development and improving quality of life, all grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Rev1, this opening is largely retained but slightly reworded to explicitly reference the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) vision, giving a clearer anchoring to the Summit’s legacy. Both versions reaffirm the commitments to the Geneva Declaration of Principles, the Geneva Plan of Action, the Tunis Commitment, and the Tunis Agenda. The zero draft stressed multi-stakeholder cooperation, emphasizing governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations, and technical and academic communities, with balanced representation from all countries. Rev1 preserves this core idea but adds explicit mention of youth as stakeholders and slightly streamlines the sentence structure. Additionally, Rev1 introduces the principle of the sovereign equality of all states, reinforcing equitable participation and ensuring that no country or community is left behind, a nuance that is less explicit in the zero draft. Regarding developing countries, the zero draft discussed barriers to participation in global digital governance and the importance of capacity building, technology sharing, and financial resources, highlighting groups such as African countries, LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS. Rev1 conveys similar concerns but streamlines the language, combining governance, decision-making, and standardization processes into a single discussion, while retaining attention to countries in special situations and emphasizing “all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries.” In terms of digital growth and technological developments, both drafts acknowledge the tremendous growth of connectivity and the Internet, highlighting their role in enabling economic growth, social development, and innovation. The zero draft also mentiondsocial media and other applications, whereas Rev1 generalizes this to “online services,” slightly broadening the scope. The zero draft discussed the transformation of public discourse and policy-making dynamics due to the Internet, but this observation is omitted in Rev1, which instead focuses more directly on digital inclusion and its alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals. The legal and human rights context in the zero draft emphasized that WSIS outcomes are anchored in international law, including human rights law, and highlights the promotion of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights online and offline. Rev1 retains this commitment but frames it in a more consolidated way, linking the UN Charter explicitly to international law and human rights, and highlighting the commitment to a digital space that is inclusive, open, safe, and secure for all. Both drafts address digital divides, gender equality, and the empowerment of women and girls. The zero draft detailed the barriers, affordability, content in local languages, and digital skills, while Rev1 mirrors this structure but emphasizes investment in infrastructure and connectivity, linguistic diversity, and skills development. Both affirm commitments to vulnerable groups, but Rev1 expands the list to include migrants, refugees, internally displaced people, and those in vulnerable situations, reflecting broader inclusivity. Regarding emerging technologies and associated risks, both drafts acknowledge new possibilities and risks, underscoring the importance of human oversight to advance sustainable development and human rights. Similarly, the discussion on ICT confidence, security, and regulatory frameworks is largely maintained, with both drafts emphasizing innovation, consumer protection, digital talent, fair competition, entrepreneurship, and trust in the digital economy. Overall, the shift from the zero draft to Rev1 demonstrates a streamlining of language, slight reorganization of concepts, more explicit inclusion of youth, migrants, refugees, and internally displaced people, and a stronger emphasis on state equality and equitable participation. Some nuanced reflections from the zero draft, such as the impact of digital transformation on public discourse, are omitted in Rev1, likely in an effort to maintain a more concise, policy-focused narrative.
