From Organizations:

ACIEDD

Pertinent mais il faut l'implication des toutes les parties

bien

intéressant

bien

ras

alternance

bien

IGF 2024:

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience intéressant

ARPCE (Agence de Régulation des Postes et Communications Électroniques)

One of the factors in the success of the IGF 2024 was the facilitation of the process for obtaining entry visas by the organizing country (online form and rapid processing at embassies).
We hope that Norway, as the host country, will quickly set up visa procedures, bearing in mind that the event is only 6 months away and that Norway has very few embassies in Africa.

IGF 2024:

Given the lengthy procedures involved in obtaining visas, it is important to speed up the registration and validation process.

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

ARPCE Congo

Given the relatively long preparation time for the course, it is important to :
1 - call for session proposals and session selection
2 - promptly open registration for participants and officials
3 - Provide information and visa procedures for entry into Norway, given that there are very few Norwegian embassies in the world (especially in Africa) and visa procedures are often slow and complex.
4 - Simplify visa procedures, which are generally slow and complex.

IGF 2024:

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE POUR LE PARTENARIAT ET L EMERGENCE EN AFRIQUE (AIPEA)/ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE POUR LES PAUVRES LES INDIGNÉS ET ASSISTANCE (AIPIA)/AIRGPAIRDAM/ACAEPB

INSTITUTIONS ORGANIZATIONS AND UN ENTITIES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

https://OCEAN expert.org/institution/20033

UN ALL AGENDA 2030/2050/2100

https:://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/
EXPERTS PATRIMOINES INTERGOUVERNEMENTAL UN GROUP, INDÉPENDANT

https://OCEAN expert.org/institution/20033 OR/ AND https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/

PRESIDENT CEO FOUNDER UN SCIENTIFIC ECONOMIC ENERGY SOCIAL MEDIA ENVIRONNEMENT LEGAL GROUP/ EXPERTS PATRIMOINES INTERGOUVERNEMENTAL UN GROUP, INDÉPENDANT/ EXPERT PROFESSOR OCEAN GLOBAL ACADEMY

WINNER POSTERS SCIENCES : INTERNATIONAL CONFÉRENCE HIGHROC SCIENCE THE 07 TO 09 NOVEMBER 2017, BRUSSELS, BELGIUM/ UN AGENDA 2030/2050/2100

INNOVATION PROGRAMME UN AGENDA 203/205/2100..

NO COMMENT, ALL SPEAKERS VERY GOOD/ https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/

EXPERTS PATRIMOINES INTERGOUVERNEMENTAL UN GROUP, INDÉPENDANT, PRESIDENT CEO FOUNDER UN SCIENTIFIC ECONOMIC ENERGY SOCIAL MEDIA ENVIRONNEMENT LEGAL GROUP, EXPERT PROFESSOR OCEAN GLOBAL ACADEMY (UN, UNESCO, COI, IODE, OTGA)

https://oceanexpert.org/institution/20033
OR/AND https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/
UN ENTITIES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

https://oceanexpert.org/institution/20034

NO COMMENT

NO COMMENT VÉRITABLE

CONTINIOUS PROGRAMME 2025, IMPROUVE, PLEASE.

IGF 2024:

APPLICATION ALL AGENDA UN 2030/2050/2100...

FURUM SENSIBILITY COMMUNAUTY IGF 2025

INNOVATION NEW NUMERIC AND ALL BIODIVERDITY PLANET

VERY VERY GOOD PROGRAMM OF UN ALL AGENDA 2030/2050/2100..... / 2026-2035 OF THE UN AGENDA TRANSPORT...

YES, ZOOM, WEBINAR... WHATSAPP CONNECT GROUP...

OK OF THE ALL PROGRAMMS 2025 IGF, PLEASE.

SIGNED: PROF. LEBEAU PEMHA THINA

TEL: +33758742629
E.MAIL: aipeaaipiainterassos@gmail.com OR associations.internationales@gmail.com / aipeaaipiainterassos@gmail.com

IGF 2024 IS GOOD / IGF 2025 IS GOOD EGALITY, PLEASE

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience https:://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/
EXPERTS PATRIMOINES INTERGOUVERNEMENTAL UN GROUP, INDÉPENDANT

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

INSTITUTIONS ORGANIZATIONS AND UN ENTITIES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

https://OCEAN expert.org/institution/20033

UN ALL AGENDA 2030/2050/2100

https:://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/
EXPERTS PATRIMOINES INTERGOUVERNEMENTAL UN GROUP, INDÉPENDANT

https://OCEAN expert.org/institution/20033 OR/ AND https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/

PRESIDENT CEO FOUNDER UN SCIENTIFIC ECONOMIC ENERGY SOCIAL MEDIA ENVIRONNEMENT LEGAL GROUP/ EXPERTS PATRIMOINES INTERGOUVERNEMENTAL UN GROUP, INDÉPENDANT/ EXPERT PROFESSOR OCEAN GLOBAL ACADEMY

WINNER POSTERS SCIENCES : INTERNATIONAL CONFÉRENCE HIGHROC SCIENCE THE 07 TO 09 NOVEMBER 2017, BRUSSELS, BELGIUM/ UN AGENDA 2030/2050/2100

INNOVATION PROGRAMME UN AGENDA 203/205/2100..

NO COMMENT, ALL SPEAKERS VERY GOOD/ https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/

https://oceanexpert.org/institution/20033
OR/AND https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/
UN ENTITIES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

https://oceanexpert.org/institution/20034

NO COMMENT

NO COMMENT VÉRITABLE

CONTINIOUS PROGRAMME 2025, IMPROUVE, PLEASE.

IGF 2024:

APPLICATION ALL AGENDA UN 2030/2050/2100...

FURUM SENSIBILITY COMMUNAUTY IGF 2025

INNOVATION NEW NUMERIC AND ALL BIODIVERDITY PLANET

VERY VERY GOOD PROGRAMM OF UN ALL AGENDA 2030/2050/2100..... / 2026-2035 OF THE UN AGENDA TRANSPORT...

YES, ZOOM, WEBINAR... WHATSAPP CONNECT GROUP...

IGF 2024 IS GOOD / IGF 2025 IS GOOD EGALITY, PLEASE

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience https:://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/expert/prof-dr-lebeau-pemha-thina/
EXPERTS PATRIMOINES INTERGOUVERNEMENTAL UN GROUP, INDÉPENDANT

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Bangladesh Kids Internet Governance Forum

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024, held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, had a mix of successes and areas for improvement. Here's a brief overview:

What Worked Well:
Multistakeholder Engagement: The IGF 2024 saw robust participation from various stakeholders, including governments, private sector, civil society, and academia. This diverse participation enriched discussions and fostered a collaborative environment.

High-Level Leaders' Track: The inclusion of high-level leaders from different sectors provided valuable insights and helped shape the global digital policy agenda.

Capacity Development: The IGF 2024 focused on capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries, leveraging local knowledge and expertise.

Youth Engagement: The Youth Track and Newcomers Orientation sessions were particularly successful in engaging younger participants and newcomers to the IGF community.

What Didn't Work So Well:
Session Selection Process: Despite efforts to increase transparency, some participants felt that the selection process for sessions could be more inclusive and transparent.

Logistics and Coordination: There were challenges with logistics and coordination, particularly in managing the hybrid format of the event.

Outreach and Visibility: While there were efforts to enhance the visibility of the IGF, some stakeholders felt that more proactive outreach was needed to reach communities unfamiliar with the IGF.

Overall, the IGF 2024 was a step in the right direction, but there are areas that need improvement for future forums.

The IGF 2024, held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, had a well-structured program with a clear thematic focus. Here's an overview:

Thematic Focus:
The overarching theme for IGF 2024 was "Building our Multistakeholder Digital Future". This theme aimed to address the most pressing Internet and digital policy issues, such as access to the Internet, human rights, Internet fragmentation, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence.

Structure and Flow:
Opening Ceremony: The event kicked off with remarks from high-level leaders, including the United Nations Under-Secretary-General and the Minister of Communications and Information Technology of Saudi Arabia.

High-Level Leaders' Track: This track featured discussions with top leaders from various sectors, providing valuable insights into global digital policy.

Thematic Tracks: The program was divided into four main thematic tracks:

Advancing Human Rights and Inclusion in the Digital Age

Enhancing the Digital Contribution to Peace, Development, and Sustainability

Harnessing Innovation and Balancing Risks in the Digital Space

Improving Digital Governance for the Internet We Want

Youth Track: Engaged younger participants and newcomers, fostering the next generation of Internet governance leaders.

Parliamentary Track: Involved parliamentarians in discussions on digital policy and governance.

Capacity Development: Focused on building the capacity of Internet governance in developing countries.

Newcomers Orientation: Helped newcomers understand the IGF process and engage effectively.

Closing Ceremony: Summarized the key outcomes and set the stage for future IGF events.

The structure aimed to encourage focused discussions and foster collaboration among stakeholders.

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience
The IGF 2024 in Riyadh was designed as a hybrid event, combining both in-person and online participation. Here's an overview of the design and experience:

Design:
Physical Venue: The event took place at the King Abdulaziz International Conference Center (KAICC), providing a spacious and well-equipped venue for in-person attendees.

Online Platform: A robust online platform was set up to facilitate remote participation, including live streaming of sessions, interactive Q&A features, and virtual networking opportunities.

Hybrid Sessions: Sessions were designed to be accessible to both in-person and online participants, with simultaneous live streaming and interactive elements to engage remote attendees.

Experience:
Accessibility: The hybrid format allowed for greater accessibility, enabling participants from around the world to join without the need for travel.

Engagement: Interactive features such as live Q&A and virtual networking helped maintain high levels of engagement among both in-person and remote participants.

Challenges: Despite the efforts, there were some logistical challenges, such as technical issues with audio-visual equipment and ambient noise in workshop rooms. Additionally, the distinction between VIP and regular participants created a sense of hierarchy that some found contrary to the spirit of equal participation.

Overall, the hybrid format of IGF 2024 was a step towards more inclusive and accessible Internet governance discussions, though there were areas that could be improved for future events.

The logistics for IGF 2024 were designed to ensure smooth operations and accessibility for all participants. Here's an overview:

Website and Mobile App:
Website: The official IGF 2024 website provided comprehensive information about the event, including the schedule, session details, and registration information.

Mobile App: A mobile app was available for download, allowing participants to access event information on-the-go, sync the event schedule with their calendars, and receive updates.

Schedule and Registration:
Schedule: The event schedule was accessible through the website and mobile app, with options to sync with Google Calendar, Outlook, and Apple Calendar.

Registration: Participants could register online through the event website, with options for both in-person and online attendance.

Access and Use of Online Platform:
Online Platform: The online platform facilitated remote participation, including live streaming of sessions, interactive Q&A features, and virtual networking opportunities.

Technical Support: Support guides and event planners were available to assist participants with any technical issues or questions.

Bilateral Meeting System:
Bilateral Meetings: The platform included a system for scheduling and conducting bilateral meetings, allowing participants to connect and collaborate more effectively.

Security:
Security Measures: Robust security measures were in place to ensure the safety and privacy of all participants, both online and in-person.

Overall, the logistics for IGF 2024 were well-organized, though there were some challenges with technical issues and coordination.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 in Riyadh featured several intersessional activities, including Best Practice Forums (BPFs), Policy Networks (PNs), and National, Regional, and Youth Initiatives (NRIs). These activities played a crucial role in shaping the annual program and ensuring a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance1.

Best Practice Forums (BPFs)
BPFs are multistakeholder networks focusing on existing and emerging good practices. For example, the BPF on Cybersecurity discussed actionable solutions and best practices for cybersecurity capacity-building. These forums provided valuable insights and recommendations that were integrated into the main sessions of the IGF 20242.

Policy Networks (PNs)
PNs are efforts that provide in-depth expert views on broad Internet governance topics. For instance, the PN on Internet Fragmentation explored codes of conduct to prevent fragmentation, while the PN on Meaningful Access focused on achieving universal access for all. These networks contributed to the development of the IGF 2024 program by addressing critical issues and proposing solutions1.

National, Regional, and Youth Initiatives (NRIs)
NRIs are grassroots initiatives that bring together diverse stakeholders at the national, regional, and youth levels. The NRIs Coordination Session provided a platform for these initiatives to discuss their role in addressing global challenges and advancing digital governance. NRIs also contributed to the IGF 2024 program by sharing their experiences and best practices.

Integration into the Annual Program
The intersessional activities were integrated into the annual IGF program through various mechanisms. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) played a key role in shaping the program and ensuring that the outputs from BPFs, PNs, and NRIs were included. The MAG organized virtual meetings and open consultations to gather inputs from stakeholders and incorporate them into the main sessions.

Overall, the intersessional activities at IGF 2024 were instrumental in fostering collaboration and ensuring that diverse perspectives were represented in the discussions on Internet governance

The Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) at IGF 2024 played a significant role in shaping the event's program and fostering collaboration among stakeholders. Here's an overview of their process, content, and integration into the annual program:

Process:
Coordination and Planning: The Dynamic Coalition Coordination Group (DCCG) facilitated the planning and coordination of DC activities. This included organizing virtual meetings, setting strategic objectives, and developing work plans.

Collaboration with Other Initiatives: DCs actively collaborated with other IGF initiatives, such as Best Practice Forums (BPFs), Policy Networks (PNs), and National, Regional, and Youth Initiatives (NRIs). This collaboration helped create synergies and share expertise.

Proposal Submission: DCs submitted proposals for main sessions, joint events, and lightning talks. These proposals were reviewed and selected by the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).

Content:
Main Sessions: DCs organized main sessions on topics relevant to their focus areas, such as Internet rights, digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and innovation. These sessions provided in-depth discussions and actionable recommendations.

Joint Events: DCs participated in joint events, including a joint DC booth and DC lightning talks, to increase visibility and promote their work.

Bilateral Meetings: DCs utilized bilateral meeting rooms to hold annual meetings and discuss ongoing projects and collaborations.

Integration into the Annual Program:
Inclusion in Main Sessions: DCs contributed to the development of main sessions by providing substantive input and participating in MAG working groups. This ensured that their expertise and recommendations were integrated into the broader IGF program.

Visibility and Outreach: DCs increased their visibility through active participation in regional and annual IGF events, as well as other Internet governance-related activities. They also developed communication strategies to promote their work and align with IGF principles.

Feedback and Improvement: The DCCG and MAG continuously sought feedback from DC members to improve the planning, promotion, and integration of DC activities into the IGF processes.

Overall, the Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024 played a crucial role in fostering collaboration, sharing expertise, and contributing to the development of the annual program. Their efforts helped ensure that diverse perspectives were represented in the discussions on Internet governance.

The IGF 2024 program made significant strides in addressing gender perspectives and promoting inclusivity. Here are some key highlights:

Gender-Inclusive Content:
Sessions on Gender Issues: Several sessions focused explicitly on gender issues, such as "Her Data, Her Policies: Toward Gender-Inclusive Data Governance". These sessions explored gendered approaches to digital and data environments, emphasizing the need for policies that consider the unique needs of women and marginalized communities.

Gender Action Plan: The European Union's Gender Action Plan and Global Gateway strategy were highlighted in sessions, promoting an inclusive model of digitalization. These sessions underscored the importance of closing the gender digital divide and empowering women.

Speakers:
Diverse Representation: The program featured a diverse range of speakers, including women leaders from government, industry, civil society, academia, and international development. This diversity ensured that multiple perspectives were represented in discussions.

Gender Balance: Efforts were made to ensure gender balance among speakers and participants, fostering an inclusive environment for all attendees.

Quality of Discussions:
Inclusive Dialogue: The sessions facilitated inclusive dialogue, allowing participants to share their experiences and insights on gender issues in digital governance. This helped raise awareness and promote understanding of the challenges faced by women and marginalized communities.

Actionable Recommendations: Discussions led to actionable recommendations for advancing gender-inclusive policy making and digital transformation. These recommendations aimed to address gender disparities and promote equitable digital opportunities for all.

Overall, the IGF 2024 program made commendable efforts to integrate gender perspectives and promote inclusivity. However, there is always room for improvement, and continued focus on gender equality will be essential for future events.

The IGF 2024 program in Riyadh was rich with diverse content, featuring a wide range of sessions that covered pressing Internet governance issues. Here's a summary of the content, speakers, and quality of discussions:

Content:
Main Sessions: The program included sessions on advancing human rights and inclusion, enhancing digital contributions to peace and sustainability, innovation and risk balancing, and improving digital governance.

High-Level Leaders Track: This track featured discussions with top leaders from various sectors, providing valuable insights into global digital policy.

Youth Track: Engaged younger participants and newcomers, fostering the next generation of Internet governance leaders.

Parliamentary Track: Involved parliamentarians in discussions on digital policy and governance.

Intersessional Activities: BPFs, PNs, and NRIs contributed to the program by providing actionable recommendations and sharing best practices.

Speakers:
Diverse Representation: The speakers included representatives from government, civil society, industry, the technical community, and academia.

High-Profile Leaders: The opening ceremony featured remarks from the United Nations Under-Secretary-General and the Minister of Communications and Information Technology of Saudi Arabia.

Expert Panels: Sessions were led by experts in their respective fields, ensuring high-quality discussions and diverse perspectives.

Quality of Discussions:
Engagement: The sessions were interactive, with opportunities for participants to ask questions and engage in discussions.

Inclusivity: Efforts were made to ensure inclusivity, with a focus on gender balance and representation from different regions.

Challenges: Despite some logistical challenges, such as technical issues and ambient noise in workshop rooms, the overall quality of discussions was high.

Overall, the IGF 2024 sessions were well-organized and provided a platform for meaningful discussions on Internet governance.

This track featured discussions with top leaders from various sectors, providing valuable insights into global digital policy.

Involved parliamentarians in discussions on digital policy and governance.

Engaged younger participants and newcomers, fostering the next generation of Internet governance leaders.

The IGF 2024 Village was a vibrant and interactive space at the event, designed to facilitate networking, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among participants. Here's an overview:

Structure:
Exhibition Booths: The village featured over 80 exhibition booths hosted by various organizations, showcasing their work and initiatives related to Internet governance.

Networking Areas: Dedicated areas for networking allowed participants to connect with peers, share ideas, and build partnerships.

Lightning Talks: Short, focused talks were held in the village, providing insights into specific topics and sparking discussions.

Remote Hubs: For those unable to attend in person, remote hubs facilitated participation from various regions, ensuring a global reach.

Content:
Diverse Exhibitors: The booths represented a wide range of stakeholders, including government agencies, private sector companies, civil society organizations, and academic institutions.

Interactive Sessions: The village hosted interactive sessions, workshops, and roundtable discussions, encouraging active participation and engagement.

Showcasing Innovations: Organizations showcased their latest innovations and best practices in Internet governance, providing valuable insights and learning opportunities for attendees.

Integration into the Program:
Complementary to Main Sessions: The village activities complemented the main sessions, offering additional opportunities for learning and networking.

Inclusive Participation: The remote hubs and online equivalents ensured that participants from around the world could engage with the village activities, promoting inclusivity and global collaboration.

Overall, the IGF 2024 Village was a dynamic and inclusive space that enhanced the overall experience of the event, fostering connections and collaboration among participants.

The IGF 2024 communications, outreach, and outputs were designed to ensure broad engagement and effective dissemination of information. Here's an overview:

Communications and Outreach:
IGF Community Calls: The IGF Secretariat organized community calls to gather inputs from stakeholders on various aspects of the forum, including thematic inputs and taking stock of previous events.

Social Media Campaigns: Active social media campaigns were conducted to promote the event, engage with participants, and share updates. Platforms like Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook were used to reach a wider audience.

Press Releases and Media Coverage: Regular press releases were issued to inform the media about key developments and sessions. Media coverage helped raise awareness and attract more participants.

Remote Hubs and Online Participation: The establishment of remote hubs and the use of an online platform facilitated participation from regions unable to attend in person, ensuring a global reach.

Outputs:
Session Transcripts and Reports: Transcripts of all sessions were made available on the IGF website, providing a comprehensive record of the discussions. Reports summarizing key outcomes and recommendations were also published.

Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks (PNs) Outputs: BPFs and PNs produced reports and recommendations that were integrated into the main sessions and shared with the broader community.

Closing Ceremony and Future Goals: The closing ceremony highlighted the achievements of the forum and set ambitious goals for future dialogues, including formalizing UN status, boosting outputs, addressing digital divides, and developing AI governance strategies.

Overall, the communications, outreach, and outputs of IGF 2024 were well-coordinated and effective in engaging a diverse range of stakeholders and disseminating information.

Let's explore some suggestions for improvements for the IGF 2025, particularly focusing on the preparatory process, session proposals, selection, and consultations.

Preparatory Process:
Clear Timeline: Establish a clear and detailed timeline well in advance, with key milestones and deadlines for each stage of the preparation process. This should include deadlines for session proposals, MAG meetings, and open consultations.

Early Engagement: Begin engaging with stakeholders early to gather their inputs on key themes and issues. Early engagement can ensure that diverse perspectives are considered from the outset.

Call for Session Proposals and Selection:
Transparent Criteria: Clearly outline the criteria for session proposals to ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process. This can help potential session organizers understand what is expected and improve the quality of submissions.

Inclusive Selection: Ensure that the selection process is inclusive and representative of different regions, sectors, and stakeholder groups. This can be achieved through a balanced review panel and clear guidelines for evaluating proposals.

Feedback Mechanism: Provide constructive feedback to those whose session proposals are not selected. This can help them improve their proposals for future IGF events and encourage continued participation.

MAG and Open Consultations Meetings:
Regular Updates: Hold regular MAG meetings and open consultations to keep stakeholders informed and engaged throughout the preparatory process. These meetings should be well-publicized and accessible to all interested parties.

Interactive Formats: Use interactive formats for consultations, such as webinars, online surveys, and virtual town halls, to gather a wide range of inputs and foster dynamic discussions.

Documentation and Follow-Up: Ensure that meeting outcomes are well-documented and shared with the community. Follow up on action items and keep stakeholders updated on progress.

Additional Recommendations:
Hybrid Event Logistics: Improve the logistics and coordination of the hybrid format, addressing technical issues and ensuring seamless interaction between in-person and online participants.

Capacity Building: Continue to focus on capacity-building efforts, especially for participants from developing countries. This can include pre-event training sessions, mentoring programs, and providing resources to enhance their participation.

Outreach and Visibility: Enhance outreach efforts to raise awareness about the IGF and attract a broader audience. Use social media, partnerships with local organizations, and targeted campaigns to reach underrepresented communities.

In addition to taking necessary steps to simplify the visa process, sending invitations via email at least three months in advance will make visa, air ticket, and hotel bookings easier and more accessible for participants. In addition, we demand travel support for at least 50% of participants from Bangladesh.

By implementing these improvements, IGF 2025 can build on the successes of previous years and continue to advance inclusive and effective Internet governance.

IGF 2024:

The IGF 2025 program in Norway is structured to facilitate meaningful discussions and collaborations on Internet governance. Here's an overview of the overall program structure and flow:

Program Structure:
Opening Ceremony: The event will kick off with an opening ceremony, featuring keynotes from high-profile leaders and representatives from various stakeholder groups.

Main Sessions: These sessions will be organized around carefully selected themes, such as digital inclusion, public policy, online safety, and innovation. Each session will include presentations, panel discussions, and interactive Q&A segments.

Workshops and Breakout Sessions: These smaller, focused sessions will allow participants to dive deeper into specific topics and engage in hands-on activities, discussions, and problem-solving exercises.

High-Level Leaders Track: This track will feature discussions with top leaders from government, industry, civil society, and academia, providing valuable insights into global digital policy.

Youth Track: Engaging younger participants and newcomers, this track will foster the next generation of Internet governance leaders through interactive sessions and networking opportunities.

Parliamentary Track: This track will involve parliamentarians in discussions on digital policy and governance, highlighting the role of legislative bodies in shaping Internet governance.

Closing Ceremony: The event will conclude with a closing ceremony, summarizing key outcomes, achievements, and setting the stage for future dialogues.

Programme Flow:
Day 1: Opening ceremony, main sessions, and high-level leaders track.

Day 2: Workshops, breakout sessions, and youth track.

Day 3: Main sessions, parliamentary track, and interactive networking events.

Day 4: Workshops, breakout sessions, and collaborative activities.

Day 5: Main sessions, closing ceremony, and reflections on the event.

Integration of NRIs and Intersessional Activities:
NRIs: National, Regional, and Youth Initiatives (NRIs) will be integrated into the program through dedicated sessions, remote hubs, and collaborative activities. NRIs will have the opportunity to share their experiences and best practices.

Intersessional Activities: Best Practice Forums (BPFs), Policy Networks (PNs), and Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) will contribute to the program by providing actionable recommendations and sharing their work through main sessions and workshops.

Additional Features:
Remote Participation: The event will offer robust online participation options, including live streaming of sessions, interactive Q&A features, and virtual networking opportunities.

Exhibition Village: A vibrant exhibition village will facilitate networking, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among participants, featuring booths, lightning talks, and interactive sessions.

Technical Support: Dedicated technical support will be available to assist participants with any issues related to online participation.

Overall, the IGF 2025 program is designed to be inclusive, engaging, and impactful, fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing among diverse stakeholders.

Connecting community intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) with the IGF 2025 process is essential for a cohesive and inclusive approach to Internet governance. Here are some suggestions on how these connections can be strengthened:

Enhanced Communication and Coordination:
Regular Updates: Ensure that there are regular updates and communications between the IGF Secretariat and the coordinators of intersessional activities and NRIs. This can be facilitated through monthly virtual meetings and dedicated communication channels.

Centralized Platform: Develop a centralized online platform where all intersessional activities and NRIs can share their progress, reports, and upcoming events. This platform can serve as a hub for collaboration and information sharing.

Integration into the IGF 2025 Program:
Dedicated Sessions: Allocate dedicated sessions within the IGF 2025 program for intersessional activities and NRIs to present their work, findings, and recommendations. This can be done through main sessions, workshops, and breakout sessions.

Thematic Alignment: Ensure that the themes of intersessional activities and NRIs are aligned with the overarching themes of IGF 2025. This alignment can facilitate seamless integration and relevance in the programme.

Collaboration and Participation:
Joint Activities: Encourage collaboration between intersessional activities, NRIs, and other IGF initiatives. This can be done through joint events, webinars, and collaborative projects that address common goals and challenges.

Inclusion in MAG and Working Groups: Include representatives from intersessional activities and NRIs in the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and relevant working groups. This inclusion can ensure their perspectives are considered in the planning and decision-making processes.

Capacity Building and Support:
Training and Resources: Provide training and resources to coordinators of intersessional activities and NRIs to enhance their participation and engagement in the IGF process. This can include pre-event training sessions, mentoring programs, and access to relevant materials.

Financial Support: Explore options for financial support to assist NRIs and intersessional activities with travel, accommodation, and other expenses related to their participation in IGF 2025.

Visibility and Outreach:
Promotion and Visibility: Promote the work of intersessional activities and NRIs through IGF communication channels, including social media, newsletters, and the IGF website. Highlight their achievements and contributions to the broader Internet governance community.

Remote Participation: Facilitate remote participation options for NRIs and intersessional activities to ensure global inclusivity and engagement. This can include live streaming of sessions, interactive Q&A features, and virtual networking opportunities.

By implementing these strategies, the connection between community intersessional activities, NRIs, and the IGF 2025 process can be strengthened, ensuring a more inclusive and cohesive approach to Internet governance.

The IGF 2025 program in Norway is designed to address key issues in Internet governance through a thematic approach, diverse session types, and a wide range of speakers. Here's an overview:

Thematic Approach:
Digital Inclusion: Sessions will focus on bridging the digital divide, ensuring that everyone has access to the Internet and the skills to use it effectively.

Public Policy: Discussions will revolve around the development and implementation of policies that promote a safe, open, and inclusive Internet.

Online Safety: Sessions will address measures to protect users from online threats, including cyberbullying, misinformation, and privacy breaches.

Innovation and Sustainability: These sessions will explore how technological advancements can be harnessed for sustainable development and innovation in Internet governance.

Session Types:
Main Sessions: High-level discussions featuring presentations, panel discussions, and interactive Q&A segments.

Workshops: Hands-on sessions where participants can engage in problem-solving exercises and collaborative activities.

Breakout Sessions: Smaller, focused discussions on specific topics, allowing for more in-depth exploration and interaction.

Lightning Talks: Short, focused talks that provide quick insights into specific issues or innovations.

Networking Events: Opportunities for participants to connect, share ideas, and build partnerships.

Speakers Profiles:
Government Representatives: Leaders from various governments who will share their perspectives on Internet governance and policy.

Industry Leaders: Executives from tech companies and other industries who will discuss the role of the private sector in shaping the Internet.

Civil Society Members: Representatives from NGOs and advocacy groups who will highlight the importance of human rights and inclusivity in Internet governance.

Academics and Researchers: Experts from universities and research institutions who will provide insights based on their studies and findings.

Technical Experts: Specialists in cybersecurity, data privacy, and other technical areas who will offer their expertise on complex issues.

The program is designed to be inclusive and engaging, ensuring that diverse voices are heard and that participants can gain valuable insights and build meaningful connections.

The National, Regional, and Youth Initiatives (NRIs) at IGF 2024 played a crucial role in ensuring diverse perspectives and grassroots participation. Here's an overview of their process, content, and integration into the annual program:

Process:
Virtual Meetings: NRIs held regular virtual meetings throughout the year to coordinate their activities and prepare for the IGF 2024. These meetings facilitated discussions on key topics and helped align their agendas with the main event.

NRIs Coordination Session: A dedicated session was held to finalize the NRIs' main session title and plan the format for their participation. This session included consultations on the title and discussions on the process for suggesting speakers and moderators.

Collaboration with MAG: NRIs coordinators actively engaged with the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) to ensure their inputs were considered in the main program. This collaboration helped integrate NRIs' perspectives into the broader IGF discussions.

Content:
Main Session: The NRIs' main session, titled "Evolving Role of NRIs in Multistakeholder Digital Governance," focused on the contributions of NRIs to Internet governance and digital policy processes. The session highlighted best practices, challenges, and opportunities for NRIs in promoting inclusive and sustainable digital governance.

Remote Hubs: NRIs established remote hubs to increase visibility and participation from various regions. These hubs facilitated local discussions and provided inputs to the main sessions.

Collaborative Activities: NRIs engaged in collaborative activities with other IGF initiatives, such as Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks (PNs), to share expertise and develop joint recommendations.

Integration into the Annual Program:
Inclusion in Main Sessions: NRIs' contributions were integrated into the main sessions through their active participation in MAG working groups and the submission of proposals for joint events. This ensured that their perspectives were represented in the broader discussions on Internet governance.

Visibility and Outreach: NRIs increased their visibility through continuous communication and updates shared by the IGF Secretariat. This helped raise awareness about their work and attract more participants to their activities.

Feedback and Improvement: The NRIs' coordinators provided feedback on the planning and execution of their activities, helping to improve the integration of NRIs into the IGF processes.

Overall, the NRIs at IGF 2024 played a vital role in fostering inclusive and participatory Internet governance discussions. Their efforts helped ensure that diverse voices were heard and considered in shaping the global digital policy agenda.

To ensure a successful and inclusive IGF 2025 in Norway, it's crucial to invite a diverse range of participants and facilitate meaningful connections among them. Here's a comprehensive approach:

Who to Invite:
Government Representatives: Include policymakers and regulators from national and international governments to share their insights and experiences on digital policy.

Industry Leaders: Invite executives and experts from tech companies, telecommunications firms, and other relevant industries to discuss innovations and their role in Internet governance.

Civil Society Members: Engage representatives from NGOs, advocacy groups, and grassroots organizations to bring in perspectives on human rights, digital inclusion, and community-driven initiatives.

Academics and Researchers: Include scholars and researchers from universities and research institutions to provide evidence-based insights and findings on key issues.

Technical Experts: Invite specialists in cybersecurity, data privacy, and other technical fields to address complex technical challenges and solutions.

Youth Representatives: Encourage the participation of young leaders and students to ensure the voices of the next generation are heard and considered.

International Organizations: Include representatives from international bodies such as the United Nations, World Bank, and ITU to provide a global perspective on Internet governance.

Media and Journalists: Engage media professionals to cover the event, share key discussions, and raise awareness about the importance of Internet governance.

How to Inter-Connect Participants:
Pre-Event Networking: Organize virtual meet-and-greet sessions before the event to allow participants to introduce themselves and start building connections.

Thematic Working Groups: Create working groups based on thematic areas of interest, enabling participants with similar focuses to collaborate and share ideas throughout the event.

Interactive Sessions: Design sessions with interactive elements such as live Q&A, breakout discussions, and collaborative workshops to encourage active participation and dialogue.

Networking Opportunities: Allocate dedicated times for networking, including coffee breaks, lunch sessions, and evening receptions, to facilitate informal interactions.

Mentorship Program: Implement a mentorship program where experienced participants can guide newcomers and youth representatives, fostering knowledge exchange and support.

Online Platform: Utilize an online platform that allows participants to connect, message each other, and join virtual networking rooms, ensuring inclusivity for remote attendees.

Bilateral Meeting System: Provide a system for scheduling and conducting bilateral meetings, enabling participants to arrange one-on-one or small group discussions.

Interactive Exhibition Village: Set up an exhibition village with interactive booths where participants can engage with exhibitors, learn about their initiatives, and network.

By inviting a diverse range of participants and facilitating meaningful connections, IGF 2025 can foster a collaborative and inclusive environment for discussing and shaping the future of Internet governance.

The IGF 2025 can play a crucial role in contributing to the WSIS+20 Review and supporting the implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Here's how:

Contribution to WSIS+20 Review:
Multistakeholder Dialogue: The IGF can facilitate multistakeholder dialogue on the progress and challenges of implementing WSIS Action Lines. By bringing together government representatives, industry leaders, civil society, and technical experts, the IGF can provide a platform for comprehensive discussions and collaborative solutions.

Best Practices and Recommendations: Through its workshops, breakout sessions, and main sessions, the IGF can gather and share best practices and recommendations for improving the implementation of WSIS outcomes. These insights can be compiled into a report to be presented at the high-level meeting in 20251.

Engagement with NRIs: National, Regional, and Youth Initiatives (NRIs) can be actively involved in the WSIS+20 Review process through the IGF. NRIs can provide valuable input on regional and local perspectives, ensuring a more inclusive and comprehensive review.

Supporting the Implementation of the Global Digital Compact:
Policy Development: The IGF can serve as a forum for developing and refining policies that align with the principles of the GDC. By engaging diverse stakeholders, the IGF can help create a governance framework that promotes a secure, human-centered digital future.

Capacity Building: The IGF can offer capacity-building programs and resources to help stakeholders understand and implement the GDC. This can include training sessions, workshops, and online resources tailored to different stakeholder groups.

Monitoring and Evaluation: The IGF can establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the GDC. By tracking progress and identifying gaps, the IGF can provide actionable recommendations for improvement.

Collaboration and Partnerships: The IGF can foster collaboration and partnerships among stakeholders to leverage collective efforts in implementing the GDC. This can include joint projects, knowledge sharing, and coordinated advocacy initiatives.

By leveraging its unique position as a multistakeholder platform, the IGF 2025 can significantly contribute to the WSIS+20 Review and support the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, ensuring a more inclusive and effective approach to digital governance.

Here are a few additional thoughts on IGF 2024:

Innovation and Emerging Technologies
AI and Ethics: One of the standout topics was the discussion on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ethics. The sessions emphasized the need for ethical guidelines and frameworks to ensure AI development aligns with human rights and societal values.

Digital Inclusion: Sessions on digital inclusion highlighted innovative approaches to bridging the digital divide, particularly for underserved communities. Initiatives focusing on affordable Internet access, digital literacy, and accessible technology were showcased.

Global Cooperation
International Collaboration: IGF 2024 underscored the importance of international cooperation in addressing global digital challenges. Cross-border collaborations, knowledge sharing, and joint initiatives were emphasized as key to effective Internet governance.

Multistakeholder Approach: The forum reinforced the value of the multistakeholder approach, bringing together diverse perspectives to foster holistic and inclusive policy-making.

Reflections and Future Directions
Continuous Improvement: While IGF 2024 made significant strides, there are areas for improvement, such as enhancing transparency in session selection and addressing logistical challenges in hybrid events.

Building on Success: The forum set the stage for future dialogues and initiatives, focusing on formalizing UN status, addressing digital divides, and developing comprehensive AI governance strategies.

In addition to taking necessary steps to simplify the visa process, sending invitations via email at least three months in advance will make visa, air ticket, and hotel bookings easier and more accessible for participants. In addition, we demand travel support for at least 50% of participants from Bangladesh.

Overall, IGF 2024 was a successful and impactful event, fostering meaningful discussions and collaborations in the realm of Internet governance.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience
The IGF 2024 in Riyadh was designed as a hybrid event, combining both in-person and online participation. Here's an overview of the design and experience:

Design:
Physical Venue: The event took place at the King Abdulaziz International Conference Center (KAICC), providing a spacious and well-equipped venue for in-person attendees.

Online Platform: A robust online platform was set up to facilitate remote participation, including live streaming of sessions, interactive Q&A features, and virtual networking opportunities.

Hybrid Sessions: Sessions were designed to be accessible to both in-person and online participants, with simultaneous live streaming and interactive elements to engage remote attendees.

Experience:
Accessibility: The hybrid format allowed for greater accessibility, enabling participants from around the world to join without the need for travel.

Engagement: Interactive features such as live Q&A and virtual networking helped maintain high levels of engagement among both in-person and remote participants.

Challenges: Despite the efforts, there were some logistical challenges, such as technical issues with audio-visual equipment and ambient noise in workshop rooms. Additionally, the distinction between VIP and regular participants created a sense of hierarchy that some found contrary to the spirit of equal participation.

Overall, the hybrid format of IGF 2024 was a step towards more inclusive and accessible Internet governance discussions, though there were areas that could be improved for future events.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Bangladesh Lawyer Internet Governance Forum

This track featured discussions with top leaders from various sectors, providing valuable insights into global digital policy.

Involved parliamentarians in discussions on digital policy and governance.

Engaged younger participants and newcomers, fostering the next generation of Internet governance leaders.

Great! Let's explore some suggestions for improvements for the IGF 2025, particularly focusing on the preparatory process, session proposals, selection, and consultations.

Preparatory Process:
Clear Timeline: Establish a clear and detailed timeline well in advance, with key milestones and deadlines for each stage of the preparation process. This should include deadlines for session proposals, MAG meetings, and open consultations.

Early Engagement: Begin engaging with stakeholders early to gather their inputs on key themes and issues. Early engagement can ensure that diverse perspectives are considered from the outset.

Call for Session Proposals and Selection:
Transparent Criteria: Clearly outline the criteria for session proposals to ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process. This can help potential session organizers understand what is expected and improve the quality of submissions.

Inclusive Selection: Ensure that the selection process is inclusive and representative of different regions, sectors, and stakeholder groups. This can be achieved through a balanced review panel and clear guidelines for evaluating proposals.

Feedback Mechanism: Provide constructive feedback to those whose session proposals are not selected. This can help them improve their proposals for future IGF events and encourage continued participation.

MAG and Open Consultations Meetings:
Regular Updates: Hold regular MAG meetings and open consultations to keep stakeholders informed and engaged throughout the preparatory process. These meetings should be well-publicized and accessible to all interested parties.

Interactive Formats: Use interactive formats for consultations, such as webinars, online surveys, and virtual town halls, to gather a wide range of inputs and foster dynamic discussions.

Documentation and Follow-Up: Ensure that meeting outcomes are well-documented and shared with the community. Follow up on action items and keep stakeholders updated on progress.

Additional Recommendations:
Hybrid Event Logistics: Improve the logistics and coordination of the hybrid format, addressing technical issues and ensuring seamless interaction between in-person and online participants.

Capacity Building: Continue to focus on capacity-building efforts, especially for participants from developing countries. This can include pre-event training sessions, mentoring programs, and providing resources to enhance their participation.

Outreach and Visibility: Enhance outreach efforts to raise awareness about the IGF and attract a broader audience. Use social media, partnerships with local organizations, and targeted campaigns to reach underrepresented communities.

In addition to taking necessary steps to simplify the visa process, sending invitations via email at least three months in advance will make visa, air ticket, and hotel bookings easier and more accessible for participants. In addition, we demand travel support for at least 50% of participants from Bangladesh.

By implementing these improvements, IGF 2025 can build on the successes of previous years and continue to advance inclusive and effective Internet governance.

IGF 2024:

Certainly! Here are a few additional thoughts on IGF 2024:

Innovation and Emerging Technologies
AI and Ethics: One of the standout topics was the discussion on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ethics. The sessions emphasized the need for ethical guidelines and frameworks to ensure AI development aligns with human rights and societal values.

Digital Inclusion: Sessions on digital inclusion highlighted innovative approaches to bridging the digital divide, particularly for underserved communities. Initiatives focusing on affordable Internet access, digital literacy, and accessible technology were showcased.

Global Cooperation
International Collaboration: IGF 2024 underscored the importance of international cooperation in addressing global digital challenges. Cross-border collaborations, knowledge sharing, and joint initiatives were emphasized as key to effective Internet governance.

Multistakeholder Approach: The forum reinforced the value of the multistakeholder approach, bringing together diverse perspectives to foster holistic and inclusive policy-making.

Reflections and Future Directions
Continuous Improvement: While IGF 2024 made significant strides, there are areas for improvement, such as enhancing transparency in session selection and addressing logistical challenges in hybrid events.

Building on Success: The forum set the stage for future dialogues and initiatives, focusing on formalizing UN status, addressing digital divides, and developing comprehensive AI governance strategies.

In addition to taking necessary steps to simplify the visa process, sending invitations via email at least three months in advance will make visa, air ticket, and hotel bookings easier and more accessible for participants. In addition, we demand travel support for at least 50% of participants from Bangladesh.

Overall, IGF 2024 was a successful and impactful event, fostering meaningful discussions and collaborations in the realm of Internet governance.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Bcide

IGF 2024:

CGNet Swara

Worked well.

The hybrid format should also cover the lightning talks from the next forum.

Website works best for all the necessary details and informations.

Need to have more information around the dynamic coalition focusing on the first time participants. Maybe two dedicated sessions for the first timers would have been great.

Worked well.

Found it very good, diversified and highly interactive.

Worked well.

Worked well

Worked well.

IGF 2024:

We can follow the same structure with option to filter workshops, talks and sessions based on rooms, and themes.

Wou

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format should also cover the lightning talks from the next forum.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Worked well.

The hybrid format should also cover the lightning talks from the next forum.

Website works best for all the necessary details and informations.

Need to have more information around the dynamic coalition focusing on the first time participants. Maybe two dedicated sessions for the first timers would have been great.

Worked well.

Found it very good, diversified and highly interactive.

Worked well.

Worked well

Worked well.

IGF 2024:

We can follow the same structure with option to filter workshops, talks and sessions based on rooms, and themes.

Wou

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format should also cover the lightning talks from the next forum.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

DC IS3C

No comments on the process and the venue, minus one, see below.

The IGF village in the middle of the conference was excellent and no burden due to the use of headphones.

The ability to present outcomes of intersessional work was dismal this year. IS3C works (and other DCs I suppose work) a whole IGF cycle to present its work at an IGF and this has become near impossible in the current set up.

Having so little toilets in such a big venue is embarrassing to say the least.

Not having a social night was not good, as it is perfect to meet people. Losing music night was too bad, but not the end of the world.

No complaints.

Except for connection chaos in a bilateral room that took half an hour to solve, there are no complaints at all. Everything worked fine.

The unprofessionalism of the technicians in some rooms was a problem at some sessions, as they were not paying attention, had walked away or caused interference of signals themselves, because of playing a game or something.

The system of booking a bilateral room appears not to work properly. IS3C's general meeting was booked and confirmed for 1,5 hours twice. Then the first was cancelled. The second disappeared mysteriously from the schedule, without cancellation, as did the access to the system for the coordinator. This led to an embarrassing situation where external speakers were not able to present and a discussion on IS3C's future could not be held with members present.

Dynamic Coalitions produce tangible outcomes during the IGF cycle and want/need to present them at the IGF in a format that their work is noticed. This year it seemed like everything was done to make this hard to impossible. IS3C is fine with merging a workshop with like-minded DCs, as this allows for wider discussions on potential policy research or future plans.

This set up makes it hard to present and discuss outputs, as it does not fit in or doesn't match the format other DCs want to follow. For 2025 it is advised that the secretariat, MAG and DCs discuss together what it the best format to present reports, recommendations, etc., so that they a) are noticed by far more IGF participants b) become a part of the IGF outputs and c) there is clarity on how DCs' work fits in with e.g. the GDC process and other WSIS implementation.

It remains an issue that there are often too many speakers and at times it's hard to even get one question in. Having full gender and regional balance stands in the way of having less speakers. It is a tough balance. Moderators who seemed more neutral or professional, were often stricter in intervening and allowed for questions.

There is seldom any interaction between workshop organisers and intersessional processes. Except, when the organiser is involved in intersessional work.

Great. It should be like this always.

IGF 2024:

It has to become better known within the whole IGF structure what DCs are planning to deliver in the 2025 IGF cycle (and beyond). Only this way can the work of DCs integrate better into the IGF programme and become a part of relevant sessions at the IGF. This is something that can be discussed in the first MAG meeting.

Make the question 'How do you foresee interaction with relevant intersessional processes (BPF/PN/DC) in your workshop/open forum/etc.' a) mandatory to answer and b) to act upon actively in session application forms.

Create a platform at the IGF where DCs can give short presentations of their outcomes in such a way that there is a chance they will be heard.

It is advisable to undertake an inventory on how intersessional work can contribute to these processes and act more pro-actively on this process. A second question can be which BPF/PN/DC expects to contribute to the WSIS/GDC process.

The people in KSA were friendly and helpful.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Except for connection chaos in a bilateral room that took half an hour to solve, there are no complaints at all. Everything worked fine.

The unprofessionalism of the technicians in some rooms was a problem at some sessions, as they were not paying attention, had walked away or caused interference of signals themselves, because of playing a game or something.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

DCAD

I think the whole process worked well. One change to make for DC sessions is that if we are partnering with another DC we should know in the beginning instead of creating a session and then a few months later having to change the session description as we are partnering with another DC so need to do a combined session. That is double the work. If we are combining with another DC please let us know ahead of time.

Good flow. Usual problems of having too many sessions and not being able to attend all.

The format worked well for us. The experience not so. The problems were technical in nature as the host country did a very poor job in setting up the audio. Too much cross talk. People said it was the lack of ceilings but that was not the problem. It was the lack of a good audio set up. In the rooms we could hear other sessions by changing the channel. As a result, there was too much interference in the systems and we could not hear properly in the room. The sound would disappear. It was also a very big problem for the captioning. In Baku, there was a similar design but there was no cross-talk. 1) each room had only one channel and could not hear any other session 2) headsets worked only in that room.

Also, the people manning the cameras and zoom audio were not trained properly. Also, they seemed to not concentrate or care about what they were doing. Often they were on their phones and when there was a drop in the audio or the captioning was not working you had to go to them and let them know and then they would struggle to fix it. Poor training

All worked fine. was very confusing in registering and making sure to check the box to have your name be listed. There were no real instructions on how to do this.
It was very easy to book a bilateral room. Registration was also easy. The app was easy to use.
What was difficult was on site you had to get a passcode and text message each time to use the Internet and sometimes a few times a day. It was very difficult for our fellows who did not have a local number and did not have roaming on to get onto the internet. This type of system should not be used in the future.

I think this was easy, but too much overlap with the Policy networks and the other sessions.

See my earlier comment on creating your session
Once session was created it was easy to use. Liked that they were listed in the program. Also if requested could have our annual meeting be listed in the program even though it was in a bilateral room

Would loved to see this question asked --How do you see the IGF 2024 content from a disability perspective

The Stage for the main sessions also had a dangerous ramp that was unsafe.

Glad to see that all these sessions had interpretation, captioning, and sign language. a Big improvement over the last year

The room where the parliamentary track was held had a very dangerous ramp that was built poorly so care needs to be taken that all accessibility challenges be met. This can be done by having an accessibility expert come on when the walk-throughs are being done and then review everything before the event to ensure that safety is front and center.

Really liked how the village was the center of all the sessions. worked really well. Main problem with the village was that the floors were uneven and so very difficult for persons with visual and mobility disabilities as it was a bit dangerous for them and very unsafe. More care needs to be taken to ensure the floors are even and the carpet is even. Also if ramps are built, they need to be done correctly and not sloppily. In several cases it was a bit dangerous

This will be problematic since less than 6 months and so everything will be crunched so not a very good judgment of the preparatory process.

IGF 2024:

I think the mixture of lightening talks, info sessions, and workshops was a good mix.

all good

More networking events for people to mingle. Maybe lunch tables set up relating to themes or other topics for people to meet and talk.
There were no evening events but that is always a good way for people to meet and mingle.

1) an accessibility person should come out when the UN security team is reviewing the location to give advice on accessibility issues with the location
2) Persons with disabilities should have a special code or key on their badges to identify them and give them access to accessible restrooms, quiet rooms for relaxing, also access to special busses or other transportation when the distances are very large like they were in Riyadh. This would assist them with getting food and allow for people to assist them when needed.
3) special attention should be paid to ensure that all ramps are safe and the floor is smooth
4) Menus should be online and state what the food options are, especially for people with visual disabilities. This also helps people with allergies or on various diets or religious requirements.
5) more neckloops so that persons with hearing disabilities or cochlear implants can use them
6) See the DCAD accessibility guidelines for other issues.
6) more restroom facilities and also making sure that all restrooms have toilet paper, soap and towels.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The format worked well for us. The experience not so. The problems were technical in nature as the host country did a very poor job in setting up the audio. Too much cross talk. People said it was the lack of ceilings but that was not the problem. It was the lack of a good audio set up. In the rooms we could hear other sessions by changing the channel. As a result, there was too much interference in the systems and we could not hear properly in the room. The sound would disappear. It was also a very big problem for the captioning. In Baku, there was a similar design but there was no cross-talk. 1) each room had only one channel and could not hear any other session 2) headsets worked only in that room.

Also, the people manning the cameras and zoom audio were not trained properly. Also, they seemed to not concentrate or care about what they were doing. Often they were on their phones and when there was a drop in the audio or the captioning was not working you had to go to them and let them know and then they would struggle to fix it. Poor training

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Digital Opportunities Foundation, Germany

Overall the processes worked very well, the session selection process was adequately performed and fair. MAG meetings were informative but, sometime could have been held on a more regular basis. The mentee programme was a very important new feature in capacity building.

The chosen thematic focus was very timely for 2024 and the programme well structured. Although children's rights featured prominently, given that one out of five high level sessions was dedicated to this issue, addressing human rights in general was lagging behind.

The hybrid format was well intended but the low technical features onsite did impact online participation.

The IGF website is still an issue with low reaction time to requests and often low performance at all. The host country website came in too late before the annual meeting as well as the schedule. Although the conference centre is impressing as a facility, the noise in the ceiling-less workshop rooms was very disturbing.

Overall these intersessional activities were adequately included in the IGF programme.

Dynamic Coalitions' work was challenged by a reduced number of workshops slots dedicated to them. Collaboration turned out to be a good solution. Many DCs found new ways of addressing relevant issues together. The DCs' main session showcased the relevance of Dynamic Coalitions' intersessional work for the implementation of the GDC.

Gender is a cross-cutting issue that could have been addressed in some more sessions. Participation was fairly balanced from a gender perspective although we missed representation from some organisations esp. from WEOG region.

The selection of sessions was timely and very balanced in regard of the most pressing issues, although humans rights could have been addressed more prominently.

Very well

Geographical coverage of parliamentary participation was a bit patchy.

Very well

IGF Village was a success story this year and provided an urgently needed space for interaction and exchange with participants.

Very well

Given the very short time to prepare the IGF 2025 meeting, MAG meetings and open consultations should be held on a regular at lees two weeks cycle. Processes need to be accelerated without loss of quality.

IGF 2024:

The main topic needs to be chosen quickly at the beginning of 2025 to ensure an excellent programme structure and flow. Human rights are under pressure around the globe and thus could make for a guiding red threat.

The early dates of IGF 2025 will be a challenge for the usual process of transferring issues and messages from NRIs to the global event. NRI organisers should seek to address this issue.

Given the short preparation phase processes need to be accelerated in order should to react on timely issues and respond immediately to geo-political developments. We should try to benefit from the time pressure by reacting faster instead of complaining it.

Overall these intersessional activities were adequately included in the IGF programme.

Build on the excellent experience of IGF village 2024. Ensure participation from young people and from less developed parts of the world by provision of travel funds.

Although the early date of the IGF 2025 causes time constraints it is also an opportunity to accelerate the implementation process of the GDC and react timely to global developments. IGF 2025 should be made a stop-over to gather input for the review process and the high-level meeting planned for the end of 2025.

Dedicate more time to the Open Mic session to give more participants online and onsite the opportunity to speak up and address the issues most relevant to them.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format was well intended but the low technical features onsite did impact online participation.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Eurovisioni

The whole preparatory process worked well. the only point arguable was the decision to keep the first preparatory meeting in the host country, that made more difficult to participate for some of the stakeholders.
The selection process has the same weakness of ever: not all the topics are made to please all stakeholders of all the regions. if you want to go indeep on some issues, sometimes you have to sacrifice the geographic or the multistakeholder full representation.

it was timely and appropriate.

the hybrid format in itself has proved to be fine. there were some logistic issues related to the venue that hosted the meeting. it made more difficult the hybrid experience, especially in the workshop rooms not acoustically isolated.
the generalized practice to have an on-site moderator and an on-line moderator has produced positive effects and needs to be extended and imposed to all events that want to be hybrid.
some events suffered by the absence of on-site participants and even of on-site moderators. in these cases, the hybrid experience has been very poor. in case of logistic problems, to have only the on-line moderator, could make nearly impossible to run correctly the event.

The mobile app was not very performing and had many limitations.
The venue was not conceived for mass events like the IGF and proved its limits. From the availability of bathrooms to the acoustic issues, was not ideal.

As co-chair of one of the policy networks, I have to recognized that the space given to us was excellent and allowed us to have a real interaction with the audience in the room and on-line and with the speakers.
what could have been done better would be to discuss the follow up of the intersessional activities with the MAG after the annual IGF. Unfortunately, this never happened until now, because there is no time to do so at the IGF, and the next MAG meeting there is the change of members, so many of the people that have been involved in the previous global IGF, are not anymore there to discuss about the possible follow up. This is one of the weaknesses of the process that need to be addressed during the renewal of the mandate.

No comment

In general it seems that most of the IGF events respected gender parity in the panels and most of the topics have afforded the issues keeping in account such aspect.

IGF in its nature is an "Helzapoppin" where you can find everything. Unfortunately there are no mechanisms of quality controls or of feedback, not even "satisfaction questionnaire" to evaluate the single events. you can have high quality panels and speakers, but also some self-celebrations events.
The overall impression about 2024 quality of the sessions was good and made worthwhile to attend it.

there was a lack of differentiation between the high level leaders track promoted by the host country and some of the main sessions of the IGF. a better coordination among the various tracks would be useful to avoid repetition or overlaps. This year the quality of the HL leaders track was very good and, in some cases, overshadow the IGF plenaries on the same topics. The positioning in the schedule of the HL was, in general, better than most of the IGF plenaries.

No time to attend.

this year there were some interesting experiences in the village, especially those coming from the host country, that presented some of its best examples of on-line, data-driven, a.i. based services. examples that rarely can be observed in other international fora.

it was interesting the experiment to bring journalists from LDC to cover the IGF. even if organized last minute, this is an experiment that needs to be pursued and better planned longtime in advance. This needs to be developed hand in hand with the local host, in order to maximize its impact and its returns. apart of that IGF once more suffered by lacking of coverage by traditional media. the production of a press and media review of the IGF is something that in the next mandate needs to be included and serve as basis for improving the efficiency of the communication efforts.

the 2025 preparatory process needs to be shorter, so there is no time for the traditional break of activities after the end of the year and the usual restart of the full process (end of March, or even in April in some cases). in 2025 we will not have this time and so activities don't have to break between XIX and XXth IGF. Contracts with temp staff at the secretariat need to be extended, not renewed...

IGF 2024:

a better coordination between the IGF sessions and the HLP is needed to avoid overlaps. probably the whole programme needs to be targeted to achieve a certain number of objectives and goals.
Plenaries and proposals need to focus on 2-3 priorities decided top-down from the MAG and the secretariat, that will have to occupy 40-50% of the spaces and time slots. NRI could be used as testbed to check and develop inputs for the IGF XX and to prepare the work in Norway. To the other proposals (to be identified with a shorter, less demanding and more agile selection process) will be left the remaining number of time slots and spaces.

Policy Networks: the IGF needs to find a way to make all the work done within these communities, useful and beneficiary to the rest of the world. The repository of knowledge cumulated over the years need to be made available to donors and governments.
NRI's: are the "last mile" connection of the IGF. a "plus" that no other organization has and that make the additional value of the IGF compared to any other IG related process. This unique resource could be used to provide suggestions and solutions to the global IGF, but also -viceversa- be used by IGF to test or to react to suggestions, proposals, stimulus coming from the global to the local.

2025 will be an exceptional year for the IGF, because there is at stake its renewal (or its cessation) and its future (or its end). As a consequence, the programme cannot be "business as usual". The newly appointed wave of "experienced" MAG members (those that have a lot of experience from the past) could be instrumental to help the whole MAG to identify the 2-3 priorities that IGF needs to focus on during its XXth session.
Among those could be mentioned: how the IGF needs to change to better serve the Internet community in the future ? which have to be its interactions with the other processes around (WSIS follow up, etc) and the other IG related institutions (ICANN, etc.) ? which changes would be needed to the Tunis' mandate to make these improvements possible ? which relationship could be built with the GDC process and how IGF could contribute to some of its steps ?

The space given to NRI within the IGF in Riyadh has been excellent and -in my view- correspond to the weight that needs to be attributed to the NRI in the future IGF mandate. NRI's are the terminals on the field of the Global IGF and as such would have to be used to collect inputs and to check potential solutions.
in this sense the global IGF programme, would need to be structures from one year to the other, on what NRI could provide as input to the process but also as feedback to the IGF process.

we need to have a strong connection and link with the WSIS follow-up process lead by ITU, because the WSIS+20 renewal is a common endeavor. Would be a lot stronger if IGF and WSIS follow up would come to the UNGA in September with common positions and proposal about their mandate's renewals and also about the improvements of their mandate, including some structural synergies for the future.
I think that invite persons like Nitin Desai or Hamadoun Toure or Markus Kummer, that have been there at the beginning of the process (and even before) could be really useful to enhance the level of the discussion.

How could the IGF 2025 contribute to WSIS+20 Review given the General Assembly resolution A/70/125 calls for a high-level meeting end of 2025 to review the overall implementation of the WSIS outcomes? THE BEST WAY TO CONTRIBUTE WOULD BE -ON ONE SIDE- CONCRETE PROPOSALS OF HOW TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE IGF PROCESS AND OF ITS IMPACT , AND -ON THE OTHER SIDE- TO PROVIDE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THORNY ISSUES ABOUT IG WHERE THE SOLUTION COULD BE ONLY MULTISTAKEHOLDER AND BRING SOME POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS ON THE TABLE OF THE INSTITUTIONS THAT COULD TAKE POSSIBLE MEASURES TO TRANSFORM THESE PROPOSALS BUILT ON CONSENSUS DOWN TO EARTH OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES OR RESOLUTIONS.
How do you see IGF supporting implementation of the Global Digital Compact?
THE GDC IMPLEMENTATION FORECAST A CERTAIN NUMBER OF STEPS WHERE ONLY A MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH COULD PRODUCE EFFECTIVE RESULTS. THE UN ENVIRONMENT IS UNABLE TO LISTEN TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS VOICES AND TO MAKE A SYNTHESIS. WE HAVE SEEN IT DURING THE PRELIMINARY GDC CONSULTATIVE PROCESS. SO THE IGF COULD PLAY THIS ROLE TO COMPLEMENT A MULTILATERAL PROCESS OVER IG WHENEVER THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER VOICE NEED TO BE HEARD.

it was an interesting edition. The host country was -at the same time- one of the reasons of the IGF XIX success, but also one of the reasons of its weaknesses. The presence of civil society and even of industry was less visible and relevant than in previous editions. Let's hope that this could be improved from next edition...

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience the hybrid format in itself has proved to be fine. there were some logistic issues related to the venue that hosted the meeting. it made more difficult the hybrid experience, especially in the workshop rooms not acoustically isolated.
the generalized practice to have an on-site moderator and an on-line moderator has produced positive effects and needs to be extended and imposed to all events that want to be hybrid.
some events suffered by the absence of on-site participants and even of on-site moderators. in these cases, the hybrid experience has been very poor. in case of logistic problems, to have only the on-line moderator, could make nearly impossible to run correctly the event.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Forums locaux du numérique DRC

Prepatory process was good
But the communication on social media about the meeting during the period event was not top. Even after the event.

Best thematics

Thank you to increase the teams for best outcomes

Logistics good

I didnt notice that

No messages sent for coalitions formed during Igf meeting. For followup

Very good, but we must talk much in 2025 about it. Dihital Inclusion

Good qualities of speakers, contents

Yes

In my country or Francophone africa

Dont catch

Well done

Not good during and after the meeting. Not at top
We dont have more infos

Create groups in africa to relay informations of activities

IGF 2024:

Nothing to signal

Pre conferences events

Topic : <<DIGITAL INCLUSION, DIGITAL FOR ALL>>

Target : Women and girls in Rural areas

In Africa, 582 million people belong to the rural population, and in Asia, more than 2 billion. This represents approximately 60% of the population of these two continents which lives in the countryside.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (my country) contains more than 70% of the rural population.

Forums locaux du numérique (Local digital forums) in DRC are revolutionizing access to digital skills in rural areas to promote the massive inclusion of the entire population, particularly women and girls.

The initiative aims to fill the training gap in these regions in partnership with potential technical partners.

A digitalized village will reduce the number of rural exoduses, because rural populations will have the same possibilities as those in urban areas in the digital field. Which is the future of humanity.

Each training center created during these forums becomes a pilot center for each territory nationwide.

Recommendations:

- Initiate more of the rural population, particularly women and girls in Africa digital tools;

- develop applications that can enable connectivity between villages;

- install wifi hot spots and training centers in each region (community telecenters);

- Promote women's initiatives in innovation, digital and technology;

- Invest in the creation of digital solutions for education and health;

- Reduce the cost of internet in rural areas.

Donc in Kinshasa (DemocraticRepublicofCongo), 12 th january 2025

Khibunda Ngongo Dab

Founder of Forums locaux du numérique
+243815754405

How to contact IGF bureau in DRC? Thanks to take cate for other countties

Youth people around the world.
Create groups of works before the meeting

Please create around the world some groups of work to followup if decisions are practiced well.
One représentant can do that. Thanks

Family

No.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Thank you to increase the teams for best outcomes

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

garbnews

very good

i hope this programs sim the next year

very nice

i hope this programs sim the next year

nothing

IGF 2024:

good

i hope this programs sim the next year

nothing

i hope this programs sim the next year

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience very nice

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Georgia Institute of Technology, Internet Governance Project

A recurring problem is that workshop selections seem to be based more on who you know than on what a proposal contributes to the dialogue and the qualifications.

The overarching theme was, as usual, inoffensive and broad. I am not sure the sub-themes contribute much to the program, they are just boxes that people sort their ideas into as needed. You might consider not having sub-themes at all and instead derive your sub-themes from classifying the proposals you get into widely shared interests or categories.

The Workshop rooms were a disaster. Please do not _ever_ put workshops in noisy common environments where everyone has to use headphones and microphones to hear anything and there is little reason to attend in person. There was often interference and microphones not working properly. Workshops are meeting spaces dependent on oral communication with the participants. please respect this and give them their own room.

Use of the Sched app worked adequately for this participant. One major problem was that the session listings in Sched did not say who organized the session or who the speakers were, and that would often be a major factor in deciding which ones to attend. I would have appreciated an ability to look at a list of individual participants and organizations that associated them with particular sessions. Security was handled quite well, it seemed tight but not too burdensome.

I do not believe "high-level leaders" should have a track that is segregated from the rest of the IGF. As a multistakeholder institution, IGF is supposed to bring everyone involved together.

The Village space was very good this year, it was at a central point where everyone converged and allowed for many serendipitous meetings.

The timeline is shortened, please announce who is on the MAG and get to work right away! To repeat from above, Please do not _ever_ put workshops in noisy common environments where everyone has to use headphones and microphones to hear anything and there is little reason to attend in person. There was often interference and microphones not working properly. Workshops are meeting spaces dependent on oral communication with the participants. please respect this and give them their own room.

IGF 2024:

The IGF program committee (MAG) needs to realize that we are in the middle of what is rapidly becoming a digital Cold War in which a certain group of nation-states is closing itself off with censorship and data flow restrictions, and another group is trying to exclude "foreign adversaries" from its digital ecosystem. The IGF should try to position itself as the neutral forum where these conflicts can be openly addressed and efforts at resolution explored.

There should be more social events in which all participants are able to interact. Please, no more rooms restricted to "VIPs"

We see the IGF as an independent space for multiple stakeholders to come together in a largely open way to network and exchange ideas and gather support for initiatives. We do not see it as an extension of the GDC. Because the WSIS process created IGF, it should be the maiin arena for the "high-level" meetings that review the WSIS outcomes. IGF itself, however, should continue beyond the WSIS process.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The Workshop rooms were a disaster. Please do not _ever_ put workshops in noisy common environments where everyone has to use headphones and microphones to hear anything and there is little reason to attend in person. There was often interference and microphones not working properly. Workshops are meeting spaces dependent on oral communication with the participants. please respect this and give them their own room.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Ghana IGF / Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation

The IGF 2024 preparatory process was a step in the right direction in fostering global engagement and creating a platform for diverse stakeholders to shape the event's programme. However, there are areas for improvement, particularly in terms of early engagement, session selection. By addressing these gaps, IGF 2025 can build on its successes and become an even more inclusive and impactful global digital governance discussions.

While IGF 2024's thematic focus, structure, and flow provided valuable insights into pressing global digital issues, there is room for improvement in streamlining the programme, ensuring more focused discussions, and strengthening the integration of all tracks. Addressing these issues will help make IGF 2025 a more cohesive, impactful, and inclusive event that better serves the global community and furthers the progress of digital governance and policy discussions.

The hybrid format was not effective this year, as there were numerous issues with the audiovisual setup. The overall setup and seating arrangements were also uninviting and not conducive to a productive experience.

The logistics were well-organized. However, my only disappointment was with the shuttle scheduling. Better planning and mapping could have been done to at least assist participants partway through their journey.

• Limited Visibility of Intersessional Outputs: The outcomes and findings of BPFs and PNs is not sufficiently highlighted or integrated into the main IGF discussions, reducing their impact on the overall program.
• Insufficient Time for Discussions: The time allocated during the annual IGF meeting for presenting BPFs results is inadequate, limiting the opportunity for meaningful discussions and feedback from the broader IGF community.
• Lack of Follow-Up: There is limited follow-up mechanisms to ensure that the recommendations and conclusions from BPFs are actually implemented or carried forward into real-world policy changes.
• Fragmentation in Agenda: The integration of BPFs into the broader IGF agenda always result in a fragmented experience for participants, with key insights being lost or overshadowed by other parallel sessions, rather than contributing to a cohesive narrative.

Addressing these issues would enhance the relevance and impact of the BPFs and PNs, ensuring their meaningful contribution to the annual IGF program and global internet governance efforts. A plenary session in the mornings for all the BPFs and PNs, where all participants gather before breaking into individual sessions, would help ensure that everyone is included in the discussions on BPFs and PNs.

Fragmented Participation: Dynamic Coalition discussions is always disconnected from other IGF sessions, leading to a fragmented experience for participants and missing opportunities for holistic discussions across different coalitions.

Insufficient Time for Interaction: The time allocated during the IGF for DC-related sessions i think is too limited, preventing meaningful engagement and cross-pollination of ideas with the wider IGF community.

Excessive Technical Focus: Like other intersessional activities, DCs always prioritize highly technical discussions that overlook broader social, ethical, and policy implications of internet governance.

Inconsistent Coordination: The coordination between different Dynamic Coalitions is inconsistent and this always leads to duplications of efforts or fragmented discussions on similar topics.

Without proper monitoring, it may be difficult to measure whether the IGF has successfully addressed gender equality and if its recommendations promote gender-sensitive internet governance. The need to adopt a monitoring mechanism is key towards the 2025 IGF.

Attendance at some sessions was lower compared to previous IGFs. Participants seemed confused about which sessions to attend. Signages to the various session should be considered in next years IGF.

Compared to previous IGFs, the 2024 IGF seemed somewhat more restrictive, with many community members being excluded from speaking opportunities. The High-level discussions in 2024 were perceived as exclusive and inaccessible to the broader IGF audience. This can result in a future disconnect between high-level policymakers and grassroots or regional stakeholders who may have valuable insights on the issues being discussed.

Disconnect from Broader IGF Discussions:
The Parliamentary Track seems disconnected and is perceived as too exclusive from the broader IGF discussions and other thematic tracks. Parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, should have their activities more open to the general audience. Without adequate integration into the main IGF program, the track risks missing out on valuable insights and diverse perspectives from other sessions, leading to a fragmented experience. This separation could limit meaningful interactions between parliamentarians and other stakeholders, such as civil society, the private sector, and technical communities, who may offer important perspectives.

More youth should be included in the 2025 IGF sessions.

The village booth was excellent

Potential Improvement: More targeted campaigns, utilizing region-specific languages, platforms, and collaboration with local partners, could broaden outreach. This could include working with grassroots organizations, digital rights activists, and local influencers to spread awareness of IGF and encourage wider participation. Also, creating digital toolkits that stakeholders can use to promote the event locally would ensure more people are aware of IGF discussions and objectives.

While IGF had an online presence, the use of social media and digital channels might not have fully leveraged their potential to engage wider audiences.
A more innovative social media strategy would help reach younger audiences and more diverse groups. IGF could use social platforms for live updates, behind-the-scenes content, interactive polls, Q&A sessions, and “meet the speaker” posts. Hashtags and cross-platform campaigns could also help amplify discussions. Interactive platforms such as Instagram Stories or Twitter Spaces could be used to engage participants directly in discussions leading up to and during the event.

The timeline for IGF 2025 should be carefully planned and communicated early on. In previous years, some stakeholders found the timeline for submissions and final session confirmations to be too tight, leading to a rushed preparation process. It’s important that the timeline for the IGF 2025 preparatory process be set well in advance, with clear milestones for the call for proposals, session selections, and logistics planning. Additionally, stakeholders should be informed of any changes well in advance. A longer window for session proposals and a clear, transparent decision-making process for selecting sessions would provide more flexibility for organizers and participants alike.

IGF 2024:

The IGF 2025 Programme Structure should emphasize inclusivity, innovation, and meaningful multistakeholder engagement. By adopting thematic tracks, fostering interactive formats, and focusing on youth, gender, and regional perspectives, IGF 2025 can build a dynamic and forward-looking agenda that resonates with a diverse global community. Furthermore, by ensuring better integration of intersessional activities, improving accessibility for remote participants, and focusing on post-event engagement, IGF 2025 can create lasting impacts and contribute to actionable outcomes in internet governance. Remote hubs platform should also be considered in the 2025 IGF planning.

To best connect community intersessional activities and NRIs with the IGF 2025 process, it is crucial to create structured, continuous avenues for collaboration. This includes designing spaces for regional and youth voices to contribute meaningfully, ensuring intersessional activities feed directly into the main programme, and fostering year-round engagement. By promoting inclusivity, integration, and collaboration, IGF 2025 can further strengthen its multi-stakeholder approach and amplify the diversity of voices that shape global internet governance.

For IGF 2025, the programme content should be carefully curated to reflect the evolving challenges and opportunities in global internet governance, with a focus on inclusivity, innovation, and actionable outcomes

Limited Representation of Local Issues: The content from NRIs is not always reflective of the specific digital governance challenges faced by their regions, as global topics often take precedence. This will bring about result in missed opportunities to bring diverse perspectives into the global discussion.

Inadequate Time for NRI Sessions: The time allocated to NRI-related sessions during the IGF is too short, reducing the opportunity for deeper engagement and cross-regional discussions.

Focus on Local Contexts: While NRIs should ideally address local or regional internet governance issues, I suggest that for the 2025 IGF, each of the five regional NRIs should hold their own session to discuss regional topics. The issues gathered from all NRIs could then be brought together in one session to present their collective outcomes.

Everyone should be invited.

Incorporating the WSIS+20 review and supporting the Global Digital Compact are critical objectives for IGF 2025. The IGF should serve as a platform for multi-stakeholder collaboration and inclusive dialogue, ensuring that local, regional, and global voices are integrated into the process. Through dedicated sessions, cross-sector partnerships, and continuous engagement, the IGF can contribute to the review of WSIS outcomes while actively supporting the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, advancing an inclusive, accessible, and sustainable digital future for all.

We can always improve on our successes

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format was not effective this year, as there were numerous issues with the audiovisual setup. The overall setup and seating arrangements were also uninviting and not conducive to a productive experience.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Ghana Youth IGF

What worked well:

Planning and Timeline: The preparatory process's well-defined and organized schedule made it possible for stakeholders to participate actively in each stage.
Request for Concerns and Suggestions: Diverse comments spanning a wide range of viewpoints were encouraged by the inclusive and open request for issues and session proposals.
MAG sessions: Cooperation and openness in decision-making were successfully promoted by the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) sessions.
Development of Capacity: Attempts to increase the ability of participants, especially those from underrepresented areas, were positively received and helped to increase participation.

What worked not so well:
Session Overlap: Due to schedule conflicts caused by the vast number of sessions, attendees found it challenging to fully attend sessions of interest.
Session Selection Process: According to several stakeholders, there was not enough input provided during the selection process, which may have improved its clarity and transparency.
Timing of Engagement: Key stakeholders were unable to participate in some process phases, such as the call for bids, because they fell during other significant international events.

What worked well:
Thematic Focus: The thematic areas were relevant and timely, addressing pressing issues like digital cooperation, AI governance, and cybersecurity. This ensured the discussions were aligned with global priorities.
Diversity of Topics: The program offered a wide range of sessions, catering to diverse interests and expertise levels.
Engagement Opportunities: Interactive formats like workshops and roundtables fostered meaningful dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders.

What worked not so well:
Overlapping Sessions: The large number of sessions caused attendance to be spread thin, reducing audience participation and impact in some discussions.
Programme Flow: The dense schedule made it challenging for participants to navigate the program effectively and engage deeply in all areas of interest.
Balancing Themes: While many thematic areas were covered, some stakeholders felt certain topics received less attention, affecting the balance of the program.

What worked well:
Accessibility: The hybrid format allowed participation from stakeholders worldwide, making the event more inclusive and reducing barriers to attendance.
Technical Infrastructure: The virtual platform (i.e., the mobile app created with the sessions listed and IGF's website) was user-friendly and reliable, ensuring seamless participation for online attendees.
Interactive Features: Features like live Q&A, chat, and breakout sessions helped virtual participants engage meaningfully with in-person discussions.

What worked not so well:
Time Zone Challenges: The global nature of the IGF meant some participants struggled to join sessions live due to unfavorable timing.
Networking Limitations: Virtual attendees had limited opportunities for informal networking, which is a vital component of the IGF experience.

What worked so well:
Website and Mobile App: Both the website and the mobile app offered thorough information on sessions, speakers, and updates and were easy to use.
Registration Procedure: Participants were able to make successful plans thanks to the simple registration procedure and prompt confirmation.
Online Platform: Virtual guests were able to participate easily because of the dependable online platform, which had few technical issues.
System for Scheduling Bilateral Meetings: The system for setting up bilateral meetings was effective and promoted fruitful networking.
Security Measures: Both online and in-person participants found a secure and friendly environment thanks to the effective security management.

What worked not so well:
Navigation of the Schedule: Participants found it challenging to locate and rank sessions due to the schedule's density and overall overwhelming nature.
Usability of the Mobile App: Although the app worked, it could have been easier to use with more features like real-time notifications or customized timetables.
Limitations of Bilateral Meetings: Time zone differences and a lack of visibility into possible connections made it difficult for virtual participants to make the most of the bilateral meeting system.

Process:
Collaborative Approach: The multistakeholder approach used by the Policy Networks and Best Practice Forums (BPFs) promoted many perspectives and enhanced dialogues
Prepared Work: Participants were guaranteed to be able to participate meaningfully because the intersessional activities were meticulously documented and had well-defined goals.
Integration in the Program: By skillfully incorporating these activities into the IGF program, chances to present their work and encourage more participation were created.
Content:
Relevance: The topics addressed were timely and aligned with key global digital policy issues, such as AI ethics, digital inclusion, and data governance.
Depth: Discussions offered valuable insights and actionable recommendations, contributing significantly to broader IGF outcomes.
Knowledge Sharing: The BPFs and Policy Networks served as platforms for sharing best practices, lessons learned, and innovative solutions across regions and sectors.

Process:
Multistakeholder Engagement: Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) maintained an inclusive and collaborative approach, encouraging participation from diverse groups.
Preparation and Coordination: The preparation for DC activities was organized, with clear communication and well-structured session proposals.
Programme Inclusion: The integration of DCs into the IGF 2024 program allowed them to present their work and foster discussion on specialized topics.

Content:
Focused Topics: DCs addressed niche but critical issues, such as internet standards, gender and access, and digital rights, enriching the overall IGF agenda.
Knowledge Sharing: The sessions provided an opportunity for stakeholders to share expertise and explore practical solutions to ongoing challenges.
Relevance and Impact: The topics were well-aligned with broader IGF themes, adding depth and specificity to discussions.

Positive Aspects:
Inclusive Topics: IGF 2024 incorporated sessions that addressed gender-specific issues, such as bridging the digital gender divide, promoting women in STEM, and ensuring online safety for marginalized groups.
Diverse Representation: Panels and discussions included a significant number of women speakers, providing balanced perspectives and amplifying female voices in internet governance.
Youth and Gender Focus: The Youth Track integrated gender considerations, encouraging young women to participate and lead discussions on digital policy.

Challenges:
Uneven Representation: Despite progress, some sessions lacked gender balance, with male speakers dominating certain technical or policy discussions.
Limited Focus: While gender issues were included, they were sometimes treated as standalone topics rather than being mainstreamed across all program areas.

Content:
Relevance: The sessions addressed critical and timely topics such as AI ethics, digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and data governance, ensuring alignment with global digital priorities.
Diversity of Themes: A broad range of thematic areas allowed for in-depth exploration of emerging and ongoing issues in internet governance.
Actionable Insights: Many sessions provided practical recommendations and solutions, contributing to meaningful policy discussions.
Speakers:
Expertise and Representation: Sessions featured a diverse range of speakers, including policymakers, industry leaders, academics, and civil society representatives, ensuring balanced perspectives.
Youth and marginalized voices: The inclusion of youth and stakeholders from underrepresented regions added depth and inclusivity to the discussions.
Engagement Levels: While most speakers were well-prepared and engaging, a few sessions could have benefited from more dynamic and interactive presentation styles.
Quality of Discussions:
Interactive Dialogue: Workshops and roundtables fostered interactive and thought-provoking discussions, enhancing participant engagement.
Multistakeholder Collaboration: Discussions reflected strong multistakeholder collaboration, emphasizing the importance of diverse inputs in policy development.

Content:
Strategic Focus: The High-Level Leaders Track addressed critical, forward-looking topics such as AI governance, global digital cooperation, and equitable access, aligning with key global priorities.
Policymaking Insights: Discussions highlighted actionable strategies for fostering digital inclusion, sustainability, and trust in the digital ecosystem.
Global Perspective: Leaders brought a broad, international outlook to the discussions, emphasizing collaboration across sectors and regions.
Speakers:
Diverse Representation: The track featured leaders from governments, international organizations, industry, and civil society, ensuring a multistakeholder approach.
High-Caliber Contributions: Speakers were well-prepared, offering valuable insights and thought leadership on complex issues.
Youth Inclusion: The presence of youth representatives added a fresh perspective and emphasized intergenerational dialogue.

Quality of Discussions:
High Engagement: Discussions were substantive and forward-looking, offering innovative ideas and solutions for addressing global digital challenges.
Inspirational Impact: The track successfully inspired action and highlighted the importance of leadership in shaping digital futures.
Limited Interaction: While the content was rich, there was limited opportunity for audience participation or direct interaction with leaders.

Content:
Legislative Focus: The Parliamentary Track effectively addressed critical issues such as data privacy, cybersecurity legislation, and the ethical use of emerging technologies.
Policy Alignment: Discussions focused on aligning national and regional legislative frameworks with global digital governance priorities.
Practical Insights: Sessions highlighted best practices and case studies, providing actionable insights for policymakers.
Speakers:
Diverse legislators: The track included parliamentarians from various regions, ensuring a wide range of perspectives on legislative approaches to digital governance.
Expert Support: Contributions from experts in law, technology, and policy enriched the discussions and supported evidence-based policymaking.
Stakeholder Engagement: The inclusion of civil society and industry representatives facilitated a balanced dialogue.
Quality of Discussions:
Focused Dialogue: Discussions were substantive and focused, addressing specific legislative challenges and opportunities.
Collaborative Spirit: The track fostered collaboration among parliamentarians, enhancing the exchange of ideas and best practices.
Time Constraints: Some sessions felt rushed, limiting the depth of discussion on complex topics.

Content:
Focus on Youth Priorities: The Youth Track successfully addressed issues relevant to young people, such as digital literacy, online safety, and equitable access to the internet.
Empowering Discussions: Sessions emphasized the importance of youth engagement in shaping digital policies and fostering intergenerational collaboration.
Practical Skills: Workshops and interactive sessions provided young participants with tools and knowledge to navigate and contribute to the digital ecosystem.

Speakers:
Youth Representation: The track featured a diverse group of young leaders who brought fresh perspectives and innovative ideas to the discussions.
Expert Contributions: The inclusion of experienced mentors and stakeholders added depth and guidance to the sessions, fostering a balance between youth-led discussions and expert advice.
Inspirational Role Models: Keynote speakers and panelists served as motivating figures, inspiring youth participants to take active roles in digital governance.

Quality of Discussions:
Engaging and inclusive: Discussions were interactive and provided a safe space for youth to share their ideas and concerns openly.
Focused Outcomes: Sessions aimed at producing actionable recommendations and identifying opportunities for youth involvement in digital governance.
Limited Time: Some sessions were constrained by time, limiting the exploration of more complex issues.

Content:
Diverse Exhibitors: The IGF Village hosted a variety of stakeholders, including civil society organizations, academic institutions, tech companies, and governments, showcasing their work and contributions to internet governance.
Interactive Displays: Exhibitors used creative and engaging formats, such as live demonstrations, multimedia presentations, and hands-on activities, to attract and educate participants.
Topical Relevance: The Village featured content aligned with IGF 2024 themes, such as AI, cybersecurity, digital inclusion, and sustainability.
Experience:
Networking Opportunities: The Village provided an excellent platform for participants to connect, share ideas, and build partnerships across sectors and regions.
Engagement: Many booths facilitated direct interactions, fostering dialogue and collaboration on internet governance topics.
Accessibility: The Village was easily accessible and well-organized, making it simple for participants to navigate and engage with exhibitors.

Communications and Outreach:
Effective Promotion: The IGF Secretariat utilized diverse communication channels, including social media, email updates, and partnerships, to raise awareness about IGF 2024.
Timely Updates: Regular updates were provided before and during the event, keeping participants informed about sessions, speakers, and logistics.
Localized Engagement: Outreach efforts included targeted campaigns to engage stakeholders from underrepresented regions, enhancing inclusivity.

Outputs:
High-Quality Documentation: Sessions transcripts, reports, and recordings were made available promptly, ensuring access to discussions for those unable to attend.
Actionable Recommendations: Many sessions produced clear, actionable recommendations, contributing to broader digital policy dialogues.
Visibility of Outputs: Outputs were shared widely, but their presentation could have been more concise and visually engaging for easier consumption.

Suggestions:
Sessions diversity: experiment with innovative session formats, such as debates or solution-focused hackathons, to foster more dynamic interactions.
Clearer Impact Pathways: Define clearer pathways for how IGF discussions contribute to global policy processes, such as the Global Digital Compact or WSIS+20.
Sustainability Focus: Incorporate more discussions on the intersection of digital transformation and environmental sustainability to address the broader impact of technology.

IGF 2024:

For IGF 2025, the following suggestions aim to enhance the program structure and flow:
Streamline the Schedule: Reduce overlapping sessions and focus on fewer, more in-depth thematic tracks that build on each other.
Create Thematic Clusters: Organize related topics into clusters, integrating emerging issues like digital sustainability and AI governance.
Increase Interactivity: Use more workshops, debates, and breakout sessions to foster participation and multistakeholder dialogue.
Mainstream youth and gender: ensure youth and gender perspectives are included in all tracks and expand youth-led sessions.
Focus on actionable outcomes: Ensure sessions generate tangible recommendations and establish follow-up mechanisms to track progress.
Enhance Hybrid and Virtual Engagement: Optimize the hybrid format with accessible virtual tools and meaningful online participation.
Prioritize Sustainability: Address both environmental sustainability and the digital sector's role in sustainable development.
Strengthen NRI Integration: Involve National, Regional, and Youth IGFs directly in the program to share best practices and outcomes.
Improve Navigation and Timing: Provide a clear, easy-to-navigate program with well-communicated timings and breaks.

To best connect community intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) with the IGF 2025 process:

Closer Integration: Involve NRIs in the core program by allowing them to share their outcomes and recommendations directly in main sessions.
Collaboration on Themes: Ensure that key themes discussed in NRIs are integrated into the global IGF agenda, promoting dialogue between local and global perspectives.
Structured Input: Create structured channels for NRIs to provide early input on session topics and outcomes, ensuring their relevance to regional and local issues.
Capacity Building: Strengthen capacity-building initiatives for NRIs to enhance their participation in the global IGF process.
Regular Updates: Establish ongoing communication between the IGF Secretariat and NRIs to share progress, updates, and lessons learned, fostering year-round engagement.
These actions will deepen the connection between local, regional, and global internet governance efforts.

For IGF 2025, suggestions for program content include:
Thematic Approach:
Balance emerging issues (e.g., AI, digital sustainability) with traditional topics (cybersecurity, privacy).
Foster cross-sectoral themes linking digital governance to education, healthcare, and climate change.
Focus on practical, solution-oriented sessions with real-world case studies and best practices.
Session Types:

Use interactive formats like workshops, roundtables, and problem-solving sessions.
Set clear objectives for each session, ensuring actionable outcomes.
Introduce informal formats such as fireside chats and AMAs with leaders.
Offer technical deep-dive sessions for industry professionals.
Speakers Profiles:

Ensure diverse representation across gender, region, and sector, with emphasis on marginalized groups.
Involve young leaders, innovators, and practitioners in emerging technology and policy.
Balance speakers between policymakers, technical experts, and civil society representatives.
Include interdisciplinary voices from sectors like environmental sustainability, health, and education.
Highlight role models, particularly women and youth, to inspire broader leadership.
These changes would enhance engagement, inclusivity, and impact in the IGF 2025 program.

Process:
Collaborative Engagement: The IGF 2024 program effectively included the perspectives of National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) through their effective inclusion in the planning process.
Dedicated Sessions: The program featured NRI-only sessions that highlighted local viewpoints on global internet governance concerns and showcased their work.
Coordination: The IGF Secretariat provided NRIs with logistical assistance and clear communication, which helped to ensure that their contributions were well-planned.

Content:
Diverse Views: NRIs enhanced international conversations by contributing distinctive, regional perspectives on internet governance, including access, digital literacy, and youth empowerment.
Youth Engagement: In order to promote intergenerational discussion on digital concerns, youth IGFs stressed the value of incorporating young voices in policymaking.
Regional Focus: By highlighting context-specific issues and excellent practices, regional IGFs illustrated the necessity of customized governance strategies.

Who to Invite:
Multistakeholder Representation:
Governments: Policymakers and regulators to contribute to shaping digital policies.
Private Sector: Tech companies, internet service providers, and industry leaders for innovation and business perspectives.
Civil Society: advocacy groups and NGOs to represent marginalized communities and digital rights.
Academic and Research Institutions: experts and researchers for evidence-based insights and analysis.
Youth and Students: Future leaders and innovators who will shape the digital landscape.
International Organizations: entities like the UN, the World Bank, and regional bodies to discuss global digital initiatives.
Technical Communities: Engineers, developers, and cybersecurity experts to discuss technical solutions and standards.
How to Interconnect Participants:

Pre-Event Networking Platforms: Create digital platforms before the event for participants to connect, share interests, and form collaboration groups.
Structured networking sessions: organize specific networking sessions or "matchmaking" events to pair participants based on shared interests or expertise.
Breakout Rooms and Themed Discussions: Facilitate smaller, themed discussions within larger sessions to foster deeper engagement and connection.
Interactive Tools: Use online tools like live polls, chat features, and Q&A sessions to encourage real-time interaction among remote and in-person attendees.
Post-Event Collaboration: Encourage continued collaboration post-event through online communities, working groups, and follow-up sessions.
These strategies will ensure diverse participation and enhance collaboration among stakeholders at IGF 2025.

For IGF 2025, to contribute to the WSIS+20 review and support the Global Digital Compact:

WSIS+20 Review:
Focus on assessing progress towards WSIS outcomes, addressing gaps, and fostering multistakeholder dialogue on issues like digital inclusion.
Track and report on WSIS implementation, producing actionable recommendations for the 2025 review.
Global Digital Compact:
Facilitate discussions on the Compact’s principles (e.g., equity, digital trust) and share best practices.
Outline measurable steps for implementation and encourage commitments from stakeholders to align policies with the Compact’s goals.
These actions will help IGF 2025 contribute to both the WSIS+20 review and the Global Digital Compact’s successful implementation.

