IGF Leadership Panel Event

Summary

This discussion centered on the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as it marks its 20th anniversary, featuring members of the IGF Leadership Panel discussing strategic visions for strengthening the forum’s institutional role and global impact. The panel, formed in 2022 based on recommendations from the UN Secretary General’s roadmap for digital cooperation, aims to provide strategic guidance and promote greater impact from IGF discussions.

Vint Cerf, chair of the Leadership Panel, emphasized the need for the IGF to achieve a more permanent role within the UN system and increase its policy-making impact, particularly in light of dramatic technological changes like AI capabilities and challenges such as information pollution and uneven economic benefits from internet access. The panelists advocated for making the IGF a permanent UN institution with sustainable funding, arguing this would enhance coherence among UN members on digital technology approaches and enable better adaptation to future technological evolution.

A key recommendation involves positioning the IGF as a central hub for implementing and tracking outcomes from the Global Digital Compact and WSIS Plus 20 processes. The discussion highlighted the crucial role of National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) in providing grassroots implementation and bottom-up input, with panelists noting these initiatives have flourished independently and serve as valuable resources for localizing global digital governance discussions.

The panel addressed the challenge of translating extensive multi-stakeholder discussions into actionable policy outputs for decision-makers, suggesting the need for executive policy briefs, targeted engagement with policymaking channels, and diverse output formats including videos and mobile briefings. Ensuring inclusive participation, particularly from underrepresented regions and the Global South, was identified as essential, with Norway’s hosting efforts praised for bringing 16 ministers from the Global South to the current meeting.

The discussion concluded with calls for urgent action, emphasizing that the rapidly evolving digital landscape requires faster policy responses to address challenges ranging from cybersecurity to information integrity while preserving the internet’s benefits for global society.

Keypoints

Major Discussion Points:

– Making IGF a Permanent UN Institution: The leadership panel advocates for transforming the Internet Governance Forum from a temporary mandate into a permanent UN structure with sustainable funding, enhanced secretariat support, and stronger institutional role within the global digital governance ecosystem.

– Implementing Global Digital Compact and WSIS Plus 20: Discussion focused on positioning IGF as a central hub for tracking and implementing outcomes from the Global Digital Compact and WSIS Plus 20 processes, with emphasis on creating complementary rather than duplicative frameworks and leveraging existing WSIS architecture.

– Translating Multi-stakeholder Discussions into Actionable Policy: Panelists addressed the challenge of converting IGF’s extensive discussions into concise, actionable insights for policymakers through executive policy briefs, targeted engagement with decision-making bodies, performance indicators, and diverse output formats including videos and toolkits.

– Enhancing Inclusivity and Representation: Emphasis on strengthening participation from underrepresented regions, especially the Global South, through financial support, capacity building, educational programs, and better leveraging of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) as grassroots implementation vehicles.

– Addressing Urgent Digital Governance Challenges: Discussion of evolving threats including AI infrastructure challenges, cybersecurity, information pollution, digital divides, and the need for the IGF to adapt rapidly to technological changes while preserving human rights and democratic values.

Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present the IGF Leadership Panel’s strategic vision for the forum’s future, focusing on institutional strengthening, enhanced policy impact, and positioning IGF as a lasting component of global digital governance. The session sought to explore how IGF can evolve to meet emerging challenges while maintaining its multi-stakeholder approach and increasing its influence on international digital policy.

Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a predominantly optimistic and forward-looking tone, with panelists expressing enthusiasm for IGF’s potential while acknowledging significant challenges. The tone became more urgent and direct when Maria Ressa spoke about global conflicts, information warfare, and the need for immediate action rather than just continued dialogue. The conversation balanced diplomatic language with calls for concrete action, ending on a note that emphasized both the problems to solve and the tremendous opportunities that digital technologies present for global society.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Chengetai Masang – Moderator of the session

– Vint Cerf – Chair of the IGF Leadership Panel (joining online)

– Lise Fuhr – CEO of GEANT

– Maria Fernanda Garza – Honorary Chair for the International Chamber of Commerce, Member of the IGF Leadership Panel

– Carol Roach – From the Bahamas, Chair of the IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)

– Amandeep Singh Gill – UN Undersecretary General for Digital and Emerging Technologies and the Secretary General’s Tech Envoy

– Maria Ressa – Vice Chair of the Leadership Panel, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Journalist

– Lan Xue – Chengkong Chair, Distinguished Professor

– Audience – Various participants asking questions during the Q&A session:

• Kwaku Enchi – Representative from Ghana IGF
• Mohamed Abdulhaq Onu – Representative from Bangladesh IGF
• Bertrand de la Chapelle** – Executive Director of the International Law Center (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network)

# Internet Governance Forum Leadership Panel: Charting the Future of Digital Governance

## Executive Summary

As the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) approaches its 20th anniversary, a high-level panel discussion featuring members of the IGF Leadership Panel examined the forum’s strategic evolution and future role in global digital governance. The session, moderated by Chengetai Masango, brought together distinguished speakers including Vint Cerf (Chair of the IGF Leadership Panel, participating online), Maria Fernanda Garza (Honorary Chair for the International Chamber of Commerce), Lise Fuhr (CEO of GEANT), Carol Roach (Chair of the IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group), Amandeep Singh Gill (UN Under-Secretary General for Digital and Emerging Technologies), Maria Ressa (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Vice Chair of the Leadership Panel), and Lan Xue (Distinguished Professor), alongside representatives from National and Regional IGF Initiatives.

The discussion centered on transforming the IGF from its current temporary mandate structure into a permanent UN institution with sustainable funding and enhanced policy impact. Panelists advocated for positioning the IGF as a central hub for implementing outcomes from the Global Digital Compact and WSIS Plus 20 processes, while addressing urgent challenges including artificial intelligence governance, cybersecurity threats, and information ecosystem breakdown. The conversation highlighted the critical importance of National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) as grassroots implementation vehicles and emphasized the need for better translation of multi-stakeholder discussions into actionable policy recommendations for decision-makers.

## The IGF Leadership Panel: Context and Purpose

Chengetai Masango opened the session by explaining the Leadership Panel’s origins and mandate. Established in 2022 following a recommendation from the UN Secretary General’s roadmap for digital cooperation, the Leadership Panel serves to provide strategic guidance for the IGF’s future development. The panel has produced two key documents: the “LP Outlook for the IGF’s future” and the “Leadership Panel’s WSIS Plus 20 priorities,” which frame the discussion around institutional evolution and enhanced policy relevance.

The Leadership Panel operates alongside existing IGF structures, including the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), to provide high-level strategic direction while maintaining the forum’s multi-stakeholder character. As Masango noted, the panel’s work focuses on ensuring the IGF can effectively address emerging digital governance challenges while preserving its unique experimental capacity within the UN system.

## Historical Context and Current Challenges

Amandeep Singh Gill provided crucial historical perspective, noting that when the Tunis Agenda was adopted in 2005, fewer than one billion people were connected to the internet, with no social media, widespread misinformation, or mainstream artificial intelligence applications. “We are in a very different context, and anniversaries are a good time to celebrate, but they are also important moments for us to reflect on where we are and where we are headed,” Gill observed.

The panelists identified several urgent challenges requiring immediate attention: the rapid advancement of AI capabilities creating new governance gaps, cybersecurity threats affecting critical infrastructure, information pollution undermining democratic processes, and persistent digital divides preventing equitable access to technological benefits. Maria Ressa delivered particularly stark warnings about the current state of global information systems, describing “information Armageddon” where “online violence is real world violence” and emphasizing that “without facts, no truth, no trust. Without trust, you cannot govern.”

However, Vint Cerf provided a counterbalancing perspective, arguing that “despite challenges, we must maintain enthusiasm for computing’s positive potential whilst addressing problems.” He emphasized that technological advancement continues to offer tremendous opportunities for human development and global problem-solving.

## The Case for Institutional Permanence

The Leadership Panel’s primary recommendation involves transforming the IGF into a permanent UN institution with sustainable funding mechanisms. Maria Fernanda Garza articulated this vision, arguing that “the IGF should become a permanent UN institution with sustainable funding and organisational evolution” to enhance its global impact and provide coherence among UN members on digital technology approaches.

Lise Fuhr supported this position by highlighting practical challenges facing the current structure: “IGF needs stronger secretariat support and sustainable funding mechanisms to handle growing participation,” noting that the forum has expanded to over 10,000 participants while operating under temporary mandates and voluntary funding arrangements. She specifically mentioned that 16 ministers from the Global South attended the current IGF, demonstrating growing high-level engagement that requires institutional support.

