Knowledge Café: WSIS+20 Consultation: Strenghtening Multistakeholderism

Summary

This discussion was a Knowledge Café session focused on evaluating the multi-stakeholder model pioneered by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) over the past 20 years and planning for its future beyond 2025. The session was organized by Gitanjali Sah, who coordinates the WSIS Forum, and Chengetai Masango, who leads the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in preparation for a UN General Assembly review in December that will decide on renewing WSIS frameworks.

Participants were divided into tables with designated moderators to discuss three key questions about multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance. The first question examined achievements of the multi-stakeholder model, with tables highlighting the creation of National and Regional IGFs (NRIs), increased youth participation, successful bridging of digital divides, and the establishment of a “safe space” for testing new policy ideas. Participants noted that bringing together governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and technical communities around the same table was an extraordinary achievement that wasn’t expected to survive initially.

The second question focused on better engaging stakeholders in digital development implementation. Key suggestions included increasing funding, particularly for Global South participation, raising awareness among private sectors about their role, strengthening existing IGF structures, and creating clearer value propositions for different stakeholder groups. Tables emphasized the need for meaningful participation rather than tokenism, better onboarding processes for newcomers, and addressing practical barriers like visa access and travel funding.

The final question addressed strengthening the multi-stakeholder model for WSIS beyond 2025. Participants called for permanent mandates for the IGF and formal recognition of NRIs, better coordination between overlapping UN processes, more actionable outcomes that can influence national policies, and improved accessibility through multilingual support and simplified communication. The discussion concluded with strong support for continuing and strengthening the multi-stakeholder approach while addressing current limitations in participation and implementation.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This was a Knowledge Cafe session at the WSIS Forum designed to gather stakeholder input on multi-stakeholderism in digital governance. The session aimed to collect feedback from diverse participants to inform the UN General Assembly’s WSIS+20 review process in December, which will decide on renewing WSIS Action Lines, the WSIS Forum, and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The organizers sought concrete recommendations and a call for action to include in the chair’s summary.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Achievements of the Multi-stakeholder Model**: Participants highlighted significant accomplishments including the establishment of National and Regional IGFs (NRIs), increased youth engagement, successful policy coordination (like the IANA transition), bridging the digital divide by connecting billions of people, and creating a “safe space” for testing new policy ideas before they become mainstream issues.

– **Barriers to Stakeholder Engagement**: Multiple tables identified key obstacles including insufficient funding (especially for Global South participation), lack of private sector engagement, language barriers with English-dominated discussions, unclear value propositions for different stakeholder groups, and complex processes that are difficult for newcomers to understand and navigate.

– **Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Participation**: Recommendations included making the IGF permanent rather than requiring periodic renewal, providing better onboarding tools and toolkits for new participants, ensuring meaningful (not tokenistic) participation especially for youth and marginalized communities, and creating more accessible formats like roundtable discussions rather than traditional panel formats.

– **Coordination and Process Improvements**: Participants emphasized the need for better coordination between multiple overlapping processes (Summit of the Future, Global Digital Compact, AI governance streams), more streamlined and less time-consuming procedures, clearer communication of outcomes and their implementation pathways, and stronger connections between global discussions and national/local action.

– **Vision for WSIS Beyond 2025**: Key suggestions included maintaining the people-centric and human rights-oriented approach of WSIS, ensuring formal recognition of NRIs, improving virtual participation capabilities, providing more linguistic diversity in discussions, and creating clearer pathways for translating global discussions into concrete national and local policy implementation.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating genuine engagement and expertise. While there was honest acknowledgment of challenges and limitations in current multi-stakeholder processes, the atmosphere remained solution-oriented and optimistic. The facilitators successfully maintained energy and focus across the three discussion rounds, and participants showed appreciation for the interactive roundtable format, contrasting it favorably with traditional panel discussions. The session concluded on a positive note with participants expressing value in the process and commitment to continued engagement.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Coordinates the WSIS Forum, UN agency representative responsible for WSIS process coordination

– **Chengetai Masango** – Leads the IGF (Internet Governance Forum)

– **Anita Gurumurthy** –

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** –

– **Tracy Hackshaw** – Universal Postal Union, heads the Fab Resilience Team

– **Isabelle Lois** – Federal Office of Communications for Switzerland, director of WSIS and AIG

– **Meni Anastasiadou** – Table moderator/lead

– **Renata Figueiredo Santoyo** – Table moderator/lead

– **Participant** – Various unidentified participants with different roles and organizations

– **Audience** – Various audience members

**Additional speakers:**

– **May** – CEO of Innovation Network Canada and Innovation Network Global

– **Claudia** – From Romania, volunteered as table moderator

– **Peter Grutter** – Chairs the WSIS co-administration

– **Soya Ketia** – Member of the board for Interactive Scientist Union/Internet Society

– **Adrian** – From Singapore, part of Lysol Global

– **Dana Kramer** – From Canada, served as table moderator

– **Tim** – Works at the Office of the High Commissioner of International Relations

– **Pratik** – Technical support for presentations

# Knowledge Café on Multi-Stakeholder Engagement in Digital Governance: WSIS+20 Preparations

## Session Overview

This Knowledge Café session was held as part of the WSIS Forum to gather stakeholder input for the UN General Assembly’s WSIS+20 review in December. Organised by Gitanjali Sah, who coordinates the WSIS Forum, and Chengetai Masango, who leads the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the session brought together diverse stakeholders to evaluate the multi-stakeholder model and discuss its future beyond 2025.

The session used an interactive roundtable format with participants divided into tables, each with designated moderators including Meni Anastasiadou, Renata Figueiredo Santoyo, May (CEO of Innovation Network Canada), Claudia from Romania, and Dana Kramer. Each table addressed three sequential questions with 11 minutes per question and 9 minutes for table summaries. About half the participants were new to the WSIS Forum.

## Question One: Achievements of the Multi-Stakeholder Model

### Institutional Innovations

Participants highlighted several key achievements of the multi-stakeholder approach over the past 20 years. Meni Anastasiadou noted that the model “was an extraordinary achievement that wasn’t expected to survive but has stood the test of time.” A significant innovation was formally recognizing the technical community as a distinct stakeholder group, giving infrastructure operators and technical experts representation in policy discussions for the first time.

### National and Regional IGF Development

Multiple tables identified the establishment and growth of National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) as a major success. These initiatives have enabled policy co-creation at the national level and demonstrated the adaptability of the multi-stakeholder model across different contexts. Participants noted that NRIs have created tangible outcomes and helped bridge global discussions with local implementation.

### Youth Engagement and Connectivity

Youth participation has significantly expanded, with participants noting that youth engagement has grown substantially in recent years with concrete impact at global and national levels. The multi-stakeholder approach was also credited with helping to bridge the digital divide and connect billions of people to the internet through coordinated efforts across stakeholder groups.

### Policy Innovation Space

The IGF has evolved into what participants described as a “safe space” or “sandbox” for testing new policy ideas on emerging topics like AI and data governance. This function enables anticipation of policy impacts on different constituencies and creates more trusted regulations by providing diverse perspectives that wouldn’t emerge from single stakeholder groups.

## Question Two: Better Stakeholder Engagement in Digital for Development

### Participation Gaps

Despite achievements, participants identified significant challenges. A key concern was that “the private sector is not as implicated as it should be. And also the governments. It’s hard. It’s not that easy. It exists on paper, but the communication is not so present.” This highlighted the gap between formal multi-stakeholder structures and meaningful participation.

### Global South Representation and Barriers

Multiple tables emphasized that the Global South is underrepresented in multi-stakeholder discussions. Funding constraints, visa challenges, and travel costs create systematic barriers that limit equitable participation, particularly for Global South participants. These practical obstacles undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder processes.

### Communication and Accessibility

Language barriers emerged as a significant obstacle, with participants noting that discussions should be accessible in multiple languages, not just English. Beyond language, there were broader communication challenges. As one participant observed about accessibility: “You go on the WSIS website, you read for one hour. An average Joe needs to read for five minutes and say, oh, OK, I get this. So he can participate.”

### Representation and Power Dynamics

Participants raised concerns about who is actually represented in these processes. One speaker asked: “How do real people come here? I mean, we’re all real people, but genuine organisations in some sense, which may not meet the criteria that may be, which may even be informal, invisible barriers in the process.” There were warnings about discussions becoming echo chambers rather than engaging diverse voices, with power asymmetries needing to be addressed through better moderation.

### Development Paradigm Questions

A critical intervention referenced the special rapporteur on development, asking: “Which model of development are we talking about? Whose interests? Who’s gonna benefit? Who’s gonna lose out?” This challenged underlying assumptions about digital for development initiatives and highlighted the need to examine whose interests are served by current approaches.

## Question Three: Strengthening Multi-Stakeholder Model for WSIS Beyond 2025

### Funding and Resource Solutions

Participants consistently identified funding as essential for meaningful engagement. Recommendations included more funding and awareness-raising campaigns to show the business case for participation, systematic approaches to address visa and travel funding challenges, and long-term financial commitments beyond ad hoc support.

