IGF Retrospective – Past, Present, and Future

Summary

This discussion was a commemorative session celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), featuring retrospective presentations from former MAG (Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group) chairs and community members. The session began with a visual tribute and moment of silence for deceased community members, followed by a keynote from Vint Cerf emphasizing the IGF’s enduring relevance in making the Internet resilient, reliable, and safe.

Former MAG chairs shared insights about the IGF’s evolution from its origins following the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Nitin Desai, who chaired the Working Group on Internet Governance, explained that the IGF emerged from developing countries’ concerns about limited influence over Internet management, which was primarily controlled by ICANN and the United States. The forum’s revolutionary approach brought together governments, technical experts, civil society, and private sector representatives as equals in multi-stakeholder discussions.

Markus Kummer highlighted how the IGF overcame initial mistrust between stakeholder groups, evolving from nervousness to genuine community building by 2008. He emphasized the forum’s “soft power” approach, noting that while the IGF lacks decision-making authority, it effectively influences policies made elsewhere through open dialogue and knowledge sharing. Janis Karklins pointed to the IGF’s mere survival for 20 years through voluntary funding as proof of its relevance, along with the proliferation of national and regional IGFs worldwide.

Lynn St. Amour discussed the technical community’s perspective, describing how organizations like the Internet Society became significant supporters despite initial challenges fitting into UN structures. She emphasized the importance of including diverse voices in Internet governance discussions. Anriette Esterhuysen noted the IGF’s successful adaptation from focusing narrowly on Internet governance to addressing broader digital ecosystem challenges, crediting civil society’s role in pushing for discussions on human rights, digital inequality, and emerging technologies.

The session concluded with reflections on the IGF’s continued relevance in addressing contemporary challenges like digital fragmentation, authoritarian governance, and the growing influence of big tech companies, while maintaining its foundational principles of multi-stakeholder collaboration and people-centered development.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **IGF’s Evolution and Multi-stakeholder Approach**: The discussion traced the IGF’s journey from its origins in 2005, when developing countries expressed concerns about limited influence over Internet governance, to becoming a successful multi-stakeholder forum that brings together governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector on equal footing.

– **Shift from Technical Governance to Broader Digital Issues**: Speakers highlighted how the IGF successfully transitioned from focusing narrowly on Internet infrastructure governance to addressing wider digital ecosystem challenges including human rights, digital inclusion, AI governance, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies.

– **Impact Through “Soft Power” and Community Building**: Multiple chairs emphasized that while the IGF has no formal decision-making authority, its strength lies in its ability to influence policy through open dialogue, knowledge sharing, and relationship building – creating a trusted global community that enables collaboration across traditional boundaries.

– **Adaptation and Resilience Over 20 Years**: The forum’s ability to remain relevant by continuously evolving its scope, incorporating new voices (youth, parliamentarians), expanding through National and Regional IGFs, and adapting to challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic was highlighted as key to its longevity.

– **Future Challenges and Sustainability**: Discussions addressed the need for continued financial sustainability, greater inclusion of underrepresented voices, addressing digital inequalities, and tackling complex emerging issues like big tech regulation, authoritarianism, and the role of technology in warfare.

## Overall Purpose:

This was a commemorative session celebrating the IGF’s 20th anniversary, designed to provide a retrospective analysis of the forum’s achievements, challenges, and evolution while honoring community members and looking toward future directions. The session aimed to demonstrate the IGF’s continued relevance and impact in global Internet governance.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently celebratory and reflective tone throughout. It began solemnly with a tribute to deceased community members, then shifted to nostalgic appreciation as former chairs shared memories and achievements. The tone remained positive and forward-looking, with speakers expressing pride in the IGF’s accomplishments while acknowledging ongoing challenges. There was a strong sense of community ownership and optimism about the forum’s future, with occasional moments of gravitas when discussing serious global challenges the IGF must address.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Chengetai Masango** – Role/Title: Not explicitly mentioned, but appears to be moderating the session

– **Session video** – Role/Title: Video presentation (IGF 20 years in motion visual retrospective)

– **Vint Cerf** – Role/Title: Chair of the leadership panel | Area of expertise: Internet governance, technology

– **Carol Roach** – Role/Title: Current chair of the IGF’s multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG chair 2024-2025) | Area of expertise: Government stakeholder group, from the Bahamas

– **Nitin Desai** – Role/Title: Former MAG chair (approximately 5 years), chaired the working group on Internet governance | Area of expertise: Former Under Secretary General of the U.N., Internet governance

– **Markus Kummer** – Role/Title: Former MAG chair, head of the Secretariat from 2006-2010 | Area of expertise: Government (initially), then technical community

– **Janis Karkliņs** – Role/Title: Former MAG chair 2014-2015, chaired the committee of the World Summit where the decision to establish IGF was created | Area of expertise: Internet governance, policy

– **Lynn St. Amour** – Role/Title: Former MAG chair 2016-2019, former President and CEO of the Internet Society | Area of expertise: Technical community

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Role/Title: Former MAG chair from end of 2019 until beginning of 2022 | Area of expertise: Civil society

– **Olga Cavalli** – Role/Title: Former MAG member, represented Argentina in the World Summit 2005 | Area of expertise: Government, technical affairs, Latin America regional issues

– **Jennifer Chung** – Role/Title: Former MAG member 2018-2020, head of secretariat for IANA Transition Coordination Group | Area of expertise: Internet governance, youth participation, Asia-Pacific regional issues

– **Cheryl Miller** – Role/Title: Former MAG member starting 2013, leads digital policy work at the U.S. Council for International Business, former attorney at Verizon | Area of expertise: Business/private sector, digital policy, legal

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Internet Governance Forum 20th Anniversary: Voices from the Helm

## Introduction and Opening Tribute

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) marked its 20th anniversary with a special retrospective session titled “Voices from the Helm,” bringing together former Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) chairs and key community members. The session, moderated by Chengetai Masango and Carol Roach (current MAG chair), opened with a moving visual tribute featuring a retrospective video of the IGF’s journey and honoring deceased community members with a moment of silence.

Vint Cerf, serving as chair of the leadership panel, welcomed participants and emphasized the IGF’s continued relevance in addressing contemporary digital challenges, setting the stage for reflections from those who had guided the forum through its two-decade evolution.

## The Genesis of Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance

Nitin Desai, who chaired the Working Group on Internet Governance and served as MAG chair for approximately five years, provided essential context for understanding the IGF’s revolutionary approach. As a former Under Secretary General of the United Nations, Desai explained how the IGF emerged from a unique governance challenge that inverted traditional power dynamics.

Unlike typical UN processes where governments held primary authority, Internet governance presented a situation where technical communities and ICANN controlled key functions while governments—particularly from developing countries—sought greater influence. The IGF was conceived as a solution to bring together technologists, governments, NGOs, and corporations on equal footing.

Desai highlighted the fundamental challenge of creating effective collaboration among groups with vastly different working methods: “The great challenge in the beginning was in getting these people to work together” because technologists work on rough consensus, governments operate through diplomatic processes, and NGO activists tend to be more outspoken in their advocacy.

## Building Community Through Soft Power

Markus Kummer, who served as MAG chair and head of the Secretariat from 2006-2010, traced the forum’s evolution from initial mistrust to genuine community building. He recalled how early meetings were characterized by mutual suspicion, but by 2008’s Hyderabad meeting, a true sense of community had emerged.

Kummer articulated a key insight about the IGF’s influence model: the forum’s lack of hard decision-making power actually enabled more open and honest discussions. “It allows for an open discussion. You cannot have in a forum where there is decision-making power because you fear that whatever you say today might be held against you tomorrow.”

This “soft power” approach enabled the IGF to influence policies and decisions made elsewhere through knowledge sharing and collaborative dialogue, including practical outcomes like helping establish Internet Exchange Points in developing regions.

