The Next Byte – Shaping Human-Centred Internet Governance

The UN General Assembly, under Resolution 8173 in the WSIS Plus 20 review, formally reaffirmed the IGF and granted it a permanent mandate within the UN system. This resolution also emphasised the urgent need to close digital divides and ensure that all countries and stakeholders benefit from both existing and emerging technologies.

Chengetai Massango referenced the General Assembly Resolution 8173 under the WSIS Plus 20 review, which reaffirmed the IGF and gave it a permanent mandate in the UN , and noted that the resolution stressed the urgent need to close digital divides and ensure all countries and stakeholders benefit from existing and emerging technologies .

Chengetai Massango highlighted the framing of "opportunity divides" as a more comprehensive way to describe the inequalities at stake, going beyond simple digital access to encompass broader opportunities enabled by AI and digital technologies. He noted this framing resonated with him as a useful lens through which to understand the challenges.

Massango explicitly stated his appreciation for the framing of "opportunity divides," noting that the digital is AI but it is also about opportunity divides , building on Ambassador Thigo's earlier remarks about the internet as an opportunity device .

Massango argued that it is not sufficient for the IGF to produce outputs; those outputs must be deliberately structured so that they can serve as inputs into other global processes. He also suggested that stakeholders attending other fora should be primed to actively make connections between those processes and the IGF's work.

Massango stated that outputs must be intentionally formatted to more easily become inputs into other processes, and that synergetic cooperation must be structured so that one output becomes the input to the next . He also noted that stakeholders should be reminded to think about making connections when attending other fora, observing that he had witnessed missed opportunities where such connections were not made .

Ambassador Thigo argued that since the IGF's founding in 2005, the internet has undergone a fundamental transformation from an information society to an intelligent society. Governance frameworks must therefore address not just connectivity but the entire technological stack, including compute, data, talent, and use cases.

Thigo noted that in 2005 the world was dealing with an information society, whereas now it is dealing with an intelligent society, representing a fundamental shift . He elaborated that the internet now encompasses the entire stack underpinning the current intelligent society, including compute, data, talent, and use cases .

Ambassador Thigo explained that Kenya's chosen theme for the IGF reflects the dual challenge of addressing longstanding unfinished business around connectivity and rights while also grappling with the new realities of an intelligent economy. The theme is designed to encompass the full range of issues humans face in coexisting within this intelligent society.

Thigo described the theme as looking at the entire frame around what happens on the internet and how humans can live and coexist in the intelligent society, while not forgetting fundamental issues around rights and responsibilities . He also connected the theme to the Sustainable Development Goals, noting that the internet is about delivering the SDGs .

Thigo stressed that with only four years left before the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals, there remains significant unfinished business in internet governance. This includes persistent connectivity and electricity gaps, populations that are not online, and the erosion of civic space and digital rights.

Thigo explicitly stated that the world is four years out from 2030 with a lot of unfinished business, noting that connectivity and electricity are still lagging behind, populations remain offline, and those who are online are not always safe . He also highlighted the erosion of civic space and digital rights as ongoing concerns .

Ambassador Thigo argued that Kenya's role as host country for the first permanent IGF presents a unique opportunity to approach the forum differently and more boldly. He framed Kenya as a disruptive force that can help the IGF evolve in meaningful ways.

Thigo stated that there is an opportunity to do things differently with Kenya as co-chair and host, describing Kenya as "a little bit disruptive," and emphasised that this first permanent IGF should not lose the opportunity to do things differently .

Thigo argued that the IGF was originally conceived as a "dialogue of dialogues," meaning it was designed to recognise existing dialogue spaces and aggregate them rather than operate as a standalone forum. He suggested that the IGF should be understood as feeding upward into higher-level dialogues, including the UN AI dialogue.

Thigo stated that the dialogue was supposed to be a dialogue of dialogues, recognising existing dialogue spaces, and that he believes the IGF is one of those existing dialogue spaces that should filter up to the dialogue of dialogues . He also noted the importance of getting the next co-facilitators to understand this specific aspect of the global dialogue .

