Newcomers Orientation Session

Summary

This discussion was a newcomer orientation session for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), led by Chengetai Masango, head of the IGF Secretariat, and Carol Roach, chair of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). The session explained that the IGF emerged from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in the early 2000s, when the growing prominence of the internet raised questions about digital divides, governance, and decision-making processes. The forum was established following the Tunis Agenda in 2005, with 97 heads of state voting to create a multi-stakeholder dialogue model that includes governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities.

The speakers emphasized that IGF operates on core principles of being open, inclusive, bottom-up, transparent, and non-commercial, following a “soft power” approach rather than top-down government mandates. While the forum doesn’t produce binding negotiated outcomes, it informs, inspires, and influences policies through knowledge-sharing and collaboration. The IGF has grown significantly over its 20-year history, from 800 participants in Athens to 11,000 in Kyoto, adapting its agenda to contemporary issues like AI, blockchain, and digital rights.

Beyond the annual forum, IGF conducts year-round activities including capacity building, youth engagement, best practice forums, policy networks, and dynamic coalitions. The organization supports 176 national and regional IGFs worldwide, though some countries like Mongolia, Cambodia, and Bhutan still lack national forums. During the Q&A session, participants raised important questions about internet regulation, the role of legal frameworks, and the balance between innovation and safeguards, highlighting the ongoing challenges in internet governance as technology rapidly evolves.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Origins and Definition of Internet Governance**: The discussion covers how the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) emerged from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003-2005, leading to the creation of a multi-stakeholder definition of internet governance that includes governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities working together rather than governments alone.

– **Multi-stakeholder Bottom-up Approach**: A central theme is the IGF’s commitment to inclusive, bottom-up governance where all stakeholders have a voice in internet policy discussions, contrasting with traditional top-down governmental approaches. This includes emphasis on soft power through dialogue and consensus-building rather than hard regulatory mandates.

– **Capacity Building and Global Participation**: The speakers highlight extensive capacity-building efforts including newcomer sessions, youth engagement, parliamentary and judiciary tracks, national and regional IGFs (176 currently exist), and support for countries without national IGFs like Montenegro, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Bhutan.

– **Legal Framework Integration**: An audience member (an Egyptian judge) raises concerns about the need for stronger legal components in IGF discussions, particularly regarding cybercrime legislation and the balance between internet freedoms and legal regulation, suggesting the legal aspect needs more prominence in IGF activities.

– **Future Vision and Practical Impact**: Discussion of the IGF’s real-world influence through “second-order effects” – how discussions inform policy-making globally, with examples like the East African Internet Exchange Point that reduced internet costs by keeping traffic local rather than routing through Europe.

## Overall Purpose:

This is an introductory session for newcomers to the IGF, designed to explain the forum’s history, structure, principles, and activities. The goal is to orient new participants to the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance and encourage their active participation in ongoing discussions and capacity-building activities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintains a welcoming, educational tone throughout, with speakers actively encouraging questions and participation from newcomers. The presenters are enthusiastic about the IGF’s collaborative approach and emphasize accessibility and inclusion. When challenging questions arise about legal frameworks and regulatory gaps, the tone remains constructive and open to feedback, with speakers acknowledging areas for improvement while defending the multi-stakeholder model’s effectiveness.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Chengetai Masango** – Head of the IGF Secretariat

– **Carol Roach** – Chair of the MAG (Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group), from the Bahamas

– **Audience** – Various participants including:

– A high court judge from Egypt (Aden Magid) working at the Court of Cassation

– Andrew Levella from Kenya representing the technical community, runs the .ke country court top-level domain

– Putivud from Cambodia with the Ministry of Post and Telecommunication

**Additional speakers:**

– No additional speakers were identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Internet Governance Forum Newcomer Orientation: Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

This session was a newcomer orientation for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), led by Chengetai Masango, Head of the IGF Secretariat, and Carol Roach, Chair of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) from the Bahamas. The session was designed to introduce new participants to the forum’s history, principles, and operational framework.

Participants included newcomers from various backgrounds who introduced themselves during the session, including Andrew Levella from Kenya representing the technical community, Aden Magid who later identified himself as a high court judge from Egypt, and Putivud who later mentioned his affiliation with Cambodia’s Ministry of Post and Telecommunication.

## Historical Origins and Evolution of the IGF

### Emergence from the World Summit on the Information Society

Chengetai Masango explained that the IGF emerged from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) held between 2003 and 2005. During this period, the growing prominence of the internet raised questions about digital divides, governance structures, and decision-making processes. The forum was established through paragraphs 72-82 of the Tunis Agenda in 2005.

Masango emphasized the significance of the IGF’s creation, noting that “97 heads of state actually voted for this and this was one of the first times that governments with the power decided to devolve their power a little bit and give it in the multi-stakeholder model.”

### Growth Over Two Decades

The IGF has experienced significant growth over its 20-year history. Masango mentioned growth from early participation numbers to 11,000 participants in Kyoto, reflecting increased interest in internet governance issues and the forum’s ability to adapt its agenda to contemporary challenges including artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, and digital rights.

## The Multi-Stakeholder Governance Model

### Core Principles and Stakeholder Groups

Masango and Roach explained the IGF’s commitment to a multi-stakeholder governance model that includes governments, private sector entities, civil society organizations, and the technical community. Carol Roach explained that internet governance involves these four stakeholder groups “working together in their respective roles.”

The model operates on core principles of being open, inclusive, bottom-up, transparent, and non-commercial. Masango described this as a “soft power” approach rather than hard regulatory mandates.

### Internet Governance Definition

When asked by Masango to provide the definition of internet governance, Carol Roach stated: “Internet governance is the development and application by governments, private sector and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.”

### Current Governance Ecosystem

Masango explained that multiple organizations manage different layers of internet infrastructure and standards, including the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). He noted that the IGF doesn’t produce binding negotiated outcomes but serves to inform, inspire, and influence policies through knowledge-sharing and collaboration.

## IGF Structure and Operations

### Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)

Carol Roach explained that the MAG consists of 40 members representing all stakeholder groups with gender balance and geographic diversity. Members serve three-year terms and are responsible for developing the IGF program and selecting workshops.

### Leadership and Academic Involvement

Masango mentioned that Vint Cerf serves as chair of the Leadership Panel with Maria Ressa as vice chair. He also referenced GigaNet as part of the academic organizations involved in IGF activities.

