Multistakeholder digital governance beyond 2025

Summary

The IGF 2025 NRI main session focused on multi-stakeholder dialogue governance beyond 2025, examining how to strengthen internet governance through inclusive participation of all stakeholders. Moderated by Christine Arida from the Egyptian government, the session brought together representatives from over 176 national, regional, and youth Internet Governance Forums (NRIs) to assess the multi-stakeholder approach’s effectiveness and future evolution.

The discussion centered on three key objectives: evaluating evidence-based insights from NRIs on multi-stakeholder governance impact, exploring opportunities for strengthening digital governance beyond 2025 within frameworks like WSIS Plus 20 and the Global Digital Compact, and identifying practical proposals to enhance global digital governance structures. Speakers emphasized that multi-stakeholder processes must be transparent, accessible, and meaningful rather than tokenistic, with clear feedback loops showing how stakeholder input influences outcomes.

Several critical challenges emerged, including language barriers, resource constraints, and the burden of historical context that makes participation daunting for newcomers. Speakers highlighted successful examples from various regions, such as Colombia’s 11-year experience with meaningful policy contributions, Kenya’s adaptation during COVID-19, and Lesotho’s whole-of-society governance model. The importance of youth engagement was repeatedly emphasized, with calls to end tokenistic participation and provide genuine leadership opportunities.

Sustainability emerged as a major concern, with discussions about establishing trust funds and securing government buy-in for long-term NRI viability. Participants stressed that NRIs serve as the heart of the IGF ecosystem, bridging local and global governance discussions. The session concluded with strong support for renewing the IGF mandate and recognizing NRIs as special assets deserving central roles in global digital governance, emphasizing that multi-stakeholder governance must meet people where they are in their languages and communities.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Strengthening Multi-Stakeholder Participation in UN Processes**: Speakers emphasized the need to enhance meaningful participation of non-governmental stakeholders in processes like WSIS Plus 20 review and the Global Digital Compact, with clear visibility on how their input is used and transparent, accessible consultation mechanisms.

– **National and Regional IGF (NRI) Impact and Sustainability**: Multiple speakers shared concrete examples of how NRIs have influenced local policy-making (data protection laws, AI policies, children’s online protection) while highlighting critical sustainability challenges, particularly funding and resource constraints that threaten long-term viability.

– **Inclusion and Diversity Challenges**: Discussion focused on barriers to meaningful participation including linguistic diversity, youth tokenism, cultural representation, and the specific needs of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), with calls for moving beyond superficial consultation to genuine inclusive governance.

– **Scaling Multi-Stakeholder Models**: Speakers explored three approaches to scaling social innovations – scaling out (increasing reach), scaling up (increasing policy impact), and scaling deep (fostering cultural change and mindset shifts) – as frameworks for expanding effective multi-stakeholder governance.

– **Future of IGF Mandate and Digital Governance Evolution**: Participants discussed the renewal of the IGF mandate beyond 2025, with suggestions for rebranding to “Digital Governance Forum” to reflect broader scope, and positioning NRIs as special assets and key catalysts in global digital governance networks.

## Overall Purpose:

The session aimed to assess the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder approaches in internet and digital governance, drawing on evidence from National and Regional Internet Governance Forums (NRIs) to identify opportunities for strengthening global digital governance beyond 2025, particularly within the WSIS Plus 20 review and Global Digital Compact frameworks.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with speakers sharing both challenges and success stories from their respective regions. While acknowledging significant obstacles (funding, linguistic barriers, tokenistic participation), the tone remained optimistic and solution-oriented, with participants actively building on each other’s ideas and offering concrete recommendations. The atmosphere was professional yet passionate, reflecting genuine commitment to improving multi-stakeholder governance models.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Christine Arida** – Egyptian government representative, Session moderator

– **Byron Holland** – President and CEO of CIRA (Canadian Internet Registration Authority), Canada IGF representative

– **Nithati Moorosi** – Honourable Minister of Information, Science, Technology and Innovation, Lesotho, Lesotho IGF representative

– **Declan McDermott** – Internet Policy and Regulatory Affairs Manager, .ie Ireland, Ireland IGF coordinator

– **Agustina Ordonez** – Chief Advisor to Deputies in the National Congress in Argentina and Coordinator of the Gender and Public Policy Forum at Yale University, Argentina IGF representative

– **Joyce Chen** – Senior Advisor Strategic Relations APNIC, Australia/Singapore, APR IGF representative, IGF Support Association Executive Committee member

– **Sarai Faleupolu Tevita** – Chief Operating Officer, National University of Samoa, Pacific IGF representative, Chair of Pacific Islands chapter of Internet Society

– **Ahmed Farag** – Senior Policy and International Relations Specialist, National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt, North African IGF and Arab IGF representative

– **Audience** – Various audience members with questions and comments

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mohammed Abdul Haqonu** – Bangladesh IGF representative

– **Naza Nicholas Kirama** – Tanzania IGF Director

– **Adriana Castro** – Professor at Universidad External de Colombia, Colombian IGF member

– **Grace Gidaiga** – Kenya ICT Action Network (KIKTONET) representative, Kenya IGF convenor

– **Vanessa Lemos Campos** – Supporting Interreg project for Greater Copenhagen/Swedish West Coast/Norway region

– **Jenna Fung** – Coordinator of Asia Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum

– **Claire** – German Youth IGF participant

– **Rodolfo** – IGF Brazil coordinator

– **Pons Leit** – Gambian IGF NRI representative

– **Mariam Adjobe** – Youth chair of Gambia IGF process (mentioned but not present)

– **Remote participant from Benin** – Speaking from remote hub in Abrikalave

– **Nigerian IGF representative** –

# IGF 2025 NRI Main Session: Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue Governance Beyond 2025

## Discussion Report

### Executive Summary

The IGF 2025 NRI main session, moderated by Christine Arida from the Egyptian government, brought together representatives from over 176 national, regional, and youth Internet Governance Forums (NRIs) to examine the future of multi-stakeholder digital governance beyond 2025.

Moderator Christine Arida outlined three key objectives for the session: evaluating evidence-based insights from NRIs on multi-stakeholder governance impact, exploring opportunities for strengthening digital governance within frameworks like WSIS Plus 20 and the Global Digital Compact, and identifying practical proposals to enhance global digital governance structures.

The discussion featured diverse perspectives from government, civil society, technical community, and youth representatives, highlighting both achievements and ongoing challenges in multi-stakeholder governance implementation across different regions and contexts.

### Key Speakers and Perspectives

#### Byron Holland – CIRA and Canada IGF

Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority and Canada IGF representative, emphasized the critical need for meaningful non-governmental stakeholder participation in UN processes. He noted concerning trends, stating that “early drafts of the GDC did not include any references to the technical community, language that’s been common for literally decades. It worked its way back into the final draft, but I would argue only after unnecessary effort.”

Holland stressed that multi-stakeholder processes must be “transparent, comprehensible, actionable, and accessible to diverse stakeholders including linguistic, cultural, and geographic diversity.” He called for the WSIS Plus 20 outcome document to explicitly support the multi-stakeholder model and provide a long-term IGF mandate with enhanced resources.

#### Minister Nithati Moorosi – Lesotho Government

The Honourable Minister of Information, Science, Technology and Innovation from Lesotho emphasized that governments must “actively enable and protect multi-stakeholder participation, ensuring civil society, academia, technical communities, and private sector have real influence.” She argued that the multi-stakeholder model must be institutionalized rather than treated as a token gesture in intergovernmental settings.

#### Declan McDermott – .ie Ireland

McDermott, Internet Policy and Regulatory Affairs Manager from .ie Ireland, discussed scaling multi-stakeholder models through three approaches: scaling out (increasing reach), scaling up (increasing policy impact), and scaling deeply (fostering cultural change). He noted real appetite among stakeholder groups to participate, with multi-stakeholder forums providing benefits through open, inclusive discussions.

#### Agustina Ordonez – Argentina IGF

Ordonez, Chief Advisor to Deputies in the National Congress in Argentina and Argentina IGF representative, highlighted significant barriers including language challenges and lack of interpretation services. She emphasized that “concepts and definitions carry different cultural, social, and historical meanings across languages and regions,” and advocated for youth to be at the center of multi-stakeholder approaches rather than treated as just another sector.

#### Joyce Chen – APNIC and IGF Support Association

Chen, speaking in multiple capacities including APNIC Senior Advisor and IGF Support Association Executive Committee member, provided insight into institutional challenges. She noted “the amount of baggage the internet community is carrying from conversations 20 years ago” and how this creates barriers for newcomers who must first understand extensive background before engaging with current issues.

#### Sarai Faleupolu Tevita – Pacific IGF

Tevita, Chief Operating Officer at National University of Samoa and Pacific IGF representative, emphasized that for Small Island Developing States, “multi-stakeholder governance is not a luxury but a fundamental operating principle for survival and sustainable development in the digital age.” She highlighted the need to prioritize accessibility, climate-smart infrastructure, and local capacity building.

