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
Don’t miss the deadline for contributions for the zero draft on wsis+20 https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=2zWeD09UYE-9zF6kFubccA9M... 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
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-9zF6kFubccA9M...
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.
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-9zF6kFubccA9M...
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.
Why is the IGF covering AI? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:+353599183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:+353599183090> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: jorge.cancio--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 26 June 2025 at 13:09 To: williamdrake.lists@gmail.com <williamdrake.lists@gmail.com> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. 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-9zF6kFubccA9M...
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.
guess because the community has been proposing it at least since 2017 as a relevant topic that runs over the Internet ;) ________________________________ Von: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Datum: 26. Juni 2025 um 14:12:09 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, williamdrake.lists@gmail.com <williamdrake.lists@gmail.com> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought Why is the IGF covering AI? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:+353599183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:+353599183090> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: jorge.cancio--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 26 June 2025 at 13:09 To: williamdrake.lists@gmail.com <williamdrake.lists@gmail.com> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. 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-9zF6kFubccA9M...
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.
Hello Michele, The question I have for you is, why should AI be excluded from the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ? However, since you asked your question first, allow me to explain why I think AI is properly within the subject matter remit of the IGF. If you look at the genesis/foundation of the IGF you need to go back and review Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda: 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General to convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue — called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet; b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world; f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries; g) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise; h) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes; i) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources; j) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; k) Publish its proceedings. Ever since 2005, WSIS and IGF have been intertwined. I have always viewed the IGF as a multistakeholder incubator for the WSIS. Therefore, I think it would be malfeasant NOT to include this crucial topic in the IGF agenda. During yesterday’s session entitled Internet Resilience: Securing a Stronger Supply Chain (see https://igf2025.sched.com/event/2481c?iframe=no) Vint Cerf gave an excellent keynote speech at the beginning of the session where he acknowledged the importance of the Internet in enabling AI. Unless you are running DeepSeek or GWEN locally, most people are probably using AI via the Internet. There were several excellent AI sessions this week, and I would encourage everyone to listen to the Children AI session that just wrapped up. It has been one of my favorite sessions so far this week. Kudos to Lego for their sponsorship of this research. So hopefully that explains my position, but I am interested to hear your thoughts. Best regards, Michael From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 8:12 AM To: jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch <jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, williamdrake.lists@gmail.com <williamdrake.lists@gmail.com> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought Why is the IGF covering AI? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:+353599183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:+353599183090> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: jorge.cancio--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 26 June 2025 at 13:09 To: williamdrake.lists@gmail.com <williamdrake.lists@gmail.com> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. 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-9zF6kFubccA9M...
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.
participants (5)
-
Fiona Alexander -
jorge.cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
michael palage.com -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
William Drake