Both versions affirm that information and communications technologies (ICTs) hold great potential to contribute to human welfare, prosperity, and sustainable development. The zero draft emphasizes ICTs’ role in advancing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, noting their rapidly growing capabilities and pervasiveness and the opportunities they create for governments, the private sector, and other stakeholders to improve productivity, prosperity, and quality of life. The Rev1 version slightly streamlines the language, focusing on “prosperity and sustainable development” and omitting explicit reference to the 2030 Agenda, while retaining the emphasis on new opportunities for development. Regarding digital divides and constraints on ICT potential, both drafts express deep concern that inequalities between and within countries, regions, and communities limit ICTs’ development impact. The zero draft emphasized digital divides and inequalities and noted that a third of the world’s population does not use the Internet, while many with access make limited use due to affordability, local content availability, and digital skills. Rev1 rephrases this as “persistent inequalities,” and explicitly adds digital literacyalongside skills. Additionally, Rev1 reaffirms closing these divides as a core WSIS+20 priority, which is a stronger anchoring to the Summit process than in the zero draft. Both versions call for strengthened international cooperation and enabling policy environments to address these gaps, though Rev1 slightly generalizes the language around challenges to participation. Both drafts recognize the importance of digital public goods and digital public infrastructure as drivers of inclusive digital transformation and innovation. The zero draft included a sentence on the alignment of WSIS outcomes with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Digital Compact, urging stakeholders to align their work for digital development; this is absent in Rev1, which omits the explicit reference to the UN Group on the Information Society and the Global Digital Compact. Otherwise, the discussion of digital public goods—including open-source software, open data, open AI models, open standards, and open content adhering to privacy and international standards—is largely unchanged. Both versions stress that resilient, safe, inclusive, and interoperable digital public infrastructure can deliver services at scale, enhance opportunities for all, and that societies will develop shared digital systems according to their priorities and needs. In summary, the key changes in Rev1 are:
Both versions begin by acknowledging the expansion of Internet access and digital services since the World Summit on the Information Society, highlighting the growth in broadband coverage, mobile phone ownership, and Internet use. The zero draft provided specific statistics on population coverage by broadband and 4G networks, mobile phone ownership, and Internet use from 2005 to 2025. Rev1 retains these statistics but cites the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as the source and slightly reframes the text to emphasize the “significant expansion” in access, streamlining the narrative. Both drafts express concern over persistent digital divides between and within regions, countries, and communities. The zero draft presented specific figures for high-income versus low-income countries, urban versus rural populations, and included a statement on the rapid pace of digital development potentially exacerbating inequalities. Rev1 largely maintains these details but frames digital divides as limiting capabilities and opportunities for full participation, highlighting a multi-dimensional challenge encompassing affordability, language, ability, and technological capacity. Rev1 explicitly links bridging divides to the 2030 Agenda, WSIS vision, and the Global Digital Compact, giving a stronger policy and development framing. On gender digital divides, both versions highlight disparities in mobile phone and Internet usage between women and men, under-representation in education, employment, and digital activities, and call on stakeholders to address these gaps. Rev1 adds “reported by ITU” to reinforce data credibility. Regarding persons with disabilities, both drafts reference the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, noting ongoing accessibility gaps. Rev1 expands this section to include “assistive technologies” as a means to promote equal access. For other disadvantaged groups, both drafts identify older persons, ethnic and linguistic minorities, Indigenous Peoples, refugees, migrants, and vulnerable populations, urging inclusion in national and local digital strategies. Rev1 modifies wording slightly to emphasize “perspectives and needs”, highlighting participatory inclusion rather than just access. In terms of policy measures and commitments, the zero draft emphasizes entry-level broadband affordability, local content in multiple languages, and development of digital literacy skills. Rev1 elaborates further on mechanisms to achieve affordable broadband, including collaboration between private and public sectors, blended finance, universal service funds, community networks, and continued public access facilities. The emphasis on multilingual content is maintained, with additional references to progress towards Universal Acceptance of Internationalized Domain Names, reflecting updated technical and policy developments. Overall, Rev1:
In summary, Rev1 is a more policy-focused, structured, and internationally anchored version, emphasizing both the scale of digital progress and the multi-dimensional challenges that remain, along with concrete strategies to address them.
