Session
William J. Drake, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information, Columbia University, Civil Society, WEOG
Markus Kummer, former Executive Coordinator of the WGIG, Civil Society, WEOG
Onsite Speakers
Vittorio Bertola, Open-Xchange AG, Private Sector, WEOG
Avri Doria, Independent, Technical Community, WEOG
William J. Drake, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information/Columbia University, Civil Society, WEOG
Raul Echeberria, Asociación Latinoamericana de Internet, Technical Community, GRULAC
Ayesha Hassan, AH Consulting, Private Sector, WEOG
Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Euro-SSIG, Civil Society, WEOG
Jovan Kurbalija, Diplo Foundation, Civil Society, WEOG
Charles Shaban, International Trademark Association, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group
Remote Speakers
Carlos Afonso, Instituto Nupef, Civil Society, GRULAC
Baher Esmat, ICANN, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
Alejandro Pisanty, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Civil Society, GRULAC
8.3
9.1
9.2
9.5
9.b
9.c
17.17
17.4
Targets: The WGIG’s dialogues and work were concerned with the promotion of Internet governance for development (8.3); transborder infrastructure development and governance (9.1); digital industrialization (9.2); Internet research and development and capacity building, particularly in developing countries (9.5, 9.b); universal access to the Internet (9.c); enhanced institutional coordination and policy coherence (17.4); and public, public-private civil society and multistakeholder partnerships (17.17). The WGIG+20 conversation will consider these goals by extension.
Roundtable
The session will be organized as a large Roundtable. The roundtable participants will offer concise and focused remarks due the size of the group and the need to preserve a half hour for open discussion among all participants. In addition, every speaker may not all address all of the four topics on the agenda. The division of labor and narrative flow will be worked out in advance. The moderator and group have experience working together so the challenge will be easily managed.
2025 is the twentieth anniversary of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and, by extension, of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). Convened by the UN Secretary General in 2004 to explore foundational questions that were confounding the WSIS negotiations, the WGIG assembled forty representatives of governments and stakeholders to engage in months of intensive open consultations, peer-to-peer dialogue, and collective analysis. In June 2005, the WGIG released its consensus report (as well as a longer analytical background report that was not formally agreed by the group). The WGIG Report advanced a broadly holistic “working definition” of Internet governance and helped to demystify the subject; mapped out a set of key policy issues within this holistic framework; offered four competing models for the ”oversight” of critical Internet resources (none of which attained consensus support); and proposed the establishment of an Internet Governance Forum. More generally, the WGIG process demonstrated the benefits of “equal footing” multistakeholder collaboration in the United Nations; promoted public engagement in the Internet governance debate; and facilitated the successful conclusion of the WSIS negotiations.
In addition to working on the two reports, some WGIG members contributed to a multi-authored edited book that was released at the WSIS Tunis Summit in November 2005. In 2015, members convened a retrospective WGIG+10 workshop at the IGF in João Pessoa, and produced a second multi-authored edited book that reflected on the WGIG’s impact and looked to the future of Internet governance through that lens.
This Day 0 roundtable event reassembles a group of WGIG members to continue and build upon the previous discussions. Moderated by the former Executive Coordinator of the WGIG and, subsequently, the IGF secretariat, the roundtable will proceed in six steps:
0. The WGIG in Retrospect [8 minutes]
After panelist introductions, we establish the baseline for the discussion by briefly recalling the key dynamics and impacts of the WGIG process. This should level set veteran and newercomer participants on its historical significance and contemporary relevance. Against that backdrop, the roundtable then explores three topics that animated the WGIG in 2005 and take on new contours in the very different global digital environment of 2025:
1. The Nature of Internet Governance [20 minutes]
To what extent have the “broad definition” and the core conception agreed by the WGIG and endorsed by the WSIS stood the test of time? Despite its repeated citation in both UN and other processes, the definition has not been universally embraced, consistently employed, or further elaborated upon. Does it remain valid, or does it need to be rethought with the benefit of experience? If a WGIG were convened in the changed technological and political environment of today, would it need to take a different approach? How does global “Internet governance” as debated in 2005 relate to the global “digital governance” being debated in 2025?