Ambassador Thigo highlighted that Kenya was the first country to sponsor a UN resolution specifically addressing the environmental impact of AI systems, covering the entire life cycle of AI. He presented this as evidence of Kenya's leadership on the intersection of AI and environmental governance.

Thigo made a "shameless plug" noting that Kenya was the first country to sponsor the first ever UN resolution on environmental impact on artificial intelligence systems , and mentioned that Kenya is looking at how to implement that resolution, modelling not just water or energy impacts .

Jennifer Chung argued that the success of the WSIS outcomes and the achievement of a permanent mandate for the IGF is not merely a cause for celebration but a responsibility. The community must now ensure that the permanent mandate translates into a meaningful next trajectory for the IGF.

Chung stated that the success of the WSIS outcomes and the achievement of a permanent mandate also means it is a responsibility for all to make sure this permanent mandate and the next trajectory of how the IGF can go is realised .

Chung explained that the MAG's foremost responsibility is to curate and build a programme that makes sense for the entire global community. She described persistent digital divides and meaningful inclusion as the North Star guiding every aspect of the MAG's work, from the overarching theme to the building blocks of content.

Chung stated that the MAG has the responsibility to curate and build a programme that makes sense for the entire global community , and described persistent digital divides and meaningful inclusion as the North Star of every single part of what the MAG is doing .

Chung identified a perennial challenge for the IGF: how to reach the communities and stakeholders who are not already aware of the forum and are therefore absent from both the physical and remote participation spaces. She framed this as a shared responsibility, not solely the MAG's burden.

Chung noted that the question of how to reach those who want to be at the IGF but have not heard of it, and are not in the room or the remote room, is always the perennial question . She also acknowledged that this responsibility is not just on the MAG .

Drawing on her background in the technical community, Chung argued that user experience is a critical consideration for the IGF. She emphasised the need to ensure that someone new to the IGF can immediately understand what is available to them and how to engage with the relevant sessions and stakeholders.

Chung stated that she comes from the technical community and that user experience is really important to her . She described the goal of ensuring that a new person coming to the IGF can clearly understand which sessions are relevant to their interests and where they can meet stakeholders from government, private sector, technical community, civil society, and youth .

Chung outlined that the WSIS outcomes document tasks the IGF with specific actions, including improving processes, working more closely with the WSIS architecture and the WSIS Forum, and contributing to reporting into CSTD and the 2027 review of GDC commitments. She framed operationalising these tasks as a concrete priority for the MAG.

Chung referenced specific paragraphs in the WSIS outcomes document that task the IGF to improve certain processes, work closer with the WSIS architecture, work with the WSIS Forum, and create more coherent reporting into CSTD and the 2027 review of GDC commitments . She asked how to operationalise and implement these tasks .

Chung argued that the IGF should not be understood as a single annual meeting but as a continuous process throughout the year. The intersessional work conducted between annual forums provides a rich tapestry of valuable lessons, best practices, and outputs that the community can draw upon.

Chung explicitly stated that the IGF is not a single event at the end of the year where everyone comes, talks, and goes away , and that the intersessional work throughout the entire year provides a rich tapestry to draw on .

Chung acknowledged that the MAG faces the unenviable task of streamlining the diverse intersessional work streams — including dynamic coalitions, policy networks, and NRIs — and making them coherent and clear. She also noted the importance of looking at how to bring the intersessional work closer together.

Chung described the MAG's task as being able to streamline the intersessional work, to make it coherent and clear . She also identified as a big goal for the MAG the question of how to look at the intersessional work and bring it closer together .

Chung highlighted that National, Regional, and Sub-Regional Initiatives (NRIs), along with other intersessional work streams, are natural implementers of the WSIS outcomes given their reach and embeddedness in local contexts. She noted that there are over 180 such initiatives globally.

Chung stated that NRIs, National Regional Sub-Regional Youth Initiatives around the world, numbering 180 plus, are natural WSIS implementers . She also referenced a session the previous day that deep-dived into what it actually means for NRIs and other intersessional work to take this forward .

