Networking Session #127 The Internet Society Community Discusses WSIS+20 and Beyond

Summary

This discussion focused on analyzing the Elements Paper released by co-facilitators for the WSIS Plus 20 Review, which will assess the implementation of World Summit on the Information Society outcomes twenty years later. The Internet Society hosted this session with panelists from various stakeholder groups including technical community representatives, civil society organizations, and government officials to provide initial reactions to the nine-page document released just days before the Internet Governance Forum.

Participants identified significant concerns about inconsistencies within the Elements Paper, particularly noting that while the introductory sections emphasized multi-stakeholder collaboration and recognized the technical community, later sections on internet governance reverted to 2003 language emphasizing “multilateral” approaches rather than the evolved “multi-stakeholder” framework. Several speakers expressed surprise that the document appeared to step back from progress made in recent processes like the Global Digital Compact, which had more developed language about the internet being “open, global, interoperable, stable and secure.”

The panelists highlighted missing elements including explicit integration of GDC implementation into the WSIS framework, stronger references to international human rights law, recognition of diverse underserved communities, and acknowledgment of National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives. There was particular concern about the treatment of enhanced cooperation and the Internet Governance Forum’s mandate renewal, with calls for the IGF to become permanent rather than renewed every ten years.

Speakers emphasized the importance of submitting written contributions by the July 15 deadline to influence the zero draft, stressing that community input is crucial to ensure the final document reflects twenty years of internet governance evolution rather than outdated 2003 perspectives.

Keypoints

**Overall Purpose/Goal:**

This session was organized by the Internet Society to discuss and analyze the “Elements Paper” released by co-facilitators for the WSIS Plus 20 Review process. The goal was to gather diverse stakeholder perspectives on this early draft document that will inform a high-level declaration to be adopted in December, and to encourage community input during the consultation period ending July 15th.

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Inconsistent approach and outdated language in the Elements Paper** – Panelists noted the document had two distinct styles: early sections reflected 20 years of progress since WSIS, while later sections (particularly on internet governance) contained language from 2003 that seemed outdated, including references to “multilateral” rather than “multi-stakeholder” governance approaches.

– **Missing integration between WSIS framework and Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation** – Multiple speakers expressed surprise that the paper failed to clearly articulate how GDC implementation would be integrated into the WSIS architecture, despite this being identified as a priority in previous consultations.

– **Concerns about Internet Governance Framework and IGF mandate renewal** – Significant discussion focused on paragraphs 57-64 regarding internet governance, with concerns about the shift from multi-stakeholder to multilateral language, the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and references to “enhanced cooperation” without clear definition of what improvements are needed.

– **Gaps in human rights framework and inclusivity** – Civil society representatives highlighted the absence of clear grounding in international human rights law, missing references to underserved communities, and inadequate attention to digital inclusion across different sections of the paper.

– **Need for broader stakeholder participation in emerging technology governance** – Panelists noted that sections on AI and data governance lacked provisions for meaningful participation by technical community, civil society, and academia, despite the success of multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance over the past 20 years.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a professional and constructive tone throughout, with participants expressing both appreciation for positive elements in the paper (such as recognition of the technical community and internationalized domain names) and constructive criticism of gaps and concerns. While there was clear disappointment about certain aspects, particularly the regression in internet governance language, the tone remained collaborative and focused on providing actionable feedback to improve the process. Speakers consistently emphasized the importance of community engagement in the consultation process rather than simply criticizing the current draft.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Israel Rosas** – Internet Society, part of the team working on the WSIS Plus Center Review

– **Fiona Alexander** – Speaking in personal capacity

– **Valeria Betancourt** – APC (Association for Progressive Communications)

– **Roman Danyliw** – Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

– **Jorge Cancio** – Swiss government

– **Jennifer Chung** – DotAsia organization, speaking from technical community perspective

– **Speaker** – Identified as Benny from ICANN (based on context)

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including:

– Carlos Vera – Internet Society Ecuadorian Chapter

– Bertrand de la Chapelle – Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– Jordan Carter – .au domain administration

– Anna Ossring – Article 19 (human rights organization)

– Flavio Wagner – CGI.br and ISOC Brazil

**Additional speakers:**

– **Benny** – ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)

– **Fiona Gavala** – Internet Society (mentioned in introduction but did not speak)

– **Monika** – Israel Rosas’s colleague (mentioned but did not speak)

# Internet Society Discussion on WSIS Plus 20 Elements Paper

## Executive Summary

The Internet Society hosted a stakeholder discussion analyzing the recently released Elements Paper for the WSIS Plus 20 Review process. This nine-page document serves as the foundation for developing a high-level declaration to be adopted in December 2024. The session brought together representatives from technical community organizations, civil society, government officials, and international bodies to provide initial reactions and identify key concerns with the draft.

Participants identified several significant issues with the Elements Paper, including inconsistent approaches to internet governance, missing integration frameworks for the Global Digital Compact, and gaps in human rights provisions. The discussion emphasized the critical importance of community engagement during the consultation period ending July 15th to ensure the final document reflects evolved approaches to internet governance.

## Background and Context

The WSIS Plus 20 Review represents a pivotal moment in assessing the implementation of World Summit on the Information Society outcomes two decades after the original summits. Israel Rosas from the Internet Society explained that the Elements Paper serves as an initial framework requiring substantial community input through the ongoing consultation process.

The timing proved significant, occurring during the Internet Governance Forum when stakeholders from around the world were gathered. Rosas noted that the document highlights the continuing validity of the WSIS framework while acknowledging positive developments such as technical community collaboration and specific recognition of organizations like ICANN’s work on internationalized domain names.

## Main Concerns Identified

### Internet Governance Language Issues

Fiona Alexander, speaking in her personal capacity, identified a fundamental structural problem within the Elements Paper. She observed that “when I read the paper, I read the Chapeau section and the Chapeau section really was very strong on some of the process… But then as I started to read the subsections, I definitely saw two distinctive approaches.”

The most significant concern centered on the internet governance sections, particularly paragraphs 57-64. Alexander highlighted that “the chapeau mentions multi-stakeholder but internet governance section focuses on multilateral and enhanced cooperation.” This shift from multi-stakeholder to multilateral language was viewed as problematic by multiple speakers.

Roman Danyliw from the Internet Engineering Task Force reinforced these concerns, arguing that the current framing “subordinates roles of non-governmental parties and loses reference to technical community and academia.” He emphasized that the internet has been successful through multi-stakeholder models for decades, not multilateral governance.

Jordan Carter from .au domain administration stated definitively that “it isn’t good enough for the UN process to argue that something is multilateral when it simply isn’t, never has been, never will be, never can be.”

### Missing Global Digital Compact Integration

Valeria Betancourt from the Association for Progressive Communications identified a critical gap in the Elements Paper’s treatment of the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Despite highlighting GDC implementation aspects, the document contained no explicit reference to GDC integration within the WSIS architecture.

Betancourt emphasized the lack of clarity on “how GDC focus areas fill gaps within WSIS action lines,” while Alexander noted the need for specificity on “how follow-up processes will link disparate work streams together.” Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government expressed disappointment about this omission, suggesting it represented a lack of courage from the co-facilitators.

### Human Rights and Inclusion Gaps

Civil society representatives highlighted significant gaps in human rights frameworks throughout the document. Betancourt noted the absence of “explicit references to international human rights law across the document” and missing provisions for “corporate accountability regarding human rights impacts.”

Anna Ossring from Article 19 reinforced these concerns, pointing out that the document lacked “clear grounding in international human rights, humanitarian, and refugee law.” She also noted “missing references to underserved communities and broader inclusion beyond women, girls, and children.”

### Artificial Intelligence Governance Approach

Danyliw raised concerns about the approach to artificial intelligence governance within the Elements Paper. He noted that “AI governance sections lack affordance for civil society, academia, or technical community input,” with responses to AI risks appearing “to favour multilateral approach rather than benefiting from broad stakeholder feedback.”

