Open Forum #15 Building Bridges for WSIS Plus a Multistakeholder Dialogue

Summary

This discussion focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and how to strengthen the digital governance architecture beyond 2025. The panel, moderated by Isabelle Lois from the Swiss Federal Office of Communications, brought together diverse stakeholders to discuss a Swiss non-paper proposing improvements to the WSIS framework. The participants agreed that existing WSIS action lines remain flexible and comprehensive enough to address current digital challenges, but require updates to their implementation architecture rather than complete restructuring.

Key themes emerged around meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence governance, data sovereignty, and the need for better coordination between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC) to avoid duplication. Panelists emphasized the critical importance of including Global South perspectives and ensuring equitable participation in digital governance processes. The discussion highlighted significant concerns about the absence of adequate public financing for WSIS implementation and the need for better metrics to measure progress on digital inclusion and equity.

Regarding the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), there was strong consensus on making it permanent with sustainable funding while expanding its role beyond internet governance to encompass broader digital policy issues. Participants debated whether to rebrand the IGF to reflect its evolved scope, though some argued the current name remains relevant as digital technologies are fundamentally internet-dependent. The conversation addressed architectural gaps in the current system and proposed better institutional linkages between the IGF, Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly.

The panel concluded with optimism about achieving a “fair deal for all” through the WSIS Plus 20 review, emphasizing the need for inclusive participation and meaningful stakeholder engagement in shaping the digital future.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review and Architecture Updates**: The panel discussed how to modernize the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework for post-2025, focusing on updating existing action lines rather than creating new ones, and addressing emerging issues like AI, data governance, and meaningful connectivity while maintaining the flexible, technology-agnostic approach.

– **IGF Evolution and Institutionalization**: Significant attention was given to strengthening the Internet Governance Forum’s role, including making it permanent with sustainable funding, expanding its mandate beyond just internet governance to cover broader digital governance issues, and improving its connection to decision-making processes through better institutional linkages.

– **Multi-stakeholder Inclusion and Global South Participation**: Panelists emphasized the critical need for meaningful inclusion of all stakeholders, particularly voices from the Global South, developing countries, and marginalized communities, while addressing gaps in participation and ensuring that diverse perspectives shape digital governance policies.

– **Coordination Between Digital Governance Processes**: The discussion focused on avoiding duplication and creating synergies between various UN processes, particularly WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), through joint implementation roadmaps and better coordination mechanisms between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly.

– **Human Rights and Public Interest in Digital Governance**: Panelists stressed the importance of strengthening human rights language across the WSIS architecture, ensuring democratic ownership of digital public infrastructure, addressing issues like misinformation and hate speech, and prioritizing public interest over private interests in agenda-setting processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to gather multi-stakeholder input on how to strengthen and modernize the WSIS framework for the post-2025 period, with particular focus on making the architecture more inclusive, effective, and relevant to current digital governance challenges while avoiding duplication with other UN processes.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout. Panelists were generally supportive of Switzerland’s non-paper and showed enthusiasm for finding positive solutions. The conversation was professional and solution-oriented, with participants building on each other’s ideas rather than engaging in conflict. The tone remained optimistic and forward-looking, with speakers expressing hope for achieving meaningful outcomes by the December 2025 deadline, despite acknowledging the challenging geopolitical environment and time constraints.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jorge Cancio** – Co-director of international relations at the Swiss Federal Office of Communications

– **Min Jiang** – Works at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (participating online)

– **Oktavian Šofranski** – Works with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg

– **Anita Gurumurthy** – Executive director for IT4Change

– **Participant** – Multiple unidentified participants (roles/titles not specified)

– **Flavio Vagner** – Professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil and technical consultant for CGI Brazil

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members (roles/titles not specified)

– **Anna Osserling** – From Article 19, an international human rights organization focusing on free speech

– **Juan Fernandez** – Senior advisor at the Ministry of Communications for the government of Cuba

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

– **Isabelle Lois** – Senior policy advisor at the Swiss Federal Office of Communications and vice chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) – served as moderator

– **Jacques Becklinger** – Speaking in support of the European IGF EuroDIG and president of the Swiss IGF Supporting Association

– **Maria Fernanda Garza** – Honorary chair of the International Chamber of Commerce and member of the Leadership Panel

**Additional speakers:**

– **Luisa Lendi** – Junior policy advisor at the Swiss Federal Office of Communication and online moderator

– **Eugenio V. Garcia** – Director of science, technology, innovation and intellectual property at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil

– **Olaf Kolfmann** – Works for Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at ISOC

– **Kosi** – From the Ministry of Economy and Finance of Benin, also chair of an NGO called Women Be Free

– **Bruna** – Part of a civil society organization (full name and title not provided)

– **Mark Colwell** – Participated online (mentioned by Luisa reading his comment)

# WSIS Plus 20 Review and Digital Governance Architecture Discussion

## Executive Summary

This multi-stakeholder discussion, moderated by Isabelle Lois from the Swiss Federal Office of Communications, examined the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and approaches to strengthening digital governance architecture beyond 2025. The session brought together representatives from government, civil society, academia, international organisations, and the private sector to discuss a Swiss non-paper proposing improvements to the WSIS framework.

The conversation focused on practical approaches to updating the WSIS framework while maintaining its foundational principles. Participants generally agreed that existing WSIS action lines remain flexible enough to address contemporary digital challenges, with emphasis needed on improving implementation architecture and coordination mechanisms rather than wholesale restructuring. Key themes included strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), addressing participation gaps particularly for Global South countries, and better coordinating between various digital governance processes including the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

## Key Discussion Points

### WSIS Framework Evolution and Action Lines

Several speakers emphasized that the existing WSIS action lines provide sufficient flexibility for addressing contemporary challenges. Anita Gurumurthy from IT4Change stated: “We completely agree that the existing action lines in WSIS Tunis are flexible enough to encompass new challenges. And rather than introducing new action lines or deleting existing ones, updates should be made to the current implementation architecture.”

Flavio Vagner from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul reinforced this view, noting that “WSIS action lines are comprehensive and technology-agnostic, maintaining validity after 20 years but need emphasis on emerging issues.” He highlighted how artificial intelligence impacts multiple action lines as both an enabler and potential threat.

Maria Fernanda Garza from the International Chamber of Commerce provided a helpful framing: “The WSIS architecture provides a unique and inclusive distributed governance model… The most important question we need to ask ourselves is whether we have been using it effectively… we have a toolbox, but are we really using all of the tools?”

### Internet Governance Forum Development

The discussion revealed support for strengthening and institutionalizing the IGF after two decades of operation. Min Jiang from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, participating online, identified a key structural challenge: “IGF by mandate is a non-binding, deliberative structure… Unfortunately also, limited by its design, a lot of the great IGF discussions and outcomes do not necessarily land in decision-making fora.”

Juan Fernandez from Cuba’s Ministry of Communications provided context by quoting Vint Cerf: “IGF may not be the place to solve the problem, but it’s certainly the place to frame the problem.” He presented data showing participation gaps in AI governance processes, with a chart demonstrating that many countries, particularly from the Global South, cannot participate in multiple governance forums simultaneously.

Bertrand de la Chapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network suggested that “2026, with an impetus coming from the WSIS plus 20 review, should be about what is and should be the evolution and the revision of the mandate of the IGF to make it formally what it is supposed to be.”

### Addressing Participation Gaps and Inclusion

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of meaningful participation from underrepresented groups. Fernandez’s presentation visually demonstrated how “most of the countries, and mostly of the South, cannot participate in all of them, or even in some of them,” referring to various digital governance processes.

Eugenio V. Garcia highlighted Brazil’s approach to inclusion, referencing their preparations for COP30 and the principle of “nothing about us without us.” He noted the challenging political environment while expressing optimism about the window of opportunity for progress.

Anna Osserling from Article 19 stressed the “importance of including underserved communities globally and addressing participation gaps,” while acknowledging that digital technologies can facilitate engagement through online environments and remote participation.

### Coordination Between Digital Governance Processes

Participants discussed the need for better coordination between WSIS Plus 20, the Global Digital Compact, and IGF processes. Gurumurthy advocated for “better linking needed between WSIS and GDC review tracks with IGF’s annual review process.”

Fernandez proposed institutional linkages between IGF, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication, emphasizing that “CSTD provides necessary intergovernmental space for government concerns and decision-making.”

Jacques Becklinger highlighted the role of National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) as “ground operations” that need better integration into global processes.

## Stakeholder Perspectives

### Government Representatives

Government speakers emphasized the need for intergovernmental spaces while supporting multi-stakeholder approaches. Fernandez stressed the importance of the CSTD as a space for government decision-making, while Garcia highlighted the challenging political environment and the need for inclusive approaches.

### Civil Society Organizations

Civil society representatives focused on human rights protections and meaningful inclusion. Gurumurthy raised concerns about public financing gaps, while Osserling emphasized strengthening human rights language across the WSIS architecture.

### Academic Contributions

Academic participants provided analytical frameworks for understanding governance challenges. Jiang identified structural issues with translating IGF outcomes into decision-making, while Vagner emphasized the technology-agnostic nature of existing action lines.

### Private Sector Engagement

Garza emphasized the private sector’s readiness to contribute, noting that the “ICC ready to serve as bridge between businesses worldwide and UN implementation efforts” while stressing the importance of commercially viable and technically feasible policies.

### International Organizations

Representatives highlighted coordination challenges and opportunities. De la Chapelle focused on institutional evolution, while other speakers emphasized the need for better integration between existing mechanisms.

## Audience Participation and Additional Perspectives

The session included active audience participation with several important contributions:

– A representative from Benin questioned whether the IGF name should change to reflect its broader digital governance scope, arguing that “IGF now discusses many digital issues beyond just internet governance.”

– Questions were raised about business community engagement in global digital governance architecture.