### Year-Round Activities

Both speakers emphasized that the IGF operates beyond its annual forum, conducting capacity building activities, youth engagement programs, mentorship opportunities, and summer schools. The forum provides travel support to ensure financial constraints don’t prevent participation.

## National and Regional IGF Network

Carol Roach highlighted the network of 176 national and regional IGFs operating worldwide. These local forums address region-specific internet governance issues while maintaining connection to global discussions. She noted that several countries still lack national IGFs, including Montenegro, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Bhutan, and committed to working with these countries to establish local forums.

## Specialized Tracks

The speakers described specialized tracks for parliamentarians and judiciary members, designed to help lawmakers understand global internet implications when creating national policies. These tracks aim to bridge the gap between global discussions and local implementation.

## Questions and Challenges Raised

### Legal Framework Integration

Judge Aden Magid from Egypt raised concerns about the integration of legal frameworks within IGF discussions. He questioned: “How do we govern Internet? How do we regulate the Internet?” and argued that “it’s very important to have some legal inputs in your sessions, and in the core of your goals as well. Because, finally, at the end, the law… We are living according to the rule of law, either it is applied on the international level or the national level.”

He specifically criticized the lack of attention to international legal instruments, such as the UN Convention against cybercrime, in IGF programming. Masango acknowledged that legal aspects might be “embedded but you have to dig too deep,” suggesting recognition of this concern.

### Effectiveness and Implementation

Putivud from Cambodia questioned the IGF’s effectiveness beyond dialogue, asking: “What happened after providing this definition to WSIS and to the UN? Is there any more mechanism following up that definition?… what has been done beyond talking?”

He also raised broader questions about long-term vision: “Was this the original intent when the Internet got started? Was there a vision defined? How will the Internet look like in the next 10 or 20 years? and where are we now?”

### Demonstrating Impact

In response to questions about tangible outcomes, Masango provided examples of practical impact, citing the East African Internet Exchange Point as an example of how IGF discussions informed policy-making, resulting in reduced internet costs by keeping regional traffic local rather than routing it through Europe.

## Balancing Innovation and Regulation

Carol Roach addressed the challenge of balancing regulation with innovation, noting that “countries regulate Internet activities through legislation while balancing innovation and protection.” She mentioned that countries are implementing protective measures, such as age restrictions on social media, as they grapple with technology’s rapid development.

## Current Context and Future Considerations

The speakers mentioned the IGF’s connection to ongoing processes including the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS+20 review process. They emphasized the importance of community support for the IGF’s mandate renewal.

## Capacity Building and Inclusion

Both speakers emphasized efforts to address digital divides and ensure meaningful participation from underrepresented groups. Masango detailed various initiatives including educational opportunities and support mechanisms designed to increase participation from developing countries, youth, and marginalized communities.

## Contact and Engagement

The speakers provided practical information for continued engagement, mentioning the IGF website and contact information (IGF at un.org), as well as social media presence for ongoing communication.

## Conclusion

The session provided newcomers with foundational knowledge about the IGF’s history, structure, and operations while also surfacing important questions about the balance between dialogue and implementation, the integration of legal frameworks, and the forum’s practical impact. The discussion highlighted both the IGF’s role as a unique multi-stakeholder dialogue platform and ongoing challenges in translating discussions into effective internet governance outcomes.

Chengetai Masango: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Okay, great. This is the newcomer session, and I would like just to introduce the chair of the MAG, Carol Roach. Hello. And my name is Tengetai Masango, head of the IGF Secretariat. So, shall we stand or sit? You know I’m gonna have to sit after a while. Yes, okay. So, how many of you are newcomers? Whose is the first IGF? Oh, great, fantastic. And I suppose, all right. Yes, but, yes, good. So, here we’re just telling you a little bit about what the IGF is, what we discuss, and what is the whole ethos behind the IGF. But, in the IGF, we don’t like just telling people things. We also want some interaction, as such. Is that microphone okay? Yes, okay, great. So, what is the IGF? Can somebody tell me that? Nobody? There’s a microphone there. And a prize at the end. Internet global forum. Yes. Almost. Yes. IGF is the Internet Governance Forum, as you can see right there, and we are a result of the World Summit of the Information Society. So, the World Summit of the Information Society was a conference that was started through the ITU, but became a multi-departmental or UN organizational effort, and its main purpose was to discuss the Information Society. This is, so the idea started around 2000, the year 2000 at the turn of the century, when the Internet was gaining more and more prominence, and okay, we have this thing, there’s this growing divide of people who have access to the Internet, or to information resources, and those who don’t, and then the question was, okay, let’s discuss this. Number one, how do we deal with the digital divide? Who runs the Internet? How do we make decisions? As you know, the Internet mainly started off, you know, as a project from ARPANET, moved to the academic institutions to share knowledge, and then after that, after the commercialization of the Internet, it really exploded with, what was the first ones called? The Facebooks of yesteryear. Anybody know? Or are you all too young for that? MySpace, thank you, MySpace, etc. So, it was gaining more and more and more, of course, prominence in our daily lives, and also in the economic activity. So, from the WSIS, they decided to have the WSIS in two phases. Phase one was the Geneva phase, and phase two was the Tunis phase. So, when they started talking about the Internet in phase one, in Geneva in 2003, they started talking about the governance of the Internet. And people were saying, OK, what is Internet governance? And in the UN context, if you don’t know a definition of something, we set up a working group to find out what is that definition of Internet governance. So, a working group on Internet governance was set up to discuss and see what the definition of Internet governance was, and they came up with a definition of Internet governance, and it was presented in Tunis in the second WSIS IGF, and Carol is going to tell you what the definition they came up with was. So, the definition of Internet governance is development and application by governments, private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. And I think this was kind of a new concept in terms of including all of these different roles and persons where we have a situation where it’s just not governments only trying to determine governance of something, but now we’re talking about other stakeholders like the private sector, the technical community, civil society, all coming together to bring their perspective on how things should run on the Internet, or the best practices, the best policies. to ensure that the internet remains for everybody. Yes, so this came to a decision in Tunis and what we call the Tunis Agenda and the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum is in paragraph 72 to 82 of the Tunis Agenda and you can just do a search on it on the internet, go to our website, you can see the mandate of the IGF and in paragraph 72 they asked the Secretary General in an open and inclusive process to convene by the second quarter of 2006 a meeting of a new forum of multi-stakeholder dialogue called the Internet Governance Forum. So as Carol said, the most important part of this is that it’s not just governments, it’s basically everybody that’s involved in using the internet should have a say in how the internet is governed and also it’s a multi-stakeholder dialogue so it was expressly put in that it’s a multi-stakeholder dialogue and I think it was 97 heads of state actually voted for this and this was one of the first times that governments with the power decided to devolve their power a little bit and give it in the multi-stakeholder model. This also follows how the internet itself is set up because in the internet there isn’t one body that decides everything. I mean yes, you do have the IETF, you have the W3C, etc. But what they do publish are not hard directives or laws, no. They’re the standards that people can volunteer to follow and if they follow, everything works well and things have been working. fairly well. Yes, in the late 90s and early 2000s, there were some companies etc. who wanted to go their own way, but they decide, they eventually saw that it is better to adopt the common standards to run it. And that’s one of the things that we do as well, so we believe more in the soft power approach instead of the hard power approach as such. So, instead of taking a top-down approach where government just pushes things down, it’s more of a bottom-up approach where there’s more dialogue, more listening and hearing as opposed to just talking at. So it comes from the bottom-up from the civil societies, the tech communities, from educators who are really on the ground, knowing what the problems are, what the issues are, and they put those forward and you have a bottom-up approach to resolving things. Now, even though the IGF does not produce negotiated outcomes, it informs, inspires, and influences policies. Yes, exactly. So we are more into the second-order effects, so we may not have decisions being made at the forum itself, but there’s the value in the discussion, in norm-setting and agenda-setting for other institutions and for also when they go home in their home institutions. And we’ve seen throughout our 20-year history that there is value in that and major changes have happened and there has been a marked improvement of the internet in various areas of the globe which have been attributed to people attending the IGF, meeting people, discussing issues. knowledge-sharing and then going back to their home countries, implementing or continuing that collaboration that was started at an IGF meeting.

