WSIS+20 follow-up - from Milestones to Momentum: what comes next?

Paul Gaskell highlighted that the WSIS Plus 20 review process was conducted in a genuinely multi-stakeholder manner, which he considered a notable achievement. He specifically praised the co-facilitators and the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board process as examples of this working well.

Gaskell noted that not all UN processes run smoothly, but that the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board process ran really well as a piece of the process .

Gaskell emphasised that securing a permanent mandate for the IGF and reaffirming the 2005 Tunis Principles were major achievements of the WSIS Plus 20 review. He stressed that these outcomes were not guaranteed and should be appreciated accordingly.

He pointed to the permanent mandate for the Internet Governance Forum, the reaffirmation of the 2005 Tunis Principles, and the clear statement that the IGF is the primary forum for Internet Governance Dialogue as really good results, noting they were not automatic outcomes .

Gaskell argued that one of the most important measurable milestones for the next phase of WSIS implementation is genuinely increasing wider stakeholder participation. He specifically highlighted the need to include G77 countries, small and medium-sized enterprises, younger people, and women.

He identified increasing wider stakeholder participation, particularly from G77 countries and by small and medium-sized enterprises, including increased diversity, younger people, and women, as a real milestone .

Gaskell pointed to the upcoming IGF in Kenya as a concrete opportunity to demonstrate progress on broadening participation, particularly from the Global South. He considered the choice of Kenya as a host to be an excellent development for this purpose.

He stated that the next IGF being held in Kenya is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate greater G77 participation, and that they were extremely fortunate to have it there .

Gaskell argued that now the IGF has a permanent mandate, it should shift towards delivering more focused and practical outcomes rather than broad discussions. He suggested the Kenya IGF should be the starting point for this new approach.

He expressed a desire to see the IGF have more focused, practical, and concrete outcomes, and indicated that this should begin with the Kenya meeting .

Gaskell acknowledged that the IGF secretariat is underpowered in terms of resources and that this needs to be addressed. He also put forward the view that funding for multi-stakeholder organisations should itself reflect multi-stakeholder principles.

He noted that there is a recognition that the secretariat is underpowered and that this would be beneficial to address, and added his personal view that multi-stakeholder organisation funding should also be multi-stakeholder .

Shears argued that the GDC contains an explicit expectation that the IGF and WSIS will be central to its implementation, which represents a significant recognition of the multi-stakeholder model. He cautioned, however, that this opportunity must be actively pursued rather than taken for granted.

He pointed to Article 68 of the GDC, which contains an explicit ask and expectation that the IGF and the WSIS will be core components of implementing the GDC, and stressed this cannot be taken lightly or for granted . He also noted that the multi-stakeholder process has achieved a level of standing in international policy circles related to the internet and development .

Shears identified the tendency to treat these governance processes as isolated tracks as the primary risk of fragmentation. He warned that if stakeholders revert to their traditional siloed modes of operating, the opportunities presented by the GDC will not be realised.

He described the biggest problem as continuing to see these as processes that are not linked, that will go on in their own ways, and will not be sufficiently aligned at the senior level, meaning the opportunities for the IGF and its multi-stakeholder processes will not be realised .

Shears argued that while the IGF must strengthen its institutional coordination within the UN system, it must not lose sight of the importance of national IGFs and local-level inputs. He presented this balance as both a challenge and an opportunity.

He stated that the IGF has an opportunity to extol its multi-stakeholder credentials within the UN system, but that this means it cannot lose sight of the local importance, the national IGFs, and the inputs that they have .

Shears acknowledged that the IGF's growing embeddedness within the UN system creates a significant institutional coordination challenge. He suggested this must be carefully managed to ensure the IGF's multi-stakeholder identity is not compromised.

He noted that there is an institutional coordination challenge, which can be something that can be overwhelming in terms of sitting within the UN system, and that this is something that has to be worked at .

