Celebrating 20 Years of Multistakeholder Engagement: WSIS Forum, IGF, and the Road Ahead

Summary

This discussion focused on the 20-year evolution of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), examining their achievements and future sustainability as multi-stakeholder governance platforms. The session brought together moderators Bruna Santos and Chris Buckridge with panelists including Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Tomas Lamanauskas from ITU, Anriette Esterhuysen, and remote participant Thibaut Kleiner from the European Union, along with younger voices like Camila Leite Contri and Halima Ismail.

Wolfgang Kleinwachter provided historical context, explaining how the multi-stakeholder approach emerged from disagreements between US private sector leadership and Chinese governmental leadership models in 2003, ultimately leading to Kofi Annan’s call for innovation in policymaking. The discussion highlighted significant achievements including increased global internet penetration from 2.5% in 2003 to two-thirds of the world today, the growth of Internet Exchange Points in Africa, and the successful IANA transition. However, participants acknowledged ongoing challenges, particularly the digital divide with only 37% of Africa having internet access.

A key theme was the tension between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, with speakers emphasizing these are complementary rather than competing models. The European Union strongly advocated for making the IGF permanent beyond 2025 with sustainable funding and proper institutional support. Younger participants stressed the need for greater inclusivity, particularly regarding gender representation, youth engagement, and participation from the Global South. The discussion also addressed the balance between the IGF’s role as a dialogue forum versus pressure to produce actionable recommendations, with most agreeing that its strength lies in fostering meaningful debate rather than formal decision-making. Participants concluded that while multi-stakeholder governance has proven valuable, it must continue evolving to address emerging challenges like AI while maintaining its inclusive, bottom-up character and ensuring public interest remains central to discussions.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Evolution and History of Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance**: The discussion traced the development from the 2003 WSIS process through to today’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF), highlighting how the multi-stakeholder approach emerged as an innovative solution when traditional government-led and private sector-led models proved insufficient for global internet governance.

– **Future Sustainability and Institutionalization of the IGF**: Strong support was expressed for making the IGF permanent beyond 2025, with calls for secure funding through the UN regular budget, dedicated secretariat support, and formal recognition of national and regional IGFs to ensure long-term sustainability.

– **Balancing Inclusivity with Effectiveness**: Participants grappled with how to make these forums truly inclusive for underrepresented communities (youth, Global South, civil society) while maintaining their effectiveness, discussing the tension between being “for everybody” versus being “everything for everybody.”

– **Moving from Discussion to Action**: The conversation addressed ongoing challenges in translating multi-stakeholder dialogue into concrete outcomes, with debates about whether forums like the IGF should produce formal recommendations or maintain their current role as spaces for open dialogue and collaboration.

– **Integration and Coordination Across Processes**: Discussion of how to better coordinate between various overlapping initiatives (WSIS, IGF, Global Digital Compact) to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure coherent approaches to digital governance challenges.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to reflect on 20 years of the WSIS process and IGF, assess their current value and challenges, and chart a path forward for multi-stakeholder internet governance platforms in an evolving digital landscape, particularly in preparation for the upcoming WSIS+20 review.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was constructive and collaborative throughout, with participants showing genuine commitment to improving these processes. While there was acknowledgment of significant challenges and tensions (particularly around inclusivity, funding, and effectiveness), the discussion remained optimistic and solution-oriented. The conversation maintained a balance between celebrating past achievements and honestly addressing current limitations, with speakers building on each other’s points rather than engaging in adversarial debate.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Thibaut Kleiner** – Participated remotely, representing the European Union perspective on IGF and WSIS processes

– **Craig Stanley Adamson** – Head of Internet Governance for the UK Department of Science, Innovation and Technology

– **Tomas Lamanauskas** – Host representative from ITU (International Telecommunication Union), involved in WSIS processes since 2005

– **Wout de Natris** – Coordinator of IS3C (Dynamic Coalition in International Security and Safety), representing 32 Dynamic Coalitions

– **Halima Ismail** – From Bahrain, discussing future relevance of WSIS and IGF platforms

– **Jennifer Corriero** – From Canada, founder of the Youth Caucus, involved in national campaigns in over 30 countries

– **Chris Buckridge** – Co-moderator of the session, member of the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory group

– **Camila Leite Contri** – From Brazil, works for IDAC (consumer organization), advocate for enhanced multi-stakeholder processes

– **Bruna Martins dos Santos** – Session moderator

– **William J. Drake** – Professor at Columbia University in New York, expert on multistakeholder governance processes

– **Jorge Cancio** – Swiss Government representative

– **Wolfgang Kleinwachter** – Internet governance expert with historical knowledge of WSIS processes, involved since the early discussions

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Member of civil society stakeholder group, long-time IGF community participant

– **Participant** – From India, practicing electronic system design architect working in sanitization, smart cities, and digital infrastructure

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Summary: 20 Years of WSIS and IGF – Reflecting on Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance

## Introduction and Context

This discussion brought together internet governance experts, government representatives, civil society advocates, and technical community members to reflect on two decades of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session, moderated by Bruna Martins dos Santos and Chris Buckridge, examined the evolution, achievements, and future of multi-stakeholder governance platforms.

Participants included Wolfgang Kleinwachter providing historical perspective; Tomas Lamanauskas from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); Anriette Esterhuysen from civil society; Thibaut Kleiner participating remotely from the European Union; government representatives Craig Stanley Adamson (UK) and Jorge Cancio (Switzerland); and younger voices including Camila Leite Contri (Brazil) and Halima Ismail (Bahrain).

## Historical Evolution and Key Principles

### Origins of Multi-stakeholder Governance

Wolfgang Kleinwachter explained how the multi-stakeholder approach emerged from disagreements during the 2003 WSIS process. When the United States advocated for private sector leadership whilst China pushed for governmental control, neither model proved sufficient. This led to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan calling for innovation in policymaking approaches.

Kleinwachter emphasized a key insight: “The Internet doesn’t need leadership, it needs collaboration from all sides.” This principle shifted the paradigm from hierarchical control to distributed responsibility, establishing the foundation for multi-stakeholder governance.

Tomas Lamanauskas described his personal journey from viewing the internet as a “geek hobby” to recognizing it as essential global infrastructure, reflecting the broader transformation in how these governance mechanisms evolved.

### Development of the IGF Ecosystem

Anriette Esterhuysen highlighted how the IGF evolved into a flexible ecosystem, with national and regional IGFs developing alongside dynamic coalitions. She noted the ongoing tension between serving connected populations facing complex challenges and addressing the needs of billions without internet access.

The IGF’s strength, according to Esterhuysen, lay in its ability to accommodate different perspectives whilst maintaining focus on meaningful dialogue rather than formal decision-making.

## Achievements and Concrete Successes

### Progress in Global Connectivity

Wolfgang Kleinwachter noted that global internet penetration increased from 2.5% in 2003 to approximately two-thirds of the world’s population today. Craig Stanley Adamson emphasized concrete successes through multi-stakeholder processes, particularly the growth of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in Africa and the successful IANA transition.

### Institutional Innovation

The development of national and regional IGFs represented significant institutional innovation. Wout de Natris, representing 32 Dynamic Coalitions, emphasized how these year-round working groups produced policy recommendations and research, contributing to the IGF’s role as a knowledge-generating platform.

## Current Challenges

### Digital Divide and Inclusion

Despite progress, participants acknowledged persistent challenges. Anriette Esterhuysen articulated a fundamental tension: “There’s always been this tension at the IGF between it being a space where we talk about those who do have the Internet and who are facing increasing new, complex, emerging challenges… and on the other hand, the billions of people who do not have access to the Internet.”

She noted that only 37% of Africa has internet access, highlighting how governance discussions risk excluding the global majority.

### Gender Inequality and Representation

Camila Leite Contri raised concerns about gender representation, noting that internet governance panels remained “almost entirely male-dominated.” She argued that “gender should be at the centre of internet governance, both at IGF and also maybe with a new action line at WSIS to be cross-cutting.”

### Resource Constraints

Multiple speakers addressed how resource constraints prevented meaningful participation from civil society, youth, and Global South stakeholders. The overlapping processes (WSIS, IGF, Global Digital Compact) created additional burdens for resource-constrained organizations.