## Internet Governance Forum Mandate Discussion

The discussion of the Internet Governance Forum’s future proved particularly important. Benny from ICANN confirmed that the IGF mandate would be subject to review with proposals for renewal in the zero draft, expressing hope for extension or permanent status.

Bertrand de la Chapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network argued for discussion “that goes beyond just the question of the renewal.” He emphasized the need to discuss “what is the ambition that we have for the IGF” and called for consideration of “not only on the renewal of the mandate but on the evolution of the mandate… the institutionalisation of this organisation.”

Flavio Wagner from CGI.br and ISOC Brazil noted that “the structure of the Elements paper seems to give to the IGF the mandate only to discuss internet and nothing about AI or data governance.” He suggested stakeholders “would love to see the IGF as a kind of focal point for discussing all things about digital governance in general.”

## Technical Community Perspectives

Jennifer Chung from DotAsia highlighted inconsistent recognition of technical community contributions throughout the document. While there was “positive recognition of technical community in chapeau,” this recognition was notably “missing in specific internet governance paragraphs.”

Chung announced that the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism was “preparing input response to elements paper by July 15th deadline,” representing coordinated advocacy efforts from the technical community.

## Government Perspective

Jorge Cancio, representing the Swiss government, characterized the document as “comprehensive with space for community input, though some areas lack courage from the co-facilitators.” He emphasized that it served as “a skeleton overview requiring substantial input through consultation process until July 15th.”

## Next Steps and Community Response

Multiple organizations announced plans to submit comprehensive written contributions by the July 15th deadline. Israel Rosas mentioned that the Internet Society is drafting a rapid response and will open their written contribution for community endorsement.

ICANN announced plans to organize webinars through the WSIS Plus 20 Outreach Network, while various civil society organizations committed to coordinated advocacy efforts addressing human rights frameworks and inclusion gaps.

Participants emphasized the importance of engaging with national governments and joining national delegations to advocate for multi-stakeholder internet governance models. The consultation process provides opportunities for community input through online forums and direct submissions to co-facilitators.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed significant concerns about the Elements Paper’s approach to internet governance, integration frameworks, and stakeholder participation. The strong agreement among diverse stakeholders on key problems suggests potential for coordinated advocacy efforts during the consultation period.

The consultation period ending July 15th represents a critical opportunity for community input to influence the zero draft development. The success of these efforts will largely determine whether the final WSIS Plus 20 declaration adequately reflects evolved governance approaches and addresses the gaps identified by the stakeholder community.

Israel Rosas: Great. Welcome, everyone. Great. My name is Israel Rosas. I’m with the Internet Society. I’m part of the team working on the WSIS Plus Center Review. Our efforts of advocacy in the… All the mics are open, by the way, just for you to be aware. Channel 4. So we are going to start with this session. For those of you familiar with the WSIS Plus Center Review, this is going to assess the implementation of the Outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society many years after the adoption of these outcomes. Part of the process, in general, the process is going to be led by two ambassadors, one from Kenya, one from Albania. And the process should end with a high-level declaration to be adopted in the middle of December in the high-level meeting of the WSIS Plus Center Review. For reaching that point, the co-facilitators released something called an elements paper last Friday. That elements paper contains the earliest indication of the areas of focus, concern, attention of the WSIS Plus Center Review. So we are here to discuss briefly our quick take on the elements paper, some areas of interest for us. We are going to have also a space for you to share your thoughts. There are a couple of mics on the side of the room. We are going to have some space for the audience to participate. And there’s also a couple of QR codes where we are going to gather your input on the elements paper. And for that, we have here Valeria Betancourt from APC, Jennifer Chung from DotAsia, my colleague Monika. Fiona Gavala from the Internet Society, Fiona Alexander on his personal capacity Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government and Roman from the ITF So, just to have everything on time, we are going to start with this brief recap of the Elements paper For those of you who are not familiar with the process, we are going to be sharing some links on the Elements paper how to access to that. In fact, if you access to the QR that is on the sides, there is a link to the form for the feedback and you can access the Elements paper right from there So, in general, this is the early syndication of the areas that we have It’s a 9 pages long document and we are going to start analyzing this document in the context of our own interest We are from different stakeholders, from different regions, so we are hoping to have a diversity of perspectives And I’m going to start with a guiding question about what sections of the paper are most aligned with your vision At least from the Internet Society, we can say that it’s positive that the document highlights the validity of the WSIS framework It mentions that in the introduction Also in the introduction, there are a couple of explicit mentions to the technical community and the multi-stakeholder collaboration of the WSIS framework An implicit recognition of the Internet as a force for good in society related to digital economy, about social and cultural development So, it’s positive to see some aspects, but I would like to hear from Fiona first about these sections that are most aligned with your vision I’m going to have two minutes in here just to allow for all of us to participate

Fiona Alexander: Do you want to go to Benny? I think that we can go with you first and then with Benny Ok, so, sorry, this is a little bit weird, I’ll take it off when I talk so I don’t hear myself speaking Hello to everyone. I can’t see everyone in the audience, but it’s nice to be here and see people and to get together and talk about such an important topic that’s going to sort of lay out where we go from here until December. When I took a look at the elements paper, it’s really easy to kind of just look at the subheadings and focus on the one that you care most about. But my recommendation and observation is to not read a particular section in isolation, but to read the entire paper. So you can kind of get a flavor for all the things that are happening. And so when I read the paper, I read the Chapeau section and the Chapeau section really was very strong on some of the process and very strong, I think in addressing some of the challenges we saw last year with the GDC process, which I was pleased to see. And I was pleased to see so many references and acknowledgement of the importance of all stakeholders and much more of a collaborative process than we witnessed last year. But then as I started to read the subsections, I definitely saw two distinctive approaches. And I think that, I mean, I didn’t write the paper, so it’d be great to get some more information from the staff that were involved in writing the paper. But of the 15 specific issue sets, including the follow-up that then went on in the paper, there was two approaches. So the first seven issues or so really were kind of like, here’s our issue, here’s what’s happened in the 20 years since WSIS, and we’re going to seek your feedback to do X. And then in the next eight issue sets, the style was a little bit different. It was very starkly, here’s an issue. And when I read some of these things in particular, I was like, oh, I’m time-traveling back to 2003. So it’s a statement of what the issue was 20 years ago. And we’re going to deal with the issue as it goes forward. So from my perspective, I think it was a little hard to figure out where we might go in some of the issue sets. In particular, I was looking at internet governance, which is an issue near and dear to my heart. And I really was a little bit taken aback by some of the text being from 2003. But when I look at that text and I look at the upfront section, it gives me a little bit more comfort, because the upfront section talks about how multi-stakeholder is important. But then the text on internet governance is about multi-stakeholder. multilateral and the need for enhanced cooperation. So I think this week as we’re all here together and we talk and the conversation unfolds and we hear from the co-facilitators, it will be great to understand a little bit more what’s envisioned and then what the process will look like in terms of making sure that the final paper that gets agreed or the zero draft and as the process goes forward actually reflects everything that’s happened in 20 years. So I did find the paper a little bit uneven in that the first bucket of issues reflected the progress in 20 years and the second set of issues was just a statement of a problem from 20 years ago. So it would be great from my perspective to get some of that rectified going forward.

Israel Rosas: So maybe I would leave with that. Okay, great. Then we’re going to hear from Benny.

Speaker: Then I would like to hear from Roman just for you to start preparing. Benny, please. Thank you. And I agree with Fiona’s assessment of the paper. We at ICANN, we are doing actually our own assessment. The Elements paper was published Friday, today is, I’m not sure, Monday? Monday. And we were traveling to the IGF, but we are thinking of using the WSIS Plus 20 Outreach Network to organize a webinar maybe next week after the IGF or we’ll see whether we’re going to wait for the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event in Geneva the following week to discuss this and to publish something in writing before that. But obviously our interest is in the Internet governance section, so paragraph 57 and the following. And we’re going to see the co-facilitators here. We have a meeting with them. Clearly there is some language that has not been used since, as Fiona mentioned, maybe 2003. So we want to find out why suddenly the governance of the Internet says it should be multilateral since every text after WSIS agenda, WSIS Plus 10 outcome document and the global digital compact even on the section on Internet governance talks about multi-stakeholder and multilateral together, not separate, and clearly there is a lot of… need to do. But on the other hand, the fact that this Elements paper is published and the ICANN community is reacting already, I’ve heard personally a lot of people in the hallways talking to me about it, is an encouragement sign because it means people are paying attention and they now understand better how the UN processes are actually working with regards to governments meet and then they come with a paper that we only can discuss after that. So we encourage everyone again to reach out to their national governments, talk to them if they can get on their national delegations or on the experts groups within their governments to talk to them about the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, the role of the technical community, which should be also stressed, and the continuation of the IGF. Thank you.