## Stakeholder Perspectives and Evolution

### Technical Community Integration

Lynn St. Amour, former MAG chair from 2016-2019 and former President and CEO of the Internet Society, discussed how the technical community overcame initial challenges in fitting into UN frameworks. The technical community eventually gained recognition as a fourth stakeholder group and became the second largest donor to the IGF Trust Fund, demonstrating their commitment to the multi-stakeholder approach.

### Civil Society’s Public Interest Focus

Anriette Esterhuysen, who served as MAG chair from 2019-2022, provided important clarification about civil society’s role, noting that contrary to common perception, civil society was actually the smallest participant group in recent years. She emphasized that civil society’s unique contribution was its focus on public interest rather than particular interests, creating “dynamic tension” that kept other stakeholders accountable.

Esterhuysen credited civil society with driving the IGF’s expansion beyond narrow technical governance to address broader issues including human rights, digital inequality, and emerging technologies.

### Business Sector Development

Cheryl Miller, a former MAG member starting in 2013, discussed how business participation evolved to include stronger corporate responsibility programs and increased cross-stakeholder collaboration, particularly around sustainability concerns and the IANA transition.

## Expanding Scope and Maintaining Relevance

### From Internet Governance to Digital Ecosystem Governance

A significant theme throughout the discussion was the IGF’s successful evolution from narrow Internet governance discussions to addressing broader digital ecosystem challenges. As Esterhuysen noted, the IGF managed to shift “from being a forum about the governance of the Internet, to being a forum about the governance of the use and evolution of the Internet.”

This expansion enabled the IGF to remain relevant as digital technologies became central to all aspects of society, incorporating discussions on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, digital inclusion, and human rights online.

### Youth Engagement and Innovation

Jennifer Chung, former MAG member from 2018-2020 who headed the secretariat for the IANA Transition Coordination Group, highlighted successful adaptations including youth participation through parliamentary tracks and global youth summits. She also noted how the IGF demonstrated resilience during COVID-19 by conducting its first virtual meeting.

### Regional and National Expansion

The proliferation of National and Regional IGFs was cited as evidence of the model’s effectiveness, creating a global network of Internet governance discussions that extended the forum’s reach far beyond the annual global meeting.

## Early Advocacy and Capacity Building

Olga Cavalli, a former MAG member who represented Argentina in the World Summit 2005, provided valuable historical perspective on Argentina’s early role in proposing the IGF’s creation. She emphasized the ongoing importance of capacity building, particularly highlighting the Internet Society’s school for training young people in Latin America and the continued challenge of connecting the “next billion” users to the Internet.

## Validation Through Voluntary Support

Janis Karklins, who served as MAG chair from 2014-2015 and chaired the committee where the decision to establish the IGF was made, argued that the forum’s survival for 20 years through voluntary funding constituted proof of its continued relevance. Since the IGF was never funded by the regular UN budget, its existence depended on stakeholders finding sufficient value to continue supporting it financially.

## Contemporary Challenges and Future Directions

Despite the celebratory nature of the session, speakers acknowledged significant ongoing challenges. Esterhuysen emphasized that the IGF must continue addressing tough questions including authoritarian governance, big tech accountability, and digital inequality, while maintaining its willingness to confront uncomfortable topics.

Key challenges identified included:

– Ensuring adequate inclusion and addressing digital exclusion

– Maintaining institutional sustainability while preserving participatory character

– Balancing the need for stable resources with bottom-up governance

– Addressing increasingly complex global digital challenges

## Connection to WSIS and Development Goals

Throughout the discussion, speakers maintained focus on the IGF’s connection to World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) goals and people-centered development. The forum’s role in ensuring technology serves to improve lives and address development challenges remained central to its mission.

## Conclusion: A Foundation for the Future

The 20th anniversary session revealed an institution that had successfully navigated significant challenges while maintaining core principles and adapting to changing circumstances. The IGF’s journey from addressing specific governance gaps to becoming a globally recognized forum for digital ecosystem governance demonstrated remarkable institutional evolution.

Key factors in the IGF’s success included its innovative multi-stakeholder approach, its “soft power” influence model that enabled open dialogue, its willingness to evolve while maintaining core principles, and its ability to build genuine community across traditional boundaries.

As the forum enters its third decade, the foundation of trust, collaboration, and shared commitment to inclusive digital development established over the past 20 years provides a strong basis for addressing future challenges. The strong consensus among speakers from different backgrounds and time periods suggested a mature, collaborative community capable of continued evolution while maintaining unity of purpose.

The session concluded with optimism about the IGF’s future, tempered by recognition of the significant work required to maintain relevance and effectiveness in an increasingly complex digital landscape.

Chengetai Masango: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and also good afternoon, evening to those of you who are joining us online. Thank you very much for joining us this early in the morning for those of you who are in the room. Welcome to the first session of day one of the IGF 2025 meeting here in beautiful Lillestrom. To commemorate the IGF’s 20th anniversary, we are holding this 70-minute session providing a retrospective of the Internet Governance Forum’s journey over the past two decades, reflecting upon its significant achievements and the challenges that it has navigated, honoring the diverse community that has helped shape it, examining its history, impact, and possible future directions. We will start with a short visual retrospective, the IGF 20 years in motion, then a short video tribute to community members who have passed, followed by a short keynote speech by the chair of the leadership panel, Vint Cerf, and then a panel discussion with the MAG chairs. So now we’ll have the video of the visual retrospective, IGF 20 years in motion.

Session video: The Internet is more than apps and social media. The Internet is the backbone of modern life. It powers education, commerce, healthcare, and connects societies around the globe. As we rely more on digital systems, we need an Internet that is accessible, secure, inclusive, and resilient. That’s where the Internet Governance Forum comes in. The IGF is a platform where governments, civil society, businesses, youth, and tech experts come together to shape the digital future. Across more than 170 national and regional IGFs, global conversations spark local action and local realities inform global policy on critical digital issues, from AI governance and digital inclusion to cybersecurity. But an Internet that serves everyone must also be governed by everyone. Trust and inclusion is the foundation of a connected and resilient digital world. At the IGF, diverse voices from every region, sector, and discipline define the rules of our digital future, ensuring decisions are informed, uphold global values, and put people at the center of policy. And when diverse voices come together in trust, something powerful happens. Innovation in governance. At the IGF, dialogue doesn’t stop at discussion. It leads to action. Our dynamic coalitions, policy networks, and best practice forums continuously work to address the governance of emerging technologies and informed decision makers, turning collaboration into practical policy tools. The IGF, 20 years of building governance together and a future waiting to be shaped.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you. We have come a long way, but let us now have a short tribute, remembering those who have gone before us. Thank you. Can we stand and have a minute of silence for them? Thank you. Thank you, their contribution will always be remembered. Now, if Vint Cerf is online, he will give a short keynote speech on the enduring relevance of the IGF. Vint, please take it away.

