The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the High Level Track Session with the Leadership Panel on the future of the IGF.
The Leadership Panel was formed in 2022 from a recommendation in the Secretary‑General's Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. The IGF Leadership Panel is a strategic empowered and multistakeholder body whose purpose is to address strategic and urgent issues, and to highlight forum discussions and possible follow‑up actions in order to promote greater impact and dissemination of IGF discussions.
The panel performs the following key functions. It provides strategic inputs and advice on the IGF. It promotes the IGF and its outputs. It supports both high level and at large stakeholder engagement in the IGF, and IGF fundraising efforts.
And finally, the Leadership Panel exchanges IGF outputs from the forum with other stakeholders and relevant fora and facilitates the feeding of input of these decision makers and fora to the IGF's agenda setting process leveraging relevant MAG experts.
This session brings together members of the IGF Leadership Panel to present and reflect on their strategic vision for the forum's future, drawing on the panel's proposals for strengthening the IGF's institutional role and supporting implementation of the WSIS+20 and Global Digital Compact outcomes.
The discussion will examine what it would take to position the IGF as a lasting and impactful part of the digital, of the global digital governance ecosystem, and panelists will also explore how to enhance the influence of the IGF outputs, promote stakeholder inclusion, and ensure the IGF evolves to meet emerging and global challenges.
The Leadership Panel produced two key documents the outlook for the IGF's future and also the Leadership Panel's WSIS+20 priorities. Our panelists today are Mr. Vint Cerf, who is Chair of the IGF Leadership Panel who is joining us online, and we have Ms. Lise Fuhr, CEO, GEANT. We have Maria Fernanda Garza, Honorary Chair, International Chamber of Commerce. Carol Roach, Chair of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group, and Mr. Amandeep Gill, Under Secretary General for Digital and Emerging Technolgies and Secretary General's Tech Envoy. We also have Ms. Maria Ressa, Vice Chair of the Leadership Panel. We are being joined by Mr. Lan Xue, Dean of Schwarzman College in Tsinghua University.
I now give the floor to Mr. Vint Cerf to make some opening remarks.
>> VINT CERF: Thank you so much, Chengetai. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like it thank the Norwegian hosts for this short fused meeting of the IGF and amazing preparations for it. I would also like to say thank you to the other 19 hosts who have hosted IGF over the years. Our objective as the Leadership Panel is to seek a more permanent role for the IGF, and to contribute to the WSIS+20 and the GDC discussions, especially by facilitating more interaction with the IGF and the NRIs that are a part of it.
We would like to see the Internet Governance Forum increase its policy making or policy recommendation impact, and we would also like to strengthen engagement of the IGF and the NRIs with Member States and to seek better involvement of underrepresented voices, especially youth.
I call attention to the youth activities at IGF 20, they are reporting on a daily basis, and clearly very engaged. From the 2025 perspective, we can look back on the IGF in 2005 or 2006 at its first meeting when we are now living in the vision that has now become a reality. But there have been some unanticipated developments. One obvious one is the AI capabilities that are vastly increased over the last several years, and these are quite dramatic.
And second, we have seen what we anticipated, which is social and economic impact of the Internet and the applications that lie on top of it. And unfortunately, we have also seen information pollution invade the Internet and something that we have to deal with.
There is an unevenness in the economic benefits of access to the Internet, and that has to be contended with, something that we have to consider and try to deal with. And finally, we are deeply concerned about preserving Human Rights both online and offline.
The Internet Governance Forum Leadership Panel has produced a number of papers as Chengetai mentioned, two of them. We also produced an Internet We Want paper which outlines our aspirations for the Internet. You will find all of these contributions on the Leadership Panel website, which is part of the IGF website. The MAG has also produced a very important paper called IGF beyond 2025, and this, of course, is a very important set of guide posts for future evolution of our work.
I strongly believe that we need to enhance the roles of the NRIs who already are playing a very important part in local and regional efforts to make the Internet a better place.
We also, I think, will be participating in something called the informal multistakeholder sounding board that the WSIS+20 co‑facilitators have invited. There will be members from the Leadership Panel and the Multi‑stakeholder Advisory Group helping to shape the considerations for WSIS+20. We are also charged with improving the funding picture for the, for the Secretariat. We have not accomplished as much as I would like, but I would say we have increased the level of voluntary funding beyond where it had been in the past. And, of course, we hope to continue that effort in the event that the IGF is continued after the consideration at WSIS+20.
Finally, I just want to overemphasize the importance of continuing both the IGF and the NRIs, and I note that the NRIs have blossomed on their own and were not created by any particular effort of either the Leadership Panel or MAG, they blossomed on their own and, therefore, they have existence independent of the IGF and their value should be very much considered.
