Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought
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-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.
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-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.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:williamdrake.lists@gmail.com> Datum: 26. Juni 2025 um 13:43:07 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch mailto:jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: wsis20@icann.org mailto:wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 21. Juni 2025 um 16:07:16 MESZ An: wsis20@ICANN.org <wsis20@icann.org mailto: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.
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-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.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
Dear All, I agree with Pari's last contribution( it captured well contributions from Bill and others) , the name change is not the solution , what do we aim to achieve with the change of name? We can as well bring those into IGF whilst preserving the key structure of multistakeholderism the IGF had enjoyed since inception.. Yes, we should create more awareness, educate and amplify what IGF stands for. Afterall , the internet fabric enables most if not all of the concerns plus emerging tech like AI.. Tinuade Oguntuyi fNSIG On Sat, 28 Jun 2025, 17:57 Pari Esfandiari via wsis20, <wsis20@icann.org> 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-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.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Av.+Universidad+3000,+04510+Mexico+DF+Mex...> +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 *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* 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.
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-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.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 /*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> */ */Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas/* info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* 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.
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 https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> 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-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.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* 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.
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<http://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 https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky<https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣 +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia сб, 28 июн. 2025 г. в 23:22, matthew shears via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:williamdrake.lists@gmail.com>> Datum: 26. Juni 2025 um 13:43:07 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Datum: 21. Juni 2025 um 16:07:16 MESZ An: wsis20@ICANN.org<mailto:wsis20@ICANN.org> <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<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<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 Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org/> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> 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.
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
https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo
IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member
DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> 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-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.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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
*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org/> *
*Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/>- Architects of Ideas*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>*
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.
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
https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo
IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member
DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> 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-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.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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
*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org/> *
*Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/>- Architects of Ideas*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>*
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.
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
https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo
IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member
DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> 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-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.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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
*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org/> *
*Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/>- Architects of Ideas*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>*
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
I'm not entirely convinced that a name change isn't necessary. Every time I have to explain what the IGF stands for, I encounter considerable difficulty in conveying the full scope of its work. The name Internet Governance Forum simply doesn't reflect the broad range of digital issues it addresses and discusses today. In my view, a name should encapsulate the universe it represents — and IGF, as it stands, falls short of doing so. A change is not just desirable, but necessary to align the name with the evolving and complex nature of the digital landscape the IGF engages with. Best, Titti Da: Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Inviato: mercoledì 2 luglio 2025 17:03 A: 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 Oggetto: [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, On July 2, 2025 10:49:07 AM GMT-03:00, Sivasubramanian M via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.gov.uk/dsit> | https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk OFFICIAL From: Natalia Filina via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Sent: 29 June 2025 15:11 To: matthew shears <matthew@intpolicy.com<mailto:matthew@intpolicy.com>> Cc: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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 https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky<https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣 +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia сб, 28 июн. 2025 г. в 23:22, matthew shears via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:williamdrake.lists@gmail.com>> Datum: 26. Juni 2025 um 13:43:07 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Datum: 21. Juni 2025 um 16:07:16 MESZ An: wsis20@ICANN.org<mailto:wsis20@ICANN.org> <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<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<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 Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org/> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> 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
I would be concerned that suggesting changes to the name now could/would distract from more pressing challenges - one of which Paul identified: "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..." This is far more worrying in that the hard work that went into the GDC to ensure that it was forward looking, with plenty of references to multistakeholder and/or "all stakeholders", could well be lost much to the delight of those who would like to use the WSIS review to revive enhanced cooperation and see a return of the arcana of "relevant stakeholders" nomenclature... Matthew On 02/07/2025 17:06, CASSA Concettina via wsis20 wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced that a name change isn't necessary. Every time I have to explain what the IGF stands for, I encounter considerable difficulty in conveying the full scope of its work. The name /Internet Governance Forum/ simply doesn't reflect the broad range of digital issues it addresses and discusses today. In my view, a name should encapsulate the universe it represents — and /IGF/, as it stands, falls short of doing so. A change is not just desirable, but necessary to align the name with the evolving and complex nature of the digital landscape the IGF engages with.