#### Ahmed Farag – Egypt NTRA

Farag, Senior Policy and International Relations Specialist from Egypt’s National Telecom Regulatory Authority, discussed regional challenges in the Middle East and North Africa, noting the region operates in three languages (English, French, and Arabic) and faces financial and linguistic challenges requiring international community support.

### Key Discussion Themes

#### NRI Impact and Sustainability

Multiple speakers provided evidence of NRI effectiveness. Adriana Castro from Colombian IGF highlighted their 11-year experience with tangible results including contributions to child protection and AI policies through four working subgroups. Grace Gidaiga from Kenya IGF noted their role as one of the oldest NRIs (18th edition) in enabling policy dialogue and capacity building through programs like the Kenya School of Internet Governance.

However, sustainability emerged as a critical concern. Joyce Chen acknowledged that while the IGF Support Association continues funding NRIs from developing economies, longer-term sustainability models are needed. Various solutions were proposed, including Naza Nicholas Kirama from Tanzania IGF suggesting trust funds, and Nigerian IGF representatives demonstrating government buy-in through ministry and parliamentary engagement.

#### Language and Inclusion Barriers

Language barriers were identified as a persistent challenge limiting participation. Ahmed Farag noted the complexity of serving multiple languages in the Middle East and North Africa region. Mohammed Abdul Haqonu from Bangladesh IGF raised questions about linguistic diversity, while multiple speakers called for dedicated interpretation services.

#### Youth Engagement

Jenna Fung, Coordinator of Asia Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum, delivered a direct challenge: “We’ve been talking about youth engagement for a long time… if we want to talk about the future of internet governance forum or digital governance in general, we should include youth more proactively… we should end tokenistic participation of youth now, because we’ve been talking about that for at least eight years of my participation.”

### Audience Interventions and Proposals

The session included several significant audience contributions:

– Claire from German Youth IGF suggested joint NRI statements for WSIS Plus 20 consultations

– A remote intervention from Benin discussed African developer platforms

– Rodolfo from Brazil IGF emphasized that NRIs should be considered special assets within the WSIS Plus 20 review

– Various speakers proposed concrete improvements including interpretation services, youth mentorship programs, and community voting for topic selection

### Future Directions

Speakers identified several priorities for moving forward:

**WSIS Plus 20 Engagement**: Multiple speakers called for NRI involvement in WSIS Plus 20 processes, with proposals for joint statements and formal recognition of NRIs as special assets in global governance.

**Institutional Recognition**: There was support for enhancing the role of NRIs in global processes and ensuring they receive appropriate recognition and resources.

**Practical Improvements**: Concrete proposals included establishing interpretation services, creating youth mentorship programs, and developing multi-stakeholder advisory councils at national levels.

### Conclusion

The session demonstrated the diversity of approaches and challenges facing NRIs globally while highlighting common concerns around sustainability, inclusion, and meaningful participation in global governance processes. The discussion provided a foundation for continued NRI engagement in upcoming global processes, particularly WSIS Plus 20, with clear identification of both achievements and areas requiring further development.

As Minister Moorosi observed in her closing remarks: “If multistakeholderism is to thrive, it cannot remain an elite and abstract concept. It has to meet people where they are, in their languages, their communities, their platforms, and that is what will turn consultation into creation.”

Christine Arida: Good afternoon everyone, distinguished delegates, colleagues, friends, both here in our plenary hall and those joining us online from around the world. A warm welcome to all of you. It’s my distinct honor and pleasure to be welcoming you to the IGF 2025 NRI main session titled Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue Governance Beyond 2025. My name is Christine Arida with the Egyptian governments and I have the privilege to be your moderator for today. We are meeting at a pivotal moment for global internet governance, two decades after the World Summit on the Information Society and well into the digital decade of the 2030 agenda. We find ourselves reflecting not only on past achievements but also on how we can collectively ensure a more inclusive and transparent and resilient digital future. The multi-stakeholder model has been foundational to this journey and today we aim to both reaffirm and rethink it for a rapid evolving world. With over 176 national, regional and youth IGFs, collectively known as the NRIs, who are contributing their voices and experiences to this session, we are anchored in the diverse realities of digital governance on the ground. This is not only a testament to the strengths of the local multi-stakeholder communities but a demonstration of how they can shape and influence global policy. Our goal for today’s session is three-folds. We will draw on evidence-based insights from the NRIs to assess how the multi-stakeholder approach to internet and digital governance has been functioning and to highlight its tangible impact at grassroots level. We will also explore opportunities for strengthening the multi-stakeholder digital governance beyond 2025, particularly within the ongoing WSIS Plus 20 review but also in light of the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines and the adoption of the Global Digital Compact. And thirdly, we will spotlight practical and forward-looking proposals to enhance global digital governance, including adapting governance structures to new technologies and developments. So let me quickly mention a few organizational remarks. We will begin by hearing from seven speakers who represent various NRI communities and who will be setting the scene for us. I kindly ask each speaker to keep remarks at four minutes. And following that, we will have an open-floor discussion with all of you and have a broader exchange so we can have questions and input and reflections. I encourage all of us to think not only in terms of challenges but also in terms of opportunities and possibilities and how can we engage the wider community across the world. So without further ado, let me introduce our speakers for today. So from Canada IGF, representing Canada IGF, we have Mr. Byron Holland, President and CEO of CIRA Canada. From the Lesotho IGF, we have Honourable Minister Ms. Nithati Moorosi, Minister of Information, Science, Technology and Innovation, Lesotho. From Ireland IGF, we have Mr. Declan McDermott, Internet Policy and Regulatory Affairs Manager, .ie Ireland. Representing Argentina IGF, we have Ms. Agustina Ordonez, Chief Advisor to Deputies in the National Congress in Argentina and Coordinator of the Gender and Public Policy Forum at Yale University, Argentina. And representing APR IGF, we have Ms. Joyce Chen, Senior Advisor Strategic Relations APNIC, Australia, Singapore. And representing Pacific IGF, we have Mrs.Sarai Faleupolu Tevita, Chief Operating Officer, National University of Samoa. And representing North African IGF and Arab IGF, we have Mr. Ahmed Farag, Senior Policy and International Relations Specialist, National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt. Please, a warm welcome to our speakers today. So, welcome everyone and let us start with our panel today. And our first question is for Byron. Byron, if you can talk to us about how the multi-stakeholder approach can be strengthened within UN-led processes such as the WSIS Plus 20 review and the Global Digital Compact to ensure more inclusive, transparent and effective digital governance. Byron, please.

Byron Holland: Well, thanks for the question, Christine. And it’s a pleasure to be here. My name is Byron and I’m the President and CEO of CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. Most people know us for being the ccTLD operator for .ca, but we are also the secretariat for the Canadian Internet Governance Forum, or the CIGF. To your question, Christine, in UN processes like the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 review, I think the multi-stakeholder approach can and should be strengthened, both in how the process is actually conducted and in its outcomes, as well as in its ability to build trust and confidence. And I’m going to focus on a few points. Primarily informed by my own organization’s work convening the CIGF, but also personally having participated in Global IGF since, I can’t believe it, 2008. But when it comes to processes, non-governmental stakeholders really need to be enabled to contribute meaningfully and consistently to the WSIS Plus 20 review. With clear visibility on how their input is being used or not, many NRIs that engage in the Global Digital Compact process are expected and are expecting to contribute to the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 review. And as the Global IGF’s mandate itself comes under review, these initiatives, I think, can offer valuable perspectives on the IGF’s wide-ranging and hopefully long-term impact. The process NRIs and other stakeholders participate in really must be transparent, comprehensible, actionable, and accessible, both to the commonly identified groups like academia or the private sector, but also to the diversity of other stakeholders, be they linguistic, cultural, geographic, or other as well. And I think this means in practice providing ample outreach and notice for consultations, which can be difficult to find and understand when, to ensure transparency by posting submissions publicly, and establishing a connection between those contributions and how they shape outcomes or not. And these are just a few, but I think really concrete examples that can make a significant difference. But we don’t have to invent the wheel again. There are other entities like the NetMundial Plus 10 statement that offer valuable guidance to how multilateral processes like the WSIS Plus 20 can integrate multi-stakeholder elements to make processes stronger. And as far as outcomes go, I think the WSIS Plus 20 reviewed outcome document should explicitly support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. I mean, the original WSIS process, particularly the Tunis agenda, was foundational in defining this very model. Now we have a critical opportunity to strengthen and future enable it. In the WSIS Plus 20 review outcomes, CIRA strongly supports a long-term mandate for the global IGF, along with enhanced institutional resourcing. I think this would reflect the Forum’s pivotal role in shaping discourse around Internet governance and related policy issues, as well as the broader ecosystem that it fosters, including all the bottom-up work of the NRIs. And finally, confidence and trust. You know, early drafts of the GDC did not include any references to the technical community, language that’s been common for literally decades. It worked its way back into the final draft, but I would argue only after unnecessary effort. Truly an unforced error. And again, we see some questionable wording regarding the tech community in the elements paper. Intentional or not, an unforced error. It unnecessarily diminishes confidence and trust in the process. If we’re gonna have a robust model of internet governance globally, multi-stakeholder processes are critical, even in multilateral environments like the WSIS Plus 20 review. In fact, I think done effectively with clear processes and strong feedback loops, multi-stakeholder processes have significant potential to instill confidence and dramatically strengthen UN processes like the WSIS Plus 20 review. Thanks.