– Participants discussed the balance between multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches in different contexts.

## Practical Recommendations and Next Steps

Several concrete suggestions emerged from the discussion:

### Immediate Actions

– Provide feedback on the Swiss non-paper to support co-facilitators’ negotiations

– Develop structured follow-up mechanisms for IGF recommendations

– Create better integration between IGF and WSIS Forum processes

### Medium-term Developments

– Work toward making the IGF permanent with sustainable funding

– Develop joint implementation roadmaps between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes

– Strengthen participation mechanisms for Global South countries

### Long-term Vision

– Consider formal IGF mandate revision in 2026 based on 20 years of experience

– Develop better coordination mechanisms between various UN digital governance processes

– Address financing gaps that limit implementation effectiveness

## Timeline and Process Considerations

The discussion referenced several important upcoming milestones:

– Feedback period for the elements paper from co-facilitators

– Zero draft expected in August

– December timeline for key decisions

– Related processes including the WSIS Forum in Geneva and AI for Good summit

## Areas Requiring Further Development

While the discussion was generally collaborative, several issues require continued attention:

### Coordination Mechanisms

Participants agreed on the need for better coordination but proposed different specific approaches. The exact mechanisms for integrating WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes need further development.

### IGF Evolution

While there was support for strengthening the IGF, questions remain about specific changes to its mandate, funding mechanisms, and relationship to other processes.

### Participation and Inclusion

Despite consensus on the importance of Global South participation, concrete mechanisms for addressing participation gaps require further elaboration.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated the potential for constructive multi-stakeholder dialogue on digital governance issues. Participants showed general agreement on maintaining the flexibility of existing WSIS action lines while improving implementation and coordination mechanisms. The emphasis on addressing participation gaps and ensuring meaningful inclusion of all stakeholders, particularly from the Global South, emerged as a central priority.

The session’s collaborative tone and focus on practical solutions suggest positive prospects for the WSIS Plus 20 review process. While challenges remain around coordination mechanisms and implementation details, the discussion provided a solid foundation for continued engagement toward achieving more effective and inclusive digital governance architecture beyond 2025.

The moderator’s closing emphasis on ensuring “nobody is left behind in digital age with a fair deal for all stakeholders” captured the inclusive vision driving the review process and the commitment of participants to work toward meaningful outcomes despite challenging global circumstances.

Isabelle Lois: Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for attending and participating in this open forum. My name is Isabelle Lois, I’m a senior policy advisor at the Swiss Federal Office of Communications and I’m also vice chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development or the CSTD. We have, I think, a very interesting open forum for you today called Building Bridges for WSIS+, a multi-stakeholder dialogue. As you can see, we have a great panel here. Let me introduce maybe the panelists a bit. So on my right, we have Anita Gurumurthy, who is executive director for IT4Change. And then we have Flavio Reichtwagner, who is professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil and also technical consultant for CGI Brazil. And then further on the right, we have Eugenio V. Garcia, who is director of science, technology, innovation and intellectual property at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil. And then on my left side, we have first Luisa Lendi, who’s a junior policy advisor at the Swiss Federal Office of Communication and she’s our online moderator. And then we have Juan Fernandez, who’s a senior advisor at the Ministry of Communications for the government of Cuba. And we then have Maria Fernanda Garcia, who’s honorary chair of the International Chamber of Commerce. And last but not least, in person, we have Olaf Kolfmann, who’s working for the Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at ISOC. And online, we have Min Jiang, who’s working at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. So that’s our great panel and maybe before we start the discussion and the conversation I would like to give the floor to Jorge Cancio who’s co-director of international relations at the Swiss Federal Office of Communications. Jorge please share some words.

Jorge Cancio: So thank you so much Isabel. Hello everyone my name is Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government also working together with Isabel, with Risa and also with our colleagues Thomas and Remy who are here on site at the IGF. I won’t be long you know many of you know we have a non-paper that is advocating for WSIS plus and WSIS framework that is both up to speed for the digital needs of today’s world in terms of substance and in terms of how the UN system works together both internally and with all the interested stakeholders. So we are offering this non-paper as food for thought for the community and we look forward to a very substantive discussion at today’s forum with all the excellent panelists. I think only the IGF can bring together such a diverse group with so many different sensitivities and we really are very happy to have you here. Thank you so much.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you Jorge and thank you for sharing a bit a few thoughts on our non-paper. If anyone wants to have a copy or anything we can always share them with you and if anyone also wants to sit on the on the podium on the panel please come up and sit here don’t be shy. I think we can jump in straight into our questions and discussions. We all know what we’re talking about this is not the first session that discusses WSIS and what we want out of it so I think we will jump right in. I’m gonna turn to you Anita if that’s all right and maybe ask if you could share some of your thoughts on what specific changes you consider necessary to make the entire WSIS architecture fit for purpose beyond 2025 and how would you implement those changes and what changes should we see? Maybe you could share a bit on that.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you very much. I first want to compliment the government of Switzerland for having come out with such a thoughtful paper, non-paper paper. And I really gained a lot out of reading it, and also looking at the original WSIS and GDC texts. What I want to say is that we completely agree that the existing action lines in WSIS Tunis are flexible enough to encompass new challenges. And rather than introducing new action lines or deleting existing ones, updates should be made to the current implementation architecture. I think that’s a great starting point. And in fact, I can hazard a few hypotheses on how action lines can actually be redefined. For instance, the first one on the role of public governance authorities and stakeholders could actually be updated to include common standards for digital public goods, and emphasize democratic ownership and control, and transparency and accountability of digital public infrastructure. Similarly, action line three on access to information and knowledge could really encompass the need to tackle the risks to democratic integrity, especially because of misinformation, hate speech, et cetera. The line, which is the fourth, which speaks about capacity building could actually look at transformative public digital education, what unfortunately goes by the name of digital literacy for algorithmified or algorithmized public life, and so on and so forth. You could actually think about different updations and we, from the Global Digital Justice Forum, have a list of this kind of updation. But what is critical, I think, is that the architectural gaps in the first place also arise. because of one Achilles heel, which is the absence of the significance in all these documents around public financing. I think we know that ODA commitments are not being really respected, and therefore WSIS-related financing is in trouble, and therefore there are architectural gaps, and blended financing is not enough. So I think this is something for SDG’s implementation related to the WSIS we really have to look at front and center. I also think that a couple more points that I’d like to make, which have resonances in the non-paper, are to do with better linking the review of WSIS and now the GDC tracks, and the IGF’s annual review track of WSIS and GDC. How will we imagine this is, I think, very important. What will be the identified metrics across WSIS action lines and GDC tracks? How do we hold our governments to account? How do we know what progress is? And how do we define progress from the point of view of inclusion, diversity, equity, etc.? And how can it be better synergized with annual reviews, where national reviews will be presented? So finally, I’d also like to say that it’s really, really important that in the business of standard setting and going forward, we’re talking about AI, we know that many of the action line holders in the WSIS are really busy with sophisticated and committed groups looking at standard setting, but unfortunately, in all of this, developing country civil society and developing country governments are really absent, and I think that that’s something we do need to pay attention to, otherwise, I think, going forward from here, we’re not going to really have a robust post-WSIS Plus 20 review process. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Anita. I think you raised a lot of very important and very specific points that I took well note of. I like how you both gave some ideas on specific action lines where we could do better and also thinking on how How are we calculating progress? How are we celebrating what we have done, what we have achieved, and making sure that that is well recorded? And I will now maybe turn to you, Flavio. Could you share what specific maybe subject matter updates to go further than just the architecture? Would you believe are essential to make now so that WSIS is truly impactful beyond 2025? How could they be, if needed, integrated into the entire framework?

Flavio Vagner: So thank you, Isabel. Thank you for having me in the session and for the question, yeah. But first of all, let me also, as Nit, also congratulate the government of Switzerland for the non-paper, which makes very relevant and timely recommendations for the WSIS plus 20 review process and for the future of the WSIS architecture and processes. So the WSIS action lines are already very comprehensive and they cover all aspects of the information society and today’s digital transformation. They have been written in a technology agnostic way. I heard this expression this morning and I found it very, very useful, yeah. Such that the action lines did not lose their validity and strength after 20 years. However, of course, issues that were emerging trends in 2005 or even in 2015 during the WSIS plus 10 review are now a tangible reality and should be emphasized in the WSIS plus 20 review and in the follow-up of the WSIS processes. So first of all, meaningful connectivity. This is still a major challenge. Billions remain still offline, particularly in least developed countries and marginalized communities. Many with internet access still face barriers such as affordability, low digital literacy, lack of relevant content and services, for instance, in their native languages. A second issue is the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence everyone is talking about. Its impact both positive and negative continues to expand affecting labor, ethics, the environment and still deserve careful assessment by the society. So the action lines must be revised as AI acts both as an enabler but also as a threat across many areas, many action lines. Data governance, which is closely tied to AI, we now live in a data economy. Many in the global south raise concerns, serious concerns about data colonialism, advocate for data sovereignty. This cannot be neglected and must be a key focus of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. Social media and digital platforms, barely emerging 20 years ago, are now ubiquitous. They empower communication, content creation, SMEs, but also fuel disinformation and hate speech. Information integrity has become a critical issue requiring balanced solutions that at the same time protect empowerment while combating harmful content. Human rights must be protected online as offline, covering freedom of speech, gender equity, rights of marginalized groups, children’s rights, privacy and more. And this remains one of the most pressing concerns in today’s digital world. A growing issue in recent years is the energy consumption of ICTs. ICTs now account for an estimated 5 to 6% of global energy use, a figure which is rising very rapidly due to AI. And while action lines emphasize ICTs’ role in environmental protection, their growing energy impact requires now urgent attention to energy-efficient solutions. Finally, there is increasing demand for digital regulation and legislation. This is a different perspective, to combat disinformation, market concentration, labor disruptions and more, and also to assert digital sovereignty, which is claimed in many countries and jurisdictions. However, as regulation is a matter of national sovereignty, the WSIS Plus 20 review process should promote harmonized legislation that supports digital sovereignty without undermining the full potential of the Internet as a globally connected resource. And a final point, the integration of the WSIS action lines with the SDGs must be strengthened. As already mapped to the SDGs, the digitalization’s role in sustainable development needs clearer actionable connections, especially beyond 2030 and when the SDGs should be revised. So thank you for your attention and I look forward to the continuation of this discussion.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you, Flavio, for your very comprehensive and very important list of different subject matters that we need to consider now that we’re looking for the WSIS review and that we want to implement further this year. Maybe I will take the point to just remind everyone, we are many panelists, everybody’s an expert, so you have a lot to say, but try to keep your remarks as short as possible so that we can have a discussion. And I will turn to you, Maria Fernanda. WSIS has always highlighted the multi-stakeholder participation as a core principle. What would meaningful inclusion look like in the WSIS Plus 20 review and the implementation after this year, and what is missing today?

