Main Session 3

Summary

This discussion focused on evaluating the impact of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on the Information Society over its 20-year history and exploring its future role in digital governance. The session was moderated by Avri Doria and featured distinguished panelists from various sectors including government, technical organizations, civil society, and academia, along with contributions from both in-person and online participants.

The panelists consistently emphasized that the IGF has been transformative in establishing multi-stakeholder governance as the norm for internet policy-making globally. Ambassador Betanga Ndemo from Kenya highlighted how the IGF’s consultative approach, though initially challenging for policymakers, ultimately made policy implementation much easier and more effective. Several speakers noted that the IGF has served as a crucial platform for capacity building, knowledge exchange, and fostering understanding between different stakeholder groups who might not otherwise interact.

The discussion revealed that the IGF’s impact extends far beyond the annual meetings, encompassing a living ecosystem of national and regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, best practice forums, and policy networks. Participants shared concrete examples of the IGF’s influence, including the development of internet exchange points in Africa, the successful IANA transition, and the creation of progressive internet legislation in countries like Brazil. The forum has been particularly valuable for Global South participants, providing access to global policy discussions and enabling local issues to reach international attention.

Looking toward the future, there was strong consensus on the need for a permanent mandate for the IGF to ensure its continued stability and effectiveness. Speakers emphasized the importance of better integration with other UN processes, particularly the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). The discussion concluded with recognition that the IGF remains essential for maintaining people-centered, inclusive digital governance in an increasingly complex and fragmented digital landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Personal and Professional Impact of IGF**: Participants shared how the Internet Governance Forum has personally transformed their understanding of multi-stakeholder processes, enabled cross-sector dialogue, and created lasting professional relationships. Many emphasized how IGF taught them to listen to different stakeholder perspectives rather than just defending their own positions.

– **IGF’s Role in Developing Multi-stakeholder Governance Culture**: The discussion highlighted how IGF pioneered and normalized multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance globally, with this model being adopted at national and regional levels. Speakers noted how this collaborative approach has become “the norm” for policy-making in many countries.

– **Concrete Achievements and Infrastructure Development**: Participants cited specific successes including the development of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in Africa, submarine cable infrastructure projects, the successful IANA transition, and policy frameworks like Brazil’s Internet Civil Rights Framework. The forum was credited with facilitating knowledge transfer between regions, particularly benefiting Global South countries.

– **Need for Permanent Mandate and Better Integration**: A recurring theme was the urgent need to secure a permanent mandate for IGF rather than operating on temporary renewals. Speakers also emphasized better integration with other UN processes, particularly the WSIS framework and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), to avoid fragmentation of digital governance discussions.

– **Future Challenges and Inclusivity**: The discussion addressed emerging issues like AI governance, cybersecurity, and digital divides, while emphasizing the need to maintain IGF’s people-centered approach. Participants stressed the importance of including more voices from the Global South, youth perspectives, and ensuring the forum remains accessible to newcomers while celebrating its successes more effectively.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to assess the 20-year impact of the Internet Governance Forum on digital governance and the information society, while exploring how IGF should evolve to contribute to future digital cooperation frameworks, particularly the WSIS goals and Global Digital Compact implementation.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was overwhelmingly positive and celebratory, with participants expressing genuine affection for and commitment to the IGF process. The discussion was notably personal and emotional, with many speakers sharing transformative experiences. While acknowledging challenges and areas for improvement, the tone remained constructive and forward-looking. There was a sense of urgency around securing IGF’s future through a permanent mandate, but this was expressed with determination rather than anxiety. The atmosphere was collegial and inclusive, reflecting the multi-stakeholder values being discussed.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Avri Doria** – Moderator of the session, has been involved with IGF since its conception and birth

– **Bitange Ndemo** – Professor Ambassador of Kenya to Belgium and the European Union, former policymaker in Kenya

– **Hans Petter Holen** – Leader of RIPE NCC (one of the regional internet registries), involved in critical internet infrastructure

– **Renata Mielli** – Chair of CGI.br (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee)

– **Funke Opeke** – Founder of Main1 in Nigeria, entrepreneur in digital infrastructure, retiring from the company

– **Qusai Al Shatti** – Representative of the Arab IGF

– **Chat Garcia Ramilo** – Associated with APC (Association for Progressive Communications), civil society advocate

– **Luca Belli** – Professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro, academic and dynamic coalition convener

– **Isabelle Lois** – Vice Chair of the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development), representative of Swiss government

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Former APC member, former MAG Chair, civil society advocate

– **Online moderator** – Jim Sunilufe, remote moderator managing online participants

– **Online participant 1** – Dr. Robinson Sibbe, CEO and Lead Forensic Examiner of Digital Footprints Nigeria, cybersecurity expert

– **Online participant 2** – Emily Taylor, researcher from the UK who conducted impact studies on IGF

**Additional speakers:**

– **Rolf Meijer** – CEO of SIDN, registry for the .nl country code top-level domain

– **Juan Fernandez** – Ministry of Communication of Cuba representative

– **Stephanie Perrin** – From Canada, former Canadian government telecom sector worker

– **Auka Aukpals** – IGF attendee for past ten years

– **Markus Kummer** – Long-time IGF participant, former IGF secretariat member, involved since inception

– **Jasmine Maffei** – Youth participant from Hong Kong

– **Piu** – Young participant from Myanmar

– **Raul Echeverria** – From Uruguay, MAG member

– **Bertrand Lachapelle** – Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– **Nathan Latte** – From IGF Côte d’Ivoire (online participant)

– **Mark Gave** – From the UK (online participant)

# Comprehensive Report: Evaluating the Internet Governance Forum’s 20-Year Impact on Digital Governance

## Executive Summary

This extensive discussion, moderated by Avri Doria, brought together distinguished representatives from government, technical organisations, civil society, and academia to assess the Internet Governance Forum’s (IGF) transformative impact over two decades. The session was structured around three key questions: how the IGF has changed participants personally and professionally, what concrete impacts it has achieved, and what challenges it faces moving forward.

The overarching consensus emerged that the IGF has fundamentally transformed internet governance by establishing multi-stakeholder consultation as the global norm, creating lasting infrastructure and policy impacts particularly in the Global South, and fostering a unique ecosystem of collaboration. However, participants also identified critical challenges requiring immediate attention, particularly the urgent need for a permanent mandate and better integration with emerging digital governance frameworks.

## Personal and Professional Transformations

### Converting Sceptics to Advocates

The discussion revealed profound personal transformations across all stakeholder groups. Juan Fernandez from Cuba’s Ministry of Communication offered a remarkably candid admission: “When this began, and I went to the first one, I was very sceptical. I think, well, this is just, we’re giving some breadcrumbs to the civil society because they were shunned out of the process… But I was proven wrong.” His conversion from sceptic to advocate demonstrates the IGF’s capacity to change minds even among initially resistant government officials.

Ambassador Bitange Ndemo of Kenya, Ambassador to Belgium and the European Union, provided crucial historical perspective, explaining how the IGF introduced a revolutionary approach to policy-making at a time when “there was no Google” and “we didn’t know what exactly internet will do.” He emphasised that whilst multi-stakeholder consultation was initially “painful” for policymakers accustomed to traditional top-down approaches, it ultimately made policy implementation “much, much easier” because stakeholders had been genuinely consulted.

### Building Multi-Stakeholder Mindsets

Anriette Esterhuysen, former APC member and MAG Chair, described how the IGF created “impatience for non-multi-stakeholder forums” and fundamentally changed how she approached policy work by connecting policymakers with implementers. Luca Belli from FGV Law School, attending his 15th IGF, emphasised how the forum enabled understanding of different stakeholder perspectives and built trust through relationships rather than mere transactional interactions.

The youth perspective was particularly compelling, with participants from Hong Kong and Myanmar emphasising the IGF’s unique bottom-up approach where young people can easily communicate with senior leaders. Piu from Myanmar raised the important question of how to “officially recognise youth voices as part of the multi-stakeholder model.”

Avri Doria, as moderator, provided personal context as someone who was “here at its conception” and “birth” and has attended most IGF meetings, offering a unique longitudinal perspective on the forum’s evolution.

## Establishing Multi-Stakeholder Governance as the Global Norm

### Systemic Change in Policy-Making

Perhaps the most significant achievement identified was the IGF’s role in normalising multi-stakeholder governance globally. Qusai Al Shatti, representing the Arab IGF, noted that “multi-stakeholder process became the norm in policy making and regulation” following the IGF’s introduction. This transformation extended beyond internet governance to influence broader policy-making approaches.

Marcus Kummer provided important historical context by referencing the WGIC definition of Internet Governance and the four original themes that structured early discussions. This foundation helped establish the framework that would influence global approaches to digital governance.

### The IGF Ecosystem

Multiple speakers emphasised that the IGF’s impact extends far beyond annual meetings to encompass a comprehensive ecosystem. This includes national and regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, best practice forums, policy networks, and intersessional work that creates year-round engagement. Renata Mielli, Chair of CGI.br, highlighted how this ecosystem inspired Brazilian internet governance community development and directly influenced policy creation, including the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines launched the day before this session.

Hans Petter Holen from RIPE NCC provided analytical clarity by distinguishing three interconnected layers: internet coordination (keeping systems running through stable, interoperable infrastructure), internet governance (shaping usage through shared norms and policies), and digital governance (guiding social transformations). He positioned the IGF as “a rare and essential arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations.”

## Concrete Infrastructure and Policy Achievements

### Infrastructure Development Impact

The discussion revealed substantial concrete impacts, particularly in infrastructure development. Ambassador Ndemo provided striking context about Africa’s transformation, noting that when IGF discussions began, “Africa had only one gig capacity for the entire continent.” The forum’s role in facilitating knowledge transfer and best practice sharing contributed to dramatic improvements in connectivity.

Funke Opeke, founder of Main1 in Nigeria, emphasised how the IGF enabled pioneers in the Global South to learn best practices for building digital ecosystems. She noted that in her company’s service area, internet penetration grew from “close to 10%” to “close to 50%,” demonstrating the practical impact of knowledge sharing facilitated through IGF networks.

Emily Taylor, participating online from the UK, referenced research demonstrating the IGF’s contribution to the emergence of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in Africa, which reduced latency and costs whilst improving service quality.

### Policy Development and Legislative Impact

The IGF’s influence on policy development was demonstrated through multiple concrete examples. Renata Mielli detailed how IGF discussions directly influenced the creation of Brazil’s Internet Civil Rights Framework and Data Protection Law. These achievements demonstrate the forum’s capacity to translate dialogue into actionable policy outcomes.

Luca Belli highlighted how dynamic coalitions’ work influenced various regulatory frameworks, though he noted frustration that these successes were not well-publicised on the IGF website. Chat Garcia Ramilo from APC emphasised the IGF’s role in establishing human rights principles online and addressing gender-based violence through initiatives like the Digital Justice Now Coalition.