Carol Roach: So, besides the bottom-up agenda, the IGF is more than this forum that you see here. We also have what is called intersessional work and it comes from the one part of the Tunis agreement was to have the capacity building and therefore you find that today we’ve grown to have things like business engagements, parliamentary and judiciary sessions and you yourselves, newcomers, are part of the capacity building. And then we have work during the year, the intersessional work, which we’ll talk about a little bit more, but it’s things like the best practice forum, the national and regional IGFs, as well as the youth IGFs. You can go visit the website and see whether or not your country has a national IGF or if there’s one in the region that you can participate and continue your growth in the IGF. That’s another point we can start asking another question. I’m always going to be

Chengetai Masango: asking questions. Is there anybody here who does not have a national IGF in their country? What country is that? Montenegro. Anya, is there a Montenegro? No. And then the other one? Cambodia. Yes, that’s true. We’re working on that. Mongolia. Yes. Okay, but thank you for coming. At the back? Bhutan. All right. So, Anya, here is our national and regional coordinator. She’ll be coming to speak to you after this session and see if we can get one started in your country. We offer support, we have small grants, but we can also offer some organizational support, website support, etc. People who have, we have over 176 national and regional IGFs and people who have engaged in it have found it very, very useful. And, but thank you for being here, that’s great. Okay, now the IGF, the mandate of the IGF was given to the Secretary-General to convene the forum, so the UN Secretary-General convenes the forum. We do have the IGF leadership panel as well, which provides high-level direction to the IGF. They also champion the IGF and we have the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory group, which as I said, Carol Roach is our current chair, she’s from the Bahamas. And so that is the overall guidance, who bring overall guidance to the IGF. But as I said, it doesn’t start there, it starts with the stakeholders. Every single year, we do have a broad open call for issues. At the end of every single year as well, we have a stocktaking exercise, what works well, what didn’t work well, what they want improvement in the next cycle. So all this is brought in, it’s presented to the multi-stakeholder advisory group and also to the leadership panel and they come up with plans for the following year. We’ll get more into… how this is set up in the next slide, yeah. So as I have mentioned, we do have the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, which is made up of 40 members. And these 40 members serve, generally serve a three-year term, I mean, three one-year terms. So it’s not really automatic, you go into the second year, but generally most people serve three one-year terms. And they come from all over the world, there’s regional representation, we must make sure there’s also gender representation, so 50% of the MAG is male, 50% of the MAG is female. We also make sure that all stakeholder groups are represented, governments, civil society, the technical community, IGOs, and we also have media representatives as well. And as we mentioned, we have the IGF Leadership Panel, and the IGF Leadership Panel, the chair is Vint Cerf, you may have heard of him. So he’s one of the founders of the internet. And the vice chair is Maria Ressa. So there are 15 members, so 10 members, and five ex-officio members of the Leadership Panel. The IGF Secretariat, which I’m head of, we are based in Geneva, in Switzerland, which is basically one of the digital hubs because we have the ITU, we have WIPO, we have, that’s the intellectual property organization, et cetera, and we also have CERN. those people who also deal in big data and so that’s one of the reasons. So again as we said the core principles of the IGF is open, inclusive, multi stakeholder, bottom-up, transparent, non-commercial, so we don’t expect anybody to pay to participate, so it’s not pay to play at all. We want to hear everybody’s voice at the IGF and it’s a community centered process and also one of the things is that our funding is extra budgetary, so we don’t depend on the UN regular budget, it’s through donations and the pool of donations is through governments as well. The technical community are also big donors and we have the IGFSA who brings in, pulls in donors from a civil society. Right, so each year we have a cycle and we, a different country is selected and you see here the many different places and you’ll see that they’re from different regions, so you have Global North, Global South and we try to mix it up. We have Africa, WEOG region, Asia-Pacific and LACNIC, that’s the Latin American and Caribbean region. So we started our first meeting was in Athens, so the IGF in Athens and throughout the year we’ve been to and then we moved to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, India, Hyderabad. Sharm el-Sheikh, so that’s Africa, so there it’s quite clear. Greece is WIOG, Western Europe, and the others group. Rio de Janeiro is Latinic, and then Hyderabad is Asia Pacific, and Sharm el-Sheikh is Africa. And then Vilnius is Eastern European group. And we try and keep this rotation. Sometimes we’re not that successful, but we try and keep this rotation. And last year the meeting was in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, and before that it was in Kyoto in Japan. So here we have 20 years of the IGF. I think it’s been a very exciting 20 years. As we can see, in Germany we have had Angela Merkel and these UN Secretary General, in Mexico, in Greece as I’ve mentioned, etc. And we started off with about 800,000 participants in Greece, and in Kyoto we managed 11,000. That’s counting the online participants as well. It was 11,000 participants, so it has grown. Also the issues that we are discussing have also grown, and they’ve also adapted to the contemporary issues that people are facing. Blockchain was a very big issue some time back, and then we had, I’ve forgotten the real name, zero basics was also an issue. Now we’re talking about AI. And I suppose in a couple of years’ time, we’re gonna be talking about quantum computing. Yes. Yeah. So, as we said earlier, we go with a bottom-up approach.