2. Multilateral and Multistakeholder Governance [20 minutes]
The tension between multilateral and multistakeholder approaches to Internet cooperation and governance was an overarching source of geopolitical friction in the WSIS. After an uneasy resolution in Tunis, this meta-issue recurrently arose and caused problems in multiple international policy spaces during the years to follow. While more recently there has been more co-existence and productive interplay between the approaches, the tension sometimes resurfaces as the international community tackles new digital issues. The WGIG Report ventured into this fraught terrain in several ways, including by advancing four competing global governance architectures for the WSIS’ consideration. What is the status of this tension and interplay today with respect to both established Internet governance processes and newer digital governance issues? To what extent do the WGIG’s alternative models speak to the contemporary digital environment? What are the possible pathways for international institutional development going forward?
3. The Internet Governance Forum [20 minutes]
Prior to and in the WGIG, there was much debate on the need to add a “forum function” in order to fill a gap in the Internet governance ecosystem. The IGF as proposed by the WGIG and elaborated and agreed by the WSIS has undoubtedly filled this gap well and attracted strong worldwide support. At the same time, over the years there have inevitably been many varying and incompatible calls to strengthen the IGF or even revise its character in certain respects. To date, the evolutionary improvements made by the IGF community have constituted change within rather than of the model agreed in 2005. To what extent has the IGF’s trajectory followed or departed from the WGIG’s initial vision? How could the IGF evolve in the future (assuming its mandate is renewed by the UN General Assembly in 2025)? What are the implications for the IGF and the UN of the above mentioned interplay between global “Internet governance” and global “digital governance?”
4. Open Discussion [20 minutes]
All onsite and remote participants will be encouraged to weigh.
5. Summary and Conclusion [2 minutes]
The moderator will summarize the session and link it to the wider IGF agenda and WSIS Review.
Links to Background Papers/Resources
Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance, Château de Bossey, June 2005.
William J. Drake (ed.), Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the UN Working Group on Internet Governance. New York: United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force, 2005.
William J. Drake (ed.), The Working Group on Internet Governance: 10th Anniversary Reflections. Johannesburg: The Association for Progressive Communications, 2016.
As it has many times in the past, the interactive roundtable format will allow a dynamic and flexible discussion. The organizers have very extensive experience with managing such sessions in the IGF since 2006, as well as in many related international venues. This includes substantial experience with managing hybrid sessions and ensuring the inclusive participation of people who are onsite and online. The moderator will of course keep an eye on raised hands in both spaces, give everyone a chance to speak in turn, set time limits and promote respectful interactions, ensure that participants are able to respond to points directed at them, read out any typed questions if someone’s sound fails, and so on.
Report
IGF 2025 Session Report
WGIG+20: Glancing Backward and Looking Forward
2025 is the twentieth anniversary of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and, by extension, of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). Convened by the UN Secretary General in 2004 to explore foundational questions that were confounding the WSIS negotiations, the WGIG assembled forty representatives of governments and stakeholders to engage in months of intensive open consultations, peer-to-peer dialogue, and collective analysis. In June 2005, the WGIG released its consensus report (as well as a longer analytical background report that was not formally agreed by the group). The WGIG Report advanced a broadly holistic “working definition” of Internet governance and helped to demystify the subject; mapped out a set of key policy issues within this holistic framework; offered four competing models for the ”oversight” of critical Internet resources (none of which attained consensus support); and proposed the establishment of an Internet Governance Forum. More generally, the WGIG process demonstrated the benefits of “equal footing” multistakeholder collaboration in the United Nations; promoted public engagement in the Internet governance debate; and facilitated the successful conclusion of the WSIS negotiations.
