IGF 2022 Stocktaking Inputs Received by Email:
All IGF stakeholders are invited to submit inputs to the IGF Secretariat to assist with the planning for the IGF 2023 process and its 18th annual IGF meeting.
IGF 2023 Suggestions (2022 Stocktaking)
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Number of contributions by:
Stakeholder Group
Government: 13
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Intergovernmental Organization: 1
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Civil Society: 27
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Technical Community: 4
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Private Sector: 6
Get a Full View of submissions HERE
Get a Full View of submissions HERE
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Regional Group
African Group: 22
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Asia-Pacific Group: 10
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Eastern European Group: 1
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Latin American and Caribbean Group: 6
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Western European and Others Group: 11
IGF 2023 Suggestions
Intergovernmental Organizations: 1
From Organizations:
IGF 2023 Suggestions
APNIG MP FROM NIGER
Le seul problème que j ai connu est la barrière linguistique.
Il y a eu beaucoup de sessions et pannels sans traduction.
Il est difficile pour quelqu'un tu ne parles pas bien Anglais ee participer aux débats, car il faut comprendre d abord avant de penser participer aux débats.
Il y a eu beaucoup de sessions et pannels sans traduction.
Il est difficile pour quelqu'un tu ne parles pas bien Anglais ee participer aux débats, car il faut comprendre d abord avant de penser participer aux débats.
Tiut était formidable, sauf le problème de traduction.
Parfait
Concernant l enregistrement, beaucoup ee participants n ont pas pu le faire en ligne, puisque la procédure était compliquée
Tout était bien, mais moi je n ai pas bcp bénéficié de certains avantages du fait que je ne parle pas bien l anglais
No comment
Je n ai pas bien compris la question.
J ai participé et j ai bien compris puisqu'il y avait la traduction dans toutes les langues des nations unies dont le français
En tant que parlementaire j ai participé à tous les parlementary track
Je n aibpas pu participerOui en effet
J ai visité le village, à deux reprises.
Il y eu bcp d insuffisances à cause du manque de traduction dans certaines rencontress
RAS
Impliquer les parlementaires à tous les niveaux : national, sous régional, régional et global dans tous les processus
Organiser des échanges entre les gouvernements et les parlementaires Ras
Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum
Everything is perfect
Definitely
Fantastic
Excellent
All is good
Excellent
Youth Summit
Perfect
Excellent idea
Definitely excellent
Outstanding Absolutely
Not bad
Okay
N/A
Best NRIs award
Perfect As your wish
Best NRIs
Improvements
Digital Cooperation and our common agenda
DC IS3C
On behalf of IS3C I, once again, point out, that our coalition is working on tangible outputs in the form of (policy) recommendations, guidelines and toolkits and in the future, most likely, capacity building programmes. Aimed at a diverse set of stakeholders. They are all aimed to achieve a far higher rate of deployment of security-related internet standards and ICT best practices. Other dynamic coalitions (may) have similar ambitions. These outcomes are the result of intersessional work by volunteers and researchers. In the current programme these outcomes are sort of hidden and even fully unknown for many participants.
An important question to answer in 2023 is how can the ambitions and results of intersessional work become more integrated in the IGF processes, become more visible and be recognised as IGF outcomes? An integration that reflects not only the ambition of the DCs but also of the IGF as a policy incubator that is able to produce actionable outcomes which have an impact on policy decisions. Also for those not (directly) participating in the IGF as such.
There are several ways to discuss the way forward. Here are some options as food for thought and to kick start the debate:
1. DCs are offered 2 hour allocated slots that are designated in day 1 of the IGF programme;
2. All the DCs' concrete outcomes from their past year's activities are presented together in a slot in the opening session of the IGF on day 1;
3. Relevant, accepted workshops are tied to related intersessional activities;
4. Day 4 includes a slot for:
a. a roundup of all DCs' activities during the IGF; and
b. a combined forward-look to their activities in 2023;
5. A DCs mid-year event is held in May/June 2023 for the DCs to report to the global community on their progress. (The Leadership Panel, MAG Chair, UNDESA and Tech Envoy should be invited to participate);
6. DCs become a part of the preparatory process;
7. The MAG and Leadership Panel should be regularly updated by the DCCG Chair on progress with DC activities so they know which DC outcomes to expect and to promote worldwide during the year;
8. The work and outcomes of DCs are an integral part of the IGF report.
At this point in time the DCs are somewhat in limbo. IS3C suggests to have a discussion in the first (open) MAG meeting on how to continue, but also a discussion with the Leadership Panel, Tech Envoy and IGF secretariat. The DCs are able to contribute to the IGF's ambitions, to do so recognition of their work is most urgent.
An important question to answer in 2023 is how can the ambitions and results of intersessional work become more integrated in the IGF processes, become more visible and be recognised as IGF outcomes? An integration that reflects not only the ambition of the DCs but also of the IGF as a policy incubator that is able to produce actionable outcomes which have an impact on policy decisions. Also for those not (directly) participating in the IGF as such.
There are several ways to discuss the way forward. Here are some options as food for thought and to kick start the debate:
1. DCs are offered 2 hour allocated slots that are designated in day 1 of the IGF programme;
2. All the DCs' concrete outcomes from their past year's activities are presented together in a slot in the opening session of the IGF on day 1;
3. Relevant, accepted workshops are tied to related intersessional activities;
4. Day 4 includes a slot for:
a. a roundup of all DCs' activities during the IGF; and
b. a combined forward-look to their activities in 2023;
5. A DCs mid-year event is held in May/June 2023 for the DCs to report to the global community on their progress. (The Leadership Panel, MAG Chair, UNDESA and Tech Envoy should be invited to participate);
6. DCs become a part of the preparatory process;
7. The MAG and Leadership Panel should be regularly updated by the DCCG Chair on progress with DC activities so they know which DC outcomes to expect and to promote worldwide during the year;
8. The work and outcomes of DCs are an integral part of the IGF report.
At this point in time the DCs are somewhat in limbo. IS3C suggests to have a discussion in the first (open) MAG meeting on how to continue, but also a discussion with the Leadership Panel, Tech Envoy and IGF secretariat. The DCs are able to contribute to the IGF's ambitions, to do so recognition of their work is most urgent.
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (UK Government)
The preparatory process for the 2022 IGF was, overall, clear, including the selection process for workshops. However, it would have been useful to have more information provided further in advance on the high level leaders track panels. While questions were outlined in detail, they changed shortly before the UN IGF was held, which required last minute changes to briefings for panellists. This process could be easier if questions were finalised at least a month in advance, with a hard deadline for potential panellists to register their interest.
Compared with previous IGFs, this year’s programme was much more focused, as it aligned with the themes of the Global Digital Compact. However, the topics covered were quite broad (AI, Internet fragmentation, etc.) so there may be room for further focus in future years. In addition, some sessions with similar topics overlapped in the schedule, which made it challenging for those with a specific policy interest to attend a wide array of sessions focused on their area of interest.
Whilst the hybrid format worked well overall (as witnessed by the active engagement of online participants in many of the sessions), there were technical issues on day zero and day one of the forum (with the website platform, Internet connectivity and technical equipment at the conference centre). It was also worrying to hear that one session was ‘Zoom bombed’. We hope to see improvements at the 2023 IGF.
Issues with the website compounded technical challenges on the ground, as several virtual attendees within our team were not able to use the website and therefore could not login to attend sessions, relying on in-person attendees to provide the correct links via email. Further, the website login system could be improved, as well as its speed. This affected the ability of session organisers to update the session descriptions and submit takeaways and summaries after the fact. The registration process on-site was very smooth and efficient as was the overall conference organisation, with excellent support from the volunteers.
It was good to see the positive reception of the outputs of the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation at the 2022 IGF, namely the draft framework as a tool for defining and discussing the concept of Internet Fragmentation across the Main Session, and various workshops. It was positive to see that planning went into aligning and de-conflicting various sessions on fragmentation, which resulted in synergies between the Policy Network session and the Main Session. On BPFs, while the BPFs had sessions on the agenda, these could perhaps have been better highlighted on the forum’s programme.
More could be done to update on, and promote, the Dynamic Coalitions’ important work across the IGF community. Some newcomers found it difficult to keep up-to-date on the work of these coalitions (for example, facing difficulties in where to find updates in the first instance). We would welcome the opportunity to receive more frequent, prominent updates about the coalitions’ outcomes and workstreams.
It was great to see such an excellent presence of NRIs at the 2022 IGF, through a range of sessions. It was also positive to see the audience link up to their local NRIs, which many audience members inquired about in sessions throughout the week. Finally, it was great to see the Youth Summit, scheduled on day zero of the conference. We look forward to working with the IGF to provide further opportunities for youth to attend future IGF conferences. Overall, the NRI main sessions were well supported and interactive.
The quality of the sessions was very high at the 2022 IGF. We appreciated the MAG’s work to cut down a large number of sessions - the vast majority of sessions were thoughtful, engaging and inclusive. We would like to see more thought given to audience participation, however, given that many sessions were dominated by the panel or speakers, leaving little room for audience participation, Q&A and discussion. Attention should also be given to the number of panellists in sessions - on some occasions, panellists had less time to speak than those intervening from the floor.
Please see comments above about the high-level leaders track. In summary, the details of this could have been confirmed earlier in the process. The number of panellists was too high to enable discussion. In future years, the number of questions could perhaps be reduced by half in order to allow more time for panellists to answer questions and discuss.
It was good to see the presence of Members of Parliament from many African countries, as well as European MEPs. We would appreciate the opportunity to receive further reporting on the IGF parliamentary track at future IGFs, particularly as many of its sessions were closed. We would also welcome the opportunity for NRIs to share best practice on how they have enhanced parliamentary participation in the IGF from their respective regions.
Youth participation at the IGF is critical to ensuring that all Internet users can share their diverse experiences, not least in the context of current national debates on online safety for young people. We want to support the IGF to make the annual conference more accessible to young people, and would welcome the opportunity to learn more about how we could feasibly sponsor a youth programme for participation in the annual IGF (facilitated by the Secretariat, NRIs, and/or other stakeholders), by providing financial or other support.We welcome the diverse participation at the 2022 IGF. However, we note that gender diversity is a multifaceted notion. For example, it was difficult to report on how many session participants were women, as we were asked to do in our initial ‘key takeaway’ reporting, without making biased assumptions. A diversity and inclusion ‘toolkit’ for session organisers may be useful to suggest ways to promote conversation around this topic at future IGFs. Overall the sessions had better gender diversity than in the past, which we welcome, though there is still work to do.
The village could have been placed in a more prominent location in the conference complex. Many of those who set up stands reported low foot traffic and levels of awareness about the village. In previous years, the village was located in a much more prominent part of the conference centre, enabling more foot traffic and spontaneous interaction.
We greatly appreciate the timeliness of the outputs. The daily updates throughout the conference were also timely and very useful and we appreciate the Secretariat and volunteers efforts to publish these expeditiously. It would be useful to leverage the new Leadership Panel to promote the IGF’s communications and outputs across the UN and to other relevant organisations, and we look forward to learning details of how the panel plans to promote the outputs of the 2022 IGF.
Overall we found the quality of the discussions to be of a high calibre with plenty of valuable conversations taking place. It was excellent to see such a wide and diverse range of stakeholders; not least from African participants.
Promoting the role of the MAG and meeting dates well in advance will help to encourage more IGF community members to attend as observers, to gain a better understanding of the session selection process and understand how the MAG makes decisions. In deciding on MAG members, a more transparent process on how membership decisions are made could be adopted, including how results of newly elected membership are communicated.
As above, it would be beneficial for sessions on specific policy topics (online safety, WSIS+20, etc.) to not be run in parallel or at similar times. Many stakeholders who attend the IGF have a specific policy interest in attending, and should be able to attend as many sessions as possible which align with their desired area of focus. In regards to the Leadership Panel specifically, the 2022 IGF session with the newly established Leadership Panel could have been organised better to facilitate wider participation and discussion. The session took place at the end of the day, when many community members had already left to go to the IGF evening activities. At forthcoming sessions with the Leadership Panel, we would welcome a progress update for 2023 to present to the community for feedback, to be circulated in written format in advance of the sessions.As noted above, we welcome the more focused agenda at the 2022 IGF compared with previous years. However, we believe that session formats could be further improved. There were a great deal of panel sessions, so encouraging people to submit proposals in other categories (such as the lightning talk category) would help to diversify session formats. Audience participation should also be built into most, if not all, sessions (either as a set amount of time or a percentage of the session time). The overall diversity of speakers could also be improved, as we saw many ‘repeat speakers’ on numerous panels. When taking decisions on sessions, the MAG should consider how many times individual names appear as panellists and encourage organisers to consider other options.
A NRI ‘lunch fair’ could be a great opportunity for people to connect up with the relevant NRIs in their local region, or even learn how to start their own. This could be a useful way to break up the week (potentially being scheduled as a mid-week extended lunch break) and promote geographic diversity within the IGF.
The new Leadership Panel can play an important role in promoting the UN IGF on a global level, enhancing participation from across the multistakeholder community. In that regard, it would be helpful to see a published engagement plan from the panel. Quality of participation can be improved by enhancing the technical elements of the IGF’s hybrid model and bolstering current programmes to engage youth and people from developing regions (including through NRIs). Given the expense of travelling to Japan for many (and the relatively high cost of subsistence, lodging, etc.), we would also welcome proposals to be put forward from across the community with ideas for making physical attendance at the 2023 IGF financially feasible for as many members of the IGF community as possible. It would also be good to explore promoting the 2023 IGF in other fora.
It is critical that the IGF multistakeholder community’s input is embedded in the creation of the Global Digital Compact, with meaningful opportunities for the community to feed in. Within this context, it will be important that specific feedback from NRIs is collated, in order to capture local and regional perspectives.
Looking beyond the formation of the GDC, the IGF’s mandate is enshrined in the Tunis Agenda (which was agreed to as part of the 2005 second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society). Therefore, preparing for the WSIS+20 review process, and ensuring that this process includes significant opportunities for multistakeholder participation is crucial. Ensuring continuation (though evolution) of the WSIS process at the UNGA in 2025 will be key to preserving the IGF’s important function as a forum that brings people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, to discuss public policy issues relating to the Internet.
Looking beyond the formation of the GDC, the IGF’s mandate is enshrined in the Tunis Agenda (which was agreed to as part of the 2005 second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society). Therefore, preparing for the WSIS+20 review process, and ensuring that this process includes significant opportunities for multistakeholder participation is crucial. Ensuring continuation (though evolution) of the WSIS process at the UNGA in 2025 will be key to preserving the IGF’s important function as a forum that brings people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, to discuss public policy issues relating to the Internet.
ECP | Platform for the Information Society
Reconsider the need for so many different sessions types.
Interaction is crucial and what makes the IGF valuable. The value of the IGF is the potential for discussions in a multi stakeholder setting. Therefore, interaction with participants should be the number one priority.
There should also be room for only on-site sessions that are not recorded, with a reporter under Chatham house rules. This provides participants the ability to speak more freely and ensures that relevant discussions can take place at the IGF.
For online sessions, alternatively, there could be break-outs that are not recorded (with a reporter under Chatham house rules).
There should also be room for only on-site sessions that are not recorded, with a reporter under Chatham house rules. This provides participants the ability to speak more freely and ensures that relevant discussions can take place at the IGF.
For online sessions, alternatively, there could be break-outs that are not recorded (with a reporter under Chatham house rules).
For the NRI sessions, the value is about sharing best practices and coming together as a community, rather than a webinar like session.
No need for so many different session types. Also, in assigning sessions, truly prioritize interaction with the participants. Nowadays, there are more than enough webinars available year round. The value of the IGF is bringing people together and providing a space for bottom-up, multistakeholder discussions, rather than mere webinars.
Ensure that Big Tech is also present at the IGF. We noticed many sessions this year focused on disinformation and fake news. Big Tech companies play a crucial role in addressing this issue and hence should be involved in the multistakeholder discussion.
Entreprise Forward and Fellow alumni of Women Deliver
It was good.
Good
Excellent
Good
African Union session: African Internet Governance Forum report
Open access, digitalization and sovereignty.
Open access, digitalization and sovereignty.
Implimentation of private sector on internet governance forum
Networking for get opportunities to attend regional meeting on digitalization (West and East African countries) from 13-14 december 2022
Climate change adaptation and mitigation
Cybersecurity and Digitalization
Cybersecurity and Digitalization
Excellent implication of leaders on IGF 2022
Some of Africans Parliaments are being part of IGF 2022 to provide policies on digitalization.
I noticed that youth get involved on IGF 2022 in EthiopiaI do see IGF programme content gender perpective for providing opportunities to youth and women as like Women Tech programme.
Nice
Very good
No comment
I do want to be part of MAG and Open Consultations meetings
No commentSocial behavior change
Social behavior change communication for the better societies
By networking to inter-connect participants as technical, multiskateholders, private sector, government and others
Visa issues from Japan authorities for the participants
Ethiopian Software Testing Association (ESTA)
ETNO
There should be a concerted effort to limit the thematic tracks, and focus the IGF as much as possible around the most topical issues, rather than many diverse thematic tracks.