Vint Cerf: Thank you so much for your time, and good morning to you. It’s just a little after three o’clock in the morning here in Washington, so I hope I’m awake. First of all, I must say, the tribute was lovely, seeing all of those familiar faces. It’s a little hard to believe that they’re not with us anymore, but thank you to the staff for preparing that. Twenty years ago, a question was asked, actually a little more than 20, in 2003, the question was asked, what is an information society? And I think a lot of us believe that we’ve always been an information society, but the technology of holding and propagating that information has changed, and at the time that question was asked, new technology had emerged, the Internet and the World Wide Web, which by that time, in 2003, were already 20 years old from the operational point of view, 10 years old, roughly, with regard to the World Wide Web, and yet by that time, by 2003, there was prescient recognition that this was powerful technology, and it was going to have a big impact on the rest of the world, as indeed it has, as we look back over the last 20 years of its evolution and penetration into our society. Well, then the question was, how do we govern such an information society? And no one was sure, but they said the Internet is clearly something that is core to this concept, so they set up the working group on Internet governance, the WGIG, and they couldn’t resolve that, and by 2005, 20 years ago, the conclusion was to create an Internet governance forum to talk about that problem and to try to address it, and here we are, 20 years later, we need the Internet governance forum more now than we ever did, even though it was recognized 20 years ago. What is it that we’re looking for? We’re looking for policies that will make the Internet resilient, reliable, and safe. Those are paramount objectives, but there’s more. It has to be accessible in every sense of the word, that includes affordable, and it has to be sustainable. We have 17 sustainable development goals, but the 18th one is keeping the Internet going because we have become so much more dependent on it in the 20 years of the IGF’s operation, so our work continues, and here it is, 2025, and we can report to the World Summit on the Information Society that the Internet governance forum, the multi-stakeholder advisory group, the leadership panel, and all of you are ready to continue the work. Thanks very much for listening.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Vint, and thank you for your continued support for the IGF process. I would like now to introduce the current chair of the IGF’s multi-stakeholder advisory group, Ms. Carol Roach of the Bahamas, who is going to chair the voices from the helm section. Carol?

Carol Roach: Thank you. This session at IGF 2025 will provide a retrospective of the Internet Governance Forum to celebrate the IGF’s journey over the past two decades, to reflect on its journey, to speak of the significant achievements and the challenges navigated, and to honor the diverse community that has shaped it. We’ll examine its history and impact and take a forward look to possible future direction. Who better to deliver this than a panel of former MAG chairs and from you, the community of participants? I look forward to what promises to be an engaging and meaningful reflection on IGF’s journey, past, present, and future. As introduced, I am Carol Roach, MAG chair 2024-2025, and I’m from the government stakeholder group. And please help me to welcome our panelists today. Nitin Desai, who’s online, remote, Markus Kumar, Markus, round of applause, Janis Karklins, also remote, Lynn St. Amour, and Anriette Esterhuysen. Thank you. Thank you. Kind of fast. I feel very blessed to be up here with these great captains that we have had over the years, as well as those that are online, and I’m just going to just quickly ask them to introduce themselves to say which years that they were chair and the stakeholder group from which they came. Markus?

Lynn St. Amour: I chaired the MAG in 2013, then I was working for the Internet Society, that is technical community. But before that, I was head of the Secretariat from 2006 till 2010, and there I came from government.

Carol Roach: Excellent. Lynn?

Lynn St. Amour: I was chair from 2016 through 2019, and I came from the technical community.

Carol Roach: Anriette ?

Anriette Esterhuysen: And I was chair from the end of 2019, when Lynn left, until 2021, beginning of 22.

Carol Roach: Yes, you were my chair.

Anriette Esterhuysen: And I’m from civil society, yes. Carol was a very hard-working MAG member.

Carol Roach: Thank you. And then we have Nitin?

Nitin Desai: I’m Nitin Desai, I was the person who chaired the working group on Internet governance and the MAG for about five years. I was put in there because I had no connection with the Internet, but I had had a long tradition of working and getting disagreement between different governments and including a lot of non-governmental organizations in it. I’m now a retired man and really look forward to listening to what everybody has to say of what has been happening in ITEA. Thank you.

Carol Roach: Thank you. Janis?

Janis Karkliņs: Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. So I was chairing the MAG 2014-2015, but also I was, I feel kind of a paternity to the idea of the MAG because I was chairing the committee of the World Summit in this phase where the decision to establish IGF was created, or was taken, and I feel very much emotionally attached to the process. So I’m looking forward to the discussion. Thank you.

Carol Roach: Thank you. So to Nitin and Markus, you’ve been through the evolution of the IGF, and why don’t you tell us about the role that IGF started with in the time that you were there and how it’s impacted lives over the last two decades. Also let us know what’s the key challenges that you think we faced and we overcome over that period as well. Nitin?

Nitin Desai: Well, I say that the origin of the IGF was the discussion at the Geneva session of the World Summit on Information Society, where a large number of developing countries had expressed their concern about the fact that they had very little influence on how the Internet evolved, and that it was done mainly by a private company, ICANN, or was also under U.S. control. So the origin of IGF was this concern about how the Internet was being managed at that time. The second point I would stress is it was very clear that this is a very extraordinary situation. The normal thing that I was used to as Under Secretary General of the U.N. was that you had governments in charge of everything and people from the non-governmental organization wanting to say. people from outside the government wanting a say. Here it was opposite. That this whole thing was run by engineers, the technocrats or by ICANN. And the governments didn’t have a say and they wanted a say in this. And in many ways, what we look for and what I personally pressed for as the chair of WGIG and NATOFMEC was to make it a multi-stakeholder. To bring together technologists, governments, non-governmental internet activists and the representatives of corporations. All of them to be brought together and to be brought together on equality. Now, if I had to explain how it evolved, the great challenge in the beginning was in getting these people to work together. Because in many ways, they had very different ways. Technocrats are people who really work on a rough consensus, ignoring extreme views. Governments in diplomacy are people who believe in a great deal of, far be it from me to say type of statements when they disagree violently with something. Non-governmental activists, because of the nature of their work, often tend to be very much more outspoken in what they want. And the representatives of corporations are very much more concerned with a limited thing. What I found most challenging was to see that these people work together in some ways. And that was in some ways the most useful outcome of those first five years when we were running the MAC. And what one found was that instead of these groups talking against each other, they started talking with each other. And they started being constructive in helping how to get to certain consensus, how to get to certain texts, etc., to come out of this whole exercise. And this, to me, was in some ways the most valuable and useful outcome of the IGF. And I think it’s a very valuable outcome, because I frankly think we need this in many other areas besides the Internet. And we don’t have it. Something which really brings together all of the people who have a say or a potential contribution in effective management. Now, at that time, in the early years, the focus was very much on governance of the Internet. But I think increasingly, as somebody who’s a user of the Internet, etc., I would say is this emergence of the importance of the Internet in our everyday life. And that has become very important. The social media, e-commerce, etc., etc., the communication system. And in many ways, the sort of large companies which are coming in and dominating. So in many ways, the issue that I hope the IGF has started looking a little bit more on is the use of the Internet by operations, etc. So my hope is that the IGF sets a certain standard. Yes, it is not an organization which has the power to make a decision, but it is an organization which has the power to influence a decision. And we are seeing this again and again. And my hope is that it continues doing this. And my hope, even bigger hope, is that people learn a lesson from the IGF on what we need to do in other areas of connection between governments, between corporations, between non-governmental organizations, between technologies, etc. So let me stop here. I’ve taken my time.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much. That was very powerful. Power to influence and the change that you that you saw and you helped to bring about. Markus?

