Proposed WSIS Gender Indicators for the WSIS+20 Review
15 June 2026
Women at the Table | A+ Alliance for Inclusive Algorithms | AI & Equality Human Rights Toolbox
Why this matters, and why now.
The WSIS+20 Outcome Document mandates that gender equality be mainstreamed across all WSIS Action Lines, and it requires every Action Line facilitator to develop a result-oriented roadmap — with targets, indicators and metrics — and report to CSTD by 2027. Those roadmaps are being written now. The indicators chosen will define what the international community measures, and therefore what it treats as progress, for the next decade. This is the window in which the measurement architecture of the digital era is set. It will not open again soon.
There is an opportunity inside this. Today there are no gender indicators built into the WSIS Action Lines themselves — gender data is collected about the framework, by ITU and the Partnership on Measuring ICT, but not embedded within it. An empty slate is not only a gap; it is a chance to choose better measures from the start, rather than inherit the ones we have used by habit.
What “transformative” means.
The indicators we have inherited measure the entrance: how many girls study STEM, how many women use the internet, how many own a phone. These describe women arriving at the door of the digital world. They do not measure the destination — whether women shape technology once inside it: whether they invent, lead, own, govern, and decide, and whether they are safe enough to do so. Transformative indicators measure that destination. They shift the question from who entered to who is shaping the future.
This is what gives the indicators their potential to move the needle — and, at minimum, to make movement visible. What is measured is what is resourced and held to account; what is left unmeasured quietly disappears. Many of the indicators below require no new data infrastructure: the women-inventor rate on AI patents, governance representation, and others already exist in standardized international datasets and can enter roadmaps immediately. Where new methodology is needed, it can be developed through the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development ahead of CSTD 30. The ambition is high; the path is practical.
Transformative indicators measure destination, not entrance — whether women shape, lead, own, and decide, rather than only access and participate. Each indicator below is proposed because the data either already exists or can be built on an existing reporting instrument. Action Line facilitator assignments per the WSIS Geneva Plan of Action / Tunis Agenda.
Design principles
Intersectionality first. Every indicator should be disaggregated not only by sex but, where possible, by age, disability, location (rural/urban), and income. A single global gender-gap figure can mask severe local divergence.
Agency, not access. Indicators should measure whether women can act, create, govern, and lead online — not only whether they can connect. The gap between “women with internet access” and “women who produce digital content, invent, or decide” is the gap between presence and power.
Safety as a prerequisite. No measure of participation is meaningful without safety. Technology-facilitated gender-based violence, harassment, and algorithmic amplification of misogyny suppress every other indicator. Safety belongs across the framework, not only in C5.
Governance parity is the meta-indicator. Who decides how digital systems are built and governed shapes everything else. The share of women in decision-making roles, across every Action Line, is the single highest-leverage transformative measure here.
Action Line | Facilitator(s) | Proposed transformative indicator | Where the data is / can be found |
|---|---|---|---|
C1 Role of public governance authorities | UN DESA, ITU, UN Regional Commissions | % of women in decision-making (not advisory) roles in national digital/AI governance authorities and regulators | ITU Gender Dashboard (ministers, regulators); national appointment records |
C1 | UN DESA | % of WSIS Action Line facilitating bodies and national delegations meeting gender parity in leadership | ITU secretariat records; facilitator-level appointment data |
C1 | UN DESA | Whether gender equality is a standalone, resourced chapter in national digital strategies (not a cross-cutting footnote) | National digital strategy text review |
C2 Information & communication infrastructure | ITU | % of Universal Service Funds (USFs) with binding gender-targeted allocation criteria ( i.e. funds required to close the connectivity gender gap, not allocated gender-blind) | National regulator USF reports (currently uncollated — new compilation needed) |
C3 Access to information & knowledge | UNESCO, ITU, FAO, UNIDO | Gender gap in who produces digital content and knowledge vs. who consumes it (current UIS data measures skills and access only, e.g. men ~4x more likely to have advanced ICT skills, not production) | UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS); platform contributor data; civil society research |
C3 | UNESCO | Whether open-access and Open Educational Resources (OER) mandates require gender-responsive content (builds on UNESCO’s 2019 OER Recommendation, which already calls for inclusive, gender-responsive materials) | UNESCO OER Recommendation monitoring; national research/education policy review |
C4 Capacity building | ITU, UNDP, UNESCO, UNCTAD, UN DESA, FAO, UNIDO | % of women completing ICT training who transition into technology employment at 1 and 5 years (10-year where tracer data permits) measuring destination, not enrolment | ILO; national skills authority tracer studies |
C4 | ITU | % of women trained who subsequently file a patent or lead a digital venture within 5 years | WIPO PatentScope (free public global patent database, incl. PCT + AI Index) linked to training cohorts |