There should be closer cooperation and interaction between the national and regional IGFs, and the global IGF.
Needs to be more visibility and communication around the parliamentary track, which could foster more engagement with parliamentarians and other delegates.
Greater transparency in MAG process and session selection
The preparation process seemed to go well but I was not part of the MAG deliberations so cannot comment on how organized and efficient that process was.
Our small team was able to schedule meetings successfully. We had a LOT of help from the Secretariat during the IGF22 and I want to acknowledge that. The Secretariat team made a huge difference to us in terms of organizing our days and managing schedules/logistics.
It mostly worked although there were some significant failures including some uneven interactions with Secretary-General Guterres and the Leadership Panel. Again the Secretariat stepped in to provide backup ideas (e.g. a laptop also logged into the conference call in addition to the large screen system). The AV teams worked hard in the sessions I attended to keep everything running.
We ran into a major failure to process the visa of one our our two team members. She arrived sans visa and had to get it processed upon arrival. We never got an explanation why the visa was not processed for over a month while the other was done in 3 days. We were much impressed by security teams and arrival/departure processes. Bilaterals worked well for us.
The run up to the IGF2022 afforded considerable opportunity to review and prepare material for actual IGF2022 discussions. Session leads did a good job in the prep sessions I attended.
The DNs I worked with were productive and kept us thinking about challenges during the year leading up to IGF2022.
I can't speak for the young attendees but hearing from them was very useful - maybe have more of them on panels and presentations?
The hybrid nature of the Leadership Panel meetings made things somewhat more difficult but I was very satisfied with the level of discussion we were able to have with one another and with the MAG and general membership as well as with the UN leadership. We need to continue the dialog with these important and disparate group throughout the course of the year.
This was one of my favorite elements of IGF2022; the exchanges were frank and constructive. We need more of this.
I always enjoy hearing the perspective of young people for whom Internet is just "there." I was very happy to see many women on panels and in attendance.
I was unable to attend -
We need to draw attention of the major media to IGF and its importance - this is partly on the watch of the Leadership Panel and I take that seriously.
Apart from the visa problem, this was a very well-organized event and the massive number of local Ethiopians who helped make it happen deserve enormous credit. The Secretariat, especially, deserves huge credit for solving problems on the fly. Chengetai was everywhere and dealt with a huge range of issues arising, including technical backup(!).
I would like to make sure that the Leadership Panel and the MAG have regular interaction in the run up to 2023. I am looking for synergy and energy from the interactions during the year coming up.
I thought the 2022 format worked well and could be a good guide for 2023.We need to assess progress against the issues raised during 2022 - do we need specific sessions for that purpose? Can the MAG help IGF track areas where progress is being made?
I would like to see intersessional interaction especially with the parliamentary track participants.
More parliamentarians!
These various themes are important but seem to be following relatively independent paths - perhaps some intercessional discussions would be useful. Speaking for the Leadership Panel, I think we would value exposure to the Roadmap, Common Agenda during 2023. UNESCO seems to have launched an effort that is also relevant and tracking that would also be helpful.
International Chamber of Commerce
• Thanks to a timely announcement of the host country and MAG composition, sufficient time was allocated to the preparatory process, which started in good time early in the year. Unfortunately, serious domestic and international events made planning highly unpredictable, resulting in significant delays, gaps in communication, and poorer attendance. The significant turnover in the composition of the MAG also contributed to fragmentations and delays in the planning process.
• These challenges were to an extent surmounted by the hard work and dedication of the IGF Secretariat and consultants, the MAG and MAG Chair and supporters from the IGF community.
• 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 2022.
• However, taking and communicating decisions on the themes, event format, new session types and preparatory phase was slower than expected, significantly shortening the time for preparation of the event. Some crucial elements of the programme, especially those that required special attention to the hybrid format, were left to the last minute (e.g. bilateral meetings, booth organization) which fuelled some uncertainty at times and diminished effectiveness. Communication and outreach efforts throughout the year and in the immediate lead-up to the event were also negatively impacted. In particular following the session proposal submission phase, 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.
• Efforts should be made to communicate the planning process ahead of time with a clear timeline and guidelines so that prospective participants are aware of the topics, the planning process and engagement opportunities, and are well informed about the various opportunities to contribute. Decisions on the event and preparatory phase duration, structure and format should, ideally, be communicated ahead of the workshop submission phase, so that stakeholders can plan and propose sessions accordingly.
• These challenges were to an extent surmounted by the hard work and dedication of the IGF Secretariat and consultants, the MAG and MAG Chair and supporters from the IGF community.
• 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 2022.
• However, taking and communicating decisions on the themes, event format, new session types and preparatory phase was slower than expected, significantly shortening the time for preparation of the event. Some crucial elements of the programme, especially those that required special attention to the hybrid format, were left to the last minute (e.g. bilateral meetings, booth organization) which fuelled some uncertainty at times and diminished effectiveness. Communication and outreach efforts throughout the year and in the immediate lead-up to the event were also negatively impacted. In particular following the session proposal submission phase, 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.
• Efforts should be made to communicate the planning process ahead of time with a clear timeline and guidelines so that prospective participants are aware of the topics, the planning process and engagement opportunities, and are well informed about the various opportunities to contribute. Decisions on the event and preparatory phase duration, structure and format should, ideally, be communicated ahead of the workshop submission phase, so that stakeholders can plan and propose sessions accordingly.
• The overarching theme of IGF 2022 (Resilient Internet for a Shared Sustainable and Common Future), while pertinent for the current context and broad enough to include dialogue on major global Internet governance issues, remained largely unused by the community.
• Concentrating the IGF programme into a few concrete thematic tracks worked very well in past years (especially in 2019 and 2020) and the same approach was retained in 2022. Aligning the themes of the IGF with the issue areas under consideration for the Global Digital Compact was particularly welcome.
• However, going forward, 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 lean and manageable agenda. For the future, we recommend no more than four tracks with clear, concise and easily understandable themes.
• Aligning workshop and main sessions under the thematic tracks continues to work well and is helpful to the MAG in choosing workshops, defining sub-themes and organise main sessions. However, attention must be paid that the number and focus of sub-themes remain manageable.
• 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.
• Concentrating the IGF programme into a few concrete thematic tracks worked very well in past years (especially in 2019 and 2020) and the same approach was retained in 2022. Aligning the themes of the IGF with the issue areas under consideration for the Global Digital Compact was particularly welcome.
• However, going forward, 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 lean and manageable agenda. For the future, we recommend no more than four tracks with clear, concise and easily understandable themes.
• Aligning workshop and main sessions under the thematic tracks continues to work well and is helpful to the MAG in choosing workshops, defining sub-themes and organise main sessions. However, attention must be paid that the number and focus of sub-themes remain manageable.
• 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.
• We commend the work of the MAG working group on the hybrid format, who devoted a lot of time and effort to advise on the particularities of organising such an event. 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 appreciated.
• While the 3D venue and virtual booth was a very much appreciated idea, many participants were not aware of it, or had difficulty finding the link on the IGF website. Booth organisers had very little information on what was expected of them for the virtual booth, and how their booth would look like. Should the idea of virtual booth be retained for future IGFs, the planning process needs to start a lot earlier, with the close and active involvement of booth organisers.
• While the 3D venue and virtual booth was a very much appreciated idea, many participants were not aware of it, or had difficulty finding the link on the IGF website. Booth organisers had very little information on what was expected of them for the virtual booth, and how their booth would look like. Should the idea of virtual booth be retained for future IGFs, the planning process needs to start a lot earlier, with the close and active involvement of booth organisers.
•While the IGF 2022 website contained comprehensive information on the event, finding the relevant information required extensive browsing.
• Registration to 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. While it is very commendable that the highest level of precaution was taken to ensure only registered participants have access to the individual sessions, the process should be simplified and considered from a first-time participant’s perspective, especially as these measures were not successful in keeping unwanted visitors away from the sessions.
• The website, unfortunately not for the first time, also experienced serious difficulties (especially in the first days of the event), possibly due to server overload, making it impossible for organisers, speakers and participants to find dial-in links to their sessions. This significantly limited real-time engagement with the audience and was the cause of frustration and negative feedback from speakers (especially those attending the IGF for the first time). • 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, but more attention should be paid to editing the recordings of the sessions for a more polished final result, that can be later disseminated to wider audiences from the session organisers and participants.
• 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.
• Registration to 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. While it is very commendable that the highest level of precaution was taken to ensure only registered participants have access to the individual sessions, the process should be simplified and considered from a first-time participant’s perspective, especially as these measures were not successful in keeping unwanted visitors away from the sessions.
• The website, unfortunately not for the first time, also experienced serious difficulties (especially in the first days of the event), possibly due to server overload, making it impossible for organisers, speakers and participants to find dial-in links to their sessions. This significantly limited real-time engagement with the audience and was the cause of frustration and negative feedback from speakers (especially those attending the IGF for the first time). • 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, but more attention should be paid to editing the recordings of the sessions for a more polished final result, that can be later disseminated to wider audiences from the session organisers and participants.
• 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.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.
• 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.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.
N/A
N/A
Workshops
• Once the IGF 2022 themes were established, the workshop proposal and selection process was well organised.
• Some IGF attendees noted they were unaware of the possibility of organising workshops or the speaking opportunities this provides. Efforts to communicate about session proposal possibilities needs to be strengthened, especially outside the pool of habitual IGF attendees.
• The thematic approach helped to somewhat reduce the number of workshops on the same topics, albeit some overlap between workshops could still be observed, especially among themes that were very similar.
• Some sessions worked well because they combined people able to give global, policy perspectives with others able to share more operational perspectives as they are deployed on the ground.
• A number of workshops and other sessions were lacking in balance and diversity in terms of speakers, with one or more stakeholder groups not represented at all in the discussion.
Main sessions
• The Main Sessions play a useful role in the programme of providing a space for a potentially different and broader level of discussion and bringing in more high-level speakers. In this way, they help extend 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 Main Sessions were coupled with the IGF 2022 themes.
• Two hours / 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 be an example to follow going forward.
• Providing synergies between main sessions and the IGF intersessional work, as well as the wok of NRIs gives an extra opportunity to raise the visibility and impact of their work. This opportunity should be further explored in upcoming IGFs.
• Once the IGF 2022 themes were established, the workshop proposal and selection process was well organised.
• Some IGF attendees noted they were unaware of the possibility of organising workshops or the speaking opportunities this provides. Efforts to communicate about session proposal possibilities needs to be strengthened, especially outside the pool of habitual IGF attendees.
• The thematic approach helped to somewhat reduce the number of workshops on the same topics, albeit some overlap between workshops could still be observed, especially among themes that were very similar.
• Some sessions worked well because they combined people able to give global, policy perspectives with others able to share more operational perspectives as they are deployed on the ground.
• A number of workshops and other sessions were lacking in balance and diversity in terms of speakers, with one or more stakeholder groups not represented at all in the discussion.
Main sessions
• The Main Sessions play a useful role in the programme of providing a space for a potentially different and broader level of discussion and bringing in more high-level speakers. In this way, they help extend 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 Main Sessions were coupled with the IGF 2022 themes.
• Two hours / 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 be an example to follow going forward.
• Providing synergies between main sessions and the IGF intersessional work, as well as the wok 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 and business participants, especially for the high-level sessions was well received by the community. 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.
• Efforts could be made to communicate the participation of HL attendees ahead of time to drive the interest and participation of both IGF attendees and the media. We regret that this year the invitations to HL attendees were sent with a delay, while no clear information was provided timely following the RSVPs of the attendees, thus not permitting the engagement of the participants, due to the unclear engagement proposal, and already very packed end-of-year schedules.
• Efforts could be made to communicate the participation of HL attendees ahead of time to drive the interest and participation of both IGF attendees and the media. We regret that this year the invitations to HL attendees were sent with a delay, while no clear information was provided timely following the RSVPs of the attendees, thus not permitting the engagement of the participants, due to the unclear engagement proposal, and already very packed end-of-year schedules.
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.
N/AMany sessions on the IGF programme have reported to have addressed gender issues as part of their discussion. Most, although unfortunately not all, 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.
• Unfortunately, while significant efforts were made to provide a virtual space for booth organisers to showcase their work, little was done to promote the virtual booths or enable them to add some networking or interactive activities to the agenda.
• Looking ahead to 2023, if another hybrid event is considered, the virtual IGF village 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.
• Unfortunately, while significant efforts were made to provide a virtual space for booth organisers to showcase their work, little was done to promote the virtual booths or enable them to add some networking or interactive activities to the agenda.
• Looking ahead to 2023, if another hybrid event is considered, the virtual IGF village 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.
• 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.
• The IGF messages report has an important role in bridging consecutive IGF cycles and highlighting the various IGF outputs, and ensure consistency between them, therefore credibility of the IGF for the future. 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 to comment on the draft messages. Sharing such information with session participants helps improve the balance in participation, which in turn increases the legitimacy of messages.
• 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.
• The IGF messages report has an important role in bridging consecutive IGF cycles and highlighting the various IGF outputs, and ensure consistency between them, therefore credibility of the IGF for the future. 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 to comment on the draft messages. Sharing such information with session participants helps improve the balance in participation, which in turn increases the legitimacy of messages.
N/A
• As the hybrid format has notable benefits for accessibility and participation, organisers should consider retaining (elements of) 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, the 2022 IGF proved once more that it is possible to host successful sessions and fruitful discussions with many (or all) 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 would be preferred 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 four 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 mark deadlines and engagement points for the community. This could also form the back-bone 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 2022 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 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 in a clearer way, in order for each user to know when the calendar was last updated.
• The IGF planning schedule 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 rooted in IGF meetings and discussions). Guest blogs or interviews about IGF success stories.
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.
• 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 and 2022 editions seemed to move away from this precedent. The idea of three-four (but not more) thematic tracks should be maintained going forward to help streamline the agenda.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, the 2022 IGF proved once more that it is possible to host successful sessions and fruitful discussions with many (or all) 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 would be preferred 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 four 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 mark deadlines and engagement points for the community. This could also form the back-bone 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 2022 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 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 in a clearer way, in order for each user to know when the calendar was last updated.
• The IGF planning schedule 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 rooted in IGF meetings and discussions). Guest blogs or interviews about IGF success stories.
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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.). Clearer guidelines are also needed on how other sessions (open forums, DC and NRI sessions) 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.
• 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.). Clearer guidelines are also needed on how other sessions (open forums, DC and NRI sessions) 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.
• 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. With regards to HL participation, outreach to attendees and their proxies should occur at least three to two months ahead of the event. This will allow for a more timely invitation, that brings more possibility to the specific attendee(s) having an opening in their already very busy schedules. Ensuring clarity in the engagement proposal towards the HL attendees is also key, allowing for a transparent assessment of the responsibilities, and opportunities before deciding to commit and attend.
• In order to further improve the quality of participation, a dynamic and year-long campaign should be taking place after the previous IGF concludes, with a clear connection to key milestones and / or other significant dates within the UN calendar (and beyond where relevant), as well as an overarching link to the next IGF meeting. This will allow for a better dissemination of the outputs from the event, without losing momentum of the important work and proceedings that took place.
• As mentioned above, maintaining the external communication activities around IGF, while forging strategic partnerships with last-year’s and / or incoming session organisers, will leverage their outreach and different networks, drive more attention around the event, and thus bring better participation, either online, or onsite to the next IGF.
• In order to further improve the quality of participation, a dynamic and year-long campaign should be taking place after the previous IGF concludes, with a clear connection to key milestones and / or other significant dates within the UN calendar (and beyond where relevant), as well as an overarching link to the next IGF meeting. This will allow for a better dissemination of the outputs from the event, without losing momentum of the important work and proceedings that took place.
• As mentioned above, maintaining the external communication activities around IGF, while forging strategic partnerships with last-year’s and / or incoming session organisers, will leverage their outreach and different networks, drive more attention around the event, and thus bring better participation, either online, or onsite to the next IGF.
N/A
Knowledge House (KnowledgeHouseAfrica-KHA)
All IGF 2023 preparatory processed both Online and offline connects and engagements worked well
This is very satisfactory with special regards to Human rights approach/flavours in the overall programme
It is good sand the right way to go.
The IGF 2022 logistics was good. There is always room for improvement
This was one of the best approach to inclusivity in IGF 2022. For example,our organisation - Knowledge House could make up for not being on ground this year with support on Bp_gender and contributions on processes, especially content for the focus on freedom of association and religion as well as shining light on #BringBackOurGirls on the platform of BPF Gender and digital Rights: Regulator practice a friend or foe to gender.
The synergy of inputs through Dynamic Coalition at IGF 2022 are excellent.
This has been getting better each year, as what they bring to the table from WSIS 2002/2005 processes days has caused more involvement of individuals and institutions in this annual global process.
