DC DDHT


  • Delighted the meetings went well!
    Hybrid must be maintained and hubs encouraged. We are the internet it is equal quality internet access that we want!!
    A set of instructioms on how to navigate the website for access would be helpful
    DCs showcase the rich diversity of conversations. We hear participants come to engage in detailed issues discussion as well. The variety of opinion is the richness for creating ideas for innovations with ICTs.
    Provide for 100 percent virtual sessions.
    Scatter similar themed sessions...

    Important to emphasize accessibility...
    Provide a list of agencies that many entertain travel grants for DC participants.

ECPAT International


  • ECPAT is the coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Children's Rights in the Digital Environment. As such, we were informed of and were actively engaged in the preparatory process for IGF 2023. Overall, processes were clear and timelines sufficient. With regards session selection, it was unclear how sessions focused on children's rights were selected and scheduled, and it was not easy to bring those sessions together for a meeting led by the Dynamic Coalition. Our recommendation would be to signpoint all thematic sessions towards an existing Dynamic Coalition, and/or to consider involving thematic Dynamic Coalitions (alongside the DC Coordination Group) in ensuring diverse coverage at the IGF.
    The programme overall was very rich and interesting. The space given to youth participants was notable, and very welcome, and as a child rights coalition, we also welcomed the increase in the number of sessions focused on children's rights. As noted above, we only lament the manual nature of identifying and bringing together those session organizers, with the goal of building a strong and more active child rights community within the IGF.

    Some scheduling challenges were notable, such as similar sessions, or sessions on children's rights taking place at the same time. We would also welcome a schedule that facilitates dialogue between initiatives such as digital rights and children's rights.
    I did not attend any sessions online, but as a session organiser, the functionality of the online environment allowed us to hold a truly hybrid session.
    The onsite logistics were excellent - venue, registration, access and so on.

    The mobile app was a welcome development for the IGF, but it could be improved. For example, the quick view of personal schedule on the app did not display the details of the session, rather the number - it should be the other way around. Navigation forward and back was not logical. Users were also required t5o update the app on a very frequent basis.
    As coordinator of a Dynamic Coalition, we found the process to be good, and we welcomed the excellent DC Main event to showcase the important role of the DCs within the IGF.

    As mentioned earlier, we also believe that the DCs could and should play a more active role in guiding the IGF in relation to their thematic expertise.
    The engagement of NRIs and the Youth IGF was notable and crucial.
    The sessions attended were largely of very high quality. With so many rooms and so many sessions, there were challenges with creating intimate debates when there were small groups in large rooms, or vice versa. While it is hard to predict attendance, perhaps a smaller number of sessions scheduled as part of curated themes would ensure a flow of participants between thematically connected sessions.
    n/a
    It was great to see so much engagement from youth participants, who brought such energy and insight to the IGF.
    I found the programme to give good space and recognition to gender perspectives and gender diversity. Within sessions, the requirement for a gender and regional balance helped to ensure diversity.

    Mainstreaming gender as a consideration should remain a priority goal of the IGF.
    Due to the busy and packed schedule, the IGF village should perhaps be located elsewhere than at the entrance/exit route. Placing it near the coffee area or dispersing it throughout the venue may help participants to make time.
    Communications, outreach and outputs were clear.
    While complex, a more curated 'participant experience' could help to ensure that participants are connected to their target community and exposed to relevant communities with which to interact. This could be achieve in part through technical means, for example and advanced schedule planner allowing a participant to select their learning and network goals, and have a schedule proposed for them.

    At the same time, or as an alternative, having broad thematic blocks with sessions running sequentially rather than in parallel, could support community building. For example, an overarching block on human rights could combine digital rights, children's rights, gender, disability, regulation. An overarching block on access could include sessions on gender, NRIs, infrastructure, education.
    It would be interesting to experiment with a process whereby proposals are grouped by theme (e.g. children's rights) and then pass through a consultative second round of selections. This could result in sessions being paired or combined to ensure representative coverage of the theme. Experts from the IGF community, drawn in particular from dynamic coalitions and other existing structures, could be called upon to support the selection process and help create a more curated experience.
    On the theme of blocks, I wonder if the thematic approach should be broad categories to allow for rich cross-fertilization within them. For example, these could be based on groupings of the SDGs.
    Youth IGFs should be supported and encouraged throughout all ares of IGF - so horizontally. National and Regional activities should continue to be aligned with global themes to help understand common and unique challenges and opportunities in internet governance worldwide.

    First time participants to the IGF often remark that they were not aware of the IGF before attending, or did not understand what its purpose was. Much broader outreach to CSOs, private sector and academic institutions would be advisable. A more intuitive user interface for the website, and other tools could facilitate better inter-connection before and after. Giving visibility to existing thematic cioalitions such as dynamic coalitions could help provide a focal point for participants wanting to connect on particular topics.

Federal Office of Communications of Switzerland



  • - Overall, meetings were well organized, but not all of them focused on specific issues as conversations often went into many different directions.
    - Many sessions were very panel heavy not leaving much space for questions and comments from the audience, and discussions.
    - The discussions proved to be politically relevant and in line with many of the world’s most pressing challenges when it comes to digitalization, such as digital inclusion, tech regulation, sustainability, digital rights, cybersecurity, AI, and more. It was positive that the program of IGF 2023 reflected the upcoming GDC and WSIS+20 review.
    - For the most part, the hybrid format design was a success, as it made the event more inclusive by letting people choose whether they wanted to participate physically or online.
    - The website was working quite seamlessly.
    - The programme was not kept up to date on the IGF website, and the excel was complicated to follow. It would be great to find a new, and clearer system. Maybe something similar to what is used for the ICANN meetings.
    - The onsite logistics (badge pick-up, conference venue, bilateral meeting rooms, food etc.) generally worked very well. I would refrain from renaming the rooms, it had too many names, and got slightly confusing.
    - The IGF 2023 had many different types of sessions, which were all suited for different purposes, such as open forums, town halls, lightning talks, and networking sessions. The number of sessions was high and showed the different interests and topics covered by the IGF.
    - As other sessions at the IGF, also the high-level leaders’ sessions should be as interactive as possible and also include the participants.
    - As other sessions at the IGF, also the parliamentary sessions should be as interactive as possible and also include the participants.
    - « All male panels » were avoided, which is positive. But of course, there is still room for improvement for an even better representation of women and gender non-conforming people.
    - The IGF village was well organized, however it did not seem to be very well visited.
    - There should be a build-up during the year, with focused preparatory discussions leading to „draft messages“ to be put out for public comment and to be discussed in the high-level sessions.

    - The “messages” should be short, concise and to the point and be timely and widely distributed.
    - The information sources at the disposal of the participants during the IGF (such as digital policy summaries, instant “session reporting”, “daily reports”, etc.) should be further developed, in particular through partnerships with, inter alia, the Geneva Internet Platform, GIPO, IG Schools, etc.
    - Maintaining the IGF 2024 in a hybrid format would be a good idea as it allows those that cannot travel to participate and contribute for the dialogue.
    For the implementation of the Common Agenda and the Roadmap, as well as for the consultations on the GDC, the IGF should be used as much as possible. Thus, the program of IGF 2024 should be aligned with the topics of the GDC, as it was the case in 2022 and 2023.
    - While the participants to the IGF 2023 came from a diverse set of regions all around the world, Europeans and North Americans remain overrepresented in comparison to their counterparts in the Asia-Pacific, Latin American, or African regions. It would be beneficial to promote the IGF further in these regions to increase their participation and ensure a truly global dialogue for the next edition of the IGF.

    - It would be great to see more representation from the press/media, as well as the technical community. Many of the digital challenges that we are facing are difficult to understand from a technical perspective for people who are unfamiliar with them, so it would be useful to have more “explanatory” sessions from experts in the fields, as well as more press/media spokespeople to cover the event outside of the host country.

    - The gathering and active participation of high-level leaders from all stakeholder groups throughout the meeting and in high-level formats should be maintained and further developed. Also, the innovation represented by the parliamentarians track and meeting (since 2019) should be continued and enhanced.
    - The annual IGF meeting could include a dedicated work track, incorporating workshops, open fora, and main and high-level sessions, focused on review and follow-up on the needs and gaps identified in the GDC.
    - UN departments and agencies, as well as other interested stakeholders, can be invited to prepare annual/periodic reports on GDC progress that would be presented within this event track, culminating in a debate on "The State of Global Digital Cooperation", convened by the IGF Leadership Panel, and bringing the UN Secretary-General together with multistakeholder leaders from across the globe.
    - The IGF Leadership Panel and MAG can call upon the global network of NRIs to dedicate specific conference tracks to GDC follow-up, as appropriate, and report on these discussions; we can also call upon the community to dedicate IGF intersessional work at the global level to GDC issues.
    - A synthesis of the outcomes of relevant intersessional work, the annual IGF, debates and agreements relating to GDC review and follow-up can be summarized in a dedicated section of the annual "IGF Outputs" and communicated to all UN departments and agencies, as well as other stakeholders, for appropriate follow-up actions;