Israel Rosas: Great. Thank you. Then, Roman, please, and after that, for you to start preparing your contributions, Valeria, and then Jen, please.

Roman Danyliw: Well, before I start, I want to thank the Internet Society for inviting me and all the rest of us here to talk about this important issue. Reacting to the paper in broad source, first, it was very nice to see that there’s a recognition that the information society is very broad and that there’s targeted approaches to talking about what digital governance means across a lot of different dimensions. It explicitly calls out things like Internet. It calls out data. It calls AI governance as distinct. And as mentioned, the styles were written up in different ways, but it talks about, really, the differences between those, and it’s not an attempt to put them in a monolithic kind of bunch and talk about a one-size-fits-all approach, which seemed to be pervasive across the paper. Next, it was really nice to see, in a number of different places, stressing the importance of capacity building across those different technology areas and recognizing that that’s really the bedrock of how we start closing the digital divide across all the different parts of the information society. Coming from the Internet Engineering Task Force, a standards development organization for Internet protocols, as others have mentioned, we’re very much focused on…

Valeria Betancourt: It’s very important because, as others have mentioned, so far the content doesn’t seem to reflect what has been discussed, not only through the framework of the conversations and the consultations as part of the Plus20 review, but also doesn’t seem to encompass all the conversations and the evolutions that have been happening in relation to the issues in the past 20 years. So I think some indication and clarification from the COFAX in relation to the status of the descriptive text and how that is going to evolve would be very, very important. I think that basically that’s my initial reaction.

Israel Rosas: OK, thank you. Jen, please.

Jennifer Chung: Thanks, Isra. Thank you again for the invitation to speak here and react quite quickly to the Elements paper. My name is Jennifer Chung. I’m with DotAsia organization, but of course speaking really with the point of view of technical community as well. I think it was, I absolutely agree with Fiona looking at the chapeau. I think the language there is a little more developed, of course, as technical community. We’re happy to see us reflected there, but not so much when we go down to the paragraphs specifically talking about Internet governance. I think that’s something that we are focused very much on. I don’t know if everyone in this room has heard of a technical community coalition for multistakeholderism, TCCM. But the day before, day minus one, we actually had a full day event with the members to have an initial discussion on first reactions on the Elements paper. I think it was a really good discussion. I think some of them called out that, you know, digital governance is a newer term that has been seen in GDC, but not in previous, I guess, Tunis agenda and other language. And it’s a good reflection of that going forward. Another thing that, I mean, now speaking with DotAsia hat on that we were quite happy to see, of course, paragraph 33 is the internationalized domain names and the multilingual Internet. I think that’s also near and dear to ICANN, also the ICANN community as well. That’s a welcome language in there. And then finally, just… a little bit more first reactions looking at the the last part of the elements paper we noticed that there is a it’s quite sparse on monitoring measurement and especially on follow-up so I’m expecting that co-facilitators are looking to have input on this specifically and I think for us as you know the internet governance community that’s where we really need to also focus our efforts on whether or not it’s from us or whether it’s into negotiations I think that is something that we’ll see a lot of change and fluctuations thank you and it’s important that you mentioned the

Israel Rosas: different aspects where people can make some advocacy Jorge please so hello

Jorge Cancio: hello everyone I hope you hear me okay Jorge Cancio with government so first of all thank you for the invitation as to the elements paper as was mentioned we saw it on Friday so it’s we are still digesting what it’s what is in there but we already had the information from COFAX or from their teams that they wouldn’t put anything controversial into the elements paper so it didn’t come as a surprise to us that many things are missing at least we see it as a skeleton as a overview of topics and we will have to fill it with with a lot of substance especially through the consultation that is going on until July 15th so I invite everybody to put their thoughts into that with proposals as specific as possible language proposals we will try to do the same as many of you know there’s a non paper floating around with some ideas that we have been developing with many stakeholders over the last many months. So we will be building on that in our input to the consultation. And yeah, of course, seeing this multilateral text there brought me memories of when I was 20 years younger. But let’s not get anxious because this is just a skeleton, an overview. I don’t think that this is a signal or something that we should be scared of.

Israel Rosas: Thank you. And I think it’s a good segue into the following question, because I was about to ask you if you identify anything surprising either in tone or in tone or content. And again, we understand that it’s maybe way too early to have like a complete review. And that’s why we are having this session here. We are drafting as well our rapid response that we are hoping to inform after these interactions. Because, of course, for us, we found even more evolved text in the Global Digital Compact about the nature of the Internet, because that mentions open, global, interoperable, stable and secure. And this elements paper is only limiting to open, interoperable. Again, the dimension to multistate, the multilateral Internet governance, and some opportunities missed on how to link the GDC implementation to the WSIS framework. So I would like to start with Benny about if there’s anything surprising either in tone or content in the paper.

Speaker: I don’t know if we can call it surprising, but point 62 says that the mandate of the IGF is subject to this review and proposals on the renewal of its mandate will be presented in the zero draft. So I think it’s a good thing that the zero draft will be talking about the renewal of the IGF mandate, because there were some conversations going on around, you know, at the… at the UN, whether we do need an IGF or whether it should be, I mean, you may remember or some of you may remember that in the Global Digital Compact negotiations there was an idea to create a digital cooperation forum which eventually would have replaced the need to have an IGF. As the only multi-stakeholder forum under the UN umbrella, recognized even last year in the GDC as the most important place for discussions, we are hoping that the IGF will be extended, maybe even they will consider to not renew it just for another 10 years but make it permanent, and that will give stability to the IGF and more predictability with regards to searching for funds and finding resources that will support the work of the Secretariat who, by the way, we are here because of the work of the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA and this is one of the things which I think is actually a very positive thing in the part about Internet Governance. And as Jorge and others are saying that once we have more substantive view on this particular part that is touching in many ways to ICANN’s mission, we will have more views to share on the WSIS Plus 20 Outreach Network. I should have mentioned for those of you who are not subscribed, just go to the ICANN webpage, ICANN.org, find the government engagement page and there you can subscribe for the WSIS Plus 20 Outreach Network. Thank you. Awesome.

Israel Rosas: Thank you. I would like then to go with Roman and then with Valeria for you to start preparing your ideas. So, Roman, please.

Roman Danyliw: So in terms of surprise, I think many have already mentioned this, but really to repeat that the framing of the current text around kind of Internet Governance in element points, you know, 57 and a little higher is just not consistent with how the Internet has been successful for the last several decades through a broad multi-stakeholder model. There is, of course, you know, the specific word swaps we were talking about, the use of multilateral versus multi-stakeholder, which really is subordinating. subordinating the roles of those outside of the national government. And it’s inconsistent with how things were written up in the last week’s review. I think some of the other words are just the the reenumeration in a different way, inconsistent, again, kind of with the past of those nongovernmental parties. We’ve lost the word technical community there. We’ve lost academia. And it just begs kind of fundamental kind of questions about whose input is going to be considered, whose input is valued, and what is the process by which that’s going to be put together and evaluated? Because right now, it’s these words full involvement. And so there’s a lot that needs to be unpacked. And we need to look at what’s been working for the last couple of decades and make sure that gets rolled into the language. So I was a little kind of surprised that we haven’t learned that from the last several decades of success on the Internet that have transformed so many economies and brought so much so much advancement around the sustainability goals and things like health care services and education.