Kummer highlighted that the WSIS Plus 20 review formally recognised the IGF as the hub of a broader ecosystem that includes intersessional work, national and regional initiatives, policy networks, best practice forums, and dynamic coalitions. He considered this a significant achievement.

He noted the recognition in the WSIS Plus 20 review that the IGF is no longer a standalone annual meeting but is at the centre of a vibrant ecosystem with intersessional work, and the recognition of national and regional initiatives, policy networks, best practice forums, and dynamic coalitions .

Kummer argued that the IGF is uniquely positioned to connect and integrate the various governance processes, including WSIS, GDC, and AI governance. He framed this as the IGF's central role in preventing fragmentation.

He stated that he sees the IGF very much as the glue holding the processes together, and raised the question of what internet governance means in practice, arguing that AI falls under the broad definition of internet governance agreed by UN member states .

Kummer pointed to the existing UNGIS mechanism as the primary vehicle for connecting the IGF to other UN processes. He also noted that a new multi-stakeholder addition to UNGIS would be important for this coordination.

He referenced UNGIS, the UN Interagency Coordination body, noting that the IGF secretariat is involved there and that there will be a new multi-stakeholder addition to UNGIS, which is important for the IGF to connect to other processes .

Kummer argued that the permanent mandate is transformative because it frees the IGF from the constant need to justify its existence and secure renewals. This creates space for the IGF to be more ambitious and take on a broader role.

He noted that before the permanent mandate, there was always a struggle for renewal of the mandate and pressure around what needed to be done to ensure it was renewed, but that this pressure is now off, meaning the IGF can be much freer and bolder .

Kummer identified a significant structural challenge facing the IGF ecosystem: many of its intersessional bodies, including dynamic coalitions and national and regional initiatives, lack legal personality. This makes it difficult for them to enter into contracts or manage funds.

He explained that intersessional processes are built on voluntary collaboration but lack legal personality, making it difficult for NRIs to enter into contractual arrangements, and that they often have to bank on an existing entity such as an Internet Society chapter or government agency . He noted the same challenge applies to dynamic coalitions when they want to embark on more ambitious projects involving money .

Betancourt acknowledged the positive outcomes of the WSIS Plus 20 review, including the IGF mandate and the integrated approach to implementation, but also pointed to important shortcomings. She specifically highlighted the failure to adequately integrate gender considerations as a significant regret.

She mentioned the mandate for the IGF and the integrated approach to WSIS-GDC implementation as clear wins, but also noted very significant regrets, including the gender integration into the process .

Betancourt argued that the failure to make serious commitments on funding represents one of the most critical gaps in the WSIS Plus 20 outcome. She framed this as a central challenge for the APC and other civil society actors going forward.

She identified the lack of serious commitment with the funding situation and the achievement of the WSIS vision and the implementation of the action lines in tandem with the Global Digital Compact as one of the main gaps and challenges ahead .

Betancourt argued that the newly created interagency task force on financing must approach its work from the perspective of those receiving support, rather than from the perspective of development agencies. She emphasised that this includes not only developing countries but also small actors and implementers.

She stated that the task force should not approach the financing of the WSIS and the GDC from the point of view of the development agencies, but rather from the point of view of the recipients, including not only developing countries but also small actors and small implementers . She also suggested the task force could map approaches working in other fields, look at gaps in existing financial arrangements, and identify the most effective mechanisms for funding to flow .

Betancourt highlighted that civil society is a critical implementer of WSIS and GDC commitments, especially in contexts where state capacity is limited. However, she argued that civil society cannot fulfil this role without adequate funding, which is currently absent.

She noted that there is a lack of understanding of the huge role that civil society plays in the implementation of the WSIS and the GDC, particularly in contexts where the state is weak, and that for civil society to meaningfully engage with implementation, funding has to be there and is simply not there .

Betancourt argued that the multi-stakeholder model, while valuable, does not serve all stakeholders equally and that a critical examination of power dynamics is necessary. She suggested this is essential for increasing accountability within the model.

