WS #344 Multistakeholder Perspectives WSis+20 the Technical Layer

Summary

This discussion focused on technical community perspectives on WSIS Plus 20, examining the governance of the internet’s technical architecture and the role of multi-stakeholder models in maintaining a secure, stable, and open internet. The panel brought together experts from various internet governance organizations including ICANN, APNIC, Internet Society, and civil society representatives to discuss the complex technical layer underpinning the internet.

The panelists explained that the internet’s technical architecture consists of federated entities working together, including standards and protocols (managed through organizations like IETF), the domain name system (coordinated by ICANN), and internet number resources (managed by Regional Internet Registries like APNIC). Each component operates through open, bottom-up, consensus-based processes that allow diverse stakeholders to participate in governance decisions. The speakers emphasized that the multi-stakeholder model’s strength lies in bringing together engineers, companies, government representatives, and civil society to shape internet governance collaboratively.

Several challenges were identified, including rising geopolitical tensions driving digital sovereignty initiatives, cybersecurity threats, and regulatory fragmentation that could lead to internet fragmentation. The panelists noted particular concerns about the governance crisis at AFRINIC, highlighting vulnerabilities in the technical governance system. Regarding the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), there was debate about its fitness for purpose in addressing emerging digital governance issues beyond traditional internet infrastructure.

The discussion concluded with calls for maintaining the IGF’s multi-stakeholder approach while addressing concerns about focus, resource allocation, and the balance between technical internet governance and broader digital cooperation issues. The panelists emphasized the critical importance of preserving the internet’s global, open architecture amid increasing pressures for centralized control.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Technical Architecture and Governance of the Internet**: The panelists provided detailed explanations of different components of the internet’s technical layer, including standards and protocols (IETF), domain name system (DNS/ICANN), IP address allocation (RIRs like APNIC), and how these federated entities work together through multi-stakeholder governance models.

– **Multi-stakeholder Model Benefits and Challenges**: Extensive discussion on how the multi-stakeholder approach enables diverse actors (technical community, governments, civil society, private sector) to collaborate as peers, with examples like HTTPS protocol development and public interest technology groups in IETF, while acknowledging barriers like resource constraints and knowledge asymmetries.

– **Internet Fragmentation Risks and Threats**: Panelists highlighted growing concerns about technical and policy fragmentation due to geopolitical tensions, digital sovereignty assertions, cybersecurity threats, and regulatory decisions made without understanding technical implications, emphasizing the urgency of preserving the internet’s global, open architecture.

– **Role and Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)**: Discussion centered on whether IGF remains fit for purpose amid evolving digital governance challenges, with debates about the distinction between “governance of the internet” (technical layer) versus “governance on the internet” (applications), and calls for better focus, streamlined processes, and sustainable funding.

– **WSIS+20 Review and Technical Community Perspectives**: The conversation addressed how the technical community should engage in the World Summit on the Information Society review process, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based, technically-informed policy decisions while maintaining the successful multi-stakeholder governance model.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to provide technical community perspectives on internet governance ahead of the WSIS+20 review, explaining the complex technical architecture underlying the internet, demonstrating how multi-stakeholder governance works in practice, and articulating the importance of preserving this model against emerging threats of fragmentation and centralized control.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional and collaborative throughout, with panelists building on each other’s points constructively. While generally optimistic about the multi-stakeholder model’s successes, there was an underlying sense of urgency and concern about emerging threats. The discussion became more pointed when addressing specific challenges like the AFRINIC governance crisis and calls for IGF reform, but remained respectful and solution-oriented. Panelists demonstrated mutual respect and shared commitment to preserving an open, secure, and globally interoperable internet.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Ajith Francis** – Session moderator/chair

– **Joyce Chen** – Senior Advisor for Strategic Engagement at APNIC (Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre)

– **Israel Rosas** – Director for Partnerships and Internet Development at Internet Society

– **Chris Chapman** – Member of the ICANN board (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), Deputy Chair, former chairman of Australian Communications and Media Authority

– **Ellie McDonald** – Policy and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital (civil society and human rights organisation)

– **Paulos Nyirenda** – Manager of the country code top-level domain for Malawi (.mw), joining online

– **Frodo Sorensen** – Senior Advisor for Internet Governance at the Norwegian Communications Authority

– **Alicia Sharif** – Policy and Public Affairs Lead at Nominet, session co-moderator

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mia Kuehlewin** – From the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)

– **Nicholas** – Audience member who submitted an online question about internet security extensions

# Technical Community Perspectives on WSIS Plus 20: Internet Governance and Multi-Stakeholder Models

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Ajith Francis and co-moderated by Alicia Sharif from Nominet, brought together experts from key internet governance organizations to examine technical community perspectives on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. Francis opened by clarifying the session’s focus on “governance of the internet” – the technical infrastructure and coordination mechanisms – rather than “governance on the internet” such as content regulation.

The panel featured representatives from ICANN, APNIC, the Internet Society, civil society groups, and government perspectives, discussing how multi-stakeholder governance models maintain internet security, stability, and openness amid emerging challenges.

## The Internet’s Technical Architecture and Governance

### Standards Development and Open Participation

Israel Rosas from the Internet Society explained how internet standards are developed through open, inclusive processes. He emphasized that “we can all be the IETF in some way,” describing how any organization with technical expertise can participate in Internet Engineering Task Force discussions through meetings, online participation, and mailing lists. This demonstrates how “the open model of voluntary adoption of standardisation can work” through diverse stakeholder contributions rather than mandated compliance.

### Domain Name System Coordination

Paulos Nyirenda, managing Malawi’s country code top-level domain (.mw), explained the hierarchical structure of the Domain Name System that converts human-readable addresses to IP addresses. Chris Chapman, an ICANN board member, elaborated on ICANN’s role in coordinating global internet unique identifiers through multi-stakeholder oversight, describing it as “an impressive approach” that, while imperfect, serves as the foundation for internet coordination.

### Regional Internet Registry Challenges

Joyce Chen from APNIC detailed how Regional Internet Registries manage IP address allocation through community-based, consensus-driven policy development. However, she highlighted current challenges, particularly the governance crisis at AFRINIC. Nyirenda confirmed the severity of this situation, noting that AFRINIC had “annulled board elections just a few hours ago,” demonstrating how governance failures in technical infrastructure can directly affect internet stability for entire regions.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance Models

### Collaborative Decision-Making

The panelists demonstrated support for multi-stakeholder governance across different sectors. Ellie McDonald from Global Partners Digital highlighted how “multi-stakeholder spaces allow engineers, companies, governments and civil society to collaborate,” citing examples like IETF public interest technology groups that enable “human rights by design” in technical standards.

Frodo Sorensen from the Norwegian Communications Authority provided governmental endorsement, stating that “Norway strongly supports multi-stakeholder approach and ICANN/IETF as core institutions,” emphasizing that technical community involvement prevents destabilization.

### The Role of Productive Disagreement

Rosas offered a unique perspective on disagreement in multi-stakeholder processes, arguing that “disagreement is good is positive because different stakeholders may have different views different interests, but if we pursue the same objective… it’s through the discussion that we can reach consensus.” He described multi-stakeholder models as providing “spaces of influence and translation where different stakeholders can reach consensus through open disagreement and discussion.”

## Current Threats and Challenges

### Geopolitical Pressures

Chen identified 2025 as a “critical inflection point with geopolitical tensions driving digital sovereignty proposals that risk fragmenting internet into isolated silos.” McDonald expressed concern that the “WSIS+20 process poses risks of more state-centric approaches that could exclude multi-stakeholder accountability.”

### Regulatory Fragmentation

Chapman noted the challenge of “rising regulatory pressures from multiple digital media regulators worldwide making decisions without understanding technical implications.” Sorensen reinforced this concern, arguing that “internet fragmentation risks emerge when stakeholders are excluded from governance discussions, particularly if technical community involvement is insufficient.”