However, this recommendation faced thoughtful resistance from the audience. Bertrand de la Chapelle from the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network cautioned that “anything that would bring the IGF more under the umbrella and the structure of the UN normal processes will actually make it lose the benefit that it can have for the whole international system.” He advocated for maintaining the IGF as an experimental “sandbox” for the UN system and proposed considering a “constitutional moment” similar to the Working Group on Internet Governance process of 2003-2004.

## Global Digital Compact and WSIS Plus 20 Integration

A significant portion of the discussion focused on positioning the IGF as a central implementation hub for outcomes from the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS Plus 20 processes. Maria Fernanda Garza proposed that “IGF can serve as central hub for implementing and tracking GDC and WSIS outcomes through complementary processes,” referencing “The Internet We Want” paper as providing a framework for progress tracking.

Amandeep Singh Gill reinforced this approach, stating that “GDC and WSIS are complementary processes that can work through joint implementation roadmap.” He noted the establishment of an “Informal Multistakeholder Sounding Board” for WSIS Plus 20 and cautioned against creating additional forums given budgetary constraints, instead advocating for existing forums to work more effectively.

The panelists agreed that leveraging existing WSIS architecture, including the IGF’s established multi-stakeholder mechanisms, would provide more efficient implementation pathways than developing entirely new institutional structures.

## Enhancing Policy Translation and Output Effectiveness

One of the most significant challenges identified was translating the IGF’s extensive multi-stakeholder discussions into actionable policy recommendations for decision-makers. Lan Xue provided a particularly insightful framework: “To be policy relevant, the IGF must evolve from a space of dialogue to a platform of strategic translation. That means not just capturing multi-stakeholder voices, but actively distilling, aligning, and inserting them into global and national governance pipelines.”

Specific mechanisms proposed included:

– Executive policy briefs (5-8 pages) summarizing key takeaways with priority recommendations

– Digital policy action trackers documenting voluntary commitments and tested solutions

– Policy liaison officers converting IGF outputs into formats relevant for specific venues like G20, ITU, and UNGA

– Diversified output formats including video explainers and mobile briefings

– Better alignment of IGF deliverables with policy calendars of major international forums

Carol Roach emphasized the importance of targeted engagement with specific decision-makers, arguing that “policy outputs must be targeted to specific decision-makers with tailored messaging and feedback mechanisms.”

## National and Regional Initiatives: Grassroots Implementation

The discussion highlighted the crucial role of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) as bridges between global policy discussions and local implementation. Vint Cerf noted that “NRIs have flourished independently and represent valuable grassroots engagement mechanisms,” emphasizing their organic development and local relevance.

Representatives from Ghana and Bangladesh IGFs provided concrete examples during the audience interaction. Kwaku Enchi from Ghana IGF described their children’s IGF initiative and asked about industry collaboration beyond the technology sector. Mohamed Abdulhaq Onu from Bangladesh IGF emphasized the importance of ensuring meaningful Global South participation in WSIS Plus 20 and GDC implementation processes.

The panelists agreed that strengthening NRI capacity building and financial support mechanisms would be essential for enhancing participation from underrepresented regions and ensuring that global digital governance reflects diverse perspectives and needs.

## Inclusion and Digital Sovereignty

The discussion addressed persistent challenges in ensuring inclusive participation across regions, sectors, and demographics. Lise Fuhr identified specific needs for supporting underrepresented regions financially and educationally, including broader private sector participation beyond large technology companies.

Amandeep Singh Gill provided important context about evolving needs in the Global South: “The demand has shifted. Now the demand is for digital sovereignty, moving from being content consumers to becoming content creators, moving up the value chain.” This insight challenged traditional approaches to digital inclusion that focus primarily on basic connectivity.

The panelists identified several inclusion priorities:

– Financial support mechanisms for participants from underrepresented regions

– Educational programs building digital governance capacity

– Engagement with broader private sector and industries beyond technology

– Enhanced youth participation through expanded children’s IGF initiatives

## Urgency and the Technology-Policy Gap

Maria Ressa delivered the most urgent call for action, emphasizing the dangerous gap between rapidly advancing technology and slower policy development processes. “Technology moves at warp speed while policy moves slowly, creating dangerous gaps in governance,” she warned, connecting digital governance failures directly to global conflicts and democratic erosion. “War is deeply connected to here,” she emphasized.

This tension between urgency and measured progress emerged as a recurring theme, with panelists generally agreeing on the need for faster policy responses while debating appropriate mechanisms for institutional change.

## Areas of Consensus and Remaining Challenges

Despite some differences in approach, the panelists demonstrated broad agreement on several key issues:

– **Sustainable Funding**: All speakers agreed that the IGF requires sustainable funding mechanisms and stronger institutional support

– **Complementary Global Processes**: Strong agreement that GDC and WSIS Plus 20 should be implemented as complementary rather than competing processes

– **NRI Strategic Importance**: Unanimous recognition of National and Regional Initiatives as valuable independent entities

– **Better Policy Translation**: Agreement on the need to improve how the IGF translates discussions into actionable policy outputs

– **Broader Inclusion**: Consensus on expanding participation beyond traditional stakeholders

However, several important issues remained unresolved, including specific funding mechanisms, the exact process for achieving permanent UN status, and concrete strategies for AI governance integration.

## Conclusion

The IGF Leadership Panel discussion revealed a forum at a critical juncture, with broad agreement on the need for institutional evolution while maintaining its unique multi-stakeholder experimental character. The panelists demonstrated sophisticated understanding of the challenges facing global digital governance, from artificial intelligence and cybersecurity to information integrity and democratic participation.

As Vint Cerf emphasized in his closing remarks, the IGF community must maintain enthusiasm for technology’s positive potential while addressing serious governance challenges. Maria Ressa concluded with a call for urgency, emphasizing that the stakes of digital governance failures extend far beyond technical discussions to fundamental questions of democracy and peace.

The path forward requires both institutional evolution and preservation of the collaborative spirit that has made the IGF a unique space for multi-stakeholder dialogue. Success will depend on translating these strategic visions into concrete actions that enhance the forum’s policy relevance and global impact while preserving the experimental, inclusive character that has made the IGF a valuable contribution to global digital governance over its first two decades.

Chengetai Masango: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the high-level track session with the leadership panel on the future of the IGF. The leadership panel was formed in 2022 from a recommendation in the Secretary General’s roadmap for digital cooperation. The IGF leadership panel is a strategic, empowered and multi-stakeholder body whose purpose is to address strategic and urgent issues and to highlight forum discussions and possible follow-up actions in order to promote greater impact and dissemination of IGF discussions.

The panel performs the following key functions. It provides strategic inputs and advice on the IGF. It promotes the IGF and its outputs. It supports both high-level and at-large stakeholder engagement in the IGF and IGF fundraising efforts. And finally, the leadership panel exchanges IGF outputs from the forum with other stakeholders and relevant fora and facilitates the feeding of input of these decision-makers and fora to the IGF’s agenda-setting process, leveraging relevant MAG experts. This session brings together members of the IGF leadership panel to present and reflect on their strategic vision for the forum’s future, drawing on the panel’s proposals for strengthening the IGF’s institutional role and supporting implementation of the WSIS plus 20 and global digital compact outcomes.

The discussion will examine what it would take to position the IGF as a lasting and impactful part of the global digital governance ecosystem and panelists will also explore how to enhance the influence of the IGF outputs, promote stakeholder inclusion and ensure the IGF evolves to meet emerging and global challenges. The leadership panel produced two key documents, the LP Outlook for the IGF’s future and also the leadership panel’s WSIS plus 20 priorities. Our panelists today are Mr. Vint Cerf, who is chair of the IGF leadership panel, who is joining us online, and we have Ms. Lise Fuhr , CEO of GEANT, Ms. Maria Fernanda Garza, Honorary Chair for the International Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Carol Roach, who is from the Bahamas, who is chair of the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory group, MAG, and Mr. Amardeep Singh, UN Undersecretary General for Digital and Emerging Technologies and the Secretary General’s tech envoy. We also have Ms. Maria Ressa, who is the vice chair of the leadership panel and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. We also are being joined by Mr. Lan Xue, of Chengkong Chair, a distinguished professor. I now give the floor to Mr. Vint Cerf to make some opening remarks.