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
ExcellentExcellent and fantastic
Excellent
Excellent
No
We may start process timelines a bit earlier.
No suggestions for now.No suggestions for now.
No suggestions for now.
No suggestions for now.
Let us focus more on Humans rights approach
Learn Internet Governance (Learn IG)
I believe this year the MAG was not so active and collaborative in terms of proposal selection and overall IGF2022 operation and management . As I was personally there I felt the IGF was done for the sake of it. Though a lot of the organic discussion were happening both in and outside the sessions but I felt the session were pushed with a newer approach of pushing new people than quality. A lot of the discussion were more focused to newer topics.
Last year the MAG chair Anriette Esterhuysen was very active with the community engagement where Paul Mitchell seems to be nowhere in getting down community and further listening to the voices
Last year the MAG chair Anriette Esterhuysen was very active with the community engagement where Paul Mitchell seems to be nowhere in getting down community and further listening to the voices
It went good and interesting
It went good and interesting
It was well managed
The Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks are indeed a good way of stocking the current practice and further need collaboration and integration in the IGF process and event
During the IGF sessions, I personally felt was not of so quality this year as I have mentioned above that a lot of the new topic and new leaders were introduced which seems to be a bit not managed.
Personally in one of the youth session the organizers were repenting about their lack of travel opportunity and how hard it is to maintain the volunteer work with the global youth initiative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZuGVui9iQs&t=4015s
well integrated
it was set up in a bit off location
Anja was good with communication
Libyan Organization for Information Technology and Telecommunications
I think the timeline and few workshops crossing at the same time.
There are 2 or more workshops i need to attend it, to learn new experiences but it's not a big problem. because its streamed online
There are 2 or more workshops i need to attend it, to learn new experiences but it's not a big problem. because its streamed online
overall, its wonderful meetings, speakers, themes, organizers,
so, it's smooth and flexible to follow everything at halls.
so, it's smooth and flexible to follow everything at halls.
It's so nice because i can't attend multi sessions at the same time, so Hybrid format makes it easy and working good for me.
website: Good and useful but not like IGF main website
mobile app: i did not see and ads for app, but the 3D is awesome
schedule: huge, over knowledge and wow
registration: it's easy and working good with no troubles
online platforms: Brillante
security: helpful people
mobile app: i did not see and ads for app, but the 3D is awesome
schedule: huge, over knowledge and wow
registration: it's easy and working good with no troubles
online platforms: Brillante
security: helpful people
becuse it's my field its working good, but we need diversity more. like editing more policies for many countries and International Digital impact agreement.
good theme and i advise to continue of Dynamic Coalitions. and make new networks for this Coalitions.
i can't give opinion for this part, but i meet with many youths working great like: Kateryna Bovsunovska,
Many of the speakers had a wonderful experience, without respective of huge companies like facebook Microsoft google apple etc.
also, there is not many representatives of counties leaders of ICT
also, there is not many representatives of counties leaders of ICT
excelent track but its only two meetings, i think if it more will be more effective.
i did not attend this track because it's a lot of tracks more important to me. but over YouTube channel.
talented team and youth, very good visitorsnot bad
I think it's weaker than the meetings and workshops, it's not powerful like schedule and meetings.
still under review, but until now I think it collect every part of the event practical, and profession reports for outputs
It's a great meeting.
I look forward to completing all outputs through this year and to meet all friends and professionals next year in Japan.
I look forward to completing all outputs through this year and to meet all friends and professionals next year in Japan.
Add more courses such as:
The dominance and monopoly of social networks
The Internet is centered around several major sites
Hate speech and hostility between countries
Opening paths between countries away from political dispute
Enhanced encryption levels
Including internet rights among human rights
Prevent conflicting paths in the table so that the number of paths is more than ten, so as not to distract the visitor's attentionThe dominance and monopoly of social networks
The Internet is centered around several major sites
Hate speech and hostility between countries
Opening paths between countries away from political dispute
Enhanced encryption levels
Including internet rights among human rights
Add more courses such as:
The dominance and monopoly of social networks
The Internet is centered around several major sites
Hate speech and hostility between countries
Opening paths between countries away from political dispute
Enhanced encryption levels
Including internet rights among human rights
The dominance and monopoly of social networks
The Internet is centered around several major sites
Hate speech and hostility between countries
Opening paths between countries away from political dispute
Enhanced encryption levels
Including internet rights among human rights
i think these ways great, but IGF will be powerful if added virtual meetings inside IGF
Civil society from village of poor country to increase the awareness of Governance
Discussing the digital global compact in the forum's virtual sessions
Mauritius IGF
Excellent
Well prepared
Good
Excellent
Good
Well planned and very disciplined
Well organised
Good
Good
GoodExcellent
Well organised
Excellent
Well organised
-
--
-
Same as this year
-
Excellent
Well prepared
Good
Excellent
Good
Well planned and very disciplined
Well organised
Good
Good
GoodExcellent
Well organised
Excellent
Well organised
-
--
-
Same as this year
-
MP - National Assembly of Armenia
IGF 2022 preparation was done very well, ensuring enough time to arrange all logistic issues, such as travel and visa arrangements.
Thematic focus of the IGF 2022 was very actual and very welcomed by participants.
Hybrid format was organized in a proper way, in order to ensure participation of professionals who couldn't attend in person.
No issues there -was organized well, with involvement of large number of volunteers.
As it was my first participation, i used this time to participate in most of the meetings to get familiar to the main process.
As it was my first participation, i used this time to participate in most of the meetings to get familiar to the main process.
As it was my first participation, i used this time to participate in most of the meetings to get familiar to the main process.
As it was my first participation, i used this time to participate in most of the meetings to get familiar to the main process.
It was done in a very professional way, with wide range of participants from around the world.
Just got feedback from my colleagues who were attending Youth Track - they were happy. good
very good
youth, professionals and government representatives
🔒
It was Excellent and timely
The Follow was very structured
The Hybrid program can be better with all rooms adequately catered for to accommodate those
Excellent a Mobile App for each IGF should be ccreated
I think all Intersessional and Policy Network should be in the Morning.
No Comments
The content was relevant to the IGF
Excellent
Their should be more open sessions
Brilliant the participation of the youth was great from various countries.We had more women High Level speakers that was good, personally I was happy
The IGF village could have been much better, I think the distance from the main event too was a bit far. I propose to have it featured regularly so folks attending know who is exhibiting and so on.
Excellent
Getting more main stream media so their Tech Reporters cover the IGF that is important that the IGF is covered by mainstream media as the work of NRIs and all the different stakeholder group speak volumes at country and regional level
I think the timelines are excellent so far
Programme structure to me doesn't need much adjustment.Encouraging more women and youth speakers, broader the participation of host to have speakers
Making the communities get Youth and women speakers more involved
Making sure mainstream media are part of the conversation is key and getting more youth involved especially from the global south based on cost. Collaborating with agencies like UNECA who brought a lot of youths from the African continent, thsat collaboration can be used with UN bodies in Asia too
In proved
Music
We are not aleins I have smokes and stuff but kill the aleins.bin laden etc
Kill the one Harming bilateral self.
Pray to the Lord even god can't save ya.
I was being attacked by aleins .
Great job
Kojackdadon
Jackmove and jackmove remix
When I was was young I planned out a mass murderMale
Villain In the sky.
Myself
Love y'all loon. Send back and some woman.
When we make music
Changed my gentics to me Paul van treese.Thermonuclear
I'mprove by fire and Harming all targets the best you can.
I love y'all
🔒AFNIC
The alignment of the thematic focus, around five sub-themes, with the global digital compact allowed for a better outcomes oriented approach.
The new policy networks, on Internet fragmentation and on meaningful access, allowed for a more substantive and outcome oriented work. We could integrate further such intercessional work throughout the programme.
NRIs are a key part of the process set forth in 2005 by the WSIS. Stakeholders need to be able to discuss public policy issues both at the global and at the national level which should be mutually enhancing. NRI' sessions allowed for an in-depth discussion from a local perspective of global issues.
The outreach and communication improved both with the work of IGF' ambassadors and of the WG strategy. Communication in other language is essential to reach local communities.
Having in mind the global UN agenda: WSIS+20, the Global Digital Compact but also ad Hoc committees of the UNGA such as the Ad hoc on cybercrime and work on cybersecurity.
Improve relations with NRIs globally, and in particular with the host county national initiative.
Language diversity and multilingualism are at the very foundation of the United Nations and help to build bridges between communities and cultures.
🔒CORPECE
Worked well:
- The organization and collaboration processes
- The strong participation of NRIs
- The community based model
What worked not so well
- The participation of new actors
- The information on site process
- The long travel
- The organization and collaboration processes
- The strong participation of NRIs
- The community based model
What worked not so well
- The participation of new actors
- The information on site process
- The long travel
So well focused and very well structured and organized. It would be great a thematic organization of dozen of meetings so we can make a fast decision process on site and on line about what related meetings to follow
Website can be more friendly, mobile app and even do not know it exists, schedule was exact, registration fast BY NAME and not by LAST NAME it was a little confusing, use of online platform was not so friendly because of the difficult to match info on site and online. Bilateral meeting was hidden for me
I feel comfortable with the way it works. We need to have information at hand all the time for fast access and use
All the process was collaborative and community work based. In general everybody should feel comfortable about the inclusiveness of the whole process
NRIs is a great tool to spread the word and prepare for the global IGF. Mutual feedback process is a must. Youth IGF needs more support and a special model. Define clearly what young is. Regional IGF is a must and we must participate more on that.
All was very well organized for me. The day 0 was the NRIs meeting so I miss all because I arrive on day 1. This should be considered.
Real collaborative and inclusive
Do not have time to participate
Our youth people was very interested but need more mentorshipGender perspective is also a must for us
miss information about whats going on, on this but visit and spend plenty of time there... just casual...
chat groups were great.. the most usefull tool... so much appreciated the info on there
Very nice country but must be warning about the political situation and terrorism in the country and region.. some of us feel something afraid...
Everything was well planned from the point of view of meeting and themes. NRIs works very proactive and fast.
We need some more time for thisMore translation even in small meetings using technology if translators are expensive
More leadership from every particular organization must be involved and promoted
invite Governments trough the other stake holders so they found and feel our presence and participate more
More time is needed but for sure we will have some suggestions and also more collaboration on this
🔒Éclairement
Le processus préparatoire a permis d’impliquer les Fgi régionaux.
L’IGF 2022 a pu soulever les enjeux dominants, que ce soit en termes de gouvernance ou d’éducation.
La localisation de l’IGF2022 n’a pas permis à des représentants français de se déplacer, le format hybride étant alors une nécessité pour continuer de toucher un public large et divers.
La navigation au sein du site dédié à l’IGF 2022 aurait pu être simplifié (beaucoup de clics pour arriver au final au lien zoom de session). Quelques lourdeurs de chargement.
Les NEIs ont eu une place non négligeable, un certain nombre de sessions thématiques étant tournées vers les travaux régionaux et les expériences locales. Les jeunes étaient représentés dans certaines sessions mais on pourrait penser à une systématisation de leur présence et participation dans les sessions lambdas et non pas seulement dans les sessions jeunes. Apport d’une autre perspective et oblige à être compréhensible par tous.
Demeure une barrière linguistique qui tient éloignée du forum toute une communauté francophone qui doit faire face au tout en anglais. L’échange de tous en anglais limite également le niveau des discussions et donne parfois une prédominance à ceux qui maîtrise parfaitement la forme (l’anglais) au détriment du fond.
La possibilité pour chacun d’utiliser la langue de son choix en mettant en place un système de traduction.
Intégrer les jeunes dans les sessions normales.
Intégrer les jeunes dans les sessions normales.
🔒MAG Working Group on IGF Strengthening and Strategy
The IGF MAG Working Group (WG) on IGF Strengthening and Strategy (WG-Strategy) held its first meeting after the 2022 IGF on 8 December 2022. The meeting was moderated by Amrita Choudhury, and the sole agenda item was a discussion of the 2022 IGF.
The working group agreed that the notes from this discussion should be submitted to the IGF Secretariat for consideration as part of the stocktaking process.
Discussion of the MAG Working Group on IGF Strengthening and Strategy Online Meeting, 8 December 2022:
Amrita Choudhury opened the meeting with a discussion of the recent IGF. She noted that Anriette Esterhuysen had sent through some thoughts on the event:
A good IGF, but not good taking stock session...not really serious. Hybrid not good enough. Still believe in the WG-Strategy proposals from 2020 on combined some broad space with deeper narrower focus. I think that agenda content of intersessional work must flow from this IGF and feed into the next one. But overall really good..and parliamentary sessions much stronger. WG-Strategy should think about how to consolidate, integrate into main programme and NRIs.
Adam Peake noted the article on CircleID regarding the challenges with remote participation: https://circleid.com/posts/20221207-the-technical-problems-of-the-unas-internet-governance-forum-will-not-simply-solve-themselves
Tulio Andrade felt the event should be celebrated, as Global South issues and perspectives were well echoed by the Ethiopian Presidency of the conference. The Brazilian multistakeholder delegation in Addis was the country’s largest among all IGFs, apart from those Brazil hosted. The stakeholders he consulted indicated the focus on the Global South had not been the norm in other IGFs held in developed countries, so we need to keep that message strong, in particular with a view to next year’s IGF event being hosted in Japan. He noted that there are still many areas for improvement, particularly in our intersessional work and in ensuring balanced representation between developed and developing countries. He also highlighted the need to increase transparency in the MAG’s overall procedures, including with regard to its selection process, as a means to protect the legitimacy of the MAG and the IGF.
Roz Kenny-Birch also praised the diversity of participation in the IGF, in terms of gender, geography, Global North/South balance etc. There were also issues logging into the IGF website at the beginning of the week, which was essential for participation.
Chris Buckridge commented that the Brazilian delegation, particularly its extensive youth contingent, can serve as a good example for others. He also agreed with Tulio that transparency in the MAG selection process is an important concern for many stakeholders, to the extent that it is driving people to disengage from the process. Finally, he noted that, given the prevalence of hybrid events now across a wide range of governance spaces (hybrid is now business-as-usual), the technical issues are a significant problem.
Poncelot Ileleji noted the impressive diversity in the youth sessions, particularly when compared to previous events. He noted that it was often difficult to reach secretariat staff, and security protocol was also challenging. On the website issues, he suggested it is time for the Secretariat to have a dedicated team looking after this, also as a first point of contact. Amrita noted that the WG-Hybrid had made several suggestions in the past, but these were not necessarily followed up.
Mark Carvell who attended in person felt that IGF 2022 had been a very positive event assisted by very helpful support by local volunteers on-site. The sessions which he attended had been commendably interactive, with very good quality speakers. He expressed some concern, however, with the site plan, in particular the separation of the IGF Village from the conference center while that had a largely under-used central space on the lower level. He also noted that the Speakers’ Corner was on a different level to the main session rooms resulting in poor attendance of the informative lightning talks held there.
Mark thought that the closing statements on Day Four failed to acknowledge the importance of the ongoing intersessional activities undertaken by the IGF’s dynamic coalitions, best practice fora and policy networks. He also criticised the general lack of media coverage of the IGF this year.
Jorge Cancio participated in the IGF remotely, and felt the quality of the sessions was quite high (he especially noted sessions on fragmentation, AI, and the Declaration on the Future of the Internet). He felt that the opening was less positive, which fell back to the old approach of disconnected speeches, instead of a more interactive roundtable format. The absence of the UNSG was also felt, which may have impacted the visibility of the meeting. He also noted that the high-level track was not aligned with the broader IGF program - the IGF loses impact, when leaders are discussing issues in a different framing. He noted that it will be important to speak with the Japanese hosts for 2023 to address this misalignment. On the issue of the Global Digital Compact (GDC), Jorge noted that the IGF messages should be referenced in multiple responses to the GDC open consultation. The WG-Strategy could also propose that the MAG or LP write a letter to the GDC co-facilitators (Sweden and Rwanda), sharing with them the IGF messages as an input to the GDC negotiations. He also suggested that in the stocktaking process, the WG-Strategy could reflect on past recommendations and look at progress (or lack thereof), and submit a WG input.
Amrita noted that there was discussion in the chat about the IGF not having a high profile in the media.
Tereza Horesjova noted that she has met with the Swedish ambassador (GDC co-facilitator), and encouraged her to consult with the MAG and IGF community on the GDC planning. Looking ahead to the next MAG/Open Consultation meeting, there may be an opportunity to further engage. On the issue of hybrid events, she noted that there are issues, many of which have been discussed already, and we have not seen much improvement over the past year (even with pressure from the WG-Hybrid): we need to find practical solutions to propose and promote.
Christina Arida participated remotely and noted that it was a great event. She noted the need for resources to address the issues with the website, the calendar etc. She noted that the Parliamentarian sessions are still closed, and this is an odd decision - we should look at integrating their participation more publicly.