### Technical Security Implementation

An online participant, Nicholas, raised questions about integrating security measures like RPKI and DNSSEC into policy processes. Rosas argued for maintaining separation between high-level policy discussions and technical implementation, suggesting that “WSIS+20 is a high-level process where for instance we can agree that we want a more secure more trusted internet. How? Well that’s for the community to work in specific spaces.”

## Internet Governance Forum: Perspectives on Reform

### Defending Current Flexibility

Rosas provided a strong defense of the IGF’s current approach, arguing it “remains fit for purpose with valid working definition covering emerging technologies, with community addressing AI and other issues before formal UN processes.” He emphasized the forum’s adaptability as a strength.

Sorensen highlighted the IGF’s significance as a “successful prototype for multi-stakeholder approach in UN system, building trust and legitimacy by involving affected parties in decision-making.”

### Calls for Greater Focus

Chen presented a more critical assessment, noting that while “technical community contributes 30% of funding,” there is “decreasing space for technical topics in discussions.” She argued that the IGF “needs greater focus and streamlining,” explaining: “We are very good at picking up things, but we don’t know how to put them down, you know, to make space for other pressing issues. We’re trying to juggle everything and we’re trying to please everyone. And to me, this is a disservice to everybody because it’s impossible to dive deeply into particular topics.”

Chapman offered a middle position, acknowledging that the “IGF provides unique global space where stakeholders meet as peers, deserving continued support” while recognizing the need for improvements.

## Technical Community Contributions and Representation

Chen’s revelation that technical organizations comprise 30% of the IGF trust fund while “seeing fewer technical topics being discussed at the IGF” highlighted a concerning disconnect between financial contribution and topical representation. This substantial investment demonstrates the technical community’s commitment to multi-stakeholder governance, but raises questions about the forum’s direction and sustainability if major funders feel inadequately represented.

## Regional Perspectives: The AFRINIC Crisis

The governance crisis at AFRINIC, Africa’s internet registry, served as a real-world example of the consequences when technical governance systems face institutional challenges. Nyirenda’s report of annulled board elections demonstrated how governance failures directly affect internet infrastructure stability for entire regions.

Chen acknowledged the severity while highlighting community-driven responses, noting the “urgent need for community-driven solutions and review of fundamental governance documents.” This illustrates how the multi-stakeholder model can adapt to address serious challenges through community action rather than external intervention.

## WSIS+20 and Coordination Challenges

Panelists expressed concern about potential changes to internet governance frameworks through WSIS+20. The challenge lies in engaging constructively while protecting multi-stakeholder principles that have enabled internet development.

Sorensen raised important questions about coordination between WSIS+20 and other initiatives like the Global Digital Compact, asking “how can we better connect WSIS and the Global Digital Compact to avoid duplicated and fragmented efforts?” This reflects concerns about proliferating digital governance processes creating parallel, potentially conflicting frameworks.

## Key Technical Community Perspectives

The discussion revealed several core technical community positions:

– **Separation of Policy and Implementation**: High-level processes can establish principles, but technical implementation should remain within community-driven processes with appropriate expertise

– **Voluntary Adoption**: Internet standards work through voluntary adoption rather than mandated compliance

– **Community-Driven Solutions**: Technical governance challenges are best addressed through community processes rather than external intervention

– **Multi-Stakeholder Participation**: Technical expertise must remain central to internet governance, but within inclusive processes involving all stakeholders

## Conclusion

The discussion highlighted both the strengths of current internet governance arrangements and emerging pressures that could affect their future effectiveness. While panelists supported multi-stakeholder governance principles, they identified significant challenges including geopolitical tensions, regulatory fragmentation, and institutional governance crises.

The disagreement about IGF reform within the technical community itself suggests recognition that even successful governance models require continuous evolution. The path forward appears to require maintaining core multi-stakeholder principles while addressing legitimate concerns about effectiveness, focus, and representation.

The urgency expressed about 2025 as a critical inflection point indicates these challenges require immediate attention. The internet governance community faces the task of demonstrating that multi-stakeholder approaches can adapt and improve while preserving the fundamental characteristics that have enabled the internet’s global success.

Ajith Francis: Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. Hello and good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to yet another session on WSIS Plus 20. However, we hopefully today are going to talk about the technical community perspectives on WSIS Plus 20, but also what are the challenges with regards to governance when it comes to the technical architecture. The purpose of today’s session really is to provide a framing and a brief understanding on the technical layer of the Internet and the technical architecture, its governance, but also the role of the multi-stakeholder model. We also want to spend a little bit of time to address the role of the IGF and maybe try to articulate a positive vision for the IGF as well. We often take the technical underpinning of the Internet for granted, and that’s with good reason, because the end user doesn’t necessarily need to know the actually ins and outs of how the Internet works as they navigate the Internet. But when it comes to the actual questions around policy and governance, that understanding of what is the actual technical layer and the different components of it are extremely critical. The technical architecture underpinning the Internet is definitely not a monolith, but it’s actually a set of federated entities, operators, and actors that work together to actually keep the Internet running and accessible for all of us. So to help me understand some of these perspectives on what is the technical layer but also what are the governance parameters as well as challenges facing the technical layer at the moment, I’m joined by a stellar panel with diverse sets of expertise and perspectives. So I’m joined today and I’m gonna go alphabetically, I’m joined by Chris Chapman who’s a member of the ICANN board which is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. I have Joyce Chen who is the Senior Advisor for Strategic Engagement at APNIC. Also joining us is Ellie McDonald, Policy and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital. We also have our colleague Paulos Nyirenda joining us online. He is the manager of the country code top-level domain for the country of Malawi.mw. We’re also joined by Israel Rosas who is the Director for Partnerships and Internet Development at Internet Society. And finally and but not definitely the least, we also have Frodo Sorensen who is the Internet Advisor, the Senior Advisor for Internet Governance at the Norwegian Communications Authority. Alicia Sharif from Nominet who’s also the Policy and Public Affairs Lead is helping us also moderate the session and has also helped put this session together. So thank you all very much for joining today’s session. I really appreciate you taking the time out to to speak to us today. We want to keep this session fairly interactive and a bit of a discussion format. We will have two sort of blocks for Q&A for short brief Q&A in between the session. So we there are for those of you joining us in person we have two mics on the on either side of the of the room so please feel free to use that. If you’re joining us virtually please feel free to put your comments in the chat box or in the Q&A part and online moderator Alicia will help us sort of navigate that. So I’ve provided a very generic and a very broad overview of what is the technical layer But I really want to turn to my fellow panelists today to really sort of dig into some of the nuances of the technical layer And I’m gonna start with with Israel if you wouldn’t mind giving us your perspective Particularly on the standards and the protocol side that make up the the internet Particularly given your role at the Internet Society and your interactions with the IETF and Internet Architecture Board So if you could frame out what is sort of the role of the the standards and the protocols community

Israel Rosas: Really Relevant conversation nowadays that we’ve seen many Organizations from the technical community of the internet participating here And Just for and thank you for framing the question that way because the Internet Society is a nonprofit organization founded in 1992 to support the community of People working on the internet Later at that time then we’ve seen different parts of the of the internet being developed in different ways and One particular part is the Internet Engineering Task Force the Internet Architecture Board I cannot say that I speak on behalf of them We’ve seen some of the members of the IAB are here at the IETF. So if you would like to get in touch with them They are around the halls Here’s I can see Warren here and there are some other members the chair of the IETF is also here But you know what I would like to highlight from from that part of the technical community It’s not necessarily the topics but how the that part of the community addresses the multi-stakeholder open conversations because something that has been catching my attention these days that we’ll be having conversations on the wisp plus any review and like this kind of high-level discussions is that in some occasions some actors perceive that the IETF or that part of the community should solve something when a problem is identified for instance but seeing it as a separate entity as if you could outsource the work to that entity for that entity to solve it when in reality what we’re saying is that we can all be the IETF in some way for instance when discussing this with government officials we have at the Internet Society we have a policy makers program where we invite government officials policy makers to attend the IETF meetings to see how the standards are developed even these ways of measuring consensus with the humming in the rooms that is something that really surprises some of the policy makers in our programs like but and how do you vote now let me explain it’s like rough consensus this kind of discussions it’s important for them to to understand that any organization any team having technical people within their organizations they can join these conversations at the IETF and there are mechanisms to attend the meetings in person online to participate mailing list and that’s why we have that program at the Internet Society for the policy makers for them to understand that they can be part of the solution instead of asking the body to to solve particular issues so I would like to to lead it at this point to keep the conversation going but I think that’s the most important part like these organizations are showing how the open model of voluntary adoption of standardization can work and then that how can be implemented in some other spaces in some other ways

Ajith Francis: Thanks Israel. So maybe I’m going to turn now to our online panelist, Paulos. If Paulos, would you mind giving us your perspective on sort of the name side of the Internet technical layer?

