Revamping Decision-Making in Digital Governance and the WSIS Framework

Summary

This discussion focused on revamping decision-making in digital governance and the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework, examining gaps and opportunities in the global digital governance ecosystem. The panel, moderated by Renata Mielli from Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee, brought together experts from various organizations to address three key policy questions about updating WSIS action lines, identifying framework gaps, and improving multi-stakeholder approaches.

The speakers generally agreed that the WSIS action lines have stood the test of time due to their broad, technology-agnostic nature, allowing them to remain relevant for emerging technologies and issues. Timea Suto from the International Chamber of Commerce emphasized that rather than creating new action lines, the existing framework should be updated through the lens of new technologies while maintaining its technology-neutral approach. Several panelists highlighted the successful integration between WSIS action lines and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through a mapping matrix developed in 2015.

Regarding gaps in the WSIS framework, speakers identified coordination challenges between different components like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and WSIS Forum, though they noted these platforms serve complementary rather than competing roles. The discussion revealed that while WSIS processes are inclusive in participation, decision-making remains largely intergovernmental, falling short of true multi-stakeholder governance as outlined in the São Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines.

For improving the IGF, panelists called for establishing a permanent mandate, better funding mechanisms, enhanced coordination across platforms, and stronger connections between IGF outputs and policy implementation. The speakers emphasized that strengthening the entire WSIS ecosystem requires viewing it holistically rather than addressing individual components in isolation, with particular attention to ensuring meaningful participation from underrepresented communities and regions.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Updating WSIS Action Lines for Modern Challenges**: Speakers discussed how to refresh the 20-year-old WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) action lines to address emerging technologies and better integrate with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while maintaining their technology-agnostic approach that has allowed them to remain relevant over time.

– **Addressing Gaps in Digital Governance Framework**: The conversation focused on identifying and bridging gaps between different components of the WSIS framework, particularly between the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and WSIS Forum, and improving coordination to avoid duplication of efforts while leveraging complementary strengths.

– **Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Governance**: Participants examined whether current WSIS governance structures adequately follow multi-stakeholder principles, referencing the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines as a benchmark, and discussing how to move beyond tokenistic consultation toward meaningful participation in decision-making.

– **Improving IGF Implementation and Sustainability**: Discussion centered on enhancing the Internet Governance Forum’s ability to respond to implementation challenges, including establishing a permanent mandate, securing sustainable funding through blended mechanisms, and better connecting IGF outputs to actual policy-making processes.

– **Enhancing Coordination and Dialogue Across Platforms**: Speakers emphasized the need for better coordination between various digital governance platforms (IGF, WSIS Forum, Global Digital Compact processes) to ensure outcomes inform each other and create a more networked, responsive governance system.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to evaluate and improve the global digital governance ecosystem, particularly focusing on how to revamp decision-making processes within the WSIS framework after 20 years of operation. The session sought to identify gaps, opportunities, and concrete ways to enhance coordination between different governance platforms while strengthening multi-stakeholder participation and implementation of digital governance commitments.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with speakers building upon each other’s points rather than disagreeing. There was a shared sense of urgency about the need for improvements, but also appreciation for existing frameworks’ achievements. The tone was professional and solution-oriented, with participants offering specific, actionable recommendations. The atmosphere remained consistently positive and forward-looking, emphasizing opportunities for enhancement rather than dwelling on current shortcomings.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Renata Mielli** – Chair of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee CGI.br, Session moderator

– **Timea Suto** – Global Digital Policy Lead at the International Chamber of Commerce, participating online from Milan

– **Jimson Olufuye** – Principal Consultant for Contemporary Consulting, Chair of the advisory council of the Africa ICT alliance

– **Wout de Natris** – Representative of the Dynamic Coalition Internet Standards, Security and Safety of the IGF

– **Elena Plexida** – Vice President for Government and IGO Engagement of ICANN

– **Valeria Betancourt** – Manager of Advocacy and Engagement at the Association of Progressive Communications (APC)

– **Jorge Cancio** – Co-Director of International Relations at the Federal Office of Communication of Switzerland

– **Isabelle Lois** – Senior Policy Advisor at the Federal Office of Communications, Swiss government

– **Maria Joao Rodrigues** – Policymaker in the European Union

– **Peter A. Bruck** – Chairperson for the World Summit Awards

**Additional speakers:**

None identified – all speakers who participated in the discussion were included in the provided speakers names list.

# Comprehensive Report: Revamping Decision-Making in Digital Governance and the WSIS Framework

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Renata Mielli from Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), examined critical gaps and opportunities in global digital governance through three structured policy questions: how to update the 20-year-old World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines for contemporary challenges, how to identify and address gaps within the WSIS framework, and whether WSIS follows adequate multi-stakeholder approaches per the São Paulo guidelines.

The session brought together experts from government, civil society, technical community, and private sector in a two-round format, with speakers given three minutes each to address the policy questions, followed by a focused discussion on Internet Governance Forum (IGF) improvements and a Q&A session. The conversation revealed broad agreement on maintaining technology-agnostic approaches while highlighting coordination challenges and the need for more meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in decision-making processes.

## Key Discussion Themes and Findings

### Updating WSIS Action Lines for Modern Digital Challenges

The panel demonstrated strong support for maintaining the technology-agnostic nature of WSIS action lines. Timea Suto from the International Chamber of Commerce, participating online from Milan, emphasized: “I would strongly encourage us to keep the same mindset that we’ve had 20 years ago and keep the action lines technology agnostic. I think that’s the way to go forward.”

Elena Plexida from ICANN supported this view while suggesting targeted updates: “WSIS action lines were visionary in 2005 and they need to be renewed. The principles are still relevant today, and the framework is broad enough to address today’s challenges and emerging technologies.” She proposed introducing new or cross-cutting action lines for emerging technologies while maintaining the overall technology-neutral framework.

Valeria Betancourt from the Association of Progressive Communications outlined a practical pathway forward: “The existing WSIS-SDG matrix from 2015 should be updated using stakeholder input to integrate Global Digital Compact objectives.” She noted that substantial stakeholder input had already been provided to both the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

Jimson Olufuye from Contemporary Consulting brought urgency to the discussion from an African perspective: “We miss out again. We miss out in the millennial development goal in Africa. We could not achieve it. So SDG 2030 is also coming. We should not miss this as well.”

### Addressing Gaps in the WSIS Framework

Coordination challenges emerged as a central theme. Isabelle Lois from the Swiss Federal Office of Communications identified the “main gap as lack of connection and coordination between different parts of the WSIS system (IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD).”

Jorge Cancio, Co-Director of International Relations at the Swiss Federal Office of Communication, highlighted broader governance challenges: “We are not yet as innovative in governing the digital space as the digital space is. We are lagging behind. We are far from a networked governance that is really active, agile, that is reacting as things emerge to the different challenges, to the opportunities.”

Elena Plexida offered a framework for understanding different platform roles: “IGF and WSIS Forum serve complementary roles with different audiences – IGF focuses on governance whilst WSIS Forum addresses implementation.” She advocated for “better structured joint planning between IGF and WSIS Forum to harmonise agendas and ensure outcomes inform each other.”

Wout de Natris from the Dynamic Coalition Internet Standards, Security and Safety highlighted integration challenges: “Dynamic coalitions produce valuable outcomes but lack proper integration with WSIS action lines and broader framework.”

### Multi-stakeholder Governance and Power Dynamics

Elena Plexida made a crucial distinction about current multi-stakeholder participation: “WSIS has been and is inclusive in participation, no doubt, but not yet in power. So decision-making and, to a large extent, agenda-setting really remains largely intergovernmental.” She emphasized the need to “intentionally integrate marginalised voices, and integrate them not just as beneficiaries, but as co-creators of digital development.”

Valeria Betancourt reinforced this analysis, noting that “WSIS framework doesn’t fully follow São Paulo guidelines and needs more intentional inclusivity processes.” She referenced the availability of São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines in ten languages at netmundial.br.

Timea Suto advocated for building multi-stakeholder engagement from the ground up: “Multi-stakeholder approach should start at national level with government consultations before reaching global intergovernmental processes.”

Jimson Olufuye supported territorial approaches, stating that “NetMundial principles and guidelines should guide deeper implementation at subnational and local levels.” He also emphasized that “government delegations should include more private sector and civil society representatives.”

### Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum

The discussion on IGF improvements revealed consensus on structural needs. Valeria Betancourt advocated for comprehensive changes: “IGF needs permanent mandate, multi-year strategic planning, sufficient resources, and political leadership to increase accountability and visibility.”

Timea Suto emphasized recognizing existing strengths: “IGF should be recognised for its full ecosystem including intersessional work, dynamic coalitions, and policy networks, not just the annual event.”

Isabelle Lois addressed funding mechanisms: “IGF requires blended funding mechanism combining core UN funding and voluntary contributions, with focus on travel support for underrepresented communities.”

Wout de Natris made a specific structural suggestion: Dynamic Coalitions should have representation “not on the MAG but in the MAG,” proposing deeper integration of these working groups into IGF governance.

Jimson Olufuye suggested leveraging technology: “IGF should leverage AI and technology to better organise and make accessible the wealth of data and best practices accumulated since 2006.”

### Private Sector Engagement Challenges

Peter A. Bruck, Chairperson of the World Summit Awards, raised concerns about declining private sector engagement: “There’s a lot of people in the civil society and also on the UN side and maybe even on the government side who believe in multistakeholder. But on the private industry side, I see a rapid, immense decrease in interest in multistakeholder, especially when you look at who decides on technology development today.”

He noted that “private sector engagement faces challenges with hyperscalers showing decreased interest in multi-stakeholder processes whilst SMEs have high stakes,” highlighting the need for differentiated approaches to private sector engagement.

## Q&A Session Insights

Maria Joao Rodrigues asked a specific question about implementation: “Which specific intergovernmental channels should be influenced by multi-stakeholder mechanisms?” This question highlighted the practical challenges of translating multi-stakeholder input into intergovernmental processes.

The Q&A session reinforced themes about the need for better coordination between different governance platforms and the importance of ensuring that multi-stakeholder input effectively influences decision-making processes.

## Key Recommendations and Action Items

**Framework Updates**: Update the existing WSIS-SDG matrix using stakeholder submissions to CSTD and ITU to integrate Global Digital Compact objectives, maintaining technology-agnostic principles while addressing contemporary challenges.

**IGF Strengthening**: Establish a permanent mandate for the IGF with multi-year strategic planning and implement blended funding mechanisms combining core UN funding with voluntary contributions.

**Coordination Improvements**: Strengthen liaison mechanisms between IGF and WSIS Forum for joint planning and agenda harmonisation, while better integrating Dynamic Coalition outputs with WSIS action lines.

**Multi-stakeholder Enhancement**: Implement São Paulo guidelines more systematically, ensuring meaningful participation in decision-making processes rather than just consultation, and build multi-stakeholder engagement from national and local levels.

**Governance Innovation**: Develop more agile and responsive governance mechanisms that can match the pace of digital innovation while maintaining inclusive participation.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated both the enduring relevance of WSIS principles and the need for structural improvements to address contemporary digital governance challenges. The technology-agnostic approach of WSIS action lines was widely endorsed, while speakers identified coordination gaps and the need for more meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in actual decision-making processes.

The conversation revealed a mature understanding of the digital governance ecosystem, with speakers consistently viewing different platforms as complementary rather than competitive. However, significant challenges remain, particularly around engaging large technology companies in multi-stakeholder processes and ensuring that inclusive participation translates into meaningful influence on policy outcomes.

As the global community prepares for the WSIS+20 review, this discussion provides important guidance on maintaining proven principles while addressing structural limitations that prevent the framework from fully realizing its multi-stakeholder potential. The emphasis on national-level implementation and the recognition that governance must become more responsive to rapid technological change offer constructive pathways for future reforms.

Renata Mielli: Let’s get started. Thank you everybody for being here with us. We are starting our section Revamping Decision-Making in Digital Governance and the WSIS Framework. I’m Renata Mielli, I’m the chair of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee CGI.br and I’m the moderator of this session. Today we aim to address the gaps and the opportunities of the global digital governance ecosystem, especially when it comes to the governance architecture and cooperation with a special focus on the WSIS Framework. As we know in the last 20 years the WSIS processes has been playing the role of being the standard framework for the digital society as well as one of the platforms to promote the multi-stakeholder approach and foster collaboration between stakeholders. In recent years several processes have been launched inside and outside the UN system to advance discussions about global digital governance and especially to improve global digital cooperation such as the Global Digital Compact. Stakeholders have been perceiving many processes carrying the potential to heavily impact the Internet, digital technologies and society as a whole. A broad range of contributions therefore have been pointing to establishing better coordination and more intense effort in advancing the multi-stakeholder approach. In this sense it is important to understand how initiatives of cooperation such as NetMundial plus 10 São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines contribute to the solving the puzzles of our time for bolstering the governance architecture in decision-making. In this session we expect to discuss this and other efforts towards building a common base for the decisions to come in the global ecosystem. With no further ado I would like to present the team, my colleagues here, that shares the floor with us today. Timéia Souto, Global Digital Policy Lead and the International Chamber of Commerce is online with us. I hope. Timéia, thank you very much. Valéria Bittencourt, Manager of Advocacy and Engagement at the Association of Progressive Communications, APC. Jimson Olofui, Principal Consultant for Contemporary Consulting. Helena Plíksida, Vice President for Government and IGO Engagement of ICANN. And from the Federal Office of Communication of Switzerland we have Isabelle Louis, Senior Policy Advisor and Jorge Cancio, Co-Director of International Relations. Switzerland are embracing us as you see and I am going to address three initial policy questions to all speakers. We have three minutes for 15 minutes total and we will have two rounds of discussions and then a moment for interaction with the on-site and online audiences. So for the first round I will present three policy questions and the speakers may choose those that they will address. Each one will have three minutes as I said. So the policy questions are, first, how to update the WSIS action lines to better reflect emerging impression issues and a proper integration with the SDGs? Second question, what are the gaps within the WSIS framework and between its different parts such as the IGF and the WSIS forum? And three, does the WSIS framework governance structure follow an adequate multi-stakeholder approach, for instance, as expressed by the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines? This is our three questions and I am going to invite to initiate our discussion, our conversation, Temea Souto online with us.

Timea Suto: Temea, the floor is yours. Thank you very much Renata, I hope you can hear me. Yeah? Perfect. Good afternoon everyone and hello from Milan. I’m very sorry not to be with you in Geneva these days. It’s the first WSIS forum in many, many years that I’m missing, so I hope you are having a great time and great discussions. Before I start, just a few words about what the International Chamber of Commerce is and how do we come to these discussions around WSIS. ICC is a global business organization representing more than 45 million companies in over 100 countries and we were actually the business interlocutor 20 years ago for the WSIS process. I myself haven’t been involved for 20 years, I’ve started my career 10 years ago and we’re going through the same process for the 10 year review of the WSIS outcomes and the action lines. And what I’ve seen throughout these couple of years is that the action lines really have stood the test of time. This is of course due to those who have been working on the action lines 20 years ago and their foresight, but especially I think is due to one particular decision, is to keep these action lines quite broad, general and most importantly technology agnostic. They do not necessarily pick out one issue, one technology and deal with them per action line, but they have created sort of a framework of these 11 action lines that manages to bring this forward. And one good example on how these action lines have stood the test of time was actually when we were presented with the Sustainable Development Goals framework and the WSIS and this forum actually has decided to see what are the interactions, what are the linkages between the SDG framework and the WSIS action lines framework and we came up with a sort of matrix that we are using since. If you look at all the sessions that you’re attending at the WSIS forum there’s always a little link, a little icon of what SDG they correspond to. And we do the same thing when we look at the IGF and the sessions we have at the IGF. So we’re trying to sort of match the framework of the WSIS to the SDGs and I think this is the method that we ought to use as we’re looking at the action lines today. Perhaps we think there are new developments, emerging technologies, emerging issues online that they were not there 20 years ago, that weren’t for their discussion. The GDC for example has raised a couple of those issues already last year when we’re talking about adopting the Global Digital Compact. And what we need to do as we look at the review today, I think we need to put on this sort of glasses, these lenses of new technologies, new issues and look at the action lines and see which action lines corresponds to them. How can we update the specific action line to correspond or to be expanded to explain how it can work with these new technologies, new ideas in mind. But I would strongly encourage us to keep the same mindset that we’ve had 20 years ago and keep the action lines technology agnostic. I think that’s the way to go forward. So I’ll stop there. I think I already exceeded my

Renata Mielli: three minutes. I’m happy to discuss further later. Thank you Temeia. I will keep some words broadly technological neutral and it shows the good work our colleagues have done because we don’t need new action lines with new technologies. So this is very important and I want to pass to the next, maybe Valeria, could you?

