Day 0 Event #222 IGF Support Association – Sustainable Funding for IGF & NRIs

Summary

This discussion focused on the Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) and the sustainability challenges facing National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) in the context of the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 review process. The IGFSA, established in 2014 to support the IGF and its various initiatives, particularly in the Global South, convened this session to examine how potential changes to the IGF’s mandate and funding mechanisms might impact NRIs worldwide.

Participants explored whether the proposed permanent institutionalization of the IGF under the UN would affect NRI funding and operations. Vint Cerf argued that making the IGF permanent with regular UN budget support would provide institutional stability without necessarily changing funding dynamics for NRIs, which operate independently as grassroots initiatives. Several speakers emphasized that NRIs would likely benefit from increased government recognition and support if the IGF gained permanent status, though this wouldn’t solve their fundamental funding challenges.

The discussion revealed significant sustainability concerns across the NRI ecosystem. Sandra Hoferichter from EuroDIG highlighted the unsustainable nature of relying on voluntary work for nearly two decades while expecting professional-level performance. Multiple participants noted that NRIs struggle with funding diversification, often depending heavily on technical community organizations like CCTLDs, Internet Society chapters, and regional internet registries. Mary Uduma shared successful strategies from West Africa, including engaging regional economic commissions and developing sponsorship packages for private sector involvement.

Participants identified key challenges including the difficulty of explaining the value proposition to potential funders, the volunteer-driven nature of most NRIs creating institutional fragility, and the need for better stakeholder engagement strategies. The session concluded with calls for more formalized structures, improved resource sharing among NRIs, and continued advocacy to ensure that any IGF mandate renewal considers the broader ecosystem of national and regional initiatives.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Impact of WSIS Plus 20 Review and IGF Mandate Renewal on NRIs**: Discussion focused on how potential changes to the IGF’s institutional status (such as becoming a permanent UN institution with regular budget funding) would affect National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs), with general consensus that it would provide more legitimacy and government support but wouldn’t dramatically change funding challenges.

– **Current Funding Models and Challenges for NRIs**: Participants shared diverse funding strategies including support from CCTLDs, Internet Society chapters, regional registries, government partnerships, and private sector sponsorship packages, while highlighting common pain points such as difficulty explaining volunteer-driven structures to potential funders and the challenge of securing private sector support for non-commercial dialogue forums.

– **Sustainability and Professionalization of NRI Operations**: Extended discussion on the need to move beyond purely volunteer-driven models toward more formalized, sustainable structures with dedicated secretariats and professional operations, addressing concerns about continuity when key volunteers leave or move on.

– **Role of Different Stakeholder Groups in NRI Support**: Emphasis on the critical importance of Country Code Top-Level Domain (CCTLD) managers, technical community organizations, and the need for better engagement with parliamentarians and government stakeholders to ensure long-term sustainability and legitimacy.

– **Strategies for Demonstrating Value to Potential Funders**: Discussion of the fundamental challenge of articulating “what’s in it for funders” when approaching potential sponsors, with suggestions for creating concrete impact measures and better connecting NRI work to local policy and legislative processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion was an interactive session organized by the IGF Support Association (IGFSA) to examine the current state and future sustainability of National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives. The session aimed to gather community input on how potential changes to the global IGF’s mandate and funding structure might affect local initiatives, explore current funding challenges and best practices, and brainstorm strategies for ensuring long-term sustainability of grassroots internet governance activities worldwide.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by experienced practitioners sharing practical insights and challenges. While there was underlying concern about sustainability issues and funding difficulties, the tone remained optimistic and solution-oriented. Participants demonstrated mutual respect and shared commitment to the multi-stakeholder model, with speakers building on each other’s contributions rather than disagreeing. The atmosphere was informal yet professional, with organizers actively encouraging participation and creating space for diverse perspectives from different regions and stakeholder groups.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Joyce Chen** – Leading discussion sections, mentioned as part of making sessions interactive

– **Sandra Hoferichter** – Organizes the regional IGF (EuroDIG) for Europe for almost 20 years

– **Vint Cerf** – Chair of the leadership panel, participating remotely from Washington D.C.

– **Mary Uduma** – Coordinates the West African Internet Governance Forum

– **Fiona Asonga** – Leading discussion on sustainability planning for NRIs

– **Jordan Carter** – Works for the Australian Domain Administration, organization that runs the .AU CCTLD

– **Flavio Wagner** – Leading funding discussion section

– **Edmon Chung** – From DotAsia, involved with APR IGF as Secretariat and Internet Society Hong Kong

– **Amrita Choudhury** – Chair of the session, from IGF Support Association

– **Jimson Olufuye** – From Africa City Alliance, runs contemporary consulting based in Abuja, Nigeria

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – One of the executives (joined later in the session)

– **Lee McKnight** – Veteran going back to Caribbean Internet Forum, worked with Jamaican government

– **Markus Kummer** –

– **Jennifer Chung** – Part of the Secretariat team of the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF, handling session logistics and reading online comments

– **Participant 1** –

**Additional speakers:**

– **Vanov Sapyon** – From Regional Internet Registry, RIPE NCC, has roots supporting IGF initiatives in Central Asia, Caucasus, Moldova

– **Kiki Fong-Lim** – Participated online via Zoom with written comments

– **Mark Cavill** – Member of the European Regional IGF, participated online

– **Bia Guevara** – Participated online with comments

– **Chris Mundini** – One of the EC members, participated online

– **Arsene** – Mentioned at the end but didn’t get to speak due to time constraints

# IGFSA Interactive Session: National and Regional Internet Governance Initiative Sustainability

## Executive Summary

The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) held an interactive Day Zero session at 9 AM to explore sustainability challenges facing National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs). The session was structured around three key question areas displayed on slides, with different facilitators leading each section. Participants were invited to join the panel table for an exploratory discussion about how the WSIS Plus 20 review might impact NRIs, current funding approaches, and sustainability planning.

The session revealed diverse regional experiences with funding models and highlighted ongoing challenges with volunteer-driven operations. Participants shared practical insights about engaging different stakeholder groups while exploring how potential changes to the IGF’s institutional status might affect the broader NRI ecosystem.

## Session Structure and Context

Amrita Choudhury opened the session by presenting IGFSA’s work, noting that the association was established to support the IGF and its initiatives, particularly in the Global South. She explained that while NRIs operate independently as grassroots initiatives, they exist within the broader IGF framework and could be affected by changes at the global level.

The session was structured around three main question areas:

1. WSIS Plus 20 impact on NRIs (facilitated by Joyce Chen)

2. Funding models and approaches (facilitated by Flavio Wagner)

3. Sustainability planning (facilitated by Fiona Asonga)

Amrita also noted a memorial for Nigel, the former treasurer who had passed away, acknowledging his contributions to the organization.

## WSIS Plus 20 Impact Discussion

### Perspectives on IGF Institutionalization

Joyce Chen led the discussion on how potential changes to the IGF’s institutional status might affect NRIs. Vint Cerf, participating remotely, argued that making the IGF permanent with regular UN budget support would provide institutional stability. He emphasized that “the persistence of the IGF will in part depend on the ability of the NRIs to become useful to member states,” suggesting NRIs should focus on providing studies and assessments that help governments understand Internet development needs.

Markus Kummer supported the view that permanent IGF mandate would provide institutional stability without dramatically changing existing funding mechanisms. Mary Uduma from the West African Internet Governance Forum offered a more optimistic perspective, suggesting that government interest and support would increase at national and sub-regional levels if the IGF gained permanent status.

### Strategic Considerations

Joyce Chen highlighted the importance of ensuring member states understand the value of NRIs during WSIS negotiations, emphasizing the need for “holistic thinking” about the entire IGF ecosystem. However, there was general recognition that while IGF institutionalization would provide legitimacy, it would not solve fundamental funding challenges that NRIs face.

