The inaugural Global Dialogue on AI Governance marked the first time, as speakers noted, that every UN Member State had a seat at the table to discuss artificial intelligence opportunities and risks; bridging AI divides; ensuring AI is safe, secure and trustworthy; and protecting human rights.

António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General, struck a somber note in his opening address. Calling artificial intelligence “an experiment…being run on our own societies – without a plan, and without consent,” he issued three warnings: its speed, which outstrips our institutions’ ability to govern; its power, “concentrated in a handful of companies, and in a handful of countries”; and truth:

A machine-enabled lie can now persuade as effectively as the truth – and authentic evidence can be dismissed as fake.
Further eroding the integrity of our information ecosystem and undermining trust.
A society that cannot agree on what is real cannot defend itself.

The preliminary report of the International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence was also released – a must-read for anyone wanting to understand “the state of AI”.

As Panel co-chair Maria Ressa explained, the report reflects consensus among its 40 independent members, based on the evidence. “Consensus,” she said, “means you move to the centre.” So, she added, “This is the floor of our concern, not the ceiling. And that is alarming enough.”

The report points to major gains in science, health, and education – alongside serious risks to information integrity, growing vulnerability, and increased abuse, especially against women, girls, journalists, and marginalized populations.

The two days were filled with speeches, many alternating state representatives with civil society voices. But “dialogue” – especially with those who hold power – seemed non-existent at this initial stage.

The Global Dialogue overlapped with the increasingly high-profile AI for Good Global Summit – a technology expo with staged areas for companies and organizations to showcase products and services or pitch problems that need solving. A sign of its growing popularity: for the first year it charged admission for most attendees, with a premium fee for the “Centre Stage” sessions.

Alongside impressive demonstrations of technology improving accessibility and scientific research, it was clear we remain captivated by humanoid robots – and that the allure of what we could do still overshadows what we should do. Its popularity and the claim of its organizers (International Telecommunications Union-ITU in partnership with other UN agencies, with the Swiss Government as co-convener) that it is “the United Nations’ leading platform on Artificial Intelligence” raises real questions about how it relates to – and where it is steering – the Global Dialogue.

The third event has had a longer, more inclusive history. The vision of the World Summit on the Information Society calls for a “people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society,” and for over 20 years it has served as the primary multistakeholder forum for implementing communication and digital commitments. This is where community networks, human rights organizations, regulators, and private sector providers share sessions and plenaries – albeit alongside high-profile State sponsors.

No doubt because Geneva’s main conference centre, Palexpo, was fully booked by the Global Dialogue and AI for Good, the first two days of the 2026 WSIS Forum were held at ITU headquarters, down a construction-strewn road. The low-key setup – magnified by a confusing warren of hallways and meeting rooms – gave the impression that WSIS was the poor relation of digital governance.

The setting improved once the Forum moved to Palexpo for the rest of the week, but compared to the three halls buzzing with people (and robots) at AI for Good, the atmosphere stayed muted.

While the WSIS vision remains unfulfilled, it is still the platform that addresses the entire information society, including the digital environment. The Global Dialogue was full of speeches calling for meaningful community involvement, respect for human rights, equal access, and transparency; it is the WSIS Forum where actual efforts at community and multistakeholder cooperation are demonstrated as models for further action. It is far from a perfect, all-purpose governance and financing platform – but it is the most inclusive in focus and participation.

There is yet another significant platform coming up in a different time and place – the United Nations Internet Governance Forum – to be held in December in Nairobi, Kenya. Its 2026 theme is “Governing the Internet in the Age of Intelligence: Our Shared Responsibility.” Its mandate, linked to the WSIS process, is to bring diverse stakeholders together to shape digital public policy across both public and private sectors.

As the WACC delegation navigated these three meetings last week – and looks ahead to the IGF – we are left wondering where the most effective action on digital justice will actually happen.

Each forum has a role, and each needs WACC’s advocacy on equity, participation, and accountability. But the links between best practice, multistakeholder dialogue, public policy, and sustainable development have not yet been forged, and the still largely unregulated development of AI raises a hard question: which forum, or combination of forums, will have real impact?

Speaking at the WSIS Forum, Jennifer Chung, Chair of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group, directly addressed the need for coordination, collaboration, and cohesion among these four platforms – essential to implementing the Global Digital Compact and to the power of multistakeholder cooperation.

Digital justice is needed more than ever, and WACC is committed to making sure the voices and experiences of those advocating for equity, participation, and accountability are heard loud and clear in every one of these forums. But that takes all of us.