Christine Arida: Thank you so much, Byron, and thank you for reminding us of the core principles that are at the essence of that whole multi-stakeholder model. So now I turn to Honorable Minister Nithati, and if you can also give us your perspective on that same question, particularly from the perspective of governments and their role in the multi-stakeholder model evolution. Please, the floor is yours.

Nithati Moorosi: Thank you, thank you, Christine. I want to first start by affirming my country’s strong belief in multi-stakeholder model, not simply as a matter of principle, but as a core strategy for building digital governance that is inclusive, resilient, and future-ready. As a model that allows all voices to be heard. From a government perspective, our role in shaping this model must go beyond simply participating. We must actively enable and protect multi-stakeholder reason within global forums, such as Global Digital Compact and WSIS Plus 20 review. That means advocating for institutional commitments that ensures that civil society, the academia, technical communities, and the private sector are not merely invited to such forums to sit around the table, but that their inputs carries real influence. In Lesotho, our ministry organizes the Lesotho Internet Governance Forum annually in partnership with the civil society, the private sector, academia, and development partners. This national platform allows all voices to contribute to the shaping of digital policy. It exemplifies our commitment to collaborative decision-making and ensures political coherence with global norms while reflecting national realities. The 2025 edition of the Lesotho IGF is already under preparation as we speak. Our recently adopted National Digital Transformation Strategy builds on this foundation. It embeds on whole of society governance model with a multi-sector advisory council, stakeholder engagement forums, and innovation sandboxes because we believe digital ecosystem must be co-owned. So internationally, we believe that the same approach must apply. The multi-stakeholder model must be institutionalized, not treated as a token gesture in intergovernmental settings. This includes ensuring meaningful participation of smaller states and underrepresented regions, investing in capacity building, and enabling transparency and accountability across all stakeholder categories. Governments like Lesotho have a duty to model this inclusivity at home and advocate for it abroad. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you very much, Minister Nithati. I think it’s very inspiring to see that view coming from the government and the support for the National IGF. So now I turn to Declan. So Declan, from your point of view, what lessons learned from the experience of NRIs demonstrate the tangible benefits and impacts of multi-stakeholder governance, and how can these be actually scaled and replicated on a global level?

Declan McDermott: Well, thank you. First off, my name is Declan McDermott. I’m here as the coordinator for the Ireland IGF. It is fantastic to be here in Norway, but I would like to just kind of preface. At first, we’re just to establish that we are like a new NRI. We just held our very first inaugural event several weeks ago, but it has had very positive reception and it’s been very, very encouraging so far. But I would say that the main lessons learned from me in coordinating it over the last year has been there’s a very real appetite, I think, among all the stakeholder groups to really take part in these processes, and there’s a very real desire for just everyday people to have their voices heard. People really do, like, they care deeply about how the internet functions and how it is governed, and we really did not need to pull any teeth, I find, to get people to participate. Most of the time, we simply just had to explain exactly what the IGF was or what the NRI was trying to accomplish, and most of the time, the actual response would be like, oh, we should have done this years ago, or this sounds like an amazing idea and we’d love to participate. And I think that that really does speak to the convening power that the IGF has and that NRIs should and also can have. We had policy makers talk to us afterwards saying that they appreciated how engaging the sessions were and that they actually walked away with different insights and different perspectives that they had previously, and just yesterday, I had a civil society organization say that at that event that they were able to make connections that they hadn’t been able to elsewhere. So I think that it really does demonstrate that there is benefit to having these multi-stakeholder fora in ways that are open and that are inclusive and transparent, free from having to negotiate outcomes to just sort of have these candid discussions, and I think that there really is benefits to these multi-stakeholder discussions. But to point with your second question, now, this is a very watered-down summary of just a theory. There is a school of thought when it comes to social innovations and how to scale them, and generally, it’s held that there are three broad approaches for scaling. It would be scaling out, which would be increasing the reach of your initiative. So for a local NRI, this would mean getting on more people’s radars or trying to get more people to attend or participate to your events, but for the global NRI community, this means replicating that model in new jurisdictions and in new territories where there isn’t an NRI. The other second option is scaling up, where instead of trying to increase your reach, you’re trying to increase the initiative’s impact, especially when it comes to policymaking or for lawmaking. So for a local NRI, it’s asking questions like how much are they contributing to their local policymaking processes, or how much influence, or how much are they contributing to that? For the global NRI community, it’s talking about how effective is the community as a whole contributing to these larger processes like the WSIS Plus 20 review, or how effective are they at taking, how effective are we as a community at taking local voices and really amplifying that on the global scale? The final one would be scaling deeply, and this actually deals more with kind of fostering cultural change and addressing, trying to really shift mindsets, I think, in the long run by promoting learning and promoting different principles such as multi-stakeholderism. I think the best example that I can think of on this would be the schools of internet governance, where you have different individuals from different regions or sectors learning about the multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance, perhaps shifting the way that they engage with it or understand it, or how to engage with their policymakers, and then taking that knowledge back home where they can either replicate an NRI model there or increase the effectiveness or deepen the impact of their NRI model. So I’ll conclude by just saying that obviously these are very broad theoretical approaches, but I would encourage local NRIs and the community as a whole to really kind of look at where they are in stages of growth to see if any of them make sense for them. For us, as a very new NRI, for instance, we are looking at scaling out, just trying to let people know that we exist and get on people’s radars. But yeah, I would encourage to kind of, as just a general exercise, to see if any of these approaches make sense for other communities.

Christine Arida: Yes, thank you very much. Very inspiring as well, because that scaling part of whether going deeply or even reaching out is exactly, I think it’s what about the essence of that whole NRI network. So I will turn to you, Agustina, for that same question as well, if you can give us your views on that.

Agustina Ordonez: Yes, thank you so much. I’m going to speak in Spanish, so if you want to put your headphones on. Thank you very much for this opportunity to be here, to Anja, for everything she’s been doing. We worked all year. So I think this really deserves a great applause. It’s a lot of work that’s invested here. Now, your question, this IGF, I think is particularly relevant for that question. It’s not only about renovating the mandate. What do we want? What have we learned so far from the previous IGFs? And I think the first thing we have to take into account is that the IGF core is the national initiatives and the regional initiatives. So it’s important to say what worked, not only at the global level. worked at the regional and local levels in Latin America. We have three very concrete examples I’d like to share. They have to do with the impact, which is what the previous speaker spoke about, the impact we have. We’re people from different parts in the world. We have made efforts to come here. It costs money, time. So why are we doing this? What’s the impact that we have? What’s the result of all this work? We talk and we talk. Is that it? Or are we doing something serious? Secondly, the selection of topics. There is an example from Colombia. But it is also the opening up to other communities, not only the topics that are defined by the general, but they cannot bring in new things that we haven’t even thought about, other viewpoints. Now, the role of youth in Latin America is especially important, and I’m very glad it’s been mentioned previously, because with a multi-stakeholder focus, we have to have youth at the center. It’s not just another sector, because all of the other sectors, the people who talk in the principal sessions, we don’t see the youth, because they haven’t reached a high sufficient level. They’re not that visible anymore, yet, sorry. But we have to have them present. So money is the overarching of all three. We need money. So this is just very briefly how we could do this in Latin America. We need more involvement. We’ve had a minister here. We need more involvement from politicians, those who really make the decisions, legislators. And in that sense, we should have another round of implos for the parliamentarians who have been here. It’s a wonderful BITRAC parliament. I think this has been covered partly, but I think it’s also necessary that we have more ministers involved. We need to have politicians here who can really do something, not just make recommendations, because that’s what it’s going to be if they’re not here. For example, the IGF, when we decide on the topics, we have to have people propose topics that we haven’t even thought about. We have to have a vote, and we use the one that’s most voted for. That gives the opportunity for other people who haven’t really thought this to be the most important to understand that there are other ideas out there for groups that are more vulnerable further away. And they can also have their proposals on the table about youth. I think Elias from Brazil, that’s a very good example. They have summer schools. They have courses. They have focus groups. And the best that have performed best over the year are given a grant, and then they can attend the regional and global meetings. I think these are three concrete experiences that we could learn from here, and thank you. And I’ll be happy to entertain any questions you might have.

