High Level Session 5 Charting the Path Forward for the WSis+20 Review and Role of the IGF

Summary

This discussion focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), taking place during the 20th IGF in Oslo. The session featured co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania leading the WSIS Plus 20 process, along with the UN Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, who outlined the review timeline culminating in a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December.

The co-facilitators reported hearing diverse stakeholder views on grounding the review in original WSIS principles while addressing technological advances like artificial intelligence and digital public infrastructure. A key discussion point emerged around the relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), with varying opinions on whether WSIS should remain the overarching framework or whether the processes should run parallel courses. Participants emphasized the need to avoid duplication between these initiatives while ensuring coherence and synergy.

Strong convergence was noted on preserving WSIS’s foundational vision of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. There was widespread agreement on maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach, addressing capacity building needs, and tackling the persistent digital divide. The co-facilitators announced plans for an informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to facilitate ongoing dialogue and committed to holding joint sessions between governments and non-government stakeholders.

A subsequent panel discussion featured government ministers and organization representatives who highlighted WSIS’s achievements over 20 years, including increased internet connectivity from 17% to 67% globally. They identified emerging challenges including AI governance, data protection, online safety for children, and environmental impacts of ICT. Panelists advocated for a permanent IGF mandate, better integration of national and regional IGFs, and strengthened coordination between WSIS, GDC, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The discussion concluded with calls for enhanced multi-stakeholder participation at national levels and continued commitment to an open, interoperable internet based on trust and voluntary cooperation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review Process and Timeline**: The discussion focused extensively on the ongoing World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, with co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania providing updates on consultations, stakeholder engagement, and the timeline leading to a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December.

– **Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)**: A central theme was strengthening and potentially making the IGF permanent, with discussions about extending its mandate, improving its structure, ensuring predictable funding, and enhancing its role in global digital governance while maintaining its multi-stakeholder approach.

– **Integration and Coordination Between Digital Governance Processes**: Participants emphasized the need to avoid duplication and achieve coherence between WSIS, the Global Digital Compact (GDC), and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, with proposals for joint implementation roadmaps and better coordination mechanisms.

– **Emerging Technologies and WSIS Action Lines**: The conversation addressed how to incorporate new technologies like artificial intelligence, data governance, and digital public infrastructure within the existing WSIS framework, with many arguing that the current action lines are technology-neutral and flexible enough to accommodate these developments.

– **Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Inclusivity**: Throughout the discussion, there was strong emphasis on maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder participation, particularly ensuring meaningful involvement of developing countries, youth, women, small and medium enterprises, and civil society in both global and national-level processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as a key consultation session during the 20th IGF, allowing co-facilitators of the WSIS Plus 20 review process to gather input from the multi-stakeholder community on how to update and strengthen the WSIS framework for the next decades. The session aimed to capture diverse perspectives on the future of digital governance, the role of IGF, and how various UN digital processes should work together coherently.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by mutual respect and shared commitment to the multi-stakeholder model. Participants expressed cautious optimism about the WSIS Plus 20 process while acknowledging the challenges ahead. The tone was professional yet passionate, with speakers demonstrating deep engagement with the issues and genuine concern for preserving the inclusive spirit of WSIS while adapting to new realities. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the December deadline, but also confidence in the community’s ability to work together toward positive outcomes.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jorge Cancio** – Session moderator/co-moderator

– **Karianne Tung** – Minister (Norway), representing Norwegian government

– **Thomas Schneider** – Session moderator/co-moderator, Ambassador (Switzerland)

– **Kurtis Lindqvist** – Representative from ICANN

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Co-facilitator for WSIS Plus 20 process, Permanent Representative of Kenya to the UN

– **Li Junhua** – Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, UN

– **Jimson Olufuye** – Principal Consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited (Nigeria), advocate for private sector view from Africa through Africa ICT Alliance

– **Markus Kummer** – WSIS veteran, former chair of various negotiating groups

– **Suela Janina** – Co-facilitator for WSIS Plus 20 process, Permanent Representative of Albania to the UN

– **Maggie Jones** – Baroness Jones, UK Government representative

– **Fabrizia Benini** – European Commission representative

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions

– **Online moderator** – Eleonora, managing online participation and questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Jaqueline Pigato** – Data Privacy Brazil, Civil Society

– **Philip Lee** – General Secretary of WACC (World Association for Christian Communication)

– **Nigel Casimir** – Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– **Constantinos Comaitis** – Resident Senior Fellow, Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council

– **Bertrand de La Chapelle** – Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– **Ana Neves** – Portugal representative

– **Esther Yarmitsky** – UK Government

– **Christina Alida** – Egyptian Government

– **Rian Duarte** – Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers

– **William Lee** – Australian Government

– **Silvia Cadena** – Chief Development Officer of the World Wide Web Consortium

– **Kossay Al-Shati** – Kuwait representative

– **Raul Echeverria** – Executive Director of Latin American Internet Association, MAG member

– **Bastiaan Winkel** – Department of Justice, Netherlands

– **Eric** – Speaker who addressed linguistic diversity issues (spoke in Spanish)

– **Musa Maigari** – Nigeria (participated online)

– **Segun Omolosho** – Online participant

– **Mark Carvell** – Formerly of UK government, longtime IGF participant (mentioned in online chat)

# WSIS Plus 20 Review and Internet Governance Forum Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This session at the 20th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Oslo focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and the future of digital governance. The discussion brought together co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania leading the WSIS Plus 20 process, UN officials, government ministers, and representatives from civil society, private sector, and technical communities.

**Note on Source Material**: This summary is based on a transcript with significant quality issues, including garbled and incomplete sections. The analysis focuses on clearly intelligible portions while acknowledging these limitations.

## Key Participants and Context

The session featured:

– Ekitela Lokaale (Kenya) and Suela Janina (Albania) as WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators

– Li Junhua, UN Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs

– Minister Karianne Tung from Norway

– Maggie Jones representing the UK Government

– Representatives from ICANN, private sector, and civil society organizations

The discussion centered on how the WSIS framework should evolve for future decades while maintaining its foundational principles.

## WSIS Plus 20 Review Process

### Timeline and Consultation Process

Li Junhua outlined the review timeline leading to a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December. The co-facilitators reported conducting extensive consultations with diverse stakeholders across regions, revealing both areas of agreement and divergence on key issues.

Key upcoming milestones include:

– Written inputs to elements paper due July 15th

– Joint sessions between governments and non-government stakeholders planned for late July

– Second preparatory consultation meeting scheduled for mid-October

### Stakeholder Engagement Mechanisms

The co-facilitators announced the establishment of an informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to facilitate better communication between formal intergovernmental negotiations and the broader multi-stakeholder community.

## Areas of General Agreement

### Multi-stakeholder Approach

Strong support emerged for preserving the multi-stakeholder approach as central to both WSIS and IGF processes. Maggie Jones emphasized that “WSIS, our multi-stakeholder engagement, is very unique in this experience. And I think that’s one of our great strengths.”

Kurtis Lindqvist from ICANN highlighted that “the IGF strength lies in what it enables, the open engagement across stakeholder groups without the pressure to negotiate or formalise the outcomes.”

### Technology-Neutral Framework

Participants generally supported maintaining the technology-neutral nature of existing WSIS action lines. Minister Tung noted that “the action lines are broad, they are tech neutral, I believe that is important, because we don’t know what kind of technology that hits us tomorrow.”

Jimson Olufuye, representing private sector perspectives from Africa, argued that “the 11 WSIS Action Lines covered anything that could come up. We don’t really need any new structural changes.”

## IGF Future and Strengthening

### Permanent Mandate Support

Strong support emerged for providing the IGF with a permanent mandate. Minister Tung stated that “for Norway, it is important that we are able to give IGF a permanent mandate. That is a key priority.”

Kurtis Lindqvist emphasized the IGF’s track record: “IGF has proven successful over 20 years, enabling phenomenal economic growth and connecting over 5 billion people online.”

### Enhanced Outputs and Communication

While supporting the IGF’s non-binding nature, speakers advocated for strengthening its outputs. Maggie Jones suggested that “we can have a strengthened output, we can also potentially use the IGF mandate to report to the General Assembly, but there should be more output coming out of the IGF.”

Minister Tung emphasized better integration with policymaking: “I think it’s important that we are able to communicate better the results and the messages that come out from IGF, so that we can better use it for policymaking.”

## Key Challenges and Debates

### WSIS and Global Digital Compact Relationship

Significant discussion focused on the relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Minister Tung took a clear position: “I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process.”

However, views varied on whether WSIS should serve as the overarching framework or whether processes should run in parallel to avoid duplication.

### Digital Divides and Inclusion

Despite progress in global connectivity, substantial challenges remain. Maggie Jones reported that internet access has grown from 17% in 2005 to 67% currently, but significant disparities persist between developed and developing countries.

The gender digital divide received particular attention, with Jones noting that “the gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023.”

### Emerging Technology Challenges

Participants discussed how to address artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies within existing frameworks. Minister Tung highlighted concerns about “AI ethics, data governance, and harmful algorithms affecting children and society.”

There was general agreement that the technology-neutral nature of existing action lines provides flexibility to address new challenges without requiring fundamental structural changes.

## Stakeholder Perspectives and Concerns

### Beyond Traditional Communities

An audience member challenged the community to expand beyond traditional boundaries: “How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table. We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places.”

### National-Level Implementation

Jimson Olufuye identified challenges in national-level engagement: “The major challenge I see is to get our national government to be involved, to involve all of us, all the stakeholders in the conversation.”

### Protecting Successful Models

Kurtis Lindqvist warned about risks to existing approaches: “We risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation… If we replace this model with something that’s more rigid or politicised, we risk losing one of these few global spaces.”

## Coordination and Implementation

### Avoiding Duplication

A central theme was avoiding duplication while promoting synergies between WSIS, the Global Digital Compact, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Participants consistently called for better coordination mechanisms.

Fabrizia Benini from the European Commission proposed joint implementation roadmaps to track progress across multiple commitments and identify areas requiring coordination.

### National and Regional IGFs

The discussion highlighted the crucial role of national and regional IGFs in connecting global and local governance conversations, with 176 such initiatives currently operating worldwide.

## Unresolved Questions

Several fundamental questions remain for the WSIS Plus 20 process:

1. **Institutional Relationships**: The specific relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact requires clarification

2. **IGF Structure**: While there’s support for strengthening the IGF, the specific mechanisms remain to be determined

3. **Funding and Resources**: Sustainable funding mechanisms for ongoing activities need development

4. **Meaningful Inclusion**: Practical mechanisms for ensuring broader participation require further work

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a community committed to preserving successful multi-stakeholder approaches while adapting to contemporary challenges. Strong consensus exists on fundamental principles, but significant work remains on implementation details and institutional arrangements.

The December timeline for the WSIS Plus 20 review is ambitious, requiring resolution of several complex questions about coordination, resources, and institutional relationships. The constructive tone of discussions suggests good prospects for progress, though the ultimate success will depend on translating broad agreement on principles into specific, actionable frameworks.

The emphasis on expanding engagement beyond traditional communities and addressing persistent digital divides indicates recognition that the legitimacy and effectiveness of digital governance frameworks depend on their broader relevance and inclusivity.

Thomas Schneider: Good morning everyone, can you already hear me? So, we have all survived the first few days of the IGF, so there’s one more to go, so welcome to the last morning of this year’s IGF, of the 20th IGF, and what a surprise, we may talk about WSIS Plus 20. So, let me introduce our distinguished guests. We have Ms. Ekitela Lokaale, one of the two co-facilitators for the WSIS Plus 20 process in New York, permanent representative of Kenya to the UN. We have Ms. Suella Janina, the second co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process, she’s the permanent representative of Albania to the UN, and then we have Mr. Li Junhua, Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs. Give them a warm welcome, thank you very much. Music Thank you, it’s really good to see you. That’s it. So yeah. As I said before, we had lots of good and inspiring discussions on the WSIS plus 20 process, given that this is the 20th IGF and a lot has happened in the last 20 years, and there’s lots of ideas around what should be the outcome of the WSIS plus 20 process that is happening in New York. And of course, we are very happy to have the co-facilitators that have a key role in this process with us. And they had to listen to many people or had the chance, the opportunity to listen to many people, and I guess they heard quite a diversity and a range of expectations and views from all of you. And of course, also Under-Secretary General Yun Hwa Lee has had many discussions, has been listening, and the purpose of this session is to hear from them what they heard, how they see things, what are their takeaways, and then of course, how are the next months going to work. So, let me turn to Mr. Li Junhua, Under-Secretary General of Economic and Social Affairs. As the Secretariat of the WSIS plus 20 process, of course, you have a key role for the overall review by the UN General Assembly. Can you give us a brief background and update where we are with the process?