### Institutional Strengthening

Key recommendations included strengthening existing IGFs and giving them more power and resources, establishing permanent mandates for IGF rather than periodic renewals, and providing formal recognition for National and Regional IGFs. Participants argued that current periodic renewals create uncertainty that undermines long-term planning.

### Capacity Building and Onboarding

Multiple tables recommended better streamlined onboarding processes for new members and creating toolkits that show clear value propositions for different stakeholder groups. There was emphasis on providing capacity building and clear communication about why stakeholders need to participate.

### Meaningful Participation

Participants called for ensuring meaningful access by addressing time, resources, skills, and capacity barriers. There was emphasis on implementing fair and effective moderation that treats participants as empowered partners rather than token representatives. For youth engagement specifically, participants stressed the need for “actual voice and power in decisions, not just token representation.”

### Grassroots Engagement

Recommendations included working with grassroots organisations that understand ground-level problems and engaging consumers, community leaders, and older generations. Participants recognized that current processes may not adequately represent broader public interests.

### Process Improvements

Participants called for better coordination between multiple processes to avoid duplication and reduce costs, recognizing that stakeholders face increasing demands from overlapping UN processes. Recommendations included more consistency in formats across different UN institutions while maintaining the unique value of different processes.

## Key Themes and Recommendations

### Rights-Based Approach

Participants emphasized that processes must remain people-centric and human rights oriented as envisioned in WSIS, reaffirming the Geneva and Tunis declarations regarding rights, duties, and obligations of stakeholders.

### Technology and Accessibility

Recommendations included implementing virtual-first environments to increase accessibility while maintaining opportunities for in-person engagement, and ensuring linguistic diversity and location context in communications.

### Actionable Outcomes

Participants called for actionable outcomes that can influence national policy approaches and strengthened intersessional work and local-level engagement to address the persistent gap between global discussions and practical implementation.

### Critical Perspectives

Some participants warned against reaching the lowest common denominator in discussions, cautioning that “discussions may be pushed by very powerful interests in the room without taking a step back and evaluating the negative implications and impacts of digital for development.”

## Next Steps and Follow-up Actions

Table moderators committed to providing digital summaries of their discussions for inclusion in the chair’s summary that will feed into the UN General Assembly review process. Participants were encouraged to:

– Contribute to WSIS Forum planning through the open consultative process

– Subscribe to the WSIS Flash newsletter and engage with the WSIS website

– Make their voices heard to the UN General Assembly regarding the usefulness of WSIS frameworks ahead of the December review

– Continue engagement through National and Regional IGF processes

The session demonstrated both appreciation for the multi-stakeholder model’s achievements and recognition of significant challenges that need addressing. The interactive format proved effective in generating concrete recommendations and highlighted the importance of format choices in enabling genuine multi-stakeholder engagement. The discussions will contribute to the broader WSIS+20 review process as stakeholders prepare for decisions about the future of these frameworks beyond 2025.

Gitanjali Sah: So, we would like this table to nominate a lead, if anyone could volunteer, please, on this table. We don’t see a table moderator here. Would you like to, please? Ma’am, what’s your name? May. May. May. Which organization? I’m CEO of Innovation Network Canada and Innovation Network Global. Okay, great. Thank you very much. And you’re May, you say? May. May. May. Okay. So, thank you very much. The way we’ve designed this Knowledge Cafe is all of you have table leads. Who will be leading? Could you please stand up so that everyone can see you? We have Anita. We have Henriette. We have Renata. We have Manny. And please, can someone volunteer on that table as well? Excellent. What’s your name? Claudia from? Romania. Okay. Right. Okay. So, Claudia, thank you very much. Shengentai and I, and we are going to do the timekeeping. We have three questions. Pratik, if you could please put the questions up. And you will have 11 minutes to discuss all the three questions and nine minutes for all the table chairs to provide a summary of what was discussed on your table. 11 minutes each question. Yes. Yeah. And we request the moderators to also please give us the summary in the digital format so that we can quickly put it into an overall summary. All of this will be also adding to the chair’s summary. So please be mindful, be ambitious, be passionate in your discussions. We really need a call for action coming out of this group. Yes.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Oh, by the way, we forgot to introduce ourselves. Who does not know who we are? Oh, okay. Wow. All right. Come on. Okay. Wow. All right.

Gitanjali Sah: Okay, so this is Shengentai, he leads the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum. Shengentai, is that correct? Is that your designation?

Chengetai Masango: That is correct. Okay, you can introduce me. This is Gitanjale, and she is in charge and coordinates the WSIS Forum. So she is responsible for all this great work that’s happening right now, right here.

Gitanjali Sah: Yes. So, just to give you all a bit of a context, multi-stakeholderism, involving all stakeholders, giving all stakeholders a voice in a UN process, has been our main job as UN agencies. We ensure that governments, private sectors, civil society, academia, technical community, international organizations, all have a voice in what is being discussed to shape the WSIS process. And this Knowledge Cafe is about that, because now we have completed 20 years of WSIS, multi-stakeholderism is still in its momentum, but what is the vision that you would like to see? The UN General Assembly, Shengentai, if you could talk a bit more about it, what’s happening in December?

Chengetai Masango: Okay, so in December, so this year we are having, of course, the WSIS plus 20 review process, which is reviewing the mandate of WSIS, which includes the IGF, IGF is part of the WSIS outcomes. So in December, there’s going to be a General Assembly meeting, which is going to decide upon the renewal of the WSIS Action Lines, WSIS Forum, and the IGF. And going forth, they’re also going to decide the length and also other modalities, we’re not too sure, the rest of the stuff, but that’s the main thrust. But in order for them to do this, they also need feedback from the community, and we do want to show them. that the community, if you do, of course, find us useful. Do you find the WSIS framework, the WSIS action lines, the IGF useful? If you do, you must make your voices heard. And this is one of the activities that we have arranged to do that.

Gitanjali Sah: Exactly. So the first question we would like you to discuss in your tables is WSIS pioneered the multi-stakeholder model through its summit, the annual WSIS forum where you are here right now. The IGF, what has been the achievements of this multi-stakeholder model? So I’d like to invite the chairs of each table, the leaders of each table to get this discussion going. You have 11 minutes, please. I’m going to start with one of my section. Yes. I know each other a little bit, so.

Tracy Hackshaw: Hi, I’m Tracy, so I’m from the Universal Postal Union. And I head as the Fab Resilience Team here.

Isabelle Lois: I’m Dr. Luz. Excuse me, ma’am. There’s one seat in the front. I’m Isabelle Luz, I work for the Federal Office of Communications for Switzerland, and I am the director of WSIS, mainly, also AIG.

Participant: Peter Grutter, I chair the WSIS co-administration.

Gitanjali Sah: Yes, I think it is. Can I, if you want me, I’ll put it here. I think it is. Sorry. So we’re just about to start our first session. So we started with a round of introductions, so maybe if I can turn this into a self, and just rename, title, and role, and we’ll see.

Participant: Oh, hey, hello, I’m Soya Ketia. I’m a member of the board for Interactive Scientist Union. If you ask me, that’s sort of, it’s a bit difficult to call it International Interactive Scientist Union. Yes. So, it’s funny, because I am with the Internet Society.

Gitanjali Sah: Okay.

Participant: We have not met each other before. So my name’s Adrian, I live in Singapore, and I’m part of Lysol Global, so I’ve been with Lysol for six years now, and it’s such a good thing, yeah, yeah. And all of you, yeah, yeah.

Gitanjali Sah: That’s great. Well, our first question is right there, on the multistakeholder model, and how it was pioneered through WSIS, and what are the main developments? So we’ve just been able to do it, and we would love to have any of you share it.

