Global Partners Digital analyses how stakeholders envision the IGF’s role beyond WSIS+20
A new comparative analysis from Global Partners Digital maps how governments, civil society, the technical community and multistakeholder bodies view the future of the Internet Governance Forum. The document highlights broad support for making the IGF permanent, while exposing disagreements on structural reforms, funding models and the Forum’s role within the UN system.
The report ‘Stakeholder Positionson IGF in WSIS+20: Comparative Analysis‘ examines stakeholder positions on the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ahead of the WSIS+20 review. The analysis, produced by Global Partners Digital, compares more than a dozen submissions from governments, civil society groups, technical bodies and the IGF Leadership Panel. It finds strong alignment on some core principles but significant divergence on how the Forum should evolve. Stakeholder-Positions-on-IGF-in…
The study identifies areas where stakeholders broadly agree, including permanent renewal of the IGF mandate, continued reliance on the multistakeholder model and the need for more secure and sustainable funding. Many also support strengthening the Forum’s links with wider UN digital governance processes, including the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20. However, the analysis shows that consensus weakens when discussions shift to specific governance reforms, mechanisms for measuring the IGF’s impact and strategies for improving participation from the Global South.
Key findings from the report include:
• High alignment on foundational principles: Nearly all actors, including ICANN, APNIC, the EU, the UK, Australia, Switzerland and civil society organisations, defend the IGF’s bottom-up, non-negotiating mandate and support making it a permanent institution. Stakeholders also agree that voluntary funding alone is insufficient.
• Divergence on reform depth and direction: While some stakeholders, such as Switzerland and Australia, propose structural changes like rebranding the IGF or expanding the Secretariat with a Helpdesk function, others favour continuity and practical improvements within existing structures.
• Unclear pathways for impact measurement: The study notes that few submissions articulate how IGF outputs should be used in policy processes. Some suggest clearer “messages” or more action-oriented outputs, while others warn against shifting the Forum toward decision-making roles.
• Limited detail on Global South inclusion: Stakeholders widely recognise the need for greater participation from under-represented regions, but detailed strategies are sparse across submissions.
• Differences on integration within the UN system: A majority support stronger alignment with WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact, though only a few outline concrete mechanisms. Positions range from procedural adjustments, such as coordinated calendars, to proposals for deeper institutional linkages through UN bodies like CSTD and UNGIS.
The report highlights the diverse range of perspectives influencing negotiations on the IGF’s future. While there is broad support for strengthening the Forum, the analysis shows that stakeholders differ on how far reforms should go and what kind of institutional home the IGF should occupy in the evolving UN digital governance landscape.