Israel Rosas: Great. Thank you. Valeria, please.

Valeria Betancourt: Yes, thank you. In order not to repeat what has been said, which I agree, there were surprises for me as well. I could mention that despite the fact that the spectrum of issues is broad and it’s good to see those issues on the table and even the recognition of emerging issues such as the artificial intelligence and data governance that are key elements of the implementation of the GDC, it is surprising to see that there is no reference to precisely the integration of the GDC within the WSIS architecture. So even though those aspects of the GDC implementation are highlighted, the elements paper does not give insights in terms of how the processes will be integrated. I could have hoped that there were some indications in that regard. So hopefully that will be developed through that.

Israel Rosas: Awesome. Thank you very much. Then I will keep in that side of the table. Jan, please.

Jennifer Chung: Thanks Isra, I think I mean I wish I could be like Valeria and not repeat it but I think it’s important to to kind of hone in on and highlight again the language and I guess paragraph 59 and sorry it’s 59 and 60. I mean obviously it does come from Tunis language but the fact that it comes out quite glaringly it does feel like what Fiona says you know it’s a step back there and also the way that it’s framed maybe it’s an unintended consequence maybe it’s something that stakeholders should really kind of you know actually highlight even more the dichotomy between 59 and 60 is quite stark and maybe the unintended consequences are we limiting you know the governance to this multilateral thing and then you can talk about inter-unit governance at the IGF so kind of just like siloing IGF into this kind of just again defanged talk shop even though it is really meant to be a policy shaping place not that it’s just talk and then we go away and we do nothing. Another thing that of course comes up again as is enhanced cooperation I think again how we look to this conversation is going to be quite critical. I know that there will be a lot of back and forth and negotiations about this you know 63, 64 and then it would be also interesting to hear from other stakeholders how we’re going to look at this as well because there is a lot of baggage around this phase enhanced corporation and already we hear you know rumblings from you know how different states are thinking about this so I think it will be quite interesting to see how we would be able to also opine on this it’s really important. Great thank you then I will go

Israel Rosas: with Jorge and finally with Fiona please. Okay so without a warning no but basically the

Jorge Cancio: the positive surprises if it’s a surprise is that the document is quite comprehensive so we it’s as I said before an overview full of placeholders but there’s space to put or to include our inputs for during this public consultation that that is ongoing until 15th of July which I repeat please make your voice heard and make your inputs what surprised me a little bit negatively apart from other things that were mentioned is really the point raised by Valeria because after all we’ve heard a lot of a lot of common ground on the need of avoiding duplication of integrating GDC implementation into WSIS that’s coming from many many places so I wouldn’t have thought that this is controversial so that it has to wait for the zero draft to to be included so maybe that’s the the negative point and where I would have expected a bit more of courage from the co-facilitators and the secretariat

Fiona Alexander: so I have one thing that I was really pleasantly surprised by which I don’t usually get to say but I do think the recognition of all the work that everyone’s done over the years on internationalized domain names was a really nice thing that that’s actually in there as a positive I do remember the first IGF and IDNs were a big topic so it’s great to see that and it’s great to actually see the specific reference to ICANN I spent many years arguing inside the UN system where people would never even accept a reference to ICANN in a footnote so the fact that it’s in the document at the outset I thought was great and that’s a great point of evolution here so agreeing with some of the other stuff that’s been said about internet governance I think I found challenging but the one sentence that very last one about enhanced cooperation I’m a little bit perplexed by because it says there will be proposals on how to improve enhanced cooperation as in I don’t know what that’s going to be. We’ve had two working groups on enhanced cooperation. We’ve had the system evolve in the earlier debates about enhanced cooperation. For some people, there was a lot of conversation about the U.S. government’s relationship with ICANN. That’s all evolved. So I’m not quite sure what we’re going to be talking about on enhanced cooperation. So I thought that paragraph 62, that last one in that section, assumed a certain thing. And I’m a little perplexed as to what the assumption is. And listening to the government discussions about this, it was great. DESA had it on Web TV. You could listen in. I didn’t actually hear that many countries calling for enhanced cooperation. So I’m a little bit perplexed on that one. I think that’s the one I probably find the most surprising.

Israel Rosas: Good to identify that. Yes, Benny, please.

Speaker: Just to add something. Unfortunately, I have to leave for a meeting. I cannot postpone. But I was not surprised. That’s why I didn’t mention the mentioning of ICANN, because, you know, you ask what are we surprised of. Because I think it’s a recognition for the work in multilingualism and connecting the unconnected. ICANN has done a lot of work in internationalized domain name, universal acceptance, and other technical stuff that most people don’t really know enough about, which is good, because we are doing it quietly and involving all the interested parties to help, you know, open the domain name space for scripts different than Latin. And with the new GTOD program, which is starting next year, we are hoping to bring even more of those countries. And this has been a theme that we used, by the way, in our conversations since the beginning of the IGF in different bilateral settings. So I think this is one of the reasons why, you know, when you ask the way you frame the question, really is what is surprising. And I think that between now and the zero draft, which is expected sometime in August, as Jorge mentioned, there is time until July 15th, I think, to send comments. On the elements paper, we should all do that as much as we can, you know, and in the areas that we are interested in. We’ve met the co-facilitators. They’re very reasonable and skilled diplomats, and their staff is amazing. So I think they will take a listening to what we submit, because the more information we put together, the better. And we have seen, by the way, this also with the UNDESA preparation for the multi-stakeholder consultations, how they’re informing people in advance when they’re speaking, what’s the order, etc. We didn’t see that at all in the GDC, so it’s a very big progress from that time, and we hope our participation and contribution will be meaningful. Thank you. Absolutely. No, thank you. And we have 28

Israel Rosas: minutes left, a question remaining, because we want to hear also from you and from the people in the remote participation. My colleague Mona is taking note of the people that would like to take the floor, because after this question, we are going to ask you, if you could flag one idea that needs the most attention or refinement, what would it be? And for that, we are going to have mics at the sides of the room, and we are going to have the remote participation enabled. So for you to start thinking what would be that answer, and as of now, I would like to ask the speakers, and I’m going to start with Valeria. Are there important issues that were left out? I know that you mentioned something in the previous round, but what other issues would you consider?

Valeria Betancourt: Yes, I think, obviously, it is very important to see explicit reference to the Human Rights Council resolution that acknowledges that the same human rights that apply offline apply also online, but I think references in relation to the international human rights law across the document could have been nice. I think that’s a a gap obviously that’s completely missing. As I mentioned also linkages with with no linkages, but the Indivisibility of rights and the recognition that not only civil and political rights are important But the economic social and cultural rights at least I mentioned about the importance of that I think there is also a gap on that regard And as I mentioned the issue of Corporate accountability particularly in relation to the impact on human rights is absent And references to the broad definition of internet governance. That’s what I want to highlight because Several have explained here in this panel why that is important not only in terms of acknowledging the evolution of the conversation, but also You know because of the scope of governance at all levels Those are the ones that I could highlight Underscoring those ones. Okay, perfect

Israel Rosas: Then I’m going to go with Roman then with Fiona just for you to start preparing with no surprises

Roman Danyliw: So to move a little bit away from internet governance to revisit the parts of the paper that are around AI There’s prominent kind of treatment kind of there and the paper obviously highlights the pace of kind of change across all the different sectors and then talks about the risks Associated with it and ensuring how AI doesn’t grow the digital divide and so framing that as the problem in element in elements 61 to kind of 63 the response is the solution when you look at element point 73 to 76 appears to be the answer is Multi multilateral approach to kind of governance So really I think for future conversation is really you’re dealing with with a rapidly changing kind of technology Lots of innovation that’s that’s changing things around the world there’s risks that aren’t understood, really why, given all that change that’s happening, do you not want to benefit from the broad feedback of lots of different stakeholders there? So I think really for discussion is the only paper currently, when it talks about AI, really has no affordance for civil society, for academia, or the technical community, when you talk about AI governance. And, you know, back to the notion of internet governance, if you think about the, you know, 20, kind of 30 years ago, we also had a technology that was rapidly changing, was innovating, and was changing kind of the world over the last couple decades, called the internet. And that multi-stakeholder process kind of worked. So I think as we kind of think about what’s left out is, I think it’s further discussion

Israel Rosas: on inclusion of a broader set of stakeholders in AI governance. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Fiona, please. And after that, Jorge, and then Jen, please.