Audience: Yes, yes, yes. You may have to split yourself into two, if you want to, yeah. Yes, yes, and that’s also good, because that might be part of anything, so I can relax a bit. Very nice, and welcome to Ritchie, yeah? Oh, thank you very much. Well done, yes. Thank you. Yes, yeah. Yeah. Well done. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, well done. Thank you. Thank you. Great to see you. Yeah, yeah. Fabulous, yes. Fabulous. Well, thank you very much. Nice to meet you. Oh, we’ve started interacting. We started 20 years ago. Oh, 20 years ago. I think it’s not last week. Yes. It’s been a year and a half since we’ve met. Just one of the sources, it’s been two. In Bowling, now, that’s cool. That’s awesome. That’s great to be able to see all those people. That’s a very good point, and I think that’s one of the national regional ideas we’ve been showing throughout the last 20 years. Definitely one of the two events I’ll throw up for you, so. Any other points you want to make? I think we’ll go even further on your point of all of the different NRIs and the regional project that we’ve been doing with all of us, and a great example of that. I mean, just last year, there was a situation in what it is now. It has messages, all of the professional work, the policy, the best practice for dynamic coalition. I think everything that it has created to show that there is a community that is present, they want to get involved, they are getting involved, and they’re actually showing results and bringing something. And we don’t see it now with the beginning of the implementation of the GPC, and a great interest from what as far as the NRI of this connecting of the stakeholders to be able to implement parts of the GPC in a way that shows that there’s a strength. Sorry, I don’t know if this was mentioned already, but also, like Alex said, in the context of the youth dimension, like in the last 10 years, youth engagement has exploded in the GNI, there’s post-pandemic initiatives, and we’re in the sort of 5G apps that have influenced, at the global level, they have a really concrete impact on the global compact. At the national level, I know a few things like the 5G network growing at the national level as well. So, if we can frame the stakeholder model as a possible enabling force of the last 10, 15 years. You know what? When the first RISC was founded, I was then also a full-time GNI finalist. I must tell you, I would never have thought that this survives, never. Because even the attempt to create those kinds of multi-stakeholder models where every society, private sector, have the right to work together to find common ground, is not something ordinary in the international, not only in politics, but also in the economy. I think that’s one of the biggest or the only… And another thing would be the sort of definition of a technical community, because that’s wasn’t really a thing before, so now you’re having the, and it’s still, I think it was the experience, but it’s there, so you have the infrastructure, the people who are involved in the actual internet itself, they can have a voice, and they can be identified as a stakeholder, and they can, you know, work together, so it’s something that brings them together, whether good or bad, because of being left out of certain discussions, but they work together and are now somewhat harmonised, and that’s a real achievement that didn’t happen in the 20 years. I have one. To me, I feel, even though there’s a lot of room for improvement now, it’s a huge achievement to shine the light on the importance of bridging the digital divide throughout the period, because of the constant focus on the issue, we have connected, I’d say, billions of people in the period to the internet, and also benefiting everyone’s livelihoods, expanding everyone’s economic opportunities, so I consider that a great achievement, but still, of course, a lot more work to be done. Thank you so much, Sarah, for mentioning there, which is the fact that stakeholders got together, trying to find a way to emphasise their main focus, and that’s here, what does multi-stakeholder mean, what are the processes, what do you think about the guidelines, I think that’s also a huge advancement, and not just what we want to do as multi-stakeholder, but actually maybe I could point to that in the IGF itself, it seems that it’s a safe space to bring in new thinking, so I remember the AI discussion started way back at the IGF, before it became a mainstream topic, even data governance was brought in very early, cybersecurity brought in very early, so it seems that that’s the idea, in particular, the vehicle to bring in somewhat controversial new emerging topics, and now test the waters on policy, and see what can happen there, and even as it grows, this is what ethics and regulation, I mean, I tested at the IGF in that model without any, you know, decision-making, test the waters, it’s a very good, cheap one, and you can have an area, or a model, or an event, or whatever, an event within the NRI, so that can be tested without any consequences, so to speak. In the IGF, also a couple of minutes ago, I heard a colleague talking about how the IGF was to be a sandbox, so we can use that space to test, share responses, and test new ideas, thinking, a small stakeholder group on the ground, and we can collaborate on the ground, and I think we will find, yeah, that’s a good one, that’s a good one, that’s a good discussion, so, right, so, I’ve been taking some notes on this, I mean, it gave me a lot of thought, and then, perhaps, additional questions, if you need to. A few minutes. One thing about the NRI is that we have the well-studded data, also, it’s over national, regional, and military, but it also has, kind of, themes, situations, with examples, you’ve had a civil engineering, bringing a, sort of, a different spin on It’s multiple countries, multiple groups coming together. And I think there’s a model. So the Arab IGF, CIDS IGF is not limited to national region. Now it is sort of, I think that’s also something that would not have been the case but they’re seeing that in the practice in which they’re using the same vehicle that the national regional, the youth service. I think for the first one, the youth is the practice really. So I’m not going to comment.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Do we have the table moderators recorded the comments and the input?

Gitanjali Sah: Yes, they’re ready, Shankar Tai. Should we start with Mani? Mani, over to you.

Meni Anastasiadou: Thank you, Gitanjali. I hope this is on. So we had a great conversation with our colleagues today. It’s a table that represents all stakeholder groups from youth to business, government, technical community. So the main themes that came out of the conversation is the importance of the achievement of achieving, the achievement of making sure that we brought in national regional IGFs into the conversation. We made sure that throughout the past 20 years, outcomes, tangible outcomes come out of the conversations that are happening at national level that can really inform and enable a co-creation of policies, keeping in mind the national priorities at the NRIs. Then also the youth dimension came up. Obviously we have over 50 youth initiatives that have been active over the years. And again, with concrete impact, both at national and international level. And another point that was also brought out is that the multi-stakeholder model was really an extraordinary achievement. It was not something that was expected to stand the test of time, but it really happened. And it really points to the fact that it’s really a model that works and can really support. It’s supported by the vibrant community behind it and can really be an important tool for digital policy and governance on that front. Obviously the baseline of the multi-stakeholder model enabling an equal footing conversation. So all stakeholders around the table being able to share their ideas and best practices. That was not here 20 years ago, and that was able to happen. Since then, obviously more on the technical side of things, also through the multi-stakeholder model, we were able to enable a meaningful connectivity with over 94% of the world’s population who are currently connected. Obviously there’s still work to be done, but that’s also again pointing to the fact of how important this multi-stakeholder model is working and the achievements that it can reach. The Netmundial. stakeholder, multi-stakeholder guidelines that were adopted, that stakeholders supported last year, also are a critical tool that was achieved because it really explains why the multi-stakeholder model is important, how it works and how it should be implemented. So, and how the IGF and overall has been a safe space of thinking and testing, let’s say, best practices and policy approaches.

Gitanjali Sah: So, I’ll stop it here. Thank you. Thank you, Manny. We’ll go to the end. Back here, Renata, are you ready? Yeah, we are kind of discussing that

Renata Figueiredo Santoyo: how easy this was very important and we can see the difference from the beginning when we didn’t have so many people talking to each other or all this network created and this made a huge difference nowadays. And also, other communities can come and present their own initiatives. That’s very, very valued. And also about the multi-stakeholder, the inclusivity, transparency and the possibility about building solutions. And it’s easier to manage some problems sometimes. And about the internet architecture, it’s also something that can benefit from it, especially for the global South. And I think we’re always talking about the created strong links between achieve SDGs and facilitate the most facilitated with the multi-stakeholder process. I think that’s it. And who do I give this one to? Hi. So, we share a lot of the insights from the other colleagues. So, I will just reiterate that we believe that it’s a strong voice for bringing multi-stakeholders together. And I will, and there has been a lot of achievement. Obviously, there needs to be, we believe that there needs to be more participation in terms of youth and industry, so private sector. And another thing that would be really impactful is if these dynamic coalitions and the different voices within, for example, the IGF work together. So there is, for example, a group within the IGF that can actually organize and coordinate between the different dynamic coalitions to provide more integration so that they can work together as opposed to in silos, because I know there is duplication, and then to highlight the achievements of the different coalitions. Did I cover everything?

Gitanjali Sah: Okay, thank you. That was good. Any? Thanks, Jungita.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Our group has people from regulators, from the tech community, from civil society, members of parliament, government, international organizations, big tech, and smaller civil society organizations as well. We talked about the value of the multi-stakeholder approach in three areas, policy and regulation, problems and solutions, understanding them and responding to them, and inclusion and diversity. And then we also had one sort of caution that I will say at the end. In terms of policy and regulatory processes, the example of the ANA transition was also mentioned here, because it’s a very specific problem that different people had different concerns with. But through the multi-stakeholder approach, a solution was developed which has worked quite well, and we hope it will continue to work in the current context. But it was a multi-stakeholder approach that helped that very political problem find a solution. We talked about policy and regulation more generally as well. If you’re a regulator or a policymaker, using the multi-stakeholder approach enables you to anticipate how will this policy and regulation affect different operators, constituencies, constituencies. consumers, communities, and you can probably, if you use it well, come up with a policy or regulatory instrument that’s more likely to be trusted and complied with. And where there’s not going to be compliance, you’ll also have a better understanding about how to anticipate that and deal with that. We talked about solutions and problems, that the multi-stakeholder approach, this sometimes gives you unexpected views of what those problems are and how to come up with solutions to them that you’re not going to come up with if you just approach that in your own sort of stakeholder group. And then inclusion and diversity, that it’s a constant thing, you have to invest in it continuously. And we looked at, for example, how governments and international organizations discovered that people that are neurodiverse have very specific issues and needs and contributions that they can make to the space. And if they were not identified as a particular stakeholder group that has relevant voices, that would not have happened. And then the caution was really, we should use these processes, but not as echo chambers, not just home in and listen to the people that agree with you already. Use these processes actually to get different voices and unexpected and sometimes opposing views.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you, Adriette. Thank you. That’s me. Yes. Okay. Thanks. You’re welcome. Okay.