Markus Kummer: Yes, when Nitin said it all and we learned from him a lot on how to hurt the cats and bring the people together. But allow me to add a name to the tribute of the people who passed. There was one colleague, friend who worked very hard with me on the working group on Internet governance. He was not part of the IGF, but he was part of the community that laid the foundation for the IGF. That is Frank March. He passed away two or three years ago. And I think I would like to add his name to those we pay tribute to. Now, the challenges we had when we started with the IGF was obviously we did not know what to expect. And there was a lot of nervousness and mistrust. There were those, especially civil society, who wanted almost a new organization. They wanted to start with working groups and whatever. And there was a strong resistance against that. And there was a strong resistance and the fear that the IGF might come up with wrong decisions. So there were a lot of people who were on the defensive. But I think we learned how to work together. One of the challenges was to convince people that there was merit in, shall we say, the soft power approach. That the IGF has not the hard power to make decisions. But as Nitin said, it can shape decisions that are taken for decisions that are taken elsewhere in other organizations. And that, I think, is increasingly recognized, that it allows for an open discussion. You cannot have in a forum where there is decision-making power because you fear that whatever you say today might be held against you tomorrow. Whereas in the IGF, because it has no decision-making power, it is much more open for discussions, for thinking aloud, for brainstorming. And that is the real power of the IGF. And the fact that it brings people together. As I said to begin with, there was a certain nervousness. People did not quite trust each other. And I had for the first time the sense that the IGF turned into a community. It was in 2008 when we met in Hyderabad. And there had been a terrorist attack in Mumbai, the same country, India, but it’s thousands of kilometers away from Hyderabad. But there are a number of delegations that canceled their trip because of understandable fear of terrorism. And those who were in Hyderabad then had the feeling, well, we are braving the danger. And there was a sort of a sense of community evolving. And I think ever since, you could see that there is, when people meet each other, you see that at the receptions, you recognize faces you haven’t seen for years. And there is a sense of community and people actually trust each other. People from governments now talk to people from business, civil society, and learn from each other. And that is the true value of the IGF, as Nitin already said. And the question is also, what is the impact? A lot of it is not easily tangible. But quite often you hear anecdotes. I do recall I was once on a panel, I think it was in Sydney. I sat next to a gentleman who was from a Pacific island. He said, well, thanks to the IGF, we now have an IXP. I learned at an IGF meeting how to set up an IXP, was in touch with the people who helped me then. And now his island had much better access to the Internet, thanks to the IGF. And there are many, many stories like that. It’s not a negotiated outcome, but it has a direct impact because people learn from each other. They have contacts, they exchange business cards. And IXPs is a very good example. We had from the beginning lots of workshops on IXPs. Before, people knew it was important, but they didn’t know that it is not rocket science to set up an Internet exchange point. But you have to go about it. And a lot of it is social engineering. The technical side is relatively easy. But this is just one example. And I stop here.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much. So we see that the IGF went from storming to norming to performing that we have today. And I agree that the soft approach has allowed us to influence a lot of policy decision making in member states. So we move on to the. Thank you very much, Nitin and Markus. We move on to the second question that I’m going to pose to Janis and Lynn. What do you think are the most significant achievements and milestones? And what do you think of the lessons learned from the multi-stakeholder approach? Lynn. Janis. Janis, sorry. Janis in an aeroplane. Can you hear us, Janis?

Janis Karkliņs: Yes, I do. OK. And I think you hear me, too. So, look, my answer to your question would be maybe a little bit shocking. But the mere existence of IGF after 20 years is already a major achievement, if I may say. Why am I saying this? Because when we started or we were thinking about IGF, it was never meant to be funded by regular UN budget, because then that would be completely different, a different sort of marketplace. It was always the idea was that it would be funded by voluntary contributions. And I still remember. and myself arguing that IGF will exist as long as funding will flow and funding will flow only until then that IGF will be relevant. And since IGF is now celebrating 20s edition, I think that that is already proof of its relevance and need for everyone. Because funding is not necessarily or was not necessarily coming only from governments or companies. It was very mixed flow of funding and that proves that it is needed for every stakeholder group. So that’s the one element. The second is proliferation of IGFs at national level I think is another proof of a good idea that we had at the time. Because the idea was to discuss topics of rather big complexity as we felt at that time and inform those who need to make decisions when they go back to make those decisions. It’s never meant to be a decision-making body. And this idea that IGF would inform decision-makers is I think also a good achievement. And on multi-stakeholder governance model actually when I’m looking in retrospect, there is not really big difference between multi-stakeholder model and intergovernmental model. In a sense that it may take a long time to make a decision. Also in governments I know that in some instances definitions are negotiated for decades. So it might be very heated, sometimes emotional, but it’s always constructive. And IGF is a very good proof of it. And what also is, as already Nitin said, that the cyberspace does not have monopoly of decision-making of any of stakeholder groups. And it was well placed by the GIG when they came up with this formulation that every stakeholder group act in their own responsibility and their own capacity. So these would be my thoughts on those two questions that you asked. Thank you very much.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much. Lynn?

Lynn St. Amour: I’d like to respond from certainly my time in the IGF and as MAG Chair, but also from the technical community. The previous three speakers have been from government or UN. And I’d like to talk generally about sort of my experiences and how I think the technical community has benefited from these processes as well as of course governments. So during the WSIS 1 and WSIS 2 summits and the preceding prep comms, and for the first eight years of the IGF, I was the President and CEO of the Internet Society. And this was my first significant exposure to UN processes. The same could be said for most of the organizations and what came to be called the technical community. Technical community refers to individuals and organizations who possess expertise and deep understanding of the Internet’s technical architecture, standards, operations, and related technologies. These organizations play a vital role in shaping and maintaining a technically viable and secure Internet. While often seen as part of civil society or sometimes the private sector, the technical community really has a distinct perspective due to its specialized knowledge and focus on the technical aspects of the Internet. At that time, ISOC was quite a small organization, but the importance of this whole endeavor was so clear that I dedicated a significant amount of time to attend the prep comms, which were several weeks long, as well as the WSIS 1 and 2 summits themselves. As did so many of my colleagues from the technical community. It’s still deemed important to participate and financially support the IGF as witnessed by the significant number of participants here from the technical organizations. The Internet Society, ICANN, the Regional Internet Registries, Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Architecture Board, the Root Server Community, CCTLDs, GTLDs, and W3C, World Wide Web Consortium. In fact, the technical community has been the second largest donor to the IGF Trust Fund and contributes significantly in funds and program support to the IGF, as well as many of its intersessional activities. We would only continue doing that if we actually saw benefit both to the development of the Internet and, of course, a clear benefit and reward for the organizations themselves. But coming back to the prep comms and WSIS 1 and 2, fortunately, some governments thought it important for the organizations that played a role in managing the Internet infrastructure or in contributing to its development to participate in these discussions. It wasn’t easy, as we didn’t fit neatly into the UN structure, but with the help of Nitin Desai, Markus Kummer, and Janis Karklins, who we are all eternally grateful to, we actually were given the opportunity to participate, which wasn’t a small feat. Because for those who remember the prep comm or WSIS modalities, for every three-hour working session, roughly two and a half hours was for governments and UN entities to speak, and if we were lucky and we weren’t squeezed against a lunch break, ten minutes each for the private sector and civil society. But due to the very deft maneuvering of the aforementioned chairs, we actually managed to slip a speaking slot in for the technical community in between those two communities. So at that point, as I said, we weren’t yet recognized, recognition as a fourth stakeholder group came later. But it’s important to note that these meetings were not at all like the current IGF environment, which focuses on discussion, openness, collaboration, and works hard to recognize and include all parties as equals in the discussions. Nitin, Markus, and Janis listened. I actually think, frankly, they followed their own great common sense, recognizing that additional voices and viewpoints were needed in those deliberations. The Internet’s unique architecture had enabled, for the first time, new applications which would come literally from any corner of the world and be deployed globally and very rapidly at scale. The uptake or success of these applications were based on end users’ views of their utility, not a regulatory decision by a government, which of course was common in the telecommunications environment at that time, or a service offering from an established company. This fact, of course, put additional pressure on any intersections of technology and policy. One lesson learned, one that we’re still striving to get right, is to be open, to listen, and to engage. The Internet Engineering Task Force has a principle known as the Robustness Principle, or Postel’s Law. It says, be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send, or in an IGF context, what you might support as policy. The key principle here is to be tolerant of variations in incoming data. This is especially important in today’s world. So it’s important to learn from the past and focus on what we should do in the future. The Internet affects virtually everything we do, and new applications, new uses, new threats can spring from anywhere. Dealing with all this takes a global village, acting in concert from the authentic and deep engagements of many actors. It is not uniquely the prerogative of governments or the private sector. Thank you.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much. I like what you said at the end, that it takes a global village in concert, yeah? Harmonizing, no discourse. Thank you very much. And thank you as well, Janis. Yes, I agree that the NRIs have really made a mark on the IGF. They are eyes and ears and hands and feet on the ground. Now moving on to Anriette , our last question, and a reflection on what you think is the most significant adaptation of the IGF. How the IGF has adapted to this ever fast changing pace of Internet and digital governance.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Carol. I think at the heart of this, and this is why the IGF has survived for 20 years, Janis, is to recognize that the global village is not such a healthy village, that it has sometimes no roads or it has roads with very big potholes in them, and people don’t have cars to drive on those roads anyway. And I think the reason that the IGF became and has remained, and I think continues to be relevant, is that it managed to make the shift, and it wasn’t an easy shift, and I’ll talk about how that came about, from being a forum about the governance of the Internet, to being a forum about the governance of the use and evolution of the Internet, which is the Working Group on Internet Governance definition. And that we’ve managed to make that shift from talking about issues that are more narrowly related to Internet governance, very much what the technical community is so strong at, to a forum that talks about a broader digital ecosystem, one that has so many challenges, so many inequalities, so many contradictions, but with the Internet at the heart of that ecosystem. And that’s why the IGF is so continuously able to reinvent itself, to remain relevant, to expand. and Janis Karkliņs. Thank you very much, Anriette Esterhuysen, Janis Karkliņs, Lynn St. Esterhuysen, Janis Karkliņs and Anriette Esterhuysen. I would like to expand the topics to not just talk about critical Internet resources, but to actually talk about Internet shutdowns, to talk about the challenge of how do you regulate emerging technologies, to talk about human rights abuses, about how censorship affects sexual and reproductive rights of women, about technology-facilitated and non-censorship, and how do you regulate the environment and the environment-based policies that were established originally. Now, who made that possible? I think it’s civil society. Because civil society is not necessarily always tolerant. Because if you are always tolerant, then you don’t achieve change. If you want to confront injustice, you have to take risk. And I think civil society has managed to bring that together, and I think that’s what we need to do. I think that’s what we need to do. I think that’s what we need to do. And having leaders and chairs, people like all of you here, Nitin, who set an incredible tone for us, I think, and his receptiveness and his appreciation of the role of civil society in governance processes, and I think that tradition has continued. Sometimes there are tensions. But I think that the role of civil society in the IGF is really underestimated. I often hear people say, oh, the largest number of participants are from civil society. In fact, they were not last year. They were the smallest group. But what civil society brings to the IGF is a very diverse set of people, organizations, institutions, who are actually not here to further their own particular interests, but to further the public interest at large. And I think that is what gives the IGF this relevance. And I think if the IGF can manage to continue having that openness to taking on these emerging challenges and areas of subject matter that relates very integrally to Internet and Internet governance, but that has a much broader and much more interdisciplinary role, I think it will just continue to have the power that it has had.

