WS #343 Revamping decision-making in digital governance

Summary

This session focused on revamping decision-making in digital governance, specifically examining how to update and improve the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework for contemporary challenges. The multi-stakeholder panel, moderated by Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government, included representatives from various sectors discussing three key policy questions about WSIS reform.

Regarding updating WSIS action lines, panelists generally agreed that the existing framework remains robust and comprehensive enough to address emerging issues like AI, data governance, and human rights online. They emphasized that the action lines were deliberately designed to be technology-agnostic and broad, allowing them to accommodate new developments without requiring fundamental restructuring. Rather than creating entirely new action lines, speakers advocated for updating language and integrating contemporary concerns within the existing framework while ensuring better alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals.

On governance structure gaps, participants identified significant coordination problems between different WSIS components, particularly the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), WSIS Forum, and the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). They noted these institutions often operate in silos without sufficient cross-pollination of ideas and outputs. Several speakers proposed establishing a multi-stakeholder governance committee and enhancing coordination mechanisms to create a more integrated system.

For strengthening the IGF specifically, panelists called for making its mandate permanent, securing more robust funding through both UN regular budget and voluntary contributions, and strengthening the secretariat’s capacity. They emphasized the need for better coordination with national and regional IGFs while maintaining their organic, bottom-up nature. The discussion concluded with calls for more concrete action and implementation, moving beyond dialogue to deliver tangible results that address urgent technological and societal challenges.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Updating WSIS Action Lines**: Panelists discussed whether the World Summit on the Information Society action lines need substantial revision or if they should remain broad and technology-agnostic to accommodate emerging issues like AI, data governance, and human rights online. There was general consensus that the existing framework is sufficiently comprehensive and should not be fundamentally altered.

– **Gaps in WSIS Framework Architecture**: The discussion identified coordination gaps between different WSIS institutions (IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD, UNGIS), with speakers emphasizing the need for better integration and information sharing between these bodies rather than creating new forums or duplicating efforts.

– **Strengthening the IGF**: Participants explored ways to enhance the Internet Governance Forum, including making its mandate permanent, securing more robust funding (both UN regular budget and donations), strengthening the secretariat, and improving connections between national/regional IGFs and the global forum.

– **Multi-stakeholder Governance Coordination**: The panel addressed the challenge of fragmented digital governance discussions across multiple forums and the need for better coordination to avoid duplication, especially given resource constraints and the difficulty for Global South stakeholders to participate in numerous separate processes.

– **Implementation and Action-Oriented Outcomes**: Audience members challenged the panel to move beyond discussion toward concrete action, emphasizing the need for shorter-term priorities (18 months to 2 years), better translation of IGF discussions into implementable recommendations, and inclusion of technical builders alongside policy experts.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine how to revamp decision-making in digital governance, specifically focusing on updating the WSIS framework for contemporary challenges while strengthening coordination between various international forums and institutions involved in internet and digital governance.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with panelists frequently agreeing with each other’s points and building upon shared ideas. The moderator even noted “maybe we are agreeing too much here at this table.” The tone became more challenging and urgent when audience members intervened, particularly calling for concrete action and implementation rather than continued dialogue. The atmosphere remained professional and respectful, but there was a clear shift toward more critical assessment of current limitations and a push for tangible outcomes in the latter portion of the session.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jorge Cancio** – Swiss government official, session moderator

– **Renata Mielli** – CGI (Brazilian government), expert in digital governance and WSIS processes

– **Jordan Carter** – Works for WU domain administration, part of the secretariat group for technical community coalition on multi-stakeholderism (TCCM)

– **Suto Timea** – International Chamber of Commerce, leads global policy work, participating online from Milan

– **Jennifer Chung** – .Asia organization (registry operator for .Asia top level domain), part of TCCM, 2025 MAG member

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who made interventions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Jacqueline Pigato** – Data Privacy Brazil, Civil Society representative

– **Anne McCormick** – Leads global digital policy for EY

– **Binta Mustafa** – Civil society and African group representative

– **Vinicius Fortuna** – Engineering lead for internet freedom at Google Jigsaw

# Comprehensive Report: Revamping Decision-Making in Digital Governance – WSIS Framework Reform Discussion

## Executive Summary

This multi-stakeholder panel session, moderated by Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government, examined reforms needed for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework to address contemporary digital governance challenges. The discussion brought together representatives from government, civil society, private sector, and technical communities to explore three fundamental policy questions: updating WSIS action lines for current realities, addressing gaps in the governance framework architecture, and strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

The session demonstrated general agreement on preserving existing WSIS action lines while improving coordination between institutions. However, the discussion was notably challenged by audience interventions calling for concrete action rather than continued dialogue, highlighting tensions between policy development processes and implementation urgency.

## Key Participants and Session Structure

Jorge Cancio structured the session with strict 2-minute interventions to ensure broad participation. The panel included: Renata Mielli from Brazil’s CGI bringing governmental and WSIS process expertise; Jordan Carter from the technical community coalition on multi-stakeholderism (TCCM) providing domain administration insights; Timea Suto from the International Chamber of Commerce representing business perspectives; and Jennifer Chung from .Asia organisation offering registry operator and 2025 MAG member viewpoints. Timea Suto also served as online moderator.

Significant audience interventions shaped the discussion, with contributions from Jacqueline Pigato (Data Privacy Brazil), Anne McCormick (EY), Binta Mustafa (African civil society), and Vinicius Fortuna (Google Jigsaw) challenging the panel to move beyond theoretical discussions toward practical implementation.

## Major Discussion Areas and Stakeholder Positions

### Updating WSIS Action Lines for Contemporary Challenges

The panel showed broad agreement on preserving the existing WSIS action lines framework. Jordan Carter noted that while they “don’t advocate for changes” to action lines, he acknowledged they “probably will be” reopened, arguing that the action lines are comprehensive due to their technology-agnostic design. Timea Suto supported this position, emphasizing that the action lines “have stood the test of time due to their forward-looking and technology-agnostic approach.”

Renata Mielli agreed that action lines should remain broad but advocated for evaluation of what could be added within each line to address current realities including artificial intelligence, data governance, and human rights online. Jennifer Chung offered a nuanced position, acknowledging that while current action lines are broad enough to encompass new developments, language could be refined to reflect technological realities without compromising the existing framework.

### Governance Framework Architecture and Coordination Gaps

All speakers identified coordination problems as a critical gap in the current WSIS framework. Timea Suto stated that “the biggest gap is lack of coordination between IGF, WSIS Forum, and CSTD – institutions move forward without taking each other’s outputs as input.”

Renata Mielli proposed concrete solutions, advocating for “more integrated spaces and processes, particularly better integration between IGF and WSIS Forum through measures like a multi-stakeholder governance committee.” Jordan Carter suggested that while “IGF represents the best multi-stakeholder approach,” the system needs “a driving force or organic coordination” through a multi-stakeholder steering group.

Jennifer Chung highlighted practical implications of poor coordination, noting that different multi-stakeholder models exist between IGF and WSIS Forum, but insufficient coordination leads to overlapping programming that could benefit from cross-pollination.

### Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum

The IGF emerged as a central focus for reform discussions, with support for strengthening its institutional foundations. Jordan Carter outlined needed reforms: permanent mandate for investment confidence, expanded MAG responsibility, stronger National and Regional IGF (NRI) connections, and more funding for secretariat and Global South participation.

Timea Suto emphasized that “WSIS Plus 20 should recognize IGF evolution and set it up for future success through formalized status and funding,” while acknowledging that “the IGF community must improve outreach and communication.” Jennifer Chung focused on both internal improvements through improved MAG processes and stronger secretariat resources, and external coordination to avoid duplication.

Renata Mielli positioned the IGF as potentially “the space to coordinate interconnected digital governance discussions and host fragmented debates that currently occur across multiple forums.” The speakers noted the success of National and Regional IGF initiatives (177 plus globally) as an organic multi-stakeholder achievement that should be recognized without imposing hierarchical structures.

## Critical Challenges and Audience Interventions

The discussion’s tone shifted when audience members challenged the panel’s approach. Anne McCormick from EY directly questioned the value of continued dialogue: “We need fewer ideas, but really specific impact and priorities for the next 18 months to two years. We do not have time because we can talk as much as we want about an internet society.”

Vinicius Fortuna from Google Jigsaw identified a fundamental composition problem: “Where are the people that build stuff? Like, where are the product people? Where are the engineers?” His observation that policy discussions often exclude technical implementers highlighted implementation challenges.

Jordan Carter raised definitional concerns, noting that while internet governance is clearly defined in the Tunis Agenda, “digital governance is not defined. And if we’re going to start using that as the chapeau or the framing for what this system is to do, we had better write down what it means.”

