Session
Organizer 1: Hartmut Glaser, CGI.br
Organizer 2: Jorge Cancio, 🔒Swiss Federal Office of Communication
Organizer 3: Laurianne-marie Schippers, CGI.br / NIC.br
Organizer 4: Isabelle Lois, Swiss government, Federal Office of Communications OFCOM
Speaker 1: Anriette Esterhuysen, Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 2: Jimson Olufuye, Private Sector, African Group
Speaker 3: Jordan Carter, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 4: Jorge Cancio, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 5: Renata Mielli, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 6: Suto Timea, Private Sector, Eastern European Group
Roundtable
Duration (minutes): 75
Format description: The 75-minute duration facilitates the discussion of complex issues characterized by multiple perspectives from different stakeholder groups and regions, and also for allowing time for the audience participation through questions & answers. The round-table is a more flexible format and allows the session to have a better display and dynamics of participation. The round table will include short speeches from participants, while also boosting the participation from the audience when putting up an overarching debate driven by the policy questions.
1. How to update the WSIS Action Lines to better reflect emerging and pressing issues and a proper integration with the SDGs? 2. What are the gaps within the WSIS framework and between its different parts, such as the IGF and the WSIS Forum? Does the governance structure follow an adequate multistakeholder approach, for instance as expressed by the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines? 3. How to strengthen the IGF to better respond to the challenges of an improved WSIS process, combined with the GDC implementation and follow-up, and especially to avoid duplication of efforts and promote better coordination?
What will participants gain from attending this session? The session will present and discuss multiple perspectives on the global digital ecosystem, its future, and the urgent action needed for the preservation of achievements and improvement in the dynamics within collaboration and decision-making. In this sense, speakers will address challenges within each of the most important ongoing processes in global digital governance, such as the WSIS+20 review and how to improve it by dealing with subject matter-related gaps and emerging technology trends (AI, data governance, DPIs etc). We also expect the session to critically reflect upon architectural gaps within WSIS, GDC and beyond, dealing with topics such as strategic and holistic governance, synergies within and between frameworks, responsiveness to emerging developments, political visibility, impact and funding of the IGF, among others.
Description:
This session aims to address gaps and opportunities of the global digital governance ecosystem, especially the governance architecture and cooperation. In the last 20 years, the World Summit on The Information Society (WSIS) has been playing the role of being the standard framework for the digital, for Internet governance and its technologies, as well as a platform to promote the multistakeholder approach and foster collaboration between stakeholders. In recent years, several processes have been launched inside and outside the UN system to advance discussions about global digital governance and especially to improve global digital cooperation. One famous example is the Global Digital Compact (GDC), which gathered commitments, proposals and endorsement from a range of States and from multiple stakeholders worldwide. The GDC and other processes have the common objective of bridging the gaps in digital ecosystems, strengthening their structures, and moving towards better cooperation and decision-making. Stakeholders have been perceiving our time as a critical juncture in the global ecosystem, with many processes carrying the potential to heavily impact the Internet, digital technologies and society as a whole. To address such challenges, a broad range of contributions have been pointing to a need for going beyond traditional global divisions, establishing better coordination and a more intense campaign in advancing the multistakeholder approach for all spaces and forums, including the multilateral ones. Collaboration, better procedures, and a revamping of the dynamics of interactions and decision making are at the menu of solutions for building a better digital future. Initiatives such as the NETmundial+10 São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines are key for solving the puzzles of our time, for bolstering the governance architecture and decision making. In this session, we expect to discuss this and other efforts, towards building a common base for the decisions to come in the global ecosystem.
We expect the session to provide insights for how to avoid the duplication of efforts and bridging the various ongoing processes in order to improve the overall system. Other than that, we expect the session to provide clear and concrete guidance on how to improve the dynamics of collaboration and decision making, including in multilateral fora. The implementation of the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines (SPMGs) and other related standards are possible tools to fill the gaps of the global ecosystem. Recommendations for related processes and forums such as the IGF, GDC, WSIS, CSTD and others are also expected from this session.
Hybrid Format: The workshop session will be divided into three segments: the first will consist of a brief opening and presentation of the discussion. The second segment will handle short speeches from invited speakers to address the proposed policy questions. In the last part, an overarching debate with the audience will happen, allowing for participants to ask, comment and discuss topics with the speakers. The session will have onsite and online moderators. The onsite moderator will be responsible for supervising interventions and interact with the speakers to ensure that the session's goals will be sought appropriately, also safeguarding due balance and diversity within interventions. The online moderator will take care of the flow of questions within all the online tools involved in the session, reading, selecting and guaranteeing that the onsite moderator will be aware of questions and comments from the remote audience (Zoom Chat and Q&A).
Report
IGF 2025 WS #343 Revamping decision-making in digital governance
The workshop had as a central objective addressing the gaps and opportunities of the global digital governance ecosystem, especially regarding the governance architecture and cooperation. Having as background different processes and frameworks, such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the session addressed three main questions, the answers to which developed as follows:
1. How to update the WSIS Action Lines to better reflect emerging and pressing issues and a proper integration with the SDGs?