## Funding Models Discussion

### Regional Approaches

Flavio Wagner facilitated the discussion on funding models, revealing diverse strategies across regions. Mary Uduma described the West African IGF’s success in securing significant funding from member state administrations through the ECOWAS secretariat, demonstrating how regional economic commissions can serve as funding channels. She also detailed their approach to private sector engagement through sponsorship packages.

Jennifer Chung, speaking for the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF, described their reliance on CCTLD support and rotation hosting models, while acknowledging challenges in packaging sponsorship offerings within noncommercial frameworks.

### Technical Community Support

Multiple participants identified Country Code Top-Level Domain (CCTLD) managers and technical community organizations as critical supporters. Jordan Carter from the Australian Domain Administration noted that CCTLDs serve as neutral supporters of national internet governance infrastructure. Vanov Sapyon from RIPE NCC reinforced this, describing Regional Internet Registry support for IGF initiatives across Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Moldova.

### Private Sector Challenges

Participants identified significant challenges in engaging private sector funding. Vint Cerf emphasized the need for “concrete ways of explaining why funding this particular activity is a good thing.” Sandra Hoferichter from EuroDIG argued that technology companies should increase funding since they benefit from internet governance work, while Jennifer Chung highlighted practical challenges created by noncommercial framework constraints.

## Sustainability Planning Discussion

### Volunteer Model Challenges

Fiona Asonga led the sustainability discussion, which revealed concerns about the current volunteer-driven model. Sandra Hoferichter provided a candid assessment, noting that NRIs “operate primarily on voluntary basis with low budgets despite expectations of full performance,” emphasizing that this approach is unsustainable long-term.

Amrita Choudhury highlighted institutional fragility created by dependence on individual volunteers: “Most of the NRIs are volunteer-driven. They do not have a secretariat. So if one person goes, the show kind of becomes shaky.”

### Stakeholder Engagement

Several participants discussed multi-stakeholder engagement challenges and opportunities. Jimson Olufuye emphasized the need for better business sector representation, while Edmon Chung from DotAsia suggested that parliamentary track integration could connect NRI discussions to local legislation.

The discussion also touched on the importance of connecting NRI dialogue to actual policy-making processes while maintaining the non-decisional nature of IGF discussions.

## Key Themes and Insights

### Reliable Technical Community Partnership

Participants consistently identified technical community organizations, particularly CCTLDs, as reliable funding partners. This support appears to stem from their direct stake in internet governance outcomes and understanding of NRI value.

### Need for Better Value Articulation

There was agreement that securing funding, particularly from private sector sources, requires clearly articulating value propositions and concrete benefits to potential funders.

### Formalization Considerations

The discussion revealed growing recognition of the need for more formal structures while preserving grassroots, community-driven characteristics that have been central to NRI success.

## Session Conclusion

Anriette Esterhuysen provided closing comments emphasizing that sustainability encompasses legitimacy, inclusivity, and institutional capacity beyond just funding considerations. She noted that sustainable NRIs require legitimate standing within their national internet governance ecosystems and capacity to play meaningful roles in bringing together diverse interests.

The session concluded with plans for a group photograph and Amrita’s invitation for participants to continue engaging with IGFSA to share additional ideas and experiences. She also noted that the annual general meeting would be held at year-end rather than mid-year.

## Next Steps

Participants were encouraged to:

– Continue sharing experiences and good practices through the NRI network

– Engage with member states about NRI importance during WSIS Plus 20 negotiations

– Explore opportunities for better stakeholder engagement at national levels

– Consider how to balance formalization needs with grassroots community character

The discussion highlighted that NRI sustainability involves not just funding challenges but broader questions of institutional development, stakeholder engagement, and strategic positioning within national internet governance ecosystems.

Jennifer Chung: Before we first start, just noting that people up here on the panel, the mics are always on, so if you speak directly, you will be heard, but if you want to have a side conversation, make sure you’re away from the mic. Okay, so without further ado, let me pass the floor to our chair, Amrita Choudhury.

Amrita Choudhury: Good morning, everyone. I hope I’m audible, and thank you for coming in for the first session of IGF 2025 at 9 a.m. It is on IGF Support Association, and we’ll give you a brief overview of what we do for people who do not know about IGFSA, and then we have a few questions on which we would want to have an interactive session about. Can we see the next slide, please? So this is our agenda. We would be discussing what our mandate is, and we have a few questions where our EC members would take turns to lead and want to interact with, and we would also want to have next steps. Normally at the IGF, we have our annual general meeting, but since it’s mid-year, we are not doing it. The AGM would be held at the end of the year. For those who are coming into the room, you would have to use the headsets to hear what is happening, and the channel is four. Can we go to the next slide? So IGFSA, this is some of our EC members here, and we were set up in 2014. The main aim was to support the Internet Governance Forum, and the goal was also to support the national and regional and sub-regional and youth initiatives, especially of Global South. The next slide. And over the years, these are the figures till 2024 December, the kind of supports which we have done. Our endeavor is to support more with more funding, but we also have to look for funding options, but this is what we have been doing, supporting the IGF as well as the national regional youth initiatives. The next slide, please. So with that, perhaps I would pass it on to Joyce Chen, who would be leading this part of the discussion, and Joyce, over to you.

Joyce Chen: Thanks very much, Amrita, and welcome to everybody. Thank you for joining us, first session of Day Zero at IGF, early in the morning, and for those of you who are joining us from other places, good morning, good afternoon, good evening to you as well. We try and make this session more interactive, and so this isn’t really for us to be speaking to you about the questions that you see on the screen, it is really meant for you to be responding to us, your thoughts and views about the question. So if you’d like to move up to the stage, you are very welcome to join us, this isn’t all just the EC members, anybody is free to join, it is also easier for us to see you as you are speaking. So feel free to join us, don’t be shy. So the first question is, what is the impact of the WSIS Plus 20 review, IGF mandate renewal on the NRIs, and of course the youth initiatives? And the second question is, if the funding mechanisms for the IGF changes substantially, will there be knock-on effects for the NRIs? I think this is really coming from the point of view that the WSIS Plus 20 review process is happening this year in 2025, and it is going to be rounded up by the end of this year in December, and while the member states have not made a decision on the IGF mandate, if there were changes to the nature or the status of the IGF, so for example, there are some calls for the IGF to be made a permanent institution under the UN, that may or may not happen after this year, if that were the case, if there were changes to the mandate of the IGF and the institution itself, what would be the effect for the NRIs in being able to receive funding, and also for the IGF itself, where would they get their sources of funding if it’s going to be primarily member state contributions? So I think this is the context for where we are coming from in terms of these first two questions. I know these are deep and hard questions to ask first thing in the morning, but I will open the floor for any views. Please feel free to come up. I think there’s a mic there, and also all the mics here are available for you to speak. So Vint, please go ahead.

Vint Cerf: Good morning, everyone. It’s 3 o’clock in the morning here in Washington, D.C., so I’m half-awake, and I’ve got my coffee with me, so that helps. With regard to this question, the first issue is whether IGF continues, and of course that’s the thing that WSIS plus 20 will determine. On the presumption that it continues, I have been advocating as chair of the leadership panel that it continue on a permanent basis, and that its funding come not exclusively, but primarily out of a normal UN support structure. That does not remove an opportunity for IGFSA to persist and also to look for additional voluntary funding, as the Secretariat would also do and has done since its creation. So I don’t think there’s any change there. Whether there would be funds made available to IGFSA as a result of such a shift is not clear to me, so I think that’s something that we need to investigate and to discuss with the UN representatives. DESO would be a good start there. Just thinking generally about the NRIs, the NRIs were created on their own. They were not created with specific support by the UN, and that’s an important observation to make. They were there because people wanted to be engaged, they wanted to deal with the Internet governance questions on a local basis, and I think that desire will persist. And once again, since they don’t get official funding either from the UN or other sources, they do get support from the Secretariat, and so that might not only continue, but it might also help the NRIs perform their function. The last point I’d like to make, and thank you for letting me go on a bit, is that I think the persistence of the IGF will in part depend on the ability of the NRIs to become useful to member states. And so the question there is what can the NRIs do that would help a member state either assess how well Internet is being used in-country or what steps might be needed for the Internet to be more useful. And so producing something, whether it’s studies or measurements, as in the UN Romex metrics, making the NRIs useful to member states will contribute, I think, to the idea that IGF should continue after UISIS-Plus 20. So I’ll stop there. I’m very interested to hear what other people have to say about these very important questions.