Inclusive and Collaborative: IGF 2024 successfully upheld its multistakeholder approach, fostering meaningful dialogue among diverse stakeholders, including governments, civil society, the private sector, and academia.
Relevance: The themes and discussions were timely and aligned with pressing global digital governance challenges, such as AI, cybersecurity, and equitable internet access.
Strengths:
Youth Engagement: The dedicated Youth Track demonstrated the IGF’s commitment to empowering young voices in global policy discussions.
Hybrid Format: The hybrid format enabled broader participation, making the event accessible to stakeholders worldwide.
Networking Opportunities: The IGF provided ample opportunities for networking, collaboration, and knowledge exchange across sectors and regions.
Areas for Improvement:
Time Management: Many sessions were packed into a tight schedule, leading to overlapping events and reduced attendance in some discussions. A more streamlined schedule could enhance participation and engagement.
Outcome Integration: Strengthen mechanisms for translating session discussions into actionable policy recommendations and follow-up activities.
Regional Representation: Ensure greater inclusion of voices from underrepresented regions, particularly from the Global South, to enhance global diversity.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience What worked well:
Accessibility: The hybrid format allowed participation from stakeholders worldwide, making the event more inclusive and reducing barriers to attendance.
Technical Infrastructure: The virtual platform (i.e., the mobile app created with the sessions listed and IGF's website) was user-friendly and reliable, ensuring seamless participation for online attendees.
Interactive Features: Features like live Q&A, chat, and breakout sessions helped virtual participants engage meaningfully with in-person discussions.

What worked not so well:
Time Zone Challenges: The global nature of the IGF meant some participants struggled to join sessions live due to unfavorable timing.
Networking Limitations: Virtual attendees had limited opportunities for informal networking, which is a vital component of the IGF experience.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

What Worked well:

Planning and Timeline: The preparatory process's well-defined and organized schedule made it possible for stakeholders to participate actively in each stage.
Request for Concerns and Suggestions: Diverse comments spanning a wide range of viewpoints were encouraged by the inclusive and open request for issues and session proposals.
MAG sessions: Cooperation and openness in decision-making were successfully promoted by the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) sessions.
Development of Capacity: Attempts to increase the ability of participants, especially those from underrepresented areas, were positively received and helped to increase participation.

What work not So Well:

Session Overlap: Due to schedule conflicts caused by the vast number of sessions, attendees found it challenging to fully attend sessions of interest.
Session Selection Process: According to several stakeholders, there was not enough input provided during the selection process, which may have improved its clarity and transparency.
Timing of Engagement: Key stakeholders were unable to participate in some process phases, such as the call for bids, because they fell during other significant international events.

IGF 2024:

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Global Network for Cybersolution Ltd/Gte

The 2024 preparatory process still lacks adequate representation from active private sector participants and ICT professionals in the African region.

The 2024 programme is complex to navigate for follow-up and registration.

IGF should embrace more application developers to help improve the implementation experience for the participants. Whova is an excellent comprehensive application that can be considered if it can support the IGF events.

No comment.

We believe that these inter-sessional activities should be streamlined for better organization and outcomes in the next IGF. The Best Practice Forum, Policy Networks, and Dynamic Coalitions can be combined to avoid duplication of efforts and improve greater participation. These overlaps often confuse participants.

IGF 2024 programme has been fair in this context. However, we would prefer to see the IGF 2025 programme from peace, development and security perspectives.

The organisers of many of the sessions and workshops did not follow the equity representation of speakers in line with the IGF requirements, perhaps due to the scarcity of quality speakers.

No comment.

The introduction of special support for the media and press during IGF 2024 has been a commendable effort. We hope to see increased efforts to attract global media organizations such as CNN, Al Jazeera, and CGTN to enhance global communication and outreach on the mainstream media

Most stakeholders involved in the last IGF 2024 are primarily from civil society and government. At the global level, professional organizations in the ICT industry are often not prioritized for participation. We anticipate greater inclusivity, with more involvement from the private sector and ICT-related professional bodies in the computer industry, as they are the key technical drivers behind internet technology.

The session selection needs to be equitably shared to cover topics attracting the main private sector stakeholders and research institutions. The topics should be curated further to address problems or issues identified in the Internet governance ecosystem.

IGF 2024:

A simpler programme management application can be adopted to help streamline structure and flow. Our participants found it difficult to follow the programme due to this observation. The current IGF conference management system or application should be reviewed. Otherwise, other conference applications, such as Whova, can be considered.

We propose that these inter-sessional activities be streamlined for better organization and outcomes in the next IGF. The Best Practice Forum, Policy Networks, and Dynamic Coalitions can be combined to avoid duplication of efforts and improve greater participation. These overlaps often confuse participants.

IGF should demand the diversification and review of NRI leadership in regions to avoid stunted growth and prevent the recycling of the same NRI leadership at every IGF. The continental head of NRIs should be included in the membership of MAG to best connect with the IGF 2025 process, provided such regions fulfil the IGF requirement on diversification and selection.

IGF Secretariat and MAG should review the requirements for listing speakers, and it should published and promoted in the community. Participating IGF speakers should be appreciated and recognised for their efforts and contributions through the issuance of e-Certificates. By extension, MAG members should qualify for these e-Certificates at the end of their tenure by the UN. As main organisers of IGF, MAG members should be motivated, recognised, and rewarded for their great sacrificial efforts with the UN IGF e-certificate of honour which can be auto-generated through a validation process.

NRIs have been better integrated into the 2024 IGF.

There should be a slight shift in this regard. Invitation should extended to the private sector, professional bodies ( in the IT and related industry), research and educational institutions across regions. They can be connected through the creation of the IGF Network for Professional Bodies, research, and educational institutions' forums (IGF-PRE Network )embedded in the IGF website, with an online registration process. Most of these Professional Bodies, Research and Educational institutions have thousands of members, each unaware of the IGF process. Their inclusions will diversify IGF impact greatly and the outcome IGF will be better utilised by these institutions.

The IGF 2025 programme should be developed from peace, development and security perspectives. We propose that the IGF 2025 focus should be on empowering global cooperation to transform and safeguard the information society toward peace, development, and security. This is in line with WSIS+20 and GDC.

Visa application and Hotel accommodation are relatively expensive for the participants from developing countries.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience IGF should embrace more application developers to help improve the implementation experience for the participants. Whova is an excellent comprehensive application that can be considered if it can support the IGF events.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Hazras Charity Foundation

Critique and Suggestions for the IGF 2024 Preparatory Process

Criticisms

1. Complexity in the Process: The preparatory process, including the call for issues and session proposals, was overly complex and time-consuming. This made it challenging for smaller organizations and grassroots participants to fully engage.

2. Limited Representation: Despite efforts to ensure inclusivity, the session selection process appeared biased toward established organizations, often sidelining smaller nonprofits and emerging voices.

3. Insufficient Transparency: The roles and decision-making criteria of MAG members were not always clear, raising concerns about potential bias and lack of accountability in the session selection process.

4. Uneven Capacity Development: Capacity-building sessions were unevenly distributed, with limited efforts to equip underrepresented regions and organizations with the necessary tools and knowledge to participate effectively.

Specific Concern for Hazras Charity Foundation

Hazras Charity Foundation, which actively self-funded its participation in the African IGF in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, was neither recognized nor provided with logistical or financial support, despite its commitment to the forum’s objectives. This lack of acknowledgment undermines the efforts of nonprofits that play a vital role in advancing IGF's mission.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Streamlined Processes: Simplify the proposal submission process with clear templates and guidelines to encourage broader participation from smaller organizations and individuals.

2. Equitable Representation: Prioritize diversity in session selection by creating quotas or affirmative measures for grassroots organizations, nonprofits, and underserved regions.

3. Enhanced Capacity-Building Programs: Conduct region-specific workshops and training sessions, especially targeting smaller entities like Hazras Charity Foundation, to ensure equitable knowledge distribution.

4. Transparent Selection Criteria: Make the session selection criteria and MAG members' roles publicly available to enhance trust and accountability in the process.

5. Recognition for Self-Funded Organizations: Introduce formal acknowledgment, such as certificates or mentions, for nonprofits that self-fund their participation to boost morale and encourage future involvement.

6. Financial Assistance Programs: Develop travel grants or partnerships with hotels to provide discounted accommodation for nonprofit participants.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

Feedback Mechanism: Incorporate a feedback system post-event to gather insights from all participants, particularly smaller organizations.

Pre-Event Consultations: Host regional or online pre-event consultations to gather diverse perspectives for inclusion in the agenda.

Support Structures for Nonprofits: Establish a nonprofit liaison team to address logistical and financial concerns, ensuring a smoother participation experience.
These improvements would foster inclusivity, transparency, and equitable participation, enhancing the overall impact of IGF.

Criticism and Suggestions for the IGF 2024 Overall Programme: Thematic Focus, Structure, and Flow

Criticisms

1. Overly Broad Thematic Focus: The thematic focus of IGF 2024 was too broad, which diluted the depth of discussions on crucial issues. A more focused and prioritized approach could help in addressing key challenges in greater detail, particularly for emerging regions.

2. Lack of Clear Agenda Flow: While the structure aimed to accommodate diverse stakeholders, the overall flow of the sessions sometimes lacked coherence. There were instances where sessions appeared disconnected, with overlapping topics and unclear transitions between sessions, which hindered effective engagement and learning.

3. Limited Engagement of Emerging Issues: Some emerging issues, such as digital equity, data sovereignty, and the role of AI in governance, did not receive sufficient attention in the thematic focus, leaving them underrepresented in key discussions.

4. Insufficient Integration of Stakeholder Feedback: There was minimal integration of stakeholder feedback from previous years into the structure of the programme, leading to repeated themes and topics that may not reflect current or pressing concerns.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Focused Thematic Tracks: For IGF 2025, consider narrowing the thematic focus into more specific tracks or clusters that allow for deeper exploration of pressing issues. These tracks could address critical topics such as digital rights, sustainable development, and emerging technologies like AI, ensuring more targeted discussions.

2. Clearer Programme Flow: Improve the flow of the programme by establishing clearer links between sessions. This could include developing a narrative thread that connects topics logically, and utilizing time blocks for related themes to avoid session overlap and increase coherence.

3. Inclusion of Emerging Issues: Place a stronger emphasis on emerging digital governance issues such as blockchain, AI ethics, and internet fragmentation. These topics are highly relevant to current global debates but were not sufficiently highlighted in IGF 2024.

4. Stakeholder-Driven Themes: Incorporate more bottom-up planning to ensure that the themes reflect the real-world priorities of grassroots organizations, marginalized communities, and underrepresented regions. This could be achieved through pre-event consultations and thematic polls to gather input from all stakeholders.

5. Increased Integration of Diverse Voices: Ensure that the thematic focus is not only reflective of global interests but also inclusive of regional concerns. Strengthen outreach and participation from underrepresented regions and communities, ensuring their voices are heard in the agenda-setting process.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

1. Pre-Event Thematic Prioritization: Consider conducting an online survey or thematic consultation ahead of the event to identify the most relevant issues for each region. This could guide the creation of a more focused and relevant programme for IGF 2025.

2. Session Consolidation: To prevent thematic fragmentation, consolidate related sessions into thematic blocks and provide clear documentation on how each session contributes to the overall goals of the forum.

3. Interactive Formats: Encourage interactive formats like workshops, roundtable discussions, and collaborative working groups, where participants can engage deeply with the thematic content and propose solutions.

4. Thematic Diversity: Ensure that all thematic areas, particularly emerging and underrepresented issues, receive the necessary space and visibility in the programme. A balanced approach will ensure that the IGF remains at the forefront of addressing global digital governance challenges.
These suggestions aim to enhance the thematic focus, structure, and flow of IGF 2025, making the forum more engaging, relevant, and impactful for all stakeholders.

Criticism and Suggestions for IGF 2024 Hybrid Format Design and Experience

Criticisms

1. Technical Challenges with Hybrid Format: The hybrid format of IGF 2024 faced significant technical challenges, particularly in ensuring seamless interaction between in-person and virtual participants. For instance, connectivity issues sometimes hindered the online experience, leading to delays and difficulty in participation for virtual attendees.

2. Lack of Equal Engagement: Virtual participants were often at a disadvantage when it came to engagement and interaction. In-person attendees had more opportunities for networking and one-on-one discussions, which was not always replicated effectively for those joining remotely.

3. Limited Virtual Content Access: Some sessions and events were not as easily accessible for virtual attendees due to the lack of clear instructions or resources, such as session recordings, translations, or comprehensive access to speaker materials.

4. Time Zone Discrepancies: The scheduling of sessions did not always take into account the challenges of time zones, making it difficult for participants from certain regions to engage in real-time sessions.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Improved Technical Infrastructure: To ensure smoother interaction between virtual and in-person participants, invest in better technical infrastructure and support. This could include high-quality video streaming, stable internet connections, and better virtual engagement tools (e.g., chatrooms, Q&A platforms) to facilitate interaction.

2. Virtual-First Engagement Models: Shift the approach to make virtual participation a central aspect of the event, rather than an add-on. This could involve offering more virtual networking opportunities, virtual roundtable discussions, and interaction spaces that mimic the networking opportunities available in person.

3. Expanded Access to Content: Ensure that all sessions, including side events and smaller discussions, are recorded and made available online with proper indexing for easy access. Translations for materials and live captions should be provided to accommodate a wider audience, ensuring inclusivity.

4. Time Zone-Considerate Scheduling: Plan the timing of key sessions to be more considerate of the global audience. This could involve organizing multiple session times to accommodate different time zones or ensuring that all major sessions are recorded and made accessible asynchronously for participants who cannot join in real-time.

5. Interactive Virtual Spaces: Create dedicated spaces for virtual networking and discussions, such as virtual “lounges” or breakout rooms where participants can discuss key issues, share ideas, and build connections. These spaces could be moderated to ensure productive and respectful discussions.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

1. Hybrid Design Integration: For IGF 2025, create an integrated hybrid model where the in-person and virtual experiences are designed from the outset to complement each other. This includes synchronized schedules, better coordination between both formats, and ensuring that all content is accessible across both platforms.

2. Enhanced Participant Support: Provide participants with more detailed guidelines on how to navigate the hybrid format, including tutorials or FAQs about how to engage with virtual platforms effectively and troubleshoot technical issues.

3. Expanded Virtual Participation Options: Consider increasing the number of virtual-first sessions or making all sessions accessible remotely, with adequate interaction opportunities for virtual participants.

4. Post-Event Content Accessibility: Make sure that all content, including discussions, presentations, and outputs, are made easily available for participants to access after the event, allowing for greater flexibility and wider participation.

5. Improved Hybrid Networking Platforms: Develop better virtual networking platforms where participants can engage with each other based on their areas of interest, share contact details, or arrange virtual meetings during the event.

Conclusion

By addressing these concerns and implementing these suggestions, the hybrid format of IGF 2025 can be more inclusive, engaging, and equitable for both in-person and virtual participants. It will also ensure that participants from all regions and backgrounds can fully benefit from the event, regardless of their mode of participation.

Criticism and Suggestions for IGF 2024 Logistics (Website, Mobile App, Schedule, Registration, Access and Use of Online Platform, Bilateral Meeting System, Security, etc.)

Criticisms

1. Website Usability Issues: The IGF 2024 website was difficult to navigate, with important information scattered across different sections and sometimes hard to locate. Key details like session schedules, speaker information, and resources were not always immediately visible, which led to frustration for participants trying to prepare in advance.

2. Mobile App Limitations: The mobile app had limited functionality and often failed to provide real-time updates or notifications. For example, some users reported issues with session changes not being reflected in the app, or difficulty accessing important session links, which diminished its overall usability.

3. Registration Bottlenecks: The registration process was lengthy and complicated, with unclear instructions on how to finalize registration or obtain access to certain features of the event, particularly for new users. This caused delays in participants receiving the necessary access credentials and joining sessions on time.

4. Access to Online Platform: Many participants experienced difficulties logging into the online platform or faced connectivity issues, especially those from regions with less reliable internet infrastructure. Some sessions were inaccessible to remote participants due to technical glitches or platform compatibility issues.

5. Bilateral Meeting System Challenges: The system for arranging bilateral meetings was cumbersome and lacked clear guidance. Participants had difficulty finding relevant stakeholders, and the lack of a user-friendly interface for setting up meetings created frustration, hindering productive networking.

6. Security Concerns: There were concerns about the security of personal data, especially for virtual participants. Some users reported being unsure of how their information would be handled or whether their data would be adequately protected during the event.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Improved Website Navigation: For IGF 2025, redesign the website to make it more intuitive and user-friendly. Ensure that key sections such as session schedules, registration details, and resources are clearly visible on the homepage. Implement an efficient search function to help participants quickly find relevant information.

2. Enhanced Mobile App Functionality: Develop a more robust mobile app with real-time updates and notifications. The app should allow participants to easily access session details, speaker bios, and event changes. Incorporate interactive features like live Q&A, polls, and event reminders to improve engagement.

3. Streamlined Registration Process: Simplify the registration process to make it faster and more straightforward. Provide clear instructions and an easy-to-follow guide on how to register and access event materials. Consider implementing a user verification process to prevent delays and ensure timely access to the platform.

4. Stabilized and Accessible Online Platform: Invest in improving the online platform to ensure seamless access for participants from different regions, including those with lower bandwidth. Conduct thorough testing prior to the event to ensure compatibility across devices and browsers. Provide clear troubleshooting guides for participants facing issues.

5. User-Friendly Bilateral Meeting System: Revamp the bilateral meeting system to make it more intuitive and user-friendly. Provide filters to help participants find relevant stakeholders based on their interests or expertise. Integrate a calendar or scheduling feature that allows participants to book meetings easily and receive automated reminders.

6. Strengthen Security Measures: Prioritize the security of participant data by implementing end-to-end encryption for online interactions and secure login systems. Make sure participants are informed about data privacy policies and have clear instructions on how their personal information will be handled during the event.

7. Provide Tech Support for Participants: Offer a dedicated technical support team available before and during the event to assist participants with issues related to registration, platform access, or app functionality. Providing a live chat feature for quick assistance can improve the participant experience.

8. Pre-Event Orientation: Organize pre-event orientation webinars or tutorials that guide participants through the platform, registration, session booking, and mobile app features. This will help mitigate any confusion and ensure that participants are well-prepared before the event begins.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

1. Comprehensive Platform Testing: Conduct multiple rounds of testing of the event’s website, mobile app, and online platform in diverse conditions to ensure they perform well under different bandwidths and across various devices and browsers.

2. Improved Accessibility Features: Enhance accessibility for participants with disabilities by providing features like screen reader compatibility, captioning for all sessions, and sign language interpretation where possible.

3. Incorporate AI and Automation: Consider integrating AI-powered features in the bilateral meeting system to recommend relevant stakeholders or sessions to participants based on their interests, previous interactions, or areas of expertise.

4. Better Resource Allocation for Security: As cyber threats continue to evolve, increase the focus on data security and ensure that IGF 2025 adopts industry best practices to safeguard participant information. Regularly update security protocols to reflect current threats.

Conclusion

By addressing these logistical issues and adopting these suggestions, IGF 2025 can improve its overall participant experience, making it more efficient, secure, and accessible. A streamlined process for registration, better technical support, and enhanced functionality in digital tools will ensure that both in-person and virtual participants can engage fully, fostering more meaningful interactions and collaboration across regions.

Intersessional Activities and NRIs at IGF 2024: Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks

Comments on Process and Content

1. Best Practice Forums (BPFs):

Process: The BPFs at IGF 2024 followed a collaborative and open process where diverse stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical communities, were encouraged to contribute. While this inclusive approach was commendable, there were concerns regarding the timelines for engagement and the lack of clear, easily accessible resources for participants to understand the scope of each BPF early enough.

Content: The content covered in BPFs was highly relevant and addressed critical issues in Internet governance, including cybersecurity, digital inclusion, and privacy. However, there were occasional gaps in how effectively the findings were disseminated and integrated into the broader IGF agenda. Some BPFs focused more on theoretical discussions without sufficient emphasis on tangible outcomes or actionable recommendations.

2. Policy Networks (PNs):

Process: The Policy Networks aimed to bring together experts to produce practical policy recommendations. The process for engaging with PNs seemed to be somewhat opaque, with limited visibility on how stakeholders could participate meaningfully beyond the usual core contributors. While the inclusiveness was a goal, the process lacked transparency regarding how recommendations would be formed and whether there were sufficient efforts to include grassroots voices or those from underrepresented regions.

Content: The Policy Networks focused on complex, global issues such as AI governance, digital economy, and privacy. These topics were certainly relevant, but there was criticism about the level of complexity, which made it challenging for new or less experienced participants to engage fully. A clearer focus on specific, actionable recommendations could have enhanced the PNs' relevance.

Intersessional Activities in the Annual IGF Programme

1. Integration of Intersessional Activities into IGF 2024 Programme:

While the intersessional activities, such as the BPFs and PNs, were included in the overall IGF programme, there was sometimes a lack of seamless integration between them and the main conference sessions. These activities, which were intended to be key drivers of the IGF’s output, often felt somewhat isolated from the main agenda. There were instances where it wasn’t clear how the outputs from the BPFs and PNs fed into the discussions or influenced the sessions at IGF itself.

To improve this, IGF 2025 could ensure that there is a clearer and more structured connection between the intersessional activities and the core IGF discussions. For example, BPFs and PNs should provide concrete summaries and clear action points that are integrated into session agendas, ensuring their outcomes are reflected in the main thematic discussions.

2. Feedback Mechanisms:

There was limited opportunity for direct feedback from participants on the intersessional activities, which made it difficult to gauge the effectiveness or relevance of these efforts in real time. A structured feedback mechanism, allowing participants to evaluate and suggest improvements for the BPFs and PNs, could help improve their design and content for the future.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Increased Transparency in Engagement:

To improve the inclusivity and transparency of BPFs and PNs, IGF 2025 could provide clearer pathways for engagement and make the process more accessible for smaller or emerging stakeholders. This could include providing pre-event briefings, clearer documentation on the selection of contributors, and open calls for participation.

2. Stronger Collaboration Between BPFs, PNs, and Main Sessions:

The outputs of BPFs and PNs should be given more visibility and integrated into the annual IGF programme in a way that ensures they are central to the dialogue. This could involve dedicated sessions during the main event where the findings and recommendations from BPFs and PNs are presented and discussed.

3. Regional Involvement:

There should be more emphasis on regional perspectives within the BPFs and PNs. Ensuring that regional bodies and National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) have a greater role in shaping the agenda and discussions of these intersessional activities could foster more localized solutions to global issues, benefiting those from underserved regions.

4. Clarifying the Impact of Intersessional Activities:

It would be helpful to have a clearer communication strategy that explains how intersessional activities contribute to the broader goals of IGF. A dedicated session or report at the end of the event that ties together these activities and assesses their impact would enhance the visibility and value of the BPFs and PNs.

Conclusion

The Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks at IGF 2024 provided important contributions to the ongoing work of the forum, but their integration and impact could have been better. Clearer processes, more inclusive engagement, and a stronger link between the intersessional activities and the broader IGF discussions would help elevate the outcomes of these initiatives. By addressing these points, IGF 2025 can create a more cohesive and impactful preparatory process that fully capitalizes on the expertise and recommendations generated through these platforms.

Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024: Process, Content, and Integration

Comments on Process

1. Process of Engagement:

Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) at IGF 2024 played a crucial role in bringing together a diverse range of stakeholders to address specific issues within the Internet governance ecosystem. However, the process for joining and participating in DCs could have been clearer, especially for new participants or smaller organizations. While DCs are meant to be open and inclusive, there was some confusion regarding the procedural steps to actively engage in their activities.

Additionally, the coordination between DCs and the IGF Secretariat seemed inconsistent at times, with some coalitions facing challenges in terms of access to support or alignment with the overarching goals of the event. A more streamlined communication process could enhance coordination, ensuring that participants are aware of the DCs’ work and can more easily contribute to their goals.

2. Inclusivity and Representation:

DCs were designed to be inclusive, yet there were instances where certain DCs appeared to have more representation from certain sectors, such as large corporations or governments, and less from grassroots organizations or civil society. There could be more intentional efforts to ensure that the voices of smaller or less-represented groups are amplified, especially in coalitions focused on pressing global issues such as digital rights, privacy, and access to information.

Furthermore, ensuring that the internal governance of the DCs remains transparent and democratic will help address concerns about exclusivity in decision-making processes.

Comments on Content

1. Relevance and Quality of Content:

The content produced by DCs at IGF 2024 was highly relevant, addressing critical topics such as human rights in the digital space, digital inclusion, data governance, and cybersecurity. These topics align with the core objectives of IGF, which aims to bring diverse voices together to shape the future of the Internet.

However, the content from some DCs lacked depth in terms of actionable outcomes. While the discussions were informative, there was often a disconnect between the theoretical nature of the conversations and concrete, practical solutions that could be implemented by stakeholders. Strengthening the focus on actionable recommendations and policy outcomes would add significant value to the DCs' work.

2. Cross-Cutting Themes:

A significant strength of the DCs was their ability to cover cross-cutting themes that are relevant to the wider IGF community. For example, topics related to the intersection of digital technologies and human rights or the ethical implications of artificial intelligence were crucial in the context of Internet governance. This allowed for discussions that bridged technical and ethical concerns, helping participants understand the broader implications of technological developments.

Incorporation of DCs into IGF 2024 Programme

1. Integration with the Main IGF Sessions:

While DCs contributed valuable insights to the overall IGF programme, there was room for improvement in how they were integrated into the event. In some cases, DC sessions were seen as standalone activities that did not have sufficient connection to the broader IGF agenda. A more cohesive approach to integrating the work of the DCs into the core sessions of the IGF would ensure that their contributions are not only recognized but also build on the broader themes and discussions of the event.

One potential improvement could be to feature a dedicated segment in the IGF programme that explicitly links the findings and recommendations of the DCs with relevant sessions, thereby creating an interactive dialogue between the coalitions and the larger IGF community.

2. Visibility of DC Outcomes:

The outcomes and recommendations of DCs were not always as visible or impactful as they could have been. It would be beneficial to have a formal mechanism where the DCs can present their results and findings in a more structured and visible way. This could include a plenary session dedicated to DCs' outcomes, ensuring that their work is not only showcased but also considered in the broader policy discussions during the IGF.

Additionally, establishing a follow-up process after the IGF to track the implementation or impact of DC recommendations could help in measuring the long-term value of these coalitions.

3. Support and Capacity Building for DCs:

There were calls for more targeted capacity-building opportunities for DC members, especially those from underserved regions and smaller organizations. Ensuring that DC participants have access to the necessary tools, resources, and training would empower them to engage more effectively in the work of the coalitions and contribute more meaningfully to the IGF discussions.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Improved Accessibility and Engagement:

To improve engagement with DCs, IGF 2025 could provide clearer guidelines for joining and participating in these coalitions. Additionally, creating more inclusive outreach efforts, including offering language support or pre-event orientation sessions, would help ensure a wider range of stakeholders can actively participate.

2. Strengthening Interactions Between DCs and Main Sessions:

To enhance the visibility and impact of DCs' work, IGF 2025 could ensure that their findings are not only presented but also linked to the main sessions. This could involve creating formalized opportunities for DC representatives to interact with session moderators and participants, fostering a more integrative approach to shaping the IGF agenda.

3. Actionable Outputs and Policy Recommendations:

DCs should focus on developing more concrete policy recommendations and actionable outcomes. These outputs should be structured in a way that they can be easily adopted and implemented by stakeholders, particularly governments, businesses, and civil society groups. A clearer framework for translating discussions into actionable items will enhance the practical impact of DCs.

4. Follow-up Mechanisms:

To ensure that the work of DCs extends beyond the event, a formal follow-up mechanism should be introduced to track the impact of the coalitions’ recommendations. This could involve creating a space for DCs to report on progress in subsequent IGFs, ensuring continuity and accountability for their work.

Conclusion

The Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024 played a significant role in fostering discussions on crucial Internet governance issues. However, there is an opportunity to enhance the process, content, and integration of these intersessional activities into the broader IGF programme. By improving transparency, accessibility, and alignment with the main sessions, and ensuring the coalitions produce actionable and practical outcomes, the IGF can amplify the impact of its Dynamic Coalitions in future editions.

IGF 2024 Programme Content from a Gender Perspective

The gender perspective in the IGF 2024 programme is crucial for ensuring that Internet governance discussions are inclusive and reflect the needs, rights, and challenges of all genders. In analyzing the programme content through a gender lens, we can assess the extent to which gender issues were incorporated into the discussions and whether the participation of diverse genders was adequately represented and addressed.

Positive Aspects:

1. Increased Gender Awareness:

It was encouraging to see that gender equality was increasingly woven into the discussions. Topics such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, online violence, and access to digital technologies featured gender-specific angles. These discussions highlight the need to ensure that digital spaces are equitable for all genders, with a particular focus on addressing the digital divide faced by women and gender minorities.

Panels and sessions related to women's empowerment in technology, gender-based violence online, and gender-responsive policies showcased the growing recognition that the digital world can often amplify inequalities, particularly for women and marginalized genders.

2. Presence of Gender-Specific Sessions:

Several sessions were specifically dedicated to gender equality in the digital sphere, such as workshops on women's digital rights, digital security for women, and gender-sensitive data governance. This focus was crucial for addressing the unique challenges faced by women and marginalized genders in the digital space, where issues like harassment, online abuse, and the gendered impact of AI and algorithms need to be highlighted and tackled.

These sessions served as platforms for women activists, digital rights advocates, and experts in gender equality to share their insights and strategies for overcoming barriers.

3. Gender Representation in Panelists and Speakers:

There was a noticeable increase in the number of female panelists and gender-diverse speakers at IGF 2024. This represented an important shift towards more inclusive representation of women and non-binary individuals in leadership and expert roles. When women and gender minorities are given visibility as thought leaders, it sets a powerful example for the wider digital governance community and encourages more equitable participation.

However, while there was some improvement, there is still work to be done to ensure that gender diversity is consistently represented, particularly in technical discussions and high-level panels, where the number of female participants still lags behind.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Gender Balance in Panel Representation:

Despite improvements, many panels and discussions still displayed an imbalance in gender representation, especially in technical or policy-focused sessions. The gender divide in these areas may be a reflection of broader structural issues in tech and policy, where men dominate leadership positions.

Ensuring gender balance in every panel, session, and discussion—especially on topics such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, data privacy, and cybersecurity—is crucial. Women and marginalized genders often face barriers to entry in these fields, so their equal representation in discussions about these technologies is key to creating gender-inclusive solutions.

2. Gender Mainstreaming Across All Topics:

Gender equality should be mainstreamed across all topics at IGF 2024, rather than being confined to a specific track or isolated sessions. This would ensure that gender considerations are part of the core discussions on Internet governance, digital policies, access to technology, and human rights.

Gender should not be treated as a peripheral issue but rather be integrated as a cross-cutting theme that informs every part of the conversation, much like accessibility or privacy.

3. Addressing Intersectionality:

While there were sessions addressing gender equality, the intersectionality of gender with race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability was not always sufficiently addressed. Women from marginalized communities, including Black women, Indigenous women, rural women, and LGBTQIA+ individuals, often face unique challenges in the digital world. Their voices and experiences need to be explicitly represented in discussions.

Future IGFs should ensure that intersectional perspectives are prioritized and that the conversations are inclusive of all genders, especially those who face multiple layers of discrimination or exclusion.

4. Actionable Outcomes for Gender Equality:

While many sessions at IGF 2024 highlighted the gender digital divide and other challenges faced by women and marginalized genders, actionable outcomes were not always clear. Moving forward, it will be important to focus not only on raising awareness but also on developing concrete recommendations and policy actions that can drive change.

For instance, recommendations could include advocating for gender-responsive data policies, ensuring women’s participation in technology governance, or providing financial and educational support for women in tech.

Suggestions for Future IGF Programmes:

1. Gender-Specific Capacity Building:

Organizing capacity-building activities that specifically focus on empowering women and gender minorities to take active roles in Internet governance, technology development, and policy-making would help bridge the gender gap. These activities could include training on digital security, policy advocacy, leadership development, and technical skills for women and marginalized groups.

2. Gender Metrics and Data:

The IGF should adopt better gender-sensitive metrics for measuring the participation and contributions of women and gender minorities. This could include collecting data on gender representation in both physical and virtual attendance, and in different types of sessions (e.g., high-level sessions, technical tracks, policy discussions). This would provide a clearer picture of gender participation and help identify areas where more work is needed.

3. Inclusive Decision-Making Processes:

To ensure that gender perspectives are fully integrated into the IGF process, it’s important that gender-inclusive decision-making processes are encouraged within MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) and session selection committees. Ensuring that gender experts or representatives from organizations working on women’s rights and digital equality are part of these decision-making bodies can help prioritize gender-related issues.

4. Expand and Promote Women’s Networks:

IGF should collaborate with women's networks and gender-focused digital organizations to amplify women’s voices and contributions to the Internet governance ecosystem. Highlighting the achievements of women leaders in the digital space can inspire others to get involved and take on leadership roles.

Conclusion:

IGF 2024 showed notable progress in promoting gender equality, with more gender-focused discussions, greater female representation, and a clearer recognition of gender-related issues. However, there is still significant room for improvement in ensuring gender balance, intersectionality, and actionable outcomes. Moving forward, IGF should integrate gender considerations more deeply across all aspects of its programme to ensure that digital spaces become more inclusive, equitable, and accessible for all. By addressing the gender digital divide and supporting the participation of women and marginalized genders, IGF can play a key role in driving positive social change and fostering a more just and inclusive digital future.

Feedback on IGF 2024 Sessions: Content, Speakers, and Quality of Discussions

Content

1. Relevance and Timeliness:

The content of the IGF 2024 sessions was highly relevant to current global issues in Internet governance, including digital inclusion, cybersecurity, data privacy, artificial intelligence, and the digital divide. Many sessions addressed pressing concerns like online safety, youth engagement, and the evolving regulatory landscape, which was timely given the rapid pace of technological advancements and regulatory challenges worldwide.

However, there were some sessions that seemed overly technical or niche, which may have limited accessibility for broader audiences. To ensure the widest possible engagement, future sessions could consider simplifying complex topics or providing supplementary resources to make technical discussions more accessible.

2. Diversity of Topics:

The thematic focus of the sessions was varied and covered a broad range of issues that impact different stakeholders, from policymakers and governments to civil society, private sector, and technical communities. However, there was room for more representation of emerging topics like digital sovereignty, blockchain, and the role of tech companies in global governance.

Furthermore, some sessions could have placed more emphasis on grassroots initiatives and local-level impacts, especially for regions facing significant digital gaps. This would help ensure that the IGF continues to reflect a wide spectrum of voices and experiences, particularly from underserved regions.

Speakers

1. Diversity and Representation:

The IGF 2024 featured a diverse range of speakers, including government officials, academics, civil society leaders, and representatives from the private sector. This diversity contributed to rich discussions that reflected various perspectives on Internet governance.

However, there were concerns that some of the panels were dominated by high-profile representatives from large organizations, leaving less space for smaller, emerging voices, particularly from the grassroots level or less-represented regions. More efforts could be made to ensure that these voices are equally represented, particularly those from underrepresented groups, including youth, women, and indigenous communities.

2. Expertise and Credibility:

The speakers generally brought strong expertise to the table, offering well-informed insights and practical solutions to complex issues. However, some sessions could have benefited from a greater emphasis on action-oriented discussions, where speakers could share specific examples of successful initiatives, policies, or technologies that have had a tangible impact on local or global communities.

Additionally, while the speakers’ backgrounds were diverse, it would be beneficial to incorporate more voices from non-Western perspectives to ensure that the discussions are truly global and reflect the needs and challenges faced by developing countries and marginalized communities.

Quality of Discussions

1. Engagement and Interactivity:

The quality of discussions varied across sessions. Some panels fostered highly interactive discussions, where participants could ask questions and share their perspectives, promoting a dynamic exchange of ideas. However, in other sessions, the format was more lecture-style, which limited the ability for participants to engage actively with the content.

More interactive formats, such as workshops, Q&A sessions, or roundtable discussions, could be incorporated into future sessions to encourage deeper engagement and allow for more meaningful participation from the audience.

2. Outcome-Oriented Discussions:

While many sessions offered in-depth analysis and thought-provoking discussions, there were fewer concrete outcomes or actionable recommendations at the conclusion of each session. Moving forward, it would be helpful to include more outcomes-oriented sessions where speakers and participants collaboratively develop actionable solutions or policy recommendations that can be followed up after the IGF.

Encouraging more collaboration between sessions or encouraging the creation of task forces or working groups to address specific issues could help ensure that the discussions lead to meaningful change.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Strengthening Inclusivity in Speaker Selection:

To increase inclusivity, the IGF 2024 could have incorporated more speakers from smaller organizations, grassroots groups, and representatives from the Global South. Ensuring that all stakeholders have a voice, especially those most affected by the issues discussed, would enhance the credibility and relevance of the sessions.

Additionally, providing more opportunities for young people, marginalized groups, and community leaders to take the stage would enrich the discussions and ensure that diverse perspectives are fully represented.

2. More Interactive and Actionable Sessions:

Future IGFs could benefit from more interactive formats, such as working sessions, case study reviews, or collaborative workshops. This would allow participants to not only engage in discussions but also work together to develop concrete solutions that could be implemented post-event.

Incorporating more follow-up mechanisms, such as action plans or initiatives stemming from session discussions, would help ensure that the IGF remains a platform for tangible change.

3. Increased Focus on Emerging Technologies and Local Impacts:

While many sessions addressed current issues, more focus could be placed on emerging technologies such as blockchain, AI, and their implications for global governance. Additionally, future sessions could better highlight the local-level impacts of Internet governance policies, especially from underserved regions or vulnerable groups.

Encouraging sessions that bridge the gap between global discussions and local realities would be beneficial for fostering actionable solutions that have a direct impact on communities and regions facing unique challenges.

4. Sponsor and Shortlisted Organization Recognition:

It is essential to create a clear and transparent process regarding sponsorship for organizations involved in the IGF. Specifically, newly involved organizations often lack knowledge regarding whether they have been shortlisted for sponsorship, and it would be helpful to have a dedicated webpage listing the shortlisted organizations before their arrival. This would allow these organizations to better prepare and understand their status, ensuring that their participation is supported and recognized appropriately.

Conclusion

IGF 2024 featured strong content, diverse speakers, and engaging discussions. However, there is room for improvement in terms of inclusivity, interactive formats, and ensuring that actionable outcomes are developed from the sessions. By expanding representation, improving the accessibility of complex topics, and focusing on concrete actions, future IGFs can continue to be an influential platform for global Internet governance discussions.

Feedback on the IGF 2024 High-Level Leaders Track

The High-Level Leaders Track at IGF 2024 brought together key policymakers, government leaders, private sector executives, and thought leaders to discuss strategic issues impacting Internet governance on a global scale. Here is a breakdown of feedback regarding the track:

Content and Focus

1. Relevance of Topics:

The High-Level Leaders Track featured discussions on pressing global issues, including digital sovereignty, cybersecurity, data privacy, AI regulation, and digital infrastructure. These topics are of critical importance and reflect the growing significance of the Internet as a foundational part of global economies and societies.

However, some of the discussions were more focused on high-level theoretical concepts rather than practical, actionable outcomes. Future editions of this track could benefit from providing concrete case studies, best practices, and clear action items for global leaders to take back to their respective countries or organizations.

2. Global Challenges and Regional Perspectives:

While the discussions addressed global challenges, the perspectives presented often leaned heavily toward Western countries or large tech companies. More focus on issues facing the Global South, particularly in relation to digital infrastructure, access, and the digital divide, would have added depth to the discussions and better reflected the needs of underserved regions.

Including more sessions on local and regional policy implications of Internet governance would help create a more balanced and diverse agenda.

Speakers and Participation

1. Diversity of Participants:

The High-Level Leaders Track had a solid lineup of speakers, with key figures from governments, international organizations, and the tech industry. However, there was an observable gap in representation from smaller countries or emerging economies, which often face unique Internet governance challenges. Ensuring that speakers from these regions are included would add valuable diversity to the track.

Additionally, while government leaders and corporate executives were well represented, civil society leaders and individuals from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had limited presence. Their insights could provide a more holistic view of Internet governance, especially from a user-centered perspective.

2. Engagement and Interactivity:

The High-Level Leaders Track sessions were more presentation-based and less interactive. While this is expected in discussions with high-level stakeholders, it would be beneficial to incorporate more interactive elements such as roundtable discussions, Q&A sessions, or moderated debates. This would allow for more engagement from the broader IGF audience and foster deeper dialogue between leaders and grassroots actors.

Quality of Discussions

1. Actionability:

The sessions featured some of the most influential leaders in Internet governance, but the discussions often lacked a clear connection to actionable outcomes. The focus was largely on identifying problems and challenges, but less attention was given to solutions and commitments that could be acted upon in the short to medium term.

It would be valuable to conclude the High-Level Leaders Track with specific commitments or resolutions, with concrete timelines and follow-up mechanisms to ensure that the discussions lead to tangible progress.

2. Policy Alignment:

One of the key takeaways from the High-Level Leaders Track was the growing alignment on issues such as cybersecurity, digital governance frameworks, and the importance of multi stakeholder engagement. However, there were instances where the discussions could have been more focused on policy coordination and harmonization across regions. Encouraging greater cooperation between countries and regions on key policy issues would ensure that global digital governance remains cohesive and consistent.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Greater Inclusion of Diverse Voices:

Moving forward, the High-Level Leaders Track could benefit from the inclusion of more voices from the Global South, civil society, and smaller, non-state actors. This would provide a more inclusive perspective on global Internet governance challenges and ensure that the track reflects the needs of all stakeholders, not just the most influential players.

Specifically, a focus on emerging economies and their specific Internet governance challenges would help to broaden the dialogue and foster a more equitable global conversation.

2. Interactive Formats:

While high-level discussions are often formal, incorporating more interactive formats would increase the engagement of participants and ensure that the sessions are not merely one-way presentations. A hybrid format, including panels, roundtables, and audience participation, would facilitate more dynamic and productive discussions.

3. Outcome-Oriented Discussions:

To make the High-Level Leaders Track more impactful, it is important that future sessions lead to tangible outcomes. This could be in the form of joint statements, action plans, or collaborative initiatives. Creating clear mechanisms for follow-up after the track could ensure that the momentum generated during these discussions is sustained.

4. Transparency on Sponsorship and Shortlisting for Organizations:

Another issue to address is the lack of clarity regarding the sponsorship and shortlisting process for organizations, particularly smaller and newly involved organizations. Creating a transparent platform or webpage listing the organizations that have been shortlisted for sponsorship before the event would ensure that these organizations are better prepared and aware of their status. This would also offer clarity to those who self-fund their participation.

Conclusion

The High-Level Leaders Track at IGF 2024 was a valuable part of the forum, addressing some of the most critical issues in Internet governance. However, there is room for improvement in ensuring that the discussions are more inclusive, action-oriented, and engaging. By incorporating a wider range of perspectives, adopting interactive formats, and ensuring clear outcomes, the High-Level Leaders Track can continue to play a pivotal role in shaping global Internet governance.

Feedback on the IGF 2024 Parliamentary Track

The Parliamentary Track at IGF 2024 provided a platform for lawmakers, legislators, and policymakers to discuss key Internet governance issues. It aimed to bridge the gap between technical and policy discussions by bringing in the legislative perspective. Below is the feedback regarding this track:

Content and Focus

1. Relevance of Topics:

The topics covered in the Parliamentary Track were highly relevant, focusing on the intersection of digital policy, human rights, cybersecurity, data privacy, and the role of governments in Internet governance. These issues are crucial for lawmakers to address, especially as digital technologies continue to evolve and affect every aspect of governance and society.

However, there could have been more emphasis on how lawmakers can work together to draft international laws and regulations, as well as on fostering multilateral agreements. Discussions around harmonizing laws across different jurisdictions, especially concerning cross-border data flows, digital sovereignty, and cybersecurity laws, would be highly beneficial.

2. Balancing Technology with Policy:

The track did well in balancing discussions on the technical aspects of Internet governance with the broader policy and legislative frameworks needed to guide them. However, more in-depth discussions on the practical application of policy would have been helpful. For example, showcasing successful policy implementations in various countries could have provided actionable insights for other nations.

Speakers and Participation

1. Diversity of Speakers:

The Parliamentary Track included key representatives from a variety of political backgrounds and regions. However, the representation from non-Western countries, particularly developing countries, seemed underrepresented. More voices from these regions would offer a fuller understanding of global challenges and opportunities in Internet governance.

Furthermore, while the presence of lawmakers was strong, other stakeholders such as civil society representatives, youth activists, and tech industry experts could have added value by providing a broader context to the legislative discussions.

2. Participation of Legislators:

The participation of parliamentarians was generally good, but there was a need for more active engagement and contributions from them. Often, discussions seemed to lack the dynamic participation of lawmakers in terms of proposing legislative frameworks or engaging in real-time debates about proposed policies.

Encouraging more interactive formats, such as Q&A sessions, would have allowed for more debate and engagement from lawmakers, helping them connect more directly with the concerns and ideas raised by other participants.

Quality of Discussions

1. Practical Policy Solutions:

One of the notable strengths of the Parliamentary Track was its focus on exploring real-world challenges faced by lawmakers in crafting digital policies. However, the discussions often lacked practical solutions and actionable steps for parliamentarians. Sessions could be more focused on developing concrete policy proposals that lawmakers can take back to their respective countries and implement.

More concrete frameworks or models for addressing common challenges, such as privacy laws, cybersecurity standards, and digital literacy, would be highly valuable.

2. Multistakeholder Cooperation:

While there were discussions on the importance of multistakeholder collaboration, there could have been more focus on how parliamentarians can facilitate such cooperation through legislation. For example, exploring the role of parliaments in supporting or regulating public-private partnerships for internet infrastructure and digital services would be an interesting topic.

Sessions could explore ways to foster stronger collaboration between governments, tech companies, civil society, and other stakeholders in order to craft legislation that is effective and inclusive.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Greater Inclusion of Emerging Markets:

To ensure a comprehensive understanding of global Internet governance challenges, it is important to have more representation from emerging markets and developing countries. These countries face unique challenges in regulating digital technologies, and their input is essential for crafting inclusive global policies.

This could be achieved through targeted outreach to parliamentarians from these regions and providing a space for them to share their experiences and challenges.

2. More Interactive and Debate-Oriented Formats:

The Parliamentary Track could benefit from adopting more interactive formats that encourage greater debate and engagement between legislators. For instance, roundtable discussions, live polling, and moderated debates could help stimulate more meaningful dialogue and provide a platform for parliamentarians to engage directly with stakeholders from different sectors.

3. Actionable Outcomes and Follow-Up:

Similar to the High-Level Leaders Track, the Parliamentary Track should focus on ensuring that discussions lead to actionable outcomes. This could be in the form of resolutions, agreements, or policy recommendations that parliamentarians can take back to their home countries. Establishing follow-up mechanisms to track the implementation of these recommendations would enhance the track’s long-term impact.

4. Transparency in Sponsorship Information:

As highlighted for other tracks, it is important to ensure that organizations involved in the Parliamentary Track have clear, accessible information about sponsorship, shortlisting, and support. A dedicated platform or webpage listing the shortlisted organizations before the event could help parliamentarians, especially from smaller or newer organizations, to prepare accordingly.

5. Emphasis on Legislative Action:

Finally, future editions of the Parliamentary Track could place greater emphasis on actionable legislative initiatives. Workshops and sessions could focus on providing legislators with the tools and frameworks necessary to draft effective digital policies and foster cross-border legislative collaboration.

Conclusion

The Parliamentary Track at IGF 2024 played an important role in bringing legislative perspectives into Internet governance discussions. However, the track could benefit from a more diverse set of participants, a stronger emphasis on practical policy solutions, and more interactive formats to foster engagement. By addressing these gaps, the Parliamentary Track can become a more effective platform for shaping global digital governance and empowering legislators to take decisive action.

Feedback on the IGF 2024 Youth Track

The Youth Track at IGF 2024 aimed to engage young people in discussions about Internet governance, digital rights, and the future of the digital landscape. Youth participation in such an important global forum is essential for ensuring that the next generation has a voice in shaping policies that will impact their digital futures. Below is the feedback on the Youth Track:

Content and Focus

1. Relevance of Topics:

The topics addressed in the Youth Track were highly relevant to young people, focusing on critical issues such as digital inclusion, online privacy, cybersecurity, social media regulation, and the role of youth in advocating for digital rights. These are crucial topics for young people as they are most impacted by internet policies and digital technologies.

However, there was room for further exploration of the intersection between youth and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the metaverse. These topics could have provided insights into the future challenges and opportunities young people will face.

2. Youth-Led Discussions:

A significant strength of the Youth Track was its focus on youth-led discussions, which empowered young people to drive the conversation around issues that directly affect them. Allowing young participants to shape the agenda and lead discussions helps foster a sense of ownership and commitment to the topics discussed.

However, the track could have benefited from more opportunities for youth to present tangible solutions or proposals. Providing space for youth-led initiatives, advocacy campaigns, or policy suggestions would make the discussions more actionable.

Speakers and Participation

1. Diversity of Speakers:

The Youth Track included a mix of youth activists, influencers, policymakers, and industry experts, which helped create a well-rounded discussion. However, there could have been a more diverse representation from various regions, especially from developing countries and underserved communities. This would ensure that the voices of youth in different socio-economic contexts are heard and their unique challenges are addressed.

Additionally, the involvement of young tech leaders, such as developers, engineers, and digital entrepreneurs, could have enriched the discussions on how youth can innovate within the digital space and address issues like digital skills gaps and technology access.

2. Active Engagement:

Young people actively participated in the Youth Track, and many demonstrated a strong understanding of the issues at hand. However, there was a lack of structured, interactive activities that could have fostered more engagement. While discussions were engaging, they could have been made more interactive through activities like workshops, collaborative projects, or hackathons, which would allow participants to work together on finding solutions to real-world problems.

Quality of Discussions

1. Practical Solutions:

The discussions within the Youth Track were valuable in raising awareness about the issues youth face in the digital world. However, the discussions often lacked concrete, actionable solutions. Future editions of the Youth Track could benefit from focusing more on identifying practical, implementable solutions that young people can advocate for in their communities and countries.

For instance, providing young participants with policy tools or frameworks could empower them to become change agents in their local contexts, pushing for digital rights, policy reform, and increased access to technology.

2. Collaboration with Other Tracks:

The Youth Track was a key platform for youth perspectives, but there was limited collaboration with other tracks, such as the Parliamentary Track or the High-Level Leaders Track. Facilitating cross-track interactions, such as joint sessions or panel discussions between youth and lawmakers, could have allowed young people to directly engage with decision-makers and discuss how they can be part of the solution in shaping policies that affect them.

Encouraging youth to collaborate with other stakeholders, including industry leaders, NGOs, and multilateral organizations, could help create more inclusive and collaborative approaches to addressing youth issues in digital governance.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Greater Regional Representation:

To ensure that the Youth Track captures the diverse experiences of young people globally, greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging participation from youth in underrepresented regions. This could involve targeted outreach to youth organizations, universities, and community groups in these regions.

Facilitating regional pre-events or consultations could provide a platform for youth in these regions to prepare for the main IGF event, ensuring that their voices are heard in the global discussions.

2. More Interactive and Practical Engagement:

The Youth Track could be made more dynamic by incorporating more interactive and hands-on activities. For example, workshops, hackathons, or mentorship programs could help young people develop practical skills, foster collaboration, and create solutions for the issues they are passionate about.

Additionally, allowing youth to pitch ideas for digital projects or initiatives could encourage them to think creatively and come up with actionable solutions to global challenges.

3. Actionable Youth Recommendations:

The Youth Track should focus on generating specific recommendations that can be taken back to national or regional governments, as well as international organizations. This could include creating a "Youth Internet Governance Charter" or a set of guiding principles for policymakers to consider when creating youth-centered digital policies.

Following the event, a clear follow-up mechanism should be established to track the implementation of these recommendations and ensure that youth continue to have a voice in the decision-making process.

4. Increased Integration with the Broader IGF Agenda:

More efforts should be made to integrate the Youth Track with the overall IGF agenda. For instance, youth-related sessions could be highlighted and interspersed throughout the main event, and youth-led initiatives could be showcased alongside other initiatives from different stakeholders.

This integration would give the Youth Track more visibility and demonstrate that youth perspectives are essential to all aspects of Internet governance, not just within their dedicated track.

5. Acknowledging Youth Contributions:

Recognizing and showcasing the contributions of young people who actively participate in the Youth Track is important. This could be done through awards or certificates for outstanding contributions, presentations, or projects. It would encourage greater participation and show that youth voices are not only heard but valued.

Conclusion

The Youth Track at IGF 2024 was a significant step towards including young people in the digital governance discussions. However, there is room for improvement in areas such as regional representation, interactive formats, and generating actionable outcomes. By providing more opportunities for youth to engage with other stakeholders, offering practical tools and frameworks, and ensuring that their voices are fully integrated into the broader IGF agenda, the Youth Track can become a more impactful and transformative platform for young people in the digital space.

The IGF 2024 Village played a pivotal role in fostering engagement and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, providing a space for informal interactions, networking, and showcasing the work of various organizations involved in Internet governance. As an integral part of the IGF experience, the Village offers a dynamic setting where participants can explore the different initiatives and activities that contribute to shaping the future of the Internet.

Positive Aspects of the IGF 2024 Village:

1. Diverse Stakeholder Representation:

The Village hosted a wide variety of organizations, ranging from governments and corporations to civil society groups, academic institutions, and youth organizations. This diversity allowed for a wide range of perspectives on Internet governance to be represented.

Particularly valuable was the presence of national and regional stakeholders, allowing participants to engage in conversations about local Internet governance issues while drawing connections to the global conversation.

2. Collaborative Environment:

The Village was a hub for collaboration and informal discussions. Participants could drop by different booths and engage with representatives from various organizations in an unstructured and relaxed environment. This encouraged knowledge-sharing, the exchange of ideas, and the development of new partnerships.

This informal setting allowed for smaller workshops, demonstrations, and interactive sessions, which made complex topics more accessible to a broader audience.

3. Youth and Gender Inclusivity:

The IGF Village emphasized inclusivity by providing space for youth and gender-focused organizations to present their work, fostering a more diverse and representative conversation. It also facilitated the youth track, where young people could present their views on Internet governance and connect with senior leaders.

The presence of organizations that focus on gender equality in digital spaces provided a platform for conversations around gender rights, digital empowerment, and online safety for women and marginalized groups.

4. Resource Access:

The Village provided easy access to resources, including information materials, reports, publications, and online resources that participants could browse to deepen their understanding of Internet governance issues. These resources served to enrich the learning experience for attendees.

Areas for Improvement in the IGF 2024 Village:

1. Space and Accessibility:

While the Village was vibrant and interactive, it sometimes felt overcrowded, especially during peak hours, which made it difficult for attendees to freely engage with exhibitors and other participants. In the future, it would be beneficial to have a more spacious design that allows for easier movement and better interaction.

Additionally, accessibility for individuals with disabilities could be improved. More accessible signage, audio/visual accommodations, and clear navigation could ensure that all participants have a comfortable experience.

2. More Structured Engagement Opportunities:

While informal interactions are valuable, there could be more structured engagement activities within the Village. These could include thematic booths, roundtable discussions, or interactive presentations that provide deeper insights into specific topics, such as privacy issues, digital inclusion, or cybersecurity. This would allow for more focused engagement on particular issues.

3. Clearer Recognition of Contributions:

Some organizations, like Hazras Charity Foundation, which self-funded their participation, did not receive recognition for their contribution and passion toward the growth of the IGF. In future events, acknowledging the efforts of self-funded or smaller organizations would help build morale and encourage broader participation from a diverse range of actors, particularly those working on the ground in underserved regions.

4. More Interactivity with the Broader Programme:

The IGF Village could be better integrated with the broader IGF programme. For example, the session tracks and panels could be more directly connected to the exhibitors and activities in the Village, making it easier for attendees to navigate between sessions and the Village. This could include live streaming of sessions or discussions happening at the Village itself.

Suggestions for Future IGF Villages:

1. Incorporate Virtual Components:

Since IGF events are increasingly hybrid, incorporating virtual components in the Village could increase global accessibility, particularly for those unable to attend in person. Virtual booths, webinars, and networking lounges could complement the physical Village and ensure wider participation.

2. Enhance Sponsorship Recognition:

Create a dedicated page or section on the event’s platform or website for sponsored organizations, particularly those who are shortlisted for funding or grants, ensuring that they receive recognition and visibility for their contributions before, during, and after the event. This would also serve as a tool for networking and promoting organizations engaged in the event.

3. Better Structuring of Content:

To make it easier for participants to engage with relevant topics, the Village could be organized according to thematic areas such as digital inclusion, data privacy, or youth empowerment, ensuring that visitors can more easily find and engage with the content most relevant to them.

4. Follow-Up and Impact Measurement:

Following the event, it would be beneficial to have a follow-up mechanism to track the outcomes of the connections and discussions initiated in the Village. This could involve organizing post-event webinars or networking events that build on the collaborations and ideas sparked during the IGF.

Conclusion:

The IGF 2024 Village was a key space for collaboration, inclusivity, and networking, providing valuable opportunities for organizations and individuals to connect and engage on Internet governance topics. However, there are areas where the Village experience can be enhanced, particularly in terms of accessibility, engagement structure, and recognition of all contributors. Moving forward, a more integrated, interactive, and inclusive approach could elevate the impact and reach of the IGF Village, ensuring it remains a central feature of the event that caters to a wider range of participants.

IGF 2024 Communications, Outreach, and Outputs:

The communications, outreach, and outputs of IGF 2024 were integral in shaping the overall experience of the forum. These efforts helped raise awareness of key Internet governance issues and facilitated engagement from diverse global stakeholders. However, there are areas where improvements could further enhance the accessibility and inclusivity of the forum.

Positive Aspects of IGF 2024 Communications and Outreach:

1. Broad Reach and Digital Engagement:

The IGF 2024 communications team effectively utilized social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to share updates, key session highlights, and critical discussions. This helped raise the profile of the event and kept participants informed in real time, particularly during hybrid sessions.

The use of the official website and mobile app was crucial for event updates, session schedules, and general communication. The app, in particular, facilitated easy access to key sessions and helped participants plan their participation, whether in-person or virtually.

2. Diverse Language Support:

Materials and communications were provided in multiple languages, which helped ensure that a wider audience could access information, engage with the content, and participate in discussions. This multilingual approach is essential for promoting inclusivity across different regions and linguistic backgrounds.

3. Effective Call for Participation:

The call for issues and session proposals was widely disseminated and well-publicized, using a variety of channels, including emails, social media, and targeted outreach. This ensured that stakeholders from around the world, including underrepresented regions and communities, had the opportunity to submit their proposals and raise relevant issues.

The online registration system for the event was straightforward, and participants were provided with ample information before the event to help them prepare.

4. Strong Engagement with Youth and Gender Initiatives:

There was significant outreach to youth, gender, and other marginalized groups through dedicated tracks and sessions. The Youth Track and Gender Equality initiatives were highlighted in communications, underscoring the IGF's commitment to addressing these critical areas in Internet governance.

5. Real-Time Reporting and Media Coverage:

Real-time updates, session highlights, and live-streamed events helped keep the global audience engaged. Additionally, journalists and media partners were actively involved in covering the forum, ensuring that the outcomes and key discussions were shared with broader audiences.

Areas for Improvement in IGF 2024 Communications and Outreach:

1. Better Engagement with Smaller Organizations:

Despite the broad outreach, smaller, grassroots organizations like Hazras Charity Foundation, which self-funded their participation, did not receive the level of recognition or visibility commensurate with their contributions. More targeted communication efforts should be made to ensure that these organizations are acknowledged for their efforts before, during, and after the event.

Creating a dedicated platform or page for sponsored organizations, particularly those that have been shortlisted, would provide them with more visibility and recognition for their contributions.

2. Lack of Clear Communication for Sponsored Organizations:

Several organizations faced challenges in understanding whether they had been shortlisted for sponsorship and funding. It would be helpful to introduce a clear communication mechanism—such as a dedicated page or notification system—where shortlisted or sponsored organizations can confirm their status before the event. This would improve transparency and reduce uncertainty for participants.

3. Expand Regional Outreach:

Although communications were generally broad, there was still a gap in engaging regional networks, particularly in underserved areas where stakeholders may not have the same level of access to digital platforms. There could be more localized outreach efforts in these areas to ensure greater inclusivity and participation in the IGF.

4. Post-Event Engagement:

After the event, there could be more efforts to keep the conversation going. While session summaries, reports, and other outputs were made available, a stronger follow-up mechanism could help participants track the impact of the forum. This could include post-event webinars, discussion boards, or further collaboration opportunities to ensure that outcomes are translated into action.

5. Improving the Clarity of Event Outputs:

Reports and key takeaways from sessions were sometimes difficult to navigate, especially for participants looking for specific insights. More accessible and summarized reports with clear action points could be produced to make the outputs more user-friendly and actionable for a wide range of stakeholders.

Suggestions for Future IGF Communications and Outreach:

1. Create a Comprehensive Digital Hub:

Develop a centralized digital hub where participants can access all event-related communications, including sponsorship status, session details, resources, and real-time updates. This will ensure that all stakeholders have equal access to key information before, during, and after the event.

2. Increase Collaboration with Regional Media:

Partner more with regional media outlets and community-based organizations to increase visibility and outreach to local audiences. Tailoring outreach materials to regional contexts can help engage communities that might otherwise be excluded from the global conversation.

3. Leverage Data Analytics for Targeted Outreach:

Use data analytics to track engagement with event materials and sessions to identify which groups and regions are underrepresented. This information can guide more tailored outreach strategies and ensure that all regions and stakeholders have a voice in the conversation.

4. Strengthen the Youth and Gender Focus:

Highlight the participation of youth and women-led organizations even more prominently in the IGF communications and ensure that there are dedicated resources for these groups to better connect with policymakers and other stakeholders.

5. Post-Event Reporting and Action Plans:

After the event, issue detailed, structured reports that clearly outline the outcomes and next steps for participants to engage in the ongoing dialogue. These reports should also be interactive, allowing stakeholders to track the progress of initiatives discussed at the event.

Conclusion:

IGF 2024’s communications and outreach efforts contributed to a broad and diverse representation of global voices and stakeholders. While significant progress was made in fostering digital engagement and inclusivity, there are areas for improvement, especially in terms of recognizing smaller organizations, improving post-event engagement, and enhancing the accessibility of outputs. By implementing targeted strategies to address these gaps, IGF communications can be even more effective in ensuring that all stakeholders are empowered to contribute to the evolving landscape of Internet governance.

Suggestions for Improvement for IGF 2025 Preparatory Process:

1. Simplified and Transparent Proposal Process:

Streamline the session proposal process to make it easier for smaller organizations, grassroots groups, and newcomers to submit proposals. Clearer guidelines and pre-filled templates could significantly reduce the administrative burden. Additionally, making the session selection criteria more transparent would help ensure fairness and inclusivity.

2. More Proactive Outreach and Promotion:

Expand outreach efforts through regional networks, local stakeholders, and digital platforms to ensure a diverse and inclusive call for session proposals. This could include targeted outreach to underrepresented groups, minority regions, and smaller stakeholders to ensure their voices are heard and reflected in the IGF discussions.

Regular reminders and early communications for potential participants about the preparatory process would help them plan ahead, particularly for those in regions with limited access to information or resources.

3. Regional Pre-Consultations and Local Engagement:

Regional pre-consultation meetings should be held to bring local perspectives into the preparatory process, making sure that the global agenda is truly representative of regional concerns. By doing so, the IGF could better reflect regional challenges, ensuring that the sessions are more targeted and relevant to diverse contexts.

Local engagement through partnerships with national stakeholders and organizations can increase the visibility and relevance of the IGF in each host country, fostering more in-depth conversations and ownership of the event.

4. Longer and Clearer Timelines for Planning:

The IGF 2025 preparatory process should provide clearer and longer timelines for session proposals, MAG meetings, and consultations. This would give more time for stakeholders to engage, allowing for better preparation and feedback before decisions are made, particularly for new or smaller organizations that may require additional time to organize their proposals and materials.

5. More Inclusive MAG Membership and Role Transparency:

Ensure the diversity of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in terms of regional, gender, and sectoral representation. This will help to guarantee that all groups are adequately represented, especially those from marginalized communities and underrepresented regions.

Provide clearer guidelines and transparency regarding MAG members' roles in the process, particularly in terms of their involvement in session selection. This will help prevent concerns of bias and ensure that the MAG remains an objective and fair body for all stakeholders.

6. Targeted Capacity-Building Programs for Participants:

Capacity development should be tailored to ensure that underrepresented regions and smaller stakeholders are better equipped to participate in the IGF. This could include training on session proposals, internet governance topics, and technical tools for engaging in hybrid formats.

Capacity-building efforts should be regionally distributed, ensuring that remote or rural areas are not left behind in the preparation process.

7. Enhanced Use of Data Analytics:

Implement data analytics tools to assess which regions, stakeholders, or issues are underrepresented or underserved in terms of participation. This information could then inform outreach strategies and targeted capacity-building efforts to increase diversity and ensure balanced representation.

8. Clearer Communication of Sponsorship Information:

For organizations that have been shortlisted for sponsorship or support, create a dedicated page or portal that clearly communicates their sponsorship status and any related information, such as logistical support, funding, or other benefits. This will help organizations plan better and avoid confusion upon arrival at the event.

9. Improved Collaboration with National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs):

Continue to strengthen the role of National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) by ensuring they are fully integrated into the preparatory process and have a voice in the discussions. NRIs can bring local relevance to the global dialogue, and their active inclusion in the process should be a priority.

Encourage cross-regional collaborations by fostering partnerships between NRIs and other stakeholders, leading to joint proposals and shared initiatives.

10. Clearer and More Actionable Outcomes:

Focus on creating clearer, actionable outcomes for each session or theme. These could be translated into concrete follow-up actions, ensuring that the dialogue at the IGF translates into tangible changes or initiatives in Internet governance policy.

Follow-up feedback mechanisms should be introduced to ensure that key stakeholders, especially smaller organizations, can share their experiences and suggest improvements during the event and beyond.

11. Greater Engagement with the Private Sector and Technical Community:

Strengthen the involvement of the private sector and technical community in the preparatory process. These groups often hold valuable perspectives on the evolution of digital technologies and the governance challenges they pose. Their inclusion would balance the dialogue and help align the discussions with practical, real-world applications.

12. More Robust Post-Event Follow-Up:

Establish a stronger post-event feedback and follow-up mechanism, allowing stakeholders to reflect on the event and share lessons learned. This could include regular updates on progress, initiatives launched, and collaborative efforts post-IGF, which would help sustain momentum and keep the discussions alive throughout the year. Also, there should be a special package for the Organisation that Self funded their trips to attend the event.

By implementing these improvements, IGF 2025 will be better equipped to foster inclusive, meaningful, and action-oriented dialogue, ensuring the event remains a dynamic and valuable platform for the global Internet governance community.

IGF 2024:

Suggestions for IGF 2025 Overall Programme Structure and Flow

1. Clear and Thematic Programme Tracks:

Organize the programme into clear thematic tracks (e.g., digital inclusion, cybersecurity, data privacy, Internet governance, AI policy, etc.) to guide discussions and provide participants with a logical flow through the event. Each track should have its own dedicated space for relevant sessions and discussions. This structure would help participants focus on topics of interest and encourage deeper engagement.

To ensure the tracks are relevant, stakeholders should be involved in the process of defining and refining the themes before the event. This could be done through consultations with various communities, including the private sector, civil society, and governments, during the preparatory phase.

2. Integrated Hybrid Experience:

Ensure that the hybrid model is seamlessly integrated, with synchronized in-person and virtual sessions. Clear guidance should be provided for both physical and online attendees on how to engage with sessions and speakers. The hybrid format should prioritize interactivity, with tools for questions, polling, and collaboration in both physical and virtual spaces.

Use technologies that allow for better virtual networking opportunities, such as digital lounges and bilateral meeting systems, ensuring online participants have a chance to engage with both other participants and exhibitors.

3. Interactive Sessions and Workshops:

Move away from lecture-style sessions and incorporate more interactive workshops, roundtable discussions, and case studies. These formats are particularly effective for collaboration and knowledge exchange, and they allow for deeper engagement from participants.

Actionable outcomes should be emphasized in workshops, with clear goals set at the beginning and concrete follow-up actions after the session. Ensure there is time allocated for Q&A, discussion, and collective problem-solving in every session.

4. Stronger Engagement with Youth, Women, and Underserved Groups:

Devote a significant portion of the programme to youth-focused sessions and ensure that the youth track is not a side event but rather integrated into the broader programme. Create spaces for young people to interact directly with experts and high-level leaders on issues that matter to them.

Ensure gender equality is embedded across all tracks and sessions, with efforts to ensure that both female and male speakers are equally represented across discussions. Special sessions could be dedicated to women’s empowerment in digital spaces, focusing on access, safety, and digital rights for women.

Provide platforms for underserved communities to share their perspectives and solutions, addressing the digital divide and offering opportunities for their voices to be heard.

5. Clear Programme Timelines with Flexibility:

Ensure the overall programme has a clear schedule with precise start and end times for each session. Allow flexibility within the schedule to accommodate for overrun discussions, networking opportunities, or impromptu feedback.

Time zone considerations should be factored in, especially for virtual participants from across different continents. For example, key sessions might be rotated to accommodate various global regions, ensuring more inclusive access to live sessions.

6. Integration of Inter-Sessional Activities:

Incorporate the outputs of intersessional activities (e.g., Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions, and NRIs) directly into the programme. Provide a platform for these groups to share their findings or showcase ongoing projects that relate to the themes of the conference.

Each thematic track should offer space for interactive showcases, presentations, or mini-forums where these outputs can be integrated into the main programme, ensuring continuity between the preparatory phase and the event itself.

7. Improved Networking Opportunities:

Ensure that participants have structured opportunities for networking and collaboration, not only during breaks but also as part of the programme. Networking events such as virtual networking sessions or hybrid roundtables should be strategically scheduled to allow for engagement between stakeholders from different regions and sectors.

Introduce a mentorship program or a collaboration hub for first-time attendees, particularly from developing countries or smaller organizations, to facilitate learning and networking.

8. Stronger Integration with Global Policy Discussions:

Ensure that the IGF 2025 programme aligns with global digital policy and current international agendas. High-level sessions should be linked to ongoing global discussions on digital governance, cybersecurity, data privacy, AI ethics, and Internet freedom. These could feature officials from international organizations, policy makers, and leaders in tech industries to create strong synergies.

Additionally, ensure that the parliamentary track and high-level leaders track provide spaces for actionable outcomes that link the IGF to policy-making at national, regional, and international levels.

9. Dynamic and Accessible Outputs:

The overall content of IGF 2025 should include easy-to-access outputs, such as session summaries, key takeaways, and actionable steps, which can be shared in real-time or immediately after the event. This would allow both in-person and remote participants to leave with tangible insights and follow-up actions.

Create an open-access digital repository of all IGF sessions, ensuring that anyone, whether attending physically or virtually, can revisit content later. Provide clear links to relevant policy papers, reports, or publications that support discussions.

10. Engagement with Private Sector, NGOs, and Academia:

Strengthen engagement with the private sector, NGOs, and academic institutions by having collaborative sessions where each sector can present perspectives on specific challenges and solutions. These sessions should aim to connect the research community with policy makers, corporations, and civil society organizations, and aim at building cross-sector partnerships for sustainable digital governance.

In summary, IGF 2025's overall programme should provide a balanced and diverse platform that allows for robust discussions, actionable outputs, and wide inclusivity. By making the structure more interactive, inclusive, and focused on actionable outcomes, the event can continue to serve as a leading forum for global dialogue and collaboration in the evolving digital age.

To best connect community intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) with the IGF 2025 process, several strategies can be implemented. These strategies can foster collaboration, ensure greater inclusivity, and strengthen the overall impact of the IGF. Below are suggestions for enhancing their integration into the IGF 2025 process:

1. Strengthening the Link Between Community Intersessional Activities and IGF 2025

Clearer Integration into the IGF Program:

Community-driven intersessional activities such as Best Practice Forums (BPFs), Dynamic Coalitions (DCs), and Policy Networks (PNs) should be explicitly connected to the main IGF 2025 program. This can be done by ensuring that outcomes from these activities directly inform the annual IGF discussions. Each intersessional activity should have dedicated sessions within the IGF that present their findings, lessons learned, and recommendations for the future direction of Internet governance.

These activities should be embedded into the overall IGF agenda, with sessions planned around their research, findings, and solutions. This ensures that the work done by communities is given visibility and recognized as part of the broader global discussions.

Structured Feedback Loops:

Create formal channels for community-driven activities to feedback into the IGF process throughout the year. This could include pre-IGF consultation meetings where the results of intersessional activities are shared with stakeholders, and there is time to gather input for refining IGF 2025 sessions.

Additionally, data-sharing platforms could be set up to allow real-time feedback from participants, community members, and stakeholders involved in intersessional work to influence session design and content.

Dedicated Tracks for Intersessional Activities:

Allocate specific time slots or tracks within the IGF 2025 program for showcasing the work of BPFs, Dynamic Coalitions, and Policy Networks. This allows these community-led initiatives to highlight their contributions and helps integrate them into the broader discussions. This can take the form of panel discussions, workshops, or informal roundtable formats to ensure deep engagement.

2. Fostering Stronger Connections with National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs)

Pre-Consultation Events and Regional Dialogues:

Encourage NRI-led consultations in the lead-up to IGF 2025, ensuring that the regional voices are reflected in the main program. These regional consultations could include roundtable discussions, workshops, or public forums that focus on issues specific to the region but still relevant on a global scale.

The NRI process can also be tied into the global agenda of IGF 2025 by identifying regional challenges and proposing solutions at the global level. The NRIs should play a key role in bringing regional diversity to the IGF table and offering localized perspectives that can enhance the overall IGF agenda.

Youth IGF Integration:

The Youth IGFs should be given greater visibility in the IGF 2025 program by organizing youth-led sessions and ensuring that youth perspectives are integrated into all thematic tracks. These sessions should focus on youth-specific concerns, such as digital education, online safety, data privacy, AI ethics, and the future of work.

Encourage intergenerational dialogues between youth and senior stakeholders in both youth-led IGF tracks and mainstream sessions. This approach fosters collaboration and knowledge transfer, ensuring that youth voices are heard alongside established leaders in Internet governance.

It is essential to involve youth participants in organizing and leading sessions at IGF 2025, empowering them to shape the agenda and ensuring that their ideas are given equal prominence.

Formal Recognition of NRIs in the IGF Process:

A more formal integration of NRI outcomes into the IGF program would enhance their visibility and participation. This could be achieved through the creation of a dedicated space for NRIs to present the outcomes of their national, regional, and youth IGFs.

Ensure that NRIs are given a voice in the decision-making processes of the IGF. This could involve representation on the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) or through formal NRI liaison roles, ensuring that their perspectives are included in IGF 2025’s thematic and session planning.

NRI-Focused Capacity Development:

Provide capacity-building initiatives specifically for NRIs, particularly in developing regions or youth-led IGFs. Support can include online workshops, mentorship programs, and training materials that prepare participants from NRIs to lead sessions, organize events, and engage effectively in IGF discussions.

This will help to increase the overall quality and inclusiveness of contributions from NRIs, ensuring that their involvement is not just tokenistic, but based on knowledge and strong, actionable inputs.

3. Creating Synergies Between Global and Local Initiatives

Link Local Insights with Global Action:

Establish a stronger connection between the local realities and global dialogues. NRIs, especially those based in underserved regions, should have their local Internet governance concerns addressed on the global stage, ensuring the IGF’s relevance to their unique needs and challenges. For example, sessions that explore digital inclusion, affordable access, sustainable development goals, or localized digital policies can help connect grassroots experiences to the global agenda.

Sustainability and Continuity of NRIs:

IGF 2025 should encourage the sustainability of NRIs by supporting the creation of long-term national and regional IGFs. This can include funding, resource-sharing, and network-building across NRIs to create lasting impact and collaborative efforts between different regions.

Cross-NRI Collaborations:

Foster collaboration among different NRIs (national, regional, and youth). Joint sessions, shared research, and cross-border dialogue between NRIs can ensure that a wide range of perspectives and collaborative initiatives are integrated into the IGF 2025 discussions.

Conclusion

By strengthening the interlinkages between community intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs, IGF 2025 can create a more inclusive, diverse, and interactive global dialogue on Internet governance. Greater collaboration, formal recognition, and enhanced capacity development for these groups will ensure that local issues are represented globally, and that IGF 2025 remains relevant to all stakeholders, from grassroots communities to global leaders.

Suggestions for IGF 2025 Programme Content

1. Thematic Approach:

Clear, Future-Oriented Themes: For IGF 2025, the thematic approach should be more forward-looking and should focus on emerging issues that will shape the future of the Internet. Topics such as AI and digital ethics, cybersecurity for the next decade, digital rights in the age of big data, and global digital inclusion should be prioritized. These themes should be refined through consultation with diverse stakeholders to ensure relevance to the evolving digital landscape.

Interconnected Themes: Rather than isolated topics, the IGF programme should emphasize cross-cutting themes that reflect the interconnectedness of issues. For example, digital governance intersects with data privacy, cybersecurity, AI policy, and human rights. Structuring sessions around these interconnected issues will allow for richer discussions and broader perspectives.

Sector-Specific and Regional Focus: Ensure that thematic areas also cover sector-specific issues (e.g., healthcare, education, agriculture) and regional challenges (e.g., internet governance in Africa, digital sovereignty in the Global South) to bring global diversity into the dialogue.

2. Session Types:

Interactive Workshops and Hands-On Sessions: IGF 2025 should move towards interactive, participatory formats such as workshops, hands-on training sessions, and roundtable discussions. These formats provide deeper engagement and actionable outcomes compared to traditional lectures or panel discussions. Focus on real-world case studies, practical solutions, and implementation strategies for Internet governance challenges.

Fireside Chats with Experts and Thought Leaders: These informal yet insightful sessions can bring high-level discussions to a more personal and accessible level. Speakers from leading think tanks, international organizations, or tech innovators can engage in discussions on emerging trends or policy shifts, allowing attendees to interact with experts in a relaxed format.

Policy Dialogues and Town Halls: Dedicated spaces should be created for policy dialogues and town hall-style discussions, where governments, the private sector, and civil society can directly engage with each other and the audience. These sessions could focus on policy implementation, digital rights advocacy, and multistakeholder cooperation.

Case Study Presentations and Best Practice Forums: Highlight successful digital governance models and best practices in the application of Internet policy. Include cross-country case studies to explore how digital transformation is being applied in diverse regions. Best Practice Forums (BPFs) should have dedicated slots where these practices can be shared and debated.

Lightning Talks and Start-Up Pitches: A series of quick-fire presentations by emerging innovators, start-ups, or grassroot initiatives could bring new ideas and perspectives to the table. This format could be used for showcasing solutions in areas such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and sustainable technology.

3. Speakers' Profiles:

Multidisciplinary Voices: IGF 2025 should feature a diverse range of speakers from across sectors. This includes governments, tech leaders, policy makers, NGOs, academics, civil society, and grassroots organizations. Women, youth, and marginalized groups should be well-represented to reflect a broad spectrum of perspectives and lived experiences.

Regional Representation: Ensure regional diversity in the speaker lineup. In particular, make space for speakers from regions often underrepresented, such as Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East. This helps to ensure that the global south's unique challenges and solutions are included in the discussions.

Experts in Emerging Areas: Include experts in cutting-edge topics, such as AI ethics, digital currencies, 5G/6G rollout, and Internet governance in space. Thought leaders in these domains will help steer the discussions towards new opportunities and potential risks.

Community-Led Speakers: Include voices from community-driven initiatives, grassroots movements, and activists advocating for digital rights or social change in their local contexts. Their lived experiences will add crucial depth to the conversation on how the Internet impacts communities at the ground level.

Youth Leaders and Innovators: IGF 2025 should emphasize the inclusion of youth leaders who are advocating for digital transformation, cyber rights, and environmental sustainability. Their perspectives can bring fresh ideas, particularly on topics like digital inclusion and future governance models.

4. Engagement with Policy Makers and High-Level Leaders:

Government Representation: High-level government officials from national and international policy-making bodies should be included to discuss policies related to digital infrastructure, cybersecurity, data sovereignty, internet freedom, and online freedoms. Governments play a critical role in shaping the regulatory landscape and should be actively engaged in the discussions on practical policy solutions.

Business and Tech Industry Leaders: Invite leaders from the private sector (technology companies, telecom operators, and entrepreneurs) to discuss business models for digital transformation and how corporate responsibility in data privacy and security can be shaped. Tech companies should also engage in dialogues on algorithmic accountability, AI governance, and consumer protection.

International Organizations and NGOs: Representatives from international organizations, such as the UN, OECD, World Bank, and ICANN, should be present to offer insights on global governance frameworks and collaborative efforts between governments and multistakeholder bodies.

5. Integrating Emerging Trends into Discussions:

Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Sessions dedicated to AI and its intersection with Internet governance will be central. A focus on AI governance frameworks, responsible AI design, and AI's impact on labor markets and digital rights will be crucial.

Blockchain and Digital Currencies: Explore how blockchain technology and digital currencies (including Central Bank Digital Currencies - CBDCs) are reshaping financial systems, privacy regulations, and cross-border digital trade.

Data Privacy and Protection: With the growing concerns over data privacy, focus should be given to data protection regulations, the right to be forgotten, data ownership, and cross-border data flows.

In conclusion, the programme content for IGF 2025 should emphasize the future of digital governance, with a thematic approach that is innovative, inclusive, and reflects diverse voices. The session formats should be designed for interactivity and actionable outcomes, with a particular focus on youth, gender inclusivity, and global diversity. The speaker profiles should draw from a wide array of sectors, regions, and expertise, ensuring that IGF 2025 remains the most relevant and impactful platform for shaping the future of the Internet.

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs at IGF 2024: Process, Content, and Integration into the Annual IGF Programme

Comments on Process

1. Engagement with National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs):

The process for engaging NRIs in IGF 2024 was generally positive, with several National, Regional, and Youth IGFs successfully contributing to the broader event. However, there were challenges related to the coordination and integration of NRI activities within the main IGF programme.

Many NRIs hosted their own events in parallel with the main IGF sessions, but there were instances where their activities lacked clear connection or synergy with the overarching themes of IGF 2024. This disconnect may have resulted in missed opportunities for cross-regional learning and collaboration.

Some NRIs, particularly those from underserved regions, faced logistical challenges in terms of resources and support. More assistance from the IGF Secretariat in facilitating coordination and providing technical support could help ensure that these NRIs can participate more effectively in the global event.

2. Inclusivity and Representation:

While NRIs are meant to provide platforms for local and regional stakeholders to discuss Internet governance issues, the process for ensuring diverse and inclusive participation could be improved. There were concerns that the representation of smaller or emerging groups within the NRI events was not as strong as it could be. More outreach efforts and targeted support for youth, women, and underrepresented groups could ensure that a wider range of voices are heard in the discussions.

Additionally, the communication channels between NRIs and the main IGF organizing body could be more transparent. NRIs would benefit from clearer guidelines on how they can submit their proposals, participate in the larger IGF process, and align their sessions with the overall themes of the global IGF.

Comments on Content

1. Relevance and Quality of Content:

NRIs brought a diverse array of topics to the table, focusing on both global and local issues. For example, youth IGFs highlighted issues such as digital inclusion, online safety, and access to information, while regional IGFs addressed specific challenges relevant to their respective geographies, such as the digital divide or infrastructure issues.

The content produced by NRIs was generally very relevant to their local contexts, but at times it lacked the depth or global relevance needed to effectively contribute to the global IGF discussions. It would be helpful if NRIs could focus more on generating actionable outcomes or policy recommendations that could be integrated into global dialogues.

Some NRIs showcased excellent collaboration between governmental, private sector, and civil society actors. However, others struggled to engage all relevant stakeholders, limiting the diversity of the content and perspective shared.

2. Youth Engagement and Impact:

Youth IGFs stood out as particularly vibrant and impactful, with young people addressing issues that were directly relevant to their digital futures, such as privacy, cybersecurity, and online participation. The involvement of youth in shaping the IGF agenda is a positive step towards creating a more inclusive digital governance system.

However, while youth-focused content was relevant, it sometimes lacked the opportunity for sustained engagement beyond the event. Ensuring that youth participants have continuous access to follow-up activities, mentorship, and platforms for further contribution will help to maintain momentum after the event and ensure long-term impact.

Integration of NRIs into the Annual IGF Programme

1. Visibility and Inclusion:

One of the strengths of IGF 2024 was the increasing recognition of NRIs, with their sessions integrated into the main IGF programme. However, the visibility of NRI outcomes was inconsistent. Some NRIs were able to showcase their results effectively, but others did not receive the level of attention or support needed for their work to be fully recognized.

A more structured process for NRIs to present their results during the IGF could improve their integration into the global discussions. For instance, a dedicated segment or plenary session where NRIs can present their findings and discuss their relevance to global Internet governance issues would ensure that their work is showcased and connected to the broader discussions.

2. Support for NRI Coordination and Outcomes:

NRIs play an essential role in ensuring that local and regional perspectives are included in the global Internet governance debate. However, the process for coordinating NRI activities with the broader IGF agenda could be improved. There is room for enhancing communication between NRIs and the IGF Secretariat, with clearer guidelines on how their activities can align with the main themes of the event.

The creation of a dedicated platform for NRIs to submit session proposals, engage with each other, and align their agendas with IGF’s thematic areas would foster more cohesion between regional, national, and global discussions.

3. Capacity-Building and Support:

Many NRIs face significant capacity gaps in terms of resources, organizational infrastructure, and technical knowledge. Offering more support to NRIs, particularly those from smaller or less-developed regions, is crucial to ensuring they can engage effectively in the IGF process. This could include financial support for travel, technical training, or logistical assistance to facilitate participation.

Additionally, providing targeted capacity-building for NRI organizers could enhance the quality of their sessions and help them better engage their local and regional communities in Internet governance discussions.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Clearer Guidelines and Support for NRI Engagement:

Develop clearer, more accessible guidelines for NRIs, particularly smaller or newly-established groups, to understand how they can participate in the IGF preparatory process and align their sessions with global themes. A streamlined process would increase inclusivity and ensure a greater diversity of voices in the event.

The IGF Secretariat should provide additional technical and logistical support to NRIs to help them organize their events and contribute more effectively to the main IGF programme.

2. Better Integration of NRI Results into Global IGF:

Create a formal platform within the IGF agenda for NRIs to present the outcomes of their sessions and discussions. This will ensure that the regional and national perspectives are fully integrated into the global dialogue. NRIs should also be encouraged to share actionable policy recommendations and outcomes from their sessions that can contribute to global Internet governance initiatives.

3. Improved Capacity-Building Opportunities:

Increase capacity-building opportunities for NRIs, particularly in terms of session organization, outreach strategies, and content creation. This would help ensure that their sessions are impactful and relevant, fostering greater engagement and collaboration among regional stakeholders.

4. Foster Youth Participation Across Regions:

Strengthen the involvement of youth in regional and national IGFs by offering more targeted outreach, mentorship, and support. This would enable youth to better contribute to the larger discussions and ensure that their voices are not only heard but actively shape Internet governance policies.

Conclusion

NRIs played an important role in IGF 2024 by bringing localized and regional perspectives to the global Internet governance discussion. However, improvements in coordination, visibility, and inclusion of their content within the main IGF programme are needed to maximize their impact. By strengthening support, providing clearer guidelines, and creating platforms for NRIs to present their findings, IGF 2025 can ensure that these vital voices are fully integrated into the broader global dialogue.

For IGF 2025, it is essential to ensure that the participant base is inclusive, diverse, and representative of all stakeholders involved in Internet governance. This will enhance the quality of discussions and ensure that the IGF truly reflects global perspectives on key Internet governance issues. Below are suggestions on who to invite to IGF 2025 and how to effectively inter-connect participants:

1. Who to Invite

A. Government Representatives

National and regional governments should be invited to ensure that policy and regulatory perspectives are included. Participation should be encouraged from ministries of communication, information technology, cybersecurity, and digital development.

Special focus should be placed on underrepresented regions, such as small island states, landlocked countries, and least developed countries (LDCs).

B. Private Sector Stakeholders

Invite major tech companies, including internet service providers (ISPs), cloud services, telecoms, digital platforms, and startups in the digital ecosystem to provide insights on innovation, business challenges, data governance, privacy, and network infrastructure.

Encourage digital entrepreneurs, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and tech innovators who are creating new solutions that can help shape the future of Internet governance.

C. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

Ensure broad representation of civil society groups, particularly those involved in digital rights, freedom of expression, data privacy, access to information, and inclusion.

Include advocacy groups, human rights organizations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) that represent marginalized and vulnerable populations (e.g., youth, women, persons with disabilities, and low-income communities).

D. Academia and Research Institutions

Invite university professors, researchers, and think tanks that focus on Internet governance, digital policy, cybersecurity, AI ethics, and socio-economic impacts of the Internet.

Encourage collaborations with academic institutions to bring evidence-based research into discussions, providing data-driven solutions to governance challenges.

E. Technical Community and Internet Standards Organizations

Representatives from the technical community, including those involved in internet infrastructure, cybersecurity, DNS management, encryption, and internet standards, should be invited to ensure discussions are grounded in technical realities.

Standard-setting bodies, such as IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) and ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), should play a central role in contributing to technical sessions.

F. Youth Representatives

Young people should have a significant voice in IGF 2025, as they will be the next generation of Internet users, innovators, and policy leaders. Invite youth activists, student representatives, and youth-led organizations.

Youth IGFs should be encouraged to bring forward youth-specific issues, such as digital literacy, online safety, and youth empowerment through digital tools.

G. Indigenous Communities

Indigenous groups that are affected by digital exclusion and cultural preservation through digital tools should be invited to represent their unique needs and challenges in the global Internet governance dialogue.

H. International and Multilateral Organizations

Representatives from organizations like the United Nations, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) should be included to provide a global policy perspective.

Regional organizations such as the European Union, African Union, and ASEAN should also be involved to address regional Internet governance issues.

2. How to Inter-Connect Participants

To ensure meaningful engagement and collaboration between diverse groups at IGF 2025, the following strategies can be employed:

A. Create Diverse and Interdisciplinary Sessions

Design sessions that bring together stakeholders from different sectors (e.g., government, civil society, private sector, technical community) to discuss pressing Internet governance issues. These cross-sector dialogues encourage collaboration and knowledge exchange.

Incorporate roundtable formats, where participants from various backgrounds can discuss topics in smaller groups, facilitating interdisciplinary networking.