Both versions recognize that the digital economy is increasingly central to global trade and economic development, emphasizing that information and communications technologies (ICTs) have created new markets, businesses, and employment opportunities. The zero draft provides specific statistics, noting e-commerce accounts for about 20% of global retail trade, while Rev1 generalizes this to say that e-commerce “plays a major part in economic activity at international, national and local levels,” broadening the framing beyond retail trade. Both acknowledge the adoption of digital technologies across all economic sectors, enhancing productivity, enabling new forms of manufacturing and services, and fostering new business models. Equitable inclusion and market concentration are highlighted in both drafts. The zero draft mentioned the need to tackle concentrations of technological capacity and market power to ensure fair distribution of benefits, while Rev1 preserves this point but places slightly more emphasis on integrating developing countries into global value chains and innovation networks and framing a non-discriminatory digital environment as a prerequisite for stronger global digital economic cooperation. Regarding financial services, both versions discuss the evolution of digital transactions, Internet banking, cashless payments, and mobile money systems, noting their role in increasing access to financial services. The drafts similarly commit to supporting developing countries in creating enabling domestic environments for digital financial services. Rev1 slightly simplifies the phrasing but retains the full policy intent. The zero draft included specific references to agriculture, noting that ICTs improve productivity in large-scale food production and support small-scale and subsistence farmers. This section is omitted in Rev1, which instead focuses on broader digital services and enterprise development. Both drafts emphasize opportunities for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), including those led by women. Rev1 streamlines the text slightly, removing repetitive language about open, fair, and non-discriminatory digital environments, while maintaining the emphasis on enabling MSMEs to thrive with financial support and access to capital. On employment and emerging technologies, both drafts acknowledge impacts such as changes in workplace environments, flexible working, and digital labour platforms. Both discuss the role of automation, robotics, and AI in reshaping employment, including potential displacement of professional, clerical, and manual roles. Rev1 expands this section to emphasize that emerging technologies should complement and augment human labour, highlighting safeguarding employment rights and welfare, which is a more explicit articulation of social responsibility than in the zero draft. In summary, key differences in Rev1 include:
Overall, Rev1 is more concise, globally framed, and socially oriented, emphasising inclusion, equity, and the integration of emerging technologies with human welfare, while preserving the zero draft’s core points about the digital economy, financial services, and enterprise opportunities.
Both versions recognise that information and communications technologies (ICTs) enhance social welfare and inclusion by providing channels for individuals, businesses, and governments to share knowledge and participate in decisions affecting livelihoods, social welfare, and public services. The zero draft emphasized the contribution of ICTs to education, health, employment, business, and science, while Rev1 broadens and streamlines the language, highlighting profound impacts on public service delivery and the ways individuals and communities interact, consume, and spend their time. Both drafts note that while many impacts are positive, ICTs also raise concerns regarding human rights, health, employment, and overall welfare. Regarding government strategies and e-services, both versions highlight national strategies leveraging ICTs and the provision of e-government services. Rev1 slightly reframes the language to emphasize “social and economic development” and the enabling role of e-services in providing information, advice, and online transaction opportunities. For education and training, both drafts discuss innovative approaches such as distance learning, open educational resources, and online courses. Rev1 explicitly includes digital literacy as a factor limiting access, whereas the zero draft focuses more on digital divides in connectivity and educational facilities. Both reaffirm the goal of connecting every school to the Internet by 2030. On health and medicine, both texts note the role of ICTs in disseminating public health information, supporting local health workers, improving health data analysis, and enhancing clinical practice. Rev1 specifies sexual and reproductive health and adds a reaffirmed commitment to leveraging ICTs to improve health access, especially in developing countries. Regarding cultural and creative sectors, both drafts recognise the positive impact of ICTs on cultural expression and urge stakeholders to preserve cultural heritage. Rev1 slightly updates the phrasing to “access to cultural resources” rather than “recorded information,” broadening the focus. Both versions acknowledge ICTs’ role in natural disaster response and humanitarian assistance, including hazard monitoring, early warning systems, preparedness, response, recovery, and reconstruction, with little change between the drafts. Finally, on digital divides and equitable delivery of social and economic development, both drafts express concern about persistent inequalities in access, connectivity, affordability, and skills. Rev1 slightly refines the language, emphasizing limited digital skills alongside poor connectivity and affordability and explicitly calls for greater international cooperation to enhance impact and progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals. The zero draft emphasized attention to digital inclusion, literacy, capacity building, and financial mechanisms, while Rev1 generalizes these into broader international cooperation. In summary, Rev1:
Overall, Rev1 is more concise, policy-oriented, and internationally framed, while retaining the zero draft’s focus on ICT contributions to social welfare, inclusion, education, health, culture, disaster response, and equitable development.