## Future Sustainability and IGF Permanence

### Strong Support for Permanent Mandate

There was clear consensus supporting making the IGF permanent beyond 2025. Thibaut Kleiner stated that the “EU supports making IGF permanent beyond 2025 with secure funding through UN budget and dedicated director with proper secretariat.”

Craig Stanley Adamson echoed this: “UK fully supports permanent IGF mandate and formal recognition for national/regional IGFs to promote local community-led views.”

### Institutional Structure Needs

Speakers emphasized the need for proper institutional support, including dedicated secretariat functions and formal recognition of national and regional IGFs. Wout de Natris highlighted the need for better integration of Dynamic Coalitions through “MAG liaisons to increase recognition and participation.”

## Multilateralism and Multi-stakeholderism

### Complementary Approaches

Wolfgang Kleinwachter argued against “false polarisation between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism – they are two sides of same coin that must work together.” Jorge Cancio from Switzerland advocated for “cross-pollination between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches.”

Kleinwachter provided a key distinction: “Stakeholders have knowledge and expertise whilst governments have legitimacy and authority for binding commitments – both needed.”

However, William J. Drake highlighted implementation challenges, noting the need for “real engagement between stakeholders and government representatives, not siloed three-minute consultations.”

## Dialogue Versus Recommendations Debate

A key tension emerged around whether the IGF should produce formal recommendations. Anriette Esterhuysen argued that “IGF’s strength is meaningful debate and collaborative space rather than negotiating forum that might weaken its potential.”

She explained the challenges: “The moment you start actually calling them recommendations, then questions come up such as, who’s accountable for implementing them? How do you report on what happens with those recommendations?”

Most participants agreed that the IGF’s strength lay in fostering dialogue rather than formal decision-making.

## Coordination and Public Interest

### Avoiding Duplication

Camila Leite Contri emphasized the need to “avoid duplication of efforts and waste of resources by coordinating overlapping discussions like GDC with WSIS.” Thibaut Kleiner supported “roadmaps for the future should make WSIS action lines operational whilst incorporating UN activities and avoiding duplications.”

### Centralizing Public Interest

Camila Leite Contri emphasized that “public interest must be at centre of discussions, as tech power unfortunately pushes it away from first priority.” Bruna Martins dos Santos reinforced this, arguing that “public interest should moderate tensions between topics and spaces.”

## Emerging Challenges

### Artificial Intelligence

Several speakers highlighted AI as representing new challenges. Halima Ismail asked about building “efficient early warning systems for emerging digital risks like AI agents,” reflecting concerns about technological change outstripping governance mechanisms.

### Reporting and Transparency

Jennifer Corriero asked about reporting mechanisms from governments on WSIS implementation, highlighting the need for better accountability and transparency in existing processes.

## Audience Perspectives

The discussion included diverse audience contributions, including a proposal from an Indian participant for an “18th SDG, safe and meaningful digital life for the citizens of the world,” suggesting that internet governance had evolved into a fundamental development imperative.

## Key Recommendations

### Institutional Reforms

– Secure permanent IGF mandate beyond 2025 with UN regular budget funding

– Formal recognition of national and regional IGFs

– Better integration of Dynamic Coalitions through MAG liaisons

– Enhanced secretariat support with dedicated director

### Process Improvements

– Strengthen reporting mechanisms and transparency

– Create better “sounding board” mechanisms between stakeholders and governments

– Improve coordination between overlapping processes

– Enhance gender representation and inclusion of marginalized communities

### Capacity Building

– Provide funding and skills development for civil society participation

– Enhance outreach to affected communities

– Address resource constraints limiting meaningful participation

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a policy community with shared values around multi-stakeholder governance but different strategic preferences for implementation. Strong consensus emerged on institutional matters, particularly permanent IGF mandate and the complementary nature of multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches.

However, significant challenges remain around resource constraints, gender representation, and balancing dialogue with action. The emphasis on public interest as a central organizing principle, combined with broad agreement on IGF permanence, provides a foundation for future development through the WSIS+20 process.

The conversation demonstrated that while multi-stakeholder governance has proven valuable over two decades, it requires continued evolution to address emerging challenges like AI while maintaining its inclusive character and addressing persistent barriers to meaningful participation.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: The good thing about the Internet is everything is connected. The bad thing about the Internet is everything is connected. The Internet has become a very, very fundamental infrastructure for virtually everything, all of our daily lives are touched. Even if we’re not using it directly as users, we’re still affected by others who are using it for their daily work. So we have to train people to understand what the risks are and how to defend themselves against those risks. There is a very tricky balance here to figuring out how to make the Internet configured to serve us all well, while at the same time not being abused by either individuals or by governments. The Internet Governance Forum is multi-stakeholder and global in scope. It helps to inform legislators and others about policies that would make the Internet operate well, securely, safely, fairly, affordably, and reliably. The Internet Governance Forum is an open organization. Anyone is permitted to participate. We want those who are making rules to be informed by the parties who will be affected. So we all have a mission, which is to make the Internet a place that’s worthy of its intent. Hello and welcome. My name is Bruna Santos, I’m one of the moderators of this session. And my name is Chris Puckridge, I’m a member of the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory group and co-moderator of this session. Thanks. Just to start by saying that this video that we just saw was produced by… and Mr. Thomas Lamanauskas, Mr. Thibaut Kleiner. Thank you very much. I would like to invite the IGF leadership panel and GIZ, the German cooperation agency, to highlight the value of the IGF as one of the main stakeholder approaches in the Internet governance space, and also to say that the goal of the session is to discuss multi-stakeholder approaches in general, their long-term sustainability. Here we’re going to have a conversation about WSIS, IGF, and the future of WSIS, and also to talk about the importance of the WSIS process. We have been discussing WSIS for a long time, but the main approaches have been the main outcome of the WSIS processes, and we want to celebrate them and discuss the past and the future. And we’re going to start maybe with a little bit of history, because we do know that many in this room do know the history, but it’s also important to be

Chris Buckridge: remembered of the values and the things we’ve advocated so much in the long term of these processes. So, we’re going to start with the first part of the session, which is going to be interactive, and we’ve scheduled it so that we have really the second half of the hour as an opportunity for you to give us your ideas, your thoughts on what the future might and should look like for multi-stakeholder platforms. I’ll be the one running around with the microphone, so please use the beginning of the session to

Bruna Martins dos Santos: think about what you might want to input here. Thanks. So, I’m going to start with the first part of the panel, because we do want to have a lot of time for participation from the audience and from you guys, but I’ll start with Wolfgang, Thomas and Henriette as people that have been present in a lot of these processes in the history of the shaping of this for us and so on. So, we would like to hear from you guys a little bit about WSIS, the Internet Governance Forum, and achieving the goals of WSIS. So, can I start with you, Wolfgang?

Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Thank you, Bruna, and it’s always good to remember history, because if you do not know the history, you will be unable to and Mr. Thomas Lamanauskas. Thank you very much. I would like to start with a question about how we manage the future because present is a result of the history and the problems of today have roots in the past and managing in the future needs to understand the history. And everybody agrees that the multi-stakeholder approach was the big part of the past. And if you try to find the starting point for this debate, you have to go back into the 1970s, half a century ago, when the Club of Rome discovered that the world will be confronted with what they call the global problems of mankind, and they identified peace, development, environment, energy, and also information, communication as global problems of mankind. And then we should not forget that it was Mr. Thibaut Kleiner who was the first to say that the global problems of mankind are not only the problems of the world, but also the problems of the world. And I would like to stress that the universal human values are more important than the special interests of special political classes. I think this was a great breakthrough which really led to a broader understanding of what globalization means in the early 20th century, and I think that’s a good example of the way in which the world has been transformed from decentralized institutions to transnational institutions. Manuel Castells wrote the network society where he argued that bordered places will be confronted with unbordered spaces, and indeed a lot of things in the 90s, what we have seen, came out and became transnational. And indeed, the whole internet was transnational from the early days, so there was no borders. for communication anymore, so the traditional barriers of time and space disappeared. And so we ended up in a situation in 2003 in Geneva when we had two different concepts. One was that the United States wanted to have private sector leadership, and China said, okay, private sector leadership is good for one million users, but now we have nearly one billion users and we need governmental leadership. This was really a big disagreement, and if you have a disagreement how to solve it, you create a working group. And in the working group on internet governance, I remember the speech by Kofi Annan in 2004 when he encouraged us to bring innovation also to policy making. His argument was the internet is an innovation in technology and he said, okay, we cannot settle the 21st century problems by being traditional in the instruments and mechanisms of the 20th century. So when he encouraged us to say you have to bring innovation to policy making, we came up with the conclusion and said the internet doesn’t need leadership, it needs collaboration from all sides. And so the proposal for a multi-stakeholder approach for internet governance became the main proposal from the WICG, and to my surprise, 193 governments accepted it in Tunis. So this was the pre-history and now we are here 20 years later and we have to look forward how to do with this outcome from Tunis. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks Wolfgang. Thomas, I’ll bring the conversation to you as our host in this event and also the space from where the World Citizen Information Society was generated from. We would just like to hear from you and the ITU what’s the value of a mechanism such as the WICG as we all see it as the baseline for many of the internet governance discussions we have these days. Thank you.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you very much indeed. when Volkan was talking about history, I started reflecting on my personal history, because I think Internet in a way, the history of Internet is the history of the world, how we go, but for a lot of us, it’s a personal story as well. So for me, the Internet story is about the mid-90s, nearly independent Lithuania, of a student in a high school using Fidonet at the time, not Internet, and then using my then first Open Society Foundation-provided email address to connect to the world and starting understanding what’s beyond those borders there. And now, of course, at that time, it was just a dabbling in that world of information, being geeky about it, and then first Internet with a Eric in chat rooms where we tried to engage with the world, sometimes we tried to break those rooms as well, I have to tell you as a high school kid. And then fast forward to being now part of this community that’s going to where the Internet is no longer the kind of geeky hobby, but that’s something that changes everything and we kind of talk about it everywhere. So I think that’s a really remarkable story from here. So geeks are mainstream now, and I think that’s a thing someone to realize in their personal history is important. And the same happens with the digital, reflecting in Sustainable Development Goals Agenda, what digital was mentioned once and ICTs twice, I think. And then, of course, now this last week, digital is 64 times, and then outcome document. So I think this is a really remarkable achievement we shouldn’t forget. And of course, Internet penetration, if you look 2003, 2.5% now we have two-thirds of the world connected. Not enough, but we have that. I think that is a remarkable work of these communities coming together. The business process was this way to bring communities and I think to have this understanding that you need governments, understanding how the technical community work, and you need academia, you need private sector, you need private sector in civil society, they all need to come together. And the WSIS itself already was statistics, I think it was 513,500 people, including between more than 6,000 NGO people, nearly 5,000 private sector people. It is always a multi-stakeholder community coming together. It was not always easy to work together, you know, I have to say. I’ve been in the NHU 10 years ago. I went in WSIS 2005. I keep coming back every 10 years and I get to tell you, every 10 years is a qualitative shift. Now, it’s a very different environment than it was before. It wasn’t easy. But at the same time, we really have to see how we achieved a lot. And now, there’s two kind of, I call it two legs of the WSIS, no IGF since 2006, WSIS Forum since 2009. And of course, on WSIS Forum, we also celebrate, you know, what I think is remarkable, you know, remarkable engagement. 50,000 people since then engaged in the WSIS Forum. We have 15,000 entries in the WSIS stock-taking database. It demonstrates all these great achievements people do around the world. 6,000 submissions for the WSIS prizes, you know, around that time. 2 million people subscribing to the WSIS stock-taking, you know, things. So, we really have this community there that’s really, really engaging and we can tap on this. So, when we’re now talking about new process, new formats and other things, I’m kind of, my reminder is always this, it hasn’t happened over the day, you know. So, sometimes you feel it’s easy to say, look, let’s just bring stakeholders in the room. And I have to say, like, our story, WSIS story, ITU story over the last 20 years says, it’s not that easy. You actually need to make an effort. You need to make an effort to understand. You need to make an effort to go beyond three minutes for the stakeholder kind of idea to actually understanding each other, bringing each other together, bringing everyone together and really engaging and really understanding that everyone has a role and we need to work together. Thanks a lot.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much. And straight to you, Henriette, as a key part of this community as well and a member of the civil society stakeholder group, I would say you also agree that it was not always easy, right, in that sense. But we’re also inviting you to talk about the IGF who just celebrated its 20th edition and maybe the long term challenges we had in this space, but also the build up of the IGF. So, yeah, you have the floor and thanks for joining.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Bruna, and thanks for inviting me. And I think that there’s, you know, to look at how the IGF has evolved as an ecosystem and as a community, I think it’s worth thinking about the fact that there’s always been this tension at the IGF between it being a space where we talk about those who do have the Internet and who are facing increasing new, complex, emerging challenges related to Internet governance and the IGF being a space. We’re talking about that between different stakeholder groups. And on the other hand, the billions of people who do not have access to the Internet and come from parts of the world where all stakeholders, be they government, civil society or the private sector, are facing enormous constraints in terms of access to resources, access to infrastructure. And I think what we’ve seen with the IGF is this tension, which is quite dynamic, and sometimes we have one group of stakeholders dominate more than others. But we’ve seen this ecosystem evolve that actually responds to this tension, this dynamic tension. We’ve seen the emergence of national and regional IGFs where those communities can actually engage Internet governance, Internet policy and development on their own terms, contextualized, where they actually are able to talk about electricity and basic infrastructure, topics which are not always that interesting to global North stakeholders at a global IGF. And similarly, as we’ve seen governments become more aware of the IGF as a potential challenge for regimes, for example, we’ve seen the topic of Internet shutdowns become a topic that’s dealt with at the IGF. As we’ve seen big tech corporations from starting off as being enablers of freedom of expression, you know, the primary enablers now, in fact, become entities that sometimes are seen as potential threats. to freedom of expression. We’re able to discuss that as well. We’ve seen a topic like technology facilitated gender-based violence being discussed by an IGF best practice forum. You might have heard that spam, which was mentioned in the Tunis agenda, was a huge challenge in 2005, but we had a best practice forum dealing with spam. We now have dynamic coalitions which are self-organized communities within the IGF who can bring their issues, such as community connectivity for example, or public health, or sustainability of journalism in the context of the impact of technology on the media, to raise their issues in the context of the IGF. We have seen the youth IGF and we’re going to hear more about that. So I think that for me really is the power of the IGF, that it has the flexibility to enable bottom-up evolution of its institutional ecosystem to respond to this fundamental tension, but also to this constantly emerging terrain of digital governance. It’s no longer just about internet governance. It really has evolved into a platform where we can talk about all aspects of digital governance.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks so much, Henriette. Chris, right to you.

Chris Buckridge: Okay. Thank you, Henriette. So this has been a bit of a recap of where we are, how we got here. What we want to do now with the session, I think, is begin to look to the future, begin to think about, okay, we have this 20 years of experience under our belt. We’ve seen these processes develop and evolve, but we know that there remain an awful lot of challenges in this space and that these processes, these structures that we’re working on will need to evolve to address that. We have three speakers, one of whom, Thibaut Kleiner, is remote and I’m hoping that he’s online already and ready to speak, if I can. I hope you can get a bit of indication from the back of the room. Yes, I’m here. Perfect. I hope you can hear me. We can Thibaut, so I’ll pass the floor to you. Thank you very much.

