In 2004, while working as part of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) created by Kofi Annan, I proposed an argument which I believe is still very relevant fifteen years later.

At the time, I argued that behind the discussions on the various multi-stakeholder models was the question if the statement “governments are the only legitimate representatives of the interests of their peoples” was valid. Back then, this gave rise to a very interesting discussion.

This discussion remains relevant and I am absolutely convinced that this statement is not valid and that, even if it had been valid at some point in time, this is no longer the case.

People have access to an abundance of information, even if they are connected, that allows them to shape their own views on various issues, in some cases practical and everyday issues, in others, issues of a more strategic and political nature.

There is no originality in saying that the world has changed dramatically since the widespread use of ICTs, and this is one of the consequences brought about by these changes. Citizens no longer need to delegate 100% of the issues to a single group of representatives and, in many cases, they prefer to choose different participation and representation channels for different topics.

An individual is not defined by a single aspect, is defined by many (citizenship, place of residence, profession, and so on). Each of these aspects involves specific interests that can be represented in each case by different organizations, or even by the person themself. The governance models have to fit this reality.

The emergence of the Internet and the subsequent need to develop the necessary governance mechanisms gave us the unprecedented opportunity to create a new model from scratch. This allowed us to observe the characteristics of this new model instead of having to wait for traditional models to evolve naturally.

Internet governance was built on new paradigms and resulted in mechanisms based on the search for consensus, transparency/accountability and equal participation of all stakeholders.

It is a model that in many ways is at odds with traditional models.

Never before has it been so clear that wisdom and experience are highly distributed. While this became very visible with regard to the Internet, that concept applies to all areas of human activity.

Governance models will surely continue evolving in that direction, and in the future we will see models in which power will be increasingly distributed.

This is a world where things that were once considered set in stone are no longer valid, one where paradigms are being destroyed. In all probability, we do not need to find new paradigms but instead accept that there will be no more paradigms.

Organizations based on participatory models will be best positioned to build strategies that will allow them to respond successfully to the changing environment. Stability lies in the distribution of power among the various stakeholders.

This is why any solution to address current and future challenges should be built on the innovative governance instruments we have created and avoid the temptation of going back to previous models. Openness, transparency, the search for consensus and equal participation of the various actors are governance features that should be protected and maintained.

So far, what best represents these concepts, is the Internet Governance Forum, the IGF. However, as already noted, the world continues to change constantly and rapidly, and the IGF must adapt to this reality.

The IGF was conceived as a place to hold central multistakeholder discussions on almost every Internet governance topic. Today, however, these topics crosscut every policy issue, so they cannot be discussed in a single place and must instead be present at every forum, on almost ay issue. We need mechanisms with different level of formality, focus and type of stakeholders involved.

The report prepared by the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation includes three possible cooperation models. In fact, it is not a question of adopting one or the other; what we need is a bit of each: an improved IGF plus additional, more flexible collective construction mechanisms.

The role of the IGF should evolve to a forum that synthesizes the different points of view, documents differences and coincidences, and that, without forcing agreements, produces consensus where possible. These consensuses should be in the form of principles, general guidelines and/or directions in which to advance. Other global, regional and national forums will then take these general agreements and design ways to implement them.

The IGF must obviously evolve to fulfill this new mission. The IGF has already made much progress and must continue to improve. Addressing these specific practical aspects is not the purpose of this article, but broadly speaking some of these improvements should include enhancing intersessional work, an agenda that combines a space for general reflection with the increasingly focused discussions on the most cyclical topics, and instances for high-level validation of the Forum’s conclusions.

In 2014, Netmundial allowed us to experiment with practices that produced good results. It was the first time that a multistakeholder process with no formal negotiation mechanism managed to produce outcomes. Those practices should be recovered.

I envision an IGF that works throughout the year, that advance the production of conclusions, that interacts with other forums following up on global discussions on the most relevant topics; an IGF that holds its annual meeting having first produced solid foundations that will allow us to identify disagreements and also to achieve high-level consensus that can be validated with a NetMundial-type high level meeting to be held on the final day of the Forum.

Those conclusions should be brought later to other forums so that they can continue the work in cycles, nourishing others and producing local policies that will once again serve as inputs for regional and global discussions.

The world is in our hands. Driven by the challenges posed by constant change, the future presents us with incredible opportunities that we must seize.