Paulos Nyirenda: Thank you, Jay. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Thank you. So, yes, the technical layer of the Internet is responsible for things like routing data packets across the network. And it’s used by people and people normally use easy to remember addresses for accessing services on the Internet, like vast amounts of information. They do online banking, they do shopping, they enjoy various forms of Internet. They do learning. And all these are done using human interfaces with easy to remember addresses for the resources. However, as we all know, computers use numbers for sending the data across the Internet. And so there is need for an intermediary. The domain name system converts the man readable and easy to remember addresses to IP addresses, which the computers use for sending the traffic across the Internet. I think my task here is to look at the naming side and the DNS in particular. And the DNS has a hierarchy. So there is the root and the top. are managed by ICANN and with several operators. They generate top level domains like .com, country called top level domains like .mw for Malawi or .no for Norway. And these are supported by DNS servers, are operated by many registry and internet service providers across the world. So as we see the technical layer of the internet involves many players and it attracts a multi-stakeholder approach to its governance. But as governments manage people who use the internet and these are also managed by civil society, we see that multi-stakeholder coordination is really necessary for internet governance and the IGF has assisted to play a role in presenting a platform for this. So internet names, organization or management or governance, we can think of the ICANN as being at the top with its individual supporting organizations, the GNSO, the CCNSO, GNSO for generic top level domains, CCNSO for country codes and many countries have taken a particularly keen interest on their country code top level domains which featured highly in WSIS and features highly in IGF. discussions. We have governments taking part under GAC, the Government Advisory Committee, and end-users under ALAC as a constituency of ICANN. And there are many other ICANN constituencies that support or present platforms for many stakeholders to come in. Around the origins of the Internet, the US government used to play a critical role in approving things like registrations for domain names, updates at the top level, and operations at the root level. That was the so-called US oversight role. That role ended in 2016 with transition of IANA functions under ICANN to the Internet community in the current multistakeholder model of Internet governance. So right now, oversight at ICANN is now carried out using supporting organizations and advisory committees that I have mentioned earlier. So the IANA function that plays a critical role at the top level is carried out on a day-to-day basis by ICANN and the BTI. Maybe I should stop there for now. Thank you very much.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Paulos. Maybe, Joyce, if you would mind sharing with us the perspective of the numbers community?

Joyce Chen: Thanks very much, Ajith, and good afternoon to all of you, and good afternoon, good morning, good evening to those of you who are online and joining us from all over the world. Thanks for having me. So the way that I would like to approach this question is to sort of describe the work of APNIC and as well our policy development process, which I think Many people in the room are quite familiar with how ICANN policy development works, but may not be as familiar as how the regional internet registries approach our policy development. So just very quickly, for those of you who might be new to this world, and may not be as familiar with the terms, those of you who already are very familiar, this is the part where you can switch off. APINIC is the regional internet registry, I’ve mentioned that before, which is also the term RIR, for the Asia-Pacific. It is a not-for-profit, all the internet organizations are not-for-profit. We are also membership-based, and we play a vital role in the technical coordination of the internet. We are one of five regional internet registries around the world that does the work of managing and allocating internet number resources, such as IP addresses and autonomous system numbers, or ASNs. And internet number resources are fundamental resources, because they allow devices and networks to communicate across the global internet. So let’s talk a bit about APINIC’s policy development. What it refers to are how the rules and guidelines are created for managing internet number resources within the Asia-Pacific region. So what that means is we have community-based policy development for the region, by the region. And this is the same practice across the various regions in the world. These policies determine who gets IP resources, how they are used, and how they are distributed fairly and efficiently. Our policy development process is open to all, bottom-up, consensus-based, transparent, and documented. And what it means is anyone, not just APINIC members, can propose a policy change or participate in discussions. By upholding these values in our policy development, we ensure fairness in IP address distribution. Distribution, because it is based on community’s needs across diverse stakeholders in the region. Our aim is to protect the integrity of the global internet by maintaining consistent technical standards.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Joyce. I think to round this out, maybe Chris, if you could give us your perspective on the role of ICANN, which also Paulos has alluded to as well. So over to you, Chris.

Chris Chapman: Well, Ajit, firstly, thank you for having me on the panel. I’ve never been described as part of a stellar panel before, so there’s always a first. And talking about first, this is my first IGF. I’ve been on the ICANN board for nearly three years. Currently the deputy chair. I note that in the audience in the front row is our current chair, Tripti Singha, and Becky Burr. So I feel like I’m here having an annual performance review. But in all seriousness, I joined the board having a longstanding, sorry, I’ll just go back one step. I’m a lapsed lawyer by training. And it’s a bit like being a lapsed Catholic, which I also am. But throughout my career, whether it was ultimately running the Seven Network Broadcasting in Australia or building the Olympic Stadium in Sydney, or running the Optus Broadband Telecommunications Initiative, or being for 10 years the inaugural chairman of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which was probably the first genuinely converged regulator broadcasting telecommunication spectrum. and so-called online services. Or indeed from 2016 to 2023, being the president of the International Institute of Communications, which is 56 years old. Based in London, it’s a hosting platform stroke think tank for media and communications. Started in public broadcasting, broadcasting telecommunications, and now has, like all things, evolved into the digital ecosystem. I have always thoroughly enjoyed working within the technical community, although I would not in any way, shape, or form say I’m technically savvy. But I emphasize all that because on each and every occasion, the technical side of those businesses is what has ensured long-term prosperity, long-term stability. It has been the sanity check, the reality check. They are the foundational pillar of any system that you want to have that is effective, efficient, and ultimately enduring. So I joined ICANN with new curiosity about what that technical community meant in the internet space and the unique identifiers. I joined it with an absolute fascination for the multi-stakeholder model, disillusioned as I am about the multilateral institutions and the great challenges facing society globally. And I have become its greatest advocate. Late adopters are often the most passionate. So what I came to realize over the last several years ICANN is not the be-all and end-all. It is merely the senior player within the unique identifier space, the domain name system. that is the ultimate coordinator, not only within a very engaged, broadly global-based community, but also with a number of collaboration partners in the iPlayers. So the model is much more deep, nuanced, respectful, intelligent, broadly-based, bottom-up than I could have ever contemplated. And I’ve enjoyed every moment of being within the community and being educated by the community and learning from the community. So having said that, the short point, the short question you asked me, and I’ve been listening to Paulos and Joyce, and if I could synthesize those two together, I’d have the perfect description of what ICANN does. But ICANN’s mission is essentially to coordinate the global internet system of unique identifiers, ensuring a stable, secure and unified online experience. In practice, this means ensuring that there is one internet, one unique hierarchical namespace based on a unique route. If you were to go a little deeper, you’d break it down into three buckets. There’s the technical aspects, there’s the ensuring the stable and secure operation of the internet’s unique identifier systems by coordinating the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the domain name system. There’s facilitating the coordination, operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. There’s coordinating the allocation and assignment at the topmost level of internet protocol numbers and autonomous system numbers. And then you’ve got the whole policy side of the multi-stakeholder model, which is not perfect, but it’s a very impressive model. And it could be more efficient, it could be more.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Chris. I think these interventions sort of highlight how complex the technical layer is and how there are different parts of it. And given that there are so many different entities that are involved in the provisioning of the internet, I think the question of collective governance and coordination becomes extremely important. Coordination both at the level of operational matters but also at the level of policy. So I’m going to turn now to Ellie and Frodo to sort of giving us your thoughts on how the internet governance ecosystem has benefited a secure, stable and open internet rooted in human rights. But also what does the multi-stakeholder model mean to you? Maybe we can start with Ellie and then go to Frodo.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you, Ajif. I’m also not a member of the technical community, so perhaps I can just briefly introduce why I think I’m here, who I am. So I work for Global Partners Digital, we’re a civil society and human rights organisation and we work to ensure that the frameworks, norms and standards that underpin digital technologies are rights respecting and also developed in an inclusive way. So as part of this work we’ve engaged in multi-stakeholder venues like the IETF, earlier mentioned, multilateral ones like the ITU and of course the IGF, this multi-stakeholder discursive beautiful but flawed forum that we find ourselves in now. So maybe I can build a bit on what the other panellists have said and particularly ISRA. I think what’s particularly special about this ecosystem is that it does provide these unique spaces where you could have on one hand an engineer, a company, government representative and a human rights defender to come together and to shape all of the various things that we’ve just discussed. I think there are clear examples of how this can work in practice. I’m sure that the panelists can furnish us with a lot. I’ll just give a couple. One that comes to mind is the public interest technology group in the IETF. I think in being established, this offered a really safe space to be able to exchange information for different layers of knowledge to come together. So the technical, the advocacy, the normative, the human impacts to be brought together. It permitted, has permitted, public interest actors to engage at the earliest stage of development and that’s really critical to ensure human rights respect by design. Another example that comes to mind is the evolution and the establishment of the HTTPS protocol. I think this is a really beautiful example of how that can work in practice. Both identifying problems, issues that needed to be addressed, both technical ones but also the resulting issues in terms of surveillance. Having the appropriate technical solution and then being able to test it with end users and other experts who could say whether it would be fit for purpose. I would like to add that I don’t think, I don’t think anyone here would say that that means that these spaces are functioning perfectly. They’re resource intensive and that makes it particularly hard for under-resourced communities to engage. There are naturally asymmetries of knowledge that make it difficult too. Sometimes issues of access and then of course the challenge of translating between different lexicons. The IGF, which I think we’ll come to shortly, I think is a really special place where that translation work happens. and all of that to say despite there being these kind of issues of reforms that need to be made and doesn’t mean that we should abandon these spaces they’re tremendously useful and helpful and yeah I’m back and pause there.