B. Facilitate Collaborative Tools and Platforms

Digital platforms (such as an online community portal or an IGF app) should be used to facilitate pre-event networking, real-time discussions, and follow-up actions.

Encourage participants to share resources, ideas, and actionable solutions before, during, and after the event to keep the dialogue flowing beyond the main event.

Live-streaming and interactive webinars should be offered for remote participants, ensuring they can actively engage and contribute to sessions without geographical barriers.

C. Tailored Networking and Bilateral Meeting Systems

AI-based matchmaking tools could be introduced to recommend potential collaborators based on session interests, goals, and previous discussions. This tool could suggest relevant people or organizations that participants should meet, enhancing networking and collaboration opportunities.

Organize structured networking events, such as speed-networking sessions or topic-based mixers, to connect participants from different backgrounds but with common interests. These networking events can create informal spaces for exchanging ideas, solving challenges, and building partnerships.

D. Foster Partnerships Across Regions and Sectors

Encourage multi-stakeholder partnerships and cross-border collaborations. For example, a youth-led organization from one region could partner with a government agency or private company from another region to co-host a session or share best practices.

Promote multi-regional joint sessions, where experts from different regions discuss global challenges, exchange ideas, and offer diverse solutions. This ensures that global voices are reflected in all dialogues.

E. Use Visual Aids and Online Platforms to Enhance Accessibility

Ensure that sessions are accessible to all participants, including those with disabilities. This includes providing sign language interpreters, real-time captioning, and audio descriptions for relevant sessions.

Implement interactive digital tools like live polls, Q&A platforms, and discussion forums that allow participants to submit questions and interact with speakers and panelists in real-time.

F. Promote Peer Learning and Collaborative Outputs

Organize workshops or co-creation labs where participants can collaborate on solutions for Internet governance challenges. These workshops can focus on themes like policy design, digital inclusion, data governance, and security.

Create opportunities for post-event collaboration by encouraging participants to form action groups or committees that work together on initiatives arising from IGF discussions.

G. Ensure Ongoing Engagement After the Event

Build an engagement plan to keep participants connected after the event. This can include follow-up webinars, working groups, and online forums to continue discussions and turn ideas into actions.

Establish community-driven action plans where participants can sign up for ongoing tasks or commitments, fostering accountability and ownership.

Conclusion

To ensure that IGF 2025 is an inclusive and impactful event, it is essential to invite a diverse range of participants, including government, private sector, civil society, academia, youth, indigenous communities, and multilateral organizations. Creating effective connections among these stakeholders can be achieved through cross-sectoral collaboration, digital platforms, structured networking opportunities, and post-event engagement. These strategies will ensure that the IGF 2025 is an inclusive and productive forum for shaping the future of Internet governance.

The IGF 2025 presents a critical opportunity to align with and support the broader WSIS+20 Review and contribute to the Global Digital Compact (GDC). As both initiatives address key aspects of global digital governance, the IGF can play a pivotal role in bringing together stakeholders, fostering dialogues, and providing recommendations that influence the future direction of global digital policy. Below are some suggestions on how the IGF 2025 could contribute to the WSIS+20 Review and support the Global Digital Compact:

1. IGF’s Contribution to the WSIS+20 Review

The WSIS+20 Review will assess the progress made in implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and provide an opportunity for high-level reflection on the evolving digital landscape. The General Assembly resolution A/70/125 calls for a high-level meeting at the end of 2025 to review WSIS outcomes, and the IGF can be instrumental in shaping the discussions that lead to this review. Below are ways the IGF 2025 could contribute:

A. Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on WSIS Themes

IGF 2025 could host a series of multi-stakeholder panels or sessions focused on key WSIS themes (e.g., access to information, ICT for development, digital inclusion, e-governance, privacy, cybersecurity, and internet governance). These sessions should assess how much progress has been made since WSIS 2003 and WSIS+10 2015.

A dedicated WSIS+20 track could be integrated into the IGF program to focus specifically on the alignment between IGF discussions and the recommendations of the WSIS+20 review process.

B. Reporting Progress on WSIS Action Lines

The IGF could facilitate tracking and reporting on the WSIS Action Lines through its different sessions, focusing on how current initiatives have addressed these action lines and where gaps remain.

Capacity-building workshops on key Action Lines (such as ICT infrastructure, digital skills, and affordable access) can be included to foster deeper discussions on tangible outcomes that support the WSIS goals.

C. Recommendations for WSIS+20

Through contributions from the global community, the IGF could summarize practical recommendations for the WSIS+20 Review. This could include input from the government, private sector, civil society, and technical community on how to accelerate the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, especially in light of technological advances, challenges, and opportunities that have emerged since WSIS 2003.

D. High-Level WSIS+20 Debate

As part of IGF 2025, a high-level debate or summit on the WSIS+20 could be organized, bringing together government representatives, global leaders, UN agencies, and other relevant stakeholders to discuss and review progress towards the WSIS goals.

This session could directly inform the General Assembly resolution by highlighting ongoing challenges and offering concrete, actionable insights.

2. IGF’s Support for the Implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC)

The Global Digital Compact (GDC), endorsed by the UN Secretary-General in 2023, outlines principles for shared global digital cooperation and addresses key issues such as digital equity, data privacy, cybersecurity, and AI ethics. IGF 2025 could support the implementation of the GDC in several ways:

A. Multi-Stakeholder Engagement for the GDC

IGF 2025 should offer a platform for discussions and collaborations on practical steps for implementing the GDC’s key principles. This includes promoting multi-stakeholder cooperation between governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and the technical community to develop solutions to global digital challenges.

A dedicated track on the Global Digital Compact could be included to ensure that there is a coherent dialogue and shared vision on how the GDC can be translated into actionable policies and initiatives.

B. Bridging the Digital Divide

One of the central goals of the GDC is to address the digital divide by ensuring equitable access to digital technologies, especially in low-income countries. The IGF 2025 could focus on discussing innovative solutions to enhance affordable internet access, digital skills training, and sustainable infrastructure to ensure no one is left behind in the digital economy.

Youth and community participation could be emphasized, with specific programs aimed at empowering the next generation and communities in marginalized regions with the digital skills and tools needed to fully participate in the global digital economy.

C. Data Governance and Privacy

A session or working group on data governance, privacy, and digital rights could directly align with the GDC’s focus on protecting privacy and ensuring data rights for all users. This could include discussions on global frameworks for data protection, international agreements on AI governance, and best practices in cybersecurity.

IGF 2025 can facilitate discussions on trustworthy digital platforms and how international norms and standards can be created to address issues like data exploitation, cybersecurity threats, and algorithmic bias.

D. Fostering Accountability and Transparency

Accountability is a key principle of the GDC. The IGF 2025 can play a role in shaping discussions around governance mechanisms that ensure transparency and accountability in the digital space, especially around internet governance policies, platform moderation, AI regulations, and cybersecurity practices.

Monitoring and Reporting Frameworks for GDC implementation could be discussed, providing mechanisms for stakeholders to assess progress and ensure that commitments made under the Compact are followed up with tangible actions.

E. Innovation and Collaboration for Digital Public Goods

The GDC emphasizes the importance of digital public goods in ensuring equitable access to technologies. The IGF 2025 could highlight innovations in open-source technologies, digital solutions for public good, and collaborative efforts to build global infrastructure that is open, interoperable, and inclusive.

It could also feature hackathons, innovation challenges, or open collaboration platforms where stakeholders work together to create solutions aligned with the GDC principles.

F. Promoting Peace and Security in the Digital Age

Another significant aspect of the GDC is fostering a safe and secure digital environment. The IGF 2025 could focus on discussions related to cybersecurity norms, global cooperation on cyber threats, and building international frameworks to deal with cross-border digital security challenges.

The IGF could help highlight the need for cooperative efforts between UN agencies, governments, and private sector to ensure the safety of the global internet and resilience in the face of cyber threats.

3. IGF 2025 as a Link Between WSIS+20 and the GDC

The IGF 2025 could serve as a key forum that bridges the WSIS+20 review process with the implementation of the Global Digital Compact by fostering discussions that examine the progress and challenges from both perspectives. IGF could integrate sessions and discussions that directly link WSIS Action Lines with GDC principles, identifying areas of overlap, gaps, and opportunities for joint action.

Conclusion

In conclusion, IGF 2025 can contribute significantly to both the WSIS+20 Review and the Global Digital Compact by acting as a platform for inclusive dialogue, fostering multi-stakeholder cooperation, and advocating for digital equity. It can ensure that the digital agenda continues to advance in a way that is inclusive, innovative, and globally cooperative. By aligning its discussions with the goals of the WSIS outcomes and the principles of the GDC, IGF 2025 can help set the stage for meaningful progress in global digital governance.

Additional Comments on IGF 2024:

1. Diverse Participation and Regional Representation:

One of the strengths of IGF 2024 was its commitment to bringing together a wide range of stakeholders from across the globe. However, there is still room for improvement in ensuring that underrepresented regions are better represented in both the sessions and the decision-making processes. The focus on increasing participation from low-resource countries and marginalized groups should be a priority for future editions.

2. Enhanced Collaboration with Local Stakeholders:

More local partnerships could be fostered to increase engagement and ownership of the forum by host countries and local communities. Local actors can bring context-specific insights that are valuable to the discussions and help in translating the outcomes into meaningful actions at the national and regional levels.

3. Improved Accessibility and Inclusion:

While the hybrid format allowed for broader access, accessibility for people with disabilities could be improved. Efforts such as ensuring real-time captioning, sign language interpreters, and interactive online tools should be standardized across all sessions to make the IGF more inclusive.

4. Better Integration of Business Sector Engagement:

There was an opportunity for greater business sector involvement in the discussions, especially around issues related to innovation, digital infrastructure, and private sector policies. Collaborative discussions between government, civil society, and the private sector can provide a holistic approach to Internet governance.

5. Clearer Actionable Outcomes and Follow-up:

While the discussions were rich in content, there was a need for clearer, actionable outcomes from each session. It’s crucial that real-world implementation is prioritized, with follow-up mechanisms to track progress on key issues. This would ensure that the IGF isn't just a platform for dialogue but also a space where concrete action is catalyzed.

6. Increased Focus on Emerging Internet Governance Issues:

The rapid pace of technological advancements continues to bring new challenges to Internet governance. There is a need for greater focus on emerging issues such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, data privacy, and cybersecurity in the IGF agenda. These topics need to be addressed from both a policy and ethical standpoint.

7. Strengthening the Role of National and Regional IGFs (NRIs):

National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) continue to play a vital role in the broader IGF ecosystem. Greater effort should be made to integrate NRIs more fully into the main event and to ensure that the local concerns and national perspectives are effectively represented in the global discourse.

8. Sustainability and Environmental Considerations:

There should be more attention to environmental sustainability within the context of the IGF. Discussions about the carbon footprint of digital technologies and the role of the Internet in promoting sustainability could have been better integrated into the agenda. Future IGFs could benefit from a stronger focus on how Internet governance and digital transformation can contribute to the UN SDGs.

Conclusion:

In summary, IGF 2024 was a significant step forward in facilitating global discussions on Internet governance, offering valuable opportunities for dialogue and collaboration across sectors. However, as with any large-scale event, there are always areas for improvement. By addressing the suggestions and feedback above, IGF can continue to evolve into a more inclusive, impact-driven, and action-oriented platform, better equipped to tackle the pressing issues in Internet governance and technology policy for the years to come.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Criticism and Suggestions for IGF 2024 Hybrid Format Design and Experience

Criticisms

1. Technical Challenges with Hybrid Format: The hybrid format of IGF 2024 faced significant technical challenges, particularly in ensuring seamless interaction between in-person and virtual participants. For instance, connectivity issues sometimes hindered the online experience, leading to delays and difficulty in participation for virtual attendees.

2. Lack of Equal Engagement: Virtual participants were often at a disadvantage when it came to engagement and interaction. In-person attendees had more opportunities for networking and one-on-one discussions, which was not always replicated effectively for those joining remotely.

3. Limited Virtual Content Access: Some sessions and events were not as easily accessible for virtual attendees due to the lack of clear instructions or resources, such as session recordings, translations, or comprehensive access to speaker materials.

4. Time Zone Discrepancies: The scheduling of sessions did not always take into account the challenges of time zones, making it difficult for participants from certain regions to engage in real-time sessions.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Improved Technical Infrastructure: To ensure smoother interaction between virtual and in-person participants, invest in better technical infrastructure and support. This could include high-quality video streaming, stable internet connections, and better virtual engagement tools (e.g., chatrooms, Q&A platforms) to facilitate interaction.

2. Virtual-First Engagement Models: Shift the approach to make virtual participation a central aspect of the event, rather than an add-on. This could involve offering more virtual networking opportunities, virtual roundtable discussions, and interaction spaces that mimic the networking opportunities available in person.

3. Expanded Access to Content: Ensure that all sessions, including side events and smaller discussions, are recorded and made available online with proper indexing for easy access. Translations for materials and live captions should be provided to accommodate a wider audience, ensuring inclusivity.

4. Time Zone-Considerate Scheduling: Plan the timing of key sessions to be more considerate of the global audience. This could involve organizing multiple session times to accommodate different time zones or ensuring that all major sessions are recorded and made accessible asynchronously for participants who cannot join in real-time.

5. Interactive Virtual Spaces: Create dedicated spaces for virtual networking and discussions, such as virtual “lounges” or breakout rooms where participants can discuss key issues, share ideas, and build connections. These spaces could be moderated to ensure productive and respectful discussions.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

1. Hybrid Design Integration: For IGF 2025, create an integrated hybrid model where the in-person and virtual experiences are designed from the outset to complement each other. This includes synchronized schedules, better coordination between both formats, and ensuring that all content is accessible across both platforms.

2. Enhanced Participant Support: Provide participants with more detailed guidelines on how to navigate the hybrid format, including tutorials or FAQs about how to engage with virtual platforms effectively and troubleshoot technical issues.

3. Expanded Virtual Participation Options: Consider increasing the number of virtual-first sessions or making all sessions accessible remotely, with adequate interaction opportunities for virtual participants.

4. Post-Event Content Accessibility: Make sure that all content, including discussions, presentations, and outputs, are made easily available for participants to access after the event, allowing for greater flexibility and wider participation.

5. Improved Hybrid Networking Platforms: Develop better virtual networking platforms where participants can engage with each other based on their areas of interest, share contact details, or arrange virtual meetings during the event.

Conclusion

By addressing these concerns and implementing these suggestions, the hybrid format of IGF 2025 can be more inclusive, engaging, and equitable for both in-person and virtual participants. It will also ensure that participants from all regions and backgrounds can fully benefit from the event, regardless of their mode of participation.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Health Parliament

What worked well : This was well coordinated and we were given ample of time from the secretariat and freedom to work on our proposals. I would put on record the excellent cooperation received and the timely response despite the loads of work handled by the IGF secretariat

What could be improved

1.We could set the timelines in advance like for June, we can start the work January end, and put the timelines for each activity, so that we don’t have to rush in the last few weeks
2. VISA Process was no up to the mark , as a team we lost USD 500 as the online submission did not deliver the visa on time and we ended up losing that money and then, we took visa on arrival.
3. Those who organize are not supposed to be speaking in the DC session, and this must be reviewed. I volunteer to be an organizer so that we have great sessions and i ended up sacrificing my speaking.
4. We should give opportunity to the DCs that contribute in terms of reports, calls and personal presence at the annual forum to have their sessions. This time, i had five people onsite from my DCs and giving the opportunity as a session ( of course , based on the relevance of the proposal ) would be great.

The overall programme was fantastic . However, I would like to hear more on the opportunities for Job Creation using web based technologies and how we can connect the unconnected. With a focus on education, health , and digital infrastructure , online safety and security

Hybrid model was great but we need more participants onsite as this is a global forum and we must ensure that about 10,000 people show up every year.

Every year, the IGF annual forum is improving and this is setting a higher expectation every year. We must factor more bilateral meeting rooms, Open the registration earlier so that people can apply visa on time.

Mobile app was good and we could add reminders to the app scheduling

This year we could not get delegate kit and it should be distributed along with the badge.

of course, and provision for more vegetarian food .

We need to have an overall virtual town hall addressed by Chengetai, Mag Chair and the Secretariat much before we call for proposals, this will ensure we understand IGF in totality . I must confess, that despite coming to IGF for six years, i need to learn so much, and it is a vast ocean.

We must let active volunteers from the intersessional activities be included in forums other than the DC sessions.

1. We need to rationalize the number of DCs and scrap some of the DCs that are not active.

2. Mix and match DC sessions based on relevance and also , give some DCs independent sessions

3. DC members, who have the expertise should be roped in for other sessions besides the DC sessions

Balanced

Sessions were well planned and the quality of speakers was excellent

Did not attend

could not attend

awesome . We had a stall and i must say, excellent response

We need to build more on this aspect . While excellent deliberations happen at IGF annual forum but till people come in, they do not know. We need to create more awareness about the excellent deliberations. I would like to discuss separately how we can do a better job at marketing of our annual forum.

1. Put a timeline for each activity and adhere to it
2. Start registrations early
3. Visa process be proactively handled.
4. Sometimes, it is not possible to attend all MAG meetings, seek the inputs like i am doing now.

IGF 2024:

Main sessions should focus on

1. Focus a theme based on the burning issue of Job loss Vs Job creation
2. Wealth creation and wealth distribution
3. Women and elderly populations
4. Lower and middle income countries
5. Internet security and trust

1. Engage them early on
2. Share the vision and themes
3. Crowd source ideas and use AI to segregate
4. Have a fair geographical and gender mix
5. We should also have more village booths that demonstrate the application of web based technolgies

1. Focus a theme based on the burning issue of Job loss Vs Job creation
2. Wealth creation and wealth distribution
3. Women and elderly populations
4. Lower and middle income countries
5. Internet security and trust
6. Each aspect of Global Digital Compact be the focus area for sessions

Speakers should include :

1. Get more people from the grass-roots
2. Those who are doing actual work in transforming communities and sectors
3. Those who have the potential to transform and make a positive impact
4. We should also have more village booths that demonstrate the application of web based technolgies

As mentioned in the points above on DCs: We must create a repository of the expertise pool that we have in the IGF forums ( DCs, Policy Networks etc) and give and option to people to contribute to various sessions based on the geography and technical expertise.

I particularly like the short talks (lightening talks ) that happen and perhaps , we could host more of these talks for 10 -15 minutes each.

1. Do town halls virtually and let people interact
2. Open the mobile app with an option to connect with the potential participants - security issues should be addressed before we do this. Perhaps allow those who have already participated in the earlier IGFs and then expand
3. Get more active on the social media platform

1. We need to have focussed discussions on the IGF , WSIS and GDC and how we can galvanize the stakeholders to shared objectives
2. Sessions must be dedicated to various aspects
3. We must also invite people to work on specific reports which can be released at the annual forum followed by a panel on such reports that further the objectives mentioned above

I propose that we innovate some aspect of IGF annual forum every year, and for the next year we focus on

1. Focus a theme based on the burning issue of Job loss Vs Job creation
2. Wealth creation and wealth distribution
3. Women and elderly populations
4. Lower and middle income countries
5. Internet security and trust

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Hybrid model was great but we need more participants onsite as this is a global forum and we must ensure that about 10,000 people show up every year.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

ICJ Kenya

Everything else worked well. Apart from some of us received logistics note few days to the event of which outside our knowledge we booked hotels kilometers to the venue of the event

Worked well

Logistics note was shared to participants late. Most Kenyan participants resided kilometers away from the venue, yet we had good hotels around the venue.

Informative content, time keeping and well organized

Well organized

It is gender sensitive with equality

The sessions were informative with lots of curiosity to learn more.
Please find a way to involve all participants. Most participants in the venue failed to attend the sessions

Engaging

Well organized. Personally, I learnt a lot from the village

Language friendly

Share logistics note equally on time

IGF 2024:

Well structured

Well organized

Well, done

IGF well serves its purpose for internet freedom. A great idea meant for the continent

Participation was on its best

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Worked well

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

INSA

IGF 2024:

Interledger Foundation

The IGF has historically benefited from social events and informal networking opportunities. These events foster relationship-building, which is often where collaborations and innovations begin. There were no social events this year and that was unfortunate. IGF 2025 could consider thematic networking sessions or mixers that bring together stakeholders from different sectors, including philanthropy, to discuss shared goals in a more relaxed setting. And, please have a gala and/or music night to bring the community together.

Dynamic Coalitions have played a vital role in fostering inclusive dialogue and collaboration among diverse stakeholders. However, their integration into the IGF 2025 program could be improved in several ways. Firstly, the process for showcasing their work should have greater visibility. While these coalitions engage in valuable intersessional activities, their outputs are not always adequately highlighted during the annual IGF meeting. A more structured approach to integrating their contributions into the main sessions, such as through dedicated panels or showcases, would elevate their visibility and encourage broader participation.

Speaker profiles should include a balanced representation of sectors, regions, and expertise. In particular, greater effort should be made to include voices from underrepresented sectors, such as philanthropic organizations, which bring a unique perspective and focus on systemic change. Philanthropy operates differently from traditional civil society organizations, often acting as enablers or conveners of cross-sector initiatives.

IGF 2024:

The IGF must broaden its outreach to include stakeholders who have traditionally not been active within its ecosystem. Philanthropy, for example, plays an essential role in shaping the digital future by funding initiatives that address systemic issues such as digital inclusion, equitable access, and governance frameworks. Yet, the sector’s participation at the IGF has been minimal.

Efforts should be made to invite senior leaders from philanthropic organizations explicitly, positioning them as key partners rather than simply grouping them under the catch-all “civil society” category. As grant-making entities, philanthropy’s objectives often differ from those of traditional non-profits, and their contributions should be recognized as distinct and integral to IGF discussions.

To interconnect participants, IGF 2025 could adopt innovative methods such as pre-event matchmaking platforms, thematic roundtables, and cross-sector dialogue sessions. These mechanisms can ensure that stakeholders from philanthropy, civil society, private sector, and governments engage in meaningful exchanges. The Interledger Foundation would be pleased to assist with such efforts.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

International Chamber of Commerce

• Thanks to a timely announcement of the host country and MAG composition, sufficient time was allocated to the preparatory process for IGF 2024, which commenced in good time early in the year.
• While internal planning and decision-making was at times laborious and slow, communication towards the community regarding themes, event format, as well as session types, deadlines and decisions was timely.
• The planning process in the submission phase of the sessions was efficient, allowing submitters to have a clear view of the requirements and timeline to submit proposals.
• Following the session proposal submission and selection phase, however, IGF participants and session organisers, potential high-level speakers received little to no communication on opportunities for engagement or insight into the planning process which brought uncertainty and confusion on the opportunities to consider for i.e. the nomination of high-level speakers. The announcement of the topics of the high-level session also came in quite late in the planning process, which as a result did not offer enough opportunities for nomination of high-level speakers. In the future, and particular with regards to the high-level track, it would be much appreciated if such information is shared as soon as possible.
• 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 2024.

• The overarching theme of IGF 2024 (Building our multistakeholder digital future), was pertinent for the context of the Forum and tied well with the main piece of advocacy that the IGF community focused on ahead of the preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+20) review process. The overarching title was also fit to spark dialogue across a pool of diverse topics, while framing those in the context of the multistakeholder approach as an enabler for an open, inclusive and trusted governance of the Internet and digital technologies.
• Concentrating the IGF programme into a few concrete thematic tracks worked very well in past years, including in the 2024 edition of the IGF which focused on four thematic tracks. We have seen how in other IGFs the approach of using many themes brings confusion to the attendees, especially newcomers, who come across a very information-heavy programme across numerous subthemes. For this reason, we continue to advise that the maximum four topics approach is retained, allowing for a programme that reflects a more punchy and condensed selection of subthemes that covers the variety of topics reflected in the IGF discussions.
• In that regard, and focusing on preparations for IGF 2025, careful attention must be paid to avoid adding further themes and topics to the annual IGF in order not to overcrowd the programme and maintain a focused and manageable agenda. We recommend no more than four tracks with clear, concise, and easily understandable themes. This will also help communication and outreach ahead of the event and help produce robust outcomes.
• 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, continued attention must be paid that the number and focus of sub-themes remain manageable. Having too many subthemes results in only a handful of sessions per subtheme, which leaves attendees with the impression that discussions remained superficial and did not allow for in-depth exploration of a topic.
• Efforts should be strengthened to align other sessions that are part of the IGF programme (Open Forums, Town Halls, DCs, BPFs, NRI collaborative sessions, etc.) as well as pre-events under the thematic tracks, from the start of the submission and evaluation process.

• We commend the work of the IGF Secretariat and the MAG on enabling an inclusive session participation for both speakers and attendees through the hybrid format.
• The host country’s efforts and investment in providing technical equipment and staff to support the engagement of both onsite and online participants were also greatly valued, however we would advise that in future venues, workshop rooms are sound-proofed.
• The audio equipment in the workshops rooms (the head seats), saw some difficulty of use from the participants. In the future, we would suggest the venue organisers provide sound-proofed rooms, to accommodate a better experience for the speakers and the audience participating at the sessions. Otherwise, the venue organisers should ensure that all sessions taking place at the same time have the same audio set-up (i.e. all use headsets) so that audio does not interfere with other sessions.
• While the 3D venue and virtual booth was a very much appreciated idea, many participants were not aware of it and booth organizers received little advice and support in setting this up in a way that would add value to participants. Should the idea of virtual booth be retained for future IGFs, the planning process should also include the appropriate public-facing communication of the virtual booth features. The planning process also needs to start a lot earlier, with the close and active involvement of booth organisers.

• While the IGF 2024 website contained comprehensive information on the event, finding the relevant information required extensive browsing.
• An important element that caused some uncertainty to a majority of the participants' planning process, was the significant delay until the interactive programme was live and operational. In addition, discrepancies remained between the Excel version and the interactive version of the schedules which sometimes caused confusion to participants. However, the IGF Secretariat was very responsive, efficient and supportive in ensuring that all the necessary changes were made, which was much appreciated.
• The approach of using an external platform to host the interactive programme of the IGF was welcome, however, the requirement to create an additional account in order to access the platform may have discouraged some participants from using it. In the future, it would be appreciated, if on the occasion of using an external platform to host the programme, the same credentials are used between the IGF website and the platform.
• We encourage to retain the approach of not giving moderator rights (camera and speaking rights) by default to attendees, as this enables a risk-free session, where attendees cannot unmute themselves by accident, or turn their camera on, which would cause disruptions to the session flow.
• The publication of the meeting link of each session ahead of time, earlier than 24-hours before the session, was especially appreciated. This allowed for some certainty in the planning process of sessions organisers, especially for those with more than two online speakers.
• However, it is important to note that in some cases the link provided to the session was not corresponding to the appropriate ‘‘streaming room’’, with online participants having difficulties joining the session online.
• The ability to follow sessions live-streamed on the IGF’s YouTube channel helped in increasing access and flexibility for participants to follow discussions.
• It was very welcome that recordings of individual sessions were made available following the session. This practice should be maintained for upcoming IGFs as well, whether held in-person or remotely. In addition, it was greatly appreciated that the editing of the recordings of the sessions had a polished final result, allowing for their direct dissemination to wider audiences from the session organisers and participants.
• The IGF website worked well throughout the IGF annual meeting, with no major difficulties experienced as in previous years (especially in the first days of the event), due to server overload. The booking of bilateral meeting rooms was very limiting, with the venue having only 8 rooms available, and allowing for no more than five one-hour bookings per organisation. This resulted in many organisations not being able to confirm their meetings with partners until very late, when they where able to book rooms that where made available by the venue organisers. Despite the difficulties, we appreciate the tremendous support offered by the IGF Secretariat, who was very accommodating in finding solutions for participants to host their bilateral meetings.
• 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.

N/A

• Many sessions on the IGF programme have reported to have addressed gender issues as part of their discussion. Most session organisers have demonstrated efforts to strive for gender balance on their panels. Efforts must be sustained in this regard to ensure there are no sessions on the IGF agenda with a disproportionate underrepresentation of women.

Workshops
• Once the IGF 2024 themes were established, the workshop proposal and selection process were well organised.
• The concise thematic approach of 4 subthemes at IGF 2024 enabled an easier application and review process of the workshops. We continue to strongly recommend selecting no more than four sub-themes for future IGFs.
• We commend the efforts of the IGF Secretariat and the MAG to foster balance and diversity in terms of speakers, as well as stakeholder group representation. We support that this will remain a continuous effort, where the IGF Secretariat and the MAG will strive for progress compared to the years before. It is particularly important to ensure stakeholder diversity among workshop speakers, incentivizing the participation of underrepresented stakeholder groups (especially government and business representatives).
Main Sessions
• The Main Sessions play a useful role in the programme, providing a space for potentially different and broader discussions on a topic and bringing in more high-level speakers. In this way, they help extend the appeal beyond participants who regularly attend IGF meetings, and in particular among government and business constituencies who have historically had lower attendance levels. For this reason, it is imperative that enough time and careful attention is devoted to their planning.
• It worked well that the Main Sessions were coupled with the IGF 2024 subthemes. The conciseness of the subthemes to four in total enabled the coordination of Main Sessions that were focusing on inclusive and diverse topics. The approach of having fewer subthemes, each with a dedicated main session should be retained, as it works better for both programming and communication purposes.
• Two hours per session seemed to be the right amount of time to allow for a deeper dive into discussions and allow for audience input, while still maintaining the interest of participants throughout the session. In the past there were occasions where no other sessions were running in parallel with Main Sessions, thus allowing for wider participation as well as elevating the status of these sessions on the IGF program – this should continue to be an example to follow going forward.
• Providing synergies between the Main Sessions and the IGF intersessional work, as well as the work of NRIs gives an extra opportunity to raise the visibility and impact of their work. This opportunity should be further explored in upcoming IGFs.

• Despite efforts to attract government officials, legislators as well as business, civil society and technical community representatives, especially for the high-level sessions, the Host Country, IGF Secretariat and UN DESA should coordinate more closely together in order to plan in advance the invitations and outreach to the community, for submission of proposed speakers for the high-level sessions. For future IGFs, it would be beneficial for the Host Country to prioritize finalizing the topics and structure of the high-level sessions well in advance. This would help ensure clear communication and greater opportunities for meaningful engagement from all participants.
• It was unfortunate that many potential high-level participants were unable to attend the IGF in person, due to the scheduling of the IGF quite late in the year. At the same time, the unpredictability of the planning process and lack of follow-up beyond a generic invitation shared with prospective high-level participants was challenging in securing their participation. Given the short timeline for the preparation of IGF 2025, efforts should be strengthened to secure the engagement of high-level participants from an early stage as well as to encourage them to interact with other IGF sessions and events aside from the panel they are invited to speak on. In particular, we advise that invitations to high-level attendees are sent in advance, including a clear engagement proposal (topic and objective of sessions, timing, fellow potential speakers, etc.) This will not only drive further interest but will also maximise the input of those high-level attendees to the discussion, giving them and their teams the appropriate time to prepare.

• Continuing the tradition of the Parliamentary track started in 2019 was welcomed. Efforts should be made to better integrate this track with the other IGF activities and ensure the participation of parliamentarians in other IGF sessions and interaction with IGF participants from all stakeholder groups.

N/A

• The IGF village is an integral part of the in-person IGF experience, providing opportunities for networking, information sharing and discovery. The efforts of the host country team to accommodate requests, set up and service the village were very much appreciated. Based on past experience, booths have a higher success rate when the village is part of the same building where sessions are taking place. This was successfully the case at IGF 2024, where participants could walk around the exhibition area and access the workshop rooms, where the majority of sessions took place. This allowed for more visibility for booth exhibitors, and more attendee traffic to the exhibition area. This one-building approach should be, if possible, pursued at future IGFs, where the attendees can easily follow sessions and visit the booths all in one place.
• Looking ahead to 2025, organising the IGF in a hybrid fashion is strongly advised. If a virtual IGF village is planned to be part of the hybrid experience, it must be adequately advertised to allow for meaningful and interactive participation of attendees. The planning process for virtual booths needs to start early with the close and active involvement of booth organisers.

• With regards to the reporting process of the sessions, we advise for a more timely and detailed communication of the process to the session organisers, especially newcomers, thus ensuring their timely action to the reporting requirements. In particular, the notice around the 2-hour requirement for submission of the short report should be more visible and clear to all session organisers, both on the back-end webpage of each session, as well as through dedicated communications/emails before the IGF starts. Ideally, an automated email notification should go out to session organisers on the day that their session takes place, reminding them of this requirement.
• The timeline for submitting the long session reports should take into account the timing of the IGF and potential clashes with other international events and major holidays, allowing for sufficient time for session organizers to dedicate the time and effort necessary to produce quality reports.
• Showcasing the various IGF outputs promptly on the IGF website was very welcome and useful to demonstrate the value IGF discussions bring to the community. Capturing and promoting them successfully helps increase the reach of these conversations beyond the IGF session participants.
• Commendable efforts to attract journalists were made, especially on the side of the host country inviting national and local media. These efforts could be amplified through a systematic outreach and media strategy to identify relevant news outlets (especially on the international level) ahead of time and sharing information on topics expected to be covered at the IGF, as well as high-level participants in attendance.
• Better interaction between the IGF communications team and the communications teams of participating organisations is also advised. This could be either through a key messages document, or toolkits that can be distributed to the communications teams in advance of the Forum, allowing them to act as multipliers of the IGF mission and messages.
• The IGF messages report has an important role in bridging consecutive IGF cycles, highlighting the various IGF outputs, and ensure consistency between them, therefore enhancing the impact and value-add of the IGF for future discussions. Efforts should be made to better inform participants on the process of drafting of the messages and how their session summaries contribute to the final IGF messages. Session participants should also be made aware of the possibility of commenting on the draft messages in advance. Sharing such information with session participants helps improve the balance in participation, which in turn increases the legitimacy of messages.
• While the short timeline to plan IGF 2025 and finalise the outcomes of IGF 2024 is taken into account, it is advised that in the next IGF, session organisers are given more time to submit their final session reports and contribute to the taking stock and thematic inputs consultations.

• As the hybrid format has notable benefits for accessibility and participation, organisers should strongly consider retaining this format. Session organisers should be encouraged to include remote participants where that helps provide a geographic or policy perspective not necessarily possible because some relevant experts do not have the time and/or necessary funds to travel to an overseas meeting. Before COVID-19, remote participants were largely secondary in practice, even if organisers were encouraged to make time and use tools to provide space for questions from remote participants, IGF 2024 proved once more that it is possible to host successful sessions and fruitful discussions with many speakers spread across the globe. Benefitting from the experiences of the last four 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 focused set of topics and policy questions is strongly advised to support a streamlined agenda, with session formats that allow for greater participation of the audience. 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 to mark deadlines and engagement points for the community. This could also form the backbone of a communication and outreach strategy, creating a year-long calendar for outreach messages and social media content where relevant updates can be shared on the preparatory process and track narratives and input from the community can be invited at each milestone.
• Given the compressed timeline for IGF 2025 preparations, it is essential for the Host Country, IGF Secretariat, and UN DESA to expedite the appointment of the IGF 2025 MAG to kick-start the planning process. Additionally, establishing a clear and consistent communication channel that includes both MAG members and the broader IGF community is crucial. While the public list was used effectively in 2024 to share planning updates, this approach should be standardized moving forward to ensure all community members are consistently informed about IGF 2025 preparations.
• The 2024 interactive programme was greatly appreciated; we welcomed the by-default time zone of the host country in the interactive schedule, as well as in the excel and online formats of the individual session pages. Such an approach takes 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. It would be greatly appreciated if the different updates on the programme of the IGF appear more clearly, in order for participants and session organizers to know when the calendar was last updated.
• We would also advise that the IGF 2025 interactive schedule is published earlier, at least two-three weeks before the IGF starts, allowing participants, especially newcomers to get acquainted with the way it works, as well as having enough time to browse through it, and add sessions of interest to their personal programme. This will also facilitate any changes that may need to be reflected in the programme, i.e. in the case of missing sessions or any replacements.
• The IGF planning process for intersessional work, working groups, main sessions and other MAG and community lead activities should be further strengthened by setting clear measures of success, standards of work, and a critical number of people committed to lead/support the activity across all stakeholder groups. The manual for workshop submission guidelines and best practices, as prepared by the MAG Working Group on workshop planning was greatly appreciated in that regard in past years. This effort should be further enhanced through an analysis of required resources and responsibilities, including those of the Secretariat and any consultants, to ensure that any initiated work (traditionally part of the IGF or newly proposed) will be successful. There should also be clear mandates of authorisation for each intersessional work stream.
Communication
• There is an ever increasing need to raise wider awareness of existing IGF outputs and support their better dissemination.
• Further discussion should be encouraged on what defines success for the IGF, what is meant by tangible outputs and what problem the outputs are intended to address. The IGF Secretariat should develop a work plan to identify, gather and better market existing outputs of the IGF. This would roughly follow the steps below:
o Identify existing outputs and outcomes, both written products and success stories of collaboration / impact
o Organise and cross-reference these by topic, and possibly with tags, so that these can be easily searched
o Identify potential audiences
o Targeted outreach and communication to better market the outputs
• This work plan should be supported by a timeline, an analysis of required resources and responsibilities, and indicators and measures of success. The Secretariat should be equipped with resources to be able to execute this plan.
• Members of the IGF Leadership Panel could be counted on to further disseminate the messages across their networks.
• To improve the marketing of IGF outputs, the following should be considered:
o Pare down intersessional work streams to allow for more concentrated effort and better support for selected work.
o Task the IGF Secretariat (not a recurring MAG Working Group on Outreach and Communication) with outreach efforts and dissemination of existing outputs (policy material, reports, and case studies of successful cooperation/projects that are rooted in IGF meetings and discussions). Guest blogs or interviews about IGF success stories could also be considered.
o Equip IGF participants with a communications / social media toolbox or guidance on how they can help disseminate messages. This would help increase outreach and enable participants to act as multipliers to official IGF communication.
o Ensure close coordination on communication activities between the IGF Secretariat, the UN DESA communications team and the host country communications team to avoid duplication of efforts and mutually reinforce messages.
• The legitimacy, accountability and balance of IGF outputs must be held to the highest standards:
o The balance of stakeholders needs to be maintained in every work stream of the IGF in order not to undermine their legitimacy and to implement the multistakeholder approach which is intrinsic to the IGF.
o Outputs of any intersessional work must ensure accurate reflection of all opinions.
o The MAG should consider ways to raise profile of the IGF and strengthen the participation of underrepresented groups and regions and enhance the credibility of IGF work streams by addressing their balance and ensuring representation of regions and stakeholders. Capacity-building programs aimed at underrepresented groups can help ensure meaningful participation.

IGF 2024:

• Concentrating the IGF programme into a small number of thematic tracks in 2019 and 2020 was a very welcome idea and translated well into the final programme of the IGF. The 2021-2023 editions seemed to gradually move further away from this precedent, while the IGF 2024 edition seemed to move back to the preferred approach of less thematic sub-themes. The idea of three-four (but not more) thematic tracks should be maintained going forward to help streamline the agenda.
• It is important to continue the practice of consulting the broader IGF community on issues to be discussed at the IGF, that will inform the MAG’s decision on the topics for thematic tracks. Furthermore, when setting the IGF’s agenda, the MAG should be informed of the priorities of other international policy discussions on Internet governance and broader digital matters. The IGF Leadership Panel should be counted on to advise on such matters.
• Aligning workshop proposals under thematic tracks works well. Efforts should be strengthened to align other sessions that are part of the official IGF programme (Open
Forums, DCs, BPFs, NRI collaborative sessions, etc.) as well as pre-events, under the thematic tracks, from the start of the submission and evaluation process.
• To ensure that the preparatory phase and Day 0 event as well as the high-level portion of the IGF programme continue to fulfil their potential going forward, efforts should be made that these also support the tracks and themes of the annual event.
• An exchange between past and future host countries and MAG members on potential improvements and ideas for preparatory, Day 0 and high-level events and the overall IGF programme would be welcome.

• 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.

• IGF communities and intersessional work should continue to be included and featured in Main Sessions on topics of interest and relevance to them, to contribute to a more cohesive and issue-focused agenda, as well as overall a more collegial atmosphere.
• Clear guidelines and timelines are useful both for session proposers and evaluators on the process of how session proposals finally make it onto the programme of the annual meeting (tracks, sub-themes, etc.). Clear guidelines are also needed on how other sessions (Open Forums, Dynamic Coalitions and National Regional Initiatives) fit into the thematic programme, as well as on their evaluation.
• A reinforced communication campaign would be helpful ahead of the workshop proposal process to ensure those new to the IGF are aware of the various possibilities to be actively involved in the upcoming IGF well in advance of the annual meeting. This should also include information on the possibility of proposing other types of activities for the IGF programme that are not suitable for a workshop format (networking, publication launch, hackathon, etc.)
• Such a communication campaign should be supported by a rigorous timetable, guidelines and toolkits and build on the network of NRIs as well as that of MAG members to act as multipliers.

N/A

• 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.
• Despite efforts to attract government officials, legislators as well as business, civil society and technical community representatives, especially for the high-level sessions, the Host Country, IGF Secretariat and UN DESA should coordinate more closely together in order to plan in advance the invitations and outreach to the community, for submission of proposed speakers for the high-level sessions. For future IGFs, it would be beneficial for the Host Country to prioritize finalizing the topics and structure of the high-level sessions well in advance. This would help ensure clear communication and greater opportunities for meaningful engagement from all participants.
• It was unfortunate that many potential high-level participants were unable to attend the IGF in person, due to the scheduling of the IGF quite late in the year. At the same time, the unpredictability of the planning process and lack of follow-up beyond a generic invitation shared with prospective high-level participants was challenging in securing their participation. Given the short timeline for the preparation of IGF 2025, efforts should be strengthened to secure the engagement of high-level participants from an early stage as well as to encourage them to interact with other IGF sessions and events aside from the panel they are invited to speak on. In particular, we advise that invitations to high-level attendees are sent in advance, including a clear engagement proposal (topic and objective of sessions, timing, fellow potential speakers, etc.) This will not only drive further interest but will also maximise the input of those high-level attendees to the discussion, giving them and their teams the appropriate time to prepare.

Enhancing business participation at IGF
• In order to incentivise further participation by the private sector, the following suggestions could be considered:
o Creating a dedicated space for business-government interactions that foster actionable discussions between counterparts, and align with the broader Internet governance agenda and how businesses can support deploy global digital initiatives.
o Organising thematic, working-level roundtables facilitating dialogue between businesses and the broader IGF community would contribute to the multistakeholder model of discussions. Open discussions and moderated fireside chats featuring C-level representatives from business can enhance meaningful and impactful engagement on digital policy initiatives, priorities, and trends with the broader IGF community. This would bring a more organised approach and a clear structure of business contributions to the IGF agenda, which often is unclear or overwhelming for participants and attendees to engage with.
IGF as a venue for multistakeholder input to global digital dialogues
• As the only open, multistakeholder process under the UN umbrella, where all stakeholders participate in dialogue on an equal footing, we advise that the IGF is meaningfully part of the implementation of the Global Digital Compact. This will ensure that an effective multistakeholder approach to global digital policy is maintained, building on existing work and not creating new structures that would add more layers to the already complex Internet governance system.
• The IGF could consider including a dedicated session or track to share progress on the implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC), allowing all stakeholders to report on advancements and challenges.
• The IGF should provide a meaningful opportunity for the community to actively engage with the WSIS+20 review process, potentially through a dedicated session or track where stakeholders can offer input on draft or issue papers (that might be available by the annual meeting), alongside a Q&A session with the co-facilitators.

N/A

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience • We commend the work of the IGF Secretariat and the MAG on enabling an inclusive session participation for both speakers and attendees through the hybrid format.
• The host country’s efforts and investment in providing technical equipment and staff to support the engagement of both onsite and online participants were also greatly valued, however we would advise that in future venues, workshop rooms are sound-proofed.
• The audio equipment in the workshops rooms (the head seats), saw some difficulty of use from the participants. In the future, we would suggest the venue organisers provide sound-proofed rooms, to accommodate a better experience for the speakers and the audience participating at the sessions. Otherwise, the venue organisers should ensure that all sessions taking place at the same time have the same audio set-up (i.e. all use headsets) so that audio does not interfere with other sessions.
• While the 3D venue and virtual booth was a very much appreciated idea, many participants were not aware of it and booth organizers received little advice and support in setting this up in a way that would add value to participants. Should the idea of virtual booth be retained for future IGFs, the planning process should also include the appropriate public-facing communication of the virtual booth features. The planning process also needs to start a lot earlier, with the close and active involvement of booth organisers.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

International Youth Summit Sierra Leone

IGF 2024:

JOINT INITIATIVES FOR VULNERABLES SUPPORT.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES WAS NOT FAMILIARIZED.

SOMEHOW, EXCLUSIVITY ARE MORE NEEDED TO IMPROVE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION ESPECIALLY TO VISUAL IMPAIRMENT PERSONS.

THE SECRETARIAT MIGHT CONSIDER TO PROVIDE INTERNET BUNDLE COST SUPPORT TO THE COMMUNITY WHOM MAY HAVE IN NEED FOR PARTICIPATION THROUGH ONLINE.

INSUFFICIENT LOGISTICAL DETAILS WAS NOT ACCESSIBLE,, THOUGH THERE IS A NEED OF IMPROVEMENT ESPECIALLY FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION WHO STILL YET IN NEED OF INFORMATION BASED PRACTICES. IN 2024 THE ORGANIZER WEBSITE AND OTHER LINKS WAS NOT MORE ACTIVE WHILE IT WAS CAUSED MORE ERROR WITHIN REGISTRATION AND OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES.

IGF 2024:

Yes, more emphasis like; youth competitive activities and other debating room might be opened before the event to allow this group to innovate and play their practices role actively.

the mixture of academical and non academical as well as political presenter might be arranged to enable new model of learning exposure be overlooked into the sessions. Persons with disabilities might been given the special chance to castrate their focus and removal of negative mindsets as well as penetrate their agenda in friendly ways.

regional coordinator who must have a voluntary team for each area like; east Africa, northern America, south asia ETC to facilitate the best means of coordination. HENCE, the supportive means for persons with disabilities for inclusion might be taken up considerably to increase their participation while vcurrently still left out behind into whole processes.

each region must be have a coordinator who may support the participants on several issues like, registration error, scholarship application, disability issues accommodation as well as transportation issues thus insuring active participation.

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience THE SECRETARIAT MIGHT CONSIDER TO PROVIDE INTERNET BUNDLE COST SUPPORT TO THE COMMUNITY WHOM MAY HAVE IN NEED FOR PARTICIPATION THROUGH ONLINE.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

JSC "National Company "Kazakhstan Gharysh Sapary"

Thanks a lot for IGF 2024 preparatory process, especially for visa support process.

IGF 2024:

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

kathak academy, Special consultative status(ecosoc)

every ting is well but we need to more young people to participant the IGF meeting because present world only development for IGF youth internet sustainable development SDGs Action work its very important for community people to serve theie own nations empowerment development for internet world ,because we firstly see their economical movement how to participant for future IGF .

overall program is very good

it is unique performance for the participant hybrid format design

logistics is good but request to you for low-income &developing country delegation IGF need to sponsor their accommodation for future meeting we hope
will ne action .

international participant always their looking for welfare opportunity to development process to alternative internet green industry for south Asia young community people

annual meeting we hope IGF must include the LDC MAIN focus

we like say young woman empowerment development for future IGF meeting we need more participant

very thing is comfortable

high level IGF leaders make a adaptation changing the IGF motivation

parliamentary they need to more action work for IGF because they do not make any positive IGF action

very action for youth empowerment development for future IGF meeting

IGF 2024 village for international delegation more strong data action for internet future goals

very good

everything is fine for IGF meeting

IGF 2024:

very good

best all of action IGF

Inernet development you can make this impotent for south Asia young people how they will work with IGF

south Asia youth participant is very important for new nation next IGF meeting because South Asia Youth they are want to be economical

very good

we already have a great action work for IGF

no comments very good every tings

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience it is unique performance for the participant hybrid format design

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

KOMPAS DAILY NEWSPAPER/KOMPAS.ID

Too short.

There is no significant theme this year. As a media, I have some difficulties to know every spokesperson's name in the workshops session or lightning sessions . The agenda just mentioned topic, no spokesperson's name.

It's ok.

Everything was ok. But, I had miscommunication about funding scheme. The IGF Secretariat didn't informed me that they required two words of name in transfer form and my name just had one word. So, until the event finished and I went back to my country, I haven't received the funding. The media room was always crowded with the Secretariat team so I had to finish my work at my hotel.

I like the this session because I can get a new networking.

The process was good

Everything was good. However, in terms of AI topic or digital public infrastructure, I need more women to talk.

I need more various of theme
The media room must be larger
The workshop room shouldn't be too noisy so we don't need the headphone and journalist can record easily.

I need various spokesperson from north and south countries.

The theme was good

Good

I need more big tech companies or local tech companies to join

The distribution of press release or photos sometimes was too slow.

The funding scheme for media (journalists) should more transparent, in terms of schedule and requirements. Based on my experience, I had only one word of my name. Then, the Secretariat sent the funding a week before the event and used two words (FNU, my name). The Indonesia Bank system directly rejected that . The funding sent back to the Secretariat bank account. For daily live during the IGF, I used my personal money first. Until the event finished, I haven't received the funding. So I hope for the next IGF, the preparation must be longer and inform the schedule of preparation including funding transfer must be clearer.

IGF 2024:

More various of topic
More various of spokesperson's
Schedule clear
Media room should larger
More toilet room

They must be accommodated in different session , not in workshop session

Big tech companies must

I can reach out the IGF Youths easily .

Big tech please

. The talking of Global Digital Compact must be addressed in every workshop or lightning talks, not only in the main sessions.

For media, I hope the Secretariat learnt from COP28 event. The COP secretariat booked the hotel for media, so the media wasn't confused to booked the hotel. And the public transportation, I don't know why the buses which the Secretariat provided was not useful. Because, the buses location was far from the media's hotel. The media had to book Uber first to go to buses location.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience It's ok.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Lanka School on Internet Governance (LKSIG)

What Worked Well
Clear Timeline Communication:
The preparatory timeline for IGF 2024 was shared in a timely and transparent manner, which enabled stakeholders to plan effectively and encouraged early engagement.

Inclusive Call for Issues:
The broad range of themes in the call for issues ensured that the agenda reflected diverse global concerns. This inclusivity enhanced stakeholder participation across sectors.

Session Selection Transparency:
The session selection process was well-documented, and clear criteria were communicated, contributing to a sense of fairness and accountability.

Hybrid Participation Setup:
Efforts to enable hybrid participation allowed stakeholders from across the globe to join sessions, expanding the event’s reach and inclusivity.

What works not so well
Accessibility Barriers for Hybrid Participants:
Technical issues, time zone challenges, and uneven engagement opportunities hindered the effectiveness of hybrid participation, especially for remote attendees

What Worked Well:

Diverse and Timely Themes:
The themes addressed critical and emerging issues such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, AI governance, and sustainability. This reflected the priorities of the global Internet community effectively.

Alignment with Global Priorities:
The focus on pressing topics like digital transformation in underserved regions, data sovereignty, and privacy showcased IGF’s commitment to addressing both regional and global challenges.

Inclusivity of Stakeholder Voices:
Thematic sessions ensured representation from a variety of stakeholders, including governments, private sector entities, technical experts, and civil society.

What Worked Not So Well:

Session Overlap:
The scheduling of key sessions simultaneously made it difficult for participants to attend all their sessions of interest, especially for those juggling between themes.

Overloaded Agenda

Its well but some Engagement Challenges in Hybrid Sessions. Hybrid formats occasionally led to lower interaction between in-person and virtual participants due to technical challenges and time zone constraints.

The mobile app offered seamless access to the schedule, personalized agendas, and speaker information. Its real-time notifications helped participants stay updated on last-minute changes. Logistic arrangements are organized very well

The BPFs and Policy Networks at IGF 2024 successfully contributed to discussions on pressing global Internet issues. However, greater regional representation, better thematic clarity, and enhanced visibility in the annual programme could further amplify their impact at IGF 2025 in Norway.
Enhance Regional Representation - Conduct targeted outreach to stakeholders in underrepresented regions, including capacity-building efforts to support their participation in BPFs and Policy Networks.

Dynamic Coalitions remain an essential part of the IGF ecosystem, providing valuable spaces for focused, multi-stakeholder discussions. By addressing gaps in stakeholder diversity, visibility, and coordination, and by fostering stronger integration with the annual programme, their impact can be amplified at annal IGF rogramme

Sessions focused on women's digital rights, online safety for women and marginalized gender groups, and the gender gap in digital access, which were essential conversations in today's tech-driven world.

The IGF 2024 programme successfully facilitated diverse and inclusive discussions on critical Internet governance issues. By addressing gaps in session scheduling, accessibility, and regional representation, IGF 2025 in Norway can further elevate the quality and impact of its content, speakers, and discussions.

The High-Level Leaders Track at IGF 2024 effectively spotlighted global priorities and fostered meaningful multi-stakeholder dialogues. By addressing gaps in inclusivity, interactivity, and follow-up mechanisms, the 2025 High-Level Leaders Track can become even more impactful, ensuring that diverse voices and actionable outcomes drive Internet governance forward

The Parliamentary Track at IGF 2024 successfully facilitated discussions on critical policy issues surrounding digital governance. By improving regional diversity, increasing interactive formats, and ensuring clear follow-up actions, the 2025 Parliamentary Track should be focus more participation

The Youth Track at IGF 2024 successfully showcased the energy and creativity of young people in the digital governance space. By improving engagement with decision-makers, ensuring broader diversity, and focusing on actionable outcomes, the Youth Track can further solidify its role in shaping the future of the Internet.

Great

Need to Enhanced Regional Outreach and Strengthen Social Media Outreach

Clearer and Earlier Timelines

IGF 2024:

Should be focused not overlaped sessions

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs should be more actively involved in the planning and selection of IGF 2025 sessions. Encourage NRIs to submit proposals and participate in the session review process to ensure their local and regional issues are represented on the global stage.

The IGF Secretariat provided support and guidance to NRIs well, enabling them to align their efforts with the broader IGF themes and objectives
National, Regional, and Youth IGFs play a crucial role in bridging local and global Internet governance discussions. By addressing resource constraints, enhancing visibility, and fostering stronger collaboration, their contributions to IGF 2025 in Norway can be further amplified, enriching the global dialogue with diverse and meaningful perspectives.

Broad Stakeholder Representation is essential

Incorporate WSIS Outcomes into IGF 2025 Agenda - Sessions can focus on progress made, challenges faced, and future strategies to achieve the WSIS goals. This will help track progress and identify gaps in areas like access, capacity building, ICT infrastructure, privacy, and cybersecurity.

Use IGF 2025 as a platform to raise awareness and promote dialogue about the Global Digital Compact

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Its well but some Engagement Challenges in Hybrid Sessions. Hybrid formats occasionally led to lower interaction between in-person and virtual participants due to technical challenges and time zone constraints.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Mauritius IGF

IGF 2024, similar to other global IGF in the previous years, had the convenient preparatory process. All sessions were good and well organised.

The programme was well organised and same supported and helped all participants.

IGF 2024 logistics were excellent.

The content of the best practice forums were good.

good process !

Well.

Good sessions.

Very well done.

good

It was nice and positive.

Nice and excellent encounters.

good

IGF 2024:

NRI's were well included and the process was positive.

The same as we did for 2024.

Supporting implementation of the Global Digital Compact is very positive.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience -

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Moldova IGF

The IGF 2024 preparatory process was largely effective from various perspectives. The early calls for thematic inputs and session proposals provided sufficient time for diverse stakeholders to submit their ideas, ensuring a wide representation of topics and participants from various sectors and regions. Notably, efforts to increase the inclusivity of the preparatory process and engage underrepresented regions and stakeholders should be highlighted. In terms of areas for improvement, it may be useful to implement measures to minimize topic duplication. Regarding stakeholder engagement, particularly in terms of involving parliamentarians, it could be beneficial to involve national coordinators in this process, as this would enhance the effectiveness of engagement.

The program was well-structured and diverse, with a particular focus on global multistakeholder digital cooperation. This provided a comprehensive and relevant agenda for a wide range of stakeholders. Although the program covered a broad thematic scope, there were some instances of topic duplication across certain sessions.

The hybrid format largely ensured accessibility and inclusivity for both in-person and online participants. This allowed for expanded participation from stakeholders who were unable to attend in person, providing global reach and fostering interaction among stakeholders from different regions. Overall, technical support was well-organized, although in some cases, there was a lack of technical assistance during certain sessions.

The logistics of IGF 2024 were generally well-organized, providing a seamless experience for both in-person and online participants. The event's website and mobile app were particularly helpful, making it easy to navigate the event. These tools provided easy access to information such as the full event schedule, session descriptions, and venue maps. The registration process was clear and smooth, with all necessary information provided. The online platform for virtual participation worked well in most cases, although there were issues with video and audio quality during some sessions. Overall, despite some minor technical issues, the logistics were effective in providing a smooth and inclusive experience for all participants.

At IGF 2024, the Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks significantly enriched the programme by addressing both emerging issues and specific topics, offering relevant discussion content and providing recommendations based on multistakeholder collaboration. These platforms facilitated in-depth discussions and promoted interaction among stakeholders.

At IGF 2024, the Dynamic Coalitions brought together diverse stakeholders to work on pressing digital policy issues. They played an important role in shaping the discussions, ensuring that relevant and important topics were addressed, which seamlessly integrated into the broader Forum discussions. The work of the coalitions was effectively highlighted, with many presenting reports, policy recommendations, and practical solutions that made a significant contribution to the thematic discussions.

From a gender perspective, the IGF programme made notable efforts to promote gender diversity and inclusivity. Special attention was given to ensuring that women and marginalized groups had the opportunity to share their views, and several sessions addressed gender issues, including digital rights and the gender gap in technology. At the same time, some sessions could have been more balanced in terms of gender representation.

The IGF 2024 sessions presented a rich and diverse programme, offering a comprehensive overview of global digital challenges. The thematic coverage was broad, addressing both emerging issues and longstanding concerns in digital governance. The sessions allowed for **in-depth** discussions, with the participation of experts and stakeholders from various sectors.

The High-level leaders track at IGF 2024 was a key part of the event, with sessions proving especially valuable for understanding the political, regulatory, and business perspectives on various digital cooperation issues. However, this year, there was a noticeable lack of direct interaction between the speakers and the wider IGF community. It seems more appropriate to create a more interactive platform for engagement with high level leaders within the IGF framework.

The Parliamentary track at IGF 2024 became an important part of the event, facilitating discussions on the intersection of digital policy and legislative processes. The sessions provided valuable insights into how digital issues are addressed at the legislative level. It would be beneficial to expand the reach and participation of national parliaments in future IGFs, which would make the track more effective and enhance the engagement process at various levels.

The Youth track at IGF 2024 played an important role in ensuring the inclusion of the younger generation in discussions on digital governance. The sessions provided an excellent platform for young voices to be heard and significantly contributed to strengthening the culture of youth participation.

The Village became an effective informal space for networking, exchanging ideas, various interactions, and showcasing different initiatives. However, some participants mentioned challenges related to the visibility of certain booths.

The communications, outreach, and outputs were generally well-executed, contributing to increased awareness of the event and its key themes. Significant effort was made to leverage multiple platforms, such as social media and official IGF channels, to engage both participants and the broader public. NRIs also utilized their national channels for outreach, but there is room for improvement in terms of more targeted local engagement efforts.

For IGF 2025, improvements could include expanding outreach to underrepresented regions and sectors, which would further enhance inclusivity. Strengthening the link between intersessional activities and the main event, as well as providing more targeted capacity-building initiatives, would also be beneficial. If the Open Consultations become more interactive, it would encourage broader participation and input.

IGF 2024:

For IGF 2025, the overall programme structure could benefit from more interactive and collaborative formats, as well as clearer integration of intersessional activities into the main event. It would be beneficial for the structure to prioritize strategic discussions around emerging digital challenges, such as AI, cybersecurity, and the future of the internet, while still maintaining space to address regional and sector-specific issues.

To best connect community intersessional activities and NRIs with the IGF 2025 process, it would be useful to further integrate their outcomes and contributions into the main event. This can be achieved through closer collaboration between NRIs, IGF Secretariat, and MAG. A more inclusive approach would foster a more effective contribution to shaping the discussions at the Forum that year.

For IGF 2025, the thematic approach could focus on pressing and forward-looking issues in digital governance, including the impact of AI, emerging technologies, digital inclusion, and global cybersecurity challenges. Session types could benefit from greater diversity, incorporating interactive workshops, panel discussions, and roundtables. This also extends to the range of speakers, with a particular emphasis on experts from underrepresented regions and communities.

The active inclusion of NRIs, with effective support from the UN IGF Secretariat, ensured that global discussions were grounded in national and regional perspectives, covering a broad range of issues and solutions. The process of integrating NRIs into the IGF programme was well-organized, with dedicated sessions across several thematic areas, where NRIs shared their best practices, successful cases, findings, and recommendations. Extensive and in-depth discussions took place within the IGF on how digital policy and issues are being addressed at national and regional levels. The participation of various NRIs reflected the diverse socio-economic and political contexts of different regions, making the discussions more inclusive and comprehensive.
In our view, it would be beneficial to provide broader discussion of the NRIs' recommendations within the IGF agenda and include them in the final IGF outcomes, which could ultimately contribute to more effective results.

It is important to ensure the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders, including all groups – government, business, civil society, technical communities, academia, media, and international organizations. Special attention should be given to underrepresented regions, sectors, and groups to ensure that all voices are heard, including marginalized communities. If the involvement of media covering the event proved effective, it would be beneficial to continue the practice of inviting journalists specializing in relevant topics.

Aligning the Forum with the WSIS+20 review and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact could provide an excellent opportunity to ensure that discussions on digital governance remain relevant to global policy developments.
Special sessions could be dedicated to assessing progress, identifying gaps, and reviewing the status of the WSIS goals, with participation from a broad range of stakeholders. As a unique multilateral platform, the IGF could provide a space for dialogue on cooperation between governments, international organizations, and non-governmental actors to discuss practical steps towards achieving the goals of the Global Digital Compact, thereby contributing to concrete outcomes.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format largely ensured accessibility and inclusivity for both in-person and online participants. This allowed for expanded participation from stakeholders who were unable to attend in person, providing global reach and fostering interaction among stakeholders from different regions. Overall, technical support was well-organized, although in some cases, there was a lack of technical assistance during certain sessions.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

National Assembly

IGF 2024:

National Statistics Office

OKAY

Good

Not much good, better to make it fully physical.

Good

Okay

Good

Okay

Good

Okay

Provide sufficient time

IGF 2024:

Make it fully physical

Focus on alternative data sources

Government, civil society among others

Good

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Not much good, better to make it fully physical.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

NGO

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What Worked Well and What Didn’t
Introduction
The Global Election Observation Missions (GEOM) actively participated in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024, focusing on the intersection of digital technology and democratic processes. This report evaluates the preparatory process and execution of IGF 2024, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.
________________________________________
What Worked Well
1. Preparatory Timeline and Clarity
• The early release of the IGF 2024 timeline allowed stakeholders ample time to prepare proposals and engage meaningfully.
• Milestones were clearly communicated, ensuring that organizations like GEOM could align their activities accordingly.
2. Call for Issues and Session Proposals
• The call for issues was inclusive and wide-ranging, encouraging participation from diverse stakeholders.
• The submission platform was user-friendly, facilitating the submission of session proposals with clear guidelines and deadlines.
3. Session Selection Process
• The multistakeholder advisory group (MAG) ensured that selected sessions reflected diversity in geography, sector, and perspectives.
• Transparency in the selection criteria fostered trust and legitimacy in the process.
4. Capacity Development Initiatives
• The capacity development programs offered ahead of IGF were tailored to bridge knowledge gaps, particularly for new participants and organizations from underrepresented regions.
• Webinars and workshops provided actionable insights into IGF processes and internet governance issues.
5. Networking and Collaboration
• IGF 2024 facilitated strong networking opportunities, enabling GEOM to form alliances with other organizations working on digital democracy and governance.
• Side events and informal meetings were particularly effective in fostering dialogue on niche topics.
________________________________________
What Did Not Work So Well
1. Session Overlap and Scheduling
• Overlapping sessions made it challenging for participants to attend multiple discussions of interest.
• The lack of an effective scheduling tool resulted in missed opportunities for attendees to optimize their participation.
2. Limited Regional Representation in MAG
• Despite efforts, there was a perceived imbalance in regional representation within the MAG, which impacted the diversity of perspectives.
3. Communication Challenges
• There were occasional delays in communication regarding session approvals, which caused stress for some organizers.
• The IGF website experienced technical issues during peak periods, hindering access to critical information.
4. Accessibility Concerns
• Some virtual participation platforms were not user-friendly for attendees with limited digital literacy or infrastructure challenges.
• Limited availability of translations for sessions reduced engagement from non-English speakers.
5. Insufficient Focus on Implementation
• While discussions were rich in content, there was a lack of clarity on follow-up mechanisms for session outcomes.
• Stakeholders expressed a need for action-oriented deliverables to ensure that IGF discussions translate into tangible impacts.
________________________________________
Recommendations for IGF 2025
1. Streamline Scheduling: Introduce a dynamic scheduling tool to reduce session overlaps and ensure participants can attend their preferred sessions.
2. Enhance Regional Diversity: Strengthen efforts to include more underrepresented regions in the MAG and other decision-making roles.
3. Improve Communication: Use automated notifications and real-time updates to minimize delays in session approvals and event announcements.
4. Expand Accessibility: Invest in multilingual support, better virtual platforms, and outreach programs for increased global participation.
5. Focus on Actionable Outcomes: Develop a framework for tracking and implementing outcomes from sessions to ensure discussions lead to real-world change.
________________________________________
Conclusion
IGF 2024 successfully provided a platform for discussing critical issues in internet governance. However, addressing the identified shortcomings will ensure that IGF 2025 is even more inclusive, impactful, and accessible. GEOM remains committed to contributing to this evolution and leveraging IGF as a tool for advancing digital democracy globally

IGF 2024 Overall Programme: Thematic Focus, Structure, and Flow

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 provided a dynamic platform for global stakeholders to address pressing issues in internet governance. This report by the Global Election Observation Missions (GEOM) evaluates the thematic focus, structure, and flow of the IGF 2024 programme.
1. Thematic Focus
Core Themes

The programme revolved around six key themes:

Digital Inclusion and Accessibility: Bridging the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to technology for marginalized communities.
Data Governance and Privacy: Addressing data protection, privacy rights, and cross-border data flow challenges.
Cybersecurity and Trust: Building a secure and resilient cyberspace while fostering global cooperation.
Ethics and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Exploring responsible AI development, accountability, and societal impacts.
Sustainability in the Digital Age: Reducing the environmental footprint of digital technologies and fostering green innovations.
Empowering Youth and Future Generations: Amplifying young voices and their role in shaping the digital future.

Strengths

The thematic focus captured current and emerging challenges, ensuring relevance and engagement.
Cross-cutting issues such as human rights, gender equality, and inclusivity enriched discussions across all themes.

Areas for Improvement

Some themes, such as sustainability, lacked detailed exploration, leaving gaps in actionable insights.
While broad, the themes could benefit from deeper regional customization to address specific local challenges.

2. Programme Structure
Components

The IGF 2024 programme was structured into several interlinked segments:

High-Level Sessions: Featuring thought leaders and policymakers addressing overarching internet governance priorities.
Thematic Main Sessions: Focused discussions on the six core themes, fostering interaction among diverse stakeholders.
Workshops: Smaller, interactive sessions providing space for focused debates and capacity building.
Lightning Talks and Networking Sessions: Quick, engaging presentations and informal gatherings to foster collaboration.
Open Forums: Platforms for governments, civil society, and private sector representatives to share best practices and initiatives.
Youth Sessions: Dedicated tracks empowering young voices to lead discussions and propose solutions.

Strengths

The programme offered a balanced mix of formats, catering to diverse preferences and engagement styles.
Interactive sessions, like workshops and open forums, enabled meaningful exchanges and stakeholder participation.

Areas for Improvement

Session overlap created difficulties for participants interested in attending multiple discussions.
Some high-level sessions were overly formal, limiting opportunities for open dialogue with the audience.

3. Flow
Event Flow

The programme followed a logical progression, beginning with high-level discussions to set the stage, followed by thematic deep dives and workshops.
Networking sessions were strategically placed to foster collaboration and dialogue throughout the event.

Strengths

The flow ensured that participants could build knowledge progressively, starting with broader perspectives and moving into detailed discussions.
The inclusion of youth sessions early in the programme amplified young voices and set a forward-looking tone.

Areas for Improvement

Scheduling challenges led to session fatigue, particularly on days with back-to-back events.
Transition times between sessions were often insufficient, making it difficult for attendees to move between venues or virtual links seamlessly.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

Enhance Regional Perspectives: Integrate more region-specific thematic tracks to address local challenges.
Optimize Scheduling: Introduce tools to manage session overlap and provide sufficient transition times.
Focus on Actionable Outcomes: Ensure that discussions lead to concrete recommendations and follow-up mechanisms.
Expand Accessibility: Improve virtual platforms and provide multilingual support to enhance global participation.
Strengthen Networking Opportunities: Allocate more time and space for informal interactions to foster collaboration.

Conclusion

The IGF 2024 programme successfully addressed critical issues in internet governance while fostering multi stakeholder dialogue. By refining its thematic focus, structure, and flow, IGF 2025 can further enhance its impact and inclusivity, ensuring its continued relevance in shaping the digital future.

IGF 2024 Hybrid Format Design and Experience

The IGF 2024 embraced a hybrid format, combining in-person and virtual participation to maximize inclusivity, accessibility, and global reach. This design enabled stakeholders from various regions, sectors, and capacities to engage in meaningful dialogue about internet governance. Below is an evaluation of the hybrid format design and the participant experience.
1. Hybrid Format Design
Key Features

Seamless Integration of Virtual and Physical Events:
All sessions were live-streamed, with virtual participants able to join via a robust online platform.
In-person and online audiences could interact in real time through Q&A tools and chat functionalities.

Global Accessibility:
Sessions were held in time slots accommodating participants from multiple time zones.
Multilingual support, including real-time interpretation, allowed for broader participation.

Interactive Tools:
Polls, live Q&A, and breakout rooms encouraged engagement among both in-person and virtual attendees.
A dedicated app facilitated networking and access to session materials.

Equity Measures:
Subsidies for connectivity and equipment were provided to participants from underrepresented regions.
Local hubs were established in several countries, allowing community-based in-person gatherings with virtual connectivity to the main event.

2. Participant Experience
Strengths

Flexibility:
Attendees appreciated the ability to participate remotely, reducing travel costs and time commitments.
Hybrid options increased the overall attendance and diversity of participants.

Inclusive Interactions:
Virtual tools ensured that remote participants could actively engage in discussions, rather than merely observing.
Networking features allowed attendees to connect across geographical and professional boundaries.

Local Hubs:
These hubs successfully bridged the digital divide, enabling participation from regions with limited connectivity.
Community-based discussions at hubs enriched the global dialogue with localized perspectives.

Platform Usability:
The online platform was user-friendly, with intuitive navigation for accessing sessions, materials, and networking opportunities.

3. Challenges and Areas for Improvement

Technical Glitches:
Some virtual sessions experienced connectivity issues, including audio-visual lags and disruptions during live Q&A.
Inconsistencies in platform performance were noted during peak usage times.

Engagement Disparities:
Despite interactive tools, virtual participants occasionally felt secondary to in-person attendees in terms of recognition and engagement.
Limited interaction opportunities between virtual and in-person participants reduced the sense of a unified forum.

Time Zone Constraints:
Scheduling challenges meant that some participants from certain regions found it difficult to join key sessions.

Local Hub Limitations:
Some hubs lacked the necessary infrastructure to provide a seamless hybrid experience.
Limited synchronization between hubs and the main event affected the flow of discussions.

4. Recommendations for IGF 2025

Enhance Platform Resilience:
Invest in high-capacity servers and backup systems to ensure smooth virtual participation.
Offer a dedicated support team for real-time troubleshooting during sessions.

Equalize Engagement:
Train moderators to actively include virtual participants in discussions and Q&A sessions.
Introduce tools for cross-format networking, such as virtual and physical "meeting zones."

Improve Scheduling:
Develop a regional rotation model for key sessions to accommodate diverse time zones.
Record all sessions and provide on-demand access to ensure inclusivity for those unable to attend live.

Strengthen Local Hubs:
Provide technical support and training for hub organizers to ensure high-quality hybrid experiences.
Increase collaboration between hubs and the central event to harmonize discussions and outcomes.

Integrate Feedback Mechanisms:
Conduct real-time and post-event surveys to understand participant experiences and areas for enhancement.
Use feedback to continuously refine the hybrid model.

Conclusion

The IGF 2024 hybrid format successfully expanded participation and inclusivity, aligning with its mission of fostering global dialogue. Addressing the identified challenges will ensure that future IGFs provide an even more seamless, engaging, and impactful experience for both in-person and virtual attendees.

IGF 2024 Logistics Evaluation

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 was supported by a robust logistical framework designed to facilitate a hybrid format. This report evaluates the various logistical elements, including the website, mobile app, scheduling, registration, access to the online platform, bilateral meeting systems, and security measures, highlighting successes and areas for improvement.
1. Website
Strengths

The IGF 2024 website served as the central hub for all event-related information, including programme schedules, speaker bios, and session recordings.
A searchable session catalogue made it easy for participants to find relevant sessions by theme, speaker, or format.
The website was mobile-friendly and accessible, with options for screen readers and multilingual content.

Areas for Improvement

Technical issues were reported during high-traffic periods, causing delays in accessing critical information.
Some participants found the navigation to be unintuitive, especially for newcomers.

2. Mobile App
Strengths

The mobile app provided real-time notifications, personalized schedules, and session reminders, enhancing user engagement.
Features like session bookmarking and integrated Q&A tools made participation smoother for both in-person and virtual attendees.
The app’s networking feature facilitated direct messaging and meeting coordination among participants.

Areas for Improvement

Limited offline functionality meant participants in regions with poor connectivity struggled to use the app effectively.
Some users experienced glitches with notifications and synchronization between the app and the online platform.

3. Schedule
Strengths

The programme was well-organized, with sessions categorized by theme, format, and level of engagement.
The inclusion of regional time zone conversions helped participants plan their schedules.

Areas for Improvement

Session overlaps created challenges for participants interested in multiple discussions occurring simultaneously.
Lack of an interactive scheduling tool to suggest sessions based on user preferences.

4. Registration
Strengths

The online registration process was streamlined and quick, with clear instructions and immediate confirmation.
Tiered registration options accommodated in-person, virtual, and hybrid participants effectively.

Areas for Improvement

Some attendees reported delays in receiving access credentials for the online platform post-registration.
Insufficient communication around visa support for international participants was noted.

5. Access and Use of Online Platform
Strengths

The online platform provided a centralized space for virtual participation, live streaming, and accessing session materials.
Real-time features, such as polls, live Q&A, and breakout rooms, enhanced virtual engagement.

Areas for Improvement

Technical issues, such as audio-video lags and login problems, were reported during peak usage.
Limited bandwidth optimization led to difficulties for participants in low-connectivity areas.

6. Bilateral Meeting System
Strengths

A dedicated bilateral meeting system allowed participants to schedule one-on-one or group meetings effortlessly.
Integrated calendar synchronization and reminders ensured meetings were well-organized.

Areas for Improvement

The lack of integration with the mobile app meant participants had to switch platforms for meeting coordination.
Time zone mismatches occasionally led to scheduling conflicts.

7. Security
Strengths

A robust cybersecurity framework ensured data protection and privacy for online participants.
In-person venues adhered to strict physical security protocols, ensuring the safety of attendees.

Areas for Improvement

Some participants raised concerns about the complexity of authentication processes, which occasionally hindered access.
Greater transparency in how personal data from registration and the platform were managed would enhance trust.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

Enhance Website and Mobile App Functionality:
Improve website stability during high-traffic periods.
Add offline features and smarter navigation to the mobile app.

Optimize Scheduling Tools:
Introduce a dynamic scheduling assistant to help participants manage overlapping sessions.

Streamline Registration and Credentialing:
Ensure timely delivery of access credentials and clear communication about visa processes.

Strengthen Online Platform Performance:
Prioritize bandwidth optimization and backup systems to minimize technical disruptions.

Integrate Bilateral Meeting Systems:
Merge meeting scheduling tools with the mobile app for greater accessibility.

Increase Transparency in Security Measures:
Provide detailed information on data handling and privacy protocols to build participant confidence.

Conclusion

The logistical framework of IGF 2024 effectively supported its hybrid format, enhancing accessibility and global participation. Addressing the highlighted challenges will further improve the efficiency and inclusivity of future IGF events.

Intersessional Activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

The 2024 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) highlighted intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Youth Initiatives (NRIs) as key components of its global engagement strategy. This evaluation focuses on the processes, content, and integration of these activities into the annual IGF programme.
1. Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums (BPFs)
Process

BPFs were developed through a collaborative multistakeholder process, with contributions from governments, civil society, academia, and the private sector.
Stakeholders participated in preparatory webinars, public consultations, and iterative drafting sessions, ensuring diverse perspectives.

Content

Topics included cybersecurity, gender inclusion in digital spaces, and sustainable internet practices.
Reports were comprehensive, offering actionable recommendations and showcasing regional and thematic best practices.

Inclusion in the Annual Programme

BPF outputs were presented during dedicated main sessions, allowing for in-depth discussion and critique.
Integration into workshops and thematic discussions ensured alignment with broader IGF themes.

Policy Networks (PNs)
Process

PNs focused on key policy challenges, such as AI governance and cross-border data flows, leveraging expertise from global and regional stakeholders.
Regular virtual meetings facilitated ongoing dialogue, while interim reports provided updates to the IGF community.

Content

Policy Networks produced data-driven and solution-oriented reports, emphasizing the intersection of policy, technology, and societal impacts.
Recommendations were forward-looking, addressing gaps in global digital governance frameworks.

Inclusion in the Annual Programme

PNs featured prominently in plenary discussions, where participants debated findings and proposed next steps.
Thematic workshops further explored PN outputs, contextualizing them within regional and sectoral realities.

2. National, Regional, and Youth Initiatives (NRIs)
Process

NRIs organized preparatory meetings and consultations throughout the year, fostering grassroots engagement.
Clear communication channels between NRIs and the IGF Secretariat ensured alignment with the global programme.

Content

NRIs highlighted local internet governance challenges and solutions, adding valuable regional perspectives to global dialogues.
Youth-led NRIs showcased innovative approaches to addressing digital inclusion and capacity building.

Inclusion in the Annual Programme

NRIs were integrated through dedicated sessions, where representatives shared insights and best practices.
Regional roundtables and networking events enhanced collaboration between NRIs and international stakeholders.
Youth NRIs held interactive sessions, emphasizing the role of young people in shaping the future of internet governance.

Strengths

Inclusive Processes: The participatory nature of BPFs, PNs, and NRIs ensured diverse stakeholder involvement.
Rich Content: Outputs were actionable and tailored to address both global and regional issues.
Seamless Integration: Intersessional activities were well-incorporated into the main IGF programme, enriching discussions and fostering continuity.

Challenges and Areas for Improvement

Awareness and Participation: Limited visibility of intersessional activities among some stakeholders reduced potential engagement.
Follow-Up Mechanisms: While reports provided recommendations, clearer pathways for implementation and follow-up were needed.
Resource Constraints: NRIs, especially from underrepresented regions, faced challenges in securing resources and capacity for effective participation.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

Enhance Visibility:
Promote BPFs, PNs, and NRIs more actively through social media and targeted outreach.
Develop an interactive online repository for intersessional outputs and activities.

Strengthen Implementation Pathways:
Establish mechanisms to monitor and support the adoption of recommendations from intersessional activities.

Increase Support for NRIs:
Provide financial and technical support to NRIs from underrepresented regions.
Facilitate greater interaction between NRIs and global stakeholders through pre-event networking opportunities.

Youth Engagement:
Expand youth NRI activities and integrate their outputs more prominently into main IGF sessions.

Conclusion

The intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024 played a critical role in bridging local, regional, and global perspectives on internet governance. By addressing identified challenges and building on existing strengths, future IGFs can further enhance the value and impact of these initiatives.

Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024: Process, Content, and Integration

Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) at IGF 2024 continued to serve as vital multistakeholder platforms, offering focused dialogue on specific internet governance issues. This evaluation examines the process of their work, the relevance and quality of their content, and how their activities were incorporated into the annual IGF programme.
1. Process
Strengths

Inclusive Participation: Dynamic Coalitions maintained open membership, encouraging contributions from governments, civil society, academia, the private sector, and technical communities.
Collaborative Workflows: DCs organized regular virtual meetings, webinars, and consultations to ensure ongoing engagement and iterative development of outputs.
Transparency: Meeting minutes, draft documents, and progress updates were consistently shared with the broader community, fostering accountability.

Challenges

Varied Engagement Levels: Some DCs experienced uneven participation, with a few members driving most of the work.
Resource Constraints: Limited funding and administrative support hindered the ability of some DCs to achieve their goals effectively.
Coordination with Other IGF Activities: Overlap with the work of Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks (PNs) occasionally created redundancy.

2. Content
Themes and Relevance

Dynamic Coalitions addressed a wide range of critical internet governance topics, including:

Accessibility and Disability Inclusion: Advancing digital inclusion for persons with disabilities.
Internet Standards, Security, and Safety: Promoting global standards for cybersecurity and privacy.
Public Access to Information: Exploring sustainable models for community connectivity and public access.
Digital Rights and Freedoms: Addressing the protection of human rights in the digital age.

Output Quality

Most DCs produced evidence-based and actionable reports, supported by case studies, data, and expert analyses.
Outputs often included policy recommendations, practical toolkits, and frameworks for implementation.

Innovative Contributions

Some DCs introduced novel tools, such as interactive platforms for stakeholder engagement and data visualizations for policy discussions.

3. Integration into the Annual IGF Programme
Dedicated Sessions

DCs were featured in dedicated sessions, where they presented their findings and engaged participants in discussions.
These sessions were structured as interactive panels, roundtables, or workshops, promoting dialogue between coalition members and the IGF community.

Cross-Thematic Workshops

Several DCs collaborated with BPFs, PNs, and NRIs to co-host workshops, creating synergies between their outputs and broader IGF themes.

Plenary Highlights

Selected DC outputs were showcased in plenary sessions, ensuring their work received visibility among the wider IGF audience.

Exhibition and Networking Spaces

In-person and virtual exhibition areas featured Dynamic Coalitions, providing opportunities for stakeholders to learn about their work and engage informally.

Strengths

Diverse Expertise: DCs brought together stakeholders with specialized knowledge, enriching IGF discussions.
Practical Insights: Outputs were often grounded in real-world challenges, offering pragmatic solutions.
Enhanced Visibility: Integration into plenary and thematic sessions elevated the profile of DC outputs.

Challenges and Areas for Improvement

Inconsistent Integration: While some DCs were prominently featured, others had limited visibility within the IGF programme.
Engagement Barriers: Virtual participants faced challenges in fully engaging with DC activities, particularly in interactive sessions.
Follow-Up Mechanisms: There was a lack of structured pathways for implementing and monitoring the recommendations from DC outputs.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

Strengthen Coordination:
Align DC activities more closely with BPFs, PNs, and NRIs to minimize redundancy and enhance impact.

Enhance Visibility:
Include all DC outputs in a centralized repository for easy access by the IGF community.
Provide additional opportunities for underrepresented DCs to showcase their work.

Foster Engagement:
Develop tools to ensure equal participation for virtual attendees in DC sessions.
Use gamification or other interactive formats to boost engagement during presentations.

Support Implementation:
Establish partnerships with relevant organizations to pilot and implement DC recommendations.
Monitor the adoption of DC outputs and report progress at subsequent IGFs.

Conclusion

Dynamic Coalitions remain an essential component of the IGF ecosystem, offering focused expertise and actionable outputs on pressing internet governance issues. By addressing the identified challenges and building on existing strengths, future iterations can further enhance the value and impact of DCs within the IGF programme.

IGF 2024 Programme: Content, Speakers, and Quality of Discussions

The IGF 2024 programme offered a broad spectrum of content, speakers, and discussions, reflecting its commitment to addressing pressing internet governance issues through a multistakeholder lens. Below is an evaluation of the content, speaker diversity, and overall quality of the discussions at IGF 2024.
1. Content
Strengths

Relevance: The programme focused on timely topics such as:
AI Governance: Addressing ethical, legal, and societal implications of artificial intelligence.
Cybersecurity: Discussing global strategies for combating cyber threats and enhancing resilience.
Digital Inclusion: Exploring strategies for bridging the digital divide, particularly in underserved regions.
Sustainability and ICT: Examining the environmental impact of digital technologies and sustainable practices.

Multidisciplinary Approach: Sessions combined technical, policy, economic, and social perspectives, fostering holistic understanding.

Innovative Formats: Many sessions employed interactive formats such as debates, hackathons, and live polls to engage participants.

Challenges

Overlap in Themes: Some sessions covered similar topics, leading to redundancy and diluting audience focus.
Limited Regional Representation: Despite efforts, certain regions and local issues remained underrepresented.

2. Speakers
Strengths

Diversity of Stakeholders: The speaker lineup included representatives from governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and technical communities.
Expertise: Panels featured prominent thought leaders, innovators, and policymakers with deep knowledge of their fields.
Youth and Grassroots Voices: Young leaders and grassroots representatives were actively included, ensuring a variety of perspectives.

Challenges

Gender Imbalance: While progress was made, some panels lacked gender parity.
Speaker Overload: A few sessions featured too many speakers, limiting the depth of individual contributions and audience interaction.

3. Quality of Discussions
Strengths

Substantive Debates: Discussions were well-informed, addressing complex issues with depth and nuance.
Action-Oriented Outcomes: Many sessions concluded with clear recommendations, frameworks, or calls to action.
Audience Engagement: Q&A segments and interactive tools allowed attendees to actively participate, enhancing the richness of discussions.

Challenges

Time Management: Some sessions ran over time, limiting opportunities for audience questions and interaction.
Language Barriers: Although interpretation services were available, some participants expressed challenges in fully engaging due to linguistic differences.

4. IGF 2024 Sessions
Strengths

Thematic Diversity: Sessions spanned a wide range of topics, from digital rights to emerging technologies, ensuring something for all participants.
Collaborative Workshops: Many sessions were co-hosted by multiple stakeholders, fostering cross-sectoral dialogue and collaboration.
Plenary Sessions: These highlighted key takeaways and provided a platform for high-level discussions, setting the tone for the IGF.

Challenges

Scheduling Conflicts: Concurrent sessions on similar topics led to difficult choices for participants and reduced overall session attendance.
Virtual Accessibility: While hybrid participation was supported, some remote attendees faced technical issues that hindered their experience.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

Content Optimization:
Conduct a thorough review of session proposals to minimize thematic overlap.
Encourage proposals that address underrepresented regions and emerging issues.

Speaker Balance:
Prioritize gender balance and regional diversity in speaker selection.
Limit the number of speakers per session to ensure meaningful contributions and audience interaction.

Enhance Accessibility:
Improve hybrid participation tools to ensure seamless virtual engagement.
Expand interpretation services to cover a wider range of languages.

Time Management:
Allocate sufficient time for audience questions and interaction in every session.
Provide moderators with tools and training to effectively manage session timing.

Session Integration:
Develop mechanisms to link session outcomes to broader IGF themes and ongoing intersessional activities.

Conclusion

The IGF 2024 programme was ambitious and impactful, offering diverse and substantive discussions on critical internet governance issues. By addressing identified challenges and implementing the above recommendations, IGF 2025 can further elevate the quality of its content, speakers, and discussions, ensuring a more inclusive and engaging experience for all participants.

IGF 2024 High-Level Leaders Track: Evaluation

The High-Level Leaders Track (HLLT) at IGF 2024 served as a platform for senior government officials, industry leaders, and key stakeholders to discuss critical internet governance challenges and opportunities. Below is a detailed evaluation of the track, focusing on its structure, content, participation, and impact.
1. Structure and Format
Strengths

Focused Sessions: Each session addressed specific high-priority topics, such as:
Global cooperation on AI governance.
Cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection.
Bridging the digital divide in developing economies.
Sustainable development and green ICT.
Engaging Formats: A mix of keynote addresses, moderated dialogues, and roundtable discussions encouraged interaction among leaders and the audience.

Challenges

Time Allocation: Some sessions were packed with multiple high-profile speakers, leaving limited time for in-depth discussion or audience interaction.
Limited Interactivity: While engaging, the format often prioritized speeches over meaningful dialogue with participants.

2. Content
Strengths

Relevance: The HLLT topics aligned closely with global internet governance priorities and the IGF 2024 thematic focus.
Cross-Sectoral Insights: Leaders shared diverse perspectives, combining policy, technical, and business expertise.
Action-Oriented: Many discussions focused on tangible outcomes, such as frameworks for policy alignment and multistakeholder collaboration.

Challenges

Overlapping Themes: Some topics were repetitive across sessions, reducing the opportunity to address less-explored issues.
Insufficient Regional Focus: While global challenges were emphasized, specific regional contexts and needs were sometimes overlooked.

3. Participation
Strengths

Diverse Representation: The track included government officials, CEOs, civil society leaders, and technical experts, ensuring a multistakeholder approach.
Youth and Emerging Leaders: Several sessions featured contributions from young leaders, enriching discussions with fresh perspectives.
Global Reach: Participation included leaders from various regions, fostering a sense of inclusivity and global collaboration.

Challenges

Gender Imbalance: Despite efforts, male speakers dominated some panels, highlighting the need for greater gender parity.
Accessibility for Remote Participants: Some virtual participants faced challenges in engaging with high-level discussions due to technical limitations or time zone differences.

4. Impact
Strengths

Policy Recommendations: Sessions produced actionable recommendations on key topics, such as enhancing cybersecurity frameworks and promoting equitable access to digital resources.
Networking Opportunities: The track facilitated connections among leaders, fostering partnerships and collaborative initiatives beyond IGF 2024.
Visibility for Emerging Issues: Topics like AI ethics and green ICT gained prominence, setting the stage for future discussions.

Challenges

Follow-Up Mechanisms: While impactful, the track lacked clear mechanisms to ensure that recommendations translated into concrete actions post-IGF.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

Enhance Session Design:
Limit the number of speakers per session to allow for deeper, more interactive discussions.
Include Q&A segments specifically for audience engagement.