Vint Cerf: Thank you so much, Chengetai, and good afternoon, everyone. I’d like to thank the Norwegian hosts for this short, fused meeting of the IGF and amazing preparations for it, but I’d also like to say thank you to the other 19 hosts that have hosted IGF over the years. Our objective as the leadership panel is to seek a more permanent role for the Internet Governance Forum and to contribute to WSIS plus 20 and the GDC discussions, especially by facilitating more interaction with the IGF and the NRIs that are a part of it. We’d like to see the Internet Governance Forum increase its policy making or policy recommendation impact, and we’d also like to strengthen engagement of the IGF and the NRIs with member states and to seek better involvement of underrepresented voices, especially youth.

I call attention to the youth activities at IGF 20. They are reporting on a daily basis and clearly very engaged. From the 2025 perspective, we can look back on the IGF in 2005 or 2006 at its first meeting when we’re now living in the vision that has now become a reality, but there have been some unanticipated developments. One obvious one is the AI capabilities that are vastly increased over the last several years. These are quite dramatic. Second, we’ve seen what we anticipated, which is social and economic impact of the Internet and the applications that lie on top of it. And unfortunately, we’ve also seen information pollution invade the Internet and something that we have to deal with. There is an unevenness in the economic benefits of access to the Internet, and that has to be contended with, something that we have to consider and try to deal with. And finally, we are deeply concerned about preserving human rights, both online and offline.

The Internet Governance Forum Leadership Panel has produced a number of papers. Chengetai mentioned two of them. We also produced an Internet We Want paper, which outlines our aspirations for the Internet. You’ll find all of these contributions on the Leadership Panel website, which is part of the IGF website. The MAG has also produced a very important paper called IGF Beyond 2025. And this, of course, is a very important set of guideposts for future evolution of our work. I strongly believe that we need to enhance the roles of the NRIs, who already are playing a very important part in local and regional efforts to make the Internet a better place.

We also, I think, will be participating in something called the Informal Multistakeholder Sounding Board that the WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators have invited. There will be members from the Leadership Panel and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group helping to shape the considerations for WSIS Plus 20. We are also charged with improving the funding picture for the Secretariat. We’ve not accomplished as much as I would like, but I would say we’ve increased the level of voluntary funding beyond where it has been in the past. And, of course, we hope to continue that effort in the event that the IGF is continued after the consideration at WSIS Plus 20. Finally, I just want to overemphasize the importance of continuing both the IGF and the NRIs. And I note that the NRIs have blossomed on their own and were not created by any particular effort of either the Leadership Panel or the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. They blossomed on their own and therefore they have existence independent of the IGF and their value should be very much considered. So, Mr. Moderator, I turn this back to you for questions for the rest of the Leadership Panel as we look forward to 2025 and 2026 and the future beyond that.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Vint. My first question goes to Ms. Maria Fernanda Garza and also to Lisa Fuhr. The Leadership Panel calls for the IGF to become a permanent UN institution. From your perspective, what is the significance of that status and what would it take practically to achieve this? And what would be the consequences if we don’t?

Maria Fernanda Garza: Thank you, Chengetai. It is a pleasure to be in this joint session in my capacity as a member of the IGF Leadership Panel today. And as Leadership Panel, we greatly value the opportunity to engage with the IGF community on the work that we’re doing to promote the IGF’s importance at the highest levels within the United Nations and elsewhere to ensure its viability for years to come. And I would not be serving on the IGF Leadership Panel if I did not believe that we need this forum to address the opportunities and challenges for humankind presented by digital innovation. I join my Leadership Panel colleagues today in reaffirming that the IGF has developed into a globally influential platform for open dialogue and collaboration among governments, industries, and technical experts on digital policy issues.

With over 10,000 participants from 178 countries, it has uniquely fostered and should continue to encourage inclusive, equal-footed exchanges that shape the future of the digital age. We need the IGF to be a permanent institution within the UN ecosystem, and this can help us realize greater coherence among the broad cross-section of UN members on approaches to harnessing the power of digital technologies to address developmental needs.

But with this permanence must come organizational evolution. In the Leadership Panel’s paper, The Outlook on the IGF’s Future, we address the need of strengthening the IGF’s role into the UN system, make the IGF a permanent structure supported by sustainable funding, ensure the viability of the multi-stakeholder model for the consideration of Internet governance and digital policy issues, and enable the IGF to adapt to future needs as the Internet and the digital technologies continue to evolve. And to support this, we need a solid strategic approach to communications that informs, educates, and elevates interest in the IGF among the UN member countries. Our paper provides useful recommendations on developing clear communication channels and messages to demonstrate the influence of the IGF discussions on international policy dialogues that include the G20, the G7, and UN bodies. And in this regard, the IGF’s NRIs are tremendous resources, as has been just mentioned. These grassroots IGF organizations can tailor messages for local, national, and regional agencies, review outcomes, and feed insights back into the future global IGF sessions.

Strengthening the cycle would amplify the IGF’s influence on public policy in both national governments and the UN by leveraging its global multi-stakeholder reach. Also importantly, going forward, is that IGF outputs should include actionable recommendations that are measured using frameworks like the Internet we want, with regular follow-ups, which includes enhanced capacity and building to support NRIs engagement. If I may use a business term, and please cope with me on this, we need to establish key performance indicators, or KPIs, for the IGF that are tied to sustainability, to education, to healthcare, the environment, and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Through these KPIs, the IGF could then concretely demonstrate to the global community how the Internet and digital innovations can address and solve problems in the WSIS plus 20 scope. These metrics, in turn, would make the IGF annual reports more meaningful, and they will provide us a better pitch. Importantly, such reporting should highlight issues in organizational governance that need to be corrected to allow the IGF to continue to evolve and excel. The IGF already has the post-conference stocktaking exercise, and this would be used as a starting point for an improved and more formalized review process that creates accountability in the IGF’s organizational governance.

Lise Fuhr: Maria Fernandez said a lot of it, but let me just add on to it, because we do need IGF as the platform to have the difficult, interesting, open discussions on digital governance as such. I think we all agree, most of us who are here, but we also should look at IGF as a forum we should strengthen and make even stronger, more tangible. We’ve seen IGF has grown over the past 20 years. It has now more than 10,000 participants, so it is a digital powerhouse for the world. It needs a strong secretariat for this. We have an extremely good secretariat that can support it, but of course we need more sustainable funding for this also going forward. I think there are multiple ways of investigating how to get that sustainability, and that’s what we’re also doing as a leadership panel, looking at the solutions out there. I think there are severe consequences if we’re not addressing the current and future trends, and we want people to be connected to the Internet, but we are ready to ensure that it’s done in an ethical but also educational way.

We want to make sure people have access, but also that they have the right tools to use the Internet. I think the IGF is the body that can help us ensure this and come up also with solutions on how to connect the unconnected, how to ensure human rights, how to make sure that we have a safe and secure Internet. We hear that the IGF needs more tangible solutions, and I agree. That’s one aspect that can be useful, is of course to identify a practical way where nations and regions can approach Internet and technology policies differently and apply analysis and bring it back to the IGF as such. But we also need to look at how we strengthen the future goals of WSIS plus 20, and in that also the extension of IGF. In Europe, that would be an analysis of the digital single market and also Web 4.0, but I think we should bring, of course, the whole world together on this.

We need to visualize the governance of IGF and how it functions in terms of governance. So, is that an evolution from IGF to the Digital Governance Forum? Well, one thing is sure, it needs to accommodate any evolutions that is happening around the world in technology and digital as they happen and also as it has done over the past 20 years. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, and thank you for articulating the importance of the IGF, the importance of metrics, measuring where we’ve been and how well we’re doing, and also for evolution, we do have to evolve. My next question goes to Undersecretary General Gill and also to Maria Fernanda Gaza. A core recommendation is that the IGF becomes a central hub for implementing and tracking the Global Digital Compact and WSIS Plus 20 outcomes. How can the IGF, and especially the national and regional initiatives, operationalize this role?

Amandeep Singh Gill: Thank you, Chengita, and I want to echo Vint’s words of appreciation for our Norwegian hosts at the outset. Now, before I come to the question that you have raised, I just want to reflect on some broader challenges. It’s the 20th anniversary, after all, of the IGF, and when the Tunis agenda was adopted, we had less than a billion people connected to the Internet. We had nothing like social media or misinformation, disinformation. Artificial intelligence was a term known to very few people, and the digital economy as we see it today, trillions of dollars of value and the fastest-growing component of the GDP in emerging markets today, that was not obvious, apparent to people. And also the misuse.