Best,
Titti
*Da:*Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Inviato:* mercoledì 2 luglio 2025 17:03 *A:* 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 *Oggetto:* [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,
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 <http://www.gov.uk/dsit> | https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk <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
https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo <https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo>
IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member
DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> 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-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.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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
*/Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org/> /*
*/Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/>- Architects of Ideas/*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>*
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
_______________________________________________
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 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, On July 2, 2025 10:49:07 AM GMT-03:00, Sivasubramanian M via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.gov.uk/dsit> | https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk OFFICIAL From: Natalia Filina via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Sent: 29 June 2025 15:11 To: matthew shears <matthew@intpolicy.com<mailto:matthew@intpolicy.com>> Cc: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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 https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky<https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣 +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia сб, 28 июн. 2025 г. в 23:22, matthew shears via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:williamdrake.lists@gmail.com>> Datum: 26. Juni 2025 um 13:43:07 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Datum: 21. Juni 2025 um 16:07:16 MESZ An: wsis20@ICANN.org<mailto:wsis20@ICANN.org> <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<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<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 Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org/> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> 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
Hi all, I concur with Jordan. If, between Geneva and Tunis—under an entirely different geopolitical situation—it took the creation of the WGIG to come up with that working definition, I cannot imagine what would have to happen to produce anything close to a working definition of digital governance. Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society From: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 at 5:00 PM To: ICANN wsis20 <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, On July 2, 2025 10:49:07 AM GMT-03:00, Sivasubramanian M via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.gov.uk/dsit> | https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk OFFICIAL From: Natalia Filina via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Sent: 29 June 2025 15:11 To: matthew shears <matthew@intpolicy.com<mailto:matthew@intpolicy.com>> Cc: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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 https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky<https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣 +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia сб, 28 июн. 2025 г. в 23:22, matthew shears via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:williamdrake.lists@gmail.com>> Datum: 26. Juni 2025 um 13:43:07 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Datum: 21. Juni 2025 um 16:07:16 MESZ An: wsis20@ICANN.org<mailto:wsis20@ICANN.org> <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<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<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 Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org/> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> 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
Hi Jordan, I enjoyed Vivian Maidaborn's presentation on TCCM just delivered at PACIGF! I suspect you did too. It had me in mind that 'Global Multistakeholder' is good nomenclature. Joly On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 5:00 PM Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
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,
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
https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo
IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member
DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> 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-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.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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
*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org/> *
*Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/>- Architects of Ideas*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>*
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 _______________________________________________
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.
Dang Joly, I am on the waitlist for pacIGF. Probably a good thing or I'd get no work done! Will they be publishing recordings, do you know? *On the naming convention/s *- thanks for the back and forth. For what it's worth, why would we change the name? It only further entrenches the English-first perspective of progress. Jennifer Chung made some excellent points at the IGF Norway about capture and takeover should the change be made. It has taken significant work from local communities to collectively gather, activate, and share knowledge locally and across their global peers. It seems like a cruel set back to traction to change this wording. I only just caught on that the local and regional IGF's were called NRI's. IF there were to be any change now in dialogue or terminology, I'd prefer to adopt the pluralised Internet Governance Forum/s (Fora?) with the NRI title being the initiatives that they help facilitate/inspire/support/showcase...imo there are cost savings and attendance benefits to be had with incorporating the global IGF into the WSIS forum. These cost savings should be funneled into the local and regional IGFs etc. *On the AI example: *Question: Why isn't AI considered Internet Governance? Or perhaps, why is Internet Governance not considered sufficient for AI? I've created a VERY quick/basic/not at all accurate AI generated breakdown to illustrate this point. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hF1K0j97gZPC6X8Dp2dPzzrmg5OiBUAwuheiYyGe... *Digital is not the danger. *No one worried about the digital clock, microwaves. Isn't it the connectivity, the collection, use, and impacts of the Internet that we are concerned about? About equal opportunities economically, creatively, and for our future generations of public infrastructure and services? I'm interested in your thoughts on this approach, again noting the detail is totally unusable and likely inaccurate due to time constraints (Life of the volunteer right?) Thanks everyone also on the elements paper inputs, very helpful as that's next on my list to get out for approval in the AU civil society/academia network. Kiki On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 1:06 PM Joly MacFie via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I enjoyed Vivian Maidaborn's presentation on TCCM just delivered at PACIGF! I suspect you did too.
