Jordan’s arguments sound quite right. Best, v/ From: WSIS20 Outreach Network <wsis20@icann.org> Reply-To: Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 at 17:00 To: WSIS20 Outreach Network <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought Hi all Just to add one complication – if the name was changed (and a “Digital” name does feel more in keeping with contemporary use), there’d have to be a definition of what Digital Governance meant. You can easily argue that the current Tunis definition of Internet Governance would be appropriate: “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” But – here’s the rub – can you foresee a situation where United Nations member states were able to come to a consensus that that was the right definition for Digital Governance in 2025? The simplest approach is probably to keep the existing broad definition, acknowledge that this provides a suitable framework to deal with internet governance and digital policy processes (thank you Sao Paulo!), and focus more on the substance? Cheers Jordan (a personal view) From: Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2025 1:03 AM To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet@gmail.com>; Sivasubramanian M via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Chafic Chaya <cchaya@ripe.net> Cc: Blaker, Paul (DSIT) <paul.Blaker@dsit.gov.uk>; wsis20@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought 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,