Carol Roach: We go to the community to see what are the issues, what needs to be resolved, what’s coming up, and what we need to talk about. And this year, you see that we talk about digital trust and resilience, sustainable and responsible innovation, universal access and digital rights, and digital cooperation. And the theme you see in there, it’s really based, it’s very human-centric. So, it’s not all about technology. It’s about the users of technology. It’s about the developers of technology. So, IGF, even though it says Internet Governance Forum, that governance is very, very key. There’s different layers to the internet, and things digital run on the internet on most occasions. And we are the users. So, therefore, we want to hear from the community what it is they want to hear about, what type of things that they want to resolve. What’s important is that we make sure that the internet and the use of digital technologies is sustainable.

Chengetai Masango: So, we also talk about the environment. We also talk about the economies of the different member states, as well as the people. I think we’ll just go to the next one, right? And you’re talking about capacity development. And so, one of the key things about the IGF is that we’re not just talking. We’re not just a talk shop that meets once a year in exotic places. We are a year-round, we have year-round activities. And we also think that it’s very key to have a capacity building component. We have our youth engagement, where we teach digital skills. We get the voices of the youth as well, because the youth are the next generation of leaders. So we have to get them involved now, get their ideas and move them along. So when they do become the leaders, they do have that experience. And of course we do know what their issues and what their main concerns are. And the other thing that we also want to teach is critical thinking skills, which is also very important, especially in this day and age when you don’t know what’s true and what’s not true. So how do you navigate that? It can be quite complex for people. We’ve also introduced the youth mentorship program.

Carol Roach: So a lot of the youth are getting some practical look at things, internet and things digital. So we’re in our second year of the mentorship program. Yes. We have the newcomers, so this is one of the sessions for the newcomers.

Chengetai Masango: And we also have the business engagement track, because businesses are there and the users, civil society and also the government, they need to talk together to see what is good for them. And we have things like taxation, for instance. If you’re a company that’s based, let’s say, in California, internet is global, and you’re providing services across, how do those people, you are a company, affecting local industries, even though you’re not in that environment as such. So those are things that need to be discussed. How can they support the local industries as such to help them thrive and to help them contribute to the global business or the global culture that is being developed there? Social responsibility. Yes, social responsibility. Yes, we do provide travel support. I think some of you came here because we provided you with travel support. And we do also have the summer schools. So the summer schools of Internet governance. And one of the other things that we do that we’re very proud of is the parliamentary and the judiciary track, because the parliaments are the ones that actually set the instruments. They set the legislative instruments, they set the public policy instruments at the local level. And those should also have a… But the Internet is a global thing, so they should also reflect how the Internet works. And

Carol Roach: and one of the important things of putting parliamentarians from different walks of life is to make sure that when they produce these instruments for their countries, they have to look at it not only on a national level, but on a regional level and a global level. Because the Internet is global. You don’t want to end up with fragmentation where one set of region cannot talk to the next region because there’s no interoperability between them. So that’s why it’s important to put them in the same room so that everybody can hear what the issues are, try to come up with some type of resolution, some kind of consensus on how policies should look.

Chengetai Masango: Yes. OK. So, as we mentioned, is best practice forums. So what are best practice forums? So each year, the MAG chooses one, two, three issues that we look at and have a group of experts that come in and look at them. These groups are actually open, and anybody can join. And we set to record best practices that have helped other people. And not only best practices or good practices, but also things that have not worked, that they may have thought should have worked, so that people don’t reinvent the wheel and redo things. We also have policy networks. So these are a little bit different than best practice forum, but they are multi-stakeholder efforts that provide in-depth expert view on a subject. So we have the policy network on internet fragmentation, which was also a very hot topic two years ago. We have a policy network on meaningful access. We still have 2.5 billion people who don’t have access to the internet. And this is something that we need to see if we can reduce that gap, because now we have people who don’t have meaningful access, and then now we’re having the AI divide as well. So now we’re having two divides that are operating at the same time. We really need to bridge those divides. We have the policy network on artificial intelligence as well, good governance, AI ethics. The race to the market has to also be balanced with safeguards, or should it? These are all discussions that we should. Is it more important to be the first on the market, and then you look at the effects later on? Or can this happen hand-in-hand? And then the next is we have dynamic. So, we have 32 of them, and these are dynamic coalitions that we have three or more stakeholder groups coming together to discuss an issue. So, for instance, dynamic coalition on accessibility, dynamic coalition on Internet values, on DNS, on media, on Internet universal indicators, because how can you measure your progress if you don’t have the indicators, and you can’t really measure progress if one country has one set of indicators and the next country has another set of indicators. It really doesn’t work. We have to come discuss and see if we can have common indicators to measure common growth. So, at the IGF, of course, there’s the workshops, which is all good, but we also encourage you to connect with other people where you see outside, where you see in the receptions, where you see, what you see in the sessions that we have for people to connect. So, there’s the academic and research organizations. We have GigaNet. Of course, there’s civil society, there’s Internet governance organizations, technical communities and governments. And one thing about the IGF as well, don’t be afraid to approach somebody and just introduce yourself and talk to them about whatever. If you know somebody is from a company that you’d really want to talk to them, just go there and introduce. This is what the IGF is about. It’s not about people keeping in their silos, but about people mixing, having ideas, hearing different point of views. This is very important for us. Yes, networking. I encourage you to network.

Carol Roach: I encourage you to visit the booths. Very interesting. different topics going around there, you have different companies with different products that they offer you, and it might be something that you’re thinking, hey, I needed this, and here’s the person. Exchange your information and get connected. It’s great. I think we’ve discussed this, and we have partnership.

Chengetai Masango: One story that I always tell everybody, and I realize I didn’t tell you, one of the benefits of the IGF, I always talk about the East African Internet Exchange Point, which got set up, which they themselves, not us, they themselves attributed to their involvement in the IGF. They came, they talked to different people, Packet Clearinghouse, etc., and they discussed that the problem is that in East Africa, if I wanted to send a message to my next-door neighbor, it would go overseas to Europe, and then come back, and, of course, that also increased the cost of the Internet connection, so an Internet exchange point was put in, and that, of course, dramatically increased the cost because it didn’t have to go overseas. It stayed within the area, so the cost of that connection went down, Internet was cheaper, and of course, more access, and more meaningful access for people, so you never know what you will get out of an IGF. There are those serendipitous meetings, etc., so you should take advantage of those, and don’t sit alone in a corner. Always talk to somebody, introduce yourself, they will talk back to you.