Li Junhua: Well, thank you. Thank you, Tom. Good morning, everyone. First of all, let me express my sincere thanks to the co-facilitators, Ambassadors of Albania and Kenya, for their amplifying leadership for this WSIS plus 20 process. As you said, the WSIS actually started very early, more than two decades. It started from Geneva in 2003 and followed by Tunis in 2005, which actually laid a very solid foundation for WSIS. Namely, first, it’s people-centered. Second, it’s development-driven. Third, it’s an inclusive process. And the WSIS also created a very large number of people. technology, and we need to make sure that we are not neglecting the long-lasting mechanism that is our IGF. So, over the past two decades, we all witnessed the profound changes have taken place, while we made enormous progress, but having said that, we also need to acknowledge persistent digital device, rapid connectivity, and also, about the safety, internet safety and security, make a renewable dialogue, conversation essential for all of us. So, this conversation, to me, to the UNDESA, I guess, to all stakeholders, make this WSIS plus 20 overall review very significant. This process would end up with a high-level meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in December, and, as a secretariat for this process, my department, the UNDESA, is very committed to supporting the whole process guided by the co-facilitators. I just want to highlight a few key mind-storms so far. First, as a first preparatory meeting and stock-taking session was conducted on May 30th at the UN headquarters. Second, a series of stakeholder consultations, including virtual meetings, were held from 9th to 10th of June, and very remarkable and pivotal development took place on 20th of June, with the publication of the WSIS plus 20 elements paper circulated by the co-facilitators. This document actually invites the written inputs from all stakeholders. by the deadline of July 15, so that I understand that the co-facilitators also concluded a very significant consultation during the UNESCO AI and Digital Conference, and then co-facilitators will continue to engage with the multi-stakeholders in coming weeks in Geneva at the Western Forum hosted by the ITU. So to ensure this process, very much genuine multi-stakeholder co-facilitators announced that we are going to launch the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board. For this board, only members from MACS and the leadership panel, those individuals with no affiliation to the government or inter-governmental organizations are eligible, so they would reflect the voices, diverse voices from tech communities, from youth, and from civil societies. So all in all, all those updates, documents, and opportunities, you can check on the website launched by my department recently. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much, and so we see inclusivity something that is taken very seriously in this process, and I also thank you personally for being very committed to this principle. So now turning to our co-facilitators, what are the proposals and reflections that you’ve heard here in this week in Oslo in the many sessions, many discussions, and many bilateral discussions that you’ve had with member states and with other stakeholders? Mr. Ambassador.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you, Ambassador. Let me also join Under-Secretary General in and also the questions available for the participants for winning elections. There are several leaders to intervene on this field . We could address them and take a solution , and for the participants of these issues, within the hierarchy from the CFP d . The focus on the IGF for individual and collective U.N. agencies, other stakeholders, civil society, academia, technical community, as well as the private sector. In all those conversations, we have received very, very rich and thoughtful ideas about how we should conduct this process. We have had very, very useful and insightful proposals on the things that we need to take into account. We have been working on a number of issues in the IGF. We have been working on a number of issues in the IGF. We have received very, very useful and insightful interventions on a number of issues by other parts of Brazil. We have received up to attention from partners and countries throughout last several years. We worked very, very closely with the workforce and tap re model And so within that framework, there are n y initiatives in the IGF. But the Championships in the IGF are based on the vision and willingness to make their views known. So in terms of some of the concrete proposals which are coming up, we are hearing from the stakeholders, for example, the need for us to ground the WSIS Plus 20 outcome review in the original WSIS vision, that is the Geneva Declaration Tunis Agenda and commitment. So I think that’s what we are doing in the IGF. So I think that’s what we are doing in the IGF. So I think once the Islam … which has witnessed scientific study, these different types of projects to do. So a broad range of stakeholders agrees upon the vision of a people centered inclusive and development oriented information of course and civic development and the other is that there is a clear recognition that even as we ground the review in the original WSIS vision and the Geneva and Tunis agenda or commitments, we should also reflect some of the technological advancements that have happened over the last two decades. For example, the advancements in the digital economy have happened over the last two decades. For example, the advancements in the area of artificial intelligence, digital public infrastructure, there are advancements but also risks and threats to cyber security and so on. So that’s the second thing that we’re hearing. Then the other big one is the relationship between WSIS and the global digital compact. And on this one, I must say that there have been a diversity of views. What’s clear to a lot of people is that we should not duplicate what is in WSIS with what is in the GDC or even the other related processes. But the views are diverse. On the one hand, for example, there are those who feel that WSIS should remain the overarching framework and that all the other proposals in the GDC be implemented under the WSIS architecture. That’s one. Then there are also those who say, let the two processes don’t duplicate but follow what is in WSIS and let the processes under GDC run their course. So I think for my co-facilitator and I, as we continue engaging, that’s one area on which. augmentation process. And I think to graduated families and they’ll be Epstein and Moneywell and then that’s also because those families in line in collaboration with the foundation writes might also sign another contract or another contract. But they’ll keep dividing up the money, and dividing up the funds, the options, the funds for dissemination. Then we’ll obviously open up this conversation further when there are those who advance this proposal, they are wide enough. They can accommodate, you know, these emerging technologies. So there is no need to touch them. There is a school of thought that says let’s update the WSIS action lines. So by updating of necessity, it means you have to touch them somewhat. Then there are those who say expand the WSIS action lines. And there will be project areas that will be within those actions. And let’s see if there are any policies that will allow for the partnership to continue. So that is pretty much the information I would like to provide. So at this point I would like to say thank you very much. And thank you to Girona and to Alliana for putting together a wonderful panel and also my colleagues. We’ll continue our time today as well. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much.

Suela Janina: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Good morning, distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Ambassador Locale, for capturing almost the discussions that we have heard during this week. But I wanted just to emphasize the importance of our participation here. In fact, while we have organized a roadmap for our process, it has been one of the most important stops and it proves to be very worthy, because during this week we have heard very rich discussions and enlightening also for us. It’s really a learning process for us to understand the spirit of WSIS and IGF that my colleague mentioned, and it has been also an inspirational week for us to keep this spirit alive, but also to try to be forward-looking for the future. Some of the elements that maybe I can add in terms of complementing what my colleague already mentioned, when we speak about the process, is the request that we have heard very openly, that the process is inclusive and is our commitment to have this process, WSIS review, inclusive and forward-looking at the same time. As mentioned by USG, there has been proposals in creating this new form of communications with stakeholder community, which one of we are just practicing, or just it’s in a good way of being created, like the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board. We have had the request for volunteers coming from the MAG and leadership panel, and I will take this opportunity to thank all of them that have been volunteered to be part of the sounding board. Very soon we’ll need to make a selection based also on a big number of requests, but also on some criteria that we would like to see on the sounding board, like the regional geographical presentation, but also gender presentation. So very soon you will learn who will be the ones that will be your voice in in communicating with us. But I just want to make this very clear from the beginning that the sounding board will be a practical way of lasening with us, of communicating with us, but it’s not closing the doors of communication because we’ll be very much committed to hear from every one of you. So please, let’s use these opportunities like a kind of coordination way that in a more practical and efficient way, we can hear each other and we can represent your views in the process that is going to take place during the next weeks and months to come. One other important element that we have noticed and have been repeatedly mentioned to us is the fact of, as we are at the IGF, the future of IGF, what format and what kind of IGF you would like to see for the next 10, 20 years or the more extended future. And here we are really very much appreciating the fact that there are a lot of ideas coming of how IGF and WSIS in general will fit in the global digital governance. And we have heard around the fact of making extensions to the mandate of IGF up to making it permanent. We have also heard views of rebranding the name of IGF. We have also heard views about how to strengthen the IGF in terms of including also new and emerging technologies. So these are very important and very useful ideas. Of course, we’ll be in the position to hear this discussion more in detail during the coming. But we have had a clear opinion where the proposals stand and we’ll be very happy to hear in the future, again for you in more detail or in concrete language, really what kind of IGF and what is the future of IGF that will fit for purpose and for the future of digital society we want. Another additional element that I would like also to emphasize at this point is the fact that we have been also asked to put our attention to capture and to reflect the diverse experiences that are coming from different stakeholders and regions and sectors at the same time. Because this can encompass different elements starting from connectivity, access, capacity building and this is also with particular relevance to include or to make possible that developing countries have a say in this process and this say should be meaningful. Because what we are seeing also with emerging technologies is that we risk to deepen the digital divide that we are seeing nowadays. So more or less at this stage I would like just to have these points also as future way of having some other additional food for thought from your side and from the wider multi-stakeholder inputs like starting it from the governments but also from private sector, technical community, academia, civil society. All valuable inputs that will come will seriously be taken into account and we really are very grateful for this rich and very colorful proposals that we are taking during this week. week. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider: So it’s also good to see that both of you have felt this vibrant spirit, this passion, no matter whom you talk to, no matter from what stakeholder, what stakeholder a person is part of or what the region of the world, everybody is really engaged and passionate. And I think it is also something that we realized during the discussions. WSIS is not an institution or is less an institution. There’s no house or organization. It’s more of a mindset of cooperation that has different houses within it, around it. The IGF is one of the parts, together with the WSIS Forum, that we will continue the discussion in one week in Geneva are some of the key platforms for dialogue, for listening to each other, for having engaged debates. And so I think it is beautiful to see how you captured the spirit of this and also how you outlined some of the hot issues that many discussions will need to be taking place in the coming months to hopefully come up with something that actually is acceptable to all and meets all expectations. I’d like to maybe also focus a little bit on what were the elements where you felt clear convergence? What are the areas of convergence? Where do people agree that this should be done and this should be done? This is important or is key. So, what were your takeaways in terms of where does the community agree?

Suela Janina: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas, for this question and also for highlighting a little bit earlier the kind of. kind of alliances that we are in together. And when we started this undertaking, what I was capturing like very inspiring is the fact that the community is strong and I’ve been presented with WSIS community, but I should also put it like, I feel like this is WSIS family. And we’re really very glad to be part of it. And sometimes where you are within family, you try to understand the best part of it, but also to speak very honestly with each other. And sometimes we have filled this kind of burden and responsibility because the process we need to admit is challenging, is not among the most easiest process. Also having in mind that we are also working all together in challenging multilateral environment now. But we have been really very surprised that there are many points on which the community converges. And first of all, when we talk about principle, it is important that everyone is very cautious and awareness is there that we need to preserve the foundation and fundamental vision of WSIS that we just delivered 20 years ago. And what USG mentioned is the vision of a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented information society, while at the same time addressing the new challenging elements of development of this society. So when we talk about this new and emerging technologies, we are listening repeatedly and from everyone that new emerging technologies like AI, data governance, can be fitted within. the WSIS framework, so this is a good start, let’s say, for taking over the next steps and the next discussion. A second point of convergence is the need for capacity building. We are hearing that very often, and this also is linked with what I mentioned before, the fact of digital divide, which we see actually in infrastructure, in skills, in governance, so all these elements need to be very clearly in our focus in order that we commit for concrete actions in order to address the digital divide. And something that I know is very sensible, but I think we need to make a clarification here because during this week we have this sensibility on the multi-stakeholder approach, and I would like to reassure everyone that this is very central in our work, in our discussions. There is no kind of afterthought or beforethought from us as co-facilitators to walk back from the multi-stakeholder approach that has characterized WSIS, not only WSIS as a process, but has given the positive examples to other processes within UN. So multi-stakeholder approach and engagement will be central in the future negotiations that we are taking for the review of the process, and here again another call, let’s be engaged all together to preserve what we have achieved and to be ambitious for the future.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much Suela, where did you feel convergence and agreement this week?

Ekitela Lokaale: In addition to everything that my colleague has said, we see a desire on the part of everyone we spoke to that we should try to achieve coherence. Coherence between, you know, we see coherence with what is in the GDC. We hear over and over people saying, please don’t duplicate. Try to find synergies between the two processes. So that has been a constant message that has come through across the board. The second is, stakeholders are saying, don’t reopen debates that we’ve had from 20 years ago. Don’t go back 10 years ago. The issues which as a stakeholder community, we’ve discussed, we’ve agreed. So don’t reopen those debates. There are those that we’ve discussed, but inconclusively, and have agreed to pack them. So that has come out quite strongly, and we’ve taken that point. The other is, we hear people saying, there are issues on which there are parallel processes happening right now. You know, just to give some examples, the AI, for instance. Enhanced cooperation is the other one. Data governance and cyber security. So we hear those examples where people are saying, there are processes that are underway. So let’s not duplicate that by bringing those again. Okay. Very good point. So, another way ofinterpreting things, how we do this is, we use fake data based report. In fact, that is our one reason why we ask the questions as to have any information can be used, not to instantiate issues. So what does it suggest us to do? Is it still possible that the user can act on public information, or the user can act as an actor?

Thomas Schneider: One of the things I suggest the convergence, which is good, but there is also some work to be done on the issues that will be probably in the centre of the discussions. I’m also keen, and you’ve explained it already on some occasions, but it would be good to hear from you once more. What are the next steps in the WSIS plus 20 process, and how can this multi-stakeholder dialogue most effectively contribute to a strong and inclusive outcome of the WSIS plus 20 process in New York?

Li Junhua: Thank you, Thomas. I want to know what your thoughts are on this end. The conversation we have just now So, we are entering into the second phase of this review. It is the very moment to redefine what will be the WSIS plus 20 and the future IGF. A number of the issues have been flagged out among all the stakeholders from its mandate updating structure or framework, and also coherence, non-duplication among the various processes. So, all in all, I think that in the coming month, definitely, the first thing we need to think about is how we could respond and reply to the elements paper prepared and circulated by the co-facilitators. Why is that so important? Because this element paper would serve as a basis to inform the co-facilitators to draft the zero outcome document, which is the basis for the future negotiation among the member states in Geneva and also in New York in coming October, November, and December. So, that is why, when we have the different perspectives, the different divergent voices from tech communities, from the civil society, from the youth, from the businesses, and also from parliament and judicial system, all those elements, all those perspectives need to be mutually accommodated and reflected in the final product. So, that is why we believe that the second phase would be critically important to lay the foundation for the final outcome. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. So we do have a little bit of time also to hear, to try and be inclusive. There are two microphones in the room. They are lit now. So whoever wants to react is happily invited. If you have final messages or questions, not final, but things that you would like to highlight, please take the mic and introduce yourself. Thank you. Can I go ahead? Go ahead, yes.

Audience: Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Jaqueline Pigato. I’m with Data Privacy Brazil, Civil Society. I would like to emphasize that although you assure us the stakeholder approaches in the negotiation process, it is important to maintain and strengthen this mechanism also in the implementation of the WSIS, as in the cooperation processes between international organizations and states. This must involve all stakeholders. There are already multistakeholder agreed guidelines in NetMundial Plus 10 for this purpose, so it is important that they are mentioned in the outcome paper and effectively reflected in the implementation of both WSIS and the GDC. Regardless of the decisions made regarding this integration, I’m certain that at the next IGF we’ll be discussing both processes, what needs to be done, what has worked. So that’s it. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. Any reactions?

Suela Janina: Yes, thank you. It was not very easy to capture everything, but I understood that the idea is on emphasizing the multistakeholder approach. And I mentioned in our opening remarks that this is central. And just let me clarify something. What are the first steps of the process? The first step is to have a discussion regarding the elements paper. For us, elements paper has been a starting point for triggering a discussion and for a call for input, a food for thought. You may call it different names, but it’s important that we started a process on which we have envisaged the main element of the discussion, which is the food for thought. Now, the most important process that we have had is to present all these elements that we are getting from the discussions from here, and we continue the discussion in Geneva a few days after. So everything will be represented in the outcome document. The outcome document will be presented in the mid-August. And, of course, we will have a discussion by the undersecretary-general in the mid-August, we intend to present this first zero draft of the outcome paper, and everything that you are mentioning here will be clearly reflected there as a way of, of course, of compromise, but multistakeholder approach is something that I don’t think we need to put into doubt anymore. So, I think that’s all I have to say. I’m not going to mention all categories of the community that represent the multistakeholder approach. So this has been taken note and will be duly reflected.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. And I think the WSIS plus 20 high-level event and also the AI for Good that are happening jointly in Geneva in one week’s time will be very, very important for the WSIS plus 20 high-level event. And implementing this, you will see lots of stakeholders cooperating. This is the dialogue, where you have a multistakeholder dialogue. see what UNESCO is doing, what ITU is doing, what all the other UN agencies is doing. I’ve been in this for more than 20 years actually, since 2003. The UN agencies and the UN system has opened up, has opened up its arms for cooperation quite significantly over this time and I think, yeah, nobody questions this importance. So the gentleman over there, please, and try to speak clearly to the mic because it’s not that easily hearable. Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you. Philip Lee, I’m General Secretary of WACC, which is an international NGO that focuses on communication rights. Summit of the Future, Digital Compact, IGF, WSIS. Can we hear a little bit more about how that will all come together in a series of meaningful actions going forward? Because it seems to some of us that there are disparate parts of it, lots of different elements, it’s immensely complicated. But looking ahead, how does that come together? Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you. An easy question.