Valeria Betancourt: Thank you very much Renata and let me build on what Temeia was saying. I agree with what Temeia has suggested and there is already very valuable input provided to the CSTD and ITU that we can use to update the matrix that Temeia referred to. That is a very important tool that was created in 2015 to precisely look at the linkages between the action lines and the SDGs. So based on the input and the submissions made through CSTD and ITU, the different stakeholders are providing this input that we can use to precisely take a fresh look of the action lines and update the framework of the WSIS and the matrix, the WSIS and SDGs matrix, in order to integrate the GDC objectives, which I think it has been identified as one of the needs for the review and also as a way to integrate the GDC into the WSIS framework. And as I said, we can use the initial work done by the ITU. Then the next year, 2026, the WSIS Forum can be a very unique space in which we can present perhaps and validate a kind of revised framework and matrix and finalize the process at the CSTD review next year of the WSIS follow-up and implementation. and Jorge Cancio. So we have a lot of information based on this revised and updated matrix and framework. But let me also very briefly refer to the other questions that you have posed to us. The one in relation to the gaps. The gaps within the WSIS framework and the IGF. So I would say that it is important to look at the IGF and the WSIS forum. So the IGF and the WSIS forum focus not only on policy and governance, but actual implementation of the action lines. So it brings together a different audience than the IGF. The IGF, you know, has a broader scope in terms of the specific digital governance and cooperation focus. So the IGF and the WSIS forum have different audiences. So the IGF and the WSIS forum have different audiences, different practitioners at the WSIS forum. And that is a very good and positive aspect, I could say. And the complementarity that both forums bring. So both forums have gaps in terms of people. That’s for sure. In terms of issues, in terms of communities represented in them. For example, I want to mention just one. I would say that the WSIS forum and the WSIS forum have one of the gaps. But I would say let’s look at the two of them in tandem, complementing one to each other. And very, very briefly in relation to your question about the São Paulo guidelines and the WSIS framework, it is not entirely that the WSIS framework governance structure is following the São Paulo guidelines, but it is not that the WSIS framework governance structure is following the São Paulo guidelines. In the case of the WSIS on that regard, there is still work to be done to make the process more inclusive, and then the São Paulo guidelines are obviously a very key reference for that. There are some concrete suggestions on how to use the process as steps in the case of the São Paulo guidelines, but it is not in a very intentional way, the process as steps provided by the São Paulo process.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Valeria. If anybody wants to know more about the São Paulo guidelines, we have some books here you can take with our team in the first line here. And I’m going to pass to Jimson to comment on the São Paulo guidelines.

Jimson Olufuye: So I’m going to pass to Jimson to comment on the São Paulo guidelines. Please, Jimson. Thank you very much. My name is Jimson. I’m a principal consultant, I’m also the chair of the advisory council of the Africa ICT alliance. It’s an alliance of private sector companies, private sector companies in Africa. We are an alliance of private sector companies in Africa. We are now with 43 countries. I want to start with six countries in Africa. We represent the private sector voice in Africa and we’re part of the ICT business movement. From the private sector perspective, our challenge has always been more of the implementation, just like Valeria mentioned. We have a lot of challenges, but we have a lot of goals and we have a lot of goals in front of us, and we’re focusing even more on emphasizing the need for the multistakeholder approach, the net principle to be fostered at the national level across Africa. Now, in response to the question, how to update the WSIS action line, let me start with the WSIS action line. We have a lot of challenges in terms of the WSIS action line in line with the SDG. Well, there’s a good mapping already that we see, just as has been mentioned earlier by Tamir, a good job being done. The gap still rests with how it is seen at the national level. We want this brought down at the national level so that every office will know what they need to do. We have a lot of challenges in terms of the WSIS action line, but we miss out again. We miss out in the millennial development goal in Africa. We could not achieve it. So SDG 2030 is also coming. We should not miss this as well. Then in terms of gaps, between WSIS frameworks and IGF, I don’t see much gaps. Based on that definition, IGF is for the IGF framework and IGF is for the IGF framework, but it’s still going on. We see it very well, we commend their follow-up activities, but WSIS itself, yes, it’s also still going through, but it can be improved, following the principles. Then WSIS follow-up, is there an adequate governance approach? Well, we have this area, we don’t discuss that slope of errors as we fall to that level of openness. I would there we have proposed we have proposed a cooperation with CSTD, best to bring together all stakeholders to implement it. Net plus statements, and guidelines for meaningful participation will still continue to help to define the level of openness that we need to have in order to be able to have a kind of really domesticate this, really, again. In IGF, we’re talking about subnational, even at the local level. If we’re going to dive in deeper, then the NetMundia principles need to guide us through. Thank you very much.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Jameson, and thank you for bringing the regional and local perspective to the panel, because we need to talk about local. We cannot forget that the governance occur in the territory, so this is very important for our discussion. Thank you very much for this, Jameson, and I will pass the floor to Switzerland. I don’t know if we start with Isabel or Jorge. Please, you have. Yes.

Isabelle Lois: I’m Isabel Lois, I work at the Swiss government at the Federal Office of Communications, and I think I want to build a bit on what all of the previous speakers have been saying, because I think we’re all in quite a lot of agreement. I think part of, if we’re looking at potential gaps in the WSIS architecture, or in the WSIS family or system, we have to work on what Jameson said, refining the system as it is, looking at how each part is working, what they’re doing well, what they have been doing well for 20 years, what we want them to do moving forward, and how they could better that part. So I think we have a few ideas on this, of course, that I’m happy to share with all of you, but I think our main point is to make sure that every single aspect of the system is doing its best work, and that it is connected well enough with the rest of the world. I think this is maybe the biggest gap is connection in between what is happening at the IGF with the rest of the system, what is happening at the WSIS forum with the rest of the system. How is the work of UNGASS or the work that is done at the CSCD reflected or taken into account what has been happening on the other parts. I think that is the main point I would raise, and when we’re looking now for the review, what could we do better? How can we make sure that we’re not just talking to each other, we’re learning from each other, we’re implementing what has been done on the other parts. And then, of course, we can consider the multi-stakeholder guidelines, as was mentioned, but I think everyone here before on how to better the multi-stakeholder elements of each part of the system. So this is one of the ways to sort of reinforce or strengthen each aspect, but then we also need to see how we can make sure that we’re not just talking to each other, we’re learning from each other, we’re implementing what has been done on the other parts. So this is one of the ways to strengthen the relationship between them. And then maybe I can talk a bit about the IGF, but maybe we come back to it later. What would you prefer?

Renata Mielli: We will come back to this later. Then we’ll go back later. Thank you. Jorge?

Jorge Cancio: Hello, everyone. I’m Jorge Cancio. I work with Isabel. So I agree, obviously, with what she said. We have to remember that WSIS or the GDC are not an end to itself or to themselves. What it’s about, it’s to deliver on the vision that we agreed upon on WSIS 20 years ago, about the commitments we agreed last year with the Global Digital Compact. And sometimes it’s very important how we do things. So I think all this conversation about Improving how the WSIS family works together is very important. And obviously also how we implement or how we draw inspiration from the São Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines. Because in the end, to a certain extent, we are not yet as innovative in governing the digital space as the digital space is. We are lagging behind. We are far from a networked governance that is really active, agile, that is reacting as things emerge to the different challenges, to the opportunities. And I think, obviously, this is the UN, and governments at the national level are not better in that sense. And it’s a big challenge, but we have a big opportunity now with WSIS Plus 20 to at least make some progress towards a networked governance of the digital world. Thank you.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Jorge. And I think I will keep the words dialogue and coordination, because without dialogue we don’t have coordination, so this is very important. And the idea that the multi-stakeholder approach is complementary to the multilateral process, and this is very important. And now I will pass the floor to Helena to comment these three first questions.