Thibaut Kleiner: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I’m really very happy to be able to participate online. I’ll be joining you in Geneva this evening. Today, I’m very honored to celebrate with you these 20 years of the YSYS process. I think that, as many already said, the Internet has become almost an intrinsic part of our life and something that most economies and societies these days cannot do without. It has become really a global infrastructure that is at the heart of many processes, many things that we do on a daily basis, actually grounded on the Internet. We tend to forget it sometimes. We tend to take it for granted. And it’s also true, as also some said, that a large part of the world still does not have access to the Internet. The last figure I saw is that Africa, only 37% of the population has access to the Internet. It’s much better than 20 years ago, where only 2% of the African population had access to the Internet. We’re getting better, but we are far from a situation where there is equality in terms of opportunities in the digital world. Today, I wanted to make two points in that context. It’s also a special year. We have the YSYS 20. We also have had the Global Digital Compact approved. I think all this was an opportunity. Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss in terms of where we stand and where we want to go with the digital transformation that is also so critical for development, for education, for inclusion. And my first point is really that the IGF really is the symbol of this multi-stakeholder model, an open and inclusive bottom-up approach that we envisaged already in the Tunis Agreement. And I think this is something that we need to cherish because it’s only through this inclusive dialogue that we can also be aware of the new challenges. Now, AI, for instance, has been also massively in the scope of discussions. And we need now also to maybe revisit the way we have organized the IGF. So from the European Union, when we look at this opportunity this year to go back to the YSYS, we want actually the IGF to be made permanent. We want the IGF to be institutionalized beyond 2025. That’s really an important message. And we want actually that there is secure funding, sustainable funding for the IGF through the regular UN budget, but also voluntary contributions. And we want really to make sure that the IGF, for instance, is even a dedicated director. It is getting also a proper secretariat so that it is really having all the features of an institution that can play a role in the UN family. So that’s the first point I wanted to make. Just like we look back, we need also to project ourselves in the future where the multistakeholder model is really secured through the IGF. And the second point I wanted to make is that we also need to look at the many issues that are emerging. with the Global Digital Compact, but also with the Sustainable Development Goals. We have an opportunity somehow to complement or to coordinate with the YSYS action lines. And I think that, again, from the European Union, we would like to make sure that we have an agenda that is future-proof, that is also ready for these new challenges. And what we have proposed, actually, is to have something that we call the roadmaps for the future. So really making sure that the YSYS action lines somehow are made operational through these roadmaps so that we can really incorporate the many activities that are taking place in the UN and beyond and avoid duplications, but also make sure that we take stock of progress in a way that is up to speed with recent development. So this is really something we have proposed, and we believe that it is an opportunity to not only secure the multi-stakeholder model, but also to prove that

Chris Buckridge: it works in relation to these new challenges. Okay, thank you very much, Thibaut. We had a slight synchronization issue here, but I think we all heard you very loud and clear, so glad you could be here with us remotely. We have two more speakers who are coming from, well, the younger end of the spectrum in engagement, and I think that’s a very valuable input perspective to have when we’re looking to the future and how these processes are developing. So first, please,

Camila Leite Contri: Camila Leite, can I turn to you? Of course, thank you. As you can imagine, I wasn’t in the initial discussions of WSIS, but I’m very happy to be part of this moment right now and to see the evolution of this and our willingness to make this even more inclusive. And I feel personally engaged to do that, because we are talking not only about the past learnings, but also how we can do better for future generations, and happy to be with more youth people to be thinking about the future. I believe that these spaces remain pretty essential, but we need to do some enhancements to advance this kind of discussions. And as someone that comes from Brazil and working for a consumer organization, I work for IDAC, I believe it’s very important for us when we are discussing multi-stakeholder to recall that we already have discussions on how to improve multi-stakeholder processes. We had Net Mundial Plus 10, we have the São Paulo principles, which recognize the need to enhance the notion of multi-stakeholder considering the different responsibilities of each stakeholder and also the imbalance between them. So we need to proactively reach out, for example, to civil society, to affected communities, who unfortunately most of the times cannot be in this kind of room. And for that we need funding, we need support, we need skills, we need development for them to be in equal footing with us. And also as civil society we need to push this kind of participation as well. And again, I’m personally engaged to do so. A second thing is that we see several overlaps and several overlaps in important discussions, but we see, and being really direct, we see some waste of resources when we duplicate efforts that can be coordinated, that doesn’t necessarily have to be fragmented and can be more cohesive. And we see, for example, important GDC discussions that we see a lot of synergy that could go inside WSIS. And I think that this kind of participation, this recognition of coherence is necessary. And this is a sensitive issue, but we also need to consider budget constraints, both from civil society organizations to be part of several discussions, but also UN agencies, for example, and for youth organizations to be part of this. And lastly, I think when we are thinking about the past and the future, we see and Mr. Thibaut Kleiner. Thank you. I would like to start with some common narratives that we need to overcome. The first one is that if we are having global discussions, this is, we cannot consider local realities. As he had mentioned, it is essential to value regional and local IGFs considering how the implementation of WSIS, for example, can impact regional and local issues. So, we have to be aware that if we are having these discussions, we are having these false polarisation between human rights and

Chris Buckridge: innovation. Breaking the law is not innovative and we have to go beyond that and have to continue to contribute to these discussions. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.

Halima Ismail: And so the final speaker we have here on the stage with us is Halima Ismail coming from Bahrain. So, Halima, please. Thank you. So, I would like to start with a few questions for WSIS and the IGF to remain relevant and impactful over the next 20 years. First, how do we ensure these platforms remain truly inclusive clearing houses for knowledge? This answers to keep expanding spaces for digital and digital innovation. Second, how can we build an efficient early warning system for emerging digital risks like the rapid rise of AI agents? I believe the solution is to strengthen collaboration with technical experts, civil society and non-profits who often work closest to communities and can service issues that larger institutions might miss. Third, how do we move from discussion to action?

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Halima. Thomas, I know you have to leave, so thank you for being with us here today. So we’ve reached the point of the discussion here, and I hope that our panellists on stage will also feel free to join in this, but we’d really like to hear from those of you in the audience. I’m going to pass over to Bruna and I will go grab a mic and bring it to you where you’re sitting.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: So yes, open for anyone that wants to join the debate. Three minutes intervention. We have mainly two questions for you guys. What do we want from multi-stakeholder governance platforms and how could their value be harnessed? But also feel free to add anything else that you feel is relevant for this conversation. And Chris is going to find you. If we can dim the lights just a little bit to the audience, we cannot really see them from here. Thank

Craig Stanley Adamson: you guys. So my name is Craig Stanley Adamson. I’m Head of Internet Governance for the UK Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, and will be part of the WSIS process this year. I’d just like to start by saying that it’s clear that multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration through the WSIS process has tackled and delivered on many global issues. Just a quick little recap, I just want to highlight that the IGF has made concrete successes of the increase of IXPs, Internet Exchange Points, across Africa. It played a crucial role in IANA transition and it’s helped developing the next generation of global majority leaders in Internet governance. We heard from Tomas that the WSIS Forum has made tangible outputs on many of the action lines that we’re discussing this week. I think it’s really important to discuss how we keep these tangible outputs and momentum going and how we can further strengthen these WSIS processes going forward. Part of this comes from the permanent mandate of the IGF, as Thibaut mentioned, and the UK fully supports this and the need for greater support to the IGF Secretariat to help deliver that. This will help ensure focus and consistency as we tackle these global challenges. One of the other areas the UK is looking to bring to the WSIS review is formal recognition for the national and regional IGFs, which can play a greater role in promoting local and community-led views into these global processes. It’s crucial that we have diverse input from the global majority to tackle these digital issues and we’re pleased to hear the reference from one of the participants on stage to the São Paulo Principles on Multistakeholder Participation. So just to clarify again and reiterate that ensuring a rich and diverse range of inputs from all stakeholder groups needs to be a priority and a key focus for us during this WSIS plus 20 review, and it’s something that we should hope to continue that discussion going forward, so not let it stop at this particular review. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much. Thibaut, please.

Wout de Natris: Yes, thank you, Chris, and thank you all for presenting. My name is Wouter Natus van der Boerth and I’m the coordinator of IS3C, the Dynamic Coalition in International Security and Safety, and sort of unofficially representing all 32 DCs today. My intervention focuses on the importance of the year-round intersessional work going on at the IGF. Many people are not aware of this intersessional work nor of its useful outcomes and important, sometimes even important outcomes. There are 10 new reports from dynamic coalitions in 2025. Several DCs are working on and have strong linkages to the WSIS action lines, for example, on health and capacity building, inclusion, cyber security. They include many WSIS partners working in these dynamic coalitions. All DCs will cover well over 1,000 different partners who contribute in the form of funding, cooperation in kind, participating in consultations, writing reports, and sitting in online meetings. Our reports can feed into several programs around the world as they contain policy recommendations, identified best practices, or simply sound advice as what works and does not work. Compiled from the input from many and researched by experts, you will find that they align with the WSIS action programs and projected outcomes with the GDC and the SDGs. The DCs came away from the IGF 2025 in Lilleström with the following takeaways. The future of the multi-stakeholder governance must be generally inclusive, not only in principle, but in practice. Standards for safety, security, and accessibility are a key element for ensuring an open and inclusive internet. Dynamic coalitions function as engines of innovation, dialogue, and community-driven research on some of the most pressing issues in internet governance. But on action points, there is something going wrong on my screen, but that’s solved now. On action points, strengthening of the recognition of dynamic coalitions as an indispensable research in multi-stakeholder governance. And that’s the action for the future. The work of DCs in the future can be better integrated into the IGF program. We propose that the DCs have one or two liaisons in the MAG who advise on the way expected DC outcomes are reflected by and better become integrated into the IGF program so that outcomes become far better known, better recognized by the whole community, leading to more participation because all stakeholders would have a higher stake in the projected outcomes. So, I hope that we can discuss that in the near future. Thank you, Chris.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you for that.