Both versions begin by welcoming the role of digital technologies in supporting environmental sustainability, including monitoring environmental change, implementing early warning systems, and enabling governments and development partners to prioritize interventions. The zero draft emphasized protecting those at greatest risk and forecasting priorities for future action, while Rev1 slightly streamlines the phrasing to “protect those at risk and identify priorities.” Both note that digital technologies can improve energy and resource efficiency through smart management of systems and processes, and both commit to leveraging these technologies while minimising negative environmental impacts. On energy consumption and climate impacts, both drafts express concern about rising energy demand from digitalisation, data traffic, data centres, IoT, and AI. The zero draft specifically mentioned greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change, whereas Rev1 frames the concern more broadly around energy demand, security, access, affordability, and climate impacts. The call for global reporting standards and stakeholder cooperation present in the zero draft is not explicitly included in Rev1, making it slightly less prescriptive. Regarding critical resources, both drafts highlight the importance of sustainable use and equitable access to scarce minerals needed for digital equipment. The zero draft added references to human rights abuses, dangerous employment practices, and civil conflict associated with mineral extraction, which is not present in Rev1. On electronic waste (e-waste), the zero draft expressed concern over rapid growth, pollution, and health risks, especially in developing countries, and called for improved data gathering, collaboration, technology sharing, and compliance with the Basel Convention. Rev1 omits these specific details, condensing the discussion into broader concerns about resource use and sustainable consumption. Both drafts emphasise promoting sustainable consumption, production patterns, and circular economy approaches. Rev1 slightly expands the framing to “international standards” and emphasises all stakeholders, particularly governments and the private sector, in designing sustainable digital products and ensuring reuse, repair, and recycling. Finally, both texts stress the need for an inclusive and integrated approach for aligning digital and environmental policies. Both highlight lifecycle sustainability, resource efficiency, and conservation. Rev1 adds the words “global, regional and national challenges” to stress multi-level policy alignment but slightly reduces the prescriptive detail about poverty eradication and context-specific measures present in the zero draft. In summary, key differences in Rev1 include:
Overall, Rev1 is more concise, general in its prescriptions, and internationally framed, while the zero draft contained more detailed, prescriptive elements regarding environmental risks, e-waste, and social impacts.
Both drafts emphasise the importance of a positive enabling environment for investment, innovation, and technological development in supporting a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society (zero draft) or the WSIS vision (Rev1). Both stress that such an environment is critical for the implementation and realization of digital development goals. Regarding science, technology, and innovation, both versions recognize their integral role in digital development and the importance of ensuring participation by stakeholders in all countries. The zero draft highlights the contribution of rapidly growing digital capabilities to research and development across scientific fields, while Rev1 adds a reference to the development and harmonisation of standards, refining the focus on actionable aspects of digital innovation. On policies and legal/regulatory frameworks, both texts acknowledge their importance for deploying digital services, covering areas such as market structure, digital transactions, data protection and privacy, consumer rights, intellectual property, human rights, and environmental impacts. Rev1 additionally emphasises that experience since the World Summit demonstrates the effectiveness of certain approaches in promoting investment, bridging digital divides, and fostering development—a nuance that is not explicit in the zero draft. Both drafts support international, regional, and national efforts to develop enabling environments, including predictable and transparent policies, legal and regulatory frameworks, and sharing best practices. Both call on stakeholders to provide technical assistance to developing countries, in line with national digital transformation priorities. On technology transfer, both texts encourage the international community to promote technology on mutually agreed terms and adopt policies and programs that help developing countries leverage technology through technical cooperation and capacity-building. The zero draft specifically tasks the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) and Action Line facilitatorsto work with stakeholders to provide policy advice, technical assistance, and capacity-building to support the enabling environment. Rev1 reorganizes and clarifies this, including a new explicit call urging States to refrain from unilateral measures that impede development or the well-being of people, which adds an international law dimension not present in the zero draft. Rev1 also commends the work of United Nations Regional Commissions and other regional organisations and calls on them, along with the CSTD, to share experience and support demand-driven policy guidance. In summary, the main differences in Rev1 include:
Building Confidence and Security in the Use of ICTs Both drafts reaffirm that strengthening confidence and security in ICTs is crucial for innovation and sustainable development and that this must be consistent with human rights. Both commend efforts by governments, the private sector, civil society, and the technical community to protect infrastructure, services, transactions, and digital activity from cyber threats. In terms of scope, the zero draft listed specific threats and risks, including sexual and gender-based violence, hate speech, discrimination, misinformation, disinformation, cyberbullying, and child sexual exploitation and abuse. It also emphasized the establishment and maintenance of robust risk mitigation and redress measures that protect privacy and freedom of expression. Rev1, in contrast, does not enumerate these specific risks, instead framing the concern more generally around malicious cyber activities and physical risks to infrastructure, including critical Internet infrastructure. Rev1 introduces references to recent institutional developments that are not in the zero draft, including the report of the Open-ended Working Group on ICT Security (2021–2025) and the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs, highlighting efforts to advance responsible state behaviour in the use of ICTs. Both drafts recognize the challenges faced by developing countries in building ICT confidence and security. Both reiterate the General Assembly resolution 70/125 (2015) calling for capacity-building, education, knowledge-sharing, regulatory practice, multistakeholder cooperation, and awareness-raising among users, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable. The zero draft provided more detail on targeted support, including aligning regulatory frameworks with international norms and supporting cooperation between CERTs/CSIRTs. Rev1 condenses this, leaving the commitments general without specifying CERT/CSIRT cooperation or alignment with norms. In summary, the main differences in Rev1 are:
Overall, Rev1 shifts from detailed operational guidance and specific threats toward a higher-level, institutional, and internationally framed approach, while keeping the essential goals of ICT confidence, security, and inclusive support intact.