Fiona Alexander: Yeah, when I think about what’s missing explicitly is some clarity on how all these things are going to sync up. When I think about GDC, and I think about what’s going to happen next, and there’s that line at the end about follow-up will, you know, be proposals for follow-up. It would be great to see some more specificity about how any follow-up would actually link all these things together as to having these disparate work streams. There’s a reference in the artificial intelligence section about the importance of linking up with GDC, but I didn’t see it across the others. And I was just double checking. I didn’t remember really reading anything about the WSIS forum, which I found a little bit surprising. And so at the end of WSIS, you know, there was this review process set up to renew the mandate of IGF every five years and every 10 years. But also this WSIS forum was created originally for the UN agencies to get together every year in Geneva and report on how they were implementing the WSIS action lines. And now the WSIS forum has evolved and is a little bit bigger and has some policy components too. But the WSIS forum and that meeting in Geneva every year was the way for the UN agencies tasked with implementing WSIS to report. So I found it a little bit weird that there’s not really anything on WSIS forum

Israel Rosas: in the paper. That was my other observation. No, that’s right. And in fact, during Japan’s A couple of hours ago, Gitanjali mentioned their surprise. Yeah, Valeria.

Valeria Betancourt: Just in relation to this point that Fiona brought up, I think another gap in the document is precisely how, for instance, the focus areas of the GDC or within the GDC fill also the gaps within the action lines.

Israel Rosas: I think that brings to the integration of the processes that is still missing. Great. Thank you very much. Yes, please. It’s my turn. So, yeah, basically what I mentioned before, what’s missing is the how. The how is very important. We have lots of language on the substance.

Jorge Cancio: Well, basically we negotiated the substance less than one year ago with the GDC. So I don’t think there will be big changes to the substance or where we can agree at the UN level. But on the how, that’s really an open question. It’s an open question. How do we integrate the GDC implementation into other structures? How we avoid duplication? How we avoid proliferation of processes that kill inclusion, that are very difficult for smaller stakeholders, which means spending money on duplicative things. So that’s a lot of questions. And there have been also many proposals how to improve the UN Group on the Information Society, how we can include newer agencies, also the Office on Digital and Emerging Technologies. We are going to look into that work, how we can improve the work of the CSTD. By the way, the CSTD agreed in April, I think, on a couple of things on how to do this integration. And I don’t see also the text of those resolutions in the proposal of the elements paper. And, of course, it’s also the question how we strengthen the IGF so that the IGF really fulfills to the largest extent possible its mandate. And there I’m looking forward also to very innovative ideas. And I see Bertrand there at the mic. And really it’s for the community to come forward. We, Member States, we, of course, make our proposals. You can talk to us or check them if you have them. But it’s really the community who has to be really bold and really innovative.

Israel Rosas: Thank you. Thank you. We are going to go with Dien. And after that, we are going to start with the participation from the floor. I see that it’s Bertrand and Carlos. And also probably we have some people in the Zoom session. So just start thinking about your answer, one idea or element that needs the most attention. Just to close this round, please. Thanks, Joshua. I’ll be brief because we want to hear from all of you here as well.

Jennifer Chung: Again, reiterating that, you know, the gap and the missing part is the dimension of the, you know, technical community called out by itself. Recognizing of that, especially in the Internet Governance paragraphs. Valeria mentioned, you know, the missing part of the GDC implementation. We see echoes of the final GDC text in it. But there is no explicit kind of tie-in of that implementation. That’s missing as well. And finally, I counted through the whole Elements paper, it only mentions inclusion three times, and digital inclusion only once. And I think Fiona said very well in the beginning, you have to look at it in a whole cohesive manner and splitting, you know, bridging the digital divide and the capacity building parts. It doesn’t seem like those two sections actually talk to each other, so there’s a big missing gap there as well. And then finally, again, back to TCCM, Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism, Jordan Carter from OUDA, so the .AU domain administration, he’s leading the draft on the input that we’re trying to do for part of the Internet technical community to respond to the Elements paper by the 15th of July. I see him in the room, so I’m not going to really do that, but I am kind of putting him on the spot to see if he can say a little more.

Israel Rosas: Thank you. Thanks. So, we can go with our colleagues here in the floor, but also in the Zoom session. If you’re interested in sharing your thoughts, you can do so in the chat or raising your hand, and then we are going to enable the microphone for you.

Audience: Carlos, please, your name and affiliation, please. Thank you very much. Carlos Vera from the Internet Society Ecuadorian Chapter. Very nice initiative, Isra, I thank you very much. I would like to be sure that the mechanism for comment is working. We send some comments on the paper, and I hope you receive. I see that we share maybe not the same worries, maybe not the same surprise, but for sure the same interest in serodraft, and also in the multistakeholder mechanism. We will continue to work in the working group. So let’s continue the discussion. Thank you very much awesome. Thank you, and in fact you were the first respondent to that QR code

Israel Rosas: So thank you for that Do we have any participation online?

Audience: Yeah, good afternoon, my name is Bertrand de la Chapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network I will focus on one point which is basically the item 62 that deals with the mandate of the IGF And I think what is missing is to have a discussion that goes beyond just the question of the renewal We are discussing almost exclusively whether there should be a renewal whether it should be 10 years or permanent I personally of course support the idea of having it permanent But I think it’s even more important to discuss What is the ambition that we have for the IGF all of us here or a lot of us here? Really believe in what this organization can be I take as a positive element that some of the sessions that I attended this morning are Reiterating and thanks to Jen by the way for having said that The notion that the IGF is a decision shaping an agenda setting a framing Thing and the session on the wig gig for those of you who were able to attend Highlighted the importance of the documentation role of a secretariat all the work that we’re doing here needs to be Documented even if it is not a consensus, even if it is the representation of the different positions So the key question is What is the IGF that we hope to see can we have a discussion that will not be finalized? Definitely by December, but can we have something in the documents that will come in December? That says we need to have a serious discussion not only on the renewal of the mandate But on the evolution of the mandate and an expression that has been used also in the last few months The institutionalization of this organization, which at the moment is a little bit ad hoc. It is starting just with this agenda, but it has been built bottom-up in a certain way. But it is time at 20 years old to become a full-fledged structure. So I think we need to think about what we want, or at least to think about where we should and when we should discuss the mandate evolution and the structure. Great, thank you. And also for the colleagues here in the room or in the virtual session,

Israel Rosas: if you want also to share spaces or opportunities for people to engage in this process, if you are drafting a written contribution, you are planning to endorse or to open any other participation space, you can also use this opportunity to share it. Jordan, please.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Jordan Carter. I work for the .au domain administration. We are one of the seven organizations that have come together in the secretariat for the TCCM coalition that Jennifer kindly mentioned. We will be doing an input on here, but I’m not here to talk about that so much. If you want to talk about TCCM with us, please do feel free to do any with the 40 or so members from all around the world. But I wanted to reflect on the question that you asked, Israel, which is like the most important thing. And I think broadly speaking, it is to make sure that when the zero draft comes out, it reflects the actuality of how Internet governance has evolved in the past 20 years. We’ve noted other speakers that there are sort of statements from 2003 Tunis in there. And I think we need to build from the perambulation through the journey of the WSIS plus 10 review, the GDC, the CSTD resolutions and so on, to just show that this medium, this system of the Internet is irrevocably multi-stakeholder and must be recognized as such. It isn’t good enough. for the UN process to argue that something is multilateral when it simply isn’t, never has been, never will be, never can be. So I think we should be quite strong on that in quite a warm way because the system has already acknowledged it through all these other discussions. So I think that’s an underlying thing about the permanence of the IGF mandate. It’s an underlying thing about telling the story of all of the small e, small c enhanced cooperation that has been done through the IGF system and all the other institutions.