Ekitela Lokaale: Well, not so easy. I alluded to that in my comments, that indeed there is an appreciation that all these processes are related. The issues, you know, that are addressed in the Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact, the issues that we’ve been discussing, for example, here all week at the IGF and the WSIS are related issues. What has come out, like I said, is a desire for us to pull all these issues together so that they can be addressed, if not in a single platform, but at least in a way that they speak. countries where the technology works. So, if you look to California, it’s a necessary and desirable part of our humanitarian program. And to change it, the only political party in the world to vote against the transatlantic project, having said yes, disclosures and that work to make sure that all the human gains revolution get made in the world with the support of elections. Any time that administration makes a proposal, we have to make sure that it is implemented in a way that is in line with the principles of the GDC and WSIS. There are proposals which we are beginning to hear. For example, there is a proposal that we have a joint implementation plan for the GDC and WSIS, for example. So, that’s an innovative idea which we are willing to put before stakeholders for the GDC and WSIS, and we are ready to implement it in a way that is in line with the principles of the GDC and WSIS. So, it’s not only about bringing them together, but at least some level of coherence.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. I think it’s a legitimate request in a world that gets more and more complex, with more and more interdependencies to the way in which we are doing things, and I think it’s a good idea to focus on action, not only on what the solution is, but also to focus on action. But also there, I think it’s unavoidable given that digital has an impact on lives that you will have a distributed system with thousands of actors in the end involved in actions on global regional and national levels and you can’t put them all you can’t even put them all in one in one room because there’s so many actors but of course the system is trying to somehow help each other all the elements to understand their space in in the whole system and I think the discussion on a joint implementation plan is definitely something that I think is it’s a very useful one because that could help to somehow help us all to gain some some coherent over oversight view thank you very much. Please.

Audience: Thank you good morning I’m Nigel Casimir from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union and an intergovernmental organization can I get some clarity on the multi-stakeholder sounding board is it something that one has or had to apply to join or is it a like an online space that is being opened for stakeholder comments or whatever I’m not quite clear on how it works or it might be intended to work.Thank you

Thomas Schneider: Thank you Nigel.

Suela Janina: Thank you for the question the sounding board has been a proposal coming from some member states but also from stakeholders so we decided to accept this proposal and to make it known to mug and the leadership panel and we invited for volunteers to come from these two organs in order to fill in the places that we consider should be a contained number like we propose ten members from the sounding board indeed there has been a deadline which has been on Wednesday of this week but still we are flexible, if there is interest. But I need to inform you that the number of volunteers has already surpassed the number of places, so at this point we need to make a selection, and the selection would be made fairly on the basis of representation. We would like also to see different regions represented on the sounding board, and also we would like to see women represented on the sounding board. So I would encourage you, if there is interest, please present your requests, and then very soon we will make it known who will be the members that will be part of the sounding board. But again, I would like to emphasize the fact that by creating the sounding board, there was not closing the door to anyone of you who would like to approach us to make any proposal or contribution. Indeed, also for the Elements paper, there is a deadline of 15th of July to present written inputs, but we are really very flexible. Our aim is to get a broad spectrum of inputs and ideas and comments and advices, so you are very kindly invited to do so in all ways that pertain more practical and more efficient to you.

Li Junhua: Just a supplementary remark to the Ambassador. For this sounding board, it’s a newly launched mechanism. Of course, it should be balanced to provide professional advices to the co-facilitators with a balanced composition, but more importantly, as far as I can see, all the stakeholders, if you have a very specific… proposal, perspectives, even concerns about all the multi-linked sectors, then please come up with your written response to the elements paper. So in that sense, it can be more adequately reflected in the zero draft.

Thomas Schneider: I think it’s important to note that this is just one additional informal channel that has been proposed and requested, and thanks for accepting this. It will not replace any of the other channels. And as the Under-Secretary General has said, of course, written responses help, and yeah, I think it’s just one more way. So please go ahead.

Audience: Hi, good morning. My name is Constantinos Comaitis, and I am a resident senior fellow with the Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council. I would really like to express my and our appreciation to both of you ambassadors for being here and listening in and taking notes. I had the honor of really chairing and moderating the session, and the queues, as you have seen, were quite long. I think the big challenge now is how you take on all these comments and incorporate them into the WSIS process. And I would like really to encourage you, as you mentioned in our session, to hold a joint session between governments and non-government stakeholders so we can exchange the views in a more constructive and direct manner. Thank you so very much for being here.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you, Constantinos.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. I think the suggestion to hold a joint… So, we are looking at the possibility of end of July to be able to organize that. But this will be done in consultation. Of course, we’ll get the advice from the Secretariat. But we are looking at the possibility of end of July to be able to organize that. But this will be done in consultation. Of course, we’ll get the advice from the Secretariat. And it’s good that the Under Secretary General is here on the possibility of hosting that. But we think it’s one of those things that will give true meaning to multi-stakeholder engagement in this process. So, we will try to pursue it and hope that it works. Because it will be a very, very useful step. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much.

Li Junhua: The second preparatory consultation or preparatory meeting is tentatively scheduled in mid-October. So, including multi-stakeholder consultations.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you for this information. So, note this down in your calendars. There’s going to be something in mid-October. Please, Bertrand.

Audience: Good morning. My name is Bertrand de La Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. Quickly, I cannot support more what Konstantinos was saying. It is absolutely essential for this process that governments and the other stakeholders have the capacity to be in the same room and hear each other. And if you can make that happen, it will be a real progress. Quickly, this meeting in Norway, and I’ve participated in the IGF basically since the first one in 2006, is clearly highlighting an awareness that is growing on what is being said about the Internet. role of the IGF in the governance process, which is to do the agenda setting and the issue framing. I had the comment yesterday in a session with the leadership panel that in a certain way the IGF is a sandbox process for the multilateral environment. It is a way to alleviate some of the constraints regarding the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, it’s a way to experiment and also to alleviate the constraints for putting something on the agenda. You all know how difficult it is sometimes to put a new topic on the agenda of a multilateral process because you need the agreement of all actors. The IGF is this exploratory space that allows to put agenda items early on and save at least three or four years in addressing them. The second thing is Ambassador Janina was kind enough to list three elements regarding the future of the IGF, the extension of the mandate, the renaming and the strengthening. I would like to suggest that in the strengthening there are two aspects. One is the revision and evolution of the mandate in light of the new topics that have happened and the clarification of the role of the IGF. And the second element is, and I would pick the expression that was used by Maria Fernanda Garza, who was a member of the leadership panel, which is the organizational evolution of the IGF, how to make sure that from the building blocks that we already have we build an institution that is functioning even better than it is functioning today because it has an enormous potential. And the last point is, in order to do so, those two points will not be addressed before December in depth. and there will be no agreement there. I strongly believe that we should take inspiration from the Working Group on Internet Governance procedure that was adopted during the WSIS that led to the creation of the IGF, and that in some shape or form, we would have in 2026, a truly multi-stakeholder group that would address those two issues and make proposals for the next stage of the IGF, a sort of constitutional moment, if you want. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Should we take, we have four people, should we take maybe another intervention and then, yes, please, Markus.

Markus Kummer: I’m Markus Kummer, I’m a WSIS veteran. I chaired various negotiating groups in Geneva in 2003 in the final phase of the summit, and then at the request of member states, I had to send out non-governmental stakeholders from the room. We have come a long way since, and I would like to thank the co-facilitators for their commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach. Thank you. No, hang on, the point I was going to make was, and I had the pleasure of making it when we had a bilateral with the dynamic coalitions and the both co-facilitators, express my hope that zero draft will affect the fact that the IGF is more than just an annual meeting. It’s a process with many intersessional activities and the importance of the NRIs could not be overemphasized. Also, the dynamic coalitions make tangible contributions to the IGF. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you to both of you also for highlighting that it’s not just a one-off event. The policy networks, dynamic coalitions, and so on and so forth, that have been not asked for in a UN resolution, they just have emerged. because people wanted to continue the discussion and they wanted to turn the discussion into action, so people have started to organize themselves. And what Petra said was also very important, so let me give you a quick answer.

Audience: Indeed, these are not points of questions or discussions. These are really points that we need to take note and to reflect because I think in most of them we all agree. So, if I turn to the points that Bernard already mentioned, like the role of IGF, it’s already there. Everyone accepts this, that IGF has proven itself to be a very valuable and institutable instrument on digital governance. When it comes to models you are advising, like the Working Group of Internet will look on this practice. And when it comes to the importance of all these messages you are giving, because this comes from your own practice, and I like this word of IGF, which is veterans. We really need to be based on what we have achieved until now, and the know-how and the experience you have is really very valuable on that. The role of national institutions, that’s all that we are hearing and we are taking note of that, are really invaluable inputs for us. There is no need to discuss, I think, Thomas, on that. We take note and you will see them reflected in the future documents that we are going to produce.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. So, let’s take the final three requests. Anna, please.

Audience: Thank you. I’m Ana Neves from Portugal, and I would like to emphasize four points. My first one is about the national and regional initiatives. They are very important. We have 167, I think, national and regional initiatives, but the governments normally are not part of these national and regional initiatives, and so I really hope that all this process will give more strength and will maybe institutionalize these NRIs. Second, there is a statement, which is the multi-stakeholder São Paulo guidelines. These São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines are very interesting because they propose steps to make the multilateral process more interesting if you use the São Paulo guidelines. So they are steps, they are clearly demonstrating how to make the multilateral process more multi-stakeholder. So I think that to raise the flag about the importance of this document. My number three is about a clear mandate on who is doing what. So nowadays we have in the UN family a lot of duplications, so I hope that from all this exercise that will end in December, we will have a clear picture on who is doing what. And finally, I would like to be very… ambitious and to ask for the future of the IGF to get the relevance and impact of the World Economic Forum, for instance. So this should be, I think, our ambition, and to make a really forum where the heads of state, ministers, and all the other key stakeholders will be engaged. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you. We’ll go immediately to the other side. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you so much, Esther Yarmitsky, UK Government. Thank you so much to the COFAX for being here. We really appreciate your time. We wanted to highlight that the UK Government is actively engaging in lots of regional and national IGFs. For example, our team attended the Africa IGF this year, as well as EuroDIG, which was hosted at the Council of Europe this year, and similarly to what our colleague Anna mentioned, we think that the role that regional and local IGFs play in the system of Internet governance and WSIS needs to really be discussed, because it is really important. There are actually 176 IGFs at the moment. They are national, they are regional, there are youth IGFs, and the value we see in them is that they bring together stakeholders at the national, at the local, at regional levels. This is a platform that is very unique, because it provides the voices to be heard. So we really would like to see stronger links between local and regional IGFs, as well as the annual IGF, where we are today, and we hope that we can use this WSIS Review to really strengthen their role. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much.

Audience: Yes, good morning. My name is Christina Alida. I am with the Egyptian Government. I would like to thank the co-facilitators for being here through the week and listening to the IHF community. I cannot re-emphasize more how it’s important to be sitting in a multi-stakeholder format and listening. I think we’ve come this long way, like Marcus was saying. I’m presuming the sounding board consists of stakeholders that are not government. I think the importance is to have a platform and a way where we’re going to discuss the different versions in a multi-stakeholder format, not only governments alone and the sounding board alone. Having said that, I would appreciate if we can see the consultations that will happen through the coming months take place in days of the week that are not weekends in parts of the world. Those consultations in the past have been on Fridays, Fridays are weekends in the place where I come from, so it would be good to have them at a time where actual stakeholders can participate. Thank you so much for listening.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. Our time is almost up, but of course I want to give you the floor. I think we’ve heard so much, there has been so much talk. What is the key in one sentence or two sentences? What is your key takeaways after also this session, Ekitela?

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. First, let me say how grateful we are to this community here for sharing with us freely your thoughts about how we should conduct the WSIS Plus 20 review. I think it was important that we came here and spent the amount of time that we’ve spent because then it makes the documents that we are going to produce even richer than they are going to be. So, we are grateful for that. Second, is to give you our commitment that we committed to run an open, transparent, inclusive review process. We will endeavor, as we’ve tried to do up to this point, to provide avenues for all of you to, you know, give your inputs into this process. As all of us know, for a complex process of this nature, of course, not everything that we would like to be reflected will be reflected, because there are going to be as many opinions as there are stakeholders, but our job will be to reflect as many of those as possible, those that are shared by stakeholders. Finally, we leave our channels open, you know, we’ve given out our cards, we ran out of them, I think, by day two, but you know how to reach us through the Secretariat, Ambassador Janina and I are available, whenever you have any idea, please let us know, invite us to your platforms, if we’re able to come, we will make a point of coming, if not, we’ll participate remotely, so let’s keep this conversation going. I thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. Suele.

Suela Janina: Thank you, Thomas, and just to join my colleague in expressing the gratitude for the richness and all the elements that you have put forward for our consideration. We are seriously and very much committed to analyze everything and to be very open and transparent in this process. What we’ll take from this week here at the IGF is the commitment to preserve the WSIS spirit and to be ambitious to adapt it to the new digital world. we are living. So my last call would be let’s be actively all engaged, because UISIS belongs to everyone. No one can consider ownership over the process. So by being collectively engaged and in a collegial spirit, we believe that we can conduct successful negotiations and have an outcome process and document that will be fit for the future and the digital world that we would like to together build, not only for this generation, but for the next one as well.

Thomas Schneider: Absolutely. Thank you very much. Undersecretary General, you want to?

Li Junhua: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. I think we have a very meaningful and rich discussion over the past several days. We actually shared a very common aspirations to have a better delivered versus plus 20 review. So I think the inclusivity actually generated more complementarity through this open and transparent process. So as a secretariat, we are very committed to provide all that we can do to support this process. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. So with this, that’s the end of the first half of the session. I’m going to hand over to my co-pilot, Jorge, that you also know. Thank you very much for the attention. Thank you for the interaction. A big thanks to our important guests. And I wish you good luck for the hard but great work that you will be doing in the coming weeks and months. Thank you.

Maggie Jones: Our jobs over the last 20 years and a lot of very practical steps that we’ve taken over that time. So we have the WSIS Action Lines and the WSIS Forum, which has driven progress on sustainable development, the ITU WSIS Stocktake Database, which is very good examples of some of the steps that we have already taken, great WSIS projects. The WSIS process, as has been said, very important as a framework for multi-stakeholder action in a wide range of areas, and particularly the work that we’re doing on connecting the unconnected. Over 17% of people had access to the internet in 2005, and now I’m very pleased to say that that’s 67%. I’m not saying that’s all as a result of WSIS activities, but we’ve certainly played our part in increasing that spread of access. And it’s notable that over the last 20 years, we’ve been able to adapt to new developments because things like the action lines are technology neutral, so it enables us to give a basis for going ahead in the future. So for us, our priorities have been and increasingly are capacity building, cultural diversity, and providing an enduring framework to make sure that we reach out to those who are unable to play their part at the current time. So we need to be flexible to address those new priorities and ensure that WSIS is able to face future challenges, but I would say that we’re in a very good position to do that. The landscape has become increasingly complex, but it’s the very fact that we have a unique, diverse involvement, I think, gives us a huge basis to go forward. Research by the DNS Research Federation in Oxford demonstrated that the impact of the IGF, for example, driving growth on the internet exchange points in Africa, nurturing the next generation of global south leaders and beginning to address online harm. So a huge number of activities. We want to make the case today, and we will be making that case for a more permanent mandate for the IGF. And I hope that we will, in the coming months, be able to win that argument.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Baroness Jones, for highlighting some of the very tangible impact of this forum. Now we go to Kurtis Lindqvist.