She called for a pragmatic application of the multi-stakeholder model, acknowledging that it is not serving the interests of all stakeholders similarly, and argued that a critical approach to understanding the real dynamics of power permeating an effective and more meaningful application of the model is needed .

Betancourt argued that implementing the WSIS action lines and GDC objectives is impossible without a comprehensive and sustainable financial ecosystem. She described this ecosystem as needing to draw on public, private, and community-based sources at all levels.

She stressed the urgent need for financial ecosystems at all levels that are viable, innovative, and demand-driven, drawing on public, private, and community-based sources . She described the need to enable all necessary conditions to build a more sustainable ecosystem ensuring availability of investment, public sector support, direct private sector financing, and funding for startups , and concluded that implementation of the WSIS action lines and GDC objectives without financial mechanisms is non-negotiable .

Noir highlighted that the final WSIS Plus 20 document recognised the technical community as a distinct stakeholder group, separate from the traditional government-private sector-civil society tri-party model. He noted this was something the technical community coalition had actively advocated for.

He noted that the recognition of the technical community as a unique stakeholder was something the technical community coalition on multi-stakeholderism, comprising 45 technical operators, had argued for, and that CIRA was very pleased to see this progress make it into the document .

Noir echoed concerns about duplication across governance processes and the proliferation of organisations involved in overlapping spaces. He argued that this needs to be carefully considered as part of the implementation process.

He stated that there is a need to really think about duplication and to really think about how many organisations are involved across the many topics being spanned .

Noir argued that the technical community's primary contribution is bringing practical expertise into policy discussions at an early enough stage to ensure that outcomes can actually be implemented. He described CIRA's role as providing relatively neutral advice to governments and other stakeholders.

He described CIRA as working closely with their government and other governments to provide practical expertise, seeing themselves as fairly neutral operators that can get into the policy conversation early enough so that when outcomes are produced, they can implement some of that .

Noir argued that technical operators like CIRA have a specific and important role in implementing the infrastructure-level conditions necessary to deliver on the broader goals of WSIS and the SDGs. He framed this as the technical community's unique contribution to the implementation process.

He stated that as a technical operator, CIRA sees itself as being able to implement at the infrastructure layer the necessary conditions and technologies that deliver on the goals of WSIS and the political momentum gained with the GDC .

Noir pointed to the existing multi-stakeholder model as already containing strong technical organisations with deep expertise in particular areas. He argued that this expertise needs to be effectively represented in policy discussions to ensure sound outcomes.

He referenced the incredible structure already developed in the multi-stakeholder model, including technical organisations like ICANN and ISOC, noting that these organisations understand particular areas very well and that their expertise should be represented in policy discussions so that outcomes can eventually be implemented at a technical level .

Noir argued that one of the strengths of the multi-stakeholder governance system is the ability to hold each other accountable, but that this requires participants to be willing to raise difficult issues. He described this as an important part of what makes the system work.

He stated that part of what the multi-stakeholder governance system does well is that there is an opportunity to keep each other co-accountable, and that participants have to be brave enough to bring those issues to the table when meeting in forums .

Olufuye argued that for developing countries, the most urgent priority is the full implementation of the WSIS Plus 20 outcome document, with particular emphasis on the multi-stakeholder approach. He highlighted the recognition of the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines and the acknowledgement of power asymmetries as especially important.

He stated that developing countries will be looking forward to full implementation of the WSIS Plus 20 outcome document, and noted that the document recognised the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines and power asymmetry, with the expectation that those better resourced will bring other stakeholders on board .

Olufuye argued that sharing concrete success stories from developing countries is an important mechanism for spreading effective implementation models. He used Nigeria's national payment stack as an example of a successful initiative that could be replicated across Africa.

He cited Nigeria's launch of its national payment stack, which brought all payments from fintechs, traditional banks, microfinance, and payment infrastructure under one single gateway enabling instant payment across all sectors and boosting inclusivity, as a success story that could be projected to other developing countries, noting that about 54 countries in Africa need to get that success story across .