Joyce Chen: Thanks very much, Vint, for kicking us off and give us a little bit to chew on. I think there was a comment online from Kiki. Kiki, do you want to take the mic and read out your comment? And you can also elaborate a little bit more from that. You want to read it out? Okay. I think Jennifer will read it out. Yeah.

Jennifer Chung: Okay. Just for those who are not in the Zoom room but are on audio, there was a comment in the Zoom room from Kiki Fong-Lim, and it reads, when I support the IGF mandate, it is because of the NRIs and their… to scaffold local and regional knowledge sharing and tangible outputs from the communities within national or regional.

Joyce Chen: Thanks very much, Kiki. Do I have any responses to either Vint or Kiki, or you might have your own view that you’d like to share? I’m just looking around. It’s quite a wide room, so I have to do a lot of looking.

Amrita Choudhury: So, for those who have come in right now, we are just discussing on these two questions which you can see on the screen. And please feel free to speak. You would have to come up to the mics at the end, or the table is quite empty. You can come and sit here. We would like to hear your views on these questions. We have three sets of questions, but this is the first one. Vint shared his views and so did Kiki, but if anyone feels like speaking, and we just want to have a discussion here, it would be really helpful. And perhaps, Marcus, can I put you on spot to give your views till others form some views on this?

Markus Kummer: Sorry. Yes, thank you. I have not been prepared. It’s an unfair attack, I think. Well, the question is, yes, it comes from many quarters to make the IGF part of the regular UN budget. And the question is, would there be knock-on effects for the NRIs? Frankly, I don’t think so. It wouldn’t change much in terms of funding, okay? It would be more comfortable for the IGF to have the regular funding part of it through the UN budget, although the UN budget, as we all know, is under severe attack. So it remains to be seen, you know, how much they would get out of the budget. But it would give institutional stability to the IGF. That in itself, I think, would be a very positive effect. But in terms of funding, honestly, I don’t think it would change much. Quite a lot of extra funding would be needed through outside resources. And obviously, the IGFSA remains a valid institution. But I don’t think it would affect or have any impact on the IGFSA as such. These are my initial preliminary thoughts. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Yes, please kindly state your name and affiliation, if you’d like.

Mary Uduma: Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, my name is Mary Uduma. I coordinate the West African Internet Governance Forum. And on question one, if there are changes in the renewal of the mandate, as we are calling, I don’t see much changing at the local level. The only thing that I know that will happen is that governments at the national level or sub-regional level or regional level will now be more interested. It might provide more support, whether in kind or in cash. Because different communities and different countries, the NRI position is differently viewed. So I will see that if the mandate is renewed permanently and it becomes the front line process of the UN, the governments of the nations will not take interest. It will not just be civil society again, because in some countries, it’s only civil society that is organizing the IGF. So for that, support might be better, but might not be enough. Because in some countries, governments are interested and supporting, but they don’t support enough. So they provide some kind, so the rest will still source funding for our program. Thank you.

Joyce Chen: Thank you. Jennifer?

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Mary, for sharing that. It’s actually quite interesting, because I know both for Nigeria IGF and also West Africa IGF, it’s actually quite a big undertaking for all of that. One thing I wanted to point out also is for many of the NRIs, there is a substantial grant that happens from the IGF Secretariat. So one thing that I can see that could be happening, if anything really changed substantially, is there would need to be a gap that needs to be filled. Because, of course, from the generosity of the grants coming from IGF Secretariat, and that we can talk about a little bit as well, it would make it necessary for a lot of the NRIs to consider different sources of funding and diversifying the way that we look at sponsorship as well. And I think that’s a really good segue into our next one, but I’ll hand it back to Joyce to see if we can wrap these two questions.

Joyce Chen: I just want to make note that we do have two comments online, which I’ll read out. Mark Cavill, as a member of the European Regional IGF, I share in principle what Vint has said about being useful for individual and regional IGFs, but the practicalities of this will vary across the 170 plus NRIs according to the degree of recognition and support provided by the national administrations for individual NRIs. And Bia Guevara, I hope I pronounced your name correctly, why IGFs and regional youth initiatives will have more space and support in the global dialogue with intergenerational approaches embedded in official outcomes. I also think better coordination will improve the synergies among NRIs and encourage inclusive participation. Thanks very much for these comments. I’m just doing a quick sweep to see if I missed anyone else out. Just in closing for this section, I appreciate the optimism and I do hope that if the IGF were to get its mandate renewed and that it moves into a more permanent structure, that that means that there would be more resources made available from all the varying contributions from member states on top of any other additional funding sources. What I would like to note though is that I think as part of the WSIS plus 20 review process, I think it is kind of contingent on us to inform the member states who are negotiating about the importance of the NRIs and to make sure that when we are talking about sustainability of the IGF, we also include the NRIs. My worry is that we see the IGF as just the annual event and then miss out on the intersessional work and the NRIs that are also part of the IGF ecosystem. So as much as possible, I would encourage when you are speaking with your governments, with your administrations, with different stakeholders in your local community, make sure that the word on the NRIs is you raise awareness of it so that they are thinking in a more holistic manner as they are doing their negotiations. I think this is the important piece. I’ll close here and I’ll move on to the next person.

Amrita Choudhury: Yes, thank you so much Joyce. I think that’s important because the renewal of the mandate and also the survival of many NRIs are very interlinked in many countries and we should not forget that the communities at the grassroot level and with this we move to Flavio and Flavio you would be leading this section, right?

Flavio Wagner: Yes, thank you Amrita. Can we see the questions on the screen, on the Zoom room please? So this, again, this is not for us to speak about those issues. We would love to hear from you your visions, your contributions regarding these three questions about funding. The first one, which are the current funding models and best practices for the NRIs that you are involved in as important stakeholders in your respective NRIs in your regions or countries? What are the common pain points for fundraising that you feel trying to get funding for your NRIs? And then we should kind of brainstorm together here what funding strategies and innovations can the IJF and NRIs explore? So we know that NRIs try to access… This is very different types of funding from IGFSA, of course, from the Internet Society Foundation, from the IGF Secretariat, this means from the Trust Fund itself, from local governments, organizations from the technical community, ICANN, the RRIs, from the local CCTLDs, Internet Service Providers, technology companies, telecom companies, universities, industry associations, and so on. So there is a wide spectrum of different funding sources and, of course, this depends very much on the local reality of each country. So, Babu, we would love to hear from you, what are the other funding models you are using, what type of funds you are accessing, and what are the pain points you have, and would you have suggestions for new strategies, innovations that the community could try to use to access new types of funding? So, Floris. Yeah, Vint, please.

Vint Cerf: Well, I have just a generic response. I’ve been in the business of trying to raise funds for non-profits for many, many years now, and the usual question when you approach anyone for funding is, well, what’s in it for me? And I don’t mean necessarily in some self-centered way. Someone who is asked to fund something will ask, why would I do that? What is the benefit that the grant of support offers? And I’m pretty sure that that’s not always an easy question to answer. You want some concrete way of explaining why funding this particular activity is a good thing, either for the funder in some very direct way, or in an indirect way, because it benefits the local environment. So, the consequence of that line of reasoning reinforces my general sense that the NRIs in particular have an opportunity to speak to potential funders, to say, if you fund us, we will be able to do the following things, which we believe will improve the utility of the Internet in our country or in our region. But I’m very interested to hear what some of the other folks have to say. In some parts of the world, private sector funding is not common. It’s more common in the U.S., perhaps, than in other places. And so, we forget that not always the private sector is accustomed to supporting these kinds of operations. So, let’s hear from some of the NRIs about their experience so far.