Freedom Online Coalition Advisory Network


  • While we appreciate the prompt response of the IGF secretariat and MAG members in addressing visa issues for Kyoto 2023, FOC-AN members received numerous reports, especially from partners and members of our community in African countries, about Japanese embassies making repeated, multiple requests for extensive documentation related to financial and employment proof. In one country, the Japanese Embassy declined to provide reasons for denying visas to at least ten individuals applying to attend the IGF. In some cases, applicants were asked to prove the legitimacy of the documentation submitted to process their visa. Some were asked to provide a guarantee from their host in Japan. An impossible requirement since the IGF Secretariat does not provide individual guarantees or letters to delegates. Host countries should not box delegates into their standard visa requirements especially when they are not clearly designed to accommodate conference participation by default. IGF Hosts must be willing to contextualise the realities of delegates from every part of the world in their visa requirements. All actors and stakeholders within the internet governance ecosystem, particularly governments, have a role to play in ensuring that people from different countries and with different passports can cross borders safely and with dignity. Restrictive and discriminatory travel policies and practices hinder in-person engagement in key decision-making, deliberation, and discussion spaces. Restrictive policies suppress the voices of those most affected, and denying them a say in defining agendas that impact the digital present and future.
    In regards to representation during IGF 2023, our concern is that several sessions lacked diversity in the voices presented. Notably, in sessions addressing issues at the intersections of equality, inclusion, and diversity, individuals from marginalized groups, including people of color, gender-diverse individuals, youth, and people with disabilities, predominantly participated online. During these sessions, the primary reasons cited for online participation were issues related to visa applications and a lack of travel support.
    - Privilege and immunity document: Towards improving transparency, the privilege and immunity document should be made public. Furthermore, it would be useful to clarify the scope of UN jurisdiction including the physical locations (hotel, public spaces etc) the document does and does not extend to and ensure that the agreement is in place for the entirety of the conference including the day before the first day and the day after the last day.
    - Host Country Agreement: Towards improving transparency, the host country agreement should be made public. Furthermore the host country agreement should include the following requirements:
    No banning on VPNs
    No apps or websites blocked
    Not use spyware on participants
    No electronic searches by authorities, especially immigration authorities
    - Assessment missions: As stated on the IGF website, two assessment missions are undertaken before a country is accepted as a host country and the second mission assesses the technical and security conditions of the potential host. Towards improving transparency, it is recommended that a summary of the key findings from these assessment missions are made public. - On the ground support: Ensure that the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) offers an on-the ground support system, including digital security and other technical assistance to participants.
    - Visas: Ensure that commitments from the hosting country to facilitate and support the issuance of visas is built into the hosting country agreement. This includes making the letter of support more official and the process more streamlined. Travel policies hindering in-person engagement disproportionately impact internet governance stakeholders from the global majority. Restrictive practices impede affected voices from participating in decision-making spaces, networking, and advocacy, excluding them from shaping agendas that impact the digital present and future. While we appreciate the prompt response of the IGF secretariat and MAG members in addressing visa issues for Kyoto 2023, FOC-AN members received numerous reports, especially from partners and members of our community in African countries, about Japanese embassies making repeated, multiple requests for extensive documentation related to financial and employment proof. In one country, the Japanese Embassy declined to provide reasons for denying visas to at least ten individuals applying to attend the IGF. In some cases, applicants were asked to prove the legitimacy of the documentation submitted to process their visa. Some were asked to provide a guarantee from their host in Japan. An impossible requirement since the IGF Secretariat does not provide individual guarantees or letters to delegates. Host countries should not box delegates into their standard visa requirements especially when they are not clearly designed to accommodate conference participation by default. IGF Hosts must be willing to contextualise the realities of delegates from every part of the world in their visa requirements. All actors and stakeholders within the internet governance ecosystem, particularly governments, have a role to play in ensuring that people from different countries and with different passports can cross borders safely and with dignity. Restrictive and discriminatory travel policies and practices hinder in-person engagement in key decision-making, deliberation, and discussion spaces. Restrictive policies suppress the voices of those most affected, and denying them a say in defining agendas that impact the digital present and future.- Redress Mechanism: Develop a redress mechanism that individuals can use if they feel the Code of Conduct has been unfairly applied to them. For example, there was an Assertion of Code of Conduct during the IGF Japan 2023 open mic session that was felt to be inaccurately applied but there was no mechanism for the organization to challenge the same.
    - Human Rights Impact Assessments: It is becoming a widely accepted and expected norm for international events to conduct human rights impact assessments. For example, organisations like FIFA, International Olympic Committee (IOC) conduct human rights due diligence assessments. We recommend the IGF adopt this process including as a reflection on Saudi Arabia and for future host countries. This includes undertaking human rights due diligence on the legal framework and committing to sharing the assessment of the country-bid.
    - Human Rights Programming: Commit to ensuring a robust and equal representation of human rights programming for in-person, hybrid, and online sessions.

    - Remote participation: Towards ensuring robust participation, use encrypted platforms, ensure that the platforms are accessible to all nationalities, and explain how the code of conduct will be enforced on remote participation. - Visas: Ensure that commitments from the hosting country to facilitate and support the issuance of visas is built into the hosting country agreement. This includes making the letter of support more official and the process more streamlined. Travel policies hindering in-person engagement disproportionately impact internet governance stakeholders from the global majority. Restrictive practices impede affected voices from participating in decision-making spaces, networking, and advocacy, excluding them from shaping agendas that impact the digital present and future. While we appreciate the prompt response of the IGF secretariat and MAG members in addressing visa issues for Kyoto 2023, FOC-AN members received numerous reports, especially from partners and members of our community in African countries, about Japanese embassies making repeated, multiple requests for extensive documentation related to financial and employment proof. In one country, the Japanese Embassy declined to provide reasons for denying visas to at least ten individuals applying to attend the IGF. In some cases, applicants were asked to prove the legitimacy of the documentation submitted to process their visa. Some were asked to provide a guarantee from their host in Japan. An impossible requirement since the IGF Secretariat does not provide individual guarantees or letters to delegates. Host countries should not box delegates into their standard visa requirements especially when they are not clearly designed to accommodate conference participation by default. IGF Hosts must be willing to contextualise the realities of delegates from every part of the world in their visa requirements. All actors and stakeholders within the internet governance ecosystem, particularly governments, have a role to play in ensuring that people from different countries and with different passports can cross borders safely and with dignity. Restrictive and discriminatory travel policies and practices hinder in-person engagement in key decision-making, deliberation, and discussion spaces. Restrictive policies suppress the voices of those most affected, and denying them a say in defining agendas that impact the digital present and future.

    - Digital security: Provide digital security training and ensure that organizations working on digital security (CSOs and private companies) have a number of prominent booths.
    (full submission)

    The Freedom Online Coalition Advisory Network (FOC-AN) is an independent multistakeholder group composed of civil society, academia and private sector representatives who provide advice on aims, objectives and activities of the Freedom Online Coalition, as well as support its mission of advancing Internet freedom and human rights online. The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) is an intergovernmental coalition of 38 Member States committed to ensuring the use of the Internet and digital technologies reinforce human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

    FOC-AN Members widely contribute to the Coalition’s activities and events, and regularly engage with the FOC in joint meetings. This submission does not reflect the views of the FOC Member States, but has been submitted exclusively on behalf of the FOC-AN.

    Recommendations

    - Privilege and immunity document: Towards improving transparency, the privilege and immunity document should be made public. Furthermore, it would be useful to clarify the scope of UN jurisdiction including the physical locations (hotel, public spaces etc) the document does and does not extend to and ensure that the agreement is in place for the entirety of the conference including the day before the first day and the day after the last day.
    - Host Country Agreement: Towards improving transparency, the host country agreement should be made public. Furthermore the host country agreement should include the following requirements:
    No banning on VPNs
    No apps or websites blocked
    Not use spyware on participants
    No electronic searches by authorities, especially immigration authorities
    - Assessment missions: As stated on the IGF website, two assessment missions are undertaken before a country is accepted as a host country and the second mission assesses the technical and security conditions of the potential host. Towards improving transparency, it is recommended that a summary of the key findings from these assessment missions are made public.
    - Supporting WSIS+20 and Summit of the Future: In terms of the shaping of a digital future, it is positive and encouraging that the IGF 2023 in Kyoto has taken as an opportunity to set the stage for engaging with processes particularly the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS+20 review process. We expect the IGF and the IGF community to be playing a key role in building synergies in the lead up to the WSIS+20 review and the Summit of the Future. This includes incorporating thematic areas from the UN Global Digital Compact process.
    - Human Rights Programming: Commit to ensuring a robust and equal representation of human rights programming for in-person, hybrid, and online sessions.
    - On the ground support: Ensure that the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) offers an on-the ground support system, including digital security and other technical assistance to participants.
    - Visas: Ensure that commitments from the hosting country to facilitate and support the issuance of visas is built into the hosting country agreement. This includes making the letter of support more official and the process more streamlined. Travel policies hindering in-person engagement disproportionately impact internet governance stakeholders from the global majority. Restrictive practices impede affected voices from participating in decision-making spaces, networking, and advocacy, excluding them from shaping agendas that impact the digital present and future. While we appreciate the prompt response of the IGF secretariat and MAG members in addressing visa issues for Kyoto 2023, FOC-AN members received numerous reports, especially from partners and members of our community in African countries, about Japanese embassies making repeated, multiple requests for extensive documentation related to financial and employment proof. In one country, the Japanese Embassy declined to provide reasons for denying visas to at least ten individuals applying to attend the IGF. In some cases, applicants were asked to prove the legitimacy of the documentation submitted to process their visa. Some were asked to provide a guarantee from their host in Japan. An impossible requirement since the IGF Secretariat does not provide individual guarantees or letters to delegates. Host countries should not box delegates into their standard visa requirements especially when they are not clearly designed to accommodate conference participation by default. IGF Hosts must be willing to contextualise the realities of delegates from every part of the world in their visa requirements. All actors and stakeholders within the internet governance ecosystem, particularly governments, have a role to play in ensuring that people from different countries and with different passports can cross borders safely and with dignity. Restrictive and discriminatory travel policies and practices hinder in-person engagement in key decision-making, deliberation, and discussion spaces. Restrictive policies suppress the voices of those most affected, and denying them a say in defining agendas that impact the digital present and future.
    - Digital security: Provide digital security training and ensure that organizations working on digital security (CSOs and private companies) have a number of prominent booths.
    - Training on the Code of Conduct: Provide training to Saudi officials and participants on the IGF Code of Conduct and the United Nations Code of Conduct to Prevent Harassment, Including Sexual Harassment at the UN System Events.
    - Redress Mechanism: Develop a redress mechanism that individuals can use if they feel the Code of Conduct has been unfairly applied to them. For example, there was an Assertion of Code of Conduct during the IGF Japan 2023 open mic session that was felt to be inaccurately applied but there was no mechanism for the organization to challenge the same.
    - Human Rights Impact Assessments: It is becoming a widely accepted and expected norm for international events to conduct human rights impact assessments. For example, organisations like FIFA, International Olympic Committee (IOC) conduct human rights due diligence assessments. We recommend the IGF adopt this process including as a reflection on Saudi Arabia and for future host countries. This includes undertaking human rights due diligence on the legal framework and committing to sharing the assessment of the country-bid.
    - Strategy for funding: Develop a comprehensive strategy for funding to ensure the sustainability of the IGF.
    - Remote participation: Towards ensuring robust participation, use encrypted platforms, ensure that the platforms are accessible to all nationalities, and explain how the code of conduct will be enforced on remote participation.
    - Public-private partnerships: Ensure that all public-private partnerships entered into for the purposes of the IGF adhere to the recommendations made in the CSO open letter to the UN (https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Joint-CSO-Open-Letter-to-the-UN-Re-Public-Private-Partnerships-21-April-2020.pdf) on public private partnerships. This includes:
    Seek out companies who engage in routine, public transparency reporting on their human rights impacts and who exemplify a genuine commitment to respect human rights.
    Make a public commitment to transparency and undertake consultations with various stakeholders, including experts in academia and civil society.
    Conduct meaningful and transparent due diligence to ensure no conflicts of interest exist or will arise, and conduct human rights impact assessments on projects and partners, engaging independent experts where necessary.
    If or when entering into a contract with a private company, carefully review the requirements the U.N. is obliged to meet under the contract, including issues such as: a. What is the sustainability of the partnership or project? b. What are the contract’s durations, sunset, and renewal terms? c. What terms and conditions apply to the conversations, documents, and other data planned to be hosted by the platform? What domestic or international laws or regulations govern these conditions? Do they align with human rights law? d. Will the private company have access to and the ability to process user data under this partnership?
    Ensure that contract language is aligned with the highest standards of rights protections, in particular in the areas of transparency, data protection , privacy and freedom of expression.
    Upon entering into a formal partnership, announce clearly the safeguards put into place to ensure that participants’ rights to privacy and free expression will be respected and that they can participate freely without threat of intimidation or reprisal.
    Commit to promptly addressing any case of intimidation or reprisal that is reported in connection to participation in U.N. processes on a digital platform directly with the government in question and in partnership with the senior official responsible for reprisals.
    Develop and implement a dedicated U.N. office or Special Representative to monitor public-private partnerships, ensuring transparency and respect for human rights.