In addition to working on the two reports, some WGIG members contributed to a multi-authored edited book that was released at the WSIS Tunis Summit in November 2005. In 2015, members convened a retrospective WGIG+10 workshop at the IGF in João Pessoa, and produced a second multi-authored edited book that reflected on the WGIG’s impact and looked to the future of Internet governance through that lens.
This Day 0 roundtable event reassembled a group of WGIG members to continue and build upon the previous discussions and proceeded in five steps:
1. The WGIG in Retrospect
Markus Kummer set the stage by recalling the WGIG’s significance in the WSIS context, and noted that new technologies such as AI are fundamentally Internet dependent and hence Internet governance-related. William Drake outlined seven ways in which the WGIG mattered: It demonstrated the benefits of equal-footing multistakeholder collaboration in the UN context; facilitated the successful conclusion of the WSIS negotiations; promoted global public engagement in the emerging debate; demystified the nature and scope of Internet governance, in particular by advancing a broad and wholistic working definition; began a holistic mapping of the horizontal and vertical issues covered by the definition; outlined four competing models for the “oversight” of “critical Internet resources;” and proposed the creation of the IGF.
2. The Nature of Internet Governance
Ayesha Hassan argued that the WGIG’s definition has stood the test of time and is relevant to the new technologies and issues that have emerged since WSIS. Raul Echeberria underscored the WGIG’s contribution to building support for inclusive multistakeholder participation. Wolfgang Kleinwachter noted that the definition addresses the who, what and how of Internet governance; that it clearly applied to a wide range of “governance on” the Internet issues, as well as to technical “governance of” the Internet; and stressed that new governance matters like AI should be addressed in the same manner. Juan Fernandez emphasized that the WGIG’s methodology was a key to its success and that this could be used to address new issues like data governance.
3. Multilateral and Multistakeholder Governance
Alejandro Pisanty noted that governments are needed in issues like law enforcement but on other and especially technical issues their roles should be more limited, inter alia because it is very difficult for them to come to agreement in negotiations. Avri Doria stressed the importance of coexistence between multilateralism and and multistakeholderism and that this was demonstrated within the WGIG process itself; and she invoked the memory of Frank March who contributed heavily to the WGIG report in a secretariat capacity. Charles Shaban illustrated the benefits of multistakeholder participation by invoking the case of intellectual property issues.
4. The Internet Governance Forum
Baher Esmat argued that the IGF has successfully filled an important gap in the Internet governance institutional ecosystem by facilitating non-decisionmaking dialogue, and that it has continued to evolve and improve but needs greater financial stability. Carlos Afonso highlighted the importance of the WGIG’s mapping of key public policy issues covered by the broad definition. Jovan Kurbalija discussed the significance of enhanced cooperation, capacity building, and the IGF’s modus operandi. Vittorio Bertola noted the need for continuing improvements to the global IGF as well as to the national IGFs; and he argued that concentrated corporate power raises many issues that drive demands for intergovernmental responses, and hence the IGF needs to address these as well.
5. Open Discussion
Onsite and remote participants engaged in a vibrant and probing open discussion. Several people addressed the WGIG model’s implications for the Global Digital Compact process, data governance, and the challenges of achieving consensus in an equal-footing multistakeholder setting. The IGF’s difficulty with addressing controversial issues that are opposed by some stakeholders or states was raised. It was suggested that the WGIG was the most truly multistakeholder process we have had in the UN over the past twenty years. It was asked whether a new WGIG-type process could be helpful in sorting out some of the big issues in play in the WSIS+20 Review. A challenge was posed as to why governments should care about the IGF if it is only engaging in dialogue and not decision making. In responding to these points, WGIG members variously argued that the WGIG’s methodology and conceptual approach are applicable to the new issues of the day; that the IGF should retain its fundamental features and focus on Internet governance, including new Internet-dependent issues like data; and that the IGF should receive a permanent mandate from the WSIS+20 Review, inter alia so it could address controversial and challenging issues more effectively.