Raúl Echeberria agreed it was a positive meeting, pleasantly surprised by the number of on-site participants. He noted that the agenda is evolving in the right direction, addressing major issues in digital society, including regulation, human rights, the future of the Internet and AI. He also observed some key absences; it was noted that the Secretary-General of the UN was in Ethiopia at the time of the IGF but did not attend, and some others that have previously attended, but did not this time - this could be seen as a lack of trust in the IGF, and it is important to demonstrate commitment to this mechanism. He noted that the number of workshops is still very high, with a complicated schedule and overlap/duplication of content - we don’t necessarily need this many sessions. Mark agreed that the IGF 2022 schedule was overloaded, and noted that there should be more effort to reduce the scheduling conflicts with main sessions and other strategic IGF discussions which impair their attendance level, inclusivity and effectiveness. In reference to Mark’s point about the media, Raul agreed there was a lack of media presence. Finally, in relation to the Leadership Panel, Raul noted that their role is still very vague and it is not clear what they will bring to the IGF in the coming year.
Amrita noted that in the chat Adam Peake had asked about whether this was just the MAG-selected workshops, or whether it is across all sessions (many of which are not selected by the MAG). This complication may be part of the problem.
Wolfgang Kleinwächter noted in the chat “You need a concrete project: Easy to understand, easy to explain, close to the day to day problems of the six billion Smartphone (Internet) users. My proposal is that we discuss in 2023 a (Multistakeholder) Digital Kyoto Protocol, based on the outcome of the ministeriaL meeting (September 2023) and preparing the GDC (September 2024) as part of the UN Summit of the Future.”
Titti Cassa commented that the Leadership Panel’s (LP) open hour with the community was very interesting, particularly on issues such as how to make IGF recommendations more actionable for policymakers. She noted that many of the LP processes and plans are not yet in place. Amrita noted that the MAG had had a meeting with the LP as well, but felt that there was a lack of clarity about their role. However, the MAG has suggested a quarterly meeting with the LP, and that they may wish to join WG-Strategy calls.
Adam Peake noted that the MAG held its meeting with the LP, but did not follow an agenda, and it was a missed opportunity to consider some of the points made by the Expert Group Meeting that took place in March 2022. He also noted that this was not held as a closed meeting, which was regrettable as there is a need to build trust and relationships between the MAG and the LP. He commented that this year had been clearly very difficult for the Secretariat.
Anja Gengo (IGF Secretariat) noted that the tone had changed from previous IGFs, with more calls for action and outcomes; there was increased diversity; all of this is reflected in the draft messages, which are currently open for review: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/249/24066
The Secretariat has noted that there is a need for more reliable back-up in relation to technical services; there is also a need for more capacity building for the organisers and the technical staff. One example: there needs to be a stronger link between the technical team in the room and the organisers. Anja also noted that the host organisers for next year’s IGF event in Japan (including staff from the Kyoto International Convention Center) were in attendance and taking note of issues and requirements. She also believed that the multiple channels for registration in Addis were unnecessary so the Secretariat is looking at a number of procedural areas that can be easily improved.
Tulio intervened to recognise the efforts of the Secretariat, particularly given the small size of the team. He asked about the process for commenting on the draft messages. Anja noted that the Secretariat is working with their consultant to identify any misalignment between the messages and what was discussed in the sessions (not just the Main Sessions). Deadlines will be shared soon.
Chris noted that it is important to make the publication of the finalised messages an event and to utilise the media to promote awareness of them. This could be feedback from the WG-Strategy to the MAG, the Secretariat and the LP.
Adam noted that it will be important early in the new year to review the IGF messages with the LP, who will be responsible for taking those messages and socialising them at the highest levels. Mark expressed concern in the chat that the process for the LP to select IGF outcomes for directing to government policymakers and decision-takers in industry worldwide, was still unclear. Adam also noted that the MAG should meet early in the new year.
The working group agreed that the notes from this discussion should be submitted to the IGF Secretariat for consideration as part of the stocktaking process.
Discussion of the MAG Working Group on IGF Strengthening and Strategy Online Meeting, 8 December 2022:
Amrita Choudhury opened the meeting with a discussion of the recent IGF. She noted that Anriette Esterhuysen had sent through some thoughts on the event:
A good IGF, but not good taking stock session...not really serious. Hybrid not good enough. Still believe in the WG-Strategy proposals from 2020 on combined some broad space with deeper narrower focus. I think that agenda content of intersessional work must flow from this IGF and feed into the next one. But overall really good..and parliamentary sessions much stronger. WG-Strategy should think about how to consolidate, integrate into main programme and NRIs.
Adam Peake noted the article on CircleID regarding the challenges with remote participation: https://circleid.com/posts/20221207-the-technical-problems-of-the-unas-internet-governance-forum-will-not-simply-solve-themselves
Tulio Andrade felt the event should be celebrated, as Global South issues and perspectives were well echoed by the Ethiopian Presidency of the conference. The Brazilian multistakeholder delegation in Addis was the country’s largest among all IGFs, apart from those Brazil hosted. The stakeholders he consulted indicated the focus on the Global South had not been the norm in other IGFs held in developed countries, so we need to keep that message strong, in particular with a view to next year’s IGF event being hosted in Japan. He noted that there are still many areas for improvement, particularly in our intersessional work and in ensuring balanced representation between developed and developing countries. He also highlighted the need to increase transparency in the MAG’s overall procedures, including with regard to its selection process, as a means to protect the legitimacy of the MAG and the IGF.
Roz Kenny-Birch also praised the diversity of participation in the IGF, in terms of gender, geography, Global North/South balance etc. There were also issues logging into the IGF website at the beginning of the week, which was essential for participation.
Chris Buckridge commented that the Brazilian delegation, particularly its extensive youth contingent, can serve as a good example for others. He also agreed with Tulio that transparency in the MAG selection process is an important concern for many stakeholders, to the extent that it is driving people to disengage from the process. Finally, he noted that, given the prevalence of hybrid events now across a wide range of governance spaces (hybrid is now business-as-usual), the technical issues are a significant problem.
Poncelot Ileleji noted the impressive diversity in the youth sessions, particularly when compared to previous events. He noted that it was often difficult to reach secretariat staff, and security protocol was also challenging. On the website issues, he suggested it is time for the Secretariat to have a dedicated team looking after this, also as a first point of contact. Amrita noted that the WG-Hybrid had made several suggestions in the past, but these were not necessarily followed up.
Mark Carvell who attended in person felt that IGF 2022 had been a very positive event assisted by very helpful support by local volunteers on-site. The sessions which he attended had been commendably interactive, with very good quality speakers. He expressed some concern, however, with the site plan, in particular the separation of the IGF Village from the conference center while that had a largely under-used central space on the lower level. He also noted that the Speakers’ Corner was on a different level to the main session rooms resulting in poor attendance of the informative lightning talks held there.
Mark thought that the closing statements on Day Four failed to acknowledge the importance of the ongoing intersessional activities undertaken by the IGF’s dynamic coalitions, best practice fora and policy networks. He also criticised the general lack of media coverage of the IGF this year.
Jorge Cancio participated in the IGF remotely, and felt the quality of the sessions was quite high (he especially noted sessions on fragmentation, AI, and the Declaration on the Future of the Internet). He felt that the opening was less positive, which fell back to the old approach of disconnected speeches, instead of a more interactive roundtable format. The absence of the UNSG was also felt, which may have impacted the visibility of the meeting. He also noted that the high-level track was not aligned with the broader IGF program - the IGF loses impact, when leaders are discussing issues in a different framing. He noted that it will be important to speak with the Japanese hosts for 2023 to address this misalignment. On the issue of the Global Digital Compact (GDC), Jorge noted that the IGF messages should be referenced in multiple responses to the GDC open consultation. The WG-Strategy could also propose that the MAG or LP write a letter to the GDC co-facilitators (Sweden and Rwanda), sharing with them the IGF messages as an input to the GDC negotiations. He also suggested that in the stocktaking process, the WG-Strategy could reflect on past recommendations and look at progress (or lack thereof), and submit a WG input.
Amrita noted that there was discussion in the chat about the IGF not having a high profile in the media.
Tereza Horesjova noted that she has met with the Swedish ambassador (GDC co-facilitator), and encouraged her to consult with the MAG and IGF community on the GDC planning. Looking ahead to the next MAG/Open Consultation meeting, there may be an opportunity to further engage. On the issue of hybrid events, she noted that there are issues, many of which have been discussed already, and we have not seen much improvement over the past year (even with pressure from the WG-Hybrid): we need to find practical solutions to propose and promote.
Christina Arida participated remotely and noted that it was a great event. She noted the need for resources to address the issues with the website, the calendar etc. She noted that the Parliamentarian sessions are still closed, and this is an odd decision - we should look at integrating their participation more publicly.
Raúl Echeberria agreed it was a positive meeting, pleasantly surprised by the number of on-site participants. He noted that the agenda is evolving in the right direction, addressing major issues in digital society, including regulation, human rights, the future of the Internet and AI. He also observed some key absences; it was noted that the Secretary-General of the UN was in Ethiopia at the time of the IGF but did not attend, and some others that have previously attended, but did not this time - this could be seen as a lack of trust in the IGF, and it is important to demonstrate commitment to this mechanism. He noted that the number of workshops is still very high, with a complicated schedule and overlap/duplication of content - we don’t necessarily need this many sessions. Mark agreed that the IGF 2022 schedule was overloaded, and noted that there should be more effort to reduce the scheduling conflicts with main sessions and other strategic IGF discussions which impair their attendance level, inclusivity and effectiveness. In reference to Mark’s point about the media, Raul agreed there was a lack of media presence. Finally, in relation to the Leadership Panel, Raul noted that their role is still very vague and it is not clear what they will bring to the IGF in the coming year.
Amrita noted that in the chat Adam Peake had asked about whether this was just the MAG-selected workshops, or whether it is across all sessions (many of which are not selected by the MAG). This complication may be part of the problem.
Wolfgang Kleinwächter noted in the chat “You need a concrete project: Easy to understand, easy to explain, close to the day to day problems of the six billion Smartphone (Internet) users. My proposal is that we discuss in 2023 a (Multistakeholder) Digital Kyoto Protocol, based on the outcome of the ministeriaL meeting (September 2023) and preparing the GDC (September 2024) as part of the UN Summit of the Future.”
Titti Cassa commented that the Leadership Panel’s (LP) open hour with the community was very interesting, particularly on issues such as how to make IGF recommendations more actionable for policymakers. She noted that many of the LP processes and plans are not yet in place. Amrita noted that the MAG had had a meeting with the LP as well, but felt that there was a lack of clarity about their role. However, the MAG has suggested a quarterly meeting with the LP, and that they may wish to join WG-Strategy calls.
Adam Peake noted that the MAG held its meeting with the LP, but did not follow an agenda, and it was a missed opportunity to consider some of the points made by the Expert Group Meeting that took place in March 2022. He also noted that this was not held as a closed meeting, which was regrettable as there is a need to build trust and relationships between the MAG and the LP. He commented that this year had been clearly very difficult for the Secretariat.
Anja Gengo (IGF Secretariat) noted that the tone had changed from previous IGFs, with more calls for action and outcomes; there was increased diversity; all of this is reflected in the draft messages, which are currently open for review: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/249/24066
The Secretariat has noted that there is a need for more reliable back-up in relation to technical services; there is also a need for more capacity building for the organisers and the technical staff. One example: there needs to be a stronger link between the technical team in the room and the organisers. Anja also noted that the host organisers for next year’s IGF event in Japan (including staff from the Kyoto International Convention Center) were in attendance and taking note of issues and requirements. She also believed that the multiple channels for registration in Addis were unnecessary so the Secretariat is looking at a number of procedural areas that can be easily improved.
Tulio intervened to recognise the efforts of the Secretariat, particularly given the small size of the team. He asked about the process for commenting on the draft messages. Anja noted that the Secretariat is working with their consultant to identify any misalignment between the messages and what was discussed in the sessions (not just the Main Sessions). Deadlines will be shared soon.
Chris noted that it is important to make the publication of the finalised messages an event and to utilise the media to promote awareness of them. This could be feedback from the WG-Strategy to the MAG, the Secretariat and the LP.
Adam noted that it will be important early in the new year to review the IGF messages with the LP, who will be responsible for taking those messages and socialising them at the highest levels. Mark expressed concern in the chat that the process for the LP to select IGF outcomes for directing to government policymakers and decision-takers in industry worldwide, was still unclear. Adam also noted that the MAG should meet early in the new year.
IGF 2023 Suggestions
From Persons:
Abakar Abdramane
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Faudrait qu’on pense à mettre tous les sessions disponibles en format hybride. Parce que certaines sessions étaient uniquement in person lines d L’IGF 2022.
Le processus préparatoire de L’IGF 2022 était parfait, néanmoins il faut mettre l’accent un peu plus sur le développement des capacités pour les nouveaux arrivants.
D'une manière générale la structuration et les thématiques étaient irréprochables.
Faudrait qu’on pense à mettre tous les sessions disponibles en format hybride. Parce que certaines sessions étaient uniquement in person lines d L’IGF 2022.
Félicitations à l’Éthiopie et à l’équipe de L’IGF, pour les efforts et la mise en place de logistique nécessaire.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
Programme bien énuméré et tous les intersessions étaient bien structurés
Je pense que nous devons pensé à réorganiser les sessions NRIs de façon à ne pas coïncider avec d’autres sessions, pour permettre une participation de tous les NRIs.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Assurer surtout une assistance pour les participants qui ont des difficultés avec le visa. Beaucoup se voient refusé le visa
Penser à mettre en place un programme de mentorat.
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Faudrait qu’on pense à mettre tous les sessions disponibles en format hybride. Parce que certaines sessions étaient uniquement in person lines d L’IGF 2022.
Le processus préparatoire de L’IGF 2022 était parfait, néanmoins il faut mettre l’accent un peu plus sur le développement des capacités pour les nouveaux arrivants.
D'une manière générale la structuration et les thématiques étaient irréprochables.
Faudrait qu’on pense à mettre tous les sessions disponibles en format hybride. Parce que certaines sessions étaient uniquement in person lines d L’IGF 2022.
Félicitations à l’Éthiopie et à l’équipe de L’IGF, pour les efforts et la mise en place de logistique nécessaire.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
Programme bien énuméré et tous les intersessions étaient bien structurés
Je pense que nous devons pensé à réorganiser les sessions NRIs de façon à ne pas coïncider avec d’autres sessions, pour permettre une participation de tous les NRIs.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Assurer surtout une assistance pour les participants qui ont des difficultés avec le visa. Beaucoup se voient refusé le visa
Penser à mettre en place un programme de mentorat.
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Faudrait qu’on pense à mettre tous les sessions disponibles en format hybride. Parce que certaines sessions étaient uniquement in person lines d L’IGF 2022.
Le processus préparatoire de L’IGF 2022 était parfait, néanmoins il faut mettre l’accent un peu plus sur le développement des capacités pour les nouveaux arrivants.
D'une manière générale la structuration et les thématiques étaient irréprochables.
Faudrait qu’on pense à mettre tous les sessions disponibles en format hybride. Parce que certaines sessions étaient uniquement in person lines d L’IGF 2022.
Félicitations à l’Éthiopie et à l’équipe de L’IGF, pour les efforts et la mise en place de logistique nécessaire.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
Programme bien énuméré et tous les intersessions étaient bien structurés
Je pense que nous devons pensé à réorganiser les sessions NRIs de façon à ne pas coïncider avec d’autres sessions, pour permettre une participation de tous les NRIs.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Assurer surtout une assistance pour les participants qui ont des difficultés avec le visa. Beaucoup se voient refusé le visa
Penser à mettre en place un programme de mentorat.
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Faudrait qu’on pense à mettre tous les sessions disponibles en format hybride. Parce que certaines sessions étaient uniquement in person lines d L’IGF 2022.
Le processus préparatoire de L’IGF 2022 était parfait, néanmoins il faut mettre l’accent un peu plus sur le développement des capacités pour les nouveaux arrivants.
D'une manière générale la structuration et les thématiques étaient irréprochables.
Faudrait qu’on pense à mettre tous les sessions disponibles en format hybride. Parce que certaines sessions étaient uniquement in person lines d L’IGF 2022.
Félicitations à l’Éthiopie et à l’équipe de L’IGF, pour les efforts et la mise en place de logistique nécessaire.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
Programme bien énuméré et tous les intersessions étaient bien structurés
Je pense que nous devons pensé à réorganiser les sessions NRIs de façon à ne pas coïncider avec d’autres sessions, pour permettre une participation de tous les NRIs.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Assurer surtout une assistance pour les participants qui ont des difficultés avec le visa. Beaucoup se voient refusé le visa
Penser à mettre en place un programme de mentorat.
Amattey
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Communication and outreach efforts were lacking. For online participants, there wasn't a lot of online communication to involve us in the event. No emails to update us on our registration and how we can join sessions. Little to no communication or buildup to each session or the event calendar. Participants joined with no background in sessions or conversations. The PR and marketing for the conference were close to non-existent.
Had it not been for the personal affiliations I had with some participants, and my presence in WhatsApp groups, the conference would have passed me by without a sniff of what was going on.