Chung responded positively to the suggestion that the IGF should serve as a platform for substantive AI governance dialogue, affirming that the IGF community would certainly discuss this topic at Nairobi. She noted the IGF's strength in convening multi-stakeholder dialogue and its favourable position in the calendar.

Chung stated that she cannot stress enough that the IGF is quite good at convening dialogues and bringing people to the table to talk with each other rather than at each other . She indicated that the IGF community would not fail to talk about AI governance at Nairobi , and noted that the format could be part of the high-level track or more . She also confirmed that the new co-facilitators of the AI dialogue would be invited to the IGF .

Chung argued that for IGF outputs to have real impact, they must be intentionally targeted to specific audiences and presented in the language and format those audiences can understand. She emphasised that it is not enough to simply make outputs available; they must be actively directed to the right places.

Chung stated that in order for the intended audience to receive information, it must be spoken in their language and in a format they can immediately understand . She noted that it is not enough to say the outputs are available and people can come to find them; the process needs to be intentional and targeted . She also expressed her preference for visually mapping out where outputs need to go .

Rybakov described the Dynamic Coalition on Environment's report as uniquely comprehensive, covering topics that no other single document has addressed together, including desertification, biological diversity, climate change, and water issues. Notably, the report united countries that have rarely been brought together on this topic, including the United States, China, India, Russia, and the European Union.

Rybakov stated that the report covers topics no one else has ever covered in one document, including desertification, biological diversity, climate change, and water issues . He noted that it unites countries that have never been united on this topic in one document, specifically naming the United States, China, India, Russia, the BRICS community, and the European Union .

Rybakov explained that the report takes a comprehensive life cycle approach to AI's environmental impact, examining all stages from the extraction of land and water resources and energy consumption through to the electronic waste generated at the end of AI systems' lives. This comprehensiveness is presented as one of the report's three key tracks.

Rybakov described comprehensiveness as one of the three tracks of the document, stating that it looks at the full life cycle of AI, starting from land, water, energy, carbon, and critical minerals, and going up to the electronic waste at the end .

Rybakov framed the report not as an end in itself but as the beginning of a broader process of change. The goal is to launch a multi-stakeholder dialogue on AI and environment at a moment when governance decisions about AI's environmental impact are still being made by governments.

Rybakov described the importance of the report as starting a wheel of change and launching a dialogue to get as many partners as possible, making it as multi-stakeholder as possible, to raise the topic of environment and connect it to technological issues . He identified timeliness as one of the three tracks, noting that it is the right moment to discuss governance because governments bear responsibility for how AI will influence the environment .

Rybakov noted that the UN Secretary-General announced a Transparency Initiative in London and at the Global Dialogue, and that many people have been asking whether the Dynamic Coalition's report is part of this initiative. He indicated that while it is not currently part of it, the aim is to make the updated report part of the Transparency Initiative in the following year.

Rybakov stated that the UNSG announced the Transparency Initiative in London and at the Global Dialogue on Monday , and that people are asking whether the report is part of it . He indicated that the coalition will try to make the report for next year part of the Transparency Initiative announced by the UNSG .

Rybakov reinforced the point about the IGF being a continuous process by noting that the forum effectively starts on the first day after the previous one ends. He acknowledged the hard work this requires and praised the MAG chair for her commitment to this sustained effort.

Rybakov stated that the forum is not starting a week or a month before the forum; the forum starts at the same time as the first day when the previous one ends, and that it is hard work that has to be done by someone .

Rybakov urged the audience to view the report not merely as an environmental document but as a case study demonstrating the power of the IGF's structure. He argued that the dynamic coalition model gave civil society the opportunity to present its position at the highest UN levels, including to deputy UN Secretaries-General.

Rybakov explicitly asked the audience to look at the report as a case study, noting that the dynamic coalition and civil society got an option to present their position and, because of the IGF's structure, were able to deliver it at a very high level to the deputy UNSGs and to the world . He concluded by urging others to use this model for global good .