## Implementation Challenges and Concrete Proposals

Several implementation questions remained unresolved despite general agreement on principles. The challenge of translating IGF discussions into actionable recommendations emerged as a persistent problem. Jordan Carter acknowledged this requires “more analytic capability and resources for processing discussions into implementable recommendations.”

Concrete proposals included: MAG review of internal processes after the Norway meeting; launch of Net Mundial Plus 10 guidelines (with a book launch scheduled at 3pm at the IGF village); and establishing predictable cycles for IGF and UN governance structures to enable better planning by National and Regional IGF initiatives.

Jordan Carter also mentioned the Swiss non-paper’s concept of a help desk function and referenced Australian non-papers as examples of stakeholder position development.

## Parliamentary Track and Broader Participation

Jordan Carter critiqued the parliamentary track structure, noting that parliamentarians were “locked away” rather than integrated into main discussions. This highlighted broader questions about inclusive participation in internet governance processes.

## Conclusion

This session revealed both the potential and limitations of multi-stakeholder dialogue processes. While participants demonstrated broad agreement on preserving existing frameworks while improving coordination, audience interventions highlighted persistent challenges in translating policy discussions into concrete actions and engaging the full range of stakeholders needed for effective digital governance.

The discussion suggested that the WSIS Plus 20 process may focus on evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes, emphasizing implementation and coordination improvements. However, success will depend on addressing the implementation gaps and participation challenges identified during the session, particularly the need to engage technical implementers alongside policy experts in governance discussions.

Jorge Cancio: Are we ready? Yes, I think so. So welcome, welcome everybody. It’s a bit strange to be with the headphones and listening to yourself. So welcome to this session, revamping decision-making in digital governance. We have a number of speakers today here with some changes on the program we had initially. First of all, I’m Jorge Cancio, I’m from the Swiss government. I’m moderating this session that will last until 10.15. And I have my colleague from our office, Suto Timea, who will be our online moderator and will help me with the timing. We also have Renata Mielli from CGI, from the Brazilian government as well. We have Jordan Carter from ODA and the TCCM. We have online Timea Suto. I hope she is connected. Luisa, if you can check if Timea is connected, that would be great. And then we have also Jennifer Chung from DotAsia joining us. So it’s a multi-stakeholder panel and we are going to discuss different questions about the WSIS process, as well about the substance of what WSIS does. The way that WSIS does its work, and finally also the role of the IGF in a future setting. We are going to go in different rounds of two-minute interventions of the panelists. Of course, I say two minutes, and I will be enforcing the timing whenever they go beyond two and a half minutes. Give a little bit of wiggle room there, and then we will have also the opportunity later on, after we discuss the different policy questions, to go for interventions from the audience. There is a lot of space here at the front table. If you want to come and join, it’s open to everyone. You don’t have to sit in the back, and also it’s a little bit hard with these lights to really see you very well. But in any case, later on, we will open also the floor for interventions. If you sit at the front table, you can use one of these automatic mics, or if you are sitting in the back, you can use one of the standing mics over there. Without further ado, I would be starting with the different policy questions we have today. The first question is, how do we update the WSIS action lines, so the World Summit on the Information Society action lines, which is the substance of what the UN system does to accomplish the WSIS goals, to better reflect the goals of the World Summit on the Information Society? We are here to talk about emerging and pressing issues, so AI, data governance, what connectivity is today, human rights online, and how do we update them also to better integrate them with the sustainable development goals, the SDGs. So each of our panelists has now two minutes, and I will call on you, starting with Jordan, and then we will go to Renata. Jordan, the floor is yours.

Jordan Carter: Thank you, Jorge, and good morning, everyone. My name is Jordan Carter. I work for the WU domain administration, and I am part of the secretariat group for a technical community coalition on multi-stakeholderism. Obviously my comments are my own, I’m not explicitly representing a standard position of either org, unless I tell you so, and fortunately this is a very brief first intervention. Obviously the internet is a foundational technology which is ever more important for the realization of the ambition of the SDGs and the development framework, but when I’ve reviewed the action lines, they’ve presented a pretty good set of things to focus on in building an inclusive information society. So there are no concrete ambitions on my part or the groups that I’ve been part of so far for changes. We just sort of make the point in looking at these. So we don’t advocate for the action lines to be reopened. We assume that probably they will be, because that’s how the negotiation seems likely to play out, and if they are, one of our roles will be to just monitor and be engaged in that conversation to make sure that there aren’t slippages away from the SDGs. various multi-stakeholder processes and the way the language is expressed or the other references that may happen with them. Our job in the internet technical communities is to keep doing the coordination and collaboration work we do to make sure that the internet remains a resource at the service of the development needs of societies all around the world. So I’ll save you some time. Jorge, I’m back to you.

Jorge Cancio: Great, thank you so much for being so quick and so brief and to the point. So we go with Renata, you have a little bit more time. Also we have to be mindful that non-native speakers, we need more time to formulate our thoughts. Thank you.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Jorge. It’s a pleasure to be here with all you guys. Jorge, Jennifer, Jordan, Timea online. In our perspective the action lines were designed in such a comprehensive manner from a macro strategic perspective that I believe revising or substantially altering the five main action lines should not be our primary objective. On the other hand, I believe it’s necessary to evaluate within each action line what can be changed or added in line with the current reality, seeking to identify issues that were not addressed because were not so predominant or important 20 years ago, such as AI and its impacts, algorithmic transparency, data governance, meaningful connectivity, information integrity, disinformation, environmental impact of ICTs, DPIs, human rights online, hate speech, freedom of speech, gender, children’s rights. So it would also be important within a vision of a greater… and Jorge Cancio. We are working with the ICTs to identify how the coordination and synergy between the different processes related to digital issues, to identify how the OECD’s action lines can address the issues raised in the global digital compact. The same would need to be done with the SDGs, as ICTs are nowadays essential for all social and economic development. We are working with the ICTs to identify how the SDGs should be considered when the SDGs are revised in 2030. Therefore, strengthening the alignment between the OECD’s action lines, SDGs, should be a cross-pollination driven by the growing recognition of the digital environment’s importance within the SDGs framework. But, in my opinion, pointing this issue to the OECD should be a cross-pollination driven by the importance of the SDGs framework. So, in completing this issues, there is no need to create new action lines on those specific topics, as the action lines are sufficiently broad and adapted to accommodate such issues. That’s my first contribution, and thank you very much. For the extra time, I don’t know if I passed a lot.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, and now, let’s try to see if Timea, are you with us? If you can take the floor.

Suto Timea: I hope you can hear me, I don’t know if you can see me. We hear you. And we see you. Hi, everyone. The big face on the screen, it’s always strange to be online in such a big room. I’m very happy to be with you this morning, good morning from Milan. I’m very happy to be with you this morning, good morning from Milan. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m from the international chamber of commerce, where I lead our global policy work, and 20 years ago in the WSIS process and ever since in any internet governance and related digital public policy discussions. So to answer your question, Jorge, and I’ll try to be brief, I agree wholeheartedly with Jordan and Renata and what they’ve said so far. I think the WSIS action lines have really stood the test of time, if you look at this. And of course, it was because those who were writing 20 years ago, and some of you are in the room, have been quite forward looking. But I also think it was very wise of those who wrote the action lines to keep them technology agnostic, so to speak. And that has allowed us to recognize new technological developments, new ideas as the digital world was developing in those 11 action lines. I started my career with WSIS 10 years ago at the WSIS Plus 10, and then we were well into the age of social media. Everybody was talking about big data analytics, IoT, new developments. But we recognized those in the original action lines, and we didn’t really think that we needed new ones. And I think it’s the same issue today. We’ve had a lot of conversations in the past year or two years on the development in the digital world, new issues, sometimes new concerns, new developments, new technologies. But as we look through the 11 action lines, I think we need to put on our adapted lens and look through those action lines and see if we can recognize artificial intelligence in the 11 action lines. Can we recognize data governance in the action lines? Can we see where we can improve gender equality, where we can improve human rights protection, and the number of issues that also Renata has shared? Can we see those in these 11 action lines? And I am convinced that we can. So I do not think that we need to change the very wise approach that the WSIS drafters had of keeping these actualized technology agnostic, but we need to put on our new lenses and see where we can integrate some of these developments into the existing framework. And I think we’ve had helpful interventions through the global digital compact drafting process. There’s issues that have been brought to the table that we need to look at. Renata mentioned those as well. I think we should look into how we integrate those new issues, new concerns, new ideas into the existing framework. And I also agree that we should look at the SDGs and see how they align with the WSIS action lines. And we’re not starting from scratch there. The WSIS forum has been doing that for a number of years now. There’s a very interesting matrix that looks at the SDGs and the WSIS action lines here at the IGF. We also look at every time we propose a session, we look at how that aligns with the SDGs. So I think we’re not starting from scratch. We can build on that. And I’ll leave you with that. I hope I haven’t exceeded my two minutes.