Carol Roach: Thank you, Anriette . Yes, I think you’re quite right that the IGF has been agile, and therefore it remains relevant. And, yes, civil society does, and I like that term, dynamic tension, and it keeps people accountable. When you have that element in there. So thank you very much. So we’ve heard from the past chairs, and let’s give them a round of applause for giving us a glimpse of the past and the present, and hopefully where we can go in the future. Now, this being our 20th year, I think it’s important to remember that we have a special MAG team, and it consists of former MAG members, and they were brought back, and I’m so pleased that at the last minute, they said that they would jump in and give us their perspective on what it was like when they were first on the MAG and present now. So we’ll first ask Olga to give us a little bit of background for the MAG. Let’s welcome Olga. She comes. Thank you.

Olga Cavalli: Good morning, evening to everyone here and online. Thank you, Madam Chair. Profiting from the good translation services, I will speak in my mother tongue, which is Spanish. I’ll give you a minute to put the hands up. Arrange the headphones. It was very enlightening and interesting, and I almost cried with all the memories of so many years about the IGF. Quisiera comenzar un poco antes que el primer IGF. In 2005, I had the great privilege of representing my country, Argentina, in the World Summit. This was 2005. We hadn’t even finished our documents. But Argentina was one of the first documents to propose the creation of this forum. We were one of the first countries to propose this. And, well, later other countries supported our proposal. And at that time, I didn’t know. But my life changed forever. I was the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Technical Department, and then I suddenly had to understand the process of the United Nations. I had to learn from my colleagues in the diplomatic delegations. From that time on, my evolution as an official changed. I became much more involved in the technical matter. We had one meeting every two years. And we had one meeting every three years. So, I became much more involved in the technical matter. We had one billion users. Now we have lots of people who are still not connected. We have more now, but there’s still people who are not connected. We have to learn how to attract the next billion. So, to connect Latin America with the principal internet hubs was very difficult. And it had a great impact on the price to the users. So, that was one of the principal topics. And in the rest of the meetings, subsequent meetings, we saw reemergence of a topic that was much discussed at the beginning. And that was the critical parts of the internet. And this discussion started on the role of ICANN, the United States, et cetera. And we saw how all that impacted in the institutions. And we saw the infrastructure was not well-prepared for this, particularly in developing countries. So, in the first years, we talked about privacy, security. And then we had net sex coming up. And what we see now is the need to create capacities. New people attract them to this process. And we have to create capacity. And we had a different approach at the time. But then suddenly, 2007, 2008, 2009, we saw that creation of capacity, strengthening capacity was important. And we followed up in Latin America with a school for training in internet. And it was trainings for young people. And they were friends from 2H, I think. That was the first time I saw an activity that involved young people. And we saw internet governance. And we saw that this spread regionally. And these have been foundational. And they have integrated this great community, set up a big framework that had created dialogues and spaces for dialogue on the internet. And we see the need to continue this discussion. And we see the need for continuing this discussion about all these challenges in internet for continuing this exchange. Thank you very much.

Carol Roach: Yes, there’s a saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. So, yes, we do have a lot of work still to do with regard to capacity building, involving the youth more. Thank you, Olga. Now we will have Jen, I think it is. Cheryl, sorry. Yes, welcome, Cheryl.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. For those who don’t know me, I’m Cheryl Miller, and I currently lead digital policy work at the U.S. Council for International Business. My first time on the MAG, I started 2013. And back then, I was a young attorney at Verizon. And you all may know a woman named Teresa Swinehart with ICANN, she was a senior leader at Verizon, and she walked into my office with this huge stack of papers and things, and she sat down on my desk and said, you now have the portfolio for Internet Governance. And I didn’t even know what Internet Governance was at the time, and I certainly , and the IGF. I’m a member of the IGF, and I’ve been a member of the IGF for a long time. I’ve only had a lot of reading. The next thing I knew, I was on a plane to Bali, Indonesia, for my first IGF, and that was back in 2013. Back then, I think we were struggling with a lot of different issues, just as an Internet community. We had seen a real increase in data access, and we were struggling with a lot of different issues, and we were struggling with a lot of different issues, and we were struggling with a lot of different issues, and when I joined the IGF 2015 in Brazil, I remember it was the first time I saw the word sustainable, and the title for that particular IGF was Internet Governance, Empowering Sustainable Development. We started to see this flux of issues. I think Anriette touched on this a little bit, and perhaps Olga as well, but I think that’s the first time I saw the word sustainable. And then, I think it was in my post, you know, reporting back to my company, trying to explain the importance of things, and that’s when we really started to grow our corporate responsibility program, and I think other companies as well started to really grow some of their corporate responsibility programs. Then, I heard this word that I’d never heard before, the word IANA, the Internet Governance, Empowering Sustainable Development, and then the word IANA, the Internet Governance, Empowering Sustainable Development. As many of you know, historically, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce had been responsible for managing those functions, all the Internet protocols, just the collection of registries that are critical to ensure the global coordination of Internet protocols, so the DNS root code, the IP, the IPv4, the IPv6, the IGF, and also through the different ICANN meetings, and a lot of focus on the future of the IGF. We were thinking about how do we make it sustainable financially, and how do we shape it. Markus does a wonderful job of really discussing the real value of the IGF, and from a business standpoint, it was one of the few places where I could come and really sit down and learn about different governments from civil society, and it was a humbling experience just to see how little of that I knew, and it was also humbling just to work on the MAG, just some of the most intelligent people I’ve ever met, and so it was truly a great experience, and we certainly had our disagreements, but what I’ve seen now as a MAG member today, I think there is a stronger collaboration. I think there’s actually a stronger collaboration across issues as well with business, civil society, the technical community. That was one thing that also was really heavily impressed upon me in all the talks around the IANA transition, just learning the technical components of the Internet, because when you’re a lawyer focused on policy, a lot of times you go down this policy rabbit hole, and you forget how it really connects to sort of the bricks and mortar of how things work, and so we certainly saw a large emphasis on the dynamic coalitions and their growth. They really took off with all the intersessional work, and that was really impressive just to see, as well as the national and regional initiatives, and thank you so much for the wonderful tribute you gave. I know Marilyn Cade, that was one of her projects that were near and dear to her heart. I would add one other name to that list from a business perspective, Joe Allatif, who was with ICC Basis. He was also very involved in a lot of the privacy work from a business standpoint, just in the Internet community as a whole. And so for those of you who…