Flavio Wagner: Thank you, Vint. So, floor is open.

Participant 1: I can.

Amrita Choudhury: Yeah, please.

Participant 1: Thank you. So, my name is Vanov Sapyon. I’m, well, from Regional Internet Registry, RIPE NCC. But I also have some roots to support of IGF initiatives in the Central Asia, Caucasus, Moldova, and some other countries. Well, we can also understand that in some cases, it is also attractive for private companies to come there and make this sponsorship because it is a really good visibility. And more mature, the IGF is more possibilities for the organizers to engage them and ensure this visibility and sell them these packages. But we should also remember that technical community is quite passionate to participate. If you discuss, there are the issues that is really, really important for them, not something that is very far from their reality, but that is very close to them, like the infrastructure access and all this stuff. And it is already the issue of the organizer to ensure this engagement to bring to the agenda really important and urgent issues of the local community. Another point is the engagement of the state. I don’t believe it will be very tough for the developing countries to put it in the budget. But it can also create the possibility to engage new partners. We, at least in our region, IT is not very active to participate in the IGF initiatives. But if it goes to the upper level, let’s say, it might open the door for the IT also to make this intervention and to ensure this funding for them. So I’m quite optimistic, but we should work together altogether with technical community, with civil society, the government, and all other stakeholders to ensure that it is not going the wrong way. It is not – well, we say that there are a lot of possibilities, but we have now a current model that at least ensuring the proactive promotion of IGF and activities of IGF in the region and in the country. So we should make sure that we can keep it at least. Another part is very active engagement of CCTLDs. At least in our region, they are either hosting the IGFs or supporting these IGFs. And it is also maybe our role to tell them that they are also a very important part that is supporting these IGF initiatives because also their eligibility somehow comes from the community. And that is why they should support these activities. Thank you.

Flavio Wagner: Thank you. Someone else would like to – yeah.

Sandra Hoferichter: It’s on, is it? Okay.

Flavio Wagner: Yeah.

Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you very much. Thank you for giving the opportunity that we can sit here around and discuss this important topic. I’m organizing the regional IGF, the EuroDIG, the IGF for Europe, and I’m doing this since almost 20 years now. I can’t believe I’m saying that. What strikes me in those almost 20 years is that I have the feeling that for the NRIs, the regional internationals in particular, it is still somehow expected that we are working on a rather voluntary basis or at least on a very low budget. And this is somehow anticipated that it’s just like that. At a certain point, we did not really get over the status of grassroots initiatives. On the other hand, full performance is expected. And just to give you an example, I want to remind us when the pandemic hit the world, we realized that we were actually front runners in virtual work and remote participation. And suddenly the entire world understood the costs that are involved and the effort that is involved in running meaningful remote participation to really make it work. And this is just an example how we performed even before the pandemic in this respect. And then suddenly everyone realized, oh my gosh, this is a lot of effort. This is really expensive. But it was just expected that we are doing this. And we did it with a lot of enthusiasm, with a lot of voluntary work, et cetera. But honestly, this cannot go on for another five or ten years. We are doing this since almost 20 years now. And that is way too long time. So I think it’s a matter of expectation management here. We really have to say if you expect full performance on all levels, and it’s not just technical issues, it’s also outreach to the political level, engaging of all stakeholders. And engaging stakeholders is possibly the most hardest part of our work. Not ordering a room and setting up technical infrastructure, but reaching the stakeholders. And here where the national regional IGFs play a really important role because they can reach out to the local and to the national level. They understand the issues. And they speak the language that is spoken in communities that are not familiar with having a conversation in English. So I do agree what had been said in the first segment that a permanent mandate and a well-financed mandate for the IGF Secretariat will definitely help national and regional IGFs to get the needed attention on a regional and a national level. But I also don’t expect that it will help funding the national and regionals because, as I said, we are not UN bodies. We started as grassroots initiatives. I see a big need. We need for the private sector and in particular big tech to play the role here because what we are doing here basically we are fighting for free and interoperable internet and big tech has the biggest benefit of all this. So they must step in and the IGFSA as an institution to manage a trust fund could be very helpful in this respect, collecting money that then helps the national and regional IGFs to do their work on the ground. But expectations and anticipations at the moment are very far apart from each other. Thank you very much.

Flavio Wagner: Thank you Sandra. Mary, please.

Mary Uduma: Thank you. Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. The NRIs as we started from nowhere, nobody instituted it and it was organic, it started from the grassroots. And what we have done in my own region, the administrations in my region, we’ve been getting them involved in the first instance. For instance, in West Africa, our secretariat is with the West Africa Economic Commission called ECOWAS and we have member states and each year we get an administration to fund, to do the heavy lifting for us in terms of funding, they provide 80% of the funds or resources we need to organize our NRI, I mean our annual meeting. Our businesses have not been involved so much. But last year what we did was to develop a package, you know, saying that funding package to attract resources from the non-usual corporators and funders and one of them were able to get funding from an Uber-like organization that operates in West Africa and this year again we did the same and we found out that we got attention. But getting that attention of the resource funders, we also need to give, you know, convince them that there’s something in there for them. Just like others have spoken and also the visibility. So some of them want to be in the plenary session or do workshop or do exhibition just to encourage them. So those are the strategies we have used and it has worked for us. We held the last one in Nigeria and it was very, very successful. So but we have not convinced the private sector enough to be able to participate fully. So we are still looking at what we should do to attract the private sector, but we give them sessions. So with that session, it creates visibility for them. So that’s how we have been managing our funding. Thank you very much.

Flavio Wagner: Thank you, Mary. Yeah, please.

Lee McKnight: Hi, thank you. This is Lee McKnight, a veteran going back to the Caribbean Internet Forum, which started two years before there was an Internet Governance Forum. So working closely with the Jamaican government in those very early days. So what I’m hearing all around the room, first, I just want to compliment everybody how far we’ve come over the decades. The fact that there’s now 170 plus NRIs is amazing. That’s a tribute to the work of everybody in the room and online that they exist. Second, I wanted to highlight the, I think, complementarity. Probably they wouldn’t exist without the UN IGF and all the work of people here at the UN. Marilyn Cade, I’m thinking of who’s passed away, who helped and encouraged and provide a model for the local initiatives. So now turning back to the funding question, it was hard 22 years ago for Courtney Jackson from the government of Jamaica to persuade industry to throw in funds. It was impossible for me to get big tech companies to say, I can’t go to my boss and say there’s going to be a meeting in Grenada that I have to be at and Google’s going to sponsor it or whoever it is. So there’s a balance between needs of the local and regional communities, which somehow has gotten us to this point. I do think it will be easier somewhat if the UN IGF is institutionalized. That will then provide further legitimacy for the grassroots efforts and will sort of strengthen the support potential going forward. So I don’t think there’s going to be any magic solution. And I feel our EuroDIG founders pain in having done this so long. And so we’re overcoming so many challenges. So it’s still going to be difficult. There’s going to be no magic solutions. But I think with the progress made over the decades and with IGF, UN IGF institutionalization, it should be marginally better, not magically better. Thank you.

Flavio Wagner: Well, thank you. So we have Jordan and then Edmond. Yeah, Jordan.