Broaden Content Scope:
Address underrepresented themes, such as regional challenges and indigenous perspectives on internet governance.
Reduce thematic overlap across sessions to maximize the diversity of discussions.

Promote Gender and Regional Balance:
Set clear targets for gender and regional representation among high-level speakers.
Actively involve leaders from underserved and developing regions.

Leverage Technology for Hybrid Participation:
Improve the online platform to support seamless virtual engagement for remote participants.
Offer recordings and summary briefs of HLLT sessions for broader accessibility.

Strengthen Impact:
Create a follow-up mechanism to track the implementation of policy recommendations made during the track.
Establish working groups to operationalize key outcomes in intersessional activities.

Conclusion

The High-Level Leaders Track at IGF 2024 was instrumental in advancing discussions on critical internet governance issues. While highly impactful, its potential can be further realized by addressing challenges related to interactivity, inclusivity, and follow-up mechanisms. With these improvements, the HLLT can serve as an even stronger catalyst for global collaboration and actionable outcomes at IGF 2025.

IGF 2024:

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs at IGF 2024

The National, Regional, and Youth Internet Governance Forums (NRIs) were a cornerstone of IGF 2024, bringing diverse perspectives and grassroots experiences to the global stage. This evaluation examines the processes, content, and integration of NRIs into the annual IGF programme.
1. Process
Strengths

Decentralized and Inclusive: NRIs were organized independently, reflecting local, regional, and youth-specific priorities while adhering to the IGF’s multistakeholder model.
Capacity Building: Many NRIs incorporated training sessions, mentorship programs, and workshops, especially for first-time participants and youth.
Collaborative Preparation: NRIs engaged local communities through public consultations, ensuring broad representation and relevance.

Challenges

Resource Disparities: Some NRIs, particularly in developing regions, faced challenges in securing funding and logistical support.
Coordination Gaps: Communication between NRIs and the IGF Secretariat, as well as among NRIs themselves, was occasionally inconsistent, limiting synergies.
Youth Engagement: While youth-focused NRIs were vibrant, they sometimes lacked access to decision-making platforms within the broader IGF framework.

2. Content
Themes and Focus Areas

NRIs addressed a wide range of internet governance issues tailored to their constituencies, including:

Digital Inclusion: Access to affordable and reliable internet, particularly in underserved communities.
Cybersecurity: Regional approaches to online safety and resilience against cyber threats.
Digital Literacy and Skills Development: Empowering communities, especially youth, to navigate the digital world safely and effectively.
Data Protection and Privacy: Regional and national perspectives on safeguarding personal data.
Youth Leadership: Amplifying the voices of young people in shaping internet governance policies.

Output Quality

Comprehensive Reports: NRIs produced detailed reports summarizing discussions, outcomes, and recommendations.
Action-Oriented Proposals: Many NRIs proposed tangible solutions and next steps, such as community-based initiatives and policy advocacy strategies.

Innovative Formats

Interactive sessions, hackathons, and community dialogues were integrated into several NRIs, fostering dynamic and participatory engagements.

3. Inclusion in the Annual IGF Programme
Dedicated NRI Sessions

Showcase Events: NRIs were given dedicated slots to present their work, share insights, and discuss challenges.
Interactive Panels: Sessions featured cross-NRI collaborations, enabling dialogue on common themes and regional differences.

Youth Representation

Youth NRIs had strong visibility, with sessions that highlighted their unique contributions and perspectives on internet governance.
A dedicated Youth Track allowed young participants to connect with policymakers and other stakeholders.

Cross-Thematic Contributions

NRI representatives participated in global discussions, enriching IGF sessions with local and regional perspectives.
Outputs from NRIs were referenced in thematic sessions, ensuring alignment with the broader IGF programme.

Exhibition Spaces

Both physical and virtual exhibition spaces provided platforms for NRIs to share their outputs, engage with attendees, and network.

Strengths

Grassroots Relevance: NRIs brought real-world challenges and localized solutions to the global stage.
Youth Empowerment: Youth NRIs showcased innovative approaches, emphasizing the importance of young voices in internet governance.
Global-Local Nexus: NRIs served as a bridge between local communities and global discussions, fostering mutual understanding.

Challenges and Areas for Improvement

Resource Constraints: Many NRIs struggled with limited funding, affecting their ability to participate fully in the IGF.
Integration Depth: While NRIs were visible, their outputs were not always deeply integrated into the broader IGF programme.
Follow-Up Mechanisms: There was a lack of clear pathways for implementing NRI recommendations at the global level.

Recommendations for IGF 2025

Enhanced Support for NRIs:
Provide financial and technical assistance to under-resourced NRIs.
Facilitate peer-to-peer learning and mentorship programs among NRIs.

Strengthen Integration:
Ensure NRI outputs are prominently featured in main sessions and thematic discussions.
Develop a centralized repository for NRI reports and resources, accessible year-round.

Youth Engagement:
Expand youth participation in decision-making sessions and plenaries.
Create more interactive platforms for youth to collaborate with other stakeholders.

Capacity Building:
Offer training and resources to help NRIs improve their organizational and advocacy capacities.
Host pre-IGF workshops to align NRIs with the annual programme’s objectives.

Conclusion

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs at IGF 2024 played a crucial role in amplifying grassroots voices and enriching global internet governance debates. By addressing resource disparities, enhancing integration, and fostering greater youth engagement, future IGFs can unlock the full potential of NRIs and their contributions.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience IGF 2024 Hybrid Format Design and Experience

The IGF 2024 embraced a hybrid format, combining in-person and virtual participation to maximize inclusivity, accessibility, and global reach. This design enabled stakeholders from various regions, sectors, and capacities to engage in meaningful dialogue about internet governance. Below is an evaluation of the hybrid format design and the participant experience.
1. Hybrid Format Design
Key Features

Seamless Integration of Virtual and Physical Events:
All sessions were live-streamed, with virtual participants able to join via a robust online platform.
In-person and online audiences could interact in real time through Q&A tools and chat functionalities.

Global Accessibility:
Sessions were held in time slots accommodating participants from multiple time zones.
Multilingual support, including real-time interpretation, allowed for broader participation.

Interactive Tools:
Polls, live Q&A, and breakout rooms encouraged engagement among both in-person and virtual attendees.
A dedicated app facilitated networking and access to session materials.

Equity Measures:
Subsidies for connectivity and equipment were provided to participants from underrepresented regions.
Local hubs were established in several countries, allowing community-based in-person gatherings with virtual connectivity to the main event.

2. Participant Experience
Strengths

Flexibility:
Attendees appreciated the ability to participate remotely, reducing travel costs and time commitments.
Hybrid options increased the overall attendance and diversity of participants.

Inclusive Interactions:
Virtual tools ensured that remote participants could actively engage in discussions, rather than merely observing.
Networking features allowed attendees to connect across geographical and professional boundaries.

Local Hubs:
These hubs successfully bridged the digital divide, enabling participation from regions with limited connectivity.
Community-based discussions at hubs enriched the global dialogue with localized perspectives.

Platform Usability:
The online platform was user-friendly, with intuitive navigation for accessing sessions, materials, and networking opportunities.

3. Challenges and Areas for Improvement

Technical Glitches:
Some virtual sessions experienced connectivity issues, including audio-visual lags and disruptions during live Q&A.
Inconsistencies in platform performance were noted during peak usage times.

Engagement Disparities:
Despite interactive tools, virtual participants occasionally felt secondary to in-person attendees in terms of recognition and engagement.
Limited interaction opportunities between virtual and in-person participants reduced the sense of a unified forum.

Time Zone Constraints:
Scheduling challenges meant that some participants from certain regions found it difficult to join key sessions.

Local Hub Limitations:
Some hubs lacked the necessary infrastructure to provide a seamless hybrid experience.
Limited synchronization between hubs and the main event affected the flow of discussions.

4. Recommendations for IGF 2025

Enhance Platform Resilience:
Invest in high-capacity servers and backup systems to ensure smooth virtual participation.
Offer a dedicated support team for real-time troubleshooting during sessions.

Equalize Engagement:
Train moderators to actively include virtual participants in discussions and Q&A sessions.
Introduce tools for cross-format networking, such as virtual and physical "meeting zones."

Improve Scheduling:
Develop a regional rotation model for key sessions to accommodate diverse time zones.
Record all sessions and provide on-demand access to ensure inclusivity for those unable to attend live.

Strengthen Local Hubs:
Provide technical support and training for hub organizers to ensure high-quality hybrid experiences.
Increase collaboration between hubs and the central event to harmonize discussions and outcomes.

Integrate Feedback Mechanisms:
Conduct real-time and post-event surveys to understand participant experiences and areas for enhancement.
Use feedback to continuously refine the hybrid model.

Conclusion

The IGF 2024 hybrid format successfully expanded participation and inclusivity, aligning with its mission of fostering global dialogue. Addressing the identified challenges will ensure that future IGFs provide an even more seamless, engaging, and impactful experience for both in-person and virtual attendees.

Président de la commission juridique

Bilan du FGI 2024 :
1. Ce qui a bien fonctionné :
• Participation inclusive : Une forte participation de divers acteurs (gouvernements, société civile, secteur privé et technique) reflétant un engagement mondial.
• Thématiques pertinentes : Les sujets abordés étaient en phase avec les défis actuels, notamment la gouvernance de l'intelligence artificielle, la cybersécurité et l'inclusion numérique.
• Sessions interactives : Les formats interactifs, tels que les tables rondes et les ateliers, ont favorisé des échanges constructifs et dynamiques.
• Renforcement des capacités : Des ateliers de formation et des programmes spécifiques ont permis de mieux outiller les participants, en particulier ceux venant de pays en développement.

Processus préparatoire de l'IGF 2024 :
• Calendrier :
o Points positifs : Respect global des délais malgré un calendrier serré.
o Points à améliorer : Prévoir un délai plus long pour la soumission et l’évaluation des propositions afin d’assurer une meilleure qualité.

1. Orientation thématique :
L’IGF 2024 s’est structuré autour de thèmes clés et prioritaires reflétant les enjeux actuels de la gouvernance de l’Internet :
• 1. Intelligence artificielle et éthique numérique : Débats sur la régulation, la transparence des algorithmes et l’impact de l’IA sur les droits humains.
• 2. Sécurité et confiance numérique : Discussions sur la cybersécurité, la protection des données et les réponses aux cyberattaques.
• 3. Inclusion et accessibilité numériques : Stratégies pour réduire la fracture numérique et promouvoir l’égalité d’accès, en particulier dans les pays en développement.
• 4. Durabilité et technologies vertes : Analyse des pratiques numériques écologiques et des politiques favorisant un Internet durable.
• 5. Gouvernance des plateformes et désinformation : Propositions pour réglementer les plateformes numériques et lutter contre les fausses informations.
2. Structure du programme :
Le programme s’est organisé en plusieurs formats adaptés à différents objectifs :
• Séances plénières : Discussions générales sur les grands thèmes, réunissant des experts et des décideurs.
• Ateliers thématiques : Sessions plus spécialisées axées sur des questions précises et techniques.
• Tables rondes interactives : Échanges multipartites impliquant divers acteurs (gouvernements, entreprises, société civile).
• Groupes de discussion rapide : Sessions plus courtes favorisant des échanges ciblés sur des sujets émergents.
• Sessions ouvertes : Opportunités pour les participants d’aborder librement des sujets non prévus dans l’agenda officiel.
3. Déroulement :
• Jour 1 – Cérémonie d’ouverture et sessions introductives : Présentation des priorités et des attentes pour l’événement.
• Jours 2 à 4 – Sessions thématiques : Exploration approfondie des sujets clés avec panels, ateliers et discussions interactives.
• Jour 5 – Synthèse et perspectives : Résumés des résultats des discussions et recommandations pour les futures éditions et actions.
• Événements parallèles : Expositions, démonstrations technologiques et rencontres informelles pour renforcer les réseaux professionnels.

Conception et expérience du format hybride IGF 2024
-. Conception du format hybride :
L’IGF 2024 a été conçu pour combiner participation en présentiel et engagement en ligne, garantissant une accessibilité mondiale et une inclusion accrue.
Expérience des participants :
Pour les participants en présentiel :
• Interaction directe : Opportunités de réseautage face-à-face et d’accès aux expositions physiques.
• Accès simplifié : Systèmes d’inscription et d’orientation sur site optimisés.

1. Site web et application mobile :
• Site web officiel :
o Plateforme centralisée pour l'accès aux informations sur le programme, les intervenants, et les ressources.
o Interface conviviale avec des options multilingues pour une navigation facile.
• Application mobile :
o Outil complémentaire pour gérer les agendas personnels, recevoir des notifications et accéder aux sessions en direct.
o Fonctionnalités interactives telles que des sondages, des questions-réponses et des échanges instantanés entre participants.
o Carte interactive des lieux pour les participants sur site.

Calendrier et inscription :
• Calendrier dynamique :
o Programme détaillé mis à jour en temps réel pour refléter les modifications éventuelles.
o Options de filtres par thèmes, formats (ateliers, plénières, etc.) et langues.
• Processus d’inscription :
o Enregistrement simplifié avec un système d’inscription en ligne pour les participants sur site et virtuels.
o Confirmation automatique par e-mail avec informations pratiques et codes d’accès aux plateformes numériques.
o Badge numérique pour un enregistrement rapide sur place.

3. Système de réunions bilatérales :
• Espaces physiques et virtuels dédiés :
o Salles de réunion sur site réservables via l’application ou le site web.
o Salles virtuelles intégrées à la plateforme pour des discussions privées ou en petits groupes.
• Planification simplifiée :
o Outil en ligne permettant de fixer des rendez-vous et d’envoyer des invitations.
o Calendriers synchronisés avec les sessions pour éviter les chevauchements.

4. Sécurité :
• Sur place :
o Accès sécurisé avec badges électroniques et contrôles aux points d’entrée.
o Présence de personnel de sécurité et de secours médical tout au long de l’événement.

Points forts et axes d’amélioration :
Ce qui a bien fonctionné :
• Facilité d’accès : Inscription fluide et plateforme intuitive.
• Outils interactifs : Favorisant un haut niveau d’engagement, tant en ligne qu’en présentiel.
• Système de réunion efficace : Coordination simplifiée pour les rencontres bilatérales et le réseautage

Contenu et thématiques traitées :
Les coalitions dynamiques ont couvert un large éventail de sujets critiques :
• Protection des données et vie privée : Développement de principes directeurs pour une gouvernance respectueuse des droits fondamentaux.
• Intelligence artificielle et éthique : Évaluation des risques liés aux biais algorithmiques et propositions de bonnes pratiques pour une IA responsable.
• Inclusion numérique : Solutions pour combler la fracture numérique et promouvoir l’accès aux technologies pour les groupes marginalisés.
• Cybersécurité et confiance : Cadres pour renforcer la sécurité en ligne et contrer les cyberattaques.
• Environnement et durabilité : Études sur l’impact environnemental des technologies numériques et recommandations pour des pratiques plus durables.

Inclusion des activités intersessions dans le programme annuel :
Les travaux des coalitions dynamiques ont été intégrés dans l’IGF 2024 grâce à un processus structuré et visible :
• Sessions dédiées :
o Chaque coalition a présenté ses résultats et recommandations lors de sessions spécifiques, ouvertes aux discussions avec les participants.
o Formats interactifs tels que des tables rondes, des ateliers pratiques et des groupes de réflexion pour approfondir les propositions.
• Rapports et documents de travail :
o Publication des rapports préparés au cours de l’année sur le site web de l’IGF.
o Distribution de résumés et d’analyses pendant l’événement pour faciliter l’implication des participants.
• Recommandations stratégiques :
o Intégration des résultats des coalitions dans les déclarations finales et les orientations stratégiques de l’IGF.
o Propositions soumises aux décideurs et organisations internationales pour un suivi après l’événement.

Évaluation et enseignements :
Ce qui a bien fonctionné :
• Processus inclusif : Ouverture des discussions à un large éventail de parties prenantes, garantissant la diversité des points de vue.
• Impact visible : Présentation claire des conclusions dans le programme annuel, facilitant la diffusion des recommandations.

Objectifs d’une approche axée sur le genre :
L’IGF 2024 a cherché à intégrer une approche sensible au genre pour :
• Promouvoir l’égalité des sexes : Assurer une représentation équitable des femmes et des groupes de genre diversifiés dans toutes les discussions et activités.
• Aborder les défis spécifiques : Mettre en lumière les obstacles auxquels les femmes et les groupes marginalisés sont confrontés dans le domaine numérique.
• Renforcer les capacités : Offrir des formations pour aider les femmes et les jeunes filles à développer des compétences numériques et à s’engager dans la gouvernance de l’Internet.
• Encourager la participation : Créer des opportunités de réseautage et de mentorat pour renforcer la présence des femmes dans les processus décisionnels.

Contenu du programme :
Le programme de l’IGF 2024 a été structuré autour de thématiques clés reflétant les enjeux actuels et émergents de la gouvernance de l’Internet.
Thèmes principaux :
• Intelligence artificielle et éthique :
o Débats sur la régulation des technologies d’IA et la gestion des biais algorithmiques.
o Études de cas et meilleures pratiques pour une IA responsable.
• Sécurité numérique et cybersécurité :
o Discussions sur la protection des données, les cyberattaques et les stratégies de défense.
o Propositions de cadres pour renforcer la confiance en ligne.
• Inclusion numérique :
o Initiatives pour réduire la fracture numérique et améliorer l’accès aux technologies dans les régions défavorisées.
o Études sur l’inclusion des femmes, des jeunes et des groupes marginalisés.
• Droits numériques et liberté d’expression :
o Analyse des enjeux liés à la censure, à la désinformation et à la surveillance.
o Approches pour garantir des droits fondamentaux en ligne.
• Durabilité et TIC vertes :
o Solutions numériques pour réduire l’impact environnemental des technologies.
o Politiques d’innovation durable et responsabilité sociale des entreprises.

Intervenants :
Le programme a accueilli une diversité d’intervenants issus de secteurs variés, garantissant un dialogue inclusif et équilibré.
Types d’intervenants :
• Gouvernements et institutions publiques : Ministres, régulateurs et diplomates apportant une perspective politique et législative.
• Secteur privé : Représentants d’entreprises technologiques mondiales, startups innovantes et acteurs économiques clés.
• Société civile et ONG : Défenseurs des droits humains et experts en gouvernance d’Internet.
• Universités et chercheurs : Analyses basées sur des études empiriques et des données scientifiques.
• Jeunes leaders : Perspectives nouvelles et idées innovantes sur les défis numériques.

Points forts :
• Équilibre régional et culturel : Participation active de représentants de diverses régions, assurant la prise en compte des contextes locaux.
• Leadership féminin : Forte présence de femmes leaders dans les panels, promouvant l’égalité des genres dans la gouvernance numérique.
• Experts de renommée mondiale : Intervenants reconnus pour leur expertise dans des domaines tels que l’intelligence artificielle et la cybersécurité.

Qualité des débats :
Les débats ont été marqués par un niveau élevé d’expertise et un engagement interactif entre les participants.
Ce qui a bien fonctionné :
• Discussions approfondies :
o Analyses structurées et échanges basés sur des faits concrets.
o Questions-réponses dynamiques favorisant l’interaction entre intervenants et public.
• Formats variés :
o Tables rondes, ateliers pratiques et débats ouverts permettant des échanges diversifiés.
o Séances interactives avec sondages en direct et outils collaboratifs pour recueillir les avis du public.
• Perspective globale et locale :
o Approche mixte combinant visions internationales et solutions locales.
Collaboration entre initiatives nationales et régionales pour enrichir les discussions.

Points forts :
• Thématiques pertinentes : Les sujets traités ont répondu aux priorités globales et émergentes du numérique.
• Interactivité : L’utilisation de formats hybrides a favorisé l’inclusion et permis une participation mondiale.
• Recommandations concrètes : Propositions claires sur la régulation de l’IA, la cybersécurité et l’inclusion numérique.

Objectifs du parcours des dirigeants de haut niveau :
Le Parcours des dirigeants de haut niveau (High-Level Leaders Track) à l’IGF 2024 a été conçu pour :
• Renforcer la coopération multipartite : Faciliter des dialogues stratégiques entre les décideurs politiques, les dirigeants d’entreprises, les représentants de la société civile et les institutions internationales.
• Orienter les priorités mondiales : Identifier et discuter des solutions aux défis numériques globaux.
• Favoriser des recommandations politiques : Proposer des actions concrètes pour promouvoir une gouvernance de l’Internet inclusive, durable et sécurisée.

Parcours parlementaire de l'IGF 2024
1. Objectifs du parcours parlementaire :
Le Parcours parlementaire de l’IGF 2024 a été conçu pour :
• Renforcer l’engagement politique : Encourager les parlementaires à jouer un rôle actif dans la gouvernance de l’Internet et à traduire les recommandations en législations concrètes.
• Faciliter le dialogue international : Favoriser l’échange de bonnes pratiques et d’idées entre législateurs de différents pays.
• Adapter les cadres législatifs : Explorer des moyens d’harmoniser les lois nationales et internationales sur les questions numériques clés.
• Créer des ponts entre les parties prenantes : Promouvoir une approche multipartite impliquant gouvernements, secteur privé et société civile.

2. Structure et format des sessions :
Le parcours a été structuré autour de formats interactifs et inclusifs :
a) Tables rondes parlementaires :
• Discussions thématiques :
o Protection des données et vie privée : Harmonisation des lois sur la protection des données dans différents pays.
o Intelligence artificielle et éthique : Régulation et gouvernance de l’IA.
o Cybercriminalité et cybersécurité : Coopération transfrontalière pour lutter contre les menaces numériques.
o Inclusion numérique : Politiques pour combler la fracture numérique et garantir l’accès équitable à Internet.
o Droits humains en ligne : Protéger la liberté d’expression et lutter contre la désinformation.
b) Ateliers pratiques :
• Simulations et études de cas sur l’élaboration de cadres juridiques adaptés aux enjeux numériques.
• Exercices collaboratifs pour rédiger des recommandations concrètes.
c) Réunions bilatérales :
• Sessions de réseautage permettant aux parlementaires de discuter d’initiatives législatives spécifiques et de renforcer les partenariats internationaux.

Contenu et thèmes abordés :
Thèmes majeurs :
• Cybersécurité et souveraineté numérique :
o Réglementations nationales pour renforcer la sécurité en ligne tout en respectant les droits fondamentaux.
o Politiques pour lutter contre les cyberattaques et le cyberterrorisme.
• Régulation des plateformes numériques :
o Encadrement des grandes plateformes technologiques en matière de transparence et de responsabilité.
o Mesures pour lutter contre la désinformation et la haine en ligne.
• Protection des données et vie privée :
o Harmonisation des normes pour garantir la portabilité des données et la souveraineté numérique.
• Développement durable et TIC vertes :
o Législations favorisant l’adoption de technologies respectueuses de l’environnement.
• Innovation et intelligence artificielle :
o Adoption de cadres éthiques pour réguler les technologies émergentes.

Profil des participants :
Le parcours a réuni :
• Parlementaires et législateurs : Membres des parlements nationaux et régionaux impliqués dans les politiques numériques.
• Experts juridiques : Conseillers en gouvernance numérique et régulation technologique.
• Organisations internationales : UIT, UNESCO, OCDE et autres institutions apportant un soutien technique et stratégique.
• Acteurs du secteur privé : Fournisseurs de technologies et plateformes collaborant avec les régulateurs pour équilibrer innovation et régulation.
• Société civile : Organisations militant pour la protection des droits numériques et l’inclusion sociale.

• Dialogue productif :
o Discussions constructives facilitant la compréhension des enjeux communs et des priorités législatives.
o Partage d’expériences entre pays sur les lois existantes et émergentes.
• Recommandations concrètes :
o Adoption d’engagements pour aligner les cadres juridiques sur les meilleures pratiques mondiales.
o Propositions pour renforcer la coopération transfrontalière en matière de cybersécurité.
• Participation active :
o Grande diversité géographique et culturelle parmi les parlementaires, assurant des points de vue variés.

Objectifs du Parcours Jeunesse :
Le Parcours Jeunesse de l’IGF 2024 a été conçu pour :
• Impliquer activement les jeunes dans la gouvernance de l’Internet : Donner une voix aux jeunes pour qu’ils influencent les politiques numériques et technologiques.
• Renforcer les compétences et les capacités : Proposer des formations et des ateliers pratiques pour développer les connaissances techniques et stratégiques des jeunes.
• Encourager l’innovation et les idées nouvelles : Offrir un espace pour présenter des projets et des solutions technologiques créées par des jeunes.
• Créer des réseaux de jeunes leaders : Favoriser la collaboration entre jeunes participants du monde entier.

Le Village IGF 2024 a été conçu comme un espace interactif et dynamique au sein du Forum sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet. Son objectif principal était de :
• Favoriser la collaboration : Offrir un lieu d’échange entre les parties prenantes, y compris les gouvernements, les entreprises, la société civile, les organisations internationales et les jeunes.
• Mettre en avant les initiatives : Présenter des projets, des outils et des solutions liés à la gouvernance de l’Internet.
• Promouvoir l’innovation : Mettre en lumière des idées novatrices pour relever les défis numériques mondiaux.
• Créer un réseau international : Faciliter les rencontres et les opportunités de partenariat entre acteurs clés du numérique.
Le Village IGF 2024 offert un cadre inclusif, interactif et collaboratif, renforçant les échanges et soutenant les projets novateurs pour une gouvernance de l’Internet plus équitable et durable.

Stratégie de communication :
L'IGF 2024 a adopté une stratégie de communication multicanaux pour maximiser la sensibilisation et l'engagement avant, pendant et après l'événement.
Canaux utilisés :
• Site web officiel :
o Plateforme centrale pour les informations sur le programme, les intervenants et les inscriptions.
o Mises à jour régulières sur les sessions et les résultats.
• Réseaux sociaux :
o Campagnes sur Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram et Facebook pour promouvoir les sessions et partager des faits saillants en temps réel.
o Utilisation des hashtags (#IGF2024, #InternetGovernance) pour augmenter la portée et favoriser l’interaction.
• Communiqués de presse :
o Diffusion régulière d’annonces pour informer les médias et les parties prenantes des avancées majeures et des moments clés.
• Webinaires et sessions d’information :
o Organisation d’événements en ligne avant l’IGF pour préparer les participants et promouvoir les sujets abordés.
• Newsletters et e-mails :
o Bulletins d’information envoyés aux participants pour maintenir leur engagement et fournir des mises à jour pratiques.

Calendrier et planification anticipée :
• Publication anticipée du calendrier :
o Diffuser un calendrier préliminaire au moins 9 à 12 mois avant l’événement pour permettre aux participants de mieux planifier leur engagement.
o Intégrer des jalons clairs pour les consultations ouvertes, les appels à propositions et la sélection des sessions.
• Événements préparatoires régionaux :
o Organiser des forums préparatoires régionaux et thématiques pour identifier les priorités locales et alimenter les discussions globales.
o Harmoniser ces événements avec le calendrier principal afin d’assurer une continuité des thèmes abordés.
• Alignement avec d’autres événements internationaux :
o Éviter les chevauchements avec d’autres conférences majeures pour maximiser la participation des parties prenantes.

IGF 2024:

Améliorer l’impact post-événement :
• Rapports et recommandations :
o Proposer des résumés exécutifs et des rapports analytiques sur les conclusions de chaque session.
o Publier des plans d’action ou des feuilles de route pour guider la mise en œuvre des idées discutées.
• Suivi et évaluation :
o Introduire un système de retour d’expérience pour recueillir des avis et suggestions après chaque session et orienter les futurs programmes.
• Continuité des discussions :
o Créer des groupes de travail en ligne pour assurer un suivi des recommandations entre deux éditions de l’IGF.
o Mettre en place un réseau collaboratif permanent via des plateformes numériques.

Perspectives pour l’avenir :
• Formats immersifs : Tester des expériences en réalité augmentée ou virtuelle pour approfondir l’interaction en ligne.
• Plateformes ouvertes : Développer une bibliothèque numérique accessible après l’événement avec des vidéos, des documents et des outils collaboratifs.
• Encouragement à l’innovation : Récompenser les propositions les plus innovantes avec des prix et un soutien pour leur développement.

Évaluation et retours :
• Sondages et évaluations en temps réel :
o Recueillir des avis après chaque session pour ajuster la programmation en continu.
• Rapports analytiques :
o Produire des synthèses de chaque session avec des recommandations exploitables.
• Publications continues :
o Maintenir un blog ou une newsletter pour suivre l’évolution des thématiques discutées.

• Soutien aux nouvelles initiatives : Encourager et accompagner la création de nouvelles NRI, en particulier dans les régions sous-représentées.
• Approfondissement des collaborations régionales : Renforcer les liens entre les NRI pour favoriser des approches concertées face aux défis communs.
• Implication accrue des jeunes : Intégrer davantage de jeunes leaders dans les processus de gouvernance pour garantir une vision à long terme et inclusive.
• Innovation technologique : Utiliser des plateformes numériques interactives pour renforcer la participation continue entre les sessions annuelles.

. Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques et la collaboration entre les NRI
A. Développement de guides pratiques et de modèles
• Boîte à outils pour les NRI :
o Créer un guide standardisé pour l’organisation des FGI locaux, comprenant des modèles pour les propositions de sessions, la logistique et les Identification des participants clés à inviter
A. Groupes cibles à inviter :
1. Gouvernements :
o Décideurs politiques : Ministres, secrétaires généraux, responsables des politiques numériques, régulations des télécommunications et de la cybersécurité.
o Régulateurs des secteurs numériques : Organismes responsables de la réglementation d'Internet, de la protection des données et des services numériques.
2. Secteur privé :
o Technologies et entreprises innovantes : Startups, entreprises technologiques de premier plan, et entreprises du secteur numérique (IA, cybersécurité, fintech).
o Fournisseurs de services Internet et d'infrastructure : Opérateurs de télécommunications, entreprises de cloud computing, et services cloud décentralisés.
3. Société civile :
o Organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) : Acteurs du secteur de la protection des droits numériques, de la liberté d'expression, de l'inclusion numérique, et des droits de l'homme.
o Académiciens et chercheurs : Spécialistes en gouvernance d'Internet, en cybersécurité, et en droit numérique, notamment dans les pays en développement.
4. Jeunesse :
o Représentants des initiatives jeunesse : Programmes de jeunes leaders numériques, startups dirigées par des jeunes, et organisations jeunesse impliquées dans la gouvernance numérique.
o Bourses pour jeunes : Offrir des bourses pour permettre à des jeunes de pays en développement de participer activement aux discussions.
5. Organisations internationales :
o Agences de l'ONU : ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, ainsi que d'autres agences impliquées dans la gouvernance numérique.
o Organisations intergouvernementales : GAC (GAC de l'ICANN), OCDE, et d'autres forums multilatéraux.
6. Médias :
o Journaux et plateformes numériques : Inviter des journalistes spécialisés dans les nouvelles technologies, la cybersécurité et la politique numérique.
o Influenceurs numériques : Des influenceurs qui abordent les sujets de gouvernance numérique, des droits numériques, et de l'impact des technologies sur la société.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Conception et expérience du format hybride IGF 2024
-. Conception du format hybride :
L’IGF 2024 a été conçu pour combiner participation en présentiel et engagement en ligne, garantissant une accessibilité mondiale et une inclusion accrue.
Expérience des participants :
Pour les participants en présentiel :
• Interaction directe : Opportunités de réseautage face-à-face et d’accès aux expositions physiques.
• Accès simplifié : Systèmes d’inscription et d’orientation sur site optimisés.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

PRETO BUSINESS Corp.

It is better to have more meetings before the conference, and we will be glad if we could present our speaker on the stage next year.

Awesome, place is beautiful.

Unfortunately I didn't understand when it was virtual part of the conference.

beautiful

GBA Global had made a lot of interesting speakers to be. Hope to see Elon Musk next year.

Positive

IGF 2024:

Positive

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Unfortunately I didn't understand when it was virtual part of the conference.

Smart egypt

Very good

Cyberscurty and AI governance

Excellent

All good

Moer work shop

Mor awerance and mor meating

Very good

Yes

Mor youths

Successfactors

Good valige

More fead back

Support and innovation

IGF 2024:

Good

Sand invation

Seand mor poster

Ibrahim abdelsaboer
Whatsup 00966560296947

Mor information

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Excellent

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Stiftung Digitale Chancen | Digital Opportunities Foundation Germany

The preparatory process of IGF 2024 was well projected and managed.

The hybrid format was well projected. Nevertheless the hybrid experiences was ambivalent. Too often remote-participants could not recognize what is going on on-site, slides shared online were not availabe on screen on-site and/or sound was not convenient.
People of the technical support on-site were everytime friendly and helpful. But too often it was necessary to give them hints and advice, what to do, to react, etc.

Registration was - as always - very easy. The interactive schedule was released very short-term. It would be helpful to release them earlier next time. I did not use the app due to data issuess: the app would like to have too much access to other tools and services.

Merging topics and create a joint session was meaningful and offered a great cooperation between CRIDE and IoT.

Having the IGF village close to workshop facilities was great. Unfortunately it was very loud inside the workshop booths, so that it was often really stressfull to follow discusssions.

IGF 2024:

The IGF is the international forum for discussing urgent and emerging issues related to the Internet and the digital environment for all. The multi-stakeholder approach is of great value and participation is very easy. To secure and promote an Internet for all, it makes sense to invest in the IGF and continue to support the base so that it can grow. At the IGF, the concerns of the GDC can be discussed and debated. The best decisions to realise the objectives of the GDC and thus contribute to a better world for all will emerge from the wide range of perspectives and expertise.

International conferences are a great opportunity to gather, make new contacts and share knowledge and expertise. Therefor it was really sad that at the IGF 2024 were no social events foreseen.

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format was well projected. Nevertheless the hybrid experiences was ambivalent. Too often remote-participants could not recognize what is going on on-site, slides shared online were not availabe on screen on-site and/or sound was not convenient.
People of the technical support on-site were everytime friendly and helpful. But too often it was necessary to give them hints and advice, what to do, to react, etc.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Taqniyat

IGF 2024:

The Citizens Foundation

IGF 2024:

UN IGF DC DDHT

DCs should be given the option to have their proposal considered as a workshop, townhall, lightening talk etc. For if the DC is declined a WS it should be submitted for the other catgories. DCs are the backbone of IGF with their intersessional activities.

How will satellite ISP tech advance reaching the last mile?

Allow all DCs to participate with a session and this could be virtual sessions, if room spaceis limited.

Allow 100% virtual sessions like during covid

This was a smooth delivery

DDHT hosted excellent intersessional events and one in particular with DC libraries should have got promotion at IGF 2024. A manner to do this for the future should be considered.

100% virtual session as an option
Include all DCs as not all DCs can find a common topic to collaborate on.

IGF 2024:

Dedicated themes by day or time. A day 0 to share intersessional events. Extend times for the day to include all DCs.

Always have the topics of: access, interoperability, inclusion, education.

Ask Tesla, Amazon etc - large companies around the world to a panel discusion on the future vision

Include the work of the DCs

Make sessions 100% virtual if requested. DCs are mainly formed of volunteers and as a result, they need travel grant support even for non developing nations

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Allow all DCs to participate with a session and this could be virtual sessions, if room spaceis limited.

Allow 100% virtual sessions like during covid

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

UN Women

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Good

Please refer to UN Women policy recommendations

Please refer to UN Women ethical conducts

Need more attention for care economy

Women voices are important

same as above

Need more recommendation for best practices

Excellent

See above inputs

IGF 2024:

Keep maintaining all best practices and sustaining networks and human agencies instead of up lifting techno-mediated agencies

Understanding the capacities is not only a policy making procedure. However, policy procedure cannot be proceeded without upholding human rights priorities' according to previously IGF consensus

See above suggestion

Good

See above suggestion (invest in women, especially ecofriendly business and care economy)

Very Good (to some extent needs improvement)

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Excellent

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

UNA-Chad

IGF 2024:

UNIVERSAL BANK

worked well: multicultural / diversity / organization
worked not so well: so many talks, too long. (talking talking talking but i don't see anything new) / we can't engage young people this way

Great
the themes were correct
internet we want is a MUST

I joined virtual

worked not so well: Sessions in the agenda are a mess / impossible to follow the schedule / too disorganized / too long / too complicated

MUST be easy, simple. to the point

so many session did not work. i had to join by youtube channel but i couldn't participate in the chat or live

WE NEED TO FIX THIS FOR 2025
WE NEED A BETTER EXPERIENCE

i imagine a virtual reality conference / very futuristic

I joined virtual / websites sucks / we need to improve it / make them more attractive to get people more involved

is a mess the WEBSITES / the DESIGN / the information (you can't find anything easy and simple)

EVERYTHING is TOO LONG

nothing to say / was good

was good

GREAT

OBJECTIVELY SURPRISED ME HOW MANY WOMEN WERE IN THE FORUM

BUT WE NEED TO INVOLVE MORE WOMEN IN TECH AND PROGRAMMING

WE HAVE SO MUCH WORK TO DO

I CAN LEAD THE IGF 2025 TO MAKE IT THE MOST INTERESTING AND FUTURISTIC PLATFORM AND SPACE EVER
TO ENGAGE YOUNG PEOPLE AND EVERYONE

IGF AND UN NEEDS CRYPTO

I'M AND EXPERT IN BITCOIN AND AI
I THINK IGF AND THE UN NEED US

I HAVE A HIGH-STANDARDS DEVS TEAM
(WE CAN TOTALLY IMPROVE AND PUT IN THE NEXT LEVEL UNITED NATIONS)

PERFECT

I LOVE YHE EXPERIENCE OF THE ELDERS AND HIGH LEVEL LEADERS

WE NEED MORE AND WE NEED MORE YOUNG GLOBAL LEADERS AS WELL

PERFECT

WE MUST DO A WORLD PARLIAMENT FOR THE INTERNET

I THINK WE HAVE SO MUCH WORK TO DO TO INVOLVE YOUNG PEOPLE

IS TOO OLD THE SYSTEM NOW

HOW THE UN AND IGF WORK NOW IS LEFT BEHIND OF THE NEXT GENERATIONS ( TOO BORED / BAD DESIGN )

NICE

NOTHING TO ADD

CORRECT

I ALREADY MENTIONED ABOVE

IGF 2024:

IMPROVE AGENDA

SCHEDULE IS AWFUL

YOU CAN'T FIND ANYTHING

LESS MEETINGS

LESS TALK

MORE PROOF OF WORK. SHOW ME RESULT.

STOP TALKING TALKING TALKING.

THE CONTENT IS OK

BUT THE WAY IS PRESENTING INTHE WEBSITES TO INTERACT AND TO ENGAGE PEOPLE SUCKS.

HORRIBLE. WE HAVE SO MUCH WORK TO DO HERE

i think we need TO RESTRUCTURE the entire IGF and UN platform

WE CAN'T ENGAGE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH THIS BAD TASTE / BAD DESIGN AND COMPLEX WEBSITES AND BAD EXPERIENCE JOINING VIRTUAL

BITCOIN PEOPLE

CRYPTO PEOLE

YOUND DEVS

PROGRAMMERS IN CRYPTO AND AI

TECH FOUNDERS

SILICON VALLEY FOUNDERS

( I INSISTI: I'M AN EXPERT IN BUSINESS, POLITICS AND TECH )

I'M THE FOUNDER OF BITCOIN BANK
OVER A DECADE IN BITCOIN
I KNOW VERY WELL THE CRYPTO SPACE

I CAN LEAD ALL OF US TO MAKE UN AND THE IGF THE BEST SPACE EVER.

WE NEED TO CONDENSE ALL IN ONE.

SO MANY CONFERENCES, SO MANY EVENTS.
WHEN THERE IS SO MANY PLACES IS LIKE NONE.

WE NEED ONE AND FOR ALL

I SUGGEST TO TREAT INTERNET ISSUE ( AND I HAVE THE SOLUTION) ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2025.

I CAN LEAD THE UN TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

CONNECT ME: I KNOW AND I HAVE WHAT THE UN NEEDS

joanna.internet.gov@gmail.com

I CAN LEAD IGF AND THE UN TO THE NEXT LEVEL

NEXT GENERATION OF INTERNET

THE INTERNET WE WANT, MORE SAFE AND SECURE FOR ALL THE KIDS AND ALL HUMANITY

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience
I joined virtual

worked not so well: Sessions in the agenda are a mess / impossible to follow the schedule / too disorganized / too long / too complicated

MUST be easy, simple. to the point

so many session did not work. i had to join by youtube channel but i couldn't participate in the chat or live

WE NEED TO FIX THIS FOR 2025
WE NEED A BETTER EXPERIENCE

i imagine a virtual reality conference / very futuristic

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Urban safari trust project limited

It absolutely okay

Standard organising

Well design

Well prepared

Good

Okay

Well organised

Okay

IGF 2024:

Well organised

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Well design

Vijoriya Foundation

The IGF 2024 preparatory process had successes, including an efficient timeline, inclusive call for issues, transparent session selection, and impactful capacity development, fostering diverse participation. However, challenges included limited review time for session proposals, inconsistent communication during MAG meetings, and insufficient resources for broader capacity-building outreach, highlighting areas for improvement in future editions.

The IGF 2024 program featured a well-defined thematic focus, a cohesive structure, and a logical flow, ensuring comprehensive discussions on key digital governance issues. While the thematic tracks facilitated in-depth engagement, some overlaps in session content and pacing challenges highlighted the need for tighter coordination in future iterations.

The IGF 2024 hybrid format enabled inclusive participation, but connectivity issues and gaps in remote-onsite interaction highlighted areas for improvement.

IGF 2024 logistics were efficient, with a user-friendly website, mobile app, and online platform. However, minor challenges in the bilateral meeting system and registration process highlighted areas for refinement.

Intersessional activities, including Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks, enriched IGF 2024 with valuable content. Their integration into the program was effective, though the process could benefit from greater clarity and stakeholder engagement to maximize impact.

Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024 contributed diverse insights, with well-structured content and active engagement. Their inclusion in the program was impactful, though streamlining coordination could enhance visibility and coherence.

The IGF 2024 program showcased diverse content, knowledgeable speakers, and high-quality discussions, addressing critical global digital governance issues. Sessions were engaging, though a few could have benefited from more focused agendas

the High-Level Leaders Track provided valuable insights, but stronger links to actionable outcomes could enhance their effectiveness.

Overall, IGF 2024 succeeded in advancing multi-stakeholder dialogue but could further improve alignment between tracks and enhance intersessional engagement for greater impact.

A more streamlined timeline for proposal submission and review would ensure timely coordination. An earlier call for session proposals and clearer deadlines would allow better planning and engagement.

IGF 2024:

Strengthen the connection between NRIs and the main IGF program by improving visibility and allowing more interactive cross-links between regional and thematic discussions. Facilitate better integration of intersessional activities into the annual IGF program, ensuring a smoother transition from one year to the next.

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs at IGF 2024 brought valuable local perspectives, with strong content and active participation. Their integration into the program was meaningful, though better alignment with main sessions could enhance their impact.

Broaden the range of stakeholders invited, particularly from underrepresented regions and sectors, including civil society, private industry, and marginalized groups. Improve networking opportunities through better tools for interconnecting participants, such as more interactive digital platforms and matchmaking systems.

IGF 2025 should actively contribute to the implementation of the Global Digital Compact by facilitating discussions on digital rights, sustainability, and inclusive technology policy. Sessions could focus on how to move from agreements to actionable steps, ensuring the Compact’s goals are woven into the program’s thematic focus.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The IGF 2024 hybrid format enabled inclusive participation, but connectivity issues and gaps in remote-onsite interaction highlighted areas for improvement.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

VOCONU

Everything worked well except capacity building communication issues on the part of African group participants

It's relevant and very contemporary

It's very insightful and revealing

Very flexible and accommodating

The process was integrative and the intersessional activities made daring efforts in being inclusive and and complimentary

The process is flexible, inclusive and very encouraging and the content is innovative, strategic and very relevant. However the manner the intersessional activities were included in the annual IGF program is very intricate and requires systematic vigilance for follow-up.

It was very balanced

It was wonderful and very thought provoking. The quality and the presentations were very revealing

Nit much to say at this level

Not much to say here

Needs more Synergy and joint actions, training , monitoring and documentation and reporting for relevant prevention, protection and redress actions

It was wonderful

Full of rich experiences

Understand and make more relax and attractive Possiblilities for the Empoverished poor governance African partners to participate from Africa and to return to Africa and share the experiences. There should be an impactful trickle down effect.

IGF 2024:

Requires more regular email updates on the progress and reminders of deadlines

There should be regular bsub conferences in preparations for the main conference so as to highlight, discuss and have a better perfective of common issues facing internet governance and it's related impact before the global content

Thematic focus should be based on adverse contemporary practices that need change especially from the perspectives of corruption in public services notably in black African governance nations

The national, regional and Youth IGFs at IGF 2024 didn't seem to consider seriously the increasing need for globalisation especially as concerns internet governance. It's like seeking to continue leaving some segments behind.

Those to invite should be civil society actors working on governance issues who are most likely to effect change on the static and malfunctioning governance systems. Government agents should also be invited for conscientisation.

The IGF must make an assessment of the the implementation of the WSIS to correct and encourage areas of negligence. A group for follow up should be created in IGF 2025 for a routine Monitoring , Documentation, and Reporting for the purpose of promoting the Global Digital Compact from these research based feed backs.

Need for greater African Group participation and at all levels.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience It's very insightful and revealing

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

YOUTH FOUNDATION OF BANGLADESH

IGF 2024:

Youth IGF Canada

Capacity development was well done. My organization would encourage broader youth stakeholders as panelists in the future. We would like to see IGF champion youth stakeholders along each panel as part of multi stakeholder diversity.

Too many overlapping sessions on WSIS. The week felt repetitive from so many sessions focused on that and the GDC.

Poor ability to attend virtually. Lack of capacity to engage (unmute, etc.).

The website was released far too late. Sched was a great app and wonderful to use. Registration was easy, but the IGF visa process should have been better highlighted in released documents.

Men were more prominent in person with women online. We would like to see more of an effort by panels to help their female participants engage in person at the IGF in the future.

Too many WSIS and GDC-focused sessions.

The AI focus was interesting. The European delegation session would have benefitted from greater advanced organization amongst speakers and outcomes.

This was well done, except the constant soundbite music on loop was mentally taxing.

IGF 2024:

We would like to see youth championed as NRI regional representatives in the future as part of recognizing youth as a stakeholder group.

The venue needed more washroom stalls.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Poor ability to attend virtually. Lack of capacity to engage (unmute, etc.).

Too many overlapping sessions on WSIS. The week felt repetitive from so many sessions focused on that and the GDC.

Poor ability to attend virtually. Lack of capacity to engage (unmute, etc.).

The website was released far too late. Sched was a great app and wonderful to use. Registration was easy, but the IGF visa process should have been better highlighted in released documents.

Men were more prominent in person with women online. We would like to see more of an effort by panels to help their female participants engage in person at the IGF in the future.

Too many WSIS and GDC-focused sessions.

The AI focus was interesting. The European delegation session would have benefitted from greater advanced organization amongst speakers and outcomes.

This was well done, except the constant soundbite music on loop was mentally taxing.

IGF 2024:

We would like to see youth championed as NRI regional representatives in the future as part of recognizing youth as a stakeholder group.

The venue needed more washroom stalls.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Poor ability to attend virtually. Lack of capacity to engage (unmute, etc.).

🔒Internet Society Nigeria Chapter

This is well streamlined and kudos to the Community of organisers. However, for 2025 we have to hit the ground running immediately as we have half of the time to plan this time around. this is very important.

The structure was ok and the thematic focus was apt as it discussed trendy issues. However, the programme lacked some of the IGF conventional day zero event which should have brought more glamour to the event like the music night, welcome parties from interested stakeholders. this should be brought back. ANd I would suggest closing entertainment too.

The hybrid format design was ok but it is important that the online attendant have the same benefits as attending physically. Meaning, that online platforms should be well organized in such a way as to let all online participants enjoy their participation without missing out on any session right from Day 0.

The mobile app was good as well as the website but they should be made more effective by a better UX/UI design. The best way to assess an app is how easy it is for a very young or old person to use such an app. However, it is important to diversify our strategy like use of QR code for session appraisal. That can be done by ensuring that the QR code for each session is displayed like 5 minutes to the end of the session in the room and the anchor person announces that participants in the session should scan and do the survey immediately before departure from the hall. That will ensure more participants fill out the survey for the session.

The process needs to be more transparent as per people who volunteer should be given priority to volunteer even if they are volunteering for the first time without knowing anyone in the system.

the process was ok and collaboration should be encouraged where there is a common focus and objectives

the balance on gender can be given more attention

this is ok but the process of substitution should be more transparent so as to throw up the best speakers when the issue of substitution comes up.

ok but more parliamentarians should be encouraged to join.

more hands should be allowed to contribute for more effectiveness and efficiency as there is always room for improvement.

the process should start now since Norway is just 6 months away. And

IGF 2024:

All events should be observed from day 0 to the farewell ceremonies and entertainments

So, for 2025 this is going to be a little tight because of timing. However, We can also feed into the IGF by ensuring more NRI move before June

Experts from all communities should be encouraged to participate.the structure should allow all the register speakers to be given equal chances of invitation either as backup or main speakers

there is a lopsidedness in this and some countries get more than others and it is important that this should be equitably distributed.

All stakeholders should be invited and this can be done by cascading down to the smallest community .i.e. Countries and each country should have each of her communities represented to say the list

Conduct comprehensive evaluations of progress achieved on the WSIS Action Lines, fostering collaborative assessments among member countries.
Facilitate structured multistakeholder dialogue, promoting consensus-building on shared challenges and opportunities.
Integrate the core principles of the Global Digital Compact into all discussions, ensuring alignment with member countries' national digital development strategies.
Strong Support for the development and implementation of voluntary national action plans (VNAPs) for digital development, aligned with the GDC and WSIS outcomes. This will be part of future implementation of GDC as agreed in ONGA.
Mobilize resources and foster collaborative partnerships, including South-South and support the implementation of agreed-upon actions.
Establish a robust monitoring and evaluation framework, enabling regular assessment of progress and identification of areas for improvement by using such tools as IUI and also ensure that awareness and advocacy efforts are well coordinated using such stable organisations like ISOC etc

I would really want to talk about one thing that is concerning. The distribution of support funding. It seems the process needs to be critically considered to prevent same people from getting funding while others do not. It is always put as part of the application that first-timers and people who have not got funding before are encouraged but it seems this is not reflected in the output. I make bold to use myself as an example, I have been applying for funding support for the past three years but I have never been given and I am always involved in active participation like moderating and organizing sessions. I think the process of selection should be more transparent, please. and perhaps more funding should be made available.
Also, people that register to volunteer in Working Group should be given that opportunity. I have been registering to volunteer for WG but was only given a chance in 2024 and I did not even know the process of selection. I just saw that I was invited mid-way into the process. That is really wrong. Everyone should be allowed to participate it should not be a matter of these are the people I know and a leader of WG should not be the one to determine who is going to be in the WG

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format design was ok but it is important that the online attendant have the same benefits as attending physically. Meaning, that online platforms should be well organized in such a way as to let all online participants enjoy their participation without missing out on any session right from Day 0.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

🔒Kaspersky

The preparation process was well structured. The IGF Secretariat provided all relevant information in a timely manner and responded quickly to questions. As this year's IGF will take place in June, the planning phase will be much more challenging.

Overall, the IGF was very well structured. The reduction to four sub-topics was helpful and provided good orientation. The different formats proved their worth. Some events were not well attended, although the topics were interesting. Perhaps the number of events could therefore be reduced. Perhaps more efforts need to be made to attract even more onsite participants.

The overall experience of the Hybrid format was good. Nonetheless, the hybrid character should be further expanded in order to offer onsite and online participants the same opportunities for participation and discussion, for example to take part in interactive surveys both onsite and online.

Even though transportation between the registration center and KICC was smooth, it would have been more convenient to have the registration site at the venue. Except this point, logistics were excellent (guidelines, shuttles, catering, etc).

We can only comment on the PNAI here: The work was well structured, offered sufficient opportunities for participation and presented itself appropriately in the annual IGF with the published paper and the discussion event.

Numerous important events were offered on the most important topics with competent speakers. The hybrid character of the event was implemented well. Some events were less well attended.

Good topics and speakers.

The IGF Village was very good. The set-up was in harmony with the venue. Booths were smaller than last year, but it was enough to display our assets in a good manner. It was an excellent idea to provide screens for each booth. Each time we faced technical issues with screens, the onsite team reacted quickly to fix them.

Well-structured, comprehensive materials and summary of the most important discussion points and results/recommendations.

The short timeframe (June 2025) will be a challenge.

IGF 2024:

The overall process has proven its value. Perhaps the number of individual events could be reduced.

All events should be designed to be as interactive as possible and all participants (online and onsite) should be offered the same opportunities to participate.

The IGF has established itself as an important multi-stakeholder discussion platform and should be further strengthened.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The overall experience of the Hybrid format was good. Nonetheless, the hybrid character should be further expanded in order to offer onsite and online participants the same opportunities for participation and discussion, for example to take part in interactive surveys both onsite and online.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

🔒Youth for Human Rights Pakistan

The IGF 2024 preparatory process was commendable for its transparent timeline, inclusive session proposals, and effective capacity-building initiatives. However, challenges like overlapping session themes, limited regional outreach, and insufficient youth engagement highlighted areas for improvement. For IGF 2025, enhancing regional representation, consolidating similar sessions, and integrating youth into decision-making can ensure a more inclusive and impactful forum.

The IGF 2024 programme demonstrated a strong thematic focus on critical global issues such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies, ensuring relevance to diverse stakeholders. The structure, featuring a mix of plenaries, workshops, and networking sessions, fostered meaningful dialogue and collaboration. However, the flow could be improved by reducing session overlaps, ensuring better time management, and enhancing coherence between thematic tracks to create a more seamless and engaging experience for participants in IGF 2025.

The IGF 2024 hybrid format was successful in broadening participation, enabling both in-person and virtual attendees to engage meaningfully. Features such as live streaming, real-time translation, and interactive tools facilitated inclusivity and accessibility. However, virtual participants often reported challenges with time zone differences and technical issues during live sessions. For IGF 2025, ensuring more flexible scheduling, enhanced technical support, and greater integration of virtual and physical interactions can further improve the hybrid experience.

The logistics of IGF 2024 were well-organized, with an intuitive website, user-friendly registration process, and a mobile app that provided easy access to the schedule and updates. The online platform functioned efficiently, supporting virtual participation and bilateral meeting coordination. However, some users experienced difficulties navigating the bilateral meeting system and accessing certain features during peak times. Strengthening platform stability, improving the app’s search and notification functionalities, and ensuring clearer instructions for using logistical tools can enhance the overall experience for IGF 2025.

The intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Sub-regional Initiatives (NRIs) at IGF 2024 effectively enriched the annual programme by fostering localized discussions on global Internet governance issues. Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks provided valuable insights and actionable recommendations, but their integration into the main IGF programme could be more prominent. To improve, future events should allocate dedicated time slots for presenting outcomes from these activities, ensuring broader visibility and encouraging stakeholders to engage with intersessional processes throughout the year.

Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024 contributed diverse perspectives and expertise to the programme, addressing key Internet governance issues. However, their inclusion could be better streamlined by aligning their outputs more closely with the main thematic tracks. Providing dedicated slots for presenting their findings and fostering collaboration with other sessions would enhance their impact and visibility in future IGFs.

The IGF 2024 programme featured a wide range of relevant topics, with a strong focus on pressing issues such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies. The selection of speakers was diverse, bringing together experts from government, industry, civil society, and technical communities, which enriched the discussions. While the overall quality of discussions was high, some sessions could have benefitted from more interactive formats to encourage greater participant engagement and deeper debates on complex issues.

For IGF 2025, I suggest the following improvements to enhance the preparatory process:

Extended Feedback Period: Allow more time for stakeholders to provide feedback on session proposals and thematic priorities, ensuring thorough input and broader participation.

Enhanced Regional Outreach: Increase efforts to involve underrepresented regions by organizing regional webinars or meetings and offering financial support or mentoring to local stakeholders.

Streamlined Session Selection: Improve the session selection process by consolidating similar themes, reducing overlap, and ensuring a diverse range of perspectives are represented.

Stronger Youth Involvement: Provide dedicated space for youth-led sessions and involve youth representatives in the decision-making process, particularly within MAG and Open Consultations meetings.

Clearer MAG and Open Consultations Structure: Ensure better clarity and communication regarding the roles and processes of MAG and Open Consultations, making it easier for new participants to engage effectively.

Improved Technical Support for Virtual Participants: Enhance the technical infrastructure for hybrid formats, ensuring seamless interaction between in-person and virtual attendees.

By focusing on these areas, IGF 2025 can be even more inclusive, efficient, and impactful in shaping global Internet governance discussions.

IGF 2024:

To best connect community intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) with the IGF 2025 process, the following steps could be taken:

Incorporate NRI Outcomes into Main Programme: Allocate dedicated sessions for presenting the outcomes of NRIs and intersessional activities (e.g., Best Practice Forums and Dynamic Coalitions) during the main IGF 2025 programme. This would highlight their contributions and encourage cross-regional dialogue.

Stronger Collaboration with MAG: Involve NRI representatives more directly in MAG’s preparatory meetings to ensure that regional and youth priorities are reflected in the IGF 2025 programme.

Interactive Online Platforms: Utilize online platforms to facilitate year-round interaction between NRIs and the broader IGF community, ensuring that insights and recommendations from NRIs influence ongoing discussions.

Youth Inclusion in Sessions: Ensure that youth-led initiatives and issues from Youth IGFs are integrated into the thematic sessions at IGF 2025, with dedicated space for youth perspectives and a focus on youth leadership.

Promote NRI-led Workshops and Collaborations: Encourage NRI-led workshops and collaborative sessions where stakeholders from different regions and youth communities can present joint solutions to shared challenges, fostering global cooperation.

By creating more seamless connections between NRIs and IGF 2025, their contributions can be better integrated into the global dialogue on Internet governance.

The National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) at IGF 2024 brought localized and youth-driven perspectives to global Internet governance discussions. While their sessions were insightful, their integration into the main programme could be strengthened by featuring key outcomes in plenary sessions or aligning their topics with broader IGF themes. This would amplify their impact and foster greater collaboration across NRIs in future IGFs.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The IGF 2024 hybrid format was successful in broadening participation, enabling both in-person and virtual attendees to engage meaningfully. Features such as live streaming, real-time translation, and interactive tools facilitated inclusivity and accessibility. However, virtual participants often reported challenges with time zone differences and technical issues during live sessions. For IGF 2025, ensuring more flexible scheduling, enhanced technical support, and greater integration of virtual and physical interactions can further improve the hybrid experience.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

From Persons:

Aboul Hassan

IGF 2024:

ahmad

The sessions and themes were excellent, and the time allotment was great. Capacity development was awesome with QnA sessions.

It was good and well calibrated

Great

It was awesome

Great

Good

Great

It was focussed

Great

It was awesome

It really focusses on gender issues also

It was really amazing

It was excellent

IGF 2024:

More funds i the form of travel support. In my opinion there should be more availability of funds for regions with poor or average financial resources to attend the programme in person.

Nil

Conflict and climate change

Nil

Conflict regions

Nil

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Great

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Alalshiekh

Some titles of the panel discussion were good , but the majority of the workshops were not active. Furthermore the hospitality were very bad

Average

Not good

Good

I thought it will better which I saw

Nothing

Good

Bad

Normal

Good

Bad

IGF 2024:

You have to follow the system of some Saudi ministers did while organized their events

Some not important

Not good

Same before

Ask the experts

The event wasn’t attractive

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Not good

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

ALMANABHI

IGF 2024:

Alqusair

IGF 2024:

Amiri

The event was very good and helpful overall, but there were a few issues that could be improved. For instance, there was no music program, which would have added a nice touch to the atmosphere. Additionally, the lunch provided was not up to expectations in terms of quality. Lastly, the noise level on the grounds was quite high, which made it difficult to focus at times.

Thank you for organizing the event, and I hope these suggestions will be considered for future improvements.

The IGF 2024 program effectively focused on key themes like digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and AI governance, addressing timely global challenges. The structure was well-organized with a mix of sessions, workshops, and panel discussions that facilitated broad stakeholder participation. The flow allowed for meaningful discussions, though some areas could benefit from more time for in-depth engagement. Overall, the program was relevant and aligned with current priorities in Internet governance.

The IGF 2024 hybrid format was well-designed, offering both in-person and virtual participation options. This ensured broader accessibility and inclusion, allowing stakeholders from different regions to engage. The virtual platform was user-friendly, facilitating smooth interactions, while the in-person experience provided valuable networking opportunities.

The logistics for IGF 2024 were generally well-handled. The website and mobile app provided clear and easy access to event information, schedules, and session details. Registration was straightforward, and the online platform facilitated smooth participation with minimal technical issues.

The Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks at IGF 2024 were well-integrated into the annual program, enhancing the event's focus on ongoing discussions and solutions in internet governance. The process of these intersessional activities was collaborative, involving diverse stakeholders throughout the year, allowing for a more comprehensive and inclusive dialogue. The content was highly relevant, addressing key topics such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and AI governance, with clear outputs that contributed to the overall discussions at the event.

The Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) at IGF 2024 played a crucial role in fostering collaborative discussions on emerging internet governance issues. The process for these coalitions was open and inclusive, with diverse stakeholders working together throughout the year on specific topics such as privacy, accessibility, and digital rights. The content presented by the DCs was impactful and highly relevant, addressing pressing challenges and offering practical solutions.

The National, Regional, and Youth IGFs at IGF 2024 contributed significantly to the event's diversity and global reach. The process for NRI involvement was inclusive, with NRIs organizing their own activities and discussions throughout the year, which were then brought into the broader IGF agenda. The content presented by the NRIs reflected local and regional perspectives on critical internet governance issues, ranging from digital inclusion to policy development, making the discussions more relevant to different parts of the world.

The IGF 2024 program featured a diverse range of content that addressed some of the most pressing issues in internet governance, such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, AI, data privacy, and sustainability. The sessions were well-curated, offering valuable insights and fostering rich discussions on both current and emerging topics.

The speakers were highly knowledgeable and represented a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, and academia. Their expertise contributed to high-quality, informed debates, ensuring that a wide range of perspectives were covered.

The IGF 2024 High-Level Leaders Track featured prominent leaders from various sectors, including governments, private industry, and international organizations, discussing critical internet governance issues. The content was highly relevant, focusing on strategic and policy-level challenges such as global digital cooperation, cybersecurity, and the regulation of emerging technologies like AI.

The IGF 2024 Youth Track was a vibrant and essential part of the event, providing young people with a platform to engage in discussions about the future of Internet governance.

From a gender perspective, the IGF 2024 program demonstrated progress in promoting inclusivity and addressing gender-related issues in internet governance. There was noticeable attention given to gender equality and digital inclusion, with sessions highlighting the digital divide, gender-based violence online, and the importance of ensuring equal access to technology for all genders.

The IGF 2024 Village served as a dynamic and interactive space, providing attendees with opportunities to engage with various initiatives, projects, and organizations involved in Internet governance.

The communications, outreach, and outputs of IGF 2024 were generally well-executed, ensuring broad visibility and engagement before, during, and after the event.

IGF 2024:

Here are some suggestions for improvements to the IGF 2025 preparatory process:

1) Clearer and More Flexible Timeline:
2) Enhanced Call for Session Proposals:
3) Transparent and Inclusive Session Selection:
4) More Frequent and Engaging MAG and Open Consultations:
5) Clearer Communication and Documentation:
6) Stronger Engagement of Youth and Diverse Stakeholders:
7) Improved Coordination Between Regional and National IGFs (NRIs) and the Main Event:
8) Streamline Online Tools and Platforms:

Improve the usability and accessibility of online platforms used for the preparatory process. Ensure that the platforms for submitting proposals, registering for consultations, and engaging in discussions are user-friendly and functional across all devices.
These improvements could lead to a more streamlined and inclusive IGF 2025 preparatory process, enhancing participation, collaboration, and overall event success.

For IGF 2025, the overall program structure and flow could be enhanced to foster greater participation, engagement, and impactful outcomes. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

1. Clearer Thematic Focus and Structure:
2. Improved Session Diversity and Formats:
3. Balance Between High-Level and Grassroots Engagement:
4. Integration of Intersessional Activities:
5. Stronger Focus on Actionable Outcomes:
6. Balanced Session Timing:
7. Stronger Integration of Youth and Gender Perspectives:
8. Engaging and Interactive Content:
9. Post-Event Engagement:

By incorporating these elements into the program structure and flow of IGF 2025, the event can become even more impactful, inclusive, and action-oriented, driving progress in global internet governance discussions and implementation.

For IGF 2025, the program content should focus on relevance, inclusivity, and actionable outcomes. Key suggestions include:

1. Thematic Approach:
Global and Emerging Issues: Focus on cutting-edge topics like AI ethics, digital rights, cybersecurity, data privacy, and sustainability, while being adaptable to emerging challenges.
Cross-Cutting Themes: Integrate themes like inclusivity, diversity, gender equity, and trust online across all sessions.
Regional Focus: Address specific regional challenges in infrastructure, policy, and regulation to promote global collaboration.
2. Session Types:
Workshops: Hands-on problem-solving sessions on topics like cybersecurity and digital inclusion.
Panel Discussions: Diverse panels that include governments, civil society, the private sector, academia, and youth.
Roundtables: Intimate, focused discussions for deeper engagement.
Keynotes and High-Level Sessions: Major addresses on global issues like digital sovereignty and multilateral cooperation.
Real-Time Case Studies: Demonstrations of how internet governance is applied in practice.
3. Speaker Profiles:
Diverse Stakeholders: Include experts from governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and youth.
Youth and Gender Representation: Prioritize youth and marginalized gender perspectives.
Global Representation: Include speakers from all regions, particularly developing countries.
Subject Matter Experts: Experts in cybersecurity, AI, law, data science, and sustainable development.
Inclusive Leaders: Focus on digital rights, accessibility, and equity.
4. Additional Considerations:
Youth Track: Dedicate a track for youth perspectives on digital inclusion and policy-making.
Cross-Sector Collaboration: Foster collaboration between governments, academia, the tech industry, and civil society.
Action-Oriented Sessions: Ensure sessions lead to actionable outcomes, such as white papers or joint initiatives.

By structuring the IGF 2025 program around these elements, the event can drive inclusive, dynamic, and impactful discussions on internet governance.

To connect Community Intersessional Activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) with IGF 2025:

Integrate Intersessional Outputs: Highlight the work of Best Practice Forums (BPFs), Policy Networks (PNs), and Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) in IGF 2025 sessions, ensuring their findings feed into thematic discussions.

Engage NRIs Early: Involve National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) in planning IGF 2025 to share local insights and challenges. Organize regional highlight sessions to showcase their outcomes and foster collaboration.

Youth Track Collaboration: Strengthen the Youth Track by integrating Youth IGFs into IGF 2025, allowing them to present youth-led initiatives and perspectives.

Collaborative Sessions: Encourage joint sessions between NRIs, intersessional groups, and IGF 2025, promoting cross-regional knowledge sharing and collaboration.

By doing so, IGF 2025 can benefit from richer, diverse contributions and ensure global issues are tackled with local insights.

For IGF 2025, invite a diverse range of participants, including governments, private sector, civil society, academia, youth, marginalized groups, and international organizations.

To inter-connect participants:

Organize multi-stakeholder sessions to encourage diverse discussions.
Create networking events and roundtables for cross-sector collaboration.
Use online platforms for remote participation and engagement.
Structure the program into thematic tracks for focused discussions.
Provide collaboration spaces and a bilateral meeting system for one-on-one interactions.
These strategies will ensure broad engagement and foster collaboration across sectors.

To contribute to the WSIS+20 Review and Global Digital Compact (GDC) in IGF 2025:

1. WSIS+20 Review:
Assess WSIS outcomes through dedicated sessions on progress, challenges, and gaps in areas like ICT for development and internet access.
Facilitate high-level discussions to evaluate how internet governance aligns with WSIS goals.
Provide recommendations for the WSIS+20 High-Level Meeting to enhance policy coherence.

2. Global Digital Compact (GDC):
Focus on digital trust, security, and privacy through discussions on cybersecurity and data protection.
Promote inclusive connectivity and digital equity for marginalized groups.
Host multi-stakeholder dialogues to align on GDC principles like digital rights and sustainability.
IGF 2025 can support the WSIS+20 review and GDC by driving inclusive dialogue and actionable recommendations for global digital governance.

The visa process was quite lengthy, causing some delays and inconvenience for participants. Additionally, there was no dedicated counter for IGF participants, which made the check-in process more challenging and time-consuming.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The IGF 2024 hybrid format was well-designed, offering both in-person and virtual participation options. This ensured broader accessibility and inclusion, allowing stakeholders from different regions to engage. The virtual platform was user-friendly, facilitating smooth interactions, while the in-person experience provided valuable networking opportunities.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

BA

Les parties prenantes doivent être impliquées dans le processus d'organisation afin d'émettre leurs avis

Les thématiques doivent être surtout sur la souveraineté numériques des états d'africains

RAS

l'élargissement de la logistique a travers les sites web et les plateformes ou applications mobiles sont très importants cela facilitera l'accès aux tiers

RAS

LES FGI nationaux et internationaux et jeunesse ont permis de réunir les différentes couches de se réunir et d'échanger pour la bonne marche de la souveraineté numérique

RAS

Un parcours exceptionnel et très enrichissant

RAS

IGF 2024:

LES PRISES EN CHARGES DES PARTICIPANTS AUI NONT PAS ASSEZ DE MOYENS

RAS

Les parlementaires, la société civile, les membres du gouvernement

RAS

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience RAS

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Bawary

Overall, everything went well during the preparations, there wasn't anything negative and everything was being shared by the IGF Secretariat in advance, but the host country wasn't that much ready to host such an event, they didn't have that much experience, IGF 2022 was much better organized, it was one of the best IGFs.

thematic focus was very technical and this time it mostly covered AI related issues which is relevant to the digital age we live in, but the flow was a bit confusing.

Hybrid format and design was not bad, but the issue was all the sessions under a ceiling was challenging, for example: you had a very important discussion in one room and there was music and laughter in another room which was annoying.

In terms of logistics, there were issues, but everyhing being done from the IGF Secretariat was well managed like always. you couldn't find villages, bilateral meeting rooms etc easily.

No comments.

very technical discussions, it should be like previous years which is understandable for non-tech bacground people as well, because the internet is not for technical community only, it is for everyone.

no comment

balanced.

not very good compare to previous years, for example IGF 2019 in Berlin was the best, IGF 2022 in Addis was the best. but this year it wasn't that good.

Very nice.

IGF 2024:

THe preparatory process for IGF 2024 was also very well managed, nothing was wrong, so I think we can proceed the same for IGF 2025, but the only issue is to make sure the host country is deciding on everything as inclusive as possible, without bais or region discrimination.

Same as IGF 2019.

Inclusive of all aspects of life, not only AI, there are plenty of topics which are still new to a lot of regions. Choose younger speakers and from diverse background.

As is.

inclusive, try to accommodate people from developing countries more.

I would suggest to make sure the host country is well prepared in terms of logistics, accommodations, transportation facility, and more important the VISA. first of all they should not act discriminatory, they should issue visa to poorer countries, especially to Afghans, everyone won't seek asylum and also consider to issue visas at least 3 months before the event. for IGF 2024 we got our visas 3 days before the event and this is not possible to arrange everyhing in such a short time.
At last, I would request the IGF Travel Support committee to include Afghanistan, they are the most needy people, there are many ways you can support and it's been 2 years no one gets travel support from Afghanistan.

It was a nice experience, different, but somehow lacked something.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Hybrid format and design was not bad, but the issue was all the sessions under a ceiling was challenging, for example: you had a very important discussion in one room and there was music and laughter in another room which was annoying.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Belizaire

The preparation and reminders about the event dates were well organized and professional. No issues to report.

The programme was well-structured. However, having a global summary of the sessions, even if not publicly available, would be very useful. This would allow tracking the progress of key topics year by year and assessing the achievements against set objectives.

I particularly appreciated the inclusion of remote participants via video conferencing, which enhanced accessibility for those unable to attend in person.

The logistics, including the website, mobile app, registration process, and online platform, were satisfactory. However, implementing a system to automatically generate participation certificates after verifying attendees would be a valuable addition. This could help validate local projects and secure government support.

The division into multiple rooms made the discussions more manageable and allowed for better focus on specific topics.

The session titles and themes were highly relevant to the IGF's objectives, making the discussions meaningful and aligned with the event's goals.

As a young participant, I was pleased with the support and inclusion of our ideas. For the future, I would like the opportunity to attend in person, along with financial support, similar to IGF 2019.

The organization was excellent.

The selection of high-level leaders ensured inclusive discussions enriched by their experiences and advancements in technology.

The discussions were well-focused on the main theme, respecting the event's objectives.

The support and recognition of young participants were perfect.

All genders were equally represented and celebrated, which was remarkable.

The Village was a friendly and interactive space that facilitated enriching exchanges between participants and organizations.

The communication efforts were excellent at all levels, ensuring good visibility and participation.

IGF 2024:

I recommend an interactive platform that facilitates participant contributions during open consultations. Tools such as online surveys or forums could improve the collection of ideas for sessions and themes.

A programme structured around “thematic pillars,” with sessions aligned by topic, would be beneficial. Each pillar could include summaries of progress from previous years and goals for the future.

I suggest inviting experts with diverse backgrounds: technology leaders, public and private sector representatives, young innovators, and specialists addressing social and ethical issues in technology.

A virtual platform could be developed to better connect NRIs with intersessional activities. This would strengthen collaboration and ensure consistent follow-ups between national, regional, and global levels

Inviting prominent figures and experts, such as founders of major tech companies (e.g., Cisco, Google, Meta), would be a great addition. They could share their experiences on topics like AI, digital inclusion, and cybersecurity, enriching the discussions.

The IGF 2025 could play a key role in the WSIS+20 Review process by aligning its discussions with WSIS outcomes. By establishing a framework to track actions for implementing the "Global Digital Compact," the IGF could become a reference platform for monitoring progress and commitments made by member states.

I would very much like to attend the IGF 2025 in person to have the opportunity to interact directly and gain a better understanding of the realities discussed during the event. However, I would require financial assistance to make this possible. If such support could be provided, it would be greatly appreciated and would enable me to contribute more effectively.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience I particularly appreciated the inclusion of remote participants via video conferencing, which enhanced accessibility for those unable to attend in person.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

The preparation and reminders about the event dates were well organized and professional. No issues to report.

I particularly appreciated the inclusion of remote participants via video conferencing, which enhanced accessibility for those unable to attend in person.

The division into multiple rooms made the discussions more manageable and allowed for better focus on specific topics.

The session titles and themes were highly relevant to the IGF's objectives, making the discussions meaningful and aligned with the event's goals.

As a young participant, I was pleased with the support and inclusion of our ideas. For the future, I would like the opportunity to attend in person, along with financial support, similar to IGF 2019.

The organization was excellent.

The selection of high-level leaders ensured inclusive discussions enriched by their experiences and advancements in technology.

The discussions were well-focused on the main theme, respecting the event's objectives.

The support and recognition of young participants were perfect.

All genders were equally represented and celebrated, which was remarkable.

The Village was a friendly and interactive space that facilitated enriching exchanges between participants and organizations.

The communication efforts were excellent at all levels, ensuring good visibility and participation.

IGF 2024:

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience I particularly appreciated the inclusion of remote participants via video conferencing, which enhanced accessibility for those unable to attend in person.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

BEN JEMAA

All the preparatory process was well done except for the time for session proposal that could be longer to permit for more submissions

All ok

Ok, as the previous IGF of the last few years

3 main problems:
- The venue was more an exhibition center than a conference one with no sonorisation in all rooms except the plenary hall
- A big issue of confidentiality since we were asked to give our personal phone number for authentication to access to the WIFI of the conference
- We were queuing each time we need to go to the bathroom

Otherwise, everything was excellent and people were very kind and helpful

The NRIs contribution in the 2024 IGF was well structured (one main session, 3 collaborative sessions and a coordination session)
The preparatory process was perfectly done by the Secretariat
For the content, perhaps we need to start preparing our sessions earlier not to be obliged to accept what we could avoid; This doesn't mean that we did it bad, but I think we could do it better for certain cases.
The NRIs sessions were very well included in the 2024 IGF general program (as we want it to be)

The sessions I participated in were in general well done. here are some remarks:
- for certain sessions the attendance was poor
- There is a trend of making a stock taking of the performances of the country/region of the speaker regarding the topic under discussion rather than addressing the topic itself.
- I believe that it could be useful that the Secretariat retrieves all the sessions and records the performance of speakers and moderators to avoid to have those with weakness as speakers/moderators in the upcoming IGFs

The space was tight for the number of booths, but it's central position made it agreeable

The communication inside the venue was good with all the displays everywhere, the central information desk, etc.

IGF 2024:

Start early helps to have things better done

As I said above, the structure of the programme as it was done so far is appropriate

The IGF is the only place where we discuss all issues related to the Internet in an open and free way
So, I find that the themes addressed should be the ones that affect all end users from any stakeholder
Voir exemple, the use of the Internet in destructive wars, the illegitimate use of the users' data, the wrong use of AI against the humanity, etc.
As for the speakers/moderators, I think that the secretariat should retrieve all the sessions and make the appropriate evaluation of the speakers/moderators performance to avoid the non performant ones in the future

The NRIs may be involved in a way or the other in the design of the 2025 IGF content and processes

The main improvement of the IGF I see is that its outputs become more formal and their approval process should be defined
If this is done, they can constitute an official annual document of the UN.

Welcoming host country and kind volunteers in the venue
Online visa for free easy to get

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Ok, as the previous IGF of the last few years

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

BHOITE

The annual meetings and intersessional work of the IGF play a crucial role in aligning with and contributing to the United Nations Secretary General’s Our Common Agenda preparatory process (timeline, call for issues and session proposals, session selection, MAG meetings, capacity development etc.) The NRIs are collaboratively working towards achieving the agreed objectives available in their 2024 work plan, building on last year's work. The preparatory process is implemented through Understand IGF 2024 strategic objectives, including potential improvements to the IGF 2024 procedures and programme. Understand what could be themes of the IGF 2024.

The IGF 2024 programme features over 300 different sessions focused on various digital public policy issues nested under 4 subthemes. Main Sessions are intended to recognise broad and current IG issues of importance. They are determined by the MAG. The overall objective is to make participation in IGF 2024 meaningful and inclusive for all participants. The meeting will be hosted under the overarching theme. The 19th IGF on "Building our Multistakeholder Digital Future" will be held at the King Abdulaziz International Conference Center (KAICC) in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The IGF 2024 hybrid format was successful in broadening participation, enabling both in-person and virtual attendees to engage IGF will be hosted in a hybrid format to provide meaningful participation of stakeholders present on-site or participating online

IGF 2024 logistics (website, mobile app, schedule, registration, access and use of online platform, bilateral meeting system, security etc.) Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024 Opening of Registration for IGF 2024: 1 August 2024 . Online registration for onsite and online participants through IGF website/UN accreditation system with live/public All participants, including speakers, moderators and rapporteurs, need to be registered for the IGF 2024 via the registration platform INDICO. conveniently browse the entire schedule for IGF 2024. Get the key information of your event without ever having to crack open an event guide.

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF JOURNEY TO IN RIYADH IGF 2024 intersessional work develops through open multistakeholder cooperation throughout the year Best Practice Forums (BPFs) Policy Networks at IGF 2024: please comment on process, content, and in particular on how these intersessional activities were included in the annual IGF

Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024: please comment on process, content, and in particular on how these intersessional activities were included in the annual IGF programme. the list of Dynamic Coalitions session proposals, received in a response to the IGF 2024 call for sessions. These proposals were cleared against the basic entry criteria of the IGF the IGF 2024 programme. DC on Platform Responsibility & Internet Rights and Principles Coalition. The meeting focused on the integration of Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) into the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) processes, with discussions on improving planning.

Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024: please comment on process, content, and in particular on how these intersessional activities were included in the annual IGF programme. National, Regional journey to igf 2024 in riyadh The IGF 2024 programme features 300+ sessions and develops under the overarching theme ‘Building our multistakeholder digital future’. The nature of the National and Regional IGF initiatives (NRIs) and the preparatory work for the IGF2024 have proceeded mostly in hybrid and fully in-person settings. the other thing which is important is to assist the national IGFs or youth IGFs in the country

The IGF 2024 programme features over 300 different sessions focused on various digital public policy issues nested under 4 subthemes. Main Sessions are intended to recognise broad and current IG issues of importance. They are determined by the MAG. The 19th Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on "Building our Multistakeholder Digital Future" will be held at the King Abdulaziz International Conference. The IGF 2024 programme features over 300 different sessions focused on various digital public policy issues nested under 4 subthemes. Main Sessions are intended to recognise broad.

the IGF 2024 High-Level Track, experts and leaders from all stakeholder groups, including governments, civil society, private sector, technical communities, intergovernmental and international organisations and from all parts of the world. In addition to the opening and closing sessions, IGF 2024 featured a high-level leaders tracks and a parliamentary session. Building Our Multistakeholder Digital Future. Main and Cross-cutting IGF 2024 Themes: Harnessing innovation and balancing risks in the digital space | Advancing human rights and inclusion in the digital age

the IGF 2024 Parliamentary Track, Parliamentarians from all parts of the world, will engage in dialogues on "Building our Multistakeholder Digital Future".IGF 2024 Youth Track; IGF 2024 Bilateral Meetings; IGF 2024 Village. IGF Exhibitors Manual; IGF 2024 Call for Travel Support; IGF 2024 Support for Global South Journalists GF 2024 Parliamentary Track will include several activities focused on various Internet governance issues. These include regional consultations hosted at regional IGFs The Parliamentary Track at the IGF 2024 is jointly organized by the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs

Building on the demand from young people, as well as on the outputs of last year’s IGF 2024 Youth Track and the Messages from Youth, IGF 2024 Youth Track The IGF Youth Track is a capacity development initiative aimed at fostering collaboration and cooperation among and with youth on matters related to Internet From innovative workshops to global collaborative empowerment programs, we aim to tackle crucial digital challenges, foster inclusive dialogue, and drive sustainable change. the Youth IGF Delegates at the Global Youth Summit for a frank and open exchange between the current generation of experts and the young leaders

Persistent gender digital divides and gender data gaps continue to pose a significant barrier, limiting African women’s effective engagement in the digital economy. Without intentional action, the shift towards data-driven economies may perpetuate, rather than resolve, gender disparities. "Building our Multistakeholder Digital Future", will focus on four themes related to digital innovations & risks; digital contributions to peace; human rights; this session will discuss the current state and challenges of digital gender gap and how prioritizing the gender inclusion can bring socioeconomic benefit

During the 19th annual IGF, interested stakeholders can display or distribute relevant information about their Internet governance-related activities at the IGF Village The IGF 2024 intersessional work and the 19th annual IGF meeting was planned within the overarching theme ''Building our Multistakeholder Digital Future''. interested stakeholders can display or distribute relevant information about their Internet governance-related activities at the IGF Village.

The Riyadh IGF Messages, the primary outcome of IGF 2024, synthesize the critical points raised across the more than 300 sessions held at the meeting ear-long discussions have resulted in concrete output documents, including from Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks and Dynamic Coalitions. IOM, ICE BREAKING NUCLEAR SHIP RUSTOM etc.

IGF 2024:

IGF 2025 preparatory process (timeline, call for issues and session proposals, session selection, MAG meetings, capacity development etc.) IGF 2025 overall programme: thematic focus The goal for the MAG 2025 composition is to ensure its members have a deep understanding of the IGF and WSIS processes, gained through specific experience in MAG and WGIG work, General guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding nominations for a position on the MAG ‎The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)

improve the IGF, its structure, tools, and mechanisms, and how to sustain and strengthen the IGF multistakeholder model in support of an open, stable, composition is to ensure its members have a deep understanding of the IGF and WSIS processes, gained through specific experience in MAG and WGIG work

IGF 2025 preparatory process (timeline, call for session proposals and session selection, MAG and Open Consultations meetings etc.) IGF 2025 overall programme structure and flow IGF Attendees will learn new insights on internet governance and how to implement this in their field. Check-in and access this session from the IGF Schedule. Format description: This open forum would be structured as an interactive panel discussion with kick-off interventions

Exploring good practices on cybersecurity agreements, norms, and capacity development. More than 165 countries and regions have established their own IGF National, Regional and Youth initiatives (NRIs) after the global IGF model – for processes that are multistakeholder Steps & How to Engage - Forthcoming events for stakeholders to join ahead of IGF 2024, and a survey of the IGF’s outreach and intersessional activities, including These forms, as well as the national, sub-regional and regional IGFs (NRIs), are expected to follow the main IGF principles of being open, inclusive, non-commercial with National and Regional IGF initiatives (NRIs) are organic and independent formations that are discussing issues pertaining to IGF.

All IGF stakeholders are invited to submit inputs to the IGF Secretariat to assist with the planning for the IGF 2025 process and its 20th annual IGF meeting. Please note that this is a call for feedback on the organizational, logistical and structural aspects of IGF. The IGF annual meeting and inter-sessional work can better contribute to the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Participants include Media representatives, Public entities, governmental and intergovernmental organizations, Technical and academic several thousand participants from around the world will convene in Norway to exchange knowledge, foster collaboration, and collectively address key issues related to digital public policy.

the endorsement of the UN General Assembly, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held in two phases: in Geneva in 2003 and in Tunis in 2005.General Assembly Resolution A/70/125 called for a high-level meeting in 2025 to review the overall implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) outcomes, the session today will focus on the IGF's role in the Global Digital Compact, This will likely include a renewal of the IGF mandate and implementation of select principles from the Global Digital Compact (GDC). The WSIS process and the GDC.

IGF to discuss only technical aspects of Internet Governance, evolved to discuss all aspects. We have discussed 5G and now all of the relevant topics are discussed (Note-ONE ONINLE ATTENDING DELEGATE SAYING THAT JIO POLICY etc.) Discussions explored a multifaceted approach, combining international regulatory frameworks, voluntary industry commitments, and bottom-up governance models sensitive.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The IGF 2024 hybrid format was successful in broadening participation, enabling both in-person and virtual attendees to engage IGF will be hosted in a hybrid format to provide meaningful participation of stakeholders present on-site or participating online

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Bisenic

IGF 2024:

byrne

I appreciated the zoom call for session organizers ahead of the 2024 IGF, but I think it would be helpful to have an introductory call directly after session submission are accepted to provide further guidance in planning and logistics as organizers plan for the event. For example, I think having a more thorough understanding of the tech on hand and exactly how virtual/in-person speaker participation should flow would have been helpful further out from the event.

I would have liked if virtual participants could register up until the date of the event for online sessions because there were a few instances where people requested to participate at the last minute but were unable to do so.

IGF 2024:

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

Carvell

The preparatory process generally worked well.
The main problem I encountered as a dynamic coalition member was the limitation on the number of standalone DC sessions and the pressure to merge DC workshop proposals at the expense in our case of presenting individual DC outputs.
I was confused by the information provided about visas. The high cost of my visa was a shock.

Generally the programme worked well in terms of dicesity of content and relevance to external processes - including the UN ones relating to the SDGs, the GDC and the WSIS+20 Review.
I think clustering workshops in the schedule according under specific themed headings would have helped the flow and reduced the duplication of some session topics.
I didn't understand the distinction between high level sessions and main sessions.

Ensuring a balance of physically present speakers and presenters and those participating online generally worked well.
I felt that in some sessions and workshops not enough attention was being paid to onine interventions and comments. I think it would be useful to review the guidelines for organisers in providing online rapporteurs and for hosts in providing the necessary "state of the art" technical support for hybrid events.

1. The website presentation of the IGF schedule generally worked well, with personal schedules easy to construct and refer to.
2. I recommend that in future when you click on the schedule entry to see the session description that this information also includes the names of the principal session organisers and the main presenters. Having this additional information immediately accessible via the schedule can help IGF attendees to decide which session to attend when there is a clash in the same time slot.
3. The meeting rooms were rather small (especially in comparison to the enormous plenary hall!) so that some sessions seemed crowded and communicaion with the technical support at the back amongst standing attendees could be difficult. Noise from neighbouring meeting rooms was a problem in some cases. For the future, when temporary meeting rooms are created similar to those in Riyadh, due attention should be made to ensuring there is effective sound insulation.
4. The IS3C dynamic coalition had a major problem reconfirming a bilateral room booking made prior to the IGF. The bo foroking was apparently double-booked and IS3C had to abandon its meeting after it proved to be impossible to check the central reservation system for confirmations etc. This booking system seemed therefore to be fundamentally flawed in our experience.
5. Security at the venue was very effective and staff were very helpful and polite.
6. I was surprised that the venue had to be cleared early in the evening which a) limited the opportunity to socialise at the venue after the day's sessions; b) prevented last minute ad hoc meetings being set up at the venue in the early evening; c) created crowds of stakeholders at the exit onto the main road many of whom like me were as a result having problems trying to arrange Uber pickups.
7. Provision of coaches to central points in downtown Riyadh would have helped attendees like me who could not afford the high rates of hotels near the conference centre. My hotel was 13 km from the venue and taxi fares were high due to traffic congestion when I was unable to get an Uber pick up.
8. I was disappointed that there was no gala event with a cultural segment that was open to everyone. This seemed inconsistent with the IGF's bottom-up inclusivity principles and diminished my sense of experiencing Saudi Arabia during the IGF.

I was not able to attend any of these sessions due to schedule clashes. There was little reporting of the BPF and PN sessions in the Taking Stock session on day 4 that would have helped with a catch-up on their progress and outputs. I suggest some consideration be given therefore generally to allowing the DPFs. PNs and DCs to report main outcomes and to come together to outline an intersessional forward look in the closing part of the IGF programme.

i. This was the first year that a constraint was imposed on the number of dynamic coalition sessions and DCs were asked to merge proposals as joint sessions. However, this is a major problem for those dynamic coalitions which need to present the detail of their outputs such as policy recommendations, toolkits, and best practice guidance. This is at the same time that there is pressure on the IGF to develop tangible outcomes. The IGF programme needs to provide adequate space for the DCs to present such outcomes to the IGF community as a first step in reaching out to policymakers and decision-takers in order to get these outputs adopted and implemented. The planning for future IGFs needs to ensure that DCs have this opportunity.
ii. The DCs Main Session on the GDC and Sustainable Development was an important opportunity for over 20 of the current 31 DCs to demonstrate their capacity and commitments to contribute to the GDC process. I hope that the UN GDC co-facilitators, the IGF's Leadership Panel and the Secretariat note this important collaborative effort by the DCs and take into account the session's report, messages, and outcomes as it prepares its case for the IGF to play a leading central role in the GDC implementation phase.