It had me in mind that 'Global Multistakeholder' is good nomenclature.
Joly
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 5:00 PM Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
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,
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
https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo
IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member
DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> 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-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.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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
*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org/> *
*Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/>- Architects of Ideas*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>*
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 _______________________________________________
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.
I am streaming it, less or more https://isoc.live/19493/ On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 12:15 AM Kiki Fong Lim <kikifonglim@gmail.com> wrote:
Dang Joly, I am on the waitlist for pacIGF. Probably a good thing or I'd get no work done! Will they be publishing recordings, do you know?
*On the naming convention/s *- thanks for the back and forth. For what it's worth, why would we change the name? It only further entrenches the English-first perspective of progress. Jennifer Chung made some excellent points at the IGF Norway about capture and takeover should the change be made. It has taken significant work from local communities to collectively gather, activate, and share knowledge locally and across their global peers. It seems like a cruel set back to traction to change this wording.
I only just caught on that the local and regional IGF's were called NRI's. IF there were to be any change now in dialogue or terminology, I'd prefer to adopt the pluralised Internet Governance Forum/s (Fora?) with the NRI title being the initiatives that they help facilitate/inspire/support/showcase...imo there are cost savings and attendance benefits to be had with incorporating the global IGF into the WSIS forum. These cost savings should be funneled into the local and regional IGFs etc.
*On the AI example: *Question: Why isn't AI considered Internet Governance? Or perhaps, why is Internet Governance not considered sufficient for AI?
I've created a VERY quick/basic/not at all accurate AI generated breakdown to illustrate this point.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hF1K0j97gZPC6X8Dp2dPzzrmg5OiBUAwuheiYyGe...
*Digital is not the danger. *No one worried about the digital clock, microwaves. Isn't it the connectivity, the collection, use, and impacts of the Internet that we are concerned about? About equal opportunities economically, creatively, and for our future generations of public infrastructure and services?
I'm interested in your thoughts on this approach, again noting the detail is totally unusable and likely inaccurate due to time constraints (Life of the volunteer right?)
Thanks everyone also on the elements paper inputs, very helpful as that's next on my list to get out for approval in the AU civil society/academia network.
Kiki
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 1:06 PM Joly MacFie via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I enjoyed Vivian Maidaborn's presentation on TCCM just delivered at PACIGF! I suspect you did too.
It had me in mind that 'Global Multistakeholder' is good nomenclature.
Joly
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 5:00 PM Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
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,
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
https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo
IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member
DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> 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-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.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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
*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org/> *
*Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/>- Architects of Ideas*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>*
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 _______________________________________________
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.
Joly! [image: image.png] On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 2:22 PM Joly MacFie <jolynyc@gmail.com> wrote:
I am streaming it, less or more https://isoc.live/19493/
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 12:15 AM Kiki Fong Lim <kikifonglim@gmail.com> wrote:
Dang Joly, I am on the waitlist for pacIGF. Probably a good thing or I'd get no work done! Will they be publishing recordings, do you know?
*On the naming convention/s *- thanks for the back and forth. For what it's worth, why would we change the name? It only further entrenches the English-first perspective of progress. Jennifer Chung made some excellent points at the IGF Norway about capture and takeover should the change be made. It has taken significant work from local communities to collectively gather, activate, and share knowledge locally and across their global peers. It seems like a cruel set back to traction to change this wording.