Maria Fernanda Garza: Thank you, Isabel. It is a pleasure to join you this afternoon, and thank you to the Swiss government. I’m Maria Fernanda Garza, Honorary Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce and member of the Leadership Panel. Since the WSIS was envisioned in 2005, ICC has been deeply engaged, lending the support of the global business community for a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. And the outputs from this process, the Tunis Agenda and the Geneva Action Plan, focus on creating a truly global Internet where everyone can benefit from what it has to offer. Since 2003, the world around us has been evolving significantly, with new challenges on the governance of the Internet leading to fragmented policy responses that have also been influenced by the evolution of the digital technologies that are based on or go beyond the Internet. But WSIS set us out with a uniform vision and offered us a toolbox to cope with these challenges of technology. So while 20 years have passed since this toolbox was created, and new challenges have surfaced. The most important question we need to ask ourselves is whether we have been using it effectively. The WSIS architecture provides a unique and inclusive distributed governance model that promoting interoperability, multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the policy, regulatory, and legal space around the internet and digital technologies more broadly. Bringing all of these pieces together is why WSIS created the IGF. So at less than halfway to the WSIS Plus 20 review, we must rethink how to take the existing architecture into the future. And ICC shares the views presented in the Switzerland non-paper for WSIS Plus framework, which calls for strengthening existing structure addressing the architectural gaps of the WSIS process and enhancing the IGF. The WSIS Plus 20 process must not only think about inclusion, but operationalize it by integrating the implementation of the GDC as part of the WSIS Plus 20 outcomes to avoid duplications and resource strain, and by giving the IGF a permanent mandate through sustainable funding. So as a key convenor of bottom-up inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue on digital policy issues, the IGF has demonstrated its value over the past 20 years, especially as technology has evolved and policy challenges become more complex. So when we talk about meaningful inclusion in the WSIS Plus 20 review and implementation, we mean ensuring meaningful opportunities for all stakeholders to deliver key digital policy questions. of the day. Participation and informed input from all stakeholder groups will ensure that the policies and regulations are commercially viable and technically feasible, and that privacy and human rights are protected. Leaving no one behind in the digital age means ensuring that everyone has a seat at the table, but also a voice and a power to shape the digital future. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Maria Fernanda. I really liked the point you made on the fact that we have a toolbox, but are we really using all of the tools? Are we using it in the best way? I think that’s a very good metaphor for us to think about, especially this year. And I will turn now to our online speaker, Min. Maybe you could share a bit on what you see as the main challenges or concerns that the academic community is raising now regarding the role of the IGF within the broader WSIS architecture.

Min Jiang: Thank for having me on this panel, and thanks, Jorge, Isabel, and Luisa, for the great non-paper. The academic community is an integral part of the multi-stakeholder model that underpins IGF and WSIS structures and processes. Besides a forum like this, the academic community often also works with other stakeholders in governmental, technical, business communities, and civil society to advance research, ideas, and well-being in our society. From an academic perspective, IGF faces some challenges within the broader WSIS and digital governance architecture. I will flag two issues for consideration. First is deliberation versus decision-making. IGF by mandate is a non-binding, deliberative structure under the auspice of UN that allows critical issues of Internet governance or digital governance to emerge from the confluence of diverse communities. Unfortunately also, limited by its design, a lot of the great IGF discussions and outcomes do not necessarily land in decision-making fora at the UN regional or national levels. Structurally, it seems a conveyor belt of some sorts needs to exist between IGF and the larger WSIS infrastructure, as well as between multi-stakeholder and multilateral processes to transmit and even integrate IGF outcomes more effectively into decision-making processes. Otherwise, we risk taking time away from making actual binding decisions to address critical issues and challenges. A second related issue is the limited visibility and capacity of IGF in the whole universe of WSIS and digital policy-making processes. processes. Without a permanent mandate, IGF is subject to periodical WSIS review. Also, as already mentioned by Maria Fernanda, without sustainable funding, IGF really risks its status as one of the most diverse digital governance fora based on multi-holder principles. Also with a proliferating number of organizations and processes now also including GDC, IGF faces a kind of existential question. Many see GDC’s multilateral process and IGF’s multi-stakeholder process as complementary rather than antithetical to each other. So there’s no reason why the two cannot collaborate under the same UN umbrella to address pressing issues more effectively. Thank you for your attention and look forward to more discussions.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Min. I think you raised many important points on what we’re looking for now at the IGF and how we can make it potentially stronger now with the WSIS Plus 20 review. I’m going to turn to you, Juan. There is a growing complexity in this digital governance question. So what form of coordination, roadmap, shared framework, joint mechanisms or anything in that sort of sense would you see linking the different processes? And I’m particularly thinking about WSIS and GDC, but maybe there’s other points you also want to raise. And we also have a slide that we’re sharing behind.

Juan Fernandez: Thank you, Sabelle. First of all, thank the organizer of this panel for having me. And the audience, can you be with me because I will present three slides because as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. So that way I have to speak less and we will have more time to get the interaction with you. That is what is our interest. My first slide is just to motivate. It’s taken from… from the book that’s there at the right, Governing AI for Humanity. By the way, I recommend the book. But this slide shows seven processes, not from UN, of course, related with AI. And it makes the list of which countries has participated in them. As you see with the yellow in the bottom, most of the countries, and mostly of the South, cannot participate in all of them, or even in some of them. So this raises the situation that, because, of course, I agree with the substantive issues that was said by my previous speakers. But in the end, work has to be done. And we have to do it through mechanisms, through something. And we cannot have too many of them. Because otherwise, it’s impossible, especially for a developing country, to be in all of them. In that sense, I agree with what is said in the document from the Swiss government, the non-paper paper, and also from what Garza just said, that we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We can keep the processes that were established during WSIS, of course, perfecting them now that we have the experience of the years. And these four that are in the screen now, the IGF, that we are here now, the CSTD, the WSIS Forum, and also the UN General Assembly. And there’s some arrows in the middle that is not there only for the show. Those arrows mean that there needs to be some institutional linkage and some coordination between them to avoid duplication. In the Swiss document, they go into details. I’m not going to get into details. You can check. check it in the document that mentioned UNGIS, the United Nations Group of Information Society, that groups all the agencies in the US. But I just told the Undersecretary General that was in another meeting that beyond that, we need to have a more fluid, substantive linkages and liaisons between all of this. And just to finish the last slide, I will just briefly, of course, I opened to question and to, if you want me to go into more details, but just quickly to say why the essence of those three, four mechanism. Of course, first we have the IGF. And I put them first not by chance, because the IGF is an agenda setter. It’s where from bottom up, from the national and regional IGF, problems are presented. Problems that sometimes, and many times, they’re not heard at the global level. So it’s a natural channel to channel, by the way, to channel those problems to the UN at large and to the international community at large. As Vint Cerf says in the previous IGF, in one of his intermentions, he said, IGF may not be the place to solve the problem, but it’s certainly the place to frame the problem. So that’s a very important contribution of IGF, of SCORE, and of course, because it’s all the stakeholders, policy dialogue, and it’s part of the mandate. That does not have to be changed. There’s some perfection that can be done, but OK. Then we have the Commission of Science and Technology for Development. This may sound controversial for somebody, but we need an intergovernmental space. Actually, it’s happening in the CSDD, and it has the mandate of the yearly review of the outcomes of WSIS. We need that. Somebody is still calling the enhanced cooperation. If you want, I know the story very well. I was there in Tunis when all that discussion came out. But maybe that’s for another time. We don’t have time here. But we need an intergovernmental space. And it may be the CSTD. For instance, in CSTD was decided last year to create a group for the analysis of data governance because it’s important. Maybe next year they say we will need a group for the analysis of, I don’t know, AI governance or blockchain governance, whatever. We need a place where governments can also channel their own concerns and take decisions. Of course, we have the WSIS Forum. The WSIS Forum, the mandate, original mandate, is to have the accountability of the moderator, facilitator of the action lines, and to review the action lines. And here I underline the word action because in some other forum, here in the IGF policy dialogue, in CSTD, we take decisions. But that has to be translated into actions. And I am saying that all these processes can be clearinghouse. The IGF, as a matter of fact, is a clearinghouse for policy dialogue because everybody come here. But the action lines, I just mentioned in the previous slide, in the first slide, processes that are outside the United Nations, for instance, for artificial intelligence. We don’t have an action line for artificial intelligence, but maybe we may have one. But let me put the example of the action line for cybersecurity. We have many processes from cybersecurity. Even the London process that is outside of the UN, we have the open-ended working group in Commission 1 of UNGA. And all those many people cannot be in all those places but that could converge. The result of that in the action line of cybersecurity. That is already there, it can be kept as the place for a political. review of the outcomes of the wishes of the GDC on the future. I will leave it there. I know that you may want me to go deep into something, but if we have time, please ask.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Juan, first of all for your enthusiasm in the presentation and for all of the different points. Before I go to you, Olaf, I just want to say we shared the non-paper with our distinguished panelists. I’m very happy that you’re all commenting and agreeing with the points we did. I have not asked them to endorse it. You’re free to share your own position and opinions, and I’m happy you all like it, but just to make it clear, they were all free to say whatever they wanted about it. It was just to start the conversation. But Olaf, I will turn to you. Could you maybe share a few of your thoughts on how the IGF is evolving and how it could evolve as a space for discussion or maybe a strategic platform to shape the implementation and follow-up across the digital governance landscape? I will. Please try to be brief. We want a bit of a discussion.