Carol Roach: So here’s just a map, and you can see. see how well spread the IGF is in terms of the national, regional, and youth IGFs. So the blue pegs are the national IGFs, the red pegs are the regional IGFs, and the green are the youth IGFs. And I must say the youth IGF is really growing leaps and bounds year over year. So we’re very proud of that, that we have young people coming up to be people.

Chengetai Masango: And yes, we’re going to put particular focus on Mongolia, Cambodia, and am I missing some? Bhutan. Yes. So we’re here and we are very eager to engage and add some more blue pegs. Yes. So, yes, this is another thing, Jess, please. It can be overwhelming at times. Just pick a track, see what interests you, and then when you go back home, we also have our intersessional activities. So please just check our website, join one of these groups. You can listen in on the first, and then you can always put in an intervention. Nobody will laugh at you or chase you out the group. Everybody’s willing to support each other. One of the things that we also, is important, is the IGF outputs, is that we do have outputs. So this is a list of the outputs that we are expecting from this IGF. I’ll say within my day job as a government… person that I’ve actually used a lot of these outputs. It’s the starting point, a point where you can trust for developing policies or guidelines for your own country, for your company. So feel free to go to dive in to these outputs that we have produced over the years. Yes, so you know, IGF summary report, the messages, the, as I say, the best practices and the policy network reports. Every session is transcribed, it’s recorded on YouTube as well. So yeah, you can always, if you miss something, you can always go to YouTube and search for it. So just quickly, I’m sure some of you’ve got questions. Does anybody have questions? Okay, we’ll just finish this. Here you go, question? Yes. Okay, we’ll be very quick now. I realize that we were talking a little bit too long. So for the IGF, those are the four main themes that we have and we also connect them to the GDC. As you know, the GDC was passed last year in September and we have the WSIS action lines and also the sustainable development goals. So each one of them and each session as well is connected to a specific or specific SDGs, WSIS action lines and also GDC and you can see right there. I won’t read them because we are out of time, I would say. As you know, this year is also the WSIS plus 20 review process. The WSIS and the IGF is coming up for renewal at the end of this year. This is the end of our third mandate and we do hope that the IGF will be renewed for another mandate at the end of this year, but for that we really do need your help and we really do need your support. Quickly and in the end, yes, stay connected with us please. Subscribe to the IGF newsletter. There’s the mailing list. You can always write to us at IGF at un.org and we are there on social media, so follow us on Twitter, follow us on Instagram and follow us on Facebook as well. So that’s it and we are there for questions now.

Audience: Good evening and thank you for this introduction and thank you for inviting me for this interesting event as a matter of fact. I will start by asking you a question. Yes. If you don’t mind. Sure, please. Great. Then we exchange questions. How do we govern Internet? How do we govern the Internet? Yes. Well, at

Chengetai Masango: the moment there is a multi-stakeholder approach of governance which is actually a reflection of how the Internet was formed. The Internet wasn’t formed by one entity and that entity continued to run the Internet as such. No, it was a collaboration of academia, it was a collaboration of governments and it was a collaboration of private sector as well to give us the Internet that we have now. So now we have like organizations such as ICANN that runs the DNS system, we have IETF, we have the W3C consortium that runs, you know, the web browsing, the HTML, etc. And we have various others who are responsible for different layers of the Internet, but then there’s also the social layer as well, which we are striving to keep as a multi-stakeholder input. We have input from all the people that are involved, because the consumers are very important, the people who build it are very important, the technical community, the people who run the Internet are also very important, and we need feedback from all those. I will read the same question in a

Audience: different expression. Do you want to take it? How do we regulate the Internet? How do we regulate the Internet? Okay, so I started with governance, governance,

Carol Roach: now regulating. Right, so that’s one of the reasons that we saw that it was very important to start the capacity building with parliaments and with the judiciary, because you can set policies or you can create policies, but these policies need some kind of legislation behind it. So that’s why it’s very important that we recognize that the government stakeholder, when it comes to this part of governing the Internet, are aware and they listen to all the stakeholders. We don’t want to go back to a point where, you know, a law was created. you had to follow. Now you find that a lot of member states are now getting contributions from their constituents. And this is one of the ways that, as Shangetai was saying, that we need your help to ensure that within your national area and your regional area that your voice is being heard and that you set the narrative for how you want the internet to be regulated, but not regulated to the point where it stifles innovation, where it stifles growth or economic development within your country.

Chengetai Masango: So it’s not only now pointing at government, it’s now pointing the finger back at me, at you. And also, at a base level, standards and norms on the internet should be the same as our social standards. Human rights is not different on the internet. They should be the same. So you read my mind, exactly.

Audience: This is the answer I wish to hear, what you have really said, okay? Because we can only regulate things by rules, legislation. Provisions, this is the point here. I read about the IGF, its development through the years. So as you already correctly mentioned, it started with stakeholders and mainly those working in the field. And this is very important. But let’s have in mind that the UN itself, Secretariat and the UN, it consists of nations, countries. And the countries, they govern, they should govern what happen in their territory through law, legislation. So what I noticed today, from the first day, So, I think it’s very important to understand that the legal component is a bit missing here. For example, for example, we do know that last year in December, the United Nations Convention against cybercrime have been issued by the UN, United Nations Convention against cybercrime. When you look at the program, I think there is nothing about the United Nations Convention against cybercrime. It’s very important. Because it focuses, the United Nations Convention against cybercrime, it focuses on international cooperation to regulate cybercrimes that is committed through communications and information means. So, the issue of the international legal framework is very important. So, the issue of legal aspects is very important, either the international legal framework or the national legal framework. Today, I attended this session about making the balance between freedoms and cyber, the fight against cybercrimes. So, the question is, where is the legislator? So, I asked them, please give me some, an overview about the strategic legislative approach that we should follow to combat this issue, to make the balance. So, I will conclude as well. I think it is very important to have some legal inputs in your sessions, and in the core of your goals as well. Because, finally, at the end, the law We are living according to the rule of law, either it is applied on the international level or the national level. And this is what I said exactly today. I am a judge. When I see crimes, cyber crimes, I conclude the cyber crimes according to the legislation. So I should have legislation. And this is what governs the issue, law. So this is my last conclusion. Please, let’s have this legal aspect embedded in our work. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you. I think it’s kind of embedded, but maybe you have to dig too deep. But if you look at the digital trust and resilience track, as well as the sustainable and responsible innovations, you would find you have workshops that speak to these things. But what’s the legal aspect? The legal, legal, as in judiciary, because he’s a high court judge. Oh, okay. So which bit, if you don’t mind, what stakeholder group are you?