Israel Rosas: So I think that’s one of the key things we need to do in our inputs. Awesome, thank you. Then our colleague in the first mic, name and affiliation, please.

Audience: Hi, my name is Anna Ossring and I’m from Article 19, a local to global human rights organization working on free speech and related rights. We also are part of the global digital rights coalition on WSIS, which brings together a number of civil society working on the WSIS process. A lot has been said, especially on internet governance, so I’m not going to go to that. I also have a lot of questions on enhanced cooperation and all the other paras that have been mentioned. I want to mention something that Valeria mentioned that I really want to amplify. One really simple thing, human rights. So paragraph 43 starts very promising because it says human rights are central to the WSIS vision. Now, if you ask me personally after that, this section kind of goes downhill. What we’re missing is a clear reference, a clear grounding in international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international refugee law. I’m not seeing that. And I feel like in terms of all the things that I’ve heard in the consultations, that was given as input. And so it’s a bit of a shame to not see this here reflected as this is an issues paper, an elements paper and should reflect that. The second thing that is really missing, and you mentioned it about inclusion, it does speak about certain groups. women and girls, children. It is missing a whole host of groups, underserved communities, out of reach, however you want to describe them. Inclusion is absolutely critical to realizing the WSIS vision. This is not in this text. So that’s something we really need to think about how we can bring that element of inclusivity. And because I cannot help myself and I work for Article 19, Article 19, clue is in the name, paragraph 48 is incorrect. It says that international rights agreements permit restrictions on expression, et cetera, et cetera. This is not what the international rights agreements say. So I would like to, I will definitely make a proposal as part of my submission to make sure that at least this reflects the correct three-part test that is known in international human rights law and accepted by pretty much everyone in the world.

Israel Rosas: Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any remote participation? No, perfect. Also next steps, what’s going to happen next, but after that, before that, I’m going to give the floor to Flavio, but if you would like to share anything that you’re planning to do as next steps, please feel free to share it. I’m going to share our next steps. Flavio, please. Thank you, Israel.

Audience: So Flavio Wagner from CGI.br and also ISOC Brazil. Many of the panelists already mentioned this, yeah, about the future of the IJF and we see that there are three different sections in the elements paper. One which is titled internet governance and within this section, we see references to the IJF and the renewal of its mandate. There are different sections handling AI and data governance. They are separate. And there is no reference to the IJF in the sections on AI and on data governance. So it seems that, yeah, coming back 20 years, yeah, that the IGF is only for internet governance. While we would love to see the IGF as a kind of focal point for discussing all things about digital governance in general. And taking some of the good ideas of the non-paper as Jorge has suggested to us, there is this discussion whether we should maybe rebrand the IGF and call it Digital Governance Forum or something like that. But which is what makes clear that is not only about internet. It’s about digital cooperation in general. It’s about digital transformation processes in general. So the structure of the Elements paper seems to give to the IGF the mandate only to discuss internet and nothing about AI or data governance. And that there is even the reference in paragraph 69, there is the reference on the CSTD working group on data governance. So a different space. And in paragraph 75, in the section on AI, there is a reference to the high-level advisory board on AI. So a different space discussing AI. So the structure already separate things, yeah. Perfect. Thank you. And last call for the remote participation. Going once, going

Israel Rosas: twice. And also the NRIs are not mentioned in the Elements paper. I just wanted to say that. So next steps. What’s going to happen next? Jorge mentioned that. Veni mentioned that as well. There’s a window to submit written contributions until July 15. The co-facilitators have enabled an online forum for them to collect the input from the community. If you follow that QR that are on the side of the room, that contains also the link not only to our forum, but that redirects to the link to the co-facilitators for you to see the questions they are asking. They are inviting for specific feedback on specific… The Elements Paper is open for discussion in the online forum, but we would like to ask each of you specific questions in the online forum. If you want to create your written contribution, you can do so. You can inform your thinking. There’s the Non-Paper shared by the Swiss government, also a Non-Paper by the Australian government, some other resources. At the Internet Society we released also our Non-Paper last week, a conversation opener for you to gather some ideas, some thoughts. We are going to use the interactions that we got here in this session and during this IGF week to publish a rapid response to the Elements Paper, something brief, a quick reaction. But we are also going to construct our written contribution based on the community’s input. That’s why we have that QR code in there. If you don’t have the time or the energy to go and write your own contribution, you can share your thoughts and we are going to take into consideration your ideas for our own. We are going to open our written contribution for endorsement by our chapters and members. But if you would like to create your own written contribution and you have questions, we have a community working group if you are a member. It’s free to join. We support any community working group. You can do so from your membership page. There’s also a mailing list hosted by ICANN, the Wix Plus 20 Outreach Network. We’ve seen many emails going in that network. So in general, there are many opportunities to contribute. So the invitation here is just to keep talking to each other, ask questions. It’s totally valid that at this point, of course, the Elements Paper was released on Friday. Many of us just went through the document quickly. We are going to have more ideas in the coming years. So keep the ideas going. Keep the conversation going, please, because if we have more views, more thoughts… in that consultation, the zero draft is going to be stronger. So the important part in here is that if we don’t share our thoughts, if we don’t share our input, that zero draft is going to be built based only on whatever stakeholders participating are going to say and we want our views in there. That’s why our invitation to create, to submit your own written contributions, to reach out to other organizations who are doing so. So I want to thank my colleagues who joined me today in this session and we will keep facing each other here in the IEF 2025. We will see what happens next year. We will have another IEF or what’s going to happen. So thank you very much and yeah, we’ll see you in the halls. Thanks. Thank you.

Agreement points

Elements Paper has uneven structure and approach

Speakers

– Fiona Alexander
– Speaker
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

Document shows uneven approach with first seven issues reflecting 20-year progress while latter eight issues read like 2003 problem statements

Elements paper serves as a skeleton overview requiring substantial input through consultation process until July 15th

Summary

Multiple speakers agreed that the Elements Paper has structural inconsistencies, with some sections reflecting 20 years of progress while others revert to outdated 2003 language, requiring substantial community input to improve

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multilateral vs Multi-stakeholder language is problematic

Speakers

– Fiona Alexander
– Speaker
– Roman Danyliw
– Audience

Arguments

Language inconsistency where chapeau mentions multi-stakeholder but internet governance section focuses on multilateral and enhanced cooperation

ICANN community is reacting to multilateral language since recent texts combine multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches

Current framing subordinates roles of non-governmental parties and loses reference to technical community and academia

Need to reflect actuality of how Internet governance evolved over 20 years rather than reverting to 2003 statements

Summary

Strong consensus that the shift from multi-stakeholder to multilateral language in internet governance sections is problematic and inconsistent with how internet governance has actually evolved over 20 years

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Missing integration between GDC and WSIS frameworks

Speakers

– Valeria Betancourt
– Fiona Alexander
– Israel Rosas

Arguments

Missing explicit reference to GDC integration within WSIS architecture despite highlighting GDC implementation aspects

Need for specificity on how follow-up processes will link disparate work streams together

Missed opportunities to link GDC implementation to WSIS framework compared to more evolved GDC text

Summary

Speakers agreed that the paper fails to adequately address how the Global Digital Compact will be integrated with the WSIS framework, representing a significant coordination gap

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Technical community recognition is inconsistent

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung
– Roman Danyliw
– Israel Rosas

Arguments

Positive recognition of technical community in chapeau but missing in specific internet governance paragraphs

Current framing subordinates roles of non-governmental parties and loses reference to technical community and academia

Document highlights validity of WSIS framework and mentions technical community collaboration positively

Summary

Agreement that while the technical community is recognized in the introduction, this recognition disappears in specific governance sections, creating inconsistency in acknowledging their role

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Human rights framework is inadequately addressed

Speakers

– Valeria Betancourt
– Audience

Arguments

Missing explicit references to international human rights law across the document

Document lacks clear grounding in international human rights, humanitarian, and refugee law