So Mr. Moderator, I turn this back to you for questions for the rest of the Leadership Panel as we look forward to 2025 and 2026 in the future beyond that.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Vint. My first question goes to Ms. Maria Fernanda Garza and also to Lise Fuhr. The Leadership Panel calls for the IGF to become a permanent UN institution. From your perspective, what is the significance of that status, and what would it take practically to achieve this, and what would be the consequences if we don't?
>> MARIA FERNANDA GARZA: Thank you, it is a pleasure to be here in my capacity as a member of the IGF Leadership Panel today, and as Leadership Panel we greatly value the opportunity to engage with the IGF community on the work that we are doing to promote the IGF's importance at the highest levels within the United Nations and elsewhere to ensure it's viability for years to come.
I would not be serving on the IGF Leadership Panel if I did not believe that we need this forum to address the opportunities and challenges for human kind presented by digital innovation.
I join my Leadership Panel colleagues today in reaffirming that the IGF has developed into a globally influential platform for open dialogue and collaboration among Governments, industry, civil society, and technical experts on digital policy issues.
With over 10,000 participants from 178 countries, it has uniquely fostered and should continue to encourage inclusive, equal‑footed exchanges that shape the future of the digital age.
We need the IGF to be a permanent institution within the UN ecosystem. And this can help us realize greater coherence among the broad cross‑section of UN members on approaches to harnessing the power of digital technologies, to address developmental needs.
But this permanence must come organizational evolution.
In the Leadership Panel paper, The Outlook on the IGF's Future, we address the need of strengthening the IGF's role into the UN system, make the IGF a permanent structure supported by sustainable funding, ensure that the viability of the multistakeholder model for the consideration of Internet Governance and digital policy issues and enable the IGF to adapt to future needs as the Internet and the digital technologies continue to evolve.
And so support this, we need a solid strategic approach to communications that informs, educates and innovates interest in the IGF among the UN member countries.
Our paper provides useful recommendations on developing clear communication channels and messages demonstrate the influence of the IGF discussions on international policy dialogues that include the G20, the G7, and UN bodies, and in this regard, the IGF's NRIs are tremendous resource as we just mentioned. These grassroots IGF organisations can tailor messages for local, national, and regional agencies, review outcomes and feed insights back into the future global IGF sessions.
Strengthening the cycle will amplify the IGF's influence on public policy in both national Governments and the UN by leveraging its global multistakeholder reach.
Also importantly going forward is that IGF outputs should include actionable recommendations that are measured using frameworks like the Internet we want with regular follow‑ups which includes enhanced capacity and building to support energized NRI engagement.
We need to establish key performance indicators or KPIs for the IGF. There are sustainability, to education, to healthcare, the environment, and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Through these KPIs, the IGF could then concretely demonstrate to the global community how the Internet and digital innovations can address and solve problems in the WSIS+20 scope.
These metrics in turn would make the IGF annual reports more meaningful, and they will provide us a better pitch. Such reporting should highlight issues in organizational governance that need to be corrected to allow the IGF to continue to evolve and excel.
The IGF already has the post Conference stock taking exercise, and this would be used and a starting point for an improved and more formalized review process that creates accountability in the IGF's organizational governance.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much.
>> LISE FUHR: Maria Fernanda said a lot, but let me add onto it because we do need IGF as the platform to have the difficult, interesting, open discussions on digital governance as much. I think we all agree, most of us who are here, but we also should look at IGF as a forum we should strengthen and make even stronger, more tangible.
We have seen IGF has grown over the past 20 years, it has now more than 10,000 participants, so it is a digital power house for the world.
And it needs a strong Secretariat for this. We have an extremely good Secretariat that can support it, but, of course, we need a more sustainable funding for this also going forward. And I think there are multiple ways of investigating how to get that sustainability and that's what we are also doing as a Leadership Panel looking at the solutions out there.
I think there are severe consequences if we are not addressing the current and future trends, and we want people to be connected to the Internet, but we are ready to ensure that it's done in an ethical, but also educational way.
We want to make sure people have access, but also that they have the right tools to use the Internet. And I think the IGF is the body that can help us ensure this and come up also with solutions on how to connect the unconnected, how to ensure Human Rights, how to make sure that we have a safe and secure Internet.
We hear that the IGF needs more tangible solutions, and I agree that's one aspect that can be useful is, of course, to identify a practical way where nations and regions can approach Internet and technology policies different, and apply analysis and bring it back to the IGF as such.
But we also need to look at how we strengthen the future goals of WSIS+20, and in that also the extension of IGF.