We had very little appreciation at that time that we would be losing perhaps up to 10% of the annual output of the world to cybercrime, scams, and the like. And that’s the reality today. So we are in a very different context, and anniversaries are a good time to celebrate, but they are also important moments for us to reflect on where we are and where we are headed.

So looking ahead, there will be significant infrastructure challenges as AI infrastructure is built on top of the existing digital infrastructure. Challenges also in terms of… of energy consumption, sustainability, consumption of materials. Sometimes those materials are extracted in conditions which have implications for human rights. Data is annotated in ways in which, again, there are those implications. So we need to reflect on that transition that’s happening. You also need to reflect on the fact that today you have AI models that have ingested the entire content on the internet. And you can literally carry them in a bag, in a sense. They take some space. So it’s a very different world we are living in today. And five, 10 years from now, it’ll be very different.

So I think I miss sometimes those reflections that we need to have around these challenges of evolution, infrastructure changing, the demands that infrastructure is going to place, the fact that we are not paying enough attention to cybersecurity, cybercrime, the internet being a safe and secure place, and then the content issues. That time, we worried about spam, for example. Today, we have to think about information integrity, what is being said, how are some communities being marginalized, women, other vulnerable communities.

So we need to kind of spiral up from that space and think what it means not only in terms of processes and bodies, but also in terms of the way we grapple with those challenges. That said, coming to your point, I think the Global Digital Compact adopted last year at the Summit of the Future by all member states of the UN was a significant milestone. So two and a half years of negotiations, consultations, and during those negotiations, member states were very conscious that they should not duplicate and they should actually build on the WSIS agenda.

So the GDC acknowledges that in a solid way right at the outset in terms of principles. It also acknowledges the fact that people are wary of multiple reporting channels. So the reporting also on progress on the GDC is aligned with WSIS reporting. I think where we can find useful convergence, additional convergence, complementarities, how in terms of those larger challenges, how do we organize ourselves not only internally in the UN, but also externally in terms of the most important element of engagement with different stakeholders, private sector, civil society, the tech community, independent experts, and academia. So I see potential for that additional complementarity.

But let’s not forget that we are in an extraordinary situation. At UN , there are these budgetary financial questions. So creating additional forums, additional bodies is not something that goes with the current paradigm of international relations, the funding situation in the international system. So we can make our existing forums work better using this comprehensive agenda that was invested in, that was successfully negotiated, adding further complementarity, the governance mechanisms that are currently being put in place.

I think we would then take forward the spirit of Tunis, the 20 years of successful experience with the IGF to the next level of accomplishment. And I think the IGF, I mean, the challenge this year with the WSIS negotiation first and foremost is to ensure that the IGF’s mandate continues in as near permanent a fashion as is possible, achievable. I will not go into that because there are negotiations underway. It’s not proper for me to comment on those. They are in very capable hands. The co-facilitators, Kenya and Albania, are taking those forward. But I’m very optimistic too, I want to conclude on that. Very, very optimistic and very pleased with the work that we’ve been able to achieve in the leadership panel led by Wint and Maria. Thank you.

Maria Fernanda Garza: Thank you. We just heard that the GDC and the WSIS are two complementary processes. So being complementary, we can come together and think of a joint implementation roadmap to make use of the existing WSIS architecture, which has been facilitating a bottom-up distributed governance model. We have the WSIS Forum, the CSTD Annual Report, and of course, we have the IGF, to name a few examples. Focusing on the IGF, we have the diverse community, which discusses on an equal footing the issues that are top of mind to stakeholders and that set an inclusive agenda of priorities that can bring meaningful, informed discussions at the UN. To bring a metaphor in mind, the IGF has the same role as the canary in the coal mine. It can give an evidence-based warning sign of the challenges that we’re facing in the digital world. So let’s make sure to use this complementary as a sign to work together through a joint roadmap for the GDC and the WSIS. The WSIS already has its roadmap. We just have to link the GDC to be part of it. And a core recommendation is that the IGF become a central hub for implementing and tracking global digital compact and WSIS plus 20 outcomes. And how can the IGF, and especially the NRIs, operationalize this role? The NRIs can play a crucial role guiding implementation from the grassroots and enabling a bottom-up input.

During the past 20 years, the NRIs have flourished as has been mentioned before, both in terms of number of local IGF chapters that have been established and the increasingly sophisticated nature of their outputs. So in my view, they have emerged as the IGF jewels. The NRIs are uniquely situated to engage with local governments for the purpose of implementing the GDC and the WSIS plus 20 outcomes, and this access should be leveraged. To increase the effectiveness, the NRIs might join forces with local internet society chapters to provide localized insight into internet access, performance, and use. And these insights are crucial for developing informed policies that both safeguard users and preserve the benefits of an open internet. But just as the IGF as an institution must continue to evolve, so too must the NRIs.

And to realize this potential for local government’s engagement, the NRIs can use the evidence-based agenda that the IGF sets out to address local needs. If you have not reviewed the leadership panels, the Internet That We Want paper that was developed with the support of the entire IGF community and the MAC, I strongly recommend it to you. This paper aims to serve as a framework or roadmap for the IGF to take track of discussions and progress made in forging the shared solutions for realizing a whole, open, inclusive, free-following, trustworthy, safe, secure, and rights-respecting internet, not only at its annual meetings, but also across its intersessional work and network of national, regional, and youth initiatives. This framework can also serve as a base to keep track of the good practices and the achievements of the broader IGF community, including the NRIs.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Yes, we certainly have come a long way, but we still have many challenges. And we can only go forward together. And the two words that come to my mind is synergetic complementarity. So. My next question is to Ms. Carol Roach and also to Mr. Lan Zhao. How can the IGF better translate its vast body of multi-stakeholder discussion into outputs that truly inform global digital policy, especially for decision makers who need concise, actionable insights?

Carol Roach: Thank you. I think I’ll just expand on some of the things that Maria Fernanda has said. We must first determine who the decision makers are and what information they need to develop and put into place a digital policy. Who is also determined by the level of impact, interest, and influences of the person or entity. So once we’ve determined who, how do we package that information? The package is determined by what motivates the person or the entity, who they represent, and their objectives. This helps to focus and create concise, actionable insights.

So for example, elected ministers of governments are motivated by the needs of their constituents as citizens, economic prosperity, and the environment. CEOs or directors of businesses are motivated by the needs of their boards, shareholders, customers, prosperity or profit, and corporate social responsibility. You see the similarities there, the triple factor, people, prosperity, and planet. Once you have determined who the message is for and what the message is, we then need to determine how to transmit the message. There are various forms that we need to explore, toolkits, videos, video soundbites, user-friendly knowledge databases, and maybe even face-to-face debriefings. We also need to make better use of our internal linkages, so for the IGF among the UN entities, and more deliberate involvement of the NRIs, of the national and regional IGFs. Lastly, we need to see whether the message was received and did it have the desired outcome. As Maria said, we need to have indicators. We need to be able to measure. So this requires some kind of method of feedback and a way to measure the outcomes. If we are to have a meaningful impact, we have to be deliberate in how we deliver our outputs and measure the success. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: Mr. Xue?

Lan Xue: Thank you, Chengetai. And I fully agree with many of the recommendations made by Carol. Indeed, I think to better translate this rich multi-stakeholder discussions into impactful global digital policy inputs, outputs, the IGF can adopt some interlinked strategies aimed at increasing relevance, accessibility, and influence, particularly for policymakers who really need concise, actionable insights. So I’ve developed my recommendation along four dimensions. The first one is synthesis-oriented output design. I think the current challenge we face is that IGFs produce very extensive reports, session reports, and many of the transcripts and so on. But they’re often very long and technical and unstructured for decision makers.

So one recommendation is to create some executive policy briefs to summarize key takeaways of each IGF cycle and turn them into five- to eight-page briefs with some priority recommendations with a clear distinction between global consensus and also some contentious issues. The second is to produce some IGF insights digest that actually can help the policymakers to better understand what are some of the key issues that have been discussed. So I think that’s sort of the first one, is how to produce some synthesis-oriented output design.

The second approach is to have some targeted engagement with policymaking channels. I think there’s a gap between IGF discussions and the formal decision-making bodies, like the ITU, WTO, or UNGA. And so one recommendation is to appoint policy liaison officers to task them with converting IGF output into formats relevant to the specific venues.