Jordan Carter: Thank you, Flavio. Good morning, everyone. My name is Jordan Carter. I work for the Australian Domain Administration, the organization that runs the .AUCCTLD. Just two thoughts. In my experience in both New Zealand and Australia, the most integral funding partners for the national IGFs have been the .CCTLD manager. The IGF is a core part of the country’s Internet governance infrastructure. And when the CC has a role and a responsibility to do that in its strategy or its mandate from the government, it’s a natural fit, at least partly because it tends to be disinterested in the outcomes and the substance of the discussion. So it’s a great supporter for a neutral platform. I guess that could be different if there was a fight about the CCTLD happening in the local area, but usually most of the time that doesn’t seem to be the case. So if you’re from a CC and you’re not currently a supporter of that Internet governance infrastructure, I would urge you to do so. The second point I’d make is just to highlight the tension between some of these private sector wishes that we have for funding and the fact that the NRIs and the IGF generally are designed to be dialogue forums. And when you’ve been in this game for a while, you sort of think about the decision-shaping and norm-making facets there. But if you’re a harried executive with limited funds to give out, you tend to prioritize things where a decision is going to be made that you care about. So ironically, the non-decisional aspect of this forum, which is so important, makes it more difficult to achieve private sector funding. And I think it’s more important to keep that dialogue space than it is to change it in order to save that funding thing, which reinforces the importance of organizations like CCTLDs being resources for their NRIs, resources in this case being funding, and other in-kind support. At Ada, we provide the Secretariat for the National IGF as well. I hope that helps. Thanks.

Flavio Wagner: Thank you, Jordan. Yeah. Edmund?

Edmon Chung: Yeah. Edmund here. And from DotAsia, like Sandra, we’ve been supporting the APR IGF as Secretariat, but also speaking from, I guess, Internet Society Hong Kong, where the Hong Kong IGF that I’m involved in. So building on what, I guess, really Vint and Sandra and also what Jordan touched on, I think besides getting the support, which we really lean on the ISOC, the CCTLDs, the registries for at this moment, I think creating impact of the work that really informs the local legislation, what might be a very important part, because right now the line between the NRIs and the actual decision-making part, which Jordan highlighted, is not quite there. But I think one of the things that the institutionalization of IGF or the UN IGF would be very useful for is to bring this parliamentary track thing to the NRIs, because then that thread between the NRI discussion and the local legislation could be much better drawn. And that, I think, would create the impact and that would create the interest for sponsorship for other types of funding that would support the NRIs, which came from a grassroots direction, as mentioned. So I think that the UN IGF, once institutionalized, can really bring the parliamentary track to the NRIs, and I think this could create impact.

Jennifer Chung: Thanks, Flávio. So, this is Jennifer, and I’m the speaker on behalf of being part of the Secretariat team of the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF. I think many colleagues have already mentioned that the CCTLDs do play a very large role, especially when they also host and help out with the national IGFs. But of course, in the APEC region, they also do a lot to host the regional IGFs when we rotate to them. I mean, just looking at Jordan as well, when APR-IGF was in Australia and Brisbane, AUDA did a very, very big part in doing so. And as we’ve rotated to other countries and economies, the same thing happens. But now I’m going to speak on behalf of, I guess, a little bit more of the Gs, the generic top-level domains. I guess, .Asia is one of them. And I see in the room there are quite a few of us here. PIR, I’m seeing. Of course, Verizon is not in the room, but they also play a very large part in supporting their national IGFs. And I think our NCC colleague, who now might not be in the room anymore, but have also mentioned technical community does play a very large role, especially in supporting NRIs and youth initiatives around the world. I see ICANN in the room. I see Adam over there. I don’t know if you want to mention a little more. There is a lot of support around there, as well as ISOC. ISOC itself has also a foundation that looks into funding and supporting, both in kind and, of course, in cash, a lot of the different NRI networks. And I think a lot of the NRIs also rely very much on their local ISOC chapters to help with the funding there. One thing I wanted to point out is that, of course, looking at a more innovative or different funding strategy is a little, you know, we do have a little bit of framework around it because the NRIs, like the IGF, is noncommercial. So when we’re looking into putting into some kind of packaging or something for the donors or sponsors, especially when we’re looking at private sector or big tech or companies, it becomes quite difficult for them to understand and justify, okay, if we’re going to support you, but what about our logos? Are we going to have this? What is it that we can get? And it becomes a little bit of a dialogue back and forth to actually explain this is the criteria of what the NRIs have to do because this is a noncommercial. We cannot look into charging an admission fee. I don’t know if people in the room have taken a look at the nonpapers that I guess both the Swiss government and also the Australian government have put out. And in there, there are some actually quite creative ideas about looking at it from a different point of view. I think it is ideas for food for thought and how we can look into getting more sustainable models of funding both the NRIs and also the global IGF. But these also are questions that we don’t have answers, and I think it’s a really good brainstorming session right now for us to consider. Back to you, Flavio.

Flavio Wagner: Yeah, thank you, Jen. I think we have to move forward, yeah. I see Amrita worried there. So thank you for this very good exchange of ideas. We have this fantastic NRIs network, yeah, which is led by the IGF Secretariat, and I think that there is a lot of room for exchanging good practices, yeah, that people from different NRIs share their good practices with the other ones and give new ideas, insights of different types of funding sources that can be approached. And we know that the community has a lot of things to share with the other NRIs, and I hope that the NRIs network can be used for that. So let’s move to the next point in the agenda. Amrita, please.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you so much, Flavio. And for those who have more ideas but could not speak, you could also email it to us. And if you want to speak, those who have just come in, we have the mics on the table. Please feel to come and sit out here and raise your hand. We’ll have Fiona taking in the next section. But, yes, in NRI funding, NRIs are different. They come from varied backgrounds. The countries are different. Things which may work in some countries may not, but best practices if they are shared helps because sustainability is a challenge for the NRIs for sure. Fiona, the next section is yours. Ten minutes.

Fiona Asonga: Thank you so much, Amrita. Good morning, everyone. I believe that following through from the discussion as we continue, we’re going to see the importance of sustainability planning for the NRIs moving forward. And a number of things are glaringly hitting us in the face. For example, what has been mentioned about the role of getting the different stakeholders to be involved in the discussions. It is important that with where we’ve reached right now, we should have already had all the stakeholders coming in for the IGF, for the national IGF at the national levels and being able to then cascade it upwards and getting them to participate even at the global IGF. But that seems to be a challenge which we have to figure out how to overcome. That said and done, as we continue having our national and regional Internet governance forums, what are the things that we need to consider moving forward? Is there a role still for the IGF to play in the national and regional IGF forums? And what would be the role of the NRIs in ensuring sustainability of resourcing of the global IGF? Is there a role for the NRIs to play in that space? What other resources are helpful for us to be able to tap into to ensure the sustainability of the NRIs? Why are these questions important? Because we are at a point where we’ve not exhausted the engagement and the conversations that we need to have with other stakeholders, with having and driving the multi-stakeholder discussions and engagements. Even if the Internet governance forums are not decision-making, the collaboration in discussions and looking at policy and regulatory gaps at that level by all stakeholders is very important in capacity building and framing discussions that can go into other areas to ensure and sustain engagement and multi-stakeholder participation at all the different levels. At the local, national levels and regional levels and cascading it from a bottom-up multi-stakeholder engagement process. And so the floor, I think, is going to be open for us to have a conversation. For the next few minutes, our time is moving very fast, but if we can get your views for those who are here on what you think can be done to ensure sustainability and better planning for both the local NRIs and the global IGFs, I think that would be important to hear views on. And so we will start with feedback and input from Jameson. Thank you.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much, Fiona. My name is Jameson Olufoye from the Africa City Alliance. I run contemporary consulting based in Abuja, Nigeria. I’ve been involved in the process for quite a while, and I’m happy with what we are doing. Thank you, the Executive Committee, for the great job. The ecosystem is gaining strength year by year. There’s no doubt about that. And we need to continuously enrich it. And we enrich it through various measures, expanding structure and also funding mechanism. If you permit me to just recourse back a little to what we’ve discussed earlier. How do we get more funding? Yes, that is from the other sectors, business in particular. The business needs to have a seat on MAG. As it is at the global level, at the local level, there should be specific seats for business as well, for the technical people, for the civil society. And they should be followed up to make sure they are there. And once their interest is covered, there should be funding from that source, basically. An interesting development is that there have been calls for sub-national IGF. There are some calls for sub-national IGF. That is, apart from national, even at the state level, local level. I mentioned this at the IGF in Brazil, 2006. But I was surprised that I gained some traction. Some people have been asking me, how about at the state level, is it allowed? How about the local government level, is it allowed? I say, yes, why not? The more we deepen the discussion, the better. And that brings me to the point my colleague there mentioned. The second question, about sustainability, can we continue the volunteering aspect of it? So we need to be looking at how to really empower this area at the local level. So, funding makes a lot of difference. That is why if we make it permanent, if it is renewed extensively at the global level, so whatever applies globally will apply at the local level. The global level will make the national government and the local government also see that they need to budget for it, provide budget, and bring in the parliamentarians. The parliamentarians are the ones who approve the budget at the National Assembly. So if we bring them in more closely, create a seat for them at the MAG, and make them to co-own the process, I think we will continue to just move forward. So with that, we will continue to strengthen the ecosystem going forward. Thank you.