In Europe that would be an analysis of the digital thinker market and also web 4.0, but I think we should bring the whole world together on this. So we need to visualize the governance of IGF and how it functions in terms of governance. So is that an evolution from IGF to the Digital Governance Forum? Well, one thing is sure, it needs to accommodate any evolutions that is happening around the world in technology and digital as they happen, and also has it has done over the past 20 years. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, and thank you for articulating the importance of the IGF. The importance of metrics, measuring where wave been and how well we are doing, and also for evolution. We do have to evolve.
My next question goes to Under Secretary‑General Amandeep Gill, and also to Maria Fernanda Garza.
A core recommendation is that the IGF becomes a central hub for implementing and tracking the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 outcomes. How can the IGF and especially the national and regional initiatives operationalize this role?
>> AMANDEEP GILL: Thank you, and I want to echo words of appreciation for our Norwegian host at the outset. Before I come to the question you have raised, I want to reflect on some broader challenges. It's the 20th anniversary, after all, IGF, and when the Tunis Agenda was adopted we had less than a billion people connected to the Internet.
We had nothing like social media or misinformation, disinformation, Artificial Intelligence was a term known to very few people, and the digital economy as we see it today, trillions of dollars of value and the fastest growing component of the GDP in emerging markets today. That was not obvious, apparent to people, and also the misuse.
We had very little appreciation at that time that we would be losing perhaps up to 10% of the annual output of the world to cybercrimes, scams, and the like.
And that's the reality today. So we are in a very different context, and anniversaries are a good time to celebrate, but they are also important moments for us to reflect on where we are and where we are headed.
So looking ahead, there will be significant infrastructure challenges as AI infrastructure is built on top of the existing digital infrastructure. Challenges also in terms of energy consumption, sustainability, consumption of materials, sometimes, you know, those materials are extracted in conditions which have implications for human rights. Data is used in ways that there are those implications. We need to reflect on that transition that's happening. We also need to reflect on the fact that today you have AI models that have ingested the entire content on the Internet, and you can literally carry them in a bag in a sense, you know, they take some space.
So it's a very different world we are living in today and five, ten years from now it will be very different. So I miss sometimes those reflections that we need to have around these challenges of evolution, infrastructure changing, the demands that infrastructure is going to place, the fact that we are not paying enough attention to cybersecurity, cybercrime, the Internet being a safe and secure place, and then the content issues.
That time we worried about spam, for example, today we have to think about information integrity, what is being said, how are some communities being marginalized, women, other vulnerable communities.
So we need to kind of spiral up from that space and think what it means not only in terms of processes and, you know, bodies, but in terms of the way we grapple with those challenges.
That said, coming to your point, I think Global Digital Compact adopted last year at the Summit of the Future by all Member States of the UN was a significant milestone. So 2.5 years of negotiations, consultations and during those negotiations, Member States were very conscious that they should not duplicate and they should actually build on the WSIS agenda, so the GDC acknowledges that in a solid way at the outset in terms of principles. It also acknowledges the fact that people are wary of multiple reporting panel to the reporting on progress on the GDC is aligned with the WSIS reporting.
Where we can find useful convergence or additional convergence, complementarity, in terms of the larger challenges how do we organize ourselves not only internally in the UN, but externally in terms of the most important element of engagement with different stakeholders, Private Sector, civil society, the tech community, independent experts and Academia.
So I see potential for that additional complementarity, but let's not forget that we are in an extraordinary situation. UN there are budgetary financial questions to creating additional forums, additional bodies is not something that kind of goes with the current paradigm of international relations, the funding situation in the international system. So we can make our existing forums work better using this comprehensive agenda that was invested in that was successfully negotiated adding for the complementarity of the governance mechanisms currently being put in place.
I think we would then take forward the spirit of Tunis, the 20 years of successful experience with the IGF to the next level of accomplishment. And I think the IGF, I mean, the challenge this year with the WSIS negotiation first and foremost is to ensure that the IGF's mandate continues, in as near permanent a fashion as is possible, achievable.
I will not go into that because there are negotiations under way. It's not proper for me to comment on those. They are in capable hands, the co‑facilitators are taking those forward, but I'm vest optimistic. I want to conclude on that, I am very, very optimistic and very pleased with the work we have been able to achieve in the Leadership Panel led by Vint Cerf and Mario. Thank you.
>> MARIA FERNANDA GARZA: We just heard that GDC and WSIS are two complementary processes. Being complementary we can come together and think of a joint implementation roadmap to make use of the existing WSIS architecture which has been facilitating a bottom up distributed governance model. We have the WSIS forum, the CSTD annual report and we have the IGF to name a few examples. Focusing on the IGF, we have the diverse community which discusses on an equal footing the issues that are top of mind to stakeholders and that set an inclusive agenda of priorities that can be held meaningful discussions at the UN.
To bring a metaphor in mind, the IGF has the same role as a canary in in a coal mine. It can give an evidence‑based warning sign of the challenges we are facing in the digital world. So let's make sure to use these complementarity as a sign to work together so a joint roadmap for the GDC and the WSIS.