Both drafts identify lack of capacity as a major barrier to closing digital divides and emphasise that capacity development—including for innovation—should empower local experts and communities to benefit from and contribute to ICT applications for development. Both also recognise the importance of digital skills and lifelong access to learning opportunities, tailored to social, cultural, and linguistic contexts and to persons of all ages. The zero draft placed strong emphasis on international cooperation to promote human resource development, training, and support at national and local levels, particularly to enable developing countries to innovate and participate fully in a people-centred, inclusive Information Society. Rev1 integrates this point with the scaling up of international cooperation and financing for digital capacity development, and explicitly ties this to supporting the development of local content relevant to local realities, similar to the zero draft, but in a more concise formulation. Rev1 adds more detail on technical and policy capacity: it stresses the importance of capacity development in technological innovation, governance, and complex challenges of digitalisation. It commends the work of the technical community, UN entities, and other stakeholders in building technical expertise and the capacity of civil servants and the judiciary. It also calls for the strengthening of initiatives to support digital capabilities in these critical areas of digital transformation—points that were less explicit in the zero draft. Regarding digital literacy and individual empowerment, both texts highlight the need to equip people to identify reliable information, access opportunities, safeguard online security and privacy, and exercise data protection rights. Rev1 consolidates this into a single, action-oriented call to all stakeholders to promote digital skills and literacy, whereas the zero draft separates the literacy aspect from broader empowerment and awareness-raising. In summary, the main differences in Rev1 are:
Overall, Rev1 strengthens the operational focus on developing the human and technical capacities necessary for digital transformation, while keeping the core commitments to closing digital divides and fostering local empowerment intact.
Both versions acknowledge that financial investment in ICT infrastructure has expanded significantly since WSIS, driven by new markets, technological capabilities, and service innovations. Both also stress that harnessing ICTs for development and bridging digital divides requires sustained investment in infrastructure and services, capacity-building, research and development, and technology transfer, involving both public and private actors. The zero draft framed the call for investment in more general terms, highlighting the need for an enabling policy environment, fostering public-private cooperation, and promoting universal service funds and innovative financing mechanisms to achieve meaningful connectivity and support the Sustainable Development Goals. Rev1 largely retains this formulation but integrates the call for international financial organizations and development partners to mainstream ICTs in their programs and concessional finance, adding a clearer operational dimension. Regarding private sector and development partner contributions, both drafts recognize the critical role of private sector investment and the importance of public funding and development banks in supporting deployment in commercially unviable areas. Both mention innovative mechanisms like universal access funds and community networks to extend connectivity to remote areas. The treatment of the Sevilla Commitment is slightly different: the zero draft mentioned it as the outcome document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (July 2025), reaffirming its call for coordinated investment and international collaboration in digital infrastructure, including digital public infrastructure and digital public goods. Rev1 anchors the Sevilla Commitment more formally with the UN General Assembly resolution reference (79/323 of 25 August 2025) and emphasises the development of financing plans and coordination between governments, multilateral institutions, and private actors. Rev1 adds additional forward-looking actions not present in the zero draft:
In summary, Rev1 retains all the zero draft’s core points on investment needs, public-private cooperation, and the role of development partners but adds greater specificity, operational guidance, and forward-looking initiatives, including formal UN references and explicit actions to support national e-strategies and future financial mechanisms.
