While a name change is not necessary, the underlying reality is that the IGF is already a DGF. For example, a great number of recent sessions concerned AI, and not even particularly its direct impact on the Internet.

If there is a desire for the forum not to be about "Digital", then the effort needs to be to scale it DOWN from what it already became.

Best,


On July 2, 2025 10:49:07 AM GMT-03:00, Sivasubramanian M via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
What would a new name imply? An empowered IGF? An IGF that encompasses technology and related policy and governance challenges that are presently deemed "out of mandate" or "out of scope"?  An IGF that moves further ahead to outline action items and forge ahead to build cross-border, global collaboration across stakeholders? Why not start by expanding the IGF rather than start with a name change? Rebranding carries within the risk of de-branding. The IGF with the name IGF has served a definite purpose, it is evolving and it ain't broken. 

 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
sender


On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 4:39 PM Chafic Chaya via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Paul,

Thank you for sharing the UK perspective and for your analysis of the WSIS+20 Elements Paper. Your point on the disconnect with the agreements reached in GDC is important and merits priority and attention as the process advances.

I also thank Pari and other colleagues for their feedback and reflections on the name change to DGF and the Elements Paper. I share your and their caution that a rebranding could dilute the identity and credibility that the IGF has built over the years as the primary multistakeholder platform focused on Internet governance. 

More broadly, we must be careful not to blur the lines between Internet governance, broader digital governance, and the technical coordination of core Internet infrastructure. These are distinct but interrelated domains, and mixing them without clarity could unintentionally undermine the legitimacy of existing processes or create new confusion over roles and responsibilities.

Best Regards,
Chafic


On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 at 21:10, Blaker, Paul (DSIT) via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

OFFICIAL


Hi all

 

I’m also rather cautious about changing the name to “Digital Governance Forum”. There is a risk it might weaken the IGF because the communities that deal with other digital issues would not necessarily recognise a “DGF” as their primary multi-stakeholder platform.  By trying to cover everything, there is a risk a “DGF” could lose legitimacy.

 

Thanks to everyone for the interesting comments on the Elements Paper. I’m attaching a summary of some UK Government thinking here. Perhaps the biggest surprise for us was that it does not seem to take into account the agreements made in the GDC and risks taking us backward, or re-opening issues that the GDC covered less than a year ago...

 

thanks,

 

Paul

 

 

Paul Blaker

Head of ITU and Internet Governance

Department for Science, Innovation & Technology

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 7515 701352

www.gov.uk/dsit | https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk  

 


OFFICIAL

From: Natalia Filina via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
Sent: 29 June 2025 15:11
To: matthew shears <matthew@intpolicy.com>
Cc: wsis20@icann.org; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
Subject: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought

 

Dear friends, colleagues, hi!
Thank you all for this discussion and opinions, I'll add my own:


- I support the opinion - It is important to keep the name. Any rebranding is a step back from the progress made in understanding and recognizing brand value (marketing in theory and in practice works for IGF too). IGF is a brand of multilateral, multipolar, inclusive dialogue. Given how much effort we spend on attracting new stakeholders and youth, it is important to stand by the famous and significant name.
IGF is an evolutionary comprehensive in the essence, let`s don`t play with words?

 

- Focus on the results of the IGF is a very important work. But better not try to jump into metrics mode: IGF is the global base, background in this architecture of the IG organizations, events, actions, interaction, shared framework guiding the global digital ecosystem toward fairness, safety, and opportunity for all. Well, after 20 years let's look at the points of indirect influence, let's admit that we will find these points in different tracks and organizations - each new law, a new heated discussion, a developed policy on governance, protecting Internet sovereignty or moving away from ideas of Internet fragmentation, any new request to consider, obliges, the reaction of governments or IT giants and moves forward - will we be able to describe and formulate this? a rhetorical question. I see we are doing it every day globally and locally and advocate for Internet and digital progress in action. For me it is a well visible result with less conversation, more action as afterwards (Hello to Elvis-).

 

- We have one very important exact result and a tool for moving forward - GDC, a set of shared principles, commitments, and actions aimed at ensuring that digital technologies contribute positively to humanity and development worldwide. Those who participate in the GDC input know for sure that we`ve put a lot of effort to concretize and emphasize important focuses and understand clearly about ways to its realization.