Overall my impression is that the programming worked well for the NRIs at IGF 2024. Bearing in mind a) that there is pressure to increase the integration of NRIs in the IGF and GDC processes; and b) the number of NRIs has increased to over 170 and will likely continue to increase, the logistics in terms of space and time provision for NRI sessions needs to be reviewed by the Secretariat. The strategically important NRIs Coordination (90 minutes) on day zero in workshop room 10 was packed with NRI representatives and observers and would have benefitted with more time I think. There will also be additional programme pressure in future if more regional IGFs seek time at the global IGF to present their activities and contributions to the GDC process etc.

1. As in previous years, the IGF2024 programme was a rich programme of current and emerging policy issues.
2. The drop in civil society represetation at IGF2024 caused a reduction in the coverage of rights and freedom of expression in the schedule. Hopefully this will be corrected in the IGFs for 2025/26.
3.There was sufficient time to cover the impacts of the GDC and the WSIS+20 Review although there was some duplication and overlapping of session content. In view of the importance of these two UN processes for the IGF, I think the IGF's coverage would have benefitted by being streamlined with a separate unconflicted part of the schedule that would have facilitated more stakeholder interaction on the key components, timelines and key stages of these two UN processes.
4. I was surprised there was no open and interactive session with the Leadership Panel. Transparency and accountability for the LP's intersessional activities is paramount for the integrity of the bottom up IGF processes.

I have no comments because I lost sight of this important track while in Riyadh due to clashes with other sessions. This suggests to me that these key plenary sessions should be in unconflicted programme slots.

i. I was not able to attend the Roundtable on Day 3 due to the clash with the DCs Main Session on the Global Digital Compact. It is important to have the Parliamentary track in view of parliamentarians' role as legislators and representatives of local citizen communities. Ideally this session should stand alone without risk of clashes with other plenary sessions. It could form the basis for future structured citizens' dialogues at the IGF.
ii. I'm from the UK but I do not believe there were any participants in person or online from any of the four parliaments of the UK: the Westminster parliament (House of Commons and House of Lords), the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is despite the UK having recently passed Online Safety legislation (with a regime of penalties for social media platforms) that is potentially a model for many national and regional administrations. So the outreach to parliaments for consultations and in person and online engagement in the track's sessions appears to have weaknesses that undermine national awareness level, value and potential impact of the IGF's Parliamentary Track.

I agree it is important to have a Youth Track but I also believe all session and workshop organisers should wherever possible involve young people in panels and session organisation generally so that the voices of the next generation are heard. All session and workshop organisers should be required to aim for that if possible. This is so that young people do not feel they are in a separate type of forum with limited interaction in the main programme of plenary sessions, open forums, workshops etc.

I think most session organisers were conscious of the importance of aiming for broadly-based gender balance in panels, co-chairing and moderation. The IGF has made valuable progress in ensuring gender balancing is the norm for the process of IGF programming.

There were two major improvements at IGF 2024 which should be adopted for future IGFs:
i. The location surrounded by the meeting rooms was excellent and guaranteed more footfall at booths and stands than in previous years when the village was located separately from the main thoroughfare of the plenary hall and meeting rooms.
ii. Placing a networking session in the middle of the Village was also an excellent innovation which created an impessive "what's going on here?" buzz in this central location room.

Still room for improvement for attracting business leaders, government policymakers and regulators in particular. I was not aware of any public non-technical broadcast media interest or reporting of IGF 2024 before, during or after the event. I fear that the level of awareness of the IGF, its value and opportunities, amongst non-technical stakeholders in the UK is very low. So I deduce that the aim of professionalising the media engagement that was advocated as a necessity 2 or 3 years ago has not been followed through with effective action. I think ideally in view of its senior level membership, the Leadership Panel should take charge of this objective and develop a substantive communications strategy for all regions.

IGF 2024:

1. IGF 2025 is only 22 weeks away so the preparatory process needs to hit the ground running as soon as the new MAG is appointed.
2. I believe that the open consultations should prioritise focus on how the IGF 2025 meeting will serve a) to consolidate the IGF's central role in the GDC implementation phase, supported by over 20 DCs as well as other intersessional activities and by the NRIs; and b) prepare the ground for a) positioning the IGF mandate for renewal by the UN on a permanent basis; b) briefing UN missions to raise their level of awareness about the IGF; c) communicating with the help of ODET the "IGF+" strategic updates; and d) defending the proven successful record of the WSIS outcomes that created the IGF against possible governance fragmentation with the creation of new UN processes for AI and emerging technologies.
3. The call for session proposals and the selection procedure should take into account the schedule constraints due to the exceptional priorities this year described in 2. above. The standard call for proposals and timeline for selection etc, can be reinstated for IGF 2026.
4. The IGF 2025 schedule should allow sufficient time for presentation of intersessional outputs from the DCs, BPFs and PNs because all these cmmitments and products of the multistakeholder process need to be communicated as soon as possible to the UN co-facilitators for the GDC and the WSIS+20 Review.

I suggest the following:

The Day 0 programme should be reconfigured more structurally with a clearer demarcation from the main IGF programme of Days 1-4 than I think was the case at IGF2024. My recommendation is to allocate in its schedule sessions that prepare the ground for the plenary sessions and thematic tracks of the main programme. Accordingly, I suggest four main parts of this day's schedule. Part One (first half of morning): the customary host country presentation. Part Two (second half of morning): a Leadership Panel session with two main purposes: a) to present a report to the global IGF community on their outreach during the previous year to promote the previous IGF's outputs to government leaders and private sector decision-takers; and b) to present their proposals for the IGF's strategic priorities for the year ahead. Part Three (early-mid afternoon): a session for the IGF's intersessional activities - the DCs, the PNs and BPFs - to present i) synthesis reports on their previous year's activities (including those relating to GDC implementation), their individual outputs (e.g. guidelines, toolkits and recommended best practices); and ii) their contributions to global IGF outputs (including draft IGF policy recommendations which they have developed on emerging issues raised at the previous IGF as proposed in 1) above. Part Four (late afternoon): MAG presents an orientation of the main programme, signalling in particular the main thematic sessions, the workshop programme narrative flow, the LP and MAG open sessions, the Village plan and the process for developing the session outputs, calls for action, the report production and the subsequent dissemination of IGF Messages.
2. The day 4 schedule should include presentation of a more developed summary of the IGF 2025 achievements and main messages prepared by rapporteurs that covers the consensus-based takeaways and actions on the main themes and the messages relating to implementation of the GDC and the WSIS+20 Review. This should have contributions from the coordinators of the DCs, BPFs, PNs and NRI sessions. This concluding summary presentation would form the basis of the IGF's timely inputs into both UN processes during the subsequent weeks prior to the WSIS+20 Review commencing in UNGA in September.

The development of the programme content for IGF 2025 should largely be driven by a) the potential role of the IGF community including the intersessional entities and the NRIs, in the process of implementing the Global Digital Compact; and b) the review of the IGF's current mandate in the WSIS+20 Review and the desirability of securing a permanent mandate for an enhanced "IGF Plus". I suggest there should be plenary sessions on these two processes backed up by workshops on specific aspects such as integration of intersessional activities; coordination of NRI engagement in these two processes; and development of a communication strategy for engagement in the UN system.
This would result in less time than usual in the schedule for incorporating workshop proposals submitted by stakeholders. The main themes for workshops could be limited to three current "hot" issues: 1. emerging risks and threats to the single, secure and interoperable Internet; 2. digital's contributions to sustainable development; and 3. environmental impacts of digital technologies and climate change responses.

I suggest that the DCs, BPFs, and PNs should consult amongst themselves between now and May on preparing synthesis reports on their respective activities for presentation at IGF 2025. The NRIs should also continue to coordinate with a similar aim to integrate their contribution to the global IGF as it positions itself to take a leading role in the process of GDC implementation overseen by ODET. This will assist the drafting of key messages and communications in the closing part of the IGF 2025 schedule.

Here is my ivitation wish list:
i. UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres should be invited i) to speak in person at the opening; and ii) to take questions in a session on the Village Networking Stage.
ii. The UN co-facilitators for GDC implementation and the WSIS+20 Review should be invited to speak about these two processes and future opportunities for stakeholder consultations and involvement facilitated by the IGF.
iii. The High Level Track should involve speakers from the G77 and China to present their views on GDC implementation and expectations for the WSIS+20 Review.
iv. The Chair of the UN Sustainable Development Group should be invited to chair a main session on digital's contribution to getting the SDGs back on track.
v. Business leaders from the online platforms should be invited to give keynotes on regulation, rights and innovation.
vi. The leaders of global standards developing organisations (including the IETF, the IEEE and the ITU) should be invited to speak about instituting security by design principles in the development of emerging digital technologies, Internet devices and network services.
vii. Information sessions should be provided on the Village Networking Stage by leading experts on the impacts of: i. quantum and its evolution; ii. Web3.0 based on blockchain; iii. advances in metaverses; and iv. how recently agreed international AI frameworks and prnciples are converging in line with GDC objectives and commitments on humanising AI.
viii. All members of the Leadership Panel should be invited to lead an interactive session on "IGF Plus" evolution post-WSIS+20.
ix. The world's press should be invited to a hybrid media conference on the final day with invitations stating the main IGF 2025 messages.
x. The outreach to invite parliamentarians should be enhanced to connect with those countries such as the UK who have not been previously involved in the Parliamentary Track.

I suggest the IGF 2025 schedule should include a session on progress with evolution to "IGF Plus" that would review in particular the development of concrete IGF outcomes and impacts.
A specific question is how to ensure the IGF gears up to producing tangible outcomes such as recommendations (as envisaged by the Tunis Agenda) a) without the IGF becoming a traditional style protracted and confrontational negotiating forum, and b) ensuring the IGF retains its fleet-footed agility to achieve quick results and its geographically diverse multistakeholder inclusivity. I suggest one option is for the IGF community to devise practical guidelines for establishing an IGF multi-year process for addressing specific urgent calls for action that have been agreed at one IGF meeting, leading to a consensus-based policy response, recommendation or set of recommendations, being agreed at a subsequent annual IGF meeting. The means for developing such an IGF response or recommendations could be for the LP and MAG either to request a relevant existing dynamic coalition (if there is one) to undertake the necessary work intersessionally, or to create a new coalition of experts to undertake this, with the support of the IGF Secretariat.

1. The dedication of the Saudia Arabian administration as host of a successful IGF is much appreciated. The catering arrangements were very good.
2. Consideration should be given to how the mass of useful information and data provided at IGF 2024 (and in previous recent IGFs) can be assimilated using the latest techologies to produce concise executive summaries for the use of policymakers, regulators, standards developers, tech sector business leaders, researchers, non-technical users and young people in particular. I believe this should be a fundamental part of the IGF's communications strategy that will help sustain the momentum for multistakeholder digital cooperation in support of the open, secure, safe and universally accessible Internet and global digital environment that supports human rights and underpins sustainable development.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Ensuring a balance of physically present speakers and presenters and those participating online generally worked well.
I felt that in some sessions and workshops not enough attention was being paid to onine interventions and comments. I think it would be useful to review the guidelines for organisers in providing online rapporteurs and for hosts in providing the necessary "state of the art" technical support for hybrid events.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Cassimire

Sufficient time for preparatory activities.

There is always the challenge of overlapping sessions of interest, especially for small delegations. Perhaps slightly fewer themes would minimise session conflicts.

The venue suffered from noise leakage between workshop rooms owing to an absence of ceilings. This required the used of headphones which were not always in sufficient supply depending on the popularity of the workshop.

Online systems, including Zoom connections were usually satisfactory but there were occasional wi-fi challenges at the site. The wi-fi connection process was also unnecessarily cumbersome in my view, requiring a two-factor authentication process. Thankfully my phone was roaming successfully.

Satisfactory.

The Dynamic Coalition on Small Island Developing States (DC-SIDS) had some challenges with a sufficiently comfortable meeting room and even with access to the room on the day of their meeting. Arrangements that are more accommodating would be appreciated in future.

Satisfactory.

Sessions usually of sufficient interest and availability however conflict of sessions of similar interest should be minimised.

N/A.

N/A

Sufficient sessions / emphasis.

Layout was excellent from the viewpoint of traffic by attendees. The challenge was noise leakage owing to the absence of ceilings in the workshop rooms.

Satisfactory.

IGF 2024:

Early solicitations and decisions are required given the short 6-month inter-sessional time frame.

Consider a mechanism that will enable the programme to identify IGF achievements relative to considerations of the WSIS+20.

One theme should be to develop a report of the IGF to the WSIS+20 Review.

Number of restrooms was inadequate for the number of attendees.
Lunch was much appreciated especially given the absence of nearby food options.
Earlier decisions on travel support would have facilitated travel and accommodation arrangements.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The venue suffered from noise leakage between workshop rooms owing to an absence of ceilings. This required the used of headphones which were not always in sufficient supply depending on the popularity of the workshop.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

CERF

There were notable audio problems both at the venue and online. Visa assistance was much appreciated. Support for people with disabilities was mixed. Good work on captioning and signing but support staff often were not as aware of the needs of people with disabilities. In some cases, language (English) understanding was a problem. It's suggested that a special color for lanyards or badges be reserved for people with special needs so support staff are aware. The online system for organizing and finding sessions worked very well on the whole. I attended remotely so cannot speak from personal experience with regard to the venue itself. I found the scheduling process to be sufficient for my own planning purposes. Staying on Riyadh time while in WashingtonDC worked pretty well, much to my surprise.

As a remote attendee, I found the session organization clear and links to online sessions working well. I think the sessions were well selected and I like the combining of some sessions (some Dynamic Coalitions had joint sessions for example). We should start thinking hard about more concrete output especially linking the policy network and dynamic coalition intersessional work to outputs of the annual meeting. Connecting with the NRIs in substantive ways will also be useful.

Mostly this worked except for persistent audio problems that may not have been entirely under the control of the hosts. Audio feedback and collisions with translation audio and in-room audio were common. I hope the Riyadh technical team can provide advice to the Oslo team in case important lessons were learned.

On the whole, registration, online website, video conference and translation systems worked well. As I was remote, I cannot speak to local conditions.

I think these are vital and all the more so because of the short fuse to the June IGF in 2025.

I consider these to be important components of an IGF that is organized in part around GDC implementation evaluation and recommendations for action.

I engaged with several Youth sessions - I think, however, that it is important that young people engage with the regular sessions rather than isolating themselves in Youth-specific sessions. They need to be visible to the other attendees.

This track was very helpful to gauge national views on Internet and the general digital ecosystem.

I was not able to attend these sessions.

I attended two or three of these and appreciated the enthusiasm these young people brought to IGF.

I thought the panels were pretty balanced; similarly for the high level sessions.

One of my non-profit groups (Interplanetary Chapter of the Internet Society) used the Village and booth for a session that was very well attended. We appreciated the opportunity to present there.

We probably need to work harder on producing concrete outputs: issues that need attention and where they might be addressed.

IGF 2024:

We need to accelerate the preparations for 2025, focus more heavily on concrete outcomes for this session given the WSIS+20 events following and the decision about continuing IGF beyond 2025. We should explicitly invite partiicpation by member state representatives at high level policy positions not only the usual technical/civil society/private sector and academic participants.

I'd like to hear from the Secretariat what they would want in the way of support/funding and staffing - the overload is evident and unfair -

Focus on "The IGF we need" to help with the SDGs and the GDC ambitions. Can we find more concrete measures of progress on improving the digital ecosystem of which the Internet and World Wide Web form a major part?

My guess is that they could use more support if we had a larger secretariat staff.

More high level participation of member states.

Draw attention of the member states to methods for assessing the quality of their national digital infrastructure and its role in social and economic affairs of the member state. Encourage sharing of success stories and why they worked, and candor when things do not produce desired outcomes. IGF must evolve to become even more useful to member states attempting to engage on the SDGs and GDC aspirations.

The secretariat is superb but way undrstaffed. Working on that!

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Mostly this worked except for persistent audio problems that may not have been entirely under the control of the hosts. Audio feedback and collisions with translation audio and in-room audio were common. I hope the Riyadh technical team can provide advice to the Oslo team in case important lessons were learned.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Chamorro

I think the thematic focus is appropriate, and it is also important to include different voices and perspectives in the discussions. The parallel sessions bring dynamism, although it is sometimes difficult to follow all the interest topics.
It should be important to have more moments to combine the parliamentary discussions with the thematic ones, because sometimes it is as if they were different events where some voices are not heard.

The hybrid format is an important part to preserve and care, because soThe hybrid format is an important part to preserve and care, because some people cannot attend the event in person, also to have access to the records of the sessions online let people from different regions access to discussions. In Riad we experienced difficulties in some sessions to listen to online panellists because we lost their voices, also in person asistants experimented connectivity problems that made it difficult to coordinate sessions and participations. Limit connectiviti to a local number is not a good practice for providing a good experience for foreign assistants.

I did not experiment problems with the website and app. The registration was fast.

The NRIs had their own spaces to discuss specific topics of interest , the Secretary facilitated the agreements of the sessions . I think the coordination session is key to meeting and interacting .
It should be interesting to have spaces to interact also with dynamic coalitions and best practice forums, particularly in regions of interest.

The sessions were interesting and varied, with participants bringing experienced speakers.
Some of the sessions could be merged in order to have a diversity of views and enrich the discussions.

I think there was a balanced participation of men and women, but this is just my perspective and it is important to have figures on this. Despite this, it is not enough because there was no participation of the LGBTIQ+ community due to difficulties in participating. There were also no conditions to speak openly about the different concerns about women and human rights.

The scarcy of bathrooms was unconfortable some times because you had to wait a lot. The cleanning was so good.
The availability of food during a period of time was ok, because people can order their agenda and eat when it was possible.
More energy plug where required.
The bus services worked well.

IGF 2024:

I think some of the workshops could present a kind of poster/gallery exhibition, with the key points of the panel then people can know what is it about and decide to assits one o another, or even if is not possible to assist know the basic information to share with their group.

It would be important to explore a different kind of sessions, like workshops, conversations.

It is important to involve high level government representatives, like ministrys (ICT, infraestructure, education, economy)

Some expressions of art , comics, poetry, installations or others could be a different way to understand, not onlly trhough discussiones, but also since fellings and emotions, important topics that are been discussing, it could be also help for include new people in the conversations and to share with people who is not present and create interest in what is happening.

Trying to connect the different activities at regional levels could improve the local processes, may be is possible bring more spaces for regional coordination including best practice forum and dynamic coallition representatives.

Is important to invite representatives of governments and from other discussion spaces of digital policies, like GDC, WSIS, eLAC (CEPAL), as civil society , technical community and private sector voices.

This is an opportunity to invite high representatives of the GDC and WSIS to meet the intersessional work, NRIs and other key groups and identify key topics to be addresed in these space, defining a common agenda for the next 6 months and next year in order to go deep inside on what is happening in different contexts and regions and present results on the WSIS and GDC spaces. It could be begin with a high level panel and then a workshop with representatives of the different groups, including all the stakeholders, topics and regions.

The visa process finally was very fast and the government agencies facilitate the procedure, thanks.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format is an important part to preserve and care, because soThe hybrid format is an important part to preserve and care, because some people cannot attend the event in person, also to have access to the records of the sessions online let people from different regions access to discussions. In Riad we experienced difficulties in some sessions to listen to online panellists because we lost their voices, also in person asistants experimented connectivity problems that made it difficult to coordinate sessions and participations. Limit connectiviti to a local number is not a good practice for providing a good experience for foreign assistants.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

CHEW

N/A

The audio quality from the floor was inconsistent. I recommend integrating direct audio feeds into Zoom to ensure smooth and accurate interpretation and effective closed captioning. This will optimize sound quality and enhance the session's overall accessibility.

N/A

IGF 2024:

N/A

Good

N/A

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The audio quality from the floor was inconsistent. I recommend integrating direct audio feeds into Zoom to ensure smooth and accurate interpretation and effective closed captioning. This will optimize sound quality and enhance the session's overall accessibility.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Chopra

IGF 2024:

Choudhury

In terms of IGF 2024 preparatory process the timelines related to the call for issues and session proposals, session selection was fine. There seemed to be less MAG meetings in 2024 than in earlier years. While there were some capacity building initiatives, to bring everyone to the same level of understanding there needs to be more capacity building.

The overall theme for IGF2024 Building our Multistakeholder Future was very appropriate along with the five thematic tracks.
In terms of the overall IGF 2024 programme and session, there were some duplications on the issues being discussed between the MAG lead sessions and the High-level session, the parliamentary tracks and Dynamic Coalitions.
A closer collaboration between the MAG, the host, Secretariat (NRI, Youth Track, DCs etc.) to streamline the program will help reduce overlap and design a program where sessions are complementing each other. This will not only reduce duplication, but also make the discussions more meaningful, focussed and harmonised.
As 2025 is a very crucial year for the IGF and with very less preparation time (as the meeting is in June) the collective coordination between the host, MAG and the Secretariat is very important. The MAG involvement even in the selection of Zero day, Open Forums, workshops, etc. will help to make the program more streamlined and strategic.

Organising the workshop rooms around the village was a good idea. The transparent workshop rooms were also a good idea. However, due to the open roofs of the workshop rooms, the noise from the village area permeated into the workshop rooms and affected the sessions. Many times, the speakers and audience even with headphones could not hear each other.
In the workshops, the connection with remote participants were in many of the sessions not up to the mark and at times session organiser spent a lot of time in trying to connect the remote speakers. This affected the overall flow of the hybrid meetings. A few years back the MAG Working Group had prepared a detailed note on how to conduct a hybrid meeting, perhaps that needs to be revisited.

In terms of the website and accessing the mobile app, the process was smooth. The Sched app was a useful tool to access the program. It was easy to select and login to the sessions and should be continued.
The venue was grand and spacious. However, in proportion to the number of attendees, the number of toilets was very less.
IGF is an inclusive space where all stakeholders are supposed to be equal. Therefore, creating a separate VIP category with special privileges, including invitation to a VIP only gala dinner, goes against the basic tenants of the IGF.

The process to access the Wi-Fi at the venue using a mobile phone number to authenticate oneself and having to authenticate each time when wanting to access the wifi was very cumbersome. It would have been better if past processes of accessing wifi were adopted.

There were many diverse topics discussed at the IGF2024. Some topics such as discussion on the Network Operating Groups (NOGs) were new and quite interesting.However, as mentioned earlier, some of the issues discussed overlapped and were duplicative. It would be good to have more synergy when the program is framed so that the duplication may be avoided.

The village was well and prominently located.

There is a need to improve the IGF communication to the external audience. The promotion currently is mostly targeted to the community, which already knows about the IGF. It is important to relook at the existing IGF promotion strategy to have a wider reach. It is equally important to promote the work done by the IGF and its ecosystem including the Intersessional work.
To position the IGF as a relevant platform, the messages and output of the IGF needs to bepromoted more widely and extensively to the governments, private entities etc.

IGF 2024:

With very less time to prepare for IGF2025, it is essential that the timelines are shared at the earliest.

2025 is a very crucial year for the IGF and with very less preparation time (as the meeting is in June). Therefore, the collective coordination between the host, LP, MAG and the Secretariat is very important. The MAG involvement even in the selection of Zero day, Open Forums, workshops, etc. will help to make the program more streamlined and strategic.

The IGF2025 program should be very strategic having an issue based focus. New session formats could be explored, which may be relevant to the topic being discussed.

More information sharing, well in advance, capacity building along with the expectation setting will help the NRIs and Youth initiatives connect better with the IGF 2025 process and contribute more meanigfully.

More participation from developing countries. Making the process of civil society organisations and youth especially from developing country more easy to attend the meetings, since getting visa for them at time is difficult.
More participation from parliamentarians especially from developing countries by inviting them in advance and using other channels to invite them.
Having more business presence such as SMEs and not just Big Tech companies.

The MAG working Group strtagey has produced several documents on how the IGF can have a more strategic approach. Those could be consulted. The document "Vision of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Beyond 2025" (https://www.intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/213/28513.) is one such stratgeyy paper that discusses in details how the IGF can support the implementation of the GDC and contribute to the WSIS+20 review. This document could be a good refernce point to build upon.

The IGF formats need to evolve with time to enhance its relevance. For example the IGF can create a GDC Implementation track that could be focused on review and follow-up on the requirements and gaps identified in the GDC.

IGF2024 was a successful meeting. The venue for the meeting was grand with a generous host. Overall, the participation was more than the previous years. There was an increase in the participation from developing country, from Asia Pacific and especially the Arab region. However, the number of civil society participation was lower than the previous years.
The overall theme for IGF2024 Building our Multistakeholder Future was very appropriate along with the five thematic tracks.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Organising the workshop rooms around the village was a good idea. The transparent workshop rooms were also a good idea. However, due to the open roofs of the workshop rooms, the noise from the village area permeated into the workshop rooms and affected the sessions. Many times, the speakers and audience even with headphones could not hear each other.
In the workshops, the connection with remote participants were in many of the sessions not up to the mark and at times session organiser spent a lot of time in trying to connect the remote speakers. This affected the overall flow of the hybrid meetings. A few years back the MAG Working Group had prepared a detailed note on how to conduct a hybrid meeting, perhaps that needs to be revisited.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Das

The IGF 2024 demonstrated a well-coordinated platform for multistakeholder dialogue, with a strong thematic focus on AI governance, digital trust, and inclusivity. The hybrid format enhanced global participation, allowing diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, industry leaders, and youth, to contribute meaningfully. Sessions like the High-Level Leaders Track and the Parliamentary Track provided insights into top-down approaches, complementing grassroots perspectives shared by National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs).

While the hybrid format increased accessibility, occasional technical challenges during sessions, such as platform glitches, detracted from the experience. Additionally, the thematic overlap in some sessions diluted focus, leading to repetitive discussions.

The preparatory process, including the call for issues and session proposals, was transparent and inclusive. However, a more streamlined session selection process with clearer thematic categorization could enhance focus. Capacity development efforts, though commendable, might benefit from more tailored support for first-time participants, especially from underrepresented regions.

The thematic focus on AI, trust, and inclusion was relevant and timely. The structure was comprehensive, but a more logical flow linking intersessional activities to IGF sessions would have provided greater coherence.

The hybrid format was a significant achievement, enabling participation from diverse geographies. However, better integration of in-person and virtual interactions, such as moderated hybrid Q&A, could improve inclusivity.

The website and mobile app were user-friendly, with real-time updates enhancing accessibility. The bilateral meeting system was a highlight, fostering collaboration. Security measures were robust, ensuring a safe and professional environment.

The integration of NRIs into the IGF programme highlighted regional and local challenges effectively. However, a more structured approach to linking these initiatives with global discussions could amplify their impact. The content was insightful, addressing practical challenges in areas like AI ethics and cybersecurity. Including these activities more prominently in the main sessions could increase their visibility and influence.

Dynamic Coalitions addressed niche topics effectively. Encouraging more collaborations between coalitions and mainstream sessions would ensure broader dissemination of their work.

The NRIs brought critical local perspectives, but clearer connections between these and global IGF outcomes would reinforce their relevance. The Youth IGF was inspiring, showcasing young leaders' voices, which should be further amplified in future IGFs.

The content of the IGF 2024 programme was highly relevant, reflecting the latest trends in digital governance, AI, cybersecurity, and digital inclusion. Sessions featured expert speakers from diverse sectors, offering a broad range of perspectives. The discussions were robust and informative, fostering in-depth exchanges on critical issues. However, while the quality was high overall, there could have been more focus on ensuring gender balance and greater representation from marginalized communities. This would help provide a more holistic view of the challenges faced by these communities in the digital space and promote inclusivity.

The sessions were engaging and addressed vital issues in digital governance. A mix of high-level discussions and technical dialogues made the content accessible to various audiences, from policymakers to technologists. However, as mentioned earlier, expanding efforts to ensure gender parity and diversity in session panels would further enrich the discussions and ensure that a variety of voices are heard.

The High-Level Leaders Track provided an invaluable platform for global leaders to discuss overarching policy issues, offering strategic perspectives on the future of internet governance. It was particularly insightful to hear from heads of state and leaders in the technology industry, who offered clear directions for international cooperation in digital governance. Nevertheless, more representation from developing nations and non-Western perspectives would enhance the breadth of global insights shared during this track.

The Parliamentary Track was an important inclusion, offering a space for legislators to engage with the digital governance discourse. The track addressed vital concerns regarding regulation, policy-making, and digital rights. The inclusion of diverse legislative representatives allowed for a more balanced approach to policy recommendations. More opportunities for parliamentarians from smaller and emerging economies to showcase their challenges would further enhance the track's value.

The Youth Track was one of the most inspiring aspects of IGF 2024. Young leaders presented fresh ideas and creative solutions for tackling digital issues like online safety, education, and access to technology. The track showcased the energy and passion of youth to shape the future of the digital landscape. Ensuring that more youth-led initiatives are incorporated into the main IGF discussions would solidify the link between young voices and global digital policy-making.

While the programme made significant strides in addressing issues such as gender-based violence online and digital inclusion for women, there remains room for improvement in terms of speaker diversity and session representation. Gender inclusivity in all areas of the programme—particularly in leadership positions and technical discussions—could be strengthened. Ensuring a more gender-balanced approach to speaker selection would contribute to more comprehensive and inclusive discussions on digital rights and governance.

However, we ensured that all my sessions satisfy the equal gender representation.

The IGF Village was an excellent space for informal networking and exchange. It allowed participants to engage with various projects, initiatives, and organizations, facilitating collaborative efforts across the digital governance ecosystem. It was an inclusive space where small organizations, civil society, and grassroots movements could present their work and share insights with the larger community.

IGF 2024's communications strategy was effective in reaching a broad audience through various channels, including social media, newsletters, and website updates. The use of these platforms to disseminate key outcomes from the sessions was valuable for participants who couldn't attend all sessions. The outputs of the forum, available at IGF 2024 Outputs, were comprehensive and well-organized, offering actionable insights for stakeholders. However, increasing the visibility of these outputs, especially in regions with limited access to digital resources, would ensure greater global participation and impact.

IGF 2024:

Timeline:

Publish a detailed and early roadmap for all stages of the preparatory process.
Allow more time for public consultations to encourage broader participation.
Call for Session Proposals and Selection:

Introduce a pre-screening phase where proposers can refine their submissions with feedback.
Ensure a balance between thematic diversity and avoiding redundancy.
MAG and Open Consultations Meetings:

Increase transparency by sharing meeting outcomes promptly.
Incorporate regional consultations to ensure perspectives from underrepresented areas.

Structure:

Develop thematic tracks with clearly defined goals to avoid thematic overlaps.
Integrate “pathway sessions” that connect intersessional activities (e.g., Best Practice Forums) with the main discussions.
Flow:

Begin with foundational sessions addressing core themes, followed by specialized sessions for deeper dives.
Schedule networking events strategically to foster collaboration.

Thematic Approach:

Focus on emerging challenges, such as AI ethics, cybersecurity for critical infrastructure, and equitable digital inclusion.
Incorporate themes that directly address the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 Review.
Session Types:

Increase interactive formats, such as workshops and town halls, to enhance participant engagement.
Dedicate sessions for solution-oriented discussions with tangible action points.
Speakers’ Profiles:

Ensure equal representation from sectors (government, private, academia, civil society) and regions.
Invite grassroots innovators, young leaders, and policymakers to present diverse insights.

Integration with IGF 2025:

Allocate dedicated slots in the main programme to showcase intersessional achievements.
Use intersessional reports to guide discussions at the main event.
Youth IGFs:

Provide mentorship opportunities and encourage active youth participation in policy-making sessions.
Introduce a “Youth Vision” panel to discuss their unique perspectives on global digital challenges.

Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks:

Prioritize actionable outcomes and ensure their inclusion in plenary discussions.
Develop a unified repository of BPF findings for broader community reference.
Dynamic Coalitions:

Encourage cross-coalition collaboration on intersecting issues.
Create opportunities for these coalitions to directly present to policymakers.
NRIs:

Host a global NRI forum to identify and scale regional best practices.
Strengthen the linkage between NRI discussions and IGF outputs.

Invitees:

Expand outreach to grassroots organizations, smaller enterprises, and marginalized groups.
Include non-traditional sectors, such as cultural and creative industries, to diversify discussions.
Interconnectivity:

Use a dedicated networking platform with AI-assisted matchmaking to connect participants based on interests and expertise.
Foster mentorship programs pairing experienced professionals with new participants.

WSIS+20 Review:

Align IGF 2025 discussions with WSIS+20 goals, focusing on accessibility, sustainability, and trust in digital technologies.
Prepare a consolidated report of IGF discussions as an input to the WSIS+20 high-level meeting.
Global Digital Compact Implementation:

Use IGF as a platform to review progress on the GDC’s pillars, such as digital inclusion and human rights.
Establish multistakeholder working groups at IGF to recommend pathways for implementing the GDC commitments.

IGF 2024 was a highly impactful event, contributing significantly to the global dialogue on internet governance and digital transformation. It provided an essential platform for discussing global issues, offering a unique space for multistakeholder engagement. For future IGFs, it would be beneficial to further integrate digital equity and inclusion into every aspect of the discussions, ensuring that the outcomes contribute to a more inclusive digital future for all.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format was a significant achievement, enabling participation from diverse geographies. However, better integration of in-person and virtual interactions, such as moderated hybrid Q&A, could improve inclusivity.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Diallo

IGF 2024:

J'étais vraiment impressionné par l'organisation

La thématique était bonne
La structures et déroulement était bonne

Très bonne

Excellent

Les contenus était inclusive

Le processus, les contenus des activités était bien programmé

Tout les couches était concerné

La qualité des débats était aux niveau

Ils avait tous des bonnes nivaux

Des parcours professionnels

Parcours des jeunesse prometeurs

Ça concerné les hommes et les femmes

Bien équipé

Bien passé

IGF 2024:

Tout et OK pour moi

Facilitation de langue

Changement climatique
Et
Intelligente artificielle en Afrique

Traduire des sessions de l'anglais en français

Invités plus des la jeunesse et les politiciens pour les pousser à travailler ensemble

Les FGI peut soutenir les pacte des numériques mondial en forment plus des jeunes

Je pense que tu a étais dit

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Très bonne

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Diallo

IGF 2024:

Elmakey

Great

Perfect

The sessions at IGF 2024 are expected to be engaging and informative, with a strong focus on the most pressing issues in global internet governance. These discussions provide a valuable platform for diverse stakeholders—including governments, civil society, the private sector, and technical communities—to collaborate and shape policies that impact the future of the internet. The dynamic exchange of ideas promises to foster innovation and inclusivity, making the IGF an essential event for tackling the complex challenges of our digital world.

IGF 2024:

The IGF 2025 can play a pivotal role in the WSIS+20 review by fostering multistakeholder dialogue on the progress and challenges in implementing WSIS outcomes. It can provide actionable insights and recommendations, contributing to the high-level meeting at the end of 2025. Additionally, the IGF can support the Global Digital Compact by facilitating inclusive discussions on global digital cooperation, ensuring that all voices are heard, and helping shape policies that promote universal connectivity, digital rights, and sustainable development.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Great

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Erokhin

During the discussions at the forum, issues related to technology were discussed, from threats to solutions, including how to use innovation and balance risks in the digital ecosystem.
The program was balanced and included a wide range of areas.
A widely discussed topic was the implementation and role of the Global Digital Compact in ensuring digital equality, especially for the countries of the Global South.
I fully support the focus on WSIS+20 ahead of the 20th anniversary review of the World Summit on the Information Society

In general, it can be noted that the IGF2024 was well organized, with the exception of occasional problems with the audio for sessions. Problems arose both with translation (lack of Russian translation, mixing of all audio channels in one), and with sound without translation – it periodically disappeared, both during plenary sessions and during regular working sessions/seminars/talks.

The Riyadh Forum was held as a fully hybrid meeting, with participants joining directly on site and online. With the overall goal of making participation in the meeting meaningful and inclusive for all participants, the hybrid format included several functions:
– Through the IGF website, acting as the main entry point, all online participants, including those who played an active role as speakers/moderators/speakers, could participate and contribute as and those who participated on the spot.
– The 3D playground was created as the equivalent of an on-site venue. As on-site participants, online participants also had the opportunity to enter the conference rooms and connect to the participation platform.
– IGF Village, hosted by more than 80 organizations on site, had their online equivalents. – remote hubs facilitated the participation of those who could not come.
– Bilateral meetings could also be organized with online participation.
A special landing page of the website and an adapted mobile application has also been created to support easier navigation through the content of IGF2024.
Sched is very flexible and useful application

I consider the integration of NRI into the IGF program insufficient. National IGFs bring local challenges and ideas to Internet governance issues; perhaps a separate track dedicated only to national IGFs should be created

Unlike a number of previous forums, this time there was enough time not only for panelists to speak, but also for a question and discussion.

Balanced

IGF 2024:

The problem of global equality and the right to development is one of the key issues in modern world politics and the digital economy. The gap between North and South, between the "golden billion" and the rest of humanity, has persisted, despite all efforts to overcome it, for half a century after the collapse of the colonial system. "Digital neocolonialism" has become a reality, in which dominant global powers and digital multinational corporations, mainly from economically developed regions, control and influence the digital sphere in less economically developed countries in their own interests, regardless of the interests of developing countries. Moreover, the introduction of new technologies gives the above-mentioned problems an even greater priority. This is especially true of the risks associated with the development and implementation of Artificial Intelligence.
One of the key topics at IGF2025 should be "digital neocolonialism".

The dominance of pro-Western government and public organizations, analytical centers and academic organizations, as well as other thematic institutions, continues to persist, including seminars and sessions focused on problems of developing countries, which makes it possible to create the appearance of a diversity of opinions and promote the narratives of developed counties in the field of Internet governance. Alternative points of view should be presented; мore representatives from developing countries should be invited.

The IGF was created at the initiative of the United Nations in 2006 as a platform for an equal dialogue between all stakeholders in Internet governance issues. At the same time, the FU's mandate does not imply the development of final documents containing recommendations, proposals or action plans for the United Nations. Every year, it becomes a place to discuss the most pressing issues of the digital future, joining forces to create an inclusive and sustainable digital ecosystem, but only within the framework of a discussion format. It seems appropriate to include in the IGF's mandate the preparation of recommendations, proposals or action plans for the United Nations and to develop practical mechanisms for its preparation.
There is still no international regulatory framework for Internet governance, despite the declaration in the Tunis agenda on the need to implement " principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet," there are not only developed and adopted such norms, rules and procedures, but the prospect of their development is not even visible. Work on the internationalization of the Internet governance system is not underway. Within the framework of IGF 2025, proposals could be discussed and prepared with a special focus on practical actions for the internationalization of Internet governance. To develop proposals within the framework of IGF 2025 for international regulatory framework related to the Internet governance, with special focus on the critical infrastructure of the public core.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience In general, it can be noted that the IGF2024 was well organized, with the exception of occasional problems with the audio for sessions. Problems arose both with translation (lack of Russian translation, mixing of all audio channels in one), and with sound without translation – it periodically disappeared, both during plenary sessions and during regular working sessions/seminars/talks.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Fiumarelli

I want to address the challenges faced during the IGF draft agenda slots preparation process. While I understand that accomodating selected sessions can be complex, one recurring issue is the responsibility placed on participants to identify session collisions for themselves. Over the years, this has proven to be impractical. With 34 versions of the IGF agenda being released during the planning phase, it is evident that we need a more systematic solution rather than writing an email to the igf secretariat every time we have multiple sessoons with roles at the same slot of time. The platform already holds all the necessary data to prevent such collisions automatically. By introducing a simple algorithm to cross-check session roles and schedules, we could streamline this process significantly and improve the experience for everyone involved.

You probably see me in discussions around Quantum computing and routing security, while not having electronic speakers in the rooms it plays a challenge for transcription and interpretation, but I remember in Lithuania it was like this one, I am not saying this practice was bad (despite some technical issues with the audio and mics that always happen but this time was noticeable on breaks and noise) the experience was sufficient overall for the matter of scripts (some difficulties noted in scripts as well when audio breaks) and transcription.

Maybe for next time I know you will probably have speakers solved in the workshop rooms as well as in the main rooms.

I am from IGF Uruguay organizing committee as well as board member from technical community organizations such as the MANRS Steering committee, and ISOC Uruguay Chapter.

First, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge Jovan Kurbalija and Diplo team on the DIG.WATCH platform and its AI integration with IGF scripts. This tool has been an incredible resource for capturing and analyzing IGF discussions, providing concise summaries, and ensuring participants can stay informed in real time. One notable feature I want to highlight is its ability to identify consensus and opposing viewpoints within discussions. This is a game-changer. It enables us to focus on areas of agreement for swift action while dedicating attention to conflicting issues that require further deliberation and collaboration. I propose extending the use of such AI-driven tools to National, Regional, Subregional and Youth IGFs (NRIs) to ensure these benefits are felt across all levels of Internet governance.

Bileteral meeting problem with the ISOC Youth Networking Session - our room was over reserved. It was a misissue with a DC-IS3C session as well. Seem to be a general issue of overbooking with platform + informal email communications. Again, automatic systems and unified will be great, and validation, it est automatic validation of overbooking with meetings that are not in the IGF agenda vs the ones that were uploaded in the sched platform.

The idea of having joint meetings for the DCs was welcomed, we did great engagements between DC-IS3C and DC-IOT and synergies soared.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide extensive feedback on the inaugural IGF Youth Mentorship Program as part of the IGF 2024 Stocktaking. First and foremost, I want to express my deep gratitude to Saba and the MAG Youth entire team for their tireless efforts in designing, organizing, and implementing this program, dedicated to Youth coordinators and previous YCIG board members and with 3 to 5 years in internet governance. Their dedication has been instrumental in providing youth leaders with a platform to enhance their knowledge, skills, and engagement within the Internet governance space.

My Reflections on the Program:
This program has been a groundbreaking initiative that connected youth leaders with experienced mentors, fostering meaningful interactions and capacity development. The structure—centered around monthly meetings, thematic discussions, and the final report—allowed mentees to gain practical insights while deepening their understanding of Internet governance issues. It successfully addressed the goal of bridging the generational and experiential gap in this field.

However, as with any first-year program, there are opportunities to refine and enhance its implementation. Drawing from my experience as a mentee and my involvement with similar programs such as the Internet Society’s Youth Ambassador Program, I’d like to offer some suggestions for improvement and long-term sustainability. The Internet Society’s Youth Ambassador Program has demonstrated the value of integrating structured capacity-building sessions and encouraging mentees to develop initiatives. For example, mentees in that program are tasked with creating small-scale projects or initiatives aligned with Internet governance challenges. Adopting this approach in the IGF Youth Mentorship Program could add a practical element, allowing mentees to apply their learnings while actively contributing to the IGF community.

Additionally, incorporating dedicated capacity-building workshops tailored to IGF thematic tracks would enhance the mentees' ability to engage effectively. These workshops could include training on public speaking, policy development, and stakeholder engagement to empower participants in their roles within the broader IG ecosystem.

To ensure the long-term engagement of mentees and the program itself, it is essential to move beyond an annual framework and establish it as an ongoing initiative.

* Developing a multi-year roadmap for the program’s growth.
* Building a community of alumni (Like the ISOC Alumni Network) who can serve as mentors for future participants.
* Establishing regional mentorship hubs to strengthen localized Internet governance initiatives.
One of the pending items from this year and last is the creation of a dedicated IGF webpage to showcase the contributions of both mentors and mentees in the IGF Mentorship Program. Such a platform would:
* Highlight the achievements of participants.
* Inspire wider participation by showcasing success stories.
* Serve as a repository of knowledge, featuring resources, reports, and testimonials.
* Tailored Matching Process
* After several discussions at the Youth MAG calls for the mentorship the matching process this year was really, effective, we incorporated criteria such as m thematic interests, and regional priorities. This ensured meaningful and impactful mentorship relationships.

Feedback Mechanisms and Program Evaluation:
Regular feedback from both mentors and mentees is critical to the program’s continuous improvement. While this year’s feedback mechanisms were a good start, a more robust evaluation framework should be established. This could include a simple form at the intgovforum platform instead of a document:

Mid-program reviews to address ongoing challenges:
* Post-program surveys focusing on skills development, networking impact, and long-term career benefits.
* Six-month follow-ups to assess the program’s influence on participants’ professional journeys.

Incorporating Collaborative Projects
Encouraging mentees to collaborate on group projects or initiatives during the program could enhance their experience. These projects could address real-world challenges in Internet governance, culminating in presentations during IGF sessions or workshops.

IGF 2024:

Congratulations to Diplo team and especially Jovan on the Dig.watch IGF AI automation—it's incredibly helpful and holds great potential to benefit National and Regional IGF initiatives as well.

Is important to consider new avenues for more youth in the MAG.

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience You probably see me in discussions around Quantum computing and routing security, while not having electronic speakers in the rooms it plays a challenge for transcription and interpretation, but I remember in Lithuania it was like this one, I am not saying this practice was bad (despite some technical issues with the audio and mics that always happen but this time was noticeable on breaks and noise) the experience was sufficient overall for the matter of scripts (some difficulties noted in scripts as well when audio breaks) and transcription.

Maybe for next time I know you will probably have speakers solved in the workshop rooms as well as in the main rooms.

I am from IGF Uruguay organizing committee as well as board member from technical community organizations such as the MANRS Steering committee, and ISOC Uruguay Chapter.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Garba Sani

So excited

wonderful

very nice

incredible

IGF 2024:

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

GHALIB

Preparatory Process:

The timeline was well-structured, providing ample time for stakeholders to prepare and submit session proposals.
The call for issues and session proposals was transparent and inclusive, encouraging diverse perspectives from across sectors and regions.
MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) meetings were efficient and productive, fostering constructive dialogue and collaboration.
Session Selection:

The selection process ensured a balanced representation of stakeholders, covering a wide array of relevant and timely topics.
Efforts to align sessions with the overarching themes of IGF 2024 contributed to a cohesive and focused event.
Capacity Development:

Capacity-building workshops and resources provided ahead of the forum were effective in equipping participants, especially newcomers, with the knowledge and tools needed to engage meaningfully.
Dedicated sessions for youth participation were impactful, highlighting their perspectives and fostering intergenerational dialogue.

Thematic Focus
The IGF 2024 programme was built around key themes reflecting the most pressing issues in internet governance and digital development. These included:

AI and Emerging Technologies: Addressing governance frameworks, ethical considerations, and societal impacts of technologies like AI, IoT, and quantum computing.
Digital Inclusion and Accessibility: Strategies to bridge the digital divide, empower marginalized communities, and ensure equitable access to the internet.
Cybersecurity and Data Privacy: Enhancing trust, security, and privacy in the digital ecosystem through multi-stakeholder collaboration.
Sustainability in the Digital Age: Exploring the intersection of digital technologies and environmental sustainability, including energy-efficient innovations and e-waste management.
Global Digital Cooperation: Strengthening international dialogue and multilateral approaches to address cross-border challenges in internet governance.

Hybrid Format Design
The IGF 2024 hybrid model was thoughtfully crafted to ensure inclusivity, accessibility, and meaningful engagement for both in-person and virtual participants. The design prioritized seamless integration of physical and digital elements to maximize participation and interaction.

Key Features of the Hybrid Model:

Real-Time Participation: All sessions were live-streamed with interactive features, allowing virtual attendees to engage in real-time via Q&A, polls, and chat.
Accessible Platforms: A dedicated conference platform with multilingual support, captioning, and sign language interpretation for both on-site and remote participants.
Time Zone Accommodation: Session schedules included flexibility for diverse time zones, with key sessions repeated or recorded for on-demand viewing.
On-Site and Online Synergy:

Digital Hubs: Localized hubs in various regions provided spaces for communities to gather and engage virtually, reducing the need for long-distance travel.
Integrated Panels: Hybrid panels featured a mix of in-person and online speakers, with moderators ensuring equal representation in discussions.
Networking Opportunities: Virtual networking lounges and breakout rooms were established for informal interactions, mirroring the social experience of in-person events.
Enhanced Technical Infrastructure:

High-quality audio-visual setups for on-site sessions to ensure clarity for virtual participants.
Redundant systems and technical support teams minimized disruptions during live events.
Hybrid Format Experience

1. Website
Features:

A centralized information hub for schedules, session details, speaker bios, and key updates.
Integrated features for live streaming, registration, and submission of questions for sessions.
Multilingual support for broader accessibility.
Strengths:

Intuitive navigation and responsive design optimized for all devices.
Regular updates kept participants informed throughout the event.
Improvement Areas:

Some users reported delays in loading live streams on the website, highlighting the need for more robust servers.
2. Mobile App
Features:

Real-time notifications for session reminders, updates, and announcements.
Interactive features like Q&A, polls, and feedback submission directly through the app.
Personalizable schedules and session bookmarking for attendees.
Strengths:

Easy access to session details and the ability to engage with hybrid content.
Offline mode allowed users to view downloaded materials without internet access.
Improvement Areas:

Some compatibility issues on older devices were reported. Regular testing across device ecosystems is recommended.
3. Schedule
Design:

Organized into thematic tracks, with clear labels for session types (workshops, main sessions, etc.).
Interactive digital schedule enabled participants to filter sessions by theme, speaker, or format.
Strengths:

Availability of downloadable and printable schedules.
Time zone customization for virtual attendees.
Improvement Areas:

Overlapping of popular sessions created challenges for attendees; better conflict management in scheduling is recommended.
4. Registration
Process:

Simple online registration system with tiered options for in-person and virtual participation.
Automated confirmation emails with event access details.
Strengths:

Smooth process with quick registration confirmation.
Late registration remained open, ensuring inclusivity.
Improvement Areas:

In-person participants experienced delays in badge collection on-site due to long queues; pre-event badge dispatch could improve efficiency.

Process
Inclusion in the IGF Programme:

The intersessional activities, including BPFs and Policy Networks, were seamlessly integrated into the IGF 2024 programme. Dedicated sessions highlighted their progress and findings, ensuring visibility and relevance.
The preparatory process provided stakeholders with clear guidelines and timelines for participation, fostering meaningful contributions.
Regular updates through online meetings and shared documents ensured transparency and consistent stakeholder engagement.
Stakeholder Engagement:

The process was inclusive, with open calls for contributions, enabling a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, private sector, civil society, and academia, to participate.
BPFs and Policy Networks effectively leveraged hybrid formats to include participants from diverse geographical and linguistic backgrounds.
Areas for Improvement:

Some stakeholders reported difficulties in keeping up with intersessional activities due to overlapping schedules and lack of timely reminders. A central coordination platform or calendar could enhance participation.
Greater alignment between BPFs, Policy Networks, and thematic tracks in the IGF programme could avoid duplication and improve coherence.
Content
Relevance and Focus:

The topics selected for BPFs and Policy Networks were timely and aligned with global digital governance priorities.
Examples include themes like AI governance, data protection frameworks, and digital inclusion, which resonated with the IGF community.
Quality of Output:

The policy recommendations and reports produced by BPFs and Policy Networks were well-researched and actionable, providing a solid basis for discussions during the annual meeting.
Sessions dedicated to presenting their findings fostered informed debates and paved the way for multi-stakeholder collaborations.
Areas for Improvement:

Some participants noted that the outputs were too technical or policy-heavy, making it challenging for non-experts to engage fully. Summaries or simplified versions of findings could improve accessibility.
The lack of follow-up mechanisms for recommendations reduced the long-term impact of these outputs.
Inclusion in the Annual IGF Programme
Visibility and Engagement:

BPFs and Policy Networks were prominently featured in the IGF 2024 agenda, with dedicated sessions to discuss their findings and relevance to the forum's themes.
These sessions encouraged cross-thematic dialogue, connecting the intersessional work with broader IGF discussions.
Integration:

Policy Networks were integrated into high-level panels and thematic tracks, ensuring their outputs were contextualized within the broader IGF programme.
Some BPFs collaborated with thematic session organizers, enhancing the depth and relevance of discussions.
Areas for Improvement:

While the integration was effective, some stakeholders suggested more interactive formats, such as workshops or breakout sessions, to encourage deeper engagement with the outputs.
The timing of sessions for BPFs and Policy Networks often clashed with other high-profile events, reducing attendance. Scheduling adjustments could mitigate this issue.

Process
Coordination and Inclusivity:

Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) were well-coordinated, with a clear process for stakeholder engagement. Open meetings throughout the year encouraged diverse participation from governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and technical communities.
The IGF Secretariat provided logistical and technical support to DCs, ensuring inclusivity, particularly for participants from underrepresented regions.
Transparency:

Regular updates on progress, goals, and deliverables were shared through newsletters and the IGF website.
Open calls for contributions and consultations on draft outputs ensured transparency and community involvement.
Areas for Improvement:

Some stakeholders noted that the process could be further streamlined, as overlapping timelines for intersessional work made it challenging to follow multiple DCs.
Enhanced promotion of DCs, particularly to new participants, could improve visibility and engagement.
Content
Relevance and Depth:

DCs addressed critical and emerging issues in internet governance, including Internet of Things (IoT) governance, digital rights, sustainability, and data privacy.
Their outputs, such as reports, policy briefs, and best practice recommendations, were substantive and informed by a wide range of perspectives.
Quality and Practicality:

The outputs were highly detailed and provided actionable recommendations that stakeholders could implement in policy and practice.
Many DCs effectively linked their work to the broader themes of IGF 2024, enhancing the relevance of their findings.
Areas for Improvement:

Some outputs were considered too niche or technical, limiting their applicability for a broader audience.
A few DCs struggled with consistent participation from stakeholders, which impacted the comprehensiveness of their outputs.
Inclusion in the Annual IGF Programme
Visibility:

DCs were prominently featured in the IGF 2024 agenda through dedicated sessions. These sessions showcased their findings and facilitated discussions on their relevance to the broader IGF themes.
Thematic alignment ensured DC sessions complemented and enriched the main programme.
Integration:

DCs collaborated with other IGF components, such as Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks, creating synergies and reducing duplication.
Thematic discussions often included DC outputs, linking their work to high-level panels and workshops.
Engagement Formats:

Interactive session designs, including roundtables and Q&A segments, fostered active engagement from both in-person and virtual participants.
The hybrid model allowed DCs to engage with a global audience, amplifying their impact.

Process
Coordination and Engagement:

The IGF 2024 process facilitated the active inclusion of NRIs, with clear communication channels and opportunities for their representatives to participate in the main programme.
Regular calls, preparatory meetings, and resource-sharing enabled NRIs to align their priorities with the global IGF themes.
Capacity Building and Support:

NRIs received logistical and technical support, particularly for hybrid participation, ensuring their voices were included regardless of geographical constraints.
Training sessions and workshops for Youth IGF coordinators empowered young leaders to effectively contribute to discussions.
Areas for Improvement:

Some NRIs expressed challenges in aligning their timelines with the global IGF process due to resource constraints and differing schedules. Greater synchronization efforts would be beneficial.
A few smaller or emerging NRIs highlighted the need for additional funding and capacity-building support to amplify their participation.
Content
Relevance and Contributions:

NRIs brought critical grassroots perspectives to IGF 2024, highlighting local and regional challenges such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and access to internet infrastructure.
Youth IGFs focused on topics like digital literacy, ethical AI, and the future of work, enriching the programme with fresh and innovative ideas.
Quality of Outputs:

NRIs contributed well-researched reports, policy recommendations, and case studies, which were integrated into IGF discussions.
Their outputs reflected the diversity of global challenges and highlighted the importance of contextual solutions.
Areas for Improvement:

While the content was valuable, some NRIs noted limited opportunities to showcase their outputs beyond their designated sessions. Expanding cross-session integration could increase their impact.
The visibility of Youth IGF outputs could be enhanced to ensure they resonate with broader stakeholder groups.

GF 2024 Programme: Content, Speakers, and Quality of Discussions
Content
Thematic Relevance:

The IGF 2024 programme was well-structured around pressing global internet governance themes such as AI governance, cybersecurity, digital inclusion, and sustainability in the digital age.
The balance between high-level discussions and actionable outcomes ensured both strategic and operational perspectives were addressed.
Regional and local issues were effectively incorporated, thanks to the integration of NRIs and thematic alignment with intersessional activities like BPFs and DCs.
Diversity of Topics:

Emerging technologies and their societal impact, such as quantum computing and metaverse governance, were explored, ensuring the programme remained forward-looking.
Sessions focusing on the intersection of technology with human rights and ethical considerations brought fresh perspectives to longstanding governance challenges.
Areas for Improvement:

Some participants noted that the broad range of topics occasionally led to surface-level discussions in certain sessions. A more focused approach in session design could deepen engagement.
Greater emphasis on underexplored areas, such as regional disparities in technology access and the role of SMEs in internet governance, would enhance content diversity.
Speakers
Diversity and Expertise:

Speakers represented a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, civil society, academia, and the private sector.
The inclusion of youth representatives and speakers from underrepresented regions enriched discussions with diverse perspectives.
High-profile speakers, including government leaders and industry executives, added credibility and drew significant attention to key sessions.
Balance and Representation:

The gender balance among speakers was commendable, reflecting a commitment to inclusivity.
Speakers with technical expertise complemented those with policy or advocacy backgrounds, creating a well-rounded discourse.
Areas for Improvement:

Some stakeholders felt that a few panels were dominated by speakers from certain sectors or regions, which limited the diversity of viewpoints.
The inclusion of more grassroots-level practitioners and local community representatives would provide a richer, more grounded perspective.
Quality of Discussions
Engagement and Depth:

Most sessions fostered high-quality discussions, with moderators effectively guiding debates and ensuring a balance of viewpoints.
Interactive formats like Q&A sessions, workshops, and roundtable discussions promoted active engagement from participants, both in-person and online.
Use of Hybrid Format:

The hybrid design of IGF 2024 allowed virtual participants to engage meaningfully, with tools such as live polls and chat moderation enhancing interactivity.
Panelists and moderators made conscious efforts to address questions from both physical and virtual audiences, ensuring inclusivity.
Areas for Improvement:

In some sessions, discussions were overly abstract or repetitive, which reduced their practical relevance. Including clearer objectives and outcomes for each session could address this.
A few sessions experienced technical challenges, such as audio-visual issues, which disrupted the flow of discussions.
IGF 2024 Sessions
High-Level Panels:

These sessions effectively set the stage for thematic discussions, with prominent speakers providing insights into global priorities and challenges.
The inclusion of diverse perspectives from various sectors ensured robust and impactful debates.
Thematic Tracks:

Sessions within thematic tracks were well-organized and aligned with the overarching programme objectives.
Case studies and success stories presented in these tracks added practical value and inspired action among participants.
Workshops and Roundtables:

Workshops and roundtables provided an excellent platform for in-depth discussions and stakeholder collaboration.
Breakout groups and interactive activities enhanced participant engagement and knowledge sharing.
Youth-Led Sessions:

Youth-led sessions were a highlight, showcasing innovative ideas and perspectives on internet governance challenges.
These sessions created a unique space for intergenerational dialogue and mentorship opportunities.
Areas for Improvement:

Workshop proposals with similar themes occasionally overlapped in content, leading to redundancy. Improved coordination during the session selection process could mitigate this.
Some roundtable discussions suffered from time constraints, limiting the depth of conversations. Allocating more time to interactive formats could resolve this issue.
Recommendations for Future IGFs
Content:

Adopt a more focused approach for session topics to ensure depth and avoid redundancy.
Explore underrepresented issues, such as the governance of decentralized technologies and the digital economy's impact on marginalized communities.
Speakers:

Increase efforts to include grassroots-level and community-based practitioners in panel discussions.
Ensure balanced representation across sectors, regions, and demographics for a richer dialogue.
Session Design:

Define clear objectives and expected outcomes for each session to guide discussions and enhance their practical relevance.
Provide moderators with training or guidelines to ensure equitable participation and manage time effectively.
Hybrid Participation:

Continue enhancing the hybrid model with improved tools for virtual engagement, ensuring equal opportunities for all participants to contribute.
Address technical issues proactively to maintain seamless interactions.
IGF 2024 demonstrated strong content, diverse speakers, and meaningful discussions that addressed critical internet governance issues. With strategic refinements, future IGFs can further elevate the quality and inclusivity of their programme.

Overview
The High-Level Leaders Track at IGF 2024 brought together influential figures from governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society to discuss global internet governance challenges and opportunities. These sessions were designed to provide strategic insights and set the tone for the broader IGF discussions. The track aimed to elevate key policy dialogues, emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing internet governance issues.

Content and Themes
Global Internet Governance Challenges:

Discussions in the High-Level Leaders Track focused on key global challenges such as AI governance, digital sovereignty, cybersecurity, and the future of the digital economy.
Leaders explored how policies and regulations could evolve to address the fast-paced development of emerging technologies, ensuring inclusive digital transformation.
Sustainable Digital Development:

Several sessions emphasized the role of internet governance in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs).
Topics included the digital divide, digital inclusion, and internet access for all, ensuring that no one is left behind in the digital age.
Ethical AI and Digital Rights:

Ethical considerations surrounding AI, data privacy, and the protection of digital rights were key themes in these high-level discussions.
Leaders debated how to balance technological innovation with the protection of human rights in the digital ecosystem.
Global Cooperation and Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration:

The track focused on fostering international cooperation, emphasizing the need for a unified approach to global internet governance challenges.
Collaboration among governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities was highlighted as essential for creating inclusive and sustainable digital policies.
Speakers and Participation
Diverse Representation:

High-profile speakers from governments, international organizations (such as the UN and EU), and major tech companies contributed to the track, ensuring a wide array of perspectives.
Keynote addresses and panel discussions included contributions from leaders in both developed and developing regions, ensuring global representation.
Gender and Regional Balance:

The track made efforts to include diverse voices, with speakers from a variety of sectors, regions, and demographics. Gender balance was notably prioritized, with women leaders playing key roles in several sessions.
Youth and Emerging Leaders:

A notable aspect was the inclusion of younger leaders and youth advocates in some sessions, reflecting the growing role of younger generations in shaping digital policies.
These voices brought fresh perspectives, especially on issues like digital rights, youth empowerment, and future technologies.
Quality of Discussions
Strategic Insights:

The discussions in the High-Level Leaders Track were rich with strategic insights, offering high-level guidance on how to navigate the evolving digital landscape.
Leaders discussed concrete policy frameworks and international agreements aimed at addressing the most pressing internet governance issues.
Actionable Outcomes:

Many sessions included concrete action points, ranging from international cooperation initiatives to policy suggestions for promoting ethical technology and digital inclusion.
There was a clear emphasis on translating discussions into actionable steps, with some leaders committing to follow-up actions and collaborative efforts post-IGF.
Challenges in Deepening Engagement:

While the sessions were engaging, some participants felt the discussions at times remained at a high-level, with insufficient focus on practical implementation challenges.
A deeper focus on tangible, regional, and grassroots-level solutions could have added more value, especially in translating the discussions into actionable policies at local levels.

Overview
The Parliamentary Track at IGF 2024 provided a unique space for legislators and policymakers to discuss critical internet governance issues, with a focus on the role of parliaments in shaping digital policy. The track aimed to bridge the gap between technical experts and policymakers by providing insights into how legislative bodies can support and enhance global internet governance frameworks. It offered a platform for parliamentary leaders to exchange ideas, experiences, and best practices on regulating the internet and addressing digital policy challenges.

Content and Themes
Legislative Approaches to Digital Sovereignty:

One of the central themes was the role of national legislatures in addressing issues related to digital sovereignty and national regulations on the internet.
Debates focused on the balance between global internet governance and the need for national laws that address issues like data privacy, cybersecurity, and internet censorship.
Cybersecurity and Online Safety:

A significant portion of the discussions concentrated on cybersecurity, with a focus on how parliaments can craft laws to protect citizens and critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.
Issues such as the regulation of online content, the prevention of misinformation, and protecting children and vulnerable populations from online harm were also key discussion points.
Digital Inclusion and Access to the Internet:

Sessions addressed how legislation can facilitate digital inclusion by ensuring equal access to the internet and supporting initiatives to connect underserved populations, particularly in developing regions.
Key topics included universal access, affordable broadband, and policies that reduce the digital divide between urban and rural areas.
Digital Rights and Ethical Standards:

Another core theme was the protection of digital rights, with a focus on freedom of expression, data protection, and privacy rights in the digital space.
Parliamentarians discussed the need to establish ethical standards for technology companies, ensuring they respect user rights and adhere to transparent, accountable practices.
Multi-Stakeholder Approach in Policymaking:

Emphasis was placed on the importance of adopting a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance, recognizing the need for collaboration between governments, civil society, the private sector, and technical communities.
The track highlighted the need for better engagement between legislators and other stakeholders to create policies that are inclusive, informed, and forward-thinking.
Speakers and Participation
Diverse Representation:

The track featured parliamentarians from around the world, including both established democracies and emerging democracies, ensuring a broad range of perspectives on digital policy challenges.
In addition to lawmakers, the track included experts from international organizations, technology companies, and civil society, providing a well-rounded view of the challenges facing internet governance.
Regional and Gender Balance:

Efforts were made to ensure gender and regional balance in the participation of speakers, ensuring that voices from different parts of the world, as well as from different demographic groups, were heard.
This balance allowed for a more comprehensive discussion of digital policies that affect diverse populations and contexts.
Youth and Emerging Leaders:

Some sessions incorporated youth leaders and young parliamentarians, allowing for the inclusion of fresh perspectives on internet governance and digital policies.
Young speakers focused on issues such as youth empowerment, education, and the future of work in the digital age.
Quality of Discussions
High-Level Policy Dialogues:

The discussions were highly strategic, with parliamentarians focusing on legislative frameworks, policy creation, and national and international legal mechanisms for internet governance.
Experts and lawmakers shared knowledge about best practices in regulating the internet while balancing national interests with global commitments.
Actionable Recommendations:

A key outcome of the track was the development of actionable recommendations for legislators, ranging from proposals for new laws on data protection and digital rights to guidelines on cybersecurity and international cooperation.
Many sessions focused on how to implement effective legislative action to address emerging technologies like AI, blockchain, and 5G.
Challenges and Diverging Perspectives:

While the discussions were rich, there were challenges in reconciling different national priorities. Some participants felt that the sessions lacked consensus on controversial issues like internet censorship and the control of digital content.
The diversity of legislative approaches, particularly between authoritarian and democratic states, occasionally led to tensions regarding the governance of the internet.

Overview
The Youth Track at IGF 2024 provided a dedicated space for young people to engage in discussions about internet governance, digital rights, and the future of technology. This track emphasized the importance of youth involvement in shaping the policies and frameworks that will define the digital landscape. It aimed to empower the next generation of digital leaders, providing them with a platform to voice their concerns, ideas, and solutions to key global challenges in internet governance.

Content and Themes
Digital Rights and Online Freedom:

One of the central themes in the Youth Track was the protection of digital rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information.
Youth participants explored how legislation and policy can safeguard their rights in the digital space, addressing concerns such as data privacy, surveillance, and content regulation.
The Future of Work and Digital Skills:

Youth-focused sessions explored the future of work in the digital economy, discussing the growing importance of digital literacy and skills development.
Discussions also focused on preparing young people for the rapidly evolving job market, including the role of AI, automation, and the gig economy in shaping future employment opportunities.
Youth Participation in Digital Policy:

The track emphasized the need for greater youth participation in internet governance, advocating for more inclusive decision-making processes.
Young participants discussed how they could play a more active role in shaping policies that affect their digital lives, including engagement in global forums and national policymaking processes.
Digital Inclusion and Access to Technology:

Access to the internet and digital inclusion were key themes in discussions, particularly regarding the challenges faced by underserved communities.
Youth participants highlighted the importance of affordable, reliable internet access for all and discussed how to address the digital divide that exists in many parts of the world.
Social Impact of Technology:

Several sessions focused on the social impact of emerging technologies, such as the ethical implications of AI, data collection, and social media.
Youth leaders shared their concerns about the negative effects of technology, such as cyberbullying, misinformation, and the mental health impact of social media.
Speakers and Participation
Youth-Led Sessions:

The Youth Track was largely led by young people, with many sessions being organized and moderated by youth participants themselves. This ensured that the discussions remained relevant to their experiences and perspectives.
Youth leaders from various regions, including Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe, brought diverse viewpoints to the discussions, ensuring a global representation of youth interests.
Mentorship from Experts:

Youth participants had the opportunity to engage with experienced professionals, policymakers, and academics through mentoring sessions, enabling them to gain insights into the complexities of internet governance and digital policy.
These mentorship opportunities also helped build capacity among young participants, empowering them to become future leaders in the field of internet governance.
Collaboration with Other IGF Tracks:

The Youth Track fostered collaboration with other tracks at IGF 2024, including the Civil Society Track, the Private Sector Track, and the Parliamentary Track. This multi-stakeholder approach ensured that youth voices were integrated into broader discussions on internet governance.

Overview
The IGF 2024 programme demonstrated a growing awareness of the need for gender inclusion and diversity in the discussions surrounding internet governance. Gender equality is increasingly seen as a key issue in the digital space, with concerns about digital access, gender-based violence, data privacy, and representation in tech leadership and policy-making.

Gender Balance in Sessions and Speakers
Equal Representation of Gender:

The IGF 2024 programme made noticeable efforts to ensure gender balance in the selection of speakers, panelists, and moderators across various tracks. There was a conscious attempt to include both women and men in leadership roles within sessions, particularly in high-level discussions on digital rights, policy, and governance.
While there was significant representation, some sessions could have benefitted from even more female voices in key positions, especially in technical and policy discussions, where women remain underrepresented globally.
Diverse Gender Perspectives:

The programme highlighted the importance of gender-responsive policies in addressing the digital divide and promoting inclusive internet governance. A notable number of sessions focused on the gender gap in access to technology, digital skills, and leadership roles within the internet governance community.
Gender-specific issues such as gender-based violence online, online harassment, and gender-sensitive cybersecurity policies were regularly addressed, showing the intersection of gender and technology in the context of safety and equity.
Key Gender Themes Addressed
Digital Inclusion and Access:

A central theme in the discussions was digital inclusion, with a particular focus on women's access to the internet and digital tools. Many speakers discussed the need to address the digital gender divide, particularly in low-income and rural areas, where women and girls often face greater barriers to digital participation.
Some sessions advocated for policies that prioritize affordable internet access for women and girls, as well as initiatives to promote digital literacy and skills development among women to help them compete in the digital economy.
Gender-Based Violence and Online Harassment:

The fight against online gender-based violence (GBV) was a major topic in IGF 2024, with discussions focusing on cyberbullying, sex trafficking, and revenge porn, all of which disproportionately affect women and marginalized genders.
Several sessions focused on the need for robust policies to protect digital spaces from harassment, providing safe online spaces for women and supporting the reporting and addressing of online abuse.
Gender Representation in Tech and Policy:

The programme also reflected on the underrepresentation of women in technology leadership, policy-making, and internet governance roles. Many discussions emphasized the need for gender diversity in leadership positions and the importance of including women in decision-making processes on technology policy.
There was recognition that diverse leadership can contribute to more inclusive and equitable digital policies, ensuring that women's needs and perspectives are better represented in internet governance discussions.
Inclusive Data and Privacy:

Data privacy discussions included a gender-sensitive approach, highlighting the fact that women’s data is often subject to greater risks of exploitation, particularly in cases involving sensitive information related to health, personal security, and reproductive rights.
Some sessions focused on ensuring that data protection laws are designed with gendered experiences in mind, especially in addressing the vulnerabilities women face regarding online surveillance and exploitation.
Challenges and Areas for Improvement
More Gender-Specific Sessions:

While gender-related issues were included in the programme, some participants suggested that there could have been more dedicated sessions on gender-specific topics within each track, rather than having these discussions scattered across broader themes.
A more focused gender track could provide a platform to deeply explore issues like women’s digital rights, gender-sensitive tech design, and intersectional gender justice in the digital sphere.
Addressing Intersectionality:

While there was a strong focus on gender, some sessions did not fully address the intersectionality of gender with other aspects of identity, such as race, class, disability, and sexual orientation.
Greater attention to how different groups of women experience digital inequities—particularly marginalized women, women of color, and LGBTQ+ women—would provide a more comprehensive view of digital gender inequality.
Increased Female Leadership in Technical Sessions:

There is still a need for greater female representation in technical sessions, especially in cybersecurity, AI, internet infrastructure, and data science.
Efforts to ensure that women are equally represented in both technical and leadership roles in these fields would help address the gender disparity in tech and policymaking roles.
Positive Outcomes and Recommendations
Gender-Sensitive Internet Governance Policies:

A major positive outcome from IGF 2024 was the heightened recognition of the need for gender-sensitive internet governance policies. There were clear calls for governments, private sector entities, and civil society organizations to develop policies that explicitly promote gender equality in the digital sphere.
Future IGF sessions can build on this momentum by incorporating gender mainstreaming into all aspects of internet governance, from policy formulation to the design of digital platforms and technologies.
Promoting Women in Leadership Roles:

IGF 2024 demonstrated the importance of promoting women’s leadership in both the public and private sectors, particularly in internet governance bodies, international organizations, and tech companies.
Efforts to mentor and empower young women to take on leadership roles in the digital space are crucial for closing the gender leadership gap. Sessions that focus on mentorship programs and leadership development for women in tech could help foster a new generation of women leaders.
Support for Gender-Responsive Technology Design:

A growing recognition of the need for gender-responsive technology design emerged from IGF 2024, calling for tech companies to develop tools that prioritize women’s safety, privacy, and access needs.
Future discussions could expand on how inclusive design principles can be implemented to create technologies that work for everyone, particularly women and marginalized genders.

Overview
The IGF 2024 Village served as a dynamic and interactive space within the broader IGF programme. The Village provided a platform for participants to engage informally, share knowledge, and network with other attendees. It was designed to foster collaboration, provide a more relaxed environment for conversation, and facilitate the exchange of ideas outside the more structured session formats of the IGF. This interactive hub highlighted the importance of community engagement, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and informal networking as key components of the IGF experience.

Structure and Design
Physical and Virtual Presence:

The Village had a hybrid format, with both physical and virtual components. This allowed for the participation of attendees who were present in person as well as those joining remotely, making the Village accessible to a broader audience.
Booths and Exhibits were set up within the physical space, where different organizations, initiatives, and stakeholders could showcase their work related to internet governance, digital rights, and technology policy.
Interactive and Informal Environment:

The Village emphasized an informal, relaxed environment designed to encourage spontaneous conversations and collaborative discussions. Unlike traditional conference sessions, the Village fostered interactive dialogue rather than formal presentations.
Participants could engage in discussions on a range of topics, from technical innovations to policy advocacy, all while networking with a diverse group of stakeholders including civil society organizations, governments, private sector actors, and academics.
Workshops and Demonstrations:

Throughout the event, the Village hosted a variety of workshops, demonstrations, and interactive sessions. These were designed to showcase cutting-edge technologies, share knowledge on emerging issues, and encourage practical learning. For example, there were sessions focused on topics like data protection, digital inclusion, and AI ethics.
These workshops were often hands-on, providing attendees with the opportunity to gain insights into practical applications and real-world challenges in internet governance.
Themes and Focus Areas
Digital Inclusion:

One of the central themes of the IGF 2024 Village was digital inclusion, with a particular focus on ensuring that marginalized groups—such as rural populations, women, and people with disabilities—have access to the digital tools and resources they need to participate fully in the digital economy.
Exhibits and sessions highlighted innovative solutions for affordable internet access, digital literacy programs, and policies for bridging the digital divide.
Youth and Digital Governance:

The Village featured several youth-led activities and initiatives, including interactive workshops and youth-focused discussions. This underscored the IGF’s commitment to youth engagement in shaping the future of internet governance and policy.
Young participants had the opportunity to share their ideas, engage with experts, and discuss the role of youth in digital policy and internet governance.
Gender and Digital Rights:

Gender equality and digital rights were prominently featured in the Village. There were discussions on gender-based violence online, the digital gender divide, and policies that promote gender equality in the digital space.
Various organizations presented projects and initiatives aimed at empowering women and girls in the digital realm, particularly in technology education and leadership roles.
Emerging Technologies and Policy:

The Village provided a space for discussions on emerging technologies such as AI, blockchain, 5G, and the metaverse. Experts and innovators presented their latest work, while also discussing the ethical implications, regulatory frameworks, and policy considerations for these rapidly evolving technologies.
There was a particular focus on the need for inclusive innovation and responsible AI, as well as the potential for these technologies to shape future internet governance.

Overview
The communications, outreach, and outputs of the IGF 2024 played a critical role in engaging participants, disseminating information, and amplifying the discussions held during the event. The IGF’s ability to communicate effectively with diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, industry leaders, civil society, and the general public, is essential for advancing the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance.

The outreach strategies aimed to raise awareness about the IGF’s objectives, drive participation from diverse communities, and highlight key themes. The outputs, including reports, recordings, and publications, ensured that the outcomes of the event were accessible and could be leveraged for future discussions.

Communications Strategy and Effectiveness
Clear and Accessible Messaging:

The IGF 2024 communications team ensured that key messages about the event's objectives, themes, and call for participation were conveyed clearly through various channels. They focused on explaining the relevance of the IGF to multiple stakeholders, from policy professionals to youth and technology enthusiasts.
The use of plain language and easily digestible content helped make the event more accessible to a wider audience, particularly newcomers to internet governance.
Multilingual Outreach:

Given the global nature of the IGF, communications efforts were made available in multiple languages, including English, Spanish, French, and Arabic, among others. This ensured a wider, more inclusive reach across different regions.
Translating key materials, such as the session agendas, pre-event briefings, and guidelines, helped participants from various linguistic backgrounds engage more fully in the discussions.
Website and Online Presence:

The IGF website served as a central hub for all event-related communications. It provided information on session schedules, speakers, and resources. The site was regularly updated with relevant materials, including event highlights, news releases, and session summaries.
In addition to the website, social media platforms (such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn) were leveraged to provide real-time updates, engage with the community, and promote key sessions and speakers.
A dedicated IGF 2024 hashtag (e.g., #IGF2024) was used to track conversations and engage with online participants, ensuring broader digital visibility.

IGF 2024:

Suggestions for Improvements for IGF 2025
1. Strengthen Early Engagement and Timeline for the Preparatory Process
Extended Timeline for Call for Inputs:
The timeline for calls for session proposals and thematic inputs could be extended to give more time for stakeholders to carefully prepare their contributions. A longer preparation period would allow for wider outreach and better-quality submissions, especially for stakeholders from underrepresented regions.

Clearer Deadlines and Milestones:
It would be helpful to set clearer deadlines and milestones for each stage of the preparatory process, starting from the Open Consultations to the session proposal review and the final program confirmation. This would allow stakeholders to track progress more effectively and contribute in a timely manner.

Regular Updates and Check-ins:
The IGF Secretariat could provide regular updates on the status of the preparatory process, especially during key phases, such as the session selection process and feedback on thematic inputs. These updates can be shared through email newsletters, social media updates, or directly through the IGF platform, ensuring all stakeholders are informed and can adjust accordingly.

2. Improve the Session Proposal and Selection Process
More Transparent Selection Criteria:
The session selection process could benefit from greater transparency. The criteria used by the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in selecting session proposals should be communicated clearly to all stakeholders from the outset. Transparency in how proposals are evaluated and selected will help build trust in the process.

Diverse Representation in Session Topics:
The selection process should prioritize ensuring diversity not just in geography but also in the topics covered. While traditional internet governance topics are important, future IGFs should give more emphasis to emerging technologies (such as AI, blockchain, and IoT) and digital transformation, which are becoming increasingly central to global discussions on internet governance.

Broader Stakeholder Input into Session Themes:
In addition to the MAG's input, stakeholders from various groups, such as youth, women, and small businesses, could be invited to participate more actively in shaping session themes. This would help ensure that the issues they care about are well represented in the program.

3. Enhance MAG and Open Consultations Meetings
Broader Stakeholder Participation in MAG Meetings:
The MAG meetings play a central role in shaping the IGF’s agenda, but it is important to expand participation. One way to do this is by creating more opportunities for stakeholder consultations between MAG meetings. These consultations could take the form of open webinars, surveys, or regional events, where MAG members interact directly with other stakeholders to better understand their needs and expectations.

Structured Feedback Mechanisms for Open Consultations:
Open Consultations are a critical part of the preparatory process, but their effectiveness could be increased with a structured feedback mechanism. After each consultation, the IGF Secretariat could produce a summary report or a feedback digest outlining the main takeaways and how these inputs are being incorporated into the planning process.

Engagement with Regional IGFs and National Initiatives:
MAG meetings should include more systematic engagement with regional IGFs and National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs). These consultations should focus on how regional concerns can be better integrated into the IGF’s global agenda. NRI representatives could be invited to share insights from their regional activities and discuss how they can feed into the overarching IGF process.

4. Strengthen Inclusivity in All Aspects of IGF 2025
Better Engagement with Underrepresented Groups:
The IGF 2025 should focus on improving the participation of underrepresented groups, particularly women, youth, and communities from the Global South. Specific outreach efforts could be made to universities, community organizations, and non-governmental groups in these regions to ensure that their perspectives are reflected in the IGF discussions.

Accessible Formats and Tools:
Ensuring that the preparatory process and event content is available in accessible formats, including sign language interpretation, closed captioning, and screen reader-friendly formats, is essential for inclusive participation. Additional efforts should be made to provide these features during both virtual and in-person sessions.

Promotion of Gender Equality in Program Development:
There should be specific efforts to ensure gender balance in session panels, speakers, and moderators. This could be supported by creating guidelines or recommendations for gender parity when developing session proposals and selecting speakers.

5. Promote Virtual and Hybrid Engagement
Improve Hybrid Formats:
The hybrid format from IGF 2024 was an important success, but it can be improved further in IGF 2025. For example, there could be a more structured approach to virtual engagement, allowing virtual participants to be more actively involved in sessions through live Q&A, polling, and interactive platforms.

Facilitate Networking for Virtual Participants:
Networking can be difficult in virtual formats. The IGF 2025 should consider providing more structured networking opportunities for virtual participants, such as virtual lounges, breakout rooms, or discussion boards where attendees can interact and collaborate on themes outside of formal sessions.

Enhanced Use of Interactive Tools:
The use of interactive tools such as live polling, real-time voting, and virtual roundtables could make sessions more engaging, particularly for remote participants. These tools can be integrated into the platform to allow for better interaction and feedback during and after sessions.

Suggestions for IGF 2025 Overall Programme Structure and Flow
For IGF 2025, the programme structure and flow should be designed to foster a collaborative, engaging, and action-oriented environment. Below are suggestions to ensure the IGF 2025 meets the needs of diverse stakeholders and delivers meaningful discussions on internet governance:

1. Clear Thematic Tracks and Focus Areas
Thematic Clusters:
The programme should be organized into clear thematic clusters to facilitate focused discussions. These tracks could be structured around key areas such as:

Digital Rights and Inclusion
Cybersecurity and Digital Trust
Emerging Technologies (AI, IoT, Blockchain)
Data Governance and Privacy
Internet Access and Connectivity
Global Internet Governance Policies
Youth, Gender, and Digital Equity
Each track could include pre-event consultations to refine topics, ensuring that the themes are relevant and up-to-date with global challenges.

Cross-Cutting Themes:
In addition to the thematic clusters, there should be cross-cutting themes that address critical issues such as:

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration
Climate Change and the Internet
Digital Transformation and Economic Growth
Ethics and Regulation in Emerging Technologies
2. Session Formats
Keynotes and High-Level Plenaries:
The programme should start with keynote speeches and high-level plenary sessions that set the tone for the discussions. These could involve global leaders from governments, the private sector, and civil society, addressing broad internet governance challenges and opportunities.

Thematic Sessions:
Each thematic track should feature panel discussions, workshops, and roundtables that bring together experts from various sectors. These sessions should include:

Expert-led panels with diverse speakers from different sectors and regions.
Interactive workshops that engage attendees in problem-solving and practical discussions.
Roundtable discussions with smaller groups for in-depth conversation on specific subtopics.
Dynamic and Flexible Formats:
Sessions should use a mix of formats to maintain engagement and interactivity, such as:

Q&A sessions where participants can directly interact with panelists.
Real-time polling or live surveys to gather opinions and feedback.
Breakout sessions for smaller group discussions on niche topics.
Hands-on demonstrations of emerging technologies.

Suggestions for IGF 2025 Programme Content (Thematic Approach, Session Types, Speaker Profiles)
For IGF 2025, the programme content should reflect the evolving landscape of internet governance, with an emphasis on current and emerging digital issues, inclusivity, and global collaboration. The thematic approach, session types, and speaker profiles must be aligned with the goal of fostering meaningful conversations and driving actionable outcomes in the digital space.

1. Thematic Approach
A. Core Themes and Focus Areas: The programme should be structured around several core thematic tracks that represent the most critical areas in internet governance, with a focus on both ongoing and emerging issues. These themes can include:

Digital Rights and Inclusion
Internet access as a fundamental right.
The role of digital technologies in achieving social inclusion.
Privacy, data protection, and human rights in the digital age.
Gender equality and youth participation in digital transformation.
Cybersecurity and Digital Trust
Global collaboration for cybersecurity.
Securing the digital ecosystem: Protecting data, networks, and critical infrastructure.
Ethics in cybersecurity: Balancing privacy with security.
Building public trust in emerging technologies (e.g., AI, blockchain).
Emerging Technologies and Innovation
Internet governance for emerging technologies such as AI, IoT, and blockchain.
Ethical implications of emerging technologies on society.
Governance frameworks for autonomous systems and digital currencies.
Global Internet Governance Policies
Governance of cross-border data flows.
Digital sovereignty vs. global governance models.
Multi-stakeholder cooperation in shaping global digital norms.
Digital Economy and Connectivity
The role of the internet in enabling global trade, innovation, and economic growth.
The impact of digital divide on economic opportunities in developing regions.
Leveraging technology for economic development and entrepreneurship.
Climate Change and the Internet
The environmental impact of internet infrastructure and digital technologies.
Sustainable practices for data centers, networks, and cloud services.
The role of the internet in climate change advocacy and action.
Digital Education and Capacity Building
Promoting digital literacy, skills, and education globally.
Addressing the challenges of education in a post-pandemic digital world.
Building the capacity of governments, institutions, and individuals to engage in the digital economy.
B. Cross-Cutting Themes: In addition to core themes, there should be cross-cutting issues that impact all stakeholders and discussions, such as:

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in governance and policy-making.
Ethics in Internet Governance: Building ethical frameworks for emerging technologies.
Digital Identity and Access Control: Addressing digital identities, access, and rights management.

Connecting Community Intersessional Activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs with IGF 2025 Process
The IGF 2025 process should build upon and integrate the outcomes of community intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach to internet governance discussions. The involvement of these groups is essential for fostering global collaboration and ensuring that diverse perspectives, especially from underserved regions and groups, are incorporated into the IGF process.

Here are key strategies for connecting these activities with the IGF 2025 process:

1. Strengthening the Link Between Community Intersessional Activities and IGF 2025
A. Integrating Best Practice Forums (BPFs), Dynamic Coalitions (DCs), and Policy Networks (PNs)

Visibility and Relevance in the Programme:
BPFs, DCs, and PNs should be integrated as core components within the IGF 2025 programme. Each intersessional activity should have a dedicated session or space at the event to present their findings, insights, and recommendations. This helps ensure that the work of these groups is clearly visible and adds value to the IGF 2025 discussions.

Ongoing Feedback Loops:
To improve integration, intersessional activities should be more closely aligned with the annual themes of the IGF. For example, the outcomes of the BPFs on Cybersecurity or Digital Inclusion could directly inform and complement thematic discussions on those topics at IGF 2025. The MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) can work closely with these groups to ensure that their work is not siloed but actively informs the broader agenda.

Collaborative Development of Policy Recommendations:
Intersessional groups should be actively involved in developing policy recommendations that could be presented during the event, creating a feedback mechanism that allows for input from thematic sessions, youth forums, and regional IGFs. This creates a more dynamic process, where recommendations evolve throughout the preparatory process and are validated in real-time.

Virtual and Hybrid Participation:
Given that many BPFs and DCs may operate year-round, IGF 2025 should facilitate virtual spaces and pre-event consultations where these groups can continue discussions and prepare input for the event. This approach helps maintain momentum and involvement, especially from those who may not be able to attend in person.

2. Strengthening the Role of National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs)
A. Regional and National IGFs Integration into the IGF 2025 Programme

Regional Tracks and Thematic Sessions:
IGF 2025 should allocate dedicated time slots for Regional IGFs (RIGFs) to report on their activities, challenges, and regional priorities. These sessions can be aligned with thematic tracks to bring in regional perspectives on global issues. For instance, a session on digital sovereignty could feature reports from European, African, or Asian NRIs on their policies and strategies.

Cross-Regional Dialogue:
Encouraging cross-regional dialogues at IGF 2025 will allow participants to compare the approaches, challenges, and solutions specific to their regions. For example, an Asia-Pacific IGF session could directly interact with African or Latin American IGFs to discuss shared challenges such as cybersecurity or digital inclusion.

Regional Advocacy and Capacity Building:
NRIs play an essential role in capacity building and advocacy. IGF 2025 should strengthen their visibility through regional reportbacks and advocacy sessions. NRIs can host workshops or advocacy sessions that empower local communities and policymakers to better engage in internet governance discussions and policy development at the global level.

GF 2025 Participants: Who to Invite and How to Interconnect Participants
For IGF 2025 to remain a key global forum for internet governance, the participation process should reflect its multi-stakeholder model, ensuring broad representation from all sectors involved in shaping the future of the internet. This will include governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and international organizations, with an emphasis on fostering inclusivity, interactivity, and collaboration. Effective inter-connection among participants is essential for achieving meaningful discussions, collaborative actions, and actionable outcomes.