Jorge Cancio: A little bit, but let’s be flexible as you are online. Thank you so much, Timaya. And I go to Jen.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Jorge. I think I’ll be the one who’ll help us catch up on the time, because I’ll be actually quite brief. My name is Jennifer Chung. I’m with .Asia organization. We are a registry operator for the top level domain .Asia, but with a mandate to promote internet development and capacity building in Asia Pacific. I’m also part of the TCCM, but I guess obviously not going to be speaking on that behalf as well. I feel like I’m not going to be rocking the boat so much here with my intervention as well, because I do largely agree with all the previous speakers. But there’s been some talk. at least from a lot of, I guess, non-papers, and also other ideas from the internet governance community about updating or sharpening the language that is in the action lines to accurately reflect our current realities, our technological realities. But at the same time, I think I have more questions than answers, because when you use different words like sharpening, updating, focusing, that still does mean there’s some adjustment. And so while I’m not, you know, the government delegation going into negotiations when we’re looking at that thing, but one thing as a non-governmental stakeholder, we are very concerned with when this does happen, you know, what is it that we need to do? Is there a baseline we need to hold to? I also agree very much, both with Timea and others who’ve mentioned that the WSIS action lines right now are drafted in a way that is broad enough to encompass all of these developments we’ve had in 20 years, even if the language itself does not accurately, you know, sufficiently describe what it is that we have right now. Things like AI governance, things like other emerging tech, things like DPI, and also a whole array of rights that are actually articulated in a more updated and descriptive manner, as we can see in the GDC final text. So I guess in closing, I just want to reiterate again, because that the action lines right now are drafted in a way that is broad and that is technology neutral, I think it behooves us to really think about more that how we can look to integrating more of this without, I guess, jeopardizing what we have, jeopardizing what it is that it actually quite accurately describes what we want to do in a pretty holistic and some of it quite multi-stakeholder way. So I’ll pass it right back to you, Jorge.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jennifer. I think that brings the question to really to the point how to update them without jeopardizing what we have. So we will have to be creative in those rooms in New York or wherever we discuss this and find the right balance between one thing and the other. As we are doing well in terms of time, I would shortly give the opportunity for one or two inputs, one minute inputs from the floor, from the audience, if anyone wants to talk to this question. This is your opportunity. If that is not the case, do we have anything online? No. So there will be other opportunities later on, so maybe you can reflect on what you would say to question one or to any of the other questions. Now we will go to the second policy question, which is what are the gaps within the WSIS framework? So here we are talking more about the architecture, the institutions, and between its different parts such as IGF or the WSIS Forum, and we could also mention the CSTD or UNGIS, the UN Group on Information Society, or other parts of the WSIS architecture. So what are the gaps to really be up to date, and does the governance structure follow an adequate multi-stakeholder approach, as expressed earlier in the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines? And here I would change a little bit the order and start with our online participant, Timea, if you are ready.

Suto Timea: I am. Thanks, Jorge. So gaps, we’ve talked about the sort of substantive gaps in the first question. So I’ll focus on the process gaps. Jorge, you said we have the WSIS Framework with the IGF and the WSIS Forum. I would add the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to that duo. So I think we have a trio of institutions that we need to consider when we talk about the WSIS Framework. And if I want to be critical of the framework that we have today, I think the biggest gap is that these three institutions sort of move forward without taking each other’s or not always taking each other’s outputs as input for their own discussion. If we need to change something or improve something, perhaps besides the reporting obligations that go through CSDD, we would need to do better in making sure that the WSIS Forum is aware of what is being discussed at the IGF, the IGF is being updated on what is being discussed at the WSIS Forum, and they take each other’s findings more into account when we gather in this forum. I think that’s one. The other element that we would, I think, be best placed to do now at the WSIS Plus 20 is to consider when we are looking at the action lines and who are implementing those action lines, to consider those institutions that we all know collectively as UNGIS and see how we can help enhance UNGIS that has sort of an informal function to give it a bit more. opportunity to look at what is being discussed in IGF, in the WSIS Forum and increase their coordination and the information within the youngest system. So it’s not just about the four being aware of one another, but these implementation leaders, so to speak, be aware of what is being discussed and what has been achieved in these discussions. And lastly, also to give opportunity to share the communities that are being built through this forum. It’s not always about, okay, we have come out with these five big points and everybody should be aware, but also to have an opportunity to know there’s a community behind those discussions and that community is there to give further input into whatever is being discussed in UN institutions. So I think if I can leave you with that as better coordination between IGF and WSIS Forum, enhanced coordination within UNGIS and leveraging the communities that are being built.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Timea. And let’s go with Renata. Are you ready?

Renata Mielli: Thank you. In the same direction that Timea just said, I believe that in regard to this framework, we have much progress to be made in terms of developing more integrated spaces and processes. We have not been able to build more effective integration between the IGF and the WSIS Forum. This is something we need to address. In my view, this is a huge challenge for the discussions about the internet and digital governance. The WSIS Forum is the platform for following up the action lines. But it is a space that is more restricted to governments and facilitators representing the various UN agencies responsible for each action line. And we have a little bit of fragmentation in this discussion. So I think rethinking this governance structure is, in my view, one of the main challenges we are facing now. Some measures could be considered. And we discussed some of these ideas at Mundial Plus 10 and Sao Paulo guidelines, such as creating a multi-stakeholder governance committee for WSIS framework, and expanded the role of the IGF in monitoring the action lines, and how to integrate these two spaces a little bit more. That’s my idea. I completely agree with what Timea just said also. But I would like to use this opportunity to invite everyone to the launch of the book of the Net Mundial Plus 10 guidelines today. The launching will take place at 3pm to 4pm at the open stage located at the IGF village. So everyone here is invited. Thank you very much.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Renata.

Renata Mielli: Some merchandising.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you. Thank you so much for that small commercial for the Net Mundial Plus 10 booklet. I also endorse that invitation. And I’ll be a little bit late because of overlapping sessions. But looking forward to that one. Maybe a follow-up question for you. You mentioned that you were… having this idea of floating the idea of a multi-stakeholder governance committee for the whole of the WSIS framework. And then you also mentioned an improvement to the IGF. Could you elaborate a little bit on the second part?

Renata Mielli: I think about the improvement of the IGF, we bring some ideas and this was an important debate we had on that Mundial Plus 10. Regarding the strengthening of the IGF, improving the IGF, I believe that a point is maybe make the IGF mandate permanent. This is something that we need to understand, not to make the IGF’s mandate permanent, does not mean that updates and discussions aimed at improving it should not take place. But we have to have more stability on the IGF. And to this end, a key requirement is the issue of funding. I think this is a very important point, because it’s necessary to ensure much more robust funding for the IGF, combining both a regular budget from the UN with donations from companies and organizations, and better integration with WSIS Forum, with the NRIs, so that contributions from local communities are better brought to the global IGF.

Jorge Cancio: Okay, Renata, I think we are going there already into question three, but I just wanted to clarify what you meant with that, but we will have question three to deep dive on the IGF itself. Thank you. So if I get this right now, we should turn to Jennifer on question two.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Jorge. I was wondering if we were going already to question three, but I think there’s a lot of there is some overlap there. I appreciate very much that Timea mentioned that we should look at the process and it’s actually quite interesting because IGF is a WSIS outcome. The WSIS forum itself isn’t exactly an outcome, but it is. It’s I would call it a showcase, of course, and the update of how the WSIS action lines are being implemented by the different UN institutions. And I also like to to point out a little bit more because the IGF is the one that I’m most familiar with. WSIS forum I have also been to in the WSIS high level event last year and also this year. I’m also planning to do do so and go. But the difference really here is when we look at it, the two different spaces, the two different forums, I guess one would still mention that they could be considered multistakeholder. But the multistakeholder model is not a monolith, right? There are different flavors. I like to call them different flavors. It’s not really ice cream, but it’s different flavors of MSM. And the the way that it’s adapted for the audience that goes or the the participation that goes is actually quite interesting. And for IGF, it’s, you know, it’s a mixture of a community curated or community proposals and also some some other curation from the host country and also, of course, an on recommendation by the IGF secretariat. The WSIS forum itself is I would like to understand more. So that’s why I do go a little more. But one thing that to me I did bring out and I think others have also mentioned is that there’s not a sufficient coordination. And I don’t know really if coordination is needed, but there certainly is overlap of some of the programming that could benefit from some coordination. So, both the IGF and the WSIS Forum serve different purposes, but there should be a little bit more of an interlink, a little bit more of, I guess, input-output for the two processes. I think after coming to Norway, a lot of us will also be going to Geneva for the WSIS high-level events and, of course, AI for Good. And we would notice, looking at the programming, that, oh, you know, there’s a lot of things that are very similar, would probably benefit from a little bit more of a cross-pollination as well. So, I guess I’ll stop here. I don’t know if I’ve used up all the time, but I’d like to hand back over to you, Jorge. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Jen. And we go to Jordan.