Had it not been for the personal affiliations I had with some participants, and my presence in WhatsApp groups, the conference would have passed me by without a sniff of what was going on.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
In terms of planning, a PR and marketing campaign could be organized for IGF. It will include all events in the buildup and background into individual sessions. Different participants have different interests and as a result, need to be educated to raise awareness. People signed up to receive updates, but yet none was sent (I didn't receive any).
If the inputs of IGF have to transcend and make an impact, then the outreach must be louder, to participants physically and remotely present.
If the inputs of IGF have to transcend and make an impact, then the outreach must be louder, to participants physically and remotely present.
Bachollet
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Hybrid is OK.
We just need to be sure that if every event are becoming hybrid that each person can't be participating in everything.
We just need to be sure that if every event are becoming hybrid that each person can't be participating in everything.
In general all is arriving too early. But I can understand for organisational point of view, I can understand it.
It was OK.
Need to insure that multilingualism is enhanced in the program and in all IGFs
Need to insure that multilingualism is enhanced in the program and in all IGFs
Hybrid is OK.
We just need to be sure that if every event are becoming hybrid that each person can't be participating in everything.
We just need to be sure that if every event are becoming hybrid that each person can't be participating in everything.
OK
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
It is a very important part of the Global IGF..
But with all the national, regional, youth and thematic IGF it can become a whole year activity.
Complicated for volunteers Internet end-users.
Need to
But with all the national, regional, youth and thematic IGF it can become a whole year activity.
Complicated for volunteers Internet end-users.
Need to
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
There are a lot of tracks but no one for End-users.
Not sure it was the best place to organise the IGF.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Better take into consideration the topics developed at national, regional levels.
For an Internet multilingual insuring a real diversity.
Reverse the organisation with bottom-up processes.
For an Internet multilingual insuring a real diversity.
Reverse the organisation with bottom-up processes.
Have a summary of the discussion at each national IGF during the year to be summarise at regional level and then at global level.
Insure participation of the Internet local community in each and every National IGF.
Including local organisation like Internet Society Chapters (lie ISOC France).
Insure participation of the Internet local community in each and every National IGF.
Including local organisation like Internet Society Chapters (lie ISOC France).
BEN JEMAA
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Very well
Well
The thematics were relevant, the planning schedule could be better, especially avoid sessions with close topics at the same time.
Very well
no problem
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
All worked well; the inclusion of NRIs activities in the IGF was very successful
NA
See above
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
Very good sessions with great debate in general. There were also some (not a lot) sessions that didn't address the real issues and were less focused, but in general, the sessions I attended were good.
NA
NA
I attended the opening session of the youth summit. Good discussion but it was chaired by an old person and the speakers weren't all young.I think it was well balanced
NA
The communication was pretty good
Third IGF in AFRICA! Very good experience
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Especially the planning of the sessions with a special care to the overlaps
don't be frightened by controversial topics. putting them on the table helps to solve them
As they connected with IGF 2022
None
Carr
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
The youth oriented main session should be also followed by a dynamic and engaging workshop. This could be done by youth that have already participated or that are more experienced that can orient and guide youth newcomers into the IGF.
For example: organizing a Q&A round, leaded by some experienced people in specific and practical topics that could be interesting or helpful (such as the work of one of the main stacks holders, a hot topic regarding the Internet, engagement opportunities, a new technology trending, etc.) and giving this space for asking questions, answering answers and having a discussion and chat.
Also, creating groups within youth divided by one of the topics that will be discussed during the IGF in order to generate youth messages and also present them on this day. This prepares youth for the incoming sessions and also equip them with knowledge to ask questions during the week, to develop critical-thinking and to participate more.
For example: organizing a Q&A round, leaded by some experienced people in specific and practical topics that could be interesting or helpful (such as the work of one of the main stacks holders, a hot topic regarding the Internet, engagement opportunities, a new technology trending, etc.) and giving this space for asking questions, answering answers and having a discussion and chat.
Also, creating groups within youth divided by one of the topics that will be discussed during the IGF in order to generate youth messages and also present them on this day. This prepares youth for the incoming sessions and also equip them with knowledge to ask questions during the week, to develop critical-thinking and to participate more.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
The IGF should also act of a platform of visibility of the host country, engaging with the current issues of the country or region in which it is hosted, even more if the issues that the country is tackling are Internet-related. For example IGF 2022 in Ethiopia, the host country has been on a war, affecting directly the access and use of Internet of the population through Internet shutdowns and other human rights violations, and nobody mentioned this on the sessions. The high-level leaders should have a position on this regard and at least bring the voice of those who can not speak because they have been prohibited to access the Internet.
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
The IGF should also act of a platform of visibility of the host country, engaging with the current issues of the country or region in which it is hosted, even more if the issues that the country is tackling are Internet-related. For example IGF 2022 in Ethiopia, the host country has been on a war, affecting directly the access and use of Internet of the population through Internet shutdowns and other human rights violations, and nobody mentioned this on the sessions. The high-level leaders should have a position on this regard and at least bring the voice of those who can not speak because they have been prohibited to access the Internet.
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
It was good, with booths that were present and really using their space by sharing information and answering questions during the week.
I liked that there were way more speakers in person… It is fundamental to have the speakers in person because otherwise it looses a lot of value as is not possible to engage with the speakers after the sessions, to continue the conversations, to networking or just to have a personal interaction. If the majority of speakers are online it feels like a cinema.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
The IGF should also act of a platform of visibility of the host country, engaging with the current issues of the country or region in which it is hosted, even more if the issues that the country is tackling are Internet-related. For example IGF 2022 in Ethiopia, the host country has been on a war, affecting directly the access and use of Internet of the population through Internet shutdowns and other human rights violations, and nobody mentioned this on the sessions. The high-level leaders should have a position on this regard and at least bring the voice of those who can not speak because they have been prohibited to access the Internet.
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
The youth oriented main session should be also followed by a dynamic and engaging workshop. This could be done by youth that have already participated or that are more experienced that can orient and guide youth newcomers into the IGF.
For example: organizing a Q&A round, leaded by some experienced people in specific and practical topics that could be interesting or helpful (such as the work of one of the main stacks holders, a hot topic regarding the Internet, engagement opportunities, a new technology trending, etc.) and giving this space for asking questions, answering answers and having a discussion and chat.
Also, creating groups within youth divided by one of the topics that will be discussed during the IGF in order to generate youth messages and also present them on this day. This prepares youth for the incoming sessions and also equip them with knowledge to ask questions during the week, to develop critical-thinking and to participate morel
For example: organizing a Q&A round, leaded by some experienced people in specific and practical topics that could be interesting or helpful (such as the work of one of the main stacks holders, a hot topic regarding the Internet, engagement opportunities, a new technology trending, etc.) and giving this space for asking questions, answering answers and having a discussion and chat.
Also, creating groups within youth divided by one of the topics that will be discussed during the IGF in order to generate youth messages and also present them on this day. This prepares youth for the incoming sessions and also equip them with knowledge to ask questions during the week, to develop critical-thinking and to participate morel
Providing funding for more people to participate, specially speakers, because they make the sessions live. As well as youth and other underrepresented groups.
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
The youth oriented main session should be also followed by a dynamic and engaging workshop. This could be done by youth that have already participated or that are more experienced that can orient and guide youth newcomers into the IGF.
For example: organizing a Q&A round, leaded by some experienced people in specific and practical topics that could be interesting or helpful (such as the work of one of the main stacks holders, a hot topic regarding the Internet, engagement opportunities, a new technology trending, etc.) and giving this space for asking questions, answering answers and having a discussion and chat.
Also, creating groups within youth divided by one of the topics that will be discussed during the IGF in order to generate youth messages and also present them on this day. This prepares youth for the incoming sessions and also equip them with knowledge to ask questions during the week, to develop critical-thinking and to participate more.
For example: organizing a Q&A round, leaded by some experienced people in specific and practical topics that could be interesting or helpful (such as the work of one of the main stacks holders, a hot topic regarding the Internet, engagement opportunities, a new technology trending, etc.) and giving this space for asking questions, answering answers and having a discussion and chat.
Also, creating groups within youth divided by one of the topics that will be discussed during the IGF in order to generate youth messages and also present them on this day. This prepares youth for the incoming sessions and also equip them with knowledge to ask questions during the week, to develop critical-thinking and to participate more.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
The IGF should also act of a platform of visibility of the host country, engaging with the current issues of the country or region in which it is hosted, even more if the issues that the country is tackling are Internet-related. For example IGF 2022 in Ethiopia, the host country has been on a war, affecting directly the access and use of Internet of the population through Internet shutdowns and other human rights violations, and nobody mentioned this on the sessions. The high-level leaders should have a position on this regard and at least bring the voice of those who can not speak because they have been prohibited to access the Internet.
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
The IGF should also act of a platform of visibility of the host country, engaging with the current issues of the country or region in which it is hosted, even more if the issues that the country is tackling are Internet-related. For example IGF 2022 in Ethiopia, the host country has been on a war, affecting directly the access and use of Internet of the population through Internet shutdowns and other human rights violations, and nobody mentioned this on the sessions. The high-level leaders should have a position on this regard and at least bring the voice of those who can not speak because they have been prohibited to access the Internet.
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
It was good, with booths that were present and really using their space by sharing information and answering questions during the week.
I liked that there were way more speakers in person… It is fundamental to have the speakers in person because otherwise it looses a lot of value as is not possible to engage with the speakers after the sessions, to continue the conversations, to networking or just to have a personal interaction. If the majority of speakers are online it feels like a cinema.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
The IGF should also act of a platform of visibility of the host country, engaging with the current issues of the country or region in which it is hosted, even more if the issues that the country is tackling are Internet-related. For example IGF 2022 in Ethiopia, the host country has been on a war, affecting directly the access and use of Internet of the population through Internet shutdowns and other human rights violations, and nobody mentioned this on the sessions. The high-level leaders should have a position on this regard and at least bring the voice of those who can not speak because they have been prohibited to access the Internet.
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
Was is not mentioned does not exist, and avoiding taking about the Ethiopian issues felt like inside the IGF, the Ethiopian population has been totally forgotten.
It is always possible to inform about the current situation of the host country and really show that we care. Avoiding it sends the message of not caring enough and the quality of the current relevance of the discussions turns out to be lower. Even though the IGF can not provide bonding decisions it can organize different stakeholders to at least commit or motivate to tackle Internet issues and digital rights for the host country…
The youth oriented main session should be also followed by a dynamic and engaging workshop. This could be done by youth that have already participated or that are more experienced that can orient and guide youth newcomers into the IGF.
For example: organizing a Q&A round, leaded by some experienced people in specific and practical topics that could be interesting or helpful (such as the work of one of the main stacks holders, a hot topic regarding the Internet, engagement opportunities, a new technology trending, etc.) and giving this space for asking questions, answering answers and having a discussion and chat.
Also, creating groups within youth divided by one of the topics that will be discussed during the IGF in order to generate youth messages and also present them on this day. This prepares youth for the incoming sessions and also equip them with knowledge to ask questions during the week, to develop critical-thinking and to participate morel
For example: organizing a Q&A round, leaded by some experienced people in specific and practical topics that could be interesting or helpful (such as the work of one of the main stacks holders, a hot topic regarding the Internet, engagement opportunities, a new technology trending, etc.) and giving this space for asking questions, answering answers and having a discussion and chat.
Also, creating groups within youth divided by one of the topics that will be discussed during the IGF in order to generate youth messages and also present them on this day. This prepares youth for the incoming sessions and also equip them with knowledge to ask questions during the week, to develop critical-thinking and to participate morel
Providing funding for more people to participate, specially speakers, because they make the sessions live. As well as youth and other underrepresented groups.
Carvell
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
1.The IGF like many other open interactive initiatives is building on the experience gained from successive hybrid events. I believe that many session organisers, chairs and moderators understood the importance of balancing on-line and on-site presentations, and interaction with attendees, so that remote participants felt that they had equal status to those who were participating in person.
2. The opportunity for virtual attendees to socialise and network online in the margins of the event and in between sessions remains the main challenge.
3. Making the Village booths accessible to virtual participants in a meaningful and mutually beneficial way is another challenge the Secretariat and MAG should give thought to.
2. The opportunity for virtual attendees to socialise and network online in the margins of the event and in between sessions remains the main challenge.
3. Making the Village booths accessible to virtual participants in a meaningful and mutually beneficial way is another challenge the Secretariat and MAG should give thought to.
I think the open preparatory process went well throughout the year benefitting from strong commitment and active support from the host government, with generally effective communication with stakeholders.
1. It was difficult to navigate the large number of sessions held in parallel slots. The scheduling conflicts included the Main Sessions and as a result caused less inclusivity in the numbers of participants in those key discussions. Ideally all IGF participants should have the opportunity to contribute to these sessions.
2. The GDC thematic structure was important for focussing many of the sessions on the "big picture" context of upcoming UN deliberations and multilateral negotiations on digital cooperation and multistakeholder Internet governance. However, the route for the IGF community to take as a channel for inputs into the GDC negotiations (and WSIS+20) remains unclear in the draft IGF 2022 messages, despite the welcome presence throughout the IGF of the Tech Envoy.
2. The GDC thematic structure was important for focussing many of the sessions on the "big picture" context of upcoming UN deliberations and multilateral negotiations on digital cooperation and multistakeholder Internet governance. However, the route for the IGF community to take as a channel for inputs into the GDC negotiations (and WSIS+20) remains unclear in the draft IGF 2022 messages, despite the welcome presence throughout the IGF of the Tech Envoy.
1.The IGF like many other open interactive initiatives is building on the experience gained from successive hybrid events. I believe that many session organisers, chairs and moderators understood the importance of balancing on-line and on-site presentations, and interaction with attendees, so that remote participants felt that they had equal status to those who were participating in person.
2. The opportunity for virtual attendees to socialise and network online in the margins of the event and in between sessions remains the main challenge.
3. Making the Village booths accessible to virtual participants in a meaningful and mutually beneficial way is another challenge the Secretariat and MAG should give thought to.
2. The opportunity for virtual attendees to socialise and network online in the margins of the event and in between sessions remains the main challenge.
3. Making the Village booths accessible to virtual participants in a meaningful and mutually beneficial way is another challenge the Secretariat and MAG should give thought to.
1. I think all the logistical systems worked well. The website did not have a map showing the street location of gate 2 for entering the conference area so I was confused about where to go on the first day
2.The messaging needed to be stronger about the practical value of speakers and attendees creating their individual personal schedules because this provided the immediate links for joining sessions (some speakers were late because they did not realise this).
3. The physical location of the highly informative lightning talks in a temporary partitioned space at the far end of the lower level, separated from the main session rooms on the upper level and therefore "off the beaten track" resulted in extremely low levels of in-person attendance. This was a major mistake in the floor plan: all the sessions - the long and the short - should be facilitated in close proximity to each other.
4. Very effective security arrangements.
5. Very efficient lost property desk - recovered my forgotten laptop mouse straightaway!
2.The messaging needed to be stronger about the practical value of speakers and attendees creating their individual personal schedules because this provided the immediate links for joining sessions (some speakers were late because they did not realise this).
3. The physical location of the highly informative lightning talks in a temporary partitioned space at the far end of the lower level, separated from the main session rooms on the upper level and therefore "off the beaten track" resulted in extremely low levels of in-person attendance. This was a major mistake in the floor plan: all the sessions - the long and the short - should be facilitated in close proximity to each other.
4. Very effective security arrangements.
5. Very efficient lost property desk - recovered my forgotten laptop mouse straightaway!
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
The BPFs and PNs are key mechanisms for the IGF to develop and deliver substantive outcomes in line with the IGF's multi-year strategy. The Leadership Panel needs to engage their leaders and coordinators so that the results of their important work are fully integrated in the LP's activities of disseminating IGF outcomes to government policymakers, business leaders and the main players in the technical community (including the global social media platforms). However, their sessions were not framed, arranged and introduced within this broader "IGF Plus" conceptual approach and the sessions concerning the intersessional activities were not reported with this context in mind. IGF 2022 was a missed opportunity therefore to demonstrate commitment to implementing the key recommendations of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation, and of the Expert Group Meeting (EGM), relating to the IGF's year-round activities and strategy development.
1. The DCs need the opportunity provided by the IGF event to inform about their work and objectives, to report on progress, and to engage potential new members. The potential of some DCs to augment the IGF eco-system as research mechanisms and policy incubators, is generally not recognised sufficiently by the IGF Secretariat and MAG in their preparatory process and delivery of IGF outcomes. The DCs Main Session discussed this problem and also examined the DCs' potential to contribute to the UN S-G's GDC process. The session was quite well attended but the level of attendance was impacted by other sessions taking place in parallel and its messages on more substantive integration of the DCs in IGF governance have not been reported prominently.
2. The IGF schedule should have set aside discrete time for the DCs to engage the IGF community with the aim of increasing their visibility and strengthening their contributions to the year-round IGF eco-system.