Elena Plexida: Thank you so much, Renata. So, on your questions, and I will try to address them in turn as quickly as I can. First of all, with respect to the WSIS, the WSIS action lines were visionary in 2005 and they need to be renewed. The principles are still relevant today, and the framework is broad enough to address today’s challenges and emerging technologies. From ICANN’s lens as a technical organization, as part of the technical community, several WSIS action lines are particularly relevant, like C4, C11, very relevant and still useful. Across the broader ecosystem, I think we should now map each action line more clearly to specific SDG targets, not just broad goals. We must also obviously address emerging technologies, perhaps with introducing new or cross-cutting action lines. And finally, I will definitely agree here with what Jimson was saying. It’s not only about emerging technologies, it’s about equity in implementation. It should be front and center. WSIS must intentionally integrate marginalized voices, and integrate them not just as beneficiaries, but as co-creators of digital development. A tangible example here, I think, is the introduction of internationalized domain names, which enable people to access content in the local scripts and enables linguistic inclusion. That’s what implementation looks like. It has to be tangible. With respect to the gaps, and here I think I will agree a lot with what Isabel said, let’s take the WSIS Forum and the IGF, for example. Even though both address overlapping digital governance issues, you can see there is definitely space for more structured joint planning and liaison mechanisms to harmonize the agendas and ensure that the outcomes inform each other. Also, I think I would comment that follow-up on WSIS commitments lacks consistency to some extent. The action lines are implemented unevenly by facilitators, and there is no shared accountability framework. That’s something to reflect on. Finally, on your last question on the WSIS, whether WSIS follows a truly multistakeholder governance model. Well, certainly WSIS has been and is inclusive in participation, no doubt, but not yet in power. So decision-making and, to a large extent, agenda-setting really remains largely intergovernmental, if you will. And I think Valeria alluded to that earlier, that you can say that falls short of the multistakeholder governance principles as articulated in the São Paulo guidelines. So we could, just getting ideas here, maybe think of a multistakeholder advisory group, similar to the one that the IGF has. I’m not suggesting any duplications here, just adjusting to the WSIS needs and realities. That’s it from me. Looking forward for the discussion. Thank you.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Helena. Thank you for the comments. And I think we heard about the word improve. So our second round, and I will ask you to be brief, because we want to open the mic for the discussion. Our last question is about how to improve the IGF to better respond to the challenges of the implementation. And we heard a lot the word implementation, because this is a key issue. So how to improve the IGF to better respond to the challenges of the implementation and follow-up of the GDC combined with the WSIS framework, and especially to avoid duplication of efforts and promote better coordination. So our last question maybe articulates all the discussions we had now and put how to improve the IGF to respond to these challenges. And I will start now with Valeria, please.

Valeria Betancourt: Thank you, Renata. Well, I will join my voice to the several voices strongly calling for the establishment of a permanent or long-term mandate for the IGF. I think that’s the basis at the starting point and the foundation for the improvement and strengthening. A multi-year strategic planning is necessary and based on what this plan requires, do resource mobilization and also revisiting staffing and capacity needed in order to bring into practice that plan. That’s important, but it has to be a multi-year envisioning type of plan. And then obviously ensure that there is enough and sufficient leadership, including political leadership and management capacity to increase not only the accountability but also the visibility and in that way to contribute to linking the IGF to decision-making processes in a sense that the IGF outcomes inform decision-making processes. I think that’s very important moving forward. Perhaps introducing result-oriented management is also a good way to strengthen and to improve and to review and implement the recommendations that came out from the expert group meeting. I think it could be good to revisit those recommendations. There are plenty of very strong, viable, applicable solutions and recommendations there. And obviously in relation to the intersessional modalities, a constant revisiting of the governance and how that is happening, I think it’s an important way to also strengthen and to learn about how we are doing things through the intersessional mechanisms. And to help with this, I have a particular suggestion, which is to perhaps consider the possibility of conducting self-evaluations. So serving the MAC members to find out what has worked well during this year of the review. For instance, what has not worked well and what should be done differently. And the same applies to the members of the leadership panel and the secretariat. I think there could be a lot of valuable input if we conduct those assessments that could be done even in an anonymous basis and gather feedback. This type of feedback could, in tandem and jointly with the suggestions that have been developed in the past through the expert group meeting, could give us a good way forward.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Valeria, for the points and very concise suggestions. I think they are good suggestions to start. Let me see the next one. I will pass the floor to Jimson to bring your suggestions on how to improve the IGF to these new challenges.

Jimson Olufuye: Okay, great. Very quickly, we need to support what is working. Right now, IGF is proliferating through the NRI. We emphasize that it needs to go down to the local level. So that is a good thing. and the IGF. We need to improve on it. We need to support it. IGFSA needs to be supported so that it can support the strengthening of this governance framework at the local level. And then at the top level, that is at this level, there’s a lot of information available right now looking at from 2006 when the IGFSA was established. We have a lot of data. A lot of data out there. Maybe we need to use the technology we have right now, AI, to help us. The last time we were talking about there’s need to improve the website, how to access information on the website. It’s just to access information. The best practices, the methodology is already, I believe they are there. We can always improve on it. But we need to get people to get substance out of it. So maybe AI need to be engaged, you know, to get people to get substance out of it. So I would like to conclude now that the GDC objectives, they are just like an extract from the WSIS objectives. So these NRIs can be a platform to discuss all those basic stuff, follow up at the local level to know how it’s being improved upon. So IGF is

Renata Mielli: already a platform I can use to follow up. Thank you. Thank you, Renata, for giving me the floor. So I would like to start with you, Isabel, and then we can talk again. And I think I didn’t hear the word funding. Maybe you would like to talk a little bit about this. Because how we are going to do all these things if you don’t have funding to do it. So we start with Isabel. I can start again.

Isabelle Lois: So I think we should start with Isabel. And then we can start with Valeria. So I agree with all of the points that Valeria pointed out on how we could improve the IGF. I think these are all things we should definitely consider and try to work on. So I want to highlight that, making the mandate permanent, of course, and then, of course, looking at funding. And I think both of these questions sort of go hand in hand. We can’t require to continue the work and ask for more and ask for more and ask for more and ask for more and ask for more. So I think that’s something that needs to be done. So I think on the funding question, it’s always complicated. It’s always difficult. Nobody has any money. There’s nothing. It’s difficult to find something. But I think what we could do at the IGF is try to look at a combination of both core UN funding and also voluntary contributions. And hopefully in this sort of blended mechanism of funding that we have in place, we will be able to implement the different changes or the betterments of the IGF. And I think on that, some of the points that we should focus on is the openness of the forum, sort of the inclusivity of all governments coming, representing all of the different regions of the world, really having a better place for them to attend and focusing on underrepresented communities or stakeholders. And I think that’s something that we could do at the IGF. But I think one of the parts that is difficult for them to attend is the travel, is the budget. So maybe if we’re looking at the funding of part of the IGF event, then maybe some of the voluntary contributions that are there could help with that part. So I think that’s why the IGF improvements, looking how we can go to the next step, must come with looking at the funding and at the longer permanent mandate. And I think that’s why the IGF is really important, because it’s a very important part of the IGF, and looking at what we have and highlighting what is working really well.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Isabel, and thank you for bringing the idea that funding and diversity are the faces of the same coin.

Jorge Cancio: This is very important. Jorge? Thank you, Renata, and in addition to the funding, we have a very limited amount of money, and we are talking about low one-digit millions of U.S. dollars, so we are not talking about a lot of money. Of course, if everybody waits for the others to put the funding, we have a problem, but if we consider the overall sum, it’s a very limited one. So having said that, I think it’s also important to consider how the IGF can be stronger if the overall WSIS framework is stronger. If the IGF has this issue identifier, agenda framer, decision shaper, and network maker is to be useful, the outputs and the results have to be used by Angus in implementing the action lines. So we have to be very, very careful about how we implement the action lines, how we implement the WSIS forum, whenever doing this showcasing of implementation work by the U.N. agencies, and it has to also guide the discussions of the intergovernmental review mechanism, which is the CSDD, where we are increasingly having more participation of stakeholders. So I think that’s the main point. I think that’s the main point, and I think that the other parts, it’s completely the other way around. If you strengthen the overall framework, you make also the IGF stronger.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Jorge, for this thought, and I will pass to Elena.