The successful IANA transition was repeatedly cited as a major achievement facilitated by IGF discussions, representing a critical moment in internet governance where multi-stakeholder processes proved their effectiveness.

## Global South Participation and Capacity Building

### Amplifying Marginalised Voices

A recurring theme was the IGF’s crucial role in amplifying voices from the Global South that are often marginalised in digital governance conversations. Chat Garcia Ramilo emphasised how the forum provided platforms for perspectives that might otherwise be excluded from international policy discussions.

Funke Opeke described the IGF as enabling Global South stakeholders to “have a seat at the table in a polarised world,” providing access to policy discussions and best practices that would otherwise be unavailable. The forum’s open access approach allowed grassroots initiatives and young people to participate globally.

Dr. Robinson Sibbe, participating online from Nigeria, highlighted the IGF’s role in contextualising cybersecurity challenges and demonstrating the value of inclusive governance for problem-solving, though he noted ongoing challenges in translating global discussions into local action.

### Knowledge Transfer and Learning

Isabelle Lois, Vice Chair of the CSTD representing the Swiss government, emphasised the IGF’s role as a capacity building platform with “tremendous learning opportunities.” This educational function was seen as essential for developing the expertise needed for effective digital governance at national and regional levels.

The capacity building dimension was particularly emphasised by Global South participants, with the IGF serving as a platform where regions could learn from each other’s experiences and adapt successful practices to local contexts.

## Contemporary Challenges and Critical Needs

### The Urgent Need for Permanent Mandate

Perhaps the strongest consensus emerged around the urgent need for a permanent mandate for the IGF. Hans Petter Holen articulated this clearly: “IGF needs permanent mandate to focus on matters rather than securing future meeting place.” The current system of temporary renewals was seen as creating unnecessary uncertainty and diverting energy from substantive work.

Multiple speakers emphasised that permanent mandate would provide the stability needed for long-term planning and more robust funding mechanisms. This institutional security was seen as essential for the IGF to fulfil its potential role in implementing emerging frameworks like the Global Digital Compact.

### Integration with Emerging Digital Governance Frameworks

A critical challenge identified was the need for better integration with other UN processes and emerging digital governance frameworks. Renata Mielli emphasised that the IGF should be empowered as the main focal point for Global Digital Compact implementation.

Anriette Esterhuysen provided a crucial distinction, noting that whilst many new forums like the Global Digital Compact and Artificial Intelligence Dialogue “put the emphasis on the technology, not on the society, and not on the people,” the IGF maintains its people-centred approach.

### Addressing Implementation Gaps

Ambassador Ndemo introduced a critical perspective on the IGF’s methodology, arguing for a shift from siloed discussions to system-wide thinking. He advocated for approaches that could help people benefit from emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, suggesting that the IGF needed to evolve beyond its traditional sectoral approach.

Dr. Robinson Sibbe supported this view, suggesting the IGF should move closer to implementation with localised action and technical working groups. This reflected a broader tension between the IGF’s traditional role as a dialogue forum and growing expectations for more actionable outcomes.

## Accessibility and Participation Challenges

### Barriers to Inclusive Participation

Luca Belli highlighted significant barriers to Global South participation, noting the high financial costs of attending IGF meetings in expensive locations. This accessibility challenge was seen as undermining the multi-stakeholder model by limiting diverse participation to those with sufficient resources.

Raul Echeverria from Uruguay raised concerns about the IGF’s complexity, suggesting the need to “simplify IGF to make it easier for newcomers to become meaningfully involved.” This accessibility challenge was seen as potentially limiting the forum’s ability to attract new participants and maintain its vitality.

### Visibility and Recognition Issues

A significant theme was the IGF’s poor track record in publicising its achievements. Luca Belli expressed frustration that IGF success stories were not well-publicised, limiting the forum’s ability to demonstrate its value to sceptics and secure continued support.

Chat Garcia Ramilo emphasised the need for “better celebration of successes and making achievements more visible,” suggesting that the IGF’s modest culture, whilst admirable, was hindering recognition of its substantial contributions.

## Structural Evolution Proposals

### Working Group for Institutional Reform

Bertrand Lachapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network provided concrete proposals for institutional evolution. He suggested establishing a working group similar to the WGIG from 2004-05 to address two critical areas: the evolution of the IGF’s mandate and focus, and the institutionalisation of its structure.

This proposal gained support from multiple speakers who recognised that whilst the IGF had proven its value, it needed structural evolution to remain relevant and effective. The working group approach was seen as a way to conduct this evolution through the same multi-stakeholder processes that had made the IGF successful.

### Measurement and Evaluation Challenges

Stephanie Perrin from Canada raised the fundamental question of “how do we measure the impacts of the IGF?” noting the difficulty in quantifying the success of multi-stakeholder innovation. This measurement challenge was seen as both a practical problem for securing continued support and a conceptual challenge in understanding the IGF’s diverse impacts.

The discussion revealed tension between the IGF’s non-decision-making nature and expectations for measurable outcomes, with speakers recognising that the forum’s value often lay in relationship building, agenda setting, and cultural change—impacts that are real but difficult to quantify.

## Regional and National IGF Development

The discussion highlighted the remarkable growth of national and regional IGFs as perhaps the most concrete demonstration of the IGF’s impact. Nathan Latte from IGF Côte d’Ivoire and other regional representatives emphasised how national IGFs had adapted the global model to local contexts whilst maintaining core principles.

This organic expansion was seen as evidence that the multi-stakeholder model was meeting real needs at various levels of governance, creating a multi-level governance system that could address challenges at appropriate scales.

## Conclusion: Securing the IGF’s Future

The discussion revealed an IGF at a critical juncture in its development. After twenty years of remarkable success in establishing multi-stakeholder governance as the global norm and creating concrete impacts in infrastructure development and policy creation, the forum faces both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges.

The overwhelming consensus on the IGF’s value and the urgent need for permanent mandate provides a strong foundation for institutional reform. The testimonies shared demonstrate the IGF’s transformative impact on individuals, institutions, and global governance practices, while highlighting three critical areas requiring immediate attention:

1. **Institutional Strengthening**: Achieving permanent mandate and stable funding to provide the security needed for long-term planning and effectiveness.

2. **Enhanced Integration**: Better positioning within the evolving digital governance landscape, particularly as the focal point for Global Digital Compact implementation while maintaining the IGF’s distinctive people-centred approach.

3. **Improved Accessibility**: Addressing financial barriers, simplifying processes for newcomers, and ensuring continued inclusive participation from all stakeholder groups and regions.

The path forward requires balancing celebration of past achievements with critical analysis of areas needing improvement. As the digital governance landscape continues to evolve rapidly, the IGF’s role as a stable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration becomes increasingly valuable, making the case for permanent mandate and institutional strengthening more urgent than ever.

Avri Doria: So welcome and thank you for coming. And let me get out my little speech here. This is a very interesting setup. It was far more formal than I expected. But anyway, welcome to this session of the IGF on the impact of the IGF on the Information Society. My name’s Avri Doria. That’s nice. They already said it. And I’m the moderator of the session. In this session, I’m going to ask the distinguished panelists who will be joining us soon and you all, the participants, for personal and professional viewpoints on the question. To start in my speaking, let me talk about who I am and my personal perspective on this. The IGF is very important to me. And I expect it is to many of you. I hope it is. But then again, there’s not all that many of you here. Sometimes I’m in love with it. Truly in love with it. And sometimes, well, not so much. So it’s been a long relationship with many different feelings and such. I was here at its conception. I was here at its birth. I’ve been here through many of its ups and downs. Managed to make it to most all of the meetings and have a very strong sort of personal relationship to it. I also have felt that it has helped me understand sort of the various viewpoints of the various populations to information, information society, the needs and such. So for me, it has been a critical information source, a critical ability to meet people, talk to people, understand people who have a different view than I do and such. So that for me has been very strong and has sort of entered every bit of my work as I’ve gotten involved in other parts of the community. Going to ask all the panelists for their view. We’re going to have a set of three questions that I’ll go through in a bit. And then I’m going to go to you, the participants. And I’m very glad to see that you’re lit and not sitting in the dark watching a show. But I really want this to be something where after everybody on stage, all the participants on stage, the speakers have had their chance to speak to the questions that all of you do. So when I ask the questions, I’m going to be asking them not only of the panelists, but of those of you who are here and those online as well. The IGF has been important. I think it’s been important to your businesses, to your research, your learning, your teaching, to those of you that are involved in a political life. Over the 20 years, that importance has shown up in many places at many times in many ways. It’s part of what I’m hoping that we can capture. It has provided a home for an evolving set of objectives over the years. You know, there’s been many efforts. It’s sort of developed the national and regional initiatives, you know, in developing internet governance policy. The best practice efforts, the policy networks, the aptly named dynamic coalitions that work all year round that have basically looked into a number of different issues, exciting issues and important issues. Just as internet governance has evolved with the new issues, the IGF now stands at a milestone period of its evolving role in the coordination of digital governance spaces. To improve the dialogue and the links among people, the links among governments, the links among institutions, ways of looking at the internet and data, you know, how does it evolve? How do they all interact? How do we all interact when this is happening? It is a place for many issues that we haven’t even discovered yet, those that are emerging issues and those that will emerge, hopefully, over the next couple of years. So this main session basically has two objectives. The first objective is to share the experiences of you, the stakeholders, that demonstrate the IGF’s usefulness and to illustrate its concrete and meaningful impact on the evolution of the digital ecosystem in different national and regional contexts and in different sectors of the economy of society. The second purpose is to discuss how the IGF should continue to contribute to the achievement of a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented information society, of how it should play its central role in the ongoing WSIS and in the beginnings of the GDC processes. These are the questions that I will ask each of the participants, and these are the questions that I will ask you to consider when we open up microphones, and I’m told that there will be two microphones at the edge of the hallway, but that’s, I guess, when we get to that part of the discussion. So first I will ask them of the panelists, and then I will ask them of all of you. Also there will be a Mentimeter poll on the first question as that goes through, and I guess at some point that will get displayed with the QR code that you all need to go to if you’re going to use the Mentimeter and give your opinions, and I hope you do. So the first question that I will ask is what has the IGF meant to you, and what do you want it to mean to you in the future? So it’s looking both at retrospective and also forward, and how is that connected? What does it mean? What should it mean? What can it mean? How has the IGF multi-stakeholder model, one among many, and its realizations, whether it’s in the IGF meetings, the NRIs, the dynamic coalitions, the policy networks, the best practice forums, how has that worked? Is some part of that really been resonant with you and what was important and such? How has it made an impact on your organization, your internet issues, your country, your region? However it’s made an impact, it’s important for us to hear. How can the IGF play a more impactful role to contribute to the implementation of WSIS goals in the GDC? So the third question then comes down to how can it be better? How can it become more impactful? How can it achieve its results better? As I said, first I’ll ask the panelists, and then I plan to come to all of you. So think about your answers to the questions. Think about whether you want to answer just one, just two, or all three of them. Everybody will get sort of the same three minutes that each of the panelists can get. We have a very fine set of panelists, of speakers. And so I’m going to ask you to welcome them all. And we have Hans-Petter Hollen of RIPE NCC. We have Professor Ambassador Betanga Ndemo, who’s Ambassador of Kenya to Belgium and the European Union. We have Renata Mielli, Chair of CGI.br, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. We have Funke Opeke, Founder of Main1 in Nigeria. We have Qusai Al Shatti of the Arab IGF. We have Garcia Murmillo of the Association for Progressive Communications, APC. We have Luca Belli, a professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro. And we have Isabel Lois, Vice Chair of the CSTD. At this point, I ask you to welcome them all as they come in and find their seats. Thank you. Thank you. Please. Please welcome. Okay. The first thing I’m going to do, and I’ve given sort of the questions to all you. have been reading the questions for days now, and I’m going to ask each of them, basically, to go through their set of answers in sort of the view they have of the three questions. And first I’d like to start, sorry, I’m stumbling over my words, I apologize. So first I’d like to ask you, Bitange and Demo, to please give us your view of the three questions and their answers.