2. The IGF schedule should have set aside discrete time for the DCs to engage the IGF community with the aim of increasing their visibility and strengthening their contributions to the year-round IGF eco-system.
The NRIs Main Session was very well prepared and demonstrated the important contribution they make to the IGF eco-system. All went well for EuroDIG's Town Hall meeting.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
1. The IGF schedule had too many sessions in parallel which made it difficult to navigate.
2. More effort should have been made to concentrate sessions on the IGF's GDC-based themes in a well-defined structure that avoids duplication and overlaps.
3. The content of many sessions was extremely informative and well-focussed, which helped with the output messaging.
4. Most session chairs and moderators made good efforts to ensure sufficient time was accorded for interaction with the online and onsite attendees. This was achieved most successfully when there were separate moderators for online and onsite.
5. There were not enough interaction with young voices in the sessions and workshops. I recommend that all main session and workshop organisers should be required to engage young people in their preparatory process and in delivery through representation on panels. The YCIG could assist planners with fulfilling this requirement.
2. More effort should have been made to concentrate sessions on the IGF's GDC-based themes in a well-defined structure that avoids duplication and overlaps.
3. The content of many sessions was extremely informative and well-focussed, which helped with the output messaging.
4. Most session chairs and moderators made good efforts to ensure sufficient time was accorded for interaction with the online and onsite attendees. This was achieved most successfully when there were separate moderators for online and onsite.
5. There were not enough interaction with young voices in the sessions and workshops. I recommend that all main session and workshop organisers should be required to engage young people in their preparatory process and in delivery through representation on panels. The YCIG could assist planners with fulfilling this requirement.
I had to miss all the High-level leader's sessions due to them coinciding with workshop commitments. The IGF's schedule should have been arranged so that key IGF sessions like these are separated from the programme of parallel workshops so that the schedule is simpler to navigate.
Some of the Parliamentary track sessions were closed sessions for an unknown reason. I recommend all such sessions are open to stakeholder attendance and interaction with stakeholders. These sessions should be held separately from the schedule of parallel workshops etc so that attendance levels are maximised.
1. It is important for the next generation of Internet stakeholders to have the opportunity to express their views throughout the IGF event. Their voices were not heard in some of the main sessions and workshops that I attended.2. Young people should have been invited to speak in the Open Mic review session and an opportunity for a youth representative (e.g. from YCIG) to speak should have been provided in both the opening and closing ceremonies.
I believe gender-balance was achieved in the sessions which I attended.
1. The separate location of the IGF Village in a marquee at a distance from the conference building and behind a national cultural marquee, had a major negative impact on the number of visitors to the booths. Meanwhile a large central space in the lower floor of the building seemed to be under-used. It could have been ideal for locating booths. The IGF village should be integrated with the meeting rooms area to maximise footfall of people attending the event. 2. Consideration should also be given to facilitating contact between the booths and remote participants, perhaps through a daily webinar link to the village.
1. The low level of international media coverage of the IGF in Addis undermines recognition of the IGF as an important global forum that is discussing issue that impact on people's daily lives and global social and economic welfare. There should have been a press conference on the final day to present the key messages to the world's media. This was a missed opportunity for the host government, next year's host government, MAG Chair, Tech Envoy, Leadership Panel co-Chairs, UN DESA and IGFSA to promote the IGF's important profile and increase its substantive outreach beyond the existing participating sectors - especially to business leaders who were largely absent.
2. The financial sustainability challenge that the IGF faces could also have been highlighted in order to attract more donors from both the public and private sectors that would support a larger secretariat with the capacity to provide more support for intersessional activity.
3. The daily bulletins were not informative on substance and the IGF website did not provide eye-catching front page updates on the progress and outcomes of the IGF discussions that would encourage more participants. Real time reporting was difficult to locate.
4. A key remit of the Leadership Panel (LP) is advocacy of outcomes to decision-takers and policymakers worldwide. However, there was no community interaction with the LP on the final day to discuss the next steps on outcomes advocacy. Furthermore, the LP's Open Dialogue on Day 2 was held in parallel with other sessions which reduced the attendance level (as a session moderator at that time I was unable to attend). Any session such as this one concerning IGF governance should be open to all members of the IGF community and therefore be held separately from the schedule of parallel workshops etc. The schedule planning should ensure conflicts like this are minimised as much as possible.
2. The financial sustainability challenge that the IGF faces could also have been highlighted in order to attract more donors from both the public and private sectors that would support a larger secretariat with the capacity to provide more support for intersessional activity.
3. The daily bulletins were not informative on substance and the IGF website did not provide eye-catching front page updates on the progress and outcomes of the IGF discussions that would encourage more participants. Real time reporting was difficult to locate.
4. A key remit of the Leadership Panel (LP) is advocacy of outcomes to decision-takers and policymakers worldwide. However, there was no community interaction with the LP on the final day to discuss the next steps on outcomes advocacy. Furthermore, the LP's Open Dialogue on Day 2 was held in parallel with other sessions which reduced the attendance level (as a session moderator at that time I was unable to attend). Any session such as this one concerning IGF governance should be open to all members of the IGF community and therefore be held separately from the schedule of parallel workshops etc. The schedule planning should ensure conflicts like this are minimised as much as possible.
1. The Leadership Panel's Open Dialogue on Day 2 was held in parallel with other sessions which reduced the attendance level (as a session moderator at that time I was unable to attend). Any session such as this one concerning IGF governance should be open to all members of the IGF community and therefore be held separately from the schedule of parallel workshops etc. The schedule planning should ensure conflicts like this are minimised as much as possible.
2. The Open Mic session on the final day was too short (50 minutes) for wrapping up a 5 day event. I was in the line to take the mic along with about 10 other stakeholders when we were informed the session was suddenly closing because the VIPs for the closing ceremony had arrived.
3. The practical support provided by the host administration and the ever-helpful and cheerful volunteers on site in Addis was excellent (the best I've experienced in many years of attending the IGF!).
2. The Open Mic session on the final day was too short (50 minutes) for wrapping up a 5 day event. I was in the line to take the mic along with about 10 other stakeholders when we were informed the session was suddenly closing because the VIPs for the closing ceremony had arrived.
3. The practical support provided by the host administration and the ever-helpful and cheerful volunteers on site in Addis was excellent (the best I've experienced in many years of attending the IGF!).
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
1. The preparatory process for developing the themes and structure of the schedule should include regular consultations with the coordinators of the Policy Networks, Dynamic Coalitions and the Best Practice Fora so that their inputs are taken into account.
2. The earlier October date year means that the open consultations with stakeholders (including youth groups and parliamentarians facilitated with the help of national and regional IGFs) should start earlier with a fully open meeting in February and a follow up open meeting in May/early June.
3. Representatives of UN agencies should be invited to the open consultations and assist with raising the profile of the IGF planning across the UN system.
4. The MAG and the Leadership Panel should have regular open meetings with stakeholders to review progress on strategy development and advocacy of IGF 2022 outcomes. Progress with advocacy will be important for IGF 2023 to take into account in agenda-setting.
1. The High-level track, Parliamentary track, the Main Sessions, sessions concerning UN processes (notably the GDC and WSIS+20), and sessions concerning IGF governance (e.g. interaction with the Leadership Panel; financial sustainability of the IGF) should be separated from the parallel tracks of workshops, roundtables, open forums, lightning talks etc. A key benefit of separation would be greater inclusivity and diversity of stakeholder participation in those key "big picture" sessions. 2. The earlier October date year means that the open consultations with stakeholders (including youth groups and parliamentarians facilitated with the help of national and regional IGFs) should start earlier with a fully open meeting in February and a follow up open meeting in May/early June.
3. Representatives of UN agencies should be invited to the open consultations and assist with raising the profile of the IGF planning across the UN system.
4. The MAG and the Leadership Panel should have regular open meetings with stakeholders to review progress on strategy development and advocacy of IGF 2022 outcomes. Progress with advocacy will be important for IGF 2023 to take into account in agenda-setting.
2. Reducing the number of slots for workshops would facilitate a tighter focus on issues that are directly relevant to the current IGF strategy, with less duplication. The slots on a specific issue could be arranged in a block which would allow linkages between the individual workshops covering differing aspects of the issue, while also allowing the feeding in of stakeholders' perspectives to the High-level tracks and relevant main sessions. This would create an event with a greater sense of unity with a more structured schedule that is easier for attendees to navigate.
3. Planning of strategic issues should be done on a multi-year basis (as recommended by the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation and the Experts Group Meeting). This would allow greater emphasis in the schedule on hot current issues.
4. The Leadership Panel should have a session early in the schedule to report the progress on advocacy of the IGF 2022 outcomes and next steps.
5. The schedule should make provision for discussing emerging issues that would set the ground for in depth consideration at the subsequent IGF meeting(s) and also identify possible directly related intersessional activity to prepare for IGF 2024.
1. The programme for IGF 2022 did not include in depth examination of climate change issues and green digitalisation (which EuroDIG has held dedicated sessions on). This should be taken up at the global level in Kyoto.
2. The GDC thematic areas recommended by the Our Common Agenda report should continue to provide the basis for the IGF's main themes in Kyoto which takes place at the time when the UN General Assembly is in negotiation on the GDC. The thematic area "Digital commons as a global public good" was not discussed and considered at IGF 2022 so it should be prominently in the schedule for Kyoto.
3. Data governance should be a main theme that importantly intersects with the Internet fragmentation risk. This will also link to the G7 and G20 deliberations on data, free flow, privacy and trust.
4. Online safety regulatory best practice, multistakeholder-based responses to disinformation, the tech industry's adoption of security-by-design principles, and addressing the social and political risks of deep fake technologies (such as ChatGPT) should also be included in the IGF schedule with the aim of identifying menus of solutions for all these challenges for Internet users, as important influential tangible IGF outcomes.
2. The GDC thematic areas recommended by the Our Common Agenda report should continue to provide the basis for the IGF's main themes in Kyoto which takes place at the time when the UN General Assembly is in negotiation on the GDC. The thematic area "Digital commons as a global public good" was not discussed and considered at IGF 2022 so it should be prominently in the schedule for Kyoto.
3. Data governance should be a main theme that importantly intersects with the Internet fragmentation risk. This will also link to the G7 and G20 deliberations on data, free flow, privacy and trust.
4. Online safety regulatory best practice, multistakeholder-based responses to disinformation, the tech industry's adoption of security-by-design principles, and addressing the social and political risks of deep fake technologies (such as ChatGPT) should also be included in the IGF schedule with the aim of identifying menus of solutions for all these challenges for Internet users, as important influential tangible IGF outcomes.
1. There needs to be more effective integration of intersessional IGF activity reporting (PNs, BPFs and DCs) ideally on Day 0 so that they are more visible and - where relevant - their reports and outputs can feed into the schedule of Main Sessions, High-level and Parliamentary tracks, and the Leadership Panel dialogue on next steps for all IGF outcomes.
2. The various national Youth IGFs and Youth Coalition (YCIG) should be more directly involved in the IGF 2023 preparatory process for confirming IGF themes and strategic elements of the 2023 schedule.
3. The MAG should report progress with IGF preparation to the national IGF coordinators and invite their views and inputs on themes and structure of the IGF schedule, and on the multi-year strategy.
2. The various national Youth IGFs and Youth Coalition (YCIG) should be more directly involved in the IGF 2023 preparatory process for confirming IGF themes and strategic elements of the 2023 schedule.
3. The MAG should report progress with IGF preparation to the national IGF coordinators and invite their views and inputs on themes and structure of the IGF schedule, and on the multi-year strategy.
1. More effort should be made to involve in the IGF sessions business leaders from all sectors which are impacted by digital transformation (manufacturing, agriculture, heath, education etc).
2. There should be much wider outreach to lawmakers and local community representatives in regional, national, sub-national and city parliaments and assemblies. Relying on the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) for the disseminating of information about and invitations to the IGF is insufficient. The global network of national and regional IGFs should be requested to help with this wider outreach.
3. I believe it is important to ensure that all session organisers make strong efforts to include the voices of young people - the next generation - are heard in their sessions and that representatives of youth organisations are invited to be on all panels.
2. There should be much wider outreach to lawmakers and local community representatives in regional, national, sub-national and city parliaments and assemblies. Relying on the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) for the disseminating of information about and invitations to the IGF is insufficient. The global network of national and regional IGFs should be requested to help with this wider outreach.
3. I believe it is important to ensure that all session organisers make strong efforts to include the voices of young people - the next generation - are heard in their sessions and that representatives of youth organisations are invited to be on all panels.
1. The IGF meetings in 2023-25 will be held during the time of greater focus in the UN on digital transformation of economies and the contribution of ICTs to sustainable development, and the increasing political pressures that risk fragmentation of the global Internet. The IGF in particular needs to retain its focus on contributing to the thematic areas set out in the Our Common Agenda report for the Global Digital Compact which will be a major output of the Summit of the Future in 2024. This should include "Digital commons as a global public good" which was not specifically considered at IGF 2022. discussed There will also be the process of preparation for the WSIS+20 review in 2025 and possible renewal of the IGF's mandate. It will be important therefore for the IGF and the MAG to plan its engagement for these UN processes in coordination with the national and regional IGFs and the IGF's intersessional activities. Time should be set aside in the 2023 schedule for this planning and preparation of submissions etc into these processes.
2. The IGF 2023 schedule should include a session for reviewing progress with implementation of the "IGF Plus" recommendations of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation (2020) and the EGM, and deciding next steps, in particular for:
- having a more focussed multi-year IGF strategy and agenda-setting based on a number of specific policy issues;
- ensuring the high-level and parliamentarian tracks contribute to more actionable outcomes;
- establishing stronger links with the regional, national, sub-regional and youth initiatives;
- integration of intersessional policy development work in support of digital cooperation priorities;
- the strategy for achieving the long-term financial sustainability of the IGF as a year-round eco-system;
- enhancing the visibility of the IGF including engagement with all UN agencies with digital agendas.
2. The IGF 2023 schedule should include a session for reviewing progress with implementation of the "IGF Plus" recommendations of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation (2020) and the EGM, and deciding next steps, in particular for:
- having a more focussed multi-year IGF strategy and agenda-setting based on a number of specific policy issues;
- ensuring the high-level and parliamentarian tracks contribute to more actionable outcomes;
- establishing stronger links with the regional, national, sub-regional and youth initiatives;
- integration of intersessional policy development work in support of digital cooperation priorities;
- the strategy for achieving the long-term financial sustainability of the IGF as a year-round eco-system;
- enhancing the visibility of the IGF including engagement with all UN agencies with digital agendas.
Chibwana
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
The IGF 2022 hybrid format design and experience was on point, there were no challenges
The IGF 2022 was on track in terms of meeting timelines and datelines, the calendar was followed and undertaking of activities was according to schedule
The thematic focus areas were industry relevant and up to date, the flow of events were therapeutic only than time slots for comments and other input during sessions were limited
The IGF 2022 hybrid format design and experience was on point, there were no challenges
The logistics for IGF 2022 were well organized and had a seamless flow. Only that some gadgets had challenges to connect to the Internet at UNECA conference due to incompatibility issues
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
Countries that are doing well on other policy fronts and in implementing digital initiatives were able to share with the audience how best they are making strides and progress. The content ranged on the implementation model of several initiatives, success stories and challenges
Institutions working on similar objectives in various countries were able to interact on how best to partner in advancing the implementation of Digital activities. Coalitions working on similar visions and missions cooperated and chaired sessions together at IGF 2022
The youth organizations and representatives across the globe were given a chance on 28th November 2022 to discuss how best they can contribute to policy dialogue in sharpening the digital landscapes in their respective countries. The discussions focused on how best the youth can come up with Innovative ideas and be at the centre of ICT issues and progress across the globe
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
It was well organized and the experience of digital leaders was shared with the audience. Policymakers, Digital leaders, Internet Service providers and innovators; all shared their valuable experience
Parliamentarians were able to share insights on how best to come up with laws that will create a conducive environment for ICTs across the globe. The track was well organized
The youth were able to have a free and fruitful conversation regarding the digital space. The facilitators were also on top of the gameThe IGF 2022 Programme was engendered. We had lots of speakers and facilitators who were women and also topics regarding how best women can participate in the digital space were also part of the programme
IGF 2022 Village was more organized, focused and detail-oriented
The communications and outreaches were strategic, catchy and purpose driven
The IGF 2022 was massive and historical. The big thing to happen in Africa
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Need to continue meeting the datelines
Need to allocate more time to sessionsNeed to ensure that speakers come from all the continents and strike gender balance
Need to bring more youths as facilitators, more young people who are doing great things across the continent should be singled out and be part of leading discussions for IGF 2023
Need to invite more young people so that they should be familiar with the important issues of Internet Governance Forum
If possible, IGF should continue supporting those that can not afford to finance themselves to attend IGF. I thank IGF Secretariat for supporting fully my trip to Ethiopia. Without that, I would not be part of the participants
CHIHI
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
The hybrid format of the sessions was successful, there is a good coordination and the topic of the session was covered.