Ajith Francis: Thanks Ellie. Frodo?

Frodo Sorensen: Thank you Hadjet and thanks for a very interesting exchange of views so far. Norway is a strong supporter of the multi-stakeholder approach for internet governance and digital cooperation and furthermore Norway is also a strong supporter of the ICANN as the core institution for technical internet governance and the IETF as a standardization body for internet technology. It is paramount that the internet remains open free resilient and interoperable. This should be the core of the discussion of the ongoing discussion about the multi-stakeholder model and the future of the IETF. How can the model and the forum be designed to support an open and secure internet? It is also worth noting that the broader topic of digital cooperation is closely linked to the open and secure internet since this underpins the running of applications and sharing of information which facilitates human interaction, public discourse and economic activity. So why is the governance at the technical layer so special? Governance of the internet infrastructure is based on the running of technical equipment that requires insight of the technical community to ensure that the internet works stable, robust and interoperable. The internet may become fragmented if some of the stakeholders are excluded from the internet governance discussion and in case the technical community is not sufficiently involved the administration of internet resources and thereby the internet itself may destabilize. and furthermore the value of the internet may become weakened since it restricts the usability of this global network. In particular the underlying technical layer of the internet is fundamental for the functioning of the internet. This ensures interoperability of the core functions of the internet and furthermore without an open and secure and interoperable internet infrastructure the applications built on top of it may become restricted. Ultimately without an open and secure internet it may threaten human rights, in particular freedom of speech and freedom of association and furthermore the value of the internet to support democratic processes globally may become undermined if the internet communication is restricted. In summary the expertise from the technical community is instrumental to the running of the internet. Involvement of the technical community for the global internet governance is important for an informed discussion based on technical realities. This is a prerequisite for maintaining an open and secure internet.

Ajith Francis: Thanks Frodo. If anybody wants to pose questions please feel free to use the mic and I’ll come to you very shortly. I think what Frodo points to is very interesting because there is this often this risk that’s often sort of thrown out which is this question of internet fragmentation and fragmentation at two layers both at the technical fragmentation but also policy and regulatory fragmentation. So with that sort of broad sort of overarching perspective I open the floor to any of you to sort of share your perspectives on why are we having this conversation today, what is the role that the technical community and civil society and government stakeholders sort of play in this conversation. So, I go to the questions right after this. Joyce, do you want to go first?

Joyce Chen: Sure. So, the question was, why are we having this conversation now? I think it speaks to the urgency of protecting the Internet’s global open nature amid rising geopolitical, technical and regulatory pressures. 2025, this year, is an inflection point. We are reviewing WSIS in an environment of growing geopolitical tensions, driving nations to assert digital sovereignty, leading to proposals for national firewalls, data localization laws, even alternative or alternate DNS systems, developments that risk breaking the Internet into isolated silos. The rise of cybersecurity threats, misinformation, abuse of platforms, they’re all prompting calls for more centralized control. There are increasingly hostile actors that weaponize the use of the Internet to disrupt lives and push political agendas. We have yet to reach global agreement on governance frameworks for new and emerging technologies like AI. All this to say that there are real risks, that if we don’t actively preserve the Internet’s open and global architecture, we risk losing it. Internet organizations and coalitions such as the TCCM, the Technical Community Coalition on Multi-Stakeholderism, I love that I said that all in one go, are ensuring that governance decisions are informed by technical realities. The technical community brings evidence-based operational expertise that is essential to preserving a global, secure and resilient Internet.

Ajith Francis: Israel?

Israel Rosas: Yeah, if I may, the thing is that I kept thinking in different things that my fellow colleagues have shared, and I keep stealing ideas from Joyce, from Ellie McDonald all the time, I have to say, because in a previous meeting Joyce mentioned that the IEF is a space of influence where stakeholders influence each other. And then Ellie mentioned that this is a translation space and I think that both are true and complementary because For instance what we are doing with the policy makers program for the ITF It is not that we are asking the policy makers to become Technologists and to participate in in the deep roots of the technical operation. We want them to understand the first of all how the Policies are developed how the group works how the the ecosystem works in that part But at the other at the same time we want the same From the technologists to understand that the policy makers have valid concerns and at the end of the day Perhaps to your question. We are having this kind of conversations and we are facing threats of fragmentation Because I don’t know why I’ve seen a trend to avoid disagreement and in fact disagreement is good is positive because Different stakeholders may have different views different interests, but if we pursue the same objective And if we start talking breaching our Disagreements is through that consensus discussion It’s through the discussion that we can reach consensus and that discussion of course is going to be longer It’s going to take longer. It’s going to be probably more complex It’s going to need more translation more influence like in these spaces in other meetings in other spaces But at the end of the day the result is going to be more resilient without fewer non-intended consequences and Securing an interoperable Internet a single Internet a global Internet So I think that that’s why it’s important like to take reference of different ways of implementation of the multi-stakeholder model And and I think this kind of opportunities are really good for that. Thanks.

Ajith Francis: Thanks. I’m gonna go to Ellie Do you wanna jump in and then Chris and then we go to the question on the floor?

Ellie McDonald: excellent Sorry, I keep forgetting to turn myself down and Yeah, maybe I can speak a bit to the governance aspect of the question. I think and This panel is about WSIS I think one of the reasons we’re having this discussion is because that is a space where this will be stress tested and in fact come under quite severe threat. I think probably we all see the risk of how this could play out in the months ahead and not only with respect to this process but I think Joyce also mentioned discussions about the governance of emerging technologies and I think in discussions of the AI mechanisms, that kind of final eleventh hour negotiations, we see risks of more state-centric process to the appointment of experts, exclusion of military applications from the scope of the assessments that they’ll do, lack of genuine multi-stakeholder accountability. I know many of you in the room are working to mitigate those risks but I suppose I really loved Isra’s positive take but to give more of the risk take I think in the midst of everything else that’s happening, the conflict, the challenges at the moment, it’s really important that we also keep close attention to these processes and that we don’t lose anything in the course of the next year and that we’re not next year sitting without this forum that we’ve already kind of praised in so many ways.