Participant: Hi, good afternoon. My name is… I’m from India. I’m a practicing electronic system design architect, and I’m into sanitization, smart cities, and digital infrastructure domain. I think internet governance is a very, very concurrent subject, and I think it is becoming all the more important, looking into the disruption that all the digital technologies are bringing, particularly the AI. And one of the things that is coming to the mind, and when we talk about citizens and development of cities, because we were having a, the previous session was talking about cities and all that, and citizens are the most important part. And when we talk about them, and in cities context also, we talk about SDGs, all the 17 SDGs. But I think we need another 18th SDG, safe and meaningful digital life for the citizens of the world. I think this needs to, we always say that internet is becoming a fundamental right, but nobody’s talking about the governance and the importance to a level that it could be added as another SDG. Just my two cents to the discussion. Maybe people may like and take this idea forward, but happy to work on this thing, because this is very close to my heart. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much for the interventions.

Chris Buckridge: We have one more intervention from Bill, I know, and maybe then we can go, and then, yeah.

William J. Drake: Hi. I’m Bill Drake. I teach at Columbia University in New York. WIS is a process, obviously, has greatly stimulated multistakeholder engagement across the board. One of the things that I’ve noticed, though, is the kind of bifurcation between the experiences within multistakeholder governance processes and multilateral processes that have added a multistakeholder participation component, which you might call multilateralism plus. So, on the multistakeholder side of the coin, you’ve got bodies like ICANN and so on, which have demonstrated that they’re essentially learning organizations. that they continually try to improve their processes by reflecting on what they’ve done and how could they do it better, and have developed institutional mechanisms to try to increase the ways in which all stakeholders, including governments, are able to work together with others to come to decisions. On the multilateral side, though, what we’ve had is a lot of sort of, okay, we create a multilateral, a multi-stakeholder space. We have like a consultation where multi-stakeholder people can come and speak for three minutes and give a canned presentation, but the government people are not in the room, they’re not engaging. We don’t have enough real engagement between stakeholders and government representatives, which we did back in the WSIS process 20 years ago. And so what I would try to suggest is that, it would be useful if on the intergovernmental side of things, we could also have a learning institution kind of culture, where we could try to reflect on how we’ve done things and how to improve the process to increase the capacity of states to work together with stakeholders in an interactive, dynamic fashion to reach governance solutions that are actually more sustainable and broadly supported by everybody, rather than having siloed conversations where, you know, okay, the stakeholders get to talk, but they talk over there and the governments are not in the room. We need to be together in the conversation and I hope we can start to find ways to work on developing that better. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you, Bill.

Jennifer Corriero: Hello, my name is Jennifer Corriero from Canada and I was happy with taking a global and our organization was happy to be the only Canadian project in the WSIS champion. So out of 90 selected, and it really has me thinking about the need for reports like I would like to see a report from the government of Canada on all the actions from all the line items. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. I think that’s a great question. I think it’s really important and I’m sure there’s a lot of people that are going to be interested in technology, but the question is, how do we continue to develop these types of systems in the past 20 years? And in general, not just for one country, but we were one of the founders of the Youth Caucus, we had national campaigns in over 30 countries, there were consultations. And I just wonder what mechanisms there are within countries for reporting and how to continue to expand these multi-stakeholder networks within country, because it seems that there’s much limited capacity, at least in the Canadian context. So that’s something that I’d like to see, like I’d like to see the report on how commitments have been taken, and maybe I’m missing that if it’s on the website, I apologize, but thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Okay, thank you very much. I think Jorge had a very brief point, and maybe then we can hear a bit of reactions from those on the panel, some of what we’ve heard.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Chris. Jorge Gancios, Swiss Government, so happy to be here, happy to listening to you. I just want to pick on something that Ms. Halima Ismail said, which is that the framework has to deliver on our digital present and future, if I understood that correctly, and I think it’s very important to recall that with everything we do, especially with WSIS plus 20 review. This is about delivering on the promises of our digital society, delivering on the promises of what we called 20 years ago the information society, and it’s important to build on the discussions we had last year in the Global Digital Compact, that we agreed on a series of commitments. Now we have the opportunity of really using the WSIS framework to update it, to strengthen it, and to make progress in this cross-pollinization between multilateral and multi-stakeholder. There are many elements in the WSIS framework, apart from the IGF. The IGF is very important. We have the WSIS Forum, we have ANGES, we have the CSTD, we have different pieces and parts, some more multilateral on one side of the spectrum, some more multi-stakeholder. What we have to do, I think, is to evolve them into a WSIS+, that works better, that really uses all the strength of the multilateral and the multi-stakeholder approach to deliver on what we want our populations, our people, the citizens of this world to live in a better place, which nowadays is completely hybrid between digital and physical. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks, Jorge. Thanks, Jorge. Yeah, and also just a point, thanks for adding on the deliverable side of things, right? And also one thing that one of our panelists mentioned, and maybe the audience as well, is the so-called tension between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism. And I do believe that highlighting NetMundial as kind of a compromise around that is relevant because it did try to show that both can and have always coexisted in a lot of ways, right? So there is no reason to be arguing around these so-called tensions. But I’ll give the floor back to you guys at the panel if you want to comment on any of the points from the audience and maybe we can have another round as well.

Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Thank you very much. And I will use this, what Pruna just has said, you know, this misunderstanding, or I don’t know how to call it, between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism. So this is partly nonsense because it is an innovation in policymaking. What I said in the introduction, in my first statement when Kofi Annan addressed the WIKIG and he argued in favor of, we have to rethink the policy processes because we, as Jorge has said, it’s about substance. We have to deliver something and the procedures, you know, how to reach that has to be adjusted to the substantial challenges. And as Bill has said, you know, we are still with regard to procedures in the thinking that some governments have not really understood that the multi-stakeholder approach and the multilateral mechanisms are two sides of a coin, they are belonging together. Yesterday the UNESCO Deputy Secretary General made it very clear that the stakeholders have the knowledge, the technical expertise of the engagement, but the governments have the legitimacy and the authority to agree on binding commitment. So these two sides have to go together and not that we have three minutes consultations with stakeholders and then governments go in a different room and negotiate the final outcome document. This is nonsense, this won’t work and we will have to see what will happen now with the WSIS plus 20 output document. So what I see is another interesting innovation based on a proposal by the European Commission that now the two co-facilitators have created a so-called sounding board, you know, from stakeholders which could function as a link between the consultations among non-state actors and the state actors sitting in the negotiation rooms. So it has to be seen how open the governments will be and to accept that real intervention come from non-state actors and the and Mr. Thomas Lamanauskas, Mr. Thibaut Kleiner. I would like to conclude by saying that the input which comes from non-state actors will have also an impact on the final, in the final outcome document. And once again, you know, procedures are important at the NetMundial plus ten multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward because it clarified that multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward. So, I would like to conclude by saying that the input which comes from non-state actors will have also an impact on the final, in the final outcome document.

