Capacity development

European national and regional Internet Governance Forum initiatives (NRIs) discussed how they can help implement the outcomes of the WSIS+20 review during a EuroDIG 2026 session focused on collaboration, local engagement, and multistakeholder governance.

The discussion examined whether NRIs should remain primarily bottom-up discussion spaces or take on a more direct role in supporting the implementation of global digital governance commitments at the national and regional levels.

Sabina Heber, moderating the workshop, described NRIs as increasingly important spaces for multistakeholder discussion, cooperation, and policy exchange. She said implementation of WSIS goals often depends on national and regional action, making NRIs key links between global frameworks and local realities.

A central debate emerged around the future role of NRIs after the WSIS+20 review.

Jordan Carter of the UK IGF argued that national and regional IGFs have traditionally not operated as ‘WSIS implementation agencies.’ Instead, he said, they usually function as bottom-up forums that relay local discussions into regional and global internet governance processes.

Matthias Kettermann of the Austrian IGF took a more proactive position, arguing that NRIs should engage more directly with WSIS action lines in the post-review environment and translate them into national priorities.

He pointed to Austria’s approach of organising youth-focused panels and rotating the Austrian IGF across different regions to involve local stakeholders, including schools, museums, and innovation departments, in discussions on AI governance and digital transformation.

Declan McDermott of IGF Ireland focused on how NRIs measure and scale impact. He proposed three approaches: ‘scaling out’ to reach more stakeholders, ‘scaling up’ to influence policymakers, and ‘scaling deeply’ to change how internet governance is understood within society.

McDermott argued that NRIs need clearer theories of change and more concrete definitions of success, warning against ‘collaborating for the sake of collaboration.’

Several speakers emphasised that NRIs are particularly valuable because they operate close to national realities and can identify emerging digital policy challenges early.

Dijana Milutinovic from Serbia’s national IGF said NRIs are well-positioned to monitor developments at the country level, raise issues for public debate, and improve the likelihood that concerns will eventually influence regulation or legislation. She added that exchange between NRIs is especially important when countries face similar regional challenges and can learn from one another’s experiences.

The workshop also explored how NRIs produce messages and policy outputs.

Carter explained that the UK IGF publishes annual key messages developed through a multistakeholder steering committee, while Serbia drafts messages during sessions and submits reports to ministries and the global IGF Secretariat.

Austria, by contrast, does not prioritise formal outcome documents and instead focuses more on convening stakeholders and creating connections that later generate initiatives indirectly.

Another major theme was collaboration and experimentation.

Concettina Cassa from Italy’s Agency for Digital Italy proposed the creation of voluntary ‘NRI labs’ as spaces for peer learning and practical cooperation between NRIs. She described them as non-binding multistakeholder spaces where participants could exchange operational experience and experiment with implementation approaches on issues such as trustworthy AI in public administration or child protection online.

According to Cassa, the challenge twenty years after WSIS is no longer only agreeing on principles, but translating them into practical cooperation and implementation.

Participants also discussed new tools for handling controversial policy debates. A representative from the Netherlands presented ‘argument maps,’ structured visual overviews that organise competing positions on contentious issues such as age verification or encryption without forcing participants to agree on a single recommendation.

Business participation emerged as another recurring challenge. Speakers said companies are often difficult to attract unless discussions address concrete operational problems or provide visible practical value.

Kettermann said Austrian organisers worked directly with the Chamber of Commerce to identify topics businesses cared about, while Serbian representatives noted that companies engage more actively when discussions focus on how regulation affects their operations and business models.

Toward the end of the session, participants stressed that NRIs’ ability to influence policymaking depends heavily on resources, institutional legitimacy, and public awareness.

Milutinovic warned that many NRIs rely largely on volunteers, limiting their capacity to produce reports, participate in coalitions, or contribute consistently to policy consultations.

The workshop concluded with several agreed-upon messages, including recognition that NRIs are effective multistakeholder forums for supporting WSIS+20 goals through awareness-raising, stakeholder engagement, peer learning, and practical experimentation.

Participants also endorsed continued dialogue through EuroDIG and supported new forms of collaboration, including NRI labs and other experimental approaches designed to strengthen cooperation while preserving the bottom-up nature of internet governance processes.

EuroDIG 2026 took place on 26 and 27 May at the Charlemagne Building of the European Commission in Brussels under the theme ‘European Voices for the Future of the Internet – Celebrating 20 Years of .eu and the Beginning of a New Internet Governance Era’.

Digital Watch Observatory followed EuroDIG 2026 through a dedicated event page, featuring session information and reporting from Brussels.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!