Elena Plexida: Thank you, Renata. Well, to strengthen the IGF, obviously we have to think in the context of the IGF, and I think that’s one of the main things that we need to do. First, we need to strengthen the IGF platform while keeping its bottom-up and multi-stakeholder DNA, of course, because it can serve as a key dialogue and accountability hub for tracking the implementation of digital commitments made under WSIS and the GDC. Second, we need better coordination mechanisms across the IGF, the WSIS forum and the GDC processes, and we already know that the IGF can be very, very impactful in terms of the engagement and the liaison roles, things like that. Third, we need to connect outputs across platforms. For instance, IGF policy recommendations and best practice forum insights should directly feed into WSIS action reviews and GDC follow-up framework. Fourth, let’s not forget, of course, about inclusion. We need to make sure that the IGF is not just a platform for the IGF, but it’s a platform for the IGF to reach people in the south, youth, and local communities, and it will, of course, need more sustainable funding to operate effectively. Put simply, and I will finish with that, I think a strength IGF is not just another space. It’s really the bridge that can ensure coherence, transparency, and follow-through across the different, broader digital

Renata Mielli: platforms, and, of course, we need to make sure that the IGF is not just a platform for the IGF. If we have funding problems, the coordination objective is very important because we can rationalise the resources we have. So I started the first round with Timea, and now I’m going to finish with her. Timea, please, the floor is yours.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much. I would like to say thank you to all of the speakers, to everything we’ve heard before, especially to the idea of renewal of the IGF mandate, thinking about how to review that so that it’s inclusive and builds on the community’s voice, strengthening the IGF as is, so that it can contribute also to a more stable funding mechanism, and, of course, to the IGF itself. So, thank you to all of the speakers for speaking. What I would like to do in my remaining time is really to think of what the WSIS review process can do for the IGF, and then what is it that we would like the IGF to do itself, to take these improvements on, and to strengthen its own place in this ecosystem of the WSIS framework. So what I would like to see happen in the next six months is to really recognize the IGF for what it is, which is a lot more than a once-a-year event where we all come together and talk about the issues that are on top of our minds, according to digital policy, but to recognize for the IGF, for the community it builds, for the intersessional work, for the various working groups, the NRIs, for its institutional bodies, like the Leadership Panel and the MAG, to what it has really evolved into in the past 20 years. Recognizing that, I think, is the first step towards strengthening it and renewing its mandate, perhaps, and hopefully on a permanent basis. Now, what the IGF itself can do is to look at its space in this ecosystem, as the others have said, that includes the WSIS Forum, that includes the reporting mechanism through CSTD, that includes the UNGIS group, and look at what the IGF can do to better dialogue with these issues. Because I think that is the first step. Thank you. As others have highlighted, the coordination and dialogue problem is obvious. The IGF is producing a lot of great outputs, a lot of conversations, but those remain most of the time within the IGF framework. It’s very difficult to sort of branch out. And I think what the IGF could probably do better is to market better really the array of outputs that it produces. So what is relevant from what the IGF has done throughout a year, including the intersessional work and the discussions at the annual meeting? How is that relevant to one or two bodies within UNGIS? How is that relevant to the WSIS Forum? Can that be used as an input? Were there shared ideas that we can collaborate on? So I think a lot is being done at the IGF. We can build on what the IGF has been doing so far. The WSIS Plus 20 review is a moment to recognize this progress. And then we have to work together with the IGF to see what we can do to really enable it to take on perhaps an even stronger role within this ecosystem. Thank you.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Timea, and thank you for bringing the right questions. Because when we see the questions in a clever way, we can try to answer in a way to achieve our goals in this process. Now we are going to pass to the phase of interaction. If anyone has questions or wants to put something on site and online, remote audiences, with the lights, I can’t see anybody raising their hands. It’s difficult to do this. Please introduce yourself.

Wout de Natris: Yes, my name is Wouter Nathuis van den Borcht. And speaking of dynamic coalitions, I’m representing the Dynamic Coalition Internet Standards, Security and Safety of the IGF here at the WSIS. I think that just to point out the work of dynamic coalitions, there are 32 at this moment, some more active than others. There were about 10 reports presented at the IGF. And where is the interaction? Because nobody points anybody to WSIS action lines. I sort of heard of them for the first time being here. So how is it possible that we have all these outcomes and there’s no invitation to present on them here? There’s no incentive from the IGF itself to present here. So I think there is a world to win because we have all these outcomes which sort of hang there. In fact, I could not even get the report of my own dynamic coalition on the IGF website on time for this event. So it’s not there. So there is so much outcome. And I don’t want to complain. I think that we need to strengthen the process in 2026. And one of the ways to do that is to make sure that the voice of dynamic coalitions are better heard. So I would advocate that we do not have a MAG liaison for the DCs, but that DCs have one or two with a backup of two, not on the MAG but in the MAG, reviewing the work that is done, help shaping the program based on the outcomes that are going to be presented at the IGF. And that would mean interaction. And then we will probably also get the interaction with the WSIS-IV and the GDC and the SDGs. So that’s, I think, where the future could go. And hopefully we will be able to go there. Thank you.

Renata Mielli: Thank you. Thank you for the contribution. Interesting. Anyone else? Okay. Please introduce yourself.

Maria Joao Rodrigues: My name is Maria Rodrigues. I’m a policymaker in the European Union. So I’m bringing a voice of the European Union. It’s very likely that the European Union will propose soon something to institutionalize and give more means to the IGF to operate. And I think we are in a crucial moment to design the full process of global governance. So I have a question for the panel, which is the following. When we say that multistakeholder mechanisms should be there also to influence the policymaking in the intergovernmental channels, which are the intergovernmental channels you have in mind? Because I think it’s extremely important to have a clear identification in order to design more effective multistakeholder processes. So this is my question.

Renata Mielli: Thank you for the question. Very good question. We have anyone else? Are you finished?

Peter A. Bruck: I have one last question. My name is Peter Bruck. I’m the chairperson for the World Summit Awards. And we have a mandate since 2002 to showcase best practices with a positive social impact in the framework of visas. In terms of the multistakeholder approach and the discussion which you have had now, I think it’s very important to recognize and to differentiate. There’s a lot of people in the civil society and also on the UN side and maybe even on the government side who believe in multistakeholder. But on the private industry side, I see a rapid, immense decrease in interest in multistakeholder, especially when you look at who decides on technology development today. We have five hyperscalers or six or seven hyperscalers who monopolize in many ways differently the market and which are not addressed by these kind of issues of multistakeholder involvement. And on the other hand, we have a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises who have a lot at stake in terms of Internet governance and also data governance and AI governance. So we need to really differentiate in terms of multistakeholder aspects. And my question to the panel is how do you wish to deal with those kind of differences on the private sector side? Thank you very much.

Renata Mielli: Thank you for the question. We don’t have more time because we need to answer and we need to hear the closing remarks of our panelists. So I will give two minutes for each one to address the questions and make the closing remarks. I will start with Temeia. Then we follow the order. Temeia?

Timea Suto: Thank you. Sorry, I was fighting with the mute button. Regarding the question from the lady from the European Union, I think when we talk about intergovernmental processes and the multistakeholder model, the approach needs to be sort of an ecosystem approach. When we talk about intergovernmental processes, of course, it includes what happens in Brussels when we talk about digital policy. It includes what happens in Geneva, in New York and the various UN institutions where governments come together and talk. And we would probably need multistakeholder input in that, whether through liaisons, opening up the processes. There’s a number of ideas there in the Sao Paulo guidelines that could help making these intergovernmental processes more multistakeholder. But it doesn’t start there, really. The multistakeholder idea needs to happen already at the national level. It already needs to happen about when governments shape their own positions that they bring into these intergovernmental discussions. The stakeholder input should ideally already happen there. And then if we can marry that multistakeholder approach and openness from governments to meaningful consultations with their own stakeholders at home, then we can already build on that to have intergovernmental conversations that are more open to multistakeholder input at the global level. So I think we need to work on those two levels simultaneously. Thank you.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Timea. I will pass the floor now. Let me see. Maybe.