Fiona Asonga: Thank you so much, Jimson. We’ve got Chris online, who also has something to add.

Jennifer Chung: I don’t know if Chris Mundini, one of our EC members, would like to join in on this particular part, but if not, then we can go to the next speaker as well.

Joyce Chen: Thanks. This is Joyce, speaking for the record. I’m not speaking with my EC hat on. I’m just speaking as a participant, as a follower, and as one of the sponsors as well for initiatives like the APRIGF. I really relate to this idea that we have really been doing all this on a voluntary basis, and very much at a best effort kind of manner, whatever available resources there are, and then just try your best to put on a good show. I was just thinking, in terms of the additional resources required, I think we should also think from an operational point of view, the professionalization of all the different secretariats. I think that’s really important. I think, for example, the APRIGF, not that I’m speaking on behalf of them, I’m speaking just as a participant. My observation is that because .Asia is the secretariat, they put in a lot of effort to make the event happen. I’m not sure if many of the other NRIs have similar, very dedicated secretariats with the skills to put the event together to kind of herd the cats of whichever is your steering group, committees, etc. It requires a lot of heavy lifting on the part of your secretariats. I think part of our discussion about resources is also to think about how we can leverage our secretariats better, and how we can also resource our secretariats better. So that’s my point of view. Thank you.

Fiona Asonga: Amrita?

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you, Fiona. And just to take up from what Joy said, Amrita, for the record, most of the NRIs are volunteer-driven. They do not have a secretariat. So if one person goes, the show kind of becomes shaky. So building that leadership for sustainability is important. And many times if you go to donors, many big tech, they do not understand the volunteer work which happens. That there is no, you know, how is it structured? It’s not legally registered somewhere. So it’s very difficult for them to understand how volunteers work. And many people from the external audience do not understand this volunteer work, how passionately people work. So it also takes a lot of time to explain to them how it works. Many governments also, even for IGF, they find it very difficult that how volunteers come, contribute, and go away. What is the interest? So it takes a lot of education. But Fiona, over to you. I know we are short of time.

Fiona Asonga: We are running short of time. But I think also in the interest of being able to ensure sustainability and planning is improved, I like the idea of formalizing because the truth is when a volunteer leaves, they pass away or they move on to something else, everything stops there. Those who, like School of Internet Governance Europe has been run by a dear friend for the longest time. If she moved on to something else, who takes over from you? When you think about it, even the National Internet Governance Forums are running that way. Is there a way that multi-stakeholders can come together and formalize that process so that it’s always a team that is working together to get things done so that then we are able to ensure sustainability in the way we operate and run these forums? And when you think about it, I think that’s the food for thought we should carry from this discussion and take home with us because then it gives us something that we can be able to work on and think through and see how we engage to make it happen and to make sure that the national and regional Internet registries are sustainable. I have two minutes. I think we have two minutes for our session. And Andrette has just stepped in, so I would like to give her an opportunity to add on to the discussion on sustainability and planning and what we could do to improve on it. Thank you.

Amrita Choudhury: Okay. Anriette, if you need one minute to come back. Yeah, Arsene, I’ll just come to you. We may be thrown out of the room in two minutes’ time. I’ll give you half a minute. But before we end, we would like to take a group photograph. And from the IGF EC, we would also like to remember Nigel, who was our treasurer. We didn’t do it early because most of the people were not here. We really miss him. He was an integral part. He managed as a treasurer. And obviously many of you would know him in person, so we would like to remember him also out here. Andrette, if you could speak and then Arsene.

Anriette Esterhuysen: My apologies, everyone. Andrette Esterhuyzen, I’m one of the executives. I’m sorry I couldn’t be here. I think this is really just to share that we’ve been talking about how to strengthen the IGF, but particularly to strengthen national and regional IGFs, that the challenge that we should all try and tackle collectively is not just one about funding. The sustainability and the ongoing strength and impact of national and regional IGFs also requires them to be legitimate, to be inclusive, to be able to play a role at a national level that brings together interest groups and stakeholders that might not find it easy to work together, but that need to work together. And also to be able to have the systems, the critical thinking, the processes in place to give them that longer-term sustainability. And ultimately, I think we all understand that in the long run, NRIs do need to be supported by their communities and by the institutions and organizations that come together through that NRI. And that’s not something that happens easily. It requires a lot of relationship building as well. So I think that would just be my opening remarks. We have some ideas. We want your ideas. We want to hear how people feel about this way of thinking about sustainability, long-term sustainability and impact of NRIs. And then also to hear some ideas about what kind of activity and what kind of collaboration could help contribute to this longer-term sustainability. Does that capture what we’ve been talking about?

Fiona Asonga: Yes.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you so much, Anriette. Arsene, sorry, I don’t think we will be able to take you because I can see three seconds and we’ve been told we need to close it. But please keep the conversation open. We’ll keep these questions. Please write to us. And if required, if you want, we can always have another discussion online. But thank you so much for joining us today, early morning. And we’ll take a group photograph. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

CCTLDs are crucial funding partners for NRIs

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Jennifer Chung
– Participant 1

Arguments

CCTLDs are most integral funding partners as neutral supporters of national internet governance infrastructure

Regional IGFs rely heavily on CCTLD support and rotation hosting model

Technical community funding depends on addressing issues close to their reality like infrastructure access

Summary

Multiple speakers agreed that Country Code Top-Level Domain managers serve as essential, neutral funding partners for both national and regional IGFs, with their support being integral to NRI operations

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

NRIs face sustainability challenges due to volunteer-driven nature

Speakers

– Sandra Hoferichter
– Amrita Choudhury
– Joyce Chen
– Fiona Asonga

Arguments

NRIs operate primarily on voluntary basis with low budgets despite expectations of full performance

Most NRIs are volunteer-driven without formal secretariats, creating vulnerability when volunteers leave

Professionalization of secretariats is essential for operational sustainability

Formalization of multi-stakeholder teams is needed to ensure continuity beyond individual volunteers

Summary

Speakers consistently identified the volunteer-driven nature of NRIs as creating significant sustainability challenges, with calls for professionalization and formalization to ensure continuity

Topics

Development | Economic

Private sector funding requires demonstrating concrete value and benefits

Speakers

– Vint Cerf
– Mary Uduma
– Sandra Hoferichter
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Private sector funding requires demonstrating concrete benefits to potential funders

Private sector engagement requires convincing them of visibility benefits and concrete returns

Big tech companies should step up funding since they benefit most from free and interoperable internet

Noncommercial framework creates challenges in packaging sponsorship offerings for private sector