Rybakov expressed gratitude for the IGF's existence and its permanent status, framing it as a unique platform that enables multi-stakeholder dialogue and gives civil society and dynamic coalitions the ability to engage at the highest levels. He presented the IGF's structure as enabling the kind of inclusive, multi-stakeholder engagement that other institutions have struggled to achieve.

Rybakov stated that the IGF gives a platform for everyone and expressed gratitude that the IGF exists . He also noted that the opportunity to meet with the IGF Secretariat in February in India and receive encouragement to produce the report exemplified the kind of enabling environment the IGF provides .

A representative from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) described ongoing research into the water consumption of data centres and AI technologies, with a particular focus on Central Asian countries that face water scarcity. The speaker expressed interest in cooperating with others working on similar studies.

Felix Guimard from UNECE stated that they are currently conducting a study on water consumption of data centres and general usage of AI technologies, particularly in Central Asia, because those countries are sometimes lacking water . He expressed a desire to cooperate on these studies with anyone else interested .

A representative from the Marconi Society argued that resilience is not a concern confined to any single layer of the internet stack but must be understood as a cross-cutting issue that runs through all layers and their interdependencies. She recommended that this thinking be core to the IGF programme and to how intersessional work is integrated.

Marta Botterman, speaking on behalf of the Marconi Society, argued that resilience is a crucial layer and that no single layer can be safe by itself; it needs to go throughout all layers . She gave the example of emergency networks not working without power, illustrating the interdependencies involved .

A past MAG chair argued that the IGF, given its unique multi-stakeholder strength and its position in the calendar, should serve as a platform for much more interactive and substantive AI engagement between stakeholders, governments, and non-state actors. She pointed to the timing between the New York AI dialogue in May and the Swiss summit in June as making the Nairobi IGF in December a particularly opportune moment.

Anriette Esserhausen asked whether the IGF could be the platform for a much more interactive and substantive AI engagement between stakeholders and governments . She noted the timing would be perfect given the New York dialogue in May and the Swiss summit in June , and suggested drawing on the wealth of human engagement through policy networks and dynamic coalitions .

A speaker reflected on the observation that the IGF's primary brand of "internet governance" attracts a narrower audience than topics such as AI governance, as evidenced by the large and diverse crowds drawn to AI-focused events. She raised the question of whether the IGF should retain its narrower focus or broaden its branding to reach wider audiences.

The speaker described being overwhelmed by the number of new people and different stakeholders engaging at the Swiss government's open mic session at AI for Good, and expressed a wish that the IGF could have that . She noted that internet governance as a primary brand reaches a much narrower audience than AI governance , and asked whether the IGF wants to retain that narrow focus or open it up, including thinking about the language used .

The same speaker argued that if the IGF wants to produce more substantial outcomes, it must change its formats rather than simply retaining existing ones. She also stressed that the secretariat needs sufficient capacity to take the IGF's outputs and messages into other policy fora.

The speaker stated that if the IGF wants better outcomes, it needs to change its formats , and that the secretariat needs the capacity to take those outcomes, outputs, and messages into other policy fora .

The speaker urged the IGF community not to allow the characterisation of the IGF as a "talk shop" to be used to denigrate it. Instead, she argued that the IGF's primary strength — being a place for dialogue and talking — should be actively celebrated, even as the forum seeks to improve its outcomes and impact.

The speaker stated that as the IGF tries to have a more focused and impactful presence, it should not stop celebrating the primary core strength of the IGF, which is that it is about talking and dialogue . She argued that the idea of the IGF as a talk shop should not be used to denigrate it, and that the community should celebrate having a place primarily about talking .

A speaker from the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety raised the challenge of how to curate the large volume of input generated through NRI sessions and other bottom-up processes, and how to establish better connections between the IGF and other sessions and processes. He noted that in his three days at the event, he had not observed much interaction between most sessions and the IGF.

Walter Nathans observed that information needs to come up and be curated, noting that there were all sorts of ideas about where to post it but uncertainty about what would happen with it . He noted that in three days he had not had the impression of much interaction between most sessions and the IGF, and that IGF participants were sometimes not even mentioning the IGF in other sessions . He asked how connections could be established better and how intersessional work could be curated more comprehensively .