Christine Arida: I take your mention about inclusion of youth specifically as a very important topic. So Joyce, I will turn to you from the other side of the globe, and in your view, what concrete measures can enhance the participation of different stakeholders in global digital cooperation frameworks?

Joyce Chen: Thank you so much, Christine, for the question. And I might start off with first talking about the barrier to participation. I think we know the obvious ones, and we’ve talked about the obvious ones for many, many years. Some of them are language, multilingualism, resources, funding, et cetera. One big barrier I want to address is the amount of baggage the internet community is carrying from conversations 20 years ago. For us to start a conversation, we need to spend hours first explaining the background, the context, setting the scene, how we got here, before we can even talk about how we’re moving ahead. This is very overwhelming for newcomers especially, because we can’t have a conversation on, say, the WSIS without first elucidating the battles fought and all the meaning encoded between the lines. Every word is fraught with meaning, and it is daunting for many people to engage and participate. I’ve been doing this for 10 years about, which is genuinely young in the internet governance world and internet governance ecosystem. And I’m still constantly playing catch up, listening to the stories around the fire. The burden is getting heavier, and I think we need to do a better job of moving in a way that we relieve the burden from one another. So, any measures to enhance participation in all these conversations need to first start with the storytelling. There are avenues for this. At the APR IGF, which is the Asia Pacific regional IGF, we convened the WSIS plus 20 working group, and recently put together the inaugural webinar for our community to function as a backgrounder and level-setting exercise. We will then continue to organize town halls for the community to share their views and eventually be able to hopefully come to some consensus positions. And this is from the APR IGF community. For the past year, there have been many online resources that describe the history and the importance of the multi-stakeholder model. The NRIs play a critical role in this tribal ecosystem because we connect the various stakeholder groups and try to articulate what issues are important to us and how that feeds back into global digital cooperation frameworks like the GDC and the WSIS. Some local communities have coalesced around their national IGF networks to form multi-stakeholder consultation groups that function as sounding boards for their governments. Outside the NRIs, there are also several coalitions like the Technical Community Coalition on Multi-Stakeholderism, TCCCM, which I’m a big fan of, that has done a lot of work to gather the technical operators and upskill our knowledge and provide a safe space to discuss first the GDC and now the WSIS plus 20 to develop positions that we can bring back to our communities and governments or to craft statements as part of the consultation process. But is this enough? I’m interested to know how we can bring people to the table. The multi-stakeholder model is all about bringing people of diverse backgrounds and perspectives to the table participating on equal footing. The UN construct of closed-room multilateral negotiations combined with multi-stakeholder informal consultations is a step in the right direction. But does it go far enough? The COFAX convening a multi-stakeholder sounding board? Even better. If more governments would be willing to take on non-governmental advisors into their delegations, we would be in a much better place. To quote the Sao Paulo guidelines, we need to foster a safe, trustworthy, and fair environment where imbalances between participants are addressed and civil society, the private sector, academia, and the technical community are able to meaningfully participate in multilateral processes. We are doing everything we can to gather the internet community to not just participate, but to do so on equal footing and be part of the decision-making and agenda setting. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you so much, Joyce. And I will turn to you, Sarai, with the same question, but from the perspective of a small island and developing state perspective, please.

Sarai Faleupolu Tevita: Thank you for the question. From the perspective of the small island development states and developing states, I would like to start by saying that we are a multi-stakeholder covenant, not merely an ideal. It is an absolute necessity and complex balancing act. As a chair of the Pacific Islands chapter of Internet Society, we host the Pacific IGF. Next week, we will have our Pacific IGF in a PSR mall. This is our main and annual event every year. Our vision for digital cooperation hinges on overcoming unique vulnerabilities and leveraging the collective expertise that only a true multi-stakeholder approach can provide. From SEAD’s perspective, multi-stakeholder covenants is really important to us. Why? Because of resource scarcity. SEADs often have limited human resources, financial, technical resources, within government agencies. Relying solely on government-led processes will severely constrain their ability to engage meaningfully. Adopting or adapting multi-stakeholder approach will engage us, CIDs, to tap into expertise of our local civil society, private sectors, academia, and technical communities. This will amplify our national capacity. Another one, because we are vulnerable to amplification. So CIDs face unique challenges like climate change. It impacts us in rising sea levels, extreme weather, our geographical isolation, small domestic markets. So if we adapt or we continue using a multi-stakeholder governance approach, this is crucial to co-design solutions that are resilient and contextualized or specific. Another one is bridging the digital divide, because we are living in geographical stakes for all our CIDs. Not only the connectivity, but for affordability as well. Digital literacy, these are relevant local content. For a multi-stakeholder approach, this ensures that the efforts to bridge these divides are holistic or involving communities. There are lots of perspectives of multi-stakeholder that the CIDs are looking to adopt. So what CIDs want from multi-stakeholder governance and how to achieve it? Prioritize accessibility and affordability of connectivity. How? Dedicate our funding mechanism in public-private partnerships to tailor for CIDs unique. Go to the community, localize it, take the responsibility so that they feel the value and the impact of that. Promote the resilience and the climate smart digital infrastructure. Being involved with this multi-stakeholderism will incorporate climate resilience and this will improve the digital infrastructure projects as well as the warning systems. Lastly, foster local capacity building as Joyce mentioned. There’s a lot of capacity building being developed and being deployed. ITU, APNIC, here at IGF, ABR IGF, training support for local digital education initiatives. Local digital education initiatives. Big programs that is a need, not just the overall. So if you go to the community, you localize it so that relevant, the content is there. So that’s what covered persons with disabilities as well. So to conclude with that, my view as from the CIDs perspective, multi-stakeholder governance is not a luxury but a fundamental operating principle for survival and sustainable development in the digital age. It’s about empowering to active shapers, not just passive recipients of a global digital norms and policies. As a chair of the Pacific Internet chapter, my view is that global digital cooperation for frameworks must prioritize concrete actionable measures. I heard it this morning and this afternoon about the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach. I think it’s important to recognize that the multi-stakeholder approach is not a luxury. It’s a fundamental principle of the digital age. It’s a fundamental principle of actionable measures to truly empower stakeholders, recognizing the unique vulnerabilities and invaluable contributions to truly inclusive digital future. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you so much, Sarai, and we will listen to our next speaker.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you, Christine, for your excellent moderation as usual, and it’s a great pleasure to be here in this important session, and allow me to switch in Arabic. So you can use the headset, please. Thank you. So what is it we are all talking about, really? We’re trying to develop the multi-stakeholder approach. I’m talking here about the Middle East approach to the IGF and the local IGF. We have different chapters, and we see different fora on the national level as well in our region. Those different fora are more and more numerous. What we’re really trying to do is have a true multi-stakeholder approach. We are developing this approach as we speak, and the goal is for it to be more efficient, more efficient for our economies and for other aspects as well. So what I’m going to try to explain is how we really can develop this approach in order for it to be more inclusive, include more women, include more people with disabilities, the idea being to also have researchers more involved. At this IGF, we’ve insisted a lot on this inclusiveness, but of course this is not enough in isolation. What we really want is a more efficient kind of participation, and we want AI to be fully part of this participation. We can’t really have superficial consultations anymore. We really have to have in-depth consultations. What we really need to do, if you ask me, is start from scratch. Let’s not wait for the end of the process here. We really need the different stakeholders to be connected, and they need to be connected from the get-go. We will need to have a very difficult balance between a certain amount of firmness, a certain amount of flexibility. It’s very difficult to obtain. So why do we need flexibility? Well, that’s to include most people, but at the same time we need a firm hand in order for there not to be abuse in the use of data along the way. What we see as IGF’s added value is its value for the whole value chain. The problem in our region is that all the rules regarding IA and Internet governance are not very well known in our region. We think that Internet governance will not be enough in the future. We need to keep the process open, and we need to see who else we need to have in it, and include the human aspect.

Christine Arida: Thank you. I would like to turn to the audience and have your perspective as well. We will have in the room two microphones, one to the left and one to both sides, left and right, and I will ask you to start lining up. We can take questions online. I think we have Lily as our remote moderator, so I will ask her also if there are any questions that are coming online to also stand at the mic, and Lily, I do not see you. If you’re in the room, please just raise your hands. Wonderful, now I see you. So I will kindly ask you to alert us by standing at the mic if there are any interventions from the floor. So I will go directly to the first question. Please, sir, please introduce yourself, state your comment or question, and be brief so that we can allow for other questions.