Follow these processes. Read the reports. Speak up when your national delegation takes its seat at the Global Dialogue, raise questions about community involvement in the latest AI tech, and share our stories of how technological solutions work for all at WSIS and the IGF.

Most importantly, take action where you are. Digital justice is not only decided in Geneva or Nairobi – it is built in the communities where access, literacy, and safety are still out of reach.

Support your local community media. Champion digital literacy where you live. Push back against disinformation in your own networks. The forums will keep meeting. Whether they deliver justice depends on what we do between them.

Images: (clockwise from top) participants at WSIS, ITU/Pierre Albouy; speaker at the Global Governance on AI, ITU/Antoine Tardy; AI for Good Summit, ITU/D Woldu. All photos on ITU’s Flickr profile, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. 

Have you ever read through the agenda of a United Nations General Assembly?

The 80th regular session of the General Assembly opens tomorrow, 9 September. Under the theme, “Better Together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights,” the provisional agenda has 174 main items.

Some items, of course, are quickly ticked off the list, such as the “Minute of silent prayer or meditation (rule 62).” Others, such as the 56 proposed resolutions among the 38 agenda items under “Maintenance of international peace and security” will no doubt move, or not move, through the committees and processes of the year-long regular session.

Media attention will focus on the high-level week (22–30 September) when attention turns to interventions by Heads of State and Government. Inevitably, these statements will at times contrast with the UN vision of multilateralism, with forceful justifications of governments’ own actions – actions that violate approved UN resolutions and commitments.

The focus of the high-level week will be on “the urgency of delivering on the promise of the Sustainable Development Goals and reinvigorating global cooperation” – a tall order given the state of international affairs and the 2030 deadline to achieve the 16 ambitious targets.

WACC, with the publication of the 2025 Global Media Monitoring Project Highlights of Findings on 4 September, have already demonstrated that just one of the markers towards SDG 5 Gender Equality – equal representation of women and men in the news media – remains far out of reach.

WACC’s call in response – for a radical strategic shift in approach – has to be considered, for all the UN’s celebration of the achievements of the past 80 years, as we look at the path ahead in the face of economic, technological, and political power shifts.

For example, while the launch of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance on 25 September seems vital, can it move fast and strong enough to counter tech companies’ political spending and Trump’s determination to have the US be the big AI superpower ( “We can’t stop it with foolish rules.”)?

The bottom line is that the vision is sound – “that peace is possible when humanity stands together” – as stated by UN Secretary General António Guterres. But new, radical approaches need to be identified and explored to bring that unity of purpose.

For those radical approaches, we have to look at those who most desire peace – the ordinary people and communities exploited by the wealthy; marginalized by the powerful; victimized by stereotypes; starved, wounded, and killed by hatred and fear. There can be no more radical shift than that.  Impossible, too, no doubt.

But those of us who champion communication rights are fundamentally proposing just that – everyone should be seen and heard, everyone should participate in the decisions that affect them, everyone deserves accurate information and education, everyone is equal and deserving of respect.

Perhaps the radical shift needed for future constructive multilaterialism is just that– focus on communication in all its forms. Prioritize communication access, affordability, participation, equality, transparency, accountability. Promote knowledge, understanding, and inclusion. Listen to diverse voices, elevate facts, learn from others.

So, let’s be ever more radical. Let’s defend the right to communicate. Let’s demonstrate that “standing together” at its basic level requires communication. That’s the only path forward for multilateralism.

Image generated with Canva AI

In one part of the world, in Nairobi, Kenya, street vendors are doing booming business with “art” generated by artificial intelligence whose pricing matches or is even higher than real art.

What constitutes “art” may be in the eyes of the beholder, but it seems no industry, no facet of everyday life, is too sacred for AI. True that AI has revolutionized critical sectors such as healthcare and education. Also true that it has sparked fears of job loss, privacy, disrespect of intellectual property rights, and even the future of humanity.

AI is part of a bigger picture about digital transformation. In another part of the world, at the just-concluded “Summit of the Future” in New York to be precise, world leaders agreed on a plan for digital transformation. The plan concludes numerous similar discussions held over the past few years. In the Global Digital Compact annexed to the Summit’s outcome document, signatories committed to take specific steps to “enhance international governance of artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.”

The road towards the final version of the Compact was marked by rigorous debates on wording to recognize the interests of a range of stakeholders. Controversies came into play as well — to note, the challenge by tech leaders through an open letter to the UN, met with a rejoinder titled “Why the people of the world need a Global Digital Compact” issued by the Global Digital Justice Forum, of which WACC is a member.