Audience: My address is Aden Magid. I work at the Court of Cassation in Egypt, which is the supreme court of Egypt. And I’m coming here according to his invitation. Okay. So why don’t you have him on the track? So I think what you’re saying is that we need to spill out what we do in the judiciary track into the global part. Today we have a discussion about we really need that what happened with the parliamentary track should happen with the judiciary track. Expand. Okay. I agree. Thank you. Next, please. How much time do we have left? Thank you. For the record, my name is Andrew Levella from Kenya. I represent the technical community, and we run the .ke country court top-level domain. 14 years ago, Kenya hosted the IGF, and I was working in government then, and I was very young, much older now. So my question to you is, assuming the IGF gets a new mandate, what do you anticipate for the next 10, 20 years? Thank you. It’s not just us, because remember, IGF is a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and the first order of business is to go to the community

Chengetai Masango: and ask them what they want us to do, and we help them to do it. But we do want to continue to carry on the discussion, we do want to continue carrying on the multi-stakeholder model, we do want to continue with capacity building, which we think is very, very important, and to make sure that those people who were traditionally excluded can come in and have their voices heard. We’ve made great strides in inclusion, but we’re not there yet, still a lot more work has to be done, still a lot more work has to be done in capacity building. We need to work hard to close the digital divides, as I mentioned earlier, so those, but anything else?

Carol Roach: No, I think what’s key is that we hear from you, we have an open mic, and it’s an opportunity for you to tell us what it is you need more of, what we need more of, what you’d like to see, what you like, what you don’t like, so it’s really up to the communities to let us know. We don’t want to sit in and set an agenda that our communities are just not interested in. One minute? Yes, please. Thank you. I guess there’s not enough time for my question. We can have two minutes over, I’m sure. Yes, there’s a buffer. I’ll make it quick. Thank you very much.

Audience: My name is Putivud from Cambodia. I’m with the Ministry of Post and Telecommunication and this is my first time in IGF. I’m very excited to be here in this beautiful city of Oslo. I just want to follow up on what you mentioned earlier about how IGF got started. It was from the WSIS meeting. Then you came together to define what it means to govern the Internet. Then you came back with the definition. What happened after providing this definition to WSIS and to the UN? Is there any more mechanism following up that definition? This morning, in the opening sessions, one of the ministers in the Norwegian government mentioned that you’re using the word public good to define the Internet. What has been done to follow up on this kind of definition with all the multiple stakeholders here? I think it’s amazing to bring all the global community here, government, private sectors, research, civil society, but what has been done beyond talking? From what I can see, the Internet today has grown. This has given tremendous benefit. But if you look at another angle, some countries are actually taking the kids off the Internet. For example, Australia is making a law that kids below a certain age can’t. That’s what I heard. Was this the original intent when the Internet got started? Was there a vision defined? How will the Internet look like in the next 10 or 20 years? and where are we now?

Carol Roach: So kind of, so I’ll close my question with that, thank you. Yeah, so it comes down to the internet, again, we want. The internet you want, the internet you want for your children, your godchildren, your nieces, your nephews. And countries are, I think, grappling with the pace in which technology is growing. And they’re putting in what they feel are guardrails that will at least slow down a negative impact without hindering. So yes, you do have some countries that are putting in legislation that prohibits children of a certain age using some of the social media. Because at this point, they feel, as a government, that this is the best way to either slow it down or to prevent other things from happening. And that’s why places like the Internet Governance Forum, it’s important. Is that really? So we’re not only gonna be talking about the positives. Is that really the way in which a member state or a country should go? Or is there an alternative? You look and say, okay, this is what this country did. Is that something that we can add to best practice? Or can it be tweaked? So a country might look at that and say, hey, that’s a good idea. But it really doesn’t match my norm or my culture. So let me change it. But at least there’s a discussion about it. Nobody’s just being silent. It’s an open discussion. You can hear and you can reflect. And we expect you to go back to your homes, to your workplace, to your governments, to your constituency, and to help shape the Internet that you need, that your children or our future is required. So again, it comes back to us. Okay, thank you very much and please, after the session, please feel free to approach me, approach Carol, approach any one of us. We can carry on the discussion. As I said, we’re very approachable and thank you for coming and attending.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance model is essential for Internet governance

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Carol Roach

Arguments

Internet governance uses soft power and bottom-up approaches rather than top-down government directives

Internet governance involves governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community working together in their respective roles

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocate for the multi-stakeholder approach where all relevant parties (governments, private sector, civil society, technical community) collaborate in Internet governance rather than having government-only control

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Capacity building and inclusion are fundamental to IGF’s mission

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Carol Roach

Arguments

IGF operates year-round with youth engagement, mentorship programs, and digital skills training

The forum provides travel support and summer schools to increase participation from underrepresented groups

Parliamentary and judiciary tracks ensure lawmakers understand global Internet implications when creating national policies

National and regional IGFs exist in 176 locations with support for countries lacking local forums

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of building capacity across different groups and ensuring inclusive participation through various support mechanisms and educational programs

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Legal frameworks must balance regulation with innovation

Speakers

– Carol Roach
– Audience

Arguments

Countries regulate Internet activities through legislation while balancing innovation and protection

Legal aspects and judiciary involvement need greater emphasis in IGF discussions

Summary

There is agreement that legal frameworks are necessary but must be carefully designed to protect without stifling innovation and economic development

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

The IGF should evolve based on community needs and contemporary challenges, maintaining its bottom-up approach while adapting to new technologies and issues

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Carol Roach

Arguments

IGF has grown from 800 participants in Athens to 11,000 in Kyoto over 20 years, adapting to contemporary issues like AI and blockchain

The community must define the desired Internet future through bottom-up input rather than top-down agenda setting

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Fundamental rights and protections should apply consistently across digital and physical spaces, though implementation may require careful consideration of technological impacts

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Carol Roach

Arguments

Human rights standards should remain consistent between offline and online environments