Audience: Thank you. This is Mohammed Abdul Haqonu from Bangladesh IGF. Myself engage with national IGF process, including initiative like Universal Acceptance Day in local language. How can we ensure that multi-stakeholder digital governance meaningfully includes linguistic culture and regional diversity, especially from the global south within global frameworks such as the WSIS plus 20, review, and the global digital compact. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I can take another question and then we can turn. Is there someone at the, please, sir? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Please introduce yourself. Yes, thank you so much. My name is Naza Nicholas Kirama from Tanzania IGF, and what I wanted to contribute is that we are discussing about renewing the mandate of the IGF and the WSIS plus 20 to become permanent, and one of the suggestions that I have as a person who has been doing this work on the ground is for the national IGFs to establish things like trust funds, and these trust funds will enable us to continue to be sustainable for the future. That is what we are currently I’m the Director of the National IGF. I’m here to talk about the work we are currently doing in Tanzania to establish a trust fund for the National IGF. Because we know for the past five, six years, our National IGF has been a major player in legislations. For example, the data protection in Tanzania, as the National IGF, has been very instrumental in terms of pushing for it to come to fruition. So, I believe that National IGF, the NRIs are critical for the regions and the nations as well. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you very much. So, our first question was about the linguistic diversity. And I don’t know if maybe Agustina or Ahmed or maybe someone else would like to take that question. Ahmed, please go ahead.

Ahmed Farag: Did I understand the question correctly? We are talking about cooperation between the TTC. The different processes, if this is what was meant. So, language and how to include, to be inclusive by linguistic diversity. Well, actually, during the different local and regional pathways and journeys, we are up against linguistic challenges and financing challenges. So, each local and regional initiative is trying to get the resources that they need and other types of solutions. So, we are looking to the international community to get some help. One question or one issue, for instance, in our region, we have three languages. We speak English, French and Arabic. And we always try to offer interpretation services, simultaneous interpretation services. And sometimes we use English when we speak. So, we are talking here about the content that needs to be accessible in the local and regional languages. And that’s a real challenge. We need financial resources that would allow us to offer content in a local or regional language in our Arabic-speaking region. And I believe this should be the case in all regions, by the way. In each region, the priority should be to offer solutions. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you for the funding and resources. And, Agustina, you want to come in on that?

Agustina Ordonez: Yes. Thank you. I’m going to speak in Spanish. Ask for this question. I think that this is one of the greatest challenges that we have. Not only because, well, for instance, here in EGF, here we have interpretation. In the workshops, we don’t have interpretation. So, what happens? There’s a lot of people who would like to speak, and because they don’t know any other language, they cannot speak. And I understand that we cannot have interpretation into all languages. It’s logical. Maybe someday with artificial intelligence, or maybe today, I don’t know. It would be good to explore that opportunity if it exists. But thanks to the interpreters. Thank you for your work. Well, I think this is one of the great challenges we have, but also because the big problem to me are the definitions and the concepts. They are in a language that is not my language, and maybe it has a different meaning for others than for me. So, in the words, well, words create realities, and every word has a meaning. Maybe we don’t understand each other completely. Maybe there’s cultural, social, and historic baggage that comes with the words. And so, the first thing we could do with EGF, for instance, is at least to try to have interpretation in all sessions and also the workshops. And also, it’s a question of finances, of money. But if you’re here in Norway, one could talk with the embassies for the different languages and ask if the embassies could provide interpreters. Try to find a way to cooperate between all of us and maybe also the national IGF heads and regional ones. Maybe they can also help their countries to have interpretation services for their own participants.

Christine Arida: This side, please. Introduce yourself.

Audience: Hi, my name is Adriana Castro. I’m a professor at Universidad External de Colombia, and I’m addressing this panel as a member of the Colombian IGF. I would like to share some of our experience. First, there is evidence that experience of national, regional, and youth on Internet governance are possible as well as have tangible results when implemented with commitment, openness, and continuity. Colombian IGF national initiative has 11 years of experience. We have identified best practices to foster inclusive and participative work on the discussions and contributions to the decision-making for the digital economy. Let me list some of the lessons and benefits of multi-stakeholder governance. First, a permanent and neutral space for dialogue among different actors, including youth, and promoting their participation and empowerment. Second, meaningful participation and input to the consultative processes as GDC and WSIS Plus 20, as an evidence of the link between local, regional, and global initiatives. Third, to contribute to policy and regulatory initiatives. In Colombia, for example, this year there were some initiatives on the protections of children online, gender violence online, and AI policies. Fourth, the main areas of work are defined with the participation of the multi-stakeholders. For these years, there have been established four subgroups regarding digital well-being, meaningful access, safety in the web, artificial intelligence, sorry, five, and the fifth is a specific group on appropriation and strengthening the Internet governance in Colombia. We have considered also some options for further work to evolutionate within the model. The sustainability of the NRIs, both financial and management issues, have to be addressed. Continue articulating NRIs with global forums. Can you please wrap up? Yes, I will just end. Continue collaborating on building a multi-stakeholder agenda and to promote more exchange between NRIs. The future of the IGF will define the future of the NRIs. The great outcomes achieved as a result of the work in the previous years can be graded with a continued and inclusive model. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you so much for sharing your experience from Colombia. Next, please.

Audience: My name is Grace Gidaiga. I speak here on behalf of Kenya ICT Action Network. That’s KIKTONET, the convenors of the Kenya IGF. KIKTONET just convened the 18th Kenya IGF this year, on May 16th, so we are one of the oldest NRIs. We’ve had support, including from IGFSA, and we are very grateful for that continuous support to our NRI. Now, what have we learned? I just want to speak to three key things very quickly. One is the value of multi-stakeholder engagement. The Kenya IGF has allowed us to dialogue on critical policy concerns in the country, and that way we’ve been able to harness ideas and perspectives from the different stakeholders and therefore able to engage the government on those pain points when it comes to Internet governance. The second thing is on capacity building, and we’ve also learned that it is essential to bring in new voices. For example, through the Kenya Internet Governance, the Kenya School of Internet Governance, where we bring in fresh voices every year before the Kenya IGF, and they include youth, women, and marginalized groups, mainly to broaden participation and sustain that effective Internet governance. And finally, we’ve learned the need to be adaptable and transparent. You know, we were able to still hold the Kenya Internet Governance Forum during COVID. We adapted virtual forums. This year, when it was announced that you would have the global internet governance in June, we adapted immediately and were able to convene in May. So, we see a lot of value in having the Kenya IGF. We see a lot of value in having the IGF because it allows us to dialogue very honestly some of these issues that we are not able to speak about and then adapt them into our context. But how do we sustain that? Funding is an issue. Kenya has been lucky because we have had a multi-stakeholder approach, even in funding where businesses and the regulator support the process. But how do we entrench this? I think that’s a big question. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you very much and I will ask the other interveners to keep it please to one minute so that we can continue. But before I turn to you, I think I have a comment from Joyce. Joyce, please, very concisely.

Joyce Chen: Thank you and thanks Christina and thank you so much to our friends from Kenya and from Tanzania for bringing up this very important issue of sustainability of the NRIs. I’m going to take off my hat for APR IGF and all the other hats I’m on but put on my hat for the IGF Support Association as a member of the Executive Committee to say we have funded and have been funding and continue to fund NRIs from the developing economies and putting our focus squarely in these areas. I think it’s really important that the NRIs consider how you could have longer-term sustainability that could be apart from the IGFSA in that sense. I want to point to you that we had a day zero event that was convened by the IGFSA to talk exactly about this issue which is the sustainability of the NRIs and how to think more long-term. I think when we are talking about the WSIS plus 20, just bringing us back to the topic of the session, we must not forget that the NRIs are a critical piece of the IGF and when we talk about the sustainability of the IGF, it is not just the IGF annual event, it is also the NRIs. So we need to have this collective dialogue, we need to try and find ways to do better in that and so I really applaud Tanzania IGF for sharing this news that you’re considering to have your own trust fund. I think that’s just excellent and we need more initiatives like that, more good thinking and creative ideas to have a longer-term sustainability model. Thank you very much.

Christine Arida: Thank you Joyce. I will have one question from this side and then another from this side and please keep it to one minute so that we can have all the lineup, please.

Audience: Good afternoon, thank you all for your insights and sharing the learnings of the journey. My name is Vanessa Lemos Campos. I’ve been supporting a group that is a project that is subventioned by Interreg that is a regional fund from the European Union for the collaboration between countries and this is a region enabling Greater Copenhagen, Swedish West Coast and one part of Norway. I would like to ask more about the example that you mentioned, Agustina, if it’s time about, I’m originally from Colombia, born and raised there, about different groups that you said it was an example of different segment dictations in groups. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Agustina, if you can wait a second, we’ll take another question and then we can have your answer, please. My name is Jenna Fung. I’m the coordinator of Asia Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum. Thank you for the opportunity for interview. I will take my privilege of having this one minute to share some of my thoughts. This session is about multi-stakeholder and the future of digital governance beyond 2025. We have been talking about youth engagement for a long time. In recent years, we could see that stakeholders wanted and also advocate for ending tokenistic participation of youth. I’d appreciate all the insights of all stakeholders sharing at this panel and in this forum this week, but if we want to talk about the future of internet governance forum or digital governance in general, we should include youth more proactively. I want to also take the rest of my one minute to show my appreciation to stakeholders who support Asia Pacific youth community in the regions. We have been doing a lot of great work and appreciate stakeholders, including governments in our regions, who spend the time to read some of our input in considerations for there was a plus 20 discussion, but I would like to emphasize once again, if we want to talk about the future of internet governance, we should end tokenistic participation of youth now, because we’ve been talking about that for at least eight years of my participation. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you very much. Right on spot, I think. I will give the room to Christina in half a minute if you can answer very quickly. Or can we take more? Please, the floor is yours.