1. Who to Invite
To ensure comprehensive and inclusive discussions at IGF 2025, a wide variety of stakeholders should be invited, including those who have traditionally been underrepresented in internet governance forums. Below is a breakdown of the key groups to be invited:

A. Government Representatives
National Governments: Representatives from ministries and agencies that manage digital policy, cybersecurity, digital economy, communications, data protection, and international relations.
Regional Government Bodies: Officials from regional organizations such as the European Union, African Union, ASEAN, OAS, and CARICOM.
Regulatory Bodies and Lawmakers: Telecommunications regulators, privacy protection authorities, and legislators responsible for internet-related laws.
Developing and Least-Developed Countries: Ensure strong representation from global south countries to reflect the interests of nations facing unique challenges, such as digital inclusion, infrastructure, and access to emerging technologies.
B. Private Sector
Global Tech Companies: Executives and leaders from large tech firms (e.g., Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, etc.) that influence internet governance through innovation and policy advocacy.
SMEs and Startups: Invite a diverse range of startups and small businesses involved in emerging tech fields, including artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, blockchain, and fintech.
Telecom Operators and Infrastructure Providers: Companies that play a key role in internet infrastructure, cloud services, and telecommunications.
Venture Capitalists and investors involved in funding digital startups and technologies that could impact the future of the internet.
C. Civil Society
Advocacy Groups: NGOs, human rights organizations, and civil society groups advocating for privacy, freedom of expression, internet access, and gender equality in the digital sphere.
Community Leaders: Digital rights activists, youth advocates, and regional community leaders who can provide on-the-ground perspectives about the digital needs and challenges in local contexts.
Environmental NGOs: Organizations advocating for the sustainable development of internet infrastructure and the environmental impact of the digital economy.
D. Academia and Research Institutions
Academics and Researchers: Invite experts from universities and research centers specializing in internet governance, digital policy, cybersecurity, data ethics, and technology law.
Think Tanks and Policy Institutes: Institutions that conduct research on digital policy, global governance, and the future of the internet should also be included to provide evidence-based recommendations.
E. International and Intergovernmental Organizations
United Nations Agencies: Invite representatives from organizations like the UN, ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, and UNICEF, which focus on global digital development, digital rights, and internet access.
International Trade Organizations: Representatives from WTO, OECD, and World Bank that focus on global trade, digital economy, and cross-border data flow regulations.
Regional Intergovernmental Bodies: Regional organizations such as African Union, ASEAN, and EU that address internet governance and digital policy at the regional level.
F. Youth and Emerging Leaders
Young Leaders: Encourage participation from youth advocates, entrepreneurs, students, and tech innovators who are shaping the future of the internet and digital technology.
Youth-Led Organizations: Include youth-led IGFs and groups working on issues like digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and online freedom.

Possible Improvements to the IGF in the Context of the WSIS+20 Review and the Global Digital Compact
As we approach WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), it is crucial for the IGF 2025 to align its discussions, sessions, and overall approach with these global initiatives. The IGF has a unique mandate to provide a multistakeholder platform for dialogue and to contribute towards the implementation and review of key global digital policies and frameworks, such as the WSIS outcomes and the Global Digital Compact. Below are some suggestions for how the IGF 2025 could improve its alignment with these efforts, ensuring that its role in the broader global digital governance ecosystem is maximized.

1. Contribution to the WSIS+20 Review
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) outcomes, adopted in 2005, set forth a roadmap for the development of the global information society. As the WSIS+20 review approaches in 2025, the IGF has an essential role to play in the review process, in terms of evaluating the progress made on the WSIS Action Lines and supporting the implementation of those outcomes in the digital age.

A. Create a Dedicated WSIS+20 Track at IGF 2025
Session Series on WSIS Action Lines: Given that the General Assembly resolution A/70/125 calls for a high-level review of the WSIS outcomes, IGF 2025 could dedicate a specific track or session series to the progress, challenges, and future directions for each of the 11 WSIS Action Lines. These sessions should provide concrete assessments of how these areas have been implemented over the last 20 years and where improvements are needed.

Incorporate Stakeholder Feedback: Use IGF as a platform for collecting input from stakeholders across governments, private sector, civil society, and academia on the implementation of the WSIS Action Lines. This input can then feed directly into the WSIS+20 review process by helping assess what has worked, what hasn’t, and what is still needed to achieve the goals of the WSIS framework.

Showcase Progress in Specific Regions or Sectors: Highlight regional and sectoral success stories where the WSIS Action Lines have had tangible outcomes. For instance, some regions or countries may have made significant strides in e-government, internet access, cybersecurity, or ICT infrastructure. These best practices should be showcased in IGF 2025 to inspire action in other regions.

B. Facilitate a WSIS+20 Thematic Roundtable with Key Stakeholders
Engage High-Level Stakeholders: Given the high-level review called by the General Assembly, IGF 2025 could host a roundtable session or a special dialogue with ministers, UN officials, and leading international organizations to evaluate the implementation of WSIS outcomes and discuss strategies to accelerate progress in the remaining areas.

Track Regional Reports: Each regional IGF or National IGF could be encouraged to prepare regional reports that discuss how the WSIS Action Lines have been adapted and implemented at the regional and local level, providing insights for the WSIS+20 review.

C. WSIS+20 Action Plan within the IGF Framework
Develop an IGF Action Plan for WSIS+20: The IGF 2025 could adopt a formal action plan based on its discussions to contribute to the WSIS+20 review and identify specific next steps for ensuring full implementation of WSIS outcomes. This could be a synthesis document produced by the IGF, similar to how the BPFs or Dynamic Coalitions contribute to IGF’s overall work.

The IGF 2024 was a significant event that successfully brought together a wide array of stakeholders to discuss the critical issues surrounding internet governance. The event provided a valuable platform for collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and collective problem-solving. However, there are a few additional observations and suggestions that could help enhance future iterations of the IGF:

Positive Aspects:
Multi-Stakeholder Participation:

One of the defining features of the IGF 2024 was its ability to bring together diverse stakeholders, including governments, private sector, civil society, academic institutions, and technical communities. This multi-stakeholder model is crucial for addressing the complex and cross-cutting issues in internet governance.
The inclusivity of different perspectives, especially from Global South participants, contributed to a more balanced discussion and greater relevance to diverse regional concerns.
Thematic Diversity:

The wide range of themes covered—ranging from digital rights and cybersecurity to digital inclusion and emerging technologies—demonstrated the IGF's ability to adapt to the rapidly changing digital landscape. This diversity of topics ensured that current issues were addressed while looking ahead to future challenges in the digital space.
Youth Engagement:

The emphasis on youth participation was another positive aspect. Youth-led discussions, workshops, and interactive sessions ensured that younger generations had a voice in shaping the future of the internet. This focus is critical for the long-term sustainability of the IGF's goals, as young people will be the primary users and creators of tomorrow's digital ecosystem.
Hybrid Format:

The hybrid format allowed for a broad global reach, accommodating both in-person and virtual participants. This flexibility enhanced accessibility and encouraged wider participation, allowing those unable to attend in person to still contribute meaningfully to the event.
Areas for Improvement:
Virtual Experience and Interaction:

While the hybrid format was generally successful, feedback suggested that virtual engagement could be further improved. Online participants sometimes struggled with feeling disconnected from the in-person experience, especially during informal networking and side discussions.
More advanced tools for real-time interaction, such as virtual roundtables, breakout sessions, and live polls, could help create a more engaging experience for online attendees.
Follow-Up and Continuity:

The IGF's ability to maintain momentum post-event could be enhanced. After the event, there should be clear follow-up actions to ensure that the discussions and recommendations are not only recorded but also acted upon. For example, the synthesis reports and policy recommendations could be more systematically integrated into regional policy dialogues and international initiatives.
Establishing more structured follow-up activities could also encourage ongoing dialogue, building on the connections made during the IGF and driving long-term impact.
Greater Focus on Emerging Technologies:

While emerging technologies like AI, blockchain, and 5G were addressed, there could have been more focus on the regulatory frameworks and governance challenges that come with these innovations. More in-depth discussions around ethical AI, digital surveillance, and data sovereignty could have been included, given their increasing relevance in internet governance debates.
Increased Representation from Diverse Regions:

Although there was a good representation from the Global South, there is still room for broader regional diversity, particularly from areas that are often underrepresented, such as parts of Africa and the Pacific Islands. Greater effort should be made to encourage participation from these regions, ensuring that their concerns are included in global internet governance conversations.
Improved Integration of Intersessional Activities:

Intersessional activities, such as Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions, and National and Regional IGFs, were well-represented, but their integration into the main event program could be more seamless. More prominent and visible slots for these activities could help highlight their importance and ensure that their outputs are better incorporated into the main discussions.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Hybrid Format Design
The IGF 2024 hybrid model was thoughtfully crafted to ensure inclusivity, accessibility, and meaningful engagement for both in-person and virtual participants. The design prioritized seamless integration of physical and digital elements to maximize participation and interaction.

Key Features of the Hybrid Model:

Real-Time Participation: All sessions were live-streamed with interactive features, allowing virtual attendees to engage in real-time via Q&A, polls, and chat.
Accessible Platforms: A dedicated conference platform with multilingual support, captioning, and sign language interpretation for both on-site and remote participants.
Time Zone Accommodation: Session schedules included flexibility for diverse time zones, with key sessions repeated or recorded for on-demand viewing.
On-Site and Online Synergy:

Digital Hubs: Localized hubs in various regions provided spaces for communities to gather and engage virtually, reducing the need for long-distance travel.
Integrated Panels: Hybrid panels featured a mix of in-person and online speakers, with moderators ensuring equal representation in discussions.
Networking Opportunities: Virtual networking lounges and breakout rooms were established for informal interactions, mirroring the social experience of in-person events.
Enhanced Technical Infrastructure:

High-quality audio-visual setups for on-site sessions to ensure clarity for virtual participants.
Redundant systems and technical support teams minimized disruptions during live events.
Hybrid Format Experience

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

GOMASI

IT WAS ON POINT

GOOD

IT WAS FINE

GOOD

Gender perspective was balance

Good

IGF 2024:

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience IT WAS FINE

Grar

No comment

I would like to share some feedback to help improve future editions:

Split Focus Between Tracks:
There appeared to be two distinct events—the IGF track and the Saudi Digital Authority (SDA) track. Many Saudi participants attended only the SDA sessions, while international attendees focused on the IGF track. This created a sense of fragmentation and confusion, undermining the cohesive spirit of the forum.

Lack of Structured Workshop Themes:
The workshops lacked a clear organizational structure. For example, it would have been more effective to dedicate specific rooms or tracks to distinct themes—such as Open Data in Room 1 and Artificial Intelligence in Room 2. This would have made it easier for participants to follow sessions aligned with their interests and allowed for deeper, more focused discussions.

Absence of Objectives or Action Plans:
After attending several workshops, I noticed a lack of clear objectives or actionable takeaways. While the discussions were informative, they often concluded without defined goals or next steps for participants or stakeholders.

No Clear End-of-Forum Outcomes:
I had anticipated that IGF 2024 would culminate in a concrete action plan for all stakeholders, outlining key priorities and goals for the coming year. A mechanism to assess progress at the next IGF would have added value and accountability to the forum.

I hope this feedback is constructive and aids in enhancing the structure and outcomes of future IGF events. A more cohesive and action-oriented approach will ensure that IGF continues to serve as a leading platform for global internet governance dialogue.

Good Experience

Good

No Clear Outcomes

We had hoped to meet these leaders in dedicated solo sessions to engage in deeper discussions on major topics and explore actionable insights.

No Comment

IGF 2024:

For next year’s program, I suggest making it more concise with clearly defined tracks, where each track is assigned to a dedicated location (e.g., Red Room for Topic 1, Blue Room for Topic 2). Additionally, each track should culminate in a clear action plan outlining objectives, responsibilities, and follow-up measures to ensure tangible outcomes and accountability.

I had anticipated that IGF 2024 would culminate in a concrete action plan for all stakeholders, outlining key priorities and goals for the coming year. A mechanism to assess progress at the next IGF would have added value and accountability to the forum.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Good Experience

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

GUTIERREZ NIETO

I think more promotion is needed. I did not know the final agenda until 2 dayas before, so it was not possible for me to attend all events that I ws interested.

I think it was good. Thematic focus nd structure works well.

Great. Remote assitance always is a good option. Prehaps cover even small sessions would be good next time.

Registration process was not good. I made mine 1-2 months before the event and I did not receive any feedback until I call organizares to request mi badget. This parte could be improved.

I think all were good.

No comments on this regard.

Some sessions were unbalanced, not because of the speaker's experience and knowledge, but because of his or her ability to connect with the audience.

Good.

Good as well.

No comments on this regard.

I didn't really notice it.

No comments on this.

Well, once the event started, activities flowed efficiently.

IGF 2024:

As I mentioned, some of the preliminary (organizational) activities require attention to connect well with the participants.

As with other similar events, it is always good to explore structures that are in line with the current times.

In the same line with previous answer. Additionally, consider the speakers' communication skills, not just their experience and knowledge of the topics.

No comments.

Although these questions call for more extensive answers, I think it is essential to compile a summary of the proposals and results of previous IGF meetings. A graphic summary of achievements, persistent themes and proposals would be a very useful tool.

No other.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Great. Remote assitance always is a good option. Prehaps cover even small sessions would be good next time.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Hussin

The IGF 2024 preparatory process demonstrates a strong commitment to inclusivity, transparency, and effective stakeholder engagement through its well-structured timeline, open call for issues, equitable session selection, and collaborative MAG meetings.

The IGF 2024 programme reflects a well-thought-out thematic focus, with a structured and dynamic flow that ensures comprehensive discussions and seamless transitions between sessions, fostering meaningful engagement on critical internet governance issues.

The IGF 2024 hybrid format is designed to provide an inclusive and seamless experience, effectively balancing in-person and virtual participation to ensure equitable engagement and accessibility for a global audience.

The IGF 2024 logistics are meticulously planned, with a user-friendly website, intuitive mobile app, streamlined registration, and robust online platforms, complemented by efficient scheduling, a bilateral meeting system, and strong security measures to ensure a smooth and secure participant experience.

IGF 2024:

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The IGF 2024 hybrid format is designed to provide an inclusive and seamless experience, effectively balancing in-person and virtual participation to ensure equitable engagement and accessibility for a global audience.

IDDRISU

I believe all was okay. The UN and partners did a great job in my estimation.

Perfect

It was great.

They were all on point. Perfect.

Content appeared loaded and intersessional activities appeared needing more time, I mean time allocated was short but not that bad.

Fair

I think each got their fair spots and that’s very okay

Content, speakers and quality of discussions were top-notch.

Perfect

Perfectly balanced

Not bad. Spacious.

Great. The flow was great.

IGF 2024:

I hope the Saudi success will be replicated in Norway or even made better.

I think the current structure is okay

Maintain the same format as used in Riyadh

I’m satisfied with the status quo

Speakers at IGF 2024 were great and each knew their onions. I look forward to meeting same persons or others with their similar depth of knowledge and expertise at future events

Bringing the world together at a forum to discuss internet governance as the IGF is doing obviously is in many ways supporting the implementation of the Global Digital Compact. The IGF is already championing GDC goals and raising awareness.

I doff my hat to the UN and partner organizations for making IGF 2024 a success. Kudos!

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience It was great.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Iftikhar

IGF 2024:

Ikram

I consider most part of the preparatory process to be organized and inclusive. The call for issues and session proposals was appropriate, so it enabled us to make relevant proposals, such as in the case on other topics, the multi-stakeholder approach served well for enriching the discussions. The capacity development activities were great, particularly in terms of reaching out to participants from marginalized areas.
I however consider that the process of selection of the initiatives was at times more bureaucratic than necessary and an agile approach would be more effective. Members had made efforts to ensure gender balance, there are still some gaps, particularly in the presence of all regions. There is also the issue of the scheduling of the occasion, since certain engagements are often prioritized over the event, this also impacts participation.
In conclusion, IGF 2024 has the potential to be impactful, but there’s room for improvement in ensuring broader, more inclusive participation and responsiveness to emerging issues.

I found the overall program to be well-structured and relevant, with a clear thematic focus that addressed current and critical issues in internet governance. The thematic areas were diverse and inclusive, reflecting the broad scope of challenges the global community faces. The structure of the sessions featuring a mix of workshops, panel discussions, and collaborative dialogues allowed for engaging, interactive exchanges, which I appreciated.
However, the flow of the program could have been more streamlined. At times, it felt like there was overlap in topics, making it difficult to navigate between sessions. Some of the sessions also felt a bit repetitive, and more attention could be given to emerging and cutting-edge topics to keep the program fresh and forward-looking. Despite this, the overall structure and thematic approach provided valuable insights and fostered meaningful discussions.

The hybrid format was a highlight, allowing for both in-person and virtual participation, which greatly expanded accessibility. The online platform was easy to navigate, and I appreciated the flexibility it offered, especially for those unable to attend in person. The hybrid setup facilitated good interaction across different time zones and ensured broad participation from diverse regions. Additionally, some in-person sessions were less engaging for virtual participants, as there seemed to be limited efforts to make them more interactive across both formats. Despite these minor issues, the overall hybrid design was successful in ensuring inclusivity and enabling wider participation.

The logistics were generally smooth and well-organized. The website was user-friendly, providing clear information on sessions, speakers, and event updates. The mobile app was a useful tool for navigating the event and staying up-to-date with changes in the schedule. The registration process was straightforward, and I had no issues accessing the event once registered. The online platform worked well overall, allowing for easy access to sessions and networking opportunities. The bilateral meeting system was effective for connecting with other participants, although it could have been enhanced with more customizable options. Security measures were reassuring, with clear protocols in place for online interactions. Overall, the logistics were well-managed and contributed to a positive experience.

I found the Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks (PNs) to be valuable components of the event. The process for selecting and organizing these intersessional activities was clear, and it was great to see how they contributed to the ongoing dialogue in internet governance. These forums provided practical insights and real-world solutions, which were beneficial in shaping the broader discussions during the annual IGF. The content of the BPFs and PNs was highly relevant and addressed pressing issues, ranging from digital inclusion to cybersecurity. It was evident that these activities were designed with community input, reflecting the concerns and needs of diverse stakeholders. One of the standout aspects was how these intersessional activities were integrated into the IGF 2024 program. They were not treated as separate from the main event but were woven into the schedule, enriching the overall program with concrete outcomes and recommendations. This integration helped maintain continuity and fostered deeper, more action-oriented conversations, making these sessions a key part of the IGF experience.

The Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) was an important part of the event. The process for engaging with DCs was open and transparent, allowing diverse stakeholders to participate in meaningful discussions. These coalitions focused on niche topics within internet governance, providing specialized knowledge and insights that complemented the broader IGF agenda. The content of the DC sessions was highly relevant and often tackled emerging or underexplored issues. It was clear that these coalitions fostered in-depth, collaborative work across sectors, producing concrete recommendations and best practices. What stood out most was how these intersessional activities were integrated into the annual IGF program. Instead of being isolated discussions, DC sessions were well-incorporated into the main event, enhancing the overall program with specialized expertise. This inclusion helped highlight the ongoing work of the coalitions and ensured that their findings contributed to the broader IGF discussions, making them a valuable addition to the annual forum.

I found the involvement of National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) to be a key strength of the event. The process for including NRIs was well-structured, with clear opportunities for these groups to showcase their local and regional perspectives. This inclusivity allowed for more diverse voices to be heard, ensuring that global discussions were grounded in specific national and regional contexts. The content presented by NRIs was highly relevant, addressing localized issues while aligning with global internet governance themes. It was encouraging to see how NRIs tackled issues that were both region-specific and broader, allowing for a rich exchange of ideas. What I particularly appreciated was how the NRIs were integrated into the annual IGF program. Their sessions were thoughtfully embedded into the main agenda, with opportunities for cross-regional dialogue. This integration ensured that the outcomes of local and regional discussions had a direct impact on the global conversation, reinforcing the importance of multi-level engagement in shaping internet governance.

As a participant in IGF 2024, I found the sessions to be generally insightful and engaging. The range of topics was diverse, covering critical issues in internet governance, from digital inclusion to cybersecurity and emerging technologies. The mix of workshops, panel discussions, and interactive sessions allowed for both in-depth analysis and broad, community-driven conversations. One of the strengths was the high level of engagement from speakers and participants, which fostered rich discussions and idea sharing. However, some sessions felt a bit repetitive or lacked fresh perspectives, which could be addressed by ensuring more focus on emerging issues or new formats for dialogue. Overall, the sessions were well-organized and provided a great platform for learning and collaboration, but there’s room for improvement in keeping the content dynamic and forward-looking.

The High-Level Leaders Track sessions brought together influential figures from governments, industry, and civil society, offering valuable insights on global internet governance challenges. The discussions were thought-provoking, with leaders sharing strategic perspectives on the future of the internet, policy frameworks, and international cooperation. However, while the high-level content was informative, I felt that the conversations could have been more interactive. At times, it seemed like a one-way exchange rather than a true dialogue with the audience. Nevertheless, the presence of these leaders elevated the IGF and underscored the importance of top-level engagement in shaping internet governance. It would be great to see even more opportunities for audience interaction and practical outcomes from these sessions in future IGFs.

The Parliamentary Track provided a unique opportunity to engage with lawmakers and policy makers, offering insights into how legislative bodies are addressing key internet governance issues. The sessions were well-structured and highlighted the critical role of policy-making in shaping the future of the internet. The discussions were informative, but I felt that there could have been more direct interaction between parliamentarians and other stakeholders, particularly in terms of actionable outcomes. While the focus was on the challenges faced by lawmakers, more emphasis on collaborative solutions and practical next steps would be beneficial. Overall, the Parliamentary Track was valuable for bridging the gap between policy and practice, and I look forward to seeing even more robust engagement in future IGFs.

I loved the Youth Track to be honest, as it was the most inspiring and dynamic parts of the event. It provided a platform for young people to engage with key internet governance topics, share their perspectives, and contribute fresh ideas. The sessions were well-organized, with a strong focus on empowering youth to take an active role in shaping the future of the internet. The discussions were energetic and insightful, reflecting the concerns and aspirations of the next generation of internet users and leaders. However, there could have been more opportunities for direct mentorship or deeper collaboration between youth participants and experienced stakeholders. Overall, the Youth Track was a powerful and much-needed inclusion in the IGF, and I hope it continues to grow and have an even greater impact in future editions.

I was pleased to see that the program content included a strong focus on gender-related issues, reflecting a growing awareness of the importance of gender equality in internet governance. Sessions addressing digital inclusion, online safety, and empowerment of women and marginalized genders were well-represented, and discussions often highlighted the need for more inclusive digital policies. However, while there was good representation of gender diversity in the sessions, I believe there could be even greater efforts to ensure gender parity in speaker line-ups and leadership roles across the event. More initiatives focusing on gender-specific challenges in different regions and sectors would also enhance the overall experience. Overall, IGF 2024 showed positive progress in addressing gender issues, but there is still room to deepen this focus in future editions.

The IGF Village provided an interactive and engaging space where participants could connect with different organizations, initiatives, and stakeholders working on various internet governance issues. The informal setting allowed for meaningful discussions and networking opportunities, and it was great to see a variety of groups showcasing their work on important topics like digital rights, cybersecurity, and internet policy. However, I felt that the layout and visibility of some booths could have been improved to encourage more foot traffic and engagement. Additionally, while it was an excellent space for networking, there were fewer structured activities compared to the formal sessions. Overall, the IGF Village added a dynamic element to the event, and I believe it could be even more impactful with enhanced accessibility and a broader range of activities in the future.

The event was well-publicized, and key information was easily accessible through the website and social media channels, which helped me stay informed about the sessions, speakers, and updates. The use of digital tools for engagement, such as the mobile app, facilitated seamless participation and interaction. The outputs of the event, including session summaries and key takeaways, were effectively shared, offering valuable resources for further engagement after the forum. Overall, the communications and outreach were well-executed, ensuring good participation, but there's room for improvement in how the final outputs are disseminated and made accessible to a wider audience.

IGF 2024:

1. Streamline the Call for Proposals and Session Selection Process.
2. Improve the Role of the MAG for broader Representation.
3. Enhanced Open Consultations and Stakeholder Participation.
4. Better Communication and Outreach in the Preparatory Phase.
5. Engagement with Emerging Topics.
6. Improved Access and Inclusivity.
7. Strengthen Session Integration and Outcome Tracking.
8. Incorporating Regional and Youth Voices.
9. Youth Engagement and Leadership.
By addressing these areas for improvement in the IGF 2025 preparatory process, the event can become even more inclusive, forward-thinking, and impactful, offering a platform that truly reflects the diverse and rapidly evolving landscape of global internet governance.

1. More Thematic Cohesion and Clarity.
2. Improved Session Formats for Engagement.
3. Enhanced Focus on Actionable Outcomes.
4. Better Session Scheduling and Flow.
5. Stronger Focus on Regional and Local Perspectives.
6. Youth and Gender Perspectives in Every Session.
7. More Collaborative and Cross-Sectoral Dialogue.
8. Improved Integration of Intersessional Activities.
9. Enhanced Networking Opportunities.
10. Tracking Progress and Measuring Impact.
By focusing on these improvements in program structure and flow, IGF 2025 can be more engaging, impactful, and responsive to the rapidly changing landscape of internet governance. These changes would enhance participation, foster action, and ensure that the IGF remains a crucial platform for shaping the future of the internet.

1. Future-Focused and Holistic Themes.
2. Focus on Regional Perspectives.
3. Interactive and Solution-Oriented Formats.
4. Case Study Sessions.
5. Global and Regional Policy Dialogues.
6. Broaden Speaker Diversity.
7. Cross-Sectoral Representation.
8. Active Participation of Experts and Practitioners.
9. Collaborative Content Creation and Dynamic Sessions.
10. Participant-Driven Sessions.
11. Focus on Interdisciplinary and Holistic Approaches.
12. Inclusion of Practical Tools and Resources.
13. Capacity-Building and Skills Sessions.
14. Improved Use of Data and Evidence-Based Sessions.
By focusing on these areas, IGF 2025 can create a more inclusive, dynamic, and actionable program that attracts a broad range of participants, addresses cutting-edge issues, and promotes solutions for the future of internet governance.

1. Stronger Integration of NRIs and Intersessional Activities into the Main Program.
2. Showcase Regional Innovations and Best Practices.
3. Enhanced Participation of NRIs in IGF’s Policy Processes.
4. Building a Shared Collaborative Space.
5. Hybrid and Virtual Spaces for NRI Collaboration.
6. Empowering Youth and Emerging Leaders in Internet Governance.
7. Mentorship and Capacity Building.
8. Streamlining and Supporting Intersessional Collaboration.
9. Clearer Communication of Intersessional Results.
10. Improving Accessibility and Inclusiveness of NRIs and Intersessional Activities.
11. Continuous Engagement Post-Event.
12. Integrating the NRI Contributions into the Official IGF Outcome.
By strengthening the connections between NRIs, youth-led IGFs, and intersessional activities with the IGF 2025 process, the IGF can ensure that its discussions are more inclusive, regionalized, and actionable. These improvements will help create a truly global dialogue that bridges local, national, regional, and global perspectives, fostering a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to addressing the pressing challenges of internet governance.

1. Broadening Stakeholder Representation.
2. Youth Leaders.
3. Local Voices and Regional Leaders.
4. Inclusion of Marginalized Communities.
5. Tech Innovators and Entrepreneurs.
6. Civil Society and Advocacy Groups.
7. Intergovernmental and Multilateral Organizations.
8. Enhanced Networking Opportunities.
9. Matchmaking and Mentoring Programs.
10. Incorporating Participants into Sessions.
11. Follow-up Discussions and Group Activities.
12. Capacity-Building for Connecting Participants.
13. Inclusive Digital Literacy.
14. Encouraging Cross-Sectoral and Interdisciplinary Participation.
15. Use of Technology to Facilitate Networking and Collaboration.
16. Evaluation and Feedback for Continuous Improvement.
By broadening the invitation scope and improving the connection strategies, IGF 2025 can foster a more inclusive, diverse, and collaborative environment that encourages meaningful contributions, sparks innovative ideas, and drives actionable outcomes across global, regional, and local levels.

The WSIS+20 review represents a critical milestone for assessing progress made since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003. IGF 2025 can contribute to this review by;
1. Tracking and Reporting on WSIS Action Lines
2. Mapping IGF discussions to WSIS Action Lines
3. Multi-Stakeholder Participation in the Review Process
4. Joint Preparatory Events leading up to WSIS+20

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) aims to establish global digital cooperation and focus on issues such as digital inclusion, sustainability, trust and security, digital rights, and accountability. The IGF can play a pivotal role in supporting its implementation by;
1. Facilitating Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues on Digital Cooperation
2. Global Digital Cooperation Framework
3. Policy Proposals for the GDC
4. Aligning IGF Thematic Discussions with GDC Goals
5. Inclusion of sustainable development goals, human rights, and privacy
6. Building Capacity for Implementation of the Global Digital Compact
7. Regional and Local Implementation
8. Building Cross-Sectoral and Cross-Border Collaboration
9. Supporting Cross-Border Collaboration for Global Digital Governance
10. Public-Private Partnerships

IGF 2025 can play a significant role in advancing the WSIS+20 review by tracking progress on WSIS outcomes and identifying new challenges and opportunities in internet governance. It can also be a central venue for implementing the Global Digital Compact, helping to shape global discussions on digital cooperation, digital rights, and inclusivity. By focusing on multi-stakeholder dialogues, monitoring progress, and fostering cross-border collaboration, IGF 2025 can contribute meaningfully to shaping the global digital future and help ensure that digital transformation remains inclusive, secure, and human-centered.

I found the event to be a highly valuable platform for engaging in critical discussions on internet governance. The diversity of topics, the inclusion of various stakeholder groups, and the opportunity to connect with experts and peers made for an enriching experience. The hybrid format was especially beneficial, allowing for global participation regardless of location. That said, there is still room for improvement in terms of session interactivity and timely engagement with emerging issues. Some sessions felt a bit static, and more focus on cutting-edge topics could help keep the discussions fresh. Additionally, enhancing the integration of outcomes and ensuring more visibility for grassroots voices would strengthen the impact of the IGF in future editions. Overall, IGF 2024 was a success, but I look forward to even more inclusive, interactive, and future-focused elements in upcoming forums.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format was a highlight, allowing for both in-person and virtual participation, which greatly expanded accessibility. The online platform was easy to navigate, and I appreciated the flexibility it offered, especially for those unable to attend in person. The hybrid setup facilitated good interaction across different time zones and ensured broad participation from diverse regions. Additionally, some in-person sessions were less engaging for virtual participants, as there seemed to be limited efforts to make them more interactive across both formats. Despite these minor issues, the overall hybrid design was successful in ensuring inclusivity and enabling wider participation.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Iqbal

very perfect

excellent structure and flow

Hybrid format gives more facility

yes very well

all session are very organised

best content in terms of session

Speaker and content are very impressive.

Yes high level leaders track for more development

IGF 2024:

add more topic for improvement of regional connectivity

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Hybrid format gives more facility

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Jallow

The IGF 2024 preparatory process demonstrated notable successes and areas for improvement. The structured timeline, with timely calls for issues and session proposals, ensured that stakeholders had ample time to prepare. The process was inclusive, attracting diverse and regionally balanced proposals, thanks to effective outreach efforts. Regular and transparent MAG meetings, supported by hybrid formats, improved accessibility and collaboration. Capacity development efforts, including pre-event workshops and targeted programs for youth, women, and Global South stakeholders, enhanced participants’ preparedness and engagement. The event featured well-curated sessions and high-level roundtables on pressing topics such as digital inclusion, AI governance, and human rights. However, there were concerns about the transparency of the session selection process, particularly regarding feedback for rejected proposals, as well as tight timelines that left limited room for revisions and logistical adjustments. Hybrid participation, while largely successful, was affected by technical disruptions and time zone challenges, limiting virtual engagement in some sessions. Despite outreach efforts, sustaining the engagement of marginalized groups, such as grassroots organizations, remained challenging. Additionally, communication gaps, including delays in key updates, impacted stakeholder coordination. To address these issues, it is recommended that future IGFs provide detailed feedback to rejected proposals, extend review timelines, enhance hybrid session infrastructure, strengthen outreach to marginalized groups, and improve real-time communication through dedicated platforms. Overall, IGF 2024 made significant progress in inclusivity and organization, with important lessons to inform future improvements.

he IGF 2024 showcased notable strengths in its overall execution, with the thematic focus effectively addressing current digital governance challenges. Key topics such as AI governance, digital inclusion, and trust in the digital economy resonated strongly, reflecting the evolving global priorities. The forum’s structure encouraged diverse stakeholder engagement, with dedicated sessions for youth, civil society, government, and private sector actors, fostering inclusive dialogue. The flow of discussions was well-paced, enabling participants to build on key insights across sessions. Side events and networking spaces further enriched the experience by facilitating connections and collaboration beyond the formal panels.

However, certain aspects revealed room for improvement. The thematic overlap in some sessions led to repetitive discussions, which could have been streamlined to avoid redundancy and maximize impact. Some participants noted that the distribution of session time constrained in-depth contributions, particularly in hybrid formats where technical challenges occasionally disrupted the virtual experience. Additionally, the balance between global and regional perspectives could have been enhanced, ensuring that discussions reflect the nuances of local realities while maintaining global relevance. Despite these challenges, IGF 2024 remained a vital platform for advancing inclusive digital policy discourse.

The IGF 2024 in Riyadh offered a dynamic platform for global discussions on internet governance, showcasing significant progress in stakeholder inclusivity, youth engagement, and high-level policy discourse. The event’s hybrid format enhanced accessibility, drawing in diverse participants both in-person and online. Notably, the seamless integration of interactive digital tools fostered a participatory atmosphere for remote attendees, ensuring they remained engaged and contributive.
However, some challenges persisted with the hybrid model. Connectivity issues in some regions hindered full virtual participation, limiting equitable access. Time zone differences also posed engagement barriers, particularly for those in distant regions, despite attempts to schedule sessions inclusively. Additionally, a few technical glitches disrupted some live streams, impacting the flow of discussions. These areas highlight the need for improved digital infrastructure and more robust technical support to ensure a seamless experience for all attendees in future iterations.

The IGF 2024 mobile app was a standout feature, offering a dynamic and user-friendly experience for navigating sessions with ease. Its intuitive design made it simple to find and follow discussions of interest. However, while it was easy to view sessions, setting them into personal calendars for timely reminders could be more streamlined. Moving forward to IGF 2025, enhancing the app’s functionality to allow seamless calendar integration and personalized notifications would make the experience more robust and flexible for users.

The registration process, though efficient in security measures, was somewhat cumbersome due to the separation between the registration and event venues. This led to confusion and delays, with some attendees, including myself, struggling to locate the event after registering. To address this, co-locating the registration and event venues or providing clearer directional support could significantly improve participant navigation and time management. On a positive note, the online platform maintained high performance, ensuring smooth virtual access and interactions throughout the forum.

The IGF 2024 showcased notable strengths, particularly in fostering inclusive dialogue, enhancing multistakeholder engagement, and providing a global platform for discussing key issues in digital governance. The sessions were well-organized, and the event successfully bridged diverse perspectives, amplifying voices from underrepresented groups, including youth, civil society, and developing regions. The hybrid format further increased accessibility, allowing a broader range of participation. However, there were challenges related to the technical quality of some online interactions, which impacted real-time engagement. Additionally, time management in high-level sessions occasionally limited meaningful interventions, signaling the need for improved moderation and streamlined session structures.

Intersessional Activities and National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs)
The intersessional activities and NRIs demonstrated continued value in driving grassroots participation and localizing global internet governance priorities. Throughout the year, NRIs contributed diverse insights that enriched discussions at the global IGF, particularly in areas related to digital inclusion, data governance, and human rights. However, coordination between NRIs and global IGF processes could benefit from more structured alignment to avoid duplication and ensure that local outcomes are meaningfully integrated into global frameworks. Strengthening feedback loops and fostering cross-regional exchanges could further enhance the impact of these initiatives.

Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks
The BPFs and Policy Networks provided comprehensive, evidence-based policy discussions and recommendations on critical internet governance topics. The thematic focus areas, such as AI governance and digital trust, were highly relevant and timely. The process was inclusive and iterative, with diverse stakeholder contributions shaping the final outputs. However, the integration of BPF and Policy Network findings into the main IGF programme could be more cohesive. In some instances, the visibility of intersessional outputs during plenary discussions was limited, underscoring the need for stronger linkages between preparatory work and IGF sessions to ensure policy recommendations translate into actionable global outcomes.

The IGF 2024 demonstrated notable strengths, particularly in fostering high-level discussions on pressing digital governance issues. The hybrid format worked well in accommodating diverse participation, with improved accessibility tools and more inclusive sessions. Effective collaboration between stakeholders—governments, civil society, and private sector actors—enhanced dialogue and cross-cutting outcomes. Additionally, the thematic approach streamlined discussions and highlighted emerging challenges, such as AI governance, digital rights, and sustainability. However, there were challenges in balancing speaking opportunities, as some sessions were dominated by a few stakeholders, limiting grassroots and youth voices. Technical glitches during virtual sessions also occasionally hampered engagement, signaling a need for more robust digital infrastructure support.

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs: Inclusion and Impact
The National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) were well-represented in IGF 2024, with designated sessions allowing them to share localized insights and best practices. Their involvement enriched discussions with on-the-ground perspectives, showcasing grassroots innovation and policy challenges. The process of integrating NRIs into the main program, however, highlighted room for improvement in coordination and visibility. While there was greater emphasis on youth participation, some participants noted the need for a more structured pathway for NRIs to influence global policy recommendations meaningfully. Strengthening the interface between NRIs and the broader IGF ecosystem could enhance their contributions and ensure that regional priorities receive sustained global attention.

The IGF 2024 was a dynamic platform that demonstrated strong organizational cohesion, with notable achievements in promoting meaningful dialogues and fostering multistakeholder collaboration. The event excelled in curating a program that addressed key global challenges such as digital rights, emerging technologies, cybersecurity, and internet access equity. The quality of discussions was elevated by the presence of diverse speakers, including policymakers, tech experts, and civil society leaders, which enriched the debates with multiple perspectives and actionable insights. Sessions dedicated to youth and gender inclusion were particularly impactful, reflecting the IGF’s continued commitment to amplifying marginalized voices in internet governance.

However, there were areas for improvement. Some sessions experienced overlaps in thematic focus, which led to fragmentation and limited audience engagement across parallel discussions. Additionally, while the speaker lineup was impressive, certain sessions faced logistical challenges, such as time management issues that constrained audience interaction and Q&A periods. There was also feedback that some panels were disproportionately dominated by certain stakeholders, which affected the balance of perspectives. Strengthening coordination and time allocation across panels could further enhance the depth and inclusivity of future IGF discussions.

In terms of content, the program covered a wide range of relevant and timely topics; however, some participants noted that more practical, solution-oriented outcomes were needed, especially concerning global digital cooperation. While the forum succeeded as a space for discourse, clearer mechanisms for follow-up actions and accountability could enhance the long-term impact of the discussions. Overall, IGF 2024 was a milestone event with substantive achievements, though there is room to refine its structure to optimize participation and outcomes.

One of the standout features was the IGF Villages, which provided an engaging and vibrant space for interaction. The setup and design were visually impressive and flamboyant, making it an inviting hub for networking and showcasing initiatives. However, despite its aesthetic appeal and functionality, the Village lacked some diversity in representation. A broader inclusion of stakeholders, especially from grassroots organizations, underrepresented regions, and emerging innovators, could have strengthened the Village as a truly inclusive reflection of the global internet governance community.

Communication and outreach was amazing. The Secretariat and Host Country did an amazing Job

IGF 2024:

Timeline and Transparency:
Ensure the timeline for key milestones such as calls for session proposals, MAG consultations, and session selections is communicated early and adhered to. Providing clear deadlines and periodic updates will ensure an inclusive and well-organized process.

Improved Call for Session Proposals:
Refine the call for session proposals by including guiding themes with flexibility to incorporate emerging issues. Providing a template that prompts proposers to indicate how their session will promote inclusion, actionable outcomes, and cross-sectoral collaboration can enhance the quality of proposals.

Session Selection Process:
Ensure that the session selection criteria are transparent, with a focus on regional balance, stakeholder diversity, and innovation in proposed formats. A rubric-based evaluation system can help mitigate biases and improve the consistency of the selection process. Consider publishing anonymized feedback for proposals to foster transparency and learning for future submissions.

MAG and Open Consultation Meetings:
Enhance MAG and Open Consultation meetings by fostering greater collaboration between stakeholders in the early stages of agenda-setting. Utilizing hybrid formats and ensuring adequate time zones are accommodated can improve participation from global stakeholders. Additionally, integrating pre-meeting surveys and consultation rounds can enrich discussions with a broader array of perspectives.

Balanced Representation and Diversity:
Strengthen efforts to diversify participation across regions, stakeholder groups, and marginalized communities, especially within the IGF Village. Consider targeted outreach and support for underrepresented groups to ensure the Village and other sessions reflect the diversity of the global internet governance community. This could include financial support, travel grants, or special calls for proposals that prioritize inclusivity.

Enhanced Session Design and Time Management:
To avoid thematic overlaps and audience fragmentation, the IGF 2025 program could streamline session categories and ensure a balanced distribution of high-interest topics. Time management can also be improved by ensuring that panelists adhere to strict time limits and by allocating ample time for audience Q&As and interactive discussions.

Outcome-Oriented Discussions:
Encourage session formats that focus on solution-oriented dialogues, actionable recommendations, and follow-up mechanisms. Creating structured reporting templates and assigning rapporteurs to track outcomes can foster accountability and continuity across IGF events. Publishing concise post-session summaries with key takeaways and follow-up plans will reinforce the forum’s impact.

Innovative Session Formats:
Introduce more dynamic formats such as workshops, hackathons, and breakout sessions to foster active engagement rather than passive listening. These formats can create interactive environments for brainstorming innovative digital policy solutions.

Youth and Gender Engagement:
Build on the momentum of youth and gender-focused initiatives by establishing dedicated mentorship programs and peer-learning sessions. Actively involve youth representatives and women leaders in the preparatory process to ensure their priorities are embedded in the program design.

High Government Official and provide travel Support from the Global South eg. the Ministers

Thematic Alignment:
Structure the program around the key WSIS action lines, such as ICT infrastructure, digital inclusion, capacity-building, cybersecurity, and internet governance. Specific sessions can evaluate progress on national and regional WSIS implementation and identify gaps in digital access, affordability, and literacy.

IGF 2025 should engage High level governments officials , regional bodies(e.g Ministers in the ICT sectors ), private sector actors, and civil society in a joint stocktaking exercise. A high-level WSIS+20 preparatory dialogue at the IGF could be an avenue to propose new commitments and frameworks that reflect the lessons learned and prepare substantive inputs for the UN high-level meeting.

IGF 2025 could serve as a hub for presenting national and regional progress reports on WSIS outcomes. A dedicated platform for showcasing innovative national digital policies (e.g., the Gambia’s digital transformation agenda) could inspire collaborative solutions, while harmonizing priorities for the Global South.

To support the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, IGF 2025 must integrate the GDC’s core principles—universal connectivity, human rights in digital spaces, trust and security, and digital public goods—into its agenda

Establish dedicated "policy labs" to localize GDC commitments for the African and Gambian context, addressing issues such as affordable broadband, community-led connectivity, and localized content. These labs could foster collaboration between local innovators, policymakers, and the private sector to tailor GDC principles to national realities.

The IGF should support capacity-building initiatives that equip African nations, including The Gambia, with the tools to implement digital governance frameworks aligned with the GDC. The IGF Village can feature initiatives promoting digital public goods and inclusive digital economies, with examples of successful partnerships in The Gambia and across Africa.

The IGF can strengthen dialogues on digital trust, governance of emerging technologies, and cross-border cooperation in addressing cyber threats. This can include African perspectives on data sovereignty, cross-border regulation, and ethical AI frameworks that align with the GDC’s vision.

African and Gambian Context:

The IGF 2025 should amplify the voices of African and Gambian stakeholders to ensure that regional digital priorities, such as youth empowerment, gender inclusion, and sustainable digital economies, are reflected in the global narrative. Gambian experiences, such as digital payment solutions and grassroots-led innovations in waste management, can serve as valuable case studies.

The IGF can highlight national efforts in addressing digital disparities and support the scale-up of regional infrastructure projects, such as the Smart Africa initiative, by aligning with GDC principles.

IGF 2025 can serve as a coordination platform, linking national strategies like the Gambia’s Digital Transformation Agenda with continental frameworks, such as the African Union’s Digital Transformation Strategy. This alignment can strengthen Africa’s collective position in WSIS+20 and GDC discussions, ensuring that the continent’s needs are prioritized in global digital policymaking.

The Bathroom issue of people having to line in bathroom for long while missing session could be improved

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The IGF 2024 in Riyadh offered a dynamic platform for global discussions on internet governance, showcasing significant progress in stakeholder inclusivity, youth engagement, and high-level policy discourse. The event’s hybrid format enhanced accessibility, drawing in diverse participants both in-person and online. Notably, the seamless integration of interactive digital tools fostered a participatory atmosphere for remote attendees, ensuring they remained engaged and contributive.
However, some challenges persisted with the hybrid model. Connectivity issues in some regions hindered full virtual participation, limiting equitable access. Time zone differences also posed engagement barriers, particularly for those in distant regions, despite attempts to schedule sessions inclusively. Additionally, a few technical glitches disrupted some live streams, impacting the flow of discussions. These areas highlight the need for improved digital infrastructure and more robust technical support to ensure a seamless experience for all attendees in future iterations.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Kamara

The preparatory process of IGF 2024 was very encouraged because most of the people participated in the Saudi Arabia National IGF Program, and time was in favor of the participants. However; the time sometime go against some participant due to their late preparation. This is due to the fact that most people cannot monitor the starting period of IGF process because the Secretariat of IGF does not give prior notice to participants about a specific time the process will be starting. I thinks IGF Should be given people information about the commencement of application.
The session proposal is the work of the secretariat in my mind, those proposal that will be accepted, draft list should be given or send to the participants for inputs and advice. This will give you information before the meeting. I admired the Saudi Government when it comes to VISA process, the online visa application was very unique and I want all other host countries should copy same, especial visa upon arrival for IGF Participants. The foreign ministry of all host must give direct instruction to their embassies to issue IGF VISA.

The thematic focus and structure and flow was fine as per the outline. Thematic should be review for update to meet the current reality.

The hybrid format as per my experience was good. Those who were outside the Saudi Arabia with strong internet connectivity could view and hear clear. The time differences was the disadvantage to some online participants. Another challenge was the participation of online participants because in person participants were considered highly than online.

This part was very unique especially the mobile application allow most people to register by their selves.

The Best Practice Forum was associated with policy network at 2024. These focus on emerging issue, the intersession was good because regional experiences were exchanged by participants so people. These exchanges were very acceptable to members because the ideas policies will benefit friendly countries. I hope 2025 will follow same.

was very ok

Very ok

The speakers were people with experience and the in person participants have quality discussion and were interactive. Those topics presented were beneficiary and it will help countries with their regulations and policies.

Very good

The parliamentary track or network was good. However; more need to be done to connect more parliamentarian in various regions, especially in Africa. In most countries, most of the parliamentarian or national legislators have no background in technology, bring most of them will prepare them for best policy and regulatory preparation for country.

Very good.

The gender perspective for 2024 was very encouraging. Today, the IGF FORUM has brought on board many female and they have develop interest in technology. but what has not being done is for the IGF participants to copy it back home to encourage female participation or seeking career in TECH.

Very good.

The 2024 communication, outreach and outputs was were very educative that will very useful for internet governance because if you reflect on Africa IGF in Ethiopia, most the outputs were transported on the Global level. We must appreciate the IGF Secretariat needs to be congratulated for handwork.

IGF 2024:

This 2025 VISA process should copy the good side of Saudi Arabia. The Visa on arrival should be order of 2025 and the Government through the Foreign Ministry by given be directly involved. The proposal and other consultations should be regionally approach so that can reflect all regions.

Country different from and administration differ from administration. The host Country of 2025 and the IGF Secretariat should review the overall program of Saudi Arabia that will fit in their system.

The speakers for 2025 profiles are not know, however; people with experiences in both policy and regulations will be of help including people with idea in emerging technologies.

The regional initiatives are very supportive to National IGF, such community network establishment in countries that are helping to bridge Digital Gaps. and regional program like African IGF and the Youth IGFs. The idea generated from these initiative be reflected in the National IGF.

The online participation will be easy. Participants can inter-connected through WhatsApp or platform be created with user names and password. for suggestions and interaction. The IGF Secretariat should try to catalog participants contacts information and prepare a booklet and share it.
The question who to participate left with the Secretariat base on the person experience, and length of time and education background, maybe. The person who will be willing to attend the program.

The issue surrounding WSIS+20, the IGF should set committee that will review WSIS+20 and review IGF 2025. This committee will make comparison or come viable points from the IGF 2025 that will be of beneficiary program under review. The IGF in my mind has started supporting the Global Compact and it will continue to support it.

Good

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format as per my experience was good. Those who were outside the Saudi Arabia with strong internet connectivity could view and hear clear. The time differences was the disadvantage to some online participants. Another challenge was the participation of online participants because in person participants were considered highly than online.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Kanasa

The timeliness was ok for a first timer.

The overall programme was great. All topics discussed in the session, the thematic focus was very well aligned for discussion with current global issues. Unfortunately, most topics that I wanted to attend that has same subject matter topics for the session were in parallel so it was hard to attend at same time. For example, a topic in Data governance which Iam interested in attending might occur parallel to the other on the same time. So I miss out on the other which is also very important to me.

The format and experience was breath taking.
The only problem I had was the limited number of rest rooms.

The only problem with logistics was the first day registration. I did not receive any email of registration at the particular diplomatic hotel. I thought the registration was in the same place as the conference. So couple of us had to walk about 30 minutes to and 30 minutes back to the conference centre which was tiring especially wearing a high heels.
Also not everyone was able to afford expensive hotels. I was under Global IGF UN travel support without my employees support so I had to find something affordable with breakfast and very good which was about 30 minutes from the center. I paid taxi for first two days and realized they were reaping me off due to no taxi meter. Would be helpful if during registration online our hotels can be assigned to a route for drop offs on the IGF busses for drop off. I missed out on two sessions at 5 pm due to the location of my hotel i had to go at 4:30 pm to avoided traffic to be overcharged.

The intercessional activities was relevant and very current to issues of Internet Governance so far for the ones I attended.
But the only problem I was facing was two topics of the same subject matter occurring parallel so I had to attend one and missed one.

The dynamic session was also very relevant.
The only problem is hope they do not occur in parallel or same timing

I enjoyed the National and Regional IGF.
For Regional can we also include the Pacific IGF into the process so we leave no one behind. Since I come from the Pacific.

I enjoyed all session I attended. Very rich discussion, the speakers were well versed with the topic of discussion. Thank you

Very good with great discussions

I enjoyed the discussions and the questions and feedbacks

I did not attend any youth track .

From a Gender perspective I believe it was a balanced program and the content was well captured.

The village was just super, breath taking and very comfortable. The only only problem was the less number of rest rooms.

Nil comment on these

IGF 2024:

The predatory process was ok.

Same subject matter topic should not be on same time or as parallel to the other.
Have a booth for Foreign attendees to buy sim card for easy travel and access and Communication when traveling while in the country.
Registration for passes should be at the same place as center.

All was great

I would to see more involvement from the Pacific also for the Regional

Can we invite fellows of IGF who are active contributors from across the world. Especially in least developed parts of the world to hear what they are doing in contribution to IGF

Coming from the Pacific and a first timer for the Global IGF The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) can support the implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) by fostering multistakeholder dialogue, sharing best practices, and building capacity. It serves as a platform for monitoring progress, offering policy recommendations, and promoting cross-sector collaboration. The IGF also ensures grassroots participation, advancing digital rights, inclusion, and ethical governance. These efforts align stakeholders globally to achieve the GDC’s goals of a fair, inclusive, and secure digital future.

I had problems every day trying to access wifi because I do not have a sim card.
They could just use emails to register for the wifi and not the sim card.
They could also have a booth for us to buy sim cards inside so it be easy to use every day for wifi or access around the city.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The format and experience was breath taking.
The only problem I had was the limited number of rest rooms.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Karaman

Good

Excellent

Poor

Good

Match

Good

Very good

IGF 2024:

offer tickets and accommodation for civil society

fill the gap between practical and academic

speakers must have a PhD or be academic

involve civil society into National, Regional group

civil society

by involve civil society into National, Regional group

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Excellent

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

KARIM

Nothing to add

Top

Bad sound and interferences remotely

Top

IGF 2024:

It's gonna be shirt in terms of timeline but I think that this is something that will be discussed and agreed during MAG meetingd

To contribute meaningfully to the WSIS+20 Review, the IGF 2025 could focus on fostering comprehensive, measurable dialogue about the progress and gaps in implementing the WSIS outcomes. Sessions should align with WSIS action lines and regional reviews, allowing diverse stakeholders to assess progress transparently. By producing concise, actionable recommendations and fostering collaboration between WSIS-related entities, the IGF can bridge implementation gaps and present a cohesive report to inform the high-level meeting in late 2025. Enhanced mechanisms for stakeholder accountability would further ensure tangible follow-up and alignment with WSIS goals.

In supporting the Global Digital Compact (GDC), the IGF can leverage its multi-stakeholder model to champion principles such as universal connectivity, digital inclusion, and trust. It should focus on co-creating draft guidelines for GDC priorities, empowering grassroots and developing nations with actionable strategies. Dedicated sessions could serve as annual progress checkpoints, enhancing accountability while integrating thematic discussions on critical areas like digital rights, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence to align with the Compact's aims.

Overall, IGF's impact could be enhanced through more structured outputs, clearer monitoring frameworks, and innovative formats that broaden grassroots engagement. Aligning IGF’s workstreams with both WSIS+20 and the GDC ensures its relevance and positions it as a vital platform for shaping inclusive digital futures. This strategic positioning reinforces the IGF's mandate as a collaborative forum that drives digital transformation with tangible global outcomes.

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Bad sound and interferences remotely

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Khan

The IGF 2024 event environment stood out for its excellent organization, and the well-paced sessions ensured a smooth flow throughout the programme. I appreciated how these aspects contributed to a productive and engaging experience.

However, there are a few areas where improvements could enhance the overall experience for participants:

The visa process was quite lengthy, which added stress to the travel preparations. Simplifying or expediting this process would be immensely helpful for future events.
The location in a diplomatic area made accommodations nearby quite costly, limiting options for many attendees.
While the event itself was remarkable, the lunch provided fell short of expectations. Offering a more diverse and satisfying menu could significantly elevate the attendee experience.
Some logistical challenges arose with the session rooms, where noise and interference from nearby rooms and the main hall (IGF Village) were distracting. Improving the soundproofing and layout of these spaces would make sessions more effective.
Social events were noticeably absent, and including them in the programme would foster better networking and community engagement.
At the airport, there was no dedicated desk to assist IGF participants during the immigration process, leading to a lengthy wait of nearly an hour to confirm visas. Setting up such a desk could streamline arrivals.
Lastly, the badge collection process was inconvenient, as the collection area was located far from the event venue. Having badge collection at the same venue would save time and effort for participants.
These constructive changes would further strengthen the IGF’s reputation for delivering impactful and participant-friendly events.

I found the IGF 2024 programme to be truly inspiring and well-structured. The thematic focus on areas like digital inclusion, data governance, emerging technologies, and sustainability felt both timely and impactful. The way these themes were integrated into the programme made it easy to engage with the discussions and understand their global relevance.

The structure and flow of the sessions were seamless, balancing high-level policy dialogues with interactive workshops and community-led initiatives. This approach not only encouraged meaningful participation but also created a space where diverse perspectives could come together to drive actionable outcomes.

Overall, IGF 2024 left me feeling optimistic about the collaborative efforts being made to address pressing digital issues and foster a more inclusive and sustainable digital future.

The hybrid format of IGF 2024 was thoughtfully designed to ensure inclusivity and accessibility for both in-person and virtual participants. The seamless integration of digital platforms allowed remote attendees to actively engage in discussions, access resources, and participate in real-time interactions alongside those present on-site.

However, some challenges were observed. Enhancing the technical infrastructure to ensure uninterrupted streaming and minimizing time zone barriers would further improve the experience for virtual participants. Additionally, more interactive features, such as breakout rooms and dedicated networking spaces for online attendees, could foster deeper engagement and collaboration.

Overall, the hybrid format showcased the IGF’s commitment to bridging global communities and fostering dialogue, regardless of geographic boundaries.

The logistics of IGF 2024 were handled with a high level of professionalism and efficiency, ensuring a smooth experience for participants across various aspects:

Website: The event website was user-friendly and informative, providing comprehensive details about the schedule, speakers, and event updates.
Mobile App: The dedicated mobile app was a standout feature, offering easy access to schedules, session details, and real-time notifications, which greatly enhanced convenience for participants.
Schedule: The event schedule was well-organized, with clear time allocations and thematic tracks that made it easy to plan and participate in sessions of interest.
Registration: The registration process was seamless, with intuitive online forms and prompt confirmations, ensuring participants could register without hassle.
Access and Use of Online Platform: The online platform was robust and user-friendly, facilitating virtual participation with features like live streaming, session recordings, and interactive tools for Q&A and networking.
Bilateral Meeting System: The bilateral meeting system was highly effective, allowing participants to schedule and conduct private meetings effortlessly, fostering collaboration and networking.
Security: Security measures were comprehensive, ensuring a safe environment for all attendees, both online and on-site. The organizers demonstrated a strong commitment to safeguarding participant data and event premises.
Overall, the logistics of IGF 2024 reflected meticulous planning and a commitment to providing an inclusive, accessible, and secure experience for all participants.

The Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks at IGF 2024 were highly effective in fostering collaborative, action-oriented discussions. These intersessional activities played a crucial role in shaping the annual programme by bringing together diverse stakeholders to work on real-world solutions to pressing digital governance issues.

Process:
The process for BPFs and Policy Networks was well-structured, with a clear focus on inclusivity and engagement from a broad range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, the private sector, and technical communities. The well-organized approach allowed participants to share expertise, build consensus, and identify best practices that can be replicated globally. These forums created a dynamic environment where tangible outcomes emerged from collective knowledge.

Content:
The content produced by the BPFs and Policy Networks was highly relevant and addressed key challenges in areas such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, data governance, and the ethical use of emerging technologies. The in-depth, issue-specific discussions provided actionable insights, guidelines, and policy recommendations that are useful for both local and global digital governance efforts. The integration of diverse perspectives helped shape content that was both comprehensive and forward-thinking.

Inclusion in the Annual Programme:
The inclusion of these intersessional activities in the main IGF programme was seamless and added immense value. By dedicating sessions to showcase the outcomes of BPFs and Policy Networks, the IGF allowed participants to actively engage with the results and further refine them. These sessions served as a bridge between year-round work and the annual gathering, ensuring that the discussions were directly tied to ongoing global digital initiatives. This integration made the annual IGF more results-oriented and gave participants a sense of continuity and impact, as they could see the progress made on key topics.

Overall, the BPFs and Policy Networks at IGF 2024 were instrumental in strengthening the IGF’s multistakeholder model and ensuring that the event was not just a forum for discussion but also a space for concrete policy development and collaboration.

The Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) at IGF 2024 played a vital role in fostering long-term collaboration and addressing critical issues within the digital governance landscape. These inter-sessional activities were effectively integrated into the annual IGF program, enhancing the event's overall value and impact.

Process:
The process behind the DCs was highly inclusive and transparent, bringing together a diverse range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, industry experts, and technical communities. The DCs operated on a collaborative, consensus-building model, allowing participants to share knowledge, discuss emerging trends, and work towards common goals. This approach ensured that the activities remained focused on addressing real-world challenges while promoting a spirit of cooperation.

Content:
The content produced by the DCs was relevant, timely, and deeply impactful. Covering a wide range of topics such as privacy, digital inclusion, Internet governance principles, and emerging technologies, the discussions generated valuable insights and practical recommendations. The DCs provided a platform for stakeholders to explore and develop solutions to complex issues, ensuring that the content produced was both comprehensive and forward-thinking. By focusing on ongoing challenges and opportunities, the DCs delivered outcomes that were actionable and aligned with the global digital agenda.

Inclusion in the Annual Programme:
The inclusion of DC activities in the annual IGF program was seamless and well-executed. Dedicated sessions allowed participants to dive into the results of the DCs' year-round work, offering opportunities for further discussion, refinement, and collaboration. This integration ensured that the work of the DCs was not isolated but rather became an integral part of the IGF’s overarching dialogue on digital governance. The presence of DC sessions in the main program allowed for a deeper understanding of key topics and created opportunities for cross-pollination between DCs and other IGF initiatives, fostering a more interconnected and holistic approach to digital policy development.

Overall, the Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024 added significant value to the event, ensuring that the discussions were grounded in real, ongoing efforts and that tangible, collaborative solutions were at the forefront. Their inclusion in the annual IGF program further strengthened the IGF’s reputation as a space for meaningful dialogue, actionable outcomes, and multistakeholder collaboration.

The National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) at IGF 2024 were a key highlight, demonstrating the inclusive and global nature of the event. The process of engaging NRIs was seamless, with active participation from a diverse range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and youth. These regional and national initiatives brought valuable localized perspectives to the broader digital governance discussions.

The content of the NRIs was both relevant and impactful, addressing issues that resonate at local, regional, and global levels, such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and digital rights. These discussions helped ensure that the global dialogue reflected the diverse needs and priorities of different regions and communities.

The NRIs were effectively integrated into the annual IGF program through dedicated sessions that showcased their outcomes and encouraged cross-regional collaboration. This inclusion fostered a sense of continuity and highlighted the IGF’s role as a truly global platform, where local and regional voices are empowered to contribute to shaping global digital policies.

The sessions at IGF 2024 were thoughtfully designed to address critical issues in digital governance, ensuring a well-rounded and engaging program.

Content:
The sessions covered a diverse range of timely and pertinent topics, such as digital inclusion, data privacy, emerging technologies, and Internet governance. The content was both forward-looking and action-oriented, encouraging participants to explore solutions to global challenges while considering local contexts. Each session was aligned with the broader themes of the IGF, providing a comprehensive view of the digital landscape.

Speakers:
The sessions featured a rich diversity of speakers, including experts, policymakers, and community leaders from various sectors. Their contributions were insightful, offering a mix of practical experience and visionary perspectives. This variety enriched the discussions, ensuring that different viewpoints were represented and that attendees were exposed to a wide range of expertise.

Quality of Discussions:
The quality of discussions was exceptional, marked by active engagement and meaningful exchanges. The sessions fostered open dialogue and collaborative problem-solving, with participants sharing experiences, best practices, and challenges. The use of interactive formats, such as Q&A and real-time discussions, further enhanced engagement, making the sessions dynamic and inclusive.

In summary, IGF 2024 sessions provided a high-quality platform for informed discussions, creating a space for collaborative thinking and tangible outcomes in digital governance.

The High-Level Leaders Track at IGF 2024 was a standout feature, providing a platform for influential decision-makers to engage in critical discussions on the future of digital governance.

Content:
The content of the High-Level Leaders Track was highly relevant, addressing pressing issues such as digital sovereignty, international cooperation, and the ethical implications of emerging technologies. The discussions were geared towards shaping global digital policies and aligning them with international initiatives like the Global Digital Compact and the World Summit on the Information Society outcomes. This track effectively highlighted the importance of multilateral cooperation in tackling global digital challenges.

Speakers:
The High-Level Leaders Track featured prominent leaders from governments, international organizations, and the private sector. Their expertise and influence added significant weight to the discussions, making them particularly impactful. The speakers provided strategic insights into the complex intersection of policy, technology, and governance, driving the conversation toward actionable solutions and future collaboration.

Quality of Discussions:
The quality of discussions in the High-Level Leaders Track was exceptional, marked by constructive dialogue and forward-thinking solutions. The sessions encouraged high-level exchanges between leaders, fostering a greater understanding of the challenges and opportunities in digital governance. The focus on building consensus and partnerships was particularly valuable, creating a space for leaders to collaborate on shaping a more inclusive, secure, and sustainable digital future.

Overall, the High-Level Leaders Track at IGF 2024 was a powerful and enriching component of the event, bringing together key decision-makers to guide the future of global digital policy.

The Parliamentary Track at IGF 2024 was an important addition, providing a space for legislators to actively engage in the discussions around digital governance and contribute their unique perspectives on shaping digital policy.

Content:
The content of the Parliamentary Track focused on key issues that legislators must address, such as digital rights, internet regulation, data protection, and the role of parliaments in fostering inclusive digital economies. The track facilitated discussions on how legislative frameworks can evolve to meet the challenges posed by rapid technological advancements, while also ensuring that policy decisions are informed by global best practices.

Speakers:
The track featured prominent parliamentarians, policy experts, and legal advisors who brought a deep understanding of the intersection between law, technology, and governance. These speakers offered valuable insights into how legislative bodies can influence and regulate the digital landscape, providing a legislative perspective to complement discussions from the technical and business sectors.

Quality of Discussions:
The discussions in the Parliamentary Track were thoughtful and constructive, fostering dialogue between lawmakers from diverse regions and backgrounds. This provided a platform for cross-border learning, where participants could share experiences on the implementation of digital policies and legislation. The sessions emphasized collaboration between governments, parliaments, and other stakeholders to ensure that digital governance is inclusive, equitable, and accountable.

Overall, the Parliamentary Track at IGF 2024 enriched the event by ensuring that legislators’ voices were included in shaping the future of digital governance, and their contributions were vital in bridging the gap between policy development and technological innovation.

The Youth Track at IGF 2024 was a dynamic and essential component, empowering young voices to actively participate in shaping the future of digital governance and policy.

Content:
The content of the Youth Track focused on issues that directly impact young people, such as digital rights, online safety, access to technology, and the role of youth in driving innovation and digital transformation. It provided a platform for youth to engage in discussions on how to ensure that the digital future is inclusive, accessible, and equitable for all generations. The track emphasized the importance of youth participation in decision-making processes related to digital governance.

Speakers:
The Youth Track featured passionate and knowledgeable speakers, including young leaders, digital advocates, and experts who brought fresh perspectives and innovative ideas to the table. These speakers shared their experiences, challenges, and successes, highlighting the critical role that youth play in advocating for a more inclusive digital world. Their contributions added energy and relevance to the broader IGF discussions.

Quality of Discussions:
The discussions in the Youth Track were lively, interactive, and forward-thinking. Young participants actively shared their views, posed critical questions, and engaged in collaborative problem-solving. The track encouraged dialogue not only between youth but also with other stakeholders, ensuring that their voices were heard in the broader context of global digital governance. The sessions also provided opportunities for mentorship and networking, fostering connections that could help shape the digital leaders of tomorrow.

Overall, the Youth Track at IGF 2024 was a powerful demonstration of the value of including young people in digital governance conversations. It ensured that the voices of future generations were well-represented and actively contributed to the creation of a more inclusive and sustainable digital future.

From a gender perspective, the IGF 2024 program demonstrated a strong commitment to inclusivity and diversity, ensuring that gender-related issues were prominently featured in discussions and that women and marginalized genders were represented across sessions.

Content:
The program addressed critical gender-related topics such as digital inclusion, gender equality in tech, online safety for women, and the gendered impacts of emerging technologies. These sessions provided a platform to discuss how gender disparities in the digital world can be bridged, focusing on empowering women and marginalized genders through technology, education, and policy. The content underscored the importance of creating an inclusive digital space where all voices are heard, and no one is left behind.

Speakers:
The speaker lineup was diverse, with many influential women and gender-diverse leaders contributing to the discussions. Their expertise helped highlight gender-specific challenges and opportunities in digital governance, ensuring that gender perspectives were not only represented but also central to the conversations. Female and gender-diverse speakers brought valuable insights into how digital policies can be crafted to ensure equity and inclusion.

Quality of Discussions:
The quality of discussions from a gender perspective was highly engaging and solution-focused. Many sessions fostered meaningful conversations around addressing the barriers that women and marginalized genders face in the digital world, from digital literacy gaps to cybersecurity risks and workplace inequality. These discussions were enriched by the active participation of diverse stakeholders, who shared strategies, resources, and success stories in promoting gender equality in the digital realm.

Overall, IGF 2024 showed a commendable effort to integrate gender considerations into the program, ensuring that gender equality was a key theme throughout the event. The inclusive approach helped create a more balanced and representative dialogue on the future of digital governance, highlighting the importance of gender equality in shaping a fairer digital world.

The IGF 2024 Village was a vibrant and central hub that added significant value to the overall event experience. It served as a dynamic space for networking, collaboration, and engagement, bringing together diverse stakeholders from across the globe.

Content:
The IGF Village was designed to foster interaction and exchange, with dedicated areas for various thematic discussions, exhibitions, and interactive activities. It housed sessions from Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions, and National and Regional IGFs (NRIs), allowing participants to engage in informal conversations and deep dives on specific topics. The village also featured booths and informational displays, providing a platform for organizations and initiatives to showcase their work and share valuable resources with attendees.

Engagement and Networking:
The IGF Village encouraged informal networking, making it easy for participants to connect with one another, discuss ideas, and form partnerships. The space was designed to be inclusive, offering opportunities for all attendees—from policymakers and industry experts to community groups and young leaders—to come together and collaborate on solutions to pressing digital challenges.

Interactive Elements:
One of the key strengths of the IGF Village was its interactive nature. Attendees could participate in live demonstrations, workshops, and interactive discussions, enriching their experience and learning from hands-on activities. This aspect made the village an engaging and dynamic part of the event, where ideas could be exchanged and turned into practical, real-world solutions.

In summary, the IGF 2024 Village played a vital role in enhancing the overall program by offering an engaging, interactive space for networking, knowledge sharing, and collaboration. It fostered a sense of community and inclusion, allowing participants to deepen their engagement with the event's core themes while also forging meaningful connections.

The communications, outreach, and outputs of IGF 2024 were well-executed, ensuring broad engagement, transparent dissemination of information, and effective follow-up on the event's key outcomes.

Communications:
The communication efforts for IGF 2024 were comprehensive, using a variety of channels to reach diverse audiences. Social media, newsletters, and the IGF website were utilized to keep participants informed before, during, and after the event. The use of regular updates and engaging content helped maintain momentum, creating an inclusive atmosphere that invited global participation. Additionally, real-time translations and multimedia coverage allowed for accessible communication across language barriers, further increasing global reach.

Outreach:
Outreach activities were designed to engage a wide range of stakeholders, ensuring the inclusivity of the event. Strategic partnerships with regional, national, and global organizations helped amplify the visibility of IGF 2024, attracting diverse groups from civil society, government, academia, and the private sector. Special focus was given to ensuring the involvement of marginalized groups, young people, and underrepresented regions, which helped enrich the discussions and broaden the perspectives shared at the event.

Outputs:
The outputs of IGF 2024 were rich and actionable, with key findings, policy recommendations, and collaborative solutions emerging from the sessions. Reports and summaries from the discussions, as well as thematic takeaways, were promptly shared with participants and made available on the IGF website. These outputs, including digital tools and resources, served as valuable materials for continued collaboration and implementation of ideas beyond the event. The integration of these outputs into follow-up activities and intersessional work ensured that the discussions led to tangible, real-world impacts.

Overall, the communications, outreach, and outputs of IGF 2024 contributed to a successful and inclusive event, strengthening the IGF's role as a leading platform for multistakeholder dialogue on digital governance. The event's transparent communication strategy and effective dissemination of outcomes will continue to support global digital policy development in the years to come.

IGF 2024:

For IGF 2025, the preparatory process can be further enhanced to streamline planning, foster greater inclusivity, and ensure that the event meets the evolving needs of the global digital governance community. Below are a few suggestions for improvements in the preparatory process:

1. Extended Timeline for Preparation
To ensure that all stakeholders, especially those from underrepresented regions, have ample time to engage, the timeline for IGF 2025 preparation could be extended. Providing more time for the call for session proposals, selection, and other processes would enable more diverse and impactful submissions. An extended timeline would also help participants better prepare for the event, ensuring that they can engage more meaningfully in discussions.

2. More Inclusive and Transparent Session Proposal Process
Broader Outreach for Proposals: To further enhance inclusivity, the outreach for session proposals could be expanded to reach communities, stakeholders, and organizations who may not traditionally engage with the IGF. Special efforts can be made to engage youth groups, smaller civil society organizations, and regions with lower representation, including conflict-affected countries like Afghanistan. Targeted outreach could encourage participation from these regions, ensuring their unique challenges and opportunities are reflected in the discussions.
Clearer Criteria for Session Selection: The process of selecting sessions could benefit from clearer criteria and enhanced transparency. Providing feedback on rejected proposals could help submitters improve their proposals for future events.
Balanced Representation: Ensuring gender, regional, and sectoral diversity in the session selection process is critical. The session selection process could include additional safeguards to ensure equal representation and prevent any one voice or perspective from dominating.
3. Enhanced MAG and Open Consultations Meetings
Wider Participation in MAG: The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) should aim for broader geographic and stakeholder diversity in its composition. This can include more representation from developing countries, marginalized communities, and sectors like academia and grassroots organizations. The participation of underrepresented regions, including conflict-affected areas such as Afghanistan, would ensure that the perspectives of all communities are represented in the preparatory process.
Hybrid Format for Consultations: Given the increasing global participation in the IGF, Open Consultations and MAG meetings should continue to be hybrid, with both in-person and virtual options. This will increase accessibility for participants unable to attend in person and encourage greater engagement from remote communities.
Clearer Communication and Scheduling: The scheduling of MAG meetings and Open Consultations could be more predictable and communicated earlier. This would give participants more time to plan and prepare, especially those from different time zones or who may have competing commitments.
4. Strengthening Regional and Thematic Focus
Regional Consultations and Feedback: IGF 2025 could benefit from regional consultations before the main event. This would provide an opportunity to gather input on regional priorities and challenges, which can then be reflected in the main sessions. It will also help ensure that local concerns, including those specific to conflict-hit countries like Afghanistan, are adequately addressed.
Thematic Focus Areas: Clear thematic tracks could be established based on global trends and emerging issues, with a focus on cross-cutting issues such as digital sovereignty, AI ethics, and digital human rights. These tracks could be shaped through collaborative consultations with key stakeholders prior to the event.
5. More Capacity-Building and Engagement Activities
Capacity-Building Workshops: Alongside the main sessions, IGF 2025 could include additional capacity-building activities such as workshops, skill-building sessions, and hackathons to foster a deeper understanding of key issues and tools for participants from all backgrounds, particularly from regions facing conflict and instability like Afghanistan.
Pre-event Webinars and Information Sessions: Pre-event webinars could be organized to help participants better understand the session topics, the proposal process, and the logistics of the event. This could help increase the quality of session proposals and ensure participants come prepared to engage fully.
6. Improved Virtual Participation and Hybrid Experience
Enhanced Virtual Platforms: Virtual participation in IGF 2025 should be seamless and interactive. Upgraded virtual platforms with features such as live polling, real-time Q&A, and networking tools can enhance remote engagement, ensuring that those unable to attend in person, especially from countries like Afghanistan, can still contribute meaningfully to discussions.
Hybrid Formats for Sessions: While in-person engagement is valuable, hybrid sessions where virtual participants can directly interact with speakers, ask questions, and contribute to discussions would further enrich the event’s accessibility and inclusivity.
7. Post-Event Follow-up and Documentation
Real-time Documentation: Providing immediate access to session summaries, key takeaways, and video recordings would be valuable for those who couldn’t attend or wish to revisit key points, especially those from conflict-affected areas who may face difficulties accessing live sessions.
Post-event Engagement: After IGF 2025, the preparation of actionable reports and recommendations from the sessions can further support the long-term implementation of ideas. Follow-up consultations or virtual forums can keep the dialogue alive and track progress on critical issues raised at the event.
Conclusion
In summary, IGF 2025's preparatory process could benefit from a more inclusive, transparent, and regionally-focused approach. Enhanced communication, clearer timelines, and a hybrid approach to meetings will ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute meaningfully. Additionally, a greater emphasis on capacity-building and virtual engagement will make IGF 2025 even more accessible and impactful for a global audience. Special attention should be given to the inclusion of countries like Afghanistan, ensuring that their unique challenges are addressed, and their perspectives are fully represented. Proactive outreach, virtual participation options, and targeted capacity-building efforts will be crucial in ensuring that conflict-hit regions are not left behind in global digital governance conversations.

For IGF 2025, the overall program structure and flow should be designed to enhance engagement, foster inclusivity, and ensure that the event effectively addresses global digital governance issues. Below are suggestions for refining the structure and flow of the program:

1. Structured Thematic Tracks
The program can benefit from clearly defined thematic tracks based on global priorities such as Digital Sovereignty, Artificial Intelligence and Ethics, Digital Human Rights, Internet Governance for All, and Connectivity and Infrastructure in Low-Resource Regions. These tracks should be shaped through consultations with key stakeholders to ensure that the content addresses global challenges while remaining flexible enough to evolve with emerging digital trends.

2. Balance Between High-Level and Grassroots Engagement
IGF 2025 can continue to balance high-level discussions with grassroots engagement. The High-Level Leaders' Track can remain an essential platform for policymakers, while parallel sessions should cater to local actors, civil society, youth, and marginalized communities. By ensuring that both ends of the spectrum are represented, IGF 2025 can facilitate productive dialogues and actionable outcomes that reflect both the top-down and bottom-up dimensions of global digital governance.

3. Regional and Thematic Integration
To strengthen regional perspectives, the Regional and Thematic Discussions should be integrated into the main program. Regional consultations could feed directly into the broader sessions, providing regional inputs and challenges to inform global debates. This approach ensures that local concerns are adequately addressed and represented at the global stage.

4. Interactive and Hybrid Session Formats
The program structure should incorporate more interactive and hybrid sessions, where in-person and virtual participants can engage in real-time discussions. This would allow for a more inclusive experience, ensuring participation from all corners of the world. The use of tools like live polls, Q&A, and virtual networking would further enhance the participation of remote attendees, ensuring the event remains globally inclusive.

5. Clear Session Tracks with Sub-themes
The IGF 2025 program could adopt a layered approach, with clear main session tracks and defined sub-themes within each track. For instance, under the AI and Ethics track, sessions could range from ethical AI deployment to policy frameworks for AI regulation. This would allow the program to cater to both broad and highly specific issues, ensuring that diverse topics are discussed in depth.

6. Inclusivity in Speaker Selection and Content
Ensuring diverse and inclusive speakers from a variety of sectors—government, private sector, civil society, youth organizations, and marginalized groups—would enrich the discussions. Having speakers from different geographical regions and expertise areas would ensure that global issues are tackled from multiple perspectives.

7. Capacity Building and Skill Development
Alongside the main program, IGF 2025 should integrate capacity-building workshops and skill development sessions for stakeholders from all backgrounds. These sessions could cover topics such as digital literacy, cybersecurity, and internet policy, preparing participants to better engage in the digital policy landscape. Additionally, these workshops could focus on digital resilience, providing tools and frameworks for building robust digital infrastructures.

8. Real-time Documentation and Engagement
Real-time documentation, such as live streaming, session summaries, and video recordings, should be made available immediately after each session. This would ensure that participants who couldn’t attend the event can still access the content and benefit from the discussions. Additionally, post-event forums and virtual follow-ups can be organized to continue discussions, track progress, and implement the ideas raised at the event.

9. Clearer Scheduling and Predictable Flow
Clear and predictable scheduling will be crucial for maintaining the flow of the event. The agenda should be communicated well in advance, especially considering the varying time zones of global participants. This would allow participants to better plan and engage with the sessions, maximizing participation and ensuring smooth coordination.

10. Dedicated Sessions for Key Global Issues
IGF 2025 could feature a series of sessions dedicated to digital issues related to global challenges, such as climate change, digital rights, cybersecurity, and inclusive digital economies. These sessions could provide insights into how the digital space intersects with critical global issues, fostering cross-sector collaboration and innovation.

Conclusion
In conclusion, IGF 2025’s program structure and flow should focus on ensuring inclusivity, fostering global collaboration, and addressing critical issues from a regional and thematic perspective. By adopting a structured thematic approach, incorporating hybrid sessions, and enhancing engagement through regional consultations, IGF 2025 can be a truly global and inclusive event that reflects the evolving digital landscape and the needs of diverse communities. This approach will not only ensure relevant discussions but also create opportunities for actionable outcomes, supporting the continued development of global digital governance.

For IGF 2025, the program content, session types, and speaker profiles can be enhanced to ensure greater inclusivity, engagement, and relevance. Here are some key suggestions for improvements:

1. Thematic Approach
Emerging Issues: Expand themes to include Digital Inclusion, AI Ethics, Digital Human Rights, Digital Trade, and Sustainable Digital Transformation.
Regional Focus: Address regional issues, such as Digital Infrastructure in the Global South, ensuring that local challenges are reflected in global discussions.
2. Session Types
Hybrid and Interactive: Maintain hybrid sessions to allow both in-person and virtual participation with interactive features like live polls and Q&A.
Capacity-Building: Include workshops and skill-building sessions on topics like digital security and digital economy development.
Case Studies and Best Practices: Highlight real-world applications and successful digital policies, particularly from underrepresented regions.
Fireside Chats and Roundtables: Offer informal, focused discussions with leaders and experts on pressing issues.
3. Speaker Profiles
Diverse Representation: Ensure speakers come from various sectors (government, private sector, civil society) and regions, with a focus on gender and geographic diversity.
Youth and Marginalized Communities: Include youth leaders and speakers from marginalized communities to ensure their voices are heard on issues like digital rights and inclusion.
Emerging Fields: Feature experts from fields like blockchain, AI, and digital health to reflect cutting-edge digital developments.
4. Enhanced Engagement
Real-Time Tools: Use live polling and Q&A to engage both virtual and in-person participants.
Networking Spaces: Offer dedicated virtual spaces for networking and peer discussions, fostering global connections.
Conclusion
IGF 2025 can improve by focusing on emerging global challenges, enhancing session interactivity, ensuring diverse and inclusive speakers, and creating more opportunities for engagement. This will ensure the event is dynamic, impactful, and relevant for all participants.

For IGF 2025, enhancing the connection between community intersessional activities, NRIs, and the main IGF event is crucial for inclusivity and impact. Here are some key suggestions:

1. Community Intersessional Activities
Integration: Align Best Practice Forums (BPFs), Policy Networks (PNs), and Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) with IGF sessions, ensuring continuity and contributing directly to thematic discussions.
Cross-Linking: Regularly update these activities with virtual workshops to keep the IGF community informed and engaged.
2. National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs)
Stronger Connection: Allow NRIs to contribute directly to session proposals and feed regional concerns into the global agenda.
Youth Engagement: Increase youth participation by creating dedicated youth tracks and involving them in session planning and speaker roles.
Capacity-Building: Provide more structured opportunities for NRIs and youth initiatives to engage in workshops and bilateral meetings.
3. Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks, and Dynamic Coalitions
Increased Visibility: BPFs, PNs, and DCs should lead sessions or collaborate on topics to integrate their work into the main IGF discussions.
Collaboration: Foster more collaboration between these groups, ensuring a cohesive approach to digital governance.
4. Inclusivity
Broader Outreach: Expand participation from marginalized regions and youth to ensure a more globally representative event.
Conclusion
IGF 2025 should integrate community intersessional activities and NRIs more effectively, ensuring their work influences the main event and fosters inclusivity, diversity, and collaboration across all sectors.

For IGF 2025, ensuring broad and inclusive participation is essential to reflect global digital governance perspectives. Here's how to improve participant invitations and interconnection:

1. Who to Invite
Diverse Stakeholders: Invite representatives from all sectors, including governments, private sector, civil society, technical communities, academia, and youth. Special attention should be given to underrepresented regions, ensuring the inclusion of marginalized communities and developing countries.
Youth and Grassroots: Include youth leaders and grassroots organizations to give voice to future generations and local communities impacted by digital policy decisions.
Experts in Emerging Fields: Ensure that experts from AI, blockchain, and digital health are present to reflect cutting-edge technologies shaping the digital landscape.
2. Inter-connecting Participants
Hybrid Format: Maintain a hybrid format to allow seamless engagement between in-person and virtual participants. This will facilitate greater global interaction and ensure all voices, including from remote and conflict-affected regions, can participate.
Networking Platforms: Create dedicated virtual networking spaces, allowing participants to connect, collaborate, and discuss in real-time through live chat, Q&A, and roundtable discussions.
3. Special Focus on Afghanistan
Support for Afghanistan: Given Afghanistan's challenges, special efforts should be made to ensure Afghan participation in IGF 2025, providing support for travel and online access. Facilitating their inclusion will help amplify voices from regions facing severe digital and societal challenges, contributing to global policy dialogue on issues such as digital rights and connectivity in conflict zones.
Conclusion
Inviting a diverse range of participants and ensuring effective interconnection through hybrid formats and networking tools will make IGF 2025 more inclusive and impactful. Special attention to Afghanistan and other conflict-affected countries will ensure that all regions have a platform to contribute to global digital governance discussions.

For IGF 2025, there is a unique opportunity to contribute significantly to both the WSIS+20 Review and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Here’s how the IGF can align with and support these initiatives in a positive and impactful way:

1. Contribution to WSIS+20 Review
The WSIS+20 Review provides a critical moment to assess the progress of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) outcomes. IGF 2025 can contribute by:

Integrating WSIS Principles: The IGF sessions should explicitly address the 10 WSIS Action Lines, ensuring that discussions connect directly to the implementation and future goals of the WSIS outcomes. This could be done through thematic tracks focused on digital inclusion, access, human rights, and development, which align with the WSIS vision.
High-Level Contributions: The IGF could host high-level dialogues with key stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, and civil society, to review and highlight the progress made in achieving WSIS goals and identify gaps. These discussions should provide actionable insights for the 2025 high-level meeting and set a clear roadmap for future work.
Regional Contributions: Encourage regional IGFs to contribute to the WSIS+20 Review, with sessions that reflect on local progress and challenges in implementing WSIS goals, ensuring diverse regional perspectives are included in the global review process.
2. Supporting the Global Digital Compact
The Global Digital Compact aims to establish a common vision for the digital future, emphasizing principles such as universal access, digital rights, ethical AI, and digital inclusion. IGF 2025 can play a pivotal role in advancing this agenda by:

Facilitating Dialogue: The IGF should serve as a central platform for multistakeholder dialogue on the Global Digital Compact. This could involve discussions on policy frameworks, digital governance, and global cooperation to foster digital inclusion and build trust in the digital ecosystem.
Actionable Outcomes: Encourage the development of actionable policy recommendations through IGF sessions that align with the GDC’s principles, ensuring that concrete, implementable solutions emerge from the discussions. This could include best practices and policy frameworks on topics such as data governance, cybersecurity, and privacy.
Global and Local Synergy: Leverage the IGF’s broad global reach to gather insights from all regions, including those from low- and middle-income countries and marginalized communities, ensuring that the GDC’s implementation is inclusive and reflective of the needs of all stakeholders.
Monitoring Progress: Use the IGF’s dynamic coalitions and policy networks to monitor the implementation of the Global Digital Compact and provide regular updates on global progress, challenges, and best practices. This will help ensure that the GDC remains a living, evolving document, responsive to emerging trends and challenges in the digital space.
Conclusion
IGF 2025 has the potential to play a leading role in both the WSIS+20 Review and the Global Digital Compact implementation. By directly aligning its sessions with WSIS goals, facilitating high-level dialogues, and supporting multistakeholder discussions around the GDC’s principles, IGF 2025 can ensure these global initiatives remain at the forefront of digital governance discussions. The IGF’s inclusive, collaborative platform is uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between global policy frameworks and real-world digital challenges, ensuring that the outcomes of these initiatives lead to tangible, positive changes for all.

IGF 2024 was a highly successful and impactful event that exemplified the spirit of multistakeholder collaboration in addressing the complex and ever-evolving challenges of digital governance. The overall organization and execution were exceptional, providing a platform for diverse voices to engage in constructive dialogue, share expertise, and develop actionable solutions.

Strengths:
Inclusivity: The event excelled in creating an inclusive environment, bringing together stakeholders from various sectors, regions, and backgrounds. Whether through the high-level discussions or the youth and gender-focused tracks, the event ensured that a wide range of perspectives were considered.
Diverse and Dynamic Sessions: The variety of formats—panel discussions, workshops, roundtables, and interactive sessions—kept participants engaged and encouraged deeper discussions. The content addressed both current issues and future trends in digital governance, making the event forward-thinking and relevant.
Networking and Collaboration: The IGF 2024 Village, along with dedicated networking opportunities, provided an effective space for participants to connect and collaborate. This enhanced the collaborative spirit of the event, enabling stakeholders to develop partnerships and share resources for continued efforts.
Opportunities for Growth:
Logistical Improvements: While the event was generally well-organized, there were some logistical areas that could be further improved, such as simplifying the registration process and enhancing accessibility for virtual attendees.
More Interactive and Hands-On Engagement: While the sessions were rich in content, future editions could benefit from more hands-on engagement activities and real-time collaboration tools, encouraging even greater interactivity during discussions.
Overall, IGF 2024 successfully reinforced its role as a premier platform for shaping digital governance through inclusive, meaningful dialogue. The event was a significant step forward in addressing the global challenges of our digital future and provided an excellent foundation for ongoing collaboration and innovation

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid format of IGF 2024 was thoughtfully designed to ensure inclusivity and accessibility for both in-person and virtual participants. The seamless integration of digital platforms allowed remote attendees to actively engage in discussions, access resources, and participate in real-time interactions alongside those present on-site.

However, some challenges were observed. Enhancing the technical infrastructure to ensure uninterrupted streaming and minimizing time zone barriers would further improve the experience for virtual participants. Additionally, more interactive features, such as breakout rooms and dedicated networking spaces for online attendees, could foster deeper engagement and collaboration.

Overall, the hybrid format showcased the IGF’s commitment to bridging global communities and fostering dialogue, regardless of geographic boundaries.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Kingsley-George

The timelines were good and feedback on proposals were prompt. The Secretariat should take into cognizance emails from organisations making changes to its representatives.

The IGF 2024 was well structured, the thematic focus was ideal, and the flow was good.

It was easy to connect remotely, however making in-person attendees to permanently wear conference headphones permanently through the sessions was stressful.

The logistics arrangements were topnotch.

They were well organised and addressed topical issues within the internet governance ecosystem

I could particularly speak on the AfIGF and the Nigeria IGF sessions which I attended. The AfIGF discussed the outcome of the last regional IGF, discussing outcomes of its various tracks and highlighting key areas of collaboration with supranational and regional organisations in areas of Internet governance, GDC, WSIS+20 and capacity building. The Nigerian session which focused on digital policy as a catalyst for economic growth in Nigeria, highlighted key efforts of the government in efficient digital policymaking and the challenges faced in policy implementation.