Gitanjali Sah: So we had a table with a lot of diverse standpoints and participants from diverse locations. I think the most important framing comment was really about how multistakeholderism is work in progress. It’s a question that continues to be discussed in bodies like ICANN, which basically means that you have really the vision and the practice of multistakeholderism continues. And the second is that it’s extremely useful, particularly for instance, the example of governments who really should listen to the people, since technology might have impacts that might not necessarily be always positive. So in that sense to be able to have your eyes and ears open. The second is that the success of multi-stakeholderism in the particular context of the WSIS and even outside of the context of internet policy, both were discussed. So in the context of information society and internet related issues, an example was brought forth, which is about the way in which the treaty negotiation on cyber crimes last year is really, was able to follow the model and incorporated the precedent that was set through the WSIS. Similarly, also experiences in sustainable development policies. So there is a migration from internet policies to other issues. Of course, multilateral negotiations cannot always be treated as completely transparent and multi-stakeholder, and that’s another issue that’s work in progress. It was also discussed that the wonderful ripple effects of multi-stakeholderism perhaps is in the fact that there is a benchmark at the national level. And it was pointed out that these ripple effects are bringing more voices at the national and regional IGFs. A special contribution that came from our table was with respect to the sharing of best practices, the sharing of opportunities, best practices in the context of gender equality and women’s rights. And so we heard from people at the table, which was also about the specific example of Girls ICT Day, which is celebrated with a lot of enthusiasm at the grassroots. And that kind of setting a benchmark on that has really helped galvanize participation from governments to civil society to other actors to celebrate the same. finished the points, yes, finally. It was pointed out that perhaps, and this is, I would say, a point for contemplation from, you know, well, that’s my addition to this, but it is indeed interesting that when you actually have stakeholders outside and a particular type of stakeholder sitting inside the room and negotiating, there’s a risk that protests and dissent may be weaponized, and maybe it’s therefore nice for, rather than have demonstrations outside the room, for all stakeholders to be inside the room so you avoid violence. But well, that is food for thought. I’ll leave that with you.

Participant: Thank you very much. And our last moderator. Can you hear me? Yeah, okay. I would like first to say that when I came here, I was not ready to be a table moderator. I don’t know how I ended up here, but saying that, I should start, all of us convened on the fact that the simple existence of multi-stakeholderism itself is a big achievement, you know? It helps you with the agenda setting. It helps you identify the problem and then get to it. And it allies different parts of the society for a greater cause. But, and there’s a big but, I know the question is about achievements, but I would like to, if I’d said that, during the time that 11 minutes, I think nine minutes were for the downsides, the first thing that came up is that the private sector is not as implicated as it should be. And also the governments. Me, myself, I come from an NGO from Romania. That’s my personal background. And it’s hard. It’s not that easy. It exists on paper, but the communication is not so present. The last downside is that you look around, the global south is not mentioned enough in this multi-stakeholderism thing. OK. Not to say that it shouldn’t exist, as I already mentioned, but there’s a lot of work remaining to do. That’s it.

Chengetai Masango: OK, thank you very much. Now we’re going to go to the next question. How can stakeholders be better engaged in the implementation of digital for development? So feel free to swap moderators, if you want, along the table. But you have 11 minutes, and if you have any questions, please just approach us.

Gitanjali Sah: These ideas will really help us, also in the planning of the IGF and the WSIS Forum. How can we better engage? That table mentioned that they did not see too much private sector here. What could we do to do that? Is it awareness? Is it a targeted approach, like inviting them to the high-level track, which we always do? But what do we do? So please help us. Yes, I think, unfortunately, there were people already in this room, and they ate and left. So I don’t know how to control that. Bad behavior. Yeah, I know. Yes.

Chengetai Masango: Does somebody want a vegetarian? And there’s a chicken. Is that the chicken? Thank you guys. Sharing of scarce resources.

Audience: Sharing is caring. Sharing of scarce resources. Thank you for the session. Guys, can you please include the people? Yes. Widen the circle. Great. That’s what I thought. Yes. My head is on my head. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Also, for which one is very close? Is there a possibility of a video room? Or GPS? Yeah, yeah, of course. Yes, of course, but the information is not very clear. … … … … … … … … … … … Two minutes left, two minutes. … … … … … … … … … … Oh, my God, he’s backstage. Thirty seconds. We’re getting ready.

Gitanjali Sah: So, Shengen Tai is done. And time’s up, colleagues. We have one more question to tackle. So we’d like you to stop now and hand over the mic to the table moderators. So let’s start with you, the first this time. No pressure. And those of you who are wondering, yes, we are having fun with the bell.

Participant: The first thing that came up on our table, and I think it’s an obvious thing, but not so easy to do as it sounds, is have more funds. But we’re having more funds and with the global situation right now. So it is not as easy as it seems. Another thing that came up on our table is that the private sector oftentimes does not know that they have this power about multistakeholderism. You could have awareness-raising campaigns, but not making more of the business case. Because it’s a well-known thing that if you have more representation of everyone in the society, you also make more money. Another thing would be strengthening the already existing IGFs, because we had an example here at our table. In some parts, yes, there are functioning and well-organized IGFs. And you could make those up. You could give them more power, more strength. OK. Another thing is that maybe the ideas, the work, is being done from a level that is way too high. Oftentimes, you cannot know about every problem from a little village somewhere. You have to work with organizations that know how the ground level works in order to have more driven problems and solutions. And the last thing would be that although this process is very important and it has high importance, it maybe should not take so long. Of course, it does need to be well-verified. But we could maybe have more pathways to shorten that process for a bit. That would be our ideas.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much. Very good ideas coming out from this table. Funds. Also cross-sectoral collaboration, those of you. you who are participating in other UN processes should bring back what you heard there into these conversations as well. Anita, over to you.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thanks. So suggestions at the international level, as well as national to local. So I will start with the international, where the need for funding, especially for the Global South, was iterated. Also, a question was raised by more than one of my colleagues here about the incentive to participate. And for each constituency or each stakeholder, how do those incentives really become evident? So for instance, we could ask the question, how do big players, for instance, ministerial-level delegates or representatives from big tech, how do these representatives come, and with capital letters, listen? Because to get them to listen is a very, very important part of multistakeholderism, just like it was mentioned earlier, that we should really not operate in echo chambers, but be able to listen. So the third one, the third point at the international level was that opportunities going forward, because we’re really crystallizing gains in international public policy, could we think about human rights impact assessments in these venues? What is the possibility for having actual feedback, like I would say, like a town hall, feedback from the public? And that would really mean that we are getting outside of the echo chambers and looking at issues collectively. In respect of incentives to participate, it was also mentioned that very often it’s not even clear to political representatives and delegates why they need to participate. So, and why is it in their interest to participate? And this is really where the rubber hits the road. At the level of the, maybe the nation or at the sub-national levels, I think there were a few suggestions. One is that it’s really important to engage with consumers, empower community leaders, so that they can champion digital policy issues and that can have cascading impact. A very concrete idea, and I think this is very important for the future, is the engagement of the older generation. Because it’s not only the digital divide that they are being confronted with, because they’re on the wrong side of the divide, but also the development divide. And the weak representation of the digital with consumer associations is another thing. And a cross-cutting issue was also that the new generation should be involved. I know at some occasions you will be thrown into the deep end, but with due sympathies. But the final thing I think is something that we really need to pay attention to. Which is that in all of these discussions, we shouldn’t reach the lowest common denominator. Because discussions may be pushed by very powerful interests in the room without taking a step back and evaluating the negative implications and impacts of digital for development. And we might all be endorsing hyper-optimistic readings of technology without looking at the inequality, and the policy discourse could slip into the lowest common denominator if we really don’t take stock.

Participant: Hello, my name is Dana Kramer from Canada, new moderator. Our table had a very diverse discussion, but it really started with that we actually found a question to be a bit confusing, because it started with an assumption that stakeholders are already engaged. And so our table discussion really focused on. some of the drawbacks, and I know you probably wanted more optimistic answers, but we did also find solutions too, so we are a solutions-oriented group. We did identify that there is a need for better streamlined ways for onboarding new members, and a solution for that could be a toolkit, but also relatedly, needing to show that there’s value proposition for diverse stakeholders to participate. For example, in the private sector, as well as to maybe smaller civil society organizations who are working on digital for development. One solution that one member provided was creating an environment where one’s reputation for not attending suddenly becomes unacceptable, as well that attendance in any capacity, either online, virtually, or in person, of having the financial means is very important. Regarding that financial means, however, there were lots of comments about funding, and the need for equitable participation processes do have a dollar sign in front of them. And so we need to provide meaningful funding, and that the NRI specifically for their intersessional work also need such aid. Finally, our table noted a need to make sure that work is multi-stakeholder, and does not become siloed, or for some, like youth, for instance, become tokenized representatives and actually have meaningful participation as stakeholders in this space. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: We do have remote participation as well, so if the production colleague could let us know in case there are any hands out there, do let us know, or comments, we’ll continue, but do let us know if there are any remote participants who want to speak. Thanks. Shanketa, am I next? Yes. Was it Manny going first?

Meni Anastasiadou: So I think echoing what the colleagues at the previous table have identified, we also see that it’s important to have a clear value proposition into the engagements of, well, what do stakeholders get out of their, for example, participation at discussions that are covering digital for development. At the Internet Governance Forum, we need to make sure that we communicate what stakeholders are getting out of their participation effectively, and also, at the same time, making sure that we communicate the outcomes in a way that reach where the decisions are being made, so at national level. We identified the disconnect of discussions happening at a global level, at a national level, and again, pointing to the role of the NRIs and supporting this to reach the audience it needs to reach, and perhaps also seeing the IGF as a canary in a coal mine type of framework that can identify, you know, some critical issues that are happening and before they reach the kind of global layers of engagement, they can actually be addressed locally and effectively. And then we also saw, you know, identified again tools like the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines as an important means to show how stakeholders can be engaged with such processes and how can they really bring their best into the discussions. And really making sure that we stop sometimes the discussions becoming a bit of an echo chamber and rather making sure that we onboard more stakeholders, more participants into the conversation. So I’ll stop at that and echoing the discussions from the previous table as well.