C5 Building confidence & security | ITU | Whether national law specifically criminalises technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) ; the legal-framework floor | Equality Now legal database; UN Women Global Database on Violence against Women |
C5 | ITU | Rate of reported TFGBV that results in investigation and prosecution ( the enforcement destination | National justice statistics; Equality Now country monitoring |
C5 | ITU | Whether national cybersecurity frameworks include gender-responsive threat modelling, and whether national CERTs disaggregate incident reporting by sex ( i.e. whether the safety infrastructure can see gendered harm at all) % women in cybersecurity leadership roles | National CERT documentation; ITU Global Cybersecurity Index |
C6 Enabling environment | ITU, UNDP, UNCTAD, UN DESA, UNIDO, UN Regional Commissions | % of public AI/ICT procurement contracts requiring gender-disaggregated human rights impact assessment | Member state procurement reporting; CoE Framework Convention (CETS 225) monitoring |
C6 | ITU | % of public R&D and innovation funding in ICT/AI with gender-equity conditions attached | OECD DAC gender markers; national science ministry budgets |
C6 | ITU / UNCTAD | Whether enabling-environment and digital-economy frameworks account for the unpaid care burden that constrains women’s digital participation (structural determinant, rarely measured) | National time-use surveys; UN Women / national statistics on unpaid care |
C6 | ITU | Women inventor rate on AI/digital-technology patents (anchor indicator: data exists, internationally standardized) | WIPO PatentScope; WIPO World IP Indicators 2025; WIPO GREM |
C7 ICT applications — E-government | UN DESA, ITU, UNDP | % of e-gov design decisions made by women, and whether services are co-designed with women users; % of flagship digital public services that have passed a gender-disaggregated usability/impact review | UN E-Government Survey (gender module requires expansion); national digital service records |
C7 E-business | UNCTAD, ITU, UPU, ITC, WTO | % of women-led firms capturing finance and scaling on digital platforms (not just present); whether platform terms-of-service are assessed and remediated for discriminatory impact on women sellers | UNCTAD eTrade reporting; World Bank Findex; platform transparency data (methodology needed) |
C7 E-learning | UNESCO, ITU, UNIDO | Whether AI-driven learning systems are audited and corrected for gender bias in content and recommendation; % of EdTech procured by states meeting a gender-bias standard | UNESCO; EdTech audit frameworks (emerging) |
C7 E-health | WHO, ITU | % of health AI systems deployed that are trained on gender-representative datasets and validated for performance across sexes (poor women’s-health data causes diagnostic harm) | WHO Global Digital Health Monitor (build on Indicator 4a); regulatory submissions |
C7 E-employment | ILO, ITU | Whether algorithmic hiring/management tools are audited for gender bias; presence of enforceable gendered-precarity and care-work provisions in platform-work standards | ILO AI Observatory; ILO Platform Work Convention text (in negotiation — live window) |
C7 E-environment | WMO, ITU, UNEP, WHO, UN-Habitat, ICAO | % of climate/environmental tech governance bodies meeting gender parity in decision-making; whether environmental AI incorporates gender-differentiated vulnerability data | Agency governance records; UNEP gender reporting |
C7 E-agriculture | FAO, ITU | Whether agri-tech platforms account for women’s land-rights and asset constraints; % of digital agricultural extension reaching and controlled by women (WEAI-digital) | FAO Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index; SDG 5.a.1 / 5.a.2 |
C7 E-science | UNESCO, ITU, UNCTAD, WHO | % of women as lead inventors / principal investigators on publicly funded AI/digital research; women-inventor rate on digital-tech patents (~16% AI vs 18% all fields) | WIPO PatentScope; UNESCO Institute for Statistics; national research councils |
C8 Cultural & linguistic diversity | UNESCO | Whether content-moderation systems are assessed for disproportionate silencing of women’s voices | Platform transparency reports; civil society audits (coalition-led) |
C9 Media | UNESCO | Whether algorithmic news-distribution systems are audited for gender representation in sourcing and visibility | Platform transparency data; media monitoring research |
C9 | UNESCO | % of media safety protocols that specifically address online harassment of women journalists | International Federation of Journalists (IFJ); Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ); Reporters Without Borders (RSF); UNESCO journalist safety monitoring |
C10 Ethical dimensions | UNESCO, ECOSOC, WHO | % of AI systems deployed in public services that have undergone an integrated human rights, gender, environmental and labour impact assessment before deployment, with gender as a required, separately-reported dimension | Government AI registries; Council of Europe HUDERIA methodology monitoring |
C10 | UNESCO | % of members of national/international AI ethics and governance bodies who are women from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), in decision-making (not advisory) roles | UNESCO AI Ethics Recommendation readiness reports; body composition records |
C11 International & regional cooperation | UN DESA, UN Regional Commissions, UNDP, ITU, UNESCO | % of bilateral/multilateral digital cooperation agreements containing binding gender-equality provisions | OECD DAC; treaty text review |
C11 | UN DESA | % of digital cooperation and ODA instruments that include time-bound gender Temporary Special Measures (TSM) e.g. targets, preferential allocation, or quotas (CEDAW Art. 4(1)) to accelerate substantive equality | OECD DAC gender markers; development bank reporting; CEDAW reporting |
Notes for the Secretariat
Three tiers of readiness:
- Ready now (no new data infrastructure): C6 women inventor rate (WIPO), C1 governance representation (ITU Gender Dashboard), C7 E-agriculture (FAO WEAI), C7 E-health (WHO GDHM 4a). These can enter roadmaps immediately.