It is true that numerous international agreements have remained aspirational for the most part, achieving only a fraction of their goals. The extent to which the Compact will be successfully implemented remains to be seen. Nonetheless, any success, however small, will be a goal in the net for humanity.

In case you’re wondering, to quote vendor Sam Maina in an article by Citizen TV Kenya on the sale of AI-generated art in Nairobi, “the people who know about art just back off once they touch the pieces.”

Image: Screengrab from Citizen TV Kenya’s video “How Nairobi hawkers are cashing in on Artificial Intelligence”

By bringing together UN member states with civil society, private sector and other stakeholders, one of the main messages the event wants to send is that effective, forward-looking solutions require multilateral consensus and collaboration.

As with most UN events, the hard work on outcomes was done in advance in the form of two main documents which will be adopted during the Summit. WACC has worked with partners to influence the text and direction of both.

The Pact for the Future aims to be the high-level political declaration that lays out the critical global challenges and a framework for action to meet them. It builds on existing UN processes including the report “Our Common Agenda” by the UN Secretary-General that called for the revitalization of global governance as well as the Sustainable Development Goals.

When the first draft of the Pact was released for comment, the Global Forum for Media and Development (GFMD), of which WACC is a member, noted immediately that despite international acknowledgement of the vital role public interest journalism has in peace and security, democratic governance, and sustainable development, there was no mention of media or journalism in the draft.

Together GFMD and its allies, along with other civil society partners, have provided written feedback, advocacy with government delegations and multilateral partners, and pressure via a joint statement signed by over 110 organizations around the world. This coalition has contributed to greater references to civil society, maintaining strong human rights language, and specific language to respecting and protecting journalists particularly in situations of armed conflict.

All parties acknowledge that not all that we have called for is in the Pact, but our collective, active advocacy has had an impact and strengthened these elements in the document.

The second outcome of the Summit of the Future, which is envisioned as an annex to the Pact for the Future, is the Global Digital Compact.

The Compact aims to outline shared principles for the use of digital technologies and a framework for digital governance. It aims to balance innovation and regulation, while respecting human rights and ethics, inclusion, and digital commons.

WACC, through GFMD and other partners, has pushed for a human-rights centred Compact that considers the media community as a key stakeholder. While no doubt the final version is not as robust as needed, the Global Digital Justice Forum – a group of civil society organizations and networks working on digital rights and justice – considers the multistakeholder approach to the Compact’s development a positive approach.

In a public communication, the Forum says: “The specific governance proposals in the [Global Digital Compact] – pertaining to Internet, data and AI governance – are aligned with the World Summit on the Information Society principles and plan of action; the only touchstone so far on global digital governance.”

In their statement on what is at stake for internet governance and human rights with the Compact, the Forum notes:

Undoubtedly, this GDC may not be the best we could get. At the same time, we believe that democratic digital governance requires international cooperation and the role of governments in a) mobilizing public investments for foundational public digital goods in all nations and b) moving steadily towards accountable global data and AI governance architectures—a critical agenda whose time is here—for pluralistic digital societies.

The Internet today is not what many who contributed to its development dreamed it would be. The status quo—with corporate self-interest leading the way—is untenable. It is disastrous for people and planet alike. As progressive civil society working to democratize the digital space—hand in hand with the innovators worldwide who hold the internet’s original promise dear—we seek nothing less than a radical departure from the democratic deficit that has come to characterize it.

The real test of this upcoming Summit is the implementation of the principles and actions that will be agreed. In this we all have a role to play in holding governments, private sector – and ourselves – to account and indeed, being part of a future for all.

Maybe we do need to take a page from the fictional superheroes, to understand that we do have power that has already strengthened parts of these documents.

And we can deploy the power of our coalitions and commitment to advocate and demonstrate that communication rights – respected, protected, and fulfilled – play a fundamental role in a sustainable, democratic, inclusive and equitable future.

Image generated by WACC using Canva Magic Studio.

Their call is to recognize the vital role that these communities, many of which hold collective rights over their territories, play in the conservation of essential ecosystems.

They hope to bring this call to the UN Climate Change Conference COP28 in the United Arab Emirates in early December.

The situation in the Gulf of Guayaquil on Ecuador’s Pacific Coast illustrates the importance of their call.

The region is prosperous yet unequal, a region dominated by the shrimp industry. The Gulf’s natural resources have been systematically extracted since at least the 18th century. This has led to the degradation of several ecosystems, particularly mangrove-covered areas — which play a central role in protecting the coast and regulating salt concentration.