The WSIS already has its roadmap. We just have to link the GDC to be part of it, and a recommendation is that the IGF become a central hub for implementing and tracking Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 outcomes.
And how can the IGF and especially the NRIs operationalize this role? The NRIs can play a crucial role guiding implementation from the grassroots and enabling a bottom up input.
During the past 20 years the NRIs have flourished has has been mentioned before both in terms of number of local IGF chapters that have been established and they increasingly sophisticated nature of their outputs.
So in my view they have emerged as the IGF jewels. The NRIs are uniquely situated to engage with local Governments for the purpose of implementing the GDC and the WSIS+20 outcomes, and this success should be leveraged. To increase the effectiveness, the NRIs might join forces with local Internet Society chapters to provide localized insight into Internet access, performance and use. And these insights are crucial for for development, informed policies that both safeguard users and preserve the benefits of an open Internet.
But just as the IGF as an institution must continue to evolve, so too must the NRIs. And to realize this potential for local Governments engagement, the NRIs can use the evidence‑based agenda that the IGF sets out to address local needs. If you have not reviewed the Leadership Panel's The Internet That We Want paper that was developed with the support of the entire IGF community and the MAG, I strongly recommend it to you.
This paper aims to serve as a framework or roadmap for the IGF to take track of discussions and progress made in forging the solutions for realizing a whole, open, inclusive, free following, trustworthy, safe, secure, and rights respecting Internet not only at its Annual Meetings, but also across its intersessional work and network of national, regional and youth initiatives.
This framework can also serve as a base to keep track of the good practices and the achievements of the broader IGF community including the NRIs.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. We have come a long way, but we still have many challenges and we can only go forward together. And the two words that to my mind is synergistic complementarity.
My next question is to Ms. Carol Roach, and also to Mr. Lan Xue. How can the IGF better translate its vast body of multistakeholder discussion into outputs that truly inform global digital policy, especially for decision makers who need concise, actionable insights?
>> CAROL ROACH: Thank you. I think I will just expound on some of the things that Maria has said. We must first determine who the decision makers are, and what information they need to develop, and put into place a digital policy. Who is also determined by the level of impact, interest and influences of the person or entity.
So once we have determined who, how do we package that information? The package is determined by what motivates the person of the entity, who they represent and their objectives. This helps to focus and create concise, actionable insights.
So, for example, elected Ministers of Governments are motivated by the needs of their constituents, their citizens, economic prosperity and the environment. CEOs or Directors of businesses are motivated by the needs of their boards, shareholders, customers, prosperity or profit, and corporate social responsibility.
You see the similarities there. The triple factor, people, prosperity, and planet. Once you have determined who the message is for and what the message is, we then need to determine how to transmit the message. There are various forms we need to explore, Toolkits, videos, video sound bites, user friendly knowledge databases and maybe even face‑to‑face debriefings.
We also need to make better use of our internal languages so for the IGF among the UN entities, and more deliberate involvement of the NRIs or the National and Regional IGFs.
Lastly, we need to see whether the message was received and did it have the desired outcome. As Maria said, we need to have indicators, we need to be able to measure.
So this requires some kind of method of feedback and a way to measure the outcomes. If you are to have a meaningful impact, we have to be deliberate in how we deliver our outputs and measure the success.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Mr. Lan Xue.
>> LAN XUE: Thank you, and I fully agree with many of the recommendations made by Carol. Indeed, I think to better translate this rich multistakeholder discussions into impactful global digital policy outputs, the IGF can adopt some interlinked strategies aimed at increasing relevance, accessibility, and influence, particularly for policymakers who really need concise, actionable insights.
So I have developed my recommendation along four dimensions. The first one is synthesis oriented output design. I think the current challenge we face is that IGF does very extensive reports, session reporting and many of the transcripts and so on. But they are often very long and technical and unstructured for decision makers.
So one recommendation is to generate, to create some executive policy briefs to summarize key takeaways of each IGF cycle and turn them into five to eight page scripts with some priority recommendations with clear distinction between global consensus and also some contentious issues.
The second is to produce IGF insights that can actually help the policymakers to better understand what are some of the key issues that are being discussed.
So I think that's the first one is how to produce synthesis‑oriented output design.
The second approach is to have some targeted engagement, policy making channels. I think there is a gap between IGF discussions and the formal decision making bodies, like the ITU, the WTO or UNGA. And so one recommendation is to appoint a policy liaison officers to task them with converting IGF output into formats relevant to the specific venues. For example, I think there are many of these platforms like G20 digital economic task force, regional Economic Commissions and so on. So I think that's the one possible way.