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you. This week’s conversations, that has been across sessions on resilience, multilingual access, digital fragmentation, and many, many other topics, have really underscored one thing, and that is that the WSIS framework remains foundational to global digital cooperation. And this framework really created a shared vision for how digital governance should evolve through practical stakeholder-driven cooperation. And this vision is also what gave rise to the IGF and reinforced the value of the multistakeholder model, something that we at ICANN have been applying in practice since our formation, which actually predates the IGF. And we also see this vision echoed through the national regional IGFs, something that I think we should mention a bit more often, which continue to connect the global and local governance conversations into each other, and I think that’s an important part as well. And this model has, in the last two decades, provided phenomenal economic growth, value creation, and really stemmed from the permissionless bottom-up innovation the model has enabled, but also stimulated wider discussions inside WSIS and at the IGFs. And as you just heard today, more than five billion people have come online, and most of this since in the last 20 years. And this didn’t happen through the technical coordination, distributed stewardship and global engagement we have seen. And ICANN, we see this result every day. The services that we coordinate and provide… provide must functions for the internet to generate trust and scale. And for us to be able to do our job and for this to work, we need to have exactly what the WSIS stands for. The open dialogue, operational coordination and cooperation and a commitment to a single interoperable internet.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Kurtis, also for recalling that every day as we speak, everybody is probably looking into his emails, WhatsApp or Signal or whatever. It’s the underlying infrastructure that is working and which is based on trust and on voluntary cooperation. Thank you so much. Jimson, the floor is yours.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much, George. My name again is Jimson Olufuye. I have my day job as a Principal Consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited based in Abuja, Nigeria. And as a volunteer, I have the privilege of advocating the private sector view from Africa through the Africa ICT Alliance, an alliance formed in 2012 with six countries in Africa. And now we’re in 43 countries in Africa pushing the message of ICT connectivity between the digital device. Well, as we all know, WSIS is aimed at achieving a people-centred, inclusive and even a highly productive information society where nobody is left behind. And we saw this and that was why AFICTA was formed. So we can say AFICTA is one of the outcomes of WSIS and its vision is to fulfil the promise of the digital age for everyone in Africa. And so the WSIS has provided a solid foundation for multi-stakeholder engagement. where our own voices could be heard, the private sector, and even from developing countries. We also see that through WSIS, as my colleague mentioned, we have the robust idea of where all of us can, on equal footing, make our views known, and we can have constructive dialogue on moving our society forward, to achieving that information society of our collective expectation. Another outcome, of course, is the WSIS Forum. The WSIS Forum has always provided a solid opportunity for us to review the action lines. The action lines are very, very relevant, even to today, and I see them relevant to tomorrow. And through the action lines, we’re able to have further discussion, even at the African level. We have UNECA leading the charge, but the missing link would be that, maybe we need to discuss this at the national level, just as we have the IGF, okay, being discussed at over 170 countries now, doing the IGF. So we also need a WSIS action line, review that as part of our expectation. Another thing you can see coming out from WSIS is the UNGIS, where you have about 20 United Nations organizations coming together, and exchanging best practices, and review things, and shaping policy with regard to digital technology. And there is something that many people don’t mention, but Ambassador Locale mentioned it briefly, and that is enhanced cooperation. Okay, we see the successful IANA transition. We see that all of us, the global community, we are responsible, even for what President Kurtismentioned. We are all responsible, making sure that our internet is trustworthy, and that is a major outcome of WSIS, really, and for us in developing countries. And last… I was at CSTD, and I was really pleased to see that enhanced cooperation at work, where government do their things, coming up with policy, in the presence of even all of us, the stakeholders, the private sector, the civil society, and we’re given privilege to even raise our voices and have free discussion, and also see that the government could vote based on issues, which is enhanced cooperation, basically. So WSIS has really become that real omnibus foundation for the digital society. Thank you very much.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson, and especially for underscoring how WSIS has brought also this idea of dialogue and togetherness to the national and the regional level. And now to finalize this question, we have Fabrizia Benini.

Fabrizia Benini: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. So the European Commission and its member states is extremely attached to the WSIS process. To do that, and to contribute to the negotiations that will take place, we adopted a common position that was well discussed and endorsed by our Council. And in preparing that, we looked at the contribution of WSIS up to today, the subject of your question, and it is undoubtedly that it has given the possibility to have a conversation, a global conversation amongst everyone about the tenets of the problems, the challenges, and the opportunities of digitization. And it is a conversation in the multi-stakeholder format that involves, as you know, academia, private sector, governments, and the tech community. And because those voices are different, it is a challenging conversation. It is not an easy process, but it is a process that is precious to uphold. and precious to go forward. Now, it can be improved, and we hope it will, especially to make it more inclusive and very engaging to the young people. We own that. To them, because we are discussing what will impact their future. But this conversation has also had results. We’ve seen a contribution, a notable contribution, to reducing the digital divide. Again, it still exists, but connectivity is better, skills are better, people are more empowered. Looking forward, we must make sure that the new technologies, we continue to have the conversation about the potency of the new technologies, the impact it will have, it has already had. I had the privilege of being with the Minister in a panel about the impact on children as regards to the use of social media. All these things merit attention, merit attention and action. And perhaps one important issue is the IGF. We are here today. We have a place. The conversation has got a home. And this home needs to be permanent, it needs to be reinforced, it needs to be efficient, because this conversation needs to continue, having human rights as its centre, having the human as its centre, to see that digitisation benefits us all. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia. And this is a perfect segue to the second question, because you are already addressing some of the challenges, and sometimes it’s not an easy conversation, of course. So, the second question is what emerging digital trends present the most pressing opportunities, but also challenges, in updating the WSIS framework for the next decades or decades? And we will start with you, Jones.

Maggie Jones: Thank you. And I think we can all agree that the digital landscape is becoming increasingly complex. And it’s increasingly difficult for public policy makers and other stakeholders to navigate that new world. Which is why I think WSIS is playing, or will play, an increasingly important role in the future. Providing a joined-up framework to allow some of the discussions we’ve already been having to continue in an effective way. I would say that we need to avoid duplication and genuinely ensure that stakeholders from every part of the globe are part of that ongoing discussion in the future. The UK wants to see the WSIS 20 review being future-focused, recognising the future challenges. In connecting the unconnected, we need to use that as an opportunity to bring forward new investment. Which can help some of our developing nations have the full opportunities that many others have. And that means looking at affordability, it means looking at innovative solutions such as community networks, and encouraging digital content in local languages. The gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023. So we would like to see a strengthened role for UN women and for us to work with them to address those issues in the future. We want to see a more formal role for the UN OHCHR in the WSIS process, raising the whole issue of human rights in the information society, which is becoming increasingly prominent. and a greater role for UNESCO’s work protecting journalists and tackling the damaging effects of Internet shutdowns. For example, the UN is proud to have led the Freedom Online Coalition efforts to tackle Internet shutdowns, and I’d like to highlight the FOC’s statement on Internet shutdowns during conflict, which has been launched today. Another issue we need to address is the environmental impact of information and communication technologies and all of the global greenhouse gas emissions that that challenge raises. We need global solutions to address that. So strengthening partnership through WSIS, we believe, will give us an effective platform to tackle those challenges and make sure that everybody benefits. But I think the key message here is we can’t be complacent. We have a lot to be proud of, but also we need to challenge ourselves and look genuinely at the new challenges and how WSIS can really, really step up and play an increasingly leadership role to make sure that everybody shares in the potential that we have for the future.

Jorge Cancio: Hear, hear. Thank you so much for that. And I think you mentioned community networks. It’s important to highlight the important work that was done in this community on that matter in the best practice forum on connectivity. So there’s a lot more to do, but we are eager to hear your views, Minister Tung.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. And thank you, Baroness, for the points that you made out at IGF. The governance of Internet is at its core, but I think we’ve seen during the last couple of days that there has been several different topics regarding Internet and digitalizations from subsea cables until protecting children and so forth. So I think it’s really important that we continue. to have this broad perspective, even though the governance of internet is and should be at this, at the core of the both the visas process, but also the IGF. And I want to point out something about the the action lines as well, because they are broad, they are tech neutral, I believe that is important, because we don’t know what kind of technology that hits us tomorrow. We are now discussing a lot about artificial intelligence, but also quantum, for instance, or other things will come in the future. So I think it’s important that we have the action lined, actually lined out in a way that we are able to take this continuously new discussions on the inside, for one thing, but I think there are some areas that we could implement also in the perspectives of the action line. And number one is already one I mentioned, artificial intelligence, it will impact our societies, very broadly, it is a tool for solving some of the huge societal challenges that we are facing right now. I really believe it is a tool for dividing the digital gap, it is a tool for doing a lot of things. However, it comes with huge ethical aspects as well. And being able to have this international discussion, the discussion about the ethical implication of the technology I believe that is one area that we could look further into when it comes to the action lines as well. Another thing, data governance, because data is feeding the artificial intelligence as well. And it is a fundament for artificial intelligence to be a real tool to use in the years to come. So I think we should have a look at data governance more thoroughly when it comes to open data, personal privacy, data sharing and so forth, because also this is ethical discussion, it affects humans. And last but not least, I also want to raise a personal issue for me, but an issue I know many people, parents, kids, are concerned about, and that is the internet-based platforms. They have many positive effects for connecting people, closing the digital divide, but as we discussed also yesterday, the tech companies or the platform, they are powerful, harmful algorithms. Our kids are screaming for help because they are having trouble with sleep, with health issues, body issues, and so forth, because of these algorithms. So we have to work together, both the governments, the civil society, but also the tech companies, to tackle these challenges that hit our kids. So that is kind of three examples where I could see we could have discussions in the future also for IGF and the business process.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Minister Tung. And as a parent, I completely relate to that. And if we think about it, social media, our algorithms, algorithms are the basis for platforms. Platforms only work with data, and data is only made available through artificial intelligence, and you cannot have that without connectivity. That’s why we discuss all these topics here at the IGF, and why it’s so important to continue this conversation. Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you, George. The WSIS action lines, they are really still very, very relevant to address any emerging issues. And for that matter, emerging issues like artificial intelligence, data governance, information integrity. digital public infrastructure, digital public goods, et cetera, et cetera. Even many more will still emerge, but from a very close and constructive examination, the 11 Wishes Action Line covered anything that could come up, at least from my perspective. If you look at data, which is the king right now, which is foundation, data is addressed on the access to information and knowledge, Action Line C2, AI itself, which is an application. To be frank, it’s an application. It’s addressed on the Action Line C7. It’s also addressed on the ethics C8, and it will sustain in terms of local content, diversity, linguistic diversity, and so on and so forth. So basically, we don’t really need to make significant changes at all. We just need to contextualize anything that will come up. Cybersecurity is already there in terms of security and trust, and we also need to deepen the discussion, connecting it to the NRIs, and ensure that we cover the broad Action Line topics, as I mentioned earlier, in those evolving NRIs. In fact, from the information I got, some people are actually talking about even sub-national NRIs, because at the sub-national level, there are issues. So we are encouraging them, okay, discuss all this at a local level, because what we are looking at is a truly information society. So we don’t really need any new structural changes. Let’s sustain what we have. The IGF is brilliant. Let’s bring in the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guideline. Let’s do it better, and as such, we can tackle any emerging challenges appropriately. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Jimson. And this is a thought that we’ve heard many times over during this week, that WSIS, and especially the action lines, have this technological neutrality. Everybody said they are technologically agnostic, and that means that they are open to many of these new developments. But of course, we need to contextualize them, what a difficult word, to the new realities and to adapt the work we do here, but also the UN agencies do. And this brings me also to a question about the how, the question how the UN agencies and all the stakeholders work together, and the third question, which is what strategic updates must the WSIS Plus 20 review consider within the WSIS architecture, the different component parts of WSIS, including the IGF, of course, to better address these pressing emerging governance challenges. And I will start with you, Kurtis.

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you. So WSIS Plus 20 is really a test of whether we still value global coordination over institutional control, and the IGF strength lies in what it enables, the open engagement across stakeholder groups without the pressure to negotiate or formulize the outcomes, as in binding declarations. And that flexibility is really a strength, it’s not a weakness. It’s precisely what makes the IGF an effective incubator for ideas and a catalyst for a lot of the cooperation. It provides a space. a real, physical, protected space for governments, civil society, businesses and the technical community to confront the shared problems without needing to reach a forced consensus, but to engage and share ideas. And there is growing fragmentation and this IGF’s open architecture really remains one of the few global platforms that are capable of holding cooperation together in that dialogue and through that discussion. But providing the space alone isn’t enough. We also, from ICANN, we helped create a paper called The IGF We Want, that outlined some of the steps of what we think a future IGF could look like. And it must be properly resourced, anchored in the business frameworks, and to be strengthened and to continue to play this important role as the neutral collaborative forum and support in this open stakeholder, multi-stakeholder format. And as part of that, we also believe that we should strengthen the output, we heard Minister Tsung say this this morning. We can have a strengthened output, we can also potentially use the IGF mandate to report to the General Assembly, but there should be more output coming out of the IGF. As a summary of all the phenomenal, fantastic work that’s been going on here for 20 years, and all the successes we have achieved over 20 years, and we together with ISOC produced a paper called The Footprints of 20 Years with the IGF, that actually highlights a lot of these successes that has happened, as we heard, the IXPs that have grown phenomenally in Africa and a lot of other work that’s been discussed here at the IGF. And strengthening the output and having the IGFs and the multi-stakeholder model reinforced and properly resourced is really the same model that we have been supporting globally, including our long-standing engagement with the network of the national and regional IGFs that I mentioned before. before, something I again want to reiterate that we shouldn’t forget in this, and this is really the model that the IGF reflects, the stakeholder-led coordination built on trust and practical outcomes. And if we replace this model with something that’s more rigid or politicized, we risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation and it can still happen.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Kurtis, and dialogue is definitely not a bug, but a feature of this space and it should permeate the rest of the WSIS framework, I understand, but let’s go to Fabrizia.