Participant: Is this on?

Isabelle Lois: Yes, it is on.

Participant: I’ll try to do so briefly. First, thank you for sharing the non-paper. These papers are a brilliant contribution to the global brainstorm that is happening around this topic. Brainstorming ourselves a little bit a couple of years ago, we thought about what is actually the IGF and how can we create an atmosphere in which it’s a little bit more productive. Min was referring to this conveyor belt to decisions, and in order to have a conveyor belt of decisions, we need perhaps a little bit more structure. One of the things that we identified is that if you look at the various policy topics that enter the IGF, they are of various maturity. The new ones require storming, forming, and norming by their stakeholder groups. While a little bit more mature policy topics might only need coordination and sharing of experiences. And perhaps if you’re even more mature, you can deliver best practices. You can notice that I’m a sort of an engineer going at this as a solution-oriented approach. So if you think about that and you think about policy topics that might be interesting, organize those in verticals, in pillars. I could see internet governance as its internet infrastructure governance, as its own pillar. Digital public infrastructure as its own pillar, data governance as its own pillar, AI as its own pillar, digital literacy as its own pillar. And by identifying pillars in which there is sufficient scope to do work, you can basically design work programs. Is this really about coordination, maybe reporting to each other in the community, what the state of things are, where work is being done, what work is being done? Or is this about getting to what are the problems that are on the table? What are the actual dilemmas and the storming and the norming and the forming? Across that matrix, we now get the matrix, we have the horizontals. We have the horizontals of the global equalities, the human rights, the questions around climate, technical competency that needs to be in all of those pillars, and the academic community that needs to come out of those pillars. By making work programs within those pillars, you have a little bit of a continuity and a chance of producing outcome that will be picked up either by the communities in, say, their regional and national internet governance bodies, picked up by governance, or perhaps reported up to the food chain, as you just described it. And with that, that’s sort of the idea. The pitch.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much for the pitch. I really liked it. Short, sweet, and to the point. And without further ado, I will turn to our last panelist, Eugénie, please. If we’re zooming out maybe a bit, but considering the ongoing or starting discussions on WSIS Plus 20 review and the whole UN system, both in New York and in Geneva, how are you approaching this process from sort of a governmental perspective? What are the key issues that are being raised that you think should be raised throughout the different UN fora?

Participant: Thank you for the invitation to join this panel. I’m glad to be here. I think you know that the internet in Brazil is based on a multi-stakeholder model. The Internet Steering Committee, also known as CGI, I think most of you are familiar with what we have been doing. We are now celebrating 30 years of this Internet Steering Committee. And you also might be familiar with the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines that were adopted last year during the next Plus 10. And this is the foundation of our position. And I want to congratulate Switzerland for the non-paper. I fully recommend those in the audience to read this non-paper as food for thought, because it has some interesting ideas. One of them, for example, a joint implementation roadmap, because we always talk about avoiding duplication of efforts, avoiding creating new platforms. And it would perhaps make no sense that we have two different tracks dealing with the same subject matter. So we have the WSIS platform. plus 20 and also have the Global Digital Compact, the GDC. So the challenge is how can we integrate both processes? And in terms of negotiations in New York, you have probably read the elements paper by the co-facilitators of the WSIS process. Our assessment is that they have tried to make a comprehensive document highlighting the benefits of technology, but also the risks associated with digital technologies. But in terms of proposals, actually the co-facilitators were very cautious. They are promising for the zero draft coming by August, possibly, to come up with some concrete ideas in terms of how we can go forward for this process, which has a timeline for December in New York. But also these have ongoing negotiations on the GDC, especially the AI track. I think some of you may have read there is the third draft, which are the terms of reference and modalities for the AI scientific panel, the International Independent Scientific Panel on AI, but also the AI Global Dialogue that is both are coming from the GDC. And this draft was circulated to UN member states and the deadline is tomorrow. So there is a silence procedure and we don’t know exactly if delegations would break the silence. We have some major players, but also the G77 representing developing countries. I think they are having a meeting, a coordinated meeting today to decide what to do. So all of this is happening at the same time, but what we have is a challenging political environment, particularly this year, with growing polarization, geopolitical tensions, the ideological divide. Some people talk about the tech Cold War. So this is difficult, adding complexity to how we organize the global digital ecosystem. I say to my colleagues that we have a window of opportunity, but when we open this window, there is a storm outside. So bad timing, but this is something that we need to see how we can move forward despite these challenges. And to finish, three points on the future of IGF. First, that IGF should be made permanent. I think it doesn’t make any sense that we are discussing again and again renewing the mandate of the IGF, which has a very important role. And I see some consensus from delegations in New York about this. Maybe this is a low-hanging fruit that we can secure if we manage to have stable and predictable funding. But this is, of course, my second point. And the third is rebranding IGF. This is another suggestion in the Swiss non-paper, because what we see here, not only in Billiström, but also in previous IGFs, we don’t talk about it. the internet governance per se, we have AI, we have emerging technologies, several other issues, information integrity and so on. So this would acknowledge a reality that it’s, of course, we need to discuss if this is also feasible and the question, can we reach a compromise? So I’ll stop here and looking forward to the discussions.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Eugenio. Thank you. Thank you all for your very interesting and important thoughts. We have about half an hour for questions and comments from maybe the audience. I have a few questions if no one has something to say. I’m looking at you, dear listeners. Anyone want to ask something? Otherwise, I have a sort of overarching question that I think we can think about. And maybe if someone wants to come up and ask something, yes, please. The mics are on the side. In the meantime, whilst you walk over to the mic, I think we, I would like for us to think a bit on our perspective as different stakeholder groups and maybe think about the main challenges, concerns that we want to get out or that we think we could solve with the WSIS Plus 20 review this year and outcome. Please, Jacques, I see that you are first on the mic. Go ahead, ask your question or say your comments.

Jacques Becklinger: Well, first of all, I thank you, all the panel, for a wonderful contribution. And my name is Jacques Becklinger. I am here speaking in support of the European IGF EuroDIG and also president of the Swiss IGF Supporting Association. And with pleasure I read in the very good non-paper that also the role of the NRIs are addressed as the ground operation. So in business, we know all business is local. And the IGF is not just happening somewhere in New York or somewhere in cyberspace, but it’s actually happening on the ground. So I would just remind that. And in maybe future version 3, would be great to have even expanded a little bit on the role of what’s happening on the ground in… I think, 140 or something local IGFs.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Jacques. Bertrand, I will immediately take your question or comment.

Bertrand de la Chapelle: Anyway, my name is Bertrand de la Chapelle, I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. I want to focus on one thing, the question of the renewal of the mandate of the IGF has been mentioned. I, of course, like many people, wholeheartedly support the extension and even making it permanent. However, it’s not enough. 20 years in, it’s time to take stock. I do not expect the WSIS plus 20 process by December to make decisions on how to improve the IGF further, how to revise its mandate, how to more formally institutionalize it, which I think is the right time, 20 years in. However, I take the example of what was achieved with the Working Group on Internet Governance in 2004 and 2005, which was one of the rare truly multi-stakeholder groupings that initiated not only the definition of Internet Governance, but also the concept of a forum that gave birth to the IGF. I strongly believe that 2026, with an impetus coming from the WSIS plus 20 review, should be about what is and should be the evolution and the revision of the mandate of the IGF to make it formally what it is supposed to be, an issue framing exercise and an agenda setting, as Juan said. And second, how to institutionalize it more coherently. in a charter of sorts that establishes the different powers and capacities of the existing building blocks that we have. So I think there is an articulation that we should take into account during the WSIS Plus 20 review to think about how to organize the discussion that has to take place in 2026. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. Maybe we can continue, I see there’s two more people, Anna, please.

Anna Osserling: Thank you so much for this conversation. My name is Anna Osserling and I’m from Article 19, an international human rights organization focusing on free speech. I really would like to thank Switzerland for this non-paper, it’s really much appreciated. I speak on behalf of Article 19, we’re also a member of the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS, by the way. Two points I wanted to amplify in this paper and one question I wanted to put to you. The first point is really, and I’ve said this in so many sessions already so I feel like a broken record, but I do think it’s important. We need to strengthen the human rights language across the whole WSIS agenda, vision, architecture. This is absolutely crucial. The impact on the enjoyment of human rights, and I mean all human rights, so I’m talking about freedom of expression, of course, but equally labor, social, economic, etc. rights. The second point I want to make is about inclusion, and this is extremely important. At the moment in the Elements paper, that element is a little bit missing, and we would love to see this a little bit stronger. Also in this non-paper, it could be a little bit stronger. And when I talk about inclusion, I mean this in the broadest sense of the word. It’s really important to include all underserved communities across the globe, obviously within the global majority, but also across the globe that are communities that are not fully represented right now in the WSIS architecture and vision. And then thirdly, I fully agree with what you’re saying in terms of trying to integrate. There are so many processes going on. on, whether it’s on data governance, AI governance, etc., there’s a GDC, it’s becoming very confusing. So I really like your proposal for a joint implementation roadmap. So my question is, could you perhaps elaborate that a little bit more on how you see that in practice? Because we fully support the principle of it, the idea of it, but perhaps it’s good to hear your thinking a little bit about how you see that in practice. Thank you so much.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Anna, and I think we can get the last question. I’m sorry, sir, I don’t know your name, but please introduce yourself.