Summary

Speakers agreed that securing private sector funding requires clearly articulating value propositions and concrete benefits, though the noncommercial nature of IGFs creates inherent challenges

Topics

Economic | Development

IGF institutionalization would provide stability but not solve all funding challenges

Speakers

– Vint Cerf
– Markus Kummer
– Mary Uduma
– Lee McKnight

Arguments

IGF should continue permanently with UN funding while maintaining voluntary funding opportunities

Permanent IGF mandate would provide institutional stability without significantly changing funding mechanisms

Government interest and support would increase at national and sub-regional levels with permanent mandate

Caribbean experience shows marginal improvement expected with IGF institutionalization, not magic solutions

Summary

Speakers consistently agreed that making the IGF permanent would provide institutional stability and legitimacy, but emphasized that significant funding challenges would remain and additional resources would still be needed

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of ensuring that the broader IGF ecosystem, including NRIs, is properly represented and understood in policy discussions and funding considerations

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Member states must be informed about NRI importance during WSIS negotiations to ensure holistic thinking

Regional IGFs rely heavily on CCTLD support and rotation hosting model

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers saw parliamentary engagement as essential for connecting IGF discussions to actual policy-making and securing governmental support and funding

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Edmon Chung

Arguments

Parliamentary involvement is crucial for budget approval and co-ownership of the process

Parliamentary track integration could connect NRI discussions to local legislation and create greater impact

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasized that sustainability goes beyond funding to include proper processes, legitimacy, and meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement

Speakers

– Fiona Asonga
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder engagement at all levels requires better planning and formalization of processes

Long-term sustainability requires legitimacy, inclusivity, and community support beyond just funding

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Need for formalization despite grassroots origins

Speakers

– Sandra Hoferichter
– Amrita Choudhury
– Fiona Asonga
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

NRIs operate primarily on voluntary basis with low budgets despite expectations of full performance

Most NRIs are volunteer-driven without formal secretariats, creating vulnerability when volunteers leave

Formalization of multi-stakeholder teams is needed to ensure continuity beyond individual volunteers

Professionalization of secretariats is essential for operational sustainability

Explanation

Despite the strong grassroots, volunteer-driven ethos that has characterized NRIs since their inception, there was unexpected consensus that formalization and professionalization are now necessary for sustainability. This represents a significant shift from the original volunteer model that speakers acknowledged has served the community well but is no longer sufficient for long-term viability

Topics

Development | Economic

Technical community as reliable funding source

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Jennifer Chung
– Participant 1

Arguments

CCTLDs are most integral funding partners as neutral supporters of national internet governance infrastructure

Regional IGFs rely heavily on CCTLD support and rotation hosting model

Technical community funding depends on addressing issues close to their reality like infrastructure access

Explanation

There was unexpected strong consensus that the technical community, particularly CCTLDs and registries, represents the most reliable and consistent funding source for NRIs. This consensus was surprising given the diversity of potential funding sources discussed, yet speakers from different regions consistently identified technical community organizations as their most dependable partners

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several key issues: the critical role of CCTLDs and technical community in funding NRIs, the sustainability challenges created by volunteer-driven operations, the need for demonstrating concrete value to private sector funders, and the expectation that IGF institutionalization would provide stability but not solve fundamental funding challenges. There was also agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and the need for better integration between NRI discussions and policy-making processes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for NRI sustainability strategy. The agreement suggests a clear path forward involving: (1) continued reliance on technical community funding while diversifying sources, (2) gradual professionalization and formalization of NRI operations, (3) better articulation of value propositions for private sector engagement, and (4) strategic advocacy during the WSIS+20 process to ensure NRIs are included in IGF sustainability planning. The consensus indicates that the NRI community has a shared understanding of both challenges and potential solutions, which should facilitate coordinated action.

Different viewpoints

Impact of IGF institutionalization on funding availability

Speakers

– Vint Cerf
– Markus Kummer
– Mary Uduma

Arguments

IGF should continue permanently with UN funding while maintaining voluntary funding opportunities

Permanent IGF mandate would provide institutional stability without significantly changing funding mechanisms

Government interest and support would increase at national and sub-regional levels with permanent mandate

Summary

While Cerf and Kummer believe UN institutionalization won’t significantly change funding realities for NRIs, Uduma argues it will lead to substantially increased government support and engagement at various levels

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Primary responsibility for private sector funding

Speakers

– Sandra Hoferichter
– Jordan Carter

Arguments

Big tech companies should step up funding since they benefit most from free and interoperable internet

Non-decisional nature of IGF makes private sector funding more difficult but should be preserved

Summary

Hoferichter argues big tech should fund NRIs because they benefit most from the work, while Carter suggests the non-decisional nature inherently makes private sector funding difficult and shouldn’t be changed to attract funding

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Approach to engaging private sector funding

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung
– Mary Uduma

Arguments

Noncommercial framework creates challenges in packaging sponsorship offerings for private sector

Private sector engagement requires convincing them of visibility benefits and concrete returns

Explanation

Unexpectedly, these speakers from different regions have contrasting experiences – Chung sees the noncommercial framework as a barrier to private sector engagement, while Uduma has successfully attracted private sector funding by offering visibility packages, suggesting regional differences in private sector expectations and regulatory environments

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed surprisingly few fundamental disagreements, with most speakers sharing common goals of NRI sustainability and IGF strengthening. Main disagreements centered on the expected impact of IGF institutionalization and approaches to private sector funding.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most conflicts were about methods rather than goals, suggesting a collaborative environment where speakers built on each other’s ideas rather than opposing them. The implications are positive for NRI sustainability as there appears to be broad consensus on core challenges and general direction, with disagreements mainly on tactical approaches that could be complementary rather than contradictory.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of ensuring that the broader IGF ecosystem, including NRIs, is properly represented and understood in policy discussions and funding considerations

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Member states must be informed about NRI importance during WSIS negotiations to ensure holistic thinking

Regional IGFs rely heavily on CCTLD support and rotation hosting model

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers saw parliamentary engagement as essential for connecting IGF discussions to actual policy-making and securing governmental support and funding

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Edmon Chung

Arguments

Parliamentary involvement is crucial for budget approval and co-ownership of the process

Parliamentary track integration could connect NRI discussions to local legislation and create greater impact

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasized that sustainability goes beyond funding to include proper processes, legitimacy, and meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement

Speakers

– Fiona Asonga
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder engagement at all levels requires better planning and formalization of processes

Long-term sustainability requires legitimacy, inclusivity, and community support beyond just funding

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The WSIS Plus 20 review and potential IGF mandate renewal would likely provide institutional stability and increase government interest in NRIs, but may not significantly change current funding mechanisms

NRIs operate primarily on voluntary basis with low budgets despite high performance expectations, creating sustainability challenges after nearly 20 years of operation

CCTLDs are identified as the most integral and natural funding partners for NRIs due to their neutral position and responsibility for national internet governance infrastructure

Private sector engagement requires demonstrating concrete value propositions and visibility benefits, but is complicated by the noncommercial framework of IGFs

Most NRIs lack formal secretariats and depend on individual volunteers, creating vulnerability when key people leave the organization

Multi-stakeholder engagement remains incomplete, with business sector and parliamentary participation needing improvement to ensure broader support and funding

Regional variations in funding models exist, with some regions successfully engaging government administrations while others rely more heavily on technical community support

The gap between grassroots volunteer origins and current expectations of professional performance needs to be addressed for long-term sustainability

Resolutions and action items

Participants should email additional ideas to IGFSA if they couldn’t speak during the session

NRIs should inform member states about the importance of NRIs during WSIS Plus 20 negotiations to ensure holistic thinking about IGF ecosystem

The NRIs network should be used more effectively for exchanging good practices and sharing insights about different funding sources

CCTLDs that are not currently supporting their national IGFs should consider doing so as part of their responsibility for national internet governance infrastructure