The other is also integrate this National and Regional IGFs. A localized actionable outputs, encouraging adoption by Government through workable, through workshops and briefings. And also advance output uptake through the UN bodies, and, of course, we have many people out there on the stage.
The third recommendation is how to generate action‑oriented factors and frameworks. I think currently the policymakers often wanted to have clarity on who is doing what, and what works.
So one recommendation is to launch a digital policy action tracker based on IGF sessions, voluntary commitments, tested solutions and ongoing efforts across countries and sectors. So that I think kind of action tracker would help.
The fourth one is to, how to see the format, timing and accessibility improvements. I think the policy cycle is often very time sensitive. The IGF outputs are sometimes lack in relevance and format.
So some recommendations are, one, is tie deliverables to policy calendar. I think this is important to really to target the deliver things to the policy calendar. Align key IGF outputs with timelines or forums such as UNGA or other UN bodies, aand secondly to diversify output formats. I think Carol has mentioned different formats like 90 second video explainers, AI generated session summaries, and sort of mobile briefings, so on. I think those are the issues that a format would be helpful to policymakers. And also leverage various language accessibility tools. I think that actually we have various AI tools that can help to do that.
So to conclude, to be policy relevant, the IGF must evolve from a space of dialogue to a platform of strategic translation. That means not just capturing multistakeholder voices, but actively aligning and inserting them into global and national governance pipelines through better timing, a clearer format, and focused engagement.
So Chengetai, back to you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. Those are very clear and concrete suggestions. Thank you both.
My next question goes to Ms. Lise Fuhr. Now, the Leadership Panel's vision documents stress the need to maintain the forum's broad participation, especially with underrepresented regions and Governments.
What specific actions should the IGF take to ensure it continues to be an inclusive and impactful space over the next 20 years.
>> LISE FUHR: I have a long list. As the world is becoming increasingly digital, of course, it is para mount that we make sure that we make sure we have all of the stakeholders around the table when we have the necessary conversations around digital governance.
Part of this responsibility today lies with the host country, and I must say let me compliment Norway here, you did a very good job at getting a lot of high level people from all over the world, a lot of Ministers, a lot of those political decision makers that we are aiming for to have a dialogue with in a multistakeholder way. So we had 16 Ministers from the Global South this year. That is well done, and I think it is impressive. Thank you.
(Applause).
But we also need to look into mechanisms that provide those underrepresented regions with the means to actually be involved. That can be, of course, financial means, but I also think it is important that we look into the educational part. That means Government offices can also make successful contributions. And I'm pointing to the Government, but I think the NGO's, the industries from all over the world, we need to have the same for all of these.
And I think there we need to remember as mentioned from some of the panelists before, we do have a very good network of National and Regional IGFs plus we have a lot of summer schools out there. So Internet summer schools that are educating people in how is the Internet Governance, but also the Internet as such.
And I think that is very good tool to be as inclusive as possible, but I also want us to stimulate another stakeholder and I want more involvement by the Private Sectors, and not just tech. We see a lot of big tech, a lot of big companies here, but it is important we have a broader range of industry and small, medium enterprises.
So we need the banking, the insurance. They are big, but manufacturing, and other businesses because they are increasingly linked to the digital solutions. They use the Internet every day for their work, and this is a very important tool in many of their business cases.
So without those, we are actually lacking a stakeholder that is quite important for us. So I think it can also stimulate a bit of more buy in from national Governments and regional authorities if we actually have them join the program.
It has also been mentioned that there are some intersessional Working Groups, and I think they are important in helping increasing the knowledge, the visibility of what we do as Internet Governance Forum, and also to include as many as possible. So we have a lot of IGF Working Groups and coalitions that are doing a lot of work that can include also all of the underserved regions.
So one solution is, of course, let us use the current network we have of National and Regional IGFs and Internet summer schools, but also to create a structure that helps the financial part of the problem, but also help build and facilitate the capabilities around in the underserved regions.
I think this can also be done by using some of the Internet Ecosystem organisations that are out there, and they are already doing this, so I'm not calling out that they are not doing anything, but IGF, of course, but also ICANN, ISOC, we have the Internet Engineering Task Force and other organisations. I know the numbering organisations are doing a lot of work on educating and including different parts of the world.
I think if we build this together with our National and Regional IGFs, we have a strong structure to actually ensure better inclusion. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you again for those concrete and actionable suggestions. Before I pass the floor on to Maria Ressa to close off this session of the session, I would like to give the floor to Under Secretary‑General Amandeep Gill.
>> AMANDEEP GILL: Thank you. I just wanted to comment on this important aspect of the digital divide. Lise was mentioning about the need to take Internet connectivity skills to underrepresented regions. Coming from the Global South and spending a lot of time in recent months in Africa and other parts, I think the demand has shifted. Now, the demand is for digital sovereignty, moving from being content consumers to becoming content creators, moving up the value chain.