Audience: My name is Kosi, I’m a Sinoan, I come from Benin. I’m from the Ministry of Economy and Finance. I’m also chair of an NGO called Women Be Free. We all agree that IGF plays a good role today, but when we look at the agenda, we are talking about many things. It’s not only internet, we are not talking about only internet here. I don’t know if it makes sense to see if it’s possible today to change the name and look at something very different and will permit us to talk about all the things concerning digital space globally. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. Please, sir.

Oktavian Šofranski: My name is Oktavian Šofranski, I’m with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. I have in my hand the declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the World Summit on the Information Society, plus 20 review, and the extension of its mandate, which certainly you maybe heard about, it supports this extension with many different recommendations. I will focus on one aspect, cooperation with technology companies that are so important for the building of the architecture of this digital world. The Council of Europe has set up some years ago… So, a partnership with digital companies and we have consultations, we have them as part of our committee works to develop corporate social responsibility, various ethical standards, ethics by design, etc. What can be done more to engage at the global level, to engage more the business community to forward our goals?

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. And yes, I know about the statement, it’s actually a very good summary of what we could agree on at the Council of Europe. Bruna, please.

Audience: I forgot my headphones for some reason, sorry. No, just two points actually. I think we speak a lot about inclusion of stakeholders within the IGF and WSIS, but we often forgot to address what are the gaps and what are the problems around here, right? And as much as many of us, I’m part of a civil society organization, as part of civil society stakeholder within the IGF, but it seems that it’s growing, that we’re forgetting to address all of the gaps, we’re forgetting to address the differences in levels of participation and that’s, to me, one of the main points we need to tackle within this review and within the next steps and looking forward to what could be the next 20 years of the IGF. And just to quote an example, I think we had a rather good session this morning on the future of work in AI, where there was no perspective from civil society in that conversation, in a topic that’s so relevant, that’s going to be part of what’s going to come out of the WSIS review, and it’s really relevant that we, again, keep addressing those points and so on. Just jumping briefly into the AI conversation, it’s really relevant that we don’t just allow for the global north perspective to, not to win, but to be the dominant. And I think that’s a very important question. And I think that’s a very important question, and I think that’s a very important one within this conversation. We do have gaps, we do have problems, many countries in the world that are trying to tackle this question through different lenses. And it’s really important that when addressing the inclusion of AI within the WSIS framework, we do, there is some sort of evaluation or how we can balance the two, and we do that with the WSIS framework, and we do that with the WSIS framework, and we do that with the WSIS framework, and we do that with the relevant ones. It’s really good that we achieve some level of compromise or balance within that, just that. Thanks.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Bruna, and I truly agree with the point of working on how we can be more inclusive, on working for always better. The multistakeholder element of every session we have at IGF, of every part of the system, and to think about it. I am very excited to see the work that you are doing, and to think about the work that the WSIS framework is doing. This is a very good resource on how we can be and think deeply about multistakeholderism and how we can include it in every aspect of our work. Maybe I will open up to my panel around here. Is there anyone who wants to comment or say something on the different points that were raised from the floor? We had a lot of thoughts and ideas on the IGF, specifically, about how we can think about multistakeholderism and how we can include it in every aspect of our work. I’m looking around at all of you. Anyone who wants to take the floor? I’m sorry. Juan? You want to? Please, go ahead.

Juan Fernandez: Just only briefly to comment in the proposal that has been made several times of the change of name, of internet to digital. Earlier this morning, there was a presentation about the imagervation that was supposed to come, as well. It was an attack on the creative rainforest, and you know that’s an essential book. address that problem in depth, and think he is already distributing some notes. I think that in the note he explained, he even has a graphic with a pyramid of concepts. And of course, what’s in a name? We could name it the way we want, if we have the definition of what that means, a name. But he argues, and I agree with him, that the definition of internet as a concept, it encompasses many of the things that is happening today. Because what’s digital without internet nowadays? What is artificial intelligence without internet or networks based on the internet protocol? So of course, there can be arguments in pro and in con, but it’s not necessary to change name, if that’s the name that is already engraved in the minds of many people outside of this room and of these themes. Because that’s important. Sometimes we think that we are the only one around working on this, but it’s not the case. There are many people taking decisions that influence this that are not technical savvy or something like that. And it’s better to keep the things that works and not change it very much. That’s the same with name. Of course, if there’s a majority that changes name, they’re OK. It will be OK. But that’s the way I think that we should study what Jovan said. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Juan, for both the book recommendation and your thoughts on the name change. I think, Eugenio, you wanted to share your thoughts as well. Please go ahead.

Participant: Sure. Thank you. Yes, on the IGF, I think becoming more institutionalized or expanding the mandates. And I think the discussion here is if the IGF can become policy relevant, because right now we see as all these panels, they are great to have stakeholder engagement, but we are not really negotiating any outcome. And I think when we think about New York and the UN, some member states are clearly opposing any. We had the discussion on AI governance, the global dialogue that is being now considered, and some delegations are against any negotiated outcome. So this is a challenge that we need to face. But I want to go back to one of the questions on inclusion and diversity, because of course we need to ensure that the inclusion of women and girls, children and youth, older persons, persons with disabilities, migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons, indigenous peoples and groups in vulnerable situations. Because I think you know that Brazil will be hosting the COP30 next November in Belém on climate change. It’s the first ever COP in the Amazon rainforest. Because the principle here is nothing about us without us. So we think about indigenous peoples. So please come, come to Belém and see how reality is in the Amazon, to meet people, engage with them. And we think that digital technologies can be a plus in terms of facilitating more engagement from these groups. So we are preparing like a metaverse for people to engage remotely. Because of course nobody can guarantee that we have all. These groups represent physically in Berlin, but we need to provide solutions. And I think online meetings and online environments would help us to do this. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Eugenio. And I know that Anita just wanted to say something, and I have Min online and then Olaf. So go ahead.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you. I think I have an overall reflection about the non-paper and, of course, the comments. One thing is that in getting the WSIS architecture right and making it fit for purpose, at least for the next 10 years, an important thing that needs to be done is to look at the evidence on the ground about the real politic of how negotiations take place. And, I mean, I think it’s too crude to say who wins. But what I really mean is how does public interest really get defined? You know, how does it materialize? And to that extent, I must say that Section 7.5, I was not completely convinced that you have thought it through. And I really like the approach that the Australian non-paper takes to, you know, to frame the issues, which it says is what is the evidence and what have we heard? And what is the evidence in the Australia non-paper? It’s really about studying documentation about what’s coming up on specific issues. To that extent, I’d really like to think about the CSTD’s role a little bit more carefully, because if we really want to bolster enhanced cooperation and also promote multi-stakeholder cooperation, I think it’s important to think about whether a CSTD that’s offering guidance, you know, to governments, or the way in which governments bring their thoughts to define issues in the… the digital arena will be benefited from private interests also defining the agenda. So for instance, in the WHO, there have been private philanthropists who have completely defined what illnesses should actually be prioritized in the world. And there is copious amounts of evidence to tell you that that has really not served the world. It has not served the cause of equity and certainly public health. So the public health of the digital certainly depends on the agenda to be set through democratic processes where people’s interest is put ahead. And I’m not sure if private interests get into the CSTD. We are going to be able to see agenda setting in quite the same way that will serve public interest. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Anita. And maybe before I give the floor to the next comments and we only have 15 minutes, I’m trying to be mindful of the time. I think the point we are trying to raise in the paper just so that it’s clear is not private interest coming into the spaces, but truly a multi-stakeholder element. So I just wanted to point that out, but we can discuss it further. Please, Olaf, I know that you wanted to say something and then we have Min online. I have not forgotten you.

Participant: It’s a bit of the name change that I wanted to get into. When I described the architecture, I consciously used the word internet infrastructure coordination. I do think that all these pieces, data governance, AI, need to be compacted in one forum. And the name internet governance forum is a nice one. I have no objections keeping them. But I want to tie it back a little bit to the elements paper. Because if you read the elements paper, the only place where multi-stakeholderism is being mentioned is in the internet governance section. While the other sections, the data governance sections and the AI sections have a much more multilateral tone. So I do think that we need to keep that, at least that’s the way that I read it. And I do think that that is something we need to keep in the back of our minds. If we talk about name changes or perhaps even entity changes that we take care that also those other topics would have global spanning effects where that flywheel of global IGF region regional IGF, national IGF and back and forth is actually relevant, stays in place as well.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much for your thoughts. Min online, I know you’ve been waiting for a bit and then we have Flavio and maybe also Maria Fernanda.

Min Jiang: Thank you. As emphasised already by other speakers on the panel and audience participants, WSIS 20 plus 20, IGF and GDC and many other digital governance processes would have to address the present challenge of AI and the role of the global south in policymaking processes. AI is currently a central galvanising issue that intersects with many other issues that you flagged in the NAM paper, including data governance, environmental impact, digital divide, information integrity, human rights, human rights not only in normative terms, but also in social economic terms and digital public infrastructure. And why don’t we talk about a global public option to AI? So the other piece is the participation of the global south and I deem it really critical. This is an old issue that can go back to the New World Information Communication Order, New Waco debate in the 1970s to address the power imbalances between the global north and global south. So there’s a historical legacy there, but more specifically at the time in the 1970s between the United States and the rest of the world. In a way, sort of the history really rhymes at the current moment, the US administration is trying to adopt to stop individual states from regulating AI in the next decade. So given the limited number of countries, particularly US and China, are really ahead of the rest in AI development, it is really critically important to be globally inclusive in our policymaking processes. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Min, and I agree on the essentialness of being inclusive. Flavio, I know you wanted to share your thoughts as well.