Ajith Francis: Thanks. Chris?

Chris Chapman: Just to add to that and synthesising some of these thoughts, I often discuss the prospect that with 200 countries say in the world, sovereign powers, at last count I got to 420 digital media regulators around the world. That was the last count, that was about three years ago when I laboriously went through it. Now It’s, we’re on, we have seen whack-a-mole instances over the last five to ten years where legislatures, regulators just make arbitrary decisions completely ignorant of the implications of what they do with the unintended consequences when they enter into decision making and have unfortunate impact on the network and the operations layer within which we operate. And I think this is just going to, my apprehension about that will increase. So whereas we think we’re travelling okay, I’m quite positive about the outcome over the next few months. I feel a very good vibe right throughout the IGF from what I’m hearing and seeing. But collectively, our work is just starting and we’re going to have to double down. We’re going to have to invest, reinvest in mutual trust through our collaborations because we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Ajith Francis: Thanks. I’m going to take the question from the floor and then I come to you, Paulos. Please go ahead and make your question.

Audience: Hello, this is Mia Kuehlewin from the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF. And I don’t have a question, I want to just comment, I want to emphasise how important it is for us to get this broad input from all kinds of people because it actually makes our standards and makes the internet better. It makes it possible to take all requirements into the development process as much as we can so we don’t get surprised later on. But it’s also very essential for getting the protocols deployed because we are not like a government that can enforce anything. It’s like voluntary employment. And only if you consider everything, people will actually use it at the end and it will be a success. So this is very essential for us. And I also want to underline the openness of these fora because, as was said, there are some barriers, there are different languages, both of these spaces.

Ajith Francis: Thank you very much for taking the floor and I’m sorry to have kept you waiting. Paulos?

Paulos Nyirenda: Thank you, moderator. For us in Africa, maybe I should talk a little bit about how important it is now to be talking about governance of the technical layer. As you know, our registry in Africa for IP addresses, AFRINIC, is having tremendous governance-related problems at the moment that have resulted in, for example, annulling board elections just a few hours ago. So management and governance of the technical layer is particularly pertinent to our region as our internet registry, similar to APNIC for Asia, is going through these problems. We would appreciate raising the issues about multi-stakeholder, bottom-up mode of governance, because this is causing us a significant amount of trouble at the moment, at least technical layer. Thank you.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Paulos. That’s a fair perspective. Yeah, go ahead, Joyce.

Joyce Chen: Thanks. This is Joyce. And thanks very much, Paulos, for bringing that up. It is a very critical issue and It really requires urgent attention from the internet community, not just the internet technical community, the community at large. And what I would like to applaud is that because this crisis has come to our doorstep, we have collectively decided that there needs to be a lot of renewal of the processes and policies that we have taken for granted since the beginning. And so if you look at the evolution of the internet, and especially at the technical layer, it’s always been on the best effort basis. It’s always been very voluntary basis. We’re all just trying our best to keep the lights on, essentially. A lot of the work took many years to professionalize, and it has taken a long time for the community to sort of refine the way that we do things, refine the way that we do governance. And so I might point you to this process that’s going on now, which is the review of the RIR governance document. This is a global effort. It is being run by the ICANN ASO, the Address Supporting Organization. And it really looks at the process of establishing and de-recognizing RIRs. So this is a fundamental document of RIR governance, and I highly encourage you to look into this. That’s all. I just wanted to add on to these remarks because I think it’s important that, yes, we have a problem. We are facing a crisis, but the community is coming together to find solutions for it before solutions are found for us.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Joyce. So I’m very conscious of the time because we’re 15 minutes left, and I want to switch gears to talk about the IGF, which is the venue that we’re at. And the IGF, but also the multi-stakeholder model, has worked really, really well for the internet governance ecosystem, but also particularly for the technical layer. There’s an interesting question that’s emerging, which is, you know, is the IGF fit for purpose with regards to a lot of the new emerging digital governance issues that are sort of emerging at the moment? And this is in the context of a new sort of framing that’s emerging that’s being increasingly used between the governance of the internet, which is the actual standards, protocols, the namings and number system, but also governance on the internet, which is at the governance of the application layer. So I’d be very curious to get, Frodo, particularly your perspective on how you see the role of the IGF in this sort of emerging new context. Thank you.

Frodo Sorensen: The IGF has been a successful prototype for the implementation of the multistakeholder approach in the UN system. And one could build on this to seek to strengthen the multistakeholderism in other parts of the UN system, the CSTD, for example, by broadening representation of different stakeholder groups. The multistakeholder model helps to build trust between those who otherwise would not have a common space for discussion. It strengthens the legitimacy and the relevance of the governance process by allowing those affected by the decisions to be involved in shaping them. The complexity of the internet is constantly increasing, and this leads to a continuous need for the insight from the technical community, which can provide a supplement to the government’s societal perspective. Some have criticized the IGF for not having decision-making powers, but this is a part of the careful design. IGF is a global forum for building capacity, identifying, and discussing internet-related issues. However, there is a need to make IGF outcomes more accessible and useful for policymaking. In addition to the core issues of internet governance, which are closely related to the internet infrastructure, another aspect of the WSIS processes and the IDF has been in focus, often referred to as the Digital Cooperation, originally referred to in the Tunis Agenda as Enhanced Cooperation. WSIS and IDF have constantly also covered Digital Cooperation. The agendas of IDF meetings and WSIS forums have included various relevant topics in the field of Internet ecosystem and digital services. This implies that the global digital compact in practice largely is a duplication of this activity in the WSIS framework. Digital Cooperation within WSIS-IDF has covered various areas related to the use of the Internet as opposed to the underlying infrastructure. Examples of such areas are cyber security, Internet openness, data governance, platform economy, regulation, as well as artificial intelligence. There is a need to better connect WSIS and the GDC. Otherwise, we risk duplicated and fragmented efforts, which is unnecessary, since both initiatives have similar goals. It should be possible to better coordinate the interplay between the two.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Frodo. I’m really understanding this tension between governance, often governance, on, I think, there’s this question of how does the technical community perceive this tension, and also civil society. So I’d be curious to get Joyce and Isra and Ellie McDonald, your perspective on this topic. Do you want to? Isra, do you want to? Yeah, I can. And I’m still

Israel Rosas: stealing ideas from others, because something that I’ve been hearing from our community is several references to, yes, the IEF is for purpose, and it’s been for many years. The thing is that if we take a time machine, like, I don’t know, five years, seven years before this one, probably the conversation wouldn’t be around artificial intelligence, but blockchain. And I don’t know what would have happened if we would have renamed this as, I don’t know, like the Blocking Governance Forum or something like that. The thing is, we have a working definition of internet governance that works, that is still valid, that mentions emerging technologies, whatever emerging technologies are in 2015, 2018, 2015, 2030, I don’t know. So, as that working definition is valid, the IEF remains valid to tackle different issues. And one of the results of that or one of the signals of that is that we’ve been having conversations at the IEF about artificial intelligence and different technologies way before the Global Digital Compact existed, way before the high-level panel on digital cooperation was floated as an idea in the United Nations. So, the community, or at least at my perspective, is reacting to these topics without necessarily receiving the signal from the governments, from the UN, for instance. So, my sense is that that’s going to keep happening within the current configuration. And that’s why I was referring at the beginning about who is the IETF or who is APNIC, for instance. If there’s a decision that needs to be made, it is not that you need to reach out to a person in APNIC to make a decision, because it’s not unilateral, it’s based on the processes that are designed in the community. The same with the IETF, the same with ICANN, the same with the CCTLDs. It is not that a single person can decide on something. So, the community is also working on how to keep shaping and evolving the agenda of the meetings, the agenda of the international activity that we shouldn’t forget about, or even the NRI. So, the short answer, yes, I think it’s a purpose. And just building on what Frodo mentioned on the difficulty of tracking the results, if this is a space of influence and translation, ICANN and the International Society published a paper on the footprints of the IETF. trying to track those impacts at the local level just to have like more elements for the discussion.