Audience: Thank you so much. My name is Claire. I’m part of the German Youth IGF and I participated in yesterday’s consultation. We heard a lot about, I think, common ground points, right? Like we are the multi-stakeholder approach for the IGF mandate and the role of the NRIs. And we were wondering whether there’s some interest in sort of participating all together in the upcoming consultation and maybe as NRIs together sort of show our voice and yeah, whether you would be interested in some kind of partnership to sort of have a joint statement on those key points.

Christine Arida: I thank you very much for this suggestion, which I think we take note of. And are you done? Yes. Thank you. Please. Thank you. Do you hear me? Thank you very much.

Audience: I am from the Youth IGF Benin and I also support the Secretariat of the West African IGF. Regarding the topic multi-stakeholder digital governance beyond 2025, the title of the topic speaks really well to aligning ourselves in terms of supporting the prolongation of the mandate of the current IGF. Also, looking at the non-paper from the Australian government, my question to the panelists, how do you see your suggestion of rebranding the name of the Internet Governance Forum to the Digital Governance Forum? Because we are not only discussing Internet issues but all issues related to digital itself. And it’s not only about technical issues. We are discussing issues related to policy as well. And it’s not only aspect discussion we are having. And on the other front, regarding the youth engagement, thanks, Chen, for talking about the tokenization of youth participation. I think at this point, the youth have proven that they have capacity and leadership to continue the work to be done. How do we make sure that the youth can gain more capacity, more mentorship to continue their work and more supports, not only financially but sustainably coaching them so that we have more results and a different NRIs? Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your questions. Yes, sir. Hello. My name is Rodolfo. One minute, please, okay? Okay, no problem. Please, go ahead. No, one minute, sir. Please, your intervention in one minute. Okay, sorry. My name is Rodolfo. I am the coordinator in IGF Brazil. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here and contribute to such an important debate with so many brilliant colleagues from our network of NRIs. I will not repeat other colleagues’ important points. My intervention is briefly and especially focused on the roles of the NRIs. We have been increasingly hearing a resonating message recently. The importance of considering the NRIs as a special asset within the WSIS plus 20 review. The renewal of the IGF mandate and then solve on NRIs have a growing consensus among the community. NRIs have grown in size, participation, importance, and impact in global, regional, and local realities. NRIs are indebted special assets and they deserve an even more central role to play globally. NRIs should be considered as key catalysts for considering networks of knowledge, expertise, and the privileged resource for bridging strategies, contacts, and relationships, fulling up all levels of the ecosystem, at the same time, debasing the process and the results of the IGF and others related forum, and also establishing bonds that will, from one side, help include more countries and regions in the global debate, and also foster local debates on global topics of interest, helping generating positive impact on local and regional policies, and distributing from global consensus. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you. I think we’re having a question online, if someone can read it from the microphone. Apologies for this. We are asking the technicians in Zoom to unmute the remote hub from Benin to address the floor. Thank you. Okay, please. Go ahead, sir.

Audience: Yeah, thank you. Pons Leit from the Gambian IGF NRI. I just want to share a few examples what our NRI has done in terms of good collaboration, especially in respect to the government of the Gambia, having two focal points at the Ministry of Communication and Digital Economy involved in the IGF process, and this has made the UNDP in Gambia to support us, and it has also led this collaboration, our members of Parliament, to be able to make the Gambia rectify the Malabo Convention, which a lot of African countries have yet to do in 2022 at the sidelines of the IGF in Ethiopia, and I’m proud to say now we have a youth leading and chairing our IGF process in Mariam Adjobe. Unfortunately, she couldn’t be here now, so I believe it’s important for we to all bring our governments to be fully involved in the process, and we’ll see an IGF really grow at national and regional level. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you very much. Are we going to have the question online, Birat? Can we give the mic to the online moderator? We can’t hear very well.

Audience: Thank you to the team. I have a question. The interpreter will do her best. We can see some specialists for protection in terms of judicial questions, and I’m speaking from the remote hub in Abrikalave. So my question is about digital governance and multi-stakeholder governance. Should there be a platform for African developers that would be more adapted to their own realities in terms of economy and also to help the local civil society and regional civil society?

Christine Arida: And I’m sorry, I would like to apologize. If you can phrase your question in less than half a minute, I am willing to give you the floor because we need to have the final remarks. Please, would you like to very quickly say your point? Please.

Audience: Can I go ahead?

Christine Arida: Yes, please, but very quickly and very briefly.

Audience: Yeah, just to share that for sustainability, what we have done in Nigeria was to get our government, right from time, we have agencies under the Ministry of Communications. They are part of the multi-stakeholder advisory committee, so they fund the secretariat. We also have the equivalent of Byron’s organization, that is the .ng managers, they also fund. And the parliamentarians are now interested in what we are doing because we have been involving them. So, they now want to be, they have the buy-in. And at the African level, in our communique, we also said that we want to support the renewal of the mandate of the IGF at that level. So, I mean, when we get the buy-in of the government and parliamentarians or the executive and the parliamentarians, we know we can sustain our initiatives and not just the NGOs or the civil society. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you very much. And I’m sorry, I will apologize to you because time is up, because we will have just half a minute closing remarks, maybe one sentence that you would like to send out, Byron. I will go first with you.

Byron Holland: One sentence?

Christine Arida: One sentence, yes, please. Just something for our reporters to push forward.

Byron Holland: Global Internet governance is messy, imperfect, frustrating, and it’s made incredible progress. I can see one of the founders of the IGF here, and I’m sure 20 years ago he had no idea that it would turn into something this significant and would have this many NRIs doing remarkable work with remarkable stories like we’ve just heard. Period.

Christine Arida: Good point. Thank you.

Nithati Moorosi: One sentence. Well, I believe that we need to increase outreach and visibility of the work that IGF is doing. If multistakeholderism is to thrive, it cannot remain an elite and abstract concept. It has to meet people where they are, in their languages, their communities, their platforms, and that is what will turn consultation into creation. I think there has to be some partnership with the media. It has been undertoned in this forum, the whole forum. I think it’s about time we bring in the media into the forum. Thank you.

Christine Arida: Thank you. Declan?

Declan McDermott: If we want multistakeholderism to thrive, we have to invest in it. I think that ultimately a lot of issues come down to resources.

Christine Arida: Thank you. Very concise. Cristina?

Agustina Ordonez: We have to consider that NRIs are the heart of IGF. We have to work bottom up. We have to work with NRIs and IGFs from other regions. We have to include new persons and other groups. We have to look at the impact they can make and, above all, include the young people in the sessions. They need to have participation on an equal footing with other groups.

Joyce Chen: I think you can play a very special role to demonstrate how the multistakeholderism model is practiced in reality. Don’t feel like you shouldn’t be at the table or you can’t be at the table. You need to claim your space at the table. Thank you.

Christine Arida: It’s all right.

Sarai Faleupolu Tevita: SEADs often face marginalization in our global decision-making. However, with the multistakeholder models, this brings us together as Joyce mentioned. It brings us together at the table. Government, civil society, academia, private sector, and technical communities. So, this offers a chance for greater representation of our voices in shaping digital norms and policies.

Christine Arida: Thank you. Ahmed?

Ahmed Farag: We need to make this multistakeholder model. We need to strengthen it so that we have an IGF that is present on the local, regional level. We need to apply this model to the internet governance, and we think there should be more integration, more example, less duplication.