Gaia - X Hub Slovakia


  • Yes, everything is ok.
    Very well, because it is important to join our forces with other organisations.
    No problem
    The mails are a little bit not very transparant.
    Sorry, I am new.
    Sorry, I am new.
    For Central Europe, I will do a maximum for IGF.
    It was very good
    na
    na
    na
    Good, but we have the journey to make.
    na
    Very well receiv, but I think, because of my inerest. We have to make more in the future.
    The workshops with the experts and open and transparanet discusiions.
    More life, more discusions, more coureuge and more trust to our public to ask the questions. More discussions will make ONU the leader.
    I will be happy to participate.
    In Slovakia, I will be happy.

    Use and OPEN our networks.
    Sorry, I am new.

International Chamber of Commerce


  • • Thanks to a timely announcement of the host country and MAG composition, sufficient time was allocated to the preparatory process for IGF 2023, which commenced in good time early in the year.
    • While internal planning and decision-making were at times laborious and slow, communication towards the community regarding themes, event format, as well as session types, deadlines and decisions was timely.
    • The planning process in the submission phase of the sessions was efficient, allowing submitters to have a clear view of the requirements and timeline to submit proposals.
    • Following the session proposal submission and selection phase, however, IGF participants and session organisers, potential high-level speakers and non-MAG member contributors to the main sessions received little to no communication on opportunities for engagement or insight into the planning process which brought uncertainty and confusion on the opportunities to consider for i.e. the nomination of high-level speakers.
    • The professionalism and support of the staff working at the IGF Secretariat was greatly appreciated both during as well as in the run-up to IGF 2023.
    • The overarching theme of IGF 2023 (The Internet We Want – Empowering All People), was pertinent for the context of the Forum and tied well with the main piece of input that the IGF Leadership Panel brought to the discussion. However, while the overarching title was broad enough to include dialogue on major global Internet governance issues, it remained partly unused by the community. This resulted in a sense of disconnect between the workpiece of the Leadership Panel and the focus of the broader IGF community.
    • Concentrating the IGF programme into a few concrete thematic tracks worked very well in past years (especially in 2019 and 2020). While the same approach was to some extent retained in 2022, the 18th edition of the IGF deviated from this approach, with over 300 sessions being nested under 8 thematic tracks. Going back to a multi-themed IGF brings confusion to the attendees, especially newcomers, who come across a very information-heavy programme across numerous thematic tracks. In response to this, it is advised that the programme reflects a more punchy and condensed selection of thematic tracks that cover the variety of topics reflected in the IGF discussions.
    • Going forward, careful attention must be paid to avoid adding further themes and topics to the annual IGF in order not to overcrowd the programme and maintain a focused and manageable agenda. For the future, we recommend no more than three tracks with clear, concise, and easily understandable themes. This will also help communication and outreach ahead of the event.
    • Aligning workshops and main sessions under the thematic tracks continues to work well and is helpful to the MAG in choosing workshops, defining thematic tracks and organising main sessions. However, attention must be paid that the number and focus of sub-themes remain manageable. Having too many thematic tracks results in only a handful of sessions per thematic track, which leaves attendees with the impression that discussions remained superficial and did not allow for in-depth exploration of a topic.
    • Efforts should be strengthened to align other sessions that are part of the IGF programme (Open Forums, Town Halls, DCs, BPFs, NRI collaborative sessions, etc.) as well as pre-events under the thematic tracks, from the start of the submission and evaluation process.
    • We commend the work of the IGF Secretariat and the MAG on enabling an inclusive session participation for both speakers and attendees through the hybrid format. Their devoted time and efforts to advise on the particularities of organising such an event were immensely appreciated.
    • The host country’s efforts and investment in providing technical equipment and staff to support the engagement of both onsite and online participants were also greatly valued.
    • While the 3D venue and virtual booth was a very much appreciated idea, many participants were not aware of it and booth organizers received little advice and support in setting this up in a way that would add value to participants. Should the idea of a virtual booth be retained for future IGFs, the planning process should also include the appropriate public-facing communication of the virtual booth features. The planning process also needs to start a lot earlier, with the close and active involvement of booth organisers who are participating for the first time in the event.
    • While the IGF 2023 website contained comprehensive information on the event, finding the relevant information required extensive browsing.
    • An important element that caused some uncertainty to a majority of the participants' planning process, was the significant delay until the interactive programme was live and operational, which was not until a week before the IGF. In addition, the differentiation of the nomenclature of rooms as well as sessions, between the Excel (static) version of the programme and the interactive (online) programme caused confusion and duplicated work in the planning process, to ensure that the high-level invitees, speakers and attendees have the necessary information for their personal schedules. Lastly, with regard to the interactive version of the schedule, some sessions were not uploaded, while they were included in the excel version of the schedule. However, the IGF Secretariat was very responsive, efficient and supportive in ensuring that all the necessary changes were made, which was much appreciated.
    • Registration for the individual sessions seemed laborious and confusing to many, at least in the initial stages of the event. Many did not realise that after registering to the overall event, individual registrations for individual sessions were also required by adding sessions to one’s personal schedule. It was also confusing to many how to find the participation link, once the session was added to a participant’s calendar.
    • We encourage to retain the approach of not giving moderator rights (camera and speaking rights) by default to attendees, as this enables a risk-free session, where attendees cannot unmute themselves by accident, or turn their camera on, which would cause disruptions to the session flow.
    • The publication of the meeting link of each session ahead of time, earlier than 24-hours before the session, was especially appreciated. This allowed for some certainty in the planning process of sessions organisers, especially for those with more than two online speakers.
    • However, it is important to note that in some cases the link provided to the session was not corresponding to the appropriate ‘‘streaming room’’, with online participants having difficulties joining the session online.
    • The ability to follow sessions live-streamed on the IGF’s YouTube channel helped in increasing access and flexibility for participants to follow discussions.
    • It was very welcome that recordings of individual sessions were made available following the session. This practice should be maintained for upcoming IGFs as well, whether held in-person or remotely. In addition, it was greatly appreciated that the editing of the recordings of the sessions had a polished final result, allowing for their direct dissemination to wider audiences from the session organisers and participants.
    • The IGF website worked well throughout the IGF annual meeting, with no major difficulties experienced as in previous years (especially in the first days of the event), due to server overload. However, some website problems persisted during the session submission phase.
    • Communication activities between the IGF Secretariat, past and future host countries and the UN DESA Secretariat require better coordination, especially on social media, so that individual efforts can be reinforced, and a wider audience can be reached.
    • The intersessional work of the BPFs and Policy Networks are strong examples of how the IGF can gather, catalogue, and share valuable tangible outputs without being prescriptive.
    • Efforts to archive the outputs of the intersessional work streams and BPF documents and publish them on the IGF website are appreciated. They should continue to be promoted in a manner that is accessible and searchable to the lay user who may not be familiar with the IGF and its structure (or indeed with the terminology of “BPFs” and “PNs”).
    • Continued efforts should be made to better target communication and promotion efforts of these outputs.
    Workshops
    • Once the IGF 2023 themes were established, the workshop proposal and selection process were well organised.
    • The extensive thematic approach of 8 thematic tracks at IGF 2023, caused some confusion in the categorisation of sessions – with some workshops corresponding to more than one thematic tracks. There was also overlap between selected workshops, especially among themes that were very similar. We strongly recommend selecting no more than three sub-themes for future IGFs.
    • We commend the efforts of the IGF Secretariat and the MAG to foster balance and diversity in terms of speakers, as well as stakeholder group representation. We support that this will remain a continuous effort, where the IGF Secretariat and the MAG will strive for progress compared to the years before. It is particularly important to ensure stakeholder diversity among workshop speakers, incentivizing the participation of underrepresented stakeholder groups (especially government and business representatives).
    Main Sessions
    • The Main Sessions play a useful role in the programme, providing a space for potentially different and broader discussions on a topic and bringing in more high-level speakers. In this way, they help extend the appeal beyond participants who regularly attend IGF meetings, and in particular among government and business constituencies who have historically had lower attendance levels. For this reason, it is imperative that enough time and careful attention is devoted to their planning.
    • It worked well that the Main Sessions were coupled with the IGF 2023 thematic tracks. The overlap between these thematic tracks, however, was clearly apparent with some Main Sessions having similar focus and discussions, also repeating some of the speakers. Past practice of having fewer thematic tracks, each with a dedicated main session should be retained, as it works better for both programming and communication purposes.
    • Two hours per session seemed to be the right amount of time to allow for a deeper dive into discussions and allow for audience input, while still maintaining the interest of participants throughout the session. In the past there were occasions where no other sessions were running in parallel with Main Sessions, thus allowing for wider participation as well as elevating the status of these sessions on the IGF program – this should continue to be an example to follow going forward.
    • Providing synergies between the Main Sessions and the IGF intersessional work, as well as the work of NRIs gives an extra opportunity to raise the visibility and impact of their work. This opportunity should be further explored in upcoming IGFs.
    • The efforts of the host country, the IGF Secretariat and UN DESA to attract government officials, legislators as well as business, civil society and technical community representatives, especially for the high-level sessions was well received by the community. In addition, the alignment of the IGF programme with the G7 agenda was especially appreciated, as it elevated the relevance and timeliness of the discussions, attracting more high-level participation to the Forum.
    • It was unfortunate that many high-level participants were unable to attend the IGF in person, due to the unpredictability of the planning process and lack of follow-up beyond a generic invitation shared with prospective high-level participants. In the future, efforts should be strengthened to encourage high-level participants to engage with other IGF sessions and events aside from the panel they speak on. In particular, we advise that invitations to high-level attendees are sent in advance, including a clear engagement proposal following their RSVPs. This will not only drive further interest but will also maximise the input of those high-level attendees to the discussion, giving them and their teams the appropriate time to prepare.
    • Continuing the tradition of the Parliamentary track started in 2019 was welcomed. Efforts should be made to better integrate this track with the other IGF activities and ensure the participation of parliamentarians in other IGF sessions and interaction with IGF participants from all stakeholder groups.
    • Many sessions on the IGF programme have reported to have addressed gender issues as part of their discussion. Most, session organisers have demonstrated efforts to strive for gender balance on their panels. Efforts must be sustained in this regard to ensure there are no sessions on the IGF agenda with a disproportionate underrepresentation of women.
    • The IGF village is an integral part of the in-person IGF experience, providing opportunities for networking, information sharing and discovery. The efforts of the host country team to accommodate requests, set up and service the village were very much appreciated. Based on past experience, booths have a higher success rate when the village is part of the same building where sessions are taking place. This was partially the case at IGF 2023, where participants had to go through the exhibition area in order to reach the building where the sessions took place. This allowed for more visibility for booth exhibitors, and more attendees traffic at the exhibition area. However, the one-building approach should be, if possible, pursued at future IGFs, where the attendees can easily follow sessions and visit the booths all in one place.