Summary

Consensus that the document fails to properly ground discussions in international human rights law frameworks, despite acknowledging human rights as central to WSIS vision

Topics

Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers appreciated positive recognition of technical community contributions while noting inconsistencies in how this recognition is applied throughout the document

Speakers

– Fiona Alexander
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Document shows specific recognition of ICANN’s work on internationalized domain names as positive evolution

Positive recognition of technical community in chapeau but missing in specific internet governance paragraphs

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasized the need for broader multi-stakeholder participation in emerging technology governance, particularly AI, rather than limiting discussions to government-only forums

Speakers

– Roman Danyliw
– Audience

Arguments

AI governance sections lack affordance for civil society, academia, or technical community input

IGF should be focal point for all digital governance discussions, not just internet governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both highlighted significant gaps in addressing inclusion and accountability, particularly regarding corporate responsibility and underserved populations

Speakers

– Valeria Betancourt
– Audience

Arguments

Absence of corporate accountability regarding human rights impacts

Missing references to underserved communities and broader inclusion beyond women, girls, and children

Topics

Human rights

Unexpected consensus

ICANN recognition in UN document

Speakers

– Fiona Alexander
– Speaker

Arguments

Document shows specific recognition of ICANN’s work on internationalized domain names as positive evolution

ICANN community is reacting to multilateral language since recent texts combine multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches

Explanation

Unexpected positive consensus on ICANN being explicitly mentioned in the UN document, which historically has been difficult to achieve. This represents significant progress in UN recognition of technical organizations

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Need for IGF evolution beyond simple mandate renewal

Speakers

– Audience
– Speaker

Arguments

Need discussion beyond just renewal to address IGF’s ambition, evolution, and institutionalization after 20 years

IGF mandate subject to review with proposals for renewal in zero draft, hoping for extension or permanent status

Explanation

Unexpected consensus on moving beyond traditional mandate renewal discussions to address fundamental questions about IGF’s future role and institutionalization, suggesting readiness for more ambitious reforms

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on key structural and substantive issues with the Elements Paper, including problematic language shifts, missing integration frameworks, and inadequate stakeholder recognition

Consensus level

High level of consensus among diverse stakeholders (government, technical community, civil society, international organizations) on fundamental problems with the document, suggesting these issues will likely be major focus areas for community input and negotiations leading to the zero draft

Different viewpoints

Internet governance approach – multilateral vs multi-stakeholder

Speakers

– Fiona Alexander
– Speaker
– Roman Danyliw
– Jennifer Chung
– Audience

Arguments

Language inconsistency where chapeau mentions multi-stakeholder but internet governance section focuses on multilateral and enhanced cooperation

ICANN community is reacting to multilateral language since recent texts combine multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches

Current framing subordinates roles of non-governmental parties and loses reference to technical community and academia

Positive recognition of technical community in chapeau but missing in specific internet governance paragraphs

Need to reflect actuality of how Internet governance evolved over 20 years rather than reverting to 2003 statements

Summary

Speakers strongly disagreed with the Elements paper’s reversion to multilateral language for internet governance, arguing that this contradicts 20 years of evolution toward multi-stakeholder approaches and undermines the roles of technical community, civil society, and academia

Topics

Legal and regulatory

IGF scope and mandate – internet-only vs broader digital governance

Speakers

– Audience

Arguments

IGF should be focal point for all digital governance discussions, not just internet governance

Structure separates IGF from AI and data governance discussions, limiting its scope artificially

Need discussion beyond just renewal to address IGF’s ambition, evolution, and institutionalization after 20 years

Summary

There was disagreement about whether the IGF should remain focused on internet governance specifically or expand to become a broader digital governance forum covering AI, data governance, and other emerging technologies

Topics

Legal and regulatory

AI governance approach – multilateral vs multi-stakeholder inclusion

Speakers

– Roman Danyliw

Arguments

AI governance sections lack affordance for civil society, academia, or technical community input

Internet’s success with multi-stakeholder approach should inform AI governance given similar rapid technological change

Summary

Disagreement over whether AI governance should follow a multilateral approach (as suggested in the Elements paper) or include broader multi-stakeholder participation based on the internet’s successful governance model

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Enhanced cooperation revival

Speakers

– Fiona Alexander
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Perplexed by enhanced cooperation proposals given previous working groups and system evolution

Enhanced cooperation language carries significant baggage requiring careful navigation

Explanation

The unexpected revival of enhanced cooperation discussions was surprising given that this issue was considered largely resolved through previous working groups and system evolution, yet it appears prominently in the Elements paper

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Human rights framework gaps

Speakers

– Valeria Betancourt
– Audience

Arguments

Missing explicit references to international human rights law across the document

Document lacks clear grounding in international human rights, humanitarian, and refugee law

Incorrect statement about international rights agreements permitting expression restrictions

Explanation

Unexpected that basic human rights frameworks and legal foundations would be missing or incorrectly stated in a document addressing digital governance, especially given extensive previous consultations on these issues

Topics

Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement centered on governance approaches (multilateral vs multi-stakeholder), the scope of IGF mandate, integration of processes, and adequacy of human rights frameworks. Most disagreements were not between speakers but between speakers and the Elements paper’s approach.

Disagreement level

Moderate to high disagreement with the Elements paper’s direction, but strong consensus among speakers on needed corrections. This suggests the community is unified in opposition to certain aspects of the paper, which could lead to coordinated advocacy efforts but also potential conflict with government positions that may support the multilateral approaches outlined in the paper.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers appreciated positive recognition of technical community contributions while noting inconsistencies in how this recognition is applied throughout the document

Speakers

– Fiona Alexander
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Document shows specific recognition of ICANN’s work on internationalized domain names as positive evolution

Positive recognition of technical community in chapeau but missing in specific internet governance paragraphs

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasized the need for broader multi-stakeholder participation in emerging technology governance, particularly AI, rather than limiting discussions to government-only forums

Speakers

– Roman Danyliw
– Audience

Arguments

AI governance sections lack affordance for civil society, academia, or technical community input

IGF should be focal point for all digital governance discussions, not just internet governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both highlighted significant gaps in addressing inclusion and accountability, particularly regarding corporate responsibility and underserved populations

Speakers

– Valeria Betancourt
– Audience

Arguments

Absence of corporate accountability regarding human rights impacts

Missing references to underserved communities and broader inclusion beyond women, girls, and children

Topics

Human rights

Key takeaways

The WSIS Plus 20 Elements Paper shows an uneven structure with early sections reflecting 20 years of progress while later sections revert to 2003-era problem statements

There is significant concern about language regression in internet governance sections, particularly the shift from ‘multi-stakeholder’ to ‘multilateral’ approaches that subordinates non-governmental stakeholders

The Elements Paper lacks explicit integration of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation within the WSIS architecture despite highlighting GDC-related issues

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) mandate renewal is confirmed for discussion in the zero draft, with calls for permanent status and expanded scope beyond just internet governance

Critical gaps exist in human rights references, inclusion of underserved communities, and corporate accountability frameworks

The technical community’s role is recognized in some sections but notably absent from key internet governance paragraphs

AI governance sections favor multilateral approaches without adequate multi-stakeholder input mechanisms

The consultation process until July 15th provides opportunity for community input to influence the zero draft

Resolutions and action items

Submit written contributions to the co-facilitators’ consultation process by July 15th deadline

Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism (TCCM) to draft input response representing internet technical community

Internet Society to publish rapid response to Elements Paper and construct comprehensive written contribution based on community input

ICANN to organize webinar through WSIS Plus 20 Outreach Network and publish written assessment

Engage with national governments and join national delegations to advocate for multi-stakeholder internet governance model

Utilize online forum and QR codes provided to submit feedback on specific sections of the Elements Paper

Continue community discussions and coordination through existing networks and mailing lists

Unresolved issues

How the GDC implementation will be integrated into the WSIS framework architecture

What specific proposals will be made regarding ‘enhanced cooperation’ and its evolution

