WS #173 Action Oriented Solutions to Strengthen the IGF

Summary

This workshop focused on developing action-oriented solutions to strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), featuring perspectives from various stakeholders including government, technical community, and youth representatives. The discussion was moderated by Everton Teles Rodriguez from NIC.br and included speakers from Canada, North Macedonia, and Ethiopia, both in-person and remote participants.

Allison O’Beirne from the Government of Canada emphasized three key recommendations: making the IGF mandate permanent to allow for more strategic long-term planning, better capturing and disseminating outcomes from national and regional initiatives (NRIs), and making the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) more inclusive with stronger representation from emerging economies and marginalized communities. She stressed that permanence would signal global confidence in the IGF and enable more agile responses to technological advances.

Marko Paloski, representing the youth perspective from North Macedonia, highlighted the critical importance of meaningful youth engagement beyond mere participation. He argued that young people bring fresh perspectives as digital natives who are not just users but also content creators, developers, and community builders. He emphasized that youth engagement helps the IGF stay relevant and adapt faster to technological changes.

Saba Tiku Beyene, coordinator of the Ethiopia Youth IGF and former MAG member, proposed three ways to improve accessibility and inclusivity: ensuring sessions are accessible through real-time captioning and multilingual support including widely-spoken regional languages, rethinking support for participants from underserved regions through long-term engagement and mentorship rather than one-time fellowships, and encouraging intergenerational dialogue and cross-regional learning experiences.

Byron Holland from the Canadian Internet Registration Authority addressed financial sustainability, proposing three key strategies: providing clearer and more accessible information about IGF costs and funding, diversifying the funding base across all stakeholder groups rather than relying on limited sources, and encouraging longer-term funding commitments such as five-year pledges to enable better planning and innovation. He emphasized that in a multistakeholder environment, funding should also be multistakeholder to avoid over-influence by any single group.

The discussion included interactive polling where participants ranked various proposed actions, with making the IGF permanent receiving the strongest support. Participants also emphasized the importance of connecting national and regional initiatives more effectively to the global IGF process and ensuring that private sector engagement is strengthened. The workshop concluded with recognition that strengthening the IGF requires coordinated action across multiple dimensions including governance, inclusivity, and financial sustainability to ensure its continued relevance in the evolving digital policy landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Making the IGF Mandate Permanent**: Discussion focused on transitioning the Internet Governance Forum from its current renewable mandate structure to a permanent one, which would allow for more strategic long-term planning and send a strong signal of global multi-stakeholder confidence in the forum.

– **Youth Engagement and Inclusivity**: Extensive conversation about meaningful youth participation in IGF processes, emphasizing that young people bring fresh perspectives as digital natives who are not just users but also content creators, developers, and community builders in the digital space.

– **Financial Sustainability and Diversification**: Detailed examination of funding challenges facing the IGF, with proposals for diversifying funding sources beyond current structures, encouraging long-term financial commitments (like 5-year pledges), and improving transparency in financial reporting.

– **Strengthening National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs)**: Discussion of better integrating local and regional IGF initiatives with the global forum through improved communication channels, ensuring diverse regional perspectives feed into global agenda-setting, and using NRIs as entry points for broader participation.

– **Accessibility and Multilingual Support**: Conversation about expanding language accessibility beyond the six UN languages to include widely-spoken regional languages, improving real-time captioning, and creating more inclusive participation mechanisms for underserved regions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to develop action-oriented solutions to strengthen the Internet Governance Forum in preparation for upcoming reviews (WSIS+20 and GDC implementation), focusing on practical improvements to mandate, funding, inclusivity, and operational effectiveness while preserving the IGF’s core value as an open multi-stakeholder dialogue platform.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating deep commitment to the IGF’s mission while acknowledging current limitations. The atmosphere was solution-focused rather than critical, with speakers building on each other’s ideas and showing genuine enthusiasm for improvement. The tone remained consistently professional and forward-looking, with participants expressing optimism about the IGF’s potential while being realistic about implementation challenges, particularly regarding funding and structural reforms.

Speakers

– **Everton Teles Rodriguez** – Responsible for TLD affairs at NIC.br, Workshop moderator

– **Byron Holland** – President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA)

– **Allison O’Beirne** – Director of International Telecommunications and Internet Policy at the Government of Canada

– **Marko Paloski** – System Engineer at NetCetera and Coordinator of IGF North Macedonia Initiative, member of the steering committee for Eastern Europe in the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (participated remotely)

– **Saba Tiku Beyene** – Coordinator of the Ethiopia Youth IGF, former MAG member, Junior Advisor on AI at GIZ at the African Union

– **Ellen Taylor** – Policy Analyst of Internet Governance at the Government of Canada, Online moderator

– **Jordan Carter** – Works for the .au domain administration

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mark Cavell** – Participated via online chat/comments

# Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum: A Comprehensive Workshop Report

## Introduction and Context

This workshop (Workshop 173), moderated by Everton Teles Rodriguez from NIC.br, brought together diverse stakeholders to develop action-oriented solutions for strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The discussion featured perspectives from government representatives, technical community leaders, and youth advocates, both in-person in Norway and participating remotely. The timing of this workshop was particularly significant, occurring in preparation for upcoming reviews including WSIS+20 and Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation, making the development of concrete recommendations for IGF improvement both timely and crucial.

The workshop maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating deep commitment to the IGF’s mission whilst acknowledging current limitations. Rather than focusing on criticism, the atmosphere remained solution-focused, with speakers building upon each other’s ideas and expressing genuine enthusiasm for improvement. This forward-looking approach created an environment where participants could be both optimistic about the IGF’s potential and realistic about implementation challenges, particularly regarding funding and structural reforms.

*Note: The transcript appears to end abruptly with technical issues, cutting off mid-sentence during Allison O’Beirne’s concluding remarks. This summary reflects the portion of the workshop that was successfully recorded.*

## Key Recommendations and Proposals

### Making the IGF Mandate Permanent

Allison O’Beirne from the Government of Canada presented one of the most significant structural recommendations: transitioning the IGF from its current renewable mandate structure to a permanent one. She argued that this change would enable more strategic long-term planning and send a strong signal of global multi-stakeholder confidence in the forum. O’Beirne emphasized that permanence would allow the IGF to respond more agilely to technological advances and provide the stability necessary for sustained engagement from all stakeholder groups.

Crucially, O’Beirne highlighted that the IGF’s non-decisional nature represents a core strength rather than a weakness. She explained that this characteristic allows participants to approach discussions in a spirit of openness and collaboration, noting that government representatives, in particular, often arrive at other forums with predetermined positions. The IGF’s collaborative environment, free from the pressure to negotiate outcome documents, enables genuine learning and listening amongst stakeholders.

However, this recommendation encountered some complexity when Bertrand de la Chapelle, Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, argued that comprehensive IGF reform could not be adequately addressed within the December WSIS+20 timeline. De la Chapelle advocated for a proper multi-stakeholder discussion in 2026 to address IGF evolution, suggesting that rushing changes through the WSIS review process might not serve the forum’s long-term interests.

### Strengthening National and Regional Initiatives Integration

A significant theme throughout the discussion was the need to better integrate National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) – local and regional IGF processes – with the global IGF process. O’Beirne proposed developing formal mechanisms to channel NRI inputs into global IGF agenda-setting, arguing that this would strengthen multi-stakeholder representation and ensure that grassroots perspectives inform global discussions.

Jordan Carter, who works for the .au domain administration, offered a concrete proposal to address this disconnect. He suggested that appointees to the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) – the body that helps plan the annual IGF – should be required to be active in their NRI communities as a condition of appointment. This approach would help connect grassroots internet governance issues with global decision-making processes and ensure that MAG members remain sensitized to local needs and perspectives.