Jordan Carter: Thanks, Jorge. A fair amount of agreement, so I’ll try and sort of just riff a little bit off what’s been said in part. You know, the question was whether this is adequately multi-stakeholder as per the SPMG, the multi-stakeholder guidelines from the NetMundial. I think the IGF does that best in this WSIS framework, but that everywhere could use improvement, including the IGF. And the key point here, like, the arrangements need to deliver the WSIS outcome, right? This isn’t a system that exists for its own purposes or to draw people to Geneva or other lovely cities like Oslo around the world, but it is to achieve this building of the information society that our citizens all deserve. And I think one of the things that’s obvious is that it isn’t really treated as a whole system except at the point of these reviews. To make a system work, you need to have someone in it, somewhere driving it, or really strong and organic coordination within it. The internet technical community do that organic coordination. But in government and multilateral systems like WSIS, it’s probably important for there to be something driving. So there have been a few suggestions around whether a multi-stakeholder steering group as part of an enhanced UNGASS could help provide that. Maybe it could. Maybe that could be a… institutional center of gravity, if you like, that could help draw the parts together. I agree with the comments that were made around the IGF and WSIS roles when I first went to a WSIS high-level forum. Aside from the very fascinating report back on the action lines, it felt a bit like a UN IGF for the UN. And I don’t know the value of that per se, but I do understand the following of the action points. So maybe a bit more of a distinctive process. Maybe the IGF could help to set the agenda for things like the WSIS forum through a more conscious agenda setting role for the IGF, given it’s the most open and bottom-up and multi-stakeholder inflected part of this system. And for the IGF to do that, it would need to strengthen the connections within the IGF system with the NRIs having more of a role probably setting the IGF’s agenda. I do want to make just a couple of other quick points. We think there’s a general view that global digital compact should be implemented through WSIS, and probably the WSIS architecture, broadly speaking, is adequate to do that. We don’t need to duplicate forums, invent new ones, especially given how hard it already is for stakeholders to participate effectively. Multiplying new forums and new streams would be a bad idea. And I just want to make one more point around even the title of this session, around digital governance. I think the thing that people casually mean when they say digital governance is what Tunis says internet governance is. But we know what internet governance is because it’s written down in Tunis. Digital governance is not defined. And if we’re going to start using that as the chapeau or the framing for what this system is to do, we had better write down what it means, because otherwise there’s lots of confusion. I just want to finish quickly by paying tribute to the Swiss government and the Australian government for their non-papers. Jorge, I realize as moderator you probably can’t talk about the content of that, but the ideas around LMSSG and revamped UNGASS or a help desk for WSIS were in your paper. The Australians also argued for a stronger IGF secretariat and joined the call for a strengthened UNGASS. Lots of other ideas there for everyone to explore in those two papers. Sorry that was too long. Back to you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you. Thank you, Jordan, and thank you for mentioning the non-papers, the Australian and the Swiss one. I think that people and stakeholders, countries, take this as an inspiration to also develop their non-papers or their common ground positions, at least in short comment on the Swiss non-paper. It is really the result of many, many conversations. So it’s not a Swiss national position as is a normal, well, non-papers are no official national positions. But in this case, it’s really the result of more than one year of talking to people all around the globe and trying to find some common ground ideas. Very good. I think we are quite on time to go over to the third question we had. And so this is more focused and Renata and also Jordan already mentioned some ideas on the IGF. This question is focused really on the IGF. How would you strengthen the IGF to better respond to the challenges of an improved or updated Swiss framework combined or taking into account the GDC implementation and especially to avoid duplication of efforts and promote better coordination? And I think nowadays, especially if we look at what is happening all over the UN system with UNAT. This is a reform program that is really responding to budgetary cuts. There’s really a situation where the resources, the scarce resources of the system and also of all the stakeholders around the system trying to participate in the system have to be treated very carefully. So here I would start with Jennifer. So you have one start, but at the end of the session.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Jorge. This is actually, I’m going to structure my response really in two ways. The first is the strengthening internally of IGF and then also the external or more of the coordination role. So internally, I think at least speaking on now, not on behalf of MAG, but as a 2025 MAG member, we were tasked to after the Norway meeting to really look at our internal processes to see how we can improve and strengthen and I guess make more efficient the ways the MAG works internally as a whole as well. So that is one part of the strengthening that I think is absolutely needed because the MAG does rotate. And this is a special MAG that’s only a one-year MAG, but typically the terms do still rotate and they could have three terms altogether. The institutional knowledge gets lost sometimes when you have such a big turnover of people who are trying to be the advisory, I guess, group looking at this agenda. A stronger secretariat, I think a lot of the speakers have mentioned this, with more resources. And I think I’m kind of going to point to that help desk suggestion in the Swiss Norman paper as well. Because the secretariat itself is also quite lean, the resourcing needed to support not only the curation of the annual program, there’s a whole host of intersessional programs and work that goes on throughout the year. things like the national regional initiatives that, you know, they are organic, they’re bottom up, they still need resourcing at the global level. Things like the dynamic coalitions, the best practice forums, the policy networks, all of this has grown since the IGF started 20 years ago. A lot of this is now adding on a very lean secretariat. So they do need more resourcing, they do need coordination for outputs. Externally, I guess, or more of a wider coordination role, we heard already from Timea that, you know, IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD, and just even further into the UN institutions, I think there’s not enough coordination. And perhaps maybe there could be a role for a help desk, there could be another role to be able to better coordinate it within, I guess, the UN multilateral system, but also outward facing to other multi stakeholder forums or places where these things might be spoken about, not just the governance issues, but other related, I guess, places, for example, ICANN, where you talk about, you know, policy development for a part of the critical infrastructure of the internet, the domain names, and number allocation as well. So I think, I guess, in closing, there’s like the internal, the coordination, and the external, there’s a lot of things that we can tighten up and improve on. And then finally, one thing I’d like to end with, and I guess, now I’m going to put a little bit of an APEC view on this, is that avoiding duplication of efforts not only helps, you know, non-governmental stakeholders, people with less resources, especially in APEC, governments themselves, especially in Asia Pacific, they have very small teams with a very wide portfolio, and they’re not able to be able to actually deep dive or follow every single process if it’s proliferated around. So actually, that behooves all of us to really think about, you know, how can we concentrate this in a way that we can actually cover and understand, not only, you know, in the global north, but definitely in the global south as well. Back to you, Jorge.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you. Thank you, Jen. Many important points. Let’s go to Jordan now.

Jordan Carter: I finally worked out the rotation. Thank you, Jorge. Look, there’s quite a lot of ideas floating around this. I joined the calls for the permanent mandate, not because it’s forever, but because it takes away the wondering whether this is just going to be another year or two. And that means that you can invest in the IGF system with more confidence. And I don’t just mean money. I mean time and attention. I mean the building of NRIs, because you know there’ll be some global stage upon which to show things. The hard work of building the integration and linkages between the IGF system and all of the value that it creates. And as I said, that has to include the capacity for the continuous improvement. And let’s not ever get trapped into the idea that such improvement requires an intergovernmental negotiation of a WSIS review. It’s very good to hear that the MAG will be thinking about how to improve the MAG’s performance. But I’m always curious about who has the overarching responsibility to think about the IGF’s performance. In the events, there’s this funny split between the Secretariat and the MAG and the UNDESA and the host country. But it would be lovely to see perhaps an expansion of the MAG’s responsibility through refreshed terms of reference for it that gave it an overarching IGF systemic response, maybe linking with the proposed multi-stakeholder steering group for the whole WSIS architecture. Those are personal views, just by the way. I’ve already mentioned the strengthened agenda setting role for the IGF and how that could rely, be used for the whole WSIS system, but would rely on stronger connections between the NRIs and the IGF. One way to help build that connection might be to make it a bit of a criterion in selecting MAG members that they are involved with their national or regional IGFs if there is one where they are. Some areas don’t have them, so they’d need to still have MAG representation, but that could be a way to organically strengthen the work. I know that a lot of us who have been on the MAG are involved nationally, but not all of us. There needs to be a lot more funding for the Secretariat to do the coordination and outreach that’s required. It should be a mix of regular UN budget funding and donations, and it needs to be significant. There also needs to be more funding and resourcing and support for global south and underrepresented groups to be participating effectively here. And as part of that also, I think to improve the IGF, we need to get more of the decision makers here. If the role is decision shaping, it’s best if that’s firsthand. It’s best if people are a bit exposed to sometimes rough around the edges conversations or being spoken to in ways that they think in their high status they might not necessarily have to put up with, just to get a bit of a bit of a flavor of reality from time to time in those rarefied executive heights. I think I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Not bad. That’s a good list. What I wonder sometimes with these proposals is, what do we need to have on the WSIS outcome in December, and what is better left to the community itself? But that’s just an open, I’m just thinking aloud because sometimes you get what you wish and then it gets dangerous. So I think it’s always good to keep it, what we have in the intergovernmental outcome documents at a very high level, but with enough flexibility for self-improvement.