Fabrizia Benini: So when we think about strategic updates, I think we need to think about the changing environment in the last 20 years. What we’ve seen is that the internet and the digital services have permeated just about each and every of our actions. Now there’s not an even use of that throughout the world, but the extent to which digital interactions can touch each most intimate part of our lives makes it absolutely important that we safeguard what we already have. We have a multi-stakeholder model that is difficult, and it is absolutely key not to be complacent, to reinforce it, to revitalize it, to make it really participatory, to shy away very strongly against any temptation of internet shutdowns, any temptation of fragmentation, and to keep the internet really as a global, open space that is accessible to all. Now through the good work of ICANN, we know the architecture is robust, but we must ask ourselves the question, will it be robust? facing, in face, of the new technologies? Will the governance model hold? And this is what we did in Brussels. We held a conference on the governance of Web 4.0, the future, what is not yet here. But what is it that we need to be aware? Keeping our foundation multi-stakeholder model, keeping our governance, but adapting it, protecting it to make sure that it continues to really to serve all.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia, for referring to this need to update and to adapt to new challenges like the metaverse, this very important conference you organized a couple of months ago, right? So that is something that definitely has to feed in also at the global level here in the IGF. And we are getting closer to the end of the panel section, but we still have one question, which is our fourth question. What are the concrete ways WSIS and indeed the IGF can better integrate the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, and also align with 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda to achieve the governance coherence, and in the end, not leaving anyone behind and making information society for all. And here we will have all of you again taking the floor, starting with you, Minister Tung.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. I think it is important that we are building on the fundaments from WSIS, because we’ve seen that there has been tendency to do parallel processes, and we should avoid this also because it is an issue of capacity. to be a part of different processes going on at the same time about the same thing. I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process as well. And that means that the things that we already do, the activities that are already being done, like the IGF, the best practice forums, the dynamic coalition, we can continue to do this but be better implemented so that we don’t have these parallel processes. And at the same time, doing WSIS and IGF, talking about the governance of Internet, we also have been talking about digital cooperation and the agenda on the IGF meetings and WSIS forum. They have always covered different topics within the governance of Internet and digital services, all from infrastructure to applications and so forth. So I think we already here see that there are some overlap between the GDC and WSIS, and it’s necessary that we are better able to coordinate and integrate these processes that are going on. I mentioned earlier also that I think it’s important that we are able to communicate better the results and the messages that come out from IGF, so that we can better use it for policymaking and so forth, but also that we use the IGF meetings, the experts and the expertise, the knowledge and experiences that we got from the IGF common meetings, but also the networks from IGF, so that we can canalize these results, these messages. is better into the UN systems, so that we are actually better coordinated as well. And to do this, I think it’s important that we strengthen the IGF. For Norway, it is important that we are able to give IGF a permanent mandate. That is a key priority, so that it’s more predictable and more complementary on the existing structures that we already have. So permanent mandate is one thing. The other thing, that a permanent or a strengthened mandate also demands more predictable funding, which has been an issue for several years, really. But funding is really important, so that we are able to keep up this good work, these good meetings, these good processes, for the good of the world, for the good of the citizens. That is human-based. That is based on human rights that are open, that are free, that are democratic. So better coordination, strengthened and permanent mandate is my key takeaways.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. And better coordination, integration and communication amongst all the pieces of the WSIS architecture. I take that away from your intervention as well. Now we have Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: Yeah. Thank you. I actually mentioned earlier that the WSIS is like the parent structure. We must commend the head of states in 2003, 2005 for that agreement, and all the people that worked, because it was really all-encompassing. And talking about the link between WSIS, GDC, and of course IGF and SDG 2030, I want to underscore again that GDC is an offshoot of WSIS, because we had the enhanced cooperation working group. So, thanks to you, for opting us, in the last years, for having made this point by joining the forum and internet platform sharing, we finally are able to make it. We’re still in an environment where we have to go to home and we need to make sure that we have a lot of processes that lead to the summit of the future. So, indeed, it’s woven. By the way, as I mentioned earlier, I see it’s already operational in CSTD, working pretty well. So, the outcome of GDC can easily be intertwined with WSYS because they have the same kind of objective, but it has the realization of the sustainable development goal. How do we implement this? IGF is a beautiful forum, where we can always analyze those themes, the themes from GDC, we can look at it, map it, there’s already some form of mapping, we can still go ahead and map to KPI in terms of what we need to achieve by 2030. So, we already have the platform, we have the structure, IGF, everybody can come in and bring in what they’re doing, but I will emphasise, as I mentioned earlier, we need to encourage countries to deepen this dialogue with their sustainable development goal offices, because we cannot be discussing at the top level and at the grassroots, nothing much is happening. So, we encourage countries to take this dialogue seriously, the WSYS action line discussion, the GDC objectives of 1 to 5, and, of course, the SDG, mapping them as a measuring progress. By so doing, we can really easily see where we are, measure where we are, as we approach the next steps. the year 2030. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson, for reminding us that the GDC is part of the WSIS family and is a good, well-functioning family. We should all communicate with each other. Now, Baroness Jones.

Maggie Jones: Thank you. It’s understandable, I think, that increasing parts of the UN are beginning to address the challenges of digital technology because it’s, as we’ve been discussing, affecting so many parts of our lives now. But whilst it does that, and it’s quite understandable it does, I think we need to make sure that that doesn’t result in fragmentation and duplication, and that’s the real challenge, I think, we are dealing with here. The fact is that WSIS, our multi-stakeholder engagement, is very unique in this experience. And I think that’s one of our great strengths, and we need to make sure that that is the basis on which the work goes forward so that that wonderful partnership that we’ve been developing can endure. And we also think that there’s a role for the UN interagency coordination through the UN Group on the Information Society. Having said that, the Global Digital Compact, agreed last year at the UN, was a great achievement, and it does give us a good basis to go forward with the WSIS review. So we want to now use the review to ensure that the GDEC is perhaps integrated more into the WSIS processes going forward so that we don’t have that duplication that is a concern, and we can promote alignment a lot more easily through the UN system. We were pleased that in April, the UN Commission for Science and Technology development supported this approach, and the Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies can play its part in supporting coordination amongst UN partners, making sure that there is that coherence that we can all identify as necessary. We also think that the review of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda will be a critical milestone in ensuring that the full potential of that information and communication technologies reaches out to all and is part of our sustainable community development. We believe in all of that, the IGF can play an important role, and giving it a permanent mandate, which is one of our themes this morning, I think is absolutely critical for that. And we also see going forward that there is a greater role for national and regional IGFs to play to make sure that we build on the model that we can prove works. So promoting more community voices, making sure that they feed into the ultimate UN processes I think is really important. So those are the sorts of ways that we think we can move forward, but the key message for us is streamline as much as we can, use the model that we have here that we think works, but understand that the UN will want to take big global strategic decisions on these issues.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Baroness Jones. No fragmentation, no duplication, but integration. Kurtis, do you agree?

Kurtis Lindqvist: Yes, absolutely. I think that looking at the GDCs and the SDGs, I think the implementation of this begins really with the infrastructure layer, and the infrastructure begins with the coordination. At ICANN our mission is very technical, but our impact is very foundational. It’s what enables everything else. We manage the unique identifiers that allow the Internet to function as one unified network that enables everything from e-commerce to emergency alerts to digital government services and at scale. At ICANN, we work very much on contributing to Internet resiliency by coordinating these technical identifiers to ensure that we have a globally interoperable Internet. Beyond that, we also work, for example, to the Coalition for Digital Africa, something that we initiated. Through this, we are supporting deployment of additional infrastructure in underserved regions, for example, to the root servers. We work on capacity building efforts on deploying more DNSSEC that will make the Internet more secure and robust. Beyond that, we work a lot on what is called universal acceptance through academia. We are not just advocating for universal acceptance. Universal acceptance is the availability of the Internet in scripts and languages that are non-Latin based, which is a very important part of making the Internet accessible. We are working actively both on technical readiness work but also building local capacity development and global partnerships to further this work. Through the Coalition for Digital Africa, we have worked through the Association of African Universities to develop advanced multilingual access in academia institutions on that continent and help them develop courses and curriculums to further develop this and enhance the awareness and development of universal acceptance initiatives. This is really important, we believe. These are just some examples of what meaningful access looks like, so strengthening the infrastructure, making it available in local languages and scripts. Here, the IGF really has a role to play as the connectivity tissue between these efforts. the Global Development Goals, Practical Implementations – sorry, the Sustainable Development Goals – and Practical Implementation, and also with the Business Action Lines. And this work really supports both the Business Action Lines, the multiple of the SDGs, and they are overlapping. We have the matrix that shows how these tie together. For example, on resilient infrastructure, quality education to multilingual access, reducing inequalities – those are all supported through this work. And WSIS and the IGF can much better work on integrating this, as we just mentioned – I completely agree with this – by surfacing and scaling these efforts and implementation to raise awarenesses. And this really means that we need to elevate the IGF, as I said before. We shouldn’t bypass it, we should invest in it. We should really not try to duplicate or replicate it, as the Baroness just said – I completely agree with that. And really protect this work that’s ongoing, and protecting the single interoperable core from fragmentation, both on a technical level, but also on the institutional level, as you just talked about.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Kurtis. And thank you for highlighting all that very practical work on the ground, and relating it to the IGF. And I like that metaphor very much, as a connecting tissue, because that also, I think, is a challenge for us, to imagine the new ways of cooperation and coordination, of collaboration and communication we need, to really make it even more efficient, working more effectively to achieve the goals. Fabrizia, what is your take?

Fabrizia Benini: So like other speakers before me, one of our tenets, in the strong support that we have for the YSYS process, is that we need to avoid duplication, we need to increase synergies that need to be mutually reinforcing. So these are very good words, but how is it that we go about that? Well, our approach is to propose a roadmap system. We’ve seen that work has already been done in the past years to map the SDGs and the YSYS action lines. We’ve seen recently the STD busy on that, incorporating also the GDC commitments. So we think that there is room for the action line facilitators together with the relevant bodies in the UN that can contribute meaningfully to set out actionable roadmaps that will track the implementation and the progress starting from the YSYS action lines, the SDG goals and the GDC commitments. So that we are able to have a clear understanding of where we are, a clear understanding of what needs to be done, and therefore take the action in the appropriate fora to make sure that those gaps are filled. But unless there is clarity as to where we are, we can’t coordinate well. So that would be our proposal.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much for that refreshing intervention, bringing us from principles, which are very important, to very actionable proposals, and a proposal that resonates a lot with what has been discussed this week in the session we had before with the co-facilitator, Ambassador Ekitele from Kenya, already mentioned that this idea of a joint implementation roadmap of roadmaps based on the action lines and integrating the work is something they will definitely consider and put to the discussion of stakeholders and member states. So that’s a really good outcome of this week, for instance, of discussions. But before we congratulate ourselves, I think now it’s the time to enter into interaction with our public and we can change to the next segment of this session and we will have two minutes in addition for that. There are two microphones. Now they are getting highlighted. This is great for somebody so short-sighted like myself. Please get on the row if you have any question, any message you want to share with this panel, with the rest of the audience. Please keep it short and sweet, a maximum of two minutes per intervention and please introduce yourself and from time to time, I don’t know if she might be highlighted as well, our online moderator will look whether we have interventions from the online world. So I’ll start with the left. Please introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you, I will be speaking in Spanish. These have been very interesting things that have been said. Devices, that would be helpful. I understand Spanish so I don’t have to. I understand Spanish so then you can take this one. And maybe I can help in the translation if somebody doesn’t get it. Ready? So I think we’re going to put that out. How nice to be able to speak in my own language, because we are a linguistic diversity, cultural diversity. And in different countries, we’ve talked about this content and the use of technologies. It’s not the same just legislate on technology as about the construction of the technology. What we’re using is technology, which is produced elsewhere under other rules. In the past 20 years, lots of discussion have been about how do we regulate something that we do not control, because it’s not part of our legislation. Taxes, for example, content control. We’ve tried to focus on that in different ways, controlling content to avoid abuse, trying to connect everyone. Then everyone wants to have the last say in the systems. We see that in our countries as well. Technology, particularly after the pandemic, have become increasingly relevant. How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table. For years, we’ve said that we’re part of the technological community. But they have general science, to put it that way. We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places. Don’t we enter into discussions in parliaments on legislation, for example? bullying women, then the focus is completely different than the digital topic is. And it’s very difficult to regulate the platforms. This is a very relevant discussion, and it should be taken to the next level. So the first thing we have to do is to bring to the table the players who are not us, preach to the converts. It’s not relevant. We know this. We can work together. But if we don’t bring the others in, in a level of advocacy in our own countries, we can’t get anywhere. We have to negotiate not among ourselves, but with others, so that we can have a common resource. The international is very important. It’s quite clear. The development of regulations and policies have to be integrated in a mullet that can be used by everyone. But it’s not used by everyone. We know that. And so reality, we have different cultural and political realities. So what we do at the IGF, we can have to avoid the vultures, not only our own voices.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you very much, Eric, for that intervention, a little longer than expected. We’re going to take a few interventions and then we’ll move on to the panel’s reactions. So I’ll switch again to English. Thank you, Eric, for that intervention, which was a bit longer than expected. But we will take some and then hear if the panel has any reactions. I go to my right. Please introduce yourself. And please keep it to two minutes.

Audience: Thank you very much, William Lee, Australian government. Obviously, I want to thank Norway for its excellent hosting of the IGF and this excellent panel. You’ve talked about some really important issues. And these are really tough challenges to solve. So I’m going to go to my left. I’m going to go to my right. I’m going to go to my left. And I think as governments, we’re all scratching around looking for the best way to solve them. And I think WSIS is a critical tool towards achieving global action on many of those difficult problems. I think the value of WSIS Plus 20 will be the opportunity to have an ideas conversation, hearing all voices, including those from least developed countries and small island developing states, and to translate that to global norms in an action-orientated agenda, taking forth what works and seeing new partnerships form to close those digital divides. I know we are starting to see some really positive ideas emerge from Switzerland, from the EU, from ICANN, from ISOC, from Australia and from others. But I wondered if you had any reflections on how we continue to promote a positive ideas conversation and avoid the temptation to simply revert to a conversation over language, which won’t deliver us the actions and outcomes that as a global community we need. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Will, and thank you for highlighting also the Australian non-paper which is worthwhile, has a lot of ideas in it, good basis for contributing to the conversation. We’ll see, do we have anything online? Please, Eleonora.

Online moderator: Yes, we do. Thank you, Jorge. We have a few questions online. I can start with the first. Yes. From Musa Maigari from Nigeria. What strategies can be implemented to enhance the participation of youth and women in the IGF and WSIS processes?

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Eleonora. And I think we can have a first round of reactions to what was said. Anyone from you on the panel? Si, Fabrizia.

Fabrizia Benini: I would like to answer the first, Eric. the first question, because my Executive Vice President, Enne Virkunen, was here at the opening ceremony at the Digital Public Goods, and she did address some of those issues. The Union has just adopted an international strategy for digital, where we set out a vision of enhanced and increased digital partnerships with various countries of the world. We are very aware that it’s not just a question of explaining what we do and saying, oh, would you like to do the same? No, it’s not that at all. We are setting out what we call the EU offer, a set of tools that will allow, through very much the use of open source, those partner countries to take them and adapt them to their own internal uses. This is the case on connectivity, on cyber security, and it will be the case on all the layers of the internet stack, going from identity to decentralised social media. So our objective over the years is to deepen those partnerships and to make sure that we all become, in fact, actors, not only consumers, and that is an action on which the Union is very much focused. And, of course, we are happy to share whatever tangible outcomes we will be able to reach at the next IGF.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia. Anyone else in the panel? Please keep it short and sweet.

Maggie Jones: Yes, so I just wanted to pick up the issue about women, and one of the points made was about how the internet increasingly is bullying women, and certainly that’s been our experience as well in the UK. We have taken action with the Online Safety Act in the UK and we’re very proud of that, but it’s only the first step that we’re taking. And one of the issues, the public debate in the UK has very much been, what are our neighbors doing? What are the other countries doing? So it’s a much broader debate than perhaps we might think in the confines here. We genuinely want to reach out to develop new global norms about the standards that we can expect in terms of the technology companies. So it’s a much wider and deeper debate, I think, than we might think. And the other thing is, I think we’re absolutely right that, I think the last point was talking about empowering women, and that is such a huge challenge for us. We’re doing our bit, the UN Women’s Committees are doing their bit. We’ve got a huge, big challenge to really address these issues, particularly in the global south. And so I really do genuinely hope that going forward that will be a key priority for us.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Jimson, very shortly.