As a general understanding, the speakers agreed that the WSIS Action Lines, as they were created, are sufficiently broad. They also kept technology agnostic and, therefore, stood the test of time. Thus, there is no need to rewrite the Action Lines, and we should only recognize and adapt their application to the new contexts that emerge. Renata Mielli (Government, GRULAC) mentioned that, although a revision is not necessary, there are issues that need to be updated as they were not so predominant 20 years ago. As examples, she mentioned AI and its impacts, issues of data governance, disinformation, environmental impacts of ICTs, digital public infrastructures, human rights online, among others. Jennifer Chung (Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group), although agreeing that the language in the Action Lines could be sharpened, raised concerns regarding possible updates to its text. The question that remains in this regard is how we can make reference to emerging technologies and new concerns without jeopardizing the good context already established by the Action Lines.
2. What are the gaps within the WSIS framework and between its different parts, such as the IGF and the WSIS Forum? Does the governance structure follow an adequate multistakeholder approach, for instance as expressed by the São Paulo Multistakeholder guidelines?
The speakers highlighted the lack of integration between the different governance spaces - e.g. WSIS Forum, IGF and even the Commission of Science and Technology of Development (CSTD). Nowadays, there is no awareness and recognition of what each one of them is discussing in their own fora. In this sense, although concerned with the same topics, these fora are held independently and without a better coordination with each other. On this behalf, Timea Suto (Private Sector, Eastern European Group) also emphasized that the implementation leaders of frameworks such as the Action Lines should be aware of what is being discussed in each of the forums. Jennifer Chung (Technical Community, Asia-Pacific) on the other hand, understands that the IGF and the WSIS Forum have different purposes and would benefit not necessarily from a coordination, but from a better communication and a crosspolination, i.e., an awareness about the inputs and outputs of each of those forums. Jordan Carter (Technical Community, WEOG) suggested that a multistakeholder coordination group could help the UNGIS drive the WSIS.
3. How to strengthen the IGF to better respond to the challenges of an improved WSIS process, combined with the GDC implementation and follow-up, and especially to avoid duplication of efforts and promote better coordination?
The speakers pointed out to both internal and external structures that need to be strengthened. It is worth mentioning the need for a consolidation of the MAG’s institutional knowledge, since there is a constant rotation of the members and such knowledge gets lost as a consequence of the group’s big turnover. There are also calls for more resources and funding of the Secretariat and its intersessional work. The speakers also emphasized the need for coordination and avoiding duplication and overlapping of governance processes, a call for a permanent mandate of the IGF, and greater participation of decision-makers in such space. Among those aspects, Jennifer Chung (Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group) highlighted that avoiding duplication of governance spaces would also be beneficial to the participation of stakeholders in these different spaces, including in terms of financial resources to do so. Jordan Carter (Technical Community, WEOG) stated that granting a permanent mandate for the IGF would be a way to overcome the uncertainty of a temporary forum, and, therefore, it would allow the community to dedicate more resources to the IGF - not only financially, but also of time and engagement. He also stated that the strengthening of the IGF could help build better connection with decision-making spaces. Timea Suto (Private Sector, Eastern Europe Group) emphasized that the WSIS+20 review process should recognize the important evolution of the IGF ecosystem, including the NRIs and other intersessional work. She also called for a better communication of IGF outcomes to different audiences.
The audience inputs presented concerns on the collaboration between the regional and global IGFs and whether this should be formalized in the Action Lines or remain a community-led process; on the credibility of the governance forums vis-a-vis the implementation of its outputs; and on the need of greater participation of technology developers. As highlights from the speakers’ answers to those concerns, it is worth mentioning: the relationship and mutual influence between the regional and global IGFs occur in an organic way that a written prescription would maybe jeopardize. However, is it relevant to recognize the value of the NRIs' activities. It is also important to organize and foster more spaces for decision-makers (specially government-related) to push forward the implementation of IGF discussions in the national spheres.
Summary of key takeaways:
-
The WSIS Action Lines were elaborated in a broad and technology-neutral way, so that they can be adapted and applied to the constant technological innovations.
-
The main gap within the WSIS Framework and between its different parts (such as the IGF and the WSIS Forum) is the lack of coordination, either regarding the procedural aspects or the subjects that are discussed in each of these fora.
-
Aspects that need to be worked on to strengthen the IGF: (i) the need for coordination with other digital governance spaces; (ii) rethink procedural aspects, including the MAG operation; (iii) obtain a more robust funding; (iv) establish a longer or permanent mandate; (v) improve the mechanisms for sharing IGF outcomes, so that more people and the right audience are reached, including decision-makers; (vi) increase coordination between global governance and local and regional governance, such as greater interaction with the NRIs.
Call-to-action points:
-
Work towards greater alignment between the WSIS Action Lines and the SDGs.
-
Create integration and coordination mechanisms between the WSIS Forum and the IGF.
-
Share the outcomes that arise from the global forum with regional and local decision-makers in an effective way, in order to seek effective implementation of ideas and proposals arising from the IGF debates.