I only just caught on that the local and regional IGF's were called NRI's. IF there were to be any change now in dialogue or terminology, I'd prefer to adopt the pluralised Internet Governance Forum/s (Fora?) with the NRI title being the initiatives that they help facilitate/inspire/support/showcase...imo there are cost savings and attendance benefits to be had with incorporating the global IGF into the WSIS forum. These cost savings should be funneled into the local and regional IGFs etc.
*On the AI example: *Question: Why isn't AI considered Internet Governance? Or perhaps, why is Internet Governance not considered sufficient for AI?
I've created a VERY quick/basic/not at all accurate AI generated breakdown to illustrate this point.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hF1K0j97gZPC6X8Dp2dPzzrmg5OiBUAwuheiYyGe...
*Digital is not the danger. *No one worried about the digital clock, microwaves. Isn't it the connectivity, the collection, use, and impacts of the Internet that we are concerned about? About equal opportunities economically, creatively, and for our future generations of public infrastructure and services?
I'm interested in your thoughts on this approach, again noting the detail is totally unusable and likely inaccurate due to time constraints (Life of the volunteer right?)
Thanks everyone also on the elements paper inputs, very helpful as that's next on my list to get out for approval in the AU civil society/academia network.
Kiki
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 1:06 PM Joly MacFie via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I enjoyed Vivian Maidaborn's presentation on TCCM just delivered at PACIGF! I suspect you did too.
It had me in mind that 'Global Multistakeholder' is good nomenclature.
Joly
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 5:00 PM Jordan Carter via wsis20 < wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
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,
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
https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo
IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member
DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> 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-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.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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
*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org/> *
*Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/>- Architects of Ideas*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>*
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 _______________________________________________
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.
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,
1++ to Jordan. And again, keep the acronym IGF and add a subtitle: "Global Forum for Digital Policy Making" Wolfgang
Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 03.07.2025 13:46 CEST geschrieben:
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,
_______________________________________________ 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.
+1 to Wolfgang and Jordan Yrjö From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 3. July 2025 at 14.51 To: Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org>, Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought 1++ to Jordan. And again, keep the acronym IGF and add a subtitle: "Global Forum for Digital Policy Making" Wolfgang Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 03.07.2025 13:46 CEST geschrieben: 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, _______________________________________________ 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.
I support the proposal shared by Wolfgang to add a subtitle. Titti Da: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Inviato: giovedì 3 luglio 2025 13:51 A: Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org>; Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> Oggetto: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought 1++ to Jordan. And again, keep the acronym IGF and add a subtitle: "Global Forum for Digital Policy Making" Wolfgang Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> hat am 03.07.2025 13:46 CEST geschrieben: Jordan’s arguments sound quite right. Best, v/ From: WSIS20 Outreach Network <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Reply-To: Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au<mailto:jordan.carter@auda.org.au>> Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 at 17:00 To: WSIS20 Outreach Network <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2025 1:03 AM To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>>; Sivasubramanian M via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>; Chafic Chaya <cchaya@ripe.net<mailto:cchaya@ripe.net>> Cc: Blaker, Paul (DSIT) <paul.Blaker@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:paul.Blaker@dsit.gov.uk>>; wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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, _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear all, Very sensible thoughts which I wholeheartedly support. Best, Annebeth Lange Sendt fra Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: CASSA Concettina via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 9:05:05 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>; Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org>; Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> Subject: [wsis20] R: Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought I support the proposal shared by Wolfgang to add a subtitle. Titti Da: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Inviato: giovedì 3 luglio 2025 13:51 A: Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org>; Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> Oggetto: [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought 1++ to Jordan. And again, keep the acronym IGF and add a subtitle: "Global Forum for Digital Policy Making" Wolfgang Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> hat am 03.07.2025 13:46 CEST geschrieben: Jordan’s arguments sound quite