Consider developing parliamentary tracks for NRIs to better connect discussions to local legislation and create greater impact

Explore formalization of multi-stakeholder teams to ensure continuity beyond individual volunteers

Unresolved issues

How to effectively engage big tech companies in funding NRIs given their significant benefit from free and interoperable internet

How to balance noncommercial framework requirements with private sector sponsorship packaging needs

Whether UN institutionalization of IGF would create funding opportunities specifically for IGFSA and NRIs

How to professionalize NRI secretariats while maintaining grassroots volunteer spirit

How to create formal structures for NRIs without losing their organic, community-driven nature

What specific mechanisms could connect NRI discussions more effectively to national policy and decision-making processes

How to manage expectation gaps between volunteer capacity and professional performance demands

What innovative funding strategies beyond traditional sources could be explored for sustainable NRI operations

Suggested compromises

Maintain both UN regular funding and voluntary funding opportunities for IGF to provide stability while preserving flexibility

Create specific seats for business sector on local MAGs to ensure their participation while maintaining multi-stakeholder balance

Develop sub-national IGFs at state and local levels to deepen engagement while building on existing national structures

Combine formalization of processes with preservation of volunteer-driven community engagement

Integrate parliamentary tracks into NRIs to bridge dialogue and decision-making while maintaining the non-decisional nature of IGF discussions

Use IGFSA as an institution to manage trust funds for collecting private sector funding while addressing their visibility and engagement needs

I think the persistence of the IGF will in part depend on the ability of the NRIs to become useful to member states. And so the question there is what can the NRIs do that would help a member state either assess how well Internet is being used in-country or what steps might be needed for the Internet to be more useful.

Speaker

Vint Cerf

Reason

This comment reframes the entire sustainability discussion by shifting focus from funding mechanisms to value proposition. Cerf challenges the community to think strategically about demonstrating concrete utility to governments rather than just seeking support.

Impact

This comment established a foundational theme that resonated throughout the discussion. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider practical ways NRIs could demonstrate value, and set up the framework for thinking about legitimacy and impact that other speakers built upon.

At a certain point, we did not really get over the status of grassroots initiatives. On the other hand, full performance is expected… But honestly, this cannot go on for another five or ten years. We are doing this since almost 20 years now. And that is way too long time.

Speaker

Sandra Hoferichter

Reason

This comment powerfully articulates the unsustainable tension between volunteer-driven operations and professional expectations. It challenges the community’s complacency about relying indefinitely on volunteer labor while expecting institutional-level performance.

Impact

This comment shifted the conversation from abstract funding discussions to the human reality of burnout and unsustainability. It prompted other speakers to acknowledge the professionalization challenge and influenced later discussions about formalizing structures and creating sustainable operational models.

The usual question when you approach anyone for funding is, well, what’s in it for me?… You want some concrete way of explaining why funding this particular activity is a good thing, either for the funder in some very direct way, or in an indirect way, because it benefits the local environment.

Speaker

Vint Cerf

Reason

This comment introduces practical fundraising wisdom that challenges the community to move beyond assuming funders should support them to articulating clear value propositions. It brings real-world business perspective to what had been largely academic discussions.

Impact

This comment grounded the funding discussion in practical reality and influenced several subsequent speakers to share specific examples of how they’ve successfully articulated value to funders, moving the conversation from theoretical to actionable.

The line between the NRIs and the actual decision-making part… is not quite there. But I think one of the things that the institutionalization of IGF or the UN IGF would be very useful for is to bring this parliamentary track thing to the NRIs, because then that thread between the NRI discussion and the local legislation could be much better drawn.

Speaker

Edmon Chung

Reason

This comment identifies a critical structural gap – the disconnect between IGF discussions and actual policy-making – and proposes a concrete solution. It connects the institutionalization debate to practical impact at the national level.

Impact

This comment introduced the concept of parliamentary tracks as a bridge between dialogue and decision-making, offering a specific mechanism for increasing NRI relevance and impact. It influenced the later discussion about legitimacy and the role NRIs could play in policy processes.

Most of the NRIs are volunteer-driven. They do not have a secretariat. So if one person goes, the show kind of becomes shaky… Many big tech, they do not understand the volunteer work which happens. That there is no, you know, how is it structured? It’s not legally registered somewhere.

Speaker

Amrita Choudhury

Reason

This comment exposes the fundamental structural vulnerability of the NRI ecosystem – its dependence on individual volunteers and lack of institutional frameworks that external funders can understand and support.

Impact

This comment crystallized the sustainability challenge and led directly to Fiona’s closing emphasis on formalization and team-based approaches. It helped explain why funding is difficult to secure and influenced the final discussion about creating more sustainable organizational structures.

The sustainability and the ongoing strength and impact of national and regional IGFs also requires them to be legitimate, to be inclusive, to be able to play a role at a national level that brings together interest groups and stakeholders that might not find it easy to work together, but that need to work together.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment broadens the sustainability discussion beyond funding to encompass legitimacy, inclusivity, and institutional capacity. It challenges the community to think about sustainability as multidimensional rather than purely financial.

Impact

Although this came at the very end, this comment provided a comprehensive framework for thinking about NRI sustainability that synthesized many of the themes discussed throughout the session, offering a more holistic view of the challenges and opportunities ahead.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it from abstract policy considerations to concrete operational realities. Vint Cerf’s early interventions established the framework of demonstrating value and thinking strategically about stakeholder needs. Sandra Hoferichter’s candid assessment of volunteer burnout introduced urgency and realism that influenced the entire tone of subsequent discussions. The comments collectively shifted the conversation from ‘how do we get more funding’ to ‘how do we become more fundable and sustainable,’ addressing structural issues like professionalization, legitimacy, and the gap between dialogue and decision-making. The discussion evolved from reactive problem-solving to proactive strategic thinking about the future of the NRI ecosystem, with speakers building on each other’s insights to create a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and potential solutions.

Whether funds would be made available to IGFSA as a result of IGF becoming a permanent UN institution

Speaker

Vint Cerf

Explanation

This is unclear and needs investigation and discussion with UN representatives, particularly DESO, to understand potential funding mechanisms

What can NRIs do that would help member states assess Internet usage in-country or identify needed improvements

Speaker

Vint Cerf

Explanation

Making NRIs useful to member states through studies, measurements, or UN Romex metrics could contribute to IGF continuation after WSIS Plus 20

How to better engage private sector and big tech companies in NRI funding

Speaker

Multiple participants (Sandra Hoferichter, Mary Uduma, Jennifer Chung)

Explanation

There’s a need to develop strategies to attract private sector funding while maintaining the non-commercial nature of IGFs

How to formalize NRI structures to ensure sustainability when volunteers leave

Speaker

Fiona Asonga and Amrita Choudhury

Explanation

Most NRIs are volunteer-driven and face sustainability challenges when key volunteers move on, requiring formalization strategies

How to bring parliamentary tracks to NRIs to create better connection between discussions and local legislation

Speaker

Edmon Chung

Explanation

This could create impact and interest for sponsorship by drawing clearer lines between NRI discussions and actual policy-making

How to develop innovative funding strategies within the non-commercial framework constraints

Speaker

Jennifer Chung

Explanation

NRIs face challenges in packaging sponsorship opportunities due to non-commercial nature and restrictions on logos, admission fees, etc.

How to professionalize NRI secretariats and provide them with better resources and skills

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Explanation

Many NRIs lack dedicated secretariats with skills to organize events and coordinate activities, affecting sustainability

How to ensure multi-stakeholder representation with specific seats for business, technical community, and civil society at local levels

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

Better stakeholder representation could lead to improved funding and engagement from different sectors

How to build legitimacy, inclusiveness, and long-term sustainability systems for NRIs beyond just funding

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

NRIs need relationship building, critical thinking processes, and community support for long-term sustainability and impact