Saba Tiku Beyene, coordinator of the Ethiopia Youth IGF and former MAG member, reinforced this theme by proposing that NRIs should serve as entry points to the global IGF and be recognized as spaces where new leaders are developed. She emphasized the importance of creating pathways for sustained engagement that address structural barriers preventing meaningful long-term participation in IGF processes.

### Meaningful Youth Engagement

The discussion of youth participation revealed sophisticated thinking about the difference between tokenistic involvement and meaningful engagement. Marko Paloski, representing the youth perspective from North Macedonia and participating remotely, made a crucial distinction: “one thing is youth involvement and one thing is youth engagement because we have seen a lot of other conferences and stuff that they have youth and the participation but it’s not on the same level as engagement.”

Paloski argued that young people bring fresh perspectives as digital natives who are not merely users but also content creators, developers, and community builders. He emphasized that youth deserve representation at decision-making tables because they offer different viewpoints from traditional users and have first-hand experience growing up with technology. This framing moved the conversation beyond simply including youth to understanding their substantive contributions to internet governance discussions.

Beyene supported this perspective by proposing intergenerational dialogue and cross-regional learning opportunities to integrate youth voices into IGF agenda-setting. She advocated for transforming fellowship programmes from one-time experiences to long-term engagement opportunities with mentorship, recognizing that meaningful participation requires sustained support and development rather than brief exposure to IGF processes.

### Financial Sustainability and Diversification

Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), addressed one of the IGF’s most persistent challenges: financial sustainability. He proposed three key strategies to strengthen the IGF’s funding base whilst preserving its multi-stakeholder character.

First, Holland called for clearer and more accessible information about IGF costs and funding flows across the entire ecosystem. He noted that the lack of transparent financial reporting makes it difficult for potential contributors to understand where their support would be most valuable and how it would be utilized. This transparency would support strategic engagement and help identify specific funding gaps.

Second, he advocated for diversifying the funding base across all stakeholder groups rather than relying on limited sources. Holland made a sophisticated argument connecting financial diversity to institutional values, arguing that in a multi-stakeholder forum, funding should also be multi-stakeholder to prevent over-influence by any single group whilst ensuring broad community investment.

Third, Holland proposed encouraging longer-term funding commitments, such as five-year pledges, to enable better planning and innovation. These commitments would signal community investment in the IGF’s future whilst providing the stability necessary for strategic development and programme innovation. He introduced the principle of “if we can, we should” regarding stakeholder contributions.

Holland also highlighted the concerning decline in private sector participation, noting that their re-engagement is crucial for both funding diversification and maintaining the IGF’s relevance to all stakeholder communities.

### Accessibility and Inclusivity Improvements

Beyene presented comprehensive recommendations for improving accessibility and inclusivity within IGF processes. She proposed three key areas for development: technical accessibility improvements, fellowship programme reform, and enhanced representation mechanisms.

For technical accessibility, Beyene advocated for real-time captioning and live translations extending beyond the six UN languages to include widely spoken regional languages. She specifically mentioned languages like Yoruba, noting that true inclusivity requires considering languages spoken by large populations rather than limiting translation services to official UN languages, despite acknowledging the financial constraints this would create.

Regarding fellowship programmes, Beyene argued for a fundamental shift from one-time experiences to long-term engagement with mentorship and post-engagement opportunities. This approach would address the current limitation where participants receive brief exposure to IGF processes but lack ongoing support to maintain their engagement or develop their contributions to internet governance discussions.

O’Beirne reinforced the inclusivity theme by calling for a more inclusive MAG with better representation from emerging economies, the Global South, and marginalized communities.

## Interactive Elements and Community Input

The workshop included multiple interactive Mentimeter polls facilitated by Ellen Taylor, who also monitored online interactions. Participants ranked various proposed actions across different categories, with making the IGF permanent receiving strong support among the options presented. The polling provided valuable insight into community priorities and helped validate the recommendations being discussed.

Mark Cavell participated through online comments, with Ellen reading his question about whether supplementary UN budget provision might enhance confidence amongst other potential investors and promote wider government participation. This input explored whether UN baseline funding could serve as a catalyst for attracting additional diverse funding sources and broader government engagement.

The moderator, Everton Teles Rodriguez, facilitated the discussion and managed the 60-minute time constraint, ensuring all speakers had opportunities to contribute their perspectives.

## Areas of Consensus and Emerging Themes

### Strong Consensus Areas

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus on several fundamental issues. Participants demonstrated strong agreement on the need for diversified funding from multiple stakeholder groups, with both Holland and O’Beirne emphasizing that sustainable funding must come from diverse sources including UN baseline funding, government support, and multi-stakeholder contributions.

There was also clear consensus on the need for better integration of National and Regional Initiatives with global IGF processes. O’Beirne, Carter, and Beyene all recognized that NRIs are valuable but currently underutilized, requiring better mechanisms to connect grassroots perspectives with global agenda-setting and leadership development.

Regarding youth engagement, Paloski, Beyene, and other participants agreed that meaningful participation requires moving beyond token involvement to recognize youth as active contributors rather than passive users.

Perhaps most significantly, speakers converged on preferring multi-stakeholder collaborative approaches over traditional intergovernmental processes, emphasizing the value of the IGF’s unique non-decisional character.

### Areas of Disagreement

The primary disagreements centered on timing and process rather than fundamental objectives. O’Beirne advocated for making the IGF mandate permanent through direct action, whilst de la Chapelle argued that comprehensive IGF reform could not be achieved by the December WSIS+20 deadline and should be properly discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026.

Similarly, Carter suggested pursuing improvements through administrative changes and collaborative approaches, whilst de la Chapelle focused on establishing the proper framework and timeline for comprehensive mandate discussion.

## Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

Despite the productive discussion, several significant issues remained unresolved. The question of how to re-engage private sector participation that has declined over the years requires further attention, as does the fundamental question of where to anchor discussions on IGF evolution—whether in the UN, Committee on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or other structures.

The balance between pursuing IGF improvements through the WSIS+20 review versus administrative and collaborative means remains unclear, as does the question of how to balance host country burden with ensuring IGF accessibility for countries with varying capacities.

Participants identified the need for specific mechanisms to capture and disseminate outcomes from National and Regional Initiatives, as well as methods for measuring and reporting on the effectiveness of fellowship programmes and long-term engagement initiatives.

## Conclusion

This workshop demonstrated both the IGF community’s maturity in understanding current challenges and its commitment to collaborative solutions. The high level of consensus on fundamental issues, combined with healthy debate about implementation approaches, suggests strong potential for meaningful progress in strengthening the IGF.

The discussion revealed that strengthening the IGF requires coordinated action across multiple dimensions: governance structures, inclusivity mechanisms, financial sustainability, and operational effectiveness. Participants recognized that these elements are interconnected and that improvements in one area can support progress in others.

Most significantly, the workshop reinforced that the IGF’s core value as an open multi-stakeholder dialogue platform should be preserved whilst addressing practical challenges around mandate, funding, and inclusivity. The path forward appears to involve both immediate operational improvements and longer-term structural discussions, with the community demonstrating readiness to engage in both tracks simultaneously.