right. Best, v/ From: WSIS20 Outreach Network <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Reply-To: Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au<mailto:jordan.carter@auda.org.au>> Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 at 17:00 To: WSIS20 Outreach Network <wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2025 1:03 AM To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>>; Sivasubramanian M via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>; Chafic Chaya <cchaya@ripe.net<mailto:cchaya@ripe.net>> Cc: Blaker, Paul (DSIT) <paul.Blaker@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:paul.Blaker@dsit.gov.uk>>; wsis20@icann.org<mailto: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, _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear all, Thank you all for this wide-ranging discussion. I’ve found the different perspectives enriching. As many of you have emphasized, the current breadth of the IGF's agenda demonstrates its relevance far beyond technical coordination. But that is precisely the point: the IGF has evolved without needing a new name. Its strength lies in its flexibility, multistakeholder character, and the legitimacy it has built over two decades under the banner of Internet Governance. I continue to believe that the problem is not the name but the narrative. The term “Internet governance,” as anchored in the Tunis Agenda, is already broad and inclusive. If there is confusion or misperception among the public or policymakers, we should address that through better communication and framing, not by discarding a well-established identity. I also want to echo Fiona and others in urging a more balanced and forward-looking framing of the Elements Paper. While it’s useful as a starting point, we risk missing the opportunity to recognize the real progress and outputs of the IGF and other WSIS follow-ups over the past 20 years. Rather than rebranding the IGF, let’s invest in stronger public messaging on what Internet governance means in practice today, acknowledging the IGF’s contributions in the WSIS+20 process, and avoiding confusion that may arise from unnecessary structural or branding change. Cheers, Pari On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 6:03 AM Annebeth Lange via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Very sensible thoughts which I wholeheartedly support.
Best, Annebeth Lange
Sendt fra Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* CASSA Concettina via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, July 3, 2025 9:05:05 PM *To:* Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>; Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org>; Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> *Subject:* [wsis20] R: Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought
I support the proposal shared by Wolfgang to add a subtitle.
Titti
*Da:* Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Inviato:* giovedì 3 luglio 2025 13:51 *A:* Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org>; Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> *Oggetto:* [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought
1++ to Jordan. And again, keep the acronym IGF and add a subtitle: "Global Forum for Digital Policy Making"
Wolfgang
Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 03.07.2025 13:46 CEST geschrieben:
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,
_______________________________________________ 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 *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
Good Morning All, Hope you can spare a few minutes to read what I captured in the first Dialogue that happened on the Elements paper https://www.talkafrica.co.ke/african-voices-dominate-the-wsis20-review-eleme... Kind Regards *Winnie Kamau* *Editor & Data Journalist Talk Africa <http://www.talkafrica.co.ke>* *+254721754349* *If you do not take care of nature... then nature will take care of you: Wangari Maathai* On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 2:40 PM Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Thank you all for this wide-ranging discussion. I’ve found the different perspectives enriching. As many of you have emphasized, the current breadth of the IGF's agenda demonstrates its relevance far beyond technical coordination. But that is precisely the point: the IGF has evolved without needing a new name. Its strength lies in its flexibility, multistakeholder character, and the legitimacy it has built over two decades under the banner of Internet Governance. I continue to believe that the problem is not the name but the narrative. The term “Internet governance,” as anchored in the Tunis Agenda, is already broad and inclusive. If there is confusion or misperception among the public or policymakers, we should address that through better communication and framing, not by discarding a well-established identity.
I also want to echo Fiona and others in urging a more balanced and forward-looking framing of the Elements Paper. While it’s useful as a starting point, we risk missing the opportunity to recognize the real progress and outputs of the IGF and other WSIS follow-ups over the past 20 years.
Rather than rebranding the IGF, let’s invest in stronger public messaging on what Internet governance means in practice today, acknowledging the IGF’s contributions in the WSIS+20 process, and avoiding confusion that may arise from unnecessary structural or branding change.
Cheers,
Pari
On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 6:03 AM Annebeth Lange via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Very sensible thoughts which I wholeheartedly support.
Best, Annebeth Lange
Sendt fra Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* CASSA Concettina via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, July 3, 2025 9:05:05 PM *To:* Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info>; Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org>; Veni Markovski via wsis20 < wsis20@icann.org>; Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> *Subject:* [wsis20] R: Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought
I support the proposal shared by Wolfgang to add a subtitle.