So I think we must be mindful of this important shift. So there is now demand for action for deeper capacity building. So the forthcoming report of the Secretary‑General on AI capacity building, innovative financing options for that goes in detail into that, and I think we need to kind of anticipate the coming AI divide so that large parts of the world are not excluded from being, from this kind of tremendous opportunity, are not stuck at the low value end of this chain.
So I think we just need to be nor nuanced about this digital divide reflection today. Thanks.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Maria, please. Of the.
>> MARIA RESSA: Oh, my gosh. I'm a journalist, unfortunately not a diplomat so I will be very plain speaking on a lot of the thoughts. I think that if we really think about it, the world is completely different. While thank you to everybody who has come to the IGF and while it's been an incredible time being part of the Leadership Panel, learning from the Leadership Panel, I think we can do more. We must do more. And you have heard some of the processes of how we can do that within here, but look again at our world today.
Just four days ago bombs dropped on Iran, then you still have a world burning, Gaza continues to burn, Ukraine fighting continues. All of this is not disconnected from the Internet. This is connected to our broken information ecosystem.
And you have heard me say this so often that without facts, no truth, no trust. Without trust you cannot govern. Our conversations in the IGF is based on trust. Our faith in the UN is based on trust.
While we still have that we need to move forward faster. I just have three points on this. I think we need to say spot on that our biggest challenge today is really to prove that an international rules‑based order still exists, that impunity ends, and you can look at different parts of the world.
So I think that's first. And the UN is the Leadership Panel and the Internet Governance Forum, I think that's what we try to do. They are much more diplomatic than I am, but when you live it the way we have, you know we are running out of time.
The second, multilateral, multistakeholder, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, but in Indonesia in my part of the world there is a phrase we used to use to describe ASEAN. It was NATO. No action talk only.
We must, Indonesian, so we must actually move, take all of our deliberations and turn it to action.
And then finally, the last one and thank you for pointing this out, thank you Norway for going to the Global South in this. What's leadership look like in today's day and age? Who will lead? I think that's a key question, and to have 16 Ministers from the Global South here, the Internet, the virtual world will determine what happens in the real world. Online violence is real world violence. Everybody Amandeep had said, cybersecurity is deeply connected, war is deeply connected so I feel that the Leadership Panel and IGF, guys, we have a lot of work to do, and the sooner we can do it, the faster we can implement it, the better our world will be.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much Maria Ressa for that call to action and words to think about. Now, we are going to have a section where you can come up and ask questions. There should be two microphones, one there and the other one over there. So I would ask that you would line up behind them. They are lighted up so you will see.
And I would just like Eleanora to wave her hand for the online participants as well. If she can make herself known.
So, please, we will start off here. Yes, I'm sorry, two minutes each for each person, yes. Please go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. My name is Quinchi Ghana IGF. Thank you so much for the panel and discussions. One thing which has come out of our NRI and I'm happy to tell you, Chengetai, I don't know if it's happening elsewhere in the world, but we had an initiative for children, and in Ghana now we have the children's IGF. We are big on youth IGF, but the children to have a voice and I think it's something that most of the participants here at the IGF 20th anniversary so on the NRIs can take back home with them in terms of the rights and responsibilities of our children.
Second part is in terms of the collaborations and bringing people on board, I think one of the things that we will be having workshops in the IGF and also an important aspect is being collaborative or complementarity.
So the other industries whether it's energy or whether it's finance, I think we need to also include them in the IGF. Let's reach out to them. We know we participate in different sessions, but, please, let us be as inclusive in other industries as well. Thank you so much.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. This is Mahmud from Bangladesh IGF. How can the IGF Leadership Panel ensure that the WSIS and outputs of national and regional initiatives, especially from the Global South meaningfully influence the implementation process of the WSIS+20 and Global Digital Compact outcomes?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Thank you. We will take a few more segments, please.
>> AUDIENCE: Yes, thank you. Nigel from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. I think we have the aspirations fine and I would thank Maria Ressa for putting some reality to the situation.
We have to show that impunity isn't dreaming. And recent evidence is kind of to the contrary. So I want to say that the, all of the voices all of the individual country voices have to be heard and for small country areas like where I come from in the Caribbean, sometimes these issues are not so clear and the importance or the value, the urgency of them is not clear to the politicians on board.
So I want to call for some, that we factor in some outreach and engagement by the leadership. And in some cases it could be personal outreach to reach the political elite or the political leaders in each of the individual countries because the more voices we have raising on the UN floor is the more, is the better our chances of showing that the international rule of law still applies. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I would also just like to remind online participants that you can ask questions in the Zoom chat. We have somebody, we have an online moderator who is also looking at that. Please.