- AI for sure is a part of IG discussion: technology, ethics, security, optimization, opportunities and risks for each stakeholder, for cross-border cooperation and development, and so on - these need to be discussed in the direction of each IGF track.



Great, we are all together this way. See you soon, online/offline - always my pleasure!🩵

 

 

Sincerely,

Natalia Filina

 

Secretary of EURALO  

 

IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member


DotDucky owner 🐣

 

+7 906 722 54 61

Moscow, Russia 

 

 

сб, 28 июн. 2025 г. в 23:22, matthew shears via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>:

Hi

While not having contributed to date to these discussions I have been following the exchanges with great interest.

I think Pari has very well summed up the arguments against "rebranding" the IGF.   Even a subtitle would add confusion.

I agree with Fiona's concerns about the Elements paper.  I find the document an unhelpful in its restating of tired old arguments and posturing.  Almost each segment of the paper asks for further input on the same issues for which input has been provided time and time again - this is disappointing to say the least (although perhaps predictable).  I fear that it effectively ensures that the same old tired issues will persist.

Pari's suggestion is a good way forward: "It would be good to acknowledge the intersessional work, the evolution of enhanced cooperation, and the real, practical outcomes generated by the IGF and related processes over these past twenty years.".

And lastly, while I recognize that the GDC is not to everyone's liking I wonder if there aren't statements in it that could be leveraged to move the discussion forward without endangering what has been accomplished to date.

Matthew

On 28/06/2025 17:57, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:

Dear all,

Thank you for these interesting exchanges. I’d like to add a few reflections:

First, I strongly agree with Bill, Alejandro, and others that we need to be careful not to dilute the WSIS+20 vision by unnecessarily rebranding the IGF. The IGF is a well-recognized multistakeholder forum and its value is built on its broad, inclusive definition of Internet governance, covering not just technical infrastructure but also all the critical public policy dimensions that flow from it, including AI. Rebrand could create confusion about scope, risk duplicating other initiatives, or even may weaken the role of the technical community.

I do see Jorge’s point about the communication challenge. It’s true that the wider public often misunderstands what Internet governance includes. But that is a communication problem. Rather than changing the IGF name, we should invest more in how we communicate its scope and impact. A clear, accessible explainer on the IGF website outlining how issues like AI and broader digital policy fit within the IGF’s mandate, could help address this without losing two decades of hard-won trust and recognition.

More broadly, I find the structure of the Elements Paper useful, but I echo Fiona’s observation that the second half feels less balanced in recognizing progress since WSIS. It would be good to acknowledge the intersessional work, the evolution of enhanced cooperation, and the real, practical outcomes generated by the IGF and related processes over these past twenty years.

In short: the IGF’s strength is its flexibility and its community. Let’s not undermine that with a name change when the real issue is how we convey its relevance and its evolving role to both new and existing stakeholders.

Cheers,

Pari

 

On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 12:40 PM Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

My proposal is to keep the acronym "IGF" as the brand name and as the established and well known logo, but call it - as the subtitle - the "Global Forum on Digital Policies".

 

Wolfgang

 

Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 27.06.2025 21:14 CEST geschrieben:

 

 

Bill,

 

I'm with you on this one. The proposed "rebranding" is actually a change in scope, reach, stakeholders and purpose, and heads directly to living under the umbrella of the GDC. Among other undesirable effects would be a further dilution of the technical community's role as a pillar, a reality check both on what is not possible as, more importantly what IS possible. 

 

Yours,

 

Alejandro Pisanty

 

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 4:19 AM William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Jorge

Ok so if the issue isn’t that you want to focus on non-IG topics but rather that someone in the larger public (unclear who, based on what) doesn’t understand the scope of IG issues, wouldn’t it be better to simply explain the scope of IG issues, rather than change the name to something that probably is no more clearly bounded in their minds?  Maybe the IGF could have a simple page on its site saying what IG (and governance more generally) means?