The session selection is interesting but more session about emerging technologies / climate change /AI / Quantum Computing are required. The planning and timeline of session is well organized. The discussion during the session was fruitful opening the door to interesting projects required to connectivity requirement among African countries taking into account to the safety online.
The thematic of IGF sessions was very interesting but more sessions about emerging technologies and more involvement of technical expert is required too. There is session that we attend but we havn't find any information about them.
The hybrid format of the sessions was successful, there is a good coordination and the topic of the session was covered.
The IGF logistics was good organized just WIFI access was very low.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
The main session of NRI session wa very fruitful in terms of the thematic highlighted related to the necessity of internet access, cybersecurity focus, importance of human rights between all cores, the four priniciple related to human rights, freedom, rule of law , multistakeholder governance, importance of privaccy between core principles, necessity of internet availability without fragmentation, importance of participation of users towards data governance, necessity of including all stakoholders towards security issues. In addition, by attending NRI sessions i discovered all IGF groups arround the world who discussed priorities related to broadband spectrum, the necessity of coordination between digital ecosystem and digital strategy.
I liked the dynamic coalitions at IGF 2022 as it was very motivating for me to be more involved in the discussions and i gained many contacts since the content was very recent and interesting. I liked the intersessional activities, i found the good planning to attend as many sessions as possible as sometimes i want to attends sessions going at the same time but other sessions with a similar content arranged in other timeline.
The youth IGF summit topic was very interesting as it is about the necessity of connecting and involving youth to digital space especially after Covid19 experience. In addition, a networking requirement between youth and experts is necessary to ensure efficient digital future. In other side, the session purpose is about a necessity of regional collaboration andl discussion to ensure new opportunities to create a robust NRIs. Engagement of youth towards capacity development activities which depend on a global conversation between all youth arround the world. NRIs mentioned the necessity of youth participation in digital transformation sessions
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
Based on the topic of : Resilient Internet for a Shared Sustainable and Common Future, the high level track was very interesting as the discussion included many recent and hot topics related to digital security and justice especially according to the huge access to online tasks due to COVID19 leading to great increase of cybercrimes. Declaration of ITU launching standards related to climate actions such as greening of data center and E-waste process. The aim is to focus on digital threats especially those related to climate change discussing the possible technical solutions overcoming such challenges. The idea is to coordinate between different multistakeholders in the way to find practical solutions and manage the digital challenges following 2030 agenda. A responsibility of global connection and protection of all digital space users by 2030 agenda.A requirement of a gobal conversation between different actors to guarantee the connectivity
Requirement of more voices in security among African countries
Necessity of ensuring a global security for Africa through adopting the specific required norms and strategies.
Requirement of more voices in security among African countries
Necessity of ensuring a global security for Africa through adopting the specific required norms and strategies.
The the IGF Parliamentary Track is about a parliaments cooperation and discussions about digital policy issues related to online safety and security.The focus is about, in particular, cybersecurity improvement and cybercrime overcoming. The idea is a global cooperation between all stakeholders to build policy frameworks for security improvement and security ensuring of cyberspace.A necessity of role attribution to each actor to participate in the security of the cyberspace.In other side, a discussion was about the necessity of digital technologies exploitation to be protected online.
The youth track of IGF 2022 as very fruitful and inspiring in the way that it calls for a global cooperation and engagement of youth , interested in Internet governance, to focus in recent topics about connectivity, security and digital transformation.I liked the session of IGF women summit since it was a great opportunity for me to connect with other techwomen alumni since i am already a techwomen fellow 2019 in which we discussed great topics related to connectivity justice. The GFCE session, in which i was invited organized in Grand palace Hotel, was very interested in the way of encouraging women to take up careers in the field of cybersecurity through NAWC group proposal.
The IGF 2022 village was amazing as there is a variety of Ethiopian brands that we can buy without moving. In addition, i discuvered the activities of many companies such as Access Now, Ripe NCC, APC,...
My participation into IGF was a life change and a great experience since i learned many great topics from champions that i need them in my network to progress in my career.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
I suggest to include sessions about emerging technologies and climate actions and to distribute them in different days in the way that we can attend them.
I suggest the involvement of many speakers/experts with technical background.
The necessity of encouraging youth to coach and encourage youth to prepare sessions about recent topics.
The participants of 2022 was with high profile in the way that the discussion was fruitful with them.
I suggest that will be a mentoring process for newcomers.
Cueto
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
The hybrid format, however, needs to be improved. There had been several technical issues during online sessions. Although they are inevitable anyway. Lest to say, online sessions did pretty ok by the end of each talk session.
The timeline is sufficient enough to make the event very productive and successful.
Thi programme is well structured and well implemented.
The hybrid format, however, needs to be improved. There had been several technical issues during online sessions. Although they are inevitable anyway. Lest to say, online sessions did pretty ok by the end of each talk session.
There had been an error on some scheduling parts of the website which disabled online participants to attend day 1 activities. It worked out well on te second till the last day though and possibly it is just an isolated case for the 1st day.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
The contents are very timely and includes relevant topics that can be applied to most countries. It is my first time attending the forum and thus far, this is a great experience for me.
I have attended some of the youth tracks as well and I find it interesting how the topics are also well-structured for every youth.There is a balance in the number of attendees for both genders which is well-diverse. It has tackled some topics affecting women and the LGBTQIA+ community as well which is a great insight for internet governance.
Htet
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
I think the hybrid format, both offline and online events are quite good. It also needs to consider for future IGFs.
At the IGF 2022 preparatory process, I think the timeline, call for issues, and session proposals worked well. I do not have any comments about session selection, MAG meetings, and capacity development because I don't know precisely about them.
I am satisfied with the overall program of IGF 2022.
I think the hybrid format, both offline and online events are quite good. It also needs to consider for future IGFs.
All the IGF logistics are simple and easy to follow as a virtual participant. I don't know what the experiences of the in-person participants are.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
The process and content of NRI collaboration sessions are good for me. However, the participation of IG communities in the Asia Pacific region at IGF 2022 is very little.
N/A
I see that there are a large number of Youth IGFs participating in IGF 2022. This is a good move for the next year's IGF.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
This session is really great. I learned a lot from leaders around the world.
N/A
This is a really good one for IGF. The participation and contribution of the youth are really important for future IGFs because they are the next leaders in a multistakeholder format of future IGFs. I have no comment on it. Gender is fair but the participation of the LGBTIQ+ community is relatively a little.
N/A
All is perfect.
Though I joined it virtually, the overall IGF 2022 experience was really great for me.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
The preparatory process for IGF 2023 should start around January 2023 because everything needs to be ready for the event.
It also needs to learn from the previous IGF 2022 feedback and comments. I suggest that the organizer team should consider more involvement in youth-led sessions, especially from the Asia Pacific region.
I need to consider the participation of NRIs and Youth IGFs, after that, I also need to implement their collaborative sessions.
As a project co-coordinator of Youth IGF from Myanmar, it is definitely needed to invite the youth IGFs from the Asia Pacific region. Because I see that there are a few Youth IGFs in our region but the youth population is very high by comparing with other regions. Similarly, there are so many internet-related issues are happening in our region and it also needs to aware of Internet governance by the regional community.
As a youth who is interested IG field, I really would like to participate in the IGF 2023 and contribute to it. Likewise, I also would like to raise local and regional IG issues with the respective stakeholders from the youth perspective. After that, I can somehow contribute to the UN's roadmap of digital cooperation and common agenda.
Isakova
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Hybrid format improved engagement by letting moderators and speakers participate in sessions regardless of their location. But it was a challenge to keep the harmony between online moderators, speakers, both audiences and create maximum opportunities for them to interact with each other. Another concern is the uncertain connection issues. Due to connectivity issues of other side, who did not participated in person, it was difficult to get the complete experience.
Well organized
Well organized
Hybrid format improved engagement by letting moderators and speakers participate in sessions regardless of their location. But it was a challenge to keep the harmony between online moderators, speakers, both audiences and create maximum opportunities for them to interact with each other. Another concern is the uncertain connection issues. Due to connectivity issues of other side, who did not participated in person, it was difficult to get the complete experience.
Well orginized
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
The best practice forums and Policy Networs: its concept, timing and duration, topic distribution were well organized.
I think eery day there were about 4 DC sessions. In my understanding, the DCs should have been are bottom-up, issue-specific groups. But sometimes it seemed to me, that I was sitting in the lecture and listening the well prepared text.
There were a lot of sessions for African countries at national, regional level. Even for youth. It was interesting to know African experience, but there are a lot of differencies (political, legal, traditional etc) between African countries and Central Asian countries. It could be better if there were a platform were it could be possible to share experience from other regions as well (for example: African group, Asia-Pasific group, Eastern European group etc ). The content and inclusion were suitable
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
Lots of practical information that can be immediately apply in the work. Good, affordable delivery. I liked the warm democratic atmosphere, the high level of organization, the professionalism and practical approach of the speakers. I was especially impressed by my acquaintance with global digital policy and so on
Well organized
Well organized
I really liked the structuring of information, systemacity. Some blocks were familiar to me. I plan to apply approaches to competency modeling and to the development of job descriptions for youth. Well orginized. It gave me a chance to look at the impact of gender on people's opportunities, social roles and interactions in the frame of IG. The programme included women's as well as men's concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes related to IG in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated
Well organized. It was very easy to access and be familiar with ethiopian traditions, culture, goods and culture.
Not boring, rich, a lot of new things. Information moves forward and induces to reconsider the current system. Some points were difficult to understand, more detailed careful repetition is required. Generally helpful!
Excellent organization, timely information, friendly and comfortable atmosphere.
Excellent organization, timely information, friendly and comfortable atmosphere.
The IGF was very structured, accessible material, practical recommendations and examples from practice. It was very useful to exchange opinions and experience with colleagues.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
If it is planned to have a gibrid event the time should be selected properly taking into account the time diffeences. Clear instructions and criteries for call and selection should be developed. Gathering input from the team members before the event works well with some event formats. It is also useful in this stage to create metrics to measure progress
When structuring programme and structure, starting with the cause and working the way to the effect can be helpful. Also keeping the goals and objectives in mind is essential. From higher productivity and quality to participants and speakers satisfaction, working towards an established goal is a key recommendation. You can understand how interesting and relevant the topic of the event is, for example, by discussing it with the community. Therefore, before each conference, it is important hold meetings of the Program Committee with potential speakers. At such meetings, developers informally discuss topics, ask clarifying questions, receive feedback - and, as a rule, return with an understanding of how interesting this or that topic is now and in what direction it is most useful to reveal it. Such analysis and direct dialogue with developers allow to assemble a truly interesting program.
Speakers profiles should be created accordingly. ToR for speakers should be clear and understable, taking into accunt the participants expectations.
Speakers profiles should be created accordingly. ToR for speakers should be clear and understable, taking into accunt the participants expectations.
Provided above
Well developed
MBOW
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
We need more improvement in this area but these are only technical issues that the host must ensure they are fixed. The sound system in each of the rooms must be tested to ensure they are okay. Some of the high level panels in the first few days of the IGF was poor.
The importance of IGF is now becoming clearer to the entire world and more emphasis should be placed on the organization leading to tree event. I suggest the following:
1. During the first quarter following the IGF, MAG members must meet in person to have a thorough evaluation on what has worked, what didn't and where we need to improve. We need to closely look at the feedback from people and put in strategies to resolve most issues that have been highlighted as challenges. The MAG members must be put in groups to ensures these issues are corrected before the next MAG and the hosting counting must be at the forefront.
2. The call for Thematic areas must also be published during the first month of the second quarter and then the last month of the quarter, the MAG meet to do evaluations of topics. This will give us almost 5 months for the preparation and to ensure proper contacts are done with all organisers to ensure that they fully prepared.
3. I would suggest if there is a possibility for some MAG members to visit the venue of the hosting country and have discussions in their preparations more so of logistics, travel so that we can give feedback. All these can be done in quarter three of the year and those that need to travel would have had enough time to apply for visa etc instead of doing all that in the last few weeks too the IGF.
4. The MAG members must be seen taking leading roles in the organisation of the sessions and members need to be assigned to these session to secure that all issues are resolved before and during the sessions. In fact, they will be in a better position to give constructive feed back.
5. For panel discussions, each of the panelist must have their microphone to avoid delays in having to move mics from one person to another.
1. During the first quarter following the IGF, MAG members must meet in person to have a thorough evaluation on what has worked, what didn't and where we need to improve. We need to closely look at the feedback from people and put in strategies to resolve most issues that have been highlighted as challenges. The MAG members must be put in groups to ensures these issues are corrected before the next MAG and the hosting counting must be at the forefront.
2. The call for Thematic areas must also be published during the first month of the second quarter and then the last month of the quarter, the MAG meet to do evaluations of topics. This will give us almost 5 months for the preparation and to ensure proper contacts are done with all organisers to ensure that they fully prepared.
3. I would suggest if there is a possibility for some MAG members to visit the venue of the hosting country and have discussions in their preparations more so of logistics, travel so that we can give feedback. All these can be done in quarter three of the year and those that need to travel would have had enough time to apply for visa etc instead of doing all that in the last few weeks too the IGF.
4. The MAG members must be seen taking leading roles in the organisation of the sessions and members need to be assigned to these session to secure that all issues are resolved before and during the sessions. In fact, they will be in a better position to give constructive feed back.
5. For panel discussions, each of the panelist must have their microphone to avoid delays in having to move mics from one person to another.
The thematic focus was excellent.
We need more improvement in this area but these are only technical issues that the host must ensure they are fixed. The sound system in each of the rooms must be tested to ensure they are okay. Some of the high level panels in the first few days of the IGF was poor.
The logistics to me was okay but more work needs got be done to ensure visas are obtained 2-3 months before the IGF. The intermittent of on and off the website needs to be looked at because a the traffic will will be high few days form the IGF and during the IGF.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
These are also good and must be given more prominence in the entire process.
Not sure of their relevance or impact.
This is also very good and I believe, it needs to be more structured. Perhaps, create a session where the panelist would be the regional and Youth IGF and they can discuss on their output documents etc.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
The high level track is good but we have too many panelist. I should suggest we reduce them into 4 panelist and if necessary have multiple sessions for them and group similar panelists together. Fir example we can have one for Government, big corporates, CSOs, Parliamentarians (regional and Pan African Parliament) etc.
This was excellent and the APNIG has taken a leading role in the entire process and we need to continue to solidify this track as it is extremely important.
This is an equally important one and effort must be taken to make them more relevant in the entire process. It was balances and would love to see the statistics on gender attendance and participation on the panels.
The village was too small in 2022.
This was a good one.
The choice of Ethiopia was very good.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Indicated earlier on meeting timelines and participation.
n/aindicated earlier
n/a
The current invitees are okay but we can add big tech companies in 2023 and give them special topics to talk about.
Let prepare early particularly the sessions and various logistics.
Mewuhagn
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
good
timeline, call for issues and session proposals, session selection, MAG meetings, capacity development and others were properly seen.
very well
good
good
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
good
good
good
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
high level leaders are involved.
good
very well good that was gender equality actually seen.
good
good
good
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
keep away
keep away for the 2022 years keep away for the 2022 years
keep away for the 2022 years
i am volunteer to involve IGF 2023
good
Pajaro Velasquez
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
need more safety for the zoom links in order to avoid zoom bombing
There should more MAG open meeting to define the main topics and probably with not an entire day of discussion because it is so hard to get involve when a lot of us are working and can't engage as we want it because of it.
Not comments
need more safety for the zoom links in order to avoid zoom bombing
The website, the schedule, access, online platform was a mess. Everything needs to be improved in order to not having these technical difficulties even again in the INTERNET governance forum. We have people between us that can solve those issues easily and there are proposals on how to do it that we heard over the years, but none was implemented, we need a fixed technical task force for this event.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
They seem connected but at the same time disconnected from the rest of the IGF, they felt as a different track and not a core part of the event.
Same situation as the BPFs, we need to work on better strategies or ways to integrate them in the main event
About the NRIs I don't have to say anything, but about the Youth IGFs or the youth summit should be included as several sessions, one per day or main topic during the IGF and not only as a Day 0 event.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
Still lacking on representation of Women and gender-diverse people, especially gender-diverse people.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
More MAG open sessions and make it shorter but more straight to the point.
Create a process that can reflect during the IGF all the NRIs and Youth IGFs around the world and not only the main topics that the IGF want to talk about it.
Please change the way of getting the link to the sessions and also the schedule.
Parris
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
The idea was good, however there were challenges with the Wifi, was unable to log in onsite at times, but overall it was welcomed by participants onsite and offsite.
I cannot find any fault with the preparation period, people worked very hard to submit sessions in a timely manner. The only problem was the space between meetings when they were concerns about Ethiopia and the civil war. The website was slow in making changes and the visa process took a bit too long.