*Note: Due to the incomplete transcript ending during Allison O’Beirne’s concluding remarks, some speakers’ final thoughts and potential additional recommendations may not be reflected in this summary. The workshop may have continued beyond what was successfully recorded.*

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Okay, so good afternoon for those joining us in person here in Norway, and good time of the day for those who are watching us remotely or in any time in the future. I’m Everton Teles Rodriguez Teles Rodriguez, responsible for TLD affairs at NIC.br, and I have the pleasure of being the moderator for the workshop 173, Action-Oriented Solutions to Strengthen the IGF. As we only have 60 minutes, I’ll be very brief in my introduction, but I couldn’t be more grateful to the organizers of this session, especially to Ellen Taylor, which is the Policy Analyst of Internet Governance at IZ, the Government of Canada, who will also be moderating our online interactions. So I also would like to thank the local host, and especially also the IGF Secretariat and the MAG, who have worked under extremely challenging conditions to put up this event. So this edition is a living proof of the resilience of the IGF and of the strength of the global multistakeholder community, which supports the IGF. Our workshop will have two parts. For the first half of the session, speakers will provide their regional and stakeholder perspectives on their ideas and best multistakeholder engagement practices that can be used to strengthen the IGF. Then our workshop will become interactive in the second part of the session, as speakers and the audience members will be invited to engage in a creative brainstorming to develop action-oriented solutions to strengthen the IGF and support GDC and WSIS plus 20 output implementation. So to discuss that, I have the pleasure to have here with me Byron Holland, which is the President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, CIRA. I have here also Alessandro O’Beirne, Director of International Telecommunications and Internet Policy at the Government of Canada. Joining us remotely we have Marko Paloski, System Engineer at NetCetera and Coordinator of IGF North Macedonia Initiative. He’s joining us remotely online and here with us at the table we have Saba Tiku Beyene, Coordinator of the Ethiopia Youth IGF. She’s also a former MAG member and currently she serves as a Junior Advisor on AI at GIZ at the African Union. So, to start our discussion today, I would like to invite Alison to talk a little bit about the IGF mandate and permanence. So, Alison, what are some actions that we can take to strengthen the mandate of the IGF without losing its value as a key stakeholder forum for open discussion on Internet governance? Thanks for joining us.

Allison O’Beirne: Thanks, Everton Teles Rodriguez. Thank you for the question, it’s much appreciated. Hello everyone, thank you so much for joining the panel today. I’m very excited to be here and to be able to speak a little bit about some of the proposals from our various panelists about how to improve the IGF and how to really strengthen it as a forum for multi-stakeholder discussion. So, when we talk about strengthening the mandate of the IGF, I think the first thing that we want to recognize is that we’re talking about strengthening a mandate that has already really delivered enormously and is very well regarded, particularly by those who are kind of involved and who have attended the event. So, we’re looking at bringing success to something that’s already successful, looking at making a good thing even greater. When we’re starting from that premise, I think the first thing that we have to ask ourselves is what are the elements that make the IGF successful now? What are currently the things that really bring positivity to the forum? I think, first of all, it’s marvelous that it’s a forum for all stakeholders to come together and discuss in a very open manner the challenges that they’re facing, whether those are political, whether those are technical, whether those are policy changes, policy challenges that are… really able to be discussed in a venue that is open to a number of different viewpoints and a number of different types of collaboration and discussion as well. I think IGF’s non-decisional nature is also crucial to its success. It allows folks to come to the table in a spirit of openness and collaboration. I know from the government perspective particularly, we have a tendency to show up at some events with our positions all set and our decisions already made, and coming to IGF in a space where we’re not negotiating an outcomes document allows us to come in a spirit of collaboration and a spirit of learning and listening as well, which is really an element of IGF success. I would say that the last thing that’s really incredible to me about IGF is the strength of its national and regional initiatives. Those initiatives really make the IGF into a truly global ecosystem and really bring the community into the IGF space and vice versa. So with that foundation of those kind of strengths of the IGF already, I think recommendations then can focus on how to strengthen those pieces as well. The first recommendation that our team would have on the Government of Canada side is about the IGF mandate and just to make it permanent. I think folks are aware that the IGF, since it was established, was really renewed on an ongoing basis, which is good to have that kind of consistent demonstration of the value of it and of the value to stakeholders, but having a permanent mandate really allows the IGF to advance the way that it’s working in an increasingly strategic and an increasingly geopolitical space like digital policy. Having a permanent mandate not only sends that strong signal of the global multi-stakeholder confidence in IGF, it also allows the IGF itself to be more agile and more strategic in the way that it works, to think longer term, not to be kind of constantly chasing the next mandate, but instead to know that there is going to be this kind of permanence to it allows it to be better responsive and more thoughtfully responsive to advances in technology, to advances in stakeholder needs as well. I know Byron’s going to speak a little later to the financial aspects of that, so like usual as a government I will ask somebody else to figure out the financials for me. something that we can talk a little bit more about how that permanence can have a financial backing as well. The second recommendation that we would have is related back to the the national and regional initiatives and it’s really just about ensuring that we capture and disseminate the outcomes of those national and regional initiatives in a more kind of targeted and dedicated way. National and regional initiatives as I said really bring the kind of multi-stakeholder of nature of IGF into our communities and allow us to reflect the numerous different cultural socio-economic contexts that folks are working in as they’re thinking about digital and government and internet policies. But too often we’re finding that the really valuable insights that come from national and regional initiatives get communicated back to the IGF but often in a way that is siloed one region from the other and also siloed from the kind of central program of IGF. I think some kind of formal mechanism for channeling the inputs from those regional initiatives into the agenda setting for the broader IGF itself could really strengthen not only those regional initiatives and allow them to have a kind of raison d’etre and a way to feed into the IGF agenda, it also strengthens IGF itself again reflecting back to the multi-stakeholder nature. The third recommendation we would have is related to the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory group. I think a crucial group for setting the agenda here and making sure that it really reflects our multi-stakeholder values. The multi-stakeholder advisory group, the MAG, really plays a role in shaping the IGF’s agenda every year and I think there are a number of ways that we can ensure that as the IGF goes forward, if we’re able to secure a permanent mandate for it, that the MAG can continue to play that role in really defining the agenda for IGF. We can make the MAG more inclusive, ensure that voices from emerging economies from the global south are in the room and are as part of the discussion about the agenda setting and also voices from marginalized communities, whether it’s Indigenous folks, whether it’s women, whether it’s youth, are well represented within that group and feel that they have the ability to kind of…

Everton Teles Rodriguez: comprehensive set of recommendations and of course that we as a community as you said so all of us here in the room and those joining remotely we are just aiming at improving the IGF so of course that this is a process that has been taking place for many for two decades now and the internet is still being built by every single stakeholder and being built everywhere so every single input from those who have been joining the internet governance and the building of the internet for so long are all invited to keep improving not only the internet itself but also the IGF so thank you very much Alison for your comments now we are going to our second contribution comes from Marco so Marco I hope you’re able to join us here remotely I hope you’re hearing hearing me and listening to the conversation so as a young leader in the technical community as well as a member of the steering committee for Eastern Europe in the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. Why is it meaningful youth engagement in spaces such as the IGF important and how do you think the engagement of young leaders in the IGF strengthen youth stakeholder internet governance and dialogue? Thanks for joining us. Just checking Marko. So let’s see. Can you just check if he can unmute himself? In the meantime so I will go to our next presenter in this while Marko can join us. So please Saba let’s go to our next question. So based on your previous experience. Oh right so he joined us just because it’s hard for us to listen and to listen to ourselves as well speaking but so if going back to Marko then then I’ll go to Saba. Marko hope you have heard the question?

Marko Paloski: Can you just repeat it once more?

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Of course. So you’re a young leader in the technical community as well as a member of the steering committee for Eastern Europe in the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. So why is a meaningful youth engagement in spaces such as the IGF important and how do you think that the engagement of young leaders in the IGF strengthen youth stakeholder internet governance and dialogue? Thanks for joining us.