    • Looking ahead to 2024, organising the IGF in a hybrid fashion is strongly advised. If a virtual IGF village is planned to be part of the hybrid experience, it must be adequately advertised to allow for meaningful and interactive participation of attendees. The planning process for virtual booths needs to start early with the close and active involvement of booth organisers.
    • With regards to the reporting process of the sessions, we advise for a more timely and detailed communication to the session organisers, especially newcomers, of the process thus ensuring their timely action to the reporting requirements. In particular, the notice around the 2-hour requirement for submission of the short report should be more visible and clear to all session organisers, both on the back-end webpage of each session, as well as through dedicated communications/emails before the IGF starts. Ideally, an automated email notification should go out to session organisers on the day that their session takes place, reminding them of this requirement. In addition, seeing the delay in the submission of the short reports from the majority of the participants within the 2-hour timeframe (as seen through the communications from the IGF Secretariat to the session organisers), we suggest that the deadline is extended to the morning of the day after, for each session. This will allow enough time for the session organisers (especially those organising sessions taking place towards the end of the day), to submit their input in a timely manner.
    • Showcasing the various IGF outputs promptly on the IGF website was very welcome and useful to demonstrate the value IGF discussions bring to the community. Capturing and promoting them successfully helps increase the reach of these conversations beyond the IGF session participants.
    • Commendable efforts to attract journalists were made, especially on the side of the host country inviting national and local media. These efforts could be amplified through a systematic outreach and media strategy to identify relevant news outlets (especially on the international level) ahead of time and sharing information on topics expected to be covered at the IGF, as well as high-level participants in attendance.
    • Better interaction between the IGF communications team and the communications team of participating organisations is also advised. This could be either through a key messages document, or toolkits that can be distributed to the communications teams in advance of the Forum, allowing them to act as multipliers of the IGF mission and messages.
    • The IGF messages report has an important role in bridging consecutive IGF cycles, highlighting the various IGF outputs, and ensure consistency between them, therefore enhancing the impact and value-add of the IGF for future discussions. Efforts should be made to better inform participants on the process of drafting of the messages and how their session summaries contribute to the final IGF messages. Session participants should also be made aware of the possibility of commenting on the draft messages. Sharing such information with session participants helps improve the balance in participation, which in turn increases the legitimacy of messages.
    • Concentrating the IGF programme into a small number of thematic tracks in 2019 and 2020 was a very welcome idea and translated well into the final programme of the IGF. The 2021-2023 editions seemed to gradually move further away from this precedent. The idea of three (but not more) thematic tracks should be maintained going forward to help streamline the agenda.
    • It is important to continue the practice of consulting the broader IGF community on issues to be discussed at the IGF, that will inform the MAG’s decision on the topics for thematic tracks. Furthermore, when setting the IGF’s agenda, the MAG should be informed of the priorities of other international policy discussions on Internet governance and broader digital matters. The IGF Leadership Panel should be counted on to advise on such matters.
    • Aligning workshop proposals under thematic tracks works well. Efforts should be strengthened to align other sessions that are part of the official IGF programme (Open
    Forums, DCs, BPFs, NRI collaborative sessions, etc.) as well as pre-events, under the thematic tracks, from the start of the submission and evaluation process.
    • To ensure that the preparatory phase and Day 0 event as well as the high-level portion of the IGF programme continue to fulfil their potential going forward, efforts should be made that these also support the tracks and themes of the annual event.
    • An exchange between past and future host countries and MAG members on potential improvements and ideas for preparatory, Day 0 and high-level events and the overall IGF programme would be welcome.
    • As the hybrid format has notable benefits for accessibility and participation, organisers should strongly consider retaining this format. Session organisers should be encouraged to include remote participants where that helps provide a geographic or policy perspective not necessarily possible because some relevant experts do not have the time and/or necessary funds to travel to an overseas meeting. Before COVID-19, remote participants were largely secondary in practice, even if organisers were encouraged to make time and use tools to provide space for questions from remote participants, IGF 2023 proved once more that it is possible to host successful sessions and fruitful discussions with many speakers spread across the globe. Benefitting from the experiences of the last three years, we should increasingly think in terms of hybrid events that will allow for a broader range of people to participate.
    • To support the profile of the IGF and to recognise the considerable investment by host countries, a high-level leaders’ event (or similar) should continue to be on the agenda.
    Agenda
    • A more focused set of topics and policy questions is strongly advised to support a more streamlined agenda, with session formats that allow for greater participation from non-panel members. The IGF should not have more than three tracks with clear, concise, and easily understandable themes that do not overlap. The agenda and themes should be informed by the agendas of major international events and policy discussions to enhance the relevance of IGF outputs.
    Planning process
    • There is an increasing need for a clear and easily understandable process, through which the community can contribute to the IGF agenda in a bottom-up fashion. A calendar and a visual representation of the process should be made public to outline the planning cycle for the IGF in a simple, yet comprehensive format, to illustrate the agenda and programme-setting process and to mark deadlines and engagement points for the community. This could also form the backbone of a communication and outreach strategy, creating a year-long calendar for outreach messages and social media content where relevant updates can be shared on the preparatory process and track narratives and input from the community can be invited at each milestone.
    • The 2023 interactive programme was greatly appreciated; however, we would propose that one time zone (preferably the hosting country time zone), is used across all calendars (in the excel and online formats as well as on the individual session pages), regardless of the geographical location of each user, which causes an automatic conversion. Such an approach will take away confusion in the planning process especially keeping in mind that session organisers are strongly encouraged to select speakers across regions. A prompt action to convert to the local time of the user could be suggested as an option to the interactive programme, for attendees who may plan to follow the event fully virtually, and thus wish to opt for such a conversion. It would be greatly appreciated if the different updates on the programme of the IGF appear more clearly, in order for each user to know when the calendar was last updated.
    • We would also advise that the IGF 2024 interactive schedule is published earlier, at least two-three weeks before the IGF starts, allowing participants, especially newcomers to get acquainted with the way it works, as well as having enough time to browse through it, and add sessions of interest to their personal programme. This will also facilitate any changes that may need to be reflected in the programme, i.e. in the case of missing sessions or any replacements.
    • The IGF planning process for intersessional work, working groups, main sessions and other MAG and community lead activities should be further strengthened by setting clear measures of success, standards of work, and a critical number of people committed to lead/support the activity across all stakeholder groups. This would require an analysis of required resources and responsibilities, including those of the Secretariat and any consultants, to ensure that any initiated work (traditionally part of the IGF or newly proposed) will be successful. There should also be clear mandates of authorisation for each intersessional work stream.
    Communication
    • There is an ever increasing need to raise wider awareness of existing IGF outputs and support their better dissemination.
    • Further discussion should be encouraged on what defines success for the IGF, what is meant by tangible outputs and what problem the outputs are intended to address. The IGF Secretariat should develop a work plan to identify, gather and better market existing outputs of the IGF. This would roughly follow the steps below:
    o Identify existing outputs and outcomes, both written products and success stories of collaboration / impact
    o Organise and cross-reference these by topic, and possibly with tags, so that these can be easily searched
    o Identify potential audiences
    o Targeted outreach and communication to better market the outputs
    • This work plan should be supported by a timeline, an analysis of required resources and responsibilities, and indicators and measures of success. The Secretariat should be equipped with resources to be able to execute this plan.
    • Members of the IGF Leadership Panel could be counted on to further disseminate the messages across their networks.
    • To improve the marketing of IGF outputs, the following should be considered:
    o Pare down intersessional work streams to allow for more concentrated effort and better support for selected work.
    o Task the IGF Secretariat (not a recurring MAG Working Group on Outreach and Communication) with outreach efforts and dissemination of existing outputs (policy material, reports, and case studies of successful cooperation/projects that are rooted in IGF meetings and discussions). Guest blogs or interviews about IGF success stories could also be considered.
    o Equip IGF participants with a communications / social media toolbox or guidance on how they can help disseminate messages. This would help increase outreach and enable participants to act as multipliers to official IGF communication.
    o Ensure close coordination on communication activities between the IGF Secretariat, the UN DESA communications team and the host country communications team to avoid duplication of efforts and mutually reinforce messages.
    • The legitimacy, accountability and balance of IGF outputs must be held to the highest standards:
    o The balance of stakeholders needs to be maintained in every work stream of the IGF in order not to undermine their legitimacy and to implement the multistakeholder approach which is intrinsic to the IGF.
    o Outputs of any intersessional work must ensure accurate reflection of all opinions.
    o The MAG should consider ways to raise profile of the IGF and strengthen the participation of underrepresented groups and regions and enhance the credibility of IGF work streams by addressing their balance and ensuring representation of regions and stakeholders. Capacity-building programs aimed at underrepresented groups can help ensure meaningful participation.
    • IGF communities and intersessional work should continue to be included and featured in Main Sessions on topics of interest and relevance to them, to contribute to a more cohesive and issue-focused agenda, as well as overall a more collegial atmosphere.
    • Clear guidelines and timelines are useful both for session proposers and evaluators on the process of how session proposals finally make it onto the programme of the annual meeting (tracks, sub-themes, etc.). Clear guidelines are also needed on how other sessions (Open Forums, Dynamic Coalitions and National Regional Initiatives) fit into the thematic programme, as well as on their evaluation.
    • A reinforced communication campaign would be helpful ahead of the workshop proposal process to ensure those new to the IGF are aware of the various possibilities to be actively involved in the upcoming IGF well in advance of the annual meeting. This should also include information on the possibility of proposing other types of activities for the IGF programme that are not suitable for a workshop format (networking, publication launch, hackathon, etc.)
    • Such a communication campaign should be supported by a rigorous timetable, guidelines and toolkits and build on the network of NRIs as well as that of MAG members to act as multipliers.
    • IGF resources are not as unlimited as the appetite for groups to come together to work on new issues. The MAG should discuss and consider a mechanism to anticipate how to deal with the increased interest in DCs, BPFs, PNs, NRIs as well as MAG working groups. These activities all compete for the same limited IGF staff support, and at times stakeholder representatives’ support, all of which only stretch so thin.
    • A turnover policy should be considered, activities that have reached their goals or have lost the support of the community should be sunset to allow resources for new ones. There is value in exploring new and innovative ideas, but this should be about quality over quantity – there needs to be a clear focus on the quality and strategic goals of such activities. In addition, efforts should be made to ensure that any new activity has not just the interest, but the active support and foreseeable engagement of a critical mass of people from the wider IGF community, and particular attention is paid to stakeholder, regional and gender balance.