Anriette Esterhuysen: And thanks very much and congrats to that table. So this table came up with six headings at this time around. First, access to information and good communication. If you don’t know about a process, you’re never going to participate in it. You need to understand what it’s about, where it’s taking place, who’s running it, etc. So access to information is essential and it has to take linguistic diversity into account, location, context, etc. Secondly, meaningful access to the process. Do people have the time to actually participate in it? Have they the resources to travel? Or if they’re participating virtually, can they afford the data? Do they have the physical space from which they can participate? Do they have the skills and maybe the confidence to participate effectively in a process like that? Time is a big thing. Access to electricity for some people might be a real, if you have to be in a meeting for a long time, and generally the capacity and skills. Thirdly, planning, goal-setting and expectation-making. management, how do you structure the process, what can people expect to get out of it or not get out of it, what are the roles and responsibilities of the different participants in the process, are there milestones or are they not? And fourthly, fair and effective moderation of the process. That starts with identifying the participants, are affected voices in the room, what power asymmetries are there in that process and how does the moderation process actually try and address that? And very important, the table said, see participants in the process as partners, they’re not there as an audience, design the process in such a way that they feel they’re not just there to validate something or listen to something and then other people make the decision, they should be treated as empowered partners. And then the fifth element, feedback, follow-up and assessment, monitoring, learning, evaluation. If you do a process, go back, tell people why you didn’t like what they proposed or tell them what actually came out of it. And then finally, food. And that’s partly because we had a lunch shortage at our food, make sure that people in the process are comfortable, physically comfortable, well fed and hydrated and you’ll get better results out of it.

Participant: Stable, high five. That’s true. You’re doing, you’re doing fine, yeah. We vote, we vote. Just the last one. Just to add the ideas for the other groups, we talked a lot about capacity building, that’s very important to make people more engaged and always the need to explain to all the different stakeholders why they need to come to the table. And also about the inclusive policies that needs to speak better with the digital development and other stakeholders needs, even if they are on the table, they need to speak the same language. So that’s important. And pushing big organizations to people know what is, who is this. because sometimes we have a group that know what it is, but a lot of things doesn’t know yet what WSIS is exactly. Engagement and different levels. Sometimes delegations are 90% of government, and numbers don’t really speak the reality that it’s been showing here. Connect to people, very important. Timeline is also important. About the IJF outcomes, we are talking about not only the outcomes for high level, but all different levels. Also, practical approaches in national and regional levels also. The more industry involved, we also are talking about that. Sometimes we have some concerns about that, but we think the trade-off is positive in the end. So we need to, of course, have all the actors on the table. And I think in the process should bring more concrete decisions also. I think summarizing just is it.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you. Thank you very much. We’ll move on to our third question. Pratik, if you can. So we’ve completed 20 years of WSIS. The UNGA will have an outcome of what the WSIS should look like beyond 2025. So what are your concrete suggestions on how the multi-stakeholder model can be strengthened in the vision of WSIS beyond 2025? What should the UNGA overall review document have regarding multi-stakeholderism? You have 11 minutes. Shengentai, are you timing?

Chengetai Masango: Yes, I am.

Audience: I think we’re going to need better coordination, because I think from our point of view, there are too many processes. Now you’ve got the Summit of the Future, the Global Compact. Then you’ve got the AI stream. You’ve got the non-technical. They did already, but maybe we increase it. And so there needs to be a coherent path forward where you’re bringing together all these different groups. Because it’s time-consuming and it’s costly. Yeah, there needs to be a lot of communication. So there needs to be a more coherent path and easier to work with. Yes, I think it’s necessary. Everyday grassroots people need to be brought in. I think we’re in a more difficult position, because the city is the next. I would say so. It’s not the city, it’s the land. I’m just… I have a few things to say. First of all, I think it’s good that we’ve got a university that’s standing here, funding. I’ve got one. It’s good for the city. It’s good for all. But there are times when you’re paying a lot of money. So it’s good for everybody. And so I’m not giving you a hand up. I think it’s good for everybody. I think it’s good for the city. I think it’s good for everybody. If I can just add one thing, sorry to interrupt. I heard the special rapporteur on development speak on financing for development. And he made some very powerful statements about, we’re all accepting development. Which model of development are we talking about? Whose interests? Who’s gonna benefit? Who’s gonna lose out? So we’re using terms that we’re assuming we all understand. But no, there’s a lot of work to unpack. What do we mean by development? What type of development are we looking for? People-centered, human-centric, all those things. Sorry. I’ve been talking about how can multi-stakeholder model be strengthened. One of the outcomes of the Nethundia Club’s 10 sessions was about the guidelines. It has principles or a checklist which helps to see not only how multi-stakeholder processes can be more inclusive. For example, capacity building and others were saying, not everyone is in line because every day something is happening. How you can build processes, how each stakeholder can be made more accountable, et cetera. Similarly for multilateral processes like visits, et cetera, or any of them, there are checklists how multilateral processes also can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder. Having said that, yes. Now that you are fed, you can have a lot of ideas. He’s fed. But now he wants to sleep. Yeah. Now the hunger is gone. I’m half the participant I was. From the UK side, we would like to see the IGF be permanent. Basically every time the renegotiation comes up, it’s about extending it. Yeah, every five. So we would like that to be the case. We would also like more formal recognition of the international IGF as well. That’s not specifically mentioned in the text. So those are the two concrete things that we’re saying. But I think that’s a more structural point rather than a thematic. In terms of these processes, we are focused a lot more on the people’s interests. What does it mean? So when we’re talking about informal, like we’re talking about- Not yet. Not yet. Maybe he has to introduce himself. Hi, I’m Tim. I’m working at the Office of the High Commissioner of International Relations. We are the OTHR, the High Commissioner of Asia. I know that they don’t have all those lines to the different development sectors. So if you look at the WSIS, the WSIS has always been people-centric. So I add to the WSIS concept with the action. Thanks for the kind words. You did well also. I know, I’m like, ah. To have so much confidence, yes. But I didn’t want to cheat this time. But to ensure that it remains people-centric. We did it. The implementation of the monitors. I remember a better name when I see one. Yeah, yeah. I was going to say, all that kind of stuff, I’m okay. I’ve got a meeting tomorrow with the East Office. And maybe to add to that. I mean, yeah, that’s right. That’s right. Yeah, I don’t quite know. Because the development response maybe is post private reputation. But I think people need to know that the sector is still overwhelmed and might have several other challenges. For instance, don’t know if it will be key to what the next level. But if I understand your first question, these models are so much better for users in terms of pre-hosting and trusting. So basically to show that it’s actually something that a really good solution is to generate the development response. I can explain the narrative of what do you want to do and where do you think it works. So basically highlighting those and how it works for you. I think it’s actually a good concept, you see? Because all these things are actually in the same line of thought. People are interested and there are other things that they have to do every single day. Exactly, so people want to make it for themselves and what is the value of that? And what’s the capability of that? So why not? We have such a small envelope. We love this, no, oh. $1,300, he said to me, we have $3,000 of trust because we’re going to count on and paint cell. So one of my motors. I already have, we already have three. Do we have two courses? It had already happened, my partner with my brother’s, just remodels it in my laboratory. So that raises $1,300 start as a train station chart and we are planning it to how they pay and the others, as it has always fabricated start on parent-teacher governance. I think the problem is that because the previous start might be a way forward solution that so thick funding is a target goal to do. The decisions are made not the manager. A decision by the financial doesn’t look at yet anmelding the process and this is why I was, I mean, some of us will have to already pay for the to be monitored if the private sector for the region is going to pay and so on and so on and so on but the other part of the monitoring of the question is having that that that as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a as a certain as a as a as a as a certain as a as a as a as a as a as a as an as as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an the as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an as an three minutes. Thank you very much. Not only about different kind of stakeholders, because of course you have the private, the government, the organization, and they have different views, of course, and we have to work on the common views, and to also analyze the different views, and to get them to, you know, to have a communication, at least a communication about that. But we have also to deal with all the fighting against digitalization, because we are working on the positive digitalization, but it’s something which is also for the population can be real, right? Yes. Yes, together on the table also, because otherwise you go and you push everybody, but if you don’t analyze their fears, or their lack of information also, or fake information, it’s important also.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. The time is up. I hope you had good discussions and I hope you’re gonna tell us things that can go into the document, right?

Gitanjali Sah: Yes, and a call for action at the end. Yes. Over to you, Mani.