Valeria Betancourt: Yes, thank you, Renata. I would like to also believe that democratic governance starts at the national level. And that produces a very positive effect also in the other levels. Obviously, I’m not trying to say that that’s the only way, but that’s something that is important if we really want to see more accountable and inclusive governance. That could be a very good way to go. And obviously, as it has been pointed out, the multistakeholder guidelines of the Sao Paulo process. It’s a very good starting point in order to do that, but I will also want to refer to the financing Issue Obviously as has been also been pointed out We will have a stronger ecosystem if we adopt a holistic Approach not looking at the IGF in isolation the WSAS Framework in us in isolation But as part of the of the ecosystem as a whole as a whole and I need that sense perhaps something for us to look at apart from exploring different ways to strengthen the IGF through bringing more financial resources is to also look at the plus 20 review as the possibility as the possibility to Mandate a mechanism to look at the different models including the blended mechanisms and the possibilities that are there to You know provide a means for addressing the challenges that we are still facing including digital inclusion the strengthening of the IGF etc So I do feel that there is a very important opportunity in the review to to explore the different ways and the different models to to ensure that there is a Sustainable more accountable democratic inclusive Ecosystem for the governance and the digital cooperation globally and regionally and nationally

Renata Mielli: Thank You Valeria Jameson, please. Yes very quickly

Jimson Olufuye: We got to how to make the work of the DC an intersessional work to be reflected in all the fora wishes and all I think We we need to respond, you know to many calls Could I usually cause now before there are any calls or many or publicized call? But today there are a lot of calls for proposal to set up these to organize this So I think the dynamic relation may need to have a lead or if there’s a lead now Yes, I know that leads they need to respond to those calls Apart from being having liaison and then in terms of Where what I say could influence can be fostered in a governmental organization? yes, of course, there are so many maybe UNESCO 90 you ITU is still a treaty organization and The one I attended plenty potentially, of course private sector have no voice You have to be in the delegation But at the same time, you know The reading is at a national level If you ask now how many delegation have private sector in their delegation, you will see maybe just very few Maybe is it global not from global South? we are really calls the private sector or civil society come and join us or the academic or technical academic is Ignited so we need there has to be call out So the government has to make that lead because of the asymmetry power of multi-stakeholder system, you know The government has more power. There’s no doubt about it and we’re not contesting with them But just that they need to bring in their ideas from what I still could as I can really enrich the discussion And then finally to the question of hyperscaler, you know, that maybe they’re on their own Still the same thing the government needs to take that initiative Dr. Gelasi mentioned on Monday that when they were doing a particular policy free without to invite the platform owners Those those platform tech people invited them and you came so if you don’t invite them They won’t where would they show up? So we need to invite them if you are not invited you won’t attend you won’t be there But once we invite them, they will attend if they cannot attend physically. You can always attend remotely. Thank you

Renata Mielli: Thank You Jim some What

Jorge Cancio: Maybe I can start I think to to answer a little bit what the lady from the European Commission and The gentleman who spoke afterwards about the private sector I think it’s important to to remind ourselves why multi-stakeholder approach and at least our belief is that It’s a good means to the end of have more legitimate more implementable more sustained and Sustainable solutions that are agreed by more stakeholders at least that is very much embedded in our democratic system in Switzerland, and we think it’s Sometimes it’s messy, but and sometimes it’s difficult But if you end up with a good consensus, it’s much more implementable then decisions that are only sustained but by one stakeholder group and I think and it’s been said many times that the South Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines help us to distinguish what is tokenized multi-stakeholderism Where it’s just consultations for a black box for a fake leaf Exercise from something that is truly or more multi-stakeholder in spirit and I think we should begin at home, of course With the national and regional IGF’s but also here at home in the WSIS framework and we can improve How the CSTD works we can improve how the WSIS forum works We can improve how Angus works how the action lines work we can improve how the IGF itself works So there’s a lot to do and nothing is perfect yet It will never be but we have it also to some extent in our hands

Renata Mielli: Thank You Jorge

Isabelle Lois: I Sure, there’s a litter to be To be said on top of on top of all of that But I can say plus one to all of the the previous speakers. Maybe just wanted to highlight one of the points on the Dynamic coalitions I think and sort of the intersessional work that the IGF is doing and the importance that that has when we’re talking about Recognizing the IGF for what it’s doing Which is more than just a small platform where we discuss technical things on internet governance It is so much more than that and that’s the beauty of it And I think it also means recognizing all of the work outside of the main session the annual event we have Because that is of course Yes the culmination of the work but we have also everything that’s happening between and so when we’re Talking about embedding what is happening from the IGF into the rest of the WSIS system. We also mean The work that is done in the policy networks to work that is done in the dynamic coalitions the best practice forums, etc So I think that’s also an important point because it is a lot of great work there And it is also a way of showing how a multi-stakeholder Model how multi-stakeholder cooperation works and delivers something quite concretely. So I just wanted to highlight that points

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Isabelle, Elena

Elena Plexida: Thank you so much. Yes, I think the previous speakers covered everything. Maybe I will just Refer to the question from the lady from the European Union Tina really covered me when she explained that it’s an ecosystem issue The question was about what intergovernmental processes multi-stakeholder influence aims to reach The comment I wanted to add here is that actually it’s also working the other way around now There are intergovernmental processes that implement multi-stakeholder Ways in them and an example that I can share here is it comes from the European Union So very recently the European Commission has put forward the idea of a multi-stakeholder forum To help implement the needs to directive implementation. So what we see here is a Multi-stakeholder forum that will help implement the objectives set by legislation And why is that? It’s very simple. I think Jorge said that because it’s implementable that way when you and that’s exactly the spirit that we need to bear in mind While we’re looking at the WSIS review, it’s more global. It’s more implementable. It’s their reasons for that. Thank you. Thank you Elena

Renata Mielli: thank you very much for the insights and the wonderful discussion we had now and I would like to invite If you can want to know more about the Sao Paulo guidelines you can access on netimundial.br and We have available in six languages, no seven languages Ten. Oh my god Ten languages the book we have the book here, but we don’t have a lot of books But you can access on netimundial.br in ten languages So thank you very much for the session for the insights, and I hope we can Join next year with some advanced matters on this Regarding on the internet and digital governance. Thank you very much and we precisely Just for the time, thank you very much

Agreement points

WSIS action lines should remain technology-agnostic while being updated for emerging technologies

Speakers

– Timea Suto
– Valeria Betancourt
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

WSIS action lines have stood the test of time due to being technology-agnostic and should remain so while being updated for new technologies

The existing WSIS-SDG matrix from 2015 should be updated using stakeholder input to integrate Global Digital Compact objectives

WSIS action lines were visionary in 2005 and they need to be renewed. The principles are still relevant today, and the framework is broad enough to address today’s challenges and emerging technologies

Summary

Multiple speakers agreed that the WSIS action lines have proven their value by being technology-neutral and broad enough to accommodate new developments. They support updating the framework to integrate new objectives like the Global Digital Compact while maintaining the technology-agnostic approach.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Need for better coordination and connection between different parts of the WSIS system

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois
– Jorge Cancio
– Elena Plexida
– Wout de Natris

Arguments

Main gap is lack of connection and coordination between different parts of the WSIS system (IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD)

Strengthening overall WSIS framework will make IGF stronger, as IGF outputs need to be used by agencies implementing action lines

Need better structured joint planning between IGF and WSIS Forum to harmonize agendas and ensure outcomes inform each other

Dynamic coalitions produce valuable outcomes but lack proper integration with WSIS action lines and broader framework

Summary

Speakers consistently identified coordination gaps as a major challenge, emphasizing that different components of the WSIS system need better integration and that strengthening the overall framework would benefit all parts.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

IGF needs permanent mandate and sustainable funding

Speakers

– Valeria Betancourt
– Isabelle Lois
– Timea Suto

Arguments

IGF needs permanent mandate, multi-year strategic planning, sufficient resources, and political leadership to increase accountability and visibility

IGF requires blended funding mechanism combining core UN funding and voluntary contributions, with focus on travel support for underrepresented communities

IGF should be recognized for its full ecosystem including intersessional work, dynamic coalitions, and policy networks, not just the annual event

Summary

There was strong consensus that the IGF requires a permanent mandate and sustainable funding mechanisms to operate effectively, with speakers agreeing on the need for multi-year planning and recognition of the IGF’s comprehensive ecosystem.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Multi-stakeholder approach should start at national level

Speakers

– Timea Suto
– Jimson Olufuye
– Valeria Betancourt

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach should start at national level with government consultations before reaching global intergovernmental processes

NetMundial principles and guidelines should guide deeper implementation at subnational and local levels

Democratic governance starts at the national level and produces a very positive effect also in the other levels

Summary

Speakers agreed that effective multi-stakeholder governance must begin with meaningful engagement at the national and local levels, with governments consulting stakeholders before bringing positions to international forums.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view the IGF and WSIS Forum as complementary rather than competing platforms, each serving different but valuable functions in the digital governance ecosystem.