Whether the IGF mandate will be renewed for 10 years or made permanent

How to expand IGF scope to cover all digital governance issues including AI and data governance

What the final language on internet governance will be in the zero draft – multilateral vs multi-stakeholder

How to ensure human rights law is properly grounded throughout the framework

How to avoid duplication between various UN processes and forums

What specific mechanisms will be established for monitoring, measurement, and follow-up

Suggested compromises

Potential rebranding of IGF to ‘Digital Governance Forum’ to clarify its broader mandate beyond just internet issues

Integration of existing processes rather than creating new duplicative structures

Building on non-papers from various governments and stakeholders to find common ground

Using the consultation period to bridge differences between stakeholder positions before zero draft

Leveraging positive elements in the chapeau section while addressing problematic language in specific sections

When I read the paper, I read the Chapeau section and the Chapeau section really was very strong on some of the process… But then as I started to read the subsections, I definitely saw two distinctive approaches… So the first seven issues or so really were kind of like, here’s our issue, here’s what’s happened in the 20 years since WSIS, and we’re going to seek your feedback to do X. And then in the next eight issue sets, the style was a little bit different. It was very starkly, here’s an issue. And when I read some of these things in particular, I was like, oh, I’m time-traveling back to 2003.

Speaker

Fiona Alexander

Reason

This comment provided a crucial analytical framework for understanding the inconsistencies in the Elements paper. It identified a fundamental structural problem – that different sections were written with different approaches, some reflecting 20 years of progress and others stuck in 2003 language.

Impact

This observation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple speakers referencing this ‘time-traveling back to 2003’ concept. It helped other participants articulate their own concerns about outdated language, particularly around multilateral vs. multi-stakeholder approaches, and provided a lens through which to critique the document’s inconsistencies.

What surprised me a little bit negatively apart from other things that were mentioned is really the point raised by Valeria because after all we’ve heard a lot of a lot of common ground on the need of avoiding duplication of integrating GDC implementation into WSIS that’s coming from many many places so I wouldn’t have thought that this is controversial so that it has to wait for the zero draft to to be included so maybe that’s the the negative point and where I would have expected a bit more of courage from the co-facilitators and the secretariat

Speaker

Jorge Cancio

Reason

This comment highlighted a critical gap in the Elements paper – the lack of integration between the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS processes. It challenged the co-facilitators’ approach and suggested they should have been more proactive in addressing this integration.

Impact

This comment reinforced and amplified Valeria’s earlier point about missing GDC integration, making it a central concern of the discussion. It shifted the conversation toward questioning the co-facilitators’ strategic choices and introduced the concept of needing ‘courage’ in the drafting process, which elevated the stakes of the discussion.

What is missing is to have a discussion that goes beyond just the question of the renewal… I personally of course support the idea of having it permanent But I think it’s even more important to discuss What is the ambition that we have for the IGF… The key question is What is the IGF that we hope to see can we have a discussion that will not be finalized? Definitely by December, but can we have something in the documents that will come in December? That says we need to have a serious discussion not only on the renewal of the mandate But on the evolution of the mandate… The institutionalization of this organization, which at the moment is a little bit ad hoc.

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Reason

This comment reframed the entire discussion about the IGF from a narrow focus on mandate renewal to a broader vision of institutional evolution and ambition. It challenged participants to think beyond procedural questions to fundamental questions about the IGF’s future role.

Impact

This intervention elevated the discussion from technical concerns about language to strategic thinking about institutional development. It introduced the concept of ‘institutionalization’ and pushed the conversation toward more ambitious thinking about what the IGF could become, rather than just whether it should continue.

It isn’t good enough for the UN process to argue that something is multilateral when it simply isn’t, never has been, never will be, never can be. So I think we should be quite strong on that in quite a warm way because the system has already acknowledged it through all these other discussions.

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Reason

This comment provided a definitive stance on the multilateral vs. multi-stakeholder debate, arguing that the Internet’s governance structure is inherently multi-stakeholder by nature, not by choice. It challenged the fundamental premise underlying some of the Elements paper’s language.

Impact

This comment crystallized the technical community’s position and provided a clear counter-narrative to the multilateral framing in the Elements paper. It encouraged a more assertive approach in responses while maintaining diplomatic tone (‘quite strong… in quite a warm way’), influencing how other participants framed their critiques.

So it seems that, yeah, coming back 20 years, yeah, that the IGF is only for internet governance… While we would love to see the IGF as a kind of focal point for discussing all things about digital governance in general… So the structure of the Elements paper seems to give to the IGF the mandate only to discuss internet and nothing about AI or data governance.

Speaker

Flavio Wagner

Reason

This comment identified a structural limitation in how the Elements paper compartmentalized different aspects of digital governance, potentially limiting the IGF’s role in broader digital policy discussions including AI and data governance.

Impact

This observation introduced a new dimension to the discussion about the IGF’s future scope and relevance. It connected the structural critique of the paper to practical implications for the IGF’s mandate and sparked consideration of whether the IGF should be rebranded or expanded to cover broader digital governance issues.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by providing analytical frameworks that other participants could build upon. Fiona Alexander’s structural analysis of the paper’s inconsistencies became a recurring reference point that helped participants articulate their concerns about outdated language and approaches. The comments about GDC integration gaps elevated the discussion from technical critiques to strategic concerns about process coordination. Bertrand’s intervention about IGF institutionalization shifted the conversation from defensive (protecting current mandates) to aspirational (envisioning future possibilities). Jordan Carter’s definitive stance on multi-stakeholder governance provided intellectual grounding for technical community positions, while Flavio’s structural critique connected document analysis to practical implications for institutional mandates. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a routine review session into a strategic discussion about the future of internet governance institutions and processes.

What is envisioned in the process and what will it look like in terms of making sure that the final paper reflects everything that’s happened in 20 years?

Speaker

Fiona Alexander

Explanation

There’s uncertainty about how the co-facilitators will ensure the final document incorporates 20 years of progress rather than just restating 2003 problems

Why does the governance of the Internet suddenly say it should be multilateral when every text after WSIS talks about multi-stakeholder and multilateral together?

Speaker

Benny (ICANN representative)

Explanation

There’s confusion about the shift in language from multi-stakeholder to multilateral governance, which seems inconsistent with recent agreements

What is the status of the descriptive text and how will it evolve?

Speaker

Valeria Betancourt

Explanation

Clarification needed from co-facilitators about whether the current text is final or will be updated to reflect 20 years of evolution

What are the co-facilitators going to be talking about regarding enhanced cooperation and what assumptions are being made?

Speaker

Fiona Alexander

Explanation

The reference to improving enhanced cooperation is unclear given that previous working groups have already addressed this and the system has evolved

How will the processes be integrated, particularly the GDC implementation into the WSIS framework?

Speaker

Valeria Betancourt and Jorge Cancio

Explanation

There’s a missing ‘how’ component – the mechanisms for integrating different processes and avoiding duplication are not specified

How can the IGF be strengthened so that it really fulfills its mandate to the largest extent possible?

Speaker

Jorge Cancio

Explanation

Need for innovative ideas on how to enhance the IGF’s effectiveness and role in digital governance

What is the ambition we have for the IGF and should there be discussion on the evolution of the mandate beyond just renewal?

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Explanation

Important to discuss not just whether to renew the IGF mandate but how to evolve and institutionalize it as a more permanent structure

How can we ensure the zero draft reflects the actuality of how Internet governance has evolved in the past 20 years?

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Explanation

Need to build from the journey through WSIS+10, GDC, and CSTD resolutions to show the Internet system is irrevocably multi-stakeholder

Should the IGF be rebranded as a Digital Governance Forum to make clear it’s not only about internet but about digital cooperation in general?

Speaker

Flavio Wagner

Explanation

The current structure seems to limit IGF to internet governance only, excluding AI and data governance discussions

How can we bring the element of inclusivity for underserved communities and out-of-reach groups into the text?

Speaker

Anna Ossring

Explanation

The current text is missing references to many marginalized groups that are critical to realizing the WSIS vision