Titti
*Da:* Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Inviato:* giovedì 3 luglio 2025 13:51 *A:* Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org>; Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> *Oggetto:* [wsis20] Re: Thoughts on WSIS+20 elements paper// food for thought
1++ to Jordan. And again, keep the acronym IGF and add a subtitle: "Global Forum for Digital Policy Making"
Wolfgang
Veni Markovski via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 03.07.2025 13:46 CEST geschrieben:
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,
_______________________________________________ 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 *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* 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.
Hi, for me, one of the biggest success stories of WSIS Action Line 5 is the adoption of the UN Convention on Cybercrime (2024) and the establishment of the new Global Mechanism on Cybersecurity under the 1st Committee of the UNGA (2025). Cybersecurity was one of the key issues when WSIS started in 2002. It was just a couple of months after the signing of the Budapest Convention against cybercrime (2001). At this time cybersecurity was seen more as "cybercrime" and less as "national security" issue. But the call for a "Global Culture of Cybersecurity" in the Geneva WSIS Declaration (2003) stimulated the UNGA in 2004, to consider the subject and to kick start a process which led to GGEs and the 11 principles of responsible state behaviour (2015). We did have six GGEs, two OEWGs and one AHC which produced a lot of concrete results, inspired by WSIS. This includes also the new POC Mechanism and the various projects on CBMs and capacity building, mentioned in Gafoor´s Final Report. Below you find the text from para. 12 of the the WSIS Geneva Plan of Action which more or less called for actions, which have been discussed by the UN since 2003. The IGF discussed also cybersecurity issues from the very beginning and established a BPF on cybersecurity. The weak point was, that there was never a direct or formal linkage between the IGF, the Action Line (facilitated by ITU) and GGE/OEWG. But one could argue that without WSIS the UN process would have probably started later or would have moved into another direction. This relates also to the involvement of non-state actors into the proceedings of the OEWG. This was a controversial issue since 2020, but the outcome now is, as proposed in the final report of the OEWG chair, that we will have a reasonable compromise for the new Global Mechanism. This was certainly inspired by all the multistakeholder experiences made within the IGF and the WSIS process. Without WSIS, no Annex 1 of the Final OEWG Report. Para. 12 of the Geneva Plan of Action 12. Confidence and security are among the main pillars of the Information Society. 1. Promote cooperation among the governments at the United Nations and with all stakeholders at other appropriate fora to enhance user confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network integrity; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs; and address other information security and network security issues. 2. Governments, in cooperation with the private sector, should prevent, detect and respond to cyber-crime and misuse of ICTs by: developing guidelines that take into account ongoing efforts in these areas; considering legislation that allows for effective investigation and prosecution of misuse; promoting effective mutual assistance efforts; strengthening institutional support at the international level for preventing, detecting and recovering from such incidents; and encouraging education and raising awareness. 3. Governments, and other stakeholders, should actively promote user education and awareness about online privacy and the means of protecting privacy. 4. Take appropriate action on spam at national and international levels. 5. Encourage the domestic assessment of national law with a view to overcoming any obstacles to the effective use of electronic documents and transactions including electronic means of authentication. 6. Further strengthen the trust and security framework with complementary and mutually reinforcing initiatives in the fields of security in the use of ICTs, with initiatives or guidelines with respect to rights to privacy, data and consumer protection. 7. Share good practices in the field of information security and network security and encourage their use by all parties concerned. 8. Invite interested countries to set up focal points for real-time incident handling and response, and develop a cooperative network between these focal points for sharing information and technologies on incident response. 9. Encourage further development of secure and reliable applications to facilitate online transactions. 10. Encourage interested countries to contribute actively to the ongoing United Nations activities to build confidence and security in the use of ICTs.
Wolfgang
FYI: A group of academics have used the 80th anniversary of the Potsdam Agreement and the dropping of the nuclear bombs over Hirsohima and Nagaski to publish a "Potsdam Call on Autonomous Weapon Systems" (AWS) which supports the ongoing AWS negotiations at the forthcoming 80th UNGA. https://potsdamcall.dgdg.blog/ Best wishes Wolfgang
Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> hat am 19.07.2025 19:45 CEST geschrieben:
Hi,
for me, one of the biggest success stories of WSIS Action Line 5 is the adoption of the UN Convention on Cybercrime (2024) and the establishment of the new Global Mechanism on Cybersecurity under the 1st Committee of the UNGA (2025).