Carol Roach: Thank you, Cheryl. Sorry, we’re out of time.

Cheryl Miller: Sorry, I’m out of time. Sorry, but thank you so much. Yes. Those are my impressions.

Carol Roach: Okay, thank you. So, Jen, you have a task of one minute.

Jennifer Chung: One minute? Okay. Yes, one minute. Hello, everyone. My name is Jennifer Chung. I guess standing before me is the wisdoms and luminaries. I see my past chairs, Lynn Anriette and Markus, who’s our chair emeritus of the IGF Support Association. My fellow MAG members who just spoke before me, Olga, touched on something that I wanted to bring forth, as well. Starting before my personal involvement with IGF and even Internet governance, the 2009 Shaumal Sheikh meeting is actually the first time .Asia brought in youth delegates to the meeting, and that is actually the birthplace of the discussion that actually resulted in the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF, so that was very important for me. My actual first IGF meeting, and I was very, very new into my Internet governance journey, was Istanbul meeting in 2014. I also had the task to observe the IANA Transition Coordination Group because I became the head of secretariat for them. Those two years were actually very, very busy for the entire community, and I think that a lot of the good discussion also happened and was enabled by all the discussions at the IGF. One of the very important things I wanted to also point out was that the Brazil meeting in 2015 saw a huge growth in youth participation that continues until this day. In fact, the Berlin meeting in 2019, I think, was the first time there was a global youth summit, also the first time there was a parliamentarian track, both of which continue to this meeting. I think it’s super, super important to understand bringing in the young voices, bringing in the parliamentarians who are really making these regulations, legislations around the world so they really understand what we’re talking about here when we talk about issues with Internet governance. When I served on the MAG, and it was between 2018 to 2020, I saw a very interesting shift from all of the calling of we need to talk more about Internet governance, we need to bring in people who need to listen from the global majority, from the global south, from the young voices, and then we went into the pandemic where we had the very first and hopefully, fingers crossed, only virtual meeting of the IGF where it was so much highlighted that the Internet, the technology that enables us to continue to work, to play, to discuss all these issues that we’re discussing right now here in the room in Norway and also across the world that we still want to improve, to look to the future, and I think I’ll stop here because maybe that minute is gone. Thank you, Carol.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much. So I’m just going to end it. Are they giving me eight minutes? No? Okay. I have ten more minutes? Okay. Great. Super. You know, a wise person said that if there wasn’t an IGF, we would have to create one, and just sitting here, watching the videos, listening to the history, listening to the different stages that the IGF has gone through, and through each stage, it also improved the global outlook in terms of reaching the Internet to the point where we’re really human-focused. We’ve moved away from the hammer of the government to everybody getting on to a certain level in order to perform for the people. So this is great. So I’m just going to ask Anriette to give us a last word with regards to WSIS and our hope for the future.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks. Thanks. You see how you need civil society. Always give them the tough questions. Carol, I think there’s so many things we could have also said more of, but I think those things also is part of that way. I think the youth participation, the evolution of new modalities, the recognition that legislatures are important, so create the parliamentary track, the recognition that youth need spaces, the recognition that complex issues such as human rights need spaces, and I think that that is really the connection between WSIS and what the IGF does, and I think you have actually all touched on it. I think we do need to be people-oriented. We need to have a big picture, but we also need to take the infrastructure and the technology and its resilience seriously, and I think that’s what the IGF gives us. And I think we’ve evolved an approach and a way of working that is interdisciplinary, that’s multi-stakeholder, that gives us the capacity to face these challenges going forward. But I also think we have to always keep the WSIS vision in mind. I think that people-centered development, the ability for people to use technology to improve their lives has to also inform what we do at the IGF. I think we have to recognize that there are challenges and be open to take on and not be too risk-averse because we need the IGF, we need the UN now more than ever, we need the IGF more than ever because there is a lot of fragmentation. We have wars in our world. We have digital inequality. We have big tech companies that are growing in ways which is hard to grasp and hard to deal with. So I think we need to be able to, those concepts of good governance, accountability, inclusion, respect for people, for human rights, we need to be able to talk about them collaboratively but also in a way that takes on the tough questions. Fair tax payment, for example. Authoritarian governments. Repression. You know, war. We need to be able to, the role of technology and militarization and the role that the internet plays in that. So I think that’s what we can bring to the future, we can bring it to the WSIS process and be grounded. I think the IGF needs to evolve, celebrate its own achievements, but also evolve, continue to improve, recognize where the exclusions are. Do we take development and the realities of people that still live with digital exclusion seriously enough? Are we inclusive enough? Are we diverse enough? But I think we have all the elements. I think we haven’t given a shout-out to the Secretariat yet. And I think that’s something else to recognize, how the Secretariat has evolved as well, to be able to support the evolution of the IGF, to support the National and Regional Internet Governance Forum. But the Secretariat needs to continue to evolve, which means it needs resources, it needs capacity. But I think we have all the building blocks and I think we have the people. I think one of the IGF’s greatest strengths is that there are so many people who feel ownership. Even the people who submitted workshop proposals that were rejected have some intimate relationship with the IGF. And I think, I would hope that going forward, we have a more stable, permanent, well-resourced IGF, but still an IGF that maintains this bottom-up ownership and participation that the modalities that we’ve evolved over the last 20 years have given us.

Carol Roach: Thank you, Anriette. And I agree, the IGF, we ask the hard questions, we take on the tough questions. And, Anriette , we’re not afraid to take on those potholes. You have to fill them too, or make sure other people do. Yeah, we fill them in and pave them over and make them look nice and good, so that the people can drive smoothly, Anriette . That’s what the IGF is about. So, thank you very much, audience. I want to thank my panelists. Great job. Let’s give them a round of applause. And I want to thank my fellow MAG members, and a few of them are here, well, I call them the brains, the big brains. Thank you, all the MAG members, current MAG members, those that are past, those that continue to come to the open consultations and to give their views to enrich the IGF, and indeed to enrich the lives of persons. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

Agreement points

The IGF’s soft power approach enables more open dialogue than decision-making forums

Speakers

– Nitin Desai
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

The IGF has power to influence decisions made in other organizations rather than making binding decisions itself

The IGF’s ‘soft power’ approach allows open discussion without decision-making pressure, enabling brainstorming and trust-building

Summary

Both speakers emphasized that the IGF’s lack of formal decision-making power is actually its strength, allowing for more open discussions and the ability to influence decisions made in other forums

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Multi-stakeholder collaboration was challenging but essential and successful

Speakers

– Nitin Desai
– Markus Kummer
– Lynn St. Amour

Arguments

The greatest challenge was getting different stakeholder groups with different working methods to collaborate constructively

