IAB submits input to the WSIS+20 Elements Paper

The Internet Architecture Board has submitted detailed feedback to the WSIS+20 Stakeholder Consultations as input to the WSIS+20 Elements Paper, drawing on the Internet Engineering Task Force’s long-standing role in developing global internet standards through transparent, consensus-driven, multistakeholder processes. Writing to the co-facilitators, the IAB emphasises that the WSIS+20 review must recognise the technical community’s critical contributions to the stability, security and evolution of the global internet, and calls for refinements to the Elements Paper to ensure that the Zero Draft reflects the governance model that has enabled the internet to thrive.

The IAB welcomes the recognition in the Elements Paper that the information society is broad and requires targeted approaches across different dimensions of digital governance. It also supports the paper’s focus on capacity building, noting that strengthening the ability of diverse stakeholders to engage meaningfully is essential for effective and inclusive processes. However, it warns that several sections of the Elements Paper diverge from the established multistakeholder model. In particular, the use of ‘multilateral’ language in paragraph 59 is described as inconsistent with the WSIS vision and the successes of the last two decades. The IAB argues that replacing multistakeholder principles with a multilateral framing would sideline civil society, the private sector, academia and the technical community, whose participation has been foundational to the internet’s growth, innovation and resilience.

The submission also notes that the current text does not explicitly acknowledge the technical and academic communities as distinct stakeholder groups. While both were recognised in the Tunis Agenda, WSIS+10 Review Outcome and the Global Digital Compact, their omission in this iteration introduces uncertainty as to whose expertise is expected to shape future digital policy. The IAB recommends restoring explicit reference to these groups in the Zero Draft to maintain clarity and continuity with established international frameworks.

Beyond internet governance, the IAB raises concerns about the treatment of AI governance in paragraphs 70 and 73–76. While welcoming the emphasis on risk management and the need to ensure AI does not deepen the digital divide, the IAB criticises the paper’s predominantly multilateral framing, arguing that fast-moving technologies require multistakeholder, adaptive approaches. It recommends that civil society, academia and the technical community be fully included in any proposed AI governance framework and stresses that internet, data and AI governance significantly overlap and should be developed in a coordinated manner. The IAB considers the internet Governance Forum uniquely suited to facilitate such cross-domain dialogue.

The submission concludes by calling for a permanent mandate for the IGF, describing it as the global, open and multistakeholder platform best positioned to support coherent, inclusive and future-oriented digital governance. A stable and continuous IGF, the IAB argues, is essential for addressing evolving global challenges and ensuring that policymaking reflects the needs and expertise of diverse stakeholder groups.