Cybersecurity was one of the key issues when WSIS started in 2002. It was just a couple of months after the signing of the Budapest Convention against cybercrime (2001). At this time cybersecurity was seen more as "cybercrime" and less as "national security" issue. But the call for a "Global Culture of Cybersecurity" in the Geneva WSIS Declaration (2003) stimulated the UNGA in 2004, to consider the subject and to kick start a process which led to GGEs and the 11 principles of responsible state behaviour (2015). We did have six GGEs, two OEWGs and one AHC which produced a lot of concrete results, inspired by WSIS. This includes also the new POC Mechanism and the various projects on CBMs and capacity building, mentioned in Gafoor´s Final Report. Below you find the text from para. 12 of the the WSIS Geneva Plan of Action which more or less called for actions, which have been discussed by the UN since 2003.
The IGF discussed also cybersecurity issues from the very beginning and established a BPF on cybersecurity. The weak point was, that there was never a direct or formal linkage between the IGF, the Action Line (facilitated by ITU) and GGE/OEWG. But one could argue that without WSIS the UN process would have probably started later or would have moved into another direction.
This relates also to the involvement of non-state actors into the proceedings of the OEWG. This was a controversial issue since 2020, but the outcome now is, as proposed in the final report of the OEWG chair, that we will have a reasonable compromise for the new Global Mechanism. This was certainly inspired by all the multistakeholder experiences made within the IGF and the WSIS process. Without WSIS, no Annex 1 of the Final OEWG Report.
Para. 12 of the Geneva Plan of Action
12. Confidence and security are among the main pillars of the Information Society.
1. Promote cooperation among the governments at the United Nations and with all stakeholders at other appropriate fora to enhance user confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network integrity; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs; and address other information security and network security issues.
2. Governments, in cooperation with the private sector, should prevent, detect and respond to cyber-crime and misuse of ICTs by: developing guidelines that take into account ongoing efforts in these areas; considering legislation that allows for effective investigation and prosecution of misuse; promoting effective mutual assistance efforts; strengthening institutional support at the international level for preventing, detecting and recovering from such incidents; and encouraging education and raising awareness.
3. Governments, and other stakeholders, should actively promote user education and awareness about online privacy and the means of protecting privacy.
4. Take appropriate action on spam at national and international levels.
5. Encourage the domestic assessment of national law with a view to overcoming any obstacles to the effective use of electronic documents and transactions including electronic means of authentication.
6. Further strengthen the trust and security framework with complementary and mutually reinforcing initiatives in the fields of security in the use of ICTs, with initiatives or guidelines with respect to rights to privacy, data and consumer protection.
7. Share good practices in the field of information security and network security and encourage their use by all parties concerned.
8. Invite interested countries to set up focal points for real-time incident handling and response, and develop a cooperative network between these focal points for sharing information and technologies on incident response.
9. Encourage further development of secure and reliable applications to facilitate online transactions.
10. Encourage interested countries to contribute actively to the ongoing United Nations activities to build confidence and security in the use of ICTs.
Wolfgang
Dear Wolfgang, Wonderful. Was there a call for signatures? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy sender On Sun, 10 Aug, 2025, 16:13 Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20, < wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
FYI: A group of academics have used the 80th anniversary of the Potsdam Agreement and the dropping of the nuclear bombs over Hirsohima and Nagaski to publish a "Potsdam Call on Autonomous Weapon Systems" (AWS) which supports the ongoing AWS negotiations at the forthcoming 80th UNGA.
https://potsdamcall.dgdg.blog/
Best wishes
Wolfgang
Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info> hat am 19.07.2025 19:45 CEST geschrieben:
Hi,
for me, one of the biggest success stories of WSIS Action Line 5 is the adoption of the UN Convention on Cybercrime (2024) and the establishment of the new Global Mechanism on Cybersecurity under the 1st Committee of the UNGA (2025).