Jordan Carter: Can I just add one thought in response? Yes. To the extent we want to improve the multi-stakeholder nature of this stuff, those dialogues and consensus building should happen in multi-stakeholder forums. I agree. Keep the intergovernmental negotiation high level and flexible.

Jorge Cancio: Absolutely. I think we agree there. Okay, let’s go to, I think we have still Timea. Are you there?

Suto Timea: I am here. Okay, cool. And I think you and I have been working together for too long because I was trying to reframe my comments here as you were putting up the question of what needs to be in WSIS and what is best after the IGF having listened to Jordan and Jennifer. So a couple of thoughts here on my end. I think we have a good opportunity at the WSIS Plus 20 to recognize some of the evolution that has happened already at the IGF over the past 20 years. Yes, IGF is a WSIS outcome. We were there and tasked to have these conversations at IGF on digital issues. But what has happened in the meantime is that the IGF has really built communities. I’m referring here to the National and Regional IGFs. It has built intersessional work. There’s really good reports, best practice forums, the policy networks. It has built leadership. We have now the leadership panel. So I think it’s a good opportunity to use the WSIS Plus 20 to recognize this evolution and to formally say, okay, well, this is how the IGF looks now. And we sort of approve what it’s been doing. The second thing that should happen, I think, at the WSIS Plus 20 is set IGF up for another 20 years or more to be able to continue this evolution. And I think that depends on, as others said, formalizing the IGF status and the mandate as a perhaps permanent, if it’s possible, a part of the UN structure. Secondly, help formalize the funding. at least the support that the Secretariat needs to function from year to year should be part of the UN budget, perhaps, so that we have a stability, a baseline for the IGF to function, and then the other voluntary contributions can be put to good use for issues like, as maybe Jordan mentioned, funding developing country participation or earmarked for a project where we can get creative with that. I think this is what WSIS should do, right? Recognize the evolution that has happened and set the IGF up for future successes. It is then incumbent on the IGF and on the community to make sure that the IGF actually responds to what it needs to do and that it lives up to its full potential. And there, I’m going to repeat something that we have talked about many, many times, and it is really making sure that the IGF’s outputs conversations get to the right people. I think communication here, outreach, marketing, if you will, of what the IGF does, needs to happen better. It needs to happen perhaps differently. Yes, we need to report on everything that the IGF has done, but we can’t expect every audience to read the full report. We need to do better in making sure that we deliver the right message to the right audience from the IGF, and I think that is something that we need to still work on. So I leave you with that, and if we have more time, then I’m happy to answer the questions.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Timea, and we have a last intervention on this round from Renata.

Renata Mielli: Jorge, I completely agree with Jordan, Timea, and Jennifer regarding the points and reflections we have to Strengthening the IGF. My contribution here, in fact, I want to come back to Jordan’s question about what we think about digital governance and the need to have a common vision on this. And it was a topic of much debate on NetMundial Plus 10, if you remember that. And I think in my point of view, we talk a lot about how to avoid duplication of spaces and improve coordination. But what you have seen is that every day, a new space, a new forum, a new thematic initiative appears. And in fact, we are seeing the fragmentation of the debate. What makes it more difficult to many sectors to participate in a more effective way, especially stakeholders from the global south, even governments and all the sectors, have a lot of difficulty to follow all these spaces. We have AI high level, AI forums, a lot of AI forums, in fact. We have data governance. We have cybersecurity. We have internet forums. And I think when we talk about digital governance, the idea is to show that all these issues are interconnected and need to have at least some coordination and, of course, a multi-stakeholder governance. and my point is that the IGF should be the space to host this discussion or at least to be the space to coordinate with the WSIS Forum we are talking about. So that’s my ten cents about what digital governance is but I completely agree that we need to have some common language to avoid any doubts about it and that’s my contribution now, back to you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Renata and yeah maybe we are agreeing too much here at this table so that happens oftentimes even if we try to have a multi-stakeholder participation. So that’s why it’s a good moment and we are running well in terms of time to see if there are any comments, any people asking for the floor. I’m seeing two people here at the front desk, another person there. So if you would be so kind to go to the mic and we start with you perhaps and then we go with the front desk. Please identify and introduce yourself.

Audience: Hi, can you hear me?

Jorge Cancio: Yes.

Audience: Okay, my name is Jacqueline Pigato, I’m with Data Privacy Brazil, Civil Society. Very nice panel, very nice discussions. I had a question that I think Jorge already is questioning the same thing about what we should put in the WSIS review and what we should leave for the IGF community. One of the things that we are discussing for the review is the integration of national and regional IGFs with the global IGF. And I have actually an honest question. I don’t know if we need this in the WSIS resolution or if this could be lead by the MEG or the IGF community as a whole to bring a connection more clear of what are the realities of national and regional IGFs, what the people are facing to connect this with the global governance action lines and the global governance directives that we are discussing here that most of the times are so disconnected and we need the national policy makers here to do this connection. So my question is if you think that we should put this in the WSIS resolution, we should fight for this or maybe better to leave for the IGF community. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much for that question. Any reactions from our panel? Timea has a reaction, apparently.

Suto Timea: Yes, she does.

Jorge Cancio: That’s great.

Suto Timea: Thank you, Jorge. Just briefly to respond, I think we need to separate the what from the how when we come to this question. If we don’t think about what needs to be in the WSIS plus 20 resolution, I think of recognition of the NRIs is important to be there. Not only because we want to say, oh, hey, look, there’s 170 something or even I’m not sure how many we have at this point, NRIs and look at the IGF has done all these national regional IGFs, but because it is a good demonstration that the multi-stakeholder model is spreading. This is what the IGF was supposed to do. If you’re looking at the Tunis agenda, we wanted to have multi-stakeholder conversations around the internet issues, and that was the IGF’s mandate and the fact that it has the IGF was able to bring this down to the grassroots level to the national IGFs. I think it’s a huge achievement, and I think that should be highlighted in the WSIS Plus 20 review. What we don’t need in the WSIS Plus 20 review is the how to make this work better, how to integrate better or less the national and regional IGFs with the IGF global. Actually, the sausage making process need not be in the WSIS Plus 20 outcomes, but I think it is important that the actual sausage is seen there because it has been a huge achievement of the past 20 years, and I think we should not lose sight of that.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you for that tasty metaphor at this time of the morning. But I see, Jen, you wanted to react as well to the question.

Jennifer Chung: Thanks, Jorge. I’ve avoided a little bit speaking about the national regional initiatives too much because I can go on forever, but one thing I did want to make clear, I absolutely agree with Timea, the recognition is very important, but we do not need anything prescriptive there because the beauty of the national regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives is that it is organic, is that it is independent, is that I think people always miss this as well. There is no hierarchy, so it’s not a reporting up or a reporting down. The national regional, sub-regional youth initiatives, they are actually quite organic, and the way it influences each other within the network as well as the global network, it’s not a pyramid at all, so that’s the beauty of it. No one size fits all, and actually, I think now we’re at 177 plus. I think that was the last figure I heard from Anya, either yesterday or two days ago. All of them are at different stages. There are regional IGFs, such as the APR IGF, such as EuroDIG, that are a little more developed because they’ve been around longer, but the beauty also is there are newer IGFs, like Ireland IGF, that just had its first meeting. and Iz, both for the NRIs outwardly and also for those who participate deeply in the NRIs. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much for that passion on the NRIs. Yes, Renata, please.

Renata Mielli: Just regarding what Jacqueline said about how we bring more decision makers to the IGF, I think this is one thing that, this is a point about we need to amplify the integration between WSIS Forum and the IGF, because decision makers participate more in WSIS Forum because WSIS has the mandate to do the follow-up of the action lines. And the other hand, I want to remember that we have the parliamentary track in the IGF. This is an important thing to bring more decision makers to the IGF. But I think as a community, we need to do homework to bring more deputies, more governments to this parliamentary track and maybe organizing more spaces on the IGF to governments. have the perception that this is an important space to inform their process, their decision-making in their countries, to make some network also. So I think we have a job to be done in this field.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Renata. And I think also Jordan, do you have a remark?