Bitange Ndemo: Thank you for the opportunity, and it’s a wonderful thing to discuss IGF over the past several years. The first encounter I had with IGF, I had just become a policymaker in my country, Kenya. And policymakers then would make policy and you make sure it’s implemented. And this new method of consultations with the stakeholders was very new and very painful. But once you’ve gone through the whole process with the stakeholders, implementation became much, much easier. For those who are younger, at the time, there was no Google. I think there was Netscape, AltaVista, that’s what was there. We didn’t know what exactly internet will do. But thank God it went the IGF way, otherwise it would have been a private sector company selling its services to the people. There was no infrastructure. In Kenya, for example, not just Kenya, but the whole of Africa, Africa had only one gig of capacity for the whole continent through Intelsat. And the moment we started talking about building the infrastructure, even those who are funding would ask questions like, who is going to use the capacities that you want to bring through the undersea? I remember once in a World Bank meeting, I said, you must watch the movie Field of Dreams, that if you build it, they will come. And they said, is that the answer that you are giving us? I said, yes, this is what we think that is going to change or liberalize these new technologies that are coming. To cut the story short, the infrastructure came, then building the regulatory mechanisms and building the way we are now using the internet. But that came through the several consultations or early meetings of IGF, where we came to learn precisely what we needed to do to make this technology work for the people. I think I would stop there.

Avri Doria: Thank you. It’s a very good start. It’s a very good perspective to start with. Now Hans Petter, I’d like to go to you. And from your perspective, as the leader of one part of the critical resources that we rest this internet on, could you please give us your view of the three?

Hans Petter Holen: Yes, thank you very much for that, Avri. I mean, this is not about me. This is about the RIPE NCC, the institution I’m in charge of, which is then supporting its community, the RIPE community, which is a part of the larger technical community. And the IGF has been a rare and essential arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations. And as digital governance agendas accelerate globally, the IGF must remain the venue that promotes clarity, ensure that we don’t jeopardize the internet’s core infrastructure while trying to regulate the services built atop it where necessary. So this means we need to protect the internet coordination, which keeps it running through stable interoperable systems. And we need to strengthen internet governance, which shapes how we use it through shared norms and policies. And we need to guide digital governance, which shapes what it becomes in terms of social transformations. And I think it’s important to be aware that the IGF, as we see it here, is not the only thing. It’s not just a single event. It’s a living ecosystem that includes national and regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, best practice forums, policy networks. So it’s not only about the once a year IGF. It’s about this whole ecosystem around it. And our engagement starts in the rooted belief that we should start at the local level and scale it upwards. We support IGFs and network operators groups, both financially and with speakers, to help the communities organize and identify emerging issues and understand stakeholder needs so we can bring them to the regional and global level. And as one of the five regional internet registries, the RIPE NCC is tasked with ensuring long-term scalability, resilience, and security of the internet. So scalability we do to allocation of and registration of IP addresses, number of resources, the ones that you don’t see but your computers need in order to communicate. IPv6 is an important thing here. That’s what we need for scalability for the future. We also need to strengthen routing security by implementing something called resource public key infrastructure, where the providers can sign their routing announcements so we know that packets flow where they should. And resilience is also important where we assign or register ASN numbers which enables multi-homing and peering and creation of robust interconnection. All of this is needed for the new and fancy applications we need on top of the network to work. And how can we do this in the future? We need to continue to deepen the collaboration with governments and between governments. We need to empower the national and regional IGFs and they’re crucial for localizing the global discussions and fostering bottom-up approaches.

Funke Opeke: And we need to enhance inclusivity and accessibility and we need to translate this dialogue here into tangible process. Important here is that we need to secure now a permanent mandate for the IGF so that we can have the focus on the matters at hand, not securing the future as a meeting place. I think that’s important. And I think one of the things we need to bear in mind here is that the internet is a public good and that must serve humanity, to quote the minister from earlier this week. And yeah, I think I’ll leave it there and then pass it on.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And I want to give one piece of advice that I often get. When you get too short a time, please be sure to speak slowly. It makes it harder for people to listen and it makes it harder for those to translate. But thank you very much. So I apologize for the short time zones, but please. So Renata, coming from a multi-stakeholder, an early multi-stakeholder instantiation at a national level, I wonder if you could give your view on the three questions.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Avri. Thank you, everybody, for being here with us this morning. I’m going to speak as a chair of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Although the multi-stakeholder model of the Brazil Internet, the CGI.br, predates the IGF, the IGF model as a space for multi-stakeholder dialogue and for bringing new relevant issues to the attention of the society has been very influential in inspiring the creation of the Brazilian IGF in 2011. The Brazilian IGF, in turn, has been essential also in the creation of a very robust Brazilian multi-stakeholder Internet governance community, because we are not talking about an event, we are not also talking about a body, but we are talking about an ecosystem. And this regional IGFs and the IGF, they put this ecosystem in moving, which is very, very important. And we have been very creative, both our IGF, we call it FIBI, because it’s Foro da Internet no Brasil, speaking in Portuguese, and it’s very important for us. In particular, because this space has been an essential part in the development of Internet policies in Brazil, inspired by the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF, being extremely influential in the public debates that lead to the Brasil Marcos Civil da Internet, the Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework, in 2014, that was signed on the NET Mundial, and the Brazilian General Data Protection Law in 2018. But regarding the third question, about how strengthening the IGF, how interlinking IGF with the other process like GDC, I also believe that São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines that we launched yesterday, and it was developed during the NET Mundial plus 10 last year. So, I invite everybody to go to the CGI stand there and pick up your book, but bringing some aspects, the first step is to give the IJF a permanent mandate. I think this is very we are listening to this a lot here, which requires the IJF to have a more stable and robust funding, and second, we need to amplify the role of the IJF in the WSIS framework and better integration with the WSIS forum. The WSIS forum is the platform for following up the action lines, but it’s a space that’s more restricted to governments and facilitators representing the various U.S. and European countries. The WSIS forum is the platform for following up the action lines, but it’s a space that’s more restricted to governments and facilitators representing the various U.N. agencies responsible for each action lines. So, I think rethinking this governance structure is, in my view, one of the main challenges we have to face. We need also better integration with the WSIS forum, and particularly regarding GDC, I think the IJF has to be in power as a main focal point for the follow-up of the global digital compact implementation, and integrate it with the WSIS forum, as I said, according to modalities to be defined, and that the U.N. avoids any discrepancy in that regard, because, when we have a lot of spaces, different photos, it’s become very difficult to civil society, academia, and even governments from the global south to attain governments from the global south to attain all these different spaces, and this is a very important stakeholder model. Well, I think I’m going to stop here. Thank you, Avri, for the opportunity. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And next I come to you, Funke, and I guess as an entrepreneur, as a founder in Nigeria in the development area, I wonder what your perspective, what your company’s perspective would be on these questions.

Funke Opeke: Thank you, Avri, and good morning, everyone. Really great to have this opportunity to speak and reflect as I’m coming to the end of one phase of my career, which is retiring from a company that I founded in West Africa, main one, to build digital infrastructure and close the digital divide. When we launched the submarine cable from Lagos to Portugal in 2010, internet penetration in our region was close to 10%. And as pioneers, we’ve had to lean on platforms like the IGF to learn best practices to really help build the ecosystem that’s been critical in growing that base to close to 50% across West Africa today. The cable does extend into five countries directly. We’re serving, providing data access to 10 countries across West Africa. And what, when I get to reflect at this stage of my career, what the IGF has meant, first, as pioneers in the global south, and I heard Bitange talk about access, Google didn’t exist, access to information, be it policy information or stakeholder in terms of civil society and the populations, how you really bridge that gap with regulators and government policies, partners, and working with the content providers, we realized early on that just building the infrastructure was not sufficient to close the gap. And so a lot of work had to be done, and hence the role of platforms like the IGF in enabling us to do that really understand the role of the ecosystem and all the players and the stakeholders, how we work with them, how we leverage those resources to build skill and capacity in our markets to build out IXPs and Internet connection point to address issues of data governance as that has become a more critical issue, as we got more access, cyber security. So it’s really given us a platform, and not just from a global south or large platform, global north, global south dialogue, but by having other global south partners, I know very early on in the journey I met Bitange when he was regulator in Kenya, Kenya was a couple of years ahead in terms of what they were doing, and we were able to learn from them and bring some of those practices to our markets. So that’s been the role. Sitting here at this point and looking at the issue of permanence, I agree, and I think with the polarized world that we have today, contemplating not having this kind of platform, multi-stakeholder platform, recognizing it’s not decision-making for the Internet, is actually a very chilling thought. What would it be if we did not have the global south, did not have a seat at the table? Now, there’s still a lot of work to be done, because I said just 50% penetration across large parts of Africa. So there’s still work to be done on digital inclusion, on building up access, addressing issues of skill and digital literacy and affordability to really get to the very last person so no one gets left behind. The challenge is the global north has a different set of issues with the acceleration of AI and the pace of digital transformation, and I look today, I’m not sure the divide is closer than it was when I started 15 years ago on this journey. So I think for the IGF, as you say, permanent status, engagement under the VISTAs agenda, more deeper engagement with decision-makers on a global scale to really drive that objective for 2030 so that no one is left behind. That’s what I look out for in the future.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. Now I’d like to move on to Qusai, who has been part of this IGF scheme for as long as I remember and instrumental in Arab IGF. So from your perspective, from that perspective, how do you see the answers to the three questions?