For example, I think there are many of these platforms, like G20 Digital Economic Task Force, Regional Economic Commissions, and so on. So I think that’s one possible way. The other is also integrate with national and regional IGFs and localize actionable outputs, encouraging adoption by government through workshops and briefings, and also advance output uptake through the UN bodies. And of course, we have many people out there on the stage. The third recommendation is how to generate action-oriented multi-stakeholder trackers and frameworks. I think currently, I think the policymakers often wanted to have clarity on who’s doing what and what works. So one recommendation is to launch a digital policy action tracker based on IGF sessions, document voluntary commitments, tested solutions, and ongoing efforts across countries and sectors.

So that, I think, kind of an action tracker would help. The fourth one is how to see the formats, timing, and accessibility improvements. I think the policy cycle is often very time-sensitive. But IGF outputs sometimes lack both in relevance and format. So some recommendations are, one, address time deliverables to policy calendar. I think this is important to really target the deliverable things to the policy calendar. Align key IGF output with timelines for forums, such as UNGA or other UN bodies. And second is to diversify output formats. I think Carol has already mentioned many of the different formats, like 90-second video explainers, AI-generated sessions, summaries, and sort of mobile briefings and so on. I think those sort of issues, I think that sort of format would be helpful for policymakers. And also, leverage various language accessibility tools. I think that, actually, we have various AI tools that can help to do that. So to conclude, to be policy relevant, the IGF must evolve from a space of dialogue to a platform of strategic translation. That means not just capturing multi-stakeholder voices, but actively distilling, aligning, and inserting them into global and national governance pipelines through better timing, clearer formats, and focused engagement. So, Chengetai, back to you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Those are very clear and concrete suggestions. Thank you both. My next question goes to Ms. Lisa Fuhr. Now, the leadership panel’s vision documents stress the need to maintain the forum’s broad participation, especially with underrepresented regions and governments. What specific actions should the IGF take to ensure it continues to be an inclusive and impactful space over the next 20 years?

Lise Fuhr: Yeah. I have a long list. No. As the world is becoming increasingly digital, of course, it is paramount that we make sure that we have all the stakeholders around the table when we have the necessary conversations around digital governance. Part of this responsibility today lies with the host country. And I must say, let me compliment Norway here. You did a very good job at getting a lot of high-level people from all over the world, a lot of ministers, a lot of those political decision-makers that we are aiming for to have a dialogue with in a multi-stakeholder way. So we had 16 ministers from the Global South this year. That is well done, and I think it is impressive. Thank you.

But we also need to look into mechanisms that provide those underrepresented regions with the means to actually be involved. That can be, of course, financial means, but I also think it is important that we look into the educational part. That means that government offices can also make successful contributions. And I’m pointing to the governments, but I think the NGOs, the industries from all over the world, we need to have the same for all of these. And I think there we need to remember, as mentioned from some of the panellists before, we do have a very good network of national and regional IGFs, plus we have a lot of summer schools out there. So internet summer schools that are educating people in what is it… how is the Internet governance, but also the Internet as such. And I think that is a very good tool to be as inclusive as possible.

But I also want us to stimulate another stakeholder and I want more involvement by the private sectors and not just tech. We see a lot of big tech, a lot of big companies here, but it is important we have a broader range of industry and small-medium enterprises. So we need the banking, the insurance, they are big, but manufacturing and other businesses, because they are increasingly linked to the digital solutions. They use the Internet every day for their work and this is a very important tool in many of their business cases. So without those, we are actually lacking a stakeholder that is quite important for us. So I think it can also stimulate a bit of more buy-in from national governments and regional authorities if we actually have them join the program. It has also been mentioned that there are some intersessional working groups, and I think they are important in helping increase the knowledge, the visibility of what we do as the Internet Governance Forum and also to include as many people as possible.

So we have a lot of IGF working groups and coalitions that are doing a lot of work that can include also all the underserved regions. So one solution is, of course, let us use the current network we have of national and regional IGFs and Internet summer schools, but also to create a structure that helps the financial part of the problem, but also help build and facilitate the capabilities around in the underserved regions.

And I think this can also be done by using some of the Internet ecosystem organizations that are out there and they are already doing this, so I am not calling out that they are not doing anything, but IGF of course, but also ICANN, we have ISOC, we have the Internet Engineering Task Force and other organizations. I know also the numbering organizations are doing a lot of work on educating and including different parts of the world. And I think if we build this together with our national and regional IGFs, we have a strong structure to actually ensure better inclusion. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you again for those concrete and actionable suggestions. Before I pass the floor on to Maria Ressa to close off this section of the session, I would like to give the floor to Undersecretary General Gill.

Amandeep Singh Gill: Thank you, Chengetai. I just wanted to comment on this important aspect of the digital divide. Liz was mentioning about the need to take cSo I think we must be mindful of this important shift. So there is now demand for action for deeper capacity building. So the forthcoming report of the Secretary General on AI capacity building, innovative financing options for that, goes in detail into that. And I think we need to anticipate the coming AI divide, so that large parts of the world are not excluded from this tremendous opportunity, are not stuck at the low value end of this change. So I think we just need to be more nuanced about this digital divide reflection today. Thanks.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Maria Ressa, please.

Maria Ressa: Oh my gosh. I’m a journalist, unfortunately not a diplomat, so I will be very plain speaking on a lot of the thoughts. I think that if we really think about it, the world is completely different. Well, thank you to everybody who has come to the IGF, and while it’s been an incredible time being part of the leadership panel, learning from the leadership panel, I think we can do more. We must do more. And you’ve heard some of the processes of how we can do that within here, but look again at our world today, right? Just four days ago, bombs dropped on Iran. Then you still have a world burning. Gaza continues to burn. Ukraine fighting continues. All of this is not disconnected from the internet. This is connected to our broken information ecosystem. And you’ve heard me say this so often that, you know, without facts, no truth, no trust. Without trust, you cannot govern. Our conversations in the IGF is based on trust. While we still need to move forward faster, and I’ll just have three points on this, right? I think we need to stay spot on that our biggest challenge today is really to prove that an international rules-based order still exists. That impunity ends. And, you know, you can look at different parts of the world. So I think that’s first. And the UN is the leadership panel and the internet governance forum. I think that’s what we try to do. They’re much more diplomatic than I am. But when you live it the way we have, you know we’re running out of time. The second, multilateral, multistakeholder, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. But in Indonesia and my part of the world, there’s also a phrase that we used to use to describe ASEAN. Hi, ASEAN. Now it’s changing, right? But it was NATO, NATO, N-A-T-O. No action, talk only. We must, Indonesian, no. So we must actually move, take all of our deliberations and turn it to action. And then finally the last one, and thank you for pointing this out. Thank you, Norway, for going to the global south in this. What’s leadership look like in today’s day and age? Who will lead? I think that’s a key question. And to have 16 ministers from the global south here, the internet, the virtual world will determine what happens in the real world. Online violence is real world violence. Everything Amandeep had said, cyber security, these are all deeply connected. War is deeply connected to here. So I feel like the leadership panel and IGF, guys, we got a lot of work to do. And the sooner we can do it, the faster we can implement it, the better our world will be.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Maria Ressa. That call to action and words to think about. Now we’re going to have a section where you can come up and ask questions. There should be two microphones, one there and the other one over there. So I would ask that you would line up behind them. They’re lighted up, so you’ll see. And I would just like Eleonora to wave her hand so I can see her for the online participants as well. So, please, we’ll start off here. Yes, sorry, two minutes each for each person. Please go ahead.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Kwaku Enchi. I’m from the Ghana IGF. So, thank you so much for the panel and discussions. One good thing which has come out of our NRI, and I’m happy to tell you, Shengetai, I don’t know if it’s happening in the rest of the world, but we had an initiative last year with children, and in Ghana now we have the children’s IGF. I know we are big on youth IGF, but the children to have a voice, and I think it’s something that most of the participants here at the IGF 20th anniversary, so on the NRIs, can also take back home with them, in terms of the rights and responsibilities of our children. Second part is in terms of the collaborations and bringing people on board. I think one of the things that we’ve been having in workshops in the IGF, and also an important aspect is being collaborative or complementarity. So, the other industries, whether it’s energy or whether it’s finance, I think we need to also include them in our IGF. Let’s reach out to them. We know we participate in different sessions, but please, let’s also be as inclusive in the other industries as well. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. This is Mohamed Abdulhaq Onu from Bangladesh IGF. How can the IGF leadership panel ensure that the voices and outputs of national and regional initiative, especially from the Global South, meaningfully influence the implementation process of the WSIS plus 20 and Global Digital Compact outcomes? I think we have the aspirations, fine, and I would thank Maria Ressa for putting some reality to the situation. We have to show that impunity isn’t raining. And recent evidence is kind of to the contrary. So I want to say that the all the voices, all the individual country voices have to be heard. And for small country areas like where I come from in the Caribbean, sometimes these issues are not so clear. And the importance or the value, the urgency of them is not clear to the politicians on board. So I want to call for some, that we factor in. I want to call for some, that we factor in. Some outreach and engagements by the leadership, right? And in some cases, it would be personal outreach to reach the political elite or the political leaders in each of the individual countries. Because the more voices we have raising on the UN floor is the more, is the better our chances of showing that we have a international rule of law still applies. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you. I also just like to remind our online participants that you can ask questions in the Zoom chat. We have somebody who’s, we have an online moderator who’s also looking at that. Please.