The IGF developed into a true community, particularly evident during the 2008 Hyderabad meeting despite security concerns

The technical community gained recognition as a fourth stakeholder group and became the second largest donor to the IGF Trust Fund

Summary

All three speakers acknowledged the initial challenges of bringing together diverse stakeholder groups with different working methods, but celebrated the successful evolution into a collaborative community

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

The IGF evolved from narrow Internet governance to broader digital ecosystem issues

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Olga Cavalli
– Session video

Arguments

The forum evolved from discussing Internet governance to broader digital ecosystem governance with Internet at its core

The IGF expanded from one billion users to addressing connectivity challenges for the next billion users

The forum addresses contemporary challenges like AI governance, digital inclusion, and cybersecurity

Summary

These speakers agreed that the IGF successfully expanded its scope from technical Internet governance to addressing broader digital society challenges while maintaining the Internet at its center

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

The IGF’s continued relevance and necessity in today’s digital world

Speakers

– Vint Cerf
– Janis Karkliņs
– Carol Roach

Arguments

The IGF’s enduring relevance stems from addressing policies for resilient, reliable, safe, accessible, and sustainable Internet

The IGF has survived 20 years through voluntary funding, proving its continued relevance to all stakeholder groups

A wise observation that if the IGF didn’t exist, it would need to be created demonstrates its necessity

Summary

All three speakers emphasized that the IGF is more needed now than ever, with its 20-year survival and continued funding proving its ongoing relevance to addressing contemporary digital challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the IGF’s practical impact through knowledge sharing and capacity building, with concrete examples of how learning at IGF meetings led to real-world infrastructure improvements

Speakers

– Markus Kummer
– Olga Cavalli

Arguments

Practical impacts include helping establish Internet Exchange Points in developing regions through knowledge sharing

The forum provides unique space for learning across stakeholder groups, exemplified by capacity building initiatives

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need for the IGF to continue evolving and adapting while maintaining its core strengths of inclusivity and willingness to address difficult issues

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Carol Roach

Arguments

The IGF needs continued evolution with stable, permanent, well-resourced structure while maintaining bottom-up participation

The IGF’s agility and willingness to tackle tough questions keeps it relevant and accountable

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Both speakers highlighted how the IGF successfully adapted its format and engagement to include new stakeholder groups and address evolving needs

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung
– Cheryl Miller

Arguments

The forum adapted to include youth participation, parliamentary tracks, and global youth summits

Business participation evolved to include stronger corporate responsibility programs and cross-stakeholder collaboration

Topics

Sociocultural | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Civil society’s crucial but underestimated role in driving IGF evolution

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Carol Roach

Arguments

Civil society brings diverse perspectives focused on public interest rather than particular interests, creating dynamic tension for accountability

The IGF’s agility and willingness to tackle tough questions keeps it relevant and accountable

Explanation

It’s unexpected that there was such strong consensus on civil society’s central role in pushing the IGF to address difficult issues and maintain accountability, especially given that civil society was noted as actually being the smallest participant group

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

The technical community’s successful integration despite initial structural challenges

Speakers

– Lynn St. Amour
– Markus Kummer
– Nitin Desai

Arguments

The technical community gained recognition as a fourth stakeholder group and became the second largest donor to the IGF Trust Fund

The forum was created to bring together technologists, governments, NGOs, and corporations on equal footing in a multi-stakeholder approach

The greatest challenge was getting different stakeholder groups with different working methods to collaborate constructively

Explanation

Despite initial challenges in fitting the technical community into UN structures and their different working methods, there was unexpected consensus on their successful integration and significant contribution to the IGF

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

There was remarkably strong consensus among all speakers on the IGF’s fundamental value, successful evolution, and continued necessity. Key areas of agreement included the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder approach, the IGF’s successful expansion from narrow technical issues to broader digital society challenges, the value of its soft power influence model, and its continued relevance after 20 years.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong agreement among speakers from different stakeholder groups and time periods suggests the IGF has successfully built a shared understanding of its mission and value. The implications are positive for the IGF’s future, indicating broad stakeholder support for its continued evolution and the multi-stakeholder governance model it represents.

Different viewpoints

Role and impact of civil society participation

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– General perception

Arguments

Civil society brings diverse perspectives focused on public interest rather than particular interests, creating dynamic tension for accountability

Common belief that civil society represents the largest participant group

Summary

Esterhuysen challenged the common perception about civil society’s size and role, arguing that civil society was actually the smallest group last year (not the largest as commonly believed) and emphasizing their unique contribution of focusing on public interest rather than self-interest

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Characterization of civil society’s role and size

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Civil society brings diverse perspectives focused on public interest rather than particular interests, creating dynamic tension for accountability

Explanation

In a commemorative session focused on celebrating achievements, Esterhuysen’s correction of misconceptions about civil society participation was unexpected. Her emphasis that civil society ‘is not necessarily always tolerant’ and must ‘take risks’ to ‘confront injustice’ introduced a more critical tone than other speakers’ celebratory reflections

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The session showed remarkably high consensus among speakers, with disagreements being minimal and mostly involving clarifications or different emphases rather than fundamental conflicts. The main areas of difference involved the characterization of civil society’s role and different priorities for future development.

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement. This was a commemorative session where speakers were reflecting on shared achievements rather than debating policy positions. The few disagreements that emerged were constructive clarifications rather than conflicts, suggesting strong underlying consensus about the IGF’s value and direction. The implications are positive – showing a mature, collaborative community that can engage in nuanced discussion while maintaining unity of purpose.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the IGF’s practical impact through knowledge sharing and capacity building, with concrete examples of how learning at IGF meetings led to real-world infrastructure improvements

Speakers

– Markus Kummer
– Olga Cavalli

Arguments

Practical impacts include helping establish Internet Exchange Points in developing regions through knowledge sharing

The forum provides unique space for learning across stakeholder groups, exemplified by capacity building initiatives

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need for the IGF to continue evolving and adapting while maintaining its core strengths of inclusivity and willingness to address difficult issues

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Carol Roach

Arguments

The IGF needs continued evolution with stable, permanent, well-resourced structure while maintaining bottom-up participation

The IGF’s agility and willingness to tackle tough questions keeps it relevant and accountable

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Both speakers highlighted how the IGF successfully adapted its format and engagement to include new stakeholder groups and address evolving needs

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung
– Cheryl Miller

Arguments

The forum adapted to include youth participation, parliamentary tracks, and global youth summits

Business participation evolved to include stronger corporate responsibility programs and cross-stakeholder collaboration

Topics

Sociocultural | Economic

Key takeaways

The IGF’s 20-year survival through voluntary funding demonstrates its continued relevance and value to all stakeholder groups

The forum successfully evolved from narrow Internet governance discussions to addressing broader digital ecosystem challenges while keeping the Internet at its core

Multi-stakeholder collaboration, though initially challenging, created a trusted community where different groups (governments, civil society, technical community, business) learned to work constructively together

The IGF’s ‘soft power’ approach – influencing rather than making binding decisions – enables open discussion and knowledge sharing that leads to practical impacts like establishing Internet Exchange Points

The forum has successfully adapted to emerging challenges by expanding topics to include human rights, AI governance, youth participation, parliamentary engagement, and corporate responsibility

Civil society plays a crucial role in bringing public interest perspectives and creating ‘dynamic tension’ that keeps other stakeholders accountable

The technical community gained recognition as a fourth stakeholder group and became a major financial supporter, demonstrating the value they derive from participation

National and Regional IGFs have proliferated, proving the model’s effectiveness at local levels and creating a global network of Internet governance discussions

Resolutions and action items

Continue evolving the IGF to maintain relevance while preserving its bottom-up, multi-stakeholder character

Ensure the IGF remains open to taking on tough questions including authoritarian governance, big tech accountability, and digital inequality