Qusai Al Shatti: Thank you, Everly, and thank you. I’m so honored to be with you on this panel and with the distinguished panelists. I will look at this. I will say in 2005 there was 500 million users, internet users. Today we have above 4.5 billion users. Internet-related organizations today are more open, more inclusive, more bottom-up in its structure and its operation across the world. Diversity, multilingualism, wider audience, and tools and mechanism that is widely available for us is widely available to be used and take the benefit of. Broadband is widely available. Choice of access is widely available with lower costs compared to, let’s say, 20 years ago. Multi-stakeholder process became the norm of things, became a culture, became the fact that we used when we are engaged in policy dialogue or regulation or others. Digital economy, the enabling environment for innovation, and the greater role it’s playing in the GDPs of countries, that’s today a fact. Reflecting this, it became also the norm for us on regional and national level where we took the conduct and the practice of governance to our regions and countries. What that says to me? Governance works. 20 years after the inception of the IGF, the IGF or our IG works and is successful. And maybe it’s the most successful outcome of the WSIS. And it worked because who was behind it? The people who had the will and passion from all segments of stakeholders who wanted governance to work because they believed this is the best for the Internet. So being part of them, such a wonderful experience. Learning from them, exchanging knowledge, exchanging expertise, resolving our differences on point of views. yet united on agreeing that governance is the way to go. And that’s passion by itself. And this passion needs to continue. So moving forward, the IGF should continue because there is more work to do. And it is an ongoing work. And the best to do it is to couple it with digital cooperation where issues today like AI governance, cross-border data, and data governance as an example, not as all, need to be addressed within a platform like the IGF. And I’ll stop here.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Coming next to you, Chat, who with APC probably was my first introduction into the whole civil society part of this whole issue, having come out of the tech areas when I first got involved. So from that perspective, and you’ve also been there since the beginning, could you tackle the three questions, please?

Chat Garcia Ramilo: Thank you, Abby. And good morning, everyone. APC is part of the IGF tribe in the last 20 plus years. So it’s an honor to be here. And I want to start by recognizing that, yes, APC has been deeply engaged with IGF since its inception, from the early days of WSIS to the working group that helped actually form the IGF, which you were a part of. And I think many of probably people sitting here were part of. And we’ve worked alongside our fellow civil society stakeholders to shape its structure and content. For over 20 years, our contributions, we believe, have been integral to the IGF’s evolution. And in turn, this space has played a pivotal role in sharing our advocacy and our work. This is how we’ve learned, connected, and really engaged, because we’ve also changed how we think because of the connections that this space has offered us. It has been an invaluable platform, a place to listen deeply, to speak, and more importantly, to act. And it has amplified voices from the global south, which is something that we are really passionate about. This is what we bring to this space. Often, those who are marginalized in digital governance conversations. And this is really important because otherwise those perspectives cannot be heard. It’s also shifted the focus of these conversations to center in human rights. Inclusion, you referred to this, digital inclusion, and I think increasingly justice, values that are essential in shaping the digital future that we will all share. Through initiatives like, and I just want to share with you, I mean, to remind you, we have done quite a few things in relation to looking at, really, what has IGF achieved? And we’ve contributed in looking at our Global Information Society Watch, really trying to, again, bring voices from the global south, local voices, to see how that really plays out locally because we have many members in different countries. We’ve also contributed in relation to really looking at the school of African, African School on Internet Governance, where it’s not only civil society that we’ve engaged in, we’ve helped build capacity of governments, regulators, civil society, grassroots, to engage more meaningfully because really, it’s really, what makes IGF is the people behind it, and I do think it’s important to really build that capacity. For us at APC, the IGF, as everyone has said here, is not just an annual event. It’s like a, I think people refer to it as an ecosystem, a living ecosystem. It’s a network of regional initiatives, intersessional work, and relationships that lead to tangible, real-world change. This platform, the IGF, has allowed us to advocate for policies that prioritize, for example, community-centered connectivity and challenge market models that leave entire communities without access, and I think that’s what you referred to in terms of the challenge, more than 50%. We’ve also, I remember, and part of that, in Kenya, for example, we have worked with the regulators to have a license for community-centered connectivity. I think it’s this kind of connections that really add value to the work that we all do. The IGF has also been crucial in helping us address issues that are critical, for example, like gender-based violence and defending sexual and reproductive rights in digital spaces, issues that you wouldn’t think should be part of the discussion of infrastructure. I think other people referred to it. And more than a decade ago, many of us here have been involved in this. We helped put forward a key principle that human rights must apply online as they do offline. 2012 was when this really important declaration at the Human Rights Council, and I’m sure many of us have been involved in that. What were once considered fringe issues has now been globally recognized and acted upon. And I want to just end to refer to, okay, what is it that we need to do more of? And that last question of yours, Avri, that, so last year, one of the big issues now is crisis and wars. And when I say crisis and wars, it’s the wars, but it’s also crisis, environmental crisis, et cetera. And I think I heard this also at the opening and also at other sessions, that it’s really important for us to look at the more difficult issues, the one that challenges us. And here, for last year, we helped organize a main session on securing access to the internet during times of war and crisis. And we will have, because of that, there will be a main session on where we will be discussing the norms and responsibilities of this multi-stakeholder internet community, particularly in relation to shutdown. So we’re speaking about critical resources that was alluded to by Hans. Part of it is really that there’s destruction of communication infrastructure, and we need to look at that. What are the kinds of communication, what are the norms that can help us really defend that and protect the infrastructure? It’s not only about access, it’s also about, in fact, the discretion because of this in countries like Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, and Myanmar. As we stand here today, 20 years after WSIS, the vision of the people-centered, inclusive, digital future feels more urgent than ever. That’s how we feel. And to some extent, more under siege because of corporate power, state control that are driving the issues that we’ve been looking at. So one of the things we’re doing as part of our engagement with WSIS is being part of the Digital Justice Now Coalition, and we’ve launched a campaign here in IGF. It’s a global society movement to reclaim digital power for the people. We call on this multi-stakeholder international community to take bold action, which we need at this time, so that we can continue to shape a democratic digital future for all of us.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Come to you, Luca. Since you’ve come here, you’ve been among the most prolific of the volunteers, the people working with the book that just came out on community networks and such. So please, I’d like to turn to you from your hard-working perspective on all of this and where it goes. Please.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Avri, for the kind introduction. Thank you very much to all the friends that have organized this, particularly Olga and all other friends that have invited me. I want to start by explaining what has been the impact on me and then how this has been a real engine for change also in policymaking and how this is an untold story to some extent. So this is my 15th IGF. The first one, I was a young PhD student analyzing how multi-stakeholder processes can build better quality of regulation. And then I met a young Marcus Kummer that in his last month of tenure as a secretary of the IGF brought me in as an intern and allowed me to interact and meet a lot of the stakeholders that we know that became mentors and then colleagues and most of all friends. And I think that this allowed to construct and I think that is also an excellent output of the IGF, constructing trust amongst stakeholders. This is not something that you can artificially construct. You can build it only with relations. And this allowed me to be a very hyperactive convener of dynamic coalitions over the past years. And I think, again, these have been extremely powerful engines of cooperation and meaningful impact. I had the pleasure to start and help organizing four, one on net neutrality, one on platform responsibility, one on community connectivity that has been extremely successful and the last one on data and AI governance. And as I am an academic myself, We have always tried to include this academic approach, doing research to help people explain what we are doing, and try to propose new policy solutions. And this is what we have been doing for the past 15 years. And many organizations have used this. The Council of Europe used both the report and recommendation on net neutrality and platform responsibility for their own recommendations. Multiple regulators in the Americas, in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, or even in Africa and Kenya used the work that we did with the Canadian Commission on Community Connectivity to explain what are community networks and regulate them in a better way. And then there is also a little bit of frustration in my 15 years of experience, because all of this is not very visible. And as Marcus always tells very well, the IGF is not very good at making its success visible. Anyone can also think that some stakeholders want the IGF to be irrelevant, I’ll let you understand what is your answer to this question. But I think that we may easily do a lot more to make the IGF, to prove that the IGF is relevant, not only talking about things, but as the very same IGF mandate in paragraphs and 27G of the Tunisia Agenda states, to make issues relevant to the public and to all stakeholders, visible and relevant, and to make all the reports and recommendations that we have elaborated over the past 20 years visible on the IGF website would be a very good first step, I believe. Thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you. It’s a refrain that I’ve heard a couple of times over the course of the last couple of days, is we need to become. Coming to you, Isabelle, you occupy kind of a critical position in this whole process that we’re going now, in your role at the CSTD. So I’m wondering how do you look at this, both from the perspective of what is the case and what could be the case?

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Avri, for the question and for having me on this panel. It’s an honor to be able to speak on behalf of the CSTD, as Vice-Chair of the CSTD, but also as a representative of the Swiss government. I’ve not been in this space as long as most of my co-panelists here, but I have seen the value and the tremendous work that has been done throughout the years at the IGF. And I can only highlight whatever all of you said before on the successes and the many, many examples of what we’ve been able to do, take out of these discussions. I think the IGF is the primary space where we have discussions on digital governance or on digital issues. It is the agenda-setting, the issue-spotting place, and that is essential to be able to feed into the rest of the system. If we want to regulate something or create a policy, we need to first identify what are the key issues, what are the different actors and stakeholders thinking, what are they concerned about, and this is the place where we can do it. So that role is truly essential and something we absolutely must preserve, highlight, and strengthen. So I think that’s maybe my first point I want to raise, and it echoes what all of you have been saying right before as well. I think the other important point to see a bit, what can we do next, what would the IGF look like after this year? And I think there are many different ideas. If we keep this focus of having the issue-spotting place at the IGF, and we see all the examples of how this has been able to be used, I think we need to connect it more throughout the entire WSIS system. I mean, the IGF has its own ecosystem with the different parts, the policy networks, the dynamic coalitions, and all of that great work, so that interconnectness is one part, and then connecting to the rest of the system. And by that I mean bringing the messages, the outcomes of each IGF session, of the policy network, of all of the NRIs, all of the work that is being done, to UNGIS, bringing it to the CSTD, and this is where my role maybe comes in as one of the points, bringing the main issues that we see the community, all of the stakeholders are concerned about, and then making sure that we’re feeding that into the rest of the UN system. And I think this is where we could definitely do better. There is potential, there is space, now with the WSIS Plus 20 review we have the opportunity to look at that, to make sure that the entire system and architecture is well connected. And I think this is something at the CSTD we’re trying to do, there’s a few ideas in this in the CSTD resolution from this year, but also the Swiss government is pushing as one of the main points. So I think that’s my main answer for you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And thank you all. So you’ve given us all a good sampling of both the values, the personal gain, the personal importance and such, and some of what we can go further. Now going to this next stage, and I’ll be coming back to you all later, probably just go in the reverse order, so you’ll get to be last this time, but basically at this point I’d really like to go to the participants that are sitting in the chair, but we also need to have the Mentimeter put up. We have a Mentimeter that is going, I was told that they would put the URL, oh there it is. So people should join it and basically go through, it’s focusing on the answer to the first question, but go through. I’d also like to first of all go to the remote moderator, Jim Sunilufe, to see whether there is any commentary online from those that are joining us on Zoom, et cetera, to come up with. Jim Sunilufe, is there anything yet?