Audience: Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand de la Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the International Law Center. We have a number of people here and we have a lot of questions that come up. But I just want to give an overview of the internet and jurisdiction policy network. Two comments.

The first one, as I was listening to the discussion, there’s an image that came to mind, which is that we should consider the IGF as a sandbox for the UN. It is a space for experimentation. It is a space for the UN to have a conversation about issues and issues of the UN. We should consider the fact that the international organization is actually allowed to relax some of the rules that are constraining the discussions in international organizations. Particularly regarding participation and non-governmental actors, but also for putting things on the agenda. International organization in the multilateral system has a huge difficulty putting issues on the agenda in a multilateral system. It usually leads to losing four to five years before they are being even addressed. The IGF has the unique capacity to help shape the discussion, to help identify the different perspectives, if it were even more structured. But think of it as a sandbox. And in this regard, anything that would bring the IGF more under the umbrella and the structure of the UN normal processes will actually make it lose the benefit that it can have for the whole international system.

Second thing, I think it was Maria Fernanda Garza, or maybe Liz, I don’t remember, who used a very interesting expression which is organizational evolution. I personally have been participating in this since the very origin, and actually, I still have the bag of the 2006 IGF that I carry in my hand. It shows the endurance and resilience of what was done then. I do not care that much about how permanent or not permanent the IGF is going to be reconducted right now. What I care about is its organizational evolution. We are 20 years in, almost. It is time to make this organization what it has the potential to be. And I think it is time to make the organization what it has the potential to be. The image that I have is that this is a wonderful car where all the pieces are in place. You get the wheels, you get the engine, you get the carcass, you get the doors, and it is still speeding at 40 kilometres an hour. Because it doesn’t have the resources, because the secretariat is under-resourced, because the organization itself is not focused on shaping and framing the issues. So, I believe that by the end of this year, the WSIS Plus 20 review will not produce any organizational evolution, and you should not even try to do so.

However, taking inspiration from what the WGIG did in 2003-2004, I strongly believe that one multi-stakeholder, and I mean truly multi-stakeholder group, in 2026, the WSIS Plus 20 review will not produce any organizational evolution, and you should not even try to do so. However, taking inspiration from what the WGIG did in 2003-2004, I strongly believe that one multi-stakeholder, and I mean truly multi-stakeholder group, in 2026, should address two questions.

One, the evolution and revision of the mandate and scope of the IGF and its function to highlight that it is an issue-shaping forum. And second, address its organizational evolution to produce a sort of charter. Think of it as a constitutional moment. Think of it as a constitutional moment. And third, address its organizational evolution to highlight that it is an issue-shaping forum, and think of it as a constitutional moment. So I think the leadership panel could have a role in helping to establish such a group, not be that group, but helping establish such a group. Thank you.

Amandeep Singh Gill: Second point about the regional implementation. So in the GDC as well, there is a strong emphasis on landing the compact, it’s five objectives, in regions, in national realities, and that’s why through the Working Group on Digital Technologies that I have the honor to co-chair with Doreen, SGITU, you know, we have the regional economic commissions so that the nuanced reality in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia Pacific, other parts of the world can be taken into account. So I see potential for the NRIs, you know, working on the kind of, you know, the enduring agenda of 2005, working together with other stakeholders who are grappling with some of these more recent challenges.

And finally, to Bertrand’s point, it made me recall, you know, a reflection in the high-level panel on digital cooperation, Jovan Kurbalija, my distinguished colleague, at that time, you know, he mentioned this aspect of policy incubation, policy incubators. So I think your sandbox idea, it’s clearly an interesting one, and using the outreach and the excellent composition of those participating in the IGF, you know, we can explore different aspects of a policy issue. So it takes you a step beyond the discussion mandate, in a sense, and also speaking to the organizational evolution aspect that was mentioned. So I think those are kind of very interesting reflections as we move into the next phase of our work. And I want to thank you and others for bringing them up.

Chengetai Masango: Maria Ressa.

Maria Ressa: Yeah, so sorry about that, I went the wrong way. So first, thank you, thank you for your reflections and for the leadership panel’s responses. On the question about where traditional journalists are versus social media, the technology that rules our lives literally is moving at warp speed while we still continue to move at the same speed policy moves forward. This is a huge problem. When I talked about impunity, I wasn’t just talking about the impunity that’s happening in the physical world, right, in how to stand up to a dictator, my most recent book. The bigger dictators were Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, right, versus Rodrigo Duterte, by the way, right, the president who tried to jail me for over a century in March this year was arrested on alleged crimes against humanity. And some of that was partly because Rappler, my news organization, kept doing its job at the worst of time. So the first is that the world is being changed by the very technology that we touch and live in and feed every second.

So every second we do not act, and this I’ll refer to Marietje Schaake’s book, The Tech Coup, she’s a former member of parliament, this book was published last year. In The Tech Coup, governments, people, if governments do not reclaim its power every day, they get weaker and weaker. Data privacy is largely a myth, right? So I think we, sorry, how do I answer that? Journalism has been commodified and corrupted in the same way that the traditional information ecosystem has died. We now live in a public information ecosystem where it’s lies spread faster, and then by design fear, anger, and hate spread faster. So if you think about that, right, like Vint and I, in our debates, we talk about this all the time. He’s always such a gentleman, but I always just keep saying, you know, the design of big tech is going to kill us. I don’t want to die. I keep going, and I feel like this journalism will not survive this time period. This time period, I started calling information Armageddon. This is why we need to all come together and talk together, but then beyond that, we need to make decisions, and we need to act. Because at a certain point, even if we keep talking, even if the organizational evolution, if we don’t act in time, we will lose what we had. So that’s the urgency I hope we all have. You know, from Bangladesh, my friend Muhammad Yunus is now president, right? It’s not so easy to govern. In fact, I feel sorry for any government official, because you cannot communicate to your people without insidious manipulation. And for every single one of us on these, we are insidiously manipulated. So sorry, I can talk about this forever. Let me bring it back, too. We are here together at the Internet Governance Forum, and please, from your part of the world, make sure your problems are brought up. And I hope that, you know, we put in the processes that not only make the voices heard, but also act in a timely manner. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: And for the final word, I’ll give it to Vint. Thank you very much, Chengetai .

Vint Cerf: Thank you to the panelists and also to the participants who made their comments and recommendations to us. I have to feel—I am compelled, I think, to respond to Maria Vesa in the following way. First of all, while we do face real challenges with this online environment and the digital technology that feeds it, to say nothing of artificial intelligence, which is a new player on the block, I also feel compelled to point out that we have benefited enormously from having the ability to move information around the world, to get access to it, to analyze it, develop it, and to share it. So I think the reason that we get together in the IGF is not solely to deal with some of the negative aspects of the Internet and the World Wide Web and the applications that live on it, but our enthusiasm for making it work for us. And I think that needs to be a very important part of our motivation. This is an opportunity to make this a better environment than it already is and to contribute more to our global digital society. So I’m here partly to deal with the problems that Maria outlines, but also because I’m still a great enthusiast for the power of computing and what it can do for us. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: Let’s give a big round of applause to our panelists. Thank you.

Agreement points

IGF needs sustainable funding and stronger institutional support

IGF should become a permanent UN institution with sustainable funding and organizational evolution

IGF needs stronger secretariat support and sustainable funding mechanisms to handle growing participation

Both speakers agree that IGF requires permanent institutional status with sustainable funding mechanisms and stronger secretariat support to handle its growth to over 10,000 participants and fulfill its potential as a digital governance platform.