Jordan Carter: I just want to try and be a little bit controversial perhaps. It’s terrible that parliamentarians are locked away talking to parliamentarians. It’s also great that the IGF is creating a space where the parliamentarians can come and talk to parliamentarians. So I think we’ve got a challenge that is how do we have those people not just engaging with each other, but also on the floor and having the broader mix. So I think that’s something that could be picked up in the how do we improve the workings of the IGF, something that doesn’t need to be in the WSIS review. But that’s true with others, the idea of a judicial track, the idea of a policymaker’s track, the idea, you know, one track, all in the room, genuine debate. And if there are side events and so on, that’s one thing. But it’s great the parliamentary track is now open as well. It’s been a significant improvement and people have found lots of value in visiting. But how do we really weave it all together is the challenge.

Jorge Cancio: Absolutely. And we have our colleagues waiting at the front desk. Please go ahead, introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Anne McCormick. I lead global digital policy for EY. We’re active in the global north, the global south, and 80% of our people are under the age of 30. We are, I wanted to offer two observations. as a relative newcomer to this forum, but not a newcomer to multi-stakeholder and international efforts to integrate different stakeholder groups. I think listening to what Jordan said in particular, there’s a real need for concrete action for the credibility of these fora, particularly at this point in time, in this geopolitical context, where there are scarce resources, but also in light of the type of technologies that we’re looking at, there is real urgency. It’s great to look at the last 20 years and think about the next 20 years, but we and our stakeholders, I don’t just mean in the private sector, and by the way, the private sector is small entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of non-tech companies, it’s companies across sectors, in sectors that are deeply affected by tech transformation in a positive and negative way, so I just make a parenthesis on the richness of the private sector and its diversity, but I think there’s real urgency. We’re thinking about horizons of 18 months, that’s long, two years, maybe five, so we really need good definitions to the point Jordan made, definitions that are interoperable or recognized by other international authorities, OECD, other organizations. We need real clarity on how IGF, WSIS and other organizations within this network, how they are interacting concretely on the ground with issues that society, business and government are dealing with. We’re hearing, and I’ll say it both with respect and with challenge, we’re hearing amazing good words and thoughts in the parliamentary track I’ve been in. in the different discussions. But we need this to be concrete. We need fewer ideas, but really specific impact and priorities for the next 18 months to two years. We do not have time because we can talk as much as we want about an internet society. We’re having at the moment significant risks around technology, exclusion, division, and all the political and social discord that goes with it if it’s not well managed. I would say my second point has to do with what we can give, so turning the mirror to us. I think there’s an opportunity, as I’ve seen in the past, for example, with the World Economic Forum, to leverage perhaps the risk appetite of the private sector, but also others, to pilot and try out the few focus initiatives. Pilot, learn, improve, roll out, right? We need to move. It doesn’t need to be perfect. We need to learn fast. We need to make the difference where it matters. Set examples of best practice, not mandatory, not rigid, but this works. See if you can improve it. Build on what we’ve got. Make it easy. And that goes with capacity building. That’s essential, but also with focus. We could talk about this for a very long time, but I would urge you to really think short term with the long-term perspective, but short term, it’s about credibility. I also think it’s about respect for all the amazing people who participate here. Many have come from very far. It’s very difficult for them to come here. We need to turn this into action, not more dialogue. Thank you very much.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much for those words, and I guess we can apply that to all of us because there’s now you and us. We are all part of this community, but thank you so much. I don’t know if you want to intervene as well, and then we take some reactions from the panel because we are closing up.

Audience: So my name is Binta Mustafa, and I belong to the civil society and African group. I was looking forward to seeing Anriette, especially as we had a WSIS 20 plus review last year in October in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. So I was looking forward to listening, but Jennifer addressed, it’s not a pyramid, it’s not an up-down, so she addressed my reservations. So I would leave it there. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you. Thank you so much for emphasizing that point. And now I would quickly open it to reactions to our colleague’s point. I see Jordan.

Jordan Carter: Thank you, Anne, for that challenge. And it actually gets down to the very deep discussion about the nature of the IGF and its place in the system. The forum for discussion, not for decision, has a lot of scope around best practice, about sharing case studies and so on. And having done one year on the MAG, it is a perpetual challenge to select sessions that deliver on that. And it’s a perpetual challenge to find the resources to make that relatively simple translation, but it has to be done well from a discussion to three bullet points that could be done as opposed to three bullet points of what was said. And I think the system doesn’t invest in the analytic capability to deliver that, which is part of why we all need to be working on ways to get more resources into the system to that. I’m firmly convinced that the value of the discussions here is hugely untapped compared to what it could offer with that extra layer of processing and promulgation, if you like. So I thought that was a very nicely put challenge. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Jordan. Any other reactions? Chen?

Jennifer Chung: Thank you. I also echo what Jordan has said. I think us being on the panel, we’re kind of dancing around words that actually speak to this. When we speak to we need more resourcing for the IGF Secretariat, we do mean actually taking the decision shaping discussion here and then moving it to implementation in the different national arenas, sub-regional arenas, all of that. But that is not a clear role for IGF as a forum. So that is another gap that we see because, you know, right now taking the outputs, there’s a lot of rich output that comes out of the annual meeting, that comes out of the intersessional work, but that doesn’t land where people can then take it forward. So absolutely agree with you. That’s where we need to go. It is a constant and perennial criticism of the IGF. It’s a beauty of the IGF, but we also do need to take these outputs and promulgate it to the places where decisions can be taken, where actions can actually have impact. Thanks.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jen. Any other reaction?

Audience: I choose to say there is one reaction from the chat I would like to read out to the audience, which empathizes just the importance of establishing predictable cycles for the IGF or other UN governance structures, especially for NRIs to plan and engage with their own communities and to back up afterwards their messages.

Jorge Cancio: Okay, thank you so much. And Renata, you also wanted to chime in?

Renata Mielli: Just to add something regarding, we need to see the internet governance or digital governance as a whole system. And I think to transform some of the rich debates we have here into action. we need to have more national spaces to make the digital or internet governance as in a multi-stakeholder way. So I’m putting this because I’m from Brazil and in Brazil we have our Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and when we come here with our representatives, we try to come back to Brazil and transform some of this debate into action because the action is in the field, the action is in the community. For the IGF it is difficult to transform the debate. We are a forum to think about all the problems you bring to us and I completely agree but I think this is another challenge, how to contribute to create more and there is no formula. I don’t want to put my experience in Brazil as a model to be reproduced in other countries but each country, each region has to develop its own experience in terms of internet governance or digital governance to transform all this debate in action. I think this is another challenge.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Renata and I’m being advised that we have five minutes so I will take a last intervention from the floor. Please introduce yourself and make it very short and sweet please.

Audience: My name is Vinicius Fortuna, I’m the engineering lead for internet freedom at Google Gixxer and to her point about going to implementation from these conversations, I just want to add that, like, well, this is my first IGF, and I’m an engineer, and I think what is missing here is where are the people that build stuff? Like, where are the product people? Where are the engineers? Like, I see a lot of policy people, and the common is only bringing policy people for the most part. So, I think that, like, we need to put more effort to bring the people that are building, like, AI now, like, they should be here talking to all of us, because otherwise, like, there’s, like, this silo of builders and those that are doing policy, and we really need to break those walls.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. I call that for more multidiscipline, that is very much needed. I think we all endorse it, and I see a lot of nodding around the table. So, unfortunately, we could go on for ages, and in the end, the question Ann posed to this panel was what we were trying to answer with it, and in the end, if we look at the WSIS framework as a system, where we have UN agencies that are investing thousands of millions of dollars over the last 20 years in building connectivity, in in creating capacity building all over the world, be it UNESCO, be it UNDP, be it ITU, they work under this program, which is called WSIS, since more than 20 years, and really, the key we have to find, or the big question is, how do we make the system work better, more efficiently? in a more interconnected fashion so that it really delivers on the promise of the information society, Manuel Castells in the 90s, and now the digital world we are living in. So that’s really the key question and how do we make sure that the discussions from this forum, the IGF, really get across to the different national and regional levels, but also in the UN system. How do we make sure that the agencies really listen to the messages that we are delivering with these discussions so that they adapt their action lines? And that was the first question we had today. So how do we fit them together in a much more efficient manner instead of having these silos or parts of an architecture or part of a family where the members of the family seem not to talk to each other, or at least not enough. So that’s really the key and I hope that today we had some progress on this question with some ideas on the table. Some of these ideas we will have to put forward in the forthcoming WSIS plus 20 process. Other ideas are just to wake up, look into the mirror and say, okay, what can I do today for the IGF community? What can I do for my NRI? What can I do in the MAC? What can I do in this community? So there’s also a lot of things we can do ourselves if we are ambitious enough and we have the right dialogue and also we convince, of course, our able and small IGF secretariat and our colleagues from UNDESA. to let us do many of these things. So I see the timing in red. This is the sign for me to close this session. Let’s give a round of applause to all intervenants. Thank you so much and looking forward to further conversations. Thank you.

