The future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took centre stage at the WSIS Forum 2026, where policymakers, former diplomats, technical experts and internet governance practitioners discussed how the forum should evolve following the UN’s decision to grant it a permanent mandate.
Speakers agreed that the challenge is no longer whether the IGF should continue, but how it can become more relevant, effective and responsive to emerging issues such as AI while preserving its multistakeholder character. The discussion focused on four broad priorities, such as strengthening government participation, improving intersessional work, deepening links with national and regional IGF initiatives (NRIs), and ensuring the forum has sufficient institutional capacity and sustainable funding.
Governments need a stronger role without changing the IGF’s character
A recurring theme was how to increase meaningful government participation without transforming the IGF into a traditional intergovernmental negotiation forum.
Anriette Esterhuysen, human rights defender and computer networking pioneer from South Africa, argued that governments must participate more actively, particularly to strengthen digital policymaking in developing countries, but warned against reducing their involvement to formal speeches by senior officials.
Instead, she said governments should engage openly on practical policy challenges that require collaboration with the wider internet governance community.
Former Latvian ambassador Janis Karklins echoed this view, arguing that governments would only dedicate time and resources to the IGF if it addressed issues directly relevant to their national priorities.
Planning for the upcoming IGF in Nairobi, he suggested, should take into account the policy needs of African governments to ensure the forum delivers practical value.
Jennifer Chung, Chair of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), also stressed that the initiative should be understood as a ‘government dialogue with stakeholders’ rather than a separate government track, preserving the IGF’s long-standing multistakeholder model.
Meanwhile, IGF Programme and Technology Manager Chengetai Masango said discussions on the exact format remain ongoing, with organisers considering how the dialogue could build on existing high-level sessions rather than creating an entirely new structure.
Stronger outcomes through year-round collaboration
Participants also debated how the IGF could produce more tangible results while remaining a platform for dialogue rather than negotiations.
Konstantinos Komaitis opened the discussion by asking how the IGF could move beyond its reputation as a ‘talking shop’ without becoming another UN negotiating process.
Esterhuysen argued that achieving greater impact requires changing the way the IGF works rather than changing its mandate. She suggested more structured intersessional work, thematic synthesis and longer-term collaboration on priority issues instead of relying primarily on standalone workshops during the annual meeting.
Andrea Calderaro, Director of Cyber Diplomacy at the EU Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), similarly argued that the most valuable work happens between annual IGF meetings, with governments and stakeholders conducting national consultations and bringing those experiences into global discussions.
Masango defended dialogue as the forum’s core purpose, but agreed that stronger follow-up and more practical outputs are needed. He said previous initiatives, including voluntary commitments, had not always been sufficiently tracked or incorporated into future work.
National and regional IGFs seen as a growing strength
Speakers also highlighted the growing importance of national, regional and youth Internet Governance Forums, which now number more than 180 worldwide.
Esterhuysen welcomed their explicit recognition in the WSIS+20 outcome document, describing them as one of the IGF’s greatest successes.
Chung said the relationship between the global IGF and NRIs should evolve beyond annual event coordination towards continuous thematic collaboration and shared learning throughout the year.
She noted particularly strong growth among youth initiatives, especially in Africa and Asia, arguing that younger participants increasingly want meaningful involvement in shaping Internet governance discussions rather than symbolic participation.
Esterhuysen proposed a two-way model in which the global IGF identifies concrete policy questions, NRIs and intersessional groups examine them throughout the year, and the Secretariat synthesises the results into practical, non-negotiated policy options for governments and other stakeholders.
Permanent mandate brings new expectations
The discussion also touched on longer-term institutional questions, including funding and Secretariat capacity.
Although speakers acknowledged that financial sustainability remains an important challenge, they agreed that the immediate priority is preparing a successful IGF meeting in Nairobi while gradually implementing reforms in the years ahead.
Calderaro argued that the IGF should increasingly serve as a hub connecting the growing number of international digital governance processes rather than functioning only as an annual conference.
Esterhuysen also urged the forum to become more willing to address politically sensitive issues, including corporate accountability, arguing that its permanent mandate provides an opportunity to take on more substantive policy debates.
Closing the session, participants broadly agreed that the IGF’s future lies not in becoming a negotiating body, but in strengthening dialogue, improving policy-relevant outputs, deepening collaboration across national and regional initiatives, and ensuring governments, civil society, academia, the private sector and technical communities remain equally engaged as internet governance continues to evolve.
Track all key moments from the WSIS Forum 2026 on our dedicated WSIS page.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