Effectively tossing what was agreed in Tunis and done for 20 years in IGF because someone somewhere is perceived to not understand  something about it just seems like an odd move, especially if they are just as likely to not understand what is and isn’t meant by digital governance…

Cheers

Bill

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 26, 2025, at 2:08 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> Hi Bill
>
> Thanks for you thoughtful input. We are very well aware of the broad working definition of IG. At the same time the perception of the larger public is nowadays to equate „Internet Governance“ with something more narrow…
>
> Hence the rebranding is a question of communication and understanding: how do we best convey that the IGF is covering from connectivity to HR, AI and so many other things? A rebranding is an option, and can be done in different fashions (as we say in the paper)… but we are open to any options that help to address the existing branding/communication problem that leads to many unproductive discussions and to (interested or naive) pressions to create „digital governance“ fora/venues…
>
> kindly
>
> Jorge
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: William Drake <williamdrake.lists@gmail.com>
> Datum: 26. Juni 2025 um 13:43:07 MESZ
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought
>
> Hi Jorge
>
> Thanks for recirculating your paper, which has a lot of good ideas like adding multistakeholder dimensions to the UNGIS and CSTD.  However, I’m struggling a bit with one key proposal:
>
> “One further measure should be to strengthen the IGF by rebranding it into a Digital Governance Forum (DGF) or Digital Cooperation Forum (DCF), reflecting and better showcasing the fact that its mandate and practice already cover all aspects of digital governance, not just matters related to the technical governance of the Internet.”
>
> The WGIG proposed and the Tunis Agenda agreed to a “broad definition” of IG that covered the use of the Internet for information, communication, commerce etc.  This was an explicit rejection of the 1990s view that IG involved just the “technical” governance of names, numbers etc., which had inter alia fed the notion that it was all about ICANN and the fight about whether the ITU shouldn’t be doing these things instead.  The WGIG proposed and the Tunis Agenda agreed to an IGF that was based on this definition, and hence we have had 20 years of discussions of governance issues related to privacy, human rights, digital trade, IPR, security, social media content and on and on.  Many (but not all) of the issues of today related to e.g. data and AI also fit comfortably within the definition.  And the IGF community is generally pretty focused on promoting and protecting the Internet as a primary concern.
>
> Hence I’m puzzled about why you want to downgrade the focus on the Internet and shift to a broader formulation.  What non-Internet governance issues do you want us to focus on that cannot be properly addressed in an “IGF”?  Radio spectrum management? Quant?  EV plug standards?  AI use in molecular research?  I’m not getting the argument, but surely it can’t be that IG means just name and numbers?
>
> If instead the concern is protect the IGF from competing initiatives, I have to wonder.  The DCF proposal got no traction and seems to be in the rear view mirror, and renaming phenomena and valued processes because of some actors’ efforts or preferences seems a bad idea.
>
> I’m just not getting your thinking and would like to, so any clarification would be welcome.  In the meantime, I favor keeping a focus on the Internet, and Internet governance.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jun 23, 2025, at 4:34 PM, jorge.cancio--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
>>
>> Don’t miss the deadline for contributions for the zero draft on wsis+20 https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=2zWeD09UYE-9zF6kFubccA9MLsbciY9FuR_t2RxbPZ1UN1c1RVdMV09EQUg0VjdCTTZBMk1KMFowVC4u
>>
>> If you are in need of ideas, please feel free to use the non-paper attached :)
>>
>> kindly
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Fiona Alexander via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
>> Datum: 21. Juni 2025 um 16:07:16 MESZ
>> An: wsis20@ICANN.org <wsis20@icann.org>
>> Betreff: [wsis20] Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper
>>
>> Hi to all
>>
>> Sharing my take on the elements paper.  Looking forward to hearing more from others both in person at IGF in Norway and online.
>>
>>
>> *   The upfront/intro section is decent in terms of laying out the current environment, the processes so far and includes fulsome multistakeholder references.   This chapeau context is important to keep in mind as you review each of the subsequent 15 sections.
>>
>>
>>
>> *   The general structure of the first half of the issues listed (the first 7) is that each section seems to have a clear structure of:  here is the issue, recognition of improvements and identifications of challenges since WSIS, and then closes with a specific feedback question.
>>
>>
>>
>> *   Nice call out to ICANN and the work on IDNs in para 33, under bridging the digital divide.
>>
>>
>>
>> *   This structural approach differs in the second half of the elements paper (the remaining 8 sections) starting with the human rights section, so this includes the Internet governance section.  In this second half, the approach taken does not clearly describe the progress since WSIS per topic, but it does indicate proposals will be coming and then describes at some level the scope of proposals.  This can come across a bit more prescriptive.  Unclear why or if this is indicative of anything.  Perhaps different staff drafters/leads per section?