Marko Paloski: Yes thank you very much for the question and I want first to apologize for not being there. Last week I had some personal stuff and I needed to cancel everything but I should have been here in person. Yes thank you very much for the question. I think it’s a crucial one for the youth involvement and engagement. I mean not just involvement because there is I want also to point out that one thing is youth involvement and one thing is youth engagement because we have seen a lot of other how can I say conferences and stuff that they have youth and the participation but it’s It’s not on the same level as engagement. And I would add here that in the recent years, IGF was doing a lot to engage the youth. But of course, there are still more things to do. The most important thing that I will point out that why is youth engagement important for the IGF, for the mandate and for everything, I mean, in crucial stuff, is because it gives a new perspective. It brings also the youths which are growing up in the digital world. I mean, whenever you are youth in 15 years now, or 18 years, or 30 years, you somehow raised up with some kind of sort of technology and you’re growing up with the technology. So I would say it’s bringing the stuff, the experience, the issues, and all the stuff that youth are experiencing during these periods of their life. And it’s very important because the youths are having those, how can I say, first things experience. I will share a little thing that not every youth is digital literacy, but they have experience with the technology. And that makes very much difference because sometimes when you don’t have the knowledge or you didn’t go to those kind of stuff, maybe you think or see on a different way because you weren’t taught. You just click it, you scroll it, and you know on your way, which I don’t say that it’s wrong or right, but it’s good to have those perspective also on the table at the IGF. Another thing is that when we see youths, we don’t need to see them as just the users because currently in these days, they are also doing content creation. They are doing the developing, researching, community buildings. We can see a lot. I have a nephew that he is and his friends are doing YouTube and TikTok videos. Those people, I wouldn’t say they are influencers, but those people, those kids or youths create content online. So they are not just the users in this time that we are now especially living. So they are more than just the users. And I think it’s very much important to bring them also. to the table, and of course youth engagement to invite them to IGF and engage. Another thing that I would point out is that IGF in its core is a multi-stakeholder model, so it’s very important to also bring the youths, it will bring a balance in the whole model of the IGF. And what I also wanted to point out is that last year it was created a dynamic coalition on teens. What this means is that even the youth as a category is not enough to cover all the youths or maybe the needs of the youths. So that’s another point that it’s very crucial the youths to be involved because we can see now the age difference, for example, when we talk about youths 16, how they see and how they are using technology with, for example, me, I am currently 30. So that’s totally different point of views and totally different experiences. So I would say that youths are, if you ask me, it’s a must to be included in this, especially when it’s coming to the technology. And finally, I would say that by engaging them, the IGF can stay more relevant, can adapt faster and build this trust across different age groups, because how the technology is changing and the youths are more and more adapting. I mean, in the past, it was not, how can I say, usual for you to change, I don’t know, application or maybe even the device for a few years. I mean, until it’s broken or something doesn’t work, you change it. Now, in two or three years, we are changing the technology and how the application and the whole experience is going. I would point out again, Facebook is not the same like it was, I don’t know, even one year ago and not more than, I would say, more than the years. So I would say the youths are crucial part to be engaged. and be taken place on the table with the other seniors or other people that are on the IGF to discuss those issues and to bring some, I would say, maybe fresh perspective or different perspective from the people. I think I covered the question.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much Marko and I just would like to emphasize how important the youth initiatives are. We have several of them all over the world, some of them are global, some of them are regional, some of them can be found locally and I really would like to urge those who would like to join just to look for one of those initiatives which can be found all over the world and that will help shaping the internet of today and tomorrow. So the internet is not a finished product, so we all have something to contribute and so thanks also to the youth program where we’re seeing the next generations of internet developers, leaders, users as well and everything related to the usage and to the present and future of the internet on youth representatives. Thank you very much for your participation Marko and stay tuned. So going to our next presenter Saba. Thank you very much Saba for joining us and based on your previous experiences on the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group, the MAG, as well as your experience as the coordinator of the Ethiopian Youth IGF, do you have three ways or three suggestions in which we can improve especially accessibility and inclusivity of the global IGF? So are there any other elements that we should consider when we are discussing this issue?

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much for the question and it’s a pleasure to be here today. So based on my experience within the IGF ecosystem, it’s very much through that accessibility and Inclusion are the core pillars of the IGF. And in order to improve these two areas, it’s very much crucial for the future of the IGF as well. The first action is to ensure that the IGF sessions are accessible and this means, for example, using real-time captioning which we already have, live translations into multiple languages and here we also do have the live translation to six UN languages which is very much appreciated. But sometimes you also need to consider the languages being spoken by the majority of the people. For instance, in Africa, Yoruba language is one of the most widely spoken language being used by the majority of people, around 40 to 50 million. And in order to consider this, of course, we know sometimes the financial constraint is the issue. But we need to accommodate such diversity as well as making sure that it is a multilingual space. And second way is that we need to rethink how we support participants from underserved regions. For instance, when we talk about fellowships, they do not have to be a one-time experience but we need to build a long-term engagement, provide mentorship programs and also to give them post-engagement opportunities as well. And for this, for instance, we can take a look on how, you know, this can be integrated into the NRS ecosystem and this is engaging within the youths, IGFs, national IGFs, or regional IGFs and continue their engagement at the grassroots level. And you also need to see ways to have these reporting mechanisms in such cases in order to analyze their participation with that specific fellowship or other programs or opportunities within the IGF ecosystem. And my third recommendation would be inclusion. And this is, you know, from the overall youth perspective, should be very much encouraged. For instance, to have an intergenerational dialogue, for example, where the youth can have a conversation or an exchange or to have an experience sharing with policymakers. or having access to peer learning process or a cross-regional learning process as well. And here, for instance, I was one of the ISOCU’s ambassadors, and the peer learning process is very much appreciated. For example, U’s ambassador from the African region is sent to Europe to attend the EuroDIG, and U’s ambassador from the Asia-Pacific region was sent to Africa to attend African IGF. So these kind of pipelines, they need to be encouraged where I learn something different or learn from other experience of the other regions within the IGF ecosystem. And also again, speaking from the U’s perspective, we should also encourage U’s live sessions and have more fresh voices and ideas in order to be integrated into the whole IGF agenda. And one of the additional elements I can say to be considered when talking about these issues is we should see U’s IGFs and local initiatives as well as entry points into the global IGF. And these are not like a one-time event or an annual event, but rather they are one of the most powerful spaces where we can generate or where new leaders are being born. And so linking them to the global processes and ensure that the IGF stays relevant as well as very dynamic. And so generally speaking, if we really want the IGF to be fit for the future, accessibility and inclusion are one of the most important or the most core pillars. Thank you very much.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you, Saba. And there is this interesting connection of what you were talking and then what Alison mentioned about the role of NRIs, because for example, it happens the same in Brazil. We have a… We have a huge community related to internet governance. Our Internet Governance Forum takes place mostly in Portuguese, which is the language of Brazil. And then we have a community, of course, that we may have some of them, some of the people who attend the Brazilian IGF and who also attend the global IGF, but that’s not a common link everywhere. So if you just speak the language of your country and then you move to the same discussion, which you’re already used to, but in a completely different language, that should be, of course, very much a question of a point of concern or a point of action of the whole community in order to provide the global IGF with the same level of discussions or to a great level of discussion as much as we have on national levels. So thank you very much. I saw this link between the two talks. Thank you very much. So going to now our next topic, our next presenter, which is last but not least, I should say, I would like to talk a little bit about financial sustainability, which is an ongoing issue for the IGF. So I would like to invite Byron. This has been a key topic in discussions about strengthening the IGF and especially pressing as we approach the WSIS Plus 20 review later this year, right after the IGF. So do you have any strategies or solutions that you have heard proposed to ensure that the IGF is financially sustainable in the long term? Thanks for joining us, Byron.