Maintain focus on people-centered development and technology’s role in improving lives in connection with WSIS goals

Continue building capacity and involving youth more extensively in Internet governance processes

Strengthen the Secretariat with more stable, permanent, and well-resourced structure to support the IGF’s evolution

Unresolved issues

How to achieve more stable and permanent funding for the IGF while maintaining its independence and multi-stakeholder character

Whether the IGF is inclusive and diverse enough, particularly regarding development realities and digital exclusion

How to better address the needs of people still experiencing digital inequality and exclusion

The ongoing challenge of connecting the ‘next billion’ users to the Internet

How to effectively regulate emerging technologies while maintaining Internet openness and innovation

The role of technology in militarization and warfare, and how the Internet governance community should address these issues

Suggested compromises

Balancing the need for IGF evolution and improvement with maintaining its successful bottom-up ownership and participation model

Finding ways to address tough policy questions while preserving the collaborative, non-binding discussion format that makes the IGF effective

Maintaining the IGF’s role as an influencer of decisions made elsewhere rather than becoming a decision-making body itself

Continuing to expand topic coverage to remain relevant while keeping Internet governance at the core of discussions

The normal thing that I was used to as Under Secretary General of the U.N. was that you had governments in charge of everything and people from the non-governmental organization wanting to say. Here it was opposite. That this whole thing was run by engineers, the technocrats or by ICANN. And the governments didn’t have a say and they wanted a say in this.

Speaker

Nitin Desai

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it identifies the fundamental paradigm shift that made Internet governance unique – reversing the traditional power dynamic where governments typically control infrastructure and others seek influence. Desai articulates how Internet governance presented an unprecedented situation where technical communities held primary control and governments were seeking inclusion.

Impact

This observation set the foundational framework for understanding the entire IGF evolution. It explained why the multi-stakeholder approach was not just innovative but necessary, and provided context for all subsequent discussions about bringing different communities together as equals rather than in traditional hierarchical relationships.

The great challenge in the beginning was in getting these people to work together. Because in many ways, they had very different ways. Technocrats are people who really work on a rough consensus, ignoring extreme views. Governments in diplomacy are people who believe in a great deal of, far be it from me to say type of statements when they disagree violently with something. Non-governmental activists, because of the nature of their work, often tend to be very much more outspoken in what they want.

Speaker

Nitin Desai

Reason

This comment provides crucial insight into the cultural and operational challenges of multi-stakeholder governance by clearly articulating how different stakeholder groups have fundamentally different approaches to decision-making and conflict resolution. It shows deep understanding of organizational psychology and diplomatic dynamics.

Impact

This analysis became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with subsequent speakers building on this foundation to explain how the IGF evolved its collaborative culture. It helped frame the IGF’s success not just as a policy achievement but as a significant accomplishment in cross-cultural institutional design.

The IGF has not the hard power to make decisions. But as Nitin said, it can shape decisions that are taken for decisions that are taken elsewhere in other organizations… it allows for an open discussion. You cannot have in a forum where there is decision-making power because you fear that whatever you say today might be held against you tomorrow.

Speaker

Markus Kummer

Reason

This comment articulates a profound insight about the relationship between power and dialogue. It explains how the absence of formal decision-making authority actually creates space for more honest, innovative, and collaborative discussions – a counterintuitive but powerful concept in governance.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from viewing the IGF’s lack of binding authority as a limitation to understanding it as a strategic advantage. It influenced how other speakers framed the IGF’s value proposition and helped explain why the ‘soft power’ approach has been sustainable and effective.

The mere existence of IGF after 20 years is already a major achievement… because when we started… it was never meant to be funded by regular UN budget… it was always the idea was that it would be funded by voluntary contributions… IGF will exist as long as funding will flow and funding will flow only until then that IGF will be relevant.

Speaker

Janis Karklins

Reason

This comment provides a striking reframe of success metrics, suggesting that survival itself in a voluntary funding environment is proof of continued relevance and value. It’s a market-based validation argument that’s unusual in UN contexts and demonstrates sophisticated understanding of institutional sustainability.

Impact

This perspective shifted the discussion from focusing on specific achievements to recognizing the fundamental validation that continued existence represents. It influenced how other speakers talked about relevance and sustainability, and provided a new lens for evaluating the IGF’s success.

The IGF has managed to make the shift… from being a forum about the governance of the Internet, to being a forum about the governance of the use and evolution of the Internet… from talking about issues that are more narrowly related to Internet governance… to a forum that talks about a broader digital ecosystem… And that’s why the IGF is so continuously able to reinvent itself, to remain relevant, to expand.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment identifies a crucial evolutionary pivot that explains the IGF’s continued relevance. It articulates how the forum successfully expanded its scope from technical infrastructure governance to broader digital society issues while maintaining its core identity and approach.

Impact

This observation provided a framework for understanding the IGF’s adaptability and future potential. It influenced the discussion’s conclusion by showing how the forum’s flexibility and willingness to tackle emerging challenges (like human rights, digital inclusion, and emerging technologies) is key to its ongoing relevance.

What civil society brings to the IGF is a very diverse set of people, organizations, institutions, who are actually not here to further their own particular interests, but to further the public interest at large. And I think that is what gives the IGF this relevance… Sometimes there are tensions. But I think that the role of civil society in the IGF is really underestimated.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment challenges common assumptions about civil society’s role and provides a sophisticated analysis of how different motivations (public interest vs. particular interests) affect governance dynamics. It also introduces the concept of ‘dynamic tension’ as beneficial rather than problematic.

Impact

This reframing of civil society’s contribution and the value of tension influenced the discussion’s understanding of how different stakeholder groups contribute unique value. It helped explain why the IGF’s approach to managing disagreement and diverse perspectives has been successful.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by providing analytical frameworks that moved beyond simple chronological history to deep structural analysis of why the IGF works. Nitin Desai’s observations about reversed power dynamics and stakeholder cultural differences established the foundational understanding that subsequent speakers built upon. Markus Kummer’s insight about ‘soft power’ advantages reframed potential weaknesses as strengths. Janis Karklins’ survival-as-validation argument provided a novel success metric. Anriette Esterhuysen’s comments about evolution and civil society’s role offered forward-looking perspectives on adaptability and stakeholder dynamics. Together, these insights created a sophisticated narrative that explained not just what happened over 20 years, but why it happened and why it continues to be relevant. The discussion evolved from historical recounting to strategic analysis, providing both celebration of achievements and intellectual framework for future development.

How can the IGF better address development and the realities of people still living with digital exclusion?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

This question addresses whether the IGF takes development and digital exclusion seriously enough, which is crucial for ensuring the forum remains inclusive and relevant to underserved populations

Are we inclusive enough and diverse enough in IGF participation?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

This self-reflective question is important for the IGF’s continued evolution and effectiveness in representing all stakeholders and communities globally

How can the IGF better address tough questions like fair tax payment, authoritarian governments, repression, war, and the role of technology in militarization?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

These are complex global challenges that intersect with internet governance and require the IGF’s collaborative approach to address effectively

How can we ensure more stable, permanent, and well-resourced IGF while maintaining bottom-up ownership and participation?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of scaling and institutionalizing the IGF without losing its core multi-stakeholder, participatory nature

How can we attract and connect the next billion users to the internet?

Speaker

Olga Cavalli

Explanation

This remains a critical challenge for global digital inclusion and was identified as an ongoing issue from the early days of the IGF

How can we continue to create and strengthen capacity building, particularly for young people and developing countries?

Speaker

Olga Cavalli

Explanation

Capacity building was identified as a foundational need that continues to be relevant for ensuring meaningful participation in internet governance

How can the Secretariat continue to evolve to support the IGF’s growth while ensuring adequate resources and capacity?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

The Secretariat’s evolution and resource needs are critical for supporting the IGF’s expanding scope and the National and Regional Internet Governance Forums