Christine Arida: That CGI.br, the secretariat of the Brazil IGF, has advised that they have some printed copies of the Net Mongial plus 10 principles, which I invite, since we talked about them, invite you to visit their booth and grab a copy. And with that, I thank you all for your active participation, and I ask you to join me in thanking our distinguished panel for all their valuable intervention. Thank you very much, and the session is closed.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach needs strengthening and institutionalization in UN processes

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Nithati Moorosi
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Non-governmental stakeholders need meaningful and consistent participation with clear visibility on how their input is used

Governments must actively enable and protect multi-stakeholder participation, ensuring civil society, academia, technical communities, and private sector have real influence

NRIs play critical role in connecting stakeholder groups and articulating important issues for global frameworks

Summary

All speakers agree that the multi-stakeholder model requires formal strengthening within UN processes like WSIS Plus 20, with governments actively enabling meaningful participation rather than tokenistic consultation

Topics

Legal and regulatory

NRIs are fundamental to IGF ecosystem and deserve central recognition

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Agustina Ordonez
– Joyce Chen
– Audience

Arguments

WSIS Plus 20 outcome document should explicitly support multi-stakeholder model and provide long-term IGF mandate with enhanced resources

NRIs are the heart of IGF and demonstrate how multi-stakeholder model works in practice

NRIs play critical role in connecting stakeholder groups and articulating important issues for global frameworks

NRIs should be considered special assets within WSIS Plus 20 review and deserve more central global role

Summary

Strong consensus that NRIs form the core of the IGF ecosystem and should be recognized as special assets with enhanced roles in global governance processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Sustainability requires diversified funding models and government engagement

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Audience

Arguments

IGF Support Association continues funding NRIs from developing economies but longer-term sustainability models are needed

Trust funds should be established by national IGFs to ensure long-term sustainability

Multi-stakeholder approach to funding involving businesses and regulators supports process sustainability

Government buy-in through ministry involvement and parliamentary engagement ensures sustainable funding

Summary

Consensus that NRI sustainability requires moving beyond donor dependency to diversified funding models including government support, private sector involvement, and innovative mechanisms like trust funds

Topics

Economic | Development

Language barriers and cultural diversity must be addressed for inclusive participation

Speakers

– Agustina Ordonez
– Ahmed Farag
– Audience

Arguments

Language barriers and lack of interpretation services in workshops limit participation from non-English speakers

Financial and linguistic challenges affect local and regional initiatives, requiring international community support

Linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity must be meaningfully included in global frameworks

Summary

Universal agreement that language barriers significantly limit participation and that dedicated resources are needed to provide interpretation services and culturally appropriate content

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Youth engagement must move beyond tokenism to meaningful participation

Speakers

– Agustina Ordonez
– Audience

Arguments

Youth engagement requires dedicated programs with grants for best performers to attend regional and global meetings

Need to end tokenistic participation of youth and include them more proactively in internet governance discussions

Youth have proven capacity and leadership but need more mentorship and sustainable coaching support

Summary

Strong consensus that youth participation has been tokenistic and needs to evolve into meaningful engagement with dedicated support structures and recognition of youth capabilities

Topics

Development | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasize the need for genuine transparency and accessibility in multi-stakeholder processes, moving beyond superficial consultation to meaningful engagement with diverse participants

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Nithati Moorosi

Arguments

Processes must be transparent, comprehensible, actionable, and accessible to diverse stakeholders including linguistic, cultural, and geographic diversity

Multi-stakeholder model must be institutionalized rather than treated as token gesture in intergovernmental settings

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Both highlight that there is genuine enthusiasm for participation in internet governance and that multi-stakeholder forums can achieve concrete policy outcomes

Speakers

– Declan McDermott
– Audience

Arguments

Real appetite exists among stakeholder groups to participate, with people caring deeply about internet governance

Colombian IGF demonstrates 11 years of evidence showing tangible results including contributions to policy initiatives on child protection and AI policies

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasize that developing regions face unique resource constraints that make multi-stakeholder approaches not just beneficial but essential for meaningful participation

Speakers

– Sarai Faleupolu Tevita
– Ahmed Farag

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance is fundamental necessity for small island developing states due to resource constraints and unique vulnerabilities

Financial and linguistic challenges affect local and regional initiatives, requiring international community support

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Government leadership in promoting multi-stakeholder approaches

Speakers

– Nithati Moorosi
– Audience

Arguments

Governments must actively enable and protect multi-stakeholder participation, ensuring civil society, academia, technical communities, and private sector have real influence

Government buy-in through ministry involvement and parliamentary engagement ensures sustainable funding

Explanation

Unexpected strong consensus from government representatives that governments should actively promote and institutionalize multi-stakeholder approaches rather than merely participate in them. This represents a significant shift from traditional government-centric approaches to governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Need for practical scaling strategies beyond traditional expansion

Speakers

– Declan McDermott
– Agustina Ordonez

Arguments

Three approaches for scaling: scaling out (increasing reach), scaling up (increasing policy impact), and scaling deeply (fostering cultural change and mindset shifts)

Topic selection should include community voting to ensure voices from vulnerable and distant groups are heard

Explanation

Unexpected consensus on sophisticated scaling approaches that go beyond simple expansion to include cultural change and democratic participation mechanisms. This represents mature thinking about how to evolve multi-stakeholder governance

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Historical baggage as barrier to participation

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Agustina Ordonez

Arguments

Need to overcome the burden of historical baggage from 20-year-old conversations that creates barriers for newcomers

Concepts and definitions carry different cultural, social, and historical meanings across languages and regions

Explanation

Unexpected consensus that the internet governance community’s own history and complexity has become a barrier to new participation. This self-critical assessment suggests maturity in recognizing institutional challenges

Topics

Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on core principles: NRIs as fundamental to IGF ecosystem, need for genuine multi-stakeholder participation beyond tokenism, importance of sustainability through diversified funding, and necessity of addressing language/cultural barriers. Unexpected agreement on government leadership role and need to overcome historical complexity barriers.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with remarkable alignment across different stakeholder groups and regions. The consensus extends beyond traditional talking points to include sophisticated understanding of scaling strategies, sustainability models, and institutional challenges. This suggests the multi-stakeholder community has reached significant maturity in its self-assessment and vision for the future, with implications for stronger advocacy positions in WSIS Plus 20 and other global processes.

Different viewpoints

Approach to overcoming historical complexity in internet governance discussions

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Byron Holland

Arguments

Need to overcome the burden of historical baggage from 20-year-old conversations that creates barriers for newcomers

Global Internet governance is messy, imperfect, frustrating, and it’s made incredible progress

Summary

Joyce Chen emphasizes the need to actively address and overcome the accumulated complexity from 20 years of internet governance discussions that creates barriers for newcomers, while Byron Holland takes a more accepting view that the messiness and complexity are inherent parts of a system that has nonetheless made remarkable progress.

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Priority focus for multi-stakeholder engagement

Speakers

– Declan McDermott
– Agustina Ordonez

Arguments

Three approaches for scaling: scaling out (increasing reach), scaling up (increasing policy impact), and scaling deeply (fostering cultural change and mindset shifts)

Need more involvement from politicians and legislators who can make real decisions rather than just recommendations

Summary

McDermott presents a systematic theoretical approach to scaling multi-stakeholder initiatives through gradual expansion and cultural change, while Ordonez advocates for more direct engagement with high-level decision-makers who have actual authority to implement changes.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role of media in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Nithati Moorosi

Arguments

Outreach and visibility must increase, bringing multi-stakeholder concepts to people in their languages and communities

Explanation

Minister Moorosi was the only speaker to explicitly emphasize the need for media partnership in multi-stakeholder processes, suggesting this aspect has been ‘undertoned’ in the forum. This represents an unexpected gap where other speakers focused on traditional stakeholder engagement but didn’t address media as a critical component for reaching broader communities.

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on core principles of multi-stakeholder governance, with disagreements primarily focused on implementation strategies rather than fundamental goals. Main areas of difference included approaches to overcoming participation barriers, funding sustainability models, and engagement strategies.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic alignment. The disagreements are constructive and complementary rather than conflicting, suggesting different pathways toward shared objectives. This indicates a mature discourse where stakeholders agree on destinations but offer diverse routes to reach them, which could strengthen overall multi-stakeholder governance through multiple parallel approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasize the need for genuine transparency and accessibility in multi-stakeholder processes, moving beyond superficial consultation to meaningful engagement with diverse participants

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Nithati Moorosi

Arguments

Processes must be transparent, comprehensible, actionable, and accessible to diverse stakeholders including linguistic, cultural, and geographic diversity

Multi-stakeholder model must be institutionalized rather than treated as token gesture in intergovernmental settings

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Both highlight that there is genuine enthusiasm for participation in internet governance and that multi-stakeholder forums can achieve concrete policy outcomes

Speakers

– Declan McDermott
– Audience

Arguments

Real appetite exists among stakeholder groups to participate, with people caring deeply about internet governance

Colombian IGF demonstrates 11 years of evidence showing tangible results including contributions to policy initiatives on child protection and AI policies

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasize that developing regions face unique resource constraints that make multi-stakeholder approaches not just beneficial but essential for meaningful participation

Speakers

– Sarai Faleupolu Tevita
– Ahmed Farag

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance is fundamental necessity for small island developing states due to resource constraints and unique vulnerabilities

Financial and linguistic challenges affect local and regional initiatives, requiring international community support

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder governance must evolve from consultation to meaningful participation with real influence in decision-making processes

National and Regional Internet Governance Forums (NRIs) are the foundational heart of the IGF ecosystem, demonstrating tangible policy impacts at grassroots level

Sustainability of NRIs requires diversified funding models including government support, private sector partnerships, and innovative approaches like trust funds

Language barriers and historical baggage from 20-year-old conversations create significant obstacles for newcomer participation

Youth engagement must move beyond tokenism to genuine leadership roles and equal footing participation