The meetings were well planned, but there was a lot of overlapping, but this the usual case, one cannot attend all the meetings one wants to attend, and have to make choices. The website was a bit problematic at times, and charging was challenging. The closing ceremony was not as expected . but the overall atmosphere was welcoming.
The idea was good, however there were challenges with the Wifi, was unable to log in onsite at times, but overall it was welcomed by participants onsite and offsite.
The website had some challenges at the beginning, but improved just in time. Registration was fine for me, but some had problems. Access to the online platform posed some challenges with connecting. Bilateral rooms worked well, except for frequent room changes. Those volunteering did a good job, except for Day 0, when there was some confusion with directions, but it was new to a lot of people. Security was too good, that they closed off room 1, and people were waiting for long periods, also taking away mobile and computers for opening was a bit too much, it may have been protocol for the Government, but it was hard for volunteers.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
They were very well don’t, but cross-cutting in some cases, the NRI sessions were very good and the DC main session, but I missed some sessions due to having to choose the ones I took part in over the others, in the follow up to the IGF programme, they acted as a guide to what was to come, and flowed appropriately , the one that was very informative was the SDG session, this was very well done in my opinion, but I almost missed it, due to program changes and schedule overlaps, but was glad I attended, as it made sense. The NRI sessions were also informative, especially to new attendees who know nothing about NRIs and DCs for that matter.
As above, very informative both in the run up to the IGF and during the IGF, unfortunately, I missed some due to other commitments and schedule changes. One has to support the sessions one organisers and that colleagues organised as well as interest in the particular session.
Content was exceptional, and I congratulate the Youth on their participation. My registered program is very different to what I actually attended. Organisers who sent reminders and invitations were favoured and got a better attendance.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
Those that I attended went well, nice to see HL participation , unfortunately time was short and all was not said. I think having Journalists moderate is a good idea, but they need training up about the IGF process prior to the meeting . If they were they would be able to stretch time and allocate to those who had more to say. Although some speakers waste time at the beginning by not getting to the point quickly
I missed several as some were closed, but they went well.
Very well done, good to see the youth and to see how active there actually are, again, some knowledge is lacking about the IGF and the process, Internet Governance training is really needed, and should be more appreciated.I missed the main session, Gender, but from what I saw and read, it was informative and welcomed . Gender was highly discussed in several aspects, women’s rights, empowerment and equal rights. I met some of those involved in gender outside of the meetings and form what they say, I admire the work they are doing and what they hope to achieve.
The village was very good, the booths were not always manned though, the market seemed very expensive, but overall, it come over as a traditional Ethiopian market place and showcased artists, artisans and basket weaving, very good.
Communications were well done, I commend the hardworking secretariat. Outreach and outputs were as to be expected, with the experience from previous IGFs, however the new attendees that I met had difficulty understanding the process and the website. I have and never had problems with the website, as everything is there on one page. so I don’t k ow what has to be done to make it easier for some participants, even the daily reports were easy to follow, again, this is why we need internet governance and train in in use of the tools.
I enjoyed attending Ethiopia, despite the high altitude. Thank you Secretariat for your hard work.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
More regular meetings, please don’t stop meetings in August, that’s when people wanted to make decisions .
Train up journalists and those who are being funded for the first time .
Better directions to sessions. There was no room signs that I saw.
Maybe public announcements for some of us who get lost easily to the next session, or updates in reception. The program kept changing.
I enjoyed the IGF. the flow was a bit challenging due to room changes, the stairs was hard to navigate with those of us with breathing problems, the lifts could not be found in the time spam to get to meetings, lunch was cold at times. Meeting were well done, and the Secretariat work very hard with the process. The host country needs to be a bit more relaxed with electronic equipment. And in arranging rooms.Train up journalists and those who are being funded for the first time .
Better directions to sessions. There was no room signs that I saw.
Maybe public announcements for some of us who get lost easily to the next session, or updates in reception. The program kept changing.
Speakers , moderators and rapporteurs need to be trained prior to the Igf, time management is important.
Volunteers need to know the program and directions and be trained, but am sure Japan will be right in the ball.
Sessions, well, hard to give everyone the time they want and the room they want, but update rooms on the website or on paper, as not everyone knows how to use the website. Even for me it was hard finding rooms to the right session.
Volunteers need to know the program and directions and be trained, but am sure Japan will be right in the ball.
Sessions, well, hard to give everyone the time they want and the room they want, but update rooms on the website or on paper, as not everyone knows how to use the website. Even for me it was hard finding rooms to the right session.
Have more training and meetings with youth groups and connect the two from an early date. Some disconnection exists, lack of understanding of the UN process is evident for some delegations.
Use of the email list for regular updates apart from the UN newsletter, so that people understand the connection.
Invite to invite, share to share, But the Secretariat is already doing a lot to increase participation in my opinion . By attending national IGFs and inviting people to join inter-sessional work. Perhaps the problem is that people think is is all technical and this needs to be explained more.
Invite to invite, share to share, But the Secretariat is already doing a lot to increase participation in my opinion . By attending national IGFs and inviting people to join inter-sessional work. Perhaps the problem is that people think is is all technical and this needs to be explained more.
None at present.
Passell
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
I want to create a Teen Track for the next hybrid meeting. It may be shorter and very experimental, but to ignore our voice is just wrong.
I'm a 14 year old who attended multiple sessions on the Youth Track. First, "youth" means people who are almost always finished with their university degree and are there primarily in a professional networking capacity, and second, that a young person like myself wouldn't be represented or guided to inclusion at all in the "youth track". I was interested to get involved with this work after the IGF, but...how?
"Youth" in all of these internet governance organisations, particularly around learning and engagement opportunities, literally means people always over 20, often in their mid to late twenties or even thirties, who are definitely way past finished with High School. I found that there is one APNIC Youth Program for Uni students that offers a few chosen people space to network, but it's again about professional networking as much as internet governance learning and is a tightly closed-door format.
They're not really youth. In any normal context, they're all considered adults.
We need to be reaching actual youth, like me, teens, where they already are, on social media, and not in a boring, obviously educational format either, but in fun chunks, entertaining them with a fundamental understanding of why internet governance is their future.
We need a very tailored Teen Track at the next igf and I want to help build it.
They're not really youth. In any normal context, they're all considered adults.
We need to be reaching actual youth, like me, teens, where they already are, on social media, and not in a boring, obviously educational format either, but in fun chunks, entertaining them with a fundamental understanding of why internet governance is their future.
We need a very tailored Teen Track at the next igf and I want to help build it.
I want to create a Teen Track for the next hybrid meeting. It may be shorter and very experimental, but to ignore our voice is just wrong.
Some problems getting in to sessions, or participants voices dropping out, but overall ok. Hard to navigate the interactive calendar on mobile devices. Worked well on my huge PC screen though. Laptops were ok but again a lot of horizontal scrolling.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
What you call Youth are Adults.
Youth should be TEENS.
See my comments.
Youth should be TEENS.
See my comments.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
How can my voice be heard?? I was there but now what??
As a fourteen year old girl, I felt this IGF did have a lot of gender inclusion. I was surprised that it seemed well gender balanced. I even saw some people of differing genders (my mum is an intersex woman so it's important to me).
Day 0 was very frustrating as the igf site to log in was down for ages and I couldn't get in to update my personal calendar missed part of my first youth meeting as the site was down.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Teen Track!! Ask me!!
Teen Track. Teen Track.
Rijal
Roach
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
I attended in-person and found the format went much better than 2021 in terms of sessions having on-site moderstors/monitors. However, session organizers should make every effort to ensure they provide an onsite person as MAG volunteers may not be equipped to handle questions at end of session.
As it is a 1 year cycle, the schedule is always tight. Not all MAG members actively participate. An in-person MAG meeting for session selection maybe useful as the email threads become tricky. Also, breakout sessions by theme would be more beneficial as there would be improved focus.
It was an improvement on 2021, definitely more focused. Adjustments are always possible.
I attended in-person and found the format went much better than 2021 in terms of sessions having on-site moderstors/monitors. However, session organizers should make every effort to ensure they provide an onsite person as MAG volunteers may not be equipped to handle questions at end of session.
1. Web site availability and access was frustrating.
2. What mobile app?
3. Registration waz simple, getting a visa was not.
4. Audio was poor on the online platform
5. Security was good
6. Social events were great and appreciated.
2. What mobile app?
3. Registration waz simple, getting a visa was not.
4. Audio was poor on the online platform
5. Security was good
6. Social events were great and appreciated.
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
The main sessions were informative but rushed. I think they could use more time.
The main sessions were informative but rushed. I think they could use more time.
Unable to comment
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
Could be developed more.
Unable to comment
Unable to commentI feel that the effort to include women had some levels of success. We should continue with this push.
Organizationnin the village were not as engaging. They need to move beyond distributing thick books which are not practical to pack and travel with. The .POST and the 2023 Japan host booths made an effort.
I would say average rating.
The hybrid should continue. Onsite participation was great, full of energy.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
As said earlier, i feel an in-person meeting for final selection would be most useful.
1. Did not like the last minute instructions to submit personal devices for session with high ranking officials.2. Last minute change in session venue.
I feel that the time and effort the MAG took on focusing the themes paid off.
They always seem like an after thought. More thought needed on this.
Early engagement of Parliamentarians.
Maybe a moderated end-of-day or end-of-week open-mic session on each theme.
Maybe a moderated end-of-day or end-of-week open-mic session on each theme.
The food at venue was not at its best. Lacked variety and could not meet persons dietary needs everyday
SALL
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Tout a bien fonctionné
A mon avis tout a bien fonctionné
Tout a bien fonctionné
Tout a bien fonctionné
Tout a bien fonctionné
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
Mon souhait est de maintenir l'organisation de l'IGF pour mieux informer et outiller les participants
Le processus déployés est réaliste et permettra aux participants de mieux restituer à leur retour dans les différents pays.
Les INR jouent un rôle clé dans la gouvernance de l'internet. Ce sont des formation organiques et indépendantes qui discutent des questions relatives l'Internet du point de vu de leur communauté respective.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
De l'intervention de tous les leaders de haut niveau, il est assorti que la numérisation étant un moteur clé des objectifs de développement durable des Nations Unies, la nécessité était de prendre en compte tous les défis mondiaux.
Face à des questions telles que: Les pays sont ils vraiment prêts à faire face à des Cyber menaces, comment peut on tirer bénéfice de la coopération multi-partîtes , multi sectoriel et multi nouveau pour créer un Cyber espace plus sûr?
Le parlementaires en ont discutés des enjeux et des solutions.
Les jeunes étant des acteurs majeurs dans la création et la consommation des contenus en ligne ne doivent pas être mis en marge. Ils doivent au cœur de l'IGF dans le but de préparer au mieux la prochaine génération des leaders d'internet.Le parlementaires en ont discutés des enjeux et des solutions.
Le contenu du programme de l'IGF 2022 a été très pertinent en ce sens qu'il touche à toutes les réalités, tous les secteurs socio économique et politique.
Le village IGF se compose de stand d'exposition physique et virtuelle, situé dans l'espace d'exposition de la réunion et en ligne conformément à sa nature hybride.
Les intervenants ont fait des bonnes communications, ce qui a permis à l'auditoire de mieux comprendre le contenu des thèmes enseignés. Il y a eu une large sensibilisation à travers ces différents thèmes. Chaque participant a été mieux s'outiller.
Grâce à l'IGF 2022, nous avons saisie beaucoup d’opportunités tout en comprenant le rôle que joue l'internet dans tous les domaines d'activités.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Maintenir le même protocole organisationnel que celui de 2022
Faciliter la participation à plusieurs organisations en vu de vulgariser le concept de l'IGFApproche hématique:
-Une gouvernance coordonnée de l'internet pour lutter contre l'Insécurité dans le monde;
-Acculer la transformation numérique mondiale pour un écosystème performant.
Ces thèmes seront organisés lors des sessions interactives animées par des responsables et experts en question de sécurité informatique, des ONG et leaders d'opinion.
-Une gouvernance coordonnée de l'internet pour lutter contre l'Insécurité dans le monde;
-Acculer la transformation numérique mondiale pour un écosystème performant.
Ces thèmes seront organisés lors des sessions interactives animées par des responsables et experts en question de sécurité informatique, des ONG et leaders d'opinion.
Accentuer les processus interactif entre les participants, créer des liens en lignes permettant les propositions d'idées lisibles et accessibles à tous.
Les invités doivent être les décideurs publics, les ONG et les leaders d'opinion. Créer des liens en ligne pour permettre de faciliter les échanges entre les participants.
Pour tirer pleinement partie des avantages et limiter les dommages éventuels, il est nécessaire de veiller à ce que l'ère numérique soit défini par une coopération internationale. Il est nécessaire à cet effet d'organiser des journées de formations, des séminaires, des conférences sur les thématiques liés à la bonne gouvernance de l'internet.
Sani
Sérgio Mabedje Luís Cossa
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Was perfect there is nothing that I personally saw that deserves to be highlighted negatively
The whole process went very smoothly, there is nothing that I personally saw that deserves to be highlighted negatively
Perfect there is nothing that I personally saw that deserves to be highlighted negatively
Was perfect there is nothing that I personally saw that deserves to be highlighted negatively
The logistic was perfect there is nothing that I personally saw that deserves to be highlighted negatively
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
The Best Practice and Policy Networks discussions at IGF 2022 were productive, the content, and the intersessional activities were included in the igf 2022 programme.
The process Dynamic Coalitions in IGF 2022, the contents of the intersessional activities were included in the IGF 2022 programme and were perfect.
National, regional and youth IGFs in IGF 2022, the process was inclusive in the IGF 2022 programme.
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
IGF 2022 programme: contents were perfect, speakers exceeded my expectations and quality of debates, IGF 2022 sessions was very good and constructive.
IGF 2022 Track high level leaders were perfect in their approaches, we hope these contributions will translate into reality.
IGF 2022 Parliamentary track were perfect in their approaches, we hope these contributions will translate into reality.
IGF 2022 Young Track were perfect in their approaches. Regarding IGF 2022 from a gender perspective, the discussion in terms of the need for inclusiveness was notable, however gender itself highlighted that this initiative is being countered with the actual commitment of gender itself not occurring at the actual time to take on the activities.
IGF 2022 Village I think the participation was not very significant, it should be better. However it must be considered that the participation of the host country was quite significant.
The Communications, outreach and outcomes of IGF 2022 were seamless and outreach.
Overall, everything was perfect and well organised.
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Nothing to consider
As for the IGF 2023 overall programme structure and flow, I think it should remain as it is.As for the Content of IGF 2023 programmes (thematic approach, types of sessions, speaker profiles), I think there is a need for increased time for the sessions.
With regard to inter-sessional activities and national, regional and youth IGFs, the best way to link them to the IGF 2023 process is to request their inclusion from the National to Regional forum and ensure their representativeness in the IGF 2023 process.
The current participation process I think is perfect, as those who write are those who are in on the subject, I would only suggest that each participant at the very least should bring something to IGF 2023 that addresses community and youth issues in their country.
Precisamos levar ao IGF 2023 as reais dificuldades e sucessos para o desenvolvimento da Internet em particular dos Países sebdesenvolvidosSugiro que se observe os custos para a logistica do IGF 2023 em Japão, tendo em conta os custos elevados.
Shwehdy
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
the used system doesnt provide a smooth user experience for sessions and calander.
the used system doesnt provide a smooth user experience for sessions and calander.
the used system doesnt provide a smooth user experience for sessions and calander.
SUN
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
No Comment as I have attended physical
No Comment
the programme is well planned with multi stakeholders and diversification on speakers.
No Comment as I have attended physical
useful information on the app to follow the session in each day
Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2022
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
IGF 2022 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions
Overall, all sessions are good. I feel some are different sessions but come to the discussion, it may be similar.
Good to listen to the leaders discussion on various topic
No Comment
No Comment No Comment
I had visited the IGF village. Good to learn all activities by exhibitors.
Good preparation
No Comment
What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2023?
Some sessions were cancelled. It would be good to inform in advance
Good format and process of the programmegood
No comment
No Comment
the fellowship programme should be well disseminated to developing countries through local UN office.
Woyah
Yang
Taking Stock of the IGF 2022: What worked well? What worked not so well?
Not-so-good experience with the online meeting tool, Zoom. Zoom provides no more free individual registration services in our country since 2021. For those who got a workshop or other events to organize during the annual meeting, they had to spend extra fees buying Zoom accounts. While most who were interested in the IGF events, couldn't participate in and communicate with others. A suggestion would be more consideration of special situations and providing more online tool options. Or a survey of which online tool could be conducted before the decision is made.
Not-so-good experience with the online meeting tool, Zoom. Zoom provides no more free individual registration services in our country since 2021. For those who got a workshop or other events to organize during the annual meeting, they had to spend extra fees buying Zoom accounts. While most who were interested in the IGF events, couldn't participate in and communicate with others. A suggestion would be more consideration of special situations and providing more online tool options. Or a survey of which online tool could be conducted before the decision is made.
Overall is great, but we encountered the situation that the official website could not be logged in twice or 3 times.