Flavio Vagner: Yeah, thank you. I would like to make a comment which is somewhat related to the issue raised by Bertrand and also addressed by Olaf, namely how the IJF should evolve in the future, and also to the question of the gaps on the WSIS architecture. We need, of course, a much better integration between the IJF and the WSIS Forum, and I think this is almost a low-hanging fruit for the WSIS plus 20 review process. One possible way to achieve this is through some concrete institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism, and this is addressed in the Swiss non-paper. This may help fill gaps, avoid duplications, and create an effective exchange of outcomes in both directions, between the IJF and the WSIS Forum. And this would also help achieve one of the major improvements that is required for the IJF, and this has been said for many years, namely that its multiple outcomes, for instance from its many intersessional work streams, are conveyed to decision-makers in a more effective way. And as Juan very well stated, and others, the IJF has a role for agenda-setting and bring emerging issues, possible solutions, and even already reactions from the various stakeholder groups to those issues and solutions. And this is a powerful input to other processes or forums involving decision-makers, and there we have the WSIS Forum, while the IJF shall continue as a dialogue space, convening all the multi-stakeholder, all the stakeholder groups, the WSIS Forum has a tradition of attracting more representatives from governments and from UN agencies, they discuss the advancements along the WSIS action lines. So the inputs from the IJF should become concrete and important contributions to the WSIS Forums and to the assessment of the action lines.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Flavio. Maria Fernanda, I will give you the floor now.

Maria Fernanda Garza: Thank you very much. Going back to my early comments on the need to ensure meaningful regular avenues for stakeholders to deliberate digital policy, the International Chamber of Commerce stands ready to serve as a bridge between businesses around the world and UN efforts to implement and strengthen the WSIS architecture. We can channel the voices of companies, large and small, from every region, ensuring their experiences and concerns are heard, and through ICC business action to support information society. We are engaging with existing multi-stakeholder efforts to coordinate input into the WSIS Plus 20 review, and we are committed to continue our contributions to those to ensure that the input of the next phase of the liberations is truly representative and truly operational. I’m also pleased to have been able to respond to this task through my role at the IGF Leadership Panel. And on that point, I would urge you to consider that the paper that the Leadership Panel, with the support of the MAG, have put together, the outlook of the IGF, which can serve as an important complement in our broader campaign to strengthen the IGF’s role in the UN system, make the IGF a permanent structure supported by the regular UN budget, and ensure the viability of the multi-stakeholder model for the consideration of Internet governance and digital policy issues, and enable the IGF to adapt to future needs as the Internet and digital technologies continue to evolve. And to enable this, we need a solid strategic approach to communications that informs, educates, and elevates interest in the IGF among UN member countries. Our paper provides useful recommendations on developing clear communications, channels, and messages to demonstrate the influence of IGF discussions on international policy dialogues, including the G20, the G7, and UN bodies, and introducing structured follow-up mechanisms to track and report to the implementation and impact of IGF recommendations, making our contributions more visible and tangible. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Maria Fernanda. only highlight what you just said. It’s a very good document and I recommend if you have not read it to read the different points that are being raised there. Maybe I will use my privilege as moderator and share a few thoughts. I really like that I think all of you, or most if not all, have highlighted the importance of having an inclusive participation, of thinking of Global South, also priorities and perspectives for this WSIS plus 20 review and getting a fair, I think a fair deal for all. And I think this is something that Switzerland is very aligned with this idea of first of all engaging in the preparation for the review and the negotiations in a positive way of trying to find a positive some gain. We have the opportunity to get something really good, to agree on a document that we’re happy about, to next year when we’re starting the implementation of the WSIS plus 20 outcomes we’re happy with the result. And I think it shows here that there is a willingness to actively contribute to the negotiations, to actively contribute to the inputs on the elements paper and to find something that’s positive. And I think this IGF, at least so far from what I’ve attended, has really shown the beautiful impact it can have, how the questions that are raised, the sort of the agenda setting power that we’ve discussed here is really being used and will hopefully I think come out of a zero draft for the WSIS plus 20 and then the negotiations I’m sure as well. So I think this is something that’s that is very good and I wanted to highlight this sort of positive outtake that I’m getting from this conversation and reminding sort of everyone we we have time, there’s not much time until December, but we still have time to get something great and considering sort of a fair deal for Arl is something that’s a priority for us. I think we have four minutes left, maybe I could all give you, oh sorry there’s a comment online, apologies Louisa please.

Participant: Yeah maybe just allow me to read out a comment from Mark Colwell online who was talking about and adding up on what Chuck Beglinger said about importance of the NRIs and how actually as well it is wished to them to be included in the elements paper and to have a special mention. event about now I think 176 initiatives which are here so just about the whole ecosystem of the IGF with being taken into account and also yeah he was talking about that the outcomes of the IGF as well as the international intersessional activities over with the 30 dynamic coalitions that they need to be better communicated and their concrete outputs advocated both in the IJS as well as in the versus forum so yeah there’s just a comment to mention was that online

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much Louisa for reading out the comment and for sharing that and sorry I should have been paying more attention to what is happening online and three minutes left maybe I could give you the opportunity to give a word or a sentence that you wish if you imagine yourself January 2026 we’ve finished the negotiations we have with this plus 20 review how do you feel what are you happy about may I ask you or genuine start and I’m sorry to put the spot

Participant: Yes thank you I think this is an ongoing conversation next we have the with this forum in Geneva next July and also the AI for good summits so the road to December is they’ll have many opportunities to go deeper into this discussion but it’s essential that we incorporate that the global South voice are on board fully on board because and I said about indigenous peoples nothing about us without us so that’s the same for developing countries because we first take the global majority as they say we are going nowhere if you don’t include them in this the outcome that we expect to achieve by December.

Isabelle Lois: Absolutely Flavio one word or one sentence 2026 what are you happy about.

Flavio Vagner: Yeah so I think the major challenge for the IGF is not the renewal of its mandate I think this will be certainly achieved in the WSIS Plus 20 review process, but its future role. So it must have a much more important role already within the WSIS architecture. So in January, I would be very happy, expecting that the IJF has been considered as one of the outcomes of the WSIS Plus 20 review process as the main discussion space for all digital governance issues, not only internet governance, also AI and all other emerging issues, and a focal point for the follow-up of both the GDC and the WSIS processes. Thank you. That would make me happy.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you. Anita?

Anita Gurumurthy: I think I would like to echo the sentiment of Eugenio, but I’d like to add that in harmonizing the architecture in relation to the WSIS, we shouldn’t forget that the WSIS architecture itself needs to be harmonized with the larger agenda of the multilateral system to be just and fair, which includes intersections of the digital agenda with fair trade, with fair intellectual property, with climate justice, gender equality, taxation, competition, and all of those issues that make the voices of the global South so special, so relevant and pertinent to the WSIS.

Isabelle Lois: Absolutely. Min, online, do you want to share your sentence or your word for?

Min Jiang: Thank you. I believe IJF, WSIS, and GDC share similar goals and aspirations under the same UN umbrella. There is a way for us to actually put public interest, global South, and also inclusive processes in the spotlight to make the joint architecture happen. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you. Juan? What’s the question? Close your eyes. You’re in January 2026. Everything went well. And we are very happy about it. One word, one sentence.

Juan Fernandez: A lot of work.

Isabelle Lois: Maria Fernanda.

Maria Fernanda Garza: Well, that nobody is left behind in this digital age. And that means ensuring, as I said before, that everyone has a seat at the table, a voice, and the power in shaping the digital future. And that is the vision that embodies the IJF.

Isabelle Lois: It is. Olaf.

Participant: We wake up and we have strong commitments from all over the world to bridge that digital divide. And that begins with bringing the internet to the people who don’t have it now and want to have it.

Isabelle Lois: That is beautiful. Thank you so much. And maybe I would give my word, if I can. And I’m sorry, I know we’re over time. I think I would say that we have a fair deal for all. And on that note, I apologize for taking a bit extra of your time. Thank you so much, all of the panelists, for sharing your thoughts, and all of you for listening and sharing your concerns. Thank you.

Agreement points

Switzerland’s non-paper provides valuable framework for WSIS Plus 20 review

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Flavio Vagner
– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Juan Fernandez
– Participant
– Anna Osserling

Arguments

Existing action lines are flexible enough to encompass new challenges, updates should focus on implementation architecture rather than creating new action lines

WSIS action lines are comprehensive and technology-agnostic, maintaining validity after 20 years but need emphasis on emerging issues

WSIS provides a unique distributed governance model that should be strengthened rather than replaced

Need for joint implementation roadmap to integrate WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes to avoid duplication

Need for institutional linkages between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication

Switzerland’s non-paper offers thoughtful recommendations for strengthening existing structures

Summary

Multiple speakers praised Switzerland’s non-paper as providing thoughtful and valuable recommendations for the WSIS Plus 20 review process, emphasizing strengthening existing structures rather than creating new ones

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

IGF should be made permanent with sustainable funding

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Participant

Arguments

Need for sustainable funding mechanisms for IGF operations

IGF faces challenges in translating deliberative outcomes into decision-making processes, needs better conveyor belt to binding decisions

IGF should be made permanent with stable funding and potentially rebranded to reflect broader digital governance scope

Summary

Speakers agreed that the IGF has demonstrated its value over 20 years and should be made permanent with sustainable funding, rather than continuing periodic mandate renewals

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Need for better coordination and integration between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Juan Fernandez
– Flavio Vagner
– Participant

Arguments

Better linking needed between WSIS and GDC review tracks with IGF’s annual review process

WSIS provides a unique distributed governance model that should be strengthened rather than replaced

Need for global public option to AI and addressing power imbalances between Global North and South

Need for institutional linkages between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication

IGF needs better integration with WSIS Forum through institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms

Need for joint implementation roadmap to integrate WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes to avoid duplication

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasized the need to avoid duplication and create better coordination mechanisms between various digital governance processes, particularly WSIS, GDC, and IGF