    • Efforts need to continue to attract government and business stakeholders to the IGF. Participation of high-level policymakers drives interest from their counterparts from other regions and stakeholder groups. Efforts should be made to continue the trend for the involvement of top-level actors.
    Enhancing business participation at IGF
    • In order to incentivise further participation by the private sector, the following suggestions could be considered:
    o Creating a dedicated space for business-government interactions that foster actionable discussions between counterparts, and align with the broader Internet governance agenda and how businesses can support deploy global digital initiatives, such as the Internet We Want vision, the Global Digital Compact and the UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI.
    o Organising thematic, working-level roundtables facilitating dialogue between businesses and the broader IGF community would contribute to the multistakeholder model of discussions. Open discussions and moderated fireside chats featuring high-level representatives from business can enhance meaningful and impactful engagement on digital policy initiatives, priorities, and trends with the broader IGF community. This would bring a more organised approach and a clear structure of business contributions to the IGF agenda, which often is unclear or overwhelming for participants and attendees to engage with.
    IGF as a venue for multistakeholder input to global digital dialogues
    • As the only open, multistakeholder process under the UN umbrella, where all stakeholders participate in a dialogue on an equal footing, we advise that the IGF is presented as an opportunity for multistakeholder input as the Global Digital Compact (GDC) is being developed and as follow up once the GDC is adopted. This will ensure that an effective multistakeholder model in global digital policy is maintained, building on existing work and not creating new structures that would add more layers to the already complex Internet governance system.

Internet Governance Inintiative


  • Capacity development is bit need to improvement.
    Themetic focus is timely. But it seems overly focused, as there are many problems that we have not addressed or focused on other than the main theme. Meanwhile, there should be a way to address and discuss other issues.
    N/A
    The schedule is so sophisticated that major sessions on the same topic are overlayed. The schedule need to be in another user-friendly format. Suggest an app with a map.
    N//A
    N/A
    Great and open , inclusive, but yet there is space to grow. Suggest allowing projects within NRI groups so that engagement and improvement will be higher.NRI;s can joinly work on problems of that some NRI's faces.
    This time it has improved a lot since my last IGF
    Great
    N/a
    Much to appreciate the engagement and level of content are really high.
    This time, it was not overly focused on gender and made it normalized within the contents.
    More engagement and a better location are required. Seperation from session workrooms made it difficult to reach time to time.
    One of the great and successful sessions. Output transcription has many problems where it will become an issue for using the content for academic or proper purposes.
    Cover and give opportunities for other problems to be discussed with wider communities.
    We need to create more engagement through sharing informtion.
    Sugget to create an academic journal related to IG .
    Better encourage projects and the submission of findings.

    Allow mixing the high-level, parlimentory government with the other stakeholders. This mixing process will create a better environment for development.
    The term internet is now used to cover Digital Technologies as well. The future (A ect..I) will not be just the internet. So the reconsideration of name to "Digital Governance" might be relevant.

NL IGF


  • This year, a record number of proposals, including workshops, town halls, open fora, and lightning talks, have been submitted. The responsibility of evaluating these workshop proposals lies with the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), which must select sessions from among these submissions. On the other hand, the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) independently selects other sessions without providing explanations for its choices or rejections. There is a call for increased transparency in this selection process. Additionally, there is a suggestion to reconsider the distinction between town halls, open fora, and workshops, as many individuals perceive minimal differences between these session types.
    The NL IGF-community appreciated the thematic focus of the internet we want, empowering all people. The addition of ‘empowering all people’ was important to highlight the importance of inclusivity and sustainability in thinking of the future of the internet. The choice of sub-themes provided a comprehensive view of the challenges and opportunities in achieving ‘the internet we want’. The variety of sub-themes added to the discussions and dialogue as people from diverse backgrounds joined this year's IGF and were able to share knowledge and perspectives on various issues.
    Unfortunately, this year participation of online participation was low, probably due to the time zone Japan is in. On the other hand, the on-site participation was record breaking!
    We appreciated the interactive schedule and application as it offers many benefits. However, this year the IGF app didn't work well and quite a few people turned to a A3 printed version of the schedule. This could however be improved by enabling users to download the application in advance, create their personal schedule and possibly even show recommendations to users.

    There is a risk of seeing the same people at various sessions and such an app with recommendations could possibly nudge people to go to a session they otherwise wouldn't have visited. The application could also possibly function as a social medium to connect with other visitors and plan meetings or ‘speeddates’. ICANN's system of Sched works very well, it might be interesting to seek their advice.

    Additionally, NL IGF suggests enabling the possibility of adding multiple 'organizers’ to the session page to make sure various people can make changes to the page and add the key takeaways and report. If possible, this could make it easier for organizing teams to meet the deadlines and work together to upload the content.
    The sessions of the PN's were well organised, with good and diverse panels. However, it's quite unclear what the difference is of a PN session and other main / high level sessions.
    Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) can offer useful insights and it's good that these groups can come together year-round, however there are 28 DCs now. Allowing all these DC's automatically a spot at the IGF would require too much of the schedule. Moreover, not all DCs offer enough tangible outcome that it's justifiable to offer them a session at the IGF. The DCs could benefit from a more formalized structure and clear mandate for Dynamic Coalitions, outlining their objectives, decision-making processes, and mechanisms for accountability.

    Over the past six years representatives of the NLIGF community have actively engaged in and financially supported studies and contributions in IGF working groups aimed at making the IGF more action-oriented and produce tangible outcomes. The Dynamic Coalitions, BPF and PNs are intersessional processes that are meant to work year-round. Some of the DC's produce the tangible outcomes, however too many don’t.

    NLIGF members present in Kyoto noticed how little attention was given to tangible outcomes produced by several DCs and not only that these outcomes were not mentioned in the programme but also that no attention was given to them in any form.

    NLIGF suggests that for 2024 if the DCs have the structure of getting together annually or intersessionally delivered outcomes, they can be part of the IGF programme, allowing for synergies to grow between all intersessional activities and the workshops, open fora, etc. A second suggestion is to give more prominence to the reports and guidance of all intersessional work undertaken within the IGF as the tangible outcomes of these IGF processes. A possible solution for this could be to offer the DC's one dedicated moment together at the IGF to share their progress, outcomes and recommendations with the community. This would enhance the visibility of the DC's and also encourage possible future collaboration between the DC's.
    From an NRIs perspective, we really appreciated the NRI sessions at the IGF 2023. Not only the sessions at the IGF but also the preparatory work leading up to the sessions leads to stronger connections among the NRIs. Additionally, the NRIs booth was a nice way of meeting new people and other NRIs. While this IGF offered good opportunities for connection between those who are involved with the NRI's, it was not as visible for those who are not personally involved. The NRI's are crucial and unique for the IGF. This needs to be shared and explained to those outside the NRI's network.

    NL IGF suggests focusing on explaining the significance of the NRI's network and the work that has been done in previous years to get to the current network. In 2024, we recommend visualising the network and growth of the NRI's. This emphasizes the way the IGF both informs and encourages local and regional communities to invest in internet governance, but also collects the knowledge and experiences from communities around the world to inform policy makers.
    The IGF hosted a total of over 350 sessions, a quantity that might be considered excessive. Some sessions had overlapping content, and could have better been merged. To enhance inclusivity and accommodate a broader range of perspectives, it is recommended that speakers are limited to presenting in a maximum of 2 or 3 sessions. This would help diversify voices within the IGF. Furthermore, the current requirement for onsite participation of panellists may exclude certain voices due to financial constraints preventing travel to the IGF. To address this issue, the Secretariat and MAG could explore the possibility of conducting fully online sessions as an experiment.
    -
    -
    The Youth session at the IGF was very inspiring. Enabling young people to become ambassadors of positive change in the field of internet governance is crucial and should definitely be encouraged in 2024 as well. One suggestion could be to include youth in the preparatory work by the MAG for sessions at the IGF. Youth could step in as online moderators or reporters to support the MAG as well as experiencing the process of organizing a session at the IGF.
    The IGF was diverse in terms of gender. However, the numbers gain more meaning when put in perspective. Therefore, it would be valuable to gain insight into the trends in a statistics report reflecting on the numbers regarding gender, newcomers, stakeholder groups and regions represented at the IGF throughout the years since 2006.
    Lively and nice to walk through on your way in!
    It was really impressive to see how the city of Kyoto invested in hosting the IGF. The outputs were comprehensive and well written. We are keen to hear how the IGF secretariat is working together with other UN agencies to spread the messages of the IGF.
    To ensure effective communication, we recommend announcing the dates of the 1st and 2nd open consultations and the IGF itself as soon as possible. This gives people the opportunity to block their agendas and encourage others to do the same. Adding to that, NL IGF also suggests sharing the IGF 2024 programme content as soon as possible. Early determination of the thematic approach, session types and speaker profiles can help promote the IGF 2024.
    In terms of communications and outreach, NL IGF believes that the IGF could better make use of the NRI's network to help spread the word. A mailing list for communications could be an option to promote the IGF and reach a wider community. Additionally, active involvement of press could also lead to more visibility. We all use similar platforms for communication. A template for posts on X and LinkedIn could lower the barrier to actively share content about the IGF. A very practical suggestion would be the use of Canva, a platform or design tool (free for non-profit organisations) that enables collaboration.
    We encourage aligning the thematic approach with regional and national IGF's and call for a more transparent system for assigning workshops for stakeholders. NL IGF also suggests to encourage interactive formats for substantive dialogues rather than merely presentations. key stakeholders should be present and represented at a high level, such as tech companies, politicians, manufacturers, and key sectors such as healthcare.
    To foster substantive dialogue, NL IGF suggests concentrating on themes and topics aligning with regional and national IGF agendas.

    These recommendations are included in the feedback above, but NL IGF recommends investigating the trends in participant numbers and determine who to reach out to and invite based on these statistics. The question of interconnecting participants is complicated, but room for art and experience at the venue could foster engagement and connection.
    -

Stiftung Digitale Chancen | Digital Opportunities Foundation


  • Feedback on why a proposal was (not) selected would be very helpful. We also wonder why sessions with (almost) similar topics were selected. In this case, we would recommend merging such sessions to make the programme more concise.
    Meetings with (almost) similar topics should not be scheduled at the same time. It would also be useful to review the sessions in terms of active roles, i.e. moderator and co-moderator, speaker, rapporteur, to avoid scheduling sessions where the same people are active at the same time.
    For the main topics, sessions should be organised from general to specific as the conference progresses. This would make it easier for participants to dive into (new) topics.
    Sometimes sessions were held in large rooms with only a few participants, other sessions were held in small rooms that were overcrowded.
    Being able to decide whether to take part online or onsite is a great advantage.
    For onsite moderator, speakers, and participants it would be useful to know how many people attend online.
    Staff were always helpful and friendly.
    The online calendar (format) was to difficult and slow to manage.
    It was confusing that some meeting rooms had a number and a workshop number, while sessions got their own workshop number.