The sessions addressed major global concerns within the Internet governance space. Adequate attention was given to AI governance, the GDC implementation, digital rights and the WSIS+20 review.

From a gender perspective, there was a balance of gender in most of the sessions. Also, specific attention was given to women, with several sessions addressing the role of women in the global, regional, and national IGFs.

Easy to navigate, had plenty of access points for water, coffee, and tea. However, there was a major issue with the conveniences. The toilets always had a long queue.

It was nice to find a draft output of the IGF immediately after the event.

IGF 2024:

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience It was easy to connect remotely, however making in-person attendees to permanently wear conference headphones permanently through the sessions was stressful.

KISIANGANI

What Worked Well
Clear Timeline and Structured Preparatory Process
The timeline for key activities (e.g., call for issues, session proposals, MAG meetings) was well-communicated, allowing stakeholders ample time to participate.
Early release of information on key dates encouraged proactive engagement from diverse stakeholders.

Inclusive Call for Issues and Proposals

The open and transparent call for issues led to a broad range of topics being proposed, reflecting the evolving priorities of the Internet governance community.

Efforts to encourage underrepresented groups, such as developing regions and youth, ensured diversity in session proposals.

Enhanced Capacity Development Efforts

Capacity-building initiatives, such as webinars, mentorship programs, and workshops, empowered new and emerging voices in Internet governance.

Multilingual resources and regional capacity-building events increased accessibility.

Efficient Session Selection Process

Clear and well-defined criteria for session selection reduced ambiguities and ensured a balanced program.

Transparency in decision-making by the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) built trust in the process.

Collaborative MAG Meetings

Regular and focused MAG meetings promoted collaboration among stakeholders.

The use of hybrid formats allowed wider participation, enabling those unable to travel to contribute actively.

Hybrid Event Format

The hybrid nature of IGF 2024 allowed for both in-person and virtual participation, significantly increasing global reach and inclusivity.

What Worked Well

1. Thematic Focus

Relevance of Themes: The selected themes aligned with global priorities in Internet governance, such as artificial intelligence (AI), digital inclusion, cybersecurity, data governance, and environmental sustainability.

Flexibility in Addressing Emerging Issues: The programme allowed for discussion of late-breaking developments in technology and policy, ensuring topical relevance.

Broad Stakeholder Representation: Themes were developed in consultation with diverse stakeholders, ensuring inclusivity and addressing both regional and global concerns.

2. Structure of the Programme

Balanced Agenda: A mix of plenary sessions, workshops, lightning talks, and open forums provided opportunities for both in-depth discussions and quick insights.

Multistakeholder Panels: Panels with balanced representation (government, private sector, civil society, and technical community) enriched discussions with diverse perspectives.

Youth and Gender Focus: Dedicated tracks for youth and gender inclusion highlighted these critical aspects and encouraged broader participation.

3. Flow and Accessibility

Hybrid Format: The hybrid format successfully combined in-person and online participation, expanding global reach.

Parallel Tracks: Multiple parallel tracks catered to varied interests, enabling participants to focus on topics most relevant to them.

Clear Session Categorization: Sessions were grouped into thematic tracks, making it easier for attendees to navigate the programme.

4. Networking Opportunities

Interactive Sessions: Networking spaces, breakout rooms, and informal meetups facilitated meaningful connections between participants.

Community-Led Sessions: Grassroots-driven sessions encouraged dialogue among smaller groups, fostering a sense of ownership and collaboration

What Worked Well

1. Accessibility and Inclusivity

Global Reach: The hybrid format allowed participants from across the world to join, breaking geographical and financial barriers.

Multiple Participation Options: In-person attendees benefited from face-to-face networking, while virtual participants could access sessions without travel constraints.

Simultaneous Interpretation and Captioning: Multilingual support and live captioning improved accessibility for non-native speakers and participants with disabilities.

2. Technology Integration

User-Friendly Platforms: A well-designed digital platform provided a seamless experience for most virtual participants, including easy session navigation and live Q&A tools.

Hybrid Networking Tools: Virtual breakout rooms and chat features enabled interaction between online participants and speakers.

On-Demand Content: Recorded sessions allowed participants to revisit key discussions at their convenience, especially those unable to attend live.

3. Event Management

Hybrid Session Design: Many sessions successfully integrated in-person and virtual speakers, ensuring representation from diverse geographies.

Engagement Tools: Polls, live chat, and virtual hand-raising features kept virtual participants engaged during discussions.

Technical Support: Dedicated tech support teams helped troubleshoot issues, ensuring smooth virtual participation.

4. Flexibility for Stakeholders

The hybrid model allowed stakeholders with varying schedules and budgets to participate, enhancing inclusivity for marginalized groups, small organizations, and individuals.

What Worked Well

1. Website and Mobile App

Comprehensive Information: The official website and mobile app provided clear, updated information on the event schedule, themes, speakers, and resources.

User-Friendly Interface: Both platforms were easy to navigate, with features such as session filters, speaker bios, and access to session recordings.

Accessibility: The website and app included accessibility features like screen reader compatibility and multilingual support, making them usable for a diverse audience.

2. Registration Process

Streamlined Registration: The registration system was straightforward, with clear instructions for both in-person and virtual attendees.

Multiple Registration Options: Participants could register for individual sessions or the entire event, providing flexibility.

Automated Confirmation and Updates: Instant confirmation emails and regular updates kept participants informed about their registration status.

3. Schedule Management

Real-Time Updates: The digital schedule updated in real time, reflecting any last-minute changes.

Personalized Agendas: Participants could create custom schedules via the app or website, with notifications for upcoming sessions.

Session Details: Comprehensive session descriptions, objectives, and speaker lists helped participants plan effectively.

4. Online Platform Access and Use

Seamless Integration: The online platform was integrated with the website and app, allowing for easy access to live streams, session materials, and interactive features.

Virtual Interaction Tools: Chat, Q&A, polls, and breakout rooms enhanced engagement for virtual attendees.

Security Measures: Secure login systems and encrypted sessions ensured data privacy and safe participation.

5. Bilateral Meeting System

Facilitation of Networking: The bilateral meeting system enabled participants to schedule one-on-one or group meetings, fostering collaboration and partnerships.

Integrated Scheduling: Meetings were synced with personal agendas, avoiding conflicts with other sessions.

Search and Match Features: Filters allowed users to find participants with similar interests or expertise areas.

6. Event Security

On-Site Security: Physical venues had adequate security personnel and clear protocols, ensuring participant safety.

Platform Security: The online platform featured strong cybersecurity measures to prevent disruptions, such as secure authentication and anti-hacking systems.

Process

What Worked Well:

Transparent Multi-Stakeholder Processes:

BPFs and Policy Networks maintained an open, transparent, and inclusive approach, welcoming input from diverse stakeholder groups throughout the year.

Regular virtual consultations and updates fostered engagement and accountability.

Defined Goals and Deliverables:

Clear timelines, objectives, and deliverables, such as best practice reports and policy recommendations, ensured a structured approach.

Online collaboration platforms (e.g., mailing lists, webinars) facilitated ongoing discussions and consensus-building.

Global and Regional Representation:

Efforts to include stakeholders from underrepresented regions helped broaden the perspectives shared in BPF and Policy Network discussions.

Global and Regional Representation:

Efforts to include stakeholders from underrepresented regions helped broaden the perspectives shared in BPF and Policy Network discussions.

Content

What Worked Well:

Timely and Relevant Topics:

BPFs and Policy Networks addressed critical and emerging topics, such as AI governance, cybersecurity, data protection, and environmental sustainability.

Outputs were informed by real-world practices, making them actionable and practical.

Collaborative Knowledge Generation:

Case studies and stakeholder inputs enriched the content, ensuring that outputs reflected diverse perspectives and experiences.

Focus on Practical Outcomes:

Recommendations were designed to be actionable, with some providing specific guidance for policymakers and practitioners.

Inclusion in the Annual Programme

What Worked Well:

Dedicated Sessions:

BPFs and Policy Networks had dedicated sessions at IGF 2024, ensuring their work was showcased prominently.

Sessions were interactive, facilitating dialogue between presenters and participants.

Integration with Thematic Tracks:

Outputs were woven into thematic discussions, enriching the overall programme and providing continuity between intersessional and annual activities.

Knowledge Dissemination:

Reports, recommendations, and case studies from BPFs and Policy Networks were made available through the IGF website and mobile app, ensuring easy access

Process
What Worked Well

Open and Inclusive Participation:

DCs remained open to participation from all stakeholders, encouraging diverse perspectives and expertise.

The use of virtual meetings and online collaboration tools facilitated year-round engagement, including for those in underrepresented regions.
Clear Objectives and Outputs:

Many DCs operated with clearly defined goals and deliverables, such as reports, recommendations, and frameworks.

Regular updates and consultations ensured transparency and accountability in decision-making.

Collaborative Engagement:

DCs fostered cross-sector collaboration, involving governments, civil society, academia, and private sector representatives in discussions.

Content
What Worked Well

Focused and Relevant Themes:

DCs addressed pressing and emerging issues, such as platform governance, internet access and affordability, data privacy, environmental sustainability, and AI governance.

Outputs were tailored to address specific challenges, providing practical insights and solutions.

Knowledge Exchange and Innovation:

DCs facilitated the sharing of innovative practices and case studies, enriching global discussions on internet governance.

Many coalitions produced detailed reports and policy recommendations, contributing valuable resources to the broader IGF community.

Stakeholder-Driven Content:

The content reflected multi-stakeholder contributions, ensuring diverse viewpoints were included in the final outputs.

Inclusion in the IGF 2024 Annual Programme

What Worked Well

Dedicated DC Sessions:

Each DC was allocated a dedicated session at IGF 2024, allowing them to present their work, engage with participants, and gather feedback.

Sessions were structured to include interactive components, such as Q&A and open discussions.

Integration with Thematic Tracks:

Outputs from DCs were included in relevant thematic tracks, enriching discussions in workshops and plenaries.

Dynamic Coalitions contributed to cross-cutting themes, helping bridge gaps between technical and policy discussions

Visibility and Knowledge Sharing:

DCs showcased their reports and findings through the IGF website, mobile app, and virtual platform, ensuring accessibility for a broader audience

Process

What Worked Well

Grassroots and Community-Driven Approach:

NRIs maintained their independent and community-led nature, ensuring discussions were locally relevant and inclusive.

Strong participation from various stakeholder groups (civil society, government, academia, private sector, and youth) ensured diverse perspectives.
Support from IGF Secretariat:

Coordination with the IGF Secretariat helped NRIs align with the global IGF themes while retaining their local focus.

Capacity-building initiatives supported newer or smaller NRIs in organizing their events and participating in the global forum.
Enhanced Collaboration:

Regional coordination among NRIs improved, with cross-border collaboration fostering shared understanding of regional challenges

Content

What Worked Well

Localization of Topics:

NRIs effectively addressed local and regional priorities, such as digital inclusion, access challenges, cybersecurity, and capacity-building.

Youth IGFs introduced fresh perspectives on emerging issues, including AI ethics, online safety, and digital literacy.
Diverse Insights:

NRIs brought diverse viewpoints, highlighting how global internet governance issues manifest differently across regions.

Case studies and examples shared by NRIs enriched the IGF discussions with real-world experiences.

Action-Oriented Outputs:

Many NRIs produced practical recommendations and best practices tailored to their specific contexts.

Inclusion in the IGF 2024 Annual Programme

What Worked Well

Dedicated NRI Sessions:

NRIs had dedicated sessions, including the NRIs Main Session and individual showcases, to present their work and priorities.

These sessions provided a platform for stakeholders to engage directly with NRI representatives

Integration with Thematic Tracks:

NRI contributions were linked to relevant thematic discussions, ensuring that their perspectives enriched the overall programme.

Youth IGFs and Intergenerational Dialogue:

Youth IGFs were well-integrated into the programme, with specific sessions highlighting their unique perspectives and fostering intergenerational dialogue

Showcasing Diversity:

NRI sessions highlighted the diversity of approaches and priorities across different regions, emphasizing the importance of local context in internet governance.

Content

What Worked Well

Relevance to Global Priorities:

The programme addressed key topics, including AI governance, digital inclusion, cybersecurity, data protection, climate sustainability, and the ethics of emerging technologies.

Thematic tracks were aligned with contemporary challenges, ensuring discussions were timely and relevant

Diversity of Topics:

A broad range of issues was covered, from technical infrastructure and policy frameworks to social and economic dimensions of internet governance.

Emerging areas, such as quantum computing, the metaverse, and algorithmic accountability, were also explored.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

Issues such as inclusivity, capacity-building, and the impact of technology on human rights were integrated across multiple sessions.

Efforts to connect technical and policy discussions provided a holistic view of internet governance.

Speakers

What Worked Well

Diverse Expertise:

Speakers included representatives from governments, private sector leaders, civil society, academics, and technical experts, ensuring a multi-stakeholder perspective.

Youth speakers brought fresh insights, particularly in sessions focusing on the future of internet governance.

Global Representation:

Efforts to include speakers from underrepresented regions, such as Africa, the Pacific Islands, and Latin America, enriched discussions with diverse viewpoints.

High-Profile Contributors:

The presence of key decision-makers, industry leaders, and renowned academics added credibility and depth to the discussions.

Quality of Discussions

What Worked Well

Depth and Expertise:

Many sessions featured high-quality, substantive discussions with actionable insights and policy recommendations.

Experts effectively broke down complex technical and policy issues for broader audiences.

Audience Participation:

Interactive Q&A sessions allowed participants to contribute actively, enhancing the inclusiveness of discussions.

The hybrid format enabled contributions from remote participants, broadening the scope of engagement.

Collaborative Atmosphere:

Sessions fostered constructive dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders, promoting shared understanding and consensus-building.

Overall, the High-Level Leaders Track at IGF 2024 served as a pivotal platform for addressing complex internet governance challenges, fostering international cooperation, and shaping global policy frameworks. With the inclusion of actionable outcomes and a more inclusive process, the track can continue to provide significant contributions to the global dialogue on internet governance.

Process

What Worked Well

Dedicated Sessions:

The Parliamentary Track featured dedicated sessions tailored specifically for lawmakers, allowing in-depth discussions on legislative frameworks related to internet governance.

Structured dialogues facilitated interactions between policymakers and technical experts, fostering better understanding of complex topics.

Collaboration with IGF Secretariat:

Strong collaboration with the IGF Secretariat ensured that parliamentary perspectives were well-integrated into the overall IGF programme.

Focus was given to producing legislative frameworks and best practices that could be adapted to national contexts

Networking Opportunities:

Parliamentary roundtables and bilateral meetings provided a space for legislators to exchange experiences and collaborate on shared legislative challenges.

Content

What Worked Well

Relevance to Legislative Needs:

Sessions were highly relevant, addressing areas such as cybersecurity laws, data privacy legislation, digital inclusion, and AI regulation.

The content was tailored to the needs of policymakers, providing practical insights into legislative processes

Sharing of Best Practices:

Policymakers shared successful legislative frameworks from their respective countries, enriching the discussions with diverse perspectives.

Cross-border collaboration on legal frameworks enhanced understanding of global standards and regional adaptations

Interactive Discussions:

Panel discussions and workshops were interactive, with engaging Q&A sessions that allowed legislators to raise concerns and seek clarifications on technical and policy issues.
Impact and Outcomes

What Worked Well

Policy Development:

The Parliamentary Track contributed to the development of legislative frameworks and provided insights into how countries can align their laws with global internet governance principles.

Several concrete policy proposals were developed during sessions, especially around cybersecurity laws, data governance, and privacy protections

Collaboration Across Sectors:

Legislators collaborated with industry leaders, technical experts, and civil society, enhancing the depth of discussions and creating a multi-stakeholder approach to policy development.

Process

What Worked Well

Dedicated Space:

The Youth Track was well-integrated into the overall IGF, with dedicated sessions specifically focused on youth perspectives and concerns.

Youth-focused sessions were structured to encourage active participation, with opportunities for hands-on workshops and interactive discussions.

Mentorship and Support:

Support for youth participation included mentorship programs, which helped young leaders develop their ideas and presentations.

Networking sessions allowed youth to engage with experienced stakeholders, providing guidance and opportunities for collaboration.

Diversity of Voices:

The Youth Track featured speakers from different regions and backgrounds, promoting inclusivity and diversity in discussions.

Content

What Worked Well

Relevance to Youth Issues:

Topics covered were aligned with key concerns such as digital inclusion, youth rights online, cybersecurity, online privacy, and access to education.

Sessions provided insights into how technology affects young people’s opportunities, freedoms, and responsibilities.

Interactive and Practical Approaches:

Hands-on workshops and interactive panel discussions allowed youth to explore solutions to challenges they face in a digital society.

Use of case studies and real-life examples facilitated understanding of internet governance issues.

Empowerment and Leadership:

The track emphasized youth empowerment, encouraging young leaders to take ownership of their roles in shaping the digital future.

Impact and Outcomes

What Worked Well

Influence on Policy:

Youth contributions had an impact in shaping recommendations, particularly in areas like digital literacy, online safety, and ethical use of artificial intelligence.

Youth participants reported feeling heard and included in the broader IGF discussions, even if there was room for more direct involvement.

Collaboration and Networking:

The Youth Track helped foster collaboration between young people, NGOs, academia, and policymakers, providing a solid foundation for future partnerships.

Participants were able to build lasting relationships that support ongoing advocacy and advocacy work.

What Worked Well

Increased Gender Balance in Participation:

Efforts were made to ensure greater gender balance in speaker panels and session facilitations, with a noticeable improvement in female representation compared to previous years.

Sessions featured diverse perspectives from women in leadership, technical roles, policy-making, and civil society, enhancing inclusivity.

Intersectional Discussions:

Gender was integrated into broader discussions on topics such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, data privacy, and technology governance, fostering a holistic approach to gender issues in internet governance.

Issues such as online safety, gender-based violence, and the impact of digital platforms on marginalized communities were actively discussed.

Empowering Women and Marginalized Voices:

Specific sessions and workshops aimed at empowering women and marginalized groups in digital spaces were included, offering platforms to raise awareness about gender disparities in technology access and decision-making.
IGF 2024 made significant strides in promoting gender diversity and inclusivity, yet there is room for improvement, particularly in higher-level participation and intersectional discussions. By addressing these gaps, IGF can further its commitment to fostering inclusive and equitable internet governance discussions.

The IGF 2024 Village served as a dynamic space for informal engagement, networking, and interactive sessions, bringing together a variety of stakeholders to explore key internet governance issues.

Structure

What Worked Well

Interactive and Inclusive Setup:

The Village provided a flexible and welcoming environment for discussions, featuring booths, kiosks, and informal gathering spaces.

Interactive spaces such as workshops, demos, and discussions fostered deeper engagement, making it easy for participants to exchange ideas and network.

Diverse Participation:

The Village attracted a wide range of stakeholders, including government representatives, industry leaders, civil society, and academic institutions, ensuring diverse perspectives.

Young people, marginalized groups, and newcomers were well-integrated into the Village activities, enhancing inclusivity

Hands-On Learning Opportunities:

Workshops and hands-on sessions, such as cybersecurity simulations, policy-making exercises, and technical demonstrations, created an engaging learning experience.

Content
What Worked Well

Practical and Relevant Themes:

The Village focused on real-world, practical challenges related to internet governance, such as data privacy, digital inclusion, AI ethics, and the role of emerging technologies.

Sessions were hands-on, with practical case studies and real-time problem-solving workshops, allowing participants to contribute actively.
Diverse Topics and Formats:

The Village accommodated a variety of formats, including panel discussions, roundtables, networking sessions, and informal conversations, catering to different learning styles.

Thematic areas were well-defined, with sessions addressing technical, policy, and grassroots perspectives on internet governance.

Impact
What Worked Well

Facilitation of Collaboration:

The Village successfully facilitated collaboration between different stakeholders, fostering partnerships and joint initiatives on internet governance challenges.

Networking sessions and bilateral meetings resulted in concrete collaborations, with many participants reporting follow-up actions after IGF

Capacity Building:

Informal sessions, workshops, and hands-on activities empowered participants with new skills and knowledge, particularly for those newer to internet governance discussions.

Knowledge-sharing from technical experts and policymakers provided practical insights for participants to take back to their own organizations or communities.

Communications

What Worked Well

Enhanced Visibility:

IGF 2024 utilized various communication channels (social media, email newsletters, website updates) effectively to reach a broad audience, increasing visibility.

Regular updates ensured that participants were well-informed about key sessions, deadlines, and event logistics.

Accessibility and Inclusivity:

Multilingual support and accessibility features (e.g., live interpretation, closed captions) were emphasized, making the event more inclusive for participants from different backgrounds.

Interactive Communication:

Social media engagement and real-time updates through platforms such as Twitter and LinkedIn helped keep stakeholders engaged and informed during the event.

Webinars and virtual sessions prior to IGF helped increase audience interaction and set expectations effectively.

Outreach

What Worked Well

Wider Stakeholder Engagement:

IGF 2024 actively engaged a diverse range of stakeholders, including policymakers, industry representatives, civil society, and marginalized communities, leading to a more inclusive event.

Outreach initiatives targeted specific groups like youth, women, and indigenous communities, ensuring their active participation.

Pre-Event Engagement:

Pre-event outreach activities, such as consultation processes, public calls for issues, and capacity-building programs, successfully engaged participants in shaping the event’s agenda.

Collaboration with Regional and National IGFs:

Strong partnerships with regional and national IGFs helped in extending the outreach and gathering regional insights into the global discussions.

Outputs

What Worked Well

Rich Content and Takeaways:

IGF 2024 produced a variety of outputs, including reports, session summaries, and policy recommendations, which were made widely available through the event website and social media platforms.

Dynamic Coalitions, Best Practice Forums, and other intersessional activities contributed valuable insights and outputs that were incorporated into the broader discussions.

Follow-Up Mechanisms:

Post-event outputs were shared with relevant stakeholders, with clear channels for feedback and further discussions, ensuring continuity beyond the event itself.

Open Access:

Outputs were made accessible through various formats (video recordings, transcripts, summaries), allowing participants and the wider public to engage with the content at their convenience.

IGF 2024 demonstrated effective communications and outreach strategies that engaged a diverse array of stakeholders. However, improvements in technical support, timeliness of outputs, and interactive engagement could further elevate the event’s accessibility and impact.

IGF 2024:

Preparatory Process

Timeline and Planning

Extended Timeline:

Provide a more extended timeline for the preparation of IGF 2025 to allow for deeper engagement, thorough consultation, and effective planning of sessions.

Clear Milestones:

Establish clear milestones and deadlines for each phase of the preparatory process (e.g., call for issues, session proposals, MAG meetings, stakeholder feedback) to ensure timely progress.

Call for Session Proposals and Session Selection

What Could Be Improved

Enhanced Inclusivity:

Broaden the outreach for session proposals by engaging marginalized communities and underrepresented groups more effectively.

Consider using regional and national IGF consultations to gather diverse inputs for session topics.

Simplified Process:

Simplify the proposal submission and review process to make it more accessible to newcomers and smaller organizations, reducing bureaucratic barriers.

Diversity and Balance:

Ensure gender balance, regional diversity, and technical/non-technical inclusivity in session selection to create a more holistic representation of all perspectives.

MAG and Open Consultations Meetings

What Could Be Improved

Increased Transparency:

Improve transparency in the decision-making process, including clearer documentation of MAG discussions and session selections, to ensure stakeholder trust.

Virtual Participation:

Continue enhancing virtual participation mechanisms for MAG and open consultations, ensuring that those unable to attend physically can engage meaningfully.

Stakeholder Engagement:

Strengthen stakeholder engagement by incorporating more interactive sessions and feedback loops during MAG meetings and consultations for inclusive input.

Capacity Building and Support

What Could Be Improved

Strengthened Capacity Building:

Expand capacity-building initiatives for newcomers and marginalized groups, providing them with training and resources to participate effectively in the IGF process.

Support for Youth and Women:

Offer more targeted support for youth and women, ensuring equal access to leadership roles and decision-making opportunities throughout the IGF process.

Hybrid and Inclusive Format

What Could Be Improved

Hybrid Accessibility:

Optimize the hybrid format by ensuring that both physical and virtual participants receive an equitable experience, with fewer technical disruptions.

Inclusive Content:

Foster inclusive discussions by integrating intersectional topics into the hybrid format, ensuring that diverse voices are heard regardless of their access to physical spaces.

Communications and Outputs

What Could Be Improved

Real-Time Updates:

Ensure real-time dissemination of information through multiple channels (social media, website, email) for timely updates on sessions, outcomes, and key discussions.

Interactive Outputs:

Enhance the use of interactive and visual outputs such as infographics, dashboards, and dynamic reports to increase engagement and usability of event outputs.

Intersessional Activities and Networking

What Could Be Improved

Stronger Follow-Up:

Establish more robust follow-up mechanisms for intersessional activities, such as Dynamic Coalitions and Policy Networks, to ensure continued progress and collaboration post-IGF.

Enhanced Networking Opportunities:

Create more informal networking opportunities during breaks and outside formal sessions to foster connections and partnerships among stakeholders

Thematic Focus

What Should Be Improved

Broad, Inclusive Themes:

IGF 2025 should maintain broad, multi-stakeholder themes while ensuring the inclusion of emerging and intersectional issues such as digital inclusion, AI ethics, data privacy, and climate change.

Themes should reflect current global challenges, with a balanced representation of technical, social, and policy perspectives.

Diversity of Topics:

Ensure that a wide range of perspectives is represented, incorporating regional and sector-specific themes (e.g., gender, youth, indigenous communities).

Session Formats and Flow

What Should Be Improved

Diverse Session Formats:

Introduce a variety of session formats (panels, workshops, lightning talks, hands-on labs) to cater to different participant needs and learning styles.

Include interactive, collaborative, and solution-oriented sessions that facilitate meaningful discussions and outcomes

Balanced Flow:

Avoid overly technical sessions without practical applications and ensure a balance between policy-driven discussions and technical content, encouraging a holistic exchange.

Inclusivity and Accessibility

What Should Be Improved

Accessible Timelines:

Provide session scheduling that takes into account different time zones, ensuring inclusivity for global participants, especially those from underrepresented regions.

Gender and Diversity Balance:

Ensure gender balance and diversity across all levels of the programme, including speakers, moderators, and participants, to create an inclusive environment.

Integration of Intersessional Activities

What Should Be Improved

Seamless Integration:

Integrate outputs from Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions, and Policy Networks into the main programme to ensure a cohesive and action-oriented flow.

Encourage sessions that build upon intersessional work to sustain long-term impact.

Hybrid and Remote Participation

What Should Be Improved

Enhanced Hybrid Experience:

Ensure that hybrid sessions provide equal participation opportunities for both in-person and virtual attendees.

Include features such as breakout rooms, real-time translations, and interactive tools for remote engagement.

Hybrid and Remote Participation

What Should Be Improved

Enhanced Hybrid Experience:

Ensure that hybrid sessions provide equal participation opportunities for both in-person and virtual attendees.

Include features such as breakout rooms, real-time translations, and interactive tools for remote engagement.

Networking and Engagement Opportunities

What Should Be Improved

Enhanced Networking Spaces:

Include dedicated networking sessions, both virtual and physical, that facilitate cross-sector collaboration and stakeholder interactions.

Breakout Sessions:

Offer breakout rooms and thematic areas for smaller group discussions, allowing for deeper engagement on specific issues.

Thematic Approach

What Should Be Improved

Broad and Inclusive Themes:

Ensure that the themes reflect a wide range of current and emerging issues, including digital rights, inclusion, cybersecurity, emerging technologies, and governance challenges.

Incorporate emerging topics such as sustainability, privacy, and the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on marginalized communities.

Intersectional Focus:

Emphasize cross-cutting themes that integrate various perspectives, including gender, youth, indigenous communities, and people with disabilities, ensuring inclusivity in discussions.

Foster discussions around the impact of technology on vulnerable and underserved groups.

Session Types

What Should Be Improved

Variety of Formats:

Include a wider variety of session formats beyond traditional panels, such as interactive workshops, hackathons, fireside chats, lightning talks, and roundtables, to encourage more engaging and solution-oriented discussions.

Incorporate more hands-on labs and demonstrations to provide technical insights and solutions to real-world problems.

Balancing Technical and Policy Content:

Balance technical sessions with policy discussions to ensure that both technical and non-technical audiences are engaged and that actionable outcomes are achievable.

Include sessions where stakeholders collaborate on real-world challenges, such as developing frameworks for policy-making.

Speakers' Profiles

What Should Be Improved

Diverse Speaker Profiles:

Ensure gender balance, regional diversity, and inclusion of voices from different sectors, including grassroots organizations, policymakers, academics, industry leaders, and youth.

Expand participation from underrepresented groups (e.g., indigenous communities, women leaders, and people from developing regions) to provide more holistic perspectives.

Balanced Expertise:

Include a mix of both technical experts and policymakers, ensuring a balance between technical rigor and policy relevance.

Feature a diversity of voices from academia, civil society, industry, and government for comprehensive discussions.

Youth and Emerging Leaders:

Provide opportunities for young leaders and emerging experts to participate in leadership roles, as speakers, moderators, or panelists, enhancing future sustainability.

Interactive and Engaging Content

What Should Be Improved

Enhanced Interactivity:

Encourage interactive sessions with Q&A sessions, polls, live feedback, and breakout discussions to ensure active participation and real-time engagement from audiences.

Engaging Multistakeholder Dynamics:

Promote dialogues that involve multistakeholder collaboration, especially across public-private partnerships, ensuring broad representation of perspectives in decision-making discussions.

Outputs and Actionable Insights

What Should Be Improved

Actionable Outcomes:

Focus on developing actionable outputs through clear, practical recommendations and next steps for participants and stakeholders.

Include follow-up sessions and partnerships that build on prior IGF discussions for measurable outcomes and impacts.

Policy-Relevant Content:

Ensure that content provides concrete solutions and frameworks for policy development at national, regional, and global levels.

Encourage workshops that focus on problem-solving, such as developing collaborative frameworks or industry standards.

Connecting Community Intersessional Activities

What Could Be Improved

Seamless Integration:

Ensure that the outputs and discussions from Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions, and Policy Networks are integrated into the main IGF 2025 programme, providing a continuity between intersessional work and the annual event.

Foster collaboration between intersessional activities and IGF sessions, encouraging joint discussions and workshops that leverage their findings.

Support for Output Development:

Facilitate the development of actionable outputs from intersessional activities and guide their presentation in IGF 2025, with a focus on policy recommendations and practical solutions.

Establish clear follow-up mechanisms for translating intersessional work into broader discussions and decision-making processes.

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs

What Could Be Improved

Building Stronger Connections:

Strengthen ties between national, regional, and youth IGFs with IGF 2025 through enhanced collaboration, including joint sessions or regional policy discussions.

Encourage the inclusion of regional and youth IGFs as integral parts of the IGF 2025 planning process, allowing their discussions to inform the global agenda.

Incorporating Regional Insights:

Ensure that regional discussions from national and regional IGFs are captured and reflected in the global IGF 2025 agenda, enhancing the diversity of perspectives and localized expertise.

Support regional and national IGFs to act as hubs for developing local solutions that feed into the broader global discussions.

Youth Participation and Representation:

Include youth IGFs as a dedicated track within IGF 2025, allowing young leaders to showcase their insights and engage in leadership roles across sessions.

Strengthen partnerships with youth organizations to ensure continuous dialogue and engagement in shaping the IGF 2025 content and outcomes.

Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing

What Could Be Improved

Cross-Community Collaboration:

Facilitate cross-community discussions between intersessional groups, national/regional IGFs, and youth IGFs, promoting a collaborative space for sharing best practices, innovations, and regional solutions.

Encourage joint efforts on shared themes, fostering solutions that span different levels of governance and stakeholder interests.

Capacity Building and Support:

Provide capacity-building sessions for communities engaged in intersessional activities, national/regional IGFs, and youth IGFs to support their ongoing involvement and contributions to IGF 2025 discussions.

Ensure that marginalized communities and youth voices are provided the necessary tools and resources to engage effectively in IGF processes.

Leveraging Technology and Virtual Platforms

What Could Be Improved

Enhanced Digital Engagement:

Utilize virtual platforms to facilitate year-round engagement between IGF 2025 and intersessional activities, national/regional IGFs, and youth groups.

Implement virtual hubs or shared platforms for communities to collaborate on key topics, making it easier to connect and exchange insights throughout the year.

Real-Time Collaboration Tools:

Use real-time collaboration tools like forums, discussion boards, and collaborative documents to engage these groups throughout the IGF 2025 process, ensuring inclusivity and ongoing participation.

To ensure a dynamic and impactful IGF 2025, it is crucial to engage a diverse and inclusive range of participants and establish effective mechanisms for their interconnection.

Who to Invite

Target Participants

Multistakeholder Representation:

Governments: Representatives from local, regional, and national government bodies responsible for policy-making on digital governance.

Civil Society: Organizations focusing on human rights, digital inclusion, sustainability, and marginalized groups.

Industry: Leaders from tech companies, startups, and established organizations, including those working on emerging technologies.

Academia and Research: Experts from universities, research institutions, and think tanks conducting research in areas relevant to internet governance.

Youth and Future Leaders: Young innovators, entrepreneurs, and students actively engaged in digital issues.

International Organizations and Inter-Governmental Bodies: Representatives from organizations such as UN bodies, regional IGF initiatives, and global development agencies.

Diversity and Inclusion:

Ensure gender balance, geographic diversity, and inclusivity for marginalized groups, indigenous communities, and people with disabilities.

Provide platforms for voices from underrepresented regions, such as the Global South, to ensure a truly global dialogue.

How to Inter-Connect Participants

Strategies for Participant Engagement

Interactive Networking Sessions:

Organize structured networking sessions that allow participants to connect by theme, region, or stakeholder group, providing opportunities for collaboration and partnerships.

Implement speed networking sessions or digital matchmaking tools to facilitate cross-sectoral and cross-regional interactions.

Thematic Breakout Groups:

Create thematic breakout sessions that group participants based on shared interests and issues, fostering in-depth discussions and idea-sharing.

Encourage participants to join multiple thematic tracks to broaden their perspectives and connections.

Use of Technology:

Leverage virtual collaboration platforms to allow for continued interaction between participants beyond the event, such as forums, shared documents, or digital collaboration tools.

Facilitate real-time engagement via live polling, Q&A, and interactive discussions during sessions.

Facilitated Partnerships:

Establish matchmaking programs where attendees are paired based on their expertise and interests, promoting partnerships and collaborative initiatives post-IGF 2025.

Key Focus Areas for Participant Interconnection

Facilitating Meaningful Interactions

Cross-Sector Collaboration:

Encourage dialogue between governments, industry, and civil society to create partnerships that address complex internet governance issues collaboratively.

Youth and Future Leaders Engagement:

Provide dedicated spaces for youth participants to engage with senior leaders, policymakers, and industry representatives, ensuring their voices are heard in decision-making processes

Policy and Innovation Convergence:

Foster spaces where policymakers and innovators can collaborate to translate technical solutions into actionable policies, addressing real-world challenges.

Inclusion and Accessibility

Ensuring Equitable Participation

Virtual Accessibility:

Ensure virtual participation is as engaging and interactive as in-person attendance, reducing barriers for those unable to travel.

Provide real-time translation, accessibility features for disabled participants, and technical support for remote users.

Supportive Environments:

Establish safe spaces for marginalized groups and support networks for participants who face discrimination or exclusion, ensuring equal participation for all.

The IGF 2025 has a significant role to play in contributing to the WSIS+20 Review process, as it aligns closely with the broader mandate of fostering an inclusive, multistakeholder approach to internet governance. Given the upcoming General Assembly resolution A/70/125 calling for a high-level meeting in late 2025 to review the overall implementation of WSIS outcomes, IGF 2025 can serve as a critical platform for discussions and actions that advance these goals.

IGF 2025 Contribution to WSIS+20 Review

Key Areas for IGF Engagement

Policy Alignment:

Ensure that IGF 2025 discussions are aligned with WSIS Action Lines and facilitate the review of their implementation through focused sessions on key areas such as connectivity, access, digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and capacity building.

Track how WSIS principles have evolved over the years and identify gaps or challenges still requiring attention, using IGF platforms to spotlight these issues.

Multistakeholder Dialogue:

Provide a venue where governments, civil society, private sector, and technical communities can discuss progress and challenges in WSIS Action Lines, with a focus on policy coherence and collaborative solutions.

Linking Intersessional Outputs:

Integrate findings from intersessional activities such as Dynamic Coalitions, Best Practice Forums, and National and Regional IGFs into the WSIS+20 Review discussions, offering evidence-based outcomes and recommendations.
Capacity Building:

Foster sessions that support capacity-building efforts aimed at achieving WSIS goals, ensuring that stakeholders have the tools and knowledge to implement WSIS commitments at local, regional, and global levels.

IGF 2025 Supporting the Implementation of the Global Digital Compact

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) aims to promote trust, inclusion, and security in the digital sphere. IGF 2025, as a platform for inclusive discussions, can contribute meaningfully to the implementation of the GDC through several mechanisms:

Key Areas for Supporting the Global Digital Compact

Building Trust:

Promote discussions on how the digital ecosystem can be more trustworthy by focusing on cybersecurity, privacy protection, and equitable digital governance models.

Engage in sessions that address the ethical use of technology, misinformation, and digital rights, fostering a secure and inclusive digital environment.

Digital Inclusion and Empowerment:

Ensure that IGF 2025 sessions highlight strategies to promote digital inclusion for underserved populations, including efforts towards ensuring connectivity, access, and education for marginalized groups.

Collaborate with youth and women-led initiatives to advance their participation in digital decision-making processes.
Policy Development and Implementation:

Provide a platform for discussing the implementation of policies that reflect the principles of the Global Digital Compact, with a focus on interoperability, inclusivity, and sustainable development in digital governance.

Fostering Partnerships:

Facilitate partnerships between different stakeholders to create actionable outcomes aligned with the GDC, such as public-private collaborations on digital innovation, access expansion, and rights-based approaches to governance

I was newcomer to the IGF as of 2024 and I found it a knowledge base event. Such a wonderful forum for us professionals to advocate for the Internet.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience What Worked Well

1. Accessibility and Inclusivity

Global Reach: The hybrid format allowed participants from across the world to join, breaking geographical and financial barriers.

Multiple Participation Options: In-person attendees benefited from face-to-face networking, while virtual participants could access sessions without travel constraints.

Simultaneous Interpretation and Captioning: Multilingual support and live captioning improved accessibility for non-native speakers and participants with disabilities.

2. Technology Integration

User-Friendly Platforms: A well-designed digital platform provided a seamless experience for most virtual participants, including easy session navigation and live Q&A tools.

Hybrid Networking Tools: Virtual breakout rooms and chat features enabled interaction between online participants and speakers.

On-Demand Content: Recorded sessions allowed participants to revisit key discussions at their convenience, especially those unable to attend live.

3. Event Management

Hybrid Session Design: Many sessions successfully integrated in-person and virtual speakers, ensuring representation from diverse geographies.

Engagement Tools: Polls, live chat, and virtual hand-raising features kept virtual participants engaged during discussions.

Technical Support: Dedicated tech support teams helped troubleshoot issues, ensuring smooth virtual participation.

4. Flexibility for Stakeholders

The hybrid model allowed stakeholders with varying schedules and budgets to participate, enhancing inclusivity for marginalized groups, small organizations, and individuals.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Ko

timeline of call for session proposals allows sufficient time for organisers to follow up, but communication is not that strong. e.g. a auto system for applicants to know the result or updates via email/ other channels more timely
MAG does not seem to be engaged/ influential on agenda planning as much as expected - there are some scattered sessions/ formats (as neutral observation)

host equipment and manpower seem not too ready yet - not to repeat sound and zoom errors as others did mentioned

didnt use any app as usual - dont think it will give better experience
rather focus on content flow/ structure design of website

As part of PNAI, the communication process seem to be a bit delayed especially at the later stage of planning. E.g. the PN group was still confused on the name + date + time (ie. details) of our session
the overall impression: these necessary info came in late/ later ( as I can compare with other experience as a Workshop organiser)

please keep the small room + main big hall session + sub theme > the current structure looks great ( maybe can think of how to create more synergy with MAG and DC and BPF)
thanks!

wish I can involve more next year on content curation and logistic planning ;)

interesting design - the village floor plan connects people easily while people juggle between session rooms

IGF 2024:

IGF secretariat may take more lead on facilitating the discussion on these topics - maybe even a virtual workplace/ doc that people can jam and organise their thoughts there (e.g. using wordcloud to help categorise thoughts)

please dont give up to have Music Night - a tradition that most community members have been missing :(

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience host equipment and manpower seem not too ready yet - not to repeat sound and zoom errors as others did mentioned

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

KOROMA

IGF 2024:

Koroney

Tout à bien fonctionné ici

Il y a eu certains thèmes qui sont négligés

A Riyadh, le lieu de la tenue du forum est loin des lieux de hébergement

No comment

Il y a eu bcp de sessions où il n y a pas eu de traduction. Tout s est passé en anglais.

No comment

Le temps imparti était court

Le seul problème c'était la traduction.
Seule la salle plénière a assuré la traduction dans toutes les langues des nations unies

No comment

Très bien organisé.
Mais il n y a pas eu bcp de parlementaires comme à Addis et à Tokyo

Bien organisé.

Les femmes ont été à l avant garde

Bien organisé

Le seul handicap était la traduction.
Un nombre important des participants ne comprennent pas l anglais.

IGF 2024:

Les IGF régionaux doivent superviser les Igf sous régionaux (exemple: Igf Afrique doit superviser igf ecowas ou igf sadc); et le secrétariat de l igf global doit superviser les igf régionaux pour assurer l harmonie à tous les niveaux

Veuillez à ce que le transport soit assuré du lieu d hébergement au lieu du forum, ce n était pas le cas à Riyadh

No comment

D'avantages de parlementaires.
Surtout associer les parlementaires à des sessions autres que les track des parlementaires

Il faut fédérer les initiatives pour éviter un double emploi.

Le restaurant a l air libre n était pas approprié

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience A Riyadh, le lieu de la tenue du forum est loin des lieux de hébergement

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Tout à bien fonctionné ici

Il y a eu certains thèmes qui sont négligés

A Riyadh, le lieu de la tenue du forum est loin des lieux de hébergement

No comment

Il y a eu bcp de sessions où il n y a pas eu de traduction. Tout s est passé en anglais.

No comment

Le temps imparti était court

Le seul problème c'était la traduction.
Seule la salle plénière a assuré la traduction dans toutes les langues des nations unies

No comment

Très bien organisé.
Mais il n y a pas eu bcp de parlementaires comme à Addis et à Tokyo

Bien organisé.

Les femmes ont été à l avant garde

Bien organisé

Le seul handicap était la traduction.
Un nombre important des participants ne comprennent pas l anglais.

IGF 2024:

Veuillez à ce que le transport soit assuré du lieu d hébergement au lieu du forum, ce n était pas le cas à Riyadh

No comment

D'avantages de parlementaires.
Surtout associer les parlementaires à des sessions autres que les track des parlementaires

Il faut fédérer les initiatives pour éviter un double emploi.

Le restaurant a l air libre n était pas approprié

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience A Riyadh, le lieu de la tenue du forum est loin des lieux de hébergement

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

l72eyw

2mpp47

8dndg0

pwp7pp

thplg3

z0nkjo

cvwck6

dztu01

zyc62c

i9c050

7cwfpq

9wgn0y

zq6efm

9ld79m

fqiqzy

IGF 2024:

3aozge

yc2e3x

xepg6n

0c5op8

gwr680

g1qtl4

ekmsz9

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience pwp7pp

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Loulizi

IGF 2024:

Lubila

Très professionnel

Très très professionnel

Très bien

Pour améliorer ma compétence

Pour améliorer la qualité de ma compétence

Oui pour améliorer la qualité de compétences

Très bien

Très cool

Très bien

Très professionnel

Kinshasa

Très bien

IGF 2024:

Non

Oui

Améliorer la qualité de ma compétence

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Très bien

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

MADYA

I was not involved in the IGF 2024 preparatory process. I, however, participated at IGF 2024 as a First Time Attendee.

The IGF 2024 programme was structured around key thematic tracks, such as: Digital Cooperation and Internet Governance - The way forward; AI Governance - balancing innovation and responsibility; Infrastructure - The foundation for a connected future; Cybersecurity - Strengthening digital defenses; Human rights in the digital age; Socio-cultural - Navigating the mis-information maze; Legal - Data Governance and the Sovereignty dilemma; Economic - Empowering the digital economy; and Development - Connectivity as a foundational element. Each track featured a mix of panel discussions, lightning talks and workshops, encouraging interactive dialogue among diverse stakeholders, including Governments (Parliament and Public Service), Civil Society, Private Sector, technical Community and Academia. The flow of the Forum facilitated knowledge sharing and collaboration, with sessions designed to build upon one another, culminating in actionable insights and recommendations.

The IGF 2024 hybrid format was a remarkable success, blending in-person engagement with remote participation. This design allowed for a diverse range of perspectives, as several presentations from remote speakers were seamlessly integrated into the program. Attendees appreciated the accessibility and inclusivity of the format, fostering vibrant discussions that transcended geographical boundaries. The interactive elements, such as live QA sessions, further enriched the experience, ensuring that both in-person and virtual participants felt equally involved. Overall, the hybrid approach enhanced collaboration and knowledge sharing, making IGF 2024 a truly global event.

The logistics for IGF 2024, including the website, mobile app and digital schedule, greatly aided participants in planning their attendance. However, the heightened internet security at the venue, which required participants to visit the information desk for password inputting, was a drawback, as it limited accessibility for attendees. A more open internet policy, similar to that of ITU's global meetings, could have facilitated smoother communication and collaboration among participants. Striking a balance between security and accessibility is crucial for enhancing the overall experience at such important events.

The Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks at IGF 2024 were not very visible in the annual program, limiting participation opportunities. Greater emphasis on promoting these intersessional activities could enhance engagement and foster deeper discussions among attendees, making the Forum more inclusive and impactful.

The inclusion of Dynamic Coalitions in the IGF 2024 annual program demonstrated a commitment to fostering collaborative dialogue on critical internet governance issues. The process for integrating these intersessional activities appeared streamlined, allowing for diverse perspectives to be shared. I attended the workshop on "Schools of Internet Governance and the Internet Universality Indicators," co-organized by the Internet Universality Dynamic Coalition and the Dynamic Coalition on Schools of Internet Governance. As an AfriSIG alumnus, I found the discussions particularly enriching, emphasizing the importance of education in Internet Governance. The session effectively highlighted how the Internet Universality Indicators can guide the development of governance frameworks, showcasing the valuable contributions of Dynamic Coalitions to the broader IGF agenda. Overall, this integration enhances participant engagement and underscores the relevance of ongoing intersessional work within the IGF framework.

The inclusion of National, Regional, and Youth Internet Governance Forums (NRIs) in the IGF 2024 program reflected a commitment to grassroots engagement and diverse perspectives in internet governance. Open Forum Number 8, 'African Union Open Forum 2024,' served as a pivotal platform to discuss the activities and contributions of African NRIs leading up to the Global IGF. Participants shared insights on local challenges and successes, fostering a sense of community and shared purpose. The discussions highlighted how regional and youth initiatives can inform global dialogues, ensuring that the voices of underrepresented groups are amplified. This integration not only enriches the IGF program but also strengthens the overall ecosystem of Internet Governance by recognizing the importance of localized efforts in shaping global policies.

The IGF 2024 Sessions proved to be a vital platform for inclusive dialogue on pressing Internet Governance issues. The focus on High-Level Leaders, Parliamentarians and the Youth, whilst remaining inclusive, enriched the dialogue, making it more relevant to various communities. Overall, IGF 2024 appeared poised to enhance understanding and cooperation in Internet Governance, ultimately contributing to more equitable and effective policies worldwide.

The IGF 2024 High-Level Leaders Track is an excellent initiative that elevates critical discussions on Internet Governance to a strategic level. By engaging high-profile leaders from various sectors, it fosters collaboration and encourages the alignment of policies with global priorities. This track can effectively address pressing issues thereby ensuring that diverse voices are heard. Additionally, it provides a platform for sharing best practices and innovative solutions.

The IGF 2024 Parliamentary Track proved to be a vital initiative that recognizes the role of legislators in shaping Internet Governance. By engaging parliamentarians, it fostered dialogue on critical Internet Governance issues and regulatory frameworks. This track can enhance legislative awareness of critical Internet Governance issues and their societal impacts, promoting informed decision-making. Additionally, it encourages collaboration between lawmakers and stakeholders, ensuring that policies reflect diverse perspectives. The Parliamentary Track thus has the potential to strengthen democratic processes and create more inclusive Internet Governance, ultimately leading to more effective and equitable policies that address the needs of all citizens.

The IGF 2024 Youth Track proved to be an essential platform for empowering young voices in Internet Governance discussions. By actively involving youth, it fostered a sense of ownership and responsibility towards digital issues that affect their lives. This initiative encourages diverse perspectives, promoting innovative solutions to challenges like online safety, digital rights and access to information. Additionally, it provides valuable networking opportunities and skills development for young participants, preparing them for future roles in policymaking and advocacy. The IGF 2024 Youth Track thus enhanced the inclusivity of the IGF, ensuring that the needs and aspirations of younger generations are represented in shaping the digital future.

I observed that the IGF 2024 program needed to do more to prioritize gender inclusivity by addressing digital gender divides, promoting women's leadership in technology and highlighting issues like online harassment and access disparities. Incorporating diverse female voices and perspectives would have enhanced discussions, thereby ensuring that gender equality remains central to Internet Governance and policy-making processes.

The IGF 2024 Village provided a vibrant and engaging atmosphere for newcomers and seasoned participants alike. The Newcomers’ Session was particularly beneficial, fostering connections and offering insights into the Forum's objectives. On Day 3, the presentation on "Uncovering the Digital Economy Trends of 2025" was enlightening, highlighting emerging trends and challenges in the digital landscape. It encouraged critical discussions on how these trends could shape future policies and governance. Overall, the Village effectively facilitated knowledge sharing and networking, making it an essential component of the IGF experience. I look forward to more interactive sessions in future events.

The IGF 2024 Communications, Outreach and Outputs summarize key outcomes from over 300 sessions at the 19th UN / Global IGF meeting. The reports synthesize critical points raised during discussions, highlighting emerging trends, challenges and collaborative solutions in digital governance. This comprehensive overview serves as a valuable resource for stakeholders to understand the evolving digital landscape and informs future policy development and strategic initiatives.

IGF 2024:

As IGF 2025 will take place in Lillestrøm, Norway from 23 to 25 June 2025, preparations must be adjusted to accommodate this earlier timeline.

The IGF 2025 program should feature a balanced mix of plenary Sessions, Workshops and Lightning Talks, fostering inclusive dialogue and incorporate thematic tracks addressing emerging digital issues, while allowing for participant-led sessions. Ensure ample networking opportunities and interactive formats to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing among diverse stakeholders.

For IGF 2025 in Norway, enhancing the experience could significantly benefit participants:

• First, incorporating social events like a "music night" would foster informal networking and strengthen connections among attendees.
• Additionally, providing dedicated spaces for small group discussions or breakout sessions could encourage deeper engagement on specific topics.
• Implementing a more interactive digital platform for participants to connect before and during the event would facilitate networking and collaboration. This platform could include features like interest-based matchmaking and discussion forums.
• Furthermore, ensuring diverse representation in panel discussions will enrich perspectives and encourage broader participation.
• Lastly, offering more workshops and hands-on sessions on pressing Internet Governance issues would empower attendees with practical skills and knowledge.

These improvements can create a more vibrant and inclusive environment, enhancing the overall IGF experience.

To enhance Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks, Dynamic Coalitions, and NRIs at IGF 2025, increase their visibility by integrating dedicated sessions within the main program and promoting their outcomes in pre-event communications. Encourage collaborative projects that showcase successful initiatives and foster cross-network interactions. Utilize interactive formats, such as live demos or case studies, to engage participants actively and highlight their contributions to the broader Internet Governance landscape.

Invite diverse stakeholders, including Inter-Governmental Organizations, Government (Parliament and Public Service), Civil Society, Private Sector, Tech industry leaders, Academia and Youth Activists. To inter-connect participants, facilitate networking sessions, create thematic discussion groups and utilize digital platforms for real-time collaboration. Encourage participants to share their expertise thereby fostering dialogue and partnership opportunities that address pressing Internet Governance issues.

The IGF 2025 can enhance the WSIS+20 Review by facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogues that assess progress on WSIS outcomes and identify gaps. By integrating sessions focused on the Global Digital Compact, the IGF can drive collaborative efforts to promote digital inclusion, security and sustainability. Engaging diverse voices will ensure that the review process is comprehensive and reflective of global needs, ultimately fostering a more inclusive digital future aligned with the commitments of both WSIS and the Global Digital Compact.

I would like to join other participants expressing our heartfelt gratitude to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for successfully hosting IGF 2024. Saudi Arabia's commitment to fostering global dialogue on Internet Governance greatly contributed to advancing collaborative solutions and addressing emerging challenges in the digital landscape. We will forever be grateful for the Kingdom's exceptional hospitality and leadership.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The IGF 2024 hybrid format was a remarkable success, blending in-person engagement with remote participation. This design allowed for a diverse range of perspectives, as several presentations from remote speakers were seamlessly integrated into the program. Attendees appreciated the accessibility and inclusivity of the format, fostering vibrant discussions that transcended geographical boundaries. The interactive elements, such as live QA sessions, further enriched the experience, ensuring that both in-person and virtual participants felt equally involved. Overall, the hybrid approach enhanced collaboration and knowledge sharing, making IGF 2024 a truly global event.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Metawee

The conference was successfully concluded with a team of fully qualified staff and expertise. However, there were issues with timely streaming and waiting for all participants to join.

The subjects were at the forefront of interest, focusing on the increasing demands in our lives.

The hybrid event was exceptional, featuring a high-quality internet stream.

Technical support and online team were responsive except for a few times.

I have engaged in numerous activities through your YouTube channel and Zoom interactions.

This will be wonderful to observe in the upcoming year.

Great content and operations in youth, local and international.

Excellent

Very good

Excellent program.

Excellent

IGF 2024:

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The hybrid event was exceptional, featuring a high-quality internet stream.

Miloshevic

The preparatory process worked very well and began early in the year, ensuring sufficient time for organization.
Holding the first annual MAG meeting at the future venue raised regional awareness effectively.
The call for issues and session proposals, as well as the session selection process, were executed on time by the MAG and the secretariat.
Suggestions for improvement:
Streamline capacity development activities and integrate them into the preparatory timeline to ensure maximum participation and relevance.
Enhance transparency and communication about the selection criteria for sessions to improve stakeholder confidence.

The IGF 2024 thematic focus was well supported by the workshops and sessions.

Suggestions for improvement:

Minimize thematic overlap where feasible by aligning workshops on similar themes within two consecutive days, culminating in a main session. For example, cybersecurity workshops could conclude with a dedicated cybersecurity main session.

While complete avoidance of overlap isn’t possible, a structured thematic flow can enhance participant engagement and enrich discussions.

What worked well:
The hybrid format facilitated broad participation, with moderators prioritizing online participants effectively.

Challenges and suggestions:

Address technical issues such as the robotic echo for online participants during in-person speaker sessions. Regular audio testing and dedicated tech support for online participants could mitigate this.
The use of Zoom captions and transcripts for inclusivity helped and should be expanded.

What worked well:
Efficient online scheduling, transport arrangements, and the registration process.
Availability of bilateral meeting rooms onsite was particularly valuable, especially for government stakeholders.
Suggestion:
Introduce a more user-friendly mobile app with features for real-time session location updates.

Representation of Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks worked well at the IGF2024. Including the work of intersessional activities such as the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF) as the main session at the IGF24 was also successful.
Suggestion:
Develop a dedicated platform for NRIs to share best practices and coordinate pre-IGF activities.
Promote intersessional engagement through webinars and regional consultations.

What worked well - Relevant workshops submitted by Dynamic Coalitions, such as those on IoT and Core Internet Values, were included in the programme.
Suggestions for improvement:
Encourage cross-coalition collaborations to address intersecting issues and present unified outputs.

The inclusion of three collaborative NRI sessions showcased a good effort to connect NRIs with the annual IGF.
The Global Youth Summit was a significant highlight, offering a platform for young participants to engage meaningfully in the IGF.
Schools of Internet governance were well-integrated into the annual programme.
Suggestions for improvement:
Establish a mentorship framework during the Youth Summit to connect youth participants with experienced stakeholders for ongoing engagement.
Create a pre-event platform or session where NRIs can exchange best practices before the main IGF.
Encourage the development of joint projects from collaborative NRI sessions to amplify their impact and visibility during the IGF.

The inclusion of diverse session types, such as collaborative NRI sessions and the Global Youth Summit, enhanced the richness and inclusivity of the content. The variety of session types testify to innovation in approaches and reflects the evolution of the annual IGF - the flagship UN event on Internet governance.
Discussions regarding the WSIS +20 Review, an important milestone in Internet governance, were informative. IGF24 attracted speakers, digital policy experts on Internet governance from different stakeholder groups and age and leaders which came from both global South and North. Discussions flew very well. Sessions provided time for reflection, as well as they generated new ideas. Workshops and Main sessions and NRI provided better interaction with the onsite and online participants. A mic in the audience to interact with speakers at the main session was as one of major improvements.
Suggestions for improvement:
Focus on diversifying speaker profiles further, with a stronger emphasis on including voices from the Global South and underrepresented groups.
Provide additional time for interactive Q&A sessions to foster deeper dialogue.

Sessions were well-received and offered valuable insights. Increased accessibility for online audiences could further enhance impact.

Inspirational, but could benefit from more structured dialogue between parliamentarians and other stakeholder groups.

Inspiring and well-organized. A mentorship program pairing youth participants with senior stakeholders could add value.

Notable improvements in gender diversity compared to 2023.
Suggestions for improvement:
Implement a policy to reject workshops lacking gender diversity in their speaker panels.

The IGF Village worked well.
Perfectly organized, providing excellent opportunities for networking and showcasing initiatives.

IGF 2024 communications and outreach worked well.
Comment:
Outputs were effectively summarized and made available online. Increased promotion of these outputs post-IGF could enhance their utility.

IGF 2024:

Timeline:
Begin outreach earlier to attract more diverse participation.
MAG and Open Consultation meeting February 1-7
Call for session proposals February 25 - March 25
2nd MAG and Open consultation meeting April 20
Session selection complete by April 30
N.B. Convene a 1 day expert group meeting

Adopt a more thematic approach, clustering related sessions.
Strengthen the integration of NRI outputs and encourage them to propose topics for the IGF programme.
Expand participation from the Global South and ensure WSIS+20 co-facilitators are included in the programme.
Showcase messages of 19 IGFs - dedicated sessions regarding the extension of the IGF mandate.

IGF Plus "Beyond 2030" (Monitoring and accelerating SDGs)

Early Integration in Programme Design:
Encourage NRIs, BPFs, PNIs, and Youth IGFs to submit their priorities and proposed topics during the MAG and Open Consultations and preparatory phase
Dedicate a main session or collaborative platform for intersessional groups to present their findings and recommendations during IGF 2025.
Ensure that these contributions are linked to tangible policy suggestions and action items that can feed into global discussions, such as the WSIS+20 Review or the Global Digital Compact.

Focus on Global South stakeholder participation.

Seek and secure commitments for new financial resources to support participation via various foundations.

Invite WSIS+20 co-facilitators, the UIP and other UN agencies working on digital policies.

Actively involve the MAG in both Open Consultation Processes (OCP) and High-Level Events (HLE).

Highlight IGF contributions to specific WSIS Action Lines (C-2, C-8, C-10, C-11).

Position IGF as a key platform for advancing the WSIS Action Lines and Global Digital Compact through multistakeholder dialogue and actionable recommendations.

Overall, IGF 2024 demonstrated significant improvements in inclusivity, thematic focus, and logistics. Continued innovation will be key to sustaining its impact.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience What worked well:
The hybrid format facilitated broad participation, with moderators prioritizing online participants effectively.

Challenges and suggestions:

Address technical issues such as the robotic echo for online participants during in-person speaker sessions. Regular audio testing and dedicated tech support for online participants could mitigate this.
The use of Zoom captions and transcripts for inclusivity helped and should be expanded.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

MOHAMED

IGF 2024:

MOMENI

For me the process was well done

I suggest to emphasize on effective internet governance at national level on accountability of WSIS implementation process.

Well done despite of the quality of connectivity between speakers and participants

The IGF visa process or country IGF visa link ( https://igfriyadh2024.sa/visa-requirements.html) was not well communicated or accessible to some participants at time, to get their visa through the said link, as some participants met difficulties to get or not their visa through diplomatic embassy, particularly African citizens

The process was well done.
Will be god to put finger on what doe note well done at national and regional level on the implementation of WSIS process and proposed solutions on what are missing or corrections to be done

For me, there was not really clarity on WSIS implementation process achieved and the hope with GDC objectives and strategies implementation to achieve these process

Well done, but we need for the next step to see Youth concrete propositions to held government accountability on the process implementation of Internet governance

I think we should add more time to Lightning Talk session topic presentation and discussions ( about 45mn) to be more productive,

Well done

Will be good to bring regional parliamentarians groups to explain their work and their government control on internet governance implementation at different national level; Put finger on what and why the internet governance process implementation are so behind in some African francophone countries.

Give the opportunity to regional youth groups to share their best country practice related to internet governance on connectivity solutions

Well done

Provide visual screen opportunities to participants holding a stand to share their work with visitors

Will be good to get on IGF2024 web site a over report view on what to retain as outputs

IGF 2024:

Please we shall put finger on the availability / accessibility of many toilets for participants on the IGF conference center, during the selection process of the host country. What we saw in this point in Riyadh conference center was not humanly respectable.

Well done

Through regional best practice

In all sectors, actors or participants who are involved in internet governance with their works and achievements, and able to share their point of view on how to move forward in the process

Explain what was the objectives and strategies to overcome the WSIS process implementation, what have been done and still not to overcome and why, and how the GDC can help with new opportunities and challenges (using AI for instance); we will need more cooperation and involvement of regulation process to going forward in digital opportunities

Appreciate logistic availability of buses for participants to attend the conference center, and the cultural welcome from the IGF host country

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Well done despite of the quality of connectivity between speakers and participants

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Msiska

Ample time was provided for stakeholders to feed into the sessions at the IGF. Since our application for a session worked I can say that the session selection process worked well and there was a variety of issues that were covered at the IGF which is another positive.

My view is that some sessions could have been merged to allow for people working on similar issues gather and brainstorm. The downside of having so many issues on the same theme or topic is that you end up having few participants in the workshop rooms.

I also noted that many participants preferred attending session in the main hall.

This worked well for our session. We had a good online presence and participation during our session.

Visa - this was a big fail in my view. The visa process was so messed. I paid for a visa but it did not come until I applied for the free one. Despite paying for my visa, I have not received a receipt in order to claim a refund from my employer. I have written the Saudi MOFA about this but they are uncooperative.
Access to venue- during the first day at IGF i could not get any help from the ushers and security at the main gate as no-one spoke English. We were being told to walk to Marriot Hotel and yet there were buses taking people to the said hotel for registration. The organizers should have ensured that ushers/security at the main gate were able to speak multiple languages considering this was an international event. Not everyone speaks Arabic.

N/A

Please encourage new activists to speak at IGF. We can't have the same people speaking since 20 years ago.

Same as above. Take time to identify other emerging leaders.

N/A

Inclusive

Well done and the food was nice and plenty.

Not sure I saw a lot of outreach before the event. Time before the event is crucial.

IGF 2024:

Enhance outreach/information flow on call for travel support, remote hubs, booths.

Merge some sessions to avoid participants apathy in some sessions.

New speakers

IGF should take a leading role in making sure that the multi-stakeholder model is part of the Global Digital Compact. GDC being a multilaterally negotiated blue-print, can benefit from other stakeholders input during the implementation process.

The IGF venue was nice but not friendly for low budget participants. Suggestion: the buses could have been taking participants that were not lodging at the recommended hotels as well. The recommended hotels were super expensive.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience This worked well for our session. We had a good online presence and participation during our session.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Muhammad Sulaiman

Very amazing I learn alot of

IGF 2024:

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

Nandlal

The call for proposals should be sent out at least 3 times. Opportunities to network online are needed; if there are ways to network online, these should be communicated in multiple ways.

As the IGF sessions were brief, it would be excellent to form working groups so those wanting to volunteer (like myself) can stay connected to persons in charge of projects that complement their field of research and work.

Excellent thematic focus.

More opportunities to network online are needed- specific sessions that promote conversation, e.g., attendees having the ability to turn on their cameras and mics to speak in a timely fashion, would encourage participation.

It was difficult for the host to do this in a session I attended, so I spoke with the video off.

During some sessions, the audio was muffled, and it was not apparent that if you switched the subtitle to another area, it would become more audible. Some troubleshooting tips would be a great addition to the logistics booklet for those experiencing the conference online.

The Dynamic Coalitions were well planned; however, it could be improved by providing breakout rooms and increasing interaction. Polls and other multimedia means of interaction would also benefit these sessions.

During some sessions, the online comments and questions were not addressed in their totality or even reviewed. It led to participants becoming detached from the session's discussion.

Very intriguing conversations. Lots of variation in the content and perspectives however, it could benefit from diverse viewpoints. EG. West and East

The youth track left a lot to be desired.

The questions asked of them were knowledge- based questions, which only showed their inexperience. It would be recommended that questions be based on their experiences and gather THEIR PERSONAL perspectives, which is extremely beneficial when considering gaps in policies and research designs.

IGF 2024:

Creating meaningful connections for knowledge mobilization is the cornerstone for similar forums. It would benefit participants if there were opportunities to collaborate and work with specific UN streams. Volunteering opportunities should be communicated.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience During some sessions, the audio was muffled, and it was not apparent that if you switched the subtitle to another area, it would become more audible. Some troubleshooting tips would be a great addition to the logistics booklet for those experiencing the conference online.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Ngwa

The preparation for IGF 2024 was good and it was facilitated with the e-visa process which made it easy for most of us participants. The sessions proposals, sessions selections and capacity development were all apt. However the sessions discussions when they talked of inclusion, most of it was centered on women and children. To me, I felt that inclusion should cut across, that is women, children and persons with disabilities.

The IGF 2024 overall program: focus, structure and flow were all great. It was an exceptional event ground, and all the events flowed simultaneously very well.

The 2024 IGF Hybrid format design and experience was a great system. However, there were a few technical challenges: some sessions took place without the screen captioning, and also the screen Captioning was unable to translate most names appropriately. But overall it was a great IGF technically.

The Logistics were great but the schedule registration was very challenging to navigate smoothly and I wonder how persons with Vision impairment were able to pull through.
You click on a session to schedule it and the entire session kept opening so it was a little challenging to access the sessions.
Finally talking of IGF I would suggest that internet be open. There were plenty of challenges accessing the internet at the event ground and the feedback was that the numbers were not Saudi numbers. But making the internet open would have been the best option.

The Dynamic Coalition at the IGF 2024 was great especially DCAD, with the fellowship awards which enabled persons with disabilities to participate like myself, the sessions held were very interactive and educative but I had this observation: sessions that had to talk about issues of disability, the rooms were very scanty.

The sessions were great, well structured and organized.

From a gender perspective I would say there is an almost equal representation of both men and women which is very great. All the panel discussions had both men and women which is another great mark of equality and the manner of interaction as well was very gender balanced.

IGF 2024:

Noting that the 2025 IGF takes place in June barely a few months away, the application process should be opened before the close of January to enable participants apply in time and prepare for the IGF early enough, Call for sessions proposals and sessions selections, MAG and open consultations meetings should all be arranged well ahead of time and made public

I want to suggest that there should be a session to handle the issue of high cost of technologies particularly assistive technologies for persons with disabilities. This group of people make use of this technology for daily survival and inclusion yet the cost is very high. Thus a session should be put to discuss this very pertinent issue.

Dynamic Coalitions at the IGF should be given wider publicity and be made open for participations and suggestions.

The presidents of African countries should be invited and a forum should be open for them to discuss ways and laws that they can implement to ensure that the evolution of the internet is felt at the same pace in their countries. This will reduce the gap in technological Advanncement between the third world and first world countries.

My first suggestion would be that the IGF br given a permanent mandate. Looking at the road this far alot has already been achieved and to ensure that WSIS+20 touches every continent, internet cost has to be made really affordable to enable every class of society to be able to afford the internet. Secondly, Internet gadgets should be sold be made affordable especially in African countries.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience The 2024 IGF Hybrid format design and experience was a great system. However, there were a few technical challenges: some sessions took place without the screen captioning, and also the screen Captioning was unable to translate most names appropriately. But overall it was a great IGF technically.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Ni Aolain

Challenges: Visa processing for panelists was slow and non-transparent. Concern for the safety of panel members. Fundamental questions about the choice of venue to enable participation of civil society.

Good but limited participation opportunities for civil society.

In this circumstances this was an essential aspect of the conference.

Adequate.

Regrettably limited.

IGF 2024:

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience In this circumstances this was an essential aspect of the conference.

Nkurunziza

All went fine

It was good

Very good

IGF 2024:

I was attending online.
But one session I had subscribed to attend didn't happen. I entered the room virtually, saw that the screen was displaying the name of the session, few participants were in the room but no one was on the stage. Physical attendees were there waiting in vain
The session was "Networking Session #137 International Collaboration on Digital Financial Inclusion".
What happened ? Did the proposers of the session cancel it without notifying in advance ?

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Very good

Olufuye

The IGF 2024 was well packaged. It remains a top most capacity development platform on internet governance and digital policy issues. It is fulfilling its mandate excellently and credit should be given to the Secretariat and the MAG under the effective oversight of DESA.

Good.

All was good except for the registration location was too far away from the event venue. Connecting to the Internet was also a challenge. The challenge with Internet access was with getting the OTP to connect to the Internet. All Internet connectivity at IGF should have open access or minimum password to connect. The use of OTP through telephone input was problematic even with Saudi telephone numbers. As a result, some moderators could not connect to the Internet to conduct their sessions.

The Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks were quite effective in delivering relevant contents. The practice of encouraging different fora to collaborate to deliver sessions produced more focused discussions and outputs. The process should be sustained.

Dynamic Coalitions were quite effective in delivering relevant contents. The practice of encouraging different Coalitions to collaborate to deliver sessions produced more focused discussions and outputs. The process should be sustained.

The NRIs were well integrated into the programmes. The main session on NRI was good and should be sustained. The Youth IGF like the others is bottom-up and it captures the community's commitment to the future Internet governance and digital policy processes.

The sessions were educatives and intellectually stimulating. The speakers and the quality of discussions were contemporary and top notch.

Good.

No comment

Engaging...

I think it was balanced!

Beautiful!

Excellent.

IGF 2024:

Adopt the visa issuance process used for IGF2024. Ensure there is music night and more cultural networking events.

The structure and flow of IGF2024 can be adapted but with a focus on the WSIS+20 review subject matters.

The approach for 2024 can be replicated but focus should be on the WSIS+20 review subject matters.
Ensure seamless access to the Internet as some moderators had challenges connecting to the Internet for their sessions.

I like the way the connection was made at IGF 2024. All continental regional IGF MAG leaders provided feedback in a panel session moderated by an IGF MAG member. An additional feature that may be plausible is to invite a not more than 2-minute videos of some of their respective national/regional IGF events noting key outcomes that can be played during the sessions. Such videos can be similarly done for national IGFs at the annual regional IGF events.

Key decision makers (executives/Parliamentarians/ business leaders) from developing and least developing economies by world bank metrics should be invited.
Participants can be connected virtually through an IGF social media connection platform. They can also be connected on site through the music night and open lunch, cocktails and dinners.

Special GDC Session and open forum could be convened during the IGF. Prior to the session, online input could be solicited on the subject matter and the feedback can be a part of the discussion during the Session.

I recommend that the IGF2025 thematics should focus on WSIS Action Lines and targets. It should help to collate achievements based on the implementation of the WSIS resolutions. As a platform that guarranty equal footing for all concerned stakeholders, the IGF should be expected to generate frank and objective feedback on WSIS Implementation across all stakeholders groups.

The visa issuance process was excellent! The meals and drinks (including the special tea) were good! The venue is grandeur but the seats available at the opening ceremony were inadequate. As mentioned earlier, the use of OTP for Internet access at a secured location as the venue was unnecessary.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Good.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Ordoñez

I think that this year's program was very focused on artificial intelligence topics, which, while I understand that it is THE topic of the year, I would have liked to see more diversity. The topic of the media, disinformation, the environment, data centers, the cloud, quantum computing, I think were topics that were missing.
I think the structure was well put together and flowed well.

Regarding the hybrid format, it happened that sometimes the transmission of those who were online was cut off or it didn't work. In one of the workshops I attended, there were two people who wanted to speak online but they were cut off and it didn't work to hear them. This is unfortunate because many people were not able to go but decided not to go because of the location where it was held and this meant that their voices were missing twice: due to a personal choice of country but also due to the equipment.

In terms of logistics, everything was pretty good. I didn't use the app, but it was okay. I don't know if I thought it was better that registration was done somewhere other than the venue, but at least there were buses that took you from the hotel to the event. There was a situation with a person who forgot their badge and had to go to the hotel to get one and ended up missing a meeting because of the long journey and the delay in registration.
Regarding the bilateral rooms, it would be good if the rooms had more time, perhaps that they could be reserved for 30 or 45 minutes - 1 hour. Sometimes we had to go and evict the people who were there before and that wasn't good. Or else leave about 5 minutes between one time slot and another so that in that time the people could leave and the new ones could arrive. I think that with AI this can be organized well.

I really liked that there was an exclusive workshop for NRIs because that allowed me to learn a lot about how they work and connect with other experiences. In fact, when we returned, we again launched and asked for recognition from the IGF Argentina so we could start with the activities organically in the country. But well, we are still waiting for confirmation, but I think it was very helpful to contact people who already have their national IGFs and could share problems and experiences. The idea also came up to reinforce the parliamentary track in the national part and that, in fact, in Argentina there are 2 parliamentarians. I found it very useful and I think it would be good to repeat it and go into more depth. It could even be done by region or by situation in which each one is in order to share experiences in a more concrete way. Or else in the form of a workshop: those who are just starting out, with others who have more experience, and they can exchange among themselves what they learned or what new challenges they see.

As always, the parliamentary track is always innovative and sets trends in the agenda with topics that are not discussed in the general panels but that are of utmost importance. The use of AI and judicial processes were discussed, topics such as disinformation, information integrity, the different regional and national legislations. I think it would be interesting to perhaps set up a workshop-style panel with different parliamentarians from different countries or different regions, where they can exchange ideas or ways of thinking about legislation, or what can be done from their parliaments to establish a minimum of joint legislation, something like a minimum of legislation or a common ground on which everyone agrees. We know that they will not represent all the parliamentarians of their countries, but at least they could then take it to their parliaments or make a joint declaration.

IGF 2024:

I hope that this year, not just one topic will be taken into account, but a variety of topics, that there will be more parliamentarians and people from the government on the main panels, and more youth. I understand that we may not have as much experience as a CEO and that the plenary seems like a lot, but it is important to give young people a voice, but not in a "youth panel" but in normal panels, where we can put our perspective.
I also hope that they will take into account the different regions so that they are panels that represent the interests of all regions.

I would like to see more people from companies - from all companies -, from the government (executive and parliamentary), I would also be interested in seeing judges, and young people as speakers. I think it would be interesting not only to raise the obvious questions of where the IGF is going, given that the mandate has to be renewed, but also to be able to analyze what has been achieved and what is wanted from the IGF, how we are doing with new technologies and the Internet. Also to talk a little about the subject on a more philosophical level, to understand technology as a new pole of power and to reflect on that.

I think it would be good if each NRI and Youth could have their place to raise, in advance, what they think about each of the topics that are being discussed at the IGF of that year, if they have any "institutional position" on any topic. I think it would also be good if they could propose panel initiatives for the plenary sessions, even jointly or separately. It should be noted that these initiatives are supposedly representative of all the members that constitute them, so I think they should have more involvement in the IGF in general.

I mentioned it a bit earlier, but I think it is very important that national initiatives are known - if they are not - by youth people, among all those who are there, and that both nationals and youth are in contact with people from government and companies.
Unfortunately, many of these conversations take place at cocktails or receptions. In fact, this year there was no general meeting that the country holds, which is where most networking usually takes place. In fact, and now I think about it, there were no places to network, it was very difficult to get in touch or meet people.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Regarding the hybrid format, it happened that sometimes the transmission of those who were online was cut off or it didn't work. In one of the workshops I attended, there were two people who wanted to speak online but they were cut off and it didn't work to hear them. This is unfortunate because many people were not able to go but decided not to go because of the location where it was held and this meant that their voices were missing twice: due to a personal choice of country but also due to the equipment.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Pajaro Velasquez

I think the process should start early in the year and explain why a session isn't selected and the different stages between the call for sessions and the selection of sessions, so anyone who is confused on why their panel/Session isn't selected can understand why.

It should focus a little more in gender issues, in the recent year we see how fewer sessions about the topic appear on the final selection. Hope in the future we have more balance related to it. Also, we should start to include a little more another emerging technologies, besides AI, in the program, quantum tech is an example of it.

It was terrible for those who participated online. The audio was missing most of the time, we couldn't speak much or interact with speakers or the floor in general, sometime we even lost the video on the floor, and these aspects are essential for a real hybrid experience.

Finally, Sched is back, and please keep it as the Schedule app. For the rest I think the bilateral meeting rooms should be better prepared for the next time for hybrid meetings, we lost a lot of time doing by ourselves the technical preparations for a simple meeting.

Can't complain about this part, probably we should open again the BPF on Gender, we are needing it

Probably develop a similar track, as the Youth Track and the Parlamientary Track, just for the DCs so they can be included by default in the IGF Schedule. For the rest, I think they are doing a great job keeping the multistakeholder model relevant and vital for the IGF.

Nothing to say, just probably in day 0 have NRIs spaces by regions, so the conclusions of their work can be included explicitly in the IGF annual report

Please more gender related sessions

So focused on the interest of the country and not so much on the IGF itself, something that we can't do on 2025 considering the circumstances

More integration with Youth and Intercessional work.

This one could be something that articulate in a better way the topics that youth want to discuss in each region and not about an overarching theme, that sometimes isn't as important for the region itself

When it comes to speakers, I think it did well, just past the test, but we are missing more LGBTQIA+ persons as speakers and topics related with them in the program. Also, more gender perspective when it comes to all the program in general because women rights are disappearing from the table if we see the last 3 IGFs.

My only suggestion will be to make it more accessible for anyone, and use your social media to do so. This means develops a language and team to communicate the results of the IGF that even make someone younger or that doesn't know anything about the IGF to be interested.

IGF 2024:

A complete guideline of the session selection process so everyone knows exactly what are the steps to get a possible approval of a session in the IGF

Recommendation: Youth Track, Parliamentary Track, NRIs Spaces, DCs Track.

Recommendations: Environmental issues on the thematic approach. More roundtables. Speakers: More gender-diverse people counting as gender diversity and not putting the binary male and female as it is happening at the moment.

I said on the IGF 2025 overall programme structure recommendation

More use of the social media in a language that is more friendly to everyone and with a clear communication guidelines that can be used by anyone who wants to be involved in the IGF. Recommendations to invite more high levels from the World Majority or Global South.

The IGF is the space to review and discuss the implementation of the GDC with all the actors that are part of any deploying of a massive set of policies that this Compact is proposing. Just a mechanism like the one that IGF proposed with the multistakeholderism, that try to get consensus, it is how we are going to have a GDC that benefits all.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience It was terrible for those who participated online. The audio was missing most of the time, we couldn't speak much or interact with speakers or the floor in general, sometime we even lost the video on the floor, and these aspects are essential for a real hybrid experience.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Parris

Everything was well done. Except for a session for those who are new to the IGF process. I may have missed it since I had email problems, but I would like to see such a session for 2025. The interpreters, technical stall and volunteers should be included in this session, and those attending the IGF for the first time.

Overall program was well done. However there were some problems with connections and the sessions reception.
Themes were well thought out, however moderators spoke too long in some sessions and did not leave a lot of time for the speakers or audience participation.
Lots of overlapping occurred, but one can follow online at a later date.
When registering to attend a session there was a problem in clicking the session, one had to open the link, then click to add to diary, it was also very slow.
The IGF website was very slow in loading up in the run up to the IGF, not sure it was the traffic or my connection

Connection problems and sound were my main problems as I joined online. I watched many sessions on youtube. The experience is however, was not the same as real time.
Time difference was also a problem.

The IGF website slowed down a lot.
The schedule overlapped, some sessions could not be attended.
I joined online so did not experience the bilateral room, security and other on-site facilities

Intercessional activities were adequate and well planned especially the DC meetings
The only problem was sound in some sessions and connecting.

DCs did very well for 2024, I hope to see them continue with the inclusive process.

Well done, but needs to be more inclusive and bring in more youth participation, especially within the DC

Overall the content, speakers and quality was good.
For 2025, however, aging, health needs a greater voice.

As expected.

As expected

overall well done, with experience it will improve.

The organization tried to be inclusive in terms of gender, very well done.

As expected, very well done online

I have no problems with these, I would have like more meetings in the run up to the IGF, but the website was very informative.
As for fu ding, I wish that one could be notified that there was no funding. No communication was sent to say if it was going to happen, just an email saying the funding expected would be known by 20 th November, then nothing. All packed to go, visa sorted, hotel booked and nothing. I would add this to outreach, lack of clear communication.
No problem with outputs.

IGF 2024:

An early start as soon as January starts.
Clear communication and feedback
Inclusiveness, especially the Youth
Pre-attendance training
Release of the new MAG ASAP 1st MAG meeting
Diary planning and entry
Call for proposals by March. 2 MAG meeting
Funding applications
Decision on proposals by April- May 3 MAG meeting
IGF funding by end of MAY

Include some relevant topics eg
Global Warming
E health
Aging
Disabilities @ a higher level
Schools and Colleges and Universities
Academia and Researchers
Youth Speakers.

Consider connecting aging, e-health and policy
Try a more bottoms up approach, high level is just that
Profiles are important and should be shared with photos of the speakers

Youth needs to be more involved as speakers, rapporteurs, session proposals etc
Introduction to the IGF
Introduction to Norway
ISOC can plan these sessions in collaboration with IGF secretariat and Schools of IG
This year will be different due to time limits so collaboration in important

Sessions for organizations to teach about the IGF process, even UN employees have neve heard on the IGF
Spread the word through UN offices and embassies
Try to get Prime Ministers from the Commonwealth to attend not only parliamentarians, since the PM has to give travel permission and leave, more notice is needed due to red tape
Local participants eg town hall participants, notaries, JPs and teachers
Health care workers.

In person would have been so much better, but online was interesting.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Connection problems and sound were my main problems as I joined online. I watched many sessions on youtube. The experience is however, was not the same as real time.
Time difference was also a problem.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Patman

Taking Stock of IGF 2024: What Worked Well? What Did Not Work So Well?

The IGF 2024 preparatory process involved various steps and activities aimed at ensuring a successful Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Below is an assessment of what worked well and what could have been improved:

What Worked Well?

1. Timely Scheduling: The preparatory timeline was well-structured, providing participants with sufficient time to prepare.
2. Call for Issues: The process for submitting issues was transparent and accessible, allowing diverse stakeholders to contribute.
3. Capacity Development Programs: Training sessions for capacity building were effective and provided new participants with the tools to engage meaningfully.
4. MAG Meetings: The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings were conducted on schedule and ensured inclusive decision-making.

What Did Not Work So Well?

1. Limited Access to Meetings: Some participants faced challenges in accessing MAG and other meetings, which hindered broader participation.
2. Session Selection Process: The session proposal and selection process were perceived by some as somewhat opaque or slow.
3. Timing Issues: Delays in certain stages impacted the overall preparation quality.
4. Lack of Technical Support: Participants with limited technical expertise found insufficient support to navigate the process effectively.
5. Visa Denials: Several participants were unable to attend the forum due to visa denials, which limited the diversity of representation.

Recommendations for Improvement

• Establish clear timelines for all stages to improve time management.
• Simplify and expand access to meetings for a broader range of participants.
• Enhance transparency in the session selection process to build trust and inclusivity.
• Provide more robust technical support and training programs to empower participants with diverse skill levels.
• Collaborate with relevant authorities to address visa challenges and facilitate smoother international participation.

This assessment can serve as a foundation for improving the preparatory process in future IGF events.

IGF 2024: Overall Programme, Thematic Focus, Structure, and Flow

The IGF 2024 programme was designed to address key issues in internet governance while ensuring inclusivity, diversity, and a well-structured flow of activities. Below is an overview of the thematic focus, structure, and overall flow of the programme:

Thematic Focus

The IGF 2024 revolved around major themes relevant to global internet governance, including:
1. Digital Inclusion: Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equal access to technology for marginalized communities.
2. Cybersecurity and Trust: Exploring strategies to enhance cybersecurity, privacy, and trust in the digital ecosystem.
3. Data Governance: Deliberating on the ethical use of data, cross-border data flows, and protection of personal information.
4. Emerging Technologies: Discussing the impact and governance of technologies like AI, blockchain, and IoT.
5. Sustainability and Climate Action: Analyzing the role of digital tools in promoting environmental sustainability.

Structure

The programme was organized to ensure an effective flow of sessions and activities, including:
1. Plenary Sessions: High-level discussions on critical themes with contributions from global leaders and experts.
2. Thematic Tracks: Parallel sessions dedicated to specific themes, offering deeper dives into issues and actionable solutions.
3. Workshops: Interactive sessions providing practical insights and capacity-building opportunities for participants.
4. Lightning Talks: Short, focused presentations highlighting innovative ideas and success stories.
5. Youth Sessions: Special forums to amplify the voices and perspectives of young participants.
6. Networking Events: Opportunities for stakeholders to connect and collaborate across sectors and regions.

Flow of the Programme

1. Opening Ceremony: Set the stage with keynote speeches from prominent leaders and IGF stakeholders.
2. Daily Plenary and Parallel Sessions: Balanced with a mix of expert panels, workshops, and interactive discussions.
3. Capacity Building and Side Events: Offered throughout the forum to ensure broader engagement and skill enhancement.
4. Closing Ceremony: Summarized key takeaways, acknowledged contributions, and set the agenda for future forums.

Key Highlights

• The programme ensured cross-sectoral representation, bringing together governments, civil society, private sector, and technical communities.
• The thematic tracks were designed to interlink, providing participants with a holistic understanding of the challenges and opportunities in internet governance.
• The emphasis on youth and inclusivity enriched discussions with fresh perspectives and diverse insights.

The well-thought-out thematic focus, structure, and flow of IGF 2024 contributed to meaningful discussions, actionable outcomes, and strengthened global collaboration in internet governance.

IGF 2024: Hybrid Format Design and Experience

IGF 2024 was held in a hybrid format, offering both in-person and virtual participation to ensure broader global engagement.

Design:

• Dual Participation Options: Both physical and virtual participation options were provided.
• Advanced Technology: High-quality video conferencing, live streaming, and interactive tools were used.
• Time-Zone Friendly Scheduling: Sessions were scheduled to accommodate different time zones.
• Networking Opportunities: Virtual breakout rooms and networking tools were available for online participants.

Experience:

What Worked Well:
• Enhanced inclusivity, flexibility, and broader reach with diverse perspectives.
Challenges:
• Technical issues, reduced engagement for virtual attendees, and time-zone difficulties.

Recommendations:

• Improved technical support, more interactive tools for virtual participants, and recording all sessions.

The hybrid format provided an effective platform for global participation, setting a strong foundation for future events.

IGF 2024 Logistics (Website, Mobile App, Schedule, Registration, Access and Use of Online Platform, Bilateral Meeting System, Security, etc.)

The logistics of IGF 2024 focused on ensuring ease of participation and efficiency throughout the event. The following aspects were key in this process:

Website and Mobile App

• A dedicated website and mobile app were developed for IGF 2024, providing participants easy access to essential information.
• Both platforms offered user-friendly features for event schedules, registration, session selections, and other services.

Schedule

• The event schedule was well-organized to accommodate participants from different time zones.
• The program was accessible online and also available through the mobile app for easy reference.

Registration

• The registration process was simple and clear, with participants able to register online.
• The registration process was completed efficiently, and participant details were well-managed.

Access and Use of Online Platform

• The online platform was used for video conferencing, chats, and other interactive tools.
• The platform was easy to access and navigate, especially for virtual attendees.

Bilateral Meeting System

• The bilateral meeting system allowed participants to arrange direct meetings with partners and other stakeholders.
• This system was a valuable feature for both online and in-person participants.

Security

• Special measures were taken to ensure the security of participant data and information.
• The online platform was secure, with efforts made to prevent hacking and other threats.

Intersessional Activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Intersessional activities, including Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks (PNs), were key in shaping the IGF 2024 discussions. These activities took place throughout the year, focusing on internet governance challenges.
• BPFs engaged stakeholders to develop best practices on topics like cybersecurity and digital inclusion. Their outcomes were presented during the main IGF event, contributing practical solutions.
• PNs focused on policy development, tackling issues like AI governance and data sovereignty. Their recommendations were integrated into IGF 2024, promoting policy dialogue.

National, Regional, and Youth Initiatives (NRIs) brought local perspectives to the global stage, with regional consultations and sessions at IGF 2024, ensuring diverse voices were heard.

Overall, these intersessional activities enriched IGF 2024 by ensuring continuous dialogue, addressing global challenges with practical solutions, and including local and regional viewpoints.

Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024

Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) are self-organized groups focused on specific internet governance issues. At IGF 2024, DCs played an important role in fostering ongoing discussions and providing expertise on key topics.
• Process: DCs operated year-round, organizing discussions and collaborating with various stakeholders to address emerging issues in internet governance.
• Content: Topics included areas like digital rights, privacy, and accessibility. The coalitions worked on developing guidelines, best practices, and policy recommendations.
• Integration into IGF 2024: DCs presented their findings and recommendations during dedicated sessions at IGF 2024, ensuring their contributions were part of the broader event agenda. These sessions provided a platform for sharing knowledge and furthering dialogue on critical issues.