Speakers

– Valeria Betancourt
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

IGF and WSIS Forum serve complementary roles with different audiences – IGF focuses on governance while WSIS Forum addresses implementation

Need better structured joint planning between IGF and WSIS Forum to harmonize agendas and ensure outcomes inform each other

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of local and territorial implementation, highlighting that global frameworks must be translated into meaningful local action.

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Renata Mielli

Arguments

Implementation gaps exist at national level, particularly in Africa where MDGs were missed and SDG 2030 risks being missed as well

Governance occurs in territories, making regional and local perspectives essential for effective implementation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both Swiss representatives emphasized the need for more agile, connected governance structures that can better respond to the pace of digital innovation.

Speakers

– Jorge Cancio
– Isabelle Lois

Arguments

Need for networked governance that is more agile and reactive to digital challenges and opportunities

Main gap is lack of connection and coordination between different parts of the WSIS system (IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD)

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technology-agnostic approach as a strength rather than limitation

Speakers

– Timea Suto
– Valeria Betancourt
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

WSIS action lines have stood the test of time due to being technology-agnostic and should remain so while being updated for new technologies

The existing WSIS-SDG matrix from 2015 should be updated using stakeholder input to integrate Global Digital Compact objectives

WSIS action lines were visionary in 2005 and they need to be renewed. The principles are still relevant today, and the framework is broad enough to address today’s challenges and emerging technologies

Explanation

It was unexpected that speakers from different sectors (business, civil society, technical community) all agreed that the technology-agnostic nature of WSIS action lines was a feature, not a bug, especially given rapid technological changes over 20 years.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Complementary rather than competitive relationship between IGF and WSIS Forum

Speakers

– Valeria Betancourt
– Elena Plexida
– Isabelle Lois

Arguments

IGF and WSIS Forum serve complementary roles with different audiences – IGF focuses on governance while WSIS Forum addresses implementation

Need better structured joint planning between IGF and WSIS Forum to harmonize agendas and ensure outcomes inform each other

Main gap is lack of connection and coordination between different parts of the WSIS system (IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD)

Explanation

Rather than viewing these forums as competing for attention or resources, speakers consistently framed them as complementary platforms that should work together more effectively, which suggests a mature understanding of the governance ecosystem.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on key structural issues: maintaining technology-agnostic WSIS action lines while updating them for new challenges, establishing permanent IGF mandate with sustainable funding, improving coordination between WSIS system components, and emphasizing national-level multi-stakeholder engagement. Speakers consistently viewed different governance platforms as complementary rather than competitive.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive, solution-oriented discussions. The agreement spans across different stakeholder groups (government, civil society, technical community, business) and suggests a mature understanding of digital governance challenges. This consensus provides a strong foundation for implementing the WSIS+20 review and strengthening the overall digital governance architecture.

Different viewpoints

Approach to updating WSIS action lines – technology-agnostic vs. specific technology integration

Speakers

– Timea Suto
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

WSIS action lines have stood the test of time due to being technology-agnostic and should remain so while being updated for new technologies

WSIS action lines were visionary in 2005 and they need to be renewed. The principles are still relevant today, and the framework is broad enough to address today’s challenges and emerging technologies

Summary

While both speakers agree that WSIS action lines remain relevant, Suto strongly advocates for maintaining the technology-agnostic approach that has made them durable, whereas Plexida suggests they need renewal and mentions introducing new or cross-cutting action lines for emerging technologies, indicating a more interventionist approach to updating the framework.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Primary focus for IGF improvement – recognition vs. structural changes

Speakers

– Timea Suto
– Valeria Betancourt

Arguments

IGF should be recognized for its full ecosystem including intersessional work, dynamic coalitions, and policy networks, not just the annual event

IGF needs permanent mandate, multi-year strategic planning, sufficient resources, and political leadership to increase accountability and visibility

Summary

Suto emphasizes that the main need is recognition of what the IGF already does well and better marketing of its outputs, while Betancourt calls for fundamental structural changes including permanent mandate, strategic planning, and enhanced governance mechanisms. This represents different philosophies about whether the IGF needs recognition or transformation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role of technology in improving IGF processes

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Other speakers

Arguments

IGF should leverage AI and technology to better organize and make accessible the wealth of data and best practices accumulated since 2006

Explanation

Olufuye was the only speaker to suggest using AI and technology solutions to improve IGF processes, while other speakers focused on governance, funding, and structural reforms. This technological approach to solving organizational challenges was notably absent from other speakers’ recommendations, suggesting different perspectives on whether technological solutions can address governance challenges.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Private sector differentiation and engagement challenges

Speakers

– Peter A. Bruck
– Other speakers

Arguments

Private sector engagement faces challenges with hyperscalers showing decreased interest in multi-stakeholder processes while SMEs have high stakes

Explanation

Bruck raised a critical issue about the differentiation within private sector engagement that other speakers did not address – the growing disconnect between large tech companies and multi-stakeholder processes. This represents an unexpected area of concern that challenges the assumption that private sector engagement is uniformly achievable or desirable.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed surprisingly high levels of agreement on fundamental goals (strengthening WSIS framework, improving coordination, enhancing multi-stakeholder governance) but notable disagreements on approaches and priorities. Key tensions emerged between incremental improvement versus structural reform, recognition versus transformation, and technology-agnostic versus technology-specific approaches.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications – while speakers shared common objectives, their different approaches could lead to conflicting implementation strategies. The disagreements suggest underlying philosophical differences about whether existing frameworks need recognition and minor adjustments or fundamental restructuring. This could impact the effectiveness of WSIS Plus 20 review outcomes if not reconciled.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view the IGF and WSIS Forum as complementary rather than competing platforms, each serving different but valuable functions in the digital governance ecosystem.

Speakers

– Valeria Betancourt
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

IGF and WSIS Forum serve complementary roles with different audiences – IGF focuses on governance while WSIS Forum addresses implementation

Need better structured joint planning between IGF and WSIS Forum to harmonize agendas and ensure outcomes inform each other

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of local and territorial implementation, highlighting that global frameworks must be translated into meaningful local action.

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Renata Mielli

Arguments

Implementation gaps exist at national level, particularly in Africa where MDGs were missed and SDG 2030 risks being missed as well

Governance occurs in territories, making regional and local perspectives essential for effective implementation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both Swiss representatives emphasized the need for more agile, connected governance structures that can better respond to the pace of digital innovation.