    It was great to have such a well-attended joint main session of the DCs at IGF 2023 where most of the DCs were involved. Concerns that an afternoon session on the last day of the IGF would not attract many participants did not come true.
    Besides the main session a space where DCs could showcase the work they are doing in the course of the year could give them more visibility and recognition.
    Intersessional activities and NRIs overlap in some areas, f.e. Dynamic Coalitions have strengthen their co-operation with NRIs. The programme should be checked in this regard.
    Some space in the programme could be reserved for exchange between the various sub-groups and organising teams to strengthen bonds.
    Most sessions were well prepared and of high quality in regard of content, speakers, and discussions.
    As said before thematic overlaps should be avoided, although AI is an improtant topic it featured too dominant in the IGF 2023 programme from my perspective.
    The high-level leaders track was very important. The composition of leadership could show more diversity.
    The parliamentary track was very important, but we’ve learned that parlamentarians f.e. from germany would need a special invitation to be able to attend, esp. when the IGF overlaps with their parliamentary sessions.
    The youth track was very improtant, but could be more integrated in the whole programme and not be held as a special track.
    Gender balance was great in 2023.
    IGF Village is an important space for exchange and learning but, it should be located closer to the session rooms and catering spaces to make it easier to pay a visit to the village booth inbetween sessions, f.e. having a coffeebar close to the village would be useful.
    Staff of IGF secretariat were always friendly, helpful and solution oriented.
    It is difficult to address national and local media with press releases from a global conference, it might help to localise press releases and highlight those issues that are especially relevant in the respective country or area. This could probably be done in co-operation with the NRIs and/ or a press officer for each region.
    The programme should be better structured having a red thread throughout the IGF week – from more general issues to more detailed debates allowing for deep dives into the themes. See also comments above.
    The preparatory process worked more or less well, we are not infavour of extension of deadlines on very short notice, its better to plan from the beginning with a bit more time for each of the steps.
    It was highly welcomed to have the incoming MAG members and MAG chair announced so early this year.

    The thematic approach was excellent, session types could be more diverse, in some sessions it wasn’t quite clear why a specific speaker was chosen. Some panels looked like diversity was given preference over expertise.
    It is not the best solution to have separat strands for these activities, we suggest them to be better woven into the programme.

    Meeting points during programme breaks could help people to connect based on their interest and expertise, social gatherings like receptions etc. should not overlap with sessions.
    IGF is an excellent platform as it stands with now so many people knowing about the IGF and is low threshold for newcomers from all over the world.
    We understand the IGF as a platform for a broad community to identify the most urgent issues around Internet Governance, to point out regional and national specifities and thus generate input to the United Nations Secretary-General's Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and Our Common Agenda.
    Furthermore, children's rights should also play a prominent role in 2024, as one third of all users of the internet and digital environments are young people.

From Persons:

Buckridge

  • Development of the IGF programme is a complex task that must take account of a variety of factors. While it’s essentially a multistakeholder and bottom-up process, there is a balance that must be struck between different kinds of community-driven sessions, different stakeholders, and the unique role of the host country government.

    In the 2023 cycle, the call for session proposals offered users eight different formats, including workshops, Open Forums, Town Halls, Lightning Talks, Launches and Awards, Networking Sessions, Day 0 Events, and Dynamic Coalition Sessions. And while there was a record number of session proposals received, feedback from those submitting proposals, as well as the experience of the MAG in assessing the proposals and advising on the final programme, suggests that this aspect of the system would benefit from simplification.

    Specifically, the variance in how different session types were considered and assessed contributed to concerns about fair an impartial judgement of proposals, particularly when such a significant percentage were unable to be included in the final programme’s limited session slots. One example in 2023 was the distinction between “workshop” and “town hall” - while there was little practical difference between many proposals in these categories, only workshop proposals were assessed by the MAG; meanwhile, a significantly higher percentage of town hall proposals were accepted than workshop proposals.

    While there are elements of the IGF programme that fall outside of the MAG’s remit (including the High-Level Sessions that are organised by the UN and the Host Country), it is also important to note that the multistakeholder, bottom-up nature of the IGF is built upon the role of the MAG in shaping the programme of the event. As such, many participants look to the MAG and its members when they have concerns about the programme and its content.

    Some practical suggestions going into the 2024 cycle:

    - Reduce the number of different session types and ensure more consistent assessment criteria (on elements such as relevance, diversity, and session approach) across the different session proposal formats.
    - Actively involve the MAG in consideration of a wider range of session proposals (i.e. not simply workshop proposals) to ensure a clearer holistic approach to the programme and avoid duplication or redundancy.
    - For those sessions which are not assessed by the MAG (including Open Forums), clarify the role of these sessions, including who should apply for these session slots and the reason why these proposals should be assessed separately.

    These steps will help to ensure greater transparency in the process, and build trust in the global IGF community regarding the programme development process for the annual event.
    As noted in the Draft Summary of the 2023 IGF, the event programme was extremely dense, featuring more than 350 sessions over the course of the week. This is the nature of a bottom-up, multistakeholder event, and the IGF Secretariat and Host Country should be commended on pulling together so many diverse sessions into a cohesive one-week programme. Concerns raised at the conference about programme density should be taken into account in future planning, particularly if there are specific cases of duplication or problematic overlap, but I do not believe the programme should be significantly reduced, particularly at the current levels of interest and engagement.

    However, key to ensuring that such a programme is inclusive, accessible, and productive is to have a practical, functional online interface. This requires that the schedule should be up-to-date, accurate, and easily accessible; it requires that any mobile app should be functional on a variety of [relatively recent] mobile platforms, and that a functional web alternative be available; and it requires that remote participation can be easily and quickly accessed by users both on- and offsite.

    To put it plainly, the tooling employed for these functions at the 2023 event was not up to the standard necessary.

    Looking to 2024 and beyond, it is imperative that the IGF draw on emerging best practices in relation to these aspects of event. This may well (indeed, will likely) mean using a third-party application (e.g. Sched, which was used during the 2019 IGF), some of which are employed by other events in the Internet governance space (which also means that many IGF attendees will be familiar with their use). It is vital that the IGF, as the global venue for Internet governance discussions (both in-person and hybrid) be able to facilitate participant in such discussions effectively and inclusively. Functional online tools are an essential element in this and must be prioritised.


Carvell

  • The preparatory process was well conducted with open opportunities for stakeholders to contribute to the call for issues, to submit session proposals in various formats. The dedicated work of the IGF Secretariat and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group is much appreciated and the are congratulated for delivering a successful and well-attended IGF event.
    I think broadly the programme was comprehensive in its coverage of key policy issues, opportunities and challenges, in step both with the rapid pace of technology evolution (notably AI), critical political priorities (notably the Sustainable Development Goals and environmental impact/climate crisis) and the future direction of Internet governance and international digital cooperation (notably the UN Secretary General's proposed Global Digital Compact). The setting of the IGF's main themes consistent with the thematic areas proposed for the GDC provided a valuable and timely framework for the Kyoto programme.
    However, as in previous years, the schedule comprising so many diverse sessions was difficult to navigate without incurring clashes of different priorities for attendance. I recommend the MAG consider for 2024 devising a programme structure based around collating blocks of related sessions, so that for example sessions relating to the GDC would be held in a sequence covering half a day. In addition to providing a more easily navigable focus compared to the scatter of slots on the GDC during more than one day's schedule, this would make it easier to converge session proposals and ensure there is no duplication of specific GDC-related topics, and it would enable some valuable cross-referencing between session outputs.
    My experience of the early morning and late afternoon/early evening sessions in the IGF schedule is that despite their high value content in most cases, the numbers of attendees was typically very low, resulting in minimal stakeholder interaction. The MAG should consider therefore the merits of a later start and earlier conclusion to the daily schedules to avoid the incidence of empty rooms and disappointed organisers.
    I thought the closing stocktaking session did not work very well due mainly to time constraints so that some issues such as outputs and messages were not discussed in a fully inclusive and coherent way.
    The initial Leadership Panel session was very disappointing in not allowing any time for stakeholder interaction and overall seemed very "top down" in its approach to the session. I was not able to attend the second LP meeting (which as I recall was arranged at short notice) due to a clash with another session commitment. The LP has an important strategic role that is crucial for the sustainability of the IGF as it enters its new phase ahead of the mandate review in the UN in 2025. Furthermore, the IGF will potentially have a key role in the implementation phase of the Global Digital Compact in 2024-25 which the LP should work with the MAG and Secretariat to ensure the IGF is "up to the task."
    The LP also has a vital function of global advocacy of the IGF's concrete outputs to governments, industry sector leaders and civil society worldwide. It is essential therefore that the LP hold fully interactive sessions with in person and online IGF stakeholders in slots in the IGF schedule that are not conflicted by other important sessions (as happened in Kyoto).
    The LP members must fulfil their new role in the "IGF Plus" ecosystem in a fully transparent and accountable way to stakeholders. There needs to be a more thought therefore about the approach in Riyadh to scheduling their engagement with the IGF community of stakeholders so that it is more inclusive and interactive without any scheduling conflicts.

    Generally very good. As an in person attendee I experienced no problems with accessing information for sessions etc.
    The "personal schedule" setting is an excellent function of the online IGF schedule that provides immediate access to key session data etc.
    No specific comments on process and content. Regarding their inclusion in the programme, I thought the opening and closing sessions failed to highlight the important year-round work of the BPFs and PNs in contributing to tangible IGF outcomes and the opportunities to present their work during the IGF was somewhat submerged due to the coincidence of other sessions with their timeslots. I think there would be value in separating their scheduling from the main programme therefore.
    I think the IGF schedule failed to provide a clear picture of how the various ongoing activities of dynamic coalitions - especially those that have specific targetted outputs such as policy recommendations and capacity building toolkits - contribute to the strategic direction of the IGF, especially in relation to the proposed Global Digital Compact. I recommend that the contributions of dynamic coalitions to the main themes of the IGF be presented in a cohesive single extended 3-4 hour session - ideally as a scene-setting slot on day zero or one - rather than as happened in Kyoto through their individual sessions held in slots conflicting with workshop sessions etc, and presented without any interlinking or convergence throughout the IGF's schedule. I believe their presentations in a single extended session would raise the profile of important research and analysis of specific issues, and generally assist in awareness-raising and advocacy of the outcomes of their work. Furthermore, as the number of dynamic coalition increases (there are currently 28), this collation into a single block would also mitigate the risk that the increase in the number of individual DC slots would progressively reduce the time available for slots for external workshop proposals in response to the open call. Preparation and coordination of inputs into the single combined session could be undertaken through convening a DCs preparatory session during the period prior to the IGF.
    No comments on NRI inclusion. The excellent work of Ms Anja Gengo and her team in the IGF Secretariat is much appreciated.in coordinating the contributions of NRIs to the global IGF programme
    Overall my experience of sessions in the main programme and the quality of content in terms of speakers' presentations was very positive and most sessions fulfilled their undertakings to be open and interactive with attendees in person and online, and to avoid big panels and long presentations.
    No specific comments but I would recommend that the conclusions drawn by the participants in the High-level leaders track could have formed the basis for generating wider media interest in the IGF, its role, aims and impact (I'm not aware there was a press conference).
    I recommend that the IGF's parliamentary outreach be extended to regional and sub-national parliaments and assemblies (e.g. in the UK the devolved Scottish and Welsh parliaments, and the Northern Ireland Assembly), and to city administrations in view of the trend towards "smart city" projects and capacity building for e-governance and online social welfare services etc.
    More attention should also be devoted to the interests and capacity needs of small islands.
    Very important for the IGF to create opportunities for the next generation of digital users and developers of applications in the meeting programme and year-round intersessional activities. In addition to the dedicated youth track, believe more effort (including MAG scrutiny) should be made by session organisers to reach out to the Youth Coalition (YCIG) and other youth groups on potential speakers and panel representation of young people in their workshops etc.
    The Village had some interesting booths from Internet bodies and stakeholder organisations in all regions and there were some exciting technology project showcases such as the "Sunglider" HAPS high altitude wing for delivering Internet access in remote areas (a technology application that I had been totally unaware of).
    However, as in Addis, the location of the village at some distance from the main hub of the forum sessions, meant that it was isolated from the main stakeholder thoroughfare of the forum and I think it was unlikely that many delegates who had quickly passed the village on entry in the morning will not have found the time to return for a proper look during the day. I recommend that the hosts in Riyadh locate the Village as centrally as possible in order to maximise the value of the village for booth holders.
    I note that the overall gender balance in participation (61M/38F) was not as good as in 2022 (56M/43F) so this remains a challenge for review by the Secretariat and the hosts for the 2024 IGF in Riyadh.
    With regard to panels, my impression from the sessions that I attended is that organisers have been generally diligent in aiming for gender balance in panels and rosters of speakers.