Meni Anastasiadou: Thank you, Tanjali. So for us, the main ideas that came through was the importance again of the local national network that is supporting the discussions, that is also engaged in the multi-stakeholder discussions. They need to understand, they need to make, to be a part of the, they need to be positioned in a way that they can engage with the outcomes and so we have to make sure that those are focused and action-oriented. There’s a lot of talk that is happening, obviously at global levels, but we should make sure that we actually walk the talk. Walk the talk, that’s the way, I think. Sorry, my brain. So the way we can do it is through actionable outcomes. The existing WSIS architecture is a very important tool to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model, but at the same time, we need to be agile, we need to be focused, we need to be coordinated and to do that, we should not only implement it as we are looking into the WSIS Post-Brand New Review, but also we should make sure to implement this as part of the WSIS Plus 20 outcomes. We have seen the role of the UN, a group of the Information Society, support is already taking an important role in supporting this coordination, but we should see how the entire, let’s say architecture can evolve to stay agile, to stay coordinated. Obviously, the colleagues also mentioned the importance of strengthening the IGF, ensuring that it can support the participation of more global South and underrepresented communities. And again, going back to the need to just be actionable and give a clear direction on how the discussions that are happening at a global level can really trickle down and influence. national policy approaches and how then local stakeholders can be a part of implementing those. We are talking a lot about the need of better coordination between the different process because I think it’s a common ground that’s very time consuming, a lot of duplication, which model of development we are talking about exactly, it’s something very important to define and which one we are looking for. We also talked about the outcomes for 9th Mundial plus 10 and also the principles that can be very useful for this process and to strengthen the process of the WSIS beyond 2025. And all this process needs also to be simplified, maybe summarized and each one needs to have their own utilities and also the needs to be, which one is the government duty or the mood stakeholder duty and which one is exactly the box that they belong to, to make them better. And also what mood stakeholder means and about people, development, we need to focus on what we want, sometimes more education, focus on people, people-centric as WSIS is a fundamental. About resources, attraction is also essential, we’re also talking about that. Also the process should be inclusive in terms of reporting, WSIS is reporting, but in terms of language, maybe sometimes need to be more articulated to achieve the right publics because we have a different process here, it’s kind of a standalone and something different from other kinds of process that we are used and we were doing. So the need of coordination, fulfill the specificities, the set excellence from each group, it’s impossible to bring everybody or the whole world to the table, so we need to really identify who can bring the voice and the best. And I know that sometimes it’s a, maybe it seems a soundless discussion place, but we kind of, we believe that if we kind of can arrange and simplify the process, avoiding duplication can be better and can achieve better results.

Participant: Thank you. So our table had a very dynamic conversation that built on such a wonderful group throughout the entire session. And one of the key things that has been a common thread for us, and especially for this question was that funding is key for strengthening multi-stakeholder model. It is vital for limiting and eliminating power asymmetries that do exist and can also form and be reinforced in different contexts. This can be strengthened, in terms of funding, it can be strengthened by greater communications, collaborations and partnerships. Secondly, our group discussed that multi-stakeholderism is only as accessible as expanding its stakeholder access in that base. There are solutions that we had identified, which are for greater onboarding, virtual participation and recognizing that not everyone has access to the ability to come to global events. And so therefore we need to make a virtual first environment. And also to just really reinforcing the value proposition of multi-stakeholder collaboration and ensuring that stakeholders recognize it as a strength for their own organizations and how they conduct their own work in their individual stakeholder identity. We also discussed strengthening intersessional work that will strengthen multi-stakeholderism and that working at local levels will allow for greater global discussions in hitting specific outcomes and objectives. Finally, we noted that when thinking of governance of digital broadly, such as through the elements paper, there is a need to have strengths of the last 20 years in multi-stakeholderism also applied to all new digital governance, and really reinforcing what the successes have been. And that also includes as well, sorry, let me go back to my notes, that different environments will have different multi-stakeholder models. It’s not a singular, but a plurality. And that by constantly looking at the environment which multi-stakeholderism is part of, we can then look at how to strengthen each one of these spaces and each one of these governance environments. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Okay. So we started with reaffirming the Geneva and Tunis declarations in terms of the rights, duties, obligations. I thought, you said okay? Yeah, okay. Yes, the rights, duties, obligations of all stakeholders. And therefore, I think to understand this as something that’s already been enshrined in these two documents, which led us also to reflect upon how do we strengthen it if we really don’t know what it stands for? Is it amorphous? Should it be defined? Because if it is, then we need to look at what’s being achieved, where have stakeholders actually worked together to find a positive solution? Where has it not worked? So even to understand the goalpost, we will really need to look at perhaps as the previous group said, what is the stakeholder model or multi-stakeholder model for a specific public policy issue? And then in relation to that, to take stock. This led us to contemplate upon meaningful participation. And we said that oftentimes it’s unclear. You’re meeting so many people here, maybe from your own government, from your own country, but it’s not clear how you can identify them, how you can approach them, how you can follow up at the national level. So what this actually means is you may have government reps in the same room with civil society and the tech community, but we’re really not necessarily focused on the same goal with respect to action and implementation. And to impute a question on top of this, I would like to ask, for instance, are we guilty of a birds of a feather approach, even in the multi-stakeholderism? We are not meeting the kinds of people that ought to be listening to us. Then we went on to discuss that it might be useful to ask what stakeholders could do to accelerate action. So surfacing clearly how different forums, because the space is growing by the day and public policy issues in relation to digital are multiplying. So what is the work that remains to be done and can we really surface that clearly so we can accelerate action? A very important caveat and a point of caution that came from the table is it’s not only interests that count, we have to have a rights orientation. So we really, and perhaps need to use the vision that is the essence of the Geneva Antionist documents and really not only focus on interests, but focus on rights and that vision. And finally, how do stakeholders know they are stakeholders? So the question of the need for capacity, but also transparency. And transparency in relation to a range of things, travel opportunities, the criteria, so that, and some of us struggled at the table to say. you know, how do real people come here? I mean, we’re all real people, but genuine organizations in some sense, which may not meet the criteria that may be, which may even be informal, invisible barriers, you know, in the process. So what is really important to answer this question is to have feedback from those who are often not heard, but deeply impacted by the way the digital world affects their destinies. Thanks.

Participant: Thank you. Reoccurring theme, if you want to strengthen the multi-stakeholderism we already have, is to strengthen the means that do it already. You have the IGFs, we have to not let go of them, support them, give them more funding, facilitate their collaboration with NRIs and their expansion. Maybe they collaborate with people, they go to new regions. Another thing, as you can see, we have some youth at our table. Oftentimes, when we talk about youth collaboration, it’s just that you put the youth at the table, you say, ah, here we have youth. Youth actually needs to have a voice, to have a power, a say in the decision that is taking place. Another thing with multi-stakeholderism, if you want everyone to be able to participate, everyone needs to be able to understand. You go on the WSIS website, you read for one hour. An average Joe needs to read for five minutes and say, oh, OK, I get this. So he can participate. He can be a multi-stakeholder. Another thing that came up, all the discussions that are taking place are taking place in English. Not everyone speaks English. You need to have the discussions. in the languages of the people, so they understand. The last thing, and an example that I really loved, we are at WSDIS, right? This is the only room with roundtables where everyone can speak. For the rest of the rooms, you have panels, 40 minutes, someone speaks to three people, and three questions at the end. And we talk about multistakeholderism. We need more roundtables. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: I think we should stop there. That was such a good ending.

Anriette Esterhuysen: As this table felt that actually some of our previous comments also contributed, you know, the codifying of the process. But what we started off with, we need to, the processes need to be framed. They really do need to be public interest oriented and human rights. And the benefit that we want to get out of digital has to be at the forefront, the WSIS vision. We also, again, emphasize expectation management, make it clear what the process is about. Then formats, principles, methodology, and guidelines. I think to make these processes, to strengthen them, we have to invest in that and learn from how we apply them. We feel there’s a need for more consistency in formats for multistakeholder participation in different contexts, different multilateral institutions. The ITU has a different way from UNESCO, from UNDP, from the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, or the Human Rights Council. But still recognize that these processes are different. The participation can’t be uniform, but more consistency would make it easier for us. Look at, again, how to structure inclusion of youth voices, of the voices of marginalized communities. Not by creating parallel tracks, but, for example, a day before the main event. And then they participate in the main event, but also give them some space, as long as it’s not at the expense of their participation in the main event. We thought the Net Montreal Guidelines, the Sao Paulo Guidelines are very useful in this process of principles and codification. IGF, we felt there has to be a permanent mandate for the IGF. It’s hard for a process to evolve if it’s insecure, if it doesn’t have predictability. And formal recognition of the NRIs, the same thing. They need to be strengthened, but if they don’t have that formal recognition, it’s much harder to invest in that strengthening. We felt there’s also a need for collaboration between UN agencies and. and different UN forums and also that this idea of the multilateral and the multistakeholder process and how they reinforce one another and relate to one another has to be built into future multistakeholder participation. How can we use the multistakeholder model to strengthen multilateral processes, but how can multistakeholder processes use multilateral decision-making process of governments to make decisions that they feel are more representative of multistakeholder input? Participation and power, we thought that’s very important. Bring more private sector into the process. There are not many private sector speakers here, but also avoid capture and frame and design the processes so that divergent views and difficult conversations can be accommodated. Practical stuff also affects participation and power in how you participate. Visas, access to funding for travel and global self-participation remains a challenge when most of the events are held in the global north. I think I’ve got consistency, I’ve got already, and again I think always clarify is this decision shaping or decision making. Sorry I’m repeating myself a little bit. And then finally we also emphasize celebrating and enjoying these processes. Look at them actually as a way of being energized and being together even if we don’t agree about everything. And to quote the technical community next to me, they provide food for thought and food for action. And food if you’re lucky, for eating.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Andrietta. I think we’ve covered all the tables, have we? Yes, we have. Thank you very much for this discussion. It was great. We’ll invite the table moderators to send us the summaries. I will create an overall summary and put it in the chairs summary. So I just had a question, how many of you have been to the WSIS forum before? How many haven’t been to the WSIS forum before? So this is amazing. This is also a great victory for us because we have so many, the room is half and half and this is what I observed when I entered the room that we have so many new people who have joined the process. So this is, I think, a great achievement. Just for all of you to know, the agenda and the program of the WSIS forum is built through an open consultative process. So there is an online form for the newcomers. You must put in all your suggestions there. And the program and the agenda is built through this process. So it’s quite a long process of around four to five months. So you must log on to our website, WSIS.org slash forum, and keep track of what’s going on. Shengetai, do you want to add a bit about the IGF’s process for contribution? How can stakeholders contribute?