Ajith Francis: Joyce, do you want to add to that?

Joyce Chen: Sure, so I struggled to come up with ideas, more ideas, from like so many days of, you know, WSIS panels and discussions and what else do I have to add to this conversation? Is there something new that I could say? And I think across the days we’ve already heard for about, you know, calls for sustainable funding of the IGF, more resources, you know, rebranding the IGF to the DGF, you know, etc. And the reality is we are asking the IGF to do many things without really thinking about whether the current IGF structure is able to enable all this to happen. I would like to hear more proposals around how we can streamline IGF processes and intersessional work and how we can help to prioritize the work of the IGF and to give it more focus. One of the strengths of the IGF is that it is incredibly flexible. Every year we are able to frame conversations around new and, you know, hot topics. This year, for example, it’s all about AI and the program itself reflects this that we are all discussing issues to do with AI, for example. But the issue that I want to point out is that we are very good at picking up things, but we don’t know how to put them down, you know, to make space for other pressing issues. We’re trying to juggle everything and we’re trying to please everyone. And to me, this is a disservice to everybody because it’s impossible to dive deeply into particular topics. And I’m saying this because the internet technical community are one of the top financial contributors to the IGF. I was sitting in the donors meeting, the IGF donors meeting yesterday, and I think it was mentioned that the internet technical organizations actually comprise 30% of the overall IGF trust fund. And that’s big. You know, we believe in the mission of the IGF. We’re doing everything we can to support the multi-stakeholder community. And its perseverance is critical for the ongoing legitimacy of the multi-stakeholder internet governance ecosystem. However, over the years, we are seeing fewer technical topics being discussed at the IGF. The space for the technical community, I feel, is growing smaller. And I understand that the technical topics are dry. It’s hard to make something dry seem interesting in a policy space. And we struggle with this. Even though these are topics that are core to the functioning of the internet. So, in summary, I think that the IGF could benefit from greater focus, you know, efforts to prioritize its work. I hope to see more concrete proposals on how it could streamline better against certain agreed-upon priorities. And whether or not the IGF moves toward being action-oriented or it remains non-prescriptive, it will still require some housekeeping to remove some of the bloat. I think it bears reminding that all things digital are made possible by the internet, whether we are the DGF or the IGF. We’re really all just talking about the internet and the use of the internet.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Joyce. Ellie, and then I’m going to go to Chris. But if you could keep it very, very brief, because we’re running short of time and I know we have an online question.

Ellie McDonald: Okay, I’ll try my best. Yeah, I would definitely underline a lot of what the other panelists said. I think we did some research as Global Partners Digital, sorry to shamelessly plug, but we looked a bit at the breadth of stakeholder positions on the IGF. We wanted to do this because we thought it could be quite useful to see where the convergence lies and also where there might be similarly intended attempts to operationalize different changes. and Joyce. I’m going to start by saying that I think the IGF is a really good example of how it changes to its form and structure. I say this because I think there was really a remarkable level of convergence about certain elements. I think as others had said, the bottom-up nature of the IGF is really so critical because it allows various communities to come with different lexicons, different ideas and to bring ideas to the table. The most important thing is to be successful and I believe I should again because I should be brief to pick up on something Froda said, I think we should also be mindful of the danger of being too restrictive about this mode, this multistakeholder model, that it has huge benefits that we wish

Ajith Francis: to multi it in several sectors, both visually and 강 should have the last play before-

Chris Chapman: I would endorse Froda’s comments, and even though it’s , as I said at the beginning, I’m new to egf and therefore hesitant to be prescriptive, I share choice’s cry from the heart about what needs to be done, and I think it’s a good thing that the ICANN has continued to support it, and I think it’s a good thing that the ICANN has continued to support it, and I think it’s one hundred and one percent supportive of the renewal of the IGF adequate resourcing, proper mandates, it’s the only place globally where stakeholders can come together as peers, and it’s from our- and the ICANN will continue to support it as it has

Alicia Sharif: been for a long time, and I think it’s a good thing that the ICANN has continued to support it as it has been for a long time. he’s asking his question in light of Wizards Plus 20 and ongoing discussions on strengthening the resilience of the global internet and Nicholas wonders if we are witnessing the next global wave of internet hardening through security extensions like RPKI and DNSSEC so these are both things that use cryptography to try and prevent kind of root hijacking on one hand and also adding cryptographic signatures to DNS records on the other so quite technical so he’s saying that we’ve seen precedents such as a US federal enforcement of RPKI for routing security and increasing DNSSEC mandates but we cannot look at this in isolation the post-quantum era looms ahead requiring us to rethink cryptographic agility and resilience at the root and edge and so Nicholas’s question is how do we ensure that security extensions reinforce trust and interoperability in a truly open internet and what guard rails should we be building now ahead of the Wizards Plus 20 outcomes?

Ajith Francis: Thanks. Israel?

Israel Rosas: I have a quick reaction if I may. I think that we shouldn’t mix those topics because the Wizards Plus 20 is a high-level process where for instance we can agree that we want a more secure more trusted internet. How? Well that’s for the community to work in specific spaces because for instance the interesting thing is that here we could identify I don’t know we could say that RPKI is important and each of us are going to make different things to support the deployment of RPKI. Different things and all of them are going to be valid and complementary so in summary I would say that it’s important to keep having those conversations the important part is that I’ve seen that RPKI is a widely community-driven process and if some governments are recommending its adoption it’s important also to realize that governments are also operating networks that are part of the internet so again multi-stakeholder implies governments. It is not that governments aren’t other stakeholders so just it’s a good reminder of that.

Ajith Francis: Thank you very much, Israel. And I can see the red light blinking, so it’s we’re at time. I want to say thank you very, very much to all of my fellow panelists. This was really I enjoyed having this conversation, and I hope the audience took something away from it as well. So thank you very much and have a good rest of the day. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder model is essential for Internet governance

Speakers

– Israel Rosas
– Paulos Nyirenda
– Joyce Chen
– Chris Chapman
– Ellie McDonald
– Frodo Sorensen

Arguments

Internet standards and protocols are developed through open, multi-stakeholder processes where anyone can participate, not just outsource solutions to technical bodies

Domain Name System converts human-readable addresses to IP addresses, managed through hierarchical structure with ICANN coordination and multi-stakeholder oversight

Regional Internet Registries manage IP address allocation through community-based, bottom-up, consensus-driven policy development processes

ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model, while imperfect, represents an impressive approach that could be more efficient but serves as foundation for internet coordination

Multi-stakeholder spaces allow engineers, companies, governments and civil society to collaborate, with examples like IETF public interest technology group enabling human rights by design

Norway strongly supports multi-stakeholder approach and ICANN/IETF as core institutions, emphasizing that technical community involvement prevents destabilization

Summary

All speakers strongly endorse the multi-stakeholder model as fundamental to Internet governance, emphasizing its open, bottom-up, consensus-driven nature that allows diverse stakeholders to participate as equals in decision-making processes.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Technical community expertise is crucial for Internet stability and governance

Speakers

– Israel Rosas
– Joyce Chen
– Chris Chapman
– Frodo Sorensen
– Audience

Arguments

Internet standards and protocols are developed through open, multi-stakeholder processes where anyone can participate, not just outsource solutions to technical bodies

Regional Internet Registries manage IP address allocation through community-based, bottom-up, consensus-driven policy development processes

ICANN coordinates global internet unique identifiers ensuring stable, secure operation through multi-stakeholder model involving technical, policy and community aspects

Technical community expertise is essential for internet stability, interoperability and preventing fragmentation that could undermine democratic processes

Community input essential for technical standards development and deployment, as voluntary adoption requires broad consideration of all requirements

Summary

Speakers agree that technical community involvement is not optional but essential for maintaining Internet stability, with their expertise being fundamental to preventing fragmentation and ensuring interoperability.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

IGF remains valuable and fit for purpose despite needing improvements

Speakers

– Israel Rosas
– Joyce Chen
– Chris Chapman
– Ellie McDonald
– Frodo Sorensen

Arguments

IGF remains fit for purpose with valid working definition covering emerging technologies, with community addressing AI and other issues before formal UN processes

IGF needs greater focus and streamlining, as technical community contributes 30% of funding but sees decreasing space for technical topics in discussions

IGF provides unique global space where stakeholders meet as peers, deserving continued support and adequate resourcing for its renewal

IGF’s bottom-up nature allows different communities to bring various perspectives, though care needed not to be too restrictive about multi-stakeholder model application

IGF serves as successful prototype for multi-stakeholder approach in UN system, building trust and legitimacy by involving affected parties in decision-making

Summary

All speakers support the IGF’s continued existence and value, while acknowledging it needs improvements in focus, streamlining, and resource allocation to better serve its mission.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about current geopolitical pressures and policy processes that threaten the open, multi-stakeholder nature of Internet governance through more centralized, state-centric approaches.