Jimson Olufuye: Yes. Am I audible? Yes. Looking at how to deepen this discussion at the local level, and also engage the youths, there’s a saying that money answers all things. And that is to say, they need support. The IGFSA has been doing a marvelous work, and if you are not yet a member, please don’t be a member. It’s an instrument to support the NII at the local level. We need more support, more input to strengthen the ability to provide some resources to those local activities for capacity building, for the next generation building the next leadership. So please join us so that we can together meet this expectation. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. And we will get back to our audience, the lady in green, please.

Audience: Thank you, Jorge. My name is Silvia Cadena. I’m the Chief Development Officer of the World Wide Web Consortium. We work on accessibility, internationalization, privacy, security, and more recently, sustainability of the web that has allowed so much growth and development over the last decade. We would like to raise your interest and attention to the importance of maintenance of the core infrastructure that allows all of this growth to happen. There is a lot of emphasis on innovation and looking into the future, but a lot of those things don’t happen that easy if we don’t have really good succession planning for all of these technical pioneers that are retiring to play golf and do other things that they like in the connections with the next generation. So if the next generation comes in, it’s important from the technical perspective that they maintain the systems that have allowed all of this growth and they understand what is the innovation that they are bringing in so that they don’t break anything that took so long to reach the scale that we have today. And that’s very important for interoperability. And then Minister Tung mentioned the importance of investment in funding and I think it’s very important to consider also what are the incentives to shape the landscape, not to only be adopters of technology. So what incentives Norwegian companies, for example, can have to participate in the development of global open standards for the web and how that brings also diversity and inclusion into this landscape. And that applies to every country. We have a very small number of organizations participating in these processes. and it’s very important that the engineers around the world do engage. Thank you very much.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Silvia. Minister Tung, do you want to react as we refer to Norway?

Karianne Tung: Yes, please. The reason I’m into digitalisation and technology is because I’m into the development of society. I want society to be a place where everyone can succeed, whether you are from the north of Norway, the south of Norway, whether you are rich or poor, whether you are a kid or you are an adult. And I really believe that the technology has to reflect the values that we want to build our society on. So to be able to think about gender equivalence, social rights, whatever, women in tech or so forth, we have to bring these perspectives and these values into the infrastructure, whether we are talking about education as an infrastructure, whether we are talking about the internet as an infrastructure. For me, that is the value that I bring to the table when I want to be the most digitalised country in the world, because I really believe it is about how we develop our society and what kind of fundaments we build this society on. Human rights, openness, transparency, democracy, everything has to be a part of the infrastructure. And the youth has a really important voice in that matter as well, and that’s why I specifically addressed the youth when I opened Day Zero here at this hall on Monday, because we have to involve every perspective in the technology.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Karine. Any other quick reaction? Otherwise, thank you for your patience. The gentleman to my right, please introduce yourself.

Audience: Kossay Al-Shati from Kuwait. First, I want to congratulate… Norway on a successful IGF and for these wonderful, engaging, positive atmosphere days that we spent here, so all the thanks for the Government of Norway for hosting us. We were part of the WSIS and the IGF since its inception more than 20 years ago, and we enjoyed wonderful, successful years that we have achieved a lot, whether on the WSIS Action Lines or on the IGF. And it is normal to see things evolve and to address the future issues and challenges. We saw this reflected in the GDC and we look forward that the WSIS Plus 20 foresee the future for us. Yet I do believe that one of the most successful outcome or the most successful outcome of the WSIS is the IGF. And this non-binding, non-outcome-oriented platform should continue. And while we are voicing the support of its continuation, we still believe that within the WSIS Plus 20 process, it’s still a grey area of this, if the IGF will continue as a platform or not. While we successfully addressed issues like diversity, bridging digital divide, diversity, and the multi-stakeholder processes, and we were successful on that as a culture and as a conduct, whether global, regional and national, yet the IGF, which allows us as stakeholders to speak and talk and engage in policy dialogue in equal footing on all issues, and it serves us well, we believe that it is still a grey area for its continuation or not, and we are concerned if this platform did not continue. Therefore, we want to believe, or we want to have… kind of assurances that such platform will continue or what to do from here till the decision has been taken to support it, thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. And I think many of us agree on those points and there’s opportunity to engage with the co-facilitators with the process. Please do so. The more, the better. I will turn to Eleonora and please speak a bit loudly to the microphone so that everybody can hear you.

Online moderator: Sure, okay, I will try to project. So we have another question from Segun Omolosho. As we approach WSIS plus 20, how can we ensure that multi-stakeholder inputs at IGF and other platforms are effectively integrated into WSIS follow-up mechanisms, especially at the national level?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah, maybe that’s the million dollar question or the billion dollar question, which many of us have been thinking about. But I don’t know if any of you has another very concrete and specific proposal.

Jimson Olufuye: Yes, this is Jimson speaking. Well, that’s a very good question. You know, how do we ensure that multi-stakeholder model is effective at the national level? I think we just to appeal to leadership, basically. Because we need champions. You can imagine the private sector that I led in 2012 to kind of cover the gap in Africa. So we need leadership, regulators, stakeholders to take up the mantle and engage with the South Polo multi-stakeholder guideline, where you can scope and ensure that all relevant stakeholders are brought in. for meaningful participation. This is for our own good. This is to ensure that we arrive at the information society we want, with the prosperity of everybody, so that nobody is left behind. So, I will really make this appeal to all our leadership, government, parliamentarians here, please make a case to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are brought in so that we can have useful dialogue for the benefit of our society.

Jorge Cancio: That’s quite clear. I see also Kurtis and then Baroness Jones.

Kurtis Lindqvist: I think this was a phenomenal question. I think George really summarized this. This is the billion dollar question, right? And I think one thing that worries me is that we talked here about how successful this model has been. And what worries me is that it’s been so successful we started taking it for granted, right? And I think that is the greatest worry. We can’t take this for granted. This is something the multistakeholder model we have to defend and highlight the benefits, the value, the phenomenal inclusivity it brings every single day. And we need to do this on a national level. We all need to engage with governments. I’ve got two on the panel, so you’re engaged. But there’s many other countries, and we need to do this every single day. This engagement needs to go on to show the value we create to this model, because only that way we will protect it. And I think it’s a very, very good question, and I’m very glad it was asked, because I think this is something we can’t afford to start taking the current permissionless, innovationless model of the Internet that has enabled all these other topics we’re discussing here. The Internet’s principles are what enable all these discussions, and sometimes I think we forget that.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Kurtis. Baroness?

Maggie Jones: Well, firstly, I’d say that I’m very pleased that so many UK representatives are here, and we’ve played a part in a number of my colleagues have played a part in the panels contributing to the debate. So I think the very fact that we’re here, we’re contributing our views, but also listening, and that’s a two-way process of engagement, and we take that back into our own organisations. So, I think that development and the wisdom that we’ve learnt here will help us develop our own policies in the future. So that’s a very important point for us, that we don’t have a static view, it’s very much one that’s learning as we go along. The second thing is that we have a very successful IGF conference in the UK and I think the more we can do events like that, local and the regional level, will always enhance the debate that we need to have. So, it’s not a perfect system, but we are trying our best to make sure that we don’t just have these debates in isolation, but we take them back to our own organisation.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Then shall we go to the gentleman, I think it was your turn, or well, let’s go to the right. I think Raul is pointing to the right, so let’s take the gentleman there. Please introduce yourself and keep it to below two minutes.

Audience: Thank you, Jorge. My name is Rian Duarte, I’m from the Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers. Thank you for the panel for a wonderful discussion. In the last few days, we had many relevant and high-level debates and we have seen global cooperations on this stage and on the other many stages, and we should hear from them as they are usually part of the problems we face, but are not always an active part of the solutions. On the other side, we still see an undersized role for small and medium enterprises and open source solutions. So, on the topic of updating governance, I would like to hear from the panel about how we can strengthen the voice and participation of small and medium enterprises as well as open source solutions in IGF and WSIS, especially from the global south.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Any immediate reactions? to that, so shall we take another one for starters, Kurtis?

Kurtis Lindqvist: I think it’s a, I want to come back to this, it’s a very very important thing that we just highlighted again, because the current internet and again we just discussed here, every day we have hundreds of thousands if not millions of SMEs who exist fully or partly because of the current internet, the current model that enabled them to create and innovate and become businesses, and you’re absolutely right, we need to make that heard, we need to bring them into these discussions. It is a bit of a pull and push, I mean we need to get them to engage and understand that, I think we come back to this, that we have started taking this for granted and therefore it’s not a threat, it’s not nothing to care about, but they should care about this, you know, it’s their livelihood, their business models depends on the outcomes here and these discussions, and we need to bring that message out, we need to bring them into this discussion, not necessarily physically, but through the local regional IGFs, through the remote online participation today, you know, there’s many ways to engage with these forums and make your voices heard, but you’re absolutely right, we need to bring those those voices in here.

Jorge Cancio: Jimson, you want to intervene?

Jimson Olufuye: Yes, very good question. I run an SME, Contemporary Consulting, and everything is on the internet, we are highly involved in digitalization, cybersecurity, integration, do research, so there is a lot of benefit being involved, and I encourage other SMEs that could be following to be part of the conversation, because there’s a tendency for some to say, okay, oh, Jimson is there, these guys are there, let them be doing it. We need it to be part of us, because the internet is a great resource for productivity, for creating new opportunity, for employment, and bringing in new innovation, and so it is in our interest to support it, and another way is through association. And that’s why we formed the Africa City Alliance, encouraging us as an association across Africa to be part of it, bringing your view, companies bringing your view so that we can collate and present it together. So for example, in Nigeria, talking about startup law, there is a startup law encouraging new businesses. There is even funding for AI project. So all these are true conversation we normally have. So bringing your ideas so that we can enrich the ecosystem, the opportunity is there for us. Thank you so much.

Jorge Cancio: Minister.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. Just a short comment from me, because I think it’s really important that we do have the different stakeholders here while we are debating topics that regards them. It’s crucial for the legitimacy of IGF as well. And I think it’s also a responsibility that I, we have as government to make sure that we are able to include the different stakeholders from our countries to be part of IGF, either physically or digitally. It was from Norway side, it was prioritized to work with our different embassies around the world to be able to mobilize participants from different countries to come to IGF in Norway this year. And especially it was participation from Global South. And I think Global South are highly participating in this year’s IGF, but it could have been better. I think we have to agree on that as well.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Minister Tung. It’s always a challenge to reach those participants, be it civil society, but also business with less resources or technical community, of course, or academia. Let’s turn to the gentleman there.

Audience: Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity. My name is Raul Echeverria. I’m the Executive Director of. I’m a member of the IGF, and I’m also a member of the Latin American Internet Association, and also a MAG member this year. I have heard all the comments, and I think that I share almost everything that has been said here, with regard to the role of WSIS and IGF and the implementation of GDC, the need for improvement, the need for renewal of IGF, which improvements. And of course, I think that the importance of the IGF, the implementation of GDC, and the need for more implementation of WSIS, and I think that I share almost everything here, but the perception is that the reality is not so easy, and there will be more complications in the negotiations. So my first question is what are the priorities of the IGF, and what are the priorities of the government? And I think that what the Minister Tung has mentioned right now is that I have the impression that it is just a few governments that are really involved in the discussion, and at least from the capitals. I’m sure that the missions, many missions are involved in the conversations in New York, but most of them are not aware of what is happening and what is the negotiation that is going on. So what do you think? How can we involve other governments in the discussion to have really a decision that reflects the interests of all the world? Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Raul. And while our panel thinks about a possible reply, I would invite you to really take the opportunity to row at the microphones. We still have some time. for interventions, please use it, don’t be shy, you see this is a safe environment, you can intervene, there are answers, it’s very interactive, please do use that opportunity. But now, going back to those questions from Raoul, which are really straightforward, and I see Minister Tung.

Karianne Tung: Thank you, I want to give a short reply on the first question, which was about the biggest challenges, because we sound very agree, but we know the times until December will be challenging, and it demands a lot of work from the co-facilitators, from every stakeholder, to be able that we get over the finish line in a good way, and my hope is that we are able to do so in a way of consensus. But the biggest challenge, or the worst thing that can happen is more fragmentation, in my opinion, and that is what I fear the most. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: That’s really important, Kurtis.

Kurtis Lindqvist: It’s a long way to December, as the Minister just said, a lot of things can happen between now and then. I think there are some very, very careful optimism from these days, I think there is a lot to build on, and that doesn’t mean that there is unanimous consensus, and I think that will be a challenge going forward, to build on what we have, and work through that, and make sure that all the voices are heard, and I think it’s a very promising session this morning with the co-facilitators, they were very open for the dialogue with all the stakeholders and take that input into account. Obviously at the end of the day in December this will be a nation-state negotiation, but I hope that we as technical community and the other multi-stakeholder groups can actually provide input into this and help to form a very constructive consensus before then showcase why that is important. and not just have the necessarily multilateral voices and concerns led, but actually the much wider consents and that will hopefully at the end bring us to what we had just talked here this morning.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Kurtis. I see Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: The major challenge I see, even though the co-facilitators, they’ve demonstrated their resolve to involve all stakeholders but the real main challenge I see and which I try to battle every time is to get our national government to be involved, to involve all of us, all the stakeholders in the conversation. It is so important that national government bring in all the other stakeholders. What are you thinking about? What is your view as you go forward to negotiate? Because we are not in the room to negotiate. So that is a serious challenge that is really in my heart. Look, even some are not even that responsive in terms of even being involved. So that’s answer the question. The second question is real challenge. How do we get all the government at the national level to be involved with this? So we continue to encourage them. We continue to use this platform to say, okay, let the multistakeholder approach, let it be practicalized at the national level, scope the views of your citizens and let them be part of the delegation. Let them be part of the delegation. You know, in the private sector, we can fund ourselves by and large and I believe others can get their fund. But our voices need to be heard because we are all working together for the progress and prosperity of our nation using the digital technologies. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson. Baroness.

Maggie Jones: I would just say that we’ve spent the last 20 years trying to prove ourselves here and I think, you know, we’ve got to the point where we have done that. I think if we can get to the point where we become permanent part of the UN family, if you like, and we don’t have to keep proving ourselves, then our voices will more broadly be heard. But I do also think that we have a communications challenge, because there’s so much good things going on here, and perhaps we’re not, we all take responsibility for this, not so good at taking it back to our own governments and our own stakeholders and talking up the sorts of activities that happen here. But I think if we can get the permanent status sorted, then we will be a more recognised part of the international framework, and I think that would be really important.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Baroness Jones. I think, if I may abuse my role as moderator, sometimes the biggest challenge is to imagine that a positive outcome, which is more than just a zero-sum game, is possible. And to see what are the needed parts that allow all stakeholders worldwide to agree on such an outcome. And I’m hopeful that the discussions we had here will be a contribution to imagining that possibility. But I wonder whether Eleonora, you have any input from online?

Online moderator: Yes, there is one more question from Musa Maigari from Nigeria. How can the IGF address the challenges posed by artificial intelligence and other disruptive technologies?