Byron Holland: Thanks for the question, Everton Teles Rodriguez. Like many people in this room, I wear a number of hats when I come to events like this, but today I’m definitely speaking. in my capacity as the CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority or CIRA. Most people will know us as the operator of the Canadian country code top level domain .ca, but we also serve as the secretariat for the Canadian Internet Governance Forum or the CIGF. What I would like to share with you today is some thoughts on money. That’s right, not internet governance, money. And what I’m going to suggest, it’s really not rocket science, but it is about the fuel to keep this, all of this, this entire enterprise of the IGF sustained and sustainable. And I’m sure many in this room and outside this room would agree, ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of the global IGF and the wider IGF ecosystem is essential if we’re to fully realize both its purpose and its value. Among other things, the IGF secretariat needs funding, not just to do these big events, but to engage its staff, to have staff, support meetings, and to communicate all of the messages and insights and information that come out of these IGF events. And this is no small feat, and it demands sustained and predictable resources. NRIs, too, require funding to convene events, foster local dialogues like we’ve just heard about, and feed national and regional perspectives into these global events. And today, I’d like to set out three key considerations, proposals that I believe are worthy of significant thought, and they relate to 1. Clearer and more accessible information on both funding and expenses related to the IGF 2. Diversification of IGF funding 3. Encouraging long-term financial commitments to the Forum So the first idea is to ensure that meaningful information about IGF costs and funding is clear, it’s accessible, it’s easy to consume, and it’s publicly available. From our vantage point, it’s not always easy to determine how much money flows into the IGF and its broader ecosystem, and what the associated costs are with the annual conference like this, the Secretariat, and the wider ecosystem’s initiatives and activities. And that’s not to say that important initiatives aren’t already underway. The IGF Support Association, or the IGFSA, for example, plays a valuable role in raising and distributing funding for IGF activities, including those regional and national initiatives and youth IGFs. It publishes annual reports and provides high-level information on projects funded by those associated allocations. But still, there is absolutely room for more complete and a more detailed picture of the financial landscape, one that draws from all the relevant sources, multiple sources, and shows how those resources are flowing across the IGF ecosystem. I think this would easily support more strategic engagement, enable stakeholders to identify key gaps, and strengthen efforts to sustain the process, all of these processes. and Marko Paloski, Saba Tiku Beyene. This approach reflects the Forum’s inclusive nature itself and its role as a key platform for dialogue on Internet governance and policy issues. And I think the diversity of funding sources will also help mitigate any risk of over-influence or capture by any one stakeholder group. We recognize, I certainly recognize, this is a challenging time for many in the community and that I’m very sensitive that different regions and stakeholders will have varying capacities to contribute. And naturally, those contributions should vary accordingly. You know, in my organization at CIRA, we often say, if we can, we should. And I think that that is a sentiment that is quite fitting here. It’s important to emphasize that this applies not only to global IGFs but to the wider ecosystem of national, regional and youth IGFs, the NRIs. And CIRA is certainly proud to serve both as the secretariat and the sponsor of the Canadian IGF, which plays, like many others, a key role in feeding Canadian perspectives into this event, into the global dialogue. And certainly, many of my CCTLD peers around the world also do the same in their respective countries. The third and final is building on ideas shared in ICANN’s I think there is a real opportunity, not just an opportunity, but a need to explore longer-term funding commitments. For example, 5-year pledges. If we had those, that would allow the IGF Secretariat to plan ahead, set priorities, and reduce the uncertainty of year-to-year funding cycles. Long-term support would also make it easier to pilot new initiatives in areas of emerging need, be they emerging technologies, continued capacity building, or other innovations. It would create space for experimentation and innovation. And importantly, it would signal to the broader community that the IGF is not just a forum worth preserving as it is, but one worth investing in, allowing to innovate for the long haul. So these reflections are, as I said, not rocket science. But if we advance these elements, clearer financial reporting, a broader diversity of funders, and some longer-term funding commitments, I’m confident that we can keep the IGF sustained, relevant, and innovating for many years to come. Thank you.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Byron. And this is a topic which, regardless of our views of the IGF and of our different experiences of the IGF, the financial sustainability is definitely key for making the whole process happening, regardless of where and when. So in order for it to take place once a year in all over the world with the national and regional initiatives, the global IGF and everything. So the predictability of contributions should be a key topic for discussion and has been a key topic. So thank you very much. for what you’ve pointed out. So now that we have heard this first round of comments from our presenters, it’s the first opportunity that we will have to interact with our audience, both those joining us here in the room and also online. So Ellen, do we have any comments in the chat?

Ellen Taylor: Thanks, Everton Teles Rodriguez. We do have one comment in the chat. Someone has kindly posted some information about how to join the European Youth Initiative called YouthDIG. So that is in the chat if anyone is interested. I also do have a question here if we are, if we’re okay to start the Q&A portion.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Sure, sure, please. Okay, fantastic.

Ellen Taylor: So a question here in the chat for Byron. So this person asks, does diversification of funding include the UN budget as a source when you haven’t, that you haven’t mentioned?

Byron Holland: So yes, definitely. I think that some element, various elements of the UN absolutely have a role to play in funding. My point more was that in a multi-stakeholder environment, I think it’s important not only for people to participate in the multi-stakeholder space, but quite frankly, all of us in this room bear some responsibility, not just for participating and providing our thoughts and our inputs and our organization’s commitment. But if we want this space to continue to exist, those organizations that can should be participating in it. So I think that in a space like this, having a single source of funding, which I’m not sure if that’s exactly what the question was getting at, but potentially a single source of funding like the UN, I think would be a disservice to a multi-stakeholder environment. And that’s why I believe that broader diversity of funding is really critical to making this whole enterprise be sustainable over the long haul.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you, Byron. Thank you, Alan. and well so contributions come not only from the microphones but also sometimes from financial contributions so this should be as well a source of contribution definitely thank you very much Byron. I see we have one comment from the microphone over here so Jordan thank you very much the floor is yours.

Jordan Carter: Thanks Everton Teles Rodriguez is this one on? Yes it is great yeah it’s weird when you don’t hear coming back. My name is Jordan Carter I work for the .au domain administration just offering a couple of personal comments here. An idea came up in a discussion earlier today I was part of about how to better connect the NRIs with the IGF process and it was to make sure that appointees to the IGF’s MAG as one of the sort of conditions of their appointment are people who are active in their NRI community to make sure that people in the MAG are already sensitized to the needs and the realities of grassroots issues and grassroots organizing on internet governance topics so instead of people who might be very detached from that process being part of the MAG community there would be a kind of a precondition it couldn’t be a universal one because of course some places don’t have NRIs but this might be a way to more strongly connect. The other point is an observation that in this context we have the WSIS review coming up at the end of the year I think we should be a little careful about how much we seek to see IGF improvement suggestions woven into the outcomes document of that review and agreed by an intergovernmental process versus things we can do for example like reviewing the terms of reference of the IGF’s MAG and things that we can do in a more administrative less politically sensitive way. and Saba Tiku Beyene are both working in a more collaborative, perhaps more multi-stakeholder fashion, to strengthen the institution as well. So I hope that people can think of things maybe that need to be done to strengthen the IGF in a really proactive, action-oriented way. They don’t all have to feed in just to the WSIS review, so I just encourage people to think a little bit outside the box, perhaps, about that. Thank you.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much. Thank you, Jordan. For the first part of your comment, I think that one of the key aspects would be to look at ourselves as a community. So we have MAG members that may or may not be part of an NRI, considering the existence or not of that NRI, but if we just look to ourselves as a real community and those who should be appointed to the MAG as part of this community instead of people coming from who knows where. So this is definitely a good point. Thank you very much for pointing that out. We have one more comment from the floor. Bertrand. Thank you very much.