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Critical importance of Global South inclusion and addressing participation gaps

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Flavio Vagner
– Min Jiang
– Juan Fernandez
– Anna Osserling
– Participant
– Audience

Arguments

Need to strengthen participation from developing country civil society and governments in standard-setting processes

Data governance and concerns about data colonialism from Global South perspective need attention

Need for global public option to AI and addressing power imbalances between Global North and South

AI governance processes often exclude Global South countries, creating participation gaps

Importance of including underserved communities globally and addressing participation gaps

Digital technologies can facilitate engagement from vulnerable groups through online environments and remote participation

Need to prevent Global North dominance in AI governance and ensure balanced perspectives

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need to address historical power imbalances and ensure meaningful participation from Global South countries and underserved communities in digital governance processes

Topics

Development | Human rights

IGF’s role as agenda setter and problem framer should be strengthened

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Min Jiang
– Flavio Vagner
– Participant

Arguments

IGF serves as agenda setter and problem framer, channeling issues from bottom-up through national and regional IGFs

IGF faces challenges in translating deliberative outcomes into decision-making processes, needs better conveyor belt to binding decisions

IGF needs better integration with WSIS Forum through institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms

IGF could benefit from structured work programs organized in policy pillars with different maturity levels

Summary

Speakers agreed that the IGF’s unique role in agenda-setting and problem-framing from bottom-up should be strengthened, with better mechanisms to translate outcomes into decision-making processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers agreed that the current WSIS action lines are sufficiently flexible and comprehensive to address new challenges without requiring fundamental restructuring, but need updates to emphasize emerging issues that have become tangible realities

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Flavio Vagner

Arguments

Existing action lines are flexible enough to encompass new challenges, updates should focus on implementation architecture rather than creating new action lines

WSIS action lines are comprehensive and technology-agnostic, maintaining validity after 20 years but need emphasis on emerging issues

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

These speakers shared a vision of truly inclusive digital governance where all stakeholders, particularly from underserved communities and Global South, have not just participation but actual power to influence outcomes

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Participant

Arguments

Meaningful inclusion requires ensuring all stakeholders have seat at table, voice, and power to shape digital future

Need for global public option to AI and addressing power imbalances between Global North and South

Digital technologies can facilitate engagement from vulnerable groups through online environments and remote participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need for concrete institutional mechanisms to better integrate IGF outcomes with other WSIS processes, particularly the WSIS Forum, to avoid duplication and improve effectiveness

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Flavio Vagner

Arguments

Need for institutional linkages between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication

IGF needs better integration with WSIS Forum through institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Business community engagement in digital governance

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Oktavian Šofranski
– Audience

Arguments

ICC ready to serve as bridge between businesses worldwide and UN implementation efforts

Need for better engagement of business community in global digital governance architecture

Need for better engagement of business community in global digital governance through partnerships

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different stakeholder groups (business, intergovernmental organization, and audience) about the need for better business engagement in digital governance, suggesting recognition that private sector participation is essential rather than problematic

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Potential rebranding of IGF to reflect broader digital governance scope

Speakers

– Participant
– Audience
– Juan Fernandez

Arguments

IGF should be made permanent with stable funding and potentially rebranded to reflect broader digital governance scope

Need to change IGF name to reflect broader digital governance scope beyond just internet

CSTD provides necessary intergovernmental space for government concerns and decision-making

Explanation

There was unexpected openness from multiple speakers to consider rebranding the IGF to reflect its evolution beyond traditional internet governance, though Juan Fernandez provided a counterargument about keeping established terminology

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Recognition of CSTD’s important intergovernmental role

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

CSTD provides necessary intergovernmental space for government concerns and decision-making

WSIS architecture should harmonize with broader multilateral system for justice including trade, IP, climate, and gender equality

Explanation

Despite potential controversy, there was recognition from both speakers about the importance of intergovernmental spaces like CSTD, though Anita raised concerns about private interests potentially influencing agenda-setting in such spaces

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on key structural issues: strengthening existing WSIS architecture rather than creating new processes, making IGF permanent with sustainable funding, improving coordination between various digital governance processes, and ensuring meaningful Global South participation. There was also agreement on the value of Switzerland’s non-paper as a foundation for discussions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on structural and procedural issues, with speakers from different stakeholder groups (civil society, academia, government, business) largely aligned on the need for institutional strengthening, better coordination, and inclusive participation. This strong consensus suggests good prospects for productive negotiations in the WSIS Plus 20 review process, though implementation details may require further discussion.

Different viewpoints

Role of private interests in intergovernmental spaces like CSTD

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Isabelle Lois

Arguments

WSIS architecture should harmonize with broader multilateral system for justice including trade, IP, climate, and gender equality

Switzerland’s non-paper offers thoughtful recommendations for strengthening existing structures

Summary

Anita Gurumurthy expressed concerns about private interests getting into the CSTD, arguing that this could undermine democratic agenda-setting and public interest, citing WHO examples where private philanthropists defined illness priorities. Isabelle Lois clarified that the Swiss non-paper advocates for multi-stakeholder participation rather than private interest dominance, but the fundamental disagreement remains about the appropriate level of private sector involvement in intergovernmental decision-making spaces.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Whether to change IGF name to reflect broader digital governance scope

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Audience

Arguments

IGF serves as agenda setter and problem framer, channeling issues from bottom-up through national and regional IGFs

Need to change IGF name to reflect broader digital governance scope beyond just internet

Summary

Juan Fernandez argued against changing the IGF name, stating that the internet concept already encompasses many current digital issues including AI, and that it’s better to keep things that work rather than change names that are already established in people’s minds. An audience member from Benin argued for changing the name since IGF now discusses many digital issues beyond just internet governance. This reflects a fundamental disagreement about whether the current branding adequately represents the forum’s evolved scope.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Scope of multi-stakeholder participation in intergovernmental processes

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Isabelle Lois

Arguments

WSIS architecture should harmonize with broader multilateral system for justice including trade, IP, climate, and gender equality

Goal of ensuring nobody is left behind in digital age with fair deal for all stakeholders

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because both speakers generally supported multi-stakeholder approaches and strengthening WSIS architecture. However, Anita’s specific concern about private interests in CSTD revealed a fundamental tension about how to balance multi-stakeholder participation with protecting public interest in intergovernmental spaces. This suggests deeper philosophical differences about the appropriate boundaries of multi-stakeholder governance even among generally aligned participants.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high levels of agreement on major goals and principles, with most disagreements being tactical rather than strategic. The main areas of disagreement centered on institutional design questions (private sector role in CSTD, IGF naming) and specific implementation mechanisms for shared goals like coordination and inclusion.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on fundamental principles. The disagreements that existed were primarily about implementation approaches rather than core objectives, suggesting strong potential for finding common ground. The unexpected disagreement about multi-stakeholder boundaries in intergovernmental spaces may require more careful navigation in future negotiations, but overall the discussion demonstrated substantial alignment among diverse stakeholders on WSIS Plus 20 priorities.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers agreed that the current WSIS action lines are sufficiently flexible and comprehensive to address new challenges without requiring fundamental restructuring, but need updates to emphasize emerging issues that have become tangible realities

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Flavio Vagner

Arguments

Existing action lines are flexible enough to encompass new challenges, updates should focus on implementation architecture rather than creating new action lines

WSIS action lines are comprehensive and technology-agnostic, maintaining validity after 20 years but need emphasis on emerging issues

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

These speakers shared a vision of truly inclusive digital governance where all stakeholders, particularly from underserved communities and Global South, have not just participation but actual power to influence outcomes

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Participant

Arguments

Meaningful inclusion requires ensuring all stakeholders have seat at table, voice, and power to shape digital future

Need for global public option to AI and addressing power imbalances between Global North and South

Digital technologies can facilitate engagement from vulnerable groups through online environments and remote participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need for concrete institutional mechanisms to better integrate IGF outcomes with other WSIS processes, particularly the WSIS Forum, to avoid duplication and improve effectiveness

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Flavio Vagner

Arguments

Need for institutional linkages between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication

IGF needs better integration with WSIS Forum through institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

The existing WSIS action lines are flexible and comprehensive enough to address new digital challenges without requiring complete restructuring, but need updates to implementation architecture

There is strong consensus that the IGF should be made permanent with stable funding and potentially rebranded to reflect broader digital governance beyond just internet governance

A joint implementation roadmap is needed to integrate WSIS Plus 20 and Global Digital Compact (GDC) processes to avoid duplication of efforts and resources

Meaningful inclusion of Global South countries and underserved communities is critical for the legitimacy and effectiveness of future digital governance architecture

The IGF serves effectively as an agenda-setter and problem-framer but needs better mechanisms to translate deliberative outcomes into binding decision-making processes

Emerging technologies like AI require careful integration across multiple WSIS action lines as both enablers and threats, with particular attention to Global South participation in standard-setting

Better institutional coordination is needed between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to create effective linkages and avoid fragmentation

Human rights language and protections need strengthening across the entire WSIS architecture, covering all dimensions of rights online and offline

Public financing gaps are creating architectural weaknesses in WSIS implementation, requiring attention to sustainable funding mechanisms

Resolutions and action items

Switzerland’s non-paper to serve as ‘food for thought’ for community input into WSIS Plus 20 review process

Participants encouraged to provide input on elements paper for WSIS Plus 20 negotiations by co-facilitators

IGF Leadership Panel paper on IGF outlook to be considered as complement to efforts strengthening IGF’s UN system role

National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) outcomes to be better communicated and advocated in both IGF and WSIS Forum

Development of structured follow-up mechanisms to track and report implementation and impact of IGF recommendations

Creation of institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism between IGF and WSIS Forum

Integration of intersessional work streams and dynamic coalition outputs into broader policy processes

Unresolved issues

Specific mechanisms for how joint implementation roadmap between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC would work in practice