Both versions place human rights at the center of the Information Society, highlighting that ICTs can strengthen access to information, freedom of expression, assembly, and association. Both reaffirm the universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelation of human rights, referencing core international human rights instruments and noting the mutual reinforcement of democracy, sustainable development, and good governance. The zero draft emphasized the commitment to protect offline rights online, referencing UN resolutions (69/166 and 78/213) and pledging adherence to international human rights law across the lifecycle of digital and emerging technologies. Rev1 covers the same points but slightly streamlines the references and integrates commitments to safeguards, human rights due diligence, and remedy mechanisms into a tighter narrative. Both texts highlight the responsibilities of stakeholders, particularly the private sector, to embed human rights into the conception, design, deployment, and operation of digital technologies. Rev1 mirrors this but adds explicit reference to harmonization with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and gives a concise acknowledgement of the OHCHR’s advisory role on human rights and technology. Regarding freedom of expression and privacy, both texts reaffirm article 19 and article 12 of the UDHR, with the zero draft providing slightly more detailed context on privacy obligations, while Rev1 uses a more integrated phrasing to cover arbitrary interference, online shutdowns, and measures targeting Internet access. Both emphasize media independence and protection of journalists and civil society actors, with Rev1 consolidating points on safeguarding media freedom, preventing harassment, and supporting public media into a single cohesive paragraph. The zero draft separated these aspects across several paragraphs but covers the same substantive concerns. Both drafts recognize that digital technologies can facilitate harmful manipulation of information and stress the importance of promoting information integrity, tolerance, and respect online, while countering misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech. Rev1 slightly reorganizes the narrative for clarity and flow. On gender and child rights, both texts stress the urgent need to ensure women’s and girls’ full, equal, and meaningful participation, countering technology-facilitated gender-based violence, and protecting children’s rights online in line with the CRC. Rev1 integrates these commitments more closely with earlier human rights obligations, making the narrative tighter and more action-oriented. Key differences in Rev1:
Overall, Rev1 keeps all the substantive commitments of the zero draft but organizes them into a clearer, more cohesive framework, enhancing readability and emphasizing actionable obligations for stakeholders while maintaining alignment with international law and human rights standards.
Both versions emphasise the importance of responsible and interoperable data governance as a means to advance development objectives, protect human rights, foster innovation, and promote economic growth. This foundational point is unchanged between the two drafts. Both texts reference the Global Digital Compact as the framework guiding the approach to data governance. The zero draft simply “reaffirms the approach adopted by the General Assembly,” while Rev1 elaborates slightly by reaffirming the objective to advance responsible, equitable, and interoperable data governance, giving a bit more emphasis to the principles of fairness and equity. Both drafts note the creation of a working group by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to conduct a comprehensive, inclusive multistakeholder dialogue on data governance. The zero draft mentioned that the group may develop recommendations including fundamental principles of data governance arrangements, whereas Rev1 slightly refines this by specifying that the dialogue includes follow-up recommendations towards equitable and interoperable data governance arrangements, keeping the language consistent with the emphasis on equity and interoperability. Key differences in Rev1:
Overall, Rev1 retains the substance of the zero draft while clarifying the focus on equitable and interoperable data governance and providing slightly more structured language regarding the working group’s role.