Speakers

– Jorge Cancio
– Isabelle Lois

Arguments

Need for networked governance that is more agile and reactive to digital challenges and opportunities

Main gap is lack of connection and coordination between different parts of the WSIS system (IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD)

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

WSIS action lines have proven resilient over 20 years due to their technology-agnostic approach and should be updated using this same principle rather than creating new action lines

The existing WSIS-SDG matrix from 2015 should be updated to integrate Global Digital Compact objectives using stakeholder input already provided to CSTD and ITU

The main gap in the WSIS framework is lack of coordination and dialogue between its components (IGF, WSIS Forum, CSTD) rather than structural deficiencies

WSIS framework is inclusive in participation but not in decision-making power, which remains largely intergovernmental and falls short of São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines

IGF needs a permanent mandate, multi-year strategic planning, sustainable funding (blended UN core and voluntary contributions), and recognition as a full ecosystem beyond just the annual event

Multi-stakeholder governance must start at the national level with meaningful government consultations before reaching global intergovernmental processes

Implementation gaps exist particularly at national and local levels, with emphasis needed on equity and inclusion of marginalized voices as co-creators rather than just beneficiaries

Resolutions and action items

Update the WSIS-SDG matrix using stakeholder submissions to CSTD and ITU to integrate GDC objectives

Present revised WSIS framework and matrix at 2026 WSIS Forum for validation

Finalize the updated framework at the CSTD review of WSIS follow-up and implementation

Establish permanent mandate for IGF with multi-year strategic planning

Implement blended funding mechanism for IGF combining core UN funding and voluntary contributions

Conduct self-evaluations of MAG members, Leadership Panel, and secretariat to gather feedback on what works and what needs improvement

Better integrate Dynamic Coalition outputs with WSIS action lines and broader framework

Strengthen liaison mechanisms between IGF and WSIS Forum for joint planning and agenda harmonization

Unresolved issues

How to effectively engage hyperscaler companies who show decreasing interest in multi-stakeholder processes while having significant impact on digital governance

Specific mechanisms for ensuring IGF outputs actually inform and influence intergovernmental decision-making processes

How to address the power asymmetry in multi-stakeholder processes where governments retain most decision-making authority

Concrete funding amounts and sources needed for sustainable IGF operations and inclusive participation

How to better connect Dynamic Coalition work and intersessional activities to the broader WSIS framework and action lines

Specific accountability frameworks for consistent implementation of WSIS commitments across different facilitators

How to ensure meaningful private sector participation beyond tokenistic consultation, especially for SMEs with high stakes in digital governance

Suggested compromises

Maintain technology-agnostic approach to WSIS action lines while updating them to address emerging technologies rather than creating entirely new frameworks

Use blended funding approach for IGF combining core UN funding with voluntary contributions to address resource constraints

Recognize IGF for its full ecosystem (intersessional work, dynamic coalitions, policy networks) while maintaining its bottom-up multi-stakeholder DNA

Strengthen individual components of WSIS framework while improving coordination between them rather than restructuring the entire system

Implement multi-stakeholder advisory mechanisms similar to IGF’s MAG for other WSIS components while respecting their specific needs and realities

Focus on improving existing processes and connections rather than creating new institutions or duplicating efforts

Balance government leadership role with meaningful stakeholder participation by starting multi-stakeholder engagement at national level before global processes

I would strongly encourage us to keep the same mindset that we’ve had 20 years ago and keep the action lines technology agnostic. I think that’s the way to go forward.

Speaker

Timea Suto

Reason

This comment provided a foundational principle for approaching WSIS reform – maintaining technology neutrality rather than creating new frameworks for each emerging technology. It offered a strategic lens for evaluating how to update existing frameworks without losing their adaptability.

Impact

This insight was immediately picked up by Renata Mielli who emphasized its importance, and it established a key theme that ran through the entire discussion – that existing frameworks could be adapted rather than replaced. It shifted the conversation from ‘what new structures do we need’ to ‘how do we better utilize what we have.’

WSIS must intentionally integrate marginalized voices, and integrate them not just as beneficiaries, but as co-creators of digital development.

Speaker

Elena Plexida

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenged the traditional approach to inclusion in digital governance by distinguishing between passive participation (as beneficiaries) and active participation (as co-creators). It introduced a more sophisticated understanding of meaningful participation.

Impact

This reframed the discussion about multistakeholder participation from a quantitative issue (how many stakeholders) to a qualitative one (what kind of participation). It elevated the conversation beyond procedural inclusion to substantive empowerment.

We are not yet as innovative in governing the digital space as the digital space is. We are lagging behind. We are far from a networked governance that is really active, agile, that is reacting as things emerge to the different challenges, to the opportunities.

Speaker

Jorge Cancio

Reason

This observation provided a meta-critique of digital governance itself, highlighting the fundamental mismatch between the speed and nature of digital innovation and the pace of governance structures. It identified a systemic problem rather than just procedural issues.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from incremental improvements to fundamental structural challenges. It introduced urgency and helped frame subsequent discussions about coordination and agility in governance mechanisms.

WSIS has been and is inclusive in participation, no doubt, but not yet in power. So decision-making and, to a large extent, agenda-setting really remains largely intergovernmental.

Speaker

Elena Plexida

Reason

This comment made a crucial distinction between participation and power, revealing that the appearance of multistakeholder engagement doesn’t necessarily translate to multistakeholder influence. It exposed a fundamental gap between rhetoric and reality in digital governance.

Impact

This insight deepened the analysis of multistakeholder governance beyond surface-level participation metrics. It led to more concrete discussions about structural changes needed, including Plexida’s suggestion for a multistakeholder advisory group and broader conversations about power-sharing mechanisms.

There’s a lot of people in the civil society and also on the UN side and maybe even on the government side who believe in multistakeholder. But on the private industry side, I see a rapid, immense decrease in interest in multistakeholder, especially when you look at who decides on technology development today.

Speaker

Peter A. Bruck

Reason

This comment introduced a critical reality check about the changing dynamics of private sector engagement, particularly highlighting how market concentration among hyperscalers has altered the multistakeholder landscape. It challenged assumptions about universal stakeholder buy-in.

Impact

This observation forced the panel to confront the practical limitations of multistakeholder approaches in an era of tech monopolization. It led to discussions about differentiated approaches to private sector engagement and the need for governments to take more active roles in ensuring participation.

We miss out again. We miss out in the millennial development goal in Africa. We could not achieve it. So SDG 2030 is also coming. We should not miss this as well.

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Reason

This comment brought historical perspective and urgency to the discussion by connecting current digital governance challenges to past development failures. It emphasized the real-world consequences of governance ineffectiveness, particularly for the Global South.

Impact

This added emotional weight and practical urgency to the technical discussions about governance structures. It helped ground the conversation in development realities and reinforced the importance of implementation over process.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond procedural concerns to address deeper structural and power dynamics in digital governance. The conversation evolved from initial technical discussions about updating frameworks to more sophisticated analyses of power distribution, inclusion quality, and systemic governance challenges. The comments created a progression from identifying what works (technology-neutral frameworks) to recognizing what doesn’t work (participation without power, governance lag behind innovation) to confronting external challenges (private sector disengagement, development urgency). This created a more nuanced and realistic foundation for discussing concrete improvements to digital governance mechanisms, ultimately leading to more substantive recommendations about funding, coordination, and structural reforms.

How can we better map each WSIS action line to specific SDG targets, not just broad goals?

Speaker

Elena Plexida

Explanation

This is important for creating more precise implementation frameworks and ensuring accountability in achieving both WSIS and SDG objectives

How can we use AI technology to help people access and extract substance from the vast amount of IGF data and information available since 2006?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenge of making the wealth of IGF outputs more accessible and usable for stakeholders

Which specific intergovernmental channels should multistakeholder mechanisms target to influence policymaking?

Speaker

Maria Joao Rodrigues

Explanation

Clear identification of target channels is crucial for designing more effective multistakeholder processes and ensuring meaningful influence on policy decisions

How can we differentiate and address the varying levels of interest in multistakeholder approaches within the private sector, particularly between hyperscalers and SMEs?

Speaker

Peter A. Bruck

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of engaging different types of private sector actors who have vastly different market positions and interests in multistakeholder governance

How can Dynamic Coalitions better respond to calls for proposals and organize their work to be reflected in WSIS and other fora?

Speaker

Wout de Natris

Explanation

This addresses the gap between the substantial work done by Dynamic Coalitions and their limited visibility and integration into broader governance processes

What specific blended funding mechanisms could be explored to sustainably support the IGF and broader WSIS framework?

Speaker

Valeria Betancourt

Explanation

Sustainable funding is critical for implementing improvements and ensuring the long-term effectiveness of digital governance mechanisms

How can we conduct systematic self-evaluations of MAG members, Leadership Panel members, and secretariat to improve IGF governance?

Speaker

Valeria Betancourt

Explanation

Regular assessment and feedback mechanisms are needed to continuously improve the effectiveness of IGF governance structures

How can we better market and disseminate IGF outputs to make them more relevant and accessible to other bodies within the WSIS framework?

Speaker

Timea Suto

Explanation

This addresses the coordination gap where valuable IGF work remains within the IGF ecosystem rather than informing broader digital governance processes