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Ellie McDonald

Arguments

2025 represents critical inflection point with geopolitical tensions driving digital sovereignty proposals that risk fragmenting internet into isolated silos

WSIS+20 process poses risks of more state-centric approaches that could exclude multi-stakeholder accountability and threaten existing governance models

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers warn about the dangers of regulatory decisions made without proper technical understanding, which can lead to unintended consequences and potential Internet fragmentation.

Speakers

– Chris Chapman
– Frodo Sorensen

Arguments

Rising regulatory pressures from 420+ digital media regulators worldwide making arbitrary decisions without understanding technical implications

Internet fragmentation risks emerge when stakeholders are excluded from governance discussions, particularly if technical community involvement is insufficient

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers acknowledge the AFRINIC governance crisis as a critical example of why robust multi-stakeholder governance processes are essential and need continuous attention and improvement.

Speakers

– Paulos Nyirenda
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance faces challenges in Africa, particularly with AFRINIC registry problems highlighting need for renewed focus on governance processes

Crisis situations like AFRINIC governance problems demonstrate urgent need for community-driven solutions and review of fundamental governance documents

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Need for disagreement and open discussion in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Israel Rosas

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model provides spaces of influence and translation where different stakeholders can reach consensus through open disagreement and discussion

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was explicit advocacy for disagreement as a positive force in governance processes, arguing that avoiding disagreement is counterproductive and that longer, more complex discussions through disagreement lead to more resilient outcomes.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Technical community as significant financial contributor to IGF

Speakers

– Joyce Chen

Arguments

IGF needs greater focus and streamlining, as technical community contributes 30% of funding but sees decreasing space for technical topics in discussions

Explanation

It was unexpected to learn that technical organizations comprise 30% of the IGF trust fund, highlighting their significant financial investment in multi-stakeholder governance despite feeling their topics receive less attention.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

There is remarkably strong consensus among all speakers on the fundamental value of the multi-stakeholder model, the essential role of technical community expertise, and the continued importance of the IGF. Areas of agreement include the need for open, bottom-up governance processes, the risks posed by fragmentation and state-centric approaches, and the requirement for technical expertise in Internet governance decisions.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no fundamental disagreements identified. The implications are positive for Internet governance, suggesting broad stakeholder alignment on core principles, though speakers acknowledge implementation challenges and the need for continuous improvement in processes and institutions.

Different viewpoints

IGF focus and prioritization approach

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Israel Rosas

Arguments

IGF needs greater focus and streamlining, as technical community contributes 30% of funding but sees decreasing space for technical topics in discussions

IGF remains fit for purpose with valid working definition covering emerging technologies, with community addressing AI and other issues before formal UN processes

Summary

Joyce argues the IGF has become too broad and unfocused, trying to ‘juggle everything’ and ‘please everyone’ while technical topics get less attention despite significant technical community funding. Israel counters that the IGF’s flexibility and broad working definition remain valid and effective, with the community naturally adapting to address emerging issues without needing structural changes.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Approach to technical security implementation in policy processes

Speakers

– Israel Rosas
– Alicia Sharif (relaying online question)

Arguments

Security extensions like RPKI should be kept separate from high-level WSIS+20 discussions, with community-driven deployment processes remaining independent of government mandates

Online moderation handles technical questions about internet security extensions and post-quantum cryptography challenges

Summary

The online questioner (via Alicia) seeks integration of technical security measures like RPKI and DNSSEC into WSIS+20 outcomes with specific guardrails. Israel argues for separation, maintaining that high-level processes should focus on principles while leaving technical implementation to community-driven processes, emphasizing that government recommendations are acceptable since governments are also network operators.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Technical community representation and space within IGF

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Israel Rosas

Arguments

IGF needs greater focus and streamlining, as technical community contributes 30% of funding but sees decreasing space for technical topics in discussions

IGF remains fit for purpose with valid working definition covering emerging technologies, with community addressing AI and other issues before formal UN processes

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers represent technical organizations (APNIC and Internet Society) that are closely aligned in the internet governance ecosystem. Joyce’s criticism of the IGF’s direction and Israel’s defense of its current approach represent a rare public divergence within the technical community about the forum they both financially support and participate in.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers on fundamental principles of internet governance, with most disagreements being tactical rather than strategic. The main areas of disagreement centered on IGF reform approaches and the relationship between technical implementation and policy processes.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with significant implications for IGF evolution. While speakers largely agreed on multi-stakeholder principles and the importance of technical community involvement, the split within the technical community itself about IGF direction suggests potential challenges for maintaining unified support for the forum’s current model. The disagreements reflect broader tensions between preserving flexibility versus achieving focus, and between community-driven versus policy-integrated approaches to technical governance.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about current geopolitical pressures and policy processes that threaten the open, multi-stakeholder nature of Internet governance through more centralized, state-centric approaches.

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Ellie McDonald

Arguments

2025 represents critical inflection point with geopolitical tensions driving digital sovereignty proposals that risk fragmenting internet into isolated silos

WSIS+20 process poses risks of more state-centric approaches that could exclude multi-stakeholder accountability and threaten existing governance models

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers warn about the dangers of regulatory decisions made without proper technical understanding, which can lead to unintended consequences and potential Internet fragmentation.

Speakers

– Chris Chapman
– Frodo Sorensen

Arguments

Rising regulatory pressures from 420+ digital media regulators worldwide making arbitrary decisions without understanding technical implications

Internet fragmentation risks emerge when stakeholders are excluded from governance discussions, particularly if technical community involvement is insufficient

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers acknowledge the AFRINIC governance crisis as a critical example of why robust multi-stakeholder governance processes are essential and need continuous attention and improvement.

Speakers

– Paulos Nyirenda
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance faces challenges in Africa, particularly with AFRINIC registry problems highlighting need for renewed focus on governance processes

Crisis situations like AFRINIC governance problems demonstrate urgent need for community-driven solutions and review of fundamental governance documents

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The internet’s technical architecture is a complex federated system requiring multi-stakeholder coordination across standards/protocols (IETF), domain names (ICANN), and IP addresses (RIRs)

The multi-stakeholder model has proven effective for internet governance by enabling engineers, companies, governments, and civil society to collaborate as peers in open, bottom-up processes

2025 represents a critical inflection point with rising geopolitical tensions, digital sovereignty proposals, and regulatory fragmentation threatening to break the internet into isolated silos

The IGF remains fit for purpose as a unique global forum where stakeholders can meet as peers, though it needs greater focus, streamlining, and adequate resourcing

Technical community expertise is essential for maintaining internet stability and preventing fragmentation, with technical organizations contributing 30% of IGF funding despite decreasing space for technical topics

WSIS+20 process poses risks of more state-centric approaches that could undermine existing multi-stakeholder governance models

Crisis situations like AFRINIC governance problems highlight the urgent need for renewed focus on fundamental governance processes and community-driven solutions

Resolutions and action items

Continue supporting IGF renewal with adequate resourcing and proper mandates

Maintain technical community financial support for IGF (currently 30% of trust fund)

Participate in ongoing review of RIR governance document led by ICANN ASO to address fundamental governance issues