Legal and regulatory

GDC and WSIS are complementary processes that should work together

IGF can serve as central hub for implementing and tracking GDC and WSIS outcomes through complementary processes

GDC and WSIS are complementary processes that can work through joint implementation roadmap

Both speakers emphasize that the Global Digital Compact and WSIS Plus 20 are complementary rather than competing processes, and should be implemented through joint roadmaps leveraging existing WSIS architecture.

Legal and regulatory | Development

NRIs are crucial for grassroots implementation and local engagement

NRIs can guide grassroots implementation and provide bottom-up input for global outcomes

NRIs have flourished independently and represent valuable grassroots engagement mechanisms

IGF needs mechanisms to support underrepresented regions financially and educationally, including broader private sector participation

All three speakers recognize National and Regional Initiatives as valuable independent entities that have flourished organically and serve as crucial mechanisms for local engagement, grassroots implementation, and connecting global digital governance to local realities.

Development | Legal and regulatory

IGF needs better output translation and actionable recommendations

IGF needs actionable recommendations with KPIs tied to SDGs and better communication strategies

Policy outputs must be targeted to specific decision-makers with tailored messaging and feedback mechanisms

IGF should produce synthesis-oriented outputs like executive briefs and policy trackers with better timing alignment

All three speakers agree that IGF must improve how it translates discussions into actionable policy outputs, with targeted messaging for specific decision-makers, clear metrics, and better formatted deliverables that align with policy cycles.

Legal and regulatory

Need for broader inclusion and representation in IGF

IGF needs mechanisms to support underrepresented regions financially and educationally, including broader private sector participation

Children’s IGF initiatives and collaboration with other industries beyond tech are needed

Focus should shift from basic connectivity to digital sovereignty and moving up the value chain

Speakers agree on the need to expand IGF participation beyond traditional stakeholders to include underrepresented regions, children’s voices, broader industries beyond tech, and support the Global South’s shift toward digital sovereignty rather than just basic connectivity.

Development | Economic | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

The urgent need for fundamental transformation in how digital governance operates, with Maria Ressa focusing on the speed mismatch between technology and policy, while the audience member calls for a constitutional moment for IGF organizational evolution.

Technology moves at warp speed while policy moves slowly, creating dangerous gaps in governance

IGF requires constitutional moment and organizational evolution to reach its full potential

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers caution against over-institutionalising IGF within traditional UN structures, preferring to enhance existing mechanisms rather than create new bureaucratic layers that could constrain IGF’s unique experimental and flexible nature.

Creating additional forums faces budgetary constraints; existing forums should work better using comprehensive agendas

IGF should maintain experimental ‘sandbox’ role for UN rather than becoming constrained by normal UN processes

Legal and regulatory

While taking different tones, both acknowledge serious challenges in the digital ecosystem, but maintain that engagement and action are necessary – Maria Ressa emphasising the urgency of threats, Vint Cerf emphasising continued optimism about technology’s potential.

Information ecosystem breakdown threatens democratic governance and requires immediate action

Despite challenges, we must maintain enthusiasm for computing’s positive potential while addressing problems

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

IGF as an early warning system for digital challenges

IGF serves as an early warning system for digital challenges and should leverage this role

Information ecosystem breakdown threatens democratic governance and requires immediate action

Unexpectedly, both the business-oriented perspective (Garza) and the journalism/human rights perspective (Ressa) converge on viewing IGF as an early detection mechanism for digital threats, though they approach it from different angles – Garza using the ‘canary in coal mine’ metaphor for policy purposes, Ressa emphasizing immediate threats to democracy.

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Resistance to over-institutionalisation within UN bureaucracy

Creating additional forums faces budgetary constraints; existing forums should work better using comprehensive agendas

IGF should maintain an experimental ‘sandbox’ role for the UN rather than becoming constrained by normal UN processes

Surprisingly, both a UN Under-Secretary General and civil society representatives agree on limiting bureaucratic expansion, preferring to enhance IGF’s unique experimental nature rather than fully integrating it into traditional UN structures. This consensus is unexpected given typical institutional preferences for formalisation.

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on IGF’s value and need for evolution, sustainable funding, better output translation, broader inclusion, and leveraging NRIs. Speakers agree on complementarity between GDC and WSIS processes, and the importance of maintaining IGF’s multi-stakeholder experimental nature while enhancing its policy impact.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment on key issues. The agreement spans across different stakeholder groups (government, private sector, civil society, technical community) and suggests a mature understanding of IGF’s role and potential. This strong consensus provides a solid foundation for implementing the proposed changes and positions IGF well for its future evolution and the WSIS Plus 20 review process.

Different viewpoints

IGF’s relationship with UN institutional structure

IGF should become a permanent UN institution with sustainable funding and organizational evolution

IGF needs stronger secretariat support and sustainable funding mechanisms to handle growing participation

IGF should maintain an experimental ‘sandbox’ role for UN rather than becoming constrained by normal UN processes

While Garza and Fuhr advocate for IGF becoming a permanent UN institution with formal structures, Bertrand argues that bringing IGF under normal UN processes would constrain its experimental nature and unique benefits as a policy sandbox

Legal and regulatory

Urgency and pace of action needed

Technology moves at warp speed while policy moves slowly, creating dangerous gaps in governance

Despite challenges, we must maintain enthusiasm for computing’s positive potential while addressing problems

Ressa emphasises extreme urgency and describes the situation as ‘information Armageddon’, requiring immediate action, while Cerf takes a more measured approach, focusing on both addressing problems and maintaining enthusiasm for technology’s benefits

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Constitutional vs evolutionary approach to IGF reform

IGF requires a constitutional moment and organisational evolution to reach its full potential

IGF should become a permanent UN institution with sustainable funding and organizational evolution

IGF needs stronger secretariat support and sustainable funding mechanisms to handle growing participation

Unexpectedly, an audience member (Bertrand) proposed a more radical ‘constitutional moment’ approach similar to WGIG 2003-2004, while the leadership panel members focused on incremental institutional permanence. This suggests different visions for the depth of reform needed

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively few fundamental disagreements, with most speakers aligned on core goals but differing on approaches. Main tensions were between institutional formalization vs. maintaining flexibility, and urgency of action vs. measured progress.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely shared common objectives around strengthening IGF’s role and impact, but differed on institutional approaches and timeline urgency. These disagreements reflect healthy debate about implementation strategies rather than fundamental conflicts over goals, suggesting good potential for finding common ground in moving forward.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

The urgent need for fundamental transformation in how digital governance operates

– Maria Ressa
– Audience

Technology moves at warp speed while policy moves slowly, creating dangerous gaps in governance

IGF requires constitutional moment and organizational evolution to reach its full potential

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Caution against over-institutionalising IGF within traditional UN structures, preferring to enhance existing mechanisms rather than create new bureaucratic layers that could constrain IGF’s unique experimental and flexible nature.

Creating additional forums faces budgetary constraints; existing forums should work better using comprehensive agendas

IGF should maintain experimental ‘sandbox’ role for UN rather than becoming constrained by normal UN processes

Legal and regulatory

While taking different tones, both acknowledge serious challenges in the digital ecosystem but maintain that engagement and action are necessary – Maria Ressa emphasizing urgency of threats, Vint Cerf emphasizing continued optimism about technology’s potential.