Cybersecurity was one of the key issues when WSIS started in 2002. It was just a couple of months after the signing of the Budapest Convention against cybercrime (2001). At this time cybersecurity was seen more as "cybercrime" and less as "national security" issue. But the call for a "Global Culture of Cybersecurity" in the Geneva WSIS Declaration (2003) stimulated the UNGA in 2004, to consider the subject and to kick start a process which led to GGEs and the 11 principles of responsible state behaviour (2015). We did have six GGEs, two OEWGs and one AHC which produced a lot of concrete results, inspired by WSIS. This includes also the new POC Mechanism and the various projects on CBMs and capacity building, mentioned in Gafoor´s Final Report. Below you find the text from para. 12 of the the WSIS Geneva Plan of Action which more or less called for actions, which have been discussed by the UN since 2003.
The IGF discussed also cybersecurity issues from the very beginning and established a BPF on cybersecurity. The weak point was, that there was never a direct or formal linkage between the IGF, the Action Line (facilitated by ITU) and GGE/OEWG. But one could argue that without WSIS the UN process would have probably started later or would have moved into another direction.
This relates also to the involvement of non-state actors into the proceedings of the OEWG. This was a controversial issue since 2020, but the outcome now is, as proposed in the final report of the OEWG chair, that we will have a reasonable compromise for the new Global Mechanism. This was certainly inspired by all the multistakeholder experiences made within the IGF and the WSIS process. Without WSIS, no Annex 1 of the Final OEWG Report.
Para. 12 of the Geneva Plan of Action
12. Confidence and security are among the main pillars of the Information Society.
1. Promote cooperation among the governments at the United Nations and with all stakeholders at other appropriate fora to enhance user confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network integrity; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs; and address other information security and network security issues.
2. Governments, in cooperation with the private sector, should prevent, detect and respond to cyber-crime and misuse of ICTs by: developing guidelines that take into account ongoing efforts in these areas; considering legislation that allows for effective investigation and prosecution of misuse; promoting effective mutual assistance efforts; strengthening institutional support at the international level for preventing, detecting and recovering from such incidents; and encouraging education and raising awareness.
3. Governments, and other stakeholders, should actively promote user education and awareness about online privacy and the means of protecting privacy.
4. Take appropriate action on spam at national and international levels.
5. Encourage the domestic assessment of national law with a view to overcoming any obstacles to the effective use of electronic documents and transactions including electronic means of authentication.
6. Further strengthen the trust and security framework with complementary and mutually reinforcing initiatives in the fields of security in the use of ICTs, with initiatives or guidelines with respect to rights to privacy, data and consumer protection.
7. Share good practices in the field of information security and network security and encourage their use by all parties concerned.
8. Invite interested countries to set up focal points for real-time incident handling and response, and develop a cooperative network between these focal points for sharing information and technologies on incident response.
9. Encourage further development of secure and reliable applications to facilitate online transactions.
10. Encourage interested countries to contribute actively to the ongoing United Nations activities to build confidence and security in the use of ICTs.
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
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.
+1 There is no need for a new make up! Louis Houle Président Un Québec branché sur le monde UQBM.Quebec 581 994-9955 Le 2025-06-27 à 15:14, Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 a écrit :
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-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.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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.
participants (21)
-
Alejandro Pisanty -
Annebeth Lange -
Blaker, Paul (DSIT) -
CASSA Concettina -
Chafic Chaya -
Israel Rosas -
Joly MacFie -
Jordan Carter -
Kiki Fong Lim -
Louis Houle -
Mark W. Datysgeld -
matthew shears -
Natalia Filina -
Pari Esfandiari -
Sivasubramanian M -
Tinuade Oguntuyi -
Veni Markovski -
William Drake -
Winnie Kamau -
Wolfgang Kleinwächter -
Yrjo Lansipuro