>>
>>
>>
>> *   On Internet governance the text seems to me to be a bit of a mixed bag.
>>
>>
>>
>>    *   Paragraph 59 is 2003 text without the previously agreed contextual qualifiers, so it appears very stark.  It does not even update to the agreed WSIS+10 language and seems inconsistent with opening section on multistakeholder.  “The governance of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations.”
>>
>>
>>
>>    *   59 should be seen as coupled with paragraph 63 on enhanced cooperation which is also a throwback to 2003/2005 and does not recognize all the work on enhanced cooperation over 20 years including the CSTD working group. “Enhanced cooperation is critical to enabling governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.”
>>
>>
>>
>>    *   Paragraph 60 is clear on the IGF though.  “The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has become an established forum for discussion and its importance as the primary multi-stakeholder platform for discussion of Internet governance issues has been recognized.”
>>
>>
>>
>>    *   As with the second half of the paper there are no specific feedback questions included, but there is a clear indication in paragraphs 62 and 64 that zero draft will include proposals on IGF mandate and renewal as well as enhanced cooperation.
>>
>>
>> Section by Section
>>
>> Information and communications technologies for development
>> “Feedback is sought on ways to strengthen digital capacity, foster inclusion, and ensure equitable digital development for all.”
>>
>> Digital Economy
>> “Feedback is invited on how to close structural gaps, support small enterprises, and ensure fair access to digital opportunities for sustainable development.”
>>
>> Social and cultural development
>> “Feedback is invited on how to expand inclusive access to digital services, address data protection risks, and strengthen national strategies for equitable digital transformation.”
>>
>> Environmental impacts
>> “Feedback is encouraged on ways to reduce the sector’s environmental impact, including advancing circular economy approaches, improving recycling, and setting sustainability standards for digital technologies.”
>>
>> Bridging digital divides
>> “Bridging digital divides across and within countries will remain a central priority of WSIS. We invite reflections on how the WSIS +20 review can contribute towards achieving this”
>>
>> The enabling environment
>> “Feedback is welcomed on how to strengthen integrated digital policies, ensure legal coherence across sectors, and promote innovation while safeguarding rights and public interests.”
>>
>> Financial mechanisms
>> “Feedback is invited on enhancing international support, increasing targeted financing, and ensuring equitable access to resources for inclusive digital transformation.”
>>
>> Human rights and ethical dimensions of the Information Society
>> No feedback question
>>
>> Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
>> “We invite proposals in this section on augmenting confidence and security in the use of ICTs in line with existing processes and platforms.”
>>
>> Internet governance
>> “The mandate of IGF is subject to this review and proposals on the renewal of its mandate will be presented in the zero draft.”
>>
>> “The Zero draft will consider proposals on how to work towards the improvement of enhanced cooperation as envisaged in the Tunis Agenda.”
>>
>> Data governance
>> “Proposals on data governance will be presented in the zero draft, taking into consideration the ongoing process working group on data governance for development established by CSTD that will report to the General Assembly in 2026”
>>
>> Artificial Intelligence
>> “Proposals on Artificial Intelligence will be presented in the zero draft, taking into consideration implementation of the Global Digital Compact and the need to ascertain a relationship between GDC implementation and WSIS”
>>
>> Capacity development
>> “The zero draft will explore how to improve capacity building, including by strengthening coherence and coordination between existing mechanisms, establishing new capacity building programs, and other options. We invite ideas and reflections on how to strengthen capacity building in the WSIS +20 Review”
>>
>> Monitoring and measurement
>> “Proposals concerning monitoring and measurement will be included in the zero draft following consideration of responses to the consultation on this Elements Paper.”
>>
>> Follow-up and review
>> “Proposals concerning follow-up to the 2025 review will be included in the zero draft following consideration of responses to the consultation on this Elements Paper.”
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Fiona Alexander
>> Distinguished Policy Strategist in Residence, School of International Service
>> Distinguished Fellow, Internet Governance Lab
>> Executive Advisor, Khan Cyber and Economic Security Institute
>> American University
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
>>
>> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

 


--

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


 

--

Pari Esfandiari

President

Pario - Architects of Ideas

Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)

     : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)

     : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)

 

_______________________________________________
 
 
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
 
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
 
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________


Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Mark W. Datysgeld
Governance Primer & ICANNWiki