Countries are implementing protective measures like age restrictions on social media as they grapple with technology’s rapid pace

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Need for stronger legal component in IGF discussions

Speakers

– Carol Roach
– Audience

Arguments

Parliamentary and judiciary tracks ensure lawmakers understand global Internet implications when creating national policies

Legal aspects and judiciary involvement need greater emphasis in IGF discussions

International legal frameworks like the UN Convention against cybercrime require more attention in IGF sessions

Explanation

Despite the IGF’s traditional focus on multi-stakeholder dialogue and soft governance, there was unexpected consensus that legal frameworks and judiciary involvement need to be strengthened and made more prominent in IGF discussions. This represents a shift toward recognizing the importance of hard law alongside soft governance approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Community-driven agenda setting over institutional priorities

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Carol Roach
– Audience

Arguments

IGF’s renewal depends on community support and continued relevance in addressing digital divides and emerging technologies

The community must define the desired Internet future through bottom-up input rather than top-down agenda setting

Questions remain about whether current approaches align with original Internet vision and long-term societal goals

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across all speakers that the community should drive the agenda and vision for Internet governance, rather than having it imposed by institutions. This includes questioning whether current approaches align with original intentions and ensuring community voices shape future directions

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed strong consensus on core IGF principles including multi-stakeholder governance, capacity building, and community-driven approaches. There was also agreement on the need for balanced legal frameworks and the importance of adapting to contemporary challenges while maintaining fundamental rights principles.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on foundational principles with emerging agreement on the need to strengthen legal components. The consensus suggests the IGF has successfully established its core identity while recognizing areas for evolution, particularly in integrating legal frameworks more prominently into its multi-stakeholder approach. This has positive implications for the IGF’s renewal and continued relevance in addressing global Internet governance challenges.

Different viewpoints

Emphasis on legal frameworks versus multi-stakeholder dialogue approach

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Carol Roach
– Audience (Egyptian Judge)

Arguments

Internet governance uses soft power and bottom-up approaches rather than top-down government directives

Countries regulate Internet activities through legislation while balancing innovation and protection

Legal aspects and judiciary involvement need greater emphasis in IGF discussions

Summary

The IGF organizers emphasize soft power, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and bottom-up approaches, while the Egyptian judge argues that legal components are missing and that legislative approaches should be more central to the forum’s work, emphasizing that ‘we live according to rule of law’

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Adequacy of current IGF approach to address international legal instruments

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Audience (Egyptian Judge)

Arguments

IGF has grown from 800 participants in Athens to 11,000 in Kyoto over 20 years, adapting to contemporary issues like AI and blockchain

International legal frameworks like the UN Convention against cybercrime require more attention in IGF sessions

Summary

While IGF organizers highlight the forum’s evolution and adaptation to contemporary issues, the Egyptian judge specifically criticizes the lack of attention to important international legal instruments like the UN Convention against cybercrime in IGF programming

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Role of legal expertise in multi-stakeholder model

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Carol Roach
– Audience (Egyptian Judge)

Arguments

Internet governance involves governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community working together in their respective roles

Legal aspects and judiciary involvement need greater emphasis in IGF discussions

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because the IGF already includes judiciary tracks and legal considerations, yet a legal professional argues these are insufficient. The disagreement reveals a gap between the IGF’s perception of legal inclusion and legal professionals’ expectations for legal framework centrality

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main disagreements center on the balance between multi-stakeholder dialogue approaches versus formal legal frameworks, and the adequacy of current IGF programming in addressing international legal instruments

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While there’s general consensus on multi-stakeholder governance principles, there are substantive differences on implementation approaches. The legal professional’s critique suggests the IGF may need to better integrate legal perspectives throughout its work rather than confining them to specialized tracks. This has implications for the IGF’s credibility and effectiveness in addressing Internet governance challenges that increasingly require legal solutions

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

The IGF should evolve based on community needs and contemporary challenges, maintaining its bottom-up approach while adapting to new technologies and issues

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Carol Roach

Arguments

IGF has grown from 800 participants in Athens to 11,000 in Kyoto over 20 years, adapting to contemporary issues like AI and blockchain

The community must define the desired Internet future through bottom-up input rather than top-down agenda setting

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Fundamental rights and protections should apply consistently across digital and physical spaces, though implementation may require careful consideration of technological impacts

Speakers

– Chengetai Masango
– Carol Roach

Arguments

Human rights standards should remain consistent between offline and online environments

Countries are implementing protective measures like age restrictions on social media as they grapple with technology’s rapid pace

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) operates on a multi-stakeholder model involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community, representing a shift from traditional top-down governance to collaborative bottom-up approaches

IGF has evolved significantly over 20 years, growing from 800 to 11,000 participants and adapting its focus to contemporary issues like AI, blockchain, and cybersecurity while maintaining its core principles of openness, inclusivity, and transparency

The forum produces tangible outputs including best practice reports, policy network findings, and capacity building programs, though it does not create binding regulations or negotiated outcomes

Internet governance currently operates through multiple specialized organizations (ICANN, IETF, W3C) managing different layers, with standards being voluntary but widely adopted for interoperability

National and regional IGFs serve as crucial extensions of the global forum, with 176 currently operating worldwide to address local internet governance issues

The IGF’s mandate is up for renewal, requiring community support to continue its work in addressing digital divides and emerging technological challenges

Resolutions and action items

IGF Secretariat committed to work with countries lacking national IGFs (Montenegro, Cambodia, Mongolia, Bhutan) to establish local forums with organizational and financial support

Participants encouraged to join intersessional activities, dynamic coalitions, and policy networks to continue engagement beyond the annual meeting

Community members urged to provide input on IGF’s future direction through open consultation processes and feedback mechanisms

Attendees advised to network actively, visit exhibition booths, and engage with different stakeholder groups during the forum

Participants encouraged to subscribe to IGF newsletter and follow social media channels to stay connected year-round

Unresolved issues

The balance between internet regulation and innovation remains contentious, with countries implementing varying approaches like age restrictions on social media without clear consensus on best practices

Legal frameworks and judiciary involvement in internet governance discussions need greater integration, as highlighted by the Egyptian judge’s concerns about insufficient legal perspective in IGF sessions

Questions about the original vision of the internet versus current reality, particularly regarding protective measures that may contradict initial openness principles

Uncertainty about IGF’s mandate renewal and what the next 10-20 years should look like, pending community input and UN decision-making processes

The challenge of closing multiple digital divides (access divide and AI divide) simultaneously while maintaining meaningful participation from underrepresented groups

How to effectively translate IGF discussions and outputs into concrete policy changes at national and international levels

Suggested compromises

Expanding the judiciary track beyond its current limited scope to integrate legal perspectives more broadly across IGF sessions, similar to how parliamentary engagement operates

Balancing protective legislation (like age restrictions) with innovation by using IGF discussions to evaluate and refine approaches rather than implementing blanket prohibitions

Adapting internet governance approaches to respect cultural norms and national contexts while maintaining global interoperability and human rights standards

Strengthening the connection between IGF outputs and practical implementation by better linking discussions to existing legal frameworks like the UN Convention against cybercrime

How do we govern Internet? How do we regulate the Internet?