Online moderator: Yes, Avery, thank you very much. We have a lot of comments on the remote platform, and first and foremost, Dr. Robinson Sibbe will be providing his own virtual intervention, and after that I will read out the comments and the questions. Dr. Sibbe, can you go ahead for your two to three minutes?

Online participant 1: Yeah, thank you very much, Jameson. I am Dr. Robinson Sibbe, Cybersecurity and Digital Forensic Expert, the CEO and Lead Forensic Examiner of Digital Footprints Nigeria. Thanks for the opportunity. So I will be making my intervention from a perspective as a private sector player in cybersecurity ecosystem in Nigeria. In practical terms, IGF has helped contextualize the challenges we face in Nigeria and in Africa, and there are quite a lot of them, challenges like the rising caseloads of cybercrime and the complexities of investigating, and when I mean complexities, that would include global and jurisdictional complexities which we face, building trust in digital platforms or navigating the challenges of information governance and data protection in an environment where many are still digitally excluded. Now, as a cybersecurity and digital forensics company, our work quite often sits at the intersection of policy, support for law enforcement and technology, and the IGF model has been instrumental in showing us the value of inclusive and collaborative governance, not just as an ideal, but as a practical tool for problem solving. Now, over the years, these interactions by the IGF have deepened our understanding of the global dimensions of Internet policy, whether it be data protection and trust frameworks to digital inclusion and resilience. More importantly, it has humanized these issues by showing how policies crafted in one part of the world would potentially affect both lives and systems in others, including that of Africa, where infrastructure gaps and policy disconnects quite often amplify these vulnerabilities. These lessons have been crucial in our practice, both from a proactive defense point of view to an investigative point of view, that’s from a forensic point of view. Now, looking ahead, I want the IGF to move even closer to implementation. I would love to see more localized action, for instance, where IGF outcomes are being translated into toolkits for cybercapacity building in African countries or technical working groups formed to address specific regional challenges like Internet shutdowns or ransomware targeting public institutions or public-centric processes like elections. I believe the IGF should continue to be a bridge between regions, between policy and practice and between aspirations and actions. For people like me on the front lines in Nigeria, this kind of impact is not just valuable. It’s absolutely necessary. Thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. I’m very happy to have a voice from the online participants. So thank you. I’m going to reread the questions because I don’t see anybody jumping up wanting to make a comment on such. Oh, I do have one in the back there. But first, let me reread the questions for you all, just so everyone remembers. The first question was, what has the IGF meant to you and what do you want it to mean to you in the future? Two. How has the IGF multi-stakeholder model and its realizations, for example, the IGF meeting, NRIs, DCs, BPFs, policy networks, et cetera, how have they made an impact in your organization or Internet issues in your country or region? And three, how can the IGF play a more impactful, expanded role to contribute to the implementation of the WSIS goals and the GDC? I see the spotlight shining on the first one, and please make sure, Henriette, that you introduce yourself.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Avri. I’m Anriette Esterhuysen, was with APC, still work with APC, Association for Progressive Communications, and a MAG Chair in the past. I mean, very briefly, I think what it has meant for me personally is it’s created an impatience for me in all other forums that are not linked to the WSIS, and I think that is because the IGF is so uniquely connects working with policymakers and implementers. I now find civil society-only spaces, for example, deeply frustrating, because I feel I’m surrounded by colleagues, but I’m not sure how I’m going to have impact. I think what this space gives is both the ability to be with like-minded actors, but also with those that are different, might have different perspectives, but together you can bring about change. But what I want to say for the future, I really want to echo what Isabel said. I think the IGF, and its links to the WSIS, creates a link to people-centered development and to people. I think we live with so much fragmentation in how we talk about digital, and I think so many of the new fora, Global Digital Compact, for example, Artificial Intelligence Dialogue, puts the emphasis on the technology, not on the society, and not on the people, and I think that’s the power of the WSIS, that’s what the WSIS has given the IGF, and that’s what the IGF gives to dialogue about digital governance and cooperation. So just to reinforce what Isabel said, a future IGF must retain this link to people-centered development and to society. Information society is not used much as a term anymore, but please let’s not lose that, because that’s ultimately what we want to change. We want more equal, more inclusive society. Thank you.

Avri Doria: And I don’t see anyone else at the mic. At first I thought I had seen several other people there. Hopefully I know you have another online one, good. Hopefully I know many of you, and I know most of you aren’t shy and have opinions. So please take advantage of this opportunity to express those opinions on those three questions. But in the meantime, I’ll go back to you, Jimson, for an online contribution.

Online moderator: Okay. Thank you, Avri. We have this question from Nathan Latte from IGF Côte d’Ivoire, saying what is the concrete impact of the IGF on Internet governance in developing countries? And we have a number of interesting comments. Someone said, for me, the IGF has been a very impactful platform for learning, connection, advocacy. Going forward, I hope it becomes a place and space where more actionable policy outcomes are shaped through inclusive multistakeholder dialogue, as it is being envisioned in Africa, in Africa. Mark Gave, yes, from the UK, also has a very interesting expression, says he agrees that the multistakeholder approach has become the norm in many countries since the WSIS. In the UK government, after the first IGF in Athens, we decided, one, to work with the UK CCTLD registry in setting up a national IGF, the UK IGF, to prepare for the next global IGF. And also, two, to establish a multistakeholder advisory group in our ministry, government ministry, that we will meet with at a regular interval. So maybe I’ll stop here for now.

Avri Doria: Thank you. I heard a couple questions in there, but I had trouble really parsing some of them. I want to go to the microphone, but then I want to come back to you, and if you could just sort of pick out the questions that were there, and then I’ll look to someone up here to give an answer. But please, at the microphone, introduce yourself and give us your comment. This microphone that is lit at the moment.

Audience: Thank you, Avri, and thank you for being persistent. My name is Rolf Meijer. I’m the CEO of SIDN, the registry for the .nl country contact level domain. I don’t go to IGFs for myself, so I find the first question a bit confusing. But I think, in my opinion, the most important things that the IGF has brought us, and I’ve been to roughly 15 IGF meetings, is a platform where we can, in a kind of a global context, discuss topics that are important for the Internet, but what it really brings is it makes the multistakeholder model function, because it helps us explaining our stakes or interests, and listening to the explanation of the other stakeholders explaining their interests. And I think that that was lacking in the period before the IGF, that we were all, as organisations and even sometimes as individuals, defending our own stakes, and we were not listening well to the other stakeholders explaining theirs. And I think the only way that the multistakeholder model can function is if we understand and respect the stakes of the other stakeholders. And I think that’s one of the big outcomes of this whole process. If I compare it with the first one in 2006 and the last ones I’ve followed over the recent years, there’s much more understanding in all participants of the stakes of the other stakeholders. On the last question, what should change or what should improve to make it function even better than it does, in the Netherlands IGF, so our national IGF, a couple of years ago we produced a document, a one-page document on that, and I’ll make sure that you get it after this session.

Avri Doria: Thank you, thank you. Before I go back to Jimson for the questions, I see we also have one at the thing, please introduce yourself and make your comment.

Audience: Well, my name is Juan Fernandez, I’m from the Ministry of Communication of Cuba, but I want to tell here what it means personally for me has meant the IGF. I think that for me it had some very special impact, because it proved that no matter how old you are, no matter how learned you are, you always have to keep an open mind, because you could be wrong and you could be proved wrong very easily. You know that I participate, and many people here know me from, I participated on the negotiation of both WSIS outcome documents, I was part of the WGIC, and we discussed the creation of a forum such as this. So I can tell you that when this began, and I went to the first one, I was very sceptical. I think, well, this is just, we’re giving some breadcrumbs to the civil society because they were shunned out of the process, so this is just for that, you know. But I was proven wrong. Over the years, I’ve been, in a way, learning the value and feeling the value of having this conversation, as the previous speaker said, that I think it’s not only important also as Andrea said, in terms of the personal capacity or the institutional capacity that each of us has here, but also the personal enrichment, at least for me, I as a person has been enriched by having a personal relationship and dialogue with persons from other points of view, from other realities, and that’s, for me, I think I have been enriched by the IGF. That’s what I want to tell you, Avri. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And definitely been enriched by knowing you. I’ll go to this one, which is, Stephanie, please, and introduce yourself.

Audience: Hi, my name is Stephanie Perrin. I’m from Canada. I’m a sporadic attendee at the IGF. I was, however, at the initial WSIS, and I echo the previous speaker’s remarks. I was a little, I was working for the Canadian government in the telecom sector at the time. I was a little cynical about the potential outputs from the IGF. But I think I was wrong. I agree with Henriette that the impact is on the people and we have to come back to that. Now, one of our colleagues is even more cynical than I was. Milton Mueller has issued his, more or less, call for remarks on his IGP blog saying the time has come, you know, it’s over, time to move on to something new. So this has prompted me all week to say, well, hang on, how would we measure? How do we measure the impacts? And because it has been such a success as a multi-stakeholder innovator and enricher and stimulant and, you know, basically it comes up with the dialogue that we want. It’s a parliament of a multi-stakeholder effort. How do you measure that? I’ve been thinking about metrics all week and I think it’s quite hard but something we should focus on because the difference in the impact between the Nigerian cybercrime industry, I don’t mean the bad guys, I mean the good guys fighting it, to local initiatives, to bringing broadband to underserved areas. All those are different things to measure but it would be worth it to do it. So that’s a comment. Thank you.

Avri Doria: And I’ll go to, first of all, Jimson, did you have the questions that I kind of, I sometimes have trouble hearing what’s going, being said there, so please, if there were a specific question. Okay.

Online moderator: We have Emily Taylor. Emily Taylor is going to intervene maybe for two minutes, then I will read some comments later. Emily.

Online participant 2: Thank you so much, Jimson, for giving me the floor and for this very interesting discussion. I just wanted to highlight a study, an evidence-based study that we did for the UK government. It was published last year and I’ve put the link in the chat. It was an evidence-based exploration of the impact of the IGF and really looking from the perspective of the global south, if I can put it in that way. And we found after 48 expert interviews and also a large-scale text analysis enriched by AI and ML, we looked at thematic dynamism of the IGF over a long period and came out with a series of both direct and indirect impacts for those communities. The direct impacts are the spontaneous emergence of national and regional IGFs and the youth movement. These were never anticipated in the Tunis agenda, and yet they happened. And they’ve both, they’ve brought young people in particular to the IGF and had an onboarding ramp for new policy makers who then go back to their home countries and bring and receive messages of that link between the local and the international. And another aspect sort of on the direct impact is the emergence of internet exchange points in Africa. There’s a very clear line from the IGF to the people who built out that network, and that has a really concrete impact in reducing latency, reducing costs, and improving speed of connectivity within Africa. Indirect impacts, this is a forum where discussions happen first on emerging issues, and you can really see that in the thematic dynamism. You can really see that prior to 2017, no one was talking about disinformation and fake news. Prior to 2018, there was not very much on artificial intelligence, and then it really exploded in the 2023 arena, and you really see that from the thematic analysis. And one perhaps controversial point is, and I think it goes back to what Roulof was saying in his intervention, is that many of our interviewees attributed the IANA, the successful IANA transition to dialogue in the IGF, where the IGF had been a forum which really reduced the temperature of a very polarizing issue prior to that, laid the groundwork, allowed stakeholders to understand what was at stake for others, not just themselves, and laid the groundwork, in their opinion, for a successful IANA transition. Much more to say, but I’ll leave it there. Thank you for giving me the floor, Avri.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much, and very good to see you. Okay. At the moment, I think we’ve got like five people in the lines, so that’s probably where I’ll try to cut the line. So after encouraging you all to get in line, I do have a deadline, and I am going to want to give at least a minute or so to each of our panelists who are sitting here to be able to respond. I guess I go next to go to this line. Please introduce yourself and give us your comment. Very clever. Yes. Please give us your comment.