Both versions recognise the emergence and significance of artificial intelligence (AI) within the Information Society and its transformative impact on human societies, including potential negative implications for employment, labor, the environment, human rights, and information integrity. The zero draft explicitly noted these risks, while Rev1 does not restate them, focusing instead on capacity building and governance measures. Both texts reaffirm the approach to international governance of AI as adopted by the General Assembly in the Global Digital Compact. This remains a core reference in both drafts, underlining a commitment to AI governance for the benefit of humanity. Regarding capacity building and leveraging existing UN resources, both versions emphasize using specialized agencies, funds, programs, and UN system-wide mechanisms. The zero draft detailed actions such as conducting research, mapping and analysis, reporting on progress and challenges, and providing tailored assistance. Rev1 consolidates this, framing it as leveraging resources to bridge AI divides, facilitate access, and build capacity in high-performance computing and related skills, with a stronger emphasis on developing countries and international partnerships for training and SME participation. Both drafts request the Secretary-General to establish an AI Research Programme and an AI capacity-building fellowship, particularly focused on developing countries to enhance AI expertise in the Global South. Rev1 links the AI Research Programme explicitly to the work of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, adding clarity to the program’s connection with scientific assessments. On the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, both drafts welcome the establishment of the panel for evidence-based assessments and note the upcoming Global Dialogue involving governments and stakeholders. Rev1 adds a reference to the Secretary-General’s Report on Innovative Voluntary Financing Options for AI Capacity-Building, further reinforcing financial mechanisms to support AI capacity development. Key differences in Rev1:
Overall, Rev1 retains the substance and initiatives of the zero draft, while sharpening the focus on equitable access, international partnerships, and structured capacity-building in developing countries, and integrating references to financing mechanisms.
Both versions reaffirm the working definition of Internet governance from the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, emphasizing the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs by governments, the private sector, and civil society. Both stress the multistakeholder, global, transparent, and democratic nature of Internet governance, with active involvement of all relevant actors. The two texts similarly highlight the need to promote greater participation in Internet governance, particularly by stakeholders from developing countries and underrepresented groups, including African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, and small island developing states. Both underscore the Internet as a critical global facility for inclusive and equitable digital transformation, noting its open and interoperable nature as foundational for services spanning governance, economy, development, and rights. Both reaffirm that Internet governance should continue to follow the provisions set forth in the Geneva and Tunis summit outcomes, including enhanced cooperation, and acknowledge the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in providing recommendations on implementing enhanced cooperation. Both drafts stress the importance of improving coordination among international and intergovernmental organizations involved in Internet governance. Where Rev1 diverges from the zero draft is in its inclusion of new references and updated structures. Rev1 explicitly mentions the NETmundial+10 guidelines (April 2024) as a contribution to strengthening inclusive, balanced, and open multistakeholder governance. It also expands the description of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ecosystem to include Dynamic Coalitions, Best Practice Forums, and Policy Networks, along with National, Regional, and Youth IGFs, emphasizing broader participation. Both texts commend the successful development of the IGF and outline its evolution into a broader ecosystem with intersessional activities, leadership structures, and mechanisms for reporting outcomes to relevant UN entities. Both call for the IGF to become a permanent UN forum, enhance its working modalities, strengthen its Secretariat, support intersessional and regional activities, and broaden stakeholder participation, particularly from developing countries. Rev1 further stresses the IGF’s role as an inclusive platform for dialogue on emerging technologies and its continuous improvement in engagement with governments and stakeholders from developing countries. Key differences in Rev1:
Overall, Rev1 retains the foundational principles of the zero draft while updating the governance framework with recent initiatives, broader participation structures, and a stronger focus on emerging technologies, emphasising inclusivity, transparency, and capacity-building for developing countries.
Both versions recognize that the Tunis Agenda provides a solid foundation for continuing the implementation of the WSIS vision and principles. They acknowledge that experiences since the Summit, coupled with the evolution of the Information Society, indicate the need to ensure alignment with the Global Digital Compact and continued relevance in achieving WSIS objectives. Both drafts emphasize the importance of multistakeholder participation, highlighting the contributions of governments, international organizations, private sector, civil society, the technical community, and academia. They reaffirm the values of multistakeholder cooperation established at the Summit, reiterated in General Assembly resolution 70/125, and reinforced in the Global Digital Compact. Both underscore the sovereign equality of States and the importance of equitable participation to ensure no country or community is left behind in building a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society. The texts also stress the alignment of WSIS implementation with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Pact for the Future, and the Global Digital Compact, aiming to build synergies, avoid duplication, and ensure all stakeholders can participate fully. Both versions acknowledge the support of UN entities and Action Line facilitators in implementing WSIS outcomes over the past two decades. They highlight the role of UN Regional Commissions in developing regional action plans, coordinating implementation, and providing technical assistance, capacity building, and partnerships. Both note the establishment of the Secretary-General’s Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies to enhance UN system-wide coordination and support implementation of the Global Digital Compact. Both recognise the annual WSIS Forum as a key platform for multistakeholder dialogue, networking, sharing best practices, and reviewing Action Lines, calling for its continuation. Both affirm the importance of the WSIS Action Line framework, including its value to governments in developing national digital strategies, and call for alignment with the 2030 Agenda. They also emphasise the integration of human rights, gender equality, and empowerment of women and girls across all Action Lines, involving OHCHR and UN-Women. Where Rev1 diverges slightly from the zero draft:
Overall, Rev1 maintains the foundational principles of the zero draft while streamlining references, clarifying coordination mechanisms, and strengthening links between WSIS Action Lines, SDGs, and the Global Digital Compact to enhance implementation, monitoring, and accountability.