Speaker

Audience member (Judge Aden Magid from Egypt)

Reason

This question cuts to the heart of internet governance by distinguishing between governance (collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach) and regulation (legal, enforcement-based approach). It challenges the IGF’s soft power model by highlighting the necessity of hard legal frameworks.

Impact

This question fundamentally shifted the discussion from describing IGF processes to examining the tension between collaborative governance and legal regulation. It forced the speakers to acknowledge that while IGF facilitates dialogue, actual enforcement requires legal mechanisms and government authority.

I think it’s very important to have some legal inputs in your sessions, and in the core of your goals as well. Because, finally, at the end, the law… We are living according to the rule of law, either it is applied on the international level or the national level.

Speaker

Judge Aden Magid

Reason

This comment exposed a critical gap in the IGF’s approach by arguing that legal frameworks are not just complementary but essential to internet governance. It challenged the sufficiency of the multi-stakeholder dialogue model without binding legal mechanisms.

Impact

This critique led to immediate acknowledgment from the organizers that legal aspects might be ’embedded but you have to dig too deep,’ suggesting they recognized the validity of the concern. It also prompted discussion about expanding the judiciary track’s influence beyond its current limited scope.

What happened after providing this definition to WSIS and to the UN? Is there any more mechanism following up that definition?… what has been done beyond talking?

Speaker

Putivud from Cambodia

Reason

This question challenged the IGF’s effectiveness by questioning whether dialogue translates into meaningful action. It highlighted the potential disconnect between high-level discussions and real-world implementation, particularly relevant given examples like Australia’s age restrictions on internet use.

Impact

This comment forced the discussion to confront the IGF’s limitations and defend its ‘soft power’ approach. It led to a more nuanced conversation about how countries are independently implementing internet policies that may contradict the original collaborative vision, highlighting the complexity of translating global dialogue into local action.

Was this the original intent when the Internet got started? Was there a vision defined? How will the Internet look like in the next 10 or 20 years? and where are we now?

Speaker

Putivud from Cambodia

Reason

This philosophical question challenged participants to consider whether current internet governance approaches align with the original vision and whether there’s coherent long-term planning. It highlighted the tension between the internet’s original collaborative ethos and current fragmented regulatory approaches.

Impact

This question elevated the discussion from operational details to strategic vision, forcing speakers to acknowledge that countries are implementing contradictory policies (like age restrictions) that may not align with the internet’s foundational principles. It highlighted the need for the IGF to better articulate its long-term vision and effectiveness.

97 heads of state actually voted for this and this was one of the first times that governments with the power decided to devolve their power a little bit and give it in the multi-stakeholder model.

Speaker

Chengetai Masango

Reason

This comment revealed the historical significance of the IGF as representing a rare instance of governments voluntarily sharing power with non-state actors. It highlighted the revolutionary nature of the multi-stakeholder approach in international governance.

Impact

This observation provided crucial context for understanding why the IGF model is unique and why its renewal is significant. It helped frame the subsequent discussions about governance versus regulation by establishing that the IGF represents a deliberate choice by governments to embrace collaborative rather than top-down approaches.

Overall assessment

The key comments fundamentally challenged the IGF’s foundational assumptions and effectiveness. Judge Aden Magid’s questions about governance versus regulation exposed the tension between collaborative dialogue and legal enforcement, forcing organizers to defend their soft power approach while acknowledging gaps in legal integration. Putivud’s questions about tangible outcomes and long-term vision challenged the IGF to demonstrate concrete impact beyond dialogue. These interventions transformed what began as an informational session into a more critical examination of internet governance effectiveness, highlighting the ongoing struggle between the internet’s collaborative origins and the reality of fragmented national regulatory approaches. The comments revealed that while the IGF facilitates important discussions, questions remain about its ability to influence actual policy implementation and prevent internet fragmentation.

How can we establish national IGFs in countries that don’t currently have them (Montenegro, Cambodia, Mongolia, Bhutan)?

Speaker

Chengetai Masango and participants from these countries

Explanation

Several participants identified their countries as lacking national IGFs, and the organizers committed to follow up with support and resources to help establish them

How do we effectively integrate legal aspects and judiciary perspectives into IGF sessions and core goals?

Speaker

Aden Magid (Egyptian Court of Cassation judge)

Explanation

The judge emphasized that legal frameworks are essential for internet governance since countries govern through legislation, and noted the absence of discussion about the UN Convention against cybercrime

Should the judiciary track be expanded beyond its current scope into the global IGF program?

Speaker

Aden Magid and Chengetai Masango

Explanation

Discussion arose about whether judiciary perspectives should be more prominently featured across all IGF tracks, similar to how parliamentary engagement has been expanded

What mechanisms exist to follow up on the internet governance definition provided to WSIS and the UN?

Speaker

Putivud from Cambodia Ministry of Post and Telecommunication

Explanation

He questioned what concrete actions have been taken beyond the initial definition and whether there’s a clear vision for the internet’s future development

What will the IGF focus on in the next 10-20 years if it receives a new mandate?

Speaker

Andrew Levella from Kenya (.ke domain)

Explanation

As someone who experienced the IGF 14 years ago, he wanted to understand the long-term vision and priorities for the forum’s future

How do we balance internet freedom with protective measures like age restrictions on social media?

Speaker

Putivud from Cambodia

Explanation

He raised concerns about countries implementing restrictive measures (like Australia’s proposed age limits) and whether this aligns with the original internet vision

How can we better address the dual challenge of the digital divide and the emerging AI divide simultaneously?

Speaker

Chengetai Masango

Explanation

He identified this as a critical issue requiring research and policy attention, as 2.5 billion people still lack internet access while AI creates new forms of digital inequality