Audience: Thank you very much. Yes, my name is Auka Aukpals, and I’ve been attending for the past ten years the IGF, and what has brought with me is that I’ve had so many interesting discussions with all of you, mainly in sessions, but mostly in the corridor chats, which are even more valuable than the main sessions happening here in the workshop rooms. So the network and the way we can interact on this forum is really valuable for me and also for the work that we are doing. My wish for the future is that we can engage in workshops more of a discussion because currently my observation is still in the past ten years that it’s mostly one way and not that many discussions taking place, and that’s something that really needs to be improved to make this even more valuable for me but also for the others. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Go to Markus on this line. Please introduce yourself.

Audience: I’m Markus Kummer, and I’ve been around for a while. My name has been mentioned by Luca, yes, I was here since the inception like you, Avri, and I will not answer your questions. I’d rather go back to the inception of the IGF and back to the working group on Internet Governance when we actually came up with the idea and we conceived the IGF as a platform for dialogue. As we all know, the WGIC also came up with a definition on Internet Governance, and there are still a lot of misunderstandings around. We did have a highly academic definition, working definition, which not everybody understands, but we also came up with a practical description of what Internet Governance means, and that was it relates to the physical infrastructure, that is the cables, nuts and bolts, the logical infrastructure, that is the domain name system, the Internet addresses, but it also relates to the use and abuse of the Internet. So the IGF, right from the beginning, relied on this groundwork from the WGIC and dealt with issues mainly related to the use and abuse of the Internet, and I do recall the four themes we set for the very first meeting, openness, inclusion, diversity, access, and inclusion, I think, yes, but they were in essence a mixture between technical and societal issues, and that’s what the IGF has been dealing with all along, and the notion that the IGF is more of a technical issue as it is described within the GDC is blatantly wrong. It creates an artificial dichotomy between digital cooperation and Internet Governance. The IGF is the prime organisation dealing with Internet Governance, but then there are much broader issues, and the IGF has always dealt with these much broader issues, such as has been mentioned, artificial intelligence, and, and, and, and, and as to the impact, Emily said it very nicely, I think also the various IXPs have been set up as a direct consequence are a tremendous success stories of the IGF, and I also agree with Emily that the IANA transition would not have been possible without the IGF, because the IGF taught people to talk with each other, and that has been mentioned by many of the speakers, not just talk, but also to listen to each other, and that actually showed that there is merit in having this mixture between multi-stakeholders that people meet who would not otherwise meet under the same roof, and they talk to each other and learn from each other, and I hope that this will continue, and as far as the impact is concerned, yes, the IGF was as a platform for dialogue, not as a decision-making body but as a body that can shape decisions that are taken elsewhere. And then we do actually produce outcomes. I mean, Luca mentioned his dynamic coalition, there are other dynamic coalitions and they really produce tangible outcomes but they are not so-called official IGF outcomes but they can be used and they have been used, taken up. There is also other dynamic coalitions, there is one on rights and principles that produced a very good paper on rights and principles that has been taken up in other organizations. So there is clearly something to build on and I think, as Luca already said, we are not good actually at celebrating success and promoting our success and I think making this okay, just look at what we are doing and be open and proud about it and show the world that we actually are more than just a talking shop. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. Very good to hear from you in line. Please to the next microphone and please make them relatively brief, I’m sorry to do that to you.

Audience: My name is Jasmine Maffei. So this is Jasmine. I actually didn’t expect this will be very personal and emotional for myself and I actually come, you know, struggle to come to speak because in front, before me there were a lot of amazing great senior leader in an industry so I feel like a nobody at the beginning still. As a youth and as someone who grew up in capital incentive and hierarchy society, I truly value this platform IGF as, you know, bottom up and a place that you could easily talk to people from even with senior role and with many years of experience, I truly appreciate that that I could also have a chance to speak much of my feeling because in Hong Kong where I’m from it’s totally challenging to even just communicate and reach out to senior people and leaders like you guys. But another thing that I really value is something that we could bring an issue from local, bring it to the table here at global level, we can exchange good practice. At the same time, any issue that’s brought by the other local community can also bring back to my local community for good references. So I, myself is, I really put effort to talk about what IGF is to my local community, it is challenging because no one know what is it and no one understand it. I feel like there are still many misunderstanding but I think that what you all have been sharing the success and also quantitative cases are very good reference for me to also create my own local good practice. How does the IGF make positive impact to our local community and how do we create value that speak to our local stakeholder that makes sense of and really make it relevant and thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And I must say how happy I am to see younger people speaking because if it was just us old ones, wouldn’t be that much hope. Please.

Audience: Hello everyone, this is Piu from Myanmar. I think that IGF mean a lot to us because according to its principles and its model, we could, you know, input some what way after delivering the summary of the UN initiative at the global level in some what way. Frankly speaking, it’s not very easy to, you know, share our input at the global level organization like the UN, especially from the grassroot initiative like young people, you know, have a lot of challenge in terms of the eastern effect, political effect, economic effect but so far, like initiative like the UN IGF, you know, could approach to the young people to try as align with the approach like a very open way to collect their input while respecting their vices and then bridging their vices at the global level. I think that was very effective approach that we could do at the IGF and even the Vannevar community vices needed to have in not only at the IGF but also at the other aspects of the global level policy making but so far, IGF itself open for all people. Everyone can attend the conference, you know, you don’t need to be worried about like you are expected to be invited to attend the conference. I think this approach is very meaningful to us to participate as a young person and import our vices at the IGF. So, the future we would like to see as a young person is that please include us in the future of the IGF and please officially recognize our vices as a part of the multi-stakeholder to be meaningfully engaged and participate at the IGF. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. And okay, I’ve got two left, two of the original great ones and please they’ll be very brief because I want to give at least everybody up here on stage the chance to sort of perhaps give us your biggest takeaway from the discussion that we’ve heard in terms of what’s ahead of us. So, no. I think it’s… Are you guys doing the old gentleman thing, you go first, no, you go first. Let’s save time. Yes.

Audience: Here I go. My name is Raul Echeverria, I’m from Uruguay, MAG member, I have been around for many years and I think that IGF is the most innovative experience I have seen in my life in international governance, not only related to internet but in general. It has inspired me in the way that we work, I think we have developed a culture of dialogue and deal in a civilized manner with our differences. I have seen sessions in this IGF like in others where people that have positions that oppose to each other discuss in a very positive or constructive manner, so when we work on the ground we realize that not everybody work in the same manner, so I think it’s very important what we are doing here and the impact that it can have in the rest of the world. It’s my wish to the future, I would like to see a more simplified IGF where it is more simple to become involved and we should facilitate newcomers to become involved meaningfully. I would like also to see an IGF that is better connected with other existing processes and mechanisms. I think that the most important is an IGF that connects better with policy making at the global and regional level, that is at the end of the day where things really happen. So thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Bertrand, last word from the microphones.

Audience: Thank you, Avery. My name is Bertrand Lachapelle, I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. Two quick comments, one for me the thing that I’m most happy about in the last few exercises of the IGF is this recognition of distinction between the issue framing, agenda setting and decision shaping versus the decision making. This is the core function of the IGF and it is particularly important because in all international multilateral processes, putting something on the agenda takes usually many years because there’s always a lack of unanimity and somebody objects to the issue being on the agenda. The goal of the IGF should be increasingly to be early on and facilitate the common picture of the key topics. The second thing quickly, in the discussion on the WSIS Plus 20 review, we should not focus only on the renewal of the mandate of the IGF, whatever the duration. We need to reach a new step and we need to do what we did with the WGIG in 2004-05, i.e. having a group that discusses, one, the evolution of the mandate and the focus and scope of the IGF along the lines that I just mentioned and, second, the institutionalization of the structure. We have all the components at the moment but it’s like a car that is limited in its speed. although it has all the capacities to do much, much more. So I hope that in 2026, a group of sorts will be set up in a multi-stakeholder fashion to address those two issues. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. And so now I’m gonna start with you, Isabel, and then basically just move across the line, give us a quick, if you can, and certainly what you would take away from what we’ve heard, from what all was said.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you, thank you, Avri, and there has been a lot of good points and comments said, so it’s difficult to be quick, but I will try to be. I think one of the main points I would like to highlight was the taking the time to listen. I think that’s an important point. We have a lot of good information, a lot of knowledge that is shared throughout the sessions at the IGF. So taking the time to listen, taking the time to write down what has been written, read the reports, even if there is no consensus, use the information that has been given here. We can use it as capacity building. I’ve learned tremendously throughout the years attending the IGF and participating in the intersessional work. So I think this is really something that we have to take advantage of. And it goes in line with what I said earlier in using the IGF and the information that we get here throughout the space, connecting it with the rest of the WSIS structure. It also goes with the listening to all stakeholders and listening to all positions. So I think I’ll keep it at that.

Avri Doria: Thank you, Isabel. Luca, please.

Luca Belli: Yeah, I think that after 20 years, it’s clear that the IGF is an excellent forum. It’s like a forge of ideas. And the stakeholders are convened here every year to speak up their mind. There is a relatively low barrier of entry. It is high for global South countries that have to pay to come to Norway or other exotic places. And this could be solved with a little bit more of help. But it’s working very well in terms of allowing people to speak their mind freely. And also, it’s a very good engine for multi-stakeholder cooperation because you find here potential partners to implement your initiatives, not only in terms of policy. Again, the example of community networks is very good. People here have found friends and partners to create the internet, to create new community network and give access to people. So I think that there are a lot of things that may be idealistic, like having a very well-funded IGF, but a lot of things that could be very pragmatic and simple, like giving more space between an IGF and the other so that people can organize themselves, or try not to limit that much the number of sessions because if this is a very open forum that gives people the possibility to speak, then if you cut down the number of session, less people will have an incentive to come here and speak. So I think that those are very few little pragmatic things that we could do to help people exploit better the potential of the IGF.

Avri Doria: Fantastic, thank you, Luca. Chat, please.