Agreement points

WSIS action lines are comprehensive and technology-agnostic, requiring minimal structural changes

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Renata Mielli
– Suto Timea
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Action lines are comprehensive and don’t need substantial revision – technology-agnostic design allows accommodation of new issues

Action lines should remain broad but need evaluation of what can be added within each line for current realities like AI, data governance, and human rights online

Action lines have stood the test of time due to forward-looking and technology-agnostic approach – new developments can be recognized within existing framework

Current action lines are broad enough to encompass new developments, but language could be sharpened to reflect technological realities without jeopardizing existing framework

Summary

All speakers agreed that the WSIS action lines were well-designed with a technology-agnostic approach that allows them to accommodate new developments like AI and data governance without requiring fundamental restructuring

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Need for better coordination between WSIS framework institutions

Speakers

– Suto Timea
– Renata Mielli
– Jennifer Chung
– Jordan Carter

Arguments

Biggest gap is lack of coordination between IGF, WSIS Forum, and CSTD – institutions move forward without taking each other’s outputs as input

Need for more integrated spaces and processes, particularly better integration between IGF and WSIS Forum through measures like multi-stakeholder governance committee

Different flavors of multi-stakeholder models exist between IGF and WSIS Forum, but insufficient coordination leads to overlapping programming that could benefit from cross-pollination

IGF represents best multi-stakeholder approach but system needs driving force or organic coordination – suggests multi-stakeholder steering group as institutional center

Summary

All speakers identified poor coordination between WSIS institutions (IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD) as a major gap, with overlapping programming and insufficient information sharing between forums

Topics

Legal and regulatory

IGF needs permanent mandate and stronger funding

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Renata Mielli
– Suto Timea
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Permanent mandate needed for investment confidence, expanded MAG responsibility, stronger NRI connections, and more funding for secretariat and global south participation

IGF should be the space to coordinate interconnected digital governance discussions and host fragmented debates that currently occur across multiple forums

WSIS Plus 20 should recognize IGF evolution and set it up for future success through formalized status and funding, while IGF community must improve outreach and communication

IGF needs internal strengthening through improved MAG processes and stronger secretariat with more resources, plus external coordination role to avoid duplication

Summary

All speakers supported establishing a permanent IGF mandate with stable funding combining UN regular budget and voluntary contributions, along with strengthened secretariat capabilities

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers identified the critical gap between IGF’s rich discussions and their translation into actionable outcomes, emphasizing the need for better analytic capability and connection to decision-making processes

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Challenge of translating IGF discussions into actionable outcomes requires more analytic capability and resources for processing discussions into implementable recommendations

Rich outputs from IGF need to land where people can take them forward for implementation, requiring better connection between discussion and decision-making spaces

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized IGF’s potential role as a central coordinating space for fragmented digital governance discussions occurring across multiple forums

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

IGF should be the space to coordinate interconnected digital governance discussions and host fragmented debates that currently occur across multiple forums

IGF needs internal strengthening through improved MAG processes and stronger secretariat with more resources, plus external coordination role to avoid duplication

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers advocated for using WSIS Plus 20 as an opportunity to formalize IGF’s evolved status and establish stable institutional foundations for future success

Speakers

– Suto Timea
– Jordan Carter

Arguments

WSIS Plus 20 should recognize IGF evolution and set it up for future success through formalized status and funding, while IGF community must improve outreach and communication

Permanent mandate needed for investment confidence, expanded MAG responsibility, stronger NRI connections, and more funding for secretariat and global south participation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Technology-agnostic approach of 20-year-old action lines remains relevant

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Renata Mielli
– Suto Timea
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Action lines are comprehensive and don’t need substantial revision – technology-agnostic design allows accommodation of new issues

Action lines should remain broad but need evaluation of what can be added within each line for current realities like AI, data governance, and human rights online

Action lines have stood the test of time due to forward-looking and technology-agnostic approach – new developments can be recognized within existing framework

Current action lines are broad enough to encompass new developments, but language could be sharpened to reflect technological realities without jeopardizing existing framework

Explanation

Despite representing different stakeholder groups and the rapid pace of technological change over 20 years, all speakers unanimously agreed that the original WSIS action lines remain fundamentally sound and don’t require major restructuring – an unexpected level of consensus on preserving existing framework

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder approach needs improvement across all WSIS institutions

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Suto Timea
– Renata Mielli
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

IGF represents best multi-stakeholder approach but system needs driving force or organic coordination – suggests multi-stakeholder steering group as institutional center

Biggest gap is lack of coordination between IGF, WSIS Forum, and CSTD – institutions move forward without taking each other’s outputs as input

Need for more integrated spaces and processes, particularly better integration between IGF and WSIS Forum through measures like multi-stakeholder governance committee

Different flavors of multi-stakeholder models exist between IGF and WSIS Forum, but insufficient coordination leads to overlapping programming that could benefit from cross-pollination

Explanation

Even though IGF is often praised as a successful multi-stakeholder model, all speakers agreed that even the best-performing institution (IGF) needs improvement, and the entire WSIS system requires better multi-stakeholder coordination – suggesting a mature, self-critical assessment rather than defensive positioning

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus across all major issues: preserving the technology-agnostic WSIS action lines, improving coordination between WSIS institutions, strengthening IGF with permanent mandate and funding, and addressing the implementation gap between discussions and actionable outcomes

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong agreement suggests the WSIS Plus 20 review process may focus more on implementation and coordination improvements rather than fundamental restructuring, though the challenge will be translating this policy-level consensus into concrete institutional changes and adequate funding commitments

Different viewpoints

Approach to updating WSIS action lines

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Action lines are comprehensive and don’t need substantial revision – technology-agnostic design allows accommodation of new issues

Current action lines are broad enough to encompass new developments, but language could be sharpened to reflect technological realities without jeopardizing existing framework

Summary

Carter advocates against reopening action lines entirely, while Chung acknowledges the need for some language sharpening and updating to reflect current realities, showing different levels of openness to modification

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Level of consensus on action lines modification

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Action lines are comprehensive and don’t need substantial revision – technology-agnostic design allows accommodation of new issues

Current action lines are broad enough to encompass new developments, but language could be sharpened to reflect technological realities without jeopardizing existing framework

Explanation

Despite being from similar technical community backgrounds (both part of TCCM), Carter takes a more conservative stance against reopening action lines while Chung shows more openness to language updates, suggesting different risk assessments within the technical community

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers on major issues, with only minor disagreements on implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. The main area of disagreement was the extent to which WSIS action lines should be modified.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications for effective implementation – while speakers largely agreed on problems and general solutions, the subtle differences in approach could significantly impact negotiation strategies and outcomes in the WSIS Plus 20 process. The consensus may actually indicate a need for more diverse perspectives to ensure robust policy development.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers identified the critical gap between IGF’s rich discussions and their translation into actionable outcomes, emphasizing the need for better analytic capability and connection to decision-making processes

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Challenge of translating IGF discussions into actionable outcomes requires more analytic capability and resources for processing discussions into implementable recommendations

Rich outputs from IGF need to land where people can take them forward for implementation, requiring better connection between discussion and decision-making spaces

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized IGF’s potential role as a central coordinating space for fragmented digital governance discussions occurring across multiple forums

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

IGF should be the space to coordinate interconnected digital governance discussions and host fragmented debates that currently occur across multiple forums

IGF needs internal strengthening through improved MAG processes and stronger secretariat with more resources, plus external coordination role to avoid duplication

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers advocated for using WSIS Plus 20 as an opportunity to formalize IGF’s evolved status and establish stable institutional foundations for future success

Speakers

– Suto Timea
– Jordan Carter

Arguments

WSIS Plus 20 should recognize IGF evolution and set it up for future success through formalized status and funding, while IGF community must improve outreach and communication

Permanent mandate needed for investment confidence, expanded MAG responsibility, stronger NRI connections, and more funding for secretariat and global south participation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

WSIS Action Lines are sufficiently comprehensive and technology-agnostic to accommodate emerging issues like AI, data governance, and human rights online without requiring substantial revision

The main gap in the WSIS framework is lack of coordination between IGF, WSIS Forum, and CSTD – these institutions operate in silos without adequately incorporating each other’s outputs

IGF needs strengthening through permanent mandate, enhanced funding (mix of UN regular budget and donations), stronger secretariat, and improved coordination mechanisms

There is urgent need to translate policy discussions into concrete actions with specific 18-month priorities rather than continuing endless dialogue

Digital governance fragmentation across multiple forums creates participation challenges, especially for Global South stakeholders with limited resources