These losses have primarily affected the ancestral inhabitants of this land, the Punae people, with a severe impact on their livelihoods and ways of life.

Nevertheless, as a result of years of resistance, the Punae have managed to obtain the rights to some 60,000 hectares of mangroves and are engaged in community-led ecosystem monitoring. Their struggle is guided by ancestral knowledge about the functioning of the mangrove ecosystems, rooted in the idea of interdependence.

The type of knowledge held by the Punae people is known as traditional ecological knowledge.

Traditional ecological knowledge can be essential for the adaptation to the effects of climate change.

Traditional ecological knowledge is an invaluable source of legitimacy at the local level as integrating it into climate policies can bring more sustainable interventions and can help strengthen local governance models.

And Indigenous knowledge is “an invaluable basis for developing adaptation and natural resource management strategies in response to environmental and other forms of change,” as underlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.

Yet, there are still many challenges in “mainstreaming” this form of knowledge into climate policy.

One of the main hurdles in engaging with traditional ecological knowledge is the difference in what constitutes valid knowledge in Western and non-Western thought.

Western science favours analytical and reductionist methods, is positivist and materialist, is objective and mostly quantitative, is based on an academic and literate transmission, and isolates its objects of study from their vital context by putting them in simplified and controllable experimental environments.

In contrast, traditional knowledge tends to be more intuitive and holistic, has a spiritual dimension and does not always make distinctions between the empirical and the sacred, is usually mainly subjective and qualitative, is often passed on orally from one generation to the next by elders, and usually depends on its context and particular local conditions.

Another, often ignored, barrier to integrating traditional ecological knowledge into climate policy is that of communication injustice — the injustice of being denied a public voice.

Many Indigenous and grassroots communities face communication injustice on a daily basis.

The Punae people in Ecuador suffer from communication injustice in that their plight receives little or unbalanced media attention because it stands in the way of powerful shrimp business interests.

They also lack reliable internet connectivity and a dearth of independent media. This makes them nearly invisible to the broader public and to policy makers.

COP 28 will be — yet another — opportunity to raise the visibility of traditional ecological knowledge in climate circles.

Governments and civil society involved in the COP process must highlight the critical importance of local knowledge in addressing the climate crisis. And they must place communication and information justice at the heart of climate and environmental justice.

Failure to do so will perpetuate the status quo, meaning local voices will continue to be ignored.

A member of the Indigenous Peoples Constituency at COP26 advocates for bolder action to address climate change.
Photo: Albin Hillert/Life on Earth

As WACC and other civil society organizations have pointed out, communication rights are conspicuous by their absence from the 17 SDGs adopted by UN members states in 2015. Recently, a case was made for the missing SDG 18 Communication for All in a two-volume book edited and authored by development communication academics and practitioners from around the world.

Article 19 focused on SDG 16 “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. As the most explicit mention of communication as a force underlying genuine social progress, Target 16.10 proposes to “ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.”

Article 19’s report, Sustainable Development Goals: On or off track? Assessing the progress through freedom of expression and information, indicates that nations still have a long way to go to meet SDG 16.10 – let alone all the others. Serious gaps and weaknesses are identified in the ways States’ monitor their progress in meeting the goal. In other words, they don’t really know what’s going on.

The report cites an increase in the killing of journalists, a lack of data on the complexity of attacks against journalists, no assessment of the type of access to information legislation proposed, its quality (or whether the legislation is adopted), and little attention to mainstreaming freedom of expression and access to information throughout the SDGs.

This is precisely the argument for a dynamic and crosscutting SDG 18 – Communication for All – since little can be achieved without equitable and affordable access to communication technologies and platforms, media pluralism, and media diversity.

The world is running out of time. Seven years remain before the culmination of Agenda 2030 – the umbrella term for achieving the 17 SDGs. That Agenda can only be realised with the full implementation of communication rights (not just freedom of expression and information) plus long-term adequate financing (especially addressing how low- and middle-income countries can generate sufficient resources), plus political will that translates aspirations into actions.

Poverty, climate change, and migration are today’s urgent and interrelated challenges. But without the direct involvement of the world’s 8.1 billion people through accessible and affordable communication, independent and fair-minded media, and a voice that is heard at the tables that matter, the SDGs will be derailed.

Photo: Girls and women participating in the Free/Dem program run by WACC partner Ideosync Media Combine in New Delhi, India, learn to use digital tools like mobile phones to speak out on issues that impact their day-to-day lives. Credit: Ideosync Media Combine.