Chat Garcia Ramilo: What I’ve heard here is that there’s really nothing else we can say about the, everything has been said about the importance of IGF. I think that is a, that’s not, to me, it’s not a debate. It’s sort of like, it is a reality here. I think the celebration for me is something that we could do more of. In the feminist circles, we do say that we need to have joy, in what we do, and I think this is part of what we need. It’s not a, it’s a very difficult time for everyone, and I think that part of celebration and saying and recognizing that we need that for ourselves and also for our community is so, so important. But having said that, I think the second thing I wanna say is that to be able to make it more robust, as you say, Luca, is that the entry, is that who we bring into the, in here, because, yes, there’s much more that we can bring. More people, more perspectives, I think that is something that we can continue to do, because it will provide that energy, it will provide that connectivity for this community.

Avri Doria: Thank you, Chat.

Qusai Al Shatti: I will join my colleagues in that. Do you still have that microphone? I will join my colleagues in the fact that there is, I have nothing to add to what was said on the floor, but from the perspective of developing countries, internet governance, one of the most important aspects of it is introducing the multi-stakeholder process in our part of the world, where policy making or regulation is fully engaged in a multi-stakeholder process, where the decision maker or the policy maker believes now in a fixed mind shift that if you want to introduce effective regulation or policy making, he needs to engage in the multi-stakeholder so that’s one of the most important aspects for us when it comes to IGF in our part of the world, and I’ll stop here.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Funke, please.

Funke Opeke: I think a lot has been said. For me personally, what resonates is the multi-stakeholder participation from the global south with other global stakeholders in shaping the future governance of the internet.

Avri Doria: Renata, please.

Renata Mielli: Everything has been said, but just to close my participation saying that anybody said that IGF is not about technology or digital or internet issues. IGF is about its impact on people and society and it’s about building connections. IGF is about dialogue, and is about multiplying worldwide the conviction and the inspiration that multi-stakeholder process can build better policies and can contribute to develop a less unequal future for everybody. So I think that’s the thing that I want to say, and I hope we can continue to this conversation for permanent years in this sense, to point that IGF has to be a mandate, a permanent mandate. Thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you so much. Hans-Peter, please.

Hans Petter Holen: Yeah, thank you. So as being one of the techies here, I remember being one of the young guys in the room and I realized I’m not anymore, this was 30 years ago. And I think one of the things I picked up from the floor here was that this national engagement and regional engagement was not envisioned when this was started. I think this is really important to recruit the next generation and train the next generation. We’ve talked about regional or national IGFs, but I also want to do a shout out for the schools that have been developed into the governance schools, summer schools, that actually trains professionals that have a subject that may be interesting to take to the global governance scene. And I think if we want to achieve what Norway’s Prime Minister, Jonas Gjertstedt, has said in his opening speech, the internet should not be governed by the few, but by the world, we really need to continue this path of IGF. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Betanga, please.

Bitange Ndemo: Thank you. My only regret I have is that all the years we have taught in silos. We deal with the infrastructure, we deal with violence, we deal with… Now, looking forward, I would want to see discussions in IGF focusing in what I call we think system-wide. This technology has come. How can it be used to solve the problems? AI has come, most consequential technology ever. We need now to not just talk about how the people get it, how do they benefit from this technology, and what is it needed to make sure that the people benefit. For example, if we took it to the farmers, educate them on how to use AI on agriculture, the productivity would improve. So if we bring in the systems approach to everything, from now on, 30 years from now, we will talk about a different world. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you so much. Thank you all, panelists. Thank you all, stakeholders, participants sitting in the house there, online, offline. I just want to say that I really do love the multi-stakeholder model and all its variants, and really do hope that the IGF continues and that we continue to talk together. I think it took a long time to get us talking, and now it’s over, but thank you all. Thank you.

Agreement points

IGF needs permanent mandate for stability and effectiveness

Speakers

– Hans Petter Holen
– Renata Mielli
– Funke Opeke

Arguments

IGF needs permanent mandate to focus on matters rather than securing future meeting place

IGF should be empowered as main focal point for Global Digital Compact implementation

IGF requires better integration with WSIS forum and more stable funding

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized that the IGF requires a permanent mandate to provide stability, enable focus on substantive issues rather than survival, and ensure robust funding for effective operation

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder model became the norm through IGF influence

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Qusai Al Shatti
– Online moderator
– Audience

Arguments

IGF introduced multi-stakeholder consultation model that made policy implementation easier despite initial resistance

Multi-stakeholder process became the norm in policy making and regulation after IGF introduction

IGF helped establish UK national IGF and multi-stakeholder advisory groups in government ministries

IGF makes multi-stakeholder model function by helping stakeholders understand each other’s interests

Summary

Speakers consistently agreed that the IGF successfully transformed multi-stakeholder consultation from an experimental approach to standard practice in policy-making and governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

IGF is an ecosystem beyond annual meetings

Speakers

– Hans Petter Holen
– Renata Mielli
– Chat Garcia Ramilo

Arguments

IGF ecosystem includes national/regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, and intersessional work beyond annual meetings

Multi-stakeholder approach inspired Brazilian Internet governance community and policy development

IGF amplified voices from global south often marginalized in digital governance conversations

Summary

Speakers agreed that the IGF functions as a comprehensive ecosystem including national/regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, and year-round activities, not just an annual event

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

IGF enabled Global South participation and capacity building

Speakers

– Funke Opeke
– Chat Garcia Ramilo
– Online participant 1
– Audience

Arguments

IGF enabled pioneers in global south to learn best practices for building digital ecosystem

IGF amplified voices from global south often marginalized in digital governance conversations

IGF provides open access for grassroots initiatives and young people to participate globally

IGF allows bringing local issues to global table and exchanging good practices

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized how the IGF provided crucial platforms for Global South voices, capacity building, and knowledge exchange that would otherwise be marginalized

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

IGF needs better visibility and recognition of its achievements

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Chat Garcia Ramilo
– Audience

Arguments

IGF success stories like IANA transition and infrastructure development are not well-publicized

IGF needs better celebration of successes and making achievements more visible

IGF produces tangible outcomes through dynamic coalitions that have been adopted by other organizations

Summary

Speakers agreed that despite significant achievements, the IGF is poor at publicizing its successes and needs better mechanisms to celebrate and showcase its impact

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical role of IGF in bridging technical infrastructure development with policy needs, particularly in developing regions

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Hans Petter Holen
– Funke Opeke

Arguments

IGF discussions helped build internet infrastructure when Africa had only one gig capacity for entire continent

IGF serves as arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations for internet coordination

IGF enabled pioneers in global south to learn best practices for building digital ecosystem

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

These speakers shared the view that IGF serves as a crucial policy development platform that has directly influenced national legislation and international human rights frameworks

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Isabelle Lois
– Chat Garcia Ramilo

Arguments

IGF influenced creation of Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework and Data Protection Law

IGF serves as issue-spotting and agenda-setting place essential for policy development

IGF helped establish human rights principles online and addressed gender-based violence in digital spaces

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

These speakers emphasized the personal transformation and relationship-building aspects of IGF, highlighting how it changed their approach to governance and policy work

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

IGF enabled understanding of different stakeholder perspectives and built trust through relationships

IGF created impatience for non-multi-stakeholder forums and connects policymakers with implementers

IGF proved skeptics wrong and provided personal enrichment through dialogue with diverse viewpoints

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Former skeptics becoming strong advocates

Speakers

– Audience (Juan Fernandez)
– Audience (Stephanie Perrin)

Arguments

IGF proved skeptics wrong and provided personal enrichment through dialogue with diverse viewpoints

IGF represents most innovative experience in international governance with culture of civilized dialogue

Explanation

It was unexpected that speakers who were initially cynical or skeptical about the IGF’s potential became some of its strongest advocates, demonstrating the forum’s ability to convert doubters through direct experience

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Technical community and policy makers agreeing on governance approach

Speakers

– Hans Petter Holen
– Bitange Ndemo
– Qusai Al Shatti

Arguments

IGF serves as arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations for internet coordination

IGF introduced multi-stakeholder consultation model that made policy implementation easier despite initial resistance

Multi-stakeholder process became the norm in policy making and regulation after IGF introduction

Explanation

The consensus between technical infrastructure providers and policy makers on the value of multi-stakeholder governance was unexpected, given traditional tensions between technical and policy communities

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Agreement on need for system-wide thinking across different sectors

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Online participant 1
– Chat Garcia Ramilo

Arguments

IGF needs to focus on system-wide thinking to help people benefit from technologies like AI

IGF should move closer to implementation with localized action and technical working groups

IGF addressed critical issues like internet shutdowns, wars, and crisis communication infrastructure

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around moving beyond siloed discussions to address complex, interconnected challenges requiring coordinated responses across different domains

Topics

Development | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkably strong consensus across diverse stakeholders on the IGF’s fundamental value, its role in establishing multi-stakeholder governance as the norm, its function as a comprehensive ecosystem beyond annual meetings, and its critical importance for Global South participation. There was also broad agreement on the need for permanent mandate, better visibility of achievements, and evolution toward more implementation-focused outcomes.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no fundamental disagreements identified. The implications are significant as this unified support from technical, policy, civil society, and government stakeholders provides strong foundation for IGF’s continuation and evolution. The consensus suggests the IGF has successfully proven its value across different communities and regions, creating a solid base for securing permanent mandate and expanding its role in global digital governance.