National and regional IGFs (177+ initiatives) represent successful organic multi-stakeholder model that should be recognized but not made hierarchical or prescriptive

Better integration needed between technical implementers/engineers and policy makers to bridge the gap between those who build technology and those who govern it

Resolutions and action items

MAG (Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group) tasked to review internal processes after Norway meeting to improve efficiency and institutional knowledge retention

Launch of Net Mundial Plus 10 guidelines book scheduled for 3pm-4pm at IGF village open stage

Swiss and Australian non-papers identified as inspiration for other stakeholders to develop common ground positions

WSIS Plus 20 process should recognize evolution of IGF and formally acknowledge National/Regional IGFs as achievement

Need to establish predictable cycles for IGF and UN governance structures to enable better planning by NRIs and communities

Unresolved issues

What specific content should be included in WSIS Plus 20 outcome document versus what should be left to community self-improvement

How to define ‘digital governance’ as distinct from ‘internet governance’ – lack of common definition creates confusion

How to effectively bring more decision-makers and parliamentarians into broader IGF discussions rather than separate tracks

Funding mechanisms and amounts needed for strengthened IGF secretariat and Global South participation

Specific coordination mechanisms between IGF, WSIS Forum, and CSTD beyond general calls for better integration

How to translate rich IGF outputs into actionable recommendations that reach decision-makers

Balance between maintaining organic, bottom-up nature of NRIs while improving coordination with global IGF

Suggested compromises

Keep WSIS action lines broad and technology-agnostic while updating language within existing framework to reflect current realities

Establish multi-stakeholder governance committee for WSIS framework while expanding IGF’s role in monitoring action lines

Create permanent IGF mandate for stability while maintaining capacity for continuous improvement without requiring intergovernmental negotiations

Combine UN regular budget funding with voluntary donations for IGF secretariat to ensure baseline stability plus flexibility for special projects

Recognize NRIs in WSIS Plus 20 outcome without prescribing specific coordination mechanisms, preserving their organic independence

Strengthen IGF agenda-setting role for broader WSIS system while building on existing connections with NRIs rather than creating new requirements

Focus WSIS Plus 20 on high-level recognition and framework while leaving detailed implementation mechanisms to multi-stakeholder community processes

I just want to finish quickly by paying tribute to the Swiss government and the Australian government for their non-papers… but the ideas around LMSSG and revamped UNGASS or a help desk for WSIS were in your paper. The Australians also argued for a stronger IGF secretariat and joined the call for a strengthened UNGASS.

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Reason

This comment was insightful because it introduced concrete policy proposals that had been developed outside the session, giving the discussion tangible reference points rather than abstract concepts. It demonstrated that serious institutional thinking was already happening at the governmental level.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from theoretical discussions about coordination to concrete institutional mechanisms. It prompted Jorge Cancio to clarify that the Swiss non-paper represented extensive global consultation, elevating the discussion to acknowledge real policy development processes underway.

I just want to make one more point around even the title of this session, around digital governance. I think the thing that people casually mean when they say digital governance is what Tunis says internet governance is. But we know what internet governance is because it’s written down in Tunis. Digital governance is not defined. And if we’re going to start using that as the chapeau or the framing for what this system is to do, we had better write down what it means, because otherwise there’s lots of confusion.

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Reason

This was a fundamental conceptual challenge that questioned the very terminology being used throughout the session. It highlighted a critical gap between assumed understanding and actual definitional clarity, which is essential for effective governance structures.

Impact

This comment prompted Renata Mielli to directly address the definitional challenge in her later intervention, acknowledging it as a major debate topic and emphasizing the need for common language. It elevated the entire discussion by forcing participants to confront terminological precision.

We need fewer ideas, but really specific impact and priorities for the next 18 months to two years. We do not have time because we can talk as much as we want about an internet society. We’re having at the moment significant risks around technology, exclusion, division, and all the political and social discord that goes with it if it’s not well managed.

Speaker

Anne McCormick (EY)

Reason

This was a direct challenge to the entire discussion format and approach, calling for concrete action over continued dialogue. It introduced urgency and practical business perspective that contrasted sharply with the more academic policy discussion that had dominated.

Impact

This comment created a notable shift in tone and prompted immediate responses from multiple panelists. Jordan Carter acknowledged it as a ‘challenge’ and discussed the gap between discussion and actionable outputs. Jennifer Chung directly addressed the criticism by acknowledging it as a ‘perennial criticism of the IGF.’ It forced the panel to defend and explain the value proposition of their work.

What makes it more difficult to many sectors to participate in a more effective way, especially stakeholders from the global south, even governments and all the sectors, have a lot of difficulty to follow all these spaces. We have AI high level, AI forums, a lot of AI forums, in fact. We have data governance. We have cybersecurity. We have internet forums.

Speaker

Renata Mielli

Reason

This comment was insightful because it identified forum proliferation as a barrier to meaningful participation, particularly for resource-constrained stakeholders. It connected the coordination problem to equity and inclusion issues.

Impact

This observation reinforced and deepened the discussion about avoiding duplication of efforts. It provided concrete examples of the fragmentation problem and linked it to global south participation challenges, adding an equity dimension to what had been primarily a coordination efficiency discussion.

Where are the people that build stuff? Like, where are the product people? Where are the engineers? Like, I see a lot of policy people, and the common is only bringing policy people for the most part. So, I think that, like, we need to put more effort to bring the people that are building, like, AI now, like, they should be here talking to all of us, because otherwise, like, there’s, like, this silo of builders and those that are doing policy, and we really need to break those walls.

Speaker

Vinicius Fortuna (Google)

Reason

This comment identified a fundamental composition problem in internet governance discussions – the absence of technical implementers from policy conversations. As an engineer attending his first IGF, he brought a fresh perspective on who should be at the table.

Impact

This comment came at the very end but crystallized many of the implementation concerns raised earlier. Jorge Cancio immediately endorsed it as calling for ‘more multidiscipline,’ and noted widespread agreement around the table. It provided a concrete explanation for why policy discussions often fail to translate into effective implementation.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing three critical tensions: the gap between theoretical coordination and concrete institutional mechanisms, the urgency of implementation versus continued dialogue, and the disconnect between policy makers and technical implementers. Jordan Carter’s interventions elevated the discussion from abstract coordination concepts to specific definitional and institutional challenges. Anne McCormick’s business perspective created a defensive moment that forced panelists to justify the value of their forums, while the engineer’s final comment provided a concrete diagnosis for implementation failures. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a more critical examination of fundamental assumptions about how internet governance should work, who should participate, and what outcomes are actually needed.

What is the definition of ‘digital governance’ and how does it differ from ‘internet governance’?

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Explanation

Jordan pointed out that while internet governance is clearly defined in the Tunis Agenda, digital governance is not defined, yet it’s being used as a framing concept. He emphasized the need to write down what digital governance means to avoid confusion.

Should the integration of national and regional IGFs with the global IGF be included in the WSIS resolution or left to the IGF community?

Speaker

Jacqueline Pigato

Explanation

This question addresses the governance structure and whether formal recognition in intergovernmental documents is needed or if organic community-led integration is preferable.

How can we bring more decision makers and parliamentarians into broader IGF discussions rather than keeping them in separate tracks?

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Explanation

Jordan raised concerns about parliamentarians being ‘locked away’ in their own track and questioned how to achieve better integration across all stakeholder groups in IGF discussions.

What specific mechanisms are needed to translate IGF discussions into concrete actions within 18-24 months?

Speaker

Anne McCormick

Explanation

She challenged the forum to move beyond dialogue to concrete implementation, emphasizing the urgency of current technological challenges and the need for specific, actionable outcomes.

How can we better engage technical implementers (engineers, product builders) in internet governance discussions?

Speaker

Vinicius Fortuna

Explanation

He identified a gap between policy discussions and the people who actually build technology, particularly AI systems, suggesting the need to break down silos between builders and policy makers.

What constitutes adequate funding levels and structure for a strengthened IGF Secretariat?

Speaker

Multiple speakers (Jordan Carter, Jennifer Chung, Timea Suto)

Explanation

While all agreed more funding is needed, the specific amounts, funding mix between UN budget and voluntary contributions, and resource allocation priorities require further definition.

How can IGF outputs be better processed and translated into actionable recommendations for different audiences?

Speaker

Jordan Carter and Jennifer Chung

Explanation

They identified the need for analytical capability to transform rich discussions into concrete bullet points and recommendations that can be implemented by different stakeholders.

What would be the specific structure and mandate of a proposed multi-stakeholder governance committee for the WSIS framework?

Speaker

Renata Mielli

Explanation

While the concept was mentioned as a potential solution for better coordination, the specific governance structure, membership, and operational details need further elaboration.