Much has been written about possible frameworks, and the title of this book is “Towards a Global Framework for Cyber Peace and Digital Cooperation: An Agenda for the 2020s"; and while frameworks are necessary and important, they have not been nearly enough. To help what I hope will be a real turning point in these discussions, I would like to comment on some pragmatic aspects, focusing on impact and support – participatory and financial.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is an outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which invited the UN Secretary-General to convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. The IGF was created specifically as a platform to help address cross-cutting international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, bringing different viewpoints and different expertise to bear – not only to discuss but to offer guidance, frame issues, identify key partners, and, yes, make recommendations. At the time, UN SG Kofi Annan made a bold move establishing the IGF as a multistakeholder Forum where all participants participate on an equal footing, and where an empowered globally diverse multi-stakeholder community had significant say over the agenda.

This was very important at the time to ensure an appropriate breadth of issues, diversity in participation, and that as many voices as possible would be heard. The report from the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation “A Declaration for Digital Interdependence“ showcases some interesting opportunities. In particular, the IGF Plus model suggests a future IGF should comprise an (updated) Advisory Group, a Cooperation Accelerator, a Policy Incubator and an Observatory and Help Desk. I believe most of these are useful ideas AND strongly believe they can be supported or evolved from existing activities within the IGF ecosystem. Importantly, the IGF already has the necessary values and principles. IGF has many of the structures needed and has the right DNA to question progress and evolve as necessary. The report also says that this model “aims to address the IMF's current shortcomings.

For example, the lack of actionable outcomes can be addressed by working on policies and norms of direct interest to stakeholder communities. The limited participation of government and business representatives, especially from small and developing countries, can be addressed by introducing discussion tracks in which governments, the private sector and civil society address their specific concerns. What the IGF has not had is the level of support – participatory or financial - needed to implement its mandate. This needs to be addressed for any model to succeed. Nearly every individual in the world, most organizations or businesses, and every government in the world has benefited from the Internet – directly or indirectly. Society has benefited (which is not to say that only good has come from digital developments as society has always had exploitative elements); yet broad and real support for engaging deeply around international public policy issues has been seriously lacking. Unless we understand the reasons for such an unambiguous lack of support, future frameworks will also falter.

As the IGF is an extra-budgetary programme of the UN, its secretariat and programme support comes only from voluntary contributions. In 14 years of the IGF, less than 25 countries have contributed financially (most only once or twice) and less than 30 organizations or businesses have contributed to the IGF Trust Fund. We should talk about improvements or new frameworks, but I fear they will come with the same lack of support, which in itself could fuel a return to less inclusive, less open processes, or will re-trench behind closed or more traditional multi-lateral processes. To be clear, multi-stakeholder processes are not easy, precisely because they encourage different viewpoints, and work to incorporate varying frames of reference; and when the issues are so intertwined this is even more complex, but this is something we all need to lean into rather than lean away from. So, what is needed going forward? I believe it is quite straight-forward as so many of the basic building blocks are already in place.

Needs across the IGF ecosystem include:

● Participation and strong vocal and/or financial support from:

○ the UN: all relevant agencies/committees/councils

○ the private sector

○ policy makers – governmental and non-governmental

○ international civil society organizations

Without additional funds and increased participation from key sectors, no framework will be truly successful. With increased participation and increased funding, for example:

● additional outreach and engagement opportunities would be possible for small and developing countries, and for marginalized communities,

● outputs from current IGF ecosystem activities would be more robust and distribution efforts improved,

● IGF ecosystem activities themselves would be strengthened,

● the IGF secretariat could be staffed to its full requirement

New efforts are needed to pull in policy makers, private sector participants, additional and multi-disciplinary partners. A global forum for deliberation is necessary given the interconnectedness, and combining this with purpose-built community/stakeholder meetings as well as full multi-stakeholder sessions could be helpful. With respect to impact, IGF intersessional activities have grown over the years and include major policy programmes such as the “Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billions“ which ran from 2014 – 2018, or the Best Practice Forums (4) which have been running for the last 6 years, focused on Cybersecurity, IoT, Big Data and AI, Gender and Access, etc.

These joined Dynamic Coalitions (18) which emerged at the IGF's inaugural meeting in 2006, and are open, multi-stakeholder groups dedicated to an Internet governance issue. There are now over 115 National, Sub-Regional, Regional and Youth IGF initiatives (NRIs), and these are Internet Governance Forums organized on a national, regional or sub-regional level based on specific local needs. The NRIs enrich and benefit the IGF at the global level and conversely the global IGF enriches and benefits the NRIs at local levels. All these activities in concert with the global IGF help concretely advance issues at global and local levels.

I strongly believe that the IGF has much of what it needs to make an even more beneficial contribution to digital cooperation and to society at large. What is lacking is real, broad support – financial and participatory. If we are all concerned with advancing a people-centered, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society, this should be easy for all of us to fix.