Bertrand de la Chapelle: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand de la Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. I’m glad to see all those sessions about the IGF and the evolution of the IGF, and I want to continue on the track that I’ve shared in various other sessions. And listening to Byron, I think it’s important to understand that the question of the funding of the IGF cannot be dissociated from the evolution of the IGF. The current state of the IGF is a very hybrid situation where there is a lack of clarity of what exactly people are expecting this organization to produce. I think there’s been a real interesting convergence in a few other sessions on the notion that the core function of the IGF is this framing phase, the bringing people together, the decision shaping. and not the decision-making. And as Jordan had mentioned in another session, it is a little bit difficult to raise money from companies, for instance, when it’s not a decision-making body. It’s one of the conundrums. However, I strongly believe that if we have a clear discussion on how to improve the IGF, revise its mandate, organize its structure more formally around exactly the components that we have today, but in a more structured manner, then the question of funding will be possible to be addressed. The second point is, and I’m very glad that Jordan made the comment before me, because we shouldn’t try to solve this question in the WSIS plus 20 process the way it is today. There’s no way we will achieve something that is sufficiently comprehensive by December. However, by December, we should have put on the table the question of who are we asking to steer this discussion? Where do we anchor this? Is it in the UN? Is it in the CSTD? Is it in the high-level panel? Is it in any other structure? How do we have a multi-stakeholder discussion in 2026 on the evolution of the mandate, the evolution of the funding, and the evolution of the structure of the IGF, and under whose auspices, with which partners around the table? But the question of the evolution of the IGF is the one that should be high on the agenda as an outcome of the WSIS plus 20 review. Thank you.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Bertrand. Are there any reactions from our participants? Would you like to comment on what was shared with the audience? Any comments?

Byron Holland: As usual, Bertrand has a complex, multi-layered question slash comment, and I’m just going to pick up on one, unsurprisingly, the money part, because I think, you know, my comments were threefold about the different elements of funding it. As an organization with many ccTLD colleagues from around the world who has participated in funding the IGF over the years, it can be difficult just procedurally to do it because of the way it gets done, but also to Bertrand’s point about how is, how are the top, you know, essentially, what is the agenda and the purpose of the IGF going forward? I think for those who have been participating in the IGF over a number of years will recognize that we’ve seen the private sector step back considerably over the years. And I think that that’s, that’s a challenge on two fronts. One is, where are they? We can talk all we want about the platforms, but where are they? They need to be part of this conversation. And what can we do to make this space more relevant to get them back into the conversation? Because it’s beneficial for them to hear what the broader multi-stakeholder environment is saying, particularly in regards to some of the things that they’re doing. And it’s important that we hear it too. They have perspectives that maybe don’t get articulated in these spaces that are very, very relevant. So, the purpose and the format going forward need to encourage the private sector, the people who are actually providing the technologies often, a space to both listen and speak. And if we can do that, we will also find that diversity of funding will flow from that. So, I just want to say, I agree with Bertrand in terms of the sequencing. I, of course, was just initially speaking about the money, but the sequencing is also critical. If we take another layer deeper. You’ve got to provide the space that attracts the diversity of funders and making it relevant to the private sector actors is going to be key for that. Thanks.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you, Byron. Well, I just would like to know, as we still have some time, we still can have one more question from the audience and while we wait for the question from the audience, I would like to know, Ellen, if we have any comments or reactions online.

Ellen Taylor: Thanks, Everton Teles Rodriguez. There is one, just to clarify the question that was previously asked to Byron. So, just a note from Mark Cavell here. He says, I fully agree with Byron’s focus on diversification, but I was wondering if a supplementary UN budget provision would enhance confidence amongst other potential investors. It might attract wider government… Sorry, I misread that. It might also have another benefit in promoting wider active government support and participation in IGF meetings and activities. So, that was just a follow-up to the earlier question.

Byron Holland: Just comment on that.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Sure.

Byron Holland: And I would 100% agree. I think there needs to be a baseline funding from the UN and, of course, I was entirely remiss in not acknowledging the governments that support these events on an annual basis. I mean, I’m staring at Norway. 100%, we need to acknowledge the importance of the governments that put their hand up and invest considerable resources in the event itself. But baseline funding from the UN, the support of individual countries for the annual event and the diversity of funding from the multi-stakeholder community. That will create the diversity of funding that I think we need.

Allison O’Beirne: Yeah, I just want to follow up on that point, Byron, because I think you’re completely right. And I think one additional consideration as we’re thinking through the diversification of the funding… for IGF as well and thinking through, you know, potential sources of funding from the UN itself, we have to ensure that the IGF does not become solely reliant on the host country to kind of provide for the ability to be able to host, specifically because that limits down and puts a particular emphasis on which countries might have the capacity to be able to host. So seeking out those diverse sources of funding, ensuring that we keep business or bring business to the table, and likewise looking at sources from international organizations like the United Nations, allows us to envision an IGF where the host country maybe has a lesser burden or maybe is able to more easily host, even if they are not, you know, G7, G20 nation.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Alison. And well, with that, I would like just to thank you for the questions for those who participated from the floor. And now it’s time for one more interactive part of our session. We will be using Slido. So Ellen will display it for those joining us in person and those joining us online. So it will be soon on your screen. Here it is. So prepare your cell phones. And here it is. So, Ellen, can you just hit…

Ellen Taylor: It is loading. Apologies.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Yeah, it’s loading. So here you can find three… You will find three options for you to vote. Here is the code for you to reach to menti.com. Oops. Yes. So you can join us at menti.com and then in a few seconds. We are going to the questions. OK, so maybe it’s about time, so next slide, please. Here we have three suggestions of actions to strengthen the IJF, so you should pick your favorite of the three. So which one do you consider that should be the favorite? Please, Ellen.

Ellen Taylor: Thanks, Everton Teles Rodriguez. Just a quick note that this is a ranking activity. So feel free to position these three actions to strengthen the IJF that we heard from Alison at the beginning of the panel. Obviously, there are lots of great ideas. And so we’d just love to get a sense from you as to which ones you feel are the most awesome to, you know, also awesome. But in a ranked order. Thanks.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you, Ellen.

Allison O’Beirne: I love I love a ranked ballot of the ideas that I brought up. It gives me the opportunity to vote for myself no matter what. It’s really great.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: So I’ll give you a few seconds until. We see a trend. OK, so should we move to our next question, Ellen? I still see some voting here. People are thinking for a few seconds.

Ellen Taylor: Yeah, that looks great. So it looks like we have about 28 people, 29 filling this out, which is wonderful and lovely to see the make the IJF permanent seems to be resonating the most strongly with with the group.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Right. So going to our next one, we have improving youth engagement at the IJF. So again, we would like to see what are your best, best options or your preferred ones. Of course, again, as Ellen said, this is a non-exhaustive list of topics, so many should come from discussions. We could keep discussing this forever. This one is more balanced, heavily, really balanced.

Ellen Taylor: Wow, it’s a tie, a three-way tie. That’s awesome. So thanks to Marko for bringing up some great points for us to think about and all great ideas. All right. Thank you.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: So the actions to improve the accessibility and representation of the IGF. Okay, so it’s quite stable now, or not. Okay. And Now improving the idea of financial sustainability. Great.

Ellen Taylor: I think it looks like for this one, the first and second option are pretty close of diversified IGF funding base and promotion of long-term commitments to IGF funding. So thank you to Byron for bringing those to our attention and speaking so in-depth and gave us really great points to think about when we did this activity. And for the previous one as well, I forgot to mention apologies, but thanks to Saba for really bringing those three ideas for inclusivity and accessibility at the IGF and that long-term support was really emphasized in the one that became the most prominent amongst the audience. So thank you all for your participation and that’s the end of the Mentimeter. Over to you, Overton.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Ellen. And then, well, with that, I just would like to ask each of our presenters for a brief concluding their takeaways from the session and high-level thoughts on the future of the IGF. I’ll use the same order as in the first half, so please, Alison, thank you very much.