    Overall very good. The time provision for reviewing the messages was quite limited and due to other commitments I was not able to to review the proposed messages thoroughly in consultation with my notes and colleagues.
    More generally I recommend the IGF Secretariat acquire some professional media advice on outreach and communications in order to develop a media strategy for the IGF in 2024-25 at a time when the UN's focus increasingly turns to questions of IGF effectiveness and sustainability leading up to the mandate review by the General Assembly.
    The first Open Consultation meeting should be held as soon as practicable in January. Ideally I recommend that this first meeting is held in Geneva in order to maximise the number of in person attendees which I believe in turn increases the opportunity for frank and innovative exchanges of ideas for improvements and ensuring that the forum continues to evolve in a positive way in line with expectations for the GDC and the WSIS+20 review.
    The Open Consultation meeting needs to have at the top of its agenda the ambition to create a programme schedule which is easier for stakeholders to navigate than the one developed for Kyoto, with fewer conflicting sessions and less duplication. The aim should be to create a schedule for Riyadh that is built around a structure of thematic building blocks, based primarily on the GDC content, and which ensures all the key issues are addressed in a meaningful and inclusive process of bottom up stakeholder engagement and interaction.
    In addition to the GDC themes, the key IGF issues for 2024 should include the digital sector's contributions to getting the sustainable development goals back on track, and the climate emergency.
    More priority should be given in the planning process to ensuring the schedule allows more impactful and comprehensive reporting of the intersessional activities of the DCs, BPFs and PNs and their outputs.
    The Leadership Panel should have an extended opportunity during the Open Consultation meetings and open MAG meetings to report their advocacy activities since the Kyoto IGF and to engage with stakeholders about their intentions for the future strategy on IGF sustainability.
    See my previous comments and recommendations for thematic blocks of sessions with a shorter daily schedule, with time set aside for the IGF's intersessional activities to report in a more comprehensive, theme-based way, and opening and closing sessions with the Leadership Panel that are free from competing sessions slots in order to maximise attendance and the LP's interaction with stakeholders.
    I support maintaining a thematic approach to the programme content that is linked to the Global Digital Compact because of the expected role for the IGF in implementing the GDC principles and commitments.
    I think the variety of session type options for organisers works well.
    For the Dynamic Coalitions will be able to review progress and contribute proposals to the MAG and Leadership Panel through the mechanism of the Dynamic Coalitions Coordination Group (DCCG),
    The NRIs should be encouraged to engage in the MAG process through providing representation at the Open Consultations and open MAG meetings. The Leadership Panel should aim to be represented at NRI events in order to report on IGF strategy and to cascade IGF 2023 outcomes to those stakeholder communities.
    Youth IGFs and the YCIG should be invited to be represented in person or online at Open Consultations and open MAG meetings.

    This should be part of the communications strategy to be developed with a professional adviser (see my comments above about this).
    More attention should be given to the economic, professional and social services sectors which have not been represented at IGF meetings in the past - including the financial, transport and agricultural sectors as examples of economic and social activities which are being transformed by digital technologies. There is general agreement I believe that they should be present at the IGF.
    I believe that the NRIs can play a valuable role in outreach and delivering invitations to the global IGF. I suggest that when the shape and content of the IGF 2024 programme has been finalised, a narrative script is prepared by the IGF Secretariat for the NRIs to use which explains the themes, content and expected outcomes of IGF 2024.
    I recommend the MAG and LP consider the practicality of instituting a multi-year strategy for the IGF based on thematic prioritisation. This was a suggestion that came up in the discussions about the IGF in the context of digital cooperation. This might help to mitigate the oft-repeated concerns that the IGF as an annual forum tries to cover too much in a crowded schedule that is difficult to navigate. The IGF's potential role as a global lead in implementing GDC commitments may well necessitate some thematic prioritisation with non-urgent issues being researched (possibly with the help of individual dynamic coalitions) over a 2 year period, thus freeing up space in the schedule for more "deep dive" sessions on more immediate specific questions.

Choudhury

  • There was sufficient time given for call of issues and session proposals. However, some more time allotted to session selection would have been good.
    A dedicated Capacity building session for newcomers on how to submit a proposal, would have been great.
    There were too many sessions (though the workshops/ sessions from the community were around 80). As a result, it was difficult for attendees, at least onsite, to pick and choose sessions.
    It was good to see that the main panels attempted to have a gender balance and geographic balance. However, more global majority representation would be great.
    Overall, the hybrid format worked. Since there were many sessions, the attendance in the rooms was low, especially the early morning and late evening sessions. Further there were some rooms completely empty where complete online sessions were going on. Going forward, perhaps such sessions do not need to be alloted a room.
    The facilities and technical support provided by the host is ro be praised. There is a need to improve the ease of using the website and mobile app for accessing the agenda.
    It was good to see an increase in participation from Private and Government sectors.
    There is a need to improve the ease of using the website and mobile app for accessing the schedule/ agenda.
    The BPF and PNAI have been contributing substantially to the work of the IGF, both in terms of the intersessional activities, the annual report they have drafted in a truly multistakeholder, bottom upp approach. Even the topic which the BPF and PNAIs choose to dwell in came from the community.
    The NRIs and Youth initiatives play a key role in bringing in the views from different parts of the world especially the global majority and also helps in disseminating the discussions at the global IGF. The discussions organized by the NRIs are important and should be further strengthened.
    There were many sessions. Some of the speakers were repeated several times.
    The topis were good. More gender and stakeholder balance would help along with time for interaction.
    The Parliamentary Track went well. In 2024 engaging with Parliamentarians from countries that did not participate well in advance would help.

    The calendar for the IGF2024 process which includes call for session proposals, MAG calls and consultation meetings should be out at the earliest.
    A more focused and in-depth programme structure which is developed in close coordination between the MAG, host country and LP, keeping in mind IGFs strategic and long terms goals, would be preferred. Perhaps having the MAG have a say in the whole agenda would be helpful.
    There should be better coordination to integrate sessions from the host country, main session organized by the MAG and High-level panels (related to topic, content and speakers). A more focused agenda would be preferred. The type or range of issues that has been discussed at the IGF in all these years should be allowed to continue without any restrictions even in 2024 too.
    More time for audience interaction in High Level Panels, more diversity in the High level panels (in terms of gender and stakeholders) would be preferred
    More speakers from the global majority and new speakers to IGF would be appreciated.
    The Intersessional activities of the NRI and Youth IGF should be prepared keeping in mind the issues globally being discussed, the IGFs strategic goals and how the IGF can keep contributing to the global processes such as the GDC, WSIS+20 meaningfully.

    All stakeholder communities need to be invited and feel welcome to participate in IGF2024 both in person and online. The hybrid mode of participation needs to be strengthened.
    More discussions on how the IGF community can contribute to the GDC process, WSIS+20 and a coordinated approach from the whole community (NRIs, Youth initiatives, DCs, LP, MAG etc.) to ensure the voice of this truly multistakeholder and diverse community to be heard is imperative.

de Natris

  • No comments
    In general it worked well. In the end there are too many topics, but I do not see how that can be avoided as they are all of more or less equal importance and widely supported.
    My impression is that the organisational side went well and there were no technical glitches like on the day zero of the two previous IGFs. However, in all my sessions there were hardly any people online besides remote participants and not a single comment or question was raised. That was a first actually.
    The schedule was hell to navigate. The website is too often too slow or less well accessible. The track numbers versus room numbers was at first confusing. The rest was all very well organised.
    Compliments to the host country are due. The organisation was impeccable. There is nothing to note where the venue and everything around it is concerned. The technique was top notch. The food was great and in abundance. Japan made me feel extremely welcome. The music night was perfectly organised from a musician's point of view.
    - -
    DCs work the year round and produce tangible outcomes of the IGF process. These results go all but unnoticed in the IGF's programme. Reports of importance are presented, while hardly any participant seems aware of them nor of the moment of presentation. The attendance of all IS3C co-organised sessions, four, and the DC IoT workshop was dismal.for so much effort. In the current structure an average participant has no way of knowing a work of potential importance is presented at the IGF. Competing with 11 other sessions does not help here.
    - -
    With a record in person attendance, I can only wonder where all these people were during sessions. Barring the main room, I have not attended a session with over 20 people in the room, with the low figure of three at the beginning or end of a session twice and hardly to no people attending online. I can only speak of the sessions I attended or (co-organised), but heard the same from others. So, either people do not attend sessions or the spread becomes too thin. Also, twice when the workshop became interactive, as announced in the programme, circa half of the people stood up and left, so less important input or feedback was received compared to other years. This needs an evaluation from the MAG on how to improve attendance.
    The quality of speakers was usually high and well-informed. The quality of discussion was less so. A panel focused often on itself, was over-crowded and left no time at all for questions or interaction. On the other hand why bother with four or five people in attendance?
    - -
    - -
    - -
    Well organised and accessible. It would be good to have a floorplan in more than one spot.
    - -