Different viewpoints

Approach to IGF discussions – systems thinking vs. specialized focus

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Other speakers

Arguments

IGF needs to focus on system-wide thinking to help people benefit from technologies like AI

Various speakers focusing on specialized aspects like infrastructure, policy, human rights

Summary

Ndemo advocates for moving away from siloed discussions toward integrated systems thinking, while other speakers continue to address specific domains and specialized issues

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

No significant unexpected disagreements identified

Speakers

Arguments

Explanation

The session was remarkably consensual, with speakers largely reinforcing each other’s points about IGF’s value and importance. Even potential areas of disagreement were presented as complementary perspectives rather than conflicting views

Topics

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed minimal disagreement, with speakers largely reinforcing each other’s positive assessments of IGF’s impact. The few differences were more about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental disagreements about goals or values

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement. This appears to be a consensus-building session where speakers were celebrating IGF’s achievements and advocating for its continuation. The lack of significant disagreement may reflect either genuine consensus among IGF supporters or the session’s design as a celebratory rather than critical examination. This high level of agreement strengthens the case for IGF’s permanent mandate but may also indicate limited critical reflection on areas needing improvement

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical role of IGF in bridging technical infrastructure development with policy needs, particularly in developing regions

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Hans Petter Holen
– Funke Opeke

Arguments

IGF discussions helped build internet infrastructure when Africa had only one gig capacity for entire continent

IGF serves as arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations for internet coordination

IGF enabled pioneers in global south to learn best practices for building digital ecosystem

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

These speakers shared the view that IGF serves as a crucial policy development platform that has directly influenced national legislation and international human rights frameworks

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Isabelle Lois
– Chat Garcia Ramilo

Arguments

IGF influenced creation of Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework and Data Protection Law

IGF serves as issue-spotting and agenda-setting place essential for policy development

IGF helped establish human rights principles online and addressed gender-based violence in digital spaces

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

These speakers emphasized the personal transformation and relationship-building aspects of IGF, highlighting how it changed their approach to governance and policy work

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

IGF enabled understanding of different stakeholder perspectives and built trust through relationships

IGF created impatience for non-multi-stakeholder forums and connects policymakers with implementers

IGF proved skeptics wrong and provided personal enrichment through dialogue with diverse viewpoints

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The IGF has successfully established multi-stakeholder governance as the norm in internet policy-making globally, transforming how governments, civil society, private sector, and technical community collaborate

The IGF ecosystem extends far beyond annual meetings to include national/regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, policy networks, and capacity-building initiatives that create year-round engagement

The IGF has had concrete infrastructure impacts, particularly in the Global South, including the development of Internet Exchange Points in Africa and submarine cable infrastructure that increased internet penetration from 10% to 50% in West Africa

The IGF serves as a critical ‘issue-spotting’ and agenda-setting platform where emerging digital governance challenges are first identified and discussed before entering formal policy processes

The forum has successfully created trust and understanding between different stakeholder groups by providing a space for listening to and respecting different perspectives and interests

The IGF has directly influenced major policy developments including the Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework, data protection laws, and Council of Europe recommendations

The platform has been particularly valuable for Global South participation, providing access to policy discussions and best practices that would otherwise be unavailable

The IGF maintains focus on people-centered development and societal impact rather than purely technical or commercial considerations

Resolutions and action items

Secure a permanent mandate for the IGF to provide stability and enable focus on substantive issues rather than institutional survival

Establish more stable and robust funding mechanisms for the IGF

Better integrate the IGF with the WSIS forum and empower it as the main focal point for Global Digital Compact implementation

Improve visibility and documentation of IGF successes and outcomes on the IGF website

Enhance support for Global South participation through increased financial assistance and capacity building

Simplify IGF processes to facilitate meaningful participation by newcomers

Strengthen connections between IGF outcomes and policy-making processes at global and regional levels

Establish a working group similar to the 2004-05 WGIG to address IGF mandate evolution and institutional structure by 2026

Develop more interactive workshop formats to encourage discussion rather than one-way presentations

Create toolkits and technical working groups to address specific regional challenges like internet shutdowns and cybersecurity

Unresolved issues

How to effectively measure and quantify the IGF’s diverse impacts across different sectors and regions

The challenge of maintaining relevance as the digital divide persists despite infrastructure improvements, with Global North and South facing increasingly different sets of challenges

How to balance the open, inclusive nature of the IGF with the need for more actionable policy outcomes

The fragmentation of digital governance discussions across multiple forums (GDC, AI dialogues, etc.) and how to maintain coherence

How to address the growing polarization in global politics while maintaining the IGF’s multi-stakeholder character

The sustainability of volunteer-driven initiatives and dynamic coalitions within the IGF ecosystem

How to transition from system-wide thinking to practical implementation of emerging technologies like AI for societal benefit

The challenge of maintaining the IGF’s people-centered focus as technology-centric approaches dominate other forums

Suggested compromises

Recognize the distinction between the IGF’s role in issue-framing, agenda-setting, and decision-shaping versus actual decision-making, allowing it to maintain its dialogue function while feeding into formal policy processes

Balance the need for permanent mandate with flexibility to evolve the IGF’s scope and focus based on emerging challenges

Integrate IGF more closely with WSIS structures while maintaining its unique multi-stakeholder character and bottom-up approach

Address the tension between simplifying participation and maintaining the rich ecosystem of intersessional work and specialized initiatives

Find ways to celebrate successes and increase visibility without compromising the IGF’s non-decision-making nature

Balance global coordination with local relevance through stronger national and regional IGF networks

Maintain the IGF’s broad scope while developing more focused technical working groups for specific challenges

But once you’ve gone through the whole process with the stakeholders, implementation became much, much easier. For those who are younger, at the time, there was no Google. I think there was Netscape, AltaVista, that’s what was there. We didn’t know what exactly internet will do. But thank God it went the IGF way, otherwise it would have been a private sector company selling its services to the people.

Speaker

Bitange Ndemo

Reason

This comment provides crucial historical context and frames the IGF’s role in preventing internet commercialization. It highlights how the multi-stakeholder approach was initially ‘painful’ but ultimately more effective than traditional top-down policy making.

Impact

This opening comment set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing the IGF’s foundational importance and its role in shaping internet governance away from pure commercialization. It provided a historical anchor that other speakers referenced throughout.

The IGF has been a rare and essential arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations… we need to protect the internet coordination, which keeps it running through stable interoperable systems. And we need to strengthen internet governance, which shapes how we use it through shared norms and policies. And we need to guide digital governance, which shapes what it becomes in terms of social transformations.

Speaker

Hans Petter Holen

Reason

This comment introduces a sophisticated three-layer framework distinguishing internet coordination, internet governance, and digital governance. It challenges the common conflation of these concepts and provides analytical clarity.

Impact

This framework helped structure subsequent discussions by providing clear conceptual boundaries. It influenced how other speakers approached the technical versus policy aspects of internet governance.

I think the IGF, and its links to the WSIS, creates a link to people-centered development and to people. I think we live with so much fragmentation in how we talk about digital, and I think so many of the new fora, Global Digital Compact, for example, Artificial Intelligence Dialogue, puts the emphasis on the technology, not on the society, and not on the people.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment identifies a critical distinction between technology-centered and people-centered approaches to digital governance, challenging the direction of newer international forums.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion toward examining the IGF’s unique value proposition compared to other digital governance forums, emphasizing its focus on societal impact rather than just technological advancement.

So I can tell you that when this began, and I went to the first one, I was very sceptical. I think, well, this is just, we’re giving some breadcrumbs to the civil society because they were shunned out of the process, so this is just for that, you know. But I was proven wrong.

Speaker

Juan Fernandez (Cuba Ministry of Communication)

Reason

This honest admission of initial skepticism followed by genuine conversion provides powerful testimony to the IGF’s effectiveness. Coming from a government representative, it carries particular weight.

Impact

This personal transformation narrative added emotional depth to the discussion and demonstrated the IGF’s ability to change minds even among initially skeptical government officials, lending credibility to claims about its impact.

I think the IGF is the most innovative experience I have seen in my life in international governance, not only related to internet but in general. It has inspired me in the way that we work, I think we have developed a culture of dialogue and deal in a civilized manner with our differences.

Speaker

Raul Echeverria

Reason

This comment positions the IGF as a broader innovation in international governance beyond just internet issues, suggesting it has created new models for global cooperation.

Impact

This elevated the discussion from focusing solely on internet governance to considering the IGF as a template for international cooperation more broadly, expanding the scope of its perceived significance.

The goal of the IGF should be increasingly to be early on and facilitate the common picture of the key topics… We need to reach a new step and we need to do what we did with the WGIG in 2004-05, i.e. having a group that discusses, one, the evolution of the mandate and the focus and scope of the IGF… and, second, the institutionalization of the structure.

Speaker

Bertrand Lachapelle

Reason

This comment provides a concrete roadmap for IGF evolution, distinguishing between agenda-setting and decision-making functions while proposing specific institutional reforms.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from celebrating past achievements to concrete future planning, introducing specific proposals for structural evolution that other speakers could build upon.

My only regret I have is that all the years we have taught in silos. We deal with the infrastructure, we deal with violence, we deal with… Now, looking forward, I would want to see discussions in IGF focusing in what I call we think system-wide.

Speaker

Bitange Ndemo

Reason

This critique of siloed thinking challenges the IGF’s current approach and calls for more integrated, systems-thinking approaches to address complex technological challenges like AI.

Impact

This closing comment introduced a critical perspective on the IGF’s methodology, suggesting that despite its successes, it needs to evolve toward more holistic approaches to remain relevant for emerging technologies.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by creating a narrative arc from historical validation to future evolution. The conversation moved through several phases: establishing historical legitimacy (Ndemo, Fernandez), defining conceptual frameworks (Holen, Esterhuysen), demonstrating personal transformation (Fernandez, Echeverria), and proposing concrete reforms (Lachapelle, Ndemo’s closing). The most impactful comments challenged assumptions – whether about initial skepticism, the uniqueness of the IGF model, or the need for systemic thinking. Together, they created a rich dialogue that balanced celebration of achievements with critical analysis of future needs, ultimately reinforcing the IGF’s value while acknowledging areas for improvement.

What is the concrete impact of the IGF on Internet governance in developing countries?

Speaker

Nathan Latte from IGF Côte d’Ivoire

Explanation

This question seeks specific, measurable outcomes of IGF’s influence on policy and governance structures in developing nations, which is important for demonstrating the forum’s effectiveness and value.

How do we measure the impacts of the IGF?

Speaker

Stephanie Perrin

Explanation

She noted the difficulty in measuring IGF’s success as a multi-stakeholder innovator and suggested developing metrics to quantify different types of impacts, from local initiatives to global policy influence.

How can we make IGF outcomes and reports more visible on the IGF website?

Speaker

Luca Belli

Explanation

He expressed frustration that the IGF’s successes and policy recommendations from dynamic coalitions and other work are not well-documented or easily accessible, limiting their impact and visibility.

How can we better connect the IGF with policy making at global and regional levels?

Speaker

Raul Echeverria

Explanation

This addresses the need to strengthen the link between IGF discussions and actual policy implementation, which is where real-world change occurs.

How can we establish a working group to discuss the evolution of IGF’s mandate and institutionalization of its structure?

Speaker

Bertrand Lachapelle

Explanation

He suggested creating a group similar to the WGIG from 2004-05 to address IGF’s evolving role and structural improvements, which is crucial for the forum’s future development.

How can we reduce barriers to entry for Global South participation in IGF?

Speaker

Luca Belli

Explanation

He noted the high financial barriers for Global South countries to attend IGF meetings in expensive locations, which limits diverse participation and undermines the multi-stakeholder model.

How can we adopt a systems-wide approach to technology discussions in IGF?

Speaker

Bitange Ndemo

Explanation

He advocated for moving beyond siloed discussions to examine how technologies like AI can be systematically applied to solve real-world problems, such as improving agricultural productivity.

How can we officially recognize youth voices as part of the multi-stakeholder model?

Speaker

Piu from Myanmar

Explanation

This addresses the need for formal recognition and meaningful engagement of young people in IGF processes, ensuring intergenerational participation in internet governance.

How can we simplify IGF to make it easier for newcomers to become meaningfully involved?

Speaker

Raul Echeverria

Explanation

This focuses on improving accessibility and reducing complexity for new participants, which is essential for maintaining the forum’s relevance and expanding its community.