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) face unique vulnerabilities requiring multi-stakeholder approaches as fundamental necessity rather than luxury

The WSIS Plus 20 review presents critical opportunity to institutionalize and strengthen multi-stakeholder model with long-term IGF mandate

NRIs serve as vital bridges between local realities and global policy frameworks, requiring recognition as special assets in global governance

Resolutions and action items

Establish trust funds at national IGF level for long-term sustainability (Tanzania IGF model)

Explore joint NRI statement for upcoming WSIS Plus 20 consultations to amplify collective voice

Increase government and parliamentary engagement through dedicated outreach and involvement strategies

Develop interpretation services for all IGF sessions including workshops, potentially through embassy partnerships

Create youth mentorship and capacity building programs with grants for regional/global participation

Strengthen media partnerships to increase IGF visibility and outreach beyond elite circles

Implement community voting mechanisms for topic selection to include marginalized voices

Establish multi-stakeholder advisory councils and innovation sandboxes at national level

Unresolved issues

How to effectively overcome the burden of historical context that intimidates newcomers to internet governance discussions

Sustainable funding mechanisms for interpretation services and multilingual content across all NRIs

Balancing firmness in data governance with flexibility needed for inclusive participation

Specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful rather than tokenistic youth participation

How to scale successful NRI models while maintaining local relevance and cultural sensitivity

Integration of artificial intelligence tools for language accessibility and participation enhancement

Concrete measures for addressing power imbalances between different stakeholder groups

Long-term institutional framework for NRI coordination and global policy input

Suggested compromises

Hybrid approach combining UN multilateral negotiations with multi-stakeholder informal consultations

Flexible funding models mixing government support, private sector contributions, and international assistance

Gradual scaling approach allowing NRIs to choose between scaling out (reach), scaling up (impact), or scaling deeply (cultural change) based on their development stage

Multi-language approach prioritizing local languages while maintaining global connectivity through strategic interpretation

Balanced governance model maintaining firmness on core principles while allowing flexibility for diverse participation methods

Phased youth integration moving from capacity building to leadership roles over time

Regional cooperation for resource sharing, particularly for smaller developing states

The amount of baggage the internet community is carrying from conversations 20 years ago. For us to start a conversation, we need to spend hours first explaining the background, the context, setting the scene, how we got here, before we can even talk about how we’re moving ahead. This is very overwhelming for newcomers especially, because we can’t have a conversation on, say, the WSIS without first elucidating the battles fought and all the meaning encoded between the lines.

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Reason

This comment brilliantly articulates a fundamental barrier to participation that hadn’t been explicitly addressed – the institutional memory burden that creates exclusion. It reframes the participation problem from just resource/language barriers to cognitive and cultural barriers.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from traditional solutions (funding, translation) to deeper structural issues about how knowledge is transmitted and communities are onboarded. It influenced subsequent speakers to think about accessibility beyond just financial resources.

Multi-stakeholder governance is not a luxury but a fundamental operating principle for survival and sustainable development in the digital age. It’s about empowering to active shapers, not just passive recipients of a global digital norms and policies.

Speaker

Sarai Faleupolu Tevita

Reason

This reframes multi-stakeholderism from an idealistic governance model to an existential necessity for small island developing states. It introduces urgency and survival stakes to what could otherwise be seen as procedural discussions.

Impact

This comment elevated the stakes of the entire discussion, moving it from ‘how to improve governance’ to ‘governance as survival strategy.’ It influenced the tone toward recognizing multi-stakeholderism as essential infrastructure rather than optional consultation.

There are three broad approaches for scaling: scaling out (increasing reach), scaling up (increasing impact on policymaking), and scaling deeply (fostering cultural change and shifting mindsets).

Speaker

Declan McDermott

Reason

This provides a sophisticated analytical framework for understanding NRI development that moves beyond simple growth metrics to strategic thinking about different types of impact and influence.

Impact

This framework gave structure to subsequent discussions about NRI sustainability and effectiveness. It provided vocabulary and concepts that other speakers could reference when discussing their own initiatives’ development strategies.

If multistakeholderism is to thrive, it cannot remain an elite and abstract concept. It has to meet people where they are, in their languages, their communities, their platforms, and that is what will turn consultation into creation.

Speaker

Nithati Moorosi

Reason

This challenges the fundamental accessibility of the multi-stakeholder model itself, suggesting that current approaches may be inherently exclusionary despite good intentions. The phrase ‘consultation into creation’ is particularly powerful.

Impact

This comment prompted deeper reflection on the gap between multi-stakeholder ideals and practice. It influenced the discussion toward more concrete, grassroots approaches and highlighted the need for media engagement and broader outreach.

We’ve been talking about youth engagement for a long time… if we want to talk about the future of internet governance forum or digital governance in general, we should include youth more proactively… we should end tokenistic participation of youth now, because we’ve been talking about that for at least eight years of my participation.

Speaker

Jenna Fung

Reason

This directly challenges the community’s self-perception about youth inclusion, providing specific timeframe evidence of persistent tokenism. It’s a bold call-out that moves beyond polite suggestions to demanding accountability.

Impact

This intervention created a moment of uncomfortable truth-telling that forced the discussion to confront the gap between rhetoric and reality regarding youth participation. It influenced the closing remarks to emphasize youth inclusion more strongly.

Early drafts of the GDC did not include any references to the technical community, language that’s been common for literally decades. It worked its way back into the final draft, but I would argue only after unnecessary effort. Truly an unforced error.

Speaker

Byron Holland

Reason

This reveals concerning trends in global digital governance processes that could undermine decades of established multi-stakeholder principles. It provides concrete evidence of backsliding rather than progress.

Impact

This comment introduced a note of concern about the direction of global processes, influencing the discussion to consider not just how to improve multi-stakeholderism but how to protect existing gains from erosion.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond procedural improvements to address deeper structural and cultural barriers to meaningful multi-stakeholder governance. Joyce Chen’s observation about ‘institutional baggage’ reframed participation challenges, while Sarai’s framing of multi-stakeholderism as survival strategy elevated the stakes. Jenna Fung’s direct challenge about youth tokenism created accountability moments, and Minister Moorosi’s call to move beyond ‘elite abstractions’ grounded the discussion in accessibility realities. Together, these interventions transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a more honest examination of systemic barriers and the urgent need for genuine inclusivity. The comments created a progression from identifying problems (institutional barriers, tokenism) to reframing stakes (survival, not luxury) to demanding concrete action (end tokenism, meet people where they are).

How can we ensure that multi-stakeholder digital governance meaningfully includes linguistic, cultural and regional diversity, especially from the global south within global frameworks such as the WSIS plus 20 review and the global digital compact?

Speaker

Mohammed Abdul Haqonu from Bangladesh IGF

Explanation

This addresses a critical gap in current processes where language barriers and cultural differences may prevent meaningful participation from diverse regions, particularly the Global South

How can national IGFs establish trust funds for sustainability?

Speaker

Naza Nicholas Kirama from Tanzania IGF

Explanation

This is essential for the long-term viability of NRIs, as funding remains a persistent challenge that affects their ability to operate effectively and maintain impact

How do you see the suggestion of rebranding the name of the Internet Governance Forum to the Digital Governance Forum?

Speaker

Representative from Youth IGF Benin

Explanation

This reflects the evolution of the IGF’s scope beyond just internet issues to encompass broader digital governance topics, requiring consideration of whether the current name accurately represents its mission

How do we make sure that youth can gain more capacity, more mentorship to continue their work and more support, not only financially but sustainable coaching so that we have more results in different NRIs?

Speaker

Representative from Youth IGF Benin

Explanation

This addresses the need to move beyond tokenistic youth participation to meaningful engagement and capacity building for sustainable youth involvement in internet governance

Should there be a platform for African developers that would be more adapted to their own realities in terms of economy and also to help the local civil society and regional civil society?

Speaker

Remote participant from Benin hub

Explanation

This explores the need for region-specific platforms that better address local economic and social contexts, particularly for African stakeholders

Whether there’s interest in NRIs participating together in upcoming consultations and having a joint statement on key points?

Speaker

Claire from German Youth IGF

Explanation

This could strengthen the collective voice of NRIs in global processes and demonstrate coordinated multi-stakeholder input

How can artificial intelligence be leveraged to address language barriers in IGF processes?

Speaker

Agustina Ordonez (implied suggestion)

Explanation

This could provide a technological solution to the persistent challenge of multilingual participation in internet governance forums

How can we reduce the burden of historical context and baggage that overwhelms newcomers to internet governance discussions?

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Explanation

This addresses a significant barrier to participation where new stakeholders struggle to engage due to the complex historical context required to understand current discussions

How can more governments include non-governmental advisors in their delegations to UN processes?

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Explanation

This could enhance multi-stakeholder participation in formal multilateral negotiations and improve the integration of diverse perspectives in decision-making