    The IGF makes no comments on outputs of DCs, which is a missed opportunity for all concerned. If the IGF wants to evolve into the a forum of importance it has to start setting rules for intersessional activities beyond the BPFs and PNs. DCs can be ideal vehicles to compare global policies, to come up with recommendations and best practices and to assist in building capacity building programmes, etc., in short deliver on the promises presented in the GDC-process to the co-facilitators by the LP and MAG chairs
    The IGF needs to find a better way to capture solutions, ideas, policy recommendations, etc and to find a better, more influential way to share them..This starts in the preparatory process. My suggestion is to start with adding the following questions in the session application process:
    1) What is the problem, challenge you want to solve? and;
    2) How will your workshop contribute to progress in the debate?;
    3. What do you strive to achieve with/in your session?
    These factors should become leading when deciding on a workshop proposal. Gender and regions can easily be adjusted, a well-written proposal not leading to any serious and workable outcome cannot. If these questions are not answered satisfactorily, it should not become a workshop.
    It also will allow the MAG to identify common topics, cluster them and to coordinate between individuals now working separately on the same topic,so they can work together towards outcomes like policy recommendations, best practices, etc.
    If answered satisfactorily, it is also clear to the MAG and secretariat where to look for solutions, recommendations, etc., allowing the messages to become even more focused.
    There should be one exception to this rule: when the topic is totally new for the IGF (and relevant of course). Freedom to explore the topic can be granted.
    The structure of the IGF needs serious improvement.
    1. The schedule was too complex to find relevant topics.
    2. Too often identical topics were scheduled at the same or overlapping timeslot(s) (My personal record? Three!).
    3. There were far too many workshops on the same topic. This leads to fragmentation, disinterest and low attendance but above all, missed opportunities to cooperate on stronger messages, recommendations and conclusions.
    4. Main sessions should end a specific theme and present conclusions, messages, etc. Workshops on the topic in question should not follow the main session for obvious reasons.
    5. There is no interaction with intersessional work conducted by DCs and the rest of the programme.
    6. Allowing for official receptions during the programme? Seriously?
    For the IGF to become more relevant and focused, the thematic approach should include coordination between the different workshops and other, non-MAG, selected sessions. This appears, from the outside, totally lacking. Once a workshop is approved all coordination stops. Ideally, it is the starting point where the messages are concerned. Currently it is just missed opportunities.
    Intersessional work needs to be better integrated into the IGF programme. The BPFs, PNs, DCs and Youth Track produce tangible outcomes that have the potential to give the IGF more prominence and influence. Their work has to put more in the centre of IGFs activities. A part of the workshop proposals could focus on questions or solutions arising from this work and used as input to the final respective outcomes.
    Another way to give the work more prominence is to set a block of the programme apart for all intersessional work. This way there's no competing with other sessions.
    At the same time, stress the importance of what is presented in the programme. It will lead to better attendance and more commitment to intersessional work in the future and its outcomes. Only by giving it more prominence, will it be taken more seriously by the wider community and lead to more involvement in the rest of the year.

    Some experts will only come when paid, but most will come when there is a process of significance to their work. This happens when topics are better coordinated and integrated, when presented and time to collaborate on the outcomes and messages. The experts go home with more knowledge and understanding, while they have had the opportunity to share their own as well. Now allotted time is often only used exclusively for sending.
    Never, ever allow for receptions, etc. during workshop hours again!

    Advertise workshops with tangible outcomes loudly and proudly upfront and during the IGF (and know upfront which ones they are).

    Present tangible outcomes in the high-level and parliamentary sessions so that high ranking individuals learn of the tangible outcomes and the relevance of IGF's interssional work.

    Include DC workshops in the daily reporting of the IGF. Here are many tangible outcomes to report on.

    Discuss how to bring those DCs wanting more responsibility, closer into the IGF infrastructure and how to recognise their output as output of the IGF process. Start with asking which DC is interested and then discuss the regulations and rules to adhere to. Look into how DCs can play a role if GDC monitoring becomes a reality.





Gautam

  • A quick update on registration approval is needed as lots of applicants got the approval while the conference ended last year.
    A quick update on registration approval is needed as lots of applicants got the approval while the conference ended last year.

    There should be enough funds to support all the participants (at least the flight).

    A short tour of local heritage and tourist areas.
    More engagement and promotion

    Internet in Tourism

Gonzalez Romo

  • The Internet, train ing and public transport, the Internet for everyone
    Womens's challanges with the Internet and digital media, transportación and digital media, free google course
    Train ing un digital media and train in Gaps for an internet for all


Hellerstein

  • This was all fine and seemed to work well.
    The mid session Mag meetings were helpful as they offered a chance for the DCs to get more known to the MAG
    Good that there is a requirement that a certain number of the people in the panel be physical as there was a real issue in Poland with thi.
    Captioning worked well. In the future, when the schedules are set in addition to the date and time there should also be the stream text links as these were hard to find.
    For the future, all main sessions should have International sign and also be in multiple languages.
    The interactive schedule came out too late and so was scrambling to add sessions to my calendar when it finally came out. Registration was good and easy. However, the website was very slow and the login process was very difficult. You logged in and then to edit your session you had to find it but in the meantime, the website logged you out and you had to start all over again sometimes more than once. This needs to be corrected. This process is very difficult for a sighted person and is incredibly difficult for someone with visual disabilities.
    Sched worked very well but came out far too late.
    This worked well. The policy networks I was a part of were well-integrated and the process worked well
    The process worked well, but too many similar programs were at the same time as our DC session and so was hard to entice people to come. Also, DC main session was on the last day of the event and in the afternoon so many people had already left. In the future, DC Mian sessions should be earlier in the program.
    This process worked very well.
    Too many sessions and too much overlap between session topics. More effort should be made to group similar sessions together.
    The village was far from the sessions and so had to make a concerted effort to go to it. Good positioning from when you enter as it is right there, but then if you are in the session location it is very far.

    Loved the japanese cultural programs and wish there could have been more programs. These were so fun an interesting and really drew the participant back to the village from the session location.

    Visual communication was good, but also care has to be taken that when you are doing a PowerPoint slide or other visual that it be made accessible to persons with disabilities, including appropriate ALT text descriptions.
    Any session in the main Plenary room should have an interpretation and also International sign. It should not just be the high-level session and opening and closing but all main sessions or sessions held in that room.
    Cultural events should be included into the program
    Possibly connect BPFs and DC sessions to workshop topics that are similar in theme so a better synergy could be achieved.

    Work to include persons with disabilities in the MAG. When deciding on diversity do not just think about geographic diversity but also gender and persons with disabilities.
    ● Improve the accessibility of the IGF website by making it more user-friendly for people with disabilities, this includes ensuring the navigability of its tabs and providing alternative text for images. Fix the login issue mentioned earlier which makes it very difficult to edit sessions and also add sessions to your schedule. Also, the Excel spreadsheet is difficult to navigate and only has summary information which was on the interactive schedule which came out far too late so make sure this comes out much earlier.

    ● Enhance the accessibility of the IGF sessions in the schedule by presenting the schedule in various formats that cater to the diverse needs of participants. This could include audio and interpretation in different languages and possibly more visualized versions of the schedule.

    have more sessions that have international sign to them. There could be a process where people notify the secretariat of their needs earlier on so these services could be engaged.

HTET

  • All is good but schedule is not go well due to so many sessions but a few participants.
    Great!
    Perfect
    Smoothly go well.
    Youth NRIs collaborative session on AI topic is really good.
    N/A
    I saw a lot of Youth NRIs in IGF 2023, starting from Cambodia YIGF to Kenya YIGF. But some are still struggling to join Global IGF due to financial problems like Philippines YIGF so I suggest to support more opportunities for the Youth NRIs in IGF 2024.
    So many sessions but a few participants, so that's not make sense.
    N/A
    N/A
    Really good! A lot of Youth's contribution.
    Good
    More male participants than last year IGF.

    No very good, still need to improve in media engagement.
    Please give more travel support for Youth IGFs in third world countries. Their participation is really important.
    N/A
    N/A
    Should arrange more sessions foe youth-led sessions.

    Invite to balance region, gender, etc.
    N/A

Shebeshi

  • It was well organized at Kyoto, Japan. But not enough time for online participants only for onsite participants as well as per-selected speakers taking most of the time answering repeated questions.
    As an online participant all the topics I participated was good
    As an online participant all the topics I participated was good
    As an online participant all the topics I participated was good
    As an online participant all the topics' processes and activities were gone well.
    As an online participant all the topics' processes and activities were gone well.
    As an online participant all the topics' processes and activities were gone well.
    As an online participant all the topics I participated was good
    As an online participant all the topics I participated was good
    As an online participant all the topics I participated was good
    As an online participant all the topics I participated was good

    As an online participant all the topics I participated was good
    Advanced technologies such as AI, Blockchain, Quantum Computing (QC), IoT, EoT, NFC, NFT etc. All these technologies generate huge amount of data/information. These days data/information is wealth. The wealth accumulated in developed nations. All these technologies perform activities/services via the INTERNET.

    First, the world need UN-International Internet Governance Law (IIGL): let us think about the root cause of the current Internet connectivity major problems such as by the name of freedom speech and democracy, universal human rights, unrestricted democracy, free inclusive internet connectivity etc, affected local countries and governments that are unable to control both streams’ media & social media using the INTERNET. As a global unified society, the world both global south and north need unified governing UN-International Internet Governance Law (IIGL).

    Second Education for cyber attackers: We must start educating cyber attackers to behave as natural human beings, behave professionally, ethically applying natural law with more soft skills( thinking for the global society) and acceptable hard skills (highly structured institutional rules and regulations). If we all perform any task with integrity, honesty, humanity, kindness, apply responsibility and accountability for the equitable benefit of all human-kinds such as global society including all nations citizens of our beautiful earth.

    Third, examining and analyzing an Existing Working System Framework (EWSF) of the UN: We must break the current cycle of the world society governing system (the UN) which is dominated for everything with developed nations (formulated before the INTERNET come to existence or early age). We must build new system that matches/suitable and applicable to the rapid advanced technology and the interest of all nations citizens worldwide that fully agreed and signed by every UN-IGF and ITU members nations/countries for the common public benefits.
    Good
    Good
    Good

    Both local and international law firms, ITU directors, IMF, World Bank, African Union, European Union, Asia-Pacific and southern American Countries representatives
    Advanced technologies such as AI, Blockchain, Quantum Computing (QC), IoT, EoT, NFC, NFT etc. All these technologies generate huge amount of data/information. These days data/information is wealth. The wealth accumulated in developed nations. All these technologies perform activities/services via the INTERNET.

    First, the world need UN-International Internet Governance Law (IIGL): let us think about the root cause of the current Internet connectivity major problems such as by the name of freedom speech and democracy, universal human rights, unrestricted democracy, free inclusive internet connectivity etc, affected local countries and governments that are unable to control both streams’ media & social media using the INTERNET. As a global unified society, the world both global south and north need unified governing UN-International Internet Governance Law (IIGL).

    Second Education for cyber attackers: We must start educating cyber attackers to behave as natural human beings, behave professionally, ethically applying natural law with more soft skills( thinking for the global society) and acceptable hard skills (highly structured institutional rules and regulations). If we all perform any task with integrity, honesty, humanity, kindness, apply responsibility and accountability for the equitable benefit of all human-kinds such as global society including all nations citizens of our beautiful earth.

    Third, examining and analyzing an Existing Working System Framework (EWSF) of the UN: We must break the current cycle of the world society governing system (the UN) which is dominated for everything with developed nations (formulated before the INTERNET come to existence or early age). We must build new system that matches/suitable and applicable to the rapid advanced technology and the interest of all nations citizens worldwide that fully agreed and signed by every UN-IGF and ITU members nations/countries for the common public benefits.

IGF 2024 Suggestions (2023 Stocktaking) - Full View