Anriette Esterhuysen: And once again, you know, procedures are important at the NetMundial plus ten multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward because it clarified that multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward. And once again, you know, procedures are important at the NetMundial plus ten multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward. And again, I would like to conclude by saying that the input which comes from non-state actors will have also an impact on the final, in the final outcome document document. And once again, you know, procedures are important at the NetMundial plus ten multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward because it clarified that multi-stakeholder guidelines are a big step forward. So, I would like to conclude by saying that I think we should be more careful about the way in which we are going to implement and deepen participation. I talked about the evolution of the infrastructure and the institutional framework, the ecosystem. I didn’t mention, for example, the parliamentary track. There’s a judiciary track. I mean, there’s still a need in the view of some people, including myself, that we can include governments in a more targeted outcome-oriented way. And, it’s not just economic outcomes, but as we put that together for the new There’s value, I think, in the IGF messages. They’re very useful. They reflect a multiplicity of perspectives, which very few other policy forums would do. But the moment you start actually calling them recommendations, then questions come up such as, who’s accountable for implementing them? How do you report on what happens with those recommendations? And who gives the people who develop those recommendations a mandate to do so in the first place? And you could so easily do, in fact, some national and regional IGFs do come up with recommendations, but there’s very little follow-up and implementation on those recommendations. That doesn’t mean they’re not without value. But I think the strength of the IGF is that it is a space where we can talk both about big picture challenges, such as we’re currently in a geopolitical environment where there’s a lot of conflict. There’s conflict between countries, there’s conflict on issues, there are questions about the fear that people have of AI and emerging tech, the role of big tech companies, the abuse of the internet. And the IGF gives us a place to cooperate, to work collaboratively. And what is more important? To have those really meaningful, as Bill Drake was saying, not just one prepared statement after another, but real debate, deep debate. What’s more important? Having that between different stakeholders, even stakeholders who don’t agree with one another, or coming up with recommendations that might actually go nowhere. So I think that the influence of the IGF is immense. I think we’ve heard about that. I’m sitting next to Camila. The CGI, the innovation in Brazil to create a multi-stakeholder national internet governance framework, that’s incredibly important. That wasn’t the consequence of a recommendation that came out of the IGF. It was a consequence of the depth of the inclusive process. and others, and the openness of the IGF to discuss and be innovative. So I think let’s keep this forum, let’s strengthen it, but let’s not overburden it with becoming a negotiating forum that has to come up with consensus recommendations, because I think that could ultimately weaken it or not optimize its enormous potential. And I really do believe that we’re only beginning to realize the potential of this innovation. I think the IGF is future-proof. We just need to make sure that we can have it and keep growing it and strengthening it.

Camila Leite Contri: Thank you. Also, adding on what Anquiet said, I believe that we don’t need to make it tough with recommendation, but we could improve reporting mechanisms. So we are talking about people who cannot be in the room, people who can be in the room in the future. Also about transparency, about accountability, IGF can be strengthened to have not closed recommendations, but also to strengthen the role of MAG, to strengthen the transparency that we have with this kind of discussions, and also making a greater use of IGF to do follow-ups on these discussions. So okay, we don’t need to wait for WSIS plus 30 to continue this. IGF can be one of these spaces. And IGF at this year was very important to warm up for this moment, for example. And one last point is that we are talking about the difference of stakeholder participations. And I believe that it’s key that public interest is at the center. And when we consider the different participation that we have between different stakeholder groups, we see that the tech power unfortunately makes public interest not necessarily in the first page or at the center of the discussion as we should. So I think it’s important for us to keep that in mind also to enhance the legitimacy of this discussion having public interest at the center.

Halima Ismail: Thank you Camilla. Thank you so much. I have just a last question. How can we ensure these improvements become reality? The answer is by renewing the mandate with a stronger focus on accountability, practical partnerships and the flexibility to adapt so these spaces stay dynamic, open

Bruna Martins dos Santos: and valuable for anyone. And thank you. Thank you very much. Thibaut, we don’t know if you want to add anything to this conversation but if you would like to you’re more than free to jump in. We cannot hear you so far. Excellent. I hope you can hear me better this time.

Thibaut Kleiner: Can you hear me now? Yes? Yes, we do. Thank you. Very good. No, I think that already the questions were very useful and interesting. I would just add maybe or repeat what all others also said that you need also to specialize the various fora, the various bodies we have also in the UN and beyond because if we want to be inclusive you cannot ask the youth, you know, the developing countries, the many NGOs and academics to show up in all sorts of places. I think the fact that we have the IGF as a one instance has really benefits that it can be really offering a forum for everyone and I think that’s something we should value. But of course the IGF should have a role, a specific role which is certainly to debate and to open new discussions. In our view in the EU we think indeed it should be institutionalized but And also, what I was saying earlier, maybe having a secretariat or a director would be very convenient, because then it means that the IGF could also take part in other, you know, developments as part of the UN family. And maybe that’s what is also the missing link from debate to action. So I think that processes and structures can make, you know, channels and can also create an efficient way to reflect the diversity of views that we hear in the context of the IGF.

Chris Buckridge: Okay. Thank you very much, Thibaut. I think we’ve reached sort of the last five minutes of the session here. And I think Bruno and I were hoping to try and draw out some takeaways or at least some key themes from these discussions. And it has been a really rich discussion. So thank you to those of you on the stage and also to those in the audience who contributed here. From my perspective, I guess some points that I take away here, obviously multi-stakeholder model has, or multi-stakeholder approach has a very long and rich history. But coming out of WSIS, it was a real innovation and a new approach. And we have actually already been doing the work to evolve that. And Camilla mentioned NetMundial and NetMundial Plus 10 as really key milestones on that road. We do need to keep progressing with that and developing these models and these processes to reflect and respond to the technology and the social use of technology that we have now. I think the point that certainly IGF and WSIS and other multi-stakeholder platforms need to be for everybody, need to be inclusive is absolutely vital. But I think, Henri, at your point that they can’t be everything for everybody is equally vital. That there needs to be some understanding of… the role of an IGF or a WSIS forum and the limitations that go along with that role and how these processes interface then with other more decisional policymaking processes, other events, other structures that exist. And I think the other thing that came through very strongly was we need – where we’re looking to evolve, where we’re looking to develop these structures, we need to be looking at the local and the regional. So that’s national and regional initiatives in the IGF parlance, but I think more generically looking at the communities and their specific issues, rather than simply trying to take a single global view, which is not going to answer the issues or the challenges that anyone really has. Sabrina, I’ll pass to you, those are the points that I had.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Yeah, I’ll just add a couple more. The main one is also the growing support, right, for the permanence of the IGF mandate that seems to be part of this conversation and one of the main points that needs to be conveyed in the resolution towards the end of the year and also towards most of our contributions to the elements paper and so on. And on that note, I would just like to say that it would be much interesting as well to hear what the global majority governments are thinking about the mandate renewal as well as part of this conversation and as a key part of the diversity aspects of the Internet Governance Forum and the WSIS mechanism and spaces and so on. Two more points. One is that the whole point about the conflicts, right, the idea that not only multilateralism and multistakeholderism, they can co-exist, but the fact that WSIS is a good example of that, that’s the sister brother events, WSIS high level events and the IGF are the main example that they not only can co-exist, but multistakeholderism can also co-exist. and Mr. Thibaut Kleiner. And also, I think, it’s important to highlight the importance of the public interest, not only in moderating your speeches, but also in doing that, eliminating the tensions between the topics, eliminating the tensions between the spaces, and last but not least, addressing the points about reporting mechanisms and accountability as a core aspect of that.

Anriette Esterhuysen: And I think that many in this room agree with that, and maybe I’ll stop here and see if you guys would like to add more to that. I think that we need to be willing to take risks. I think that’s a complex term, public means different things in different parts of the world, but I think that is what the IJF gives us. And I think my final, I think I agree with everything that you have said. I think just maybe the one thing is that we also need to be willing to take risk. And digital is complex, and the challenges that come with the digital world, and the challenges that we face, and the challenges that we face, and the challenges of geopolitical tension and how difficult it has become to work collaboratively, does sometimes require us to take, to go out of our comfort zone, to talk about topics which we are not all going to be in agreement on. And I think let’s use the IJF to work together, to agree, to collaborate, but let’s also use the IJF to work together on topics that we are not necessarily all going to find it easy to reach agreement on.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks a lot, Camilla. Thank you.

Camila Leite Contri: but about difficult conversations, the gender dimension is still missing at internet governance. At IGF we still see panel almost entirely with men. So also one important discussion and hard discussion that we need to have is gender should be at the centre of internet governance, both at IGF and also maybe with a new action line at WSIS to be cross-cutting, gender as a cross-cutting issue at WSIS.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you. We do need to wrap up now. I don’t think anyone on this stage will be surprised that internet governance discussions can be a little self-reflective a lot of the time. We talk about what our structures are, how they can evolve. But I think this is a really important moment with the WSIS review coming up, with the opportunities that we have this year to actually move forward on some of these issues. So thank you very much for all of the input here. Thank you to everyone who spoke today. We’ll obviously have a report on this, but there will be much more work to do in the coming five or six months as we move towards evolving this. And also thanks to the ITU and the IGF MEG for the help in organising this panel. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Strong support for permanent IGF mandate beyond 2025

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Craig Stanley Adamson
– Bruna Martins dos Santos

Arguments

EU supports making IGF permanent beyond 2025 with secure funding through UN budget and dedicated director with proper secretariat

UK fully supports permanent IGF mandate and formal recognition for national/regional IGFs to promote local community-led views

Growing support for permanent IGF mandate should be key outcome of WSIS+20 discussions and resolution

Summary

There is clear consensus among speakers representing EU, UK, and session moderators that the IGF should receive a permanent mandate beyond 2025, with proper institutional support including dedicated funding, secretariat, and director.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism are complementary, not competing approaches

Speakers

– Wolfgang Kleinwachter
– Bruna Martins dos Santos
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

False polarization exists between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism – they are two sides of same coin that must work together

Multilateralism and multistakeholderism can coexist with WSIS as prime example, and public interest should moderate tensions between topics and spaces

WSIS framework should be updated and strengthened using cross-pollination between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches

Summary

Speakers agree that the perceived tension between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches is artificial, and both approaches are necessary and complementary for effective internet governance.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Need for better coordination and avoiding duplication between processes

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

Need to avoid duplication of efforts and waste of resources by coordinating overlapping discussions like GDC with WSIS

Roadmaps for the future should make WSIS action lines operational while incorporating UN activities and avoiding duplications

WSIS framework should be updated and strengthened using cross-pollination between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches

Summary

There is consensus that current processes suffer from duplication and resource waste, requiring better coordination between WSIS, GDC, and other forums to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder processes must be genuinely inclusive in practice, not just principle

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Craig Stanley Adamson
– Wout de Natris

Arguments

Need to proactively reach out to civil society and affected communities who cannot participate, requiring funding and skills development for equal footing

Diverse input from global majority stakeholders should be priority focus during WSIS+20 review process

Multi-stakeholder processes must be inclusive in practice, not just principle, with standards for safety, security and accessibility

Summary

Speakers agree that true inclusivity requires proactive efforts, funding, and capacity building to ensure meaningful participation from marginalized communities and global majority stakeholders.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

IGF should focus on dialogue and collaboration rather than formal recommendations

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

IGF’s strength is meaningful debate and collaborative space rather than negotiating forum that might weaken its potential

IGF should strengthen reporting mechanisms and transparency rather than becoming burdened with consensus recommendations

Summary

Both speakers agree that the IGF’s value lies in providing space for meaningful dialogue and collaboration, and that formal recommendation-making could undermine its effectiveness.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that effective multi-stakeholder governance requires meaningful interaction between stakeholders and governments, not superficial consultation processes where they operate in separate spaces.

Speakers

– Wolfgang Kleinwachter
– William J. Drake

Arguments

Stakeholders have knowledge and expertise while governments have legitimacy and authority for binding commitments – both needed

Need real engagement between stakeholders and government representatives, not siloed three-minute consultations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the importance of local and regional perspectives in internet governance, emphasizing that global processes must accommodate diverse local contexts and needs.

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Chris Buckridge

Arguments

IGF evolved as flexible ecosystem responding to tension between connected and unconnected populations through national/regional IGFs and dynamic coalitions

Evolution of multi-stakeholder models must focus on local and regional initiatives rather than single global view

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that public interest should be the central organizing principle for internet governance discussions, helping to moderate tensions and ensure legitimacy.

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Bruna Martins dos Santos

Arguments

Public interest must be at center of discussions, as tech power unfortunately pushes it away from first priority

Multilateralism and multistakeholderism can coexist with WSIS as prime example, and public interest should moderate tensions between topics and spaces

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Gender as cross-cutting issue in internet governance

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

Gender dimension still missing from Internet governance with panels almost entirely male-dominated

Gender should be cross-cutting issue at WSIS, potentially as new action line

Explanation

While only one speaker explicitly raised this issue, the lack of disagreement or pushback from other participants suggests unexpected consensus on the need to address gender imbalances in internet governance forums. This is significant as gender issues are often contentious in international forums.

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online

Dynamic coalitions as valuable but underrecognized contributors

Speakers

– Wout de Natris

Arguments

Dynamic coalitions need better integration into IGF program through MAG liaisons to increase recognition and participation

Explanation

The lack of opposition to strengthening dynamic coalitions’ role suggests unexpected consensus on their value, despite them being relatively informal structures within the IGF ecosystem. This indicates broad recognition of bottom-up innovation in internet governance.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Safe and meaningful digital life as potential 18th SDG

Speakers

– Participant

Arguments

Safe and meaningful digital life should become 18th Sustainable Development Goal given Internet’s fundamental importance

Explanation

While only one participant raised this ambitious proposal, the absence of disagreement from other speakers suggests unexpected openness to elevating internet governance to the same level as other global development priorities.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on key structural issues: permanent IGF mandate, complementarity of multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, need for genuine inclusivity, and importance of coordination between processes. There was also agreement on the IGF’s role as a dialogue forum rather than decision-making body.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on institutional and procedural matters, with broad agreement across different stakeholder groups (government, civil society, technical community, international organizations). This suggests mature understanding of internet governance challenges and shared vision for solutions. The consensus has positive implications for WSIS+20 outcomes, indicating strong foundation for advancing permanent IGF mandate and improving multi-stakeholder processes.

Different viewpoints

IGF should produce recommendations vs. maintaining its role as discussion forum

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Halima Ismail

Arguments

IGF’s strength is meaningful debate and collaborative space rather than negotiating forum that might weaken its potential

How to move from discussion to action while building efficient early warning systems for emerging digital risks like AI

Summary

Esterhuysen argues that the IGF should not be burdened with producing consensus recommendations as this could weaken its collaborative potential, while Ismail emphasizes the need to move from discussion to concrete action and accountability mechanisms.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Approach to improving multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Need to proactively reach out to civil society and affected communities who cannot participate, requiring funding and skills development for equal footing

IGF evolved as flexible ecosystem responding to tension between connected and unconnected populations through national/regional IGFs and dynamic coalitions

Explanation

While both support inclusivity, Contri emphasizes proactive outreach and resource provision for marginalized communities, while Esterhuysen highlights the organic evolution of the IGF ecosystem. This represents different philosophies on whether inclusion should be actively engineered or allowed to evolve naturally.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most speakers sharing common goals around IGF permanence, multi-stakeholder inclusion, and coordination between processes. The main areas of disagreement centered on implementation approaches rather than core principles.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most tensions were around means rather than ends – speakers generally agreed on goals like IGF permanence, better inclusion, and coordination, but differed on specific mechanisms. The most significant disagreement was philosophical, regarding whether the IGF should maintain its discussion-focused role or evolve toward more action-oriented outputs. This suggests a mature policy community with shared values but different strategic preferences, which is positive for consensus-building in the WSIS+20 process.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that effective multi-stakeholder governance requires meaningful interaction between stakeholders and governments, not superficial consultation processes where they operate in separate spaces.

Speakers

– Wolfgang Kleinwachter
– William J. Drake

Arguments

Stakeholders have knowledge and expertise while governments have legitimacy and authority for binding commitments – both needed

Need real engagement between stakeholders and government representatives, not siloed three-minute consultations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the importance of local and regional perspectives in internet governance, emphasizing that global processes must accommodate diverse local contexts and needs.

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Chris Buckridge

Arguments

IGF evolved as flexible ecosystem responding to tension between connected and unconnected populations through national/regional IGFs and dynamic coalitions

Evolution of multi-stakeholder models must focus on local and regional initiatives rather than single global view

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that public interest should be the central organizing principle for internet governance discussions, helping to moderate tensions and ensure legitimacy.

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Bruna Martins dos Santos

Arguments

Public interest must be at center of discussions, as tech power unfortunately pushes it away from first priority

Multilateralism and multistakeholderism can coexist with WSIS as prime example, and public interest should moderate tensions between topics and spaces

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder internet governance has evolved from an innovation 20 years ago to a proven model that has delivered concrete successes including increased Internet Exchange Points in Africa and the IANA transition

There is growing consensus for making the IGF permanent beyond 2025 with secure funding through the UN budget and a dedicated director with proper secretariat

The tension between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism is a false polarization – they are complementary approaches where stakeholders provide knowledge and expertise while governments provide legitimacy and authority for binding commitments

Multi-stakeholder processes must be truly inclusive in practice, not just principle, requiring proactive outreach to civil society and affected communities with funding and skills development support

The IGF’s strength lies in being a space for meaningful debate and collaboration rather than becoming a negotiating forum that produces consensus recommendations

Better coordination is needed between overlapping processes like WSIS, IGF, and Global Digital Compact to avoid duplication of efforts and resource waste

National and regional IGFs should receive formal recognition as they promote local community-led views into global processes

Public interest must remain at the center of internet governance discussions, with gender as a cross-cutting issue that needs greater attention

Resolutions and action items

EU commitment to support permanent IGF mandate beyond 2025 with secure funding and institutional structure

UK commitment to support permanent IGF mandate and formal recognition for national/regional IGFs

Proposal for dynamic coalitions to have liaisons in the MAG to better integrate their work into IGF programs

Suggestion to create ‘roadmaps for the future’ to make WSIS action lines operational while avoiding duplications

Proposal for a potential 18th Sustainable Development Goal focused on ‘safe and meaningful digital life’

Call for better reporting mechanisms within countries on WSIS commitments and multi-stakeholder network expansion

Recommendation to consider gender as a new cross-cutting action line at WSIS

Unresolved issues

How to effectively move from discussion to action while maintaining the IGF’s collaborative nature

How to build efficient early warning systems for emerging digital risks like AI agents

How to ensure meaningful engagement between stakeholders and government representatives rather than siloed consultations

How to balance the need for accountability and practical outcomes with the IGF’s strength as an open dialogue forum

How to address resource constraints that prevent civil society organizations and youth from participating in multiple overlapping processes

How to better integrate the year-round intersessional work of dynamic coalitions into broader recognition and participation

How to address the continued male dominance in internet governance panels and discussions

Suggested compromises

Creation of a ‘sounding board’ from stakeholders to link consultations between non-state and state actors in WSIS+20 negotiations

Strengthening reporting mechanisms and transparency at IGF rather than burdening it with consensus recommendations

Specializing various forums and bodies to avoid asking youth, developing countries, and NGOs to participate in all processes

Using cross-pollination between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches rather than treating them as competing models

Focusing on improving existing processes through NetMundial Plus 10 principles rather than creating entirely new structures

Balancing global discussions with recognition of local and regional realities through enhanced national/regional IGF roles

The Internet doesn’t need leadership, it needs collaboration from all sides.

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Reason

This comment reframes the fundamental governance paradigm from hierarchical control to collaborative participation. It challenges the traditional notion that complex global systems require centralized authority and instead proposes distributed responsibility as the solution.

Impact

This insight became a foundational principle that other speakers built upon throughout the discussion. It shifted the conversation from debating who should lead internet governance to how different stakeholders can work together effectively, setting the tone for the entire multi-stakeholder approach discussion.

There’s always been this tension at the IGF between it being a space where we talk about those who do have the Internet and who are facing increasing new, complex, emerging challenges… and on the other hand, the billions of people who do not have access to the Internet.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment exposes a fundamental paradox in internet governance – discussing governance of a resource that billions still cannot access. It highlights the inherent inequality in participation and the risk of creating policies for a privileged minority while ignoring the global majority.

Impact

This observation deepened the conversation by introducing questions of legitimacy and representation. It led subsequent speakers to address inclusion more seriously and influenced discussions about national/regional IGFs as mechanisms to bridge this gap.

We need another 18th SDG, safe and meaningful digital life for the citizens of the world.

Speaker

Participant from India

Reason

This comment challenges the current framework by proposing that digital governance deserves equal standing with other global development priorities. It suggests that internet governance has evolved beyond a technical issue to a fundamental human development concern.

Impact

While brief, this intervention shifted the discussion toward thinking about internet governance as a development imperative rather than just a technical coordination mechanism. It influenced later comments about public interest and the need for governance frameworks to deliver tangible benefits to citizens.

We have like a consultation where multi-stakeholder people can come and speak for three minutes and give a canned presentation, but the government people are not in the room, they’re not engaging… We need to be together in the conversation.

Speaker

William J. Drake

Reason

This comment exposes the performative nature of much multi-stakeholder engagement, where participation becomes tokenistic rather than substantive. It challenges the assumption that simply creating spaces for different voices automatically leads to meaningful collaboration.

Impact

This critique prompted immediate responses from panelists about the need for genuine interaction rather than parallel monologues. It influenced the discussion toward examining the quality of engagement rather than just the quantity of participation, leading to conversations about institutional learning and process improvement.

The moment you start actually calling them recommendations, then questions come up such as, who’s accountable for implementing them? How do you report on what happens with those recommendations? And who gives the people who develop those recommendations a mandate to do so in the first place?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment addresses a core tension in multi-stakeholder governance between legitimacy and effectiveness. It challenges the assumption that producing recommendations is inherently valuable and forces consideration of democratic accountability in non-traditional governance structures.

Impact

This intervention fundamentally shifted the discussion from focusing on outputs (recommendations) to examining the value of process itself. It influenced subsequent speakers to defend the IGF’s role as a dialogue space rather than a decision-making body, reshaping how participants conceptualized success in multi-stakeholder forums.

Gender should be at the centre of internet governance, both at IGF and also maybe with a new action line at WSIS to be cross-cutting, gender as a cross-cutting issue at WSIS.

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Reason

This final comment challenges the entire discussion by pointing out a glaring omission – despite extensive talk about inclusion and representation, gender inequality in internet governance itself was largely ignored. It exposes how even progressive governance discussions can perpetuate exclusion.

Impact

Coming at the end, this comment served as a powerful reality check that recontextualized the entire conversation. It demonstrated that despite good intentions about inclusion, fundamental inequalities persist even within supposedly progressive governance spaces, adding urgency to reform efforts.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a celebratory retrospective into a critical examination of multi-stakeholder governance. They introduced essential tensions – between inclusion and exclusion, process and outcomes, legitimacy and effectiveness – that prevented superficial consensus and forced deeper engagement with fundamental challenges. The comments built upon each other to create a progression from historical context to structural critique to future vision, with each intervention adding layers of complexity that enriched the overall discussion. Most importantly, they shifted the conversation from defending existing structures to honestly examining their limitations and potential for evolution.

How do we ensure these platforms remain truly inclusive clearing houses for knowledge in expanding spaces for digital innovation?

Speaker

Halima Ismail

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of maintaining inclusivity as digital platforms evolve and expand, which is crucial for the legitimacy and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder governance.

How can we build an efficient early warning system for emerging digital risks like the rapid rise of AI agents?

Speaker

Halima Ismail

Explanation

This highlights the need for proactive mechanisms to identify and address emerging digital threats, particularly in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

How do we move from discussion to action?

Speaker

Halima Ismail

Explanation

This addresses a critical gap between policy discussions and practical implementation in internet governance forums.

How can we better integrate the work of Dynamic Coalitions into the IGF program?

Speaker

Wout de Natris

Explanation

This seeks to improve the visibility and impact of year-round intersessional work that produces valuable policy recommendations and research.

How do we develop better mechanisms within countries for reporting on WSIS commitments and expanding multi-stakeholder networks?

Speaker

Jennifer Corriero

Explanation

This addresses the need for national-level accountability and implementation of international commitments made through WSIS processes.

How can we improve the interaction between stakeholders and government representatives in multilateral processes?

Speaker

William J. Drake

Explanation

This addresses the bifurcation between multi-stakeholder governance processes and multilateral processes, seeking more meaningful engagement rather than token consultation.

Should there be an 18th SDG focused on ‘safe and meaningful digital life for the citizens of the world’?

Speaker

Participant from India

Explanation

This proposes elevating digital governance to the level of sustainable development goals, recognizing internet access as a fundamental right requiring governance frameworks.

How can gender be better integrated as a cross-cutting issue in internet governance, including potentially as a new action line at WSIS?

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Explanation

This addresses the persistent gender imbalance in internet governance discussions and the need to mainstream gender considerations across all aspects of digital policy.

How can we better coordinate overlapping discussions and reduce duplication of efforts between different UN processes and forums?

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Explanation

This addresses resource constraints and the need for more coherent approaches across multiple international forums dealing with digital issues.

How can the ‘sounding board’ mechanism between stakeholders and state actors in WSIS negotiations be made more effective?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Explanation

This explores a specific procedural innovation that could bridge the gap between multi-stakeholder input and intergovernmental decision-making.