Whether and how to change IGF name from ‘Internet Governance Forum’ to reflect broader digital governance scope

How to balance private sector participation in intergovernmental spaces like CSTD while maintaining public interest focus

Concrete metrics and accountability mechanisms for measuring progress across WSIS action lines and GDC tracks

How to address growing energy consumption of ICTs and environmental impact of digital technologies

Specific funding mechanisms and sources for sustainable IGF operations and broader WSIS implementation

How to ensure Global South meaningful participation in AI governance and standard-setting processes dominated by Global North

Integration of WSIS digital agenda with broader multilateral issues like trade, intellectual property, climate justice, and taxation

How to operationalize ‘enhanced cooperation’ concept from original WSIS framework in current context

Suggested compromises

Keep existing WSIS action lines but update implementation architecture rather than creating entirely new framework

Maintain IGF’s deliberative mandate while creating better conveyor belt mechanisms to decision-making processes

Integrate WSIS Plus 20 and GDC implementation to avoid duplication while respecting different stakeholder participation models

Strengthen human rights language across WSIS architecture while maintaining technology-agnostic approach of action lines

Make IGF permanent while allowing for mandate evolution and formal institutionalization process in 2026

Balance intergovernmental decision-making needs with multi-stakeholder input through better coordination mechanisms

Address AI governance through existing WSIS action lines rather than creating separate parallel processes

Enhance Global South participation through digital technologies and remote engagement while maintaining in-person representation

What I want to say is that we completely agree that the existing action lines in WSIS Tunis are flexible enough to encompass new challenges. And rather than introducing new action lines or deleting existing ones, updates should be made to the current implementation architecture… But what is critical, I think, is that the architectural gaps in the first place also arise because of one Achilles heel, which is the absence of the significance in all these documents around public financing.

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This comment is insightful because it reframes the entire discussion from structural changes to implementation gaps, identifying public financing as the root cause of architectural failures. It shifts focus from what needs to be changed to why current structures aren’t working effectively.

Impact

This comment established a foundational perspective that influenced subsequent speakers to focus on implementation rather than wholesale restructuring. It introduced the critical lens of financing constraints that other panelists referenced throughout the discussion.

The WSIS architecture provides a unique and inclusive distributed governance model… The most important question we need to ask ourselves is whether we have been using it effectively… we have a toolbox, but are we really using all of the tools?

Speaker

Maria Fernanda Garza

Reason

This metaphor fundamentally reframed the problem from ‘what’s wrong with our tools’ to ‘are we using our tools properly.’ It’s a paradigm shift that suggests the issue isn’t the framework itself but our utilization of it.

Impact

This toolbox metaphor became a recurring reference point that shifted the conversation toward optimization rather than replacement. It influenced other speakers to focus on better coordination and implementation of existing mechanisms.

First is deliberation versus decision-making. IGF by mandate is a non-binding, deliberative structure… Unfortunately also, limited by its design, a lot of the great IGF discussions and outcomes do not necessarily land in decision-making fora… Structurally, it seems a conveyor belt of some sorts needs to exist between IGF and the larger WSIS infrastructure.

Speaker

Min Jiang

Reason

This comment identified a fundamental structural flaw in the current system – the disconnect between discussion and action. The ‘conveyor belt’ metaphor provided a concrete visualization of what’s missing in the architecture.

Impact

This observation sparked multiple responses from other panelists about institutionalizing IGF outcomes and creating better linkages between forums. It became a central theme that several speakers built upon, particularly regarding IGF’s future role.

As you see with the yellow in the bottom, most of the countries, and mostly of the South, cannot participate in all of them, or even in some of them. So this raises the situation that… we cannot have too many of them. Because otherwise, it’s impossible, especially for a developing country, to be in all of them.

Speaker

Juan Fernandez

Reason

Using visual evidence to demonstrate the participation gap, this comment provided concrete proof of exclusion in global digital governance. It moved the discussion from abstract concepts of inclusion to tangible evidence of systemic barriers.

Impact

This visual demonstration of exclusion reinforced the urgency around coordination and integration themes. It provided empirical backing for arguments about avoiding duplication and strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones.

IGF by mandate is a non-binding, deliberative structure under the auspice of UN that allows critical issues of Internet governance or digital governance to emerge from the confluence of diverse communities… As Vint Cerf says… ‘IGF may not be the place to solve the problem, but it’s certainly the place to frame the problem.’

Speaker

Juan Fernandez (quoting Vint Cerf)

Reason

This comment crystallized IGF’s unique value proposition in a memorable way, clarifying its role as an agenda-setter rather than decision-maker. It provided conceptual clarity about IGF’s purpose within the broader ecosystem.

Impact

This framing helped other speakers articulate how IGF fits into the larger architecture and influenced discussions about how to better connect IGF’s agenda-setting function to decision-making processes.

I strongly believe that 2026, with an impetus coming from the WSIS plus 20 review, should be about what is and should be the evolution and the revision of the mandate of the IGF to make it formally what it is supposed to be… And second, how to institutionalize it more coherently in a charter of sorts that establishes the different powers and capacities of the existing building blocks that we have.

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Reason

This comment introduced a strategic timeline and concrete next steps, moving beyond the immediate WSIS+20 review to envision a structured evolution process. It provided actionable direction for long-term institutional development.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion toward concrete implementation timelines and formal institutionalization processes. It influenced other speakers to think beyond the December 2025 deadline toward longer-term structural improvements.

So for instance, in the WHO, there have been private philanthropists who have completely defined what illnesses should actually be prioritized in the world… So the public health of the digital certainly depends on the agenda to be set through democratic processes where people’s interest is put ahead.

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This analogy to WHO governance provided a powerful cautionary example about private influence in global governance, introducing critical questions about democratic legitimacy in digital governance structures.

Impact

This comment introduced a note of caution about multi-stakeholder participation, prompting clarification from the moderator and adding complexity to discussions about inclusion and representation in governance structures.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing several crucial frameworks: the shift from structural overhaul to implementation optimization (Gurumurthy’s financing focus and Garza’s toolbox metaphor), the identification of critical gaps in the deliberation-to-decision pipeline (Min’s conveyor belt concept), and the provision of concrete evidence for systemic exclusion (Juan’s visual demonstration). The discussion evolved from abstract policy concepts to concrete implementation challenges, with speakers building on each other’s frameworks to develop a more nuanced understanding of how to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than replace them. The comments also introduced important tensions around democratic legitimacy and private influence that added depth to the conversation about multi-stakeholder governance. Overall, these interventions transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a strategic conversation about institutional evolution and democratic governance in the digital age.

How can we better calculate and measure progress across WSIS action lines and GDC tracks, and what identified metrics should be used to hold governments accountable?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

This is essential for creating accountability mechanisms and understanding what constitutes progress from the perspective of inclusion, diversity, and equity in the post-WSIS Plus 20 review process.

How can a joint implementation roadmap between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC be operationalized in practice to avoid duplication and resource strain?

Speaker

Anna Osserling

Explanation

While the principle is supported, there’s a need for concrete details on how this integration would work practically to streamline multiple ongoing processes.

How can we create better institutional linkages and coordination between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication?

Speaker

Juan Fernandez

Explanation

There’s a need for more fluid, substantive linkages beyond existing mechanisms like UNGIS to ensure effective coordination across the WSIS architecture.

How can we create a conveyor belt mechanism to transmit IGF outcomes more effectively into decision-making processes at UN, regional, and national levels?

Speaker

Min Jiang

Explanation

The gap between IGF’s deliberative nature and actual decision-making forums needs to be bridged to make IGF discussions more impactful.

How can we design work programs within policy pillars (internet infrastructure governance, digital public infrastructure, data governance, AI, digital literacy) to create more structured and productive outcomes?

Speaker

Olaf Kolfmann

Explanation

This would help organize policy topics by maturity level and create continuity in IGF work, potentially leading to more concrete outcomes.

How should the IGF’s mandate be revised and institutionalized more formally after 20 years of operation?

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Explanation

There’s a need for a comprehensive review of IGF’s role and formal institutionalization, similar to what was achieved with the Working Group on Internet Governance in 2004-2005.

How can we ensure meaningful participation from developing country civil society and governments in standard-setting processes, particularly for AI?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

Current standard-setting activities lack representation from the Global South, which could undermine the robustness of the post-WSIS Plus 20 review process.

How can we address the gaps in stakeholder participation levels and ensure more balanced representation across all stakeholder groups in IGF sessions?

Speaker

Bruna (audience member)

Explanation

There are observable gaps in participation, such as lack of civil society perspectives in relevant sessions, that need systematic addressing.

How can we balance Global North and Global South perspectives in AI governance integration within the WSIS framework?

Speaker

Bruna (audience member)

Explanation

It’s important to ensure that AI governance doesn’t become dominated by Global North perspectives and includes diverse approaches from different regions.

How can we engage technology companies more effectively at the global level to forward digital governance goals?

Speaker

Oktavian Šofranski

Explanation

There’s a need to explore better mechanisms for engaging the business community in building digital governance architecture beyond existing partnerships.

Should the Internet Governance Forum be renamed to reflect its broader digital governance scope, and what would be the implications of such a change?

Speaker

Kosi (audience member) and others

Explanation

The IGF now addresses many issues beyond internet governance, raising questions about whether the name should reflect this broader scope.

How can we ensure that private interests don’t inappropriately influence agenda-setting in intergovernmental spaces like CSTD while maintaining multi-stakeholder principles?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

There are concerns about how to balance multi-stakeholder participation with ensuring that public interest remains the priority in democratic processes.

How can online environments and digital technologies be leveraged to facilitate more inclusive participation from marginalized groups in global governance processes?

Speaker

Eugenio V. Garcia

Explanation

This explores practical solutions for including groups like indigenous peoples, women, youth, and persons with disabilities who may not be able to participate physically in global forums.