Engage in WSIS+20 discussions to protect multi-stakeholder model from state-centric threats

Better coordinate interplay between WSIS framework and Global Digital Compact to avoid duplication

Strengthen multi-stakeholder representation in other UN system parts like CSTD

Unresolved issues

How to streamline IGF processes and prioritize work while maintaining flexibility

How to increase space for technical topics within IGF discussions despite their perceived ‘dry’ nature

How to resolve AFRINIC governance crisis affecting internet registry operations in Africa

How to prevent internet fragmentation amid rising geopolitical tensions and digital sovereignty proposals

How to ensure security extensions like RPKI and DNSSEC reinforce trust while preparing for post-quantum cryptography challenges

How to make IGF outcomes more accessible and useful for policymaking

How to address resource barriers that prevent under-resourced communities from engaging in multi-stakeholder processes

Suggested compromises

Keep high-level policy discussions (WSIS+20) separate from technical implementation details while ensuring community-driven processes remain independent

Build on IGF’s successful multi-stakeholder prototype to strengthen multi-stakeholderism in other UN system parts rather than replacing existing structures

Focus on translation and influence spaces where different stakeholder communities can reach consensus through open disagreement and discussion

Maintain IGF’s flexibility for addressing emerging technologies while implementing better housekeeping to remove bloat and create focus

Coordinate WSIS and Global Digital Compact efforts to avoid fragmented and duplicated initiatives while preserving their complementary strengths

We can all be the IETF in some way… any organization any team having technical people within their organizations they can join these conversations at the IETF and there are mechanisms to attend the meetings in person online to participate mailing list… these organizations are showing how the open model of voluntary adoption of standardization can work

Speaker

Israel Rosas

Reason

This comment reframes the technical community from being seen as separate entities that solve problems for others to being inclusive spaces where all stakeholders can participate. It challenges the common perception of technical organizations as closed or exclusive.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from describing what technical organizations do to emphasizing how they operate inclusively. It established a theme of openness and participation that other panelists built upon throughout the session, particularly influencing later discussions about multi-stakeholder engagement.

We are very good at picking up things, but we don’t know how to put them down, you know, to make space for other pressing issues. We’re trying to juggle everything and we’re trying to please everyone. And to me, this is a disservice to everybody because it’s impossible to dive deeply into particular topics.

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Reason

This is a brutally honest critique of the IGF’s operational challenges that goes beyond typical diplomatic language. It identifies a fundamental structural problem – the inability to prioritize and focus – that affects the forum’s effectiveness.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical turning point in the discussion, shifting from largely positive assessments of multi-stakeholder governance to acknowledging serious structural limitations. It prompted other panelists to engage more critically with IGF reform needs and added urgency to the conversation about the forum’s future.

The internet technical community are one of the top financial contributors to the IGF… internet technical organizations actually comprise 30% of the overall IGF trust fund… However, over the years, we are seeing fewer technical topics being discussed at the IGF. The space for the technical community, I feel, is growing smaller.

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Reason

This reveals a concerning disconnect between financial contribution and representation, highlighting how the IGF may be losing focus on its core technical governance mission while becoming more generalized.

Impact

This data point significantly deepened the conversation by providing concrete evidence of the IGF’s drift from its technical roots. It added weight to concerns about the forum’s direction and influenced the discussion about whether the IGF should remain focused on internet governance versus broader digital governance.

I don’t know why I’ve seen a trend to avoid disagreement and in fact disagreement is good is positive because Different stakeholders may have different views different interests, but if we pursue the same objective… It’s through the discussion that we can reach consensus

Speaker

Israel Rosas

Reason

This challenges the common assumption that consensus-building requires avoiding conflict, instead arguing that productive disagreement is essential for robust governance. It reframes conflict as a feature, not a bug, of multi-stakeholder processes.

Impact

This comment provided a philosophical foundation for defending multi-stakeholder processes against criticism. It influenced how other panelists discussed the challenges facing internet governance, encouraging them to view current tensions as potentially productive rather than purely threatening.

For us in Africa, maybe I should talk a little bit about how important it is now to be talking about governance of the technical layer. As you know, our registry in Africa for IP addresses, AFRINIC, is having tremendous governance-related problems at the moment that have resulted in, for example, annulling board elections just a few hours ago.

Speaker

Paulos Nyirenda

Reason

This brought urgent real-world consequences into what could have been an abstract discussion, demonstrating that technical governance failures have immediate impacts on internet access and stability in entire regions.

Impact

This intervention grounded the entire discussion in concrete reality, showing that governance challenges aren’t theoretical but are actively affecting internet infrastructure. It prompted Joyce Chen to acknowledge the crisis and discuss community responses, adding urgency to the conversation about governance reform.

We shouldn’t mix those topics because the Wizards Plus 20 is a high-level process where for instance we can agree that we want a more secure more trusted internet. How? Well that’s for the community to work in specific spaces

Speaker

Israel Rosas

Reason

This articulates a crucial principle about the appropriate division of labor between high-level policy processes and technical implementation, arguing against conflating political agreements with technical specifications.

Impact

This comment provided clarity on how different governance layers should interact, helping to resolve potential confusion about the role of WSIS+20 versus technical community processes. It reinforced the theme of respecting different stakeholder roles and expertise domains.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing three critical tensions: the gap between IGF’s inclusive ideals and operational realities, the challenge of maintaining technical focus amid broader digital governance pressures, and the need to balance high-level policy coordination with technical community autonomy. Israel Rosas’s comments about inclusive participation and productive disagreement provided philosophical grounding for defending multi-stakeholder approaches, while Joyce Chen’s frank assessment of IGF limitations introduced necessary self-criticism. Paulos Nyirenda’s intervention about AFRINIC’s crisis brought urgent real-world stakes into the conversation, preventing it from becoming too abstract. Together, these comments created a more nuanced, honest discussion that acknowledged both the value and vulnerabilities of current internet governance arrangements, ultimately strengthening the case for reform rather than replacement of existing institutions.

How can we make IGF outcomes more accessible and useful for policymaking?

Speaker

Frodo Sorensen

Explanation

This addresses a key limitation of the IGF that has been criticized – while it’s successful as a discussion forum, there’s a need to better translate its outcomes into actionable policy guidance

How can we better connect WSIS and the Global Digital Compact to avoid duplicated and fragmented efforts?

Speaker

Frodo Sorensen

Explanation

Both initiatives have similar goals but risk creating parallel processes that could undermine effectiveness and waste resources

How can we streamline IGF processes and intersessional work to give it more focus and help prioritize its work?

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Explanation

The IGF’s flexibility is a strength but it struggles to prioritize topics and tends to accumulate issues without resolution, leading to bloat and reduced effectiveness

How do we ensure that security extensions like RPKI and DNSSEC reinforce trust and interoperability in a truly open internet, and what guard rails should we build ahead of WSIS Plus 20 outcomes?

Speaker

Nicholas (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses the technical challenge of internet hardening through security measures while maintaining openness and interoperability, particularly important given the post-quantum cryptography transition

How can the multi-stakeholder model be strengthened in other parts of the UN system beyond the IGF?

Speaker

Frodo Sorensen

Explanation

The IGF has been a successful prototype for multi-stakeholder governance in the UN system, and there’s potential to apply these lessons to other UN bodies like the CSTD

How can we address the governance crisis at AFRINIC and strengthen RIR governance globally?

Speaker

Paulos Nyirenda and Joyce Chen

Explanation

The governance problems at the African internet registry highlight vulnerabilities in the technical infrastructure governance model that need urgent community attention

How can we better track and measure the impacts of multi-stakeholder internet governance processes at the local level?

Speaker

Israel Rosas

Explanation

There’s a need for better evidence and metrics to demonstrate the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder governance, as referenced by the ICANN and Internet Society paper on IETF footprints

How can we ensure more technical topics are discussed at the IGF despite their perceived ‘dry’ nature?

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Explanation

Despite technical organizations being major funders of the IGF, there’s a concerning trend of fewer technical discussions, which undermines the forum’s core purpose of internet governance