Allison O’Beirne: Yeah, for sure. Thanks, Overton. I’ll be very brief. I think it was heartening to see in the questions that were raised in the discussions that we had that folks are very focused on the long-term sustainability of IGF. I think I have participated in a number of international…

Everton Teles Rodriguez: and Tali Wald הפki The largest network is called Marko’s House and this is one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪

Agreement points

IGF requires diversified and sustainable funding from multiple stakeholder groups

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Allison O’Beirne

Arguments

Funding should be diversified across all stakeholder groups in multi-stakeholder fashion rather than relying on single sources

UN baseline funding combined with diverse stakeholder contributions and government event support creates optimal funding model

Summary

Both speakers agree that IGF funding must come from diverse sources including UN baseline funding, government support, and multi-stakeholder contributions to ensure sustainability and prevent over-influence by any single group

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

National and Regional Initiatives need better integration with global IGF processes

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Jordan Carter
– Saba Tiku Beyene

Arguments

Need formal mechanisms to channel NRI inputs into global IGF agenda setting to strengthen multi-stakeholder representation

MAG appointees should be people active in their NRI communities to better connect grassroots issues with global processes

NRIs should serve as entry points to global IGF and be seen as spaces where new leaders are developed

Summary

All three speakers recognize that NRIs are valuable but currently underutilized, requiring better mechanisms to connect grassroots perspectives with global IGF agenda-setting and leadership development

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Capacity development

Youth engagement requires meaningful participation beyond token involvement

Speakers

– Marko Paloski
– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Everton Teles Rodriguez

Arguments

Youth are not just users but content creators, developers, and community builders who deserve representation at decision-making tables

Intergenerational dialogue and cross-regional learning opportunities should be encouraged to integrate youth voices into IGF agenda

Youth initiatives serve as crucial training grounds for future internet leaders and developers

Summary

All speakers emphasize that youth should be recognized as active contributors rather than passive users, requiring structured opportunities for meaningful engagement and leadership development

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Capacity development

IGF improvements should be pursued through multiple approaches rather than solely through WSIS+20

Speakers

– Bertrand de la Chapelle
– Jordan Carter

Arguments

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

IGF improvements should be pursued through collaborative, administrative means rather than solely through intergovernmental WSIS review

Summary

Both speakers agree that comprehensive IGF reform cannot be achieved through the WSIS+20 timeline and should involve multi-stakeholder processes and administrative improvements alongside intergovernmental discussions

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for greater inclusivity in IGF processes, focusing on representation of underserved communities and addressing language barriers that prevent meaningful participation

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Saba Tiku Beyene

Arguments

MAG should be more inclusive with better representation from emerging economies, Global South, and marginalized communities

Sessions need real-time captioning, live translations including widely spoken regional languages beyond UN languages

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Human rights

Both speakers recognize that unclear IGF purpose and declining private sector engagement create interconnected challenges for both relevance and financial sustainability

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

Private sector participation has declined and needs to be re-engaged both for funding and relevance purposes

Current hybrid state lacks clarity about expected outcomes, making funding difficult to secure

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers focus on creating pathways for sustained engagement that address structural barriers preventing meaningful long-term participation in IGF processes

Speakers

– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Everton Teles Rodriguez

Arguments

Fellowship programs should provide long-term engagement with mentorship and post-engagement opportunities rather than one-time experiences

Language barriers between national and global IGF participation need to be addressed to maintain discussion quality

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Administrative and collaborative approaches preferred over purely intergovernmental solutions

Speakers

– Bertrand de la Chapelle
– Jordan Carter
– Allison O’Beirne

Arguments

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

IGF improvements should be pursued through collaborative, administrative means rather than solely through intergovernmental WSIS review

IGF’s non-decisional nature is crucial to its success as it allows open collaboration without predetermined positions

Explanation

Despite representing different stakeholder perspectives, speakers converged on preferring multi-stakeholder collaborative approaches over traditional intergovernmental processes, emphasizing the value of the IGF’s unique non-decisional character

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Recognition that current IGF structure needs clarity while preserving core strengths

Speakers

– Bertrand de la Chapelle
– Allison O’Beirne
– Byron Holland

Arguments

IGF’s core function should focus on decision-shaping and framing rather than decision-making

IGF’s non-decisional nature is crucial to its success as it allows open collaboration without predetermined positions

Private sector participation has declined and needs to be re-engaged both for funding and relevance purposes

Explanation

Speakers from different backgrounds agreed that while the IGF needs structural improvements and clearer purpose definition, its fundamental non-decisional, collaborative nature should be preserved as a core strength

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on key structural issues including the need for diversified funding, better NRI integration, meaningful youth engagement, and multi-stakeholder approaches to IGF evolution. There was notable agreement on preserving the IGF’s collaborative, non-decisional nature while addressing practical challenges around inclusivity, sustainability, and relevance.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The agreement spans across different stakeholder groups and suggests a mature understanding of IGF challenges and solutions. This consensus provides a strong foundation for implementing coordinated improvements to strengthen the IGF while maintaining its core multi-stakeholder values.

Different viewpoints

Timeline and process for IGF mandate reform

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

IGF should have a permanent mandate rather than ongoing renewals to enable strategic long-term planning and demonstrate global confidence

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

Summary

O’Beirne advocates for making the IGF mandate permanent as a direct action, while de la Chapelle argues that comprehensive IGF reform cannot be achieved by the December WSIS+20 deadline and should be properly discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Approach to IGF improvements through WSIS review

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

IGF improvements should be pursued through collaborative, administrative means rather than solely through intergovernmental WSIS review

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

Summary

Carter suggests pursuing improvements through administrative changes and collaborative approaches rather than relying on WSIS review, while de la Chapelle focuses on establishing the proper framework and timeline for comprehensive mandate discussion

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Urgency vs. thoroughness in IGF reform

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

IGF should have a permanent mandate rather than ongoing renewals to enable strategic long-term planning and demonstrate global confidence

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

Explanation

Unexpected because both speakers represent government/policy perspectives and might be expected to align on procedural approaches, but they differ significantly on whether to pursue immediate permanence or comprehensive future reform

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts centered on timing, process, and implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. Key areas of disagreement included the timeline for IGF mandate reform and the appropriate channels for pursuing improvements.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common goals of strengthening the IGF but differed on implementation strategies and timelines. This suggests good potential for consensus-building, as the disagreements are primarily procedural rather than substantive. The implications are positive for IGF development, as the community appears aligned on objectives while having healthy debate about optimal approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for greater inclusivity in IGF processes, focusing on representation of underserved communities and addressing language barriers that prevent meaningful participation

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Saba Tiku Beyene

Arguments

MAG should be more inclusive with better representation from emerging economies, Global South, and marginalized communities

Sessions need real-time captioning, live translations including widely spoken regional languages beyond UN languages

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Human rights

Both speakers recognize that unclear IGF purpose and declining private sector engagement create interconnected challenges for both relevance and financial sustainability

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

Private sector participation has declined and needs to be re-engaged both for funding and relevance purposes

Current hybrid state lacks clarity about expected outcomes, making funding difficult to secure

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers focus on creating pathways for sustained engagement that address structural barriers preventing meaningful long-term participation in IGF processes

Speakers

– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Everton Teles Rodriguez

Arguments

Fellowship programs should provide long-term engagement with mentorship and post-engagement opportunities rather than one-time experiences

Language barriers between national and global IGF participation need to be addressed to maintain discussion quality

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Capacity development

Key takeaways

The IGF should transition from periodic mandate renewals to a permanent mandate to enable strategic long-term planning and demonstrate global multi-stakeholder confidence

National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) need formal mechanisms to feed their insights into the global IGF agenda-setting process to strengthen multi-stakeholder representation

Youth engagement should move beyond participation to meaningful engagement, recognizing youth as content creators, developers, and community builders rather than just users

Financial sustainability requires three key elements: clearer public reporting of costs and funding flows, diversified funding across all stakeholder groups, and long-term commitments (5-year pledges)

Accessibility improvements should include real-time captioning, translations into widely spoken regional languages beyond UN languages, and long-term fellowship programs with mentorship

The IGF’s core strength lies in its non-decisional nature which enables open collaboration and its role in decision-shaping rather than decision-making

Private sector participation has declined significantly and needs to be re-engaged for both funding and relevance purposes

The Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) should be more inclusive with better representation from emerging economies, Global South, and marginalized communities

Resolutions and action items

Explore making the IGF mandate permanent rather than subject to ongoing renewals

Develop formal mechanisms to channel National and Regional Initiative inputs into global IGF agenda setting