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Eleonora. I will do a last call for – please go into the microphone. This is your last opportunity. Later on, we will be shifting the segment, so please think about it. While I see whether our panel has any reaction Well, actually the IGF has been discussing AI at least for eight years. I remember in 2017 IGF in Geneva, which we happened to organize a Swiss government together with the Swiss IGF that it was already very prominent and also the effects of the algorithmic systems to the public sphere and to the democratic system, but The word is yours Kurtis, you wanted to..

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you, I Think that you know the IGF doesn’t As you just pointed out. I mean AI has been allowed to come into the IGF agenda And I think you know large emerging challenges has been picked up in the past by the IGF So I think we already have the forum for this as part of the mag and they do the work or the scheduling and the working working groups The open forums. I think that’s part of the agenda that’s being set already I think we do pick up a lot of emerging technologies and I think one thing we don’t talk So I mean this had all the open and structured scheduling But it’s all this hallway discussions this phenomenal discussion of ecosystem that goes on around the formal schedule but also allows for a dialogue around some of these age these discussions and topics and Really the incubator of ideas and I think the IGF has been very successful at that over the years

Jorge Cancio: Thank You Kurtis, any other reaction on this question I see Jimson

Jimson Olufuye: Okay All right. Thank you As a matter of fact the topic of artificial intelligence has been on for quite a long time It was one of my courses in the 80s in the university So what the ramification of it now is very serious an idea is a beautiful platform When we have all these two good as we can also examine the ramifications of artificial intelligence. So one thing that we are taking away here is that a lot of best practices approaches that governments are taking to tackle the negative part, the abuse part, and the positive part, encourage it. We get it here and go back to our national and encourage maybe the enactment of a law to ensure that the AI is used for good, is used for the benefits of the society. So there has to be some form of regulation and that’s something coming out of this place. AI can serve us well, can help us to realize the sustainable development goal faster, but at the same time, it can be useful. And that is why it has to be properly regulated and there has to be some laws to guide those that are developing the application. So coming from IGF, we get the policy framework, we get to know about best practices, we take it to our countries and localize those discussions. So that’s why the IGF platform remains a credible platform to discuss these issues and other emerging issues that we’ll see.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson. I saw Baroness, then Minister, and Fabrizio, everybody has something to say on this topic.

Maggie Jones: Well, I was just going to say very briefly that I absolutely agree with the potential of AI and we need to harness it as AI for good for all nations. But it is a specific challenge for us in terms of safety and security as well. And so we have a very particular role here in just sharing our expertise and sharing good practice because this is a global challenge for us. But at the end of the day, the approach that was taken, which is that we are tech neutral in a sense, that we address all of the tech challenges, I think is the right one. And it will be addressed, I think, as we go on, increasingly in our forums, just as a matter of course. So I think we’ve got the right structures to do it, but it is a very specific and unique challenge and a concern for us, for all nations.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you. Minister.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. I think it’s important that each and every country has good discussion on how they want to use artificial intelligence as a technology. What are the challenges and what are the possibilities in each and every country, because it may differ. For instance, Norway is an energy nation, so for us to use artificial intelligence in the field of energy is an obvious thing. But together, I think we need to have international guidelines and international discussion about the ethical implication of the technology as well. And the discussion that are going on on artificial intelligence when it comes to best practice and so forth, I think it’s really valuable for every country, whether you want to use it within the health care sector or the energy system or within public administration and so forth.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Fabrizia.

Fabrizia Benini: I think the added value of the IGF, it’s its components. Who is it made of? What are the voices that you can hear here? And when you have discussions about the artificial intelligence, the technical community will have one take, governments another, the business community another and so forth. And this conversation is extremely useful, but it needs to be passed on to those other institutions, both in the UN family and in national governments that are already working on AI. Because what we want to avoid is duplication, but what we want to increase is a synergetically approach that is mutually reinforcing. So get the voices, get the problems out, have the opportunity to have that discussion with each and every one, but make sure that then it becomes actionable in those fora where work is already taking place.

Jorge Cancio: Absolutely, and that brings us back to this idea of the connecting tissue we need to invent, we need to imagine and then need to implement if we are able to agree on how to do it by December. I see, is there a gentleman taking the last opportunity to take the mic? Please go ahead.

Audience: Yes, please. My name is Bastiaan Winkel and I work for the Department of Justice in the Netherlands. This week we’ve highlighted the advantages of an open and free internet. We’ve underlined that we should stick to the working of the internet based on trust and multi-stakeholderism. Working on law enforcement, I’m also exposed to the dark sides of the internet. Online hate speech flourishing, cease and materials widely available, our youth getting addicted to the mobile phones and to the social media platforms. I’m glad we’re also addressing these issues at the IGF, but what can we do and how can we address these issues to also give our citizens the same protection online as they have in the physical world?

Jorge Cancio: Another very important question. We will take the very last one from Eleonora, from online, and then we will wrap up this part.

Online moderator: Thank you very much, Jorge. I actually just wanted to share a contribution from the online chat and then I’ll move into the question. So you may remember earlier, Sagoon had asked about how do we ensure multi-stakeholder inputs are truly integrated into the work that we do. follow-up, especially at the national level, and we had a nice discussion with Mark Carvell, formerly of the UK government, longtime friend of the IGF, who made the point that the IGF’s more than 176 NRIs are going to be vital for bringing those inputs in. So I just wanted to share that and move on to a final question from our remote hub in Benin. It was asked in French, but I’ll just translate into English. Speaking of technological evolution, some regions in Africa are excluded from both the challenges and the benefits. What measures is the IGF taking to promote full inclusion, particularly of countries in the global south?

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Eleonora, and let’s do a final round of reactions to these two last questions. Is there anyone from you, Minister?

Karianne Tung: I can start with the first question from the gentleman from the Netherlands, and yesterday I really believe it was a good panel on this stage about protecting children from harmful algorithms, and we also see reports from the Norwegian security police that very young children are being captured by right-wing radicals on the different social media platforms, and then further on to other platforms. So I think we need to do more. We need the government to do more and better regulation, and I really believe that the European Union has done a great deal here when it comes to the Digital Service Act, for instance, which is good. So regulation is one of the answers. We need the tech companies to do more. They are not doing enough, so we need them to do more, and in the end I think we need more international cooperation on these issues, because if we… I really believe in an open and free internet, but to be able to have the open and free internet, we have to have trust. and we have to deal with the challenges that also Internet brings to the floor. So, I believe along these three pillars, government, regulation, international cooperation and that the tech companies have to do more themselves to tackle these challenges. So, I’m happy that you raised that question. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Minister. Baroness.

Maggie Jones: I think we can all identify with the dark side that you talked about and it’s a huge challenge for all of us. We’re all trying in our own way to deal with this. I mentioned earlier that we have our own piece of legislation, the Online Safety Act, which is attempting to set some standards for how children in particular should be protected online. And I have to say that we have got very good dialogue going with the tech companies to ensure that that’s being implemented properly. But for us, we would like to share our experience and also to learn from other nations. So, we do begin to set some sort of global norms about what is acceptable to appear on the Internet so that we don’t necessarily all just do it country by country but form a bit more of an alliance on all of this. So, that is the way that we would like to approach it. But it’s a very good challenge and as has been said, we absolutely need to address it because otherwise we won’t maintain the trust and people won’t feel enabled to use the wonderful technology that we’ve got to its best advantage because they simply won’t trust it. So, it’s a huge and important challenge for us.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Any other inputs to these two last questions? Jimson?

Jimson Olufuye: Very quickly, there was a report by UNECA underscoring the need for more investments in Internet penetration and a 10% increase in Internet penetration. will give us about 8.2% increase in GDP per capital. It also showed a 10% increase in cybersecurity maturity which enabled up to a 5.4% increase in GDP per capital. This underscores the fact that our countries need to prioritize infrastructural connectivity access for more prosperity and for more people to be reached down to the underserved areas. And then secondly, it also underscores the fact that there has to be cybersecurity maturity for developing countries. UNECA has come up with a model cybersecurity law that we can adapt even to customize our own local laws. And we had from EU and from UK, the efforts they also made in online safety. So they need to adapt this thing and make a near-perfect law to guide the citizens’ online activities.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson. So I think it’s time now to wrap up this session. We will have a last segment of, let’s say, interim final messages because this is an ongoing conversation about the path forward with WISC-I plus 20, with the IGF and with how we work together. And I would like to start with Fabrizia, if that is OK for you, and then come gently over until Minister Tung to have the last word.

Fabrizia Benini: Thank you. Well, my first last word and thought is to thank the Norwegian government for the organization of the IGF. You had… You had very little time to put it together and the result has been magnificent. The venues are fantastic and really the organization has been… completely faultless, so thank you. On the WISOs process, we’ve already had the opportunity to reiterate our very strong commitment to it, strong commitment to the multi-stakeholder model that needs to be effective, inclusive and actionable. Participation, the IGF itself that needs robust foundations, and a coherence between the different actions that we take in the WISOs with the SDGs that are coming up for review in 2030 and with the GDC. We can work together this path. It might not be completely straightforward sometimes, but that’s the beauty of having different voices, and I think there is a real benefit in world terms for us to engage in this pioneer, continue this pioneer experiment. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia. Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: Yeah, I will also say plus one to the expression of appreciation to our host for a very splendid IGF 2025. Thank you very much. Well, the WISOs has come to stay, and we are doing a review, and we’re expecting that the IGF will be renewed or made permanent, and we’re also hoping that all the stakeholder too will perform their own roles and responsibility. But most importantly, with regards to developing countries and underdeveloped countries, we need to also take it more seriously and deepen the conversation within our nationals, even up to sub-national, because there’s a need for us to catch up, to leapfrog, because we’re looking at internet penetration is 39% to 40%, while the world average is about 60%. So there’s a lot to be done. We need to bring in all the stakeholders so that we can fast-track the process of adoption, awareness, and even utilization of these tools. And finally, I want to really thank in advance our countries, because countries have never failed to host IGF. Thanking all the governments that are taking it up. So, and appreciating the leadership role they’re playing in ensuring that IGF is sustained. So, thanking them in advance.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson, Kurtis.

Kurtis Lindqvist: I also like to thank the hosts for this successful and fantastic week you allowed us to have here in Norway. And after this week of contributing, listening and engaging here at the IGF, I think one thing is very clear, and that is, we’re not simply talking about the future, we’re actually shaping the foundation of the future. And the Internet’s greatest strength is really its ability to coordinate at this phenomenal global scale without a centralized control. It’s something that’s very rare, it’s essential, and it’s worth protecting. We at ICANN, we’re not regulators, but we’re stewards. We look after the unique identifiers and the technical components that makes the Internet keep working. The practical stakeholder-driven collaboration that we model is how governance must evolve. And the IGF is really where this governance and coordination happens in practice today. And it must remain open and global representative space that we have for this digital governance. We heard some questions and discussions earlier, let’s not underestimate what it takes to make this possible. But we really must give it the support it needs and keep doing what only the IGF can do.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Kurtis. Baroness Jones.

Maggie Jones: So I would like to echo all the points that have been made. Thank you so much to our hosts. It’s been a fantastic event, beautifully organized, as we would expect from the Norwegians. And yes, I think it’s been a very, very successful event. And I would just say that it’s really, really important that a very wide group of stakeholders contribute to the WSIS review because we want to demonstrate what we really represent here and it is a very unique group of people, so everybody from governments, businesses, civil societies, technical experts and academics. In order for this to continue to play the important role that it does, I think that everybody, the widest group of people need to participate in the review, so I urge everybody to contribute.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Baroness. Minister Tung, do you have the final words?

Karianne Tung: Thank you everyone for really kind words about Norway hosting the IGF. I believe it has been a success, but it wouldn’t have been without you, all the participants, all the stakeholders. That is really why this is an amazing event, where we can sit down and talk to each other instead of about each other, and I really appreciate that. I think during the last, or the past 20 years, we have shown that you can trust the IGF and multi-stakeholder model. That’s why it’s important for Norway and it is Norway’s point of view that the IGF should have a strength mandate, that it should be permanent, and that we are able to integrate more the different processes that are going on. So I really look forward to meet you all at the next IGF, and Norway will be happy to share our experience also with hosting the IGF, or whatever countries up next for hosting the IGF. So thank you very much everyone for being here.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Minister Tunge, and it’s really wonderful, and when the expectations are so high, and the expectations were very high for you, for the Norwegians, it’s really wonderful that everything is so perfect. Thank you so much. I don’t have too much to recap. I look forward to the summaries that are being prepared by the IGF Secretariat together with Diplo Foundation. I think that’s also worthwhile looking into the transcript of both this morning’s session, which was very rich and engaging with the co-facilitators and with the Undersecretary General. And of course, all the inputs you gave during this very engaging discussion and the ones we received from the audience, both here and online, I think are worth looking them over, seeing where are more solutions, more common ground fields, what we have to really address, where we have to still really force our imagination to come to good solutions. But with this, I would like to thank our panel, give them a warm round of applause. And also thank our audience. I think with this, this session is adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach must be preserved and strengthened

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Maggie Jones
– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Thomas Schneider
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach and engagement will be central in the future negotiations that we are taking for the review of the process

The fact is that WSIS, our multi-stakeholder engagement, is very unique in this experience. And I think that’s one of our great strengths

The IGF strength lies in what it enables, the open engagement across stakeholder groups without the pressure to negotiate or formulize the outcomes

The UN agencies and the UN system has opened up, has opened up its arms for cooperation quite significantly over this time

We have come a long way since, and I would like to thank the co-facilitators for their commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach

Summary

There is strong consensus that the multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental to WSIS and IGF success and must be maintained and strengthened in future processes

Topics

Human rights principles

Avoid duplication between WSIS, GDC, and other UN processes while promoting synergies

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones
– Fabrizia Benini

Arguments

Stakeholders are saying, please don’t duplicate. Try to find synergies between the two processes

We should avoid parallel processes because it is an issue of capacity to be a part of different processes going on at the same time about the same thing

We genuinely want to reach out to develop new global norms about the standards that we can expect in terms of the technology companies

We need to avoid duplication, we need to increase synergies that need to be mutually reinforcing

Summary

All speakers agree on the critical need to avoid duplicating efforts across different UN digital processes while creating meaningful synergies and coordination

Topics

Legal and regulatory

IGF should be strengthened with permanent mandate and better funding

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones
– Kurtis Lindqvist

Arguments

For Norway, it is important that we are able to give IGF a permanent mandate. That is a key priority

Giving it a permanent mandate, which is one of our themes this morning, I think is absolutely critical

We really must give it the support it needs and keep doing what only the IGF can do

Summary

There is clear consensus that the IGF needs a permanent mandate and more predictable funding to continue its valuable work effectively

Topics

Legal and regulatory

WSIS action lines remain relevant and technology-neutral for addressing emerging challenges

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones

Arguments

The 11 WSIS Action Lines covered anything that could come up. We don’t really need any new structural changes

The action lines are broad, they are tech neutral, I believe that is important, because we don’t know what kind of technology that hits us tomorrow

The approach that was taken, which is that we are tech neutral in a sense, that we address all of the tech challenges, I think is the right one

Summary

Speakers agree that the existing WSIS action lines are sufficiently broad and technology-neutral to address emerging technologies like AI without requiring structural changes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for WSIS as the leading framework with structured implementation approaches that integrate GDC commitments through coordinated roadmaps

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Fabrizia Benini

Arguments

I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process

We think that there is room for the action line facilitators together with the relevant bodies in the UN to set out actionable roadmaps that will track the implementation and the progress

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight persistent digital divides as major challenges requiring urgent attention, with specific focus on gender gaps and developing country connectivity

Speakers

– Maggie Jones
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023

With regards to developing countries and underdeveloped countries, we need to take it more seriously because we’re looking at internet penetration is 39% to 40%, while the world average is about 60%

Topics

Development | Digital access | Gender rights online

Both speakers emphasize that the IGF ecosystem extends far beyond the annual meeting, with national/regional IGFs and ongoing activities being crucial components

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

The national regional IGFs continue to connect the global and local governance conversations into each other

The IGF is more than just an annual meeting. It’s a process with many intersessional activities and the importance of the NRIs could not be overemphasized

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technology companies need to do more to address harmful content and algorithms

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones
– Audience

Arguments

We need the tech companies to do more. They are not doing enough, so we need them to do more

We have got very good dialogue going with the tech companies to ensure that that’s being implemented properly

We have seen global cooperations on this stage and they are usually part of the problems we face, but are not always an active part of the solutions

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged across government representatives and civil society that technology companies bear significant responsibility for addressing online harms and need to be more actively engaged in solutions, moving beyond traditional regulatory approaches

Topics

Cybersecurity | Children rights | Human rights principles

Environmental impact of ICT needs urgent attention

Speakers

– Maggie Jones

Arguments

Another issue we need to address is the environmental impact of information and communication technologies and all of the global greenhouse gas emissions that that challenge raises

Explanation

The explicit mention of environmental concerns related to ICT infrastructure was unexpected in a digital governance discussion, showing growing awareness of sustainability issues in the digital realm

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on preserving multi-stakeholder approaches, avoiding process duplication, strengthening IGF with permanent mandate, and maintaining technology-neutral WSIS action lines. Agreement also emerged on addressing digital divides and the need for better coordination between processes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment on fundamental principles and practical next steps. The convergence suggests strong foundation for successful WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, though implementation details and resource allocation may require further discussion.