>> AUDIENCE: Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand La Chapelle, executive director of the Policy Network. Two comments. The first one as I was listening to the discussion, there is an image that comes to mind which is that we should consider the IGF as a sand box for the UN. It is a space for experimentation. It's the space where like in sand boxes and you know in the AI act in the European Union, sandboxes are explicitly mentioned. They relax the rules on straining discussions in international organisations, particularly regarding participation of non‑governmental actors but also for putting things on the agenda. International organisations in the multilateral system has huge difficulty putting things on the agenda in a timely manner because it requires consensus of their ruling bodies and it usually leads to losing four to five years before they are being even addressed.
The IGF has the unique capacity to help shape the discussion, to help identify the different perspectives if it were even more structured, but think of it as a sandbox. In this regard, anything that would bring the IGF more under the umbrella and the structure of the UN normal processes will actually make it lose the benefit that it can have for the whole international system.
Second thing, I think it was Maria Fernanda Garza, or maybe Lise, I don't remember, used a very interesting expression which is organizational evolution. I personally have been participating in this since the very origin, and actually I still have the bag of the 2006 IGF that I carry with me which shows the endurance and resilience of what was done then.
I do not care that much about how permanent or not permanent the IGF is going to be right now. What I care about is its organizational evolution. We are 20 years in almost. It is time to make this organisation what it has the potential to be. The image that I have is that this is a wonderful car where all of the pieces are in place. You get the wheels, you get the engine, you get the carcass, you get the doors and it's still speeding at 40‑kilometers an hour because it doesn't have the resources, because the Secretariat is under resourced, because the organisation itself is not focused on shaping and framing the issues.
So I believe that by the end of this year, the WSIS+20 review will not produce any organizational evolution and it shouldn't even try to do so, however, taking inspiration from what the WIGIG did in 2003, 2004, I strongly believe that one multistakeholder, and I mean truly multistakeholder group in 2026 should address two questions. One, the evolution and revision of the mandate and scope of the IGF and it's function to highlight that it is issue‑shaping forum, and, second, address its organizational evolution to produce a sort of charter. Think of it as a constitutional moment. And I believe in that regard that maybe the Leadership Panel could have a role in helping to establish such a group, not be that group, but helping establish such a group. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Bertran.
>> AUDIENCE: Giancomo Persi Paoli, Head of the UNIDIR. I have one consideration that is I absolutely agree with our distinguished colleague from China said before, that the IGF is a place where the discussion can be made in a very free, willing way and contribute but linked to the calendar and priorities that are set up in other places by the UN General Assembly, for instance. That's the first consideration. The second is a question for my friend Maria Ressa.
Even after these three days, it seems when we talk of media we think only to social media. It's endedded the role of our old traditional media or do we still have a role to play in this complex game? Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. I will now just give the panelists a chance for final reflections and also if you see fit to answer the questions that were asked about ensuring the voices of the NRIs, and also Giancomo's question.
>> LISE FUHR: The gentleman from Bangladesh raised that how do we ensure the input from the NRIs are coming into both the WSIS+20, but also IGF, and I think this is an important point because we want a more dynamic dialogue with the NRIs, and I think if we can create a structure where we do feed in not only once a year where we have the international IGF, but we have a more ongoing dialogue, that would be preferred, and that part of also what we put in in our recommendations that we have this beautiful network of people who are working with the Internet and digital governance that can help us showcase the situation in their country.
So that was one. And I just wanted to say to Bertran, I agree it is a sandbox and we should remain a sandbox but it should also have a bit more concrete measuring of progress, because that needs to be shown and followed and the openness should not be tampered with.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Is that your final word as well?
>> LISE FUHR: Yes.
>> MARIA FERNANDA GARZA: I would like to go back to the documents that we have already mentioned and one of them is the outlook for the IGF paper. This document aims to leverage the immense potential that you were basically mentioning for the implementation of the WSIS+20 outcomes and the GDC, and the leadership recommendations in this regard look to bring positive proposals to address the criticisms of the IGF and formulate actionable recommendations to further strengthening the IGF to be able to deliver on its potential. And the three documents that we have been mentioned can be found at the IGF page, I believe, under the Leadership Panel. Thank you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Carol?
>> CAROL ROACH: So the last 20 years have shown that the IGF and its messages are transformative and relevant. We have seen that the multistakeholder approach works with impactful results. Is there room for process improvement? Of course.
And we have had many ideas given to us today. And the improvement is what makes us stay relevant. Do we need to improve how we translate discussions into actionable insights? Yes, if we are to remain transformative.
Finally, decision makers and policymakers need a space that is reliable, comprehensive and diverse in terms of information gathering and the IGF is that space.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you.