Information ecosystem breakdown threatens democratic governance and requires immediate action

Despite challenges, we must maintain enthusiasm for computing’s positive potential while addressing problems

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

The IGF Leadership Panel recommends transforming the IGF into a permanent UN institution with sustainable funding and organizational evolution to enhance its global impact

IGF needs to evolve from a dialogue platform to a strategic translation mechanism that produces actionable policy outputs with clear KPIs tied to Sustainable Development Goals

The Global Digital Compact and WSIS Plus 20 are complementary processes that can be implemented through a joint roadmap leveraging existing WSIS architecture including the IGF

National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) are crucial for grassroots implementation and should serve as the bridge between global policy discussions and local government engagement

IGF must address the urgency of digital governance challenges, particularly the gap between rapidly advancing technology and slower policy development

Inclusion efforts must shift focus from basic connectivity to digital sovereignty and capacity building, especially for underrepresented regions and the Global South

IGF should maintain its experimental ‘sandbox’ role for the UN system while developing better mechanisms to translate multi-stakeholder discussions into concrete policy recommendations

Resolutions and action items

Develop executive policy briefs (5-8 pages) summarizing key IGF takeaways with priority recommendations for decision-makers

Create digital policy action tracker to document voluntary commitments and tested solutions across countries and sectors

Establish policy liaison officers to convert IGF outputs into formats relevant for specific venues like G20, ITU, and UNGA

Implement targeted engagement strategies with specific decision-makers using tailored messaging based on their motivations and constituencies

Strengthen NRI capacity building and financial support mechanisms to enhance participation from underrepresented regions

Develop feedback mechanisms and measurement frameworks to assess the impact of IGF outputs on policy development

Diversify output formats including video explainers, mobile briefings, and AI-generated session summaries

Align IGF deliverables with policy calendars of major international forums for better timing and relevance

Unresolved issues

Specific funding mechanisms and sources for sustainable IGF financing remain unclear

The exact process and timeline for achieving permanent UN institutional status for IGF is undefined

How to balance IGF’s experimental ‘sandbox’ role with the need for more structured policy outputs and UN integration

Mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participation of Global South voices in WSIS Plus 20 and GDC implementation processes need further development

The relationship between rapid technological advancement (especially AI) and slower policy development cycles requires ongoing attention

Specific methods for engaging broader private sector participation beyond big tech companies need elaboration

The constitutional moment for IGF organizational evolution mentioned by audience member lacks concrete implementation plan

Suggested compromises

Rather than creating entirely new forums given UN budgetary constraints, enhance existing forums like IGF to work better with comprehensive agendas

Maintain IGF’s multi-stakeholder experimental nature while developing more structured policy translation mechanisms

Use complementary approach between GDC and WSIS Plus 20 rather than competing processes, leveraging existing WSIS architecture

Balance global policy coherence with regional and local implementation needs through strengthened NRI networks

Combine enthusiasm for technology’s positive potential with realistic acknowledgment of urgent governance challenges that need addressing

We are in a very different context, and anniversaries are a good time to celebrate, but they are also important moments for us to reflect on where we are and where we are headed…

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Reason

This comment provided crucial historical context that reframed the entire discussion by highlighting the dramatic transformation of the digital landscape over 20 years. It moved beyond celebrating achievements to acknowledging fundamental shifts in challenges and scale.

Impact

This reflection set a more serious, analytical tone for the discussion and established the foundation for why institutional evolution is necessary. It influenced subsequent speakers to address the urgency of adaptation and the inadequacy of current approaches to handle modern digital challenges.

The Internet That We Want paper aims to serve as a framework or roadmap for the IGF to take track of discussions and progress made in forging the shared solutions for realising a whole, open, inclusive, free-following, trustworthy, safe, secure, and rights-respecting internet

Speaker

Maria Fernanda Garza

Reason

This comment introduced a concrete framework that could serve as measurable criteria for IGF’s success, moving the discussion from abstract goals to actionable metrics. It provided a practical tool for accountability and progress tracking.

Impact

This shifted the conversation toward concrete implementation mechanisms and influenced later discussions about KPIs and measurement frameworks. It gave substance to the otherwise abstract concept of ‘organisational evolution.’

Online violence is real-world violence. Everything Amandeep had said about cybersecurity, these are all deeply connected. War is deeply connected to here… without facts, no truth, no trust. Without trust, you cannot govern… we’re running out of time.

Speaker

Maria Ressa

Reason

This comment dramatically elevated the stakes of the discussion by connecting digital governance directly to global conflicts, democratic governance, and human survival. It challenged the more procedural focus of other speakers with urgent moral clarity.

Impact

This created a pivotal moment that shifted the discussion from institutional processes to existential urgency. It influenced the final exchanges, with Vint Cerf feeling compelled to respond and balance her pessimism with optimism about technology’s benefits.

We should consider the IGF as a sandbox for the UN. It is a space for experimentation… anything that would bring the IGF more under the umbrella and the structure of the UN normal processes will actually make it lose the benefit that it can have for the whole international system.

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Reason

This metaphor fundamentally reframed how to think about IGF’s relationship with the UN system, suggesting that its value lies in its flexibility rather than formal integration. It challenged the panel’s emphasis on permanence and institutional status.

Impact

This comment introduced a counterpoint to the leadership panel’s main recommendations, sparking responses from multiple panelists and introducing the concept of ‘constitutional moment’ for organizational evolution. It shifted focus from seeking UN permanence to preserving innovative capacity.

The demand has shifted. Now the demand is for digital sovereignty, moving from being content consumers to becoming content creators, moving up the value chain… we need to anticipate the coming AI divide

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Reason

This insight challenged traditional thinking about the digital divide, suggesting that the Global South’s needs have evolved beyond basic connectivity to more sophisticated capacity building and economic participation.

Impact

This comment refined the discussion about inclusion and representation, moving it beyond access issues to questions of economic empowerment and technological sovereignty. It influenced how other speakers framed capacity building and NRI development.

To be policy relevant, the IGF must evolve from a space of dialogue to a platform of strategic translation. That means not just capturing multi-stakeholder voices, but actively distilling, aligning, and inserting them into global and national governance pipelines

Speaker

Lan Xue

Reason

This comment crystallized the core challenge facing IGF – the gap between rich discussions and policy impact. It provided a clear conceptual framework for understanding what transformation is needed.

Impact

This synthesis helped focus the discussion on practical mechanisms for policy translation and influenced the conversation about output formats, timing, and engagement strategies. It provided intellectual clarity to the implementation challenges discussed throughout the session.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by creating a tension between institutional ambition and practical urgency. Gill’s historical context-setting established the need for evolution, while Garza and Xue provided frameworks for measuring and achieving impact. Ressa’s moral urgency challenged the pace of institutional change, while de la Chapelle questioned whether formal UN integration was the right path. This created a rich dialogue that moved beyond the leadership panel’s initial recommendations to explore deeper questions about the IGF’s role, effectiveness, and relationship to global governance. The comments collectively shifted the discussion from celebrating achievements to confronting existential challenges, from seeking permanence to ensuring relevance, and from institutional status to practical impact. The interplay between these perspectives created a more nuanced understanding of the IGF’s future challenges and opportunities.

How to establish and implement key performance indicators (KPIs) for the IGF tied to sustainability, education, healthcare, environment, and SDGs

Speaker

Maria Fernanda Garza

Explanation

This is crucial for demonstrating concrete impact and making IGF annual reports more meaningful to the global community

How to create sustainable funding mechanisms for the IGF secretariat beyond the current voluntary funding

Speaker

Lise Fuhr and Vint Cerf

Explanation

Essential for supporting the growing IGF community of 10,000+ participants and ensuring institutional continuity

How to address the anticipated AI divide to prevent large parts of the world from being excluded from AI opportunities

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Explanation

Critical for ensuring global digital equity as AI infrastructure develops and to prevent regions from being stuck at low-value ends of technological change

How to better engage the private sector beyond big tech, including banking, insurance, manufacturing and SMEs

Speaker

Lise Fuhr

Explanation

Important for broader stakeholder representation since these industries increasingly rely on digital solutions and Internet connectivity

How to create effective policy liaison officers to convert IGF outputs into formats relevant to specific decision-making venues

Speaker

Lan Xue

Explanation

Necessary to bridge the gap between IGF discussions and formal decision-making bodies like ITU, WTO, UNGA, and G20

How to establish a digital policy action tracker based on IGF sessions to document voluntary commitments and tested solutions

Speaker

Lan Xue

Explanation

Would provide policymakers clarity on who’s doing what and what works in digital governance

How to ensure meaningful influence of Global South NRI voices in WSIS+20 and GDC implementation processes

Speaker

Mohamed Abdulhaq Onu (Bangladesh IGF)

Explanation

Critical for ensuring international representation and that all country voices are heard in global digital governance

How to conduct personal outreach to political elites in individual countries, especially small nations

Speaker

Carol Roach

Explanation

Important for raising awareness about IGF importance among political leaders where urgency may not be clear

How to establish a multi-stakeholder group in 2026 to address IGF mandate revision and organisational evolution

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Explanation

Proposed as a ‘constitutional moment’ to help IGF reach its full potential after 20 years of operation

How to address the speed mismatch between rapidly evolving technology and slower-moving policy processes

Speaker

Maria Ressa

Explanation

Critical challenge as technology moves at ‘warp speed’ while policy continues at traditional pace, creating governance gaps

How to expand children’s IGF initiatives globally beyond current pilots like Ghana’s children’s IGF

Speaker

Kwaku Enchi (Ghana IGF)

Explanation

Important for ensuring children have a voice in digital governance discussions about their rights and responsibilities