Different viewpoints

Relationship between WSIS and Global Digital Compact

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Karianne Tung

Arguments

On one hand, there are those who feel that WSIS should remain the overarching framework and that all the other proposals in the GDC be implemented under the WSIS architecture. Then there are also those who say, let the two processes don’t duplicate but follow what is in WSIS and let the processes under GDC run their course.

I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process.

Summary

While Ekitela Lokaale presents diverse stakeholder views on whether WSIS should be the overarching framework or run parallel to GDC, Minister Tung takes a clear position that WSIS should be the lead process with GDC integrated within it.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Approach to updating WSIS action lines

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

There are those who advance this proposal, they are wide enough. They can accommodate these emerging technologies. So there is no need to touch them. There is a school of thought that says let’s update the WSIS action lines. So by updating of necessity, it means you have to touch them somewhat. Then there are those who say expand the WSIS action lines.

We don’t really need any new structural changes. Let’s sustain what we have. The IGF is brilliant. Let’s bring in the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guideline. Let’s do it better, and as such, we can tackle any emerging challenges appropriately.

Summary

Ekitela Lokaale presents three different stakeholder approaches to action lines (keep as-is, update, or expand), while Jimson Olufuye firmly advocates for no structural changes and maintaining the current framework.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Scope of multi-stakeholder engagement challenges

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Audience

Arguments

The major challenge I see is to get our national government to be involved, to involve all of us, all the stakeholders in the conversation. We are not in the room to negotiate.

How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table. We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places.

Explanation

While both identify inclusivity challenges, Jimson focuses on getting existing stakeholders into government processes, while the audience member argues for reaching entirely new audiences outside the current IGF community. This represents a fundamental difference in approach to expanding participation.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on institutional relationships (WSIS-GDC integration), structural changes to action lines, and approaches to strengthening IGF outputs. Most disagreements are about methods rather than fundamental goals.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers share common goals around multi-stakeholder engagement, avoiding duplication, and strengthening digital governance, but differ on implementation approaches. The disagreements are constructive and focused on ‘how’ rather than ‘whether’ to achieve shared objectives. This suggests good potential for finding compromise solutions in the WSIS Plus 20 process.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for WSIS as the leading framework with structured implementation approaches that integrate GDC commitments through coordinated roadmaps

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Fabrizia Benini

Arguments

I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process

We think that there is room for the action line facilitators together with the relevant bodies in the UN to set out actionable roadmaps that will track the implementation and the progress

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight persistent digital divides as major challenges requiring urgent attention, with specific focus on gender gaps and developing country connectivity

Speakers

– Maggie Jones
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023

With regards to developing countries and underdeveloped countries, we need to take it more seriously because we’re looking at internet penetration is 39% to 40%, while the world average is about 60%

Topics

Development | Digital access | Gender rights online

Both speakers emphasize that the IGF ecosystem extends far beyond the annual meeting, with national/regional IGFs and ongoing activities being crucial components

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

The national regional IGFs continue to connect the global and local governance conversations into each other

The IGF is more than just an annual meeting. It’s a process with many intersessional activities and the importance of the NRIs could not be overemphasized

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

WSIS Plus 20 review should preserve the foundational vision (people-centered, inclusive, development-oriented) while adapting to new technologies like AI and digital public infrastructure

Strong convergence exists on maintaining multi-stakeholder approach as central to WSIS and IGF processes

IGF has demonstrated success over 20 years, connecting 5+ billion people online and enabling economic growth through its open, non-binding dialogue model

Technology-neutral WSIS action lines can accommodate emerging technologies without requiring structural changes, just contextualization

Digital divide persists with significant gaps between developed and developing countries (39-40% vs 60% average internet penetration)

Integration and coordination between WSIS, Global Digital Compact, and SDGs is essential to avoid duplication while promoting synergies

National and regional IGFs (176 total) play vital connecting role between global and local digital governance

Online safety challenges, especially protecting children from harmful algorithms and content, require coordinated government regulation and tech company responsibility

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators to establish informal multi-stakeholder sounding board with members from MAG and leadership panel for enhanced communication

Written inputs to elements paper due July 15th to inform zero draft outcome document for negotiations

Joint session between governments and non-government stakeholders planned for end of July

Second preparatory consultation meeting scheduled for mid-October

Proposal for joint implementation roadmaps tracking progress across WSIS action lines, SDGs, and GDC commitments to be considered

Stakeholders urged to contribute to WSIS Plus 20 review process through multiple channels including written submissions

National governments encouraged to involve all stakeholders in their delegations and decision-making processes

IGF Secretariat and Diplo Foundation to prepare summaries and transcripts of discussions for further reference

Unresolved issues

Relationship between WSIS and Global Digital Compact remains contentious with diverse views on whether WSIS should be overarching framework or processes should run in parallel

Future of IGF mandate (permanent vs. extended) still under negotiation

Funding mechanisms for IGF remain unpredictable and inadequate

How to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder inputs into national-level policy implementation

Specific mechanisms for avoiding duplication while ensuring coordination across multiple UN digital processes

How to meaningfully include developing countries and ensure their voices are heard in global digital governance

Concrete measures to address the gender digital divide (244 million more men than women online)

Balancing open internet principles with need for regulation to address online harms and protect children

How to engage broader stakeholder participation beyond those already committed to digital governance discussions

Suggested compromises

WSIS to serve as lead process for digital cooperation with GDC being implemented within WSIS framework rather than as separate parallel process

Strengthen IGF outputs and reporting mechanisms while maintaining non-binding, dialogue-focused nature

Update and contextualize existing WSIS action lines for new technologies rather than creating entirely new structures

Use technology-neutral approach in action lines to accommodate future emerging technologies

Create joint implementation roadmaps that map WSIS action lines to SDGs and GDC commitments to ensure coherence

Establish better coordination through UN Group on Information Society and Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies

Strengthen national and regional IGFs as connecting tissue between global and local governance while maintaining global IGF as central forum

Combine government regulation, tech company responsibility, and international cooperation to address online safety challenges

The IGF is a sandbox process for the multilateral environment. It is a way to alleviate some of the constraints regarding the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, it’s a way to experiment and also to alleviate the constraints for putting something on the agenda… The IGF is this exploratory space that allows to put agenda items early on and save at least three or four years in addressing them.

Speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

Reason

This comment reframes the IGF’s role from just a discussion forum to a strategic governance innovation tool. The ‘sandbox’ metaphor is particularly powerful as it suggests a safe space for experimentation that feeds into formal multilateral processes. The quantification of ‘saving 3-4 years’ adds concrete value to what might otherwise be seen as just talk.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from operational concerns about the IGF’s future to strategic thinking about its unique value proposition in global governance. It provided intellectual ammunition for those arguing for the IGF’s permanent mandate by articulating a clear functional role that no other institution fills.

We risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation… If we replace this model with something that’s more rigid or politicized, we risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation.

Speaker

Kurtis Lindqvist

Reason

This comment introduces urgency and stakes to the discussion by framing the WSIS+20 review as potentially existential for the current model. It shifts from celebrating achievements to acknowledging vulnerability, suggesting that success shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Impact

This warning about fragility created a more serious tone in the discussion and prompted other speakers to emphasize the need for active defense of the multistakeholder model. It moved the conversation from complacency about past success to strategic thinking about preservation and strengthening.

How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table… We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places… if we don’t bring the others in, in a level of advocacy in our own countries, we can’t get anywhere.

Speaker

Eric (from audience)

Reason

This comment challenges the fundamental assumption of the IGF community about its own effectiveness. It suggests that the community may be operating in an echo chamber and needs to engage beyond its traditional boundaries. The religious metaphor of ‘preaching to converts’ is particularly striking.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from internal processes and structures to external engagement and political reality. It prompted several panelists to acknowledge the challenge of bringing non-traditional stakeholders into the conversation and influenced subsequent discussions about national-level engagement.

There is a proposal that we have a joint implementation plan for the GDC and WSIS, for example. So, that’s an innovative idea which we are willing to put before stakeholders.

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Co-facilitator)

Reason

This comment introduces a concrete mechanism for addressing the persistent concern about duplication and fragmentation between different UN digital processes. It moves from abstract calls for coordination to a specific institutional innovation.

Impact

This proposal became a focal point for subsequent discussions about coordination and was picked up by multiple speakers as a promising approach. It shifted the conversation from identifying problems to exploring solutions and gave participants something concrete to rally around.

We are hearing from the stakeholders, for example, the need for us to ground the WSIS Plus 20 outcome review in the original WSIS vision… but we should also reflect some of the technological advancements that have happened over the last two decades… there is a clear recognition that even as we ground the review in the original WSIS vision… we should also reflect some of the technological advancements.

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Co-facilitator)

Reason

This comment articulates the central tension of the WSIS+20 process: how to maintain foundational principles while adapting to technological change. It demonstrates sophisticated listening to stakeholder input and frames the challenge as both/and rather than either/or.

Impact

This framing helped structure much of the subsequent discussion around the balance between continuity and change. It provided a framework that allowed different stakeholders to see their concerns reflected while acknowledging the need for evolution.

The internet’s greatest strength is really its ability to coordinate at this phenomenal global scale without a centralized control. It’s something that’s very rare, it’s essential, and it’s worth protecting… what worries me is that it’s been so successful we started taking it for granted.

Speaker

Kurtis Lindqvist

Reason

This comment identifies a paradox of success – that the very effectiveness of the current system makes it vulnerable because people stop actively defending it. It connects technical architecture principles to governance philosophy in a compelling way.

Impact

This observation about taking success for granted resonated throughout the discussion and prompted other speakers to emphasize the need for active engagement and advocacy. It added philosophical depth to practical discussions about institutional arrangements.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing strategic frameworks, acknowledging vulnerabilities, and challenging assumptions. Bertrand de La Chapelle’s ‘sandbox’ metaphor provided a new way to understand the IGF’s value, while Kurtis Lindqvist’s warnings about taking success for granted created urgency around preservation efforts. The audience intervention about ‘preaching to converts’ forced uncomfortable but necessary reflection on the community’s insularity. The co-facilitators’ comments about joint implementation plans and balancing continuity with change provided concrete pathways forward. Together, these interventions elevated the discussion from operational details to strategic thinking about governance innovation, institutional vulnerability, and the need for broader political engagement. They created a more nuanced understanding of both the achievements and challenges facing the WSIS framework, ultimately producing a more sophisticated and actionable conversation about the path forward.

How to achieve coherence between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact without duplication

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale and multiple participants

Explanation

There are diverse views on whether WSIS should remain the overarching framework with GDC implemented under it, or whether the two processes should run parallel courses without duplication

Whether to update, expand, or leave unchanged the WSIS action lines

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Different schools of thought exist on how to address emerging technologies – some say action lines are broad enough, others want updates or expansion

What kind of IGF is needed for the next 10-20 years and beyond

Speaker

Suela Janina

Explanation

Ideas range from extending the mandate to making it permanent, rebranding the name, and strengthening it to include new and emerging technologies

How to develop a joint implementation plan for GDC and WSIS

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

This was mentioned as an innovative idea being considered to bring coherence between the two processes

How to better integrate multi-stakeholder inputs at IGF into WSIS follow-up mechanisms, especially at national level

Speaker

Segun Omolosho (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of ensuring that discussions and outcomes from IGF translate into meaningful action at national levels

What strategies can be implemented to enhance participation of youth and women in IGF and WSIS processes

Speaker

Musa Maigari (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses inclusivity concerns and the need to engage underrepresented groups more effectively

How to strengthen the voice and participation of small and medium enterprises and open source solutions in IGF and WSIS

Speaker

Rian Duarte

Explanation

SMEs and open source solutions are often part of problems but not always active in solutions, especially from the Global South

How to involve more governments in WSIS discussions beyond just a few engaged ones

Speaker

Raul Echeverria

Explanation

Many governments are not aware of ongoing negotiations, and most involvement comes from missions rather than capitals

How IGF can address challenges posed by artificial intelligence and other disruptive technologies

Speaker

Musa Maigari (online participant)

Explanation

While AI has been discussed at IGF for years, the rapid evolution requires ongoing attention to both opportunities and risks

How to provide citizens the same protection online as they have in the physical world

Speaker

Bastiaan Winkel

Explanation

Addresses the dark sides of internet including online hate speech, harmful content, and youth addiction to social media platforms

What measures is IGF taking to promote full inclusion of Global South countries, particularly in Africa

Speaker

Remote hub participant from Benin

Explanation

Some regions are excluded from both challenges and benefits of technological evolution

How to develop actionable roadmaps that track implementation and progress of WSIS action lines, SDG goals, and GDC commitments

Speaker

Fabrizia Benini

Explanation

Need for clear understanding of current status and required actions to avoid duplication and increase coordination

How to ensure succession planning for technical pioneers and maintain core infrastructure

Speaker

Silvia Cadena

Explanation

Important to maintain systems that enabled growth while integrating next generation without breaking existing functionality

How to create incentives for countries to participate in development of global open standards

Speaker

Silvia Cadena

Explanation

Need to move beyond being just adopters of technology to active participants in standard development