Both versions underline the critical importance of data and statistics in supporting ICT for development. They call for the collection of quantitative data to enable evidence-based decision-making and emphasize the inclusion of ICT data in national statistical strategies and regional statistical work programmes. Both texts stress the need for strengthened international cooperation to address gaps in development data and advocate for the responsible use and sharing of data to advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Both versions recognise and appreciate the work of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, highlighting its contributions to developing indicators, gathering data, and disseminating knowledge about the Information Society. They also acknowledge the contributions of UN agencies and other stakeholders in creating targets, indicators, and metrics. Both texts express commitment to the further development and strengthening of internationally agreed targets, indicators, and metrics, including those for universal, meaningful, and affordable connectivity, and emphasize the need to align these measures with SDGs. They call for periodic review of methodologies, taking into account differences in national contexts, levels of development, and sharing of country case studies. Where Rev1 differs from the zero draft:
Both versions highlight the need for capacity-building and funding for national statistical systems, encouraging development partners to provide resources and share best practices. Both also urge the private sector to support data collection and analysis, strengthening research, policymaking, and the work of governments, civil society, and academia.
Both texts underscore that the ongoing implementation of WSIS outcomes requires continuous commitment from all stakeholders, including governments, civil society, the private sector, international organisations, technical and academic communities, and youth (explicitly added in Rev1). Both highlight the importance of annual review of progress across all Action Lines to achieve the Summit’s vision. Both versions stress the need for convergence between WSIS outcomes and the Global Digital Compact (GDC) to avoid duplication, increase synergies, and maximize efficiency and impact. They call for strengthening UNGIS as the United Nations’ inter-agency mechanism to coordinate policy, programmatic coherence, and multistakeholder dialogue. Both texts request the expansion of UNGIS membership to include additional UN entities with responsibilities in digital cooperation and stakeholder engagement. Rev1 emphasizes consultation with the Chief Executives Board for Coordination as part of this process, adding a layer of governance clarity. Both acknowledge the value of the WSIS–GDC mapping matrix, which links Compact objectives to existing WSIS structures and mechanisms, providing a structured framework for follow-up. They call for the development of a joint implementation roadmap to integrate WSIS and GDC commitments, to be presented to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development at its 29th session in 2026. Rev1 adds explicit language that the roadmap should maximize synergies across the UN system, strengthening coherence and resource efficiency. The roles of ECOSOC and the Commission on Science and Technology for Development are highlighted in both texts, focusing on overseeing system-wide follow-up, assessing progress, and providing strategic guidance and recommendations. Both versions request annual reporting by the Secretary-General through the Commission on progress in implementing WSIS outcomes and the GDC. Both texts mention high-level review meetings: one in 2027 for the GDC, one in 2030 as input to the 2030 Agenda review, and one in 2035 for a comprehensive review of WSIS implementation. Rev1 slightly refines the language around stakeholder input and encourages consideration of coherence and alignment between WSIS outcomes and GDC implementation during the 2027 high-level meeting. Overall, Rev1 keeps the core commitments of the original text while providing more precise language on stakeholder roles, UN governance mechanisms, and alignment between WSIS and GDC processes, and it adds explicit references to youth and the Chief Executives Board for Coordination. The structure is slightly streamlined, with greater emphasis on coherence, resource efficiency, and systematic reporting. |