Olufuye argued that the ITU-mandated task force on financial mechanisms should help developing countries develop blended finance approaches. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that financial mechanisms lead to result-oriented projects rather than funds that remain unused.

He suggested that the ITU, mandated to come up with the task force and best financial mechanisms, can really help developing countries fine-tune their financial processes and develop blended finance so they can implement projects that will be result-oriented, not ones that may be left hanging .

Olufuye called on all participants to take personal responsibility for advancing WSIS implementation by acting as champions and evangelists for the agreed principles. He specifically highlighted the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines as a key set of principles to promote.

He urged all participants to consider themselves as WSIS champions and as champions to go ahead and be the evangelists ensuring that the agreed principles are implemented, especially the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines .

Chin highlighted that the GDC has created several new mechanisms for AI governance, including the Global AI Dialogue and the Office for Digital and Emerging Technology, while existing mechanisms such as the UN Inter-Agency Working Group on AI also remain active. She noted that new initiatives continued to emerge even during the Global AI Dialogue itself, raising concerns about proliferation.

She noted that the GDC created the Global AI Dialogue and the independent panel, as well as the Office for Digital and Emerging Technology, and that there is already a UN Inter-Agency Working Group on AI coordinated by ITU and UNESCO . She also described new initiatives emerging from the Global AI Dialogue, including the AI Governance for Humanity initiative, the AI for Good Global Commission, the UN AI Resource Hub, and the Global Network of Centres for Exchange and Collaboration in AI Capacity Building .

Chin argued that the IGF's unique status as the only multi-stakeholder mechanism in the UN system gives it a special responsibility in relation to AI governance. She called for the IGF's resources to be used conservatively and effectively to fulfil this accountability function.

She stated that the IGF is the only multi-stakeholder mechanism in the UN system and that its resources need to be utilised conservatively and effectively to hold the AI governance process accountable .

Chin reported that the Global AI Dialogue had set a clear direction away from abstract principle commitments towards operational governance structures and concrete, named, and result-oriented commitments. She noted that stakeholders are expected to prepare such commitments for the second Global AI Dialogue in 2027.

She outlined conclusions from the Global AI Dialogue, including that the focus will shift from abstract principle commitments to operational governance structures , and that what is wanted is concrete, named, supported, and result-oriented commitments for the second UN Global AI Dialogue in May 2027 in New York .

Chin argued that the IGF needs to strengthen its working relationship with the Office for Digital and Emerging Technology and the UN Inter-Agency Working Group in order to effectively monitor GDC implementation. She framed this as an important part of the IGF fulfilling its mandate.

She urged that the IGF can work more closely with ODET or the UN Inter-Agency Working Group to monitor the implementation of the GDC, noting that the monitoring duties and responsibilities are part of the IGF's mandate and that it needs to function in this role by working with these bodies .

The Internet Society representative argued that the WSIS action lines are the part of the WSIS process most in need of further work, and that developing clear roadmaps is the key tool for addressing this. They emphasised that roadmaps are important not just for focus but also for creating accountability.

The speaker noted that in the Internet Society's view, the IGF is working quite well but the implementation of the action lines is in grave need of further work . They recommended focusing efforts on developing good roadmaps as an important tool to foster focus, ensure clear targets, and importantly provide accountability for commitments, warning that without roadmaps there is a risk of not progressing as much as needed .

The audience member raised the question of whether the IGF's Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group needs to be restructured or given a different mandate to better bridge internal IGF work with external governance processes. They referenced the idea of having MAG liaisons to other organisations as one possible approach.

The speaker asked whether the MAG needs to have a different sort of mandate, or whether liaisons from the MAG to other organisations are needed, referencing Wolfgang Kleinwacht's suggestion about having liaisons representing these communities . They concluded that the theme is reorganisation .

Crépin-Leblond relayed an online question asking how the shift from abstract principles to operational governance structures can be kept accountable to the values those principles were designed to protect. The concern is that institutional coordination could become an end in itself rather than a means to uphold core values.