>> AMANDEEP GILL: Excellent reflections from the audience. And I just want to start with a broad point that for the remaining months of our mandate until December we are going to reflect on some of these issues, make sure that we are able to identify the challenges, you know, the three outputs that have already been referred to by Lise and others, you know, building on those how can we have a clear problem definitions around some of the challenges that you have mentioned and that some of the panelists today have mentioned.
I think this also partly answers Nigel's point that we need to get across to politicians with some clear articulation of problem statements so that they can think about what needs to be implemented in context. Second point about the regional implementation, so in the GDC as well, there is a strong emphasis on landing the compact's five objectives in regions in national reality. And that is through the Working Group on digital technologies that I have the honour to Co‑Chair with Doreen as the ITU, we have the regional economic of Economic Commissions so that the nuanced reality in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia‑Pacific, other parts of the world can be taken into account.
So I see potential for the NRIs, you know, working on the kind of, on the enduring agenda of 2005, working together with other stakeholders who are grappling with more recent challenges.
And finally to Bertran's point, it made me recall a reflection on the High‑Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, my distinguished colleague at that time, he mentioned the policy incubators. So I think your sandbox idea is clearly an interesting one, and using the outreach and the excellent composition of those participating in the IGF, you know, we can explore different aspects of policy issues.
So it takes you a step beyond the discussion mandate in a sense, and also speaking to the organizational evolution aspect that was mentioned.
So I think those are kind of very interesting reflections as we move into the next phase of our work, and I will thank you and others for bringing them up.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you. I will go online now. Lan Xue. No? Okay. Maria Ressa.
>> MARIA RESSA: Sorry about that, I went the wrong way, so first, thank you, thank you for your reflections and for the panel's for the Leadership Panel's responses. On the question about where traditional journalists are versus social media, the technology that rules our lives literally is moving at warp speed while we still continue to move at the same speed policy moves forward. This is a huge problem. When I talked about impunity, I wasn't just talking about the impunity that's happening in the physical world, and how to stand up to a dictator, my most recent book, the bigger dictators were Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk versus Rodrigo Duterte, the President who tried to jail me for over a century in March this year was arrested on alleged crimes against humanity.
And some of that was partly because Rappler, my news organisation kept doing its job at the worst of times.
So the first is that the world is being changed by the very technology that we such and live in and feed every second. So every second we do not act, and this is, this I will refer to The tech Coup, this is a former member of Parliament, the book was published last year, in the tech Coup, Governments, people, if Governments do not reclaim its power every day they get weaker and weaker.
Data privacy is largely a myth. So I think we ‑‑ sorry, how do I answer that? Journalism has been commodified and corrupted in the same way that the traditional information ecosystem has died. We now live in a public information ecosystem where it's lies spread faster and and then by design, fear, anger and hate spread faster. So if you think about that, like, Vint and I, in our debates we talk about this all of the time. He is always such a gentleman, but I always just keep saying the design of big tech is going to kill us. I don't want to die. I keep going, and I feel like this journalism will not survive this time period.
This time period I started calling an information Armageddon. This is why we need to all come together and talk together, but then beyond that, we need to make decisions and we need to act because at a certain point, even if we keep talking, even if the organizational evolution, if we don't act in time, we will lose what we had. So that's the urgency I hope we all have. You know, from Bangladesh, my friend Mohammed Unis is now President. It is not so easy to Government. In fact I feel sorry for any Government official because you cannot communicate to your people without insidious manipulation and for every one of us on these we are insidiously manipulated. Sorry I can talk forever, but let me bring it back to we are here together at the Internet Governance Forum and please from your part of the world, make sure your problems are brought up.
And I hope that we put in the processes that not only make the voices heard, but also act in a timely manner.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you. And for the final word, I will give it to Vint Cerf.
>> VINT CERF: Thank you Chengetai and thank you to the panelists and also the participants that have made their comments and recommendations to us. I have to feel, I am compelled, I think, to respond to Maria Ressa in the following way. First of all, while we do face real challenges with this online environment and the digital technology that feeds it, to say nothing of Artificial Intelligence, which is a new player on the block, I also feel compelled to point out that we have benefited enormously from having the ability to move information around the world to get access to it, analyze it, develop it, and to share it.
So I think the reason that we get together in the IGF is not solely to deal with some of the negative aspects of the Internet and Worldwide Web and the applications that live on it, but our enthusiasm for making it work for us. And I think that needs to be a very important part of our motivation. This is an opportunity to make this a better environment than it already is, and to contribute more to our global digital society. So I'm here partly to deal with the problems that Maria outlines, but also because I'm still a great enthusiast for the power of computing and what it can do for us.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, let's give a big round of applause to the panelists. Thank you.
(Applause).
And thank you for coming. We will see you in the next one.