Create intergenerational dialogue opportunities and cross-regional learning programs for youth

Implement clearer, publicly available reporting on IGF costs and funding flows across the ecosystem

Pursue diversified funding from all stakeholder groups including UN baseline funding, government event support, and private sector contributions

Encourage 5-year funding pledges to enable better long-term planning

Expand translation services to include widely spoken regional languages beyond the six UN languages

Transform fellowship programs from one-time experiences to long-term engagement with mentorship opportunities

Consider requiring MAG appointees to be active in their National/Regional IGF communities where they exist

Organize a multi-stakeholder discussion in 2026 on IGF mandate evolution, funding, and structure

Unresolved issues

How to re-engage private sector participation that has declined over the years

Where to anchor the discussion on IGF evolution – whether in UN, CSTD, high-level panel, or other structure

How much IGF improvement should be pursued through the WSIS+20 review versus administrative/collaborative means

How to balance host country burden with ensuring IGF accessibility for countries with varying capacities

How to address the procedural difficulties organizations face when trying to contribute funding to the IGF

What specific mechanisms should be used to capture and disseminate outcomes from National and Regional Initiatives

How to measure and report on the effectiveness of fellowship programs and long-term engagement initiatives

Suggested compromises

Pursue IGF improvements through both WSIS+20 outcomes (for high-level mandate questions) and collaborative administrative means (for operational improvements)

Combine UN baseline funding with diversified multi-stakeholder contributions rather than relying on any single funding source

Balance permanent mandate with continued demonstration of IGF value to stakeholders

Use 2026 as target date for comprehensive multi-stakeholder discussion on IGF evolution rather than rushing changes through WSIS+20

Implement graduated expectations for stakeholder contributions based on varying regional and organizational capacities (‘if we can, we should’ principle)

I think IGF’s non-decisional nature is also crucial to its success. It allows folks to come to the table in a spirit of openness and collaboration. I know from the government perspective particularly, we have a tendency to show up at some events with our positions all set and our decisions already made, and coming to IGF in a space where we’re not negotiating an outcomes document allows us to come in a spirit of collaboration and a spirit of learning and listening as well.

Speaker

Allison O’Beirne

Reason

This comment provides a counterintuitive insight about how the IGF’s perceived weakness (not making decisions) is actually its strength. It reveals the psychological dynamics of how different stakeholders approach forums differently based on their mandate.

Impact

This framing established a foundation for later discussions about IGF’s unique value proposition and influenced how other speakers positioned their recommendations around preserving this collaborative nature while strengthening other aspects.

I want also to point out that one thing is youth involvement and one thing is youth engagement because we have seen a lot of other conferences and stuff that they have youth and the participation but it’s not on the same level as engagement… youths are not just the users because currently in these days, they are also doing content creation. They are doing the developing, researching, community buildings.

Speaker

Marko Paloski

Reason

This distinction between involvement versus engagement is profound and challenges tokenistic approaches to youth participation. The observation about youth as creators rather than just users reframes the entire conversation about their role in internet governance.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from simply ‘including youth’ to understanding their substantive contributions, influencing Saba’s subsequent recommendations about intergenerational dialogue and peer learning processes.

It’s important to emphasize that this applies not only to global IGFs but to the wider ecosystem of national, regional and youth IGFs, the NRIs… if we want this space to continue to exist, those organizations that can should be participating in it… having a single source of funding like the UN, I think would be a disservice to a multi-stakeholder environment.

Speaker

Byron Holland

Reason

This comment connects financial sustainability directly to the multi-stakeholder principle, arguing that funding diversity mirrors and reinforces governance diversity. It’s a sophisticated understanding of how financial structures can undermine or support institutional values.

Impact

This insight shifted the funding discussion from purely practical considerations to philosophical ones about preserving the IGF’s multi-stakeholder nature, leading to more nuanced exchanges about balancing UN baseline funding with diverse contributions.

The current state of the IGF is a very hybrid situation where there is a lack of clarity of what exactly people are expecting this organization to produce… However, I strongly believe that if we have a clear discussion on how to improve the IGF, revise its mandate, organize its structure more formally around exactly the components that we have today, but in a more structured manner, then the question of funding will be possible to be addressed.

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Reason

This comment diagnoses a fundamental problem – that the IGF’s unclear purpose makes it difficult to fund and improve. It challenges the group to think more systematically about institutional design rather than making incremental improvements.

Impact

This intervention created a turning point in the discussion, prompting Byron to acknowledge the complexity and sequencing issues, and leading to a more sophisticated conversation about the relationship between institutional clarity and financial sustainability.

An idea came up in a discussion earlier today… to make sure that appointees to the IGF’s MAG as one of the sort of conditions of their appointment are people who are active in their NRI community… instead of people who might be very detached from that process being part of the MAG community.

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Reason

This is a concrete, actionable proposal that addresses the disconnect between global and local levels. It’s insightful because it tackles governance structure in a way that could organically improve representation and connection.

Impact

This practical suggestion resonated with the moderator’s observation about community connectivity and provided a specific mechanism for implementing the broader principles discussed about NRI integration.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond surface-level improvements to deeper questions about institutional design and purpose. The conversation evolved from a series of separate recommendations to a more integrated understanding of how the IGF’s non-decisional nature, multi-stakeholder funding, youth engagement, and governance structures are interconnected. Particularly impactful was the progression from Allison’s framing of the IGF’s collaborative strength, through the nuanced discussions of engagement versus involvement and funding diversity, to Bertrand’s challenge about institutional clarity. This created a sophisticated dialogue that recognized the IGF’s current success while grappling with fundamental questions about its future evolution and sustainability.

How can we create formal mechanisms for channeling inputs from national and regional initiatives into the agenda setting for the broader IGF?

Speaker

Allison O’Beirne

Explanation

This addresses the current siloed communication between regional initiatives and the central IGF program, which limits the multi-stakeholder input into agenda setting

How can we make the MAG more inclusive to ensure voices from emerging economies, global south, and marginalized communities are well represented?

Speaker

Allison O’Beirne

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring the IGF’s agenda truly reflects diverse global perspectives and maintains its multi-stakeholder nature

How much money flows into the IGF and its broader ecosystem, and what are the associated costs with annual conferences, the Secretariat, and wider ecosystem activities?

Speaker

Byron Holland

Explanation

Clear financial transparency is needed to support strategic engagement, identify funding gaps, and strengthen sustainability efforts

Should appointees to the IGF’s MAG be required to be active in their NRI community as a condition of appointment?

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Explanation

This could better connect grassroots internet governance issues with global IGF decision-making and ensure MAG members are sensitized to local needs

Who should steer the discussion on IGF evolution and where should it be anchored – in the UN, CSTD, high-level panel, or other structure?

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Explanation

This fundamental governance question needs resolution to enable proper multi-stakeholder discussion on IGF mandate, funding, and structure evolution

How can we make the IGF space more relevant to attract private sector participation back into the conversation?

Speaker

Byron Holland

Explanation

Private sector participation has declined significantly, but their involvement is crucial for both multi-stakeholder dialogue and funding diversification

How can we accommodate linguistic diversity beyond the six UN languages, particularly widely spoken regional languages like Yoruba?

Speaker

Saba Tiku Beyene

Explanation

True inclusivity requires considering languages spoken by large populations, not just official UN languages, though financial constraints need to be addressed

How can we establish reporting mechanisms to analyze participation and outcomes of fellowship and mentorship programs?

Speaker

Saba Tiku Beyene

Explanation

This would help evaluate the effectiveness of inclusion efforts and ensure long-term engagement rather than one-time experiences

Would supplementary UN budget provision enhance confidence amongst other potential investors and promote wider government participation?

Speaker

Mark Cavell (via online comment)

Explanation

This explores whether UN baseline funding could serve as a catalyst for attracting additional diverse funding sources and broader government engagement