- Build on existing instruments: C7 E-government (expand UN E-Gov Survey gender module), C7 E-employment (embed in ILO Platform Work Convention now in negotiation), C11 (OECD DAC gender markers).
- Require methodology development: algorithmic audit indicators (C5, C7 E-learning/E-employment, C8, C9, C10). Recommend routing to the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development for a technical methodology commission ahead of CSTD 30 (April 2027).
Anchor recommendation: The women-inventor-rate indicator (C6/C7 E-science) is proposed as the first-tranche anchor because WIPO already publishes the data, it is internationally standardized, and it directly answers the entrance-vs-destination problem — removing the “new data infrastructure” objection at source.
Offer: Women at the Table, with the Gender in Digital Coalition, offers to work with facilitators through the WSIS Forum open consultations to develop these indicators, drawing on existing data and the human-rights impact methodologies adopted under the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (CETS 225).
How these enter the process
The Joint Implementation Road Map for WSIS–GDC Coherence, the umbrella document that frames how the Action Line roadmaps are built, was presented to CSTD at its 29th session (April 2026) and offers a sound basis for the work ahead. It does not yet reflect the gender mainstreaming commitment that runs through the WSIS+20 Outcome Document, a point the Gender Advisory Board of the CSTD noted at the session. Because the facilitator roadmaps are being developed now, ahead of CSTD 30 (2027), there is a timely opportunity to reflect gender at a few key points before that work is finalised. We offer the following, grouped by the body best placed to take each forward, and we would welcome working together on any of them.
With UNGIS, as custodian of the coherence road map
- Reflect gender in the convergence map. The road map’s coherence examples (universal connectivity → C2/C3/C6; trust and safety → C5/C10; data governance → C3/C6/C10; and so on) are a helpful way to show how themes span Action Lines. Gender equality and women’s digital leadership could sit naturally among them as a cross-cutting theme. This would also align the road map with input member states have already provided: the EU non-paper on WSIS–SDG–GDC Roadmaps (24 July 2025) listed gender equality among the cross-cutting enablers the roadmaps should include.
- Include gender in the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development tasking. The road map already invites the Partnership to review existing indicators and methodologies (para 117). Noting in that same task that the review covers sex-disaggregated and gender-transformative indicators would be a small addition with wide reach, since it works through a mechanism that is already mandated and resourced, and shapes every indicator that follows.
- Add a gender qualifier to the facilitator-roadmap guidance. Where roadmaps are to include “potential targets, indicators and metrics,” the phrase “including sex-disaggregated and gender-responsive indicators” would carry the commitment through to all eleven Action Lines in a single line.
With the Action Line facilitators, as authors of the roadmaps
- Carry gender indicators in the main body of each roadmap, rather than in annexes or footnotes. Visibility tends to determine whether an indicator is reported against in practice. The destination indicators in the table above offer a ready starting set for each relevant Action Line.
With CSTD, as focal point for follow-up and review
- Consider peer review alongside self-report. Facilitators reflecting on each other’s gender integration, with progress and gaps surfaced through the Secretary-General’s biennial WSIS implementation report, would help the review architecture itself carry some of this, rather than relying on each agency to disclose voluntarily.
Facilitator assignments to be confirmed against the live ITU list at itu.int/en/itu-wsis/Pages/AL-Facilitators.aspx; lead facilitator shown in bold.
Image: Suraj Rai & Digit https://betterimagesofai.org / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Black and white image of lady carrying a large phone chip framed inside an iphone.