In summary, DCs enhanced IGF 2024 by offering continuous, expert-driven discussions and ensuring that their outputs were integrated into the annual programme.

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs at IGF 2024:
NRIs played a vital role in IGF 2024.
• Process: NRIs organize national, regional, and youth-level consultations to address local issues and contribute to global dialogue.
• Content: Topics focused on internet access, digital rights, and youth involvement in digital policy.
• Inclusion: NRIs were included in the IGF 2024 program through dedicated sessions, providing a platform for regional and national perspectives to be shared globally.

IGF 2024 Programme

The IGF 2024 programme covered key topics like cybersecurity, AI, and digital inclusion. Speakers from diverse sectors enriched discussions with their expertise. The debates were interactive, inclusive, and focused on practical solutions, ensuring high-quality outcomes and global relevance.

IGF 2024 High-Level Leaders Track

The High-Level Leaders Track at IGF 2024 brought together senior policymakers, industry leaders, and experts to discuss critical internet governance issues.
• Focus: Topics included global digital cooperation, AI regulation, cybersecurity, and bridging the digital divide.
• Participation: Leaders from governments, international organizations, and the private sector contributed diverse insights and policy perspectives.
• Impact: The track provided a strategic platform for collaboration and showcased commitments to addressing pressing digital challenges globally.

This track was a key component of IGF 2024, setting the tone for actionable outcomes and global digital policy alignment.

IGF 2024 Parliamentary Track

The Parliamentary Track at IGF 2024 brought together lawmakers from around the world to address pressing internet governance issues from a legislative perspective.
• Focus: Discussions centered on legal frameworks for digital rights, data protection, AI governance, and cybersecurity.
• Participation: Parliamentarians shared national experiences and collaborated on strategies for harmonizing digital policies globally.
• Outcome: The track emphasized the role of legislation in ensuring an inclusive, secure, and sustainable digital future, fostering global policy alignment.

This track strengthened the dialogue between policymakers and stakeholders, promoting actionable and impactful solutions.

IGF 2024 Youth Track

The Youth Track focused on digital literacy, online safety, and youth inclusion in policymaking. Young leaders actively contributed innovative ideas, fostering intergenerational dialogue and emphasizing the role of youth in shaping the digital future.

IGF 2024 Programme: Gender Perspective

The IGF 2024 programme prioritized gender inclusivity through balanced representation, discussions on the gender digital divide, and women’s empowerment in tech. These efforts highlighted the need for gender-sensitive internet governance policies.

IGF 2024 Village

The IGF 2024 Village served as a vibrant space for organizations to showcase their work in internet governance.
• Participation: It featured booths from governments, NGOs, academia, and the private sector.
• Focus: Topics included emerging technologies, digital rights, and capacity building.
• Engagement: Participants interacted directly with exhibitors, fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing.

The Village enriched the IGF experience by providing a platform for networking and highlighting diverse initiatives.

IGF 2024 Communications, Outreach, and Outputs

IGF 2024 effectively used social media, newsletters, and live streaming to engage global audiences. Key outputs, including session reports and policy recommendations, were widely shared to ensure accessibility and impact. The outreach efforts strengthened participation and awareness of internet governance issues.

IGF 2024:

Suggestions for IGF 2025 Improvements

1. Earlier Engagement: Start the preparatory process earlier for better planning and participation.
2. Clearer Selection Criteria: Improve transparency in session selection and communication.
3. Broader Stakeholder Involvement: Include more regional and marginalized groups in decision-making.
4. Regional Consultations: Organize more regional events to address specific challenges.
5. Support for Youth and Underrepresented Groups: Enhance outreach and mentorship for these groups.
6. Hybrid Participation Enhancements: Improve virtual engagement and networking opportunities.
7. Clearer Follow-up Mechanisms: Set up platforms to track and implement IGF outcomes.
8. Interactive Sessions: Increase interactive and collaborative opportunities for participants.

These improvements can make IGF 2025 more inclusive and impactful.

IGF 2025 Overall Programme Structure and Flow

1. Thematic Focus: Clear themes addressing current and emerging issues.
2. Diverse Formats: Use of various session formats for interactivity.
3. Inclusive Representation: Ensure balanced participation across all stakeholder groups.
4. Integration of Intersessional Outputs: Incorporate outputs from intersessional activities into the main programme.
5. Regional and Local Focus: Include sessions addressing regional and local issues.
6. Dedicated Tracks: Introduce thematic tracks for key issues like AI, cybersecurity, and inclusion.
7. Collaboration Opportunities: Design sessions to encourage cross-stakeholder collaboration.
8. Youth and Gender Focus: Prioritize youth and gender inclusion in discussions.

These elements will enhance IGF 2025’s effectiveness and inclusivity.

IGF 2025 Programme Content

1. Thematic Approach: Focus on current issues like digital inclusion, AI governance, cybersecurity, and data privacy.
2. Session Types: Diverse formats including panels, workshops, roundtables, and collaborative discussions to promote engagement.
3. Speakers Profiles: A mix of policymakers, industry leaders, academics, and civil society representatives to ensure diverse perspectives.

This approach will foster dynamic, relevant, and inclusive discussions.

Community Intersessional Activities and NRIs Connection with IGF 2025

1. Intersessional Integration: Ensure outputs from BPFs, PNs, and DCs are directly included in the IGF 2025 sessions to provide continuity and relevance.
2. National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs): Actively engage NRI participants in shaping the agenda and sessions, ensuring regional perspectives are included.
3. Collaboration: Encourage cross-collaboration between intersessional groups and NRIs to bring local, regional, and global issues into the main IGF programme.

These connections will ensure a more inclusive and comprehensive IGF 2025.

IGF 2025 Participants: Who to Invite and How to Inter-connect

1. Who to Invite:
• Governments and Policymakers: Representatives from national governments, regional organizations, and intergovernmental bodies to ensure policy alignment.
• Private Sector: Industry leaders from tech companies, digital service providers, and startups to discuss innovation and industry trends.
• Civil Society: Representatives from advocacy groups, NGOs, and community organizations to ensure inclusivity and address societal issues.
• Academia and Experts: Researchers and thought leaders to provide evidence-based insights and expert opinions.
• Youth and Marginalized Groups: Engage young people, indigenous communities, and other underrepresented groups to ensure diverse perspectives in discussions.
2. How to Inter-connect Participants:
• Thematic Networking: Create spaces for participants from similar thematic areas (e.g., cybersecurity, digital rights) to collaborate and share ideas.
• Interactive Sessions: Use workshops, roundtables, and collaborative tools (e.g., online platforms, group discussions) to facilitate cross-stakeholder dialogue.
• Digital Platforms: Utilize virtual networking tools, chatrooms, and dedicated online forums to connect participants before, during, and after the event.
• Bilateral Meetings: Provide structured opportunities for one-on-one meetings, allowing participants to discuss specific issues or form partnerships.

These strategies will enhance collaboration and ensure productive engagement across all IGF 2025 participants.

Possible Improvements for IGF 2025 in Relation to WSIS+20 Review and Global Digital Compact

1. IGF 2025 Contribution to WSIS+20 Review:
• Linking IGF with WSIS Outcomes: IGF 2025 could actively integrate the WSIS outcomes by focusing on key areas like universal access, digital inclusion, and internet governance as outlined in the WSIS+20 review process.
• Policy Dialogues: Organize dedicated sessions that align with the WSIS goals, ensuring that stakeholders from all sectors (government, private, civil society, etc.) come together to review progress and identify challenges in the implementation of WSIS outcomes.
• High-Level Sessions: Include high-level discussions and workshops with senior officials and policymakers in the lead-up to the General Assembly’s high-level meeting at the end of 2025, ensuring that IGF 2025 contributes to shaping the review’s discussions and recommendations.
2. IGF’s Role in Supporting the Global Digital Compact (GDC):
• Promoting Multistakeholder Cooperation: The Global Digital Compact (GDC) calls for inclusive global digital cooperation. IGF 2025 can further this by promoting multistakeholder partnerships through collaborative sessions, roundtables, and policy dialogues focused on inclusive digital governance, particularly for marginalized groups and underserved regions.
• Tracking Progress: IGF 2025 could serve as a platform for reviewing the Global Digital Compact’s goals and tracking the progress of commitments made, ensuring that all stakeholders are actively involved in the compact’s implementation.
• Recommendations and Policy Guidance: IGF 2025 could produce actionable recommendations that contribute to the GDC, with an emphasis on equitable access, digital rights, cybersecurity, and the empowerment of marginalized communities.

By aligning IGF 2025’s agenda with both the WSIS+20 Review and the Global Digital Compact, it will not only strengthen its relevance in global policy but also ensure that its discussions lead to concrete outcomes in achieving sustainable and inclusive digital governance.

IGF 2024 was a significant milestone in advancing internet governance discussions, providing a platform for diverse stakeholders to collaborate on pressing digital issues. The hybrid format ensured global participation, though logistical challenges such as visa issues for some attendees affected accessibility. The inclusion of high-level tracks, youth engagement, and gender perspectives highlighted the forum’s commitment to inclusivity. While the overall programme was well-received, there is room for improving the integration of intersessional activities into the main discussions for greater impact. Overall, IGF 2024 contributed valuable insights and fostered meaningful dialogue on shaping the future of the internet.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience IGF 2024: Hybrid Format Design and Experience

IGF 2024 was held in a hybrid format, offering both in-person and virtual participation to ensure broader global engagement.

Design:

• Dual Participation Options: Both physical and virtual participation options were provided.
• Advanced Technology: High-quality video conferencing, live streaming, and interactive tools were used.
• Time-Zone Friendly Scheduling: Sessions were scheduled to accommodate different time zones.
• Networking Opportunities: Virtual breakout rooms and networking tools were available for online participants.

Experience:

What Worked Well:
• Enhanced inclusivity, flexibility, and broader reach with diverse perspectives.
Challenges:
• Technical issues, reduced engagement for virtual attendees, and time-zone difficulties.

Recommendations:

• Improved technical support, more interactive tools for virtual participants, and recording all sessions.

The hybrid format provided an effective platform for global participation, setting a strong foundation for future events.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Pelei

In the next IGF I really wish the program can be looked at in a different way. Say we have sessions focusing on a certain topic at the same time everyday. For example cybersecurity sessions should be everyday from 1400hrs to 1500hrs unlike having them at the same time in different rooms which results in missing some sessions one would like to attend because they are attending the other.

I would like to thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for their IGF visa initiative, sometimes when one applies for a visa on their own they end up applying for a wrong visa or applying on a scam website. It was also brilliant to have an application built specifically for the IGF schedule.

The sessions were very much needed and relevant, but it would be better to delve more into the topics discussed not just touch them here and there. For example, in a session about leveraging the power of AI it would be wise to share ways in which AI can be used to deliver government services with ease, not to just mention that AI makes things better.

IGF 2024:

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

Quaye

What Worked Well:
Diverse Stakeholder Engagement: Broader participation from the Global South enriched discussions with fresh perspectives.
Timely Preparatory Process: Early timeline and clear calls for session proposals allowed better planning and inclusivity.
Capacity Development Efforts: Enhanced training programs supported meaningful participation from underrepresented groups.
What Didn’t Work Well:
Session Overlap: Too many concurrent sessions which made a diluted audience engagement and reduced impact.
Complex Proposal Process: I found some session submission process overly technical and discouraging.
Limited Follow-Up: Lack of concrete mechanisms to track implementation of IGF outcomes weakened long-term impact.
Key Takeaway
Simplifying processes and ensuring actionable outputs will strengthen future IGFs.

IGF 2024 Programme: These areas such as -Thematic Focus: Prioritized themes like Digital Inclusion, AI Governance, and Sustainability, reflecting global priorities and emerging challenges.
Programme Structure: Balanced mix of plenary sessions, thematic tracks, and interactive workshops ensured diverse engagement opportunities.
Flow: Organized sessions in a logical sequence, progressing from broad policy discussions to action-oriented dialogues for practical outcomes.
Key Takeaway
A well-curated thematic focus and structured flow enhanced IGF 2024’s relevance and accessibility.

These are the key views- Enhanced Accessibility: Seamless integration of in-person and online participation ensured global inclusivity and real-time engagement.
Interactive Tools: Use of advanced platforms for live Q&A, polls, and networking enriched the virtual experience.
Technical Challenges: Some connectivity and platform issues hindered equal participation for remote attendees, highlighting the need for robust infrastructure.
Key Takeaway : A well-optimized hybrid format can bridge global participation gaps while addressing technical limitations.

IGF 2024 Logistics: Key Highlights
Website and Mobile App:
The IGF 2024 website and mobile app provided comprehensive, user-friendly access to event schedules, resources, and updates. However, occasional delays in updating content and app navigation issues were noted, which could be improved for a smoother experience.
Visa Issuance: Excellent process and on-time with dedicated email to assist all for easy issuance .
Registration and Access:
The streamlined online registration process was efficient, with clear guidelines for both in-person and virtual attendees. Yet, some users faced challenges accessing the online platform in the starts due to technical glitches, highlighting the need for enhanced system testing.
Bilateral Meeting System: The dedicated platform for bilateral meetings was a valuable addition, fostering collaboration. However, better integration with the main event schedule and clearer instructions could make it more user-friendly.
Security Measures:
Both physical and online security were well-executed, ensuring a safe and secure environment for all participants. Cybersecurity protocols for the online platform were particularly commendable.

Key Takeaway
While the logistics for IGF 2024 were generally well-organized, improvements in app usability, platform stability, visa for European destination for African applicants for inclusion and diversity sustainability and system integration would elevate the overall participant experience.

Intersessional activities at IGF 2024, including Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks, were well-coordinated and focused on key issues like digital inclusion and AI governance. However, earlier engagement would better align their outputs with the IGF's main themes, and while discussions were insightful, some lacked actionable outcomes. These activities were effectively integrated into the annual programme, but stronger connections to main sessions could enhance their visibility and impact. In summary, improved synchronization and clearer deliverables will maximize the value of intersessional activities.

The Dynamic Coalitions at IGF 2024 effectively addressed key issues like digital rights and data governance, with engaging discussions and broad stakeholder participation. However, earlier coordination and a clearer focus on outcomes would help align their work more closely with the IGF's annual themes. These coalitions were well integrated into the programme, but stronger emphasis on their practical contributions and clearer
links to main sessions could improve their impact. Overall, enhancing the focus on actionable outcomes and aligning with the broader IGF agenda would increase the value of Dynamic Coalitions at future events.

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) at IGF 2024 played a pivotal role in bringing localized perspectives to global discussions. The process of integrating NRIs was smooth, with active participation from diverse regions and youth-led initiatives. The content reflected pressing local challenges, such as digital access and policy development, enriching the overall programme. While these sessions were well-represented, stronger alignment with global themes could amplify their relevance and influence. Overall, NRIs added valuable diversity to the IGF, but clearer connections to broader discussions would enhance their impact.

The sessions at IGF 2024 offered rich content, covering critical issues such as digital inclusion, AI ethics, cybersecurity, and data governance, with valuable insights into emerging trends and solutions; however, some could have benefited from a clearer focus on actionable outcomes and real-world case studies. The diversity of speakers was commendable, with experts from governments, academia, the private sector, and civil society, though including more grassroots voices could further enrich discussions and ensure broader representation. The quality of discussions was high, marked by thoughtful debates and interactive formats, though more structured sessions and a focus on follow-up actions would enhance the overall impact. In summary, while the sessions were diverse and engaging, a stronger emphasis on practical outcomes and inclusive representation would elevate the IGF experience.

The IGF 2024 High-level Leaders Track provided an important platform for influential figures to address critical global issues, such as digital governance, AI ethics, and cybersecurity. The content was robust, with leaders offering strategic insights into the future of digital policies, though a deeper focus on actionable solutions and practical outcomes could have further elevated the track’s impact. The speaker lineup was diverse, featuring high-level representatives from governments, international organizations, and the private sector, which ensured a wide range of perspectives. However, greater inclusion of grassroots leaders and voices from marginalized communities could have enriched the discussions. The quality of the debates was generally high, with engaging exchanges that set the tone for global digital cooperation. Nonetheless, a more structured approach to discussions could enhance the depth of engagement, ensuring that key issues are explored comprehensively and leading to concrete follow-up actions. In conclusion, while the High-level Leaders Track was impactful, incorporating a stronger emphasis on practical outcomes, broader representation, and more structured dialogues would further strengthen its value.

Although I was not in attendance at the Parliamentary Track but based on the timetable. The track provided a dedicated space for legislators to engage in critical discussions on the intersection of law, policy, and digital governance. The schedule seemed well-structured, with sessions covering key issues such as data privacy, digital rights, and the role of governments in fostering equitable digital access. However, to enhance the track's effectiveness, it would have been beneficial to see more structured dialogues around specific policy recommendations and actionable steps for legislators from more diverse group in Africa less represented to take back to their respective parliaments. Furthermore, ensuring greater participation from a diverse group of parliamentarians, including those from underrepresented regions, would have enriched the discussions and provided a more global perspective. Overall, the Parliamentary Track was well-timed and offered valuable insights, but a stronger focus on concrete policy outcomes and inclusive representation could further enhance its impact in future editions.

Having attended IGF 2024 and participated in a major session with an EU parliamentarian and youth leaders, I can say that the Youth Track provided a crucial platform for young people to engage in meaningful discussions on digital rights, innovation, and governance. The sessions covered a wide range of relevant topics, such as the role of youth in shaping digital policies and the implications of emerging technologies for future generations. The track successfully highlighted the contributions of young leaders, giving them a chance to voice their concerns and ideas. However, to further enhance its impact, incorporating more action-oriented, hands-on sessions like workshops or collaborative projects could have provided more practical engagement. Expanding participation to include more diverse youth communities across different regions would have enriched the discussions, ensuring broader representation. Overall, the Youth Track was an essential component of IGF 2024, and fostering more cross-generational dialogue and a stronger focus on tangible outcomes would have further increased its impact.

From a gender perspective, IGF 2024 made significant strides in incorporating diverse voices and addressing critical issues related to gender equality in the digital space. Several sessions highlighted the importance of bridging the gender digital divide, ensuring that women and marginalized groups have equal access to digital technologies and opportunities. The programme included discussions on digital safety, the need for inclusive policies, and the role of women in shaping digital transformation. However, while there was a notable emphasis on gender-sensitive issues, further integration of gender-focused content in every thematic area could have strengthened the discussions. More female speakers, particularly from underrepresented regions, and a deeper exploration of how gender intersects with issues like cybersecurity, AI, and data governance would have added more layers to the conversation. Overall, IGF 2024 took important steps in addressing gender equality, but continuous efforts to ensure inclusivity across all sessions and tracks will be key for future editions.

The IGF 2024 Village was a dynamic and interactive space that fostered collaboration and networking among participants. It provided an opportunity for various stakeholders, including governments, civil society, the private sector, and academia, to showcase their work, share knowledge, and engage with the broader IGF community. The village was well-organized, with thematic booths and interactive displays that reflected key issues discussed throughout the event. However, it could have been enhanced by incorporating more hands-on, collaborative activities, such as live demos or workshops, to deepen engagement. The village also offered a unique opportunity to amplify regional and youth perspectives, but more attention to diversity and inclusion across the displays and activities would have strengthened its impact. Overall, the IGF 2024 Village was a valuable part of the event, facilitating important dialogues and partnerships, but more interactive elements and a stronger focus on underrepresented voices could have made it even more impactful.

IGF 2024 demonstrated strong communication and outreach efforts, effectively promoting the event through various channels, including social media, newsletters, and the official website. These efforts helped attract a diverse range of participants and kept stakeholders informed before, during, and after the event. The use of digital platforms ensured global accessibility, particularly for those who could not attend in person. However, there was room for improvement in terms of real-time engagement, such as more frequent updates and interactive features to foster continuous participation.
The outputs from IGF 2024, including session summaries, reports, and action points, were well-documented and shared widely, contributing to the knowledge pool on key digital policy issues. Yet, I fell there was strong focus on actionable recommendations and follow-up mechanisms could be enhanced to ensure that the discussions lead to tangible outcomes. Overall, the communications, outreach, and outputs were effective in raising awareness and disseminating knowledge, but strengthening real-time engagement and ensuring clear, actionable outputs will further boost the impact in future editions.

IGF 2024:

I would like to suggest the following with first Clear and Early Engagement: That is to give more time for session proposals and selections, with clear communication about timelines and expectations. To allow a broader range of stakeholders, particularly from underserved regions and marginalized groups, to get involved and prepare meaningful contributions. Transparency in the process would build trust and encourage wider participation.
Broader Representation in MAG and Open Consultations to ensure the preparatory process is inclusive, it’s essential to invite more voices from emerging regions, youth-led groups, and smaller civil society organizations to participate in MAG and Open Consultations. Engaging a diverse range of stakeholders will help address a wider variety of concerns and make the process more representative.
As well as simplified and more Efficient Proposal Process: Making the submission and selection of session proposals more efficient can be achieved by using an online platform for submissions and public voting on session relevance. This will also help ensure that proposals align early with the IGF's core themes, creating a more cohesive and focused agenda.
In conclusion by focusing on clearer communication, inclusivity, and a smoother process for session proposals, IGF 2025 can create a more representative and impactful preparatory phase that engages a wider global audience.

The IGF 2025 programme structure and flow should focus on creating a seamless and inclusive experience for all participants especially from Africa and other less presented community and group. It is important to maintain a balanced approach by combining high-level discussions with deep, technical sessions that address the evolving digital landscape. The thematic tracks should be aligned with pressing global issues such as digital rights, AI governance, and cybersecurity, while also allowing flexibility to address emerging trends and challenges.

Each session should be designed to encourage active participation through interactive formats like workshops and panel discussions, fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders. The flow should ensure that sessions are logically connected, building on each other to create a comprehensive understanding of the topics at hand. In addition, the involvement of young people, marginalized groups, and voices from the Global South should be emphasized, ensuring that all perspectives are represented.
Lastly, the integration of intersessional activities and collaboration with regional and national initiatives will strengthen the overall programme, providing a more holistic view of digital issues at the global level. A clear focus on tangible outcomes and actionable recommendations will ensure that IGF 2025 has a lasting impact on shaping the future of the digital ecosystem.

The IGF 2025 programme content should adopt a thematic approach that addresses the most urgent and relevant global digital challenges, such as digital inclusion, cybersecurity, AI governance, data privacy, and the role of digital technologies in sustainable development. These themes should be carefully crafted to align with key global initiatives like the Global Digital Compact and WSIS outcomes, with a focus on practical solutions and measurable impact.

Session types should be varied to ensure engagement across all levels, including panel discussions, interactive workshops, roundtables, and breakout groups. This diversity will allow for a range of formats, catering to both high-level policy discussions and more hands-on, solution-oriented sessions. Including more collaborative activities such as scenario-based exercises can also increase participation and foster innovation.The speaker profiles should be diverse, including experts from governments, the private sector, civil society, academia, and international organizations, as well as grassroots leaders and youth advocates. Ensuring gender balance and regional representation, particularly from the Global South, will enhance the inclusivity and relevance of the discussions. Engaging speakers with both technical expertise and practical experience will help bridge the gap between theory and implementation, contributing to more actionable outcomes.

To effectively connect community intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs with the IGF 2025 process, a structured approach is crucial, fostering continuous engagement and collaboration while aligning local and regional efforts with global discussions. Intersessional activities, such as Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks, and Dynamic Coalitions, should contribute to the IGF 2025 programme by presenting their findings and recommendations, ensuring early engagement that aligns with the event's overarching themes. National, Regional, and Youth IGFs can serve as key contributors, offering local solutions that feed into global discussions through preparatory sessions or by submitting regional outcomes. It is also important to actively engage youth and marginalized communities, creating spaces at the IGF for their voices to shape the program’s thematic focus. This collaboration, particularly between Youth IGFs and intersessional activities, will foster cross-generational dialogue, enhancing the relevance and impact of IGF 2025. By integrating these diverse contributions, IGF 2025 will create an inclusive, multi-stakeholder dialogue that promotes meaningful progress on digital issues globally.

For IGF 2025, inviting a diverse range of participants, including underrepresented groups such as indigenous communities, persons with disabilities from Africa and very commendable inviting the media in 2024 to Saudi Arabaia, women and girls from rural areas in Africa and other regions , LGBTQ+ groups, and those from low-income regions, is essential for fostering inclusive and multi-stakeholder dialogue. The event should engage governments, private sector leaders, civil society organizations, academia, international bodies, and youth groups, ensuring all voices are heard. To interconnect participants effectively, IGF 2025 should organize thematic tracks and cross-sectoral panels, create networking spaces both online and offline, use collaborative digital platforms for real-time discussions, and offer youth and community-led tracks to empower participants to drive the conversations. By doing so, IGF 2025 can create a space where diverse perspectives meet, strengthening partnerships and enhancing the global impact of the event.

As IGF 2025 marks the 20th anniversary of internet governance, and with the event hosted in Norway, it has a unique opportunity to reflect on the evolution of digital governance in alignment with the WSIS+20 review. By centering its discussions around the progress and challenges of the WSIS outcomes over the past two decades, the IGF can offer a critical evaluation of the digital landscape. The event should be a platform for multistakeholder dialogues, facilitating high-level discussions and sharing best practices on key and measurable issues, lessons learned, and strategies for advancing digital inclusion, governance, and access in an increasingly interconnected world. This would offer tangible insights for the General Assembly’s high-level meeting in 2025, contributing to the review process with actionable recommendations.

Regarding the Global Digital Compact, IGF 2025 in Norway could emphasize the importance of digital rights, connectivity, cybersecurity, and AI governance through dedicated sessions. By engaging a diverse group of stakeholders—governments, the private sector, civil society, and youth—the IGF would be instrumental in advancing global consensus and ensuring the principles of the compact are translated into meaningful actions. This would reinforce IGF’s role in shaping global digital policy and ensuring that digital transformation is inclusive, secure, and equitable.

In all the event in the Middle East was a big breakthrough for digital right and inclusion and a platform to ensure diversity in IG issues discussion .

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience These are the key views- Enhanced Accessibility: Seamless integration of in-person and online participation ensured global inclusivity and real-time engagement.
Interactive Tools: Use of advanced platforms for live Q&A, polls, and networking enriched the virtual experience.
Technical Challenges: Some connectivity and platform issues hindered equal participation for remote attendees, highlighting the need for robust infrastructure.
Key Takeaway : A well-optimized hybrid format can bridge global participation gaps while addressing technical limitations.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Rafiq

All was well managed

All was well organised

Was perfect and good idea.

9/10

IGF 2024:

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Was perfect and good idea.

Rahemi

Timeline:

Early announcement of key deadlines ensured adequate time for preparation.
Call for Issues and Session Proposals:

Attracted a large number of proposals (over 200).
Clear guidelines for submission helped maintain quality.
Session Selection:

MAG effectively evaluated and selected diverse sessions.
Some stakeholders felt the evaluation lacked transparency.
MAG Meetings:

Regular MAG meetings ensured well-organized planning.
Public recordings improved transparency.
Capacity Development:

Focused on marginalized communities and developing regions.
Provided multilingual resources, though not fully comprehensive.

IGF 2024 Overall Programme
Thematic Focus:

Key themes included:
Digital inclusion and equity.
AI and emerging technologies.
Cybersecurity and data protection.
Structure and Flow:

A mix of plenary sessions, workshops, lightning talks, and high-level panels.
Interactive formats encouraged dialogue.

IGF 2024 Hybrid Format
Design:

A well-integrated hybrid design allowed both in-person and remote participation.
Experience:

Remote participants praised the availability of live captions and recordings.
Challenges in time zone coordination impacted global participation.

IGF 2024 Logistics
Website and Mobile App:

User-friendly interface for schedule and session updates.
Some bugs in app functionality.
Registration:

Comprehensive process, though initial delays were noted.
Online Platform:

Enabled robust interaction via chat, Q&A, and breakout rooms.
Bilateral Meeting System:

Smooth facilitation of private discussions.
Security:

High-standard protocols ensured participant safety.
Physical venue security was excellent, though online security measures could improve.

Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks
Process:

The BPFs and Policy Networks (PNs) for IGF 2024 built on thematic priorities identified in earlier MAG meetings.
Stakeholder-driven with open consultations to ensure diverse input.
Content:

Focused on actionable recommendations and sharing successful practices.
Topics included AI ethics, cybersecurity frameworks, and equitable Internet access.
Reports and outputs were developed collaboratively and presented for public comment before the IGF.
Inclusion in the Annual IGF Programme:

Integrated into the IGF 2024 schedule through dedicated sessions and workshops.
Summaries and key findings were highlighted during high-level panels and plenaries, ensuring visibility and engagement.
Side events allowed for deeper exploration and community feedback.

Dynamic Coalitions (DCs)
Process:

DCs operated throughout the year on specific Internet governance topics such as Internet standards, accessibility, and freedom of expression.
Open membership and regular virtual meetings encouraged global participation.
Content:

Produced thematic reports with practical recommendations.
Promoted dialogue on contentious or underrepresented issues in Internet governance.
Inclusion in the Annual IGF Programme:

Organized thematic sessions and showcased their work during main IGF panels.
DCs collaborated with other IGF components (e.g., workshops, BPFs) to ensure synergy.
Interactive formats allowed participants to contribute directly to ongoing DC initiatives.

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs)
Process:

NRIs coordinated discussions on Internet governance issues relevant to their contexts.
Localized engagement ensured that grassroots perspectives were included.
Content:

Topics reflected global IGF themes but tailored to specific regional or national challenges.
Youth IGFs focused on digital skills, empowerment, and inclusion.
Inclusion in the Annual IGF Programme:

NRIs held collaborative sessions to share best practices and lessons learned.
The NRI Main Session provided a platform for discussing common challenges and innovative solutions.
Youth perspectives were prominently featured, fostering intergenerational dialogue.

IGF 2024 Sessions
Feedback:

Well-Structured: Sessions were organized to facilitate comprehensive coverage of topics.
Participant Engagement: Opportunities for audience interaction enriched the discussions.
Resource Availability: Supplementary materials and session recordings were accessible for further learning.

High-Level Leaders Track
Overview:

Strategic Discussions: Focused on policy frameworks and international cooperation in internet governance.
Influential Participants: Included high-ranking officials and decision-makers contributing to policy dialogues.

Parliamentary Track
Overview:

Legislative Focus: Addressed the role of parliaments in shaping digital policies and regulations.
Collaborative Sessions: Facilitated knowledge exchange among parliamentarians globally.

Youth Track
Overview:

Youth Engagement: Empowered young participants to contribute to internet governance discussions.
Skill Development: Provided workshops aimed at enhancing digital literacy and advocacy skills.

Gender Perspective on Programme Content
Observations:

Inclusive Representation: Efforts were made to ensure gender diversity among speakers and participants.
Focused Sessions: Specific discussions addressed gender-related issues in technology and internet access.

IGF 2024 Village
Overview:

Exhibition Space: Showcased initiatives and projects from various organizations involved in internet governance.
Networking Opportunities: Enabled participants to connect and collaborate with stakeholders.

Communications, Outreach, and Outputs
Overview:

Effective Communication: Utilized multiple channels to disseminate information and engage a broader audience.
Comprehensive Outputs: Produced detailed reports and summaries accessible to the public.

IGF 2024:

IGF 2025 Preparatory Process
Timeline:

Announce the timeline earlier to allow stakeholders more time for preparation and engagement.
Introduce mid-year progress updates to maintain momentum and stakeholder interest.
Call for Session Proposals & Selection:

Simplify the submission process with clear templates and examples.
Provide detailed feedback to all proposals, including rejected ones, to improve transparency.
Include thematic quotas to ensure balanced representation across topics.
MAG and Open Consultation Meetings:

Increase the frequency of public consultations to incorporate broader community feedback.
Utilize hybrid formats for MAG meetings to ensure participation from underrepresented regions.

Overall Programme Structure and Flow
Thematic Tracks:

Maintain clear thematic tracks but introduce cross-cutting sessions to highlight interconnections between themes.
Session Types:

Incorporate more interactive formats like debates, roundtables, and hackathons to engage participants.
Dedicate specific sessions to summarizing outputs and action points for greater impact.
Flow:

Provide time slots for informal networking and bilateral meetings without disrupting the main agenda.
Ensure balance between high-level discussions and grassroots issues to cater to all stakeholders.

Programme Content (Thematic Approach, Session Types, Speaker Profiles)
Thematic Approach:

Align themes with global priorities such as AI ethics, cybersecurity, digital inclusion, and sustainability.
Include a thematic focus on preparing for WSIS+20 and supporting the Global Digital Compact.
Session Types:

Add scenario-based workshops to explore practical applications of policy recommendations.
Use “lightning sessions” for quick updates on innovative ideas and projects.
Speaker Profiles:

Prioritize gender, geographic, and sectoral diversity among speakers.
Increase representation of youth, indigenous groups, and grassroots organizations.

Community Intersessional Activities and NRIs
Integration with IGF 2025 Process:

Schedule sessions to present intersessional activity findings during the main IGF programme.
Offer a pre-event virtual summit for NRIs to align their discussions with global themes.
Best Practice Forums (BPFs) & Policy Networks:

Focus on actionable outputs and encourage regional adaptation of BPF recommendations.
Dynamic Coalitions (DCs):

Provide platforms for DCs to collaborate with NRIs on shared challenges.
NRIs (National, Regional, and Youth IGFs):

Enhance funding and capacity-building for NRIs in developing regions.
Showcase NRI outputs prominently in the IGF programme.

Participants: Who to Invite and How to Interconnect
Who to Invite:

Expand outreach to include representatives from marginalized communities, small businesses, and startups.
Engage high-profile speakers to attract media attention while maintaining grassroots representation.
Interconnection:

Use AI-driven matchmaking tools to connect participants with similar interests.
Create dedicated networking spaces (both physical and virtual) for informal discussions.

IGF 2025 and WSIS+20 Review
Contribution to WSIS+20:

Position IGF 2025 as a preparatory platform to discuss progress and challenges in implementing WSIS outcomes.
Produce a comprehensive report summarizing IGF discussions and actionable recommendations for the WSIS+20 Review.
Global Digital Compact (GDC):

Organize special sessions on the GDC’s principles and implementation.
Collaborate with UN agencies to align IGF discussions with GDC priorities.

Overall Impression:

Successful Event: IGF 2024 effectively facilitated multistakeholder dialogues on critical internet governance issues.
Areas for Improvement: Future forums could further enhance accessibility and inclusivity, particularly for underrepresented groups.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience IGF 2024 Hybrid Format
Design:

A well-integrated hybrid design allowed both in-person and remote participation.
Experience:

Remote participants praised the availability of live captions and recordings.
Challenges in time zone coordination impacted global participation.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Rebahi

Hello. the IGF 2024 was really a successful edition.

It was a space to exchange experiences between parliaments of lot of countries in order to promote parliament's activities with the aim to serve well citizens and be really their voices

i did not attend it

Excellent and very instructive

Excellent

IGF 2024:

The use of IA in studies and it's impact on students skills

I think that we must gather specialists and decision makers in order to interess them with the purposes of digitlisation

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Rehman

The IGF 2024, held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, aimed to "Build our Multistakeholder Digital Future." Here's a breakdown of its strengths, weaknesses, and the preparatory process:

What Worked Well:

Broad Topic Coverage: The forum tackled a wide range of crucial internet governance issues, from AI ethics to cybersecurity and digital rights.
Diverse Voices: It brought together a mix of governments, businesses, civil society, and academics, fostering rich discussions.
Focus on Emerging Tech: Recognizing the transformative power of technologies like AI and blockchain, the forum explored both their potential and the associated risks.
Capacity Building: Efforts were made to support participation from developing countries and marginalized communities through workshops and training.
What Didn't Work So Well:

Limited Inclusivity: Concerns were raised about uneven representation, with some stakeholders feeling marginalized or underrepresented.
Lack of Concrete Outcomes: While discussions were valuable, the IGF often struggles to translate dialogue into concrete actions or policy recommendations.
Dominance of Certain Voices: The influence of large corporations and powerful governments sometimes overshadowed smaller voices.
Funding Challenges: Relying on voluntary contributions can limit the IGF's ability to support all stakeholders effectively.

The IGF 2024, themed "Building our Multistakeholder Digital Future," explored a wide range of internet governance issues. Here's a glimpse into its structure and flow:

Thematic Focus:

Broad Scope: The forum encompassed a vast array of topics, including:
Artificial Intelligence (AI): Governance, ethics, interoperability, and societal impact.
Cybersecurity: Threats, resilience, international cooperation, and online safety.
Digital Rights: Freedom of expression, privacy, access to information, and data protection.
Digital Divide: Bridging the gap in access and usage, particularly for marginalized communities.
Emerging Technologies: Blockchain, the metaverse, and their implications for society.
Sustainable Development: Leveraging technology for environmental protection and social progress.

he IGF 2024 adopted a hybrid format, aiming to balance in-person participation with online engagement. Here's a look at its design and the participant experience:

Design:

Physical Venue: The core of the event took place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with designated spaces for sessions, workshops, and networking.
Online Platform: A dedicated virtual platform facilitated remote participation, allowing individuals to:
Attend live sessions: View presentations and participate in discussions via video conferencing.
Access session recordings: Watch sessions on-demand at their convenience.
Engage in virtual networking: Connect with other participants, exchange messages, and schedule virtual meetings.
Access resources: Download presentations, reports, and other relevant materials.
Participant Experience:

In-Person:
Benefits: Direct interaction, networking opportunities, and the immersive experience of a physical event.
Challenges: Travel costs, visa requirements, and potential logistical hurdles.
Online:
Benefits: Greater accessibility for individuals who couldn't travel, flexibility in scheduling, and reduced costs.
Challenges: Potential for technical difficulties, limited networking opportunities compared to in-person, and potential for distractions in a remote environment.

The IGF 2024, held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from December 15-19, 2024, utilized a comprehensive logistical framework to ensure a smooth and successful event.

Website: The official IGF 2024 website served as the central hub for all event-related information. It provided access to the program schedule, speaker bios, logistical details, registration information, and resources for participants.
Mobile App: A dedicated mobile app was likely available, offering a user-friendly interface for accessing the schedule, navigating the venue, receiving real-time updates, and connecting with other participants.
Schedule: The program schedule was meticulously planned, featuring a diverse range of sessions, workshops, and networking events. It was made available online and through the mobile app, allowing participants to plan their attendance effectively.
Registration: Registration for IGF 2024 was typically conducted online through a dedicated platform. Participants were required to provide essential information and may have had the option to choose between in-person and online participation.
Online Platform: The online platform played a crucial role in facilitating remote participation. It enabled attendees to access live sessions, interact with speakers, engage in virtual discussions, and network with other participants.
Bilateral Meeting System: A dedicated system may have been in place to facilitate scheduling and coordination of bilateral meetings between participants.
Security: Robust security measures were implemented throughout the event, ensuring the safety and security of all attendees and the integrity of the event proceedings.
By leveraging these logistical elements, the IGF 2024 organizers aimed to create a seamless and enriching experience for all participants, whether attending in person or remotely.

The IGF 2024, like previous years, incorporated intersessional activities to enrich the annual forum. These included:

Best Practice Forums (BPFs): These are ongoing, multistakeholder discussions on specific internet governance topics. They aim to identify best practices and share knowledge among participants. BPFs typically involve:

Defining scope and objectives: Clearly outlining the focus and goals of the forum.
Gathering input: Collecting information and perspectives from various stakeholders through surveys, workshops, and online discussions.
Developing best practices: Identifying and documenting successful approaches and solutions to specific challenges.
Disseminating findings: Sharing best practices with the wider community through reports, publications, and presentations at the IGF.
Policy Networks: These are informal groups of stakeholders interested in a particular policy area. They provide a platform for in-depth discussions and collaboration on specific internet governance issues. Policy networks often:

Facilitate dialogue: Bring together diverse stakeholders to exchange views and build consensus on policy positions.
Develop policy recommendations: Formulate and advocate for specific policy actions related to their area of focus.
Inform policy debates: Contribute to the broader policy discourse on internet governance issues.
Inclusion in the IGF 2024 Program:

Dedicated Sessions: The IGF 2024 program likely included dedicated sessions for BPFs and policy networks to present their findings, share their work, and engage with other participants.
Integration into Main Sessions: The insights and recommendations from BPFs and policy networks were likely integrated into the discussions and deliberations of various main sessions at the IGF 2024.
Side Events: BPFs and policy networks may have organized side events to showcase their work, present their findings, and engage in more in-depth discussions with interested stakeholders.

Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) at IGF 2024 played a significant role in fostering focused discussions on specific internet governance issues. Here's a breakdown:

Process:

Formation: DCs are voluntary, informal groups formed around shared interests. They can emerge organically or be initiated by stakeholders.
Focus: Each DC concentrates on a particular theme, such as AI ethics, digital rights, or cybersecurity.
Activities: Throughout the year, DCs engage in various activities:
Research and Analysis: Conducting in-depth research and analysis on their chosen topic.
Stakeholder Consultation: Gathering input and perspectives from a diverse range of stakeholders.
Policy Development: Developing policy recommendations and action plans.
Capacity Building: Organizing workshops and training sessions to enhance the knowledge and skills of participants.

National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs) play a crucial role in bringing the global IGF discussions to the local and regional levels. At IGF 2024, NRIs were likely integrated in the following ways:

Process:

Input to the Global IGF: NRIs often feed their findings and recommendations from their own meetings into the global IGF agenda. This ensures that local and regional perspectives are considered in the global discussions.
Participation in the Global IGF: Representatives from NRIs actively participated in various sessions and discussions at the global IGF, sharing their insights and experiences.
Content:

Focus on Local Issues: NRIs often focus on internet governance issues that are particularly relevant to their specific regions or countries. This allows for a more nuanced and context-specific discussion of these issues.
Capacity Building: NRIs often serve as platforms for capacity building, empowering local stakeholders to engage more effectively in internet governance discussions.

Cybersecurity: Addressing evolving threats, enhancing resilience, and fostering international cooperation.
Digital Rights: Protecting freedom of expression, privacy, and access to information in the digital age.
Digital Divide: Bridging the gap in access and usage, particularly for marginalized communities.
Emerging Technologies: Exploring the potential and challenges of blockchain, the metaverse, and other transformative technologies.

High-Profile Participants: This track would have brought together heads of state, ministers, CEOs of major technology companies, and other influential leaders.
Focus on Strategic Issues: Discussions would likely center on high-level policy issues with significant global impact, such as:
Global digital cooperation: Exploring frameworks for international cooperation on internet governance issues.
The role of technology in addressing global challenges: Examining how technology can contribute to sustainable development, climate change mitigation, and other global priorities.
The future of the internet: Discussing the long-term vision for the internet and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

Developing and enacting internet-related legislation: Discussing best practices for drafting and implementing effective legislation on issues such as cybersecurity, data protection, and digital rights.
Oversight of government actions: Examining parliamentary oversight mechanisms for government actions related to internet governance.
Public awareness and education: Exploring the role of parliaments in raising public awareness about internet governance issues.
International cooperation: Discussing the role of parliaments in fostering international cooperation on internet governance.

Youth-Focused Agenda: This track would have addressed issues of particular concern to young people, such as:

Digital rights: Freedom of expression, privacy, and online safety.
Digital divide: Access to technology and digital literacy.
The impact of technology on education and employment: Exploring the opportunities and challenges presented by the digital revolution.
The role of youth in shaping the future of the internet: Empowering young people to become active participants in internet governance.

The IGF 2024 program likely addressed gender issues within the broader context of internet governance. Here's how those issues might have been integrated:

Digital Divide: Discussions likely explored how the digital divide disproportionately affects women and girls, hindering their access to education, employment, and economic opportunities.
Online Safety and Violence: The program likely addressed the issue of online violence against women and girls, including cyberbullying, harassment, and online sexual exploitation.
Data Privacy and Protection: Discussions likely touched upon the gendered impacts of data privacy violations, such as the disproportionate surveillance of women and girls, and the misuse of their personal data.
AI and Gender Bias: The potential for AI systems to perpetuate and amplify gender biases was likely explored, including in areas such as facial recognition technology and algorithmic decision-making.

Interactive Exhibits: The IGF Village would have likely hosted a variety of interactive exhibits showcasing innovative technologies, digital solutions, and best practices in internet governance.
Demonstrations: Attendees could have experienced firsthand how emerging technologies are being used to address societal challenges, promote sustainable development, and improve people's lives.
Networking Opportunities: The Village would have provided a relaxed and informal setting for networking and interaction among participants.
Capacity Building: Workshops, demonstrations, and hands-on activities may have been offered to enhance participants' knowledge and skills related to specific technologies or internet governance issues.

Communications & Outreach:

Pre-Event:
Targeted Campaigns: Utilizing various channels (social media, email, press releases) to reach specific stakeholder groups (youth, civil society, businesses).
Media Outreach: Engaging with journalists and media outlets to generate news coverage and raise public awareness about the IGF.
Partnerships: Collaborating with relevant organizations and networks to amplify outreach efforts.
During the Event:
Social Media Engagement: Utilizing social media platforms to share live updates, engage with participants, and disseminate key messages.

IGF 2024:

Suggestions for Improvements for IGF 2025:

Enhanced Inclusivity:

Prioritize participation from developing countries and marginalized communities: Implement more targeted outreach and capacity-building programs to ensure meaningful participation from these groups.
Address the digital divide: Ensure that the IGF platform and its discussions are accessible to all stakeholders, regardless of their location or access to technology.
Promote gender equality: Ensure balanced representation of women in all aspects of the IGF, from speakers and panelists to organizers and participants.
Increased Impact:

Focus on concrete outcomes: Shift the focus from dialogue to action-oriented discussions and develop mechanisms to translate discussions into concrete policy recommendations and action plans.
Strengthen partnerships: Foster stronger partnerships with other relevant international organizations and forums to amplify the impact of IGF outcomes.
Develop clear metrics for success: Establish clear and measurable goals for the IGF and track progress towards achieving these goals.

The IGF 2025 program is likely to maintain a multi-track structure, encompassing a wide range of internet governance issues. Here's a potential overview:

Core Themes:

Artificial Intelligence (AI): Ethical considerations, governance frameworks, societal impact, and responsible development.
Cybersecurity: Emerging threats, international cooperation, resilience building, and online safety.
Digital Rights: Freedom of expression, privacy, access to information, and data protection.
Digital Divide: Bridging the gap in access, affordability, and digital literacy.
Emerging Technologies: Exploring the implications of blockchain, the metaverse, and other frontier technologies.
Sustainability: Leveraging technology for environmental protection, climate action, and sustainable development.

he IGF 2025 program is likely to be a rich tapestry of diverse content, reflecting the evolving digital landscape and the pressing challenges of our time. Here's a deeper dive into potential thematic approaches, session types, and speaker profiles:

Thematic Approaches:

AI and Society:
AI Ethics and Governance: Focus on ethical frameworks, algorithmic bias, transparency, accountability, and the human-centric design of AI systems.
AI for Good: Exploring the potential of AI to address global challenges like climate change, poverty, and healthcare.
AI and the Future of Work: Examining the impact of AI on employment, skills development, and the future of work.
Cybersecurity in the Evolving Digital World:
Emerging Threats: Addressing evolving cyber threats, such as ransomware, supply chain attacks, and the weaponization of AI.
Critical Infrastructure Protection: Enhancing the resilience of critical infrastructure in the face of cyberattacks.
International Cooperation: Fostering international cooperation to combat cybercrime and enhance global cybersecurity.
Digital Rights and Freedoms in the Digital Age:
Freedom of Expression Online: Protecting freedom of expression while addressing harmful content and disinformation.
Data Privacy and Protection: Strengthening data protection frameworks and ensuring respect for individual privacy.
Digital Inclusion and Equity: Bridging the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to technology and its benefits.

Strengthening Connections between Community Intersessional Activities, NRIs, and IGF 2025

To maximize the impact of community intersessional activities, NRIs, and Youth IGFs on the IGF 2025 process, several key strategies can be implemented:

1. Enhanced Information Sharing and Collaboration:

Centralized Platform: Establish a dedicated online platform or knowledge repository to facilitate information sharing between NRIs, Dynamic Coalitions, Best Practice Forums, and other intersessional activities. This platform could host reports, presentations, and key findings from these initiatives.
Joint Workshops and Webinars: Encourage collaboration between NRIs and other intersessional activities through joint workshops, webinars, and online discussions. This can foster cross-fertilization of ideas and enhance the impact of their work.
Regular Communication: Facilitate regular communication between organizers of NRIs, Dynamic Coalitions, and other intersessional activities to share information, coordinate efforts, and identify areas for collaboration.

Government:
All levels: National, regional, and local government officials from relevant ministries (e.g., digital, foreign affairs, justice, education).
Representatives from regulatory bodies and law enforcement agencies.
Private Sector:
Technology companies of all sizes: From global giants to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Internet service providers (ISPs) and telecommunications companies.
Representatives from various sectors impacted by the internet (e.g., finance, healthcare, education).
Civil Society:
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working on digital rights, human rights, development, and other relevant areas.
Academic institutions and research centers.
Indigenous peoples' organizations and other marginalized groups.
Consumer protection groups.
Technical Community:
Researchers, engineers, and developers working on internet-related technologies.
Representatives from the technical community (e.g., Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)).
Cybersecurity experts.
International Organizations:
United Nations agencies (e.g., ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD).
Regional and international organizations (e.g., OECD, ASEAN, African Union).
Intergovernmental organizations.
Youth:
Young people from diverse backgrounds, including students, entrepreneurs, and activists.
Youth organizations and networks.

The IGF 2025 can significantly contribute to the WSIS+20 Review by:

Serving as a Platform for Multistakeholder Dialogue: The IGF's unique multistakeholder model provides a crucial platform for diverse voices – governments, civil society, the private sector, academia, and technical community – to engage in open and inclusive discussions on the implementation of WSIS outcomes.
Identifying Gaps and Challenges: Through in-depth discussions and analysis, the IGF 2025 can identify gaps and challenges in the implementation of WSIS Action Lines, such as the digital divide, cybersecurity threats, and the ethical development of emerging technologies.
Developing Concrete Recommendations: Based on these discussions, the IGF can develop concrete recommendations for addressing the identified challenges and advancing the implementation of WSIS outcomes. These recommendations can be formally presented to the UN General Assembly and other relevant bodies.
Fostering Innovation and Collaboration: The IGF can serve as a catalyst for innovation and collaboration among stakeholders, encouraging the development of new approaches and partnerships to address the challenges of the digital age.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience he IGF 2024 adopted a hybrid format, aiming to balance in-person participation with online engagement. Here's a look at its design and the participant experience:

Design:

Physical Venue: The core of the event took place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with designated spaces for sessions, workshops, and networking.
Online Platform: A dedicated virtual platform facilitated remote participation, allowing individuals to:
Attend live sessions: View presentations and participate in discussions via video conferencing.
Access session recordings: Watch sessions on-demand at their convenience.
Engage in virtual networking: Connect with other participants, exchange messages, and schedule virtual meetings.
Access resources: Download presentations, reports, and other relevant materials.
Participant Experience:

In-Person:
Benefits: Direct interaction, networking opportunities, and the immersive experience of a physical event.
Challenges: Travel costs, visa requirements, and potential logistical hurdles.
Online:
Benefits: Greater accessibility for individuals who couldn't travel, flexibility in scheduling, and reduced costs.
Challenges: Potential for technical difficulties, limited networking opportunities compared to in-person, and potential for distractions in a remote environment.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Sajjad

IGF 2024:

Santos

Everything was amazing! However, it was a bit complicated to use the Wi-Fi connection, as it required a local number. It would also be helpful to have outlets for connecting electronic devices near the public seating areas.
Regarding the mobile app, it would be interesting to display the names of all participants in each session.

Good idea. However, it would also be valuable to have a system where participants can contribute by registering NRIs and other activities happening around the world that may not be widely known.

Good but it missed accessibility for people with disabilities.

Equitable and well dressed to frain the gap.

IGF 2024:

Invite leaders from big tech companies to share how they are addressing the necessary changes. Additionally, it would be important to increase the participation of people with disabilities in the IGF.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Sarbottam Dhakal

IGF 2024:

Additionally, I would like to talk about upcoming 2025 global pandemic virus including my research on its permanent treatment therapy

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

Sardar

Yes

Yes,It was very knowledgeable .

Yes it was very easily and there's no internet disruption.

Everything is alright.

The IGF 2024 disscussed Global internet issues and way forward to globally.

IGF 2024 was very important the overall community in the world disscussed and way forward his solution.

Overall Youth , Regional ,national was playing credibilable role in IGF 2024.

it was very knowledgeable and solution basic .all the speaker was great and respectble .As a student we learned maby aspect of Issues.

they disscussed many issues which is going on the world .they focused on new emerging issues.

Parliamentarians discussed is regional basis issues regarding internet governance.

IGF youth was playing very credible role in IGF 2024 .

NO discrimination on the basis of gender.All was equal everyone had equal opportunity .

IGF 2024 village was play very important role in success.

Yes it was good.

IGF 2024:

Add academia in session group .There is no option for Academia and no open session proposal for academia.

IGF 2025 Use of AI in military domains.Add academic speakers.

Improvement in Youth IGF .

Invite academia and discuss current issues.

IGF play very important role in internet governance.

N/A

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Yes it was very easily and there's no internet disruption.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Schulkin

The organization was very good overall, the schedule too. Thinking about the location, I realize I stood in long lines for the restroom and lost a lot of time there, which could be improved.
Although networking is part of the identity of this event, I did not find a physical space where I could actually network.
An idea about press room: It could be more spacious and include an area for streaming or podcasting (with the necessary technology) so it could be used not only by journalists but also by professionals who share their content online (for example, in LinkedIN)

The program offered diversity. I really appreciated it.
I think you could add new panels on disinformation (taking into account Meta’s recent news and the changes in fact-checking…).

The mobile app could be improved and have all activities synced with the website

For journalists, there was a delay in communications, creating a little gap. Perhaps you could send out releases in real time.

IGF 2024:

I suggest a session how ChatGPT is transforming Data Centers. And another session about (the hype of) AI Agents in 2025 and best practices to reduce biases at chatbots

Voices of AI developers and CEOs (like Jen-Hsun Huang)

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Selematsela

All alerts were timely

great program flow

hybrid session participation had no connection glitches

logistics updates were great

IGF 2024:

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience hybrid session participation had no connection glitches

Sethunath

Time alloted could be better and travel assistance to CSO's could be an option as many organisations may not have the means to travel or may attend sessions online due to internet issues

IGF 2024 overall is good with regard to flow & structure

It was well designed

Logistics could be better as many participants didn't receive the link for attending sessions, rest was good.

IGF 2024:

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience It was well designed

shahin

IGF 2024:

Shariff

Much interested

Well organized

Registration

Joint Sessions*: NRIs collaborated with other IGF stakeholders to organize joint sessions, fostering dialogue and cooperation among diverse groups.

My feedback for IGF 2024:
Overall Experience
IGF 2024 was an exceptionally well-organized and engaging event. The thematic sessions, workshops, and high-level segments were well-structured and facilitated meaningful discussions.

The IGF 2024 leaders Track was a dynamic and engaging program designed specifically for high-level people to engage with Internet governance issues.

The IGF 2024 parliament Track was a dynamic and engaging program designed specifically for parliament people to engage with Internet governance issues.

The IGF 2024 Youth Track was a dynamic and engaging program designed specifically for young people to engage with Internet governance issues.

Well gender inclusion all the gender attended perfectly

The IGF 2024 Village was an exciting and interactive space that showcased innovative projects, initiatives, and organizations from around the world.

I had the privilege of attending the 2024 IGF 19th annual meeting, and I must say it was the most organized meeting I've ever attended. The meticulous planning, seamless execution, and attention to detail were truly impressive.

The thematic sessions, workshops, and high-level segments were well-structured and facilitated meaningful discussions. The venue, logistics, and technical arrangements were also top-notch.

Kudos to the organizers, volunteers, and stakeholders involved in making this event a resounding success! The 2024 IGF annual meeting has set a high standard for future events.

IGF 2024:

Here's a suggested overall program structure and flow for IGF 2025:

Pre-Event (Online)
1. *IGF 2025 Pre-Event Webinars* (4-6 weeks before the event)
- Series of online webinars on key thematic areas
- Sets the stage for in-person discussions
2. *Online Community Engagement* (6-8 weeks before the event)
- Dedicated online platform for participants to connect, share ideas, and discuss topics

Day 0 (Sunday): Pre-Event Activities
1. *Registration and Welcome*
2. *Youth IGF and Newcomers Orientation*
3. *IGF Village and Exhibition Opening*
4. *Informal Networking Reception*

Day 1 (Monday): Opening and High-Level Segment
1. *Opening Ceremony*
2. *High-Level Segment*: Keynote speeches and panel discussions with global leaders
3. *Thematic Sessions*: Parallel sessions on digital economy, digital inclusion, and digital rights

Day 2 (Tuesday): Thematic Sessions and Workshops
1. *Thematic Sessions*: Parallel sessions on digital governance, digital sustainability, and emerging technologies
2. *Workshops*: Hands-on sessions on capacity building, digital literacy, and technical topics
3. *Unconference Sessions*: Participant-driven discussions on emerging topics

Day 3 (Wednesday): Roundtable Discussions and Lightning Talks
1. *Roundtable Discussions*: In-depth, moderated conversations on specific topics
2. *Lightning Talks*: Brief, innovative presentations on cutting-edge issues
3. *IGF Village and Exhibition*: Continued showcase of innovative projects and initiatives

Day 4 (Thursday): Closing and High-Level Segment
1. *High-Level Segment*: Keynote speeches and panel discussions with global leaders
2. *Closing Ceremony*
3. *Final Report and Recommendations*: Presentation of key takeaways and recommendations

Post-Event
1. *IGF 2025 Report*: Comprehensive report on the event, including key outcomes and recommendations
2. *Follow-up Webinars*: Series of online webinars to continue discussions and implement recommendations

This structure provides a balanced mix of high-level segments, thematic sessions, workshops, and interactive discussions, ensuring a comprehensive and engaging IGF 2025 experience.

Here's a suggested program content for IGF 2025, incorporating a thematic approach, diverse session types, and speaker profiles:

Thematic Approach
1. *Digital Economy*: Discussions on digital trade, e-commerce, and the future of work.
2. *Digital Inclusion*: Focus on accessibility, digital literacy, and bridging the digital divide.
3. *Digital Rights*: Exploration of human rights online, data protection, and cybersecurity.
4. *Digital Governance*: Examination of Internet governance models, policies, and regulations.
5. *Digital Sustainability*: Sessions on environmental sustainability, climate change, and the digital sector's impact.

Session Types
1. *Plenary Sessions*: High-level discussions with keynote speakers and panelists.
2. *Workshops*: Interactive, hands-on sessions for capacity building and knowledge sharing.
3. *Roundtable Discussions*: In-depth, moderated conversations on specific topics.
4. *Unconference Sessions*: Participant-driven discussions on emerging topics.
5. *Lightning Talks*: Brief, innovative presentations on cutting-edge issues.

Speaker Profiles
1. *Global Thought Leaders*: Renowned experts in Internet governance, digital policy, and technology.
2. *Youth Ambassadors*: Young professionals and students with innovative perspectives on digital issues.
3. *Technical Community Representatives*: Experts from the technical community, including ICANN, IETF, and ISOC.
4. *Government Officials*: Representatives from governments, international organizations, and regulatory bodies.
5. *Civil Society Activists*: Advocates for digital rights, inclusion, and social justice.

Sample Sessions
1. *"The Future of Digital Trade: Opportunities and Challenges"* (Plenary Session)
2. *"Digital Literacy for All: Strategies and Best Practices"* (Workshop)
3. *"Human Rights Online: A Multistakeholder Discussion"* (Roundtable Discussion)
4. *"Sustainable Digital Infrastructure: Emerging Trends and Innovations"* (Unconference Session)
5. *"The Impact of AI on Digital Governance: A Youth Perspective"* (Lightning Talk)

This program content offers a balanced mix of thematic areas, session types, and speaker profiles, ensuring a comprehensive and engaging IGF 2025 experience.

Through Social media.

Inviting and inter-connecting participants to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2025 requires strategic planning and outreach. Here's a step-by-step guide:

Invitation Strategies
1. *Official Website*: Create an inviting website for IGF 2025, including essential details, registration information, and a call for participation.
2. *Social Media*: Utilize social media platforms (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.) to promote IGF 2025, share updates, and engage with potential participants.
3. *Email Marketing*: Design an email campaign targeting stakeholders, including governments, civil society, private sector, academia, and technical communities.
4. *Partnerships*: Collaborate with organizations, networks, and forums in the Internet governance ecosystem to amplify the invitation.
5. *Personal Invitations*: Extend personalized invitations to key stakeholders, thought leaders, and experts in the field.

Inter-Connecting Participants
1. *Online Community Platform*: Establish an online platform (e.g., forum, Slack channel, or social media group) for participants to connect, share ideas, and discuss topics before the event.
2. *Networking Opportunities*: Organize social events, receptions, or networking sessions during IGF 2025 to facilitate in-person connections.
3. *Session Formats*: Incorporate diverse session formats, such as workshops, roundtables, and unconference sessions, to encourage interaction and collaboration.
4. *Mentorship Programs*: Develop mentorship programs that pair experienced participants with newcomers, promoting knowledge sharing and networking.
5. *Remote Participation*: Ensure remote participation options (e.g., webcasting, live streaming, or virtual reality experiences) to include those unable to attend in person.

Pre-Event Engagement
1. *Survey or Questionnaire*: Conduct a survey or questionnaire to gather input from potential participants on topics, formats, and expectations.
2. *Crowdsourcing*: Use crowdsourcing techniques to collect suggestions for session topics, speakers, or other event aspects.
3. *Social Media Contests*: Host social media contests or challenges to generate buzz and encourage engagement before the event.

By implementing these strategies, you can effectively invite and inter-connect participants to the IGF 2025, fostering a collaborative and inclusive environment.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) can significantly support the implementation of the global Digital Compact in several ways:

IGF's Role in Supporting the Digital Compact
1. *Multistakeholder Dialogue*: IGF provides a platform for diverse stakeholders to discuss digital issues, fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing.
2. *Capacity Building*: IGF can facilitate capacity-building programs, workshops, and training sessions to enhance digital literacy and skills.
3. *Policy Development*: IGF can inform and shape policy discussions, ensuring that the Digital Compact's principles are integrated into national and international policies.
4. *Best Practice Sharing*: IGF can facilitate the exchange of best practices, lessons learned, and successful initiatives, promoting the effective implementation of the Digital Compact.
5. *Monitoring and Evaluation*: IGF can contribute to monitoring and evaluating the progress of the Digital Compact's implementation, identifying areas for improvement.

Alignment with the Digital Compact's Principles
The IGF's work can be aligned with the Digital Compact's principles, such as:

1. *Promoting digital inclusion and accessibility*
2. *Supporting human rights online*
3. *Fostering a secure and trustworthy digital environment*
4. *Promoting sustainable digital development*

By leveraging its multistakeholder approach, capacity-building efforts, and policy development work, the IGF can play a vital role in supporting the implementation of the global Digital Compact.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Well organized

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

SOSSOU

What worked well for me are:
The timeline for calls for session proposals and issues I found well-structured.
MAG meetings facilitated clear communication and coordination, ensuring a robust and inclusive selection process for sessions.
Capacity development initiatives, such as youth mentorship programs, effectively empowered participants, especially first-time attendees, to engage meaningfully in discussions.
What worked not so well:
The session proposal selection process could benefit from greater transparency, as some stakeholders felt unclear about the criteria used and some of the topic discussed seems to be redundant in other sessions.

The programme had an inclusive thematic focus, covering critical topics like AI governance, digital sovereignty, and cybersecurity. Its structure balanced high-level, thematic, and specialized sessions, minimizing overlaps and allowing meaningful engagement across diverse areas of interest. The preparatory process was well-structured, with clear timelines and effective coordination through MAG meetings, ensuring robust session selection and capacity-building initiatives like youth mentorship programs.
However, thematic overlaps across sessions led to some repetition, and the absence of follow-up mechanisms for thematic tracks limited the connection of related discussions to actionable outcomes.

this format effectively enhanced accessibility, enabling participation from a diverse range of stakeholders, including those unable to attend in person. I believe that the combination of onsite and online engagement created a dynamic platform for discussions, with well-facilitated bilateral meetings and hybrid sessions ensuring inclusive dialogue. However, challenges in the online platform's usability, such as navigation difficulties and intermittent technical issues, affected the experience of most participants. Greater effort is needed to ensure seamless integration of online and onsite interactions, particularly in networking and informal exchanges, to maximize the benefits of the hybrid model.

website was great. The mobile app was highly effective, especially the personalized schedule feature, which streamlined session planning. Registration through the Indico platform was smooth and user-friendly, while the security arrangements for IGF 2024 were exceptional.
However, the chat function on the app saw minimal use. More education and encouragement are needed to foster interaction and create interest- or region-based discussion groups. The visa application process, while generally effective, suffered from broken links at times. Integrating Indico registration with visa processing and making the visa process free of charge would enhance user experience. Additionally, the absence of a function to book bilateral meeting rooms on request was a limitation. A separate schedule for these rooms should be introduced, allowing session organizers to reserve slots in real time. Lastly, having at least two rooms equipped with interpretation, including the plenary room, would improve accessibility and inclusivity.

The inclusion of a main session dedicated to intersessional work, such as Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks, was a strong approach. It provided a platform to present their ideas and ensure visibility for their contributions. To enhance impact, experts from these intersessional groups should also participate in other sessions, sharing their insights across relevant discussions. This would deepen engagement and integrate their expertise into the broader programme, enriching the overall dialogue.

DC, as some of the most active sections of the IGF process, should be given greater priority in session allocation. The inclusion of joint sessions by multiple DCs was an excellent initiative, fostering collaboration and enriching discussions. To further highlight their contributions, DCs should also have a dedicated main session in the plenary or main room. This would provide a platform to showcase their work to a broader audience and emphasize their critical role within the IGF framework. Joint sessions should continue to be prioritized during the selection process to maintain cross-cutting engagement.

NRIs’ contributions could be better integrated into the broader IGF agenda. Allocating a dedicated main session for NRIs would elevate their visibility and impact. Additionally, facilitating greater alignment between regional and global discussions through follow-up mechanisms and actionable outcomes would strengthen their influence in shaping global digital governance. The inclusion of the Youth Track was a strong element, providing young participants with opportunities to engage meaningfully in key discussions.

The session proposal selection process could benefit from greater transparency, as some stakeholders felt unclear about the criteria used and some of the topic discussed seems to be redundant in other sessions.

Nothing to add.

As I said above the inclusion of the Youth Track was a strong element, providing young participants with opportunities to engage meaningfully in key discussions. we should give the Youth Track more space.

Not bad but we could do better by maybe introducing a quota.

Nothing to add.

Even though the outputs from the forum are available on the official IGF website, providing insights into the discussions and recommendations from the event I believe we should that advantage of the media colleagues that we invited. Maybe creating a roadmap for them to promote the IGF when they are back home of even before

IGF 2024:

It is great that the call for session proposals has already been launched. As for the session selection, a clear criteria and feedback mechanisms can improve the relevance and quality of selected sessions. The call for session could be launched by end of January or mid February 2025. the MAG and open consultations meetings should be kept are usual.

Incorporate a mix of pre-identified themes and space for spontaneous topics can keep the programme dynamic and responsive.

Strengthen the connection between intersessional activities, National, Regional, and Youth IGFs (NRIs), and the main IGF event by creating dedicated spaces for NRIs to showcase their work and outcomes. This integration can foster a more cohesive global dialogue. Provide NRIs with resources and platforms to share their findings and recommendations, ensuring their contributions are recognized and considered in the broader IGF discussions.

Facilitate greater collaboration among these groups by organizing joint sessions and collaborative projects.

We should invite more people. participants should start interacting after their registration on that forum app through the chat function. In the nutshell, invite a broad spectrum of participants, including underrepresented groups, to ensure diverse perspectives, and utilize digital platforms to facilitate networking and collaboration among participants before, during, and after the event.

First and foremost, I strongly recommend that the IGF should be made permanent with a clear mandat that outline its key structure that include its collaboration with the Intersectional groups and the NRIs. On the other hand, IGF should be positioned as the key platform for reviewing the implementation of WSIS outcomes by dedicating sessions to assess progress and identify gaps. Engaging stakeholders in these discussions can provide valuable insights for the high-level meeting at the end of 2025. Additionally, align IGF discussions with the principles and goals of the Global Digital Compact, ensuring that the forum contributes to its implementation by focusing on inclusive and sustainable digital development.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience this format effectively enhanced accessibility, enabling participation from a diverse range of stakeholders, including those unable to attend in person. I believe that the combination of onsite and online engagement created a dynamic platform for discussions, with well-facilitated bilateral meetings and hybrid sessions ensuring inclusive dialogue. However, challenges in the online platform's usability, such as navigation difficulties and intermittent technical issues, affected the experience of most participants. Greater effort is needed to ensure seamless integration of online and onsite interactions, particularly in networking and informal exchanges, to maximize the benefits of the hybrid model.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Sulayman

IGF 2024 Preparatory Process

What went well:

Timely call for issues and session proposals: It timely called for sessions and related proposals so stakeholders could plan accordingly.

A wide range of issues covered within the session proposals reflected its inclusive nature.

MAG Meetings: The regular, openly held meetings contributed to good decision-making.

Capacity building: Pre-event workshops and webinars empowered participants, notably those from underrepresented communities.

What could be improved:

Session selection process: Some stakeholders felt that the selection criteria were unclear.

Time zones: Efforts to accommodate all time zones during preparatory meetings meant some regions were undersubscribed.

MAG communications: Delays in some MAG responses to stakeholder questions frustrated some applicants.

IGF 2024 Programme General

What went well:
Thematic focus: The program addressed key global challenges in the fields of digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and AI governance.

Structure and flow: Tracks and sessions were well coordinated to avoid big overlaps, allowing participants to attend sessions of their interest.

What did not work so well:

Breadth of themes: The sheer number of topics diffused focus and made the task of choosing the right sessions to attend difficult for attendees.

Session engagement: A few sessions were not engaging for the audience because of academic or one-way presentations.

IGF 2024 Hybrid Format

What worked well:

Hybrid inclusivity: On-site and remote participants felt included due to strong streaming and engagement tools.

Language inclusivity: Simultaneous translation into many languages enhanced global reach.

Networking opportunities: Virtual lounges and breakout rooms served their purpose of connecting people.

What did not work so well:

Technical issues: Quite a few remote participant sessions were cut short because of intermittent glitches occurring on the platform.

Time synchronization: It was not easy to balance the in-person and online schedules; this caused delays and created confusion.

Engagement disparity: Online participants sometimes felt less engaged than in-person attendees due to limited moderation.

IGF 2024 Logistics

What went well:

Website and mobile app: The event platform was friendly, with easy navigation and was updated regularly.

Registration process: Smooth and efficient for both in-person and online attendees.

Security measures: Effective protocols ensured that the event was safe for all participants.

What did not work so well:
Unduly, last-minute scheduling changes made life difficult for attendees who relied on fixed schedules.
Bilateral meeting system: The tool set up for arranging bilateral meetings was not responsive and consequently was not much used.
Online platform interface: Similarly, some users found it overwhelming or counterintuitive for first-time participants to navigate.

Summary Recommendations for Future IGFs
1. Enhanced transparency with regards to the call-for-session selection process, and faster response times for the stakeholders.

2. Thematic focus balance: Balance the topics to go in-depth rather than broad.

3. Hybrid improvements: Improve the technical challenges and user experience for remote participants.

4. Logistics: Ensure real-time updates and make the bilateral meeting systems smoother.

This structured reflection can be useful in refining the IGF process and its outcomes for 2025.

Best Practice Forums (BPFs) and Policy Networks

Process:

The processes of BPFs and Policy Networks were transparent with clear guidelines on how to participate and what the outputs would be. Extensive stakeholder consultations and surveys ensured diverse input.

Structured discussions and outputs were enabled through a dedicated time slot for drafting and finalizing the reports.

Content: The forums have successfully tackled themes of interest, including digital inclusion and AI ethics, by rendering actionable recommendations.

The work of Policy Networks, particularly those dealing with emerging technologies, was praised for their multidisciplinary approaches.

Integration into IGF Programme:

Giving BPF and Policy Network outputs session slots in the main IGF programme ensured their visibility.

However, weak promotion of intersessional results led to underrepresentation of intersessional outputs in broader discussions.

Dynamic Coalitions (DCs)

Process:

Dynamic Coalitions were encouraged to cooperate with other IGF tracks; still, coordination remained a challenge.

Some coalitions lacked critical mass or diverse representation of stakeholders.

The contents of some DCs reflected specialized expertise, including issues such as data governance and platform accountability.

Insightful outputs but less diffusion within the broader IGF audience.

IGF Programme Integration

The dedicated coalition slots showcased their work but concurrent timing of these decreased the attendance and its impact

NRIs
Process

Active engagement by NRIs in the preparatory processes; and brought grassroots engagement.

Youths IGFs stood out in particular for innovative approaches to digital literacy and inclusion.

Content
Region-specific challenges NRIs highlighted enriched the IGF programme's global perspective.

Thematic alignment with the IGF programme (e.g., AI, youth engagement access) enhanced relevance.

NRI-organized sessions were well-received but often scheduled parallel to high-profile tracks, therefore participation was constrained.

Better efforts in incorporating NRI reports into high-level discussions would have elevated their impact even more.

IGF 2024 Sessions

Feedback:

Interactive formats: Sessions using participatory methods (e.g., Workshop room, breakout rooms, live polls) were highly engaging.

Challenges: Limited time for Q&A often left audience members unable to share insights.
-limited time for session also

Hybrid experience: Remote participants appreciated the live streaming but faced challenges in joining discussions.

IGF 2024 High-Level Leaders Track

Feedback:

Strengths: The track attracted senior policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society representatives, fostering strategic discussions.

Weaknesses: Dialog sometimes tended toward prepared statements rather than interactive engagement.

Suggestions: Introduce moderated debates to encourage dynamic exchanges.

IGF 2024 Parliamentary Track

Feedback:

Relevance: Focused on the regulatory approach toward AI and digital rights, issues at the forefront of current legislative priorities around the globe.

Engagement: There was active participation from parliamentary members, though some seemed without deep understanding of the technical issues.

Integration: Much stronger connections between the Parliamentary Track and the wider IGF program would help coherence.

IGF 2024 Youth Track

Feedback:

- Engagement: One of the important avenues for youth voices in discussion on emerging technologies, internet ethics, and digital rights is the Youth Track, through active participation.

- Innovation: In sessions designed for youth, many were interactive using storytelling and other gamification techniques to engage participants.

- Challenges: Effective but mostly siloed, with limited integration into the main IGF discussion.

Suggestions:
Integrate Youth-Focused Sessions into the Main IGF Program to Cross-Generational Dialogue.

Provide mentoring opportunities that match youth participants with senior stakeholders.

IGF 2024 Programme Content from a Gender Perspective

Strengths:

Gender-balanced panels were given priority, ensuring the inclusion of women and non-binary individuals in the discussions.

There were sessions that focused on gender-related topics, such as digital gender divides and online harassment.

Weaknesses:

Gender perspectives were mostly kept at the fringes of the programme and not mainstreamed throughout.

The discussions did not focus much on intersectionality with regard to, in particular, marginalized gender identities.

Suggestions:

Manda the gender balance in all panels and sessions.

Include intersectional gender analysis in discussions of main themes, such as AI and cybersecurity.

IGF 2024 Village

Feedback:

Strengths: It was a very lively space where one could expose initiatives coming from governments, civil society, and tech companies.

Weaknesses: The physical setup made it difficult for certain participants. Online versions of the booths were not that interesting.

Suggestions:

Improve the hybrid format with interactive virtual booths and live chats.

Optimize physical space for better accessibility and flow.

IGF 2024 Communications, Outreach, and Outputs

Feedback:

Strengths: Social media campaigns and newsletters ensured global visibility.

Weaknesses: Some participants reported delays in accessing session recordings and summaries.

Suggestions:

Publish session outputs (recordings, summaries, policy recommendations) more promptly.

Use targeted outreach to involve underrepresented regions and communities.

IGF 2024:

Suggestions for IGF 2025

Preparatory Process

Timeline: Share timelines earlier so stakeholders can plan better.

Session Proposals: Make the proposal submission easier and provide feedback to all applicants.

MAG Meetings: Increase regional consultations to ensure inclusivity.

Overall Programme Structure and Flow

Organize sessions into thematic days for better flow and coherence.

Reserve dedicated times for networking and informal discussions to foster collaboration.

Programme Content

Thematic Approach: Prioritize emerging themes like AI regulation, digital sovereignty, and data ethics.

Session Types: Expand interactive formats, including debates and hackathons.

Speakers Profiles: Ensure regional, gender, and professional diversity among speakers.

Other Suggestions:

Invest in robust hybrid infrastructure to balance in-person and online experiences.

Establish post-IGF working groups to keep the momentum on key issues.

Offer scholarships or stipends to facilitate participation from underrepresented regions.

With these enhancements, IGF 2025 can further the principles of inclusiveness, impact, and overall participant experience.

Community Intersessional Activities and NRIs: Linking with IGF 2025

How best to link—suggestions:

1. Deepened Integration:

Provide dedicated plenary sessions for the presentation of intersessional activity and NRI outputs.

Involve NRI representatives in planning meetings to align regional perspectives with global discussions.

2. Year-Round Engagement:

Hold periodic virtual consultations and webinars between NRIs, Dynamic Coalitions, and intersessional activities to maintain continuous dialogue.

Create a common activity calendar to coordinate and avoid overlaps.

3. Increased Visibility:

Publish intersessional outputs on IGF communications channels, in newsletters, as well as through social media campaigns.

Designate a space in the IGF Village and within virtual platforms showcasing regional endeavors and successes.

Improvements to Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks, Dynamic Coalitions and NRIs

Best Practice Forums (BPFs):

Streamline Processes: Simplify BPF methodologies to make it easier for newcomers to access.

Outreach: More proactive outreach to underserved regions and communities to ensure wider contributions.

Measurable Outcomes: Focus on producing actionable recommendations with clear implementation roadmaps.

Policy Networks:

Stronger Stakeholder Representation: Ensure balanced participation of governments, civil society, private sector, and academia.

Policy Coherence: Map policy suggestions to national and regional policy documents for increased adoption.

Output Dissemination: Collaborate with international organizations to increase reach and implementation.

Dynamic Coalitions (DCs)

Cross-Coalition Collaboration: Invite coalitions with complementary themes to co-host sessions or develop joint outputs.

Support Mechanisms: Provide technical and financial support for under-resourced coalitions.

Increased Visibility: Promote DC outputs through IGF events, publications, and policy dialogues.

NRIs:

Thematic Alignment: Ensure that NRIs' focus is in line with IGF global themes while maintaining relevance at the regional level.

Capacity Building: Provide training and resources to build capacity for NRI organizers and participants.

Youth Inclusion: Strengthen initiatives focusing on youth and incorporate their outputs into main IGF sessions.

IGF 2025 Participants: Who to Invite and How to Inter-Connect?

Who to Invite:

Policymakers: Involve high-level officials to discuss implementation of policies and international cooperation.

Technical Experts: Invite technologists, engineers, and developers to share their hands-on knowledge.

Civil Society and Marginalized Groups: Include indigenous representatives, persons with disabilities, and other underserved communities in the process of helping their voices be heard.

Private Sector Leaders: Include tech industry leaders in conversations on public-private partnerships and innovation.

Inter-Connecting Participants:

Networking Platforms: In-person and online matchmaking systems or networking lounges where participants could connect with others.

Collaborative Sessions: Design cross-sectoral sessions to encourage dialogue among diverse stakeholder groups.

Social Events: Include informal gatherings to foster relationships and collaborations.

Improvements to IGF Mandate and Contribution to WSIS+20 Review

Contribution to WSIS+20 Review:

1. Thematic Alignment:

Focus IGF 2025 discussions on WSIS outcomes, such as digital inclusion, capacity building, and ICT for development.

Produce a report summarizing IGF contributions to WSIS action lines and recommendations for the review.

2. Engage Member States:

Encourage UN member states to share their successes on WSIS outcomes, offering a mechanism for accountability and mutual learning.

Call on governments to integrate the outputs from IGF into their national ICT policies.

3. Demonstrate Success Stories:

Showcase successful initiatives and collaborations stemming from the WSIS principles, specifically, from NRIs and intersessional activities.

Support to the Global Digital Compact:

1. Multi-Stakeholder Consultation:

Utilize the IGF sessions to consult on the Compact principles, focusing on rights, governance, and cooperation in the digital field.

Convene workshops to discuss the Compact’s implementation strategies.

2. Monitoring and Reporting:

Position IGF as a platform to monitor progress on commitments made under the Compact.

Publish annual reports on the state of global digital cooperation.

3. Capacity Building:

Offer capacity-building initiatives to help countries implement Compact principles effectively.

Collaborate with NRIs to localize the Compact’s goals.

Suggestions for IGF 2025 Preparatory Process

Transparent Session Selection: Publish clear criteria and provide detailed feedback to rejected proposals.

Stakeholder Consultations: Enhance regional and sectoral consultations in the preparation process.

Extended MAG Meetings: Have more frequent MAG meetings to plan and oversee in detail.

IGF 2025 Programme Structure and Content

Programme Structure and Flow:

Adopt thematic days for improved coherence (e.g., AI and Ethics Day, Digital Inclusion Day).

Introduce plenary summaries at the end of each day to consolidate insights.

Programme Content:

Emerging Issues: Address urgent topics like AI governance, quantum computing, and platform accountability.

Session Types: Expand interactive formats, including roundtables, hackathons, and lightning talks.

Speaker Profiles: Prioritize diversity in terms of region, gender, and expertise to ensure balanced perspectives.

By implementing these suggestions, IGF 2025 can enhance its relevance, inclusivity, and impact, aligning with global digital governance goals.

IGF 2024 Outputs Overview

The outputs were comprehensive, covering key discussions, policy recommendations, and insights. However, it could be improved in terms of dissemination to stakeholders beyond the IGF community to amplify impact.

Suggestions:

Partner with media outlets to share outputs widely.

Translate key outputs into multiple languages to reach global audiences.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience IGF 2024 Hybrid Format

What worked well:

Hybrid inclusivity: On-site and remote participants felt included due to strong streaming and engagement tools.

Language inclusivity: Simultaneous translation into many languages enhanced global reach.

Networking opportunities: Virtual lounges and breakout rooms served their purpose of connecting people.

What did not work so well:

Technical issues: Quite a few remote participant sessions were cut short because of intermittent glitches occurring on the platform.

Time synchronization: It was not easy to balance the in-person and online schedules; this caused delays and created confusion.

Engagement disparity: Online participants sometimes felt less engaged than in-person attendees due to limited moderation.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Sulemana

IGF 2024 was my first forum and experience. I was personally amazed about how everything was well structured, from the timeline for session proposals to MAG meetings . I honestly want to appreciate how so much preparations and thoughts went into the planning process.

Nothing short of perfection. My first time experience got me teary. The overall program was a success, theme focus was clear and there was a smooth flow of every session , time bound and effective.

I am so glad that the hybrid format gave others the opportunity to participate fully without any restrictions , thanks to the internet and how things are developing. The hybrid format design is only a glimpse of how 2025 will be even more exciting and educating.

The mobile app was well designed . It helped me personally to even know which room my sessions were and the time allocated . The registration process was fast and smooth , I didn’t spend up to 5minutes in registering. Security system was fully prepared and diligent.

It was amazing how these intersectional activities were included in IGF 2024 . Smooth content and delivery.

One word : Strategic.

I joined every Youth IGF sessions and I was impressed about how the youth had a lot of impactful messages to the entire globe . The NRIs inclusion helped shaped regulations and standards concerning the internet

The sessions were so educative, practical and the delivery was respectful. The speakers were well prepared and knowledge. The content was fully packed and highlighted issues of today AI , digital inclusions and many more

Top level , well coordinated

It was amazing to see honourables from various countries participating in IGF2024 parliamentary track . It is Indeed important that parliament was included in this forum .

We are the youth and we have youthful energies in shaping the globe in terms of data governance, digital inclusion.
Amazing youth track

Gender inclusiveness was achieved . Speakers had almost equal gender inclusion .

A whole network of respectful persons from across the globe

I just went over the overview of IGF 2024, i must say that it is very clear

IGF 2024:

IGF 2025 is in June , hence the timeline should be as early as February to enable effective preparations

I think the team should continue the good job .

The team is brilliant in this approach and should continue the good job

By fostering connections between community intersessional activities and National, Regional, and Youth IGFs with the IGF 2025 process, stakeholders can create a more inclusive and representative dialogue on internet governance. These connections will not only enrich the discussions at the global level but also empower local communities to engage meaningfully in shaping the future of the internet.

Opportunity to given to more people to benefit from the in person experience as well . I am a medical practitioner who was privileged to be invited. I am so grateful for this opportunity

The IGF 2025 has a significant opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the WSIS+20 Review and support the implementation of the Global Digital Compact through focused discussions, stakeholder engagement, and actionable outcomes. By fostering collaboration and inclusivity, the IGF can help shape a more equitable and sustainable digital future.

I had a wonderful learning experience . Thank you to the IGF secretariat for sponsorship.
The knowledge impacted will be use to full capacity.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience I am so glad that the hybrid format gave others the opportunity to participate fully without any restrictions , thanks to the internet and how things are developing. The hybrid format design is only a glimpse of how 2025 will be even more exciting and educating.

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

SY

C’est qui a bien fonctionné :
- Alimantation , Boissons, Propieté, Facilitaion d’accès.

C’est qui a moins fonctionné :
- Logique de transport .

Très bien pour moi .

Très bien aussi .

Très Facile

Pour moi c’était complémentaire.

C’était Inclusif à toutes les secteurs.

IGF était plus visible que NRI

Le contenue était riches
Les intervenants de hauts niveaux
Et la qualité de débats étaient très bien .

Riches et Intéressants

Très bon parcours et intéressant à suivre

Très promoteur

C'était Inclusif

Très bien organisé

Très importants et résultats positifs

IGF 2024:

-Faire le calendrier à temps
-Être en contact avec les représentants Pays
- Multiplier les réunions MAG .

Faciliter le déroulement du programme et suivre après des représentants pays pour les faire comprendre

Thématique : Les remplacements de AI au travail par les humains .
Sessions riches .
Des intervenants Qui sont à la hauteur

Impliquer tout le monde

La jeunesse , le gouvernement .
Faire mixte des participants lors des interventions.

IGF avec toute sa potentialité peut être une clé pour le pacte numérique mondiale .

Très interessant et avec sa nous pouvons contribuer à changer le monde .

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Très bien aussi .

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

C’est qui a bien fonctionné :
- Alimantation , Boissons, Propieté, Facilitaion d’accès.

C’est qui a moins fonctionné :
- Logique de transport .

Très bien pour moi .

Très bien aussi .

Très Facile

Pour moi c’était complémentaire.

C’était Inclusif à toutes les secteurs.

IGF était plus visible que NRI

Le contenue était riches
Les intervenants de hauts niveaux
Et la qualité de débats étaient très bien .

Riches et Intéressants

Très bon parcours et intéressant à suivre

Très promoteur

C'était Inclusif

Très bien organisé

Très importants et résultats positifs

IGF 2024:

-Faire le calendrier à temps
-Être en contact avec les représentants Pays
- Multiplier les réunions MAG .

Faciliter le déroulement du programme et suivre après des représentants pays pour les faire comprendre

Thématique : Les remplacements de AI au travail par les humains .
Sessions riches .
Des intervenants Qui sont à la hauteur

Impliquer tout le monde

La jeunesse , le gouvernement .
Faire mixte des participants lors des interventions.

IGF avec toute sa potentialité peut être une clé pour le pacte numérique mondiale .

Très interessant et avec sa nous pouvons contribuer à changer le monde .

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

Intersessional activities and NRIs at IGF 2024

Taking Stock of the IGF 2024: What worked well? What worked not so well?

IGF 2024 Hybrid format design and experience Très bien aussi .

What are your suggestions for improvements for IGF 2025?

Tamanna Mustary

IGF 2024 Preparatory process was great to achieve the purpose of the international conference. The session was very effective for the capacity development of the stakeholders.

The thematic focus, structure and flow was outstanding to inform the vision, mission and goals of the digital society.

The Women IGF, Addressing Information Manipulation in Southeast Asia, Compliance to Excellence in Digital Governments, Tackling misinformation with information literacy are the session from where I have gathered invaluable experience in IGF 2024

The logistics support was very much excellent throughout the sessions amd bilateral meetings.

The annual IGF Program introduced best practice forums and policy networks effectively by its content, process and the international activities among the world citizens.

Tge process, content and in particular the intergressional activities were effective to achieve the goal of SDG.

National and Regional and Youth IGF 2024 are very active throughout the 5 days sessions.

The Honourable Minister of the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications delivered an outstanding speech at the opening sessions of IGF 2024. The others internationl speaker’s opening remarks was also very important and relevant to the agenda of IGF

High level leaders delivered inspirational speech ar the opening remarks of IGF 2024

Parliamentary track of IGF 2024 was effective for the international community who are involved in planning and decision making.

The Youth Track was very useful for the young generation.

Of course it was a gender sensitive IGF where the women rights are considered as human rights regarding Internet use and other facilities of digital society.

IGF 2014 is a global village for digital generation of the modern world.

IGF 2024 was a platform to communicate, outreach amd fruitful outputs for the digital society.

IGF 2024:

Preparatory process of IGF 2024 was excellent. The sessions was very efficiently organized for the participants to gather experience and to communicate with diverse society.

It was great to attend this IGF at Riyadh to ensure the Digital well-being inclusive human and equitable digital future.

The speech from the UN Secretary General was a milestone of the IGF 2024. The International speakers were wonderful keynote speakers over there in various sessions.

The Registration process should be on the venue or spot of the meeting at the very opening day of OGF so that the participants can visit easily at one point during the first day of IGF

We may interconnect the IGF scholars through email and international invitation.

IGF will follow the agenda of 2024 and implement the the outcome for tomorrow’s progress.

The AI plays an important role in this IGF as modern digital tools all over the world.

IGF 2024 programme: please comment on the content, speakers and quality of discussions

IGF 2025 Suggestions (2024 Stocktaking)