Chengetai Masango: Just keep track of the IGF website and some of you, and I do encourage all of you, I know some of you are on it, but we do have a distribution list which you can sign on to and you’ll be informed about all the IGF activities and also for the call for input. And yes.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Shengetai. We also have a WSIS Flash. It’s a monthly newsletter. So those of you who haven’t subscribed to it, just Google WSIS Flash and put in your email addresses so that you get this monthly update from our side as well. So thank you very much. A big round of applause for the table moderators. Thank you so much for helping us today. And let’s continue. We are just on Wednesday. Half day of Wednesday, we have Thursday and Friday. Yes, exactly. Thank you very much. Thank you, Shankar. Thank you all. Thank you. My bag. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder model has achieved significant success and should be strengthened

Speakers

– Meni Anastasiadou
– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model was an extraordinary achievement that wasn’t expected to survive but has stood the test of time

Simple existence of multi-stakeholderism helps with agenda setting and problem identification

Multi-stakeholder approach enables anticipation of policy impacts on different constituencies and creates more trusted regulations

Summary

All speakers agree that the multi-stakeholder model has proven its value over 20 years and represents a significant achievement in governance, despite initial skepticism about its viability

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Need for permanent IGF mandate and formal recognition of NRIs

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

IGF should have permanent mandate rather than periodic renewals

Formal recognition needed for National and Regional IGFs (NRIs)

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of providing institutional stability through permanent mandates and formal recognition to enable effective long-term development

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Funding is crucial for meaningful participation

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Need for more funding and awareness-raising campaigns to show business case for participation

Address visa and travel funding challenges that limit global participation

Summary

Multiple speakers identify funding as a fundamental barrier to inclusive participation, particularly affecting Global South representation

Topics

Development | Human rights

Youth engagement needs to be meaningful, not tokenistic

Speakers

– Meni Anastasiadou
– Participant

Arguments

Youth engagement has exploded in the last 10 years with concrete impact at global and national levels

Youth needs actual voice and power in decisions, not just token representation

Summary

Speakers agree that while youth participation has increased significantly, it must involve real decision-making power rather than symbolic inclusion

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Processes need better coordination and simplification

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Need for better coordination between multiple processes to avoid duplication and reduce costs

Need for more consistency in formats across different UN institutions while recognizing context differences

Summary

Both speakers recognize that current governance processes are fragmented and overly complex, requiring better coordination and standardization

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the need for better support systems to help new participants understand and engage effectively in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Renata Figueiredo Santoyo

Arguments

Need for better streamlined onboarding processes for new members

Ensure meaningful access through addressing time, resources, skills, and capacity barriers

Provide capacity building and clear communication about why stakeholders need to participate

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers are concerned about inclusivity and the risk of processes becoming insular, emphasizing the need for genuine diversity in participation

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Risk of discussions becoming echo chambers rather than engaging diverse voices

Discussions should be accessible in multiple languages, not just English

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of maintaining the human-centered and rights-based foundation established in the original WSIS documents

Speakers

– Participant
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Processes must remain people-centric and human rights oriented as envisioned in WSIS

Reaffirm Geneva and Tunis declarations regarding rights, duties, and obligations of stakeholders

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technical community recognition as distinct stakeholder group

Speakers

– Participant

Arguments

Technical community was defined and given a voice as a stakeholder group for the first time

Explanation

The creation and formal recognition of the technical community as a distinct stakeholder category represents an unexpected institutional innovation that wasn’t anticipated before WSIS, giving infrastructure operators a formal voice in policy discussions

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

IGF as policy sandbox for emerging issues

Speakers

– Participant

Arguments

IGF serves as a safe space and sandbox for testing new ideas on emerging topics like AI and data governance

Explanation

The evolution of IGF into a testing ground for controversial policy topics before they become mainstream represents an unexpected but valuable function that wasn’t originally envisioned

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Migration of multi-stakeholder model to other policy areas

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach has migrated from internet policies to other issues like sustainable development

Explanation

The successful application of the multi-stakeholder model beyond internet governance to areas like sustainable development and cybercrime treaties represents an unexpected expansion of its influence

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among speakers that the multi-stakeholder model has been successful and should be strengthened, with particular agreement on the need for permanent institutional status, better funding, meaningful youth participation, and process simplification. Speakers also agree on practical improvements like better onboarding, capacity building, and addressing barriers to participation.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles and many practical improvements, with implications that the WSIS+20 review should focus on strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones. The consensus suggests broad stakeholder support for continuing and enhancing the multi-stakeholder approach beyond 2025.

Different viewpoints

Level of private sector and government engagement

Speakers

– Participant
– Meni Anastasiadou

Arguments

The private sector is not as implicated as it should be. And also the governments. It’s hard. It’s not that easy. It exists on paper, but the communication is not so present

Multi-stakeholder model was an extraordinary achievement that wasn’t expected to survive but has stood the test of time

Summary

One participant emphasized significant gaps in private sector and government participation, while another celebrated the model’s success and achievements over 20 years

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Approach to technology assessment in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Participant

Arguments

Avoid reaching lowest common denominator by evaluating negative implications of technology

Multi-stakeholder approach helped bridge the digital divide and connected billions of people to the internet

Summary

Gurumurthy warned against overly optimistic technology assessments that ignore inequality, while others emphasized positive achievements like connecting billions to the internet

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

Assessment of multi-stakeholder model success

Speakers

– Participant
– Meni Anastasiadou

Arguments

Global South is not mentioned enough in multi-stakeholder discussions

National and regional IGFs have created tangible outcomes and enabled co-creation of policies at national level

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement on the inclusivity and effectiveness of the model – one speaker highlighted exclusion of Global South while another celebrated achievements of national/regional processes that should theoretically address this gap

Topics

Development | Human rights

Youth participation effectiveness

Speakers

– Participant
– Meni Anastasiadou

Arguments

Youth needs actual voice and power in decisions, not just token representation

Youth engagement has exploded in the last 10 years with concrete impact at global and national levels

Explanation

Surprising disagreement on youth engagement quality – one celebrated dramatic increases and concrete impacts, while another criticized tokenism and lack of real decision-making power

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed moderate disagreements primarily around the effectiveness and inclusivity of current multi-stakeholder processes, with some speakers emphasizing achievements while others highlighted significant gaps in participation and representation

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with constructive tension – speakers generally supported the multi-stakeholder model but had different assessments of its current effectiveness and different priorities for improvement. The disagreements were more about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental opposition to the model itself.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the need for better support systems to help new participants understand and engage effectively in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Renata Figueiredo Santoyo

Arguments

Need for better streamlined onboarding processes for new members

Ensure meaningful access through addressing time, resources, skills, and capacity barriers

Provide capacity building and clear communication about why stakeholders need to participate

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers are concerned about inclusivity and the risk of processes becoming insular, emphasizing the need for genuine diversity in participation

Speakers

– Participant
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

Risk of discussions becoming echo chambers rather than engaging diverse voices

Discussions should be accessible in multiple languages, not just English

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of maintaining the human-centered and rights-based foundation established in the original WSIS documents

Speakers

– Participant
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Processes must remain people-centric and human rights oriented as envisioned in WSIS

Reaffirm Geneva and Tunis declarations regarding rights, duties, and obligations of stakeholders

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The multi-stakeholder model pioneered by WSIS has been an extraordinary achievement that has stood the test of time over 20 years, creating a framework where governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and technical community can collaborate

National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) have been particularly successful in creating tangible outcomes and enabling policy co-creation at the national level

The IGF serves as a valuable ‘sandbox’ or safe space for testing new ideas on emerging topics like AI, data governance, and cybersecurity before they become mainstream