He read out a question from Perry Esfandiari asking what mechanisms will ensure that implementation remains accountable to the values those principles were intended to protect, rather than simply becoming an exercise in institutional coordination .

Miloshevic Evans framed the session's purpose as exploring how institutional roles can be aligned across the various governance processes, including WSIS and the GDC, and how coordination can be strengthened. She emphasised that the goal is to move beyond discussion towards agreeing on concrete milestones for an implementation roadmap.

She stated that the session would explore the opportunities, challenges, and primarily the priorities for aligning institutional roles across these processes and strengthening coordination, and that the hope was to agree on milestones that will help with the implementation roadmap currently being built .

Miloshevic Evans acknowledged that the WSIS Plus 20 process has reaffirmed existing commitments to working together, but stressed that turning these commitments into reality requires clear, measurable milestones. She framed this as the central challenge for the next phase of implementation.

She noted that WSIS Plus 20 has reaffirmed long-standing commitments through which everyone is working together, but that implementation needs clear milestones and a clear starting point, and asked what the most important measurable milestones from the UK government's point of view would be for the next 12 months to demonstrate that WSIS Plus 20 implementation is going to be implemented .

Miloshevic Evans raised the question of how coherent implementation can be achieved across the multiple overlapping governance frameworks, including the GDC, the global AI dialogue, the WSIS action lines, and the IGF ecosystem. She framed this as a key challenge for moving forward effectively.

She asked how coherent implementation would take place between the Global Digital Compact, the global AI dialogue, the WSIS process with its action lines, and the IGF ecosystem, and sought initial thoughts on how to align all these processes for the benefit of moving forward .

Miloshevic Evans invited reflection on the evolution of the IGF ecosystem and asked what the key successes should be over the next five years. She framed this as an opportunity to both take stock of progress and set a forward-looking agenda for the IGF.

She asked what should be, in the next five years, the key successes for the IGF ecosystem to evolve, inviting the speaker to first reflect upon the evolution and then project forward .

Miloshevic Evans highlighted the importance of identifying and addressing accountability gaps from a civil society perspective as part of the broader implementation effort. She framed this as a necessary step towards achieving meaningful milestones.

She asked what the priorities or major accountability gaps are from the civil society point of view that need to be overcome in order to get to some milestone or further processes .

Miloshevic Evans raised the question of what role the technical community can play in contributing to and accelerating the next phase of WSIS and GDC implementation. She framed this as an important dimension of the broader multi-stakeholder effort.

She asked what the role for the technical community would be to contribute and have an role in the next phase to speed up implementation, and invited the speaker to mention milestones as well .

Miloshevic Evans highlighted the importance of translating global commitments into concrete national strategies, particularly for developing countries. She framed this as a key challenge for private sector actors in the developing world.

She asked what would be the most urgent national implementation of the WSIS and GDC commitments that need to be translated, bringing the perspective of a private sector company in a developing world .

Miloshevic Evans raised the question of how AI governance can be meaningfully integrated into the existing WSIS framework without generating additional fragmentation or competing governance structures. She framed this as a key challenge for the AI governance agenda.

She asked how AI governance can be more integrated into the WSIS framework without creating parallel tracks or competing governance structures .

Miloshevic Evans acknowledged the importance of good data as a foundation for developing and tracking implementation milestones. She highlighted this as a key insight from the discussion on national implementation.

She thanked the speaker for mentioning good data in order to work on milestones, signalling her agreement that data and statistics are essential for meaningful implementation tracking .

Miloshevic Evans concluded the session by calling on all participants to take an role in building the implementation roadmap together. She emphasised that the discussion should not end with the session but should continue through engagement across chapters, coalitions, and communities.

She stated that she hopes the session is not the end of the discussion, that chapters are in all places and many coalitions of the technical community and civil society are active, and that everyone needs to roll up their sleeves and help paint that implementation roadmap together .