Youth engagement has significantly expanded in the last 10 years with concrete impact at both global and national levels

The multi-stakeholder approach has successfully migrated from internet governance to other policy areas including sustainable development

Major challenges include insufficient private sector and government participation, underrepresentation of the Global South, funding constraints, and communication gaps between stakeholders

There is a disconnect between global discussions and national-level decision making that needs to be addressed

The process requires better coordination to avoid duplication across multiple UN processes and forums

Resolutions and action items

Table moderators to provide digital summaries of discussions to be included in the chair’s summary

Participants encouraged to contribute to WSIS Forum planning through the open consultative process on WSIS.org/forum

Stakeholders urged to subscribe to WSIS Flash monthly newsletter and IGF distribution list for updates

Community members encouraged to make their voices heard to the UN General Assembly regarding the usefulness of WSIS framework and IGF ahead of December 2024 review

Need to create toolkits for better onboarding of new stakeholders

Implement capacity building programs to help stakeholders understand their roles and value proposition

Develop clearer communication strategies to show business case for private sector participation

Unresolved issues

How to achieve meaningful private sector engagement beyond current levels

How to ensure adequate funding for Global South participation and NRI strengthening

How to balance the need for coordination across multiple UN processes while maintaining the unique value of each forum

How to define and measure ‘meaningful participation’ versus tokenistic representation, particularly for youth and marginalized communities

How to address power asymmetries in multi-stakeholder processes effectively

What specific model of development should be pursued – whose interests will be served and who might lose out

How to make processes accessible in multiple languages beyond English

How to ensure that multi-stakeholder discussions don’t become echo chambers

How to bridge the gap between global discussions and national-level implementation

Suggested compromises

Implement virtual-first environments to increase accessibility while maintaining in-person engagement opportunities

Create more consistency in multi-stakeholder formats across UN institutions while recognizing that different contexts require different approaches

Provide formal recognition for NRIs while allowing flexibility in their implementation at national levels

Establish permanent mandate for IGF while maintaining periodic review mechanisms

Balance the need for inclusive participation with practical constraints by creating tiered engagement opportunities

Combine traditional panel formats with more interactive roundtable discussions to accommodate different participation styles

Address linguistic barriers by providing translation services while recognizing resource constraints

Create separate capacity building sessions for marginalized groups while ensuring their full participation in main events

We should use these processes, but not as echo chambers, not just home in and listen to the people that agree with you already. Use these processes actually to get different voices and unexpected and sometimes opposing views.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of a fundamental challenge in multi-stakeholder processes – the tendency to create insular discussions among like-minded participants. It challenges the assumption that bringing stakeholders together automatically leads to meaningful dialogue and introduces the critical concept of actively seeking dissenting voices.

Impact

This observation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple tables later echoing concerns about echo chambers and the need for genuine diversity of perspectives. It shifted the conversation from celebrating multi-stakeholderism to critically examining its limitations and effectiveness.

Which model of development are we talking about? Whose interests? Who’s gonna benefit? Who’s gonna lose out? So we’re using terms that we’re assuming we all understand. But no, there’s a lot of work to unpack. What do we mean by development? What type of development are we looking for?

Speaker

Participant (referencing special rapporteur on development)

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the underlying assumptions of the entire discussion by questioning the very definition of ‘development.’ It introduces critical thinking about power dynamics and beneficiaries, moving beyond technical discussions to examine whose interests are being served.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from procedural questions about how to engage stakeholders to more fundamental questions about the purpose and direction of digital development initiatives. It introduced a more critical lens that influenced subsequent discussions about rights-based approaches versus interest-based approaches.

In all of these discussions, we shouldn’t reach the lowest common denominator. Because discussions may be pushed by very powerful interests in the room without taking a step back and evaluating the negative implications and impacts of digital for development. And we might all be endorsing hyper-optimistic readings of technology without looking at the inequality.

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This comment introduces a sophisticated critique of consensus-building processes, warning against the tendency to water down discussions to achieve agreement. It highlights how power imbalances can skew outcomes and challenges the often uncritical embrace of technology as inherently beneficial.

Impact

This observation added a layer of critical analysis to the discussion, encouraging participants to consider not just how to include more voices, but how to ensure that inclusion doesn’t lead to diluted or co-opted outcomes. It influenced later discussions about the need for rights-based rather than purely interest-based approaches.

How do real people come here? I mean, we’re all real people, but genuine organizations in some sense, which may not meet the criteria that may be, which may even be informal, invisible barriers, you know, in the process. So what is really important to answer this question is to have feedback from those who are often not heard, but deeply impacted by the way the digital world affects their destinies.

Speaker

May (table moderator)

Reason

This comment exposes the paradox of discussing inclusion while potentially excluding those most affected by digital policies. It challenges participants to confront the gap between their representative claims and actual representation, introducing the concept of ‘invisible barriers’ that may systematically exclude certain voices.

Impact

This observation prompted deeper reflection on the legitimacy and representativeness of multi-stakeholder processes. It influenced discussions about the need for more accessible participation mechanisms and challenged the assumption that current participants adequately represent broader constituencies.

You go on the WSIS website, you read for one hour. An average Joe needs to read for five minutes and say, oh, OK, I get this. So he can participate. He can be a multi-stakeholder.

Speaker

Claudia (from Romania)

Reason

This comment highlights a practical but fundamental barrier to participation – the complexity and inaccessibility of information about these processes. It connects abstract discussions about inclusion to concrete, actionable issues of communication and accessibility.

Impact

This observation grounded the discussion in practical realities and influenced subsequent conversations about the need for clearer communication, linguistic diversity, and more accessible formats. It helped shift focus from high-level principles to concrete implementation challenges.

This is the only room with roundtables where everyone can speak. For the rest of the rooms, you have panels, 40 minutes, someone speaks to three people, and three questions at the end. And we talk about multistakeholderism. We need more roundtables.

Speaker

Claudia (from Romania)

Reason

This comment provides a powerful critique by contrasting the format of this session with the broader conference structure. It exposes the contradiction between advocating for multi-stakeholder participation while maintaining traditional, hierarchical formats that limit actual participation.

Impact

This observation served as a concrete example of how structural choices can undermine stated commitments to inclusivity. It influenced the discussion’s conclusion and provided a clear, actionable recommendation that other participants could immediately understand and relate to their own experiences.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a celebratory review of multi-stakeholder achievements to a critical examination of its limitations and contradictions. The interventions introduced several important analytical frameworks: the distinction between procedural inclusion and substantive representation, the risk of consensus-building leading to lowest-common-denominator outcomes, and the gap between stated principles and actual practice. The comments created a more sophisticated dialogue that moved beyond technical questions of ‘how to include more stakeholders’ to deeper questions about power, representation, and the purpose of these processes. This critical lens influenced the entire trajectory of the discussion, leading to more nuanced recommendations and a more honest assessment of both achievements and shortcomings in multi-stakeholder governance.

How can we better engage private sector participation in multi-stakeholder processes?

Speaker

Multiple participants across tables

Explanation

Several tables noted the lack of private sector participation and suggested this needs to be addressed through awareness campaigns, making the business case, and showing value propositions for their engagement.

What specific funding mechanisms can be established to support Global South participation?

Speaker

Multiple participants across tables

Explanation

Funding was repeatedly identified as a barrier to meaningful participation, particularly for Global South stakeholders, but specific funding solutions need to be developed.

How can we create better coordination between different UN processes and forums to avoid duplication?

Speaker

Multiple participants

Explanation

Participants noted too many overlapping processes (Summit of the Future, Global Compact, AI streams) that are time-consuming and costly, requiring better coordination.

What does ‘development’ actually mean in the context of digital for development?

Speaker

Participant referencing special rapporteur on development

Explanation

A participant noted that terms like ‘development’ are used assuming common understanding, but there’s need to unpack whose interests are served and what type of development is being pursued.

How can we make multi-stakeholder processes more accessible through language diversity?

Speaker

Youth participant at table

Explanation

Participant noted that discussions primarily happen in English, excluding non-English speakers from meaningful participation.

How can we ensure youth have actual voice and power, not just tokenistic representation?

Speaker

Youth participants

Explanation

Multiple references were made to youth needing meaningful participation rather than just being placed at tables without real decision-making power.

What are the criteria and processes for travel funding and how can they be made more transparent?

Speaker

Participants discussing transparency

Explanation

Participants struggled to understand how ‘real people’ and genuine organizations can access these forums, suggesting invisible barriers in the process.

How can we better connect global discussions to national-level implementation?

Speaker

Multiple participants

Explanation

Several tables identified a disconnect between global discussions and national-level policy implementation, requiring better mechanisms to bridge this gap.

What specific mechanisms can ensure permanent mandate for IGF and formal recognition of NRIs?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen and other participants

Explanation

Participants emphasized the need for IGF to have permanent status rather than periodic renewals, and for National and Regional IGF Initiatives to have formal recognition.

How can we create more consistent formats for multi-stakeholder participation across different UN agencies?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen’s table

Explanation

Different UN agencies (ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, OHCHR) have